The town of Montezuma gave open government a punch in the gut earlier this month when its town board voted to cease audio recording its meetings.

The decision came on the advice of town attorney Norm Chirco, who said taping can create problems. The biggest problem, it seemed, was the chance that the tape and the official meeting minutes might not jive.

“There could be some confusion down the line,” Chirco later explained.

While we understand an attorney's desire to steer clients away from any potential legal problems, this particular logic seems flawed. Tapes are a tool that should help ensure accurate minutes. When boards meet, they often start by reviewing previous meeting minutes. If a town board member thinks something might not be accurate, wouldn't it be nice to have a recording to check?

And tapes are also a tool that can bring more sunshine to the government process.

Minutes are not verbatim accounts of what takes place in a meeting. Depending on the board, minutes can vary widely in terms of their detail.

Having a tape recording available as part of the town's records is an ideal resident service.

The real problem with tapes for some boards, we suspect, is that they capture everything government officials say, even things they later regret. It's no secret that Montezuma's board has had some tense meetings in recent months. And all of those arguments and heat-of-the-moment comments were caught on tape.

But fear of controversy is a poor excuse for shutting off the recorder. The better option is to conduct civil meetings with legitimate discussion and debate.