I’ve been hearing a lot about “hidden agendas” and “conflict of interest” lately. I’ve been accused of dealing with these “challenges” on a daily basis with my corporate peers, but I’d like to keep them to an absolute minimum in this beautiful little town, as they usually don’t lead to anything good.

Now, as far as our local public officials are concerned, the only way a conflict of interest appears to exist is when the official personally benefits by furthering the competing interest in question, in which case he abstains and generally does not participate in the decision. . When I was a member of the town budget committee, my colleagues would always duly recuse themselves or abstain from voting when such a situation arose. One member had a wife who worked for the school and she would abstain on the collective agreement vote. Three members who live in Kearsage Village went one step further and abstained from voting in favor of the road improvement. It even cost them the vote. That seemed like the right thing to do, and to their credit, they did it. A member of the planning board who works for one of the city’s prominent developers always withdraws and sits in the audience when his boss makes a presentation. She removes all doubt.

Perhaps my own feelings of what a conflict should be raise the bar too high, but I believe that a conflict occurs when a person has a duty to promote an interest but chooses to promote a competing interest instead. In short, a conflict of interest exists any time an officer chooses to promote a competing interest with the organization of which he or she is an officer. It represents a potential incentive for bias. This is not considered a conflict as far as our city officials are concerned, as long as it does not involve the possibility of financial gain. This also applied to me when I was on the budget committee and planning board, and I agree with that.

However, non-disclosure is an entirely different matter. By not disclosing competing interests, a person acting in a proxy capacity is playing with a hidden agenda, whether intended or not. Again, when he was on the budget committee, he was at the same time a member of the board of directors of the Red Cross and the North Conway Community Center. Various members were on many other boards. We always disclose this before presenting our arguments and making our recommendations. There were no hidden agendas. The problem with an undisclosed conflict of interest is that two parties to a transaction may believe that their interests are being furthered, when at least one of them is wrong. This is a topic of great concern today in business organizations, most of which have now adopted strict conflict policies, including full disclosure. Such policies around disclosure should also be of concern to nonprofit organizations and public officials. In my opinion, they should not be immune.

Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that one of the school board members, John Smith, is also a board member of a village business association. This member votes against a proposal to raise funds by purchasing memorial chairs because he believes that he would compete with the business association’s program to purchase memorial bricks. Does this board member have a conflict of interest? In the theoretical sense, yes, but not under our people’s policy as there is no profit motive or disclosure requirement. However, what is the right thing for Smith to do in such a situation?

Well, for starters, you should fully disclose potential competing interests. Second, you must recognize that your personal interests are subservient to your duties as a member of the organization you serve, which in this case is the school board. You don’t represent your other board when you sit on this board. His only concern is voting for the best interests of the organization of which he is an elected member. Any other interest is a conflicting interest. If you can’t, you must abstain from voting, but that’s strictly your decision. Again, this type of disclosure is not required here. But if it were, all doubt would be removed and “hidden agendas”, whether perceived or real, would largely become a thing of the past.

Non-profit organizations are especially vulnerable to conflict situations. This is partly due to the use of volunteers who seek to assist the organization in its business transactions. While the motives of virtually all volunteers are clearly beyond reproach, some may offer their services for hidden profit. Conflicts may exist involving vendors, employees, and fundraisers, and care must be taken. For example, if the board of directors of a non-profit organization is considering hiring a company for some task and one of the firms being considered is co-owned by a close relative of one of the board members, then that board member the board should not vote or discuss which company is to be selected.

What does this all mean? Well, first of all, our city’s current approach is sound, as banning conflicts that don’t involve financial gain would be unrealistic. The city is too small, and too many of our officers are on too many different boards and committees. However, disclosure should be required regardless of the type of conflict. Hidden calendars are just that, hidden; everything should be on the table and in front. At the very least, it enriches the discussion and opens new lines of argument.

As to whether or not an official wishes to refrain after disclosure is strictly their business and often depends on that particular person’s own judgment of what is right and what is wrong. Arguably, the aforementioned budget committee members who lived in Kearsage Village did not have to abstain from voting for the road improvement. By choosing to do so, they removed all doubt.

Let’s consider adding disclosure to our policies. Let’s do it regardless of the nature of the conflict. Let’s put everything on the table. At the very least, let’s get rid of the term “hidden agendas.”

“I have found that being honest is the best technique I can use. From the very beginning, tell people what you are trying to achieve.” lee iacocca