Mayor Fred Eisenberger had the relieved look of a man who had turned a plunging blade aside from his vital organs.

Council had just voted to let him off the hook after an investigator found he had broken their code of conduct by sharing confidential information with me during an off-the-record interview -- the so-called tapegate affair.

The man who campaigned on the integrity ticket had slipped out from under a shadow.

Why didn't councillors censure him?

They accepted lawyer George Rust-D'Eye's advice that punishment wasn't warranted because of mitigating circumstances.

Rust-D'Eye concluded the mayor passed on the information to provide context and background in the face of ongoing city hall leaks and misinformation about a personnel matter, a move consistent with the mayor's duty to protect the public interest.

In sum, the majority of councillors were willing to believe the mayor could be simultaneously guilty and vindicated.

In other words, when it comes to leaking confidential information, it's not a black and white world after all.

It probably didn't hurt Eisenberger's case that much of the information the mayor shared had already been leaked through other sources.

That meant one or more councillors sitting in judgment may themselves have been guilty of the same offence.

Under those circumstances, how could they ignore Rust-D'Eye's advice and censure the mayor? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Still, not everyone thought the mayor should escape unscathed. The vote, after all, was 8-4.

In fairness, it should be noted one of the dissenters, Maria Pearson, agreed with Rust-D'Eye's conclusions.

She voted against the report simply because she believed it contained too much confidential information to be publicly released.

Russ Powers felt the same way, but he also thinks Eisenberger should have paid a price for his actions.

"I felt it was clearly a breach of the code of conduct and the least that should have happened was the mayor should have had a reprimand," said Powers.

Robert Pasuta also wanted to see repercussions.

"I believe we should treat the mayor as we treat any other councillor," he said.

Powers and Pasuta have no axes to grind.

I'm not sure the same can be said of Dave Mitchell.

"The worst thing that any councillor can do is leak confidential information," said Mitchell. "It's got to stop."

Mitchell, of course, was censured by council last winter for illegally attempting to influence a vote on a land ruling involving his farm.

At that time, Eisenberger said he wished he could throw the book at him.

You have to wonder if Mitchell's own experiences gave him a biased view of Eisenberger's.

Rust-D'Eye (pronounced Rust-Day) now turns his attention to investigating whether Councillor Brad Clark contravened the code of conduct .

You'll remember this whole thing only became public when Clark circulated a tape of my off-the-record discussion with Eisenberger, a tape allegedly stolen by someone else from the mayor's office.

When fingered, Clark claimed he was a whistle-blower who was acting in the public interest by exposing Eisenberger as a hypocrite for criticizing leakers while being one himself.

The question dangling over Clark's head is whether he was actually serving the public interest or advancing his own political agenda.

If the former, why did he surreptitiously distribute the tape to the media and a few councillors instead of openly handing it over to city officials for investigation?

Whatever Rust-D'Eye concludes, Clark is probably in for some sleepless nights.

As the rescued Eisenberger noted the other night: "Having your integrity questioned is not a pleasant experience for anyone."

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

adreschel@thespec.com 905-526-3495