House Majority Caucus Leader Jim Merrill has asked the attorney general for an advisory opinion on whether his group is covered by the state's Freedom of Information Act. That request is accompanied by a four-page letter that attempts to make the case that the FOIA doesn't apply. We'd like to think the attorney general will disagree. If he does, surely the majority and all other legislative caucuses will abide by that decision rather than trying to remove themselves from the law.

The dispute began late in the previous session when the Republican caucus, which includes 74 of the 124 House members, was debating who would be the next speaker of the House. The normally open door was closed, the media protested and the issue has since been the subject of debate. There has been talk about passing legislation to ensure that members will be allowed to plot strategy behind closed doors.

But such a move would put the lawmakers in the unseemly position of telling all those other elected officials across the state to do as they say and not as they do. Clearly, Rep. Merrill's decision to ask the attorney general to weigh in was the right step.

Of course, it also should be noted that in addition to asking the questions, the Merrill request tries to provide the answers. But the attorney general's office is used to that. The office has a good track record of looking at the facts and the law, without regard to how those making the request would like the opinion to turn out. Just like some of the lawmakers, there is no question how some of the media would like it to turn out.

While the Merrill letter notes that the law doesn't specifically cover legislative caucuses, we can't help but note that when the law was drafted, the kind of formal caucuses that now exist, complete with staff, weren't around. The FOIA law does cover legislative committee meetings and, under state law, caucuses are legislative committees.

Currently, the staffs of the House's majority and minority caucuses, along with the black caucus, occupy space in state office buildings. While the Senate caucuses meet elsewhere, they use state-paid research staff. The Merrill letter contends that the vast majority of the House Majority Caucus cost is covered by the members. It argues that the joint use of office space by the caucus is too minimal to be considered public funding and thus trigger FOIA provisions. We argue that the caucuses' established use of public office space does constitute a public subsidy and subjects its meetings to public scrutiny.

We've said before, there's a simple answer to this issue. It doesn't even require an attorney general's opinion. If Republicans and Democrats want to talk party politics, they should go to party headquarters and use party staff.