Integrity commissioners becoming common in Ontario

Integrity commissioners are becoming more common in Ontario, with 20-25 cities either paying one full time or as a consultant, says the president of a firm that specializes in teaching organizations the importance of ethical behaviour.

David Nitkin, president of EthicScan Canada Ltd., a Canadian-based consultancy firm specializing in corporate ethics, was in Sudbury on Sept. 20 to speak at a fundraiser for the Greater Sudbury Taxpayers Association. Funds raised from the $250-a-ticket event (organizers say about 45 tickets were sold) will help fund the group’s work in Sudbury.

Among the group’s causes is convincing city council to create the office of an integrity commissioner. Toronto was the first city in Ontario to create the office in 2004, but many more have been hired in southern Ontario since then.

Nitkin said the cost of hiring an integrity commissioner varies, depending on how big the municipality is. For example, in Toronto, there are five people who work in the commissioner’s office with a budget of $200,000. But smaller areas can get by with much less.

“We’ve pioneered another model in the Toronto area, where the costs are $25,000,” Nitkin said.

Nitkin said while the number of integrity commissioners is on the rise, unfortunately, he said it’s usually the result of a crisis or some other event that causes doubts in the public’s mind about local politicians or municipal staff.

“Most municipalities are calling us in when they’ve already stuck their feet in the deep doo doo,” he said. “What we’re saying is that it makes more sense to educate people in advance, to get people thinking about potential problems.”

“Prevention, instead of cure,” said GSTA member Paul Demers, who was joined at the press conference by other members of the group’s executive.

While he wasn’t fully versed in some local controversies, Nitkin was asked his thoughts on how city councillors control their $50,000-a-year Healthy Communities Initiative Funds. The money, derisively called slush funds by critics, allow councillors to spend the money in their wards with few restrictions.

In a recent report, Auditor General Brian Bigger recommended councillors hand control of the funds to staff, a recommendation city councillors rejected.

While Nitkin said he doesn’t know the details of how the funds work in Sudbury, he said the rule of thumb on whether or not a local policy is ethical is based on two factors: is the spending in the public interest? And is there transparency?

“In cases where municipal councillors are not required to define where it is they’re spending the money, so there’s no transparency … I would have criticism,” he said. “This one is not that kettle of fish.”

That’s not to say it’s a good policy, he said. But because councillors are required to detail what the money is spent on, and that information is available to the public, the ward funds can’t be termed unethical.

“In this case, are they responsible to council? Yes. Can the funds be audited? Yes. So am I saying the practice is unethical? No. But it obviously is going to raise questions and is not the normal practice you would expect in terms of prudent government administration.”

For more information on Nitkin and EthicsCan, go to www.ethicscan.ca.