The mysterious standoff between Langley’s planning chief and city hall appears to have ended this week though it’s anything but solved — at least for the public. In fact, the mystery seems to have only deepened.

Michael Davolio officially resigned last Wednesday, and city officials are remaining mum about the details, citing concerns about unfairly staining his professional reputation and hindering his ability to secure future employment. Fair enough, not everything needs to be in the newspaper.

The same cannot be said, however, of other details about the matter. Specifically, and far more concerning, is the city’s council’s approval of a severance package following a closed-door secret session that was held under the provision of “potential litigation” during Monday’s council meeting. Linking what is essentially a financial contract with the topic of pending litigation seems like a stretch to us — the discussion probably should have been held in open session, like the decision. Worse still was city hall’s subsequent refusal to immediately release the taxpayer funded agreement for a period of seven days, which experts in state sunshine laws agree is almost certainly illegal — there is no provision under the Open Public Records Act for delay. And finally, worst of all, Mayor Fred McCarthy’s statement that the city could simply and legally delay the release of the document by letting a required five-day maximum response period elapse was as wrong as it was saddening.

While concerns about Davolio’s wellbeing are reasonable, albeit somewhat hollow when most rational people can only conclude that he was forced to resign, transparency laws are exceedingly clear that the disclosure of public records is not up to the discretion of elected officials, no matter what the reason.

RCW 42.56.030, “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.”

The city is acting on the advice of its legal counsel, and have promised to release the severance package in seven days. Also, the city is generally a good example of open government; officials, including McCarthy, respond promptly and records are usually produced swiftly.

But, in this case, the city is wrong.

The severance package is a public document. It was the moment the council approved it. Delaying its release, no matter how well intentioned the reason, sets a dangerous precedent, and admission that the city might purposely attempt to dodge the act’s intent by manipulating its provisions is a violation of everything the open records act stands for.