Op-Ed: Ethics Without Accountability Is Just Public Relations

In recent weeks, I exchanged a series of emails with the City of West Hollywood regarding Planning Commissioner Andrew Solomon’s public identification on a state senate campaign website as the “Co-Founder” of Building WeHo, a land use advocacy organization. What began as a straightforward inquiry about conflict-of-interest standards quickly evolved into something more troubling: a revealing case study in how institutional ethics concerns are too often managed through minimization, narrative control, and bureaucratic reassurance rather than through rigorous public accountability.

Let me be clear about something important. I never argued that the City of West Hollywood controls the content of a political campaign website. Nor did I accuse anyone of criminal misconduct. My concern was narrower, more reasonable, and frankly more important: whether a sitting Planning Commissioner should allow himself to be publicly presented as the co-founder of an ideological land use organization while simultaneously serving in a quasi-judicial role overseeing planning and development matters.

That is not a fringe question. It is precisely the kind of appearance issue ethics frameworks are supposed to address.

The chronology matters. Commissioner Solomon reportedly resigned from Building WeHo in July 2024 when he joined the Planning Commission. Yet well into 2026, a state senate campaign website continued identifying him through that advocacy role until questions were raised publicly. The issue is not whether Building WeHo is still active. The issue is that the public continued to see a sitting Planning Commissioner politically branded through a development-related advocacy identity while exercising influence over land use matters.

Public trust is not destroyed only by actual corruption. It is damaged when institutions appear comfortable with blurred lines and dismissive of perception problems that ordinary citizens immediately recognize.

What concerned me even more was the City Attorney’s response. Rather than maintaining strict institutional neutrality, portions of the response drifted into personal character defense and speculation about Commissioner Solomon’s intentions and state of mind. I was told he was “genuinely surprised,” that he “did not intend” to be listed that way, and that the City did not believe there had been any ethical lapse.

That may all be true. But it is not the role of government lawyers to serve as character witnesses for appointed officials. The public expects detached legal analysis, not editorialized assurances about motivations and sincerity. Once institutions begin explaining away appearances instead of addressing them directly, confidence erodes further.

This is the broader problem facing West Hollywood governance today. Ethical standards are increasingly treated as technical compliance exercises rather than cultural expectations rooted in public confidence. Officials and institutions seem to ask, “Can we explain this away?” rather than, “Does this undermine trust?”

There is an enormous difference between legality and propriety. A public official can comply with disclosure laws and still create legitimate appearance concerns. They can technically avoid a conflict while still compromising confidence in impartiality. Ethics is not merely about avoiding prosecution. It is about preserving institutional legitimacy.

And that legitimacy is fragile.

West Hollywood residents are often told to stop asking difficult questions because concerns are supposedly being “handled accordingly.” But vague reassurances are not transparency. They are public relations language masquerading as accountability. Residents deserve to know what standards are being applied, what guidance is given to commissioners, whether remedial conversations occurred, and how the City distinguishes between political activism and quasi-judicial neutrality.

Instead, too often, the instinct is defensive closure. Protect the institution. Minimize the concern. Move on quickly.

That instinct is precisely how civic rot develops.

Ethical culture is not maintained through polished statements or carefully managed messaging. It is maintained when institutions demonstrate that they are willing to scrutinize their own people with the same seriousness they would apply to political opponents or ordinary residents.

No one is above appearance scrutiny in public service. Not commissioners. Not councilmembers. Not favored political allies. And certainly not the systems designed to oversee them.

West Hollywood does not need less questioning from residents. It needs more tolerance for scrutiny, more neutrality from institutional actors, and a renewed understanding that public trust is earned through transparency rather than managed through reassurance.

If the City truly wants confidence in its ethics processes, it should stop treating public concern as an inconvenience to be pacified and start treating it as evidence that residents still care enough to demand better.