Czar oversight, or, more accurately, czar bashing, has been co-opted by conservative commentators and some Republican lawmakers. It seems conservatives are just trying to score political points by smearing czars, and smearing President Obama in the process. That’s a shame, because czar oversight is very much an apolitical issue, or at least it should be.

First, let’s dispense with the czar moniker for the rest of this blog post. These individuals are policy advisers. They manage and weigh in on big policy issues that cut across the jurisdictions of multiple federal agencies.

That’s exactly what makes them so noteworthy and important. Because they may have the power to arbitrate among bureaucrats, or even among Senate-confirmed appointees, there is a temptation to take sides or overrule.

For me, the big question is: Does the presence of these special advisers add another layer of administrative review to the regulatory process? The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs already reviews, among other items, draft proposed and final regulations. More generally, OIRA manages the rulemaking process – a role that affects scores of federal agencies. Are these advisers serving as mini OIRA’s for their specific policy areas?

Consider this situation. This week, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly proposed a regulation aimed at limiting vehicle carbon dioxide emissions. We can presume that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was involved in the decisionmaking, as well as the EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy, who was approved by the Senate in June. We can also presume that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was involved.

We even know that OIRA was involved. Although the OIRA review process is largely opaque, at least a modicum of accountability exists. OIRA lists on the web all the rules currently under its review, and it discloses limited information about any meeting with outside stakeholders. OIRA reviewed the vehicle emissions rule from Aug. 25 to Sept. 14 and approved it “consistent with change,” whatever that means. (The administrator of OIRA is often tagged with the “cz” word (or the “ts” word), but, since he or she is subject to Senate confirmation, the title no longer seems appropriate in the current political context.)

But we don’t know who else was involved. What was Carol Browner’s role? She heads the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, and certainly the vehicle emissions rule is within her sphere of interest and influence. And what about Ron Bloom, the head of the President’s Task Force on the Automotive Industry?

Increased transparency would go a long way toward unmasking these crusading special advisers. Browner’s office doesn’t even have a webpage. I’m confident that none of the advisers is wielding unchecked power or undermining democracy, but it sure would be nice if the White House detailed their responsibilities and authority.

At least one Democrat is on the case. According the Politico, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is “asking Obama to detail the roles and responsibilities of all of the czars in his administration and to explain why he believes the use of czars is consistent with the Senate’s constitutional power to offer advice and consent on top-level executive branch officials.”

Although he seems to be pursuing the issue in response to constituent complaints, I hope he follows through. Oversight of these special policy advisers has been scandalized; but it needs to be approached rationally so the public can better understand how these advisers fit into government decisionmaking.