To the relief of many Americans and members of government, the independent council law is up for renewal this spring.

Since just about everybody under the sun has been investigated by an independent council, friends and foes alike in Washington are breathing a sigh of relief and waiting for the law to just die.

Since the reign of Kenneth Starr seems to be never-ending, and the deliberations in the hearing regarding besieged former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy took less than an hour, many pundits are questioning whether the concept of an independent council was ever necessary in the first place.

The fact is, an independent council is necessary. Maybe not to investigate President Bill Clinton’s personal life or telephone calls Al Gore made from the White House, but there is nothing wrong with the basic conception behind an independent council — those who police others should be policed.

Some minor suggestions:

• Some spending limits. Starr has spent about $50 million in his investigation of Clinton’s Filegate, Travelgate and Zippergate. Whether or not you think his most recent case against Clinton has any sort of merit is one issue. But what was that money used for?

The Associated Press reported that Starr spent thousands of dollars on a new copy machine just a month ago.

But if spending limits are difficult to impose, at least audit them — make them explain why a copy machine needs to cost thousands.

• Make sure the independent council is the right person for the job.

Kenneth Starr, whose approval ratings are consistent with those of Saddam Hussein’s, was not the right person for the job.

Despite being one of the most sought-after judges in America at the time of his appointment more than four years ago, Starr has not proven himself to be fair and independent.

• Time limits. Starr has now served a longer term in office than George Herbert Walker Bush did.

We’re not saying that the current independent council law is broken, but it needs to be fixed, not chucked.

Common sense should always be the watchword in politics, and yet it forever seems to be the last thing ever considered in this arena.

Bickering is demeaning what was meant to be an effective, non-partisan regulatory effort.