Copy
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Volume 1, Issue 1                                        April 2012                                            Integrity Officers
Complaints in the Public Interest


Integrity Commissioners can only be as effective as their terms of reference allow.  Some of those operational standards are set in legislation; other are found in the code of conduct by the municipality or other agency involved.

One limitation in the current legislation is the failure to address the subject of investigations in the public interest. Municipalities can choose a process where either complaints are registered directly with the integrity commissioner or through the Clerk’s office.  One problem here, whichever of the two mechanisms chosen, is whether or not an investigation can or should proceed if the complainant withdraws the complaint.

An IC examines a query or complaint in order to determine if it does or does not merit handling. Sometimes the complainant is advised to go to another agency for remedy. At other times, the complaint may be rejected if it is found to be frivolous, vexatious or purely political in approach. In other cases, the IC may proceed ahead with an agreed-upon process for indeed investigating the complaint.

Withdrawal of a complaint is certainly a right, but the issue is what if this is done out of fear of retribution? What does the IC do if the complaint has merit but is withdrawn because of fear of loss of job or a contract? The letter of the law would suggest that the complaint stops immediately in its tracks, as would be the case if a court suit was initiated. But the spirit of the law could be that the topic be pursued as an investigation by the IC acting in the public interest. After all, it is the public interest that is being served by the office of the IC.

What would you do in this situation? If you were the IC, should the investigation be terminated? Clearly a case can be made that clarification of such process ground rules should form part of an ICs job interview or employment contract.


EthicScan is Canada's oldest, largest, and well-respected, full-service corporate responsibility research house and ethics consultancy. Our mission is to empower individuals, businesses and organizations with the insights, tools and research to apply their values across life's daily challenges - be it training, procurement, consuming, partnering, ethical assurance and investing, or simply managing with integrity.

EthicScan Associates
Marie-Claude Boudreau
Jane Garthson
Suzanne Jackson
Eric B. Litwack
Gay Miller
David Nitkin
Vincent di Norcia

EthicsAssurance Content Experts

Bart Astor
Nigel Blumenthal
Jane Garthson
Dave Gaylor
Lynne Hall
Erik B Litwack
Gay Miller
David Nitkin

EthicsAssurance Consultants
Len Brooks
Glenn Brown
Vincent di Norcia
Brian Gamble
Mel Gill
Nigel Hall
Stuart Hartley
Brenda Jean Lycett
Kathy Rost
Mark Schwartz
Edward Waitzer
Cynthia Webster
Cornelius von Baeyer

INTEGRITY OFFICER RESOURCES

Seminar on Transparency and Accountability
http://www.ethicscan.ca/docs/integeduc.pdf

Legal Interpretations and Challenges
http://www.ethicscan.ca/docs/legalopins.pdf

Alternative Models in Ontario
http://www.ethicscan.ca/docs/amoresearch.pdf

*|LIST:DESCRIPTION|*

Unsubscribe *|EMAIL|* from this list.

Our mailing address is:
*|HTML:LIST_ADDRESS_HTML|*
Copyright (C) 2010 *|LIST:COMPANY|* All rights reserved.

Forward this email to a friend
Update your profile
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp