The Oversight Relationship

Here's an interesting local government ethics scenario from Ottawa
that deals with the often neglected oversight relationship. According to
<a href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/conflict+marriage+between+transportat…; target="”_blank”">an
article this week in the Ottawa <i>Citizen</i></a>, six people died in a recent bus-train accident at the Woodroffe Avenue train crossing
in Ottawa. This brought attention to the safety of the train
crossing's design.<br>
<br>
It turns out that the consultant who designed the train crossing is
married to the city's deputy city manager in charge of
transportation, that is, the official in charge of the train
crossing's safety. But when the consultant designed the crossing in
2004, her husband was not a city employee. He was vice-president in
charge of the Ottawa office of the consulting firm that administered
a safety assessment of the train crossing and designed a wider
version of the crossing and the adjacent stretch of the Transitway.<br>
<br>

In other words, since the train crossing was designed, the
designer's husband has worn two hats, as consultant and as official,
both of which were responsible for oversight of what his wife
designed.<br>
<br>
But the city says that there is no conflict of interest. The city
spokesperson said that, at the time the wife started doing work for
the city, the Auditor General reviewed all potential conflicts of
interest and was satisfied that she conducted herself appropriately
throughout to ensure no conflict arose.<br>
<br>
The problem here is that people think conflicts of interest are all
about transactions. Did the couple do business together? It does not
appear that they did. Their relationship does not appear to have led
to any contracts, and there does not appear to have been any
influence or decisions by either of them that could benefit the
other financially.<br>
<br>
But when it comes to conflicts, transactions are not all that is
important. Oversight is equally important. Neither an official nor a
consultant should be in a position of oversight over a spouse or the
work of a spouse. It is difficult for a spouse to publicly criticize
or undo the work of a spouse. And if nothing is done and things go
wrong, as happened in this case, it will look to the public as if
the official or consultant failed to act in order to protect the
spouse's reputation, or simply because he did not want to rock the
marriage boat.<br>
<br>
If an official or government consultant finds himself in a position
of oversight over a family member, business associate, or even a
close friend, he should publicly withdraw from participation and let
someone else, or another company or agency, provide the oversight.
If the individual is in charge of an office, he should not simply
hand the work over to a subordinate, because the subordinate will
feel equally uncomfortable criticizing or undoing the work of her
boss's spouse. The oversight responsibility should go up or across, not down.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---