"... full access to information concerning the conduct of government on every level must be assured as a fundamental and necessary precondition to the sound governance of a free society."

-- Washington State Open Records Act

The state's Supreme Court heard arguments last week on a case brought by this newspaper that could have profound consequences on how the public is able to access records of government spending. The particulars of the case may be intricate and at times confusing, but the remedies are not.

At issue is how court-appointed attorneys in a murder case spent more than $2 million in legal fees and other expenses defending Jose Luis Sanchez Jr. and Mario Gil Mendez. The two were arrested for a 2005 home-invasion shooting in Yakima that left two people dead, including a 3-year-old girl. Mendez pleaded guilty; Sanchez is appealing his conviction and subsequent life sentence after a trial in 2007.

After the guilty plea and conviction, the Yakima Herald-Republic sought the billing records, but to no avail.

That's because Yakima County Superior Court Judge James Lust, who was assigned to oversee the defense attorneys' spending, had seemingly placed the billing records under seal. Despite this action, copies of the documents apparently were sent to the county auditor and board of commissioners so the lawyers could get paid.

Further complicating matters is the fact that Yakima County never responded to this newspaper's public records request for the documents, never identified what documents it was withholding nor explained why it was withholding them -- all of which the state's Public Records Act requires.

Then there's confusion over what Judge Lust did with the order sealing the billing records. It's also under seal, an apparent violation of court rules. Because the order is sealed, none of the lawyers involved in the case -- and so far none of the Supreme Court justices -- has seen it or knows for sure whether the records held by the county are in fact covered by it. That's about to change after the Supreme Court on Thursday notified Yakima County Superior Court to provide the sealing order for review.

An important question facing the Supreme Court is whether the administrative and financial court documents were properly sealed. We argue they were not. And even if the justices worry that these documents, which are not part of a court case file, might contain what's called attorney work product -- which is confidential -- those details could easily be blacked out while keeping intact a full accounting of how Sanchez's lawyers spent their portion of the reported $2 million in public funds.

The justices will also have to consider what to make of the disputed records being given to county agencies. Did these agencies meet their legal burden of proving that they complied with the strict rules of the Public Records Act even though the documents were also supposedly sealed?

Though the state Supreme Court concluded in 1986 that the judiciary does not fall under the Public Records Act, government agencies such as the county auditor and board of commissioners do. That means, under the law, the agencies must comply with this newspaper's request for the billing records and must promptly turn them over. Or they can provide reasons in writing why the law allows them to decline the request.

But they can not be silent, as Yakima County has done these past two years.

Despite the twists and turns this case has taken, the Supreme Court justices have an opportunity to reaffirm, in unequivocal language, the paramount importance of open access to public records while preserving a defendant's right to a fair trial. The county's flagrant disregard for public access has gone on long enough.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.