I begin with the short and sweet of it.
I previously criticized the proposal in hopes that it could promote public discourse about what transparency really means in our times, but unfortunately none of the county commissioners I reached out to took my words to heart, and instead hide behind ennui. Laziness. In that regards I will clarify my criticisms so that people understand I do not oppose this ordinance, as I find nothing egregious about it.
While I still hope for more discussion on the topic, I don't see a need to continue criticizing this particular effort, as my criticisms receive no actual conscious attention. I prefer a move in the right direction, than to stifle progress over knit-picking. I still think find critique valid and important to the over-all issue of transparency in government, but future ordinances can address this--the proposal in no way limits possible increases of transparency in the future, which is precisely what establishment fears. Don't buy the disingenuous suggestion this ordinance would burden politicians. Even if it does, they accept that burden as servants of the public. They serve special interests, or their own, when they oppose transparency.