When Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) introduced his ethics measure in December after months of delay, members didn’t rush to support it. More than two months later, it still has no formal co-sponsors.

The resolution is considered a companion piece to the ethics/lobbying bill Democrats passed last year. It is considered a key enforcement mechanism for the new landmark law.

This newspaper has raised skepticism about Congress ceding any authority to an outside group on ethics. Enforcing laws on the books is important and it is clear that enforcement of existing lobbying laws is lacking. But ethics enforcement is an issue best left to the Justice Department, and if that enforcement is lacking, lawmakers should ask hard questions during oversight hearings.

Regardless, Democrats attempted last week to move forward on their so-called Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which would be composed of “individuals of exceptional public standing who are specifically qualified to serve on the board.” The OCE board panelists would not be members of Congress, lobbyists or federal government employees.

The OCE would review ethics complaints and then decide whether the House ethics committee should review them.

Members of both parties balked at the plan, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Capuano decided to postpone the OCE vote. They changed the OCE trigger that would get the ethics committee to review a complaint, which was a step in the right direction.

They also altered the measure’s language to prevent inappropriate communications between the OCE and House members so that the media would not find out about a possible investigation of a member.

Stopping all leaks, however, is impossible. When members serve on the House ethics committee, they keep their mouths shut — a rarity on Capitol Hill — but creating another panel increases the chances of a leak. All it takes is one source to say the ethics committee may launch a probe into a member and that lawmaker’s reputation will be forever damaged, whether he or she is guilty or innocent.

While the measure now has anti-leak provisions, what is there to prevent an outside group with a partisan agenda from issuing a press release announcing that it has called on the OCE to look into a member’s scruples? Eventually that will happen, and that too will unnecessarily harm a member as well as his or her staff.

Capuano should be commended for working countless hours on an issue that doesn’t win many friends, but he knows he still has work to do.

It also should be noted that Capuano is no leadership puppet. He was one of the 34 House Democrats who rejected a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act last month and was one of four Democrats in the lower chamber who voted against the Democratic substitute on ethics reform in 2006.

Capuano’s measure may pass the House soon, though it may have to be repeatedly tinkered with, or even radically changed, as members get used to the pitfalls of the new process.