Ethics dilemma 1

This scenario, based around a public/private sector relationship and the activities of a multi-stakeholder working group in relation to regional development, is taken from a set of four scenarios on teaching ethics contributed by Alison Dempsey (University of British Columbia). It raises issues of confidentiality and conflict of interest.

The government has committed to building long term relationships with its stakeholders through consultation, partnerships and collaborative processes – seen as fundamental elements in seeking to restore public trust and confidence in public sector institutions. A set of common principles is intended to guide and influence public servants’ professional activities and the government’s relationships with its stakeholders.

Each department has its own culture and area of activities which influence how these principles apply in practice. In your department, the engagement process itself is realised through:

• information – press, mailouts, websites and public meetings
• consultation – meeting and working with stakeholders to resolve issues and concerns
• collaboration – facilitating partnerships, alliances and multi-stakeholder forums

You have been involved with the formation and facilitation of a multi-stakeholder working group made up of representatives from government, business and the communities adjacent to and/or most closely affected by, an area in [northern Alberta, Canada]. This area has seen rapid growth and anticipates further significant development stemming from the [Mackenzie Valley] pipeline project.

A great deal of effort, time and not inconsiderable expense, has been invested over the seven months since the group’s formation. While the working group’s interests are diverse and often not aligned, there is now a high level of trust and willingness to collaborate. This has made it possible for the group to address some challenging issues and work to reach shared outcomes that address the group’s key concerns. A lot of this is due to the efforts of representatives from the business community working to counter perceptions that they have greater influence or control, and that government and business are in collusion.

The other positive results have been greater ‘ownership’ of the process by the group’s other members, together with less perceived or actual risk of conflict of interest, which is a particularly valuable outcome for you and your public sector colleagues.

Meetings occur every eight weeks, hosted by members in rotation. Potentially, additional meetings could be are arranged if pressing issues arose between scheduled meetings; there is, however, no precedent or express policy to address this situation. Although the group now has a core membership, meetings are open – in keeping with the commitment to inclusiveness and transparency. Normally, meeting reminders and agendas are sent to the core group via e-mail in advance of meetings.

Your department also posts notices on its bulletin board within the government’s website. This website sets out, explicitly, an ethics and values code which includes its commitments with respect to all stakeholders. Most of the business and some of the non-profit organisations involved in the working group also have public commitments to operating with integrity vis à vis stakeholders. The similar aspirations in these statements have formed a basis for reaching consensus on the best practicable approaches and outcomes for all of those affected by change in the stated area. These ‘terms of engagement’ have made a great difference – particularly on very contentious issues – in terms of making explicit those behaviours that are not acceptable.

You have just heard from a colleague in another department that they are expecting increased activity by a confrontational activist group which has recently turned its attention to the issue of development in the area. He tells you, in confidence, that his department is suspending planned community consultations on potentially contentious new proposals for an indefinite period in order to limit the opportunity for conflict with this activist group.

Your group’s next regularly scheduled meeting is next week. The main agenda item is the planned licence application by a business that has been in the working group from the beginning. Their application is likely to be contentious for the activist group, and, if they hear of it and attend, it is going to be a difficult meeting. The application is also time sensitive, so postponing the meeting or the specific agenda item to a later date would also present difficulties, particularly given that you know that the regulatory body that reviews applications considers records of stakeholder consultation. Clearly, deviating from the usual practice of consultations in relation to this application would not be viewed favourably.

You consult your supervisor about what you should do. You do not mention your source regarding the activist group, as you feel vaguely uneasy about their intended approach in light of the ethics and values code, but do not want to get anyone into trouble. Your supervisor feels that if this activist group learns about the meeting their prior behaviour suggests they will try to take over the meeting to push their single minded agenda rather than engage constructively. This poses a risk to the trust established among members, the positive progress in building the framework for collaborative engagement, and consensus around finding mutually beneficial outcomes. It would be a terrible blow for the group. It is also potentially damaging from a government public relations perspective – this stakeholder project is being promoted (internally and externally) as a promising pilot for embedding a policy of consultation, collaboration and engagement with stakeholders throughout a community development process.

Take 15 to 20 minutes to consider the following:

• What action(s) will you take?
• What are the risks/repercussions?
• Do some of the group have more at stake depending on the different approaches you might take? Should these have a greater influence on your decision and if so, how do you avoid the possible perception of a conflict of interest?
• Who will you need to involve, and how much information will you share with them?
• Is it your responsibility to decide the course of action for the group, and if so, whom beyond those individuals necessary to implement your plan of action, will you inform?
• How much detail can/will you need to provide?
• Where do your loyalties lie – and do they conflict with the ethical approach?
• The working group tends to look to you for leadership – what are you going to advise?

Things to consider before you decide what to do:

• The group members should know about the meeting since it is one of the regular ones, so the community posting and/or the reminder might not be strictly necessary, at least in the short term.
• There is no precedent, but an ‘extraordinary’‘meeting might be possible on short notice prior to the meeting scheduled for the next week. This would reduce the opportunity for the activists to learn of and attend the meeting, and allow the core working group members to review the proposed licence application in accordance with the collaborative process that it has developed.
• As someone who is seen as a leader you need to set the standard and make the calls on what is acceptable. But you know that a decision is strongest (and most easily defended if something goes wrong) if the decision making process is clear, ethical, takes account of all available information, and involves a discussion with others to explore different perspectives. Can you accomplish both?
• You believe in the power of leadership and in the need to set the tone at the top. If you compromise on the commitments regarding accountability and openness with respect to dealings with the public that you believe reflect the ethics and values code issues, what message are you sending out?
• Every time a question or concern arises as to the fairest approach to an issue, there is a potential opportunity for dealing with ethics. Finding proactive, ethical ways to deal with people or to implement a fair and transparent procedure is how ethical principles come alive in practice.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010