They weren't designed to be message bills, but they certainly send one. If Utah Senate Bills 136 and 138 are approved as currently written, exempting the proposed Independent Legislative Ethics Commission from provisions of Utah's open meetings and public records acts, the Legislature will, in effect, be telling Utahns to mind their own business.

SB136 would allow the commission, which would investigate and screen ethics complaints lodged against lawmakers, to operate in the dark as the only public body exempt from the state's Open and Public Meetings Act. That would set a bad precedent, perhaps prompting other state boards to solicit similar exclusions. The bill would also make it easier for the House and Senate's own ethics committees, which have the final say on ethics complaints against lawmakers, to meet behind closed doors.

It's not unreasonable that some commission inquiries and deliberations be conducted in closed sessions. In fact, the state's Open and Public Meetings Act allows for executive sessions under certain circumstances. But the commission should be subject to the same law that governs meetings of every other public body in the state, including the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission, which successfully handles judicial misconduct cases while complying with the open meetings law.

Companion bill SB138, unless amended, would keep records of commission ethics investigations out of the public eye. At a minimum, summary data regarding the number, nature and disposition of complaints should be released.

The measures, sponsored by Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, appear to be written to shield lawmakers from unjust notoriety stemming from unfounded ethics complaints. Media and legislative attorneys are discussing possible amendments that would safeguard the public's right to know.

Protecting lawmakers from meritless accusations is important, but the bills as written pose an even graver danger to a higher ideal -- government that is open, ethical and accountable to the people. By approving these bills, lawmakers will risk the reputation of the entire Legislature to save the reputations of a few. And the aura of secrecy that would surround commission proceedings would undermine the very purpose of the body -- to help bolster, or restore, the public's faith in state government by assuring that lawmakers are held accountable for poor conduct.

An independent Ethics Commission, if voters pick the Legislature's plan over a citizens initiative that could also be on the ballot in November, would be a step forward. But excluding the body from open meetings and records laws would be a step back.