A beekeeper handed in a complaint against a county administrative board for deficient processing of a conflict of interest regarding a bee-supervisor. The conflict of interest was founded upon the bee-supervisor also being a beekeeper who was an active salesman on the same markets where the complainant sold his honey. The Parliamentary Ombudsman asked the board and the Board of Agriculture to hand in a referral response on the matter. The authorities both responded that a bee-supervisor should be considered a separate authority.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the regulations state that bee-supervisors are hired by and subordinated to the county adminstrative board and can be revoked at any given time and the renumeration should be handed out according to a certain rate. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the bee-supervisor in question had commercial interests and conducted business activities in addition to the supervisory assignment. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, the basic organizational conditions mainly go against a bee-supervisor being regarded as a separate authority pursuant to the Instrument of Government. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that bee-supervisors should be considered individuals to whom administrative tasks have been transferred pursuant to what is specified in chapter 12, section 4 of the Instrument of Government. The Parliamentary Ombudsman hold that statutory regulations on objectivity apply in their supervisory activities.

The county administrative board recieves criticism for not having taken a position on the complainant’s questions regarding the conflict of interest or forwarding it to the bee-supervisor for management.