It is of course reasonable that people who are convicted of crimes and have served their time be allowed to become productive members of society. But should they be eligible for any job? Should they be permitted to work with vulnerable groups, such as children and people with disabilities?

At the Washington state Department of Social and Health Services, the answer is a troubling but mysterious “yes,” especially if they were there before stricter standards were put into place. A total of 174 employees were kept on despite background checks three years ago that unearthed professional misconduct and convictions for serious crimes such as murder, statutory rape, robbery and drug possession. Most of them held jobs that gave them unsupervised access to the elderly, adults with disabilities and children.

An article in Sunday’s Spokesman-Review completed the story first told by DSHS in 2002, when the agency issued a news release stating that 27 employees had criminal backgrounds that precluded them from having unsupervised access. What the agency didn’t say was that at least 113 workers were kept in their “covered positions” even though most of them had criminal records.

Who are these workers? The agency knows criminal records are public documents, but it won’t reveal the names. The problem with such a tactic is that it puts all 18,000 employees under a cloud of suspicion.

So why were these workers kept on? Again, DSHS chooses secrecy. The agency removed ex-convicts from covered positions in 2002 but allowed them to file appeals. And 91 percent of those who appealed regained positions that granted them access to vulnerable people. Only one panel member chose to speak with an inquiring reporter, and she spoke in generalities. The rest aren’t talking. The outgoing head of DSHS and its risk management specialist aren’t talking. The panel says it did not keep notes or recordings of its sessions.

DSHS has been hit hard over the years by lawsuits for negligence, paying out millions of dollars. So, it’s not just its clients who have an interest in this. Taxpayers have a right to know the rationale behind these decisions and why the agency is taking such risks.

Had some of these workers with criminal records applied for positions at nursing homes or for licenses as child-care providers, they would’ve been summarily rejected. DSHS should explain why its standards are lower. And it should explain why the bar is higher for new applicants than it is for agency veterans.

The state has a new governor, and DSHS has a new director. They have some explaining to do. They should understand that covering this up will only breed suspicion and will further erode confidence in an already troubled agency.