Vancouver’s city manager, Judy Rogers, finds herself in an uncomfortable position these days. She might not acknowledge this publicly; even privately, she might not be aware of it.

But as Vancouver residents face the prospect of higher tax bills because of the 2010 Olympics, Rogers is going to have to serve two groups with distinctly different interests.

As the city manager, Rogers has a professional obligation to work on behalf of Vancouver residents.

She's also on the board of Vanoc, which is staging the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and Whistler. As a director of Vanoc, she has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the Olympic organizing committee.

Keep in mind that the City is a partner in Vanoc along with the federal and provincial governments, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, and the Canadian Olympic Committee.  

Sometimes the interests of city residents collide with the interests of Vanoc. So when that happens, where will her loyalties lie?

Here’s one example: Vanoc wants the Olympic Village on Southeast False Creek completed by November, 2009. The City has signed a contract guaranteeing completion by that date.

But if the developer can’t finish the project, the City will have to do whatever it takes to complete the billion-dollar development. It’s in the contract: the City must deliver a fully functioning Olympic Village.

If the economy goes into the tank, it might be in the City’s best interest to consider options that might not suit the directors of Vanoc.

One option for the City could be housing athletes and officials in alternative accommodations, such as university dorms, and taking a chance that the cost of any court judgement would be less than the cost of completing a billion-dollar palace for members of the Olympic family.

Here’s another example: Vanoc coughed up an extra $10 million when the Olympic curling rink at Hillcrest Park was more expensive than anticipated. The City is picking up the balance of the costs for the facility, which will become a community centre.

Vanoc has not contributed any extra money for a practice rink at Trout Lake, which will revert to the park board after the Games. Costs have risen from $5 million to more than $15 million; Vanoc has contributed $2.5 million.

Vanoc also hasn’t forwarded any extra money to the City beyond its initial $30-million contribution after the Olympic Village turned out to be far more expensive than anticipated.

Does Rogers, as a city manager, write a report to council recommending it pass a motion calling upon Vanoc to make a larger contributions to the Olympic Village and the practice rink at Trout Lake? 

Or does Rogers, as a Vanoc director, advise her fellow directors not to give the City more money because the City has other sources of revenue?

Or does Rogers absent herself from any City discussions involving the Olympics because she's a director of Vanoc?

I’m not privy to what’s going on inside the brain of Rogers. Perhaps she has already figured all of this out. If so, she's welcome to write a comment below this article offering the public an explanation.

But I do know that today, the Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason wrote another article with unnamed sources bluntly stating that the City’s former finance director, Estelle Lo, had concerns with the financing of the Olympic Village.

We also know that Lo never expressed those concerns in a public meeting to members of Vancouver city council. The City announced that Lo quit, but Mason, citing unnamed sources, claimed today that Lo received a one-year severance package. People who quit don't normally get severance.

What we don’t know is how Rogers—the city manager and a Vanoc director—responded if Lo ever raised concerns privately to her about taxpayers' liabilities in connection with the Olympic Village.

We don't know if she shared those concerns with Vanoc directors whose interests don't always coincide with those of the City. We do know that if Lo expressed concerns privately to Rogers, she didn't share them with Vancouver residents.

Vision Vancouver mayor-elect Gregor Robertson and his seven Vision councillors have promised to clear the air about the Olympic Village situation. While they're at it, they might also want to clear the air about how Rogers makes distinctions between her obligations to the City and to Vanoc.