The criticism being directed at the new ethics code governing state gambling regulators merits the public's notice and action.

That action ought to be in the form of comment demanding that the policy specifically and clearly ban Gambling Control Board members from raising donations for candidates for political office and absolutely forbid acceptance of gifts and favors from those who hope to benefit from the board's decisions.

A monthlong comment period regarding the new code, which was adopted last Thursday, currently is in effect. This opportunity on behalf of toughening the code should be given the undivided attention it deserves.

The gaming board won't be able to easily ignore a groundswell of public opinion demanding total elimination of loopholes that, if they were to remain in place, could be bases for appearances of impropriety, even if there was no actual impropriety.

While the gaming board members are prohibited from talking about matters before them with anyone who wants a slot machine license, the new ethics code doesn't prevent board members from raising donations for political candidates and does not include an absolute ban on gifts and favors from those who hope to benefit from board decisions.

That's troubling, and those two problem areas should have been recognized and rectified by board members before action on the ethics code took place.

To his credit, board member Kenneth McCabe has spoken out against the code in its current form, saying he was frustrated and disappointed over the policy that has emerged. He said he had tried to get a strict code adopted for the board.

Meanwhile, Christopher Craig, counsel to state Sen. Vincent Fumo of Philadelphia, a key architect of the commonwealth's slot-machine gambling law, said, "The overarching concern should be to avoid the appearance of impropriety, not just impropriety itself, because you want public confidence in the objectivity and independent thought of the board members."

However, Joseph "Chip" Marshall III, a former state Ethics Commission chairman who currently serves on the gaming board, denied that there are any major holes in the newly adopted code. He said critics were ignoring the absolute ban on private conversations about board matters with outside parties that have an interest before the board.

"We took the strongest position of any gaming authority in the country," he said.

But any window, no matter how small, for an erosion of public confidence or outright suspicion should be taken seriously by the board - and the situation, as identified, requires reworking.

The board won't have justification for ignoring that task, if the public comes forward in large numbers to demand changes.

State residents must remember that the comment period is one month, and one week already has passed.

The goal, a gaming board ethics code so strict that it is second to none, is in everyone's best interests.