Supervisors in a county with a recent history of insider dealings and corruption scandals should understand the absolute need for transparency in government decisions. But San Bernardino County supervisors still fail to grasp that point, as a vote on supervisors' benefits last year shows.

The board voted in June to raise supervisors' benefits, but in a manner nearly undetectable by the public. The county hid the lucrative package in a lengthy agenda item that mostly dealt with adjustments to the county's 2007-08 budget. Only the last sentence on the agenda mentioned adopting an ordinance "relating to compensation and benefits of exempt and other unrepresented officers and employees."

That bland description made no mention of the fact that the ordinance increased supervisors' car allowance from $8,999.90 a year to $12,000 annually. Or that the county's contribution to supervisors' retirement accounts jumped from $6,566 annually to $15,499.90 a year. Supervisors also landed a new wireless communication allowance of $2,400 a year.

And the county will now pay 100 percent of the cost of supervisors' medical insurance. So a supervisor with two dependents will no longer be entitled to $3,017.56 annually, but can sign up for a medical plan that could cost taxpayers nearly $25,000 a year.

Anyone watching the board that day, however, would have had little clue how much money the supervisors had riding on that vote. The board handled the issue in a manner calculated to deflect public attention. That strategy is politically convenient, as it dodges troublesome questions about why supervisors need benefits that are mostly more generous than those in neighboring counties.

But that below-the-radar approach only makes county residents skeptical that the public interest comes first in the board's priorities. The supervisors' decision to slip a juicy perk past the public on the sly falls right in line with the county's ugly history of self-interested dealings by government officials.

The board argues it did nothing improper in approving the benefits. But that contention only shows that supervisors miss the distinction between legality and good practice. Making government as transparent as possible is a basic requirement for public credibility.

The sum total of discussion on this item was Supervisor Dennis Hansberger's comment that he had some concerns. Hansberger never offered any specifics, however, nor did the board give any hint that the resulting vote boosted their compensation dramatically.

Hansberger and Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt, both up for election this year, voted against the higher benefits. Readers can deduce Hansberger's level of concern from the fact that he accepted the compensation boost anyway, unlike Mitzelfelt.

County officials said the higher benefits help attract talented leaders. So how much will taxpayers have to shell out to get elected officials who realize that the county cannot build good government on the basis of misdirection?