The repeal of the controversial state legislative pay raise passed July 7 is complete, but a major "loose end" lingers.

It must not be left unresolved.

The "loose end" is the additional money some lawmakers accepted immediately under the unconscionable unvouchered-expenses maneuver that clearly violated the state constitution. It is right for taxpayers to expect that most, if not all of that money in question, be returned voluntarily to the state treasury.

The names of those lawmakers who don't should be made public, along with the amount of unvouchered-expense money they received during the four months since the raise was approved. Providing that information to the taxpayers shouldn't necessitate an audit or other costly accounting procedure; surely there's a database from which that information can be easily extracted.

Nothing in the repeal law, which was signed by Gov. Ed Rendell Wednesday, forces those lawmakers who have accepted unvouchered-expense money to return those funds. However, they should, if they truly want to demonstrate a semblance of sincerity about putting the pay-raise issue to rest.

No doubt some voters will — and should — use payback versus no-payback as a basis for deciding for whom to vote in next year's legislative elections, although the fact that the legislative money grab — raises of 16 percent to 54 percent — occurred at all should be an easy aid in 2006 election decision making.

There is one possible, reasonable exception to the return of the unvouchered-expense money, although some people will surely disagree. That is in instances in which lawmakers donated the money to charities.

Some charities would be hard-pressed to return the money, if it already has been put to use.

However, a legitimate argument against that dispensation is that not everyone agrees with charitable giving, and that there isn't universal support for any charity. There's also the issue of whether public money not obtained within the guidelines of the state constitution should remain in anyone but the treasury's hands, no matter how worthy the cause.

The possibility of lawmakers receiving federal income tax advantages on the basis of that giving also must not be overlooked by the taxpayers.

Nevertheless, unvouchered-expense money given to charities prior to the repeal action is the only money that should not be subject to payback. And, any money not paid back because it has gone to charity should be subject to full documentation of that donation, and lawmakers should seek no personal tax advantages stemming from the use of their unvouchered-expenses payments for charitable purposes.

If not paid back directly to the treasury, the unvouchered-expense money received should be returned in full by way of deductions from lawmakers' paychecks between now and June 30, the end of the state's fiscal year.

That payback shouldn't pose too much of a hardship considering that, with the repeal of the law passed July 7, lawmakers still are eligible for a 3.6 percent cost-of-living increase, effective Dec. 1, under a 1995 salary law.

Not very many non-government workers in the commonwealth have such a salary fallback working to their advantage.

The July 7 law has been repealed but, thanks to the unvouchered-expenses loose end, more corrective work needs to be done. With the 2006 legislative election year less than two months away, the quicker the loose end is resolved, the quicker lawmakers will be able to devote full attention to the important state issues that remain unfinished.

After all, those other issues were why the lawmakers were elected in the first place.