Hypothetical situation:
Greenpeace takes a regional council to the Environment Court over a rule the Council proposes.
Mediation between the two parties takes place.
Greenpeace presents a demand.
That demand, modified by council staff, is presented to the council and a vote on whether to accept it is called.
On the council are two paid-up members of Greenpeace. Both have shown very strong support for the activities and philosophies of Greenpeace, in the council boardroom and in everyday conversation.
Should the two vote, or should they volunteer to abstain from voting?
More importantly, would an unbiased observer who knows the background described above, have reason to be concerned about the impartiality of the 'Greenpeace Councillors'?
Lastly, if another Councillor expressed concern during the deliberations leading to the deciding vote, about their bias and the likelihood that the public would regard them as biased, what should those Councillors do?
Note: Greenpeace has not taken the council to court. There are not two members of Greenpeace on the council. This is a hypothetical situation. It's a question of perhaps, Councillors Code of Conduct or the Members Interest Act. I'm very interested to hear any comments you might like to make.
*While we are on the topic of voting, look at that link Jordan sent and be amazed!
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You could argue all day over that one.
A conflict of interest is only as honest as the person expressing it until they are found out.
The two Greenpeace people would have been voted in, in a democratic way most likely on the green card - then one would expect heavy lobbying from them over green issues however if it is an organisation that they are involved in, then they should step aside.
Thank you for your opinion, Towack.
Post a Comment