Denver Manager of Public Safety Al LaCabe is set to go before the city's Civil Service Commission today to make his case for modernizing the disciplinary system used to deal with misconduct by members of the Denver Police Department.

The union representing Denver's police officers will argue there's no need for change, or possibly offer an alternative that would merely alter the standard of proof in disciplinary cases.

Today's hearing should be a pivotal step toward improving the credibility and accountability of law enforcement in Colorado's largest city, and we urge the commissioners to adopt LaCabe's plan.

Under the proposed "discipline matrix," which is similar to policies in Phoenix, Los Angeles and Oakland, Calif., officers would know in advance the penalties associated with various types of misconduct. That's a big improvement over a system that bases officer discipline on sanctions that are limited to the range of action taken for similar offenses during the previous three years, as Denver's system has for far too long.

This vague, outdated approach moves too slowly, lacks written guidelines and is woefully inconsistent. Worst of all, it is shaped by past societal attitudes instead of reflecting community standards as they have evolved and progressed.

The department should not be bound by precedents that were set at a time, for instance, that society did not take as seriously issues such as excessive use of force, domestic violence or drunken driving as it now (correctly) does.

Some officers have been suspended or demoted for offenses that in other instances might draw a mere reprimand. The lack of consistency has spurred appeals; they drag out the discipline process for months or even years longer than is reasonable.

The Denver Police Protective Association contends LaCabe's proposed revision is an illegal change to the city charter. The union says it's prepared to challenge any change in court.

This threat, if it is carried out, should not deter commissioners from doing the right thing. LaCabe already has consulted the city attorney's office and is proceeding based on the legal opinion he received. He has also noted that the charter requires "consistent" disciplinary procedures - which is the focus of the proposal.

It is too bad that the police union is defending a flawed discipline process. Its main concern should be ensuring that police officers are held accountable to the citizens they are supposed to serve.

Police officers and their union opposing a sound, contemporary disciplinary process seems a lot like the players and their union dragging their feet on an effective drug policy in baseball. We know that didn't fix the problem.

It's possible that if the union successfully challenged the proposal in court, voters would have to approve the changes by amending the charter. Civil Service commissioners must take that chance, with the expectation that voters will approve it if asked - just as they backed creation of a quasi-independent police monitor in 2004 by an overwhelming 69 percent.

We hope the costly and needless delay of a charter revision can be avoided. But that prospsect should not deter the commission from embracing LaCabe's thoughtful and sensible reform.