In the future, when this newspaper, or any other, wants to get a database of convicted drunken drivers — to see how their cases were handled, whether they were sentenced properly or to discover any other important trends — a reporter may have to beg in front of a government committee to get permission.

That's the recommendation of the Committee on Privacy and Public Court Records, which has issued its draft recommendations on how open the courts ought to be. This will be forwarded to the Utah Judicial Council for consideration. It could cloud the way you view the court system in the future.

It also might be unconstitutional.

A majority on the committee believes there is a big difference between a paper report and an electronic one — so much of a difference that they are in a frenzy to seal up information that has been public for decades. They don't mind keeping the paper records open, but they want to keep the public's hands off the entire database, which is where the stories of larger public interest reside.

It's safe to say many members of this committee — with the exception of those representing the interests of news organizations — are not friends of public accountability. Incredibly, some of them were even adamant that the draft itself should be kept private so as to not generate a lot of messy public debate about how the public's records are maintained.

Others wanted the draft to include contempt-of-court contempt of court penalties against anyone who disseminated the information in a legally obtained private document, which would have precipitated a train wreck with the First Amendment.

These were astounding recommendations coming from people with legal training. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed on both ideas. In the end, we hope they prevail on the larger issue, as well.

We agree that the differences between paper and electronic records can be enormous. With an electronic database, a news organization (or any other group, for that matter) can keep courts, police departments and all other government agencies accountable. This newspaper, for example, has a keen interest in promoting DUI legislation and programs that work. Unless we have the ability to examine public records as a whole, it would be impossible to identify what those are.

For example, some newspapers have taken DUI records and compared them against the rolls of public school bus drivers, finding startling statistics that uncovered dangers and raised questions about how school districts check the backgrounds of drivers. Under the committee's recommendations, those reporters would have to obtain tens of thousands of paper records and do the research by hand — either that or let school children take their chances.