There's no point in having a Sunshine Law that insists on open government meetings if at any point some important discussions can go on in the back room, with the shades pulled down.

Yet that is what Senate Bill 2174 would do. And it must be stopped.

The bill is part of an ongoing push by county councils to weaken the Sunshine Law, which applies to all county and state governing bodies — except the Legislature, which exempted itself.

Critics complain that the law, which prevents more than two members of a governing body from meeting on official business outside of a public meeting, has kept members from attending community functions to research how they will vote. But simply discarding this provision, as SB 2174 would do, is an attack on the public interest.

The bill states that "two or more members of a board may discuss between themselves matters relating to official board business to enable them to perform their duties faithfully, as long as no commitment to vote is made or sought and the two or more members do not constitute a quorum of their board."

As state Sen. Les Ihara has pointed out, up to seven members of a 15-member board could meet privately and discuss business with only one restriction: They couldn't solicit a commitment to vote.

But, Ihara added, who would know if that happens? The public can't verify what occurs at a private meeting.

If lawmakers want to make the Sunshine Law more practical, a better vehicle would be SB 2295. That bill specifies that members can attend other meetings or public hearings and discuss their individual positions, or attend other informational meetings relating to their own official business.

And this bill would require the members to make a public report to their own boards on that outside meeting; SB 2174 wouldn't require that.

However, another provision in SB 2295 is disurbing: It would enable members to poll each other in writing, including by fax or e-mail, on their positions. That kind of exchange constitutes a private meeting with a voting commitment, which is wrong. This provision should be deleted.

As for SB 2174, it's awaiting review by the House Judiciary Committee. State Rep. Tommy Waters (586-9450) chairs that panel; he should be told what a terrible idea this is.

The Senate Judiciary Committee praised the bill for allowing "more flexibility toward efficiently completing official board business."

Rubbish. Officials may like things to be convenient, but their job is to serve the public good. And the report omitted this inconvenient truth about SB 2174: It enables keeping secrets from the public, and that's just wrong.