Something seems amiss at, of all places, the state agency whose job it is to see that government operates on the up-and-up.

It’s the Ethics Commission, which on Wednesday decided to fire its executive director, Dan Mollway, for reasons that are anything but clear. Now there has been at least one formal request for the minutes of the executive session, a closed-door discussion. The commission chairwoman, Maria Sullivan, who declined comment this week, needs to respond to this request as soon as possible.

Mollway held the job for 24 years, interceding on the public’s behalf on the conduct of lawmakers and other matters. The evidence, which shows he had been in good standing as recently as a year ago, makes all of this doubly mystifying. Susan Ichinose, the attorney Mollway hired when first pressed to step down in January, testified that Mollway’s last performance rating had been graded 4.58 points out of a possible 5.

The upshot of the documents released publicly is that Mollway had a sporadic presence in the office, taking off on vacation and sick-leave days in small increments, so that he did not manage the staff effectively. Average observers can be forgiven for scratching their heads and wondering how someone goes from an exemplary rating to a fireable offense in such short order, especially as commission members described him as "highly regarded" and that the complaint was a matter of "work style" rather than specific misuse of vacation or leave time allowance.

It’s an extremely unusual outcome, given that Mollway serves at the pleasure of the commissioners, who could have dismissed him without cause and with much less fuss.

Instead, according to Ichinose’s testimony, the panel ordered Mollway not to leave without permission of his subordinates, asked him to resign or retire at its January meeting, and then launched its own investigation.

"Before you even undertook the investigation, I advised you that this commission had already made known the result it wanted, and that it therefore should not personally conduct its own workplace investigation to get there," Ichinose said in her prepared testimony. "Workplace investigations have been the subject of considerable litigation over the years, and certain standards have been recognized that this commission could not possibly meet under the circumstances.

"Fair investigations should be conducted by trained and experienced fact-finders who are free of conflicts and bias."

Clearly, the commission does not meet those criteria.

It now appears likely that Mollway, who has retained another attorney, Paul Saito, will challenge his firing in court, and it will be taxpayers who will be stuck with that bill.

But even beyond the expense of litigation, there is the toll taken from the commission’s reputation. Larry Geller, a public-interest blogger and board member of Common Cause Hawaii, is the one who has requested the minutes.

"The commission needs to know that people are concerned, and that this is not the end of it," Geller said.

That message needs to be driven home. The state Office of Information Practices must oversee that the commission meets its legal obligation to comply with information or give a good cause why information can’t be delivered.

Ultimately, much of the back-door details is likely to come up through court, but it would be better if the Ethics Commission explains its action to the public sooner rather than later. The longer this drags on, the more damage is done to the public trust the commission needs to do a credible job.