ROTHENBURGER: Conflict of interest rules for councillors a case of ‘if it ain’t broke’

The post to which I was alerted is original to the PK page and declares the need for better conflict-of-interest guidelines for City councillors. The author says the purpose of the proposal is “to avoid any future perceived conflicts.”

Right there, I raise my hand because any politician who doesn’t occasionally experience a potential conflict of interest isn’t connected to the community and is, therefore, in my view, poorly qualified to hold office. The key is to declare such conflicts and stay clear of related decisions.

The “motion” — which I gather has been sent off to councillors with little response — goes on to say the City’s current conflict of interest rules are out-of-date and toothless. It proposes that elected officials and their spouses and immediate families be required to disclose assets, liabilities and financial interests.

Elected officials and senior management would be prohibited from being employed or running a business that might conflict with their public duties. After they leave their positions, they wouldn’t be allowed to accept City contracts or lobby for 24 months.

In order to monitor these new provisions, an independent ethics officer would be appointed and a phone hotline and/or anonymous tip line would be set up.

A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing when it comes to keeping an eye on politicians but I suggest the PK proposal is little more than a problem looking for a place to happen.

Fact is, Kamloops City councillors are very careful to “leave the room” if there’s even a whiff of a perception of conflict.

A conflict of interest arises if a council member stands to receive personal gain from a decision made by council. So, basically, if a councillor doesn’t have a direct pecuniary interest in a decision, he or she likely doesn’t have a conflict. Yet declarations of “perceived” or “potential” conflict are frequent.

Arjun Singh is one of the more active councillors when it comes to stepping out of chambers for various votes due to this perception issue. Since he’s a landlord, he often excuses himself from decisions involving certain land-use matters that might be seen as competition.

He even excused himself from a council decision on wine sales at Save-On Foods. The mayor at the time was Peter Milobar, who also declared a conflict due to his involvement in running a liquor store.

When Denis Walsh was looking at the possibility of opening a cannabis shop, he frequently declared a conflict when licence applications from other prospective cannabis merchants came up for consideration.

But when temporary patios were under discussion early in the pandemic, he took part in the decision even while applying for a patio for his Victoria Street coffee shop. Vancouver councillor Michael Wiebe, on the other hand, was facing calls for his resignation over something similar.

The difference was that Walsh had sought advice beforehand and was told he was in the clear because the patio decision was general and not directed specifically at him.

Councillors who own businesses are more likely to run into conflicts of interest than those who don’t, and the secret is simply to be aware and be ready. However, one’s employment can also raise conflict questions.

Coun. Sadie Hunter has already declared one conflict — on a council decision on social housing — since becoming executive director of Away Home Kamloops a couple of months ago, and it won’t be the last time she’ll have to do it.

In her case, any benefit, if any, wouldn’t have been personal and would certainly be indirect but she’s wise to exercise extreme caution.

Donations are another touchy issue. In January, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of Langley and two councillors didn’t violate conflict of interest rules when they accepted donations from executives of development companies (not the companies themselves).

It was an interesting case because recent changes to B.C. law prevent corporations and unions from making donations to candidates.

Donations don’t usually create a conflict, anyway, but they’re certainly to be avoided when a decision is in front of the council. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the mayor and councillors had no pecuniary interest in the developments under scrutiny.

By the way, council members must declare their financial interests every January but their families aren’t forced to do the same thing, nor should they be.

The Community Charter, the document setting out how City councils must operate, clearly states the boundaries for potential conflicts.

Rules around conflict of interest are aimed at making sure integrity and fairness prevail in decision making. Strong rules are in place and there’s no evidence those rules are being flouted around the City council table, so if it ain’t broke….

Mel Rothenburger is a former mayor of Kamloops and a retired newspaper editor. He is a regular contributor to CFJC, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a director on the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.

—

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.

by Mel Rothenburger

ROTHENBURGER: Conflict of interest rules for councillors a case of ‘if it ain’t broke’

Our Community