May 8, 2002

Health Authority's Code of Conduct

The Interior Health Authority has produced a Standards of Conduct policy that should be shared with East Kootenay MLA, Bill Bennett. Bennett is the MLA who recently apologized for using his office to promote the interests of a helicopter company. He was also criticized by constituents for using his office to advocate for a private interest on crown land.

You won't find it on the Interior Health Authority's website but its code, dated March 20, 2002, was hand delivered to staff by its managers. The 7 page document is a good idea and the kind of thing that should exist in all organizations. It does raise the question, however, of why there would be different codes of conduct for different parts of the public sector. Isn't a conflict of interest the same no matter where it occurs? Of course, decision makers have greater opportunity for conflict. That is why the Interior Health Authority's Code needs strengthening to cover the executives. Strengthening the code will prevent it from being interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the lower ranks of the organization.

The Interior Health Authority's document devotes a full page to discussing conflict of interest; the Member's Conflict of Interest Act has only one sentence defining conflict of interest. Of course that sentence in the Act which governs MLAs has since had the benefit of expansion by case examples.

Government has said that 3,100 residential care beds will be closed. Does blowing the whistle on the eviction of residents, contrary to government promises, constitute a conflict? The Authority's document says "All employees are encouraged to participate in a full range of community organizations. However, when doing so, employees must arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest, or the perception of conflicts of interest, from arising." In case those words are hard to interpret the document offers six case examples, "Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: an employee, in the performance of official duties, gives preferential treatment to an individual, corporation or organization, including a non profit organization, in which the employee, or a relative or friend of the employee, has an interest, financial or otherwise."

Most of the information that has been made public on government cutbacks has not come from open, honest, transparent government and its agencies, but from health unions and their members. No one should attempt to shut down that flow of information.

The Code of Conduct does raise questions about the standards applied to senior managers in the new authorities. Tapes released by the BCGEU reveal lobbying efforts that are underway to secure bids for contracted out services. Millions of dollars are at stake in awarding those contracts. The BCBid site reveals no information on the criteria that will be used for making those decisions. The Code of Conduct should be amended to include full disclosure of the assets and other private interests of those involved in awarding such contracts in the same manner that election officials must file disclosure documents with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

The Interior Health Authority is right to include both real and perceived conflicts in its Code. Now it needs to disclose the private interests of decision makers so as to reduce perceived conflicts. Gifts (meals, trips, etc.) should also be disclosed. In excess of $1 billion in contracts will be awarded by health authorities. That offers enormous potential for problems.

---

May 7, 2002

Health Authorities Fail at Open Tenders

Health Minister Colin Hansen has revealed another major gap between the way he thinks the health authorities are working and what is actually happening. The bidding process is far from transparent.

Responding to a question from Jenny Kwan about the blacklisting of HEU members, Health Minister Colin Hansen said as "…health authorities go out to do open tendering to identify companies that can provide quality support services in our health care sector more cost-effectively than we've been able to do up to now, they have to go out in that tendering process that is open and transparent…"

It is understandable that the busy Minister doesn't have time to look at the BCBid website, but one of his staff ought to properly brief him. As of May 6, 2002, three of the six health authorities had requests for proposals (RFPs) on the site.

If Health Minister Colin Hansen is to be taken at his word about "open and transparent" tendering, then the health authorities must at least meet the standards set by other RFPs on the BCBid website. The authorities must spell out the criteria for selecting the winning bids. They must spell out the form of contract, e.g. what liability coverage will be required, what termination provisions will govern, what renewal provisions will be included in the agreements?

The three RFPs from health authorities share two things in common. First, they all are requests that would see the elimination of existing union jobs. Second, they are anything but "open and transparent". The preceding quotes are the full extent of the RFPs. Compare those feeble efforts to almost any other RFP on the BC Bid website. For example, look at the RFP for the Premier that is seeking an advertising agency to get the facts out on health care. That RFP includes a downloadable word document as is common with many such requests. That document then provides the scoring criteria that will be used in selecting the successful bidder, the contract requirements and details on what is being requested. In the case of the advertising agency RFP, the 33 page downloadable document has almost 7,600 words explaining the request.

The gap between what exists from the health authorities on the BCBid website and the words of the minister are reminiscent of the failed five hour news conference. It is frightening that those are the authorities in charge of our health care!