HSD trustees debate over conflict of interest policy

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/07/2024 (281 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

During the last school board meeting of Hanover trustees, board members debated over the use of the term “perceived” and “potential” in the conflict of interest policy leading some to vote “No.”

The policy came to the board for second and third reading and states: HSD supports the right of its board members to be involved in community projects and activities as citizens of the community…The conflict of interest exists when a board member’s financial interests or those of their family members interfere or compromise the board member’s ability to act in the best interest of the school division and the constituents it serves. This conflict can be real, potential or perceived. The board expects all board members to conduct themselves in accordance of all federal, provincial, and local legislation including but not limited to human rights statutes and the public schools act as well as school division bylaws and policies.

Some of the conflicts of interest include accepting prizes, gifts or hospitality from any organization HSD does business with; using the association with HSD for financial gain; seeking to obtain preferential treatment for financial interest; or revealing confidential information.

The onus is on the board member to anticipate and avoid conflict of interest including situations that could give the appearance of being in conflict with HSD’s interests.

Review of the policy is done every four years, but the board reviewed the policy last year and revisited it this year because it was reviewing the employee conflict of interest policy.

“The rationale to review this was to keep it in line with the employee conflict of interest so the intent and the verbiage remain the same,” said governance chair Danielle Funk. “So, that all of our conflict of interest policies don’t then veer separately and have different intents or meanings or to add confusion to anything.”

“I would just add to what Danielle said that the intent of this is for board members to be good role models for their staff and if they’re going to expect their staff to have an employee conflict of interest that the board members should have the same conflict of interest,” said superintendent Shelley Amos.

“My concern is the wording of “real, potential, or perceived,” said trustee Cheryl Froese. “You said it was a legal term which is fine, I’m not a lawyer however how can we discipline people for something that people perceive?”

Funk said that the wording has been in the policy for a long time and it is common practice in conflict of interest policies.

“It’s not about disciplining someone for perceived (conflict of interest) it is about being aware of what you can be perceived as a conflict of interest,” she said.

Trustee Jeff Friesen wondered why the “perceived” wording was not in the employee conflict of interest. Funk said it was because the board’s conflict of interest has financial impacts.

“There is slight differences that’s why they are not exactly the same. I would say there are things that can be perceived, (but) they may not use the word perceived in the employee (policy),” said Funk.

Trustee Lynn Barkman wondered if the words “perceived” and “potential” should be deleted from the policy as it was causing conflict with the board. Funk strongly disagreed with leaving those words out of the policy.

“I think we have to hold ourselves to extremely high standards when we’re in this position and we need to be very conscious on what we’re making our decision on and how it can look to the public.

“This is something we need to take very seriously and if we’re making decisions that could reasonably be perceived as a conflict of interest, we need to be aware of that and be very diligent…By taking that out we are then saying that we don’t need to be as cautious about the potential perceived conflict of interest,” she said.

Amos said the wording came from the HR manager who had been diligent in checking other policies and from the Manitoba School Boards Association.

The policy passed the vote with trustees Barkman, Friesen, and Shayne Barkman voting “No.”