As the rail project gets more expensive and complex, when money in pursuit of political influence will be coursing through the veins of this city even more rapidly than usual, Honolulu is devoid of adequate oversight on the ethics of government operations.

The departure of Chuck Totto from his post as executive director of the city Ethics Commission, along with key staffers, leaves a terrible vacuum that must be filled without delay.

The fact that this happens at a time when the state Ethics Commission is also without a chief after turnover only exacerbates the public concern.

Totto has been wearing the label of the “embattled” agency chief for a long time, due to skirmishes with the administration of Mayor Kirk Caldwell.

Some of the fighting has been over budgetary matters. Totto has chafed under the control of his agency’s staffing and spending by administration officials, including former Managing Director Ember Shinn and Corporation Counsel Donna Leong.

For its part, the administration argues that it has not unduly pressured the commission, and has not interfered with the agency.

Jesse Broder Van Dyke, the mayor’s spokesman, dismissed as “completely false” allegations lodged Wednesday by mayoral candidate Charles Djou.

Djou, a former City Council member, praised Totto and said his departure “is the direct result of political pressure from the administration and was only made possible by Caldwell’s appointees.”

Broder Van Dyke said the mayor never spoke with his three appointees to the Ethics Commission and had nothing to do with their decisions.

He noted that the decision to suspend Totto for a month in April was a 7-0 vote, stemming from a complaint about Totto that came from staff.

He offered a quote from commissioner Michael Lilly, appointed by former Mayor Peter Carlisle, in defense of Caldwell’s commission appointees.

The whole conflagration is fueled by politics, of course. In addition to Djou’s entry into the controversy, Carlisle, the attorney representing Totto in this case, is also a mayoral candidate.

Finally, writing a letter to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser as a private citizen Thursday, Shinn also countered by saying the commission’s budget was handled fairly.

One cutback was proposed by the City Council and later restored.

However, setting all the he-said, she-said aside, a real problem remains: The Ethics Commission needs greater insulation than it has received from city officials to do its job properly.

The contentious interplay resurfaced time and again.

The first flash point occurred at the start of the Caldwell administration, when Totto’s office began to probe donations to the mayor’s inaugural celebration, an investigation that ultimately turned up no violations.

Relations deteriorated further from that point on.

About a year ago, Totto offered an interpretation of a commission decision about the validity of the authorizing vote for rail by the Honolulu City Council, given the lobbyists’ gifts accepted by former Councilman Nestor Garcia.

Leong chastised him for speaking to the media.

The commission itself didn’t seem to have Totto’s back.

A year ago the panel adopted a strict media policy that curtailed what the executive director could say to the media without consulting the commission.

The commission later rescinded the policy and replaced it with one providing more leeway.

But by that time, after budgetary critiques and chastisements, the distinct and distasteful impression had been left that the city administration was exerting too much influence on the ethics agency.

The commission appeared to be merely part of the administration, and not independent from it.

Micromanaging techniques that the commission employed, such as forcing Totto and others to track their time every six minutes, were heavy-handed and counterproductive.

What matters is that investigations proceed capably and that decisions are rendered in a timely way.

Fulfilling that mission ought to be the priority of the watchdog commission.

At this stage, with dozens of inquiries left languishing, keeping a watchful eye over the proper conduct of government seems to have fallen to the bottom of the list.