The Freedom of Information Commission has ordered the release, without redaction, of thousands of text messages to and from the town-owned cellphone of former Stonington First Selectman Ed Haberek during 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately, the commission’s reasoning in that decision does not serve the public interest.

In February the town, after delaying for a year its compliance with the Freedom of Information request of Day Staff Writer Joe Wojtas, released 11,600 highly redacted text messages, leaving only 518 for review, largely dealing with mundane town business.

In a decision The Day strongly disagrees with, the FOI Commission let this heavy-handed redaction stand, buying the town’s legal argument that the vast majority of texts dealt with private matters that did not meet the law’s requirement that to be public a record must concern “the conduct of the public business.”

By logical extension, the public should also have access to records that show the misconduct of the public business, which is what appeared to be happening here. Many of these messages went back and forth while Mr. Haberek was on the clock. The town regulations made it clear that electronic communication devices were meant for government business and users should have no expectation of privacy.

The public should have the right to know what a public official is up to while receiving public pay, using a public-owned phone, and in apparent violation of a public regulation.

Without access to the redacted texts, how can it be determined if the exchanges did not concern public business? A text exchange with a private citizen about a coming trip might seem benign, but what if that citizen is a contractor seeking business with the town? It might raise more questions about that trip.

The point is that this decision allowing so many of these messages to be redacted may have opened a gaping loophole for other public officials when using electronic communications.

Yet, following the hearing officer’s recommendation, the FOI Commission is ordering the release of thousands of more Haberek texts that the town has yet to review, and without redaction. The reasoning is that by delaying so long, and failing to give the commission the opportunity to evaluate those records, the town has in effect waived its opportunity to block access to the information.

That logic is tough to follow. However, a review of the records that are released — the commission gave the town two weeks to comply — should provide some perspective of what was going on during Haberek’s tenure.

The current Stonington Board of Selectmen could appeal in Superior Court. We would urge them not to do so. Whether Mr. Haberek, who has moved from the area, tries to legally intervene remains to be seen.

This newspaper and Mr. Wojtas began this inquiry because serious questions were raised about Mr. Haberek’s conduct while in office. The delays by the Haberek administration in complying with the FOI law bought him enough time to find other employment and move on. The Day, however, is journalistically obligated to see this through.

When Mr. Wojtas began his investigative reporting, Mr. Haberek faced a civil suit from a woman claiming he sent her sexually explicit images from his town-issued Blackberry phone. The case remains pending. Mr. Wojtas sought to determine whether this alleged misconduct was isolated or not. The fact that Mr. Haberek resigned does not change that original motivation to get at the truth.

Also, increased use of electronic communications has opened new territory in FOI law. Cases such as this will help define the rules.