The state of South Dakota generally ranks low in open government issues. That's a ranking we should be embarrassed by, right along with all the other dubious "last in the nation" rankings the state has earned.

But there is hope on the horizon for more openness in South Dakota.

Recently, the sate launched a new Web site, www.open.sd.gov. The site gives visitors a chance to peruse state budget information, vendor and contractor information and state payroll information.

Even without a keen interest in state politics, it's worth the time to browse the site. It's important to know what state information is available online and how to access it.

Even though it is well intended and well received, it isn't to the point we would like to see it. The site provides a good amount of information but not detail. For instance, a general search of vendor payments for vendors beginning with the letter "d" brings up a long list of vendors, their locations and the total amount paid for the selected year. What isn't found, however, is a detailed description of the services rendered or supplies purchased.

That's a shortcoming in the system and it deprives the viewer of detailed information about how the state's tax revenue is being spent.

The site has other shortcomings: The name search is awkward and cumbersome. You'll have a hard time finding a name if you don't spell it correctly or with the proper first and last name combination; and, city and county links simply direct the user to the websites for those entities, nothing else.

Still, the launching of the website indicates a movement towards transparency, an important step for a governor, and a state, not known for placing openness high on the agenda.

There have been other moves in South Dakota in the past few years that are encouraging.

There's also an Open Meeting Commission operating in South Dakota. That commission was promised by, and delivered by, Attorney General Larry Long.

Members of the commission hear open meeting complaints and rule to their validity. The punishment for a violation is a public reprimand, not fines or jail, but the intent of the commission is clearly for open government.

South Dakota isn't known for the openness of its state government. While we are moving in the right direction, we're moving there slowly and not without some opposition.

Why shouldn't the taxpayer-funded government be wide open to inspection? It should. And like we said, we're on the way.