Much to respect thru the years, but I've never been prouder of my adopted hometown newspaper, The Frankfort State Journal, than in its recent reports and editorials relating to substantial threats to open government by city officials.

The State Journal has pursued two issues — one relating to the mayor's use of a private e-mail account, and the other relating to serial less than quorum meetings, both to discuss public business—in appeals to the Kentucky Attorney General.

Those appeals will, coincidentally, test the Attorney General's commitment to rigorous enforcement of Kentucky's open records and meetings law — a timely inquiry in light of recent events.

(The State Journal recently prevailed in two unrelated open records appeals. One appeal involved access to an unredacted copy of an investigative report into sexual harassment allegations leveled against a local jailer and the other involved access to an incident report that was alternately characterized as a City of Frankfort Police Department record and a Kentucky State Police record — not exempt, in either case, as the FPD and KSP argued, despite an ongoing investigation.)

This report, posted last night, is perhaps most troubling.

In an increasingly rancorous atmosphere, the City Commission is considering an ethics provision that compels member silence about matters discussed in closed session—among other things, impeding members' right to report possible open meetings violations.

Convenient.

The open meetings law is silent on the issue, but it is widely understood that public officials must be circumspect in disclosing public business legitimately discussed in closed session under an exception to the open meetings law — certainly where public disclosure would compromise a significant governmental interest.

If adopted and challenged, the proposed ethics provision is unlikely to survive legal scrutiny.

It is abundantly clear, however, that the ethics provision under consideration is inimical to ethical government. No official should be compelled to remain silent in the face of closed session illegality.

Public officials should honor the purposes for which the open meetings exceptions were enacted — in word and deed — where those exceptions are legitimately invoked.

But no official should be constrained from reporting, or indeed challenging through the legal mechanisms available under the law, a suspected open meetings violation.

It's just that simple.