The state Ethics Commission recently issued a clarification on the use of interns at the Capitol. But it still falls short of instilling confidence in the common practice of corporate executives volunteering as "interns" for our state lawmakers.

An intern, ordinarily a college student looking to do some public service, is one thing. But what of a high-paid executive from a company that regularly goes before the Legislature on official business? In that event, wouldn't the company-provided intern be seen as a special favor — a free gift of labor to the state legislator?

These are sticky ethical matters and the reason why state Rep. Bev Harbin, D-28th (Iwilei, Chinatown, Kaka'ako) asked the Ethics Commission for a ruling.

Harbin complained after noticing that an HMSA Foundation executive was an intern this year to state Rep. Bob Herkes, D-5th (Ka'u, S.Kona), the chairman of the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee.

The Ethics Commission's opinion, released by Harbin this week, rightly points out that interns are subject to the State Ethics Codes and cannot act on any matter that directly affects their own company. Nor can an intern disclose or benefit from any confidential information while working in the Legislature.

Herkes said his intern acted within the rules.

But the real problem is in the definition of intern. The Ethics Commission said the Legislature had not clearly defined the term. Thus, the commission felt it could not bar interns who are more advanced in their careers, let alone ban the practice.

Instead, the commission said it would look at complaints on a case-by-case basis.

That's not good enough.

In the spirit of transparency and accountability, an open system must be put in place. A process requiring full disclosure of non-traditional interns, their corporate ties and any company-related matters that go before the Legislature would be a step toward ensuring that public trust is not compromised.