It has been suggested that Prejudicial interest be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2011.

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2009)

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.

Conflicts of interest related to the practice of law[link]

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.^[1]

In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm) from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client. The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients. In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client. In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody case.

A prohibited or undisclosed representation involving a conflict of interest can subject an attorney to disciplinary hearings, the denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings. In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client, even if they have separate lawyers within the firm, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. Law firms often employ software in conjunction with their case management and accounting systems in order to meet their duties to monitor their conflict of interest exposure and to assist in obtaining waivers.

Conflicts of interest generally (unrelated to the practice of law)[link]

Sociology
Outline
Theory · History
Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency
Research methods
Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic · Network analytic
Topics · Subfields
Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry · Internet Knowledge · Law · Medicine Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity Rationalization · Religion · Science Secularization · Social networks Social psychology · Stratification
Browse
Portal Category tree · Lists Journals · Sociologists Article index
v t e

More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.

Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches her Duty of Loyalty.

There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest can exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles—an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example—may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated—see below—but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)

As an example, in the sphere of business and control, according to the Institute of Internal Auditors:

conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.^[2][3]

On an individual basis, it could be considered a Conflict of interest for a person living on Government sustenance to promote or vote for increases in government programs that would increase their dependence on the government subsidy programs that are paid out of taxes from those working and paying taxes. i.e. Where no effort has been made to improve ones ability to have meaningful employment and get off Government assistance, the individual instead, spends their time and energy to improve their existence on Government Assistance programs.

Organizational conflict of interest[link]

An organizational conflict of interest (OCI) may exist in the same way as described above, in the realm of the private sector providing services to the Government, where a corporation provides two types of services to the Government that have conflicting interest or appear objectionable (i.e.: manufacturing parts and then participating on a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers). Corporations may develop simple or complex systems to mitigate the risk or perceived risk of a conflict of interest. These risks are typically evaluated by a governmental office (for example, in a US Government RFP) to determine whether the risks pose a substantial advantage to the private organization over the competition or will decrease the overall competitiveness in the bidding process.

Relationship to medical research[link]

The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research has been a major cause for concern. In 2009 a study found that "a number of academic institutions" do not have clear guidelines for relationships between Institutional Review Boards and industry.^[4]

Types of conflicts of interests[link]

The following are the most common forms of conflicts of interests:

• Self-dealing, in which an official who controls an organization causes it to enter into a transaction with the official, or with another organization that benefits the official. The official is on both sides of the "deal."
• Outside employment, in which the interests of one job contradict another.
• Family interests, in which a spouse, child, or other close relative is employed (or applies for employment) or where goods or services are purchased from such a relative or a firm controlled by a relative. For this reason, many employment applications ask if one is related to a current employee. If this is the case, the relative could then recuse from any hiring decisions. Abuse of this type of conflict of interest is called nepotism.
• Gifts from friends who also do business with the person receiving the gifts. (Such gifts may include non-tangible things of value such as transportation and lodging.)
• Pump and dump, in which a stock broker who owns a security artificially inflates the price by "upgrading" it or spreading rumors, sells the security and adds short position, then "downgrades" the security or spreads negative rumors to push the price down.

Other improper acts that are sometimes classified as conflicts of interests are probably better classified elsewhere. Accepting bribes can be classified as corruption; almost everyone in a position of authority, particularly public authority, has the potential for such wrongdoing. Similarly, use of government or corporate property or assets for personal use is fraud, and classifying this as a conflict of interest does not improve the analysis of this problem. Nor should unauthorized distribution of confidential information, in itself, be considered a conflict of interest. For these improper acts, there is no inherent conflict of roles (see above), unless being a (fallible) human being rather than (say) a robot in a position of power or authority is considered to be a conflict.

COI is sometimes termed competition of interest rather than "conflict", emphasizing a connotation of natural competition between valid interests rather than violent conflict with its connotation of victimhood and unfair aggression. Nevertheless, denotatively, there is too much overlap between the terms to make any objective differentiation.

Examples[link]

Environmental Hazards and Human Health[link]

Baker^[5] summarized 176 studies of the potential impact of Bisphenol A on human health as follows:^[6]

Lessig^[7] noted that this does not mean that the funding source influenced the results. However, it does raise questions about the validity of the industry-funded studies specifically, because the researchers conducting those studies have a conflict of interest; they are subject at minimum to a natural human inclination to please the people who paid for their work. Lessig provided a similar summary of 326 studies of the potential harm from cell phone usage with results that were similar but not as stark.^[8]

Self-Policing[link]

Self-policing of any group is also a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them. An exception occurs when the ethical breach is already known by the public. In that case, it could be in the group's interest to end the ethical problem to which the public has knowledge, but keep remaining breaches hidden.

Insurance Claims Adjusters[link]

Insurance companies retain claims adjusters to represent their interest in adjusting claims. It is in the best interest of the insurance companies that the very smallest settlement is reached with its claimants. Based on the adjuster's experience and knowledge of the insurance policy it is very easy for the adjuster to convince an unknowing claimant to settle for less than what they may otherwise be entitled which could be a larger settlement. There is always a very good chance of a conflict of interest to exist when one adjuster tries to represent both sides of a financial transaction such as an insurance claim. This problem is exacerbated when the claimant is told, or believes, the insurance company's claims adjuster is fair and impartial enough to satisfy both theirs and the insurance company's interests. These types of conflicts could be easily be avoided by the use of disclosures.

Purchasing Agents and Sales Personnel[link]

A person working as the equipment purchaser for a company may get a bonus proportionate to the amount he's under budget by year end. However, this becomes an incentive for him to purchase inexpensive, substandard equipment. Therefore, this is counter to the interests of those in his company who must actually use the equipment. W. Edwards Deming listed "purchasing on price alone" as number 4 of his famous 14 points, and he often said things to the effect that "He who purchases on price alone deserves to get rooked."

Governmental Officials[link]

Representatives, in general, have different interests than their constituents. Accepting bribes to vote a certain way is in their interest (assuming they don't get caught and ignoring any pangs of Conscience), while often not in their constituents' interest. These actions are sometimes illegal, but often not, as in the case of a politician accepting large amounts of money for a political campaign, and in return, granting the contributor access to political leaders. This is often cited as an argument for direct democracy (the replacement of representatives' votes with referenda).

Politics in the US is dominated in many ways by political campaign contributions.^[1] Candidates are often not considered "credible" unless they have a campaign budget far beyond what could reasonably be raised from citizens of ordinary means. The pernicious impact of this money can be found in many places, most notably in studies of how campaign contributions affect legislative behavior. For example, the price of sugar in the US has been roughly double the international price for over half a century. In the 1980s, this added $3 billion to the annual budget of US consumers, according to Stern,^[9] who provided the following summary of one part of how this happens:

This $3 billion translates into $41 per household per year. This is in essence a tax collected by a nongovernmental agency: It is a cost imposed on consumers by governmental decisions, but never considered in any of the standard data on tax collections.

Stern notes that sugar interests contributed $2.6 million to political campaigns, representing well over $1,000 return for each $1 contributed to political campaigns. This, however, does not include the cost of lobbying. Lessig^[10] cites six different studies that including the cost of lobbying on a variety of issues considered in Washington, DC. These studies produced estimates of the anticipated return on each $1 invested in lobbying and political campaigns that ranged from $6 to $220. Lessig notes that clients who pay tens of millions of dollars to lobbyists typically receive billions.

Lessig,^[7] insists that this does not mean that any legislator has sold his or her vote. One of several possible explanations Lessig gives for this phenomenon is that the money helped elect candidates more supportive of the issues pushed by the big money spent on lobbying and political campaigns. He notes that if any money perverts democracy, it is the large contributions beyond the budgets of citizens of ordinary means; small contributions from common citizens have long been considered supporting of democracy.^[11]

When such large sums become virtually essential to a politician's future, it generates a substantive conflict of interest contributing to a fairly well documented distortion on the nation's priorities and policies.

Beyond this, governmental officials, whether elected or not, often leave public service to work for companies affected by legislation they helped enact or companies they used to regulate or companies affected by legislation they helped enact. This practice is called the Revolving door. Former legislators and regulators are accused of (a) using inside information for their new employers or (b) compromising laws and regulations in hopes of securing lucrative employment in the private sector. This possibility creates a conflict of interest for all public officials whose future may depend on the Revolving door.

Finance Industry and Elected Officials[link]

Conflicts of interest among elected officials is part of the story behind the increase in the percent of US corporate domestic profits captured by the finance industry depicted in that accompanying figure.

Finance as a Percent of US Domestic Corporate Profit (Finance includes banks, securities and insurance. In 1932-1933, the total US domestic corporate profit was negative. However, the financial sector made a profit in those years, which made its percentage negative, below 0 and off the scale in this plot.)

From 1934 through 1985, the finance industry averaged 13.8% of US domestic corporate profit. Between 1986 and 1999, it averaged 23.5%. From 2000 through 2010, it averaged 32.6%. Some of this increase is doubtless due to increased efficiency from banking consolidation and innovations in new financial products that benefit consumers. However, if most consumers had refused to accept financial products they did not understand, e.g., negative amortization loans, the finance industry would not have been as profitable as it has been, and the Late-2000s recession might have been avoided or postponed. Stiglitz^[12] noted that the Late-2000s recession was created in part because, "Bankers acted greedily because they had incentives and opportunities to do so". They did this in part by innovating to make consumer financial products like retail banking services and home mortgages as complicated as possible to make it easy for them to charge higher fees. Consumers who shop carefully for financial services typically find better options than the primary offerings of the major banks. However, few consumers think to do that. This explains part of this increase in financial industry profits.

However, a major portion of this increase and a driving force behind Late-2000s recession has been the corrosive effect of money in politics, giving legislators and the President of the US a conflict of interest, because if they protect the public, they will offend the finance industry, which contributed $1.7 billion to political campaigns and spent $3.4 billion ($5.5 billion total) on lobbying from 1998 to 2008.^{[13] [14] [15]}

To be conservative, suppose we attribute only the increase from 23.5% of 1986 through 1999 to the recent 32.6% average to governmental actions subject to conflicts of interest created by the $1.7 billion in campaign contributions. That's 9% of the $3 trillion in profits claimed by the finance industry during that period or $270 billion. This represents a return of over $50 for each $1 invested in political campaigns and lobbying for that industry. (This $270 billion represents almost $1,000 for every many, woman and child in the US.) There is hardly any place outside of politics with such a high return on investment in such a short time.

Finance Industry and economists[link]

Economists (unlike other professions such as sociologists) do not formally subscribe to a professional ethical code. Close to 300 economists have signed a letter urging the American Economic Association (the discipline’s foremost professional body), to adopt such a code. The signatories include George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate, and Christina Romer, who headed Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.^[16]

This call for a code of ethics was supported by the public attention the documentary Inside Job (winner of an Academy Award) drew to the consulting relationships of several influential economists.^[17] This documentary focused on conflicts that may arise when economists publish results or provide public recommendation on topics that affect industries or companies with which they have financial links. Critics of the profession argue, for example, that it is no coincidence that financial economists, many of whom were engaged as consultants by Wall Street firms, were opposed to regulating the financial sector.^[18]

In response to criticism that the profession not only failed to predict the 2007-2008 financial crisis but may actually have helped create it, the American Economic Association has adopted new rules in 2012 : economists will have to disclose financial ties and other potential conflicts of interest in papers published in academic journals. Backers argue such disclosures will help restore faith in the profession by increasing transparency which will help in assessing economists' advice.^[19]

Media[link]

Any media organization has a conflict of interest in discussing anything that may impact its ability to communicate as it wants with its audience. For example, the Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in discussing the Stop Online Piracy Act or any other legislation or governmental action that could impact its ability to deliver content to its intended audience.

The business model of commercial media organizations (i.e., any that accept advertising) is selling behavior change in their audience to advertisers.^[20][21][22] However, few in their audience are aware of the conflict of interest between the profit motive and the altruistic desire to serve the public and "give the audience what it wants."

Many major advertisers test their ads in various ways to measure the return on investment in advertising. Advertising rates are set as a function of the size and spending habits of the audience as measured by the Nielsen Ratings. Media action expressing this conflict of interest is evident in the reaction of Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp., owner of Fox, to changes in data collection methodology adopted in 2004 by the Nielsen Company to more accurately measure viewing habits. The results corrected a previous overestimate of the market share of Fox. Murdoch reacted by getting leading politicians to denounce the Nielsen Ratings as racists. Susan Whiting, president and CEO of Nielsen Media Research, responded by quietly sharing Neilsen's data with her leading critics. The criticism disappeared, and Fox paid Nielsen's fees.^[23] Murdoch had a conflict of interest between the reality of his market and his finances.

Commercial media organization lose money if they provide content that offends either their audience or their advertisers. The substantial media consolidation that occurred since the 1980s has reduced the alternatives available to the audience, thereby making it easier for the ever larger companies in this increasingly oligopolistic industry to hide news and entertainment potentially offensive to advertisers without losing audience. If the media provide too much information on how congress spends its time, a major advertiser could be offended and could reduce their advertising expenditures with the offending media company; indeed, this is one of the ways the market system has determined which companies won and which either went out of business or were purchased by others in this media consolidation. (Advertisers don't like to feed the mouth that bites them, and often don't. Similarly, commercial media organizations are not eager to bite the hand that feeds them.) Advertisers have been known to fund media organizations with editorial policies they find offensive if that media outlet provides access to a sufficiently attractive audience segment they cannot efficiently reach otherwise.

Election years are a major boon to commercial broadcasters, because virtually all political advertising is purchased with minimal advance planning, paying therefore the highest rates. The commercial media have a conflict of interest in anything that could make it easier for candidates to get elected with less money.^[21]

Accompanying this trend in media consolidation has been a substantial reduction in investigative journalism,^[21] reflecting this conflict of interest between the business objectives of the commercial media and the public's need to know what government is doing in their name. This change has been tied to substantial changes in law and culture in the US. To cite only one example, researchers have tied this decline in investigative journalism to an increased coverage of the "police blotter".^[24] This has further been tied to the fact that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Beyond this, virtually all commercial media companies own substantial quantities of copyrighted material. This gives them an inherent conflict of interest in any public policy issue affecting copyrights. McChesney noted that the commercial media have lobbied successfully for changes in copyright law that have led "to higher prices and a shrinking of the marketplace of ideas", increasing the power and profits of the large media corporations at public expense. One result of this is that "the people cease to have a means of clarifying social priorities and organizing social reform".^[25] A free market has a mechanism for controlling abuses of power by media corporations: If their censorship becomes too egregious, they lose audience, which in turn reduces their advertising rates. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism has been substantially reduced over the past quarter century by "the changes in the concentration and integration of the media."^[26] Would the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement have advanced to the point of generating substantial protests without the secrecy behind which that agreement was negotiated—and would the government attempts to sustain that secrecy have been as successful if the commercial media had not been a primary beneficiary and had not had a conflict of interest in suppressing discussion thereof?

Ways to mitigate conflicts of interests[link]

Removal[link]

The best way to handle conflicts of interests is to avoid them entirely. For example, someone elected to political office might sell all corporate stocks that they own before taking office, and resign from all corporate boards. Or that person could move their corporate stocks to a special trust, which would be authorized to buy and sell without disclosure to the owner. (This is referred to as a "blind trust".) With such a trust, since the politician does not know in which companies they have investments, there should be no temptation to act to their advantage.

Disclosure[link]

Commonly, politicians and high-ranking government officials are required to disclose financial information - assets such as stock, debts such as loans, and/or corporate positions held, typically annually. To protect privacy (to some extent), financial figures are often disclosed in ranges such as "$100,000 to $500,000" and "over $2,000,000".

Certain professionals are required either by rules related to their professional organization, or by statute, to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. In some instances, the failure to provide full disclosure is a crime.

Recusal[link]

Those with a conflict of interest are expected to recuse themselves from (i.e., abstain from) decisions where such a conflict exists. The imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions.

Judges are supposed to recuse themselves from cases when personal conflicts of interest may arise. For example, if a judge has participated in a case previously in some other judicial role he/she is not allowed to try that case. Recusal is also expected when one of the lawyers in a case might be a close personal friend, or when the outcome of the case might affect the judge directly, such as whether a car maker is obliged to recall a model that a judge drives. This is required by law under Continental civil law systems and by the Rome Statute, organic law of the International Criminal Court.

Third-party evaluations[link]

Consider a situation where the owner of a majority of a publicly held corporation decides to buy out the minority shareholders and take the corporation private. What is a fair price? Obviously it is improper (and, typically, illegal) for the majority owner to simply state a price and then have the (majority-controlled) board of directors approve that price. What is typically done is to hire an independent firm (a third party), well-qualified to evaluate such matters, to calculate a "fair price", which is then voted on by the minority shareholders.

Third-party evaluations may also be used as proof that transactions were, in fact, fair ("arm's-length"). For example, a corporation that leases an office building that is owned by the CEO might get an independent evaluation showing what the market rate is for such leases in the locale, to address the conflict of interest that exists between the fiduciary duty of the CEO (to the stockholders, by getting the lowest rent possible) and the personal interest of that CEO (to maximize the income that the CEO gets from owning that office building by getting the highest rent possible).

conclusion Generally, forbid conflicts of interests. Often, however, the specifics can be controversial. Should therapists, such as psychiatrists, be allowed to have extra-professional relations with patients, or ex-patients? Should a faculty member be allowed to have an extra-professional relationship with a student, and should that depend on whether the student is in a class of, or being advised by, the faculty member?

Codes of ethics help to minimize problems with conflicts of interests because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts are permitted by a code of ethics (disclosure, recusal, etc.). Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behavior was unethical. As importantly, the threat of disciplinary action (for example, a lawyer being disbarred) helps to minimize unacceptable conflicts or improper acts when a conflict is unavoidable.

As codes of ethics cannot cover all situations, some governments have established an office of the ethics commissioner. Ethics commissioner should be appointed by the legislature and should report to the legislature.

See also[link]

• Community of interest
• Crony capitalism
• Electoral fraud
• Fiduciary
• Insider trading
• Intra-household bargaining
• Judicial disqualification
• Jury nullification
• Lobbying
• Medical ethics
• Money loop
• Moral hazard
• Perverse incentive
• Politics
• Recusal
• Revolving door (politics)
• Tax resistance
• United States Office of Government Ethics
• Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi

External links[link]

• Thacker, Paul D. (November 2006). "Environmental journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules". Environmental Science & Technology 40 (22): 6873–6875. DOI:10.1021/es062808a. 
• McDonald, Michael. "Ethics and Conflict of Interest". W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics. Archived from the original on 2007-11-03. http://web.archive.org/web/20071103060225/http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/people/mcdonald/conflict.htm. 

Further reading[link]

• Davis, Michael; Andrew Stark (2001). Conflict of interest in the professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512863-X. 
• Lessig, Lawrence (2011). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It. Twelve. ISBN 978-0-446-57643-7. 
• Porter, Roger J.; Thomas E. Malone (1992). Biomedical research: collaboration and conflict of interest. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4400-2. 

References[link]

The Honourable Pete Hodgson MP
Pete Hodgson in 2008
36th Minister of Health
In office 19 October 2005 – 5 November 2007
Preceded by	Annette King
Succeeded by	David Cunliffe
Minister of Research, Science and Technology
In office 31 October 2007 – 3 October 2008
Preceded by	Steve Maharey
Succeeded by	Wayne Mapp
Member of the New Zealand Parliament for Dunedin North
In office 27 October 1990 – 2011
Preceded by	David Clark
Majority	7,155 (2008)
Personal details
Born	(1950-06-13) 13 June 1950 (age 62) Whangarei, New Zealand
Political party	Labour
Spouse(s)	married
Children	two children
Profession	Veterinarian

Peter Colin Hodgson^[1] (born 13 June 1950) is a New Zealand politician. He is a member of the Labour Party.

Hodgson was born in Whangarei, and received a Bachelor's degree in veterinary science from Massey University. He has worked as a veterinarian, a high school teacher, and a fruit and vegetable retailer.

Member of Parliament[link]

Hodgson joined the Labour Party in 1976, and shortly afterwards became the manager for Stan Rodger's successful campaign in the Dunedin North seat. After holding a number of other Labour Party roles, including that of marginal seats organiser, he was himself nominated to replace Rodger in the 1990 elections. He was successful, and has remained the MP for Dunedin North.

When the Labour Party formed a government after the 1999 elections, Hodgson was appointed to Cabinet. During Labour's nine years in power, Hodgeson's portfolios included Economic Development; Tertiary Education; Research, Science and Technology; Health; Transport; Commerce; Land Information; Statistics; Energy (1999–2004); and Fisheries and Forestry. He was also Associate Minister of Health; Industry and Regional Development; and Foreign Affairs.^[2]

In May 2007, Hodgson briefed the Welsh Labour Party's executive on the practicalities of co-operation between Welsh parties outside a formal coalition, after the 2007 Welsh Assembly elections led to a Labour minority government looking likely.^[3]

Labour was defeated in the 2008 general election. Hodgson retained his seat with a majority of 7,155.^[4]

In opposition, Hodgson was Labour's "chief dirt-digger and mudslinger". The scandals he exposed caused two government ministers to resign.^[5]

Hodgson retired from politics at the end of the 49th Parliament in 2011, after 21 years as the MP for Dunedin North.^[6]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Media related to Pete Hodgson at Wikimedia Commons
• Pete Hodgson at the New Zealand Parliament website

Kevin Falcon is a Canadian politician and is the current Deputy Premier of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for the district of Surrey-Cloverdale and is a member of the BC Liberals. Along with serving as Deputy Premier, Falcon is also the province's Minister of Finance.^[1]

Personal life[link]

Born in British Columbia, Falcon holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Simon Fraser University. He lives in Surrey, British Columbia with his wife Jessica and daughter Josephine.^[2]

Politics[link]

Falcon's first step into the public arena was as a lead organizer of the "Total Recall" effort to recall a number of BC New Democratic Party MLA's in 1999.^[3]

He was first elected in 2001 as a BC Liberal to represent the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, and re-elected in the 2005, and 2009 elections.^[4]

Once Falcon was promoted to Minister of Health, he proposed changes to the health regulations regarding sales of contact lenses and eyeglasses which removed the requirement of a physical inspection of a prescription allowing their sale over the internet.^[5] The proposed changes came into effect May 1, 2010 and were criticized by many optometry professional associations.^[6]

Professional health care associations objected on two grounds; that allowing opticians to perform sight tests would result in patients receiving less frequent comprehensive eye exams, and that allowing retailers to dispense eyeglasses and contact lenses without verifying a prescription may result in improperly fitted prescriptions or harmful health effects. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind released a statement in support of the first objection.^[7] The American Optometric Association released a statement supporting both objections,^[8] and the University of Waterloo released a statement expressing concern over the health regulation changes and presented academic literature indicating that these changes will significantly increase the prevalence of undetected eye diseases ultimately leading to vision loss. ^[9]

The opposition argued that Falcon changed the rules in 2010 after Clearly Contacts donated more than ten-thousand dollars to the BC Liberal Party. Also, an email from Clearly Contacts was sent out to eligible voters urging them to join the BC Liberal Party and vote for Falcon as leader. The NDP opposition noted the donation and email was a conflict of interest. Falcon said, "The decision we made was on the side of more competition and lower prices for consumers." Falcon admitted he did not run the decision past the conflict of interest commissioner.^[10]

Leadership campaign[link]

On November 3, 2010, Premier Gordon Campbell announced that he would step down as premier of British Columbia once his successor was chosen. On November 30, 2010, Falcon launched his campaign to be the leader of the BC Liberal Party, and subsequently the Premier of British Columbia.^[11]

Falcon is regarded as one of the more conservative members of caucus and was able to secure a large number of supporters from the British Columbia business community.^[12][13] He was also supported by 19 BC Liberal caucus members, one former caucus members and Liberal Party Senator Larry Campbell.^[14][15]

On December 11, the Vancouver Sun reported that Falcon's social media traffic was the highest of declared candidates.^[16] Throughout the campaign he refused to call for a full public inquiry into the sale of BC rail and associated scandal, which involved allegations of bribes paid to Liberal insiders. However, he agreed to an investigation into why the government paid $6 million in legal fees for Liberal party aides Robert Virk and David Basi after they pleaded guilty to accepting bribes.^[17]

In 2012, a number of Falcon supporters 'fled' to the BC Conservative party, including former BC Liberal nomination candidate Rick Peterson. Falcon remarked that "a number of my supporters that may have done that and I’m not entirely surprised". ^[18]

See also[link]

• British Columbia Liberal Party

References[link]

External links[link]

• Kevin Falcon, MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale
• Official Biography, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia