Last month's city council postponement of its scheduled hearing on Wal-Mart's Supercenter general development plan will have consequences beyond a simple delay. The tangible costs may include the city refunding land use fees to Wal-Mart and paying the company's attorneys fees.

To refresh memories, at the beginning of a Sept. 10 hearing on the Supercenter plan, councilors Dan Thackaberry and Mel Harrington asked for a delay, explaining they hadn't read all of the related documents and thus weren't prepared. With the additional vote of a third councilor, Scott Simpson, a motion to postpone the hearing was approved, disappointing an interested audience of about 40 people.

With this latest move by Wal-Mart, councilors who wanted to hold the hearing as scheduled and voted no on the delay have some questions to ask.

State law dictates that at the start of every land use hearing members of the group who will be making a decision on the issue state whether they have a conflict of interest or have had discussions on the subject outside the hearing.

One councilor, Roger Munk, excused himself from the Sept. 10 hearing because of a possible perceived conflict. Those voting for the delay may have had better cause to step down. Thackaberry is a longtime member of the Friends of Linn County, which has vigorously opposed Wal-Mart. Harrington and Simpson have been actively involved in historic preservation efforts and have expressed concern about whether Wal-Mart's plans to save the historic Santiam Wagon Road on the property are adequate.

Several years ago members of the Planning Commission had a thorough education in conflict of interest, after their ability to make a decision without bias was called into question. They benefited from the training, becoming meticulous about avoiding not only clear conflicts, but also perceived conflicts.

It's time for councilors to get the same education so citizens can trust them to make impartial decisions.