It's not often that a piece of legislation manages to be unnecessary, unconstitutional and discriminatory — all in one swoop. But Senate Bill 142, a measure to stifle the public's right to know, manages all three quite nicely.

The bill, which passed the Senate by a 48-2 vote, is a delayed reaction to 9-11 that would add public safety as a reason for state and local governments to keep information secret. It covers four types: information that would create a threat to public safety, information that would threatened the safety of elected public officials, information that would threaten the privacy of any public employee who seeks out privacy, and information that cannot be released because of federal law.

In this age of anxiety over terrorism, SB 142 might sound like a good idea. It isn't, and here's why:

-- It is unnecessary. Not only does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government primacy over states when it comes to distributing information the feds require to the secret, but state law already allows matters of military and civil defense to be secret. The law adds nothing here.

-- It is unconstitutional. The Montana constitution provides that individuals in the state can keep their personal information secret — provided that society agrees that that expectation of privacy outweighs the public's right to know. The constitution makes no mention of "public safety" as a reason for privacy.

-- It is discriminatory. Today, everybody is treated the same. Under SB 142, a special class of citizens would be created — namely public employees who, simply by wanting privacy, can get it. This part of the law is meant to protect the governor, judges, or other high public officials, but it affects every public employee and excludes all private-sector employees. This is patently discriminatory.

The bill is breathtakingly broad. It does not define a threat. It does not define public safety. It is silent on who will decide what is a threat or a matter of public safety. It appears to let any public official, of whatever station, personally rule on whether Montana citizens have a right to know what their government is up to.

The authors of Montana's constitution specifically — in two separate votes — resisted attempt to let the Legislature — via bills like SB 142 — control the public's right to know. And the state Supreme Court has specifically ruled that although there may be times when legitimate arguments for government secrecy may exist, "in the long term, those fleeting considerations are outweighed by the dangers of a government beyond public scrutiny."

SB 142 appears to have been routinely advanced by well-meaning senators who haven't considered the bill's sobering implications. We urge our lawmakers to take a hard, second look.