On Monday, the Legislature’s ethics advisory committee unveiled recommendations to “open” and “clarify” the state’s convoluted procedure for investigating ethical missteps by officials, stemming from last year’s disillusioning misadventure featuring Rep. Tom Saviello, I-Wilton.

Saviello, the environmental manager for the Verso Paper mill in Jay, became engulfed in controversy amid allegations of peculiar horse-trading over environmental violations at the mill with former Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Dawn Gallagher.

For some, it was as clear-cut a case of ethical violations ever seen in Augusta. Saviello pinned the blame on Gallagher, who was discharged from the DEP like mill runoff, and then purged himself from the Legislature’s Natural Resources committee. All this occurred outside the official ethics investigation, which was derided as farcical.

“Being a member of the ethics commission is not an easy job,” wrote Jean Ginn Marvin, then-chairman of the Maine Commission of Governmental Ethics, after closed-door hearings on Saviello’s conduct which led to the lawmaker’s ethical exoneration. “We find ourselves sailing in uncharted waters.”

Not any longer. The advisory committee, after a year’s work, has produced a chart for navigating the swirling currents of ethics.

Most laudable is enabling the public – imagine that – to make complaints about lawmakers to the ethics commission. The commission would then deem whether the complaint has merit and, if so, investigate the complaint through public hearings. How refreshing.

A public process is integral to the integrity of ethics investigations, for lawmakers are ultimately accountable to the public. We suggest a slight revision to the process, though: investigate the complaint first, then decide whether it’s meritorious. The Maine Human Rights Commission operates this way.

An agency investigator looks into a complaint, and issues findings and recommendations to the MHRC, which holds a public hearing and passes judgment. The complaint is private until the investigation is complete. If citizens, nonprofits and businesses are subject to this process, so should lawmakers. Tossing complaints as frivolous, without fully investigating, is also ethically questionable.

Other recommended reforms include broadening the definition of conflict of interest, and the circumstances constituting an “unduly influential” action by a lawmaker. Both are wise, given the inherent troubles presented by Maine’s tradition of citizen representatives.

Conflicts of interest run both ways, as in the Saviello case. His presence on the Natural Resources committee constituted a conflict – not only because he could perpetuate a private agenda – but also because it made him a target for accusations of political influence peddling, which Saviello alleged occurred with Gallagher.

Broader definitions of conflicts, including the standards for members recusing themselves, could prevent lawmakers from being victims or victimizers of their personal interests.

We need strong independent leaders in Augusta, not schoolyard bullies or the easily blackmailed.

The advisory committee has done its job, and presented thoughtful reforms. It behooves lawmakers to adopt them posthaste, so the Legislature can more effectively police itself.