In law enforcement, the blue code is an unwritten rule that exists among police officers — to remain silent about a colleague’s errors, misconduct or crime. That kind of secrecy is woven into Hawaii state law to protect the names of officers who are suspended or even terminated — and this erodes public trust.

But several bills making their way through the state Legislature attempt to break that silence and would force police departments to divulge names of disciplined officers and provide more details about their cases.

SHOPO has consistently opposed such disclosure, but the police union must be pressed to rethink its position, given the changing law enforcement landscape and increased public scrutiny.

In written testimony against a bill that seeks to remove law enforcement officers’ confidentiality exemptions, SHOPO provided a hollow argument that the “release of officers’ names that have been suspended may have a chilling effect on the extent of action taken by officers who have to make split second decisions.”

However, police are trained to react in difficult situations, and to imply that an officer might not use force or put himself in harm’s way for fear of being disciplined — and named — is a weak defense.

Another positive bill calls for the creation of a Law Enforcement Officer Independent Review Board to assess cases in which someone is killed by a police officer, dies in custody or suffers serious bodily harm at the hands of police.

Senate Bill 2196 would promote more transparency and public accountability, and deserves lawmakers’ support.

Creation of the seven-member board would provide another, crucial set of eyes in high-profile cases that demand careful vetting — moving a step beyond police investigating their own.

It’s a concept that has proven successful in other jurisdictions in addressing the loss of public confidence in law enforcement.

Wisconsin in 2014 was the first state to pass a law that requires an outside investigation into cases in which a person dies in custody or is killed by police.

Hawaii’s proposal would allow for an independent review following a police agency’s investigation.

The new board would take the agency’s findings, evaluate the fairness of its probe and determine whether criminal prosecution or further investigation is warranted.

The bill calls for the review board to include former prosecutors, a deputy attorney general, a retired judge and a former chief law enforcement officer. But striking the right balance is key and the public might be better served with a more diverse makeup — perhaps the addition of a criminal defense attorney and/or public defender.

Currently, there are entities such as the Honolulu Police Commission, which receives, considers and investigates conduct charges brought by members of the public against the Honolulu Police Department and its members.

But the commission’s role does not include initiating its own investi-gations into high-profile incidents involving officers.

Further, Honolulu’s commission has not instilled confidence with its lackluster handling of serious public trust issues involving the police chief.

The Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, in written testimony, said it strongly opposed SB 2196, noting prosecutor’s offices conduct independent investigations to determine whether charges should be filed against an officer. But charges are rarely filed in such cases, and having the review board make its recommendation to the county prosecuting attorney would eliminate the appearance of collusion between police and prosecutors.

Across the nation, scrutiny of police conduct has intensified, and Hawaii must provide a framework that does not allow disciplined officers to hide behind their badges.

The proposals being considered by lawmakers are a critical step toward greater transparency, which is desperately needed among local law enforcement agencies.