The state Senate will decide soon whether Peter Young, director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, should be reappointed. It's one of the most important agencies of the state, and the fact that some subpoenaed testimony is being delivered in executive session — behind closed doors — is cause for serious concern.

Young is apparently under siege. Let's hope partisan politics is not the motive behind the handling of this hearing.

In an island state whose natural resources are fragile and limited, the job of managing them is akin to standing guard over a warehouse of food in the midst of a hungry horde. There is little that is more contentious than access to land, marine life, historical treasures and the sheer beauty that is Hawai'i's claim to fame. That much has been abundantly clear in the first four years of Young's tenure.

His start was not an auspicious one. Almost immediately, Young, appointed by Gov. Lingle Lingle, was set upon for what was perceived as a plan to diminish the state Water Commission. The issue put him at odds with many environmental and Hawaiian cultural groups, who tend to be resolute as opponents go.

And, yet, he's won them over, demonstrating a willingness to listen and learn on the job. Overwhelmingly, the message from most advocates for the preservation of our land and sea has been in support of his nomination. That is no small matter.

In fact, Young has taken on some immensely difficult issues, working with communities on the state's fisheries and ocean recreation, for example. That exercise has thrust him amidst warring interest groups worried about being cut off from their share.

Young has taken a stand that shows a commitment to good stewardship of our land and natural resources. And that should count for a lot.

Given the lengthy list of supporters who turned out in droves to support him, Young clearly has diplomatic skills that overshadow petty politics. The Senate, too, must exercise diplomatic skills of its own, examining the effectiveness of Young's tenure, as it weighs this crucial decision.

The committee has announced that it acted on the advice of state attorneys, and that the subpoenaed testimony concerns ongoing investigations into "potential criminal matters" and thus needs to be conducted privately.

This is understandable. But ultimately, the committee and the Senate as a whole owe the public a clear explanation of the rationale for their decision, whatever that may be.

The voters will have to live with the impact of the decision and will hold elected officials accountable for it.