By Michael Shmarak, Sidney Maxwell Public RelationsIf there is one thing that has raised more eyebrows about the latest occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it is the many ethical conundrums stemming from its Chief Occupant. Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway are giving us media trainers content on what not to do in pressers, but that’s for another column.The President has been sitting on an ethical time bomb since he entered office, and the clock won’t stop ticking anytime soon. If the media is not reporting on his myriad business dealings across the globe, then it is reporting on his wife’s desire to “cash in” on being a First Lady with her jewelry line or the latest one, how retailers are dropping his daughter’s clothing line and how he responds to it.And that is in the first 30 days of being in office; how many more issues are coming?Yet, before any of us answers the question of possible conflicts of interest, we should first think about different issues and imperatives that affect one’s ethical decisions.Ethics Are Not Black or WhiteIt would be easy for me or anyone to say, “the ethical conflicts are obvious!” But that assumes that your ethical construct is the same as mine. Or The President’s assuming he has them.Put simply, I define ethics as the gray matter that sits in between different filters we, as individuals and communicators, use when making specific decisions. That gray matter is comprised of four primary buckets of conflict that affect our lives—and are at the center of what The President is facing:• Social issues. Will my decision, message or choice be socially acceptable? Does 45 care about the social repercussions about Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom not carrying her line of clothes?• Economic issues. Will a decision, message or choice cause an organization to lose money? Perish the thought, but is 45 worried that Ivanka Trump is going to lose money from this venture, and that she will face unjust harm?• Legal issues. Will a decision, message or choice break or influence a law or code?• Moral issues. This is the all-important-but-hard-to-justify top of the pyramid that pushes us to look deep inside of ourselves to determine what is right or wrong.In many cases, this is an issue of whether trust has been compromised, or if someone is pushing for someone else to inflict harm on another party.There are arguments about which one of these issues is least/most important, but they all come into play when talking about potential conflicts of interest between Nordstrom/fill in the blank company and The President.The issues started when 45 was a candidate and would not disclose information on his tax returns. Upon his winning of the election and entering the White House, the discussions of a blind trust permeated discussions so that it had the appearance that he was sticking to business at-hand in Washington as opposed to that of Trump, Inc.Do Unto Others?Here is some guidance to any organization that faces the Twitterer-In-Chief.First, take the communications high road. Nordstrom stuck to messaging that removes whatever personal aspect one might judge to be involved. At the end of the day, this was a business decision. Doing anything to the contrary shows a weakness and defensiveness.Second, prove your ethical construct to the people who matter. Customers and employees want to know they are aligned with a company’s position on sensitive issues. Showing you won’t be bullied into a choice can go a long way in building trust and morale.Third, repeat steps 1 and 2. Twitter and social media won’t go away; neither will the challenge. Reinforce your position when and where possible and prove it is not lip service.Otherwise, we PR counselors will be in for a lot of work that we don’t need to be doing. [author] About the Author: Michael Shmarak is a senior-level strategist and communications counselor, with extensive experience in public relations strategy, national media relations, message development, crisis communications, organizational positioning and staff development. [/author]