After the rather raucous 2007 legislative session, it is understandable that some lawmakers would just as soon not have reporters incessantly breathing down their necks.

Not to mention camera-toting non-reporters poised to upload any embarrassing videos for all to see on YouTube.

Possible restrictions on reporters' access to floor sessions and hearings, as well as closing legislative party caucuses, were discussed during a two-day bipartisan retreat of Legislative Council members last fall. No action was taken at a meeting of the council this week, but the issue will be raised again during its next meeting in January.

Although members of the media remain adamant about the importance of ensuring that government business remains open to the press and ultimately to the public, a desire to maintain decorum during a session is reasonable. And while the media isn't about to abandon its access to party caucuses opened by the courts in 1997 and 1998, it isn't difficult to see why some legislators believe such openness more less defeats their purpose.

A closed caucus gives party members a chance to let off steam in private as well as hash out legislative strategies out of view of their political opponents. Opening it all up to the public eye isn't very conducive to plotting, and outbursts aren't so good for one's statesmanlike image.

Buy, hey, you can't have everything. We remain convinced that full transparency is the best tool a democracy has to promote good government. If the public's right to know gets in the way of political scheming, so be it. And as for the outing of political tantrums, well, the public has a right to know about them, too.