It's the old question of do you throw out the good in hopes of finding the perfect? Only, in this case, there's also the question of is the good actually any good at all.
I'm referring, of course, to the City's so-called "ethics code," which was the subject of much discussion and tinkering at this week's City Council meeting. Tinker, tinker, tinker - but is the code a stinker?
From my perspective, it seems like pretty much everyone would agree that there's a need for some sort of official ethics code, to address legitimate issues when they are raised. But the question is, will the existing code, the one with Bill Bloor's fingerprints all over it, ever be able to really serve that purpose?
Is it flawed but fixable, like a majority of the Council members said (and voted)? Or, is it like dissenting voice Lee Whetham says, flawed from it's very inception in an ultimately fatal way?
Looking at the behavior of the current Council members, and the chaos the ethics code has enabled, do you think it's been effective? Do you favor changes to it? Or do you think that the City needs to scrap it and redo it completely - say with a new City Council after the next election?