The Honolulu City Council has got itself in quite a twist over issues of confidentiality and what kind of information can or should be shared with the general public.

It's too bad the council members cannot step back and take a broader look at the situation. Bottom line: There are a number of situations where the council or any other city board "may" conduct business in secrecy, but there are rare and few instances when they should.

The current controversy has more to to with political tensions within the Council than with the larger and more interesting issues of public access to information. With all the work to be done, it seems a shame that members of the council find themselves involved with resolutions designed specifically to discipline each other and with complaints to the Ethics Commission about the behavior of fellow members.

The specifics are these: The Council met in executive session to discuss a possible settlement with the federal Environmental Protection Agency over some $300 million in sewer repairs. In effect, a deal had been cut between the city administration and Washington and the council was being briefed. In effect, they were passive recipients of the tentative deal.

Shortly thereafter, council member Charles Djou talked to an Advertiser reporter about the planned (and eventually accepted) deal.

Djou's argument is that he had every right to discuss something that was between himself and his attorney (in this case, city attorneys). But others on the council argue that by going public, Djou was waiving confidentiality agreements not just for himself but for everyone else in the meeting.

That's a fair enough argument. But it misses the basic point. The council was discussing how and why to spend millions of taxpayer dollars, not their own money. It would seem that the default position should be to share those conversations and decisions up front with the folks who are paying the bills, the taxpayers.

The law offers up an extensive list of purposes for which the doors can be slammed shut on the public. They range from personal information, hiring and firing through public safety and criminal issues. Other exceptions include consultation with the board's attorney, labor negotiations and the like.

Reasonable enough.

But these are permissive exceptions, not obligatory. Boards "may" hold closed meetings, they are not obligated to do so.

It would seem that when the discussion involves millions of taxpayer dollars, basic questions about the repair and maintenance of public infrastructure and (not coincidentally) the political reputations of many people in high places, the decision should be to let the information out.

Reach Jerry Burris at jburris@honoluluadvertiser.com. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.