MOST SOUTH Carolinians have never heard of Alicia Clawson, but the former executive director of the state Workers’ Compensation Commission offers a stark reminder of the secretive, and perhaps even self-serving, way much of state government operates.

According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Ms. Clawson “abruptly resigned” from her job last month. She told the newspaper that it “wasn’t my decision” and speculated that she might have gotten into hot water when she said she was open to the proposal floating around the General Assembly to fold her embattled agency into the state Insurance Department.

If that’s the reason for her forced departure, it means the state employees who control the agency are more concerned about their own comfort than the good of the state. And it means they are nosing in on what should be purely a legislative decision. Both situations occur far too often in a state government that operates more as a series of individual political fiefdoms than as a coherent whole whose goal is to best serve the public.

We can’t know for sure that Ms. Clawson was forced out over this. One former Workers Compensation commissioner hinted at “interpersonal” problems.

The seven current Workers Compensation commissioners, for whom Ms. Clawson worked, have refused to explain themselves. Chairman Alan Bass wished Ms. Clawson well and said he couldn’t comment further.

That’s not true. And, like the tendency to look out for the agency rather than the state, this is typical of government in South Carolina.

In nearly all cases, state law merely allows governing boards to fire employees in private and refuse to discuss it. Except for extremely limited circumstances, it does not require this. But officials routinely act as though they must act in secret and are barred by law from explaining to the public why they took actions involving public money and public business.

It would be nice to think that supervisory officials, from Workers’ Compensation commissioners and agency board members to local governing councils, would understand that they owe the public an explanation when they fire high-level employees. Since they so clearly don’t, perhaps it’s time to require an explanation when agency directors, and perhaps some lesser officials, are forced out.

Of course, we might not have as great a need for such a requirement, at least at the state level, if the public could hold the decision-makers accountable. But in too many cases, that’s simply not possible. There’s no one even in a position to credibly suggest that Workers’ Compensation commissioners answer for their actions; although they are appointed by the governor, they serve for fixed terms and cannot be fired except under extraordinary circumstances.

Some measure of autonomy is warranted for those who serve in quasi-judicial roles, as these commissioners do; but that shouldn’t shield them when they make irresponsible decisions about the management of state resources. And there’s no reason for any such degree of independence in most of the part-time boards that run too many state agencies. The main thing such autonomy serves to do is protect state agencies when they serve their own interests first and foremost.