Interesting that Laurel Paget-Seekins' blog argues against full MBTA transparency partially due to this concern but also that the transparency of the FMCB meetings meant that the court of public opinion damaged nuance and may have had a direct effect on not being able to get the "optimal" solution.That just means some of the project managers are not going to be managing their projects. I don't see how this is going to actually be helpful with making the projects happen any faster.
Crikey, the Safety report even called out the over abundance of meetings of the FMCB as complicating factors in the lack of a safety culture at the T. This will be basically the same thing.
Granted, she also notes that this transparency is important. Part one of this post is important for additional context. Both were an important look into how the work does or doesn't get done from someone with direct insider knowledge. The first post really spoke to people advocating to the wrong person (FMCB/Secretary vs Governor) which I both agree with and disagree with in equal measure. I felt that it articulated why we often saw Stephanie Pollack sandbagging good ideas.I wonder if sometimes we didn’t get the most optimal policy decisions because the discussion was happening in public. I value transparency, but is it transparency if there are important details that aren’t being said because of how power works? I am not sure how exactly to solve this problem.