text: Full disclosure, while not a "supporter" of Caldwell, I did vote for him and intend to do so in the General.
  
  I have trouble with the standard which posits behavior is "unethical" if it is PERCEIVED as unethical. How does a subjective standard become an objective violation simply because some people assume something improper is occurring? This is particular troubling when few people had that perception about Wong until this article appeared and asks Colin Moore to offer that opinion. Thereby creating a perception, which then triggers the "perception" of impropriety standard.
  
  The article insinuates a "quid pro quo." To help us evaluate this insinuation, shouldn't there be some evidence that the services Wong provided the city were over-priced relative to competing bids? Is it possible Wong, as a Caldwell supporter, may have provided better service at a lower price point? The article provides no basis on which to judge that alternate, and plausible, interpretation?