Voters in Fountain Hills will soon choose a new mayor. We will choose between a current town councilmember and a former member of the town council. Both are nice people. Both have the “smarts” and the experience needed to be mayor. Both are prominent citizens of long standing. Both have records of public service. And, therein lies the critical difference.

Anyone who has followed the pros and cons that swirled around the recent property tax referendum knows that the most repeated criticism leveled by opponents emphasized voter distrust of Town Council members and their commitment to spend new tax revenues wisely, and only in the public interest. An appropriate answer to that criticism is to assure that those we elect to Town Council, and to be mayor, fully understand what constitutes “conflict of interest” and fully appreciate the impact of that concept on public trust.

Conflict of interest does not apply only to votes cast. A “conflicted” official is bound to recuse him/herself from votes and from all council discussions regarding the matter in question. One mayoral candidate has been presenting proposals that would create full transparency of the process involving town government spending. The other mayoral candidate has demonstrated a disregard for recognition of conflict of interest. Councilman Yates failed to step away from council discussions and recuse himself, even when it became clear that the private financial interests of his employer were intertwined with the interests of a major developer who was in a contentious, adversarial financial dispute with the government of which Councilman Yates was a part.

In a contest for leadership, the overriding issue is always trust. Former Councilmember Ginny Dickey passes that test with flying colors. It is unfortunate that her opponent does not.

Editor’s note: For the purpose of clarity, it should be noted that Councilman Yates works for a division of CPI separate of the division contracted by Shea Connelly Development.