The state Ethics Commission finally released its advisory opinion in the matter of Steven D. Ross, Las Vegas Councilman by day and Southern Nevada Building Trades Council secretary-treasurer, also by day.

Here’s the line everybody seems to focus on: “If Ross serves as [Building Trades Council] secretary-treasurer while he also serves as a member of the [Las Vegas City] Council, such conduct does not, by itself, violate the Ethics in Government Law.” If Ross discloses his conflict and abstains from votes that would benefit Building Trades Council and its members, he’s legally fine, the commission concluded. And, the Review-Journal reported Saturday that Ross has not abstained from any vote in the past year.

But we choose to focus on a couple different lines in the opinion, which we think missed a great opportunity to tell public officials that they necessarily must choose between the public trust that is elected office and the personal gain to be found in the private sector.

For example, this line, from Page 2: “At all times pertinent to the subject matter of the hearing, Ross served as Las Vegas City Councilman for Ward 6. … Ross is seeking the elected, full-time position of secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada [Building Trades Council]. The annual salary for this position is $93,000.”

Got that? First, Ross got himself onto the Las Vegas Council. Then, he sought the job at the building trades council.

(Oh, and by the way, he’s bending the truth like saltwater taffy when he claims on the city’s official website that “Recently, Councilman Ross accepted a position as the Secretary-Treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council,” [emphasis added]. He ran for the job, and only “accepted” it once he won that election.)

Now, the aforementioned Ethics in Government law starts off by saying: “A public office is a public trust and shall be held for the sole benefit of the people. A public officer or employee must commit himself to avoid conflicts between his private interests and those of the general public whom he serves.”

Got that? A public officer (that means somebody such as Ross) must avoid conflicts between his private interests and those of the general public.

What did Ross do? The exact opposite of that! He created — by seeking a private-sector job subsequent to his election to the council — a conflict of interest where one did not previously exist. This is precisely the reason we said long ago he should either quit his job on the council and run for the union post, or forgo the union post until he was finished with elected service.

It’s not that members of the ethics commission didn’t try to persuade Ross not to do it, either. “The commissioners shared the concern that Ross’s dual positions … would require him to serve two masters. This situation may significantly hamper his ability to represent the public that elected him to serve on the council,” the opinion says.

And again: “Although abstention [from votes when inevitable conflicts arise] may be a safe harbor, the commission cautions Ross that frequent abstention deprives his constituents of a voice in matters which come before the council.”

But still, despite being told by the Las Vegas city attorney and the ethics commission that he would be politically gelded by seeking an outside job that created conflicts that did not theretofore exist; despite being told in no uncertain terms that seeking an outside job would hamper his ability to represent his constituents (and thus exercise the public trust of elected service), Ross did it anyway.

Unfortunately, that level of disregard for the voters and public office itself is virtually bred into our system of part-time representation, when conflicts are inevitable.

So why single out Ross? Because while most people enter public office with the conflicts of their part-time job already established and known by the voters, Ross decided it would be a good idea to create more once he was already in office. And that level of disregard for the voters and public office itself is still a unique thing in Nevada.

Let’s hope Ross’s constituents have an opportunity to choose a less conflicted representative when he’s up for re-election next year. Because ultimately, the voters are the ones who have to police ethics.