The state Ethics Commission has issued some advice to state Rep. Jerry Chang — and, in fact, to the whole House: You shouldn't represent your own company in a deal while you're supposed to be representing the voters who elected you.

The informal advisory opinion said that Chang skirted the state's ethics code with his support of a motorsports complex in 2006 and a land swap that could have benefited a company he partially owns.

The commission declined to take stronger action, deciding not to pursue a contested-case hearing that could have levied penalties against Chang. Because the proposal was withdrawn, the cost of conducting a full hearing into what was an aborted deal outweighed the benefit, the commissioners concluded.

But that doesn't mean the matter should be dropped like a hot potato, especially not in a year when the House has vowed to improve how it polices the ethics of its own membership.

Considering the House leadership's initial dismissals of the controversy, the House now has a duty to respond to it more forcefully.

It could be a matter for the new bipartisan ethics panel the Democratic leadership has created this session. Six members have been appointed: Democrat Reps. Kirk Caldwell, Blake Oshiro and Pono Chong and Republican Reps. Lynn Finnegan, Colleen Meyer and Barbara Marumoto.

The fledgling panel has not yet set the general parameters for its work or decided, in particular, whether the Chang matter could be revisited.

Even if it decides against a formal review, House Speaker Calvin Say should reconsider his own past opinion and issue some kind of reprimand or warning to Chang. If ethics is supposed to mean something to this Legislature, there needs to be some evidence of that concern, and soon.

When this controversy first blew up, Say had decided that Chang had "at most, a potential and not an actual conflict of interest." Finnegan had demanded an investigation, but the speaker decided it did not merit one. The Ethics Commission thought otherwise.

If nothing else, the commission's finding illuminates the weakness of a system in which lawmakers are left, to a great degree, to police themselves.