Government handles quite a bit of its business out of view of the citizens for whom it’s supposed to be working. Even when there is no legitimate reason for secrecy, so much time passes before the public gets the information requested that it’s effectively shrouded.

Unfortunately, the quest for public records in Hawaii bogs down more than in many other states. This year the state Legislature is moving to unclog the pipeline of information from the state Office of Information Practices (OIP), setting a deadline for fulfilling public complaints.

A version of the measure was introduced in each chamber, but it appears that Senate Bill 3092 will be the vehicle. The basic proposal is reasonable and deserves support. If enacted, the bill would require OIP to resolve all complaints within six months of their receipt, effective July 1. OIP is charged to handle all public complaints of noncompliance with the state’s law governing access to public records.

SB 3092 on Thursday moved out the Senate Committee on Government Operations; it is now bound for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In its preamble, the bill makes the observation that the Legislature had exempted OIP from requirements to offer contested-case hearings as a means to resolve complaints. The reason was to ensure a review that’s “expeditious, informal and at no cost to the public.”

The results have fallen far short of that objective, according to the legislation, which cites examples taking from one to two years or more to resolve. This lags well behind the record in other states with an agency comparable to OIP: “All of those states with an informal dispute resolution process require the complaints to be resolved within six months,” the bill asserts.

Those assertions are backed up in a new study released Monday and conducted by the nonprofit Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest. In it, the center has found no real signs of improvement.

The average number of days from filing of the complaint to decision is 474 days for 2017, up 10 from the previous year. The tally of “major matters resolved” is down to 34 last year, from 70 in 2016, according to the report.

For its part, OIP officials object to the statutory deadline. Director Cheryl Kakazu Park said in testimony before the committee that to comply, the agency would need “long-term, dedicated funding to retain OPI’s existing personnel and to hire, train and equip additional personnel.”

OIP already has set a goal to resolve formal cases within a year of filing, Park said, if they are neither in litigation nor filed by someone who has had two or more cases resolved by OIP in a year.

But its timeline to meet that goal is fiscal year 2022. That is really too long to wait for results that other states have already proven to be achievable.

Park does have a point about the need for staffing, which once stood at 15 positions but has shrunk by half over the years. So lawmakers should attempt to meet OIP halfway, by providing additional positions and setting a more reasonable effective date.

There is no penalty or other means of enforcing the deadline — but missing it could figure into any litigation. So it’s reasonable to give the office funds to rebuild its staff, along with the mandate, and a modest time allowance to improve its performance record.

The office is the most powerful tool the public can use to secure information that should be public, and when that’s not readily delivered, often the opportunity to challenge a government action will have passed. Time is of the essence.

Of course, all government agencies ought to recognize their own duty to be responsive to complainants, who then would not have to call on OIP. That said, the office can offer citizens their best pathway to government records. It clearly needs a nudge to deliver as fast as it should.