Thread by @DavidHamer_1951

On the @brianlilley @yelich_ivana scandal, there’s a lot of confusion on here about what is and is not a conflict of interest. A COI arises when a person who’s under a duty places themselves in a position where they have a personal interest that conflicts with that duty.

A COI can be ‘waived’ if the person makes disclosure of the conflict and the parties affected consent to the person carrying on with performance of their duty. In the journalistic context, it’s sensible that such consent be express on the part of the employer and implied on the

part of willing readers. Thus we commonly see, for example, business reporters disclose that they own shares in companies they’re writing about. One personally once heard the respected Mr. Paikin giving a talk on Ontario politics disclose that his spouse works for one of the

parties. The point in the Lilley/Yelich case is that he was under a duty to his employers and readers to write his pieces on the basis of his honest assessment of the politics involved. But his personal (and natural) interest in pleasing (or not displeasing) his partner and her

political bosses was in direct conflict with that duty. He should have made public disclosure. As for her, her duty was to advance the political interests of her bosses while delivering information to the public in a fair and impartial manner. But she had a personal interest in

pleasing her partner by disclosing to him alone valuable confidential information in advance, that all journalists and the public would want to get their hands on. It doesn’t matter whether she did that or not - the point of conflict rules is that a person not place themselves in

that position at all, unless, as mentioned, there has been disclosure and the relevant consent obtained. Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether Mr. Lilley actually allowed his partner to influence his writing or not. The point is the existence of the conflict.

To test the validity of the foregoing, imagine you’re the client of a lawyer in a contentious matter. Unbeknownst to you, your lawyer is in a ‘personal relationship’ - ie living with - the litigant on the other side. Do think you’d want to know? Would you carry on with that

lawyer at all? Hardly . . .
Mr. Lilley should have asked to be assigned, and should have been assigned, to a different beat. That would have solved the issue for both of them.

Alternatively, he could have made full and frequent disclosure of the relationship to his readers so that they could judge for themselves whether they want to place any value on his views and reportage. But that still wouldn’t solve Ms Yelich’s conflict problem - how could the

public, to whom she owes a duty as well as to her bosses, ever effectively consent to and waive her conflict?
As things stand, they’re both in a position of conflict, and both should be removed from their present roles.