Board Consent Given to President's Apparent Conflict of Interest

When Alright! An affinity relationship AND a degree! York University hired Lorna Marsden to be president, the board knew she was a director of Manulife Financial who, like every shareholder, receives direct benefit when Manulife profits through business activities, like the affinity arrangement with York. Marsden's position with Manulife was disclosed to the board "and consent given to her continuing in that capacity." said Harriet Lewis, York's Secretary & General Counsel, in her letter to Professor David Noble dated June 8, 2006. Lewis takes the position that Marsden "has not received any personal benefit" from the York-Manulife arrangement. But Manulife pursues business arrangements for profit, which directly affects the value of shares and remuneration for board members (Marsden's shares were valued at more than $1.8 million on March 15, 2006 and she received almost $130,000 in direct remuneration last year). How ironic it is that on the same day as Lewis' letter York announced it was bestowing an Honorary Doctor of Laws on Dominic D'Alessandro, the president and chief executive officer of Manulife Financial! As if we needed additional appearances of conflict of interest involving Marsden's relationship with Manulife.

That the York board of governors gave a wink and a nod to Marsden's conflict of interest, real or perceived, speaks very poorly of the board itself. The same is true for Marsden in electing to continue in her Manulife position while executing deals with Manulife on behalf of York.

Noble hit the nail on the head in his June 12 response to Lewis' letter:

(2) I know that both York's and Marsden's relationship with Manulife predated Marsden's arrival at York, which only highlights the problem here. Marsden must have been aware of the potential conflict involved in taking the York position, which entailed responsibility for executing deals with Manulife. She might simply have resigned from the Manulife board or asked York to switch to, say, Pacific Life, or some other insurance provider, but apparently did neither (As you know I have filed a FIPPA requires for all documents in York's possession pertaining to the Manulife relationship.)

(3) Rather than in any way exonerating her, the fact that, as you state, "consent" was "given to her continuing in that capacity" only implicates your office and the Board of Governors in Marsden's conflict of interest.

Unfortunately the shenanigans where friends and relatives profit from their personal relationships with York university officials appear to be long standing and ubiquitous.

In his response to Lewis professor Noble examines further the affinity mailing process he exposed earlier:

(5) The affinity mailing process I describe was provided by Manulife. York's Alumni Association maintains that it uses a third-party intermediary, the direct-marketing company Bassett, in its dealings with Manulife. Aside from the privacy issues this raises, especially now that FIPPA is in effect, the use of Bassett would be immaterial were it not for the fact that in January, 2000 Bassett, and, presumably, the arrangement with York, was acquired by Optus, a firm then run by Jon Hantho, the son of the then chairman of the York University Board of Governors Charles Hantho. Optus was a unit of MDC, a corporation run by York benefactor and advisor Miles S. Nadal.

Noble also touches upon the privacy issues raised by York's release of its alumni mailing list to Manulife, even through a third party, now that our Ontario universities are subject to FIPPA (the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act).

The implications are that under FIPPA York has a responsibility to protect the privacy of its alumni, including alumni contact information and not to release personal information without expressed consent of the individual. In providing the York alumni mailing list to others for purposes of Manulife flogging its products to York alumni the university has failed to fulfill its FIPPA responsibilities.

According to a recent article in the London Free Press:

B.C., Alberta and Quebec have long-established rules for disclosing personal information to third parties. In all instances, the institution bears the responsibility to use contractual means to safeguard personal information."

Universities in several other provinces - including British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia - have been subject to legislation similar to Ontario's FIPPA for a number of years.

References:


[ Top of page ]
Dominic D'Alessandro
President and Chief Executive Officer of Manulife Financial

To receive an Honorary Doctor of Laws
Biography included in the York announcment of Honourary Degree Recipients

Dominic Profits and a degree!D'Alessandro, president and chief executive officer of Manulife Financial, is highly respected for his integrity, exceptional leadership and commitment to both the financial services industry and the community. An Officer of the Order of Canada, D’Alessandro was also named Outstanding CEO of the Year in 2002 by Report on Business, which later ranked Manulife Financial first in its sector for corporate social responsibility in 2004. D'Alessandro has led fundraising campaigns for the United Way of Greater Toronto, the Salvation Army and the Corporate Fund for Breast Cancer Research. He is also a member of the Dean's Advisory Council at York’s Schulich School of Business.

Editor's note: For more information on Dominic D'Alessandro see his officical profile on the Manulife Financail website.

[ Top of page ]
Privacy rules expanded
London Free Press - June 15, 2006
By Janet Allinson, Freelance Writer

Since the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) came into force Jan. 1, 1988, government and other public institutions have been subject to this act. This included colleges, but has not included universities -- until this week.

An individual's personal information is only released if he or she consents to it being released to a third party making a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

Figuring out which legislation applies can be tricky as was recently discovered when a question arose as to what legislation applies for safeguarding students' personal information being transferred to a third party contracted to provide a service for the university. Different opinions arose, but the opinion of the privacy commission was unanimous.

One interim FOI officer's opinion was that, although the university would be governed under FIPPA, the third party would be responsible to protect the information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The reasoning was that, as the third party was compensated for its services to the university, this met the definition of "commercial activity."

Speaking with Ann Goldsmith, in-house legal counsel at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, she differed with that interpretation of PIPEDA.

If the institution's activity "is for a profit motive, then it takes on a commercial character and applies to both the institution and the third party," explains Goldsmith.

B.C., Alberta and Quebec have long-established rules for disclosing personal information to third parties. In all instances, the institution bears the responsibility to use contractual means to safeguard personal information.

Janet Allinson is a member of the Privacy Law and Commercial Litigation groups at Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler LLP. For more information about this article or the legal services available at Siskinds, contact Ms. Allinson at 672-2121.

[ Top of page ]
Filed under: Freedom of Information  and Governance  by Editor.