Whatever transgressions Marion’s mayor may or may not have committed, we fear city officials may have done as much damage in how they have handled the situation.

The public received its first exposure to the latest political intrigue at the conclusion of a questionably called special meeting and closed-door session Friday, when the city attorney announced there would an investigation of the actions of an elected official. The mayor had earlier indicated that she was the subject.

This public disclosure of a secret investigation left residents wondering what she might have done and deprived them of an opportunity to hear from her as a candidate for re-election at a town hall meeting Sunday.

Everyone — even the mayor — remains officially mum.

As best as we can piece things together, rumors circulated last week that a local business was going to file bankruptcy.

After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain financial information from a third party, the mayor sent the city administrator to seek the return of grant money the business had received from the city lest it become tied up in legal action.

The business owners, who insist the bankruptcy rumor is completely unfounded, were stunned by the accusations and wanted to talk to the mayor.

What happened next is unclear. All we know for sure is that the matter went public two days later when a council member, with or without authority to do so, called a special meeting.

After tense exchanges in which, among other things, the city attorney advised the mayor to keep quiet, the council went behind closed doors with the attorney and the administrator for 10 minutes. Afterward, the attorney announced that he would refer the matter to the state attorney general for investigation.

He declined a request from the mayor to read aloud the two-sentence statute that is the focus of the investigation.

At the request of the newspaper, the administrator later revealed it to be K.S.A. 21-4005, which makes it illegal to maliciously and without probable cause circulate, cause to be circulated, or assist in circulating a false rumor with the intent to injure the financial standing or reputation of a business.

According to outside legal experts contacted by the newspaper, this is rarely used and generally an unenforceable law.

The same experts and sources within the attorney general’s office indicated that the office probably would find no reason to proceed or would refer the matter back to local authorities.

The problem is, no public announcement of the end of an investigation is ever made. Even if it were, by the time any such action is taken, voting in the mayoral race between the incumbent and her challenger, a fellow member of the council, will likely have concluded.

We don’t know exactly how the mayor handled the initial situation and whether she could have done better.

We don’t know how the city administrator approached the business owners and whether this might or might not have contributed to the problem.

We don’t know why the city attorney chose to make the existence of the secret investigation public then declined to provide details or answer questions.

We don’t know how matters ever got to the point of requiring a special council meeting, who could have who could or should have called it, or why an outside investigation was warranted in the first place.

All we do know is that the business in question says it is solvent, and people should continue to patronize it as they have in the past.

Otherwise, no one is talking.

We hope and pray this incident was motivated not by political malice but rather by well-meaning though possibly inept behavior by public officials — whether the officials be the mayor, the city attorney, the city administrator or other city council members.

The real losers in all of this are the voters.