The people in the know clearly know the crucial fact about the new medical marijuana dispensary enterprise: It’s going to be big business — very big.

That, as well as the fact that only eight licenses will be awarded, has turned those permits into valuable commodities.

And it’s turned the process of selecting the licensees into a matter of public interest — one that should be done with as much transparency as possible.

Unfortunately, the state Department of Health, which is administering the fledgling program, has decided that the best course to fairness is to sequester the people making the decision: its review panel. In this way, DOH officials have said, the panelists would not be open to influence.

In practice, it seems unlikely that this approach would dispel the appearance of possible corruption or influence. Neither does it fill outsiders to the process with confi-dence: They have no way to know the credentials or the possible conflicts of the people reviewing the applications.

The list of applicants includes some very well-connected people in the islands, and it’s hard to fathom how the identity of at least some of the panelists would remain under wraps until the selections are expected in mid-April.

In the absence of fact, people will speculate that the word will have gotten out, and that the fix was in.

It would be impossible to overcome all suspicion about a contentious decision such as this, but the way to increase public trust is to do as much as possible in public view.

That is the reasoning behind Hawaii’s open records law, and behind a letter sent to the Health Department by attorney Jeffrey Portnoy, on behalf of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

Portnoy wrote in the letter that the decision to hide the names is “in blatant disregard” of that law, the Uniform Information Practices Act. Such government records are deemed public access unless restricted by law, he wrote; the newspaper is seeking either release of the names or relief through the courts.

Portnoy cited an opinion issued by the state Office of Information Practices that the open records law creates a “presumption that those records are public unless a statutory exception to disclosure is applicable.”

“Nowhere does UIPA allow a government agency to keep government employees’ identities secret just because the agency is afraid of some unspecified ‘external influence and disruption,’” Portnoy wrote.

In addition, even if the panel’s key discussions occur in private under legitimate exceptions, it would benefit the public to allow a comment period, as occurs in many government administrative reviews. The public could supply further information about applicants that should be taken under advisement.

The department issued a statement on Wednesday, indicating that it would release the names of the panelists after the licenses are awarded. But that is too late to convey any faith in the process.

State Sen. Josh Green acknowledged the intent of concealing names was to shield panelists from lobbying by interested parties.

“But we all know in certain circles that information will get out and they will get lobbied,” Green said, “so it’s better that it’s totally transparent and everything is done above board.”

That is the only rational way to assess the reality of business and politics in this state, where the powers that be circulate in close proximity. Information has a way of getting around within “certain circles,” information the broader public has a right to know.