November 20, 2002

Apparent Conflict

Was it a coincidence that Attorney General Geoff Plant released H.A.D. Oliver's report on the same day they kicked Paul Nettleton out of caucus? Cynics might think the timing was chosen so as to minimize news coverage on Nettleton. Some are even so cynical as to suggest a pool be started on when Nettleton will be recognized in question period for his first question as an independent MLA, and how often thereafter the speaker will allow him to hold the government accountable in that most important forum.

The only surprise in the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's report was a recommendation that Glen Clark pay half of his legal costs for representation before the Commissioner - $53,000. It is important to understand that the Commissioner's recommendation was contained in a letter to the former Deputy Attorney General dated January 25, 2001. The former government requested an opinion from Mr. Oliver on whether Clark should pay any portion of his legal costs in the conflict matter. The answer was given four months before the last election and kept secret until now so as not to prejudice matters that were before the court.

It is not a surprise that the Commissioner found that Clark had violated the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Oliver's lengthy decision should be required reading (for an exam afterwards) for all MLAs. The decision elaborates on the concept of what constitutes a "private interest". In Clark's case, it may have been sufficient if he had simply said no to Pilarinos; however, the Commissioner makes it clear that private interests can exist through a variety of other circumstances including friendship. Those circumstances did not apply to the Clark case, but the Commissioner included a lengthy discussion of the concept for the guidance of MLAs in the future.

Mr. Oliver summarized much of his lengthy decision in his letter to the Deputy Attorney General. In that letter he said:

"The violations of the Act I have found Mr. Clark to have committed do not involve a finding of deliberate wrong doing on Mr. Clark's part. Rather, they reflect a finding that Mr. Clark violated an objective standard for appropriate conduct, as formulated in the Act, by failing to take steps to ensure that his discharge of the duties of his office did not appear to be compromised by his personal dealings."

The Commissioner went on to recommend "that Mr. Clark should be required to reimburse the government for one half of the amount paid for legal fees in relation to advice and representation of Mr. Clark during the course of my Inquiry."

At the annual Jack Webster Awards dinner, it was reported that the Glen Clark story was one of the most over rated stories in the past year. Everyone can hope that the release of the Conflict Commissioner's Report will put an end to a story that has dragged on for far too long.

Background: For the documents see http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/nrm_news_releases/2002AG0083-000981.htm. Go to the bottom and click on the three pdf files.