A tremendous effort is under way to withhold information about the demise of a juvenile drug court in Kootenai County and a possible office romance between Prosecutor Bill Douglas and the court’s former administrator.

More than 1,000 e-mails between Douglas and Marina Kalani are at the heart of the struggle.

Earlier this week, Kootenai County released 461 of 1,060 e-mails between the two. Many of the messages were heavily redacted, including some that hint at a relationship. Officials withheld the rest, claiming that they “appear not to relate to the conduct or administration of the public’s business.”

County officials, however, have a conflict of interest here. Because this potential scandal could tarnish them, they’re in a poor position to decide what is or isn’t “the public’s business.” By withholding e-mails, the officials have raised suspicion about their content and have shown they’ve forgotten that they ultimately work for Kootenai County taxpayers. Except for privileged information involving, for example, juveniles and their families in the drug court program, the contents in the e-mails should be made public – unredacted. A case can be made that Douglas and Kalani themselves subjected juveniles in the drug court program to possible public exposure from a computer hacker by discussing them in office e-mails.

It’s plausible to conclude that some e-mails have been redacted or withheld simply because the information embarrasses Douglas or Kalani or other court officials. In one instance, the county redacted a very personal March 3 exchange between Douglas and his subordinate, according to a story by Spokesman-Review reporter Erica Curless:

Kalani: “Thank you. You are so good to me. Just wait until I get you alone!”

Douglas responds, “promises, promises.”

This newspaper knows what was blacked out because an unredacted copy was leaked to Curless.

The exchange above, of course, whets prurient appetites and loosens tongues. But that’s not why it’s important. The public has a right to know what’s in the exchanges between Douglas and Kalani because it reflects on the prosecutor’s leadership ability. Did he create a tense work environment by romancing an employee, possibly exposing the county to legal action? Or were the exchanges harmless bantering, as Douglas and Kalani claim?

Also, the e-mails can help explain why the drug court came to an abrupt end Feb. 16 when 1st District Judge Benjamin Simpson quit, saying only that he had “serious concerns about ongoing personnel problems and legal issues.”

More than anyone else, Douglas should know that his office e-mails are subject to county monitoring and that county policy says: “Employees have no right to personal privacy when using the e-mail system(s) provided by the county.”

At best, Douglas and Kalani engaged in silly banter online, which raises questions about the prosecutor’s common sense. At worst, something’s seriously wrong in the prosecutor’s office. Without the e-mails, the public can only guess which is which.