Agreed, that is just a factual error. One has to wonder about the motivation of that statement.

It's like the people that complain their favoured politician has more scrutiny on them when actually that politician just commits lots of crimes.

You don't have to wonder. You can just ask. Why leave motivations to speculation when a conversation is possible?

1. The public will view it that way.

2. It will create an incentive structure that will reflect the goals of political parties.

Transparency brings the office into the political sphere. Nothing in the political sphere escapes partisanship. It's pretty clear that no one knew this office existed before I brought it up and folks thought that lawmakers drafted their own bills. The fact that we're even now talking about it in terms of politics is evidence that it will devolve into partisan politics.

I get your instinct - transparency is in general a net good. But the more public an office is, the more it is drawn into partisanship.

Politics is especially prone to engineers disease and this is a great example of it. It assumes a technical solution in the spirit of transparency applies to complex human, social, and political domains where those frameworks do not neatly fit. When someone points out engineers disease, have some introspection before questioning their motives.