If ever there was a trial that is the public’s business, it is the trial of state Rep. Sue Schmitz. That makes U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor’s inclination to exclude the public from meetings with the attorneys disturbing.

Every aspect of the case involves the public. A federal grand jury indicted Schmitz on nine felony counts in connection with her employment at Community Intensive Treatment for Youth Skills Training Consortium, a tax-funded program of the two-year college system.

The government alleges the 63-year-old Democrat from Toney fraudulently obtained her job, and fraudulently accepted about $180,000 in pay over three years despite doing essentially no work. The government also alleges she obtained the job inappropriately by using her clout as a legislator, a position she had as a result of a public election.

Many of the witnesses were public officials, paid with public dollars. And, of course, tax dollars pay the salaries of the judge and the prosecutors.

Secrecy is especially inappropriate in the trial given the ongoing debate over whether U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush — including U.S. Attorney Alice Martin — are targeting defendants based on political factors. Add to that the fact that Mrs. Schmitz is only one of many in the state’s two-year college system accused of wrongdoing.

We understand that evidentiary rules must control what information the jury hears, but no such consideration prevents the court from opening proceedings to the public. The judge has instructed the jurors to ignore media reports during the trial and to avoid speaking about issues involving the trial to anyone until they have reached a verdict.

Secrecy breeds mistrust. Judge Proctor can protect jury deliberations without excluding the press and public from the hearings he holds with the lawyers.

The closed-door meetings leave the public justifiably concerned.