In the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, one of the few reforms that was brought in on the watch of Secretary-General Annan at the United Nations required officials of the world body to fill out a financial disclosure form. Mr. Annan’s undersecretary-general for management, Christopher B. Burham, explained the need for the form in a December op-ed in the Wall Street Journal: “No organization can exist unless firmly established on a foundation of ethical standards and conduct.”

No doubt. And when asked in February whether Mr. Annan himself would fill out the form — conveniently the reforms Mr. Annan introduced obligated almost all U.N. employees, just not himself, to sign the form — the hapless Mr. Burnham said that Mr. Annan would “not only fill one out but would probably be the first to do so.” Then months passed, and no form came from Kofi. Three months later, in May, Mr. Annan’s spokesman promised that Mr. Annan would submit a financial disclosure form “to show an example, to be an example to the rest of the staff who need to fill it out.”

Additional months passed during which no form came from Mr. Annan. Seven months later, in September, when asked about the form, Mr. Annan (with trademark clarity and openness) said, “I honor all my obligations to the U.N., and I think that is as I have always done.” Now, finally, eight months later, his spokesman announced Tuesday that Mr. Annan has filled out the form and handed it in on September 22. But — wait for it — the man at the heart of the United Nations won’t be making his form public.

The Washington Times issued an excellent editorial on the point yesterday, accusing Mr. Annan of “stonewalling.” The excuses from Turtle Bay are that there is no requirement for the forms to be made public, and, the Washington Times reports, the chief United Nations legal counsel, Nicolas Michel, told Mr. Annan not to make the form public as it would obligate future secretary-generals to do the same. What a convenient line of balderdash. It was Mr. Annan who wrote the rules.

As for obligating future secretary-generals — quite a revolutionary thought. Only at Turtle Bay would setting an example of a standard of ethics for future secretary-generals to follow be seen as a problem. Instead, the example Mr. Annan has set, to the entire United Nations staff, present and future, is that the openness he promised is really just cheap talk and really means nothing whatsoever in terms of the kind of transparency that is needed to end the scandals at the world body.

It’s entirely possible that Mr. Annan has nothing to hide. We’re not making accusations. But if one has nothing to hide, why the secrecy? This is all the more the sad truth given that Mr. Annan’s personal tenure has been scarred not only by oil-for-food but by questions about his own financial integrity. His son, Kojo, was on the payroll of a company that profited from the oil-for-food scandal. There’s also the matter of the missing Mercedes that Annan junior procured after falsely using his father’s name. Mr. Annan denied knowledge of the car, despite wiring $15,000 to his son to help pay for the vehicle.

In March Mr. Annan appointed a German, Achim Steiner, to head a United Nations environmental program. Mr. Steiner was one of the judges on a panel that awarded Mr. Annan $500,000 in December for his environmental “work.” Also on the prize-awarding panel were two other high-ranking United Nations officials who owed their jobs to Mr. Annan.

Last month Mr. Annan’s office praised the actions of George Soros and his Open Society Institute, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, for projects they’ve undertaken to fight poverty, disease, and hunger in Africa. By not disclosing his forms the public is unable to tell whether this praise followed a gift to Mr. Annan. We are not suggesting there were gifts. But the public will want to know.

The fact is that if Mr. Annan departs Turtle Bay without having made his financial disclosure form public, the public will have reason to wonder. His term at the United Nations will be remembered only for the oil-for-food scandal, the sex-for-food scandal in the Congo, the massacres at Rwanda, Cambodia, and Srebrenica, and inaction in the face of the genocide in Darfur — and establishing that deception, secrecy, and patronage cannot be pierced by the reforms by which he sought to rescue his reputation.