Councillor Bob Bratina is probably right.

The public isn't exactly clamouring to get to the bottom of the conduct of Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Councillor Brad Clark in the so-called tapegate affair.

But there's no mistaking the white-hot interest it's generating in political and media circles, not to mention among city hall junkies.

That fascination was on display yesterday in the avid looks councillors turned on assistant city solicitor Ron Sabo as he walked them through some of the legal niceties of the case.

And why not?

We could have the two poster boys for council integrity hoisted by their own petard, with all the potential political fallout that implies.

To briefly recap: Eisenberger is under investigation for possibly leaking confidential information to me during an off-the-record interview last year.

Clark is being probed for releasing to the media a transcript and digital recording of that interview, which was allegedly swiped from the mayor's office.

Hamilton police, meanwhile, are supposed to be investigating how the tape went missing in the first place.

Yesterday council moved their end of the probe along by voting to hire the same Toronto lawyer to investigate both Eisenberger and Clark.

The difference is, lawyer George Rust-D'Eye will investigate Clark as the city's interim integrity commissioner, but he'll only scrutinize the mayor as an ordinary investigator.

That's because Clark's possible code of conduct violation took place after council had voted to establish an integrity commissioner while Eisenberger's happened before the new office was approved.

What does that mean in practical terms?

Simply put, Rust-D'Eye has more legal power and penalties at his disposal for dealing with Clark than with Eisenberger.

For example, the new bylaw gives Rust-D'Eye the ability to subpoena witnesses while looking into Clark's actions. And, if he finds the councillor guilty, he can impose a punishment without consulting council, including docking Clark up to three months pay.

Eisenberger's fate on the other hand will end up in council's lap. The most they can do is formally censure him and ban him from chairing committees, both excruciating embarrassments, nonetheless.

I won't discuss the contents of the off-the-record conversation I had with the mayor because it was private and confidential.

But I can point out nothing from that conversation was published, and Eisenberger's comments to me came after a story on the issue we discussed had already appeared in The Spectator due to a different leak.

In other words, the horse had already left the barn when we spoke.

On the other hand, Clark -- by recently distributing the transcript of that interview to Hamilton Community News, which published extracts -- strove to get it printed a year after the fact.

Rather than dealing with a confidential matter quietly and internally, he also encouraged at least one other councillor to give the transcript to media outlets.

Clark claimed to be acting in the public interest by showing the world the mayor's rhetoric about integrity is hollow. The same accusation can now be levelled at him, of course.

To his credit, Clark set a good example by resigning from the integrity and transparency committees because of the investigation, something the mayor should also have done.

But Clark lost that high ground yesterday when he spoke to and asked questions about the investigation into his own behaviour, even after Councillor Sam Merulla suggested he had a conflict of interest in doing so.

It's up to councillors to declare a conflict. Clark chose not to see his in this instance.

After cocking an ear to Merulla's concerns, Clark plowed on in pursuit of his own.

Andrew Dreschel's commentary appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

adreschel@thespec.com

905-526-3495