Governments are always on the lookout for new and nefarious ways to keep the public in the dark about what they're doing.

The latest tactic is one known as "confidentiality agreements," in which parties involved in a settlement with the government agree not to speak to anyone, including the press, about the terms.

The Queensbury Town Board did it last week when such a clause was included as part of a settlement with citizens who'd challenged their property tax assessments. As part of a secret settlement, the property owners agree "not to seek any form of press coverage (newspaper, radio, TV, internet or other) for the settlement and agree not to respond to any press inquiries about the proposed settlement terms."

A similar clause was included in the Cambridge school board's settlement agreement with its outgoing superintendent. When the public demanded to know why the school board paid her $80,000 to suspend her contract, the board was able to hide behind the confidentiality clause in the contract in issuing their "no comments."

And these are just two recent examples. There are many others.

Such confidentiality agreements, or "non-disclosure" agreements, have their place in business to protect proprietary interests and in the judicial system to ensure the fair administration of justice. But when you're dealing with governments and taxpayer money, there is rarely such justification for secrecy. Taxpayers have a right to know the kinds of deals their government officials are making, especially when the deals involve their money or their right to redress their government. In addition, these confidentiality agreements can be used by government as an intimidation tactic. No citizen should be coerced or threatened into giving up their constitutional right to freedom of speech in order to get the relief from the government they deserve.

In the Cambridge case, citizens rightly wanted to know why they were paying $80,000 to end a contract that both the district and the superintendent said was a mutual parting of ways.

And the Queensbury case opens up a whole raft of public access possibilities because it involves both taxpayer money and a grievance procedure.

Councilman John Strough, who voted against the resolution authorizing the settlement, gives a little insight into why the rest of the Town Board doesn't want the settlement made public. By keeping the settlements secret, the town is able to avoid revealing its justification for the agreement.

Assessment challenges are supposed to be an open process predicated on the actual values of comparable neighboring properties and the property values in the community. But Mr. Strough rightly points out that if the public gets wind of the details of the secret settlements, it not only opens the door to more citizens to challenge their assessments, but also exposes the town to charges of awarding unfair settlements and challenges to the validity of the revaluation itself.

Government officials might argue that secrecy during negotiations is vital to protect the interests of both sides. And in fact, attorney Mike Hill, representing the town of Queensbury, said the confidentiality clause was really designed for that purpose in this case. But once the terms of the settlement have been reached and there's no longer a danger of any side learning about the negotiating tactics or positions of the other, then the lock on the door should come off.

Even if, as Mr. Hill says, the Town Board has no intention of enforcing the clause through legal means, it's still in there and it's still intimidating.

One of the best and most efficient ways for the public to get this information is through the media. But because the participants have agreed not to talk to the media under the implied threat that they'll lose their assessment reduction, the public won't get to hear the facts.

The public has every right to know what deals their neighbors are getting in property assessment negotiations and what criteria were used to determine those assessments. And they have a right to know exactly how much this is costing them.

And if that means that every one of Queensbury's property owners reads this and marches down to Town Hall and demands their own deal, then so be it. That's the chance the board takes by offering secret deals to a select group of property owners.

The public has a right to know what their governments are doing, and the citizens have a right to speak.

Responsible public officials should do nothing to interfere with either.

Local editorials represent the opinion of The Post-Star editorial board, which consists of Editor Ken Tingley, Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney and citizen presentative Nancy Fitzpatrick.