In March of this year, the Manitoba's Auditor General released a scathing report on the lack of an adequate ethical framework for our province's government. This report was reviewed Monday this week at the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislature. Mr. Ricard, the Acting Auditor General called the findings "disturbing" and "borderline alarming." See below details from the report.
The report noted that the ethical tone needs to be set from the top. Part of the problem may be that the Premier himself has not shown the needed leadership - for example when he said in 2011, the whole idea he would raise the PST is ridiculous, and then he proceeded to raise the PST in 2013 without the legislated requirement for a referendum.
Among other items, the report said:1) The Manitoba government has a values and ethics guide, which is not in fact a statement or policy or a code of conduct.
2) The Conflict of Interest policy requires strengthening
3) Conflict of interest declarations are required when a civil servant is hired, and yet 28 per cent of personnel files did not have any.
4) There is an online orientation program, but there is no follow up to ensure employees actually complete it.
5) There is no fraud awareness training.
6) Assistant Deputy Ministers are required to submit annual conflict of interest declarations, yet only 6 of 42 files had this completed.
7) There is no process for reporting anonymous concerns.
8) There is no information reported on disciplinary actions.
9) Ethics-related policies have not been updated.
10)
The Acting Auditor General expressed concern that his findings indicate that employees do not believe misconduct will be appropriately dealt with and they fear retaliation for reporting misconduct.
As part of the work for the report, the Auditor General's office commissioned a survey of Manitoba civil servants who are employed by and work within government. Incredibly, the survey found:1) Only half of respondents (55%) feel department employees are clear on ethical values expected in performing their work.
2) Less than half (46%) say that management proactively monitors the workplace and holds employees to appropriate ethical standards.
3) A third of employees (32%) have felt that a co-worker was in a conflict of interest.
4)
A third (32%) are personally aware of misconduct/fraud in the workplace.5) Only 40% feel they have been provided adequate training on what to do if faced with an ethical dilemma or conflict of interest situation.
6)
Less than a third of responders felt confident that they would be protected from reprisals if they reported an ethical issue.7)
Of those who were aware of fraudulent activity/ethical misconduct in their workplace, only half (53%) reported the instance to management, and of those who did not report the problem to management, 53% did not report it because they were afraid of retaliation from management. When asked about this, the Acting Auditor General Mr. Norm Ricard said "
To me those stats are disturbing, for sure. People aren't–if people aren't reporting an observed ethical misconduct because they are afraid of retaliation from management or co-workers, it's a sign, in my view, of a workplace culture that needs to understand what is expected of them and what their individual responsibilities are, but also for management to understand what concerns our staff have and for them to deal with that."8)
Twenty-nine percent of those who reported a misconduct felt that they experienced some form of retaliation as a result. The Acting Auditor General, Mr. Norm Ricard in the committee said "that's borderline alarming. That's a lot of people ... who feel they experienced some form of retaliation."9) Only a third (33%) feel that senior management is held accountable for their ethics violations.
Surely, and particularly when the report emphasizes the role of the "tone at the top" of government in setting ethical policies and conduct, setting an ethical framework should have been a top priority for the NDP. Surely, after 14 years in government, the NDP should have been expected to have set a better framework for an ethical environment within the government they are running.
The particular questions that I asked (below) show that to date, 6 months after the report was released, only four of the recommendations have been implemented. I also probed the claim of the Deputy Minister (Ms Romeo) that concerns could be raised anonymously. At best, the process is ambiguous. Further, I asked specific questions about how certain conflict of interest situations would be dealt with. Rather than specific answers I was referred to policy statements which were not immediately available. Lastly, I asked how it could happen that only 6 of 42 assistant deputy ministers had their annual conflict of interest disclosures made and on file. The answer was that after 14 years of NDP government they are only now starting to ensure managers are well aware of conflict of interest policies. You can see the full answers below.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, one of the things which stands out, in looking through the report and the response to the recommendations, is that of the recommendations there are–is lots which are now under review or where the responses will be considered or the responses will be implemented at some indefinite time in the future or, as the deputy minister said, we're looking for ways to implement.
Can the deputy minister give us one of the recommendations which has already been fully and completely implemented and is now done?
Ms. Romeo: If you'll give me a minute, I'll find it.
So I'll start with recommendation 13, which is the department's–
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Romeo, can you–are you ready to answer the question? Okay, you may have to speak up a little bit.
Ms. Romeo: So I'm pointing to recommendation No. 13, and that's a recommendation that departments conduct internal fraud exposure evaluations. Would you like me to walk through as–and I can provide this update as part of year-end departmental reporting requirements. A new fraud policy awareness checklist has been created for submission to the Insurance and Risk Management branch and to the comptroller's office. The comptroller's division has added financial administration manual section 9(a)2.3 to reflect the new checklist requirement, and has adjusted the management representation letter to ensure that departments conduct a fraud exposure evaluation each year.
And I can also point you to recommendations 3 and 4, and 3 speaks to the fraud prevention and reporting policy, and I can advise that section 9(a)2.2 of the finance administration manual has been revised. Revisions include that a copy of departmental fraud summary reports be provided to the Provincial Comptroller's office and that Insurance and Risk Management branch provide a consolidated fraud summary report to departmental deputy ministers to enhance their awareness of fraudulent activities within government and their own departments. Previous suspected fraud terminology has been rephrased as incidents under investigation.
And recommendation No. 4 speaks to a communication plan to better educate civil servants on the proposed fraud prevention and reporting policy and their related obligations. And I can provide this update–the Insurance and Risk Management branch has held policy information sessions for departments and agencies. In June 2014, the comptrollership framework user guide and the new employee orientation checklist have also been updated to include a link to the policy. In addition, the fraud summary report now requires an authorizing signature to verify full compliance with the policy and that fraudulent activity has been communicated to departmental senior management. Also, a change has been made in the distribution of the annual fraud summary report. This report is now being provided to all deputy ministers. Deputy ministers are also being provided with the department's specific information on the number and cost of fraud incidences that were reported to the office during the past fiscal year. These changes will provide enhanced communication to departments regarding implementation of the fraud prevention and reporting policy.
Mr. Gerrard: I thank the deputy minister. That's four out of approximately 20 recommendations, so there clearly are many recommendations yet which need to be fully implemented.
One of the things that the deputy minister has said is that people are allowed to report concerns anonymously, and then the question I would have, the deputy minister's provided a list of quite a number of people to whom one could report. In order to ensure that an anonymous concern, you know, will actually be addressed and followed up, which way of reporting would the deputy minister recommend? To the Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Provincial Comptroller, the internal audit, the Labour Relations division, the grievance process and the collective agreements or the Civil Service Commission? Which one?
Ms. Romeo: I don't think that there are any we would recommend, they're all avenues available. Different situations might dictate that certain avenues would be more appropriate. An individual might feel more comfortable speaking to a supervisor. Another one might feel more comfortable going to the Ombudsman. Another might think that the comptroller's office is the appropriate place. HR receives a lot of them, the–I should say, Human Resource Operations.
And so there are–these aren't either-ors, there are many of them available depending on the nature of the complaint and the individual who may have the information and may feel it better rests with one of those.
Mr. Gerrard: Since there's such a multiplicity of possible ways, is there some central tracking so that there's some way of being assured that, you know, complaints are actually addressed?
Ms. Romeo: The Civil Service Commission, on behalf of its client departments, currently tracks allegations that are investigated jointly by representatives of a department or area and Human Resource Operations. So often in their–investigation logs in each Civil Service Commission service centre are used to track the allegations, the investigations undertaken and the outcomes. A project has been undertaken by the commission to improve the current logging and tracking system, with plans to begin publishing a summary overview of all allegations investigated across departments.
Mr. Gerrard: There–when we're dealing with conflicts of interest, there is the issue of conflicts of interest being reported, but there is an extraordinarily important area where there is a conflict of interest that there be a very clear policy which is laid down.
Now, I mean, for example, when I have people coming to me over various matters, you know, there would be people who have cottages who are dealing with somebody in the parks branch who happens to have a cottage as well who is administering the rules around cottages, and there are concerns that people will be dealt with fairly. You may have people in–dealing with agricultural programs who are actually farmers in some instances. What is the specific policy that the government has in terms of how, when you have somebody who's got a potential conflict of interest, that you separate this so that you are assured that individuals who are being dealt with by government will be dealt with fairly and impartially without that individual bringing their particular biases to the table?
Ms. Romeo: We certainly have had since the '80s, I believe, a conflict of interest policy that guides employees. That policy has been updated a number of times over the years, and the Auditor General–the report speaks to the need to update that. As we noted in our response, a review of that policy was already under way and we have taken the advice of the Auditor General in that report and taken those comments and reviewed it in light of–so a further review and updating of the conflict of interest policy is well under way. But the policy does speak to requiring employees to make a declaration and with–together with management to find ways of–in terms of declaring and finding ways to mitigate, bring them out of the operation that you speak of. So that our policies do address that, we need–they obviously are–revisions are under way. Review is under way.
Mr. Gerrard: I would ask the deputy minister to provide those specific policies that would pertain to those circumstances to the committee, not right away, but we often have follow-up material submitted which can then be circulated, if that would be possible.
Ms. Romeo: We can certainly provide the current conflict of interest policy, of course.
Mr. Gerrard: Now, there's–the government is very involved in setting programs, right? And one of the concerns which comes up from time to time is that, for example, in a farm program or a parks program or it could be any other department of government, you know, that you might have somebody who is a farm operator in some way who is involved in setting up that program, and they would be in a position to have the program so that they could get a better benefit from it. So what rules has the government got in terms of ensuring that somebody who could potentially benefit from a program is not involved in actually developing the program?
Ms. Romeo: Well, our–again, our conflict of interest policies speak to that; the existing one does. And conflict of interest is a shared responsibility with deputy ministers and the commission and labour relations, but the responsibility of each deputy to mitigate possible conflicts, and also executive financial officers of departments are often involved in these discussions, and it involves a segregation of duties as you–as those–just to provide you with an example of something. But the conflict of interest policy does address the personal benefit, the perceived personal benefits, those sorts of issues.
Mr. Gerrard: And, in terms of the policy, what sanctions would be in place if somebody doesn't report or somebody who, even have reported, participates in activities which they should not be?
Ms. Romeo: The violations of the policy are subject to disciplinary action.
Mr. Gerrard: Now, the deputy minister said earlier on that deputy ministers have a very important role in modelling behaviour, and one would presume that one of the modelling activities of deputy minister would be assuring that those who are their immediate–who report immediate to them are fulfilling their responsibilities.
And yet we learn from this Auditor General's report that only six of 42 ADMs had actually signed or had the appropriate documentation with regard to the conflict of interest. So can the deputy minister explain, you know, how this could happen?
Ms. Romeo: We certainly have been looking at ways in which we can improve the actual getting of the conflict of interest declarations onto the employee files and looking at the issue regarding why that number of declarations were missing. Was it simply that they didn't get on the file and–but were received? So those are matters that we're–we are following up on to improve the process.
Mr. Gerrard: You know, let me just read, very briefly, this. Given the requirement for ADMs to provide annual declarations, even if no change is incurred, we examined the personnel file of 42 ADMs from all departments. We found only six files, 14 per cent, where annual declarations were being signed after they'd been promoted to the ADM position.
And it would seem to me that this is, you know, an appalling comment on, you know, the–really, the deputy ministers who don't seem to be supervising those who are immediately underneath them and having appropriate reporting happening.
Ms. Romeo: I spoke a few minutes ago to a conflict of interest guide for managers that we have been developing, and this outlines the responsibility of all employees but it also outlines the role of managers in implementing the policy and provides concrete examples of conflict of interest situations that could arise and approaches for handling them. So we are taking a very active look at that and working with the HR community and with the deputies to deal with that.
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry. Honourable Dr. Gerrard.
Mr. Gerrard: I would just say that I think that it's extraordinarily important that people who are managers are in fact role models and role models not only in filling out their own forms but in monitoring those, particularly those who are immediately beneath them. So I would hope that this is something which is emphasized with great importance.
