Mike Kelloway is married to the Police Chief's sister.

The general expectation is that it would be in the *interest* of parties accused of an issue or wrongdoing to avoid accountability or disruptive changes. *If* there is biased hiring or manipulation of the candidate scoring process for new hires, that could potentially be a very damaging revelation. E.g. Island Employment. The complaint is suggestive that Kelloway might be reluctant to represent the citizen’s issue if it could adversely impact his brother-in-law, a relationship he apparently did not disclose to the citizen seeming his assistance(?). If he’s right about the accusations or inferences regarding hiring processes, it is something significant enough that it could cause disruption to management-level employees who oversee such practices. The first question is whether the situation described raises a valid ethical concern. As alleged, it does. The second question is whether the governing regulation under which he’s filing his complaint covers this specific scope. It certainly should, but may not. Clearly, a desired workplace outcome, even if not financial in nature, is “valuable” to (in the interest of) anyone. And, if a person with some level of authority, through actions or inaction, is able to permit or facilitate or in any way influence a family member’s preferred outcome, it would certainly be a conflict of interest, in the general definition of the term. A good lawyer would ensure it was argued within the scope of legislation. I’m more interested in whether the allegations are accurate. In the current environment, one would expect anyone that applied would be hired, as they tell the public they are struggling to recruit. But hiring people that scrutinize the details can be problematic. Union concerns approached with guerrilla tactics didn’t work out well for Lavin, although I’m still more interested in what he didn’t like than how he attempted to allege it (i.e. an email sent from a mock name, instead of just anonymous).