Once again, let sunshine in

Linda Cook isn't the squeamish type.

Most of the time she says her piece - fire and brimstone included, no extra charge - with her name firmly attached. But back in February, she posed a question on a Spokesman-Review blog from the shadows of an online pen name, almostinnocentbystander.

That question, which by Cook's description was an admittedly "sarcastic, facetious query" that she subsequently apologized for, has made her the target of a lawsuit that would have outed Cook had she not stepped out of the shadows before a court mandated it. Now that the object of her facetious question, former Kootenai County Republican Central Committee Chair Tina Jacobson, has learned the true identity of her critic, it's up to Jacobson to decide whether the courts should attempt to provide further remedy.

We hope not.

We hope the public exposure is enough to make Jacobson decide that the bill for being criticized as a public official, even if the criticism was hurtful, has been sufficiently paid. And we hope that this intriguing exploration of First Amendment rights in the Internet age does not have a chilling effect on what our Founding Fathers so vigorously demanded: A firm understanding that for our society to remain truly free, there must be room for unfair and even inaccurate criticism of public officials.

We aren't about to weigh in on the merits of Cook's curious question of Jacobson, which involved money within the local Republican Party group. But we will say that everyone should take a lesson from this series of unfortunate events.

And the lesson is: Be accountable. Even though you've heard that before, it's time to hear it again.

In her inimitable and at times annoying manner, Cook suggested that perhaps some funds were missing and in the form of a query pointed at Jacobson's bra. No, we are not suggesting that a bra be searched in the name of accountability. Rather, had the Central Committee chair opened the group's books to executive committee member Matt Roetter, who requested that courtesy, relevant questions would have been answered and the issue today could be moot.

Roetter is an ardent Republican and a bloodhound when it comes to meticulous records searches. Among numerous qualifications, Roetter is a professional investigator hired to dig out the truth in allegations of fraud, product liability, personal injury, legal malpractice and other areas of suspected misconduct. We examined the series of emails he exchanged with central committee sources including Jacobson. Again, we're not going to take sides in this dispute about whether or not any money is even missing, but we feel confident that key questions about the group's funds would have been answered had Jacobson simply opened the books when Roetter requested that information.

Any time a legitimate question is asked of someone responsible for other people's money, it is most unwise to deny such a request. The refusal raises more questions and heightens suspicion, which undermines the faith all of us need to conduct routine business and maintain respectful relationships.

Sunshine is the ultimate solution. Let it in and magically, the dark questions disappear.

So does the need for anonymity.