The Star-Advertiser’s June 24 editorial, "Legislative ethics needs tightening," was right on the money, so to speak, on the issue of the proper use of legislative allowances.

It also alluded to a debate among the members of the State Ethics Commission about the appropriateness of issuing guidelines to legislators.

I believe this "debate" needs to be addressed.

As pointed out, the state Legislature certainly needs to tighten up and control the taxpayer-provided $12,000 allowance given to each legislator each year so the allowance is not used as a personal piggy bank, but only for official legislative purposes.

While I believe most legislators use the allowance in accordance with the law, it is evident that much of this taxpayer money has been used solely for personal purposes, especially in light of the lack of meaningful oversight by each chamber of the Legislature.

The commission’s recent issuance of extensive and thorough guidelines on the proper use of the legislative allowance (by a close 3-2 vote), is not only proper, but shows that the commission is being proactive in combating unethical behavior.

What is disturbing, however, is that two of the five commissioners believe that issuing guidelines and guidance to legislators is outside the commission’s proper role. Had one more commissioner been swayed to this erroneous way of thinking, no guidelines would have been issued, and the commission would have made a 180-degree turn from its long-standing and well-established practice of issuing guidelines and guidance, a practice that started in the 1970s with brochures on gifts and campaigning without using state resources.

It is the commission’s legal duty to give advice regarding the application of the State Ethics Code, along with enforcing violations of that code. There is no basis for the notion that the commission should not issue guidance or guidelines.

One of the panel’s main functions is to issue advisory opinions. Thus, a legislator who wants to know if a particular expenditure from his or her legislative allowance is proper can contact the commission for a ruling in the form of an advisory opinion. This has been done in the past.

A redacted version of an issued advisory opinion — redacted only to protect a requester’s identity and thus encourage the seeking of commission advice — is made public solely to provide guidance to others.

When the State Ethics Code was created, a legislative committee report at the time specifically stated that the value of advisory opinions would be that, over time, they would provide interpretations of the law to serve as guidance to legislators, state officials and employees.

Issuing guidelines when needed, based on past commission rulings and the law, is simply in keeping with the commission’s advisory role. And the guidelines are just that; they are not dispositive of any particular case. The Legislature is also free to respond to them.

Based on the commission’s history and the laws creating it, issuing guidelines and guidance are part-and-parcel of the commis- sion’s work. That is even the way the Legislature itself intended things to be.

It seems that the commissioners who were opposed to the issuance of guidelines may need to re-examine the legal bases upon which the panel was created back in 1967.

These two commissioners no doubt acted in good faith and in good conscience, but their views may unwittingly, in the future, lead to undermining the very reason for the existence of the commission.