Openness in government is something about which the Minnesota Legislature often boasts -- and then subverts.

Legislators don't often bar the door -- though leaders and the governor do just that, far too often, as they cut deals at the end of sessions. But in more varied and subtle ways all session long -- and, often, not by design -- the public is excluded from watching and participating effectively in the lawmaking process.

It happens when floor debates drone on into the wee hours of the morning. When amendments pop into bills on the floor with no advance notice and no prior scrutiny. When bills aren't heard as scheduled because no one is minding the clock, and witnesses who waited in vain are never heard. When the order in which bills arise for floor debate is abruptly altered. When conference committees approve bills only hours before adjournment, giving not even their own members enough time to digest their contents.

Last week, a procedural rules overhaul that would bring more order and transparency to lawmaking emerged from a Minnesota House committee after 15 months of study. The exhaustive proposal is bound to face resistance from some of those whose power is enhanced by the status quo. That's why it's important that other Minnesotans become aware of it, get behind it, and ask this year's House candidates to do the same.

The thoroughgoing list of recommended changes runs to 20 pages, and it isn't light reading. But at its core is a clear commitment to allow observers, be they professional lobbyists or school kids on a field trip, a chance to understand and follow the Legislature's work.

The proposed rules would do much to unclog today's overloaded legislative pipeline. The number of bills a member could introduce as chief author would be limited to a generous 25 per year (some now toss in 40). More time would be allotted for committee work to shape the bills that move forward; less such work would be permitted on the House floor.

The worst violations of the spirit of the state's open meeting law occur at the end of sessions, when the governor is involved in negotiations. House and Senate rules cannot control gubernatorial conduct. But by requiring more time and an opportunity for public testimony before the enactment of any deal concocted behind closed doors, the proposed rules would at least give the public a chance to know and react to what the leaders decide.

Sound like inside baseball? Maybe so -- but as any baseball fan can attest, little things can decide who wins a pennant. A lack of order and openness is diminishing the quality of the Legislature's work and damaging its reputation. Bravo to House Governmental Operations Committee chair Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, and committee members of both parties for recommending needed change.