EDITORIAL: Witness payment ruling

Bravo to District Judge Susan Scann for ordering the Clark County district attorney’s office to release documents related to its witness payment program to the Review-Journal. It’s too bad prosecutors still don’t understand the spirit of the state’s public records law, which was at the heart of Thursday’s ruling.

The Review-Journal had sued District Attorney Steve Wolfson for refusing to provide the newspaper with some records related to off-budget witness payments that raised questions about the fairness of some criminal proceedings. If defendants didn’t know that some witnesses against them had received financial support from prosecutors, whether for living expenses or something else, the integrity of the justice system was compromised.

Judge Scann gave Mr. Wolfson until the end of the month to provide the Review-Journal with access to a database that documents the benefits offered to witnesses in exchange for their cooperation, although prosecutors can withhold case information that could identify witnesses or informants who have not yet testified in court.

It was a sound ruling because the state’s public records law is so clear: taxpayers have a right to know what their governments are doing. But throughout this legal fight, including Thursday’s hearing, the district attorney’s office has complained that honoring public records requests is a hassle and a burden. Never mind that, in this case, the Review-Journal’s demands were exceptionally specific. It would have required little effort for prosecutors to comply with the newspaper’s requests. They just didn’t want to.

Openness is not a burden of public service — it is an essential part of it. Without transparency, government can’t be held accountable for its actions. And if government can’t be held accountable, then democracy will fail.