GAC considers ethics policy for elected members and PCUSA’s employees
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, September 26, 2006
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The Presbyterian Church (USA) is poised to adopt a new ethics policy for elected members and employees that would make whistleblowing “an affirmative duty,” according to Eric Graninger, the General Assembly Council’s lawyer.
Graninger introduced the policy to the council’s executive committee Tuesday morning, describing the section on whistleblowing as “the most important” addition to the updated ethics policy. He noted that, under the new policy, if a person makes allegations of improper conduct against another elected member or a staff employee, the accuser will be protected even if the allegations are “mistaken or unsubstantiated.”
The policy must be approved by the full General Assembly Council and the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly.
Graninger highlighted excerpts in the proposed policy statements, which are similar for elected members and staff. Besides whistleblowing, the policy addresses financial issues, gratuities, personal gain, conflict of interests and other issues.
The section on the whistleblower policy says, “Elected members have a duty to report violations of this Ethics Policy, whether the violation is by themselves or by another. This includes, but is not limited to, financial, accounting, or auditing irregularities. … Likewise, concerns about the appearance or the possibility of violations should be reported. Care must always be taken to be factual and objective. … An anonymous whistleblower report must include sufficient corroborating evidence to justify initiating an investigation.”
A following section assures “no retaliation … for good faith complaints, reports, participation in an investigation or for providing truthful information.” It also says, “Elected members are protected even if the allegations are mistaken or unsubstantiated, as long as the elected member reasonably believes the reported conduct constitutes a violation of the Ethics Policy.”
Graninger pointed out to elected members a section of the policy that shields them from legal challenge if they “exercise reasonable efforts to inform themselves of the mission and ministry” of the General Assembly Council or the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly. He said the “reasonable effort” is a statutory requirement that provides protection even if the ultimate decision failed to meet a legal test.
The policy defines conflict of interest “as any situation in which the elected member may be influenced or appear to be influenced in decision-making or business dealings by any motive or desire for personal advantage other than the success and well-being of the GAC/COGA. Personal advantage means a financial interest or some other personal interest, whether present or potential, whether direct or indirect. This standard applies to both actual and contemplated transactions. When in doubt, the elected member is to assume there might be a conflict and should raise the question pursuant to this Ethics Policy.”
Some of the proposed policy requirements designed to avoid conflicts of interest include:
- Restrictions against GAC members from becoming employees of the GAC or rendering “compensable services to the GAC for the duration of their term.” However, the GAC would be authorized to make exceptions 1) to facilitate development of specified projects through limited contracts of less than 18 months in duration; and 2) to fill an officer or employee position on an interim or acting basis for two years or less.”
- Disclosure is required in considering business dealings “with an elected member’s friends and family.”
- Gifts, gratuities, special favors, and hospitality to an elected member “shall not be accepted by any elected member from any person or organization that sells, delivers, or receives any goods, materials, or services to or from the GAC/OGA.” But there are three exceptions: 1) gifts, meals, outings and relationship-building activities provided by Presbyterian Church (USA) churches or middle governing bodies in connection with GAC/OGA business; 2) gifts that might benefit the GAC/OGA but not an individual; and 3) occasional small gifts of less than $50 in value. This prohibition includes those persons or organizations that desire to enter into such relationships with GAC/OGA. All gifts valued at $100 or more – even for GAC business – would have to be disclosed.