ByDavid Rask Behilng, Tribune columnist

Making decisions behind closed doors is not a good thing, most of the time, when those decisions affect the lives of people who are not part of the process. Secrecy cloaks decision-making in darkness and makes it difficult to hold people accountable for their decisions.

Yes, there are times when decision-making has to be secret. For example, juries decide on an accused person’s guilt or innocence behind locked and guarded doors. This makes their judgment more fair and just for the accused and the rest of us. Our right to vote includes the right to keep our choices secret; we don’t have to tell anyone whom we vote for.

And there are fun secrets, like when I arranged for a friend, who is a chef, to cook a gourmet meal for our anniversary as a surprise. It required hiding my plans and choices from she-who-must-be-obeyed. That kind of behind-the-scenes manipulation makes life more interesting in a good way.

Most of the time, however, decision-making that happens away from the light of public awareness is not beneficial. Locally, the secret decision-making that nearly led to the closure of the medical clinic in Alden was not the Mayo Health System’s proudest moment. Nationally, the decision to give the man in charge of the New York Stock Exchange nearly $140 million when the economy is still weak and millions have been laid off from their jobs erodes confidence in that institution. When a decision seems likely to affect the health and welfare of people, even if it’s only a few dozen, the decision-making should be as transparent to the people affected as possible.

Bringing and keeping decision-making out into the open would seem to be a no-brainer in our society, but the desire to keep people in the dark is unfortunately a continuous problem. Too often public officials cut secret deals that involve their votes on proposals or their choices for government contracts. Too many politicians have been caught trying to move the real decision-making away from public votes into closed-door meetings. Too many lobbyists affect public policy through secret promises or pressures. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of holding meetings at inconvenient times for anybody but those in charge.

So I think it’s a step in the right direction when the Freeborn County Commission starts alternating meetings between evenings and mornings. I hope they make the change permanent no matter whether they notice a difference during their two-month &uot;experiment.&uot; If they truly want to make their decision-making transparent for all the people of this county, then they need to hold meetings at times when people can actually attend. People who hold regular jobs, with less flexible work schedules, need to have the opportunity to attend a commissioner’s meeting. It isn’t fair to those of us who work all day to have the &uot;public&uot; comments at meetings come from farmers, from those who are retired or from people who have jobs without set schedules.

I also think it’s a step toward making decision-making more transparent when Albert Lea city council members talk directly to city staff members before they decide how to allocate the limited financial resources available. Now the council members will be able to get the opinions of the staff that are directly affected by decisions to increase or cut back funding in different areas. It’s healthier to have that conversation &045; those decisions and their consequences &045; out in the open, instead of in closed-door staff meetings that lead to a single presentation by the city manager.

At other levels of government, though, I see more need for watchfulness. The state auditor, for example, would better serve &uot;taxpaying&uot; citizens if she went after businesses with state contracts as ruthlessly as she does local governments and school districts. Is she making sure that executives in those companies aren’t getting wealthy at the expense of the citizens who pay the bills? Attorney General John Ashcroft needs to disclose what FBI agents are doing when they investigate American citizens who have gotten on their &uot;terrorism suspect&uot; lists, if we are going to support their &uot;security first, freedom second&uot; policies.

Anytime we allow our elected representatives to make important decisions in secret, we need to be concerned. It’s not about the ideology of the people making the decisions; it’s about protecting our right to know what’s going on.

(David Rask Behling is a rural Albert Lea resident. His column appears Tuesdays.)