Town’s nepotism policy more inclusive than it is restrictive

By Cal Braid
Taber Times
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

At an Aug. 19 regular meeting of Taber council, members approved minor revisions to the Town’s nepotism policy. As an equal opportunity employer, the Town office tries to ensure that fair hiring practices are par for the course. To keep the hiring processes free of any conflicts of interest, a nepotism policy is in place. In this case, nepotism refers to the hiring or employment of friends and relatives and preventing the misuse of authority and influence.

 The Human Rights Code requires that the Town not discriminate in its hiring practices on the basis that a person is a relative of a current employee. Friends and relatives of Town employees are eligible for employment with the Town provided that they: have applied qualified through the standard hiring process; possess the necessary qualifications or skills that are fundamental to the fulfilment of the job responsibilities; are considered to be the best candidate for the position.

 One revision in the policy was the definition of immediate relatives, which includes just about any possible family member a person could have. The only apparent change was a slightly broader, more gender-neutral definition of a cohabiting couple. Almost anyone who is qualified can apply to work for the Town, regardless of their connection to current employees.

 However, a few restrictions do apply. Immediate relatives are only restricted insofar as they cannot be employed in:

-a supervisor/subordinate relationship or any relationship that may deal with performance or evaluation of an immediate relative.

-the same department and positions that have approval authority in relation to monetary responsibilities (e.g. overtime approval, approving expenses, etc.).

-if a real or perceived conflict of interest arises due to marriage/cohabitation, or if perceived conflict of interest the employees will notify their manager or Human Resources who will work together to assess the situation to determine if a conflict of interest exists.

 The policy says, “In cases of conflict of opinion as to the intent of these conditions the final interpretation shall rest with the Chief Administrative Officer.” Council members expressed no concerns over the updated policy and approved it.