Mr. Burns should not have been on the bargaining board. The perception to the community, to other elected officials and to the police union would have an appearance of impropriety. A reasonable person would believe that Burns owed the union for their election efforts. The union members would also believe Burns owed them for their support during the campaign. There are a couple of other factors of concern about this case with regards to Burns and the union. Burns should not be meeting them at the bars for drinks and they should not be approaching him about their complaints of the chief. There is a proper chain of command in all government and I am certain these officers no Burns followed this process. They all seemed to operate on a quid pro quo system that lacked transparency in government. Basically, we got you elected so you need to get us what we want seemed to be the thought process used by the union. This brought out a shadow of inconsistency in Burns ethical decisions. A reasonable person would reasonably come to the conclusion that Burns was not being consistent and applying all standards equally.