Government would not exist but for the consent of the governed and the taxes they pay. Therefore the workings of government should be open and transparent to the citizens. It is their government.

It is based on this principle that state and federal legislators have over the last several decades approved freedom of information laws. These laws assume that records produced by the government, the meetings held to discuss public policy and the reports or documents created through tax dollars are open to the people.

Exemptions should be few - national security, protecting the integrity of criminal investigations, preventing a party from gaining unfair advantage in contract negotiations, protecting personal privacy such as medical records.

Open government best serves the people. Open books make it harder for elected leaders and government workers to abuse the power of government for self-aggrandizement. Public meetings avert backroom deals and cutting corners. Open courts discourage the railroading of defendants or special treatment for the privileged.

Today begins Sunshine Week, first launched in 2005 to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government. It is a way of reminding elected leaders who they are working for. Too often the tendency is to conceal, not disclose.

In 2010 the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission issued 242 decisions in cases where citizens sought access to public documents or complained about improper secret meetings. In 45 percent of those cases the commission either found evidence of violations of the Freedom of Information Act or the government entity admitted the violation prior to final adjudication.

That number is far too high, suggesting many government officials are either ignorant of the open government provisions or willfully ignoring them to stall the release of records or keep discussions behind closed doors. And these are only the cases in which someone filed and pursued a complaint. How often do citizens simply accept no for an answer or don't have the time or energy to keep fighting city hall?

State and municipal officials need to do better.

In Hartford a proposal by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is reason for concern. Gov. Malloy recommends that the legislature merge the Freedom of Information Commission with four other agencies to form a single Office of Government Accountability.

While we understand and support the governor's efforts to streamline government, this particular proposal is a mistake. The FOI Commission would merge with the Office of State Ethics, the Elections Enforcement Commission, the Judicial Review Council and the State Contracting Standards Board.

As the enforcer of the state's sunshine laws, the FOI Commission needs to remain an independent agency. The other agencies in the proposed accountability office have varying confidentiality requirements. Lumping FOI with them is an inherent conflict.

Of further concern is the administration's plan to put a single executive director, appointed by the governor, in charge of this new office. Now running the FOI commission is an executive director, hired by the agency's board based on qualifications and subject to removal only for good cause. A political appointee would be in an awkward position should the commission consider the disclosure of records embarrassing to the governor's office.

Finally, the savings appear minimal.

Gov. Malloy's administration is off to a good start, operating openly and transparently and quick to provide requested information, but this proposal is not a good one. Though it is likely well intentioned, the General Assembly should reject the agency merger.