Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
The conflict of interest is certainly an issue but it isn't the key problem. The main problem is that Redford still insists that she didn't make the decision even though the paper trail shows that she did. If she would have just admitted it in the first place then the opposition wouldn't have much to go on since it doesn't technically meet the requirements under conflict of interest legislation. She used poor judgement anyway in that she should have simply removed herself from the decision in the first place. It's quite likely that the firm chosen was the best suited, if that is the case then she didn't need to be involved. It's the lie after the fact to attempt to cover up the truth that is the problem.
Ralph made mistakes and he was crude at times but at least he was honest, hard to believe anything that comes out of Redford's mouth.
|
But that's my point, she was eliminated from the important part of the decision, by the time the decision between the three remaining contenders going to to her desk, all the independent analysis had been done and it was determined there was no difference in competency among the three. Sometimes we have to take a step back and think about why the conflict-of-interest is wrong. It's wrong because of the risk that the person with a conflict will put their own interests ahead of those of the people they are responsible for and will make a decision that hurts the people they are deciding for to feather their own nests. You can't expect someone to recuse themselves from any decision in which they have any interest or politicians couldn't vote on anything from tax hikes to speed limits. The degree of a conflict is absolutely relevant. Once the important conflict is removed, which is whether the firm/consortium is competent, the remaining conflict is of a very insignificant issue about whether Redford might possibly somehow profit from this decision in the future which applies to many decisions she has to make. The reason I say it's insignificant is because it's her ex-husband and she has no current direct financial interest. That's why the conflict of interest rules don't deal with exes.
With respect to the bigger point you are making that she is lying or if not lying outright then being dishonest, I sort of agree, sort of disagree. In my view she believes, through the lens of politics, that she is right and telling the truth that she didn't actually decide but made a recommendation based on what she said she did. Practically speaking, nobody was likely to overrule her recommendation so she should have just sent the decision back to the committee to analyze whether an Alberta based consortium that had not already acted for any other province of would he the best choice and then let the chips fall.