Sometimes it's inconvenient for elected officials, or, by extension, the committees they form to do the public's business, to allow the people to see and hear what they're doing.

But that doesn't make openness any less important, even necessary, when difficult issues are being discussed. Setting high school boundaries is often one of the most contentious tasks of local government. Keeping the review process largely behind closed doors not only adds to parents' frustration and ultimately to the anger of those whose children must change schools, it also may be illegal under Utah's open-meetings law.

Second District Judge Michael Allphin sided last week with a group of parents who asked for a restraining order to keep the Davis School District from implementing high school boundary changes advocated by a district-appointed review panel. He said the committee's recommendations for new district-wide boundaries to accommodate an additional high school had been made without enough public involvement.

The district counters that the 39 committee members included parents and that there had been ample opportunity for them to have their say. Nevertheless, district patrons who spoke at public hearings and sent their opinions by e-mail could not be sure their comments were being taken seriously, since they were not allowed in committee meetings.

Being kept out of the debate only fueled the suspicions of some parents that the panel's conclusions were foregone and their comments ignored.

The court will consider the issue further and may determine the committee does not meet the law's definition of a public body governed by the open-meetings law. But, regardless of the court's ultimate decision, it serves the interests of the public and of the school district to conduct public business in the open.

It might just lead to a better outcome, since the public's opinions can be as valuable as the judgment of committee members. It could also save the district from the fallout that occurs when it drops a bomb like revised high school boundaries with no warning of what they might be.

Most important, it's good public policy.