This editorial appears in the Aug. 20, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

Keeping the process as open and transparent as possible must be the ultimate goal for the Yakima City Council in its pursuit of a workable code of ethics. Anything short of that would surely not sit well with the public.

However, a subcommittee of council members has recently discovered reaching that goal may be harder than first anticipated.

Cities in this state that have developed codes of ethics provide a wide range of approaches to such thorny issues as how to handle frivolous complaints and what to do when council members violate the code. Despite these varied approaches, the public remains an integral part of the process, having access to hearings and written documents.

Typically a city council will appoint an ethics board, either made up of council members or of residents, that will determine the validity of written accusations brought against a council member. We prefer a committee composed of residents appointed by the council. A three-member board with an alternate seems sensible.

Some cities have developed a very sophisticated series of steps in order to preserve a council member's reputation from unfounded accusations. That's certainly understandable. As the adage goes, it's difficult to unring the bell.

Accusations are taken seriously, but so should the requirements for the accuser. That's why some cities require written and signed accusations with supporting evidence. These accusations also must focus on a specific violation and will often deal with conflicts of interest -- ranging from a council member using his or her office for personal gain to family members receiving financial benefits from a council member's action.

The ethics board will then study the accusation and determine whether it has merit.

A deadline is often spelled out for the ethics board to act. The ethics board then can decide the accusation is baseless, filing a written report and informing both the accused and the accuser of its decision.

Or the board can conclude the charges have merit and recommend the council proceed with a public hearing.

In some cities, further investigations can become very complicated and time-consuming, involving even a request for subpoena powers.

Council members who are eventually proven to have violated the code of ethics may face a range of consequences, from a nonpublic rebuke to formal censure by the council and even criminal action through the courts.

Yes, these are complicated matters.

One of the issues worrying the council's subcommittee has been the question of frivolous complaints and how to protect a council member's reputation from false and scurrilous accusations.

We believe this can be handled properly, preserving the anonymity of the accuser and the reputation of a council member while at the same time maintaining public access.

This initial stage when accusations are brought forward, as noted in the state's open meetings act, does allow for limited closed-door sessions whenever complaints are being raised. However, final action still must be conducted in public.

If the ethics board believes there is merit to the allegations, the issue of access becomes moot since all proceedings and documents will then become open to the public.

Even in the case of an allegation that is found baseless, the board still needs to produce a public finding and must meet in an open session to vote on its decision.

It would also be wise for the Yakima City Council to make the ethics board's decisions final and not subject to appeal. This would further remove the City Council from tinkering with a system that should ultimately bring a higher measure of transparency to city government.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.