A little-known watch list for individuals who have made threats or exhibited menacing behavior at City Hall is aimed at bolstering security.

But without accountability or any sort of due process built in as safeguards, the city’s version of a “no-fly list” is ripe for abuse.

If this is an essential security measure, city officials should develop a written policy that provides an opportunity for violators to be notified and a process to appeal their inclusion. As it stands, there is no policy governing who lands on the list, which bars some individuals from entering City Hall and requires others to be accompanied by escorts.

After longtime Kansas City transit activist Clay Chastain learned he was on the list, he sued the city for defamation. Although he was removed from it last June, Chastain recently filed a $3 million suit arguing that the city intended to smear his reputation. The city has yet to respond to the suit.

The ACLU of Missouri panned the practice, saying the list could be used for political purposes if there is no accountability.

Memphis offers a cautionary tale. Officials there instituted a so-called “blacklist” that resulted in two lawsuits amid claims of constitutional violations.

According to the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Memphis’ City Hall “blacklist” named about 80 activists who required an escort to move through the public building.

Four of the activists eventually filed suit, but they were dropped from it after the ACLU of Tennessee took the lead. The case is pending.

Another lawsuit filed by a labor organization was withdrawn after the city removed more than half of the names from the City Hall security list.

Both lawsuits claim the list was proof the city was spying on protesters in violation of a 1978 federal order forbidding the practice in Memphis.

There is little doubt that Kansas City’s list — a security precaution intended to balance the public’s access to a government building with the violent realities of the world in 2018 — is necessary. It’s the city’s execution that’s the problem.

As civil rights attorney Bruce Kramer of Memphis asked: How does one get on the list, and how do you get removed? Since there is no policy, what are the criteria for inclusion? These are all reasonable questions that remain unanswered.

It’s problematic that city officials declined to release the list last week. City Manager Troy Schulte acknowledged the lack of transparency.

The city is considering publishing the list, Schulte said, adding if someone wanted to appeal, they could go through the city’s law department for now.

“That’s probably the approach I would take as we move forward,” he said.

City Hall is the people’s house. To arbitrarily ban someone without providing notice or offering recourse is wrong at best and possibly illegal at worst. The best possible solution is to draft a written policy that addresses those concerns and get it in front of the City Council for approval.

And for transparency’s sake, make the list public.