Kash Heed an innocent bystander

A lot of B.C. politicians are brushing up on their conflict-of-interest primers and searching for their campaign-donation lists right about now.

Kash Heed, the on-again off-again B.C. solicitor-general, is off again, resigning this morning for the second time. This time, the problem is Terry Robertson, the Vancouver lawyer appointed as special prosecutor to look into allegations surrounding Heed’s election campaign of last year. Robertson found that Heed was clean, but that charges should be laid against some of his campaign workers.

Premier Gordon Campbell immediately gave Heed back his cabinet job. But yesterday, Robertson faxed a letter to the Ministry of the Attorney General revealing that his law firm had donated $1,000 to Heed’s campaign, and that Robertson was therefore resigning as special prosecutor in the case. The amazing part is that Robertson knew about the donation when he accepted the post.

There’s some irony in the fact that newbie politicians are routinely afforded lessons on conflict of interest, usually provided by lawyers. The issue of campaign donations is invariably part of it. Now we have a lawyer who neglected to remind himself of the most basic of conflict rules.

A campaign donation does not necessarily bar a supporter and a successful candidate from dealing with each other in all cases. The rule is that if one party benefits financially as a direct result of the donation, that’s a conflict. It’s a stretch to think that a $1,000 donation from the Harper Grey law firm influenced Robertson in dealing with the Heed case, but that wasn’t for him to decide.

Law firms are among the biggest supporters of politicians at all levels. They are commonly hit up for donations, and readily pull out their chequebooks to write donations of $500, $1,000 and up if they think the candidate is worth supporting.

Robertson’s letter provides some fascinating insight into his thinking. It says he did not believe the donation by his law firm represented a conflict of interest with connection to his job as special prosecutor on the Heed case. It wasn’t until he concluded that Heed shouldn’t be charged with anything did he revisit the conflict issue and conclude that he should step down.

It would seem that if he had recommended charges against Heed, in his mind there would not have been a conflict, and that it manifested itself only due to the clean bill given Heed. One would think he would have foreseen the possibility that Heed would be cleared, and what that might imply, conflict-wise.

What Robertson failed to ponder was a fundamental of conflict of interest: no matter what the technicalities, if there’s a likelihood of perceived conflict, you excuse yourself from the situation as if there were a real conflict.

Meanwhile, Heed must be in political and personal hell, for he’s an innocent bystander in the whole thing. First, he was betrayed by the three campaign workers who put him in a tough spot without his knowledge, then by a special prosecutor who should have known better.