"It's time to make ethics and ethical behaviour in politics the norm not the exception."

It was a lofty goal Mayor Fred Eisenberger proposed to the community during the 2006 election when he stated those words in his campaign brochure. No doubt the public was tired of former Mayor Larry Di Ianni's campaign violations and other malfeasances that were a daily occurrence at city hall.

During his successful mayoral win, Mr. Eisenberger, the former Ward 5 alderman, made establishing ethical behaviour at city hall the cornerstone of his campaign. Accountability and integrity were conspicuously at the top of his priority list.

"We don't expect politicians to be perfect," he stated in his first sentence. "We do expect them however to make decisions that are in our best interests."

Yet Mr. Eisenberger's admission last week that he had violated council's code of conduct by providing sensitive information to a reporter proves there remains a large gulf between campaigning and governing.

If Mr. Eisenberger's acknowledgement that he talked out of turn to a reporter was the mayor's only ethical question mark, there could be some applause for what has been characterized as his courage to come forward and make the admission.

But Mr. Eisenberger's role in this incident raises more questions instead of hastily placing him on a pedestal.

By his own admission, Mr. Eisenberger didn't realize he had violated council's code of conduct until after he had read the transcript a year later. So when he was talking to the reporter in 2007, he was oblivious to the seriousness of the information he was releasing.

Mr. Eisenberger acknowledged his conversations were taped. So what type of other information did Mr. Eisenberger provide on other tapes to other unknown individuals?

Supporters of Mr. Eisenberger's who have praised the mayor for admitting his indiscretion conveniently forget he was forced to acknowledge what he had done after Hamilton Community News had the information in its possession.

Mr. Eisenberger's white hat stature is also called into question when, while providing the reporter with this in camera information, he was at the same time admonishing other councillors in a tough-talking e-mail for leaking sensitive information to the public.

"This act is completely inappropriate and totally unacceptable," he stated. "It besmirches both the image and reputation of council and does absolutely nothing to assist us in proceeding with the day-to-day business of running city hall."

It is also telling that at the same time, Mr. Eisenberger was selecting people to his Accountability and Transparency sub-committee which would be creating an integrity commissioner for the city.

Although this is the most serious ethical breach since this term of council began, it has not been the only one.

Council reluctantly admonished Ward 2 councillor Bernie Morelli for his conduct toward a city employee in early 2007. Then there was Glanbrook councillor Dave Mitchell's censorship by council over his conflict of interest issue over his farm property. And a few months ago, there was the revelation the OPP was laying corruption charges against a city employee.

But it is Mr. Eisenberger's error that hits at the gut of the Hamilton community. The public was ready to believe that he actually was committed to making city hall an unethical-free zone, where discussion, debate and ideas should be thrown about without fear of scurrilous retribution.

Councillors have approved seeking an outside lawyer to investigate. But whatever penalty he receives, he has done a greater disservice to residents of the City of Hamilton for raising hopes that somehow integrity had been restored to city government, then dashing them to the ground.

For the next two years, Mr. Eisenberger's most important mission if he truly believes in Hamilton's future, is to somehow pick up the shattered pieces of the public's confidence and prove that honesty and integrity are not just idle words printed on a campaign brochure.