Of course, Gov. Josh Green should sign into law the latest raft of bills that are being described as “good government” legislation. They may be baby steps toward the ideal of a government apparatus that is more efficient and less vulnerable to corruption. Moving forward, even by inches, is a positive — unless that progress becomes an excuse to turn down the heat on reform.

So the enactment of new laws is less a cause for celebration, and more a reason to keep the pressure on lawmakers for more rigor on the reform path.

This phase of the on-again, off-again ethics journey picked up steam with the prison sentences, over the past two years, for two former lawmakers: one-time Senate majority leader J. Kalani English and former state Rep. Ty Cullen.

But the public has no shortage of reminders of other corruption potential, with charges associated with influential officials such as former police Chief Louis Kealoha; Katherine Kealoha, his former wife and ousted deputy prosecutor; and former city Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro, now undergoing trial. And the public deserves more action.

There could be a boost in accountability from the passage of House Bill 1881. The measure, once signed, would raise fines for violations of state standards of conduct by lawmakers and lobbyists to $5,000; they are now set at $1,000, which certainly doesn’t pack much of a punitive punch.

Among the other nine “good government” bills are a few that aim to improve the openness of various board and agency meetings and their documents. One example: HB 1597 clarifies when and how the public may file suit over a decision made by the Office of Information Practices. All of that is fine, but these yield only the most incremental improvements at the bottom line of public service.

One welcome development is the passage of HB 1879, a requirement that the state Office of Elections produce a “digital voter information guide.” Information about each candidate would be posted on its website (elections.hawaii.gov), along with a printed version to be distributed to public libraries.

Its scope is limited: The candidate submits a 150-word statement, so a voter wishing to know more about the candidate’s alliances — and potential conflicts — will have extra digging to do. But at least the guide should result in a better prepared voter, including clear explanations of constitutional or county charter amendments on the ballot, issues that often are shrugged off.

All that said, the Legislature has stopped well short of making fixes that are long overdue. For instance, lawmakers have not improved on last session’s Act 283 (Senate Bill 555), which barred holding a campaign fundraising event during a regular or special legislative session.

Unless the door is closed to any and all receipt of contributions during session, going beyond scheduled events, the influence of moneyed interests on lawmakers at a consequential time won’t be diminished. And it’s still possible to hold fundraising events right before or right after session as well. The Legislature must do more to turn off the “pay to play” cash pipeline.

Another perplexing carve-out from a general prohibition is in the anti-nepotism law that went into effect last year. That law bans state employees from hiring or supervising relatives, but exempts lawmakers and members of the Judiciary. There is no reason why this law shouldn’t be enforced as standard ethical practice across state government.

The erosion of trust in government has accelerated in recent years, and so much more work remains to reverse the trend. The governor should set pen to paper to this year’s 10 bills, while voters look to favor the candidates in 2024 who resolve to do better in 2025.