If an elected official has a conflict of interest, he should disclose it. If the conflict is deemed serious, the official should remove himself from debate and voting.

Seems sweet and simple. So why is this sometimes so hard to do?

Dan Herrick is an Auburn city councilor and a general contractor. A few months ago, he started pushing for removal of a long-standing ordinance that certain warehouse-sized buildings install sprinklers. The reason, Herrick said, was that he heard the ordinance was bad for business.

Except Herrick never disclosed that his contracting client, a Massachusetts couple renovating a warehouse-sized building on Riverside Drive, needed sprinklers under the ordinance, a prospect that he – the contractor – said would create a “big mess.”

Nor did Herrick mention he’s considered putting a warehouse-sized building on his own property some day, which the sprinkler ordinance would have made more expensive.

Nope, never thought to mention it.

Herrick either failed to see his conflict, or worse, decided against disclosure. Either way, the council should reconsider its vote to change the ordinance, now that all the details are public.

And Herrick should broaden his view. A council seat is not for gaining favor with employers or bringing his future plans into focus. A councilor serves the public, whose needs are more varied, nuanced and, frankly, important than those of any one person.

There was a good reason for the sprinkler ordinance. Sprawling Auburn is only 20 percent covered by fire hydrants. Sprinklers were mandated to ensure lives and property are protected in areas where firefighting might be, probably, a longer time coming.

But everything is open for debate. Herrick, as a councilor, was entitled to raise the issue.

“I’m working on a job,” he could have said, “and this sprinkler ordinance is causing a huge mess. It got me thinking – I’ve heard complaints about it for years from other contractors. I know I’ve thought about building a warehouse on my property, but sprinklers make me think twice. Maybe others feel the same way? Do we still need it?”

Fifty-eight words to not only raise the question, but disclose the conflicts. That would have been the right way. Instead, we heard vague allusions to lost commerce and fostering a bad business climate, without proof and with strong evidence to the contrary.

Councilors can’t let their vote stand, given the conflicts. A decision was made without all the pertinent facts. The proper thing to do is run through it again, with everything out in the open.

And for Herrick, this time, to recuse himself.