The free flow of information is essential to the health of representative government, so it’s distressing to see the impediments stoppering that flow.

One of these barriers was erected with legal language exempting state lawmakers from the conflict-of-interest provision of the State Ethics Code.

The rationale is that legislators are part-time employees of the state and have other associations throughout the year. And that could complicate law-making duties if they had to extract themselves from decisions that touch on their business associations.

The problem is: It’s too easy for things to fly under the radar for these part-time but powerful lawmakers. The links between Senate President Ron Kouchi and owners of land the state now proposes to acquire for preservation exemplify why change is needed.

Honolulu Star-Advertiser writer Kevin Dayton traced these links in a Sunday story, concerning Senate Bill 3071. That measure, now in conference committee, would authorize the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to negotiate to purchase 4,233 acres in South Kona for preservation.

Isle developers Kevin M. Showe and Jeffrey R. Stone each have an ownership interest in the area, known as Kapua. Kouchi has invested with Showe and worked for one of his companies as a community relations representative.

The late Hawaii island state Sen. Gil Kahele had advocated for the preservation of the land since 2003. Kouchi acknowledged that he both worked for Showe and served as a senator when, five years, ago he arranged the initial meeting between Showe and Kahele.

The Senate president also said, however, that he has already cashed out an investment he had in one of Showe’s companies that garnered more than $100,000. The community relations job was listed in his state and county employment records for at least seven years, but Kouchi asserted that he ended that work in 2014.

Regardless of the timeline, Kouchi would not be in trouble for this activity. The ethics code instructs any state employee to “disqualify yourself from taking any official action directly affecting a business or undertaking in which you have a substantial financial interest.” However, the statute’s definition of “employee” excludes legislators.

This seems excessively lax. There is an exemption for state department heads from conflict-of-interest provisions if they are unable to disqualify themselves, but that’s on the condition that they have filed required disclosures.

At a minimum, legislators should be required to do the same. They may argue that even voting on an issue amounts to taking official action, but they should at least make a public statement about a possible conflict.

In addition, the “fair treatment” section of the code bars the use of position to grant unwarranted advantages for themselves or others. However, for legislators, introducing bills or resolutions is seen as an exempt activity in this regard. But if legislation grants special advantages, a blanket exemption is hard to justify.

The purchase of the Kapua lands — appraised in 2007 at $13.9 million — should be evaluated on its own merits, and there may be sufficient basis for approving it. DLNR officials, among others, support the measure.

But when the taxpayer is asked to underwrite a major purchase of this sort, all the cards should be on the table — including those held by the people crafting the laws to make it happen.