Whether the Office of the Vice-President/Legal Affairs led by Mr. Dennis Pavlich likes it or not, it is operating under the shadow of a conflict of interest, of biases, in its dealings with students contesting the decisions and actions of UBC. His legal office is preparing a case against me, representing and advising UBC faculties on how best to respond to my complaints. It knows and expects that I will use information damaging to the reputation of UBC, information that will damage the case to be made against me. That same office is in charge of releasing to me that information. Mr. Pavlich’s Office admits that a person involved in a case cannot be the person running the hearing to resolve that case, as there would be a clear bias. The same must hold true for his Office as they represent the faculties involved in my legal dispute.

The truth is that Mr. Pavlich and his Office are responsible for protecting the reputation and best interest of UBC. Yet they are also responsible for providing me with documents, personal information files, that will assist my case against UBC. This has the appearance of a conflict of interest/duties.

The Freedom of Information Act guarantees full access to personal information for BC residents in public institutions. UBC provides students full access to their personal information for the use of the student as he or she pleases. The Office of the Vice-President/Legal Affairs run by Mr. Pavlich is in charge of fulfilling UBC’s duty with respect to the FOI Act. They are required to grant formal requests for personal information.

Access to information required by students in open conflict with UBC should be administered by an unbiased third party with proper student representation. This function should not be in the hands of the chief counsel of UBC, the same counsel responsible for directing a case against the student whose access to personal information they control. I have brought this conflict to the attention of Mr. Pavlich and the FOI Commissioner but to no avail.

The legal Office, which is preparing/directing a case against me to be presented at my hearing, decides what type of information I am allowed to access. They are working a case against me in cooperation with the faculties and people that have abused me (see last month’s Graduate article). And yet they have total control over the speed, the quality, the quantity, the accuracy, and the completeness of the personal information to be released to me. It is an accepted principle that to avoid a conflict of interest, the person or office that has an interest in the decision to release or not to release personal information should not be the person or office that makes that decision. This would be consistent with Mr. Pavlich’s own guidelines to decision makers at UBC. Policy 95 states that the person alleging financial offenses of a student should not be the person to carry out the investigation against the student. This rule should apply to Mr. Pavlich’s own office: the office preparing/directing the case against me should not be the office controlling my right to fully access my own personal information.

Mr. Pavlich released some of my personal information the day before my hearing on March 25, 1998. He did so in order to avoid giving me time to use it. His office suppressed still more key information during the hearing, releasing it only after the hearing. It apparently also advised the UBC Senate Committee on Academic Appeals to dismiss my appeal despite losing its case against me at the appeal hearing – like a lawyer advising a judge on what to do after he has lost a case. It released even more key information just after my academic appeal had been dismissed. Right now, again, the office of Mr. Pavlich is doing its best to avoid releasing information or clarifying the true nature of the documents they control.

Mr. Pavlich’s office has a conflict of interest insofar as it has total control of my personal information while at the same time is legally representing/advising UBC faculties against me. The FOI Act states: "The head of the public body must make every reasonable effort to assist applicants and to respond without delay to each applicant openly, accurately and completely" (6. 1). Mr. Pavlich’s office has the duty to provide me with my personal information openly, accurately, completely, and speedily. Mr. Pavlich’s office also has the duty to protect the reputation and the best interest of UBC, as it is the legal branch of the UBC President’s office. In addition, it has the duty to minimize incriminating information that could be used against UBC. Does this or does this not sound like a textbook case of conflict of interest?

GO BACK TO MAIN PAGE

Questions and comments to: Lucio Munoz