Here we go again.

The last time we sought a list of finalists for a top public office, we were denied the names of the 14 finalists for the University of Hawaii president's job. Even when the list was narrowed to three names, one dropped out for fear of being identified. Two were named, but one of those bailed, too, leaving us with the one choice the regents selected.

It would have been of great public interest to find out exactly who was on that list of 14 and whether they were, in fact, more qualified than those who made the cut.

Flash forward a few months and we're in the midst of a selection process for the next Honolulu chief of police. Since we have been denied any semblance of a list of the 36 or so candidates who have applied for the job, we have, through our attorney Jeff Portnoy, requested the 10 to 15 names of those expected to remain after passing a written test.

A lawyer for the City and County of Honolulu has informed us that we will get three to five finalists after "this rather large field (of 10 to 15 is) further narrowed through the assessment center process." That consists of a consultant working with a five-person community selection committee to come up with the finalists.

We agree with the city that only two reasons exist to withhold the information: if privacy concerns outweigh the public's right to know and whether releasing the information would constitute "the frustration of a legitimate government function" and hinder government's ability to do its job.

The Office of Information Practices helps make our case for us in its 2003 opinion that public interest trumps privacy concerns involving a list of six nominees to the Hawaii Supreme Court selected by the Judicial Selection Commission and forwarded to Gov. Linda Lingle and the Supreme Court's chief justice. To her credit, Lingle released the names — the first governor to do so — and cited the public's right to know a few days before the OIP released its opinion.

As far as the "government frustration" argument is concerned, however, the same OIP opinion argues that releasing the names of the judicial nominees could subject the process to partisan politics and that "any potential undue influence in or tampering with the selection process must be given considerable weight." It supported withholding the names.

The police commission's attorney, Gordon D. Nelson, seized on this illogical conclusion in determining that should a list of 10 to 15 names be released, people would lobby on behalf of their favorite candidate. My question is: So what? And how does that keep the police commission or the community selection panel from doing its job?

The commission argued further that should the longer list of candidate names be released, it would inhibit qualified applicants from taking part in future selections.

There are few jobs in Hawaii that are of higher citizen interest and deserve more public scrutiny than the city's top law enforcement official in command of more than 2,000 officers.

The more light we can shine on the process, the better.