Not too many years ago, this newspaper was filled with stories about how journalists and other advocates of government accountability were urging the Utah System of Higher Education to be public about the names of finalists whenever a search was on for a new college or university president. Virtually always, people in positions of power would argue against this for one reason or another.

So it is noteworthy now that Commissioner of Higher Education William Sederburg is the one complaining that the Utah College of Applied Technology board of trustees acted inappropriately by not disclosing the names of finalists for the job of UCAT president, which went to Robert O. Brems.

Much has changed over the past decade. Today, state law requires public disclosure of the names of finalists. Also, state law requires the public be given notice of a closed session of the board of trustees, which did not happen in this case.

We applaud Sederburg for raising these concerns.

Brems' appointment was unusual for other reasons, as well.

Two years ago, he resigned from the same job after an audit found that school money and facilities were used to build a parade float for the Utah County Republican Party.

In addition, the audit connected Brems with questionable accounting practices that resulted in him receiving an early retirement and transition package of more than $157,000 when he left that job to become president of UCAT the first time.

Given that history, it is astounding that the UCAT board of trustees would not go out of its way to be as open and above-board as possible in appointing a new president. As Sederburg wrote in a letter to UCAT Chairman Tom Bingham, an open selection process would have been in the best interest of Brems, as well as the public.

He could have answered questions and cleared up concerns.

As education leaders in Utah have learned over the past decade, openness is the best inoculation against scandals and hidden deals. It fosters respect between the public and government. Secrecy has the opposite effect. It breeds suspicion and is bad for democracy.

Given Sederburg's concerns, it would be appropriate to redo the entire selection process ?— this time in the open.