Hours after he entered a no contest plea to a misdemeanor count of lewd conduct, District 3 City Council candidate John Hartley issued a defiant apology.

“I want to apologize to the voters of the 3rd District. I made a mistake,” he wrote. “I accept full responsibility for my actions. And I promise not to let it happen again … Having said all of that, I do not intend to answer any questions about this today or in the future.”

Blink and you’ll miss the mea culpa.

Since Hartley’s March 27 arrest, allegations have swirled. Perhaps the only concrete information we have is that Hartley answered the call of nature – he urinated into a cup in his Ford Ranger, parked in the 4600 block of Vista Avenue in Kensington.

Hartley’s campaign consultant, Larry Remer, has confirmed that much.

One witness claimed Hartley was masturbating – a claim that seems outlandish, and wasn’t supported with enough evidence to make an indecent exposure charge stick.

The police report, which was obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune, was whited out and provided very few details about the case. No witness accounts were made available. And, until his apology Monday, Hartley has stayed mum on the subject, deferring all questions to Remer.

It is no wonder voters are questioning what happened – the source of the chatter isn’t providing answers.

Media outlets continue to report inaccurate information, largely due to the fact that no one will talk. KNBC in Los Angeles ran a link on its Web site Wednesday which read, “San Diego candidate admits public masturbation.”

Granted, the network’s flub blatantly disregards the facts and breaches ethics, but it isn’t reporting what people aren’t already thinking.

The bizarre allegation that Hartley masturbated in his truck is firmly planted in voters’ minds. Regardless of the fact that an indecent exposure charge was dropped, no matter how many times Remer defends Hartley and denies the charge, voters are going to need to hear from the candidate.

Hartley, without question, has demonstrated a commitment to District 3, to its neighborhoods and its residents. His four years as the elected councilmember for the district in the early 1990s illustrates his experience and his ability to win.

Voters did not hear a public statement from Hartley until he issued his apology Monday. And, if Hartley is to be believed, voters won’t hear from him on this matter again.

He may not want to address the issue at forums or while walking precincts, but the fact is, he’s required to answer questions and address voters’ concerns.

Understandably, he doesn’t want to be tagged as the candidate who peed in a cup in his truck, but undecided voters need to know why this blip on Hartley’s record is not indicative of his attitude toward crime. Voters want transparency in city government. They want questions answered, and honest, open discourse with elected officials.

If voters are concerned about the incident, if they want more information, or they need Hartley to prove why he’s a candidate they can be confident in, he is tasked with answering questions and meeting needs.

Hartley owes it to his District 3 constituents to give a full explanation of what he did and did not do – and then we can move on.