Since When Is Simple Recusal So Complicated?

Maybe I'm missing something here in this story about a conflict of interest complaint in Sioux Falls...

This story from ArgusLeader.com describes how there is a concern that councilor Jim Entenman may be violating the city ethics code by virtue of owning land that could be used for city improvements while he sits on the council and an organization called BuildItDowntown. This does, indeed, sound like a conflict if, in fact, he participates in any way in the city's discussions on the purchase. However, isn't that why we have the option (or, ideally, the mandate) of recusal?

As long the ArgusLeader story is providing all the necessary information and as long as Mr. Entenman does not participate in discussions - either formally or informally - about the city land use, it would seem to me that there is no conflict. City employees and officials will have conflicts of interest from time to time. The goal cannot realistically be for that to not occur.** Rather the goal needs to be that those conflicts are promptly recognized and that full recusal is the immediate response.

Requiring and enforcing recusal is a pretty simple thing. Who says that it needs to be so complicated?

**Lest it need to be said, officials certainly need to avoid voluntarily entering into conflicts of interest during their tenure as well as during any 'warming up' or 'cooling down' periods required by the ethics code. Recusal isn't a method to dodge self-awareness or responsibility. Instead, it's a method to assure that unavoidable, pre-existing conflicts of interest do not affect government decisions. Again, pretty darned simple it seems to me...