The sa国际传媒 government needs to clarify the conflict-of-interest muddle left by a January 2013 Court of Appeal decision that threatens to stall important work by municipal councils and local boards.
That decision has thrown a scare into municipal politicians. As a result, Capital Regional District directors barely scraped together a quorum last week to approve this year鈥檚 $203-million operating budget.
The Court of Appeal鈥檚 finding of conflict involved Christine Torgrimson and George Ehring, elected members of the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee, a land-use planning body. They voted in 2011 to grant money to two societies of which they were directors.
Torgrimson and Ehring and three other people formed the Salt Spring Island Water Council Society in April 2011 and three months later incorporated the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council Society. At meetings in the fall, they supported motions to give $4,000 grants to the two societies, one to fund a workshop on water issues and another to provide a progress report on greenhouse gases.
A group of Salt Spring residents asked the sa国际传媒 Supreme Court to find the two in conflict and disqualify them from holding office. Justice Brian MacKenzie dismissed the petition on the grounds that the evidence did not show a direct or indirect financial interest.
The Salt Spring residents appealed, and the Court of Appeal overturned MacKenzie鈥檚 ruling, saying he took too narrow a view of conflict.
鈥淲hen they voted for the expenditure of public money on the two contracts, which master were they serving, the public or the societies?鈥� Appeal Court Justice Ian Donald wrote. 鈥淚n these circumstances, a reasonable, fair-minded member of the public might well wonder who got the better bargain.鈥�
Under the circumstances, Salt Spring Islanders had ample reason to be concerned, and the Court of Appeal鈥檚 decision was sensible, but it makes many municipal council and board members wary of serving on other organizations.
We like our elected officials to be part of the community. Many have worked for years in nonprofit groups before they stood for office, and they continue to serve in those endeavours. They bring their caring, experience and contacts with them into public office. It would be a mistake to sever those connections.
There鈥檚 also the issue of cross-appointments, in which local politicians are appointed to represent their municipalities on other bodies such as the CRD, the CREST emergency-communications board or the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness. They could be deemed to be in conflict of interest if they voted on funding for one of those organizations.
Conflict-of-interest rules are usually aimed at preventing anyone (or family and friends) from getting personal financial gain from public service. In the Salt Spring case, there was no accusation of personal benefit, but the rules should also inhibit people from using public office to provide disproportionate support to pet causes, however worthy those causes.
Appointments by councils and boards to other bodies are for mutual benefit. They keep organizations connected and help maximize resources and services.
The province should bring in legislation or implement regulations that take into account situations such as cross-appointments and membership in community organizations. The rules should lay out clearly what is a conflict and what is not. Those who are serving the public should not have to live in fear of being hauled before a judge because they happen to serve in a variety of organizations.
Perhaps that paranoia is unjustified; perhaps elected officials who are concerned are heeding overly cautious legal advice, but the province can help dispel those concerns with clearer rules.
