If ever there were a time when members of the state House of Representatives should be concerned about restoring the public's confidence in the integrity of that chamber, it is now. The appalling behavior of former Speaker Jim Black, now serving a federal prison term on corruption charges, cast shadows over the House and the entire General Assembly, for that matter.

Now another member, Rep. Thomas Wright of Wilmington, stands accused of, and is about to go to trial on, charges that he mishandled almost $350,000 from his campaign funds, a charity and corporations.

Thursday, Wright was escorted from the chamber after an overwhelming vote on the part of his fellow members to expel him from office. A dramatic end it was for someone who rose to a position of power and influence as a favorite of former Speaker Black.

Wright protested that he couldn't adequately defend himself against what he said were untruths without giving away his strategy in his upcoming legal fight. So, he argued, it was premature of his colleagues to put him on the street.

It's true that Wright hasn't been convicted of anything, and he is of course entitled to the presumption of innocence on criminal charges until he is proven guilty. But two standards are in play here. First, there's that legal standard.

Did Wright have a point that he shouldn't have been kicked out of his seat until and unless he was actually convicted of a crime? If he's innocent, won't an expulsion be shown to have been unjust, to put it mildly? His position has to be taken seriously, but there is a distinction between behavior judged to be illegal and that which reflects unacceptably on the House and thus must be punished, criminal sanctions aside.

There is a standard of behavior that all legislators must expect of themselves and their colleagues. For elected officials, the ethical bar must be set high. That Wright stands charged with some serious crimes has damaged the chamber's reputation. Wright should have put his colleagues and his state first, before his own political interests. If he's indeed not convicted of any crime, he can deliver as many "I told you so's" as he likes.

A bipartisan House panel of his peers already had unanimously recommended that Wright be banished from the House. The panel's findings were, its members felt, solid enough to warrant a unanimous vote on their part. By seeking and attaining his office, and by gaining a leadership role in the House, Wright accepted, or should have accepted, the fact that he would have to put the chamber's interests first. But he continued to fight until the end.

The House has a right to discipline its members, especially when serious accusations are involved. What Wright's colleagues did was painful, but it was the correct decision. And Wright, of course, does not forego his ability to defend and attempt to exonerate himself in court.

Now, the House can proceed with the important business of the people without the Wright issue lingering above. And let us hope there are not other ethical issues ahead that will again divert attention from governing.