Op Ed: What Do You Do When the Gentleman's Agreement Is Broken?

By Demetrius McBride

There was a time when a person's word still carried respect and trust. A handshake might seal the deal, fostering a sense of mutual honor among leaders without legal formalities. That kind of understanding is known as a gentleman's agreement.

A gentleman's agreement does not constitute a contract. It's an informal, unwritten agreement based on trust, honor, and reputation. It is fully based on the premise that a person's integrity is stronger than any legal document. If someone violates it, there is no court to enforce it, and no lawsuit to bring. The outcome is simple but frequently long-lasting: damage to one's credibility and relationships.

Throughout history, these agreements have appeared in a variety of contexts, including economic discussions and diplomatic relations. One well-known example occurred in 1907, when the United States and Japan signed the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907-1908. This informal diplomatic agreement addressed immigration issues without the formality of a treaty. It worked not because of legal enforcement, but because both parties were expected to keep their word.

For generations, communities and institutions have relied on unwritten understandings to maintain fairness, trust, and stability when formal laws are silent, highlighting their role in community cohesion.

Columbus, Georgia, has long held one of these perspectives.

Section 6-201 of the Columbus City Charter outlines the legal process for filling a vacancy in the office of the mayor or the city council. The rule is straightforward. If a vacancy occurs early in a term, the Board of Elections must hold a special election to allow the public to select a replacement. If a vacancy arises later in the term—more than a year and a half after the previous election—the City Council may nominate someone to fill the seat until the next normal election.

The statute grants the authority to make the appointment. But, over time, an informal tradition emerged alongside that authority.

The agreement was straightforward: the person nominated to temporarily occupy the seat would act as a caretaker, not a contender. The appointment was made to ensure continuity in government until voters could make their own decision, not to gain the advantage of incumbency.

This practice has been discreetly guiding appointments in Columbus for years. It was never written into the charter. It did not have to be. It existed because leaders valued the spirit of justice underlying the process.

But what happens if the agreement is ignored? Such actions can shake community confidence and threaten the trust that holds civic relationships together.

Following the death of veteran Councilwoman Judy Thomas, the City Council exercised its charter authority and chose a replacement to serve the at-large position until the next election. That job went to Jon Anker, who was already well-known to Columbus voters from prior political campaigns.

Despite the long-standing understanding that appointees normally serve just as temporary guardians of the seat, he has decided to run.

To clarify, the law authorizes it. A qualified candidate is not prohibited from standing for office under Georgia election law or the city charter. Legally, there is no infraction.

Legality and precedent are not always synonymous.

Gentlemen's agreements are only valid as long as people want to honor them; ignoring these informal traditions risks damaging long-term trust and stability.

Future councils may start appointing political supporters instead of neutral caretakers. Appointments could gradually lead to incumbency. And the public may begin to wonder if such selections are actually about continuity of government—or about gaining an edge before voters ever enter the picture.

That is the true risk when a gentleman's agreement fails. It reduces trust.

The charter was written to outline a method. The unwritten agreement was intended to provide restraint throughout the process. It expressed an understanding that holding public office, however temporarily, entails a commitment not merely to the letter of the law, but also to the spirit of fairness.

So, the question for Columbus isn't whether anyone can run for office. The law provides a clear solution to that question. The fundamental question is whether every legally authorized activity is also beneficial to the long-term health of public confidence. When long-standing civic rules are disregarded, the immediate gain may go to one person. However, the precedent established will be followed by all who come after. Once trust-based traditions are disrupted, they rarely return to their original form.

Gentlemen's agreements have always been based on one thing above all: character.