The Québec Ombudsman received a disclosure indicating that a senior manager of a public body allegedly was in conflict of interest in the context of a project requiring the use of livestock. He seemingly sold animals belonging to him to the public body which employed him, with the option of buying back the livestock. He had housed the animals on his property and could potentially benefit personally.
The Québec Ombudsman decided to investigate to see whether wrongdoing had occurred.
Findings
More than once, the manager acquired livestock for his employer. After being reimbursed for the first purchase, he signed sales contracts with his employer. Each contract designated him as the vendor of the animal. A clause provided that he could buy back the animal at the same price should his employer want to dispose of it.
- The manager had acquired the livestock for the employer. As a result, he was not the owner and could not be officially designated as the vendor. He nonetheless agreed to sign contracts that were not legitimate.
- The manager was both the vendor and the first buyer for his employer’s livestock. In so doing, he had confounded the public body’s property with his own.
For several months, the manager had housed on his premises animals belonging to the employer and had charged fees for boarding them.
- The fees were reasonable and the manager had not made a profit. However, the situation could suggest that he favoured himself over other suppliers and that, perhaps, his personal interests influenced his decisions about the project.
- There was no evidence that he had used the employer’s property for personal purposes. However, the situation gave the manager easy access to the livestock, which could suggest that he had benefited.
- The manager acted as a person in a position of authority and as a supplier for the same project. He had placed himself in a conflict-of-interest situation.
The manager’s version
The manager says that he became financially and personally involved in order to minimise costs for the pilot project and ensure the welfare of the animals. By signing contracts with buyback options, he hoped to protect the animals—if they became useless to the project, he would keep them and take care of them properly.
Conclusion
The Québec Ombudsman does not question the manager’s good intentions. However, he should have found some other way of proceeding which would have enabled him to comply with the rules. In acting as he did, he contravened:
- The Regulation respecting the ethics and professional conduct of public office holders;
- His employer’s internal discipline regulation.
The manager’s actions were consistent with a serious breach of codes of ethics and professional conduct.
They constituted wrongdoing under the Act to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoings relating to public bodies.
Recommendations
The Québec Ombudsman recommended that the public body authorities:
- Produce a directive for better control of all pilot projects;
- Revise the internal conflict-of-interest directive;
- Produce a policy governing the resale of animals acquired within the framework of a project.
The public body accepted the Québec Ombudsman’s recommendations. It stated that a considerable portion of the recommendations had already been dealt with through the work underway.
The Québec Ombudsman sees to the integrity of public services and is part of the action to improve them. Have you witnessed what you think was a wrongdoing relating to a public body? Do you have information suggesting that such an act was committed or is about to be? Disclose now.
