Police officers accused of misconduct have for far too long hidden behind legal protections of personnel files and privacy arguments that prevent the public from taking a hard look at their actions.

The General Assembly has a chance to change this and beef up transparency into police records, but instead they appear prepared to adopt a weak law that doesn’t go far enough in making sure people get due process when their family members are assaulted by or die at the hands of police.

Under legislation recently passed by the House of Delegates, police trial boards would be required to comply with the Open Meetings Act and release audio of such hearings. (Hearings are now open to the public, but people complained the doors might be locked if you were few minutes late and there was no access to the meeting if you missed it.) The bill, sponsored by Baltimore Democrat and House Judiciary Committee Chair Del. Luke Clippinger, adopts a few parts of a much stronger proposal dubbed “Anton’s Law” after a young man who died while being detained by police last year on the Eastern Shore, including making public past complaints against officers involved in the death of someone while in custody.

But that is not enough and only touches the surface of what families should be entitled to when an officer is accused of misconduct.

Few cases even make it to the trial boards anyway; officers can choose to accept discipline without any of the evidence made public and no chance for outsiders to judge whether the police department’s resolution of the accusations is just. The power is still in the hands of the officer.

The ACLU of Maryland, Common Cause, League of Women Voters and other groups had encouraged Mr. Clippinger to allow for transparency in all investigations and not just those that go before a hearing. Sadly, that amendment was not adopted.

Perhaps what is most notable about the bill crafted by Mr. Clippinger is what his legislation does not do.

It doesn’t give families access to body camera footage, autopsy reports, investigation files and complaints against an officer that don’t result in death.

There are other bills with more teeth that would have addressed these issues. We are not sure why the much weaker version is the one that gained traction in the General Assembly this year. We hope lawmakers were not swayed by a strong police lobby, but we can’t help but wonder since police unions have testified against tougher transparency standards.

An aide for Mr. Clippinger said his legislation was meant to specifically address trial boards and that the bill was a first step. He plans to build on the issue in future sessions.

We wish he would do more now. There is still time for legislators to support something stronger. The family of Anton Black, who died in police custody in Greensboro in September, held a press conference this week asking lawmakers to vote on the bill sponsored by Del. Gabriel Acevero, a Montgomery County Democrat, in the teen’s memory. We support them on that.

Mr. Black’s family got the autopsy report and other files regarding his death only after Gov. Larry Hogan pushed for more information. It’s wonderful that the governor intervened, but what about all the cases in which he doesn’t? After all, he may well not have heard about it at all if not for extensive media coverage (and the fact that the family was represented by attorney Timothy Maloney, a former state delegate and a longtime friend of the governor.)

Mr. Acevero has pointed out that the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission, which investigates serious officer–involved incidents, is required to share the results of investigations, but no documents related to the investigation.

Another bill sponsored by Del. Erek Barron, a Prince George’s Democrat, would have changed the definition of what constitutes a personnel record, opening up more documents to the public realm.

There are few reasons we can see why families can’t have access to files related to a case after an investigation is completed, unless police are trying to hide something. And the rise in video camera evidence of police brutality incidents gives us plenty of reason to believe some officers do engage in cover-ups. The U.S. Justice Department investigation into Baltimore police practices also proved that.

Police like to turn to the arguments that releasing too much information is a safety and privacy issue, or that people will judge an officer’s actions unfairly. But certain information could be redacted, and the ACLU and other groups say they would support curbs on transparency in cases which making records public would interfere in an investigation, invade someone’s privacy or put someone in danger.

Mr. Clippinger’s bill does move the needle a tiny bit forward. That is why the ACLU is neutral on the bill, rather than totally against it. Families are so desperate for what information they can get that the group doesn’t want to close the door on even the smallest bit of progress. We understand that sentiment.

But at the end of the day, Maryland has some of the most restrictive transparency laws in the nation, and lawmakers can do better.