Chapter 44-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, our state's collection of statutes, might not be the most scintillating reading, but every elected official in the state ought to know its contents as well as their own names.

It's the law on open records and meetings.

And even if some elected officials find reading the chapter onerous, city attorneys ought to be able to close their eyes and see every page.

It's been necessary for Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to issue 11 open records and meetings opinions in 2007, and the year isn't over yet.

Sometimes, it's to say that the law hasn't been violated. But all too often, it has.

The latest attorney general's opinion addresses the city of Mandan. It's a report of some things having been done right, others most certainly not.

It takes nine and a half pages to lay out the opinion in detail, including a recitation of facts, but the crux is this: The city commission properly went into executive session on several occasions, but it came out that on one occasion topics discussed in secret went beyond the announced reason for going into executive session, and in two other meetings "the announcements prior to the … executive sessions did not provide the public with sufficient information" on contract discussion, the attorney general concluded.

There's more. The city government didn't provide copies of some records requested by Mandan resident Susan Beehler in a timely fashion. The city is working now, according to administrator Jim Neubauer, to complete material to post and to provide Beehler the rest of what she sought. It was Beehler who requested the attorney general's opinion.

The open records and meetings law represents the undergirding principle of the people's government. Officials act for us. It's our business.

Elected officials and public servants often have it rough. It's not for the thin-skinned. It's understandable to have the feeling that whatever decision they make, they're going to get bashed by someone.

In Mandan, it's been difficult for a while. The politics of recall, the turmoil of the remediation process and the disruption of traffic from street construction have whittled away at the patience of residents, needing to remember that city hall people also are Mandanites.

Recognizing the tensions gives city government all the more reason to be as open and accessible as possible.

The open meetings law is notably clear and concise in talking about confidential or closed meetings. Where the law falls short is in prescribing consequences when it isn't followed. There are descriptions of remedies and civil action, even officials' personal liability for noncompliance. But it has to be asked how often remedy is sought.

The real answer is to abide by the law. It never is appropriate for a government to tell the governed: It's none of your business.