Taking office in the aftermath of the Louis and Katherine Kea­loha scandals, Police Chief Susan Ballard promised new transparency on questions of wrongdoing involving the department and its officers. She’s mostly kept the promise, frequently appearing at news conferences to take questions about police-involved shootings and other controversies that have come up.

But there’s been one glaring exception: Ballard’s relative silence about allegations of her own wrongdoing in a whistleblower lawsuit the city recently settled for $550,000.

The City Council approved paying that amount to former Lt. Deeann Koanui, a 32-year police veteran who was charged in the 2009 lawsuit that Ballard — then a major — tampered with test scores of police recruits and ordered incriminating documents destroyed.

Koanui claimed she was subjected to retaliation and harassment after reporting the alleged violations, and her attorney said the settlement “speaks for itself” in terms of validating her.

Ballard offered no comment on the settlement, and we’ve heard little from the Police Commission, which knew of the lawsuit when it appointed Ballard chief.

The department issued a statement saying, “The case has been amicably resolved. The Honolulu Police Department wishes Lt. Koanui well.”

The chief and police commissioners owe far more of an explanation to taxpayers who bear the burden of paying out a $550,000 token of the department’s good wishes for Koanui.

It’s been reported that the department was 18 percent below full force at the time of the alleged violations and had trouble finding qualified recruits, which was certainly reason for creative thinking. But it wouldn’t justify falsifying test scores or destroying records of it, exactly the kind of flouting of the law from which police are sworn to protect us.

Lawsuits are only allegations, but in this case they were allegations that the city chose not to contest in court, which does appear to speak for itself. If there’s a more favorable way of looking at it, we’re all ears; vague statements about “economic reasons” for the settlement shed little light.

Settling lawsuits that the city believes lack merit only encourages more lawsuits. If police really want to regain trust, we’re entitled to more of an explanation from Ballard than that she stands by actions that cost us $550,000.

Police commissioners also owe us answers as to why they disregarded the concerns when they hired the chief only to pay up now. A perfect time to clear the air on what happened is Wednesday’s commission meeting, when Ballard’s first annual performance evaluation will be reviewed. To her credit, the chief has agreed in the name of transparency to waive her privacy rights and allow most details of her evaluation to be made public.

The costly dispute over the testing of recruits under her command is fair game for overdue explanation.

Reach David Shapiro at volcanicash@gmail.com.