When citizens become officeholders, they take on a unique responsibility. They take an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I often wonder how much thought is given to the words in this oath, because it is often a part of ceremonial trappings surrounding the swearing-in ceremonies, which are attended by family, friends and well-wishers.

It should go without saying that we expect our elected officials to act in an ethical manner and lead by example. Sadly, this is not always the case, which is why most states and legislative bodies have enacted codes of ethics to guide them.

At the heart of an ethics code is the expectation that officials should not put their own interests before the public’s. That seems pretty straightforward, but where things start to get murky is when officials might show preferential treatment toward a relative, friend, even a romantic interest. When there are questions about whether an official has acted in an ethical manner, issues can be referred to the state Ethics Commission for an opinion. That’s what the East Penn Township supervisors voted to do last week to determine whether one of their members was out of line by passing along a document to a relative.

The claim is that a written summary of a township ordinance that was intended for the eyes of the supervisors only may have been given to the daughter-in-law of one of the supervisors, who was challenging the ordinance and whose company had a vested stake in the outcome of a supervisors’ action.

The disclosure came to light when the daughter-in-law cited the document in a letter to the state Attorney General’s office. The accused supervisor insisted that she had asked her colleagues several months earlier whether they had a problem with her sharing the document and recalled that there was no objection.

On top of that, a Times News reporter, who saw the front page of the summary, noted that there was no confidential warning or anything else that implied it was for internal use only.

You might be tempted to think, “OK, so then what’s the big deal?” and in some respects you might be right. After all, the ordinance is already on the books and the document the supervisors had asked to be prepared was a summary of the full ordinance.

This is at the heart of what sometimes happens, especially in smaller communities where relationships with elected officials can be problematic.

Most solicitors, legal counsel to local officials, typically urge them to err on the side of caution. If there is even the hint of a possible conflict of interest, don’t do it.

“An officeholder or public employee may not use confidential information to further his or her personal interests,” one of the solicitors told me.

There was another recent example in the City of Allentown where City Council was interviewing 17 candidates to replace convicted Mayor Ed Pawlowski. During balloting, a councilwoman voted 11 times for one of the candidates, but she was the only one to vote for him. As a result, council deadlocked 11 times on a 3-3 vote. Finally, the councilwoman changed her vote on the 12th ballot, giving the appointment to former City Council President Ray O’Connell by a 4-3 vote.

Afterward, it was learned that the councilwoman had been hired recently for her current job by the man for whom she had voted 11 times. This was never disclosed to the public beforehand. She insists that members of City Council knew, but this is the type of information that any officeholder should disclose, and because of the employer relationship abstain from voting.

Instead of apologizing for her failure to disclose the information, she criticized anyone who thought that she had done anything wrong by saying, “They should be ashamed of themselves” for thinking that way.

So what is the litmus test for officeholders and public employees when it comes to acceptable ethical behavior? I would give this advice: If others might believe you are giving special treatment, even if you consider yourself scrupulously fair, you should disclose a relationship and get an official ruling to determine whether this bars you from acting or voting on the issue.

Taxpayers have a right to be assured that their elected officials and public employees will act in the taxpayers’ best interest and hold themselves to the highest ethical standards.

Conflicts occur in the private sector, as well. It is especially troubling when nepotism (hiring relatives) occurs.

I often use this personal example: When I became publisher of the daily newspaper in Oswego, New York, my wife, Marie, who had been a very productive employee in the circulation department of a Lehigh Valley newspaper, was hoping she could work in that capacity for the Oswego paper.

I told her that this could not happen, because, regardless of how competent she was, she would always be looked at as the boss’s wife, and her colleagues in the circulation department would be wary about what to say around her for fear of it getting back to me. It was a no-brainer conflict-of-interest scenario.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com