The Maine Senate has endorsed one version of House Speaker Glenn Cummings’ bill to reform ethics laws.

Senators are uncomfortable with changing the definitions of “undue influence” and “conflict of interest.” The Maine House has endorsed another version, in which undue influence and conflict of interest are sharpened.

In legislative parlance, this is called non-concurrence, which is the boatman for the trip across the Stygian river that inevitably awaits such bills. And after talking this issue through two Legislatures, lawmakers still can’t agree.

With ethics, legislators have been asked to draft tough, conceptual laws for an unapparent problem. It’s little wonder this is troublesome. But this doesn’t mean they are incapable of doing so, or should throw up their hands in nonconcurrence. Before they do, we ask them to consider the basics.

Debate on ethics started because of concerns about conflicts and influence regarding Rep. Tom Saviello of Wilton. He was cleared, but the standards for conflicts and influence were recommended to be changed.

Reviewing and tightening these definitions were top priority. Stripping the thoughtful alterations to these concepts drives a stake into the purposeful heart of the bill. The House has it right.

It is impossible to think one bill is the end of ethics reform. As new situations arise, we’ll be talking about ethics policies for years to come. But at this interminable rate, this futuristic discussion might still be about the Speaker’s bill.

Enough is enough. Ethics laws are hard to shape, we know.

This is no excuse for sentencing this bill to death.