When Ethics Are Optional

When Ethics Are Optional: What It Means When a City Council Refuses to Investigate One of Its Own

In any city, ethics rules exist for one reason - to make sure public officials serve the people, not themselves. When those rules are ignored or selectively enforced, trust in local government begins to erode.

Recently, a troubling situation has surfaced: a city council declined to investigate an ethics complaint filed against one of its own members. At first glance, that might look like a simple procedural decision. But in reality, it raises serious questions about accountability, fairness, and the integrity of local governance.

Protecting One of Their Own

When a council decides not to investigate a complaint against a fellow member, it sends a clear - and damaging - message. To the public, it looks like officials are protecting one of their own instead of protecting the integrity of the office they hold. Even if the accused member ultimately did nothing wrong, refusing to investigate creates the appearance of collusion and a lack of transparency.

Public service depends not only on actual ethical conduct but on the appearance of ethical conduct. When leaders close ranks and refuse scrutiny, they cast a shadow over the entire body.

Disregarding the Facts Before They’re Known

An ethics complaint is not a conviction; it is a call for review. Dismissing it without inquiry is effectively saying, “We don’t need to know the facts.” That is a dangerous stance for any governing body.

Responsible governance means gathering evidence, hearing all sides, and letting a neutral process determine whether wrongdoing occurred. Refusing to investigate denies both the complainant and the accused a fair and transparent process. It turns what should be a fact-based review into a political decision.

The Cost to Public Trust

Citizens already struggle to believe that government operates by the same rules it imposes on everyone else. When councils ignore their own ethics procedures, they confirm the public’s worst suspicions - that accountability is optional, and the rules only apply to outsiders.

Once public trust is broken, it is difficult to repair. Every vote, every budget decision, and every public statement that follows will be viewed through the lens of that mistrust.

The Precedent of Selective Accountability

City charters and codes of conduct exist to keep governance impartial. They are supposed to apply to everyone, without exception. When a council chooses to look the other way, it sets a precedent for selective enforcement - where rules depend on who you are, not what you’ve done.

That kind of selective integrity undermines not only ethics enforcement but the very principle of equal accountability under the law.

The Bigger Picture

Ironically, refusing to investigate helps no one. The accused council member remains under a cloud of suspicion that an investigation could have cleared. The rest of the council looks complicit by association. And the community is left wondering whether anyone in City Hall actually believes in transparency.

True leadership means facing uncomfortable truths head-on, not avoiding them. Ethical governance isn’t just about following the law - it’s about doing what’s right, even when it’s inconvenient.

Moral Choice

Refusing to investigate an ethics complaint is more than a procedural choice. It is a moral one. When elected officials decide that accountability can wait or doesn’t apply, they weaken the public’s faith in every level of government.

If a city council cannot be trusted to investigate itself, the public has every right to ask: Who is left to uphold the integrity of our local government?

Vote NO on 2C!