Mayor Sue Hack says my memo advising a private organization on opposing a second Lawrence Wal-Mart at Sixth and Wakarusa was “just inappropriate.” County Commissioner Jere McElhaney says I “violate some trust.” A response seems called for.

While my critics and I disagree about Wal-Mart, I’m assuming their remarks reflect bona fide concerns about my ethics rather than political opportunism. They deserve a direct response.

At the same time, I have bona fide concerns about their ethics as well. My concerns also deserve a direct response.

The charges launched by my critics appear based (perhaps unconsciously) on selective judgments about the ethics of planning commissioners. Unfortunately, their specific charges are quite vague. That also raises ethical flags. When you attack a man’s reputation, you should be clear enough that he has some chance of rebuttal.

Here are my guesses as to what they’re getting at.

1. They might be claiming I violated laws or rules of the Planning Commission. I violated no laws or rules.

Planning Commission rules forbid private discussions between planning commissioners and others about specific parcels of property on the Planning Commission agenda, up until the item is affirmed or denied by the City Commission. No Wal-Mart proposal is currently on the Planning Commission agenda. Its earlier proposals were denied by the City Commission.

2. They might be claiming I voted on the Planning Commission while having a legal conflict of interest. I have no such conflict.

“Conflict of interest” refers to significant monetary impacts on the commissioner resulting from his vote. I have never had monetary interests in any issue before the Planning Commission.

On the other hand, planning commissioners with close ties to the development community have voted even when there were apparent conflicts of interest. One commissioner voted repeatedly in favor of earlier Wal-Mart proposals while being part owner of a restaurant (at the same intersection) that stood to benefit from increased traffic. When a citizen brought this to the attention of the city, Hack and McElhaney failed to criticize his ethics.

3. They might be claiming that planning commissioners shouldn’t give private advice on specific parcels that might later come before the Planning Commission.

I have repeatedly proposed rules forbidding all such discussions. Those rules were voted down by the Planning Commission. (At least one commissioner opposing it had an apparent conflict of interest, his own livelihood being at stake. Most of the commissioners opposing it have voted for Wal-Mart proposals.)

Some current and past planning commissioners are professionals who give private advice to developers of parcels that might come before the Planning Commission. (Examples include land use attorneys and land planners.) My critics have never criticized this practice.

It is unfair to make private advice from planning commissioners available to developers but not to groups opposing a development. I knew Wal-Mart wasn’t on the agenda during my remaining month on the commission. Therefore, I did give unpaid private advice on how to oppose the Wal-Mart development.

If Mayor Hack and Commissioner McElhaney think this was wrong, I challenge them to support rules against planning commissioners giving advice on particular parcels.

4. They might be claiming that, while private advice is acceptable, publicizing it makes the Planning Commission look bad. I had no intention of making my advice public.

My memo was circulated on a closed list-serve with expectations it wouldn’t be distributed more broadly. As far as I know, it wasn’t public until Mayor Hack criticized it. Any ethical lapse from making it public may rest on Mayor Hack’s shoulders.

5. They might be claiming it’s unethical for planning commissioners to associate openly with opponents of a development.

My critics appear to support different rules for supporters and opponents of a development. In Lawrence, a majority of planning commissioners have typically been professionals involved in a network of financial transactions with the development community. Many commissioners appear dependent on developers appearing before them, and it is hard for opponents of particular developments to believe they will receive a fair shake. If developers have access to advice from planning commissioners, then opponents of particular developments should have similar access.

Individuals in the development network constitute less than 10 percent of the Lawrence work force. It is unethical when the 10 percent try to exclude others from political participation by attacking the character and reputation of those who would give them advice on an equal footing.

I believe I have responded forthrightly to my critics’ ethical concerns about me. I am awaiting their equally forthright responses to my ethical concerns about them.