Last week, a blatantly obvious conflict of interest was revealed. It should have resulted in the swift removal of a committee chairman. Instead, it elicited yawns.

Rep. Paul Ingbretson, R-Pike, is chairman of the newly constituted House Redress of Grievances Committee. On Thursday, the committee heard the case of a father, David Johnson, who is asking that judges and other state officials involved in his divorce and child custody case be removed from office, and he be given custody of his daughter.

A decade ago, Johnson lost custody, and the court ruled that his visits with her must be supervised. As chairman, Ingbretson was presiding over that hearing when he abruptly revealed, hours into it, that for nearly a year he has supervised Johnson’s weekly visits with his daughter.

Making the conflict even worse, when this committee was established, the chairman was given broad power to determine which petitions it would hear. So Ingbretson, who was personally involved in Johnson’s case, made sure it was considered by the committee. And even though Ingbretson said in another case earlier this year that all parties would be invited to speak if the committee decided to hold a hearing, Johnson’s ex-wife was never notified of Thursday’s hearing, ensuring that the committee did not hear her side of the story.

House Speaker Bill O’Brien, who knew previously about Ingbretson’s involvement in the Johnson case, should have made him step aside during this hearing. Instead, he shrugged it off, saying that House ethics rules govern only financial conflicts. Does the speaker really think the only possible way a legislator can be ethically conflicted is if money is involved?

The committee itself voted to keep Ingbretson as chairman after his disclosure. It was not a party-line vote. Ingbretson, who has a reputation for fairness, was trusted to be unbiased. But regardless of his personal reputation, the facts of this case scream for his removal as chairman. Intentionally or not, this hearing was tilted in David Johnson’s favor. It should be reheard under a different chairman and with the involvement of the girl’s mother. Otherwise, the Redress of Grievances Committee will have created another grievance to redress.