Government Ethics Professionals Also Respond Personally to Conflict Allegations
News from British Columbia provides strong evidence of how difficult
it is for anyone to deal with his own conflict situation, even a government
ethics professional. No one should think that it is easy for someone
to see an appearance of impropriety relating to himself or to respond to a conflict allegation against him in anything but a personal manner. A
government ethics program must facilitate the process of dealing responsibly with a conflict situation by allowing, or even
requiring, officials to seek neutral, professional advice. And a
government ethics professional should do this as a matter of
course, even if she has no formal ethics adviser.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/conflict+commissioner+decision+step+do…; target="”_blank”">an
article in today's Vancouver <i>Sun</i></a>, British Columbia's conflict
commissioner announced that he will not handle a complaint filed
against the province's premier, because the conflict commissioner's
son is a close aide of the premier and formerly worked for her (then)
husband. The conflict commissioner turned the matter over to the
conflict commissioner of another province.<br>
<br>
However, according to <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Dongen+calls+conflict+commissioner+ste…; target="”_blank”">an
earlier article in the Vancouver <i>Sun</i></a>, this was far from the
conflict commissioner's immediate reaction to a call from the
complainant to withdraw from the matter. The conflict commissioner
is quoted as saying,“I don’t perceive a problem in making a decision
in this case that will have nothing to do with my son’s career. If I
had any difficulty, or felt that I in any way couldn’t handle this
file like I do every file — on the basis that I will go where it
takes me, and I will make the decision that needs to be made
without, dare I say it, fear or favour — then I should pack it in.”<br>
<br>
In other words, he treated the issue purely as a personal matter,
involving his impartiality and integrity. The conflict commissioner
did not feel that the conflict would affect him, and felt that that
was all there was to it.<br>
<br>
After more thought and, I presume, consultation with others, the
conflict commissioner changed his tune, although not wholly. One
reason appears to be that he did handle two earlier complaints
against the premier last year.<br>
<br>
He wrote, "I have given further and considerable thought to the
perception issue. Circumstances in which there is a familial
connection to a part of the history in which a conflict appears to
be alleged, combined with the acute political controversy that the
BC Rail file has occasioned in this province. ... I have concluded
that given the very unique circumstances here, it is unfair for me
to ask the members of the legislative assembly or the public to bear
the uncertain burden of my continued involvement in Mr. van Dongen's
request."<br>
<br>
I don't think that the importance of the controversy is relevant at
all, nor is it relevant whether the familial connection is any way
related to the conflict situation on which a complaint is based. If
the son worked for an official's business, and the complaint
involved a business run by the official's wife, there would still be
an appearance of impropriety, which might especially undermine trust in the ethics program if the conflict commissioner was to
dismiss the complaint.<br>
<br>
It is true that more attention is brought to a matter that involves
a major controversy or scandal. But an official, especially a
government ethics official, should act as if full attention will be
brought to any decision he makes.<br>
<br>
It's disappointing that the conflict commissioner defended his prior
decision not to withdraw due to his conflict, rather than admitting
that he did the wrong thing then, and was doing the right thing now,
for the same reason.<br>
<br>
It is a good thing that he turned the matter
over to another conflict commissioner. But I recommend the
following. Conflict commissioners should have a discussion about the
considerations for them to withdraw from a matter, and then put
their conclusions in writing, for guidance. They should also
formalize procedures (1) for seeking ethics advice from each other
and (2) for handing matters over when a conflict commissioner
chooses to withdraw. They should seriously consider having the
advice made available to the public (1) so that it provides ongoing
guidance and (2) so that the public knows that conflict
commissioners are practicing what they preach.<br>
<br>
What occurred should also lead conflict commissioners to question the guidance value of the conflict of interest provision:<blockquote>
A member has an apparent conflict of interest if there is a reasonable perception, which a reasonably well informed person could properly have, that the member's ability to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function must have been affected by his or her private interest.</blockquote>
This is good guidance for an ethics adviser, but not for an official, who likely believes that his ability to exercise his powers will not be affected by any private interests (not to mention the interests of members of one's family), and can't see beyond his nose to consider the well-informed individual's "reasonable perception." If this is difficult for a conflict commissioner to do, think how hard it is for an ordinary official.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---