Freshman House Member Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has let a New York Times reporter in on the process and pitfalls of selecting pet projects in her district for earmark approrpriations. The view from what the reporter calls "a rare spectator's seat" is described in an article appearing in today's Times. An open and transparent process becomes all the more important, as congressional appropriations for local projects rise: The article quotes Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, as saying that Gillibrand's earmarks-in-the-sunshine approach is insufficient to change the fact that "Congress awards winners of taxpayer dollars on the basis of political muscle rather than a project's merit." Perhaps a board should be appointed to sit in judgment of members' process of choosing local funding projects to determine whether merit or politics holds sway. The board already exists, however, and the voters of Rep. Gillibrand's will be able to make precisely that determination for themselves. How many other voters across the country will be able to do so?