Port Royal officials may have reached a commendable consensus on proposed open space for redevelopment of the 40-acre parcel now occupied by the S.C. State Ports Authority, but it got there on the wrong track.

The Redevelopment Commission, members of the Town Council, Ports Authority board members and other town officials met Wednesday night behind closed doors and discussed various issues. The public doesn't know exactly what they discussed because it wasn't privy to the conversations.

As reported in The Gazette on Friday, the group said it was going behind closed doors to discuss the process of development agreements. While it is not the most interesting subject, it is one that may interest many people, but that isn't what the group came out and reported. Following the closed-door meeting, officials announced that they had reached a consensus that 15 acres in the town could be set aside for parks.

The amount of space even exceeded the 13 acres that Gov. Mark Sanford advocated when he met in Port Royal with the Town Council and members of the public for nearly two hours May 12. While the governor advocates a larger chunk of land in one particular area, the idea that representatives of several arms of government could agree in principle to 15 acres for public use is seemingly commendable.

Mayor Sam Murray and Town Manager Van Willis articulated their anger at the tone of a Gazette story in a letter Friday. They said the focus of the story should have been the agreement of three government entities.

The end doesn't justify the means, though. The purpose of the closed-door meeting was wrong. The process shouldn't be discussed in a closed session. That they reached a consensus and agreed to preserve 15 acres of land but supposedly didn't take a vote is bothersome. What is a consensus if not an agreement -- a vote?

Colden Battey, chairman of the Ports Authority board, said Friday that he didn't think the closed-door session was necessary. We agree. But we wish he had told the Redevelopment Commission and the Town Council that on Wednesday evening.

Town officials said they met with a private developer to discuss this process of development agreements. But since the town doesn't own the land -- it is the state's -- why were they meeting with a developer? The Ports Authority hasn't even sent out requests for qualifications, not to mention proposals. Couldn't a closed-door meeting with an undisclosed developer send the wrong message to others who may want to participate in the process?

What was said in the meeting? Sometimes it isn't the end result, it is the alternatives discussed out of the public's earshot that informs whether officials made the best choice. Certainly adding 2 acres more than even the governor seeks is positive, but why was it broken into smaller segments? How does that benefit the public and a developer? What part of the Town Council's plan does that keep intact versus the Ports Authority's vision versus the governor's?

The S.C. Freedom of Information Act says that public officials may go behind closed doors to discuss a lengthy list of subjects, but it doesn't require that they exclude the public. More often than not public officials don't want the public to know, and that is a bothersome thing. It says a lot about the public trust.

The public may eventually enjoy a sizable park, but it shouldn't stand for the patronizing attitude of elected and appointed officials.