Allowing tribal governments to pursue an exemption from Maine’s Freedom of Access Act is troubling enough on its own, but its shadow grows given new, serious fraud and corruption charges against tribal leaders.

Last week, two former Passamaquoddy tribal leaders were indicted on charges of misappropriating $1.7 million in federal funds. Tribal employees who learned of the purported misconduct and protested were fired, according to attorneys for the employees.

The indictments against former Indian Township Gov. Robert Newell and finance director James Parisi accuses them of running what one attorney called a “patronage system,” from 2002-2006, according to the Portland Press-Herald. The indictment against the pair details a case of textbook political corruption.

It supports why tribal governments – as all governments operating within the boundaries of the state of Maine – should fall under FOAA, the simplest and sharpest public tool for demanding accountability in government.

The FOAA exemption is part of LD 2221, which contains a host of revisions to Maine’s landmark Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act from 1980, now being reviewed by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. Tribes have called the exemption critical to their status as sovereign, a position with which we strongly disagree.

FOAA is a strange fulcrum on which to balance a sovereignty argument. Being subject to FOAA does not make Maine tribes or tribal government any less sovereign. Rather, it makes all governments accountable and transparent.

Mechanisms such as FOAA ensure these governments, of all sizes and types, are open to scrutiny by the public – regardless of who is asking, or where they’re asking from.

It exists as a tool of the people. All people. Anybody can use FOAA to pry into their – or anybody’s – government within Maine to see what is happening. This crowbar can be used for many reasons; most often, it’s to check to see if government is doing right, because sometimes it is not. And the public has a right to know.

No government is insulated from foible, fumble or scandal; no government operates perfectly, in the public’s interest, every single day. FOAA is there as a check to keep government in balance, and working in the public interest.

The ingredients of the recent indictments – corruption, misuse of public funds and punishment of whistleblowers – is the precise recipe that should create a demand for FOAA oversight.

Exemption from FOAA, we see, is not a sovereignty issue. The tribes can be recognized and respected as independent governments, without cloistering their operations away beyond the scrutiny of anybody except tribal members. Alone, sovereignty is no guarantee of government accountability, or transparency.

With FOAA, government is held accountable and made transparent.