State lawmakers are poised to address a significant lapse in basic government transparency and fairness by acting on House Bill 285, which is the latest version of a move to require public identification of police officers who are suspended or fired for misconduct.

The measure is queued up for consideration by a House-Senate conference committee, which today should ensure that it emerges in time to make final votes next week and becomes law.

Current state law mandates that each of the four county police departments submit an annual report of police misconduct cases to the Legislature. It must summarize the facts of each case and what discipline was given, and note grievances and whether cases were relayed to prosecutors.

What it doesn’t require is that the officers be named — an exception unique to police among state and county employees.

How is that fair, or in the interest of public safety?

If HB 285 is enacted, the names of those officers would have to be included, starting in 2021.

The bill has received broad support from good-government groups such as Common Cause Hawaii and the League of Women Voters, plus numerous other organizations and individuals. The most fervent opposition came from the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO).

The rationale for the exception, the police union has argued, is that police officers handle difficult circumstances and would be at risk if they were identified. Malcolm Lutu, SHOPO president, said in written testimony that “officers can and are suspended for relatively minor offenses such as being late to work, turning in a late report, losing a flashlight or being involved in a minor car accident.”

He also pointed to specific cases when he said officers followed their training in actions deemed later to have been misconduct. One was the case of Sheldon Haleck, who died in a 2015 incident in which officers applied pepper spray and a Taser. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the officers used excessive force.

“What this case illustrates is that while our officers may follow their training and the policies they are required to adhere to, they may later still be adjudged to have engaged in wrongful conduct and be subjected to disciplinary action,” Lutu said.

If officers are indeed suspended for minor infractions, then that is a level of discipline that the police departments can review.

But actions that lead to termination or suspension are generally serious. They must be handled with transparency to maintain the public trust. Police officers do shoulder considerable risk, but being responsible under those conditions comes with the job.

The public can’t be faulted for feeling less inclined to give police anonymity these days. Not only has the ongoing fraud and corruption case involving the former police chief, and entangling other top officers, cast the Honolulu Police Department in a dim light, but specific incidents serve as reminders that accountability has been lax.

On Tuesday, Officer Darren Cachola was arrested for abuse of a household member. He had been fired after a 2014 brawl in a Waipahu restaurant that was captured on surveillance video, but later won his job back. Neither his name nor any other officers’ has been disclosed in annual police misconduct reports.

The hope now is that lawmakers have simply seen enough of this kind of indulgence and can finally end the privacy exception for officers.

“This bill would close the gap between treatment of law enforcement officers’ misconduct information and that of other government employees, and provide a greater level of government accountability,” said Cheryl Kakazu Park, Office of Information Practices director.

Agreed. Public patience is wearing thin, legislators. Pass HB 285.