The wall of mediation silence is cracking. Paul Maroun and the state Adirondack Park Agency have seen the sunlight and allowed a few rays to shine on a process that, as public servants, they are legally bound to report to the public.

That process is a series of mediation sessions called by the developers of the proposed Adirondack Club and Resort in Tupper Lake, which, for those of you who still don't know, would reopen the former Big Tupper Ski Area and surround it with up to 600 housing units (from condos to great camps), a marina and a restaurant. It would remake a community where most people are ready for a remaking, at least economically.

Based on what we know, we support the development as long as everything is above board. Our biggest fear is that the developers will not fulfill their promises and leave Tupper Lake with a mess and no accountability. That fear gains traction when the process is secretive and when government agents are seen as colluding with the developer rather than looking out for the interests of the people who pay them. Unfortunately, the people have to be watchdogs on their watchdogs.

The immense size of the proposal prompted the APA to send it to an adjudicatory hearing - like a trial, with a judge and everything - but this was adjourned at the developers' request two years ago. In the meantime, the developers called these mediation sessions to negotiate a deal that would pass muster with most, if not all, of its critics.

To these sessions, lead developer Michael Foxman invited a large number of "interested parties." In our view, the guest list was either too short - it should have been wide open since every Tupper Laker is an interested party - or too long. Maybe he should have just met with his environmentalist critics privately and worked out something they wouldn't sue him over.

But by inviting government agencies, he opened a huge can of worms. Those public servants should have known enough to decline, but they couldn't help but get involved. We don't blame them for not wanting to be left out of such big doings, but we do blame them for signing off on a pledge to confidentiality, a direct violation of their obligation to the public, as outlined in the state Freedom of Information Law.

Mr. Maroun, perhaps recognizing that voters don't like it when politicians hide things from them, responded to our June 27 editorial criticism by loaning us his copy of a mediation agreement developers gave to parties to the mediation.

"I have nothing to hide," the Franklin County legislator and congressional hopeful said, and we're glad to hear it. Our Tupper Lake reporter, Jessica Collier, will be reading through this hefty three-ring binder of documents and maps and reporting on it.

Meanwhile, at least one diligent citizen has been joining professional news reporters in asserting FOIL and asking state and local government agencies for copies of public records that answer questions like these: What, exactly, were the rules of these mediation sessions? Who, exactly, was invited? What was the confidentiality oath the invited parties took? What was the penalty if they broke it?

State and local government agencies have denied these documents to us and other reporters in the past, but recently, the APA granted this citizen's request and gave him a copy of the Mediation Protocol, which lays out the rules. Many of these are about concealing the proceedings from the public, and one (section III. D. 2) explicitly tells government agencies to hide mediation documents, even though its doesn't cite any legal basis for why they should: "The parties and the mediator agree that government officials will seek to exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law all documents and records prepared for purposes of the mediation process." You can read the whole protocol on our Web site, attached to this editorial.

We're glad the APA and Mr. Maroun have changed their tunes, but that's nowhere near enough to comply with FOIL. For one thing, what if other people want to read the mediation agreement? We are happy to serve as an agent for the public, but the county, village and town are denying people's requests for copies of the agreement. We don't see how they can claim it as exempt as "inter-agency" communication since the document was submitted by the developer, not a government agency.

For another thing, this situation shows inconsistency in how government agencies interpret FOIL and decide what documents to release. It strongly hints at a default tendency among them to hide from the public instead of opening up when in doubt. A few years ago, Gov. George Pataki announced that the party line in New York government was to release documents whenever possible, but we know that isn't always how things are done. Honesty is the best policy.