“You don't need a corset of regulation, if you have a backbone of principle.” Those are the words of Alberta's auditor general restated in the Gazette by Jim Lightbody, a political scientist from the University of Alberta.
“You don't need a corset of regulation, if you have a backbone of principle.”
Those are the words of Alberta's auditor general restated in the Gazette by Jim Lightbody, a political scientist from the University of Alberta.
Lightbody aptly applied the phrase to the recent hiring of now former councillor Gilles Prefontaine to the position of St. Albert's chief community development officer. He believes that Prefontaine should have resigned as councillor before submitting an application to a high-paying, senior manager's position with the city.
As it stands, neither policy nor legislation exist preventing Prefontaine's style of floor crossing from elected official to bureaucrat. While there are no legalities at issue here there is, however, the matter of public perception.
Those who are insisting there is no conflict of interest in this move are fooling themselves. Prefontaine was one of city manager Patrick Draper's bosses and also recently took the lead on Draper's performance review. Did either of those realities influence the hiring process? The answer is unfortunately irrelevant. Even the perception of conflict within government can be as damaging as true conflict.
In city coffee shops and on social media, the public is asking if Prefontaine was the best candidate for the job or if his role at city hall granted him special treatment. It is likely the same question every person who applied for the job is also asking and could open the city to accusations of unfair hiring practices. The worst-case scenario is the city will have to defend this choice in court, a costly endeavour.
Some would argue it is unfair to force someone to resign from a job to apply for another, as no such practice exists in the corporate world. Government is not the corporate world and elected officials are mandated to serve the public interest. Did Prefontaine fulfil that mandate when he competed with members of the public for this position while seated in a position of authority with the city? Did he serve the public interest when he forced a costly byelection? The answer to both those questions is he did not.
Out of the 400 people who applied for this job, Prefontaine may very well have been the best candidate. The recruiting agency, based on its criteria, saw fit to shortlist him to the top three candidates. Unfortunately, a pall of doubt will forever hang over this choice, opening the city to criticism. Draper should face some tough questions from councillors because we are sure they will be facing tough questions themselves. At the top of the list is why were councillors not made aware – if they indeed were not – that one of their own was applying for this job? The second is how can a position previously titled engineering and planning be changed so dramatically that neither of those areas of expertise is actually needed to fill the role.
While we all have the right to protect our self-interests and better our lives through improved and more gainful employment, when one chooses to go into public service there are sacrifices one must make. Prefontaine's actions, unfortunately, make him appear opportunistic and self-serving.
Lightbody is correct in his inference that we cannot legislate against every possibility. Nor should we have to. He also correctly implies that if our governments can be guided by principle, many of these problems would resolve themselves.
Unfortunately, from the federal level right down to the municipal level, our elected officials have continuously demonstrated their backbone of principle to be heavily afflicted with osteoporosis.
