As legal advice goes, it doesn't get any clearer than this. Back in March, before the Metro Gang Strike Force's ignominious implosion, an assistant attorney general told the agency's advisory board that it was subject to the state's Open Meeting Law and therefore should avoid e-mails between members "like the plague." The point: Back-and-forth exchanges could be considered a meeting inaccessible to the public.

So what did the Strike Force's hapless leadership do less than a month later? In response to an inquiry from a Star Tribune editorial writer, advisory board members decided via e-mail how to defend a controversial Hawaii training trip. Between 2:50 p.m. and 4:29 p.m. on April 8, seven of 13 advisory board members or their designees sent e-mails supporting a draft statement and its release. At 5 p.m., the advisory board's chair sent out the newly approved statement.

This week, Minnesota's commissioner of administration confirmed that the Strike Force board had indeed held a meeting and violated the state's Open Meeting Law -- a ruling made after a Star Tribune legal challenge. It was a welcome and timely decision, not just for the news media, but for anyone concerned about government transparency and accountability.

The Open Meeting Law and other statutes safeguarding public access to government data and proceedings were put in place long before the Internet. Laws that were crystal clear before electronic communications replaced paper have become increasingly murky. Are text messages, for example, part of the documents bureaucrats must keep? And in this case, did the Strike Force board's flurry of e-mails constitute a virtual meeting?

Commissioner Sheila Reger's decision gives the Open Meeting Law new relevance in this digital age. While an advisory opinion only, the ruling nevertheless provides badly needed guidance on how this aging statute applies to modern communications. It also serves notice to public officials around the state. Round-robin e-mails do not shield decisionmaking from the public scrutiny demanded by the law. "The temptation to use e-mail as a substitute for a decision at a public meeting is so powerful," said longtime media attorney Mark Anfinson.

E-mail's ease of use -- it's much quicker to send a note to several people than meet face-to-face -- is a driving factor in that, perhaps even more so than a desire for secrecy. But efficiency is not an excuse for making decisions out of the public's view, and never should be. Reger's decision helps ensure that convenience does not enable an end run around government accountability.

But much more work is needed. Minnesota is just one of many states needing to update so-called "sunshine laws" ensuring access to government data. The state's records retention laws need to reflect new communications, such as e-mail and text messaging. The Open Meeting Law also needs improvement. Reger's decision, while influential, doesn't have the clout of a new or updated law. The Strike Force also does not face a penalty. "We have to do something about how we enforce these laws," said Don Gemberling, the respected retired director of information for the state Department of Administration.

The rancor over health care reform reinforces the need to tackle this soon. At the heart of town hall anger was a distrust of government. Strengthening the laws that play such a critical role in government transparency and accountability will go a long way toward rebuilding public confidence.