For the moment at least, the attorney general rightly has determined that meetings of the Republican Caucus of the House of Representatives are subject to the state's Freedom of Information Act and thus open to the public. Unfortunately, it appears the opinion won't settle the matter.

The caucus leader, Charleston-Berkeley Rep. Jim Merrill, says he's ready to resolve the open meetings questions raised by the media last year by paying rent on the caucus offices that are located in a state-owned legislative office building. But while the use of those public facilities by the caucus was the focus of the opinion, it was by no means the only criteria cited for the conclusion that the caucus meeting doors must be open.

The opinion says in no uncertain terms that any agency that is funded in whole or in part by public funds should expect to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. It also emphasizes that rule applies no matter how small or indirect the funding might be.

Specifically, in the case of the House Republican caucus, whose members comprise the majority of that body, the opinion notes that the employees of the caucus "are using office space rent free. Moreover, the caucus is supported by publicly funded equipment and space," which the opinion concluded "triggers the applicability" of the FOIA. A statement by Rep. Merrill makes it clear he doesn't agree but is ready to pay the rent, which he says would be determined by House Speaker Bobby Harrell. It will be interesting to see just how the rent for a body that wants to maintain a private status in a public facility is determined.

Further, the opinion also notes that state law that sets the rules on lobbying also defines the various caucuses as committees, which are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The opinion only addresses the Republican Caucus because that was the question asked the attorney general. But we believe that since caucuses have been defined by the legislators themselves as legislative committees, they all are subject to the open meetings provisions.

The attorney general's opinion does give the lawmakers an out. They can, the opinion states, specifically exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act. But we'd like to think that most lawmakers recognize an exemption wouldn't sit well with the public, which rightly expects those who make the laws to be models of compliance.

The House Republican Caucus has complied with the FOI since questions were raised last year. It should maintain that policy. Closing the doors is a losing tactic, at least in the court of public opinion.