Shortly after his re-election to a second term last November, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy joined a number of state officials and legislative leaders in signing a Freedom of Information Pledge for open government.

This document affirms that “a successful democracy requires open, transparent, and accountable government,” and those who penned their names promised to support the independence of the state FOI Commission.

The governor’s signature was especially welcomed by the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information and other open-government advocates who hoped it demonstrated a change of direction for an administration often criticized for withholding information from the public and for giving short shrift to state watchdog agencies.

These oversight groups had been particularly critical of Mr. Malloy’s 2011 decision to combine administrative functions at nine state agencies, including the FOI Commission, Office of State Ethics and Elections Enforcement Commission, into a new Office of Government Accountability. This consolidation plan, critics charged, stripped the agencies of their independence and hampered their effectiveness. To address these concerns the General Assembly created a Governmental Accountability Commission, for which a new manager was hired to take charge.

But any hopes this move would improve open, independent government took a hit in late March when Shelby Brown, the new executive administrator, clashed with members of the legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee over her authority.

After the meeting Ms. Brown told The Connecticut Mirror that she doesn’t answer to the commission — apparently disregarding the fact that the commission is charged with evaluating her job performance.

“Quite frankly, I work for the governor,” she said. “That’s who appointed me.”

Ms. Brown’s flawed interpretation of chain of command would make her more like a fox guarding the henhouse, because the watchdog agencies are set up to investigate members of the Malloy administration or even the governor himself when any questionable practices warrant examination.

This in fact is taking place now, with the Elections Enforcement Commission, one of the watchdog groups that Executive Director Brown oversees, investigating allegations that Connecticut’s Democratic Party illegally used contributions from state contractors to support Gov. Malloy’s re-election campaign.

Concerns about impropriety also have been heightened by the Office of Governmental Accountability’s seizure of a computer from the state’s elections enforcement agency. At the very least, having a governor-appointed watchdog investigate an issue involving his campaign doesn’t pass the smell test.

Ms. Brown must not report her findings first to the governor; she must let the Election Enforcement Commission complete its investigation without any hint of political interference from Gov. Malloy or members of his administration.

Republicans, not surprisingly, have been making political hay over the issue.

Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, sent a letter to the General Assembly’s Government Administration and Elections Committee urging a public hearing to determine whether the OGA has overreached its authority, claiming the matter has put “a chilling effect on all watchdog agencies under the administration of the OGA.”

We understand the GOP’s frustration, but at the same time urge both parties to resolve the dispute without having it interpreted simply as a Democrat vs. Republican issue.

The matter involves more fundamental principles — that good government requires transparency, accountability and unfettered oversight.