Ethics Misstep By Atlanta City Council Member?

Interesting quote from Atlanta city council member Michael Julian Bond in this piece from AJC.com ("Atlanta Councilman says he'll vote vote on deal despite possible conflict"). Apparently the councilman received an advisory opinion from the city's ethics officer, Ginny Looney, saying that while he could vote on an upcoming matter in which there was a question about a conflict of interest, that "If you want to be entirely safe on the conflicts issue, I would advise you to recuse yourself on the matter."

Councilman Bond's response is quoted as being, "I wasn't elected to look out for my relatives. I was elected to vote on the issues." 

On the surface, I am absolutely supportive of councilman Bond's comment. In fact, both parts of his statement are exemplary. Unfortunately, there is more here than the surface:

1.) Though an advisory opinion is just that - an opinion without the option of enforcement - why would one choose to ignore the advice of the city ethics officer? It would seem to signify an unfortunate disregard for ethics input. Might he have had a cogent explanation for his decision to not recuse himself? Maybe so but, at least as far as what is reported in this article, he makes no such cogent argument.

2.) Though, indeed, council members are elected to vote on issues, once one's vote is perceived as even potentially having been unduly influenced by either personal or professional relationships, the credibility of that vote is compromised. Just as in any setting, whether in the public sector or private, once your credibility is damaged, you will be forever swimming upstream to defend your opinion on not just the matter voted on but on any subsequent matters at all related to that vote.

One could reasonably argue that this isn't actually an ethics issue. After all, the ethics officer explicitly said that the ethics code would not be violated by the councilman's conversations and vote. My argument to the contrary, however, has two components. The first is, of course, the old saw that just because one can do something doesn't necessarily mean that one should. My second argument, though, is that by consciously and willfully compromising the appearance of one's ethics - as seems to have been the case here - one creates a de facto compromise in the public's trust of all subsequent decisions. Such an unapologetic violation of the public's trust, I would argue, is an ethics issue by definition. (Make no mistake, the argument is not that officials and employees should somehow avoid opinions or decisions that others mistrust or dislike - that comes with all positions of power or influence. Rather, the point is that those opinions and decisions need to be made 'cleanly' and without the appearance of undue influence.)

Here's to Ginny Looney for having apparently anticipated this problem and, on the other hand, here's a thumbs down to councilman Bond for not having heeded her advice. No matter how admirable or well-constructed his thinking on the council matter at hand - and I have no opinion on that either way - it is a shame that he has ignored seemingly well-reasoned ethics advice and compromised his constituency's ability to trust the wisdom of his vote.