When a bribery scandal ensnaring two legislative veterans came to light in February, their current and former colleagues were quick to vow that reforms would be made, efforts to repair a clear loss of public trust.

There is a chance to make good on that pledge now, by enacting a proposed public “bill of rights” and an official advocate to address any lapses. The aim is to safeguard and widen public access to the lawmaking process, which is too often driven by moneyed interests — and the political actors under their influence.

The triggers for all this were the corruption charges against former state Sen. J. Kalani English and Rep. Ty Cullen, felonies to which both pleaded guilty. They had accepted bribes for their actions on legislation — tawdry backroom arrangements that were made at the behest of a wastewater company executive.

Leadership of the House and Senate pledged very publicly to clean things up, but the product so far has been deeply disappointing. Example: One bland measure that did pass was a curb on political fundraising events during the legislative session. It stopped short of banning solicitation or acceptance of donations during the session, when proposed laws undergo decision-making review.

One gratifying action was the Legislature’s creation of the Commission to Increase Standards of Conduct to develop reform proposals. The reaction to the initial drafts, however, was tepid at best. Now that the commission’s final report is out, it’s time for lawmakers to embrace the ideas, coming as they do from their own designated experts.

In evaluating the Legislature’s commitment to weed out corruption, one thing becomes clear. While lawmakers are willing to take limited steps warding off external corrupting influences such as fundraising events, there has been little interest in putting their own house in order.

To a large extent, it’s the way laws are written and passed, often brokered by high-ranking committee leaders with insufficient transparency to the public, that creates the fertile ground for corruption.

For instance, the state Supreme Court has ruled against a practice known as “gut and replace” that evades full public review of a bill’s language. But lawmakers last session still used it on a Hawaii Tourism Authority funding measure to insert content that had not run through the standard hearings process.

Gov. David Ige vetoed the bill, but lawmakers’ action on that and other measures still serve as stark reminders of how much oversight is needed.

The commission on Dec. 1 issued its report, a mammoth document just shy of 400 pages (808ne.ws/GovernmentStandards). There are 31 legislative proposals attached as the means to put their reforms into effect.

The panel membership was chaired by Daniel Foley, a retired state judge, with the executive director of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, Robert Harris, serving as vice chair, and various veterans of good-government nonprofits and veterans of politics and law.

These are people with experience in where the government process can go awry. So their proposals, including an expanded application of the state’s Sunshine Law to ensure public meetings of legislative bodies, are well grounded. More access and transparency is needed, so this would be a welcome enhancement.

But what could be most groundbreaking is the citizens’ Bill of Rights. There are 13 rights listed, enumerated in the first bill attached in Appendix C in the report, the collection of all the legislation.

The list starts with a Hawaii resident’s right to expect that his or her lawmaker will be treated equitably, “regardless of seniority, faction or party.” This is essential to fairness, given the dominance of the Democratic Party here.

Enforcing the rights would be the public advocate, who would be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.

Core to these rights is public access to the process of lawmaking, including timely availability of bill drafts and other key documents.

Each citizen would have “the right to provide oral testimony at any public hearing.” Written testimony can easily be shelved and forgotten. The face time with lawmakers is foundational. Lobbyists have it, and so must the public.

Another right would be the ability to inspect drafts of bills and know who provided it, if that person is a lobbyist or member of the public. Identifying who is pulling strings behind the curtain is crucial to true transparency.

Further, the public should be able to hear the rationale for a decision on a bill, which too often is treated at the full discretion of a powerful committee member or leader.

There is also the public expectation that members of the House and Senate have time to review bill drafts and amendments before a vote in committee and on the floor.

The proposals in the commission’s final report need to be given hearings and serious consideration. If they do not, it falls to legislative leaders to explain why. Given their own high-flown promises for reform, their silence would be deafening.