Auditing in Skepticism

After reading the article, I am not sure whether the Fed should be audited or not. It is true that the Fed is relatively transparent, and I believe it tries to do its best to benefit the country. There are so many conspiracies or simply theories about the secretive things done by the Fed, but those claims are very hard for me to believe. It does make sense that the more people know about what happens in the Federal Reserve the better, but to what extent? Having someone see everything said and done may lead to different decisions being made, which are not guaranteed to be better. Maybe the conversations would be less frank and more politically correct, or maybe not. The one thing that comes to mind is the cost of auditing the Fed, and whether that cost will or will not exceed the benefits. To me, the benefits do not seem to be as clear as I wish.  Another thing to consider is what might happen to the financial system if bailing out certain financial institutions or intermediaries becomes public because that would identify who is struggling and it might create certain hardships to those seeking loans. I do favor having that information public, but maybe immediately and rather with a delay. It appears that there isn't tremendous benefit outside of politicians criticizing the Fed to gain short-term benefit. I believe the Fed should be immune to short-term political pressures, but whether that immunity is good and whether the audit would alter that immunity is a hard question for me to answer because there are many nuances. Thus, I prefer to remain skeptical about auditing the Fed.