The story of Andrew Jamila Jr. provides a textbook case for the study of ethics in government, illustrating with painful clarity where things can go wrong. In this instance, things went wrong because of a lax attitude about conflicts of interest — demonstrated in particular by Jamila.

He now sits on the city Planning Commission, but Mayor Peter Carlisle has the power to remove him from that position, an action that would be well justified.

However, other officers of the city — including, at a minimum, other members of the commission — have no reason to feel proud about the $650 fine slapped on Jamila by the Honolulu Ethics Commission.

Jamila’s ethical lapse happened in the context of a city-directed community benefits program, and all should have been aware of how his public duty intersected with his private interests and forced the issue. At best, people were asleep at the switch; at worst, they were looking the other way.It was only due to a complaint filed by activist Carroll Cox that resulted in the Ethics Commission’s fine.

Recently the Ethics Commission published an advisory opinion imposing the civil fine, citing Jamila for failure to disclose conflicts of interest and failure to recuse himself from participating in matters in which he had conflicts of interest.

According to the opinion, Jamila already had been warned about this. At issue was his post as president of Waimanalo Construction Coalition. That nonprofit organization received $120,000 in grants from the Leeward Coast Community Benefits Program, launched in 2006 by then-Mayor Mufi Hannemann. Its purpose was to underwrite area improvements to compensate West Oahu communities for the continued operation of Waimanalo Gulch Landfill, near Nanakuli.

Jamila had submitted a disclosure of conflict of interest to the Ethics Commission in 2008 and was told by commission staff that he should have removed himself from a previous hearing on the landfill; his organization stood to benefit from its extension and the compensation package being set aside.

Instead, Jamila participated in 14 matters related to the landfill without disclosing his interest and failed to recuse himself from seven votes, and in 2009 and 2010 failed to file a financial disclosure about his coalition job, according to the opinion.

Jamila’s response when he met with Ethics Commission staff was that he failed to read the entire emailed directive about his responsibilities.

Charles Totto, executive director and legal counsel to the Ethics Commission, questioned that excuse.

"It was only three paragraphs," he told the Star-Advertiser.

Totto confirmed that Section 3-8.5 in city ordinances provides the grounds for Jamila’s "removal from office" in the Planning Commission.

If anyone thinks that’s a harsh penalty, consider this: There are residents of the Waianae Coast whose opposition to the landfill was not assuaged by the benefits package or anything else.

They deserved to have a Planning Commission that would make a decision based on the best interest of the community and the city as a whole, and on nothing else.

Whether or not residents agree with the ultimate decision, the know­ledge that a member had his own business at stake leaves them with the reasonable question: Is the commission acting fairly?

Doubts along those lines erode the public trust in government, which these days is thin enough as it is.