Along with a perceived lack of transparency at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, rumblings about how many closed-door sessions are conducted by another regulatory body established by the Dodd-Frank Act now are percolating on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Scott Garrett, member of the House Budget Committee and chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, recently voiced his displeasure about proposed transparency measures taken by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). Like the CFPB, the FSOC also stemmed from the major financial system reform that lawmakers passed after the most recent recession.

The New Jersey Republican took exception to the council blending both open- and closed-door session during a single gathering.

“Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, FSOC refuses to take serious steps to improve its lack of transparency — as exemplified by the fact that the meeting was prefaced with a closed-door meeting,” Garrett said about a session that took place last week.

“Instead, it continues to operate in the dark with no accountability to the American people or Congress. It appears that the window dressing adopted by the council is designed only to keep calls for real reform at bay,” Garrett continued. “I promise to continue working with my colleagues to ensure thorough Congressional oversight and reform of this body.”

FSOC officials spelled out nine reasons why a meeting or portion of one would be closed when an open segment was on the docket. That list included the possibilities the meeting could:

— Result in the disclosure of information contained in or related to investigation, examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial markets or financial institutions.

— Result in the disclosure of information which would lead to significant financial speculation, significantly endanger the stability of any financial market or financial institution, or significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action;

— Result in the disclosure of information exempted from disclosure by statute or by regulation, or authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret;

— Result in the disclosure of trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential

— Result in the disclosure of information of a personal nature that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or be inconsistent with federal privacy laws, or of information that relates solely to internal personnel rules or practices.

— Result in the disclosure of investigatory records compiled for law enforcement or supervisory purposes.

— Result in the disclosure of inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not otherwise be available by law.

— Involve the conduct solely of administrative business of the council

— Necessarily and significantly compromise the mission or purposes of the council, as determined by the chairperson with the concurrence.

“The council is committed to conducting its business in an open and transparent manner. The council will open its meetings to the public whenever possible,” FSOC officials said.

“At the same time, the central mission of the council is to monitor systemic and emerging threats. This will require discussion of supervisory and other market-sensitive data, including information about individual firms, transactions, and markets that may only be obtained if maintained on a confidential basis,” they continued. “Protection of this information will be necessary in order to prevent destabilizing market speculation that could occur if that information were to be disclosed.”