California is the strictest state in the country in protecting police confidentiality.

What this means is that in the relatively few occasions where law enforcement uses its life-and-death powers inappropriately or illegally, records that document these instances are often hidden from the public.

And this erodes the relationship between police and the people they serve.

Three bills being considered in the state Legislature would bring more transparency and accountability into this relationship.

SB 1421, authored by state Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), would open police personnel records to the public in certain serious cases involving uses of force in which a firearm was discharged and cases where an officer’s use of force resulted in death or serious bodily injury.

SB 1421 would also allow the public access to sustained findings of on-the-job sexual misconduct by a law enforcement official against a member of the public. SB 1421 additionally would grant public access to sustained findings of misconduct such as dishonesty, perjury and falsifying reports.

The bill cleared a key hurdle in the Legislature Thursday — marking the first time in four decades lawmakers could vote to meaningfully increase transparency surrounding police misconduct.

A related bill, AB 748 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, (D-San Francisco), would require the release of video and audio recordings if they depict a critical incident.

Critical incidents are defined by the legislation as those involving “use of force, a violation of law by a peace officer, or a violation of agency policy by a peace officer.”

The bill, backed by the California News Publishers Association, provides a reasonable exception to disclosure requirements if “the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure …

“Regular disclosure of this footage reassures the public that law enforcement is not suppressing facts to support its version of events in critical incidents,” the CNPA argues.

Also being considered is AB 931. This bill failed to pass last year but was brought back after the fatal police shooting of Stephon Clark in Sacramento in March.

As written, AB 931 would require police officers who used deadly force to show it was necessary, and that they had first exhausted all non-lethal alternatives and de-escalation tactics appropriate to the situation. This bill, also strongly opposed by law enforcement groups, is in danger of being abandoned by the state Senate Appropriations Committee, according to the Sacramento Bee.

It’s been a long road toward more transparency. After a 1970s scandal where the Los Angeles Police Department was found to have destroyed thousands of records involving police misconduct, the Legislature responded by passing a law that ensured officer discipline records would be preserved — but then made it nearly impossible for anyone to learn about them, mainly because of opposition by police unions.

And the powerful unions are still fighting for this confidentiality protection.

They complain, for instance, that SB 1421 would increase government costs and prompt a flood of court filings by inmates seeking release once a law enforcement witness’ past dishonesty is revealed. Knowing internal investigations will be disclosed, they say, also could lead some officers to hesitate during violent confrontations, endangering their lives.

But if officers have engaged in misconduct relevant to their work, and this misconduct might be used to challenge a conviction, that still doesn’t diminish the public interest and right to know about the misconduct.

No other state has locked away citizen complaints and internal investigation files like California.

Records of misconduct that result in significant discipline are public in 21 states. Only California, Delaware and New York have specially enshrined confidentiality laws that single out police disciplinary files. California is alone in denying prosecutors direct access to the records.

We understand why law enforcement agencies and unions are resisting greater transparency. But the reforms under consideration in the Legislature aren’t threats to law enforcement, but instead opportunities for police to better serve the public and build trust with the community members they serve.

We urge passage of SB 1421, AB 748 and AB 931.