And this is not inconsistent with some discretion

Under the pressure of a news which has escaped to anyone, a reflection of magnitude was launched on the prevention of conflicts of interest that may affect the action of public officials and impair its perception in the opinion. A commission was tasked by the President of the Republic to formulate, in the winter, a set of specific proposals. The site is wide open.

Obvious, the optimum would be reached in the matter if the difficulties were, in the strict sense, prévenues, aborted in the egg. Generalization of a culture of ethics in the heart of the State might be a good way to do this. Said otherwise: should those who, so far, is posed not enough questions to pose and serve their problems upstream.

How to do A good performance would be obtained if it became commonplace in the structures of public decision to consult with a kind of confessor: a third party whose function would be to help the preventive settlement of these issues; someone whose mission would be to promote, through the more open dialogue, lucid introspection of each decision maker.

The options are many. Is it that this other person is a physical person or a corporation, denying, or college What levels of the Organization of the State must it install it (the Department, service, etc.) Who should his services be offered Is it necessary that this function be met everywhere in the same form These points require further thinking. But, in any event, two precautions need to be taken.

The first concerns the status of secrets protected by law. If a third party to enter in confidence, it is important that her intercession operates in a criminally acceptable framework. Data of a large data une grande partie much des gold play in the assessment of a conflict of interest are covered by a solicitor-client privilege and therefore appealed for disclosure. If it is possible, for example for a former lawyer back in politics, to which could conflict against its past, must be that the Act authorizes it to share its secret. Symmetrically, no ambiguity must prevail on the fact that said third party, newly custodian of this shared secret, between him also in the legally sanctioned the privacy field. No doubt is also under what conditions and in which case this secrecy may be lifted at the instigation of a judge if the need be made feel. All this should be set in law, but also explained and made public knowledge.

Second useful precaution: the absence of outdoor advertising to be given to the fact that or consult with or consulted with the same person. The objective of a reform of this nature cannot be deliver crisp information to those who will spend, and still less the impression to the citizens as a public actor has things to hide or to blame because he wondered about the acceptability of what he is about to do! The French doubt less probity and disinterestedness of personnel policy, must be especially reduce opportunities real, objective, their mistrust. And this is not inconsistent with some discretion. As the effectiveness of the system would be: it will not extend a culture of ethics in the State if officials are encouraged to keep what needs to be shared in confidence. It is therefore necessary that none of them would have reason to fear this dialogue conducive and confident, especially into advertising that could be given to their approach. Paradox in a time of transparency, a bit of opacity could contribute to the return of confidence.