The state should not knowingly send convicted sex offenders – or other serious criminals – into a person’s home or business.

It does.

Rep. Nancy Smith of Monmouth has introduced legislation that would at least require the state to tell someone that a state worker with a record is on the way.

L.D. 1859, which could come up sometime this month or next, would require the state to determine how many of its employees have been convicted of a serious crime and then calculate how much the public is exposed to them and what level of access they have to confidential information.

The law is overdue.

A dispute last summer within the Maine Revenue Services brought the issue to light. A convicted sex offender transferred into the department as a revenue agent. In that role, the man, Thomas K. Wood, has access to confidential financial information and is dispatched to conduct business audits, which could place him in homes and businesses. His supervisor wrote a memo questioning the state’s policy in placing someone convicted of a sex crime with a girl younger than 14 into such a sensitive job.

The state defended Wood’s employment because if no “nexus can be found between a person’s job duties and the conviction,” the state cannot disqualify the employee from employment.

At the time, the Sun Journal argued that surely such a “nexus” exists. Smith’s legislation would let individuals decide for themselves whether a person with such a conviction should be auditing their business and allow them to request someone else.

Much time, energy and money is spent to inform a community when a sex offender moves into the area. The state forces convicts to register on a Web site that includes information about their crimes as well as information about where they live and work.

On Jan. 24, the state will hold a public meeting on a change in the rules for becoming a registered Maine guide. If enacted, any criminal conviction – regardless of how minor – could disqualify someone from being a guide.

But the state doesn’t hold its own employees to such rigid standards.

People convicted of crimes who have done their time should be able to work, even for the state government. But the nature of their conviction should weigh on the types of jobs they are allowed to fill.

When the Sun Journal reported on the dispute within Maine Revenue Services, the state couldn’t say how many of its employees have a criminal record. The information wasn’t collected and was considered only on a case-by-case basis.

We recognize that few crimes – only the most grievous and terrible – carry a life sentence. But it is a fact that the stigma of a conviction follows a person long after the sentence is served. On the one hand, the state tries to protect its employees from that scrutiny, but on the other it has established and expanded the requirements that keep past convictions in the public eye.

Smith’s bill is reasonable. It does not call for the termination of state workers. Instead, it would require disclosure and accountability.