There’s not much we and James Moore, the former federal agent turned ringmaster of the “Free Dennis Dechaine” movement, agree upon. Dechaine, as if anyone is allowed to forget, is the Bowdoinham farmer convicted in 1989 of the heinous murder of 13-year-old Sarah Cherry.

Dechaine maintains his innocence. Many murderers do. Unlike other killers, however, Dechaine has an energetic coalition ceaselessly lobbying for his release, one so far unperturbed by its failure to overturn his conviction.

The latest salvo stems from Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe’s three-person panel, who reviewed the Dechaine investigation and prosecution in 2004. They were tasked with vetting allegations of misconduct, pushed by Moore and others from the pro-Dechaine group, “Trial and Error.”

The panel issued a four-page report in 2006, rejecting the claims of misconduct. No other accompanying materials or supporting documents were released.

Moore then asked for the panel’s records under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act. Except a judge has ruled the panel isn’t a government agency and is exempt from compliance with FOAA laws.

Moore’s request was denied. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is now reviewing the case. It was needless to take it this far; Rowe’s three-person panel is as plainly a government function as Dechaine is a convicted killer.

The law court should compel its records to be released.

When a top government official (the attorney general) assembles an outside group to review an official government action (the prosecution of a murderer) which could have resulted in action by an official government agency (the court system) little divorces it from being a government function.

Technical arguments for exemption, like the panel’s lack of government funding or day-to-day supervision by an agency, are weak; by reviewing the very public Dechaine case, this panel was doing the public’s business.

Legal comparisons describing the panel as a sort of “public interest” group are also farcical. This panel, a former judge and two respected lawyers, wasn’t a kind of think tank, which mulled over the Dechaine details of its own accord, for its own academic interests. The government asked them to do this job.

So, as goverment functionaries, the record of their deliberations should be public.

Supporters of Moore, like the Maine Civil Liberties Union, say this decision could set precedent for circumventing FOAA, through other outside groups performing obvious government functions outside of the wary eye of the public.

It’s a valid point. Government makes committees in widget-like numbers. They should be all subject to FOA laws, to ensure those entrusted with working for the public are accountable to those they are serving.

What makes this one any different? Nothing in our mind.

We don’t agree with Moore or Trial and Error on much. But we do on this.