It probably went unnoticed by most readers, but something revolutionary happened on the opinion pages of The Spokesman-Review in the past month. Twice, in fact.

The first instance was on Feb. 6, when a guest opinion promoting children’s health care ran under the byline of freshman Washington state Sen. Chris Marr. Three days ago, another guest contribution, this one celebrating volunteers in a state literacy program, appeared under the byline of Employment Security Commissioner Karen Lee.

The historic element of all this wasn’t in the content of these commentaries, but in the endnotes that explained something about the authorship. Attentive readers learned from the endnotes that neither Marr nor Lee actually wrote the pieces that appeared under their names, not alone anyway. They had help from members of their respective staffs, in Marr’s case the Senate Democratic caucus’ communications office.

That may or may not surprise you, and you may or may not think it’s a big deal. But it certainly won’t surprise people who are close to government and political institutions, as well as large businesses and a variety of professional and nonprofit associations headed by individuals of personal repute.

Such people often work near the heart of public life. They have insights worth sharing with citizens who like to follow the progress of public policy debates. What these political and organizational leaders don’t have, though, is a lot of time.

Instead, they have, as a current TV advertising campaign puts it, “people.”

They have staffers who translate their ideas and insights into words. The op-ed columns that result from that process sometimes show up in The Spokesman-Review and other newspapers, the product of teamwork between staffers and their bosses. The remarkable thing about the two guest columns mentioned above is that the writers and their collaborators were willing to pull back the curtain and allow a peek at how the process works.

Marr, Lee and the bureaucratic and political aides who surround them deserve credit for the courage and integrity to go along with this approach. Most of their counterparts in other offices won’t do what they did.

To me, it’s a simple matter of honesty and transparency, but it’s a sharp departure from the normal practice, which even a majority of my colleagues in the National Conference of Editorial Writers consider acceptable.

The Spokesman-Review’s policy regarding guest columns is pretty simple. “By” means “by.” We expect columnists to express their opinions in their own words. If the writer had staff help, we’ll grant the byline but explain the details in the endnote.

It’s also an issue of fairness.

Every day, members of the aforementioned NCEW send e-mails back and forth across the country alerting one another to letters that actually have been lifted from some Web site. We reject those letters when we spot them, and sometimes we scold the plagiarists who sent them. Why, then, should influential public figures be entitled to the misrepresentation that most of us would consider, at best, ghost-writing?

Strict adherence to The Spokesman- Review’s policy, for which I’m to blame, may prevent our readers from seeing many of these commentaries. But only when the contributors insist on the deception.

One example is a column offered to us a couple of weeks ago through the University of Idaho’s media relations office. It carried the joint bylines of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and UI law professor Russ Miller. After I explained our policy, it was withdrawn.

Craig’s press secretary, Sidney Smith, offered this explanation via e-mail:

“1) When a piece is distributed to the public bearing Senator Craig’s name, it means that Senator Craig has determined that the piece is consistent with his beliefs and message. Therefore, regardless of who physically composed the piece, it becomes Senator Craig’s. This is widely understood, and I’m sure the Spokesman knows this as well. Noting who participated in the process of composing a piece makes the Spokesman unique, but it is in fact, a distinction without a difference. While it may enhance transparency, the knowledge the reader gains is meaningless. And furthermore, it literally is a waste of space.

“2) I see no reason to note which staffers may have contributed to a piece under Senator Craig’s byline, when the Spokesman doesn’t bother to note which editors wrote a particular editorial, or which editors took a particular side in debating an editorial position. This seems inconsistent … .”

Actually, our practice of not putting one person’s name on an editorial that often incorporates contributions from several people (all of whose names are listed every day on the page) seems perfectly consistent with expecting contributors to acknowledge that they had assistance from others. (And we don’t require names.)

But I wonder what readers think. A matter of honesty and transparency, or a distinction without a difference?

Your feedback is invited.