Employee Political-Activity Conflict Board Adviser

The mandate

Employees include former public officials, reservists, policy advocates, elected local representatives and individuals active in political campaigns. Government-facing roles create legitimate conflict and lobbying-registration questions, but managers respond inconsistently: some demand broad disclosure of lawful private activity, while others ignore public positions that intersect directly with active procurements. Employees fear career consequences based on viewpoint rather than conflict. The board needs a governance framework that protects rights while keeping public contracts, security obligations and company representation clear.

The adviser will challenge an activity-and-role taxonomy covering candidacy, elected office, contributions, campaigning, volunteering, public commentary, lobbying contact, former-official restrictions, government advisory work and use of company resources. The framework must distinguish lawful private activity, required disclosure, actual conflict, perceived conflict, registration, recusal and prohibited company conduct. It must also address seniority, public-facing titles, working time, security and contract-specific restrictions without monitoring political belief.

The cadence comprises fortnightly work with ethics, people and government affairs, monthly board-committee attendance and two scenario reviews spanning Canada and other government markets. The adviser will test de-identified examples and proposed decision paths, with counsel owning jurisdictional rights and lobbying interpretations. Board papers will state where advice depends on contract conditions, security rules, collective rights or individual consent.

The adviser has no line authority and assumes no executive responsibility for employment, political engagement, lobbying, procurement, security or communications. The role cannot approve candidacies, restrict lawful views, register lobbyists, direct recusal, investigate employees, contact authorities or speak for the company. Management operates policy; counsel determines legal requirements; individuals retain protected rights; the board owns ethics oversight. Advice is not permission for political activity.

The appointment lasts nine months. Renewal requires a distinct, recorded ethics question after the policy and scenarios close. Relationships with political parties, candidates, governments, lobbyists, advocacy groups, customers, competitors and employee representatives must be disclosed. Relevant matters require recusal, and no political, lobbying, recruitment or government-access referral value may be accepted.

Why the board wants this voice

Government affairs focuses on institutional access, managers on perceived reputation and employees on protected private rights, leaving conflicts either overreported or ignored. Political sensitivity makes internal policy challenge vulnerable to viewpoint assumptions. An independent adviser can build evidence-based boundaries without policing belief, registering activity or promoting any political interest.

What you will own

• Challenge the taxonomy across candidacy, office, campaigning, contributions, advocacy, commentary, lobbying and former-official restrictions.
• Map employee role, contract, customer contact, security duty and public title to disclosure and recusal questions.
• Distinguish private activity, company representation, actual conflict, perceived conflict, registration and prohibited resource use.
• Test decision paths for viewpoint neutrality, proportional data, confidentiality, appeal, non-retaliation and consistent seniority treatment.
• Advise the board on indicators, escalation, contract dependencies, counsel questions and unresolved ethics choices.
• Maintain a restricted advice, conflict, recusal and decision record without collecting political belief or affiliation unnecessarily.
• Deliver a governance charter, scenario library, manager guidance and review calendar across government markets.

Candidate qualifications

• Has advised boards directly on employee political activity, lobbying conflicts, former-official restrictions or government-contract ethics.
• Understands protected activity, disclosure, recusal, registration, public representation, procurement and security dependencies.
• Can distinguish evidence of conflict from political viewpoint, affiliation, reputation anxiety and manager preference.
• Has designed confidential, proportionate processes for senior employees and public-facing roles across jurisdictions.
• Brings credible collaboration with ethics, government affairs, people, security, counsel and employee representatives.
• Is independent of political consulting, lobbying registration, candidate work, government-access sales and recruitment fees.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend monthly Ottawa sessions and both cross-border scenario reviews under sensitive information controls.
• Brings direct government-facing ethics governance; general employee-conflict policy work alone is insufficient.
• Will not collect political beliefs, favour viewpoints, contact authorities or present advisory review as legal permission.
• Will disclose political, lobbying, government, customer, advocacy and employee-representative relationships before appointment.

1. 49 words maximum. Which role fact turns private political activity into a legitimate conflict-review question?
2. 49 words maximum. How would you prevent disclosure rules from becoming viewpoint monitoring?
3. 49 words maximum. What decision must remain with counsel rather than an ethics committee?