Ethics Reform in Seattle
Yesterday, the Seattle City Council passed <a href="http://www.seattle.gov/council/clark/attachments/2009_ethics_code_ord.p…; target="”_blank”">amendments</a>
to the city's <a href="http://www.seattle.gov/ethics/etpub/et_code.htm" target="”_blank”">ethics
code</a>, based on recommendations from the city's ethics commission,
according to <a href="http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/06/14/news/city-council-updates-e…; target="”_blank”">an
article in the West Seattle </a><span><a href="http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/06/14/news/city-council-updates-e…; target="”_blank”">Herald</a>
</span>(highlights of the amendments can be found <a href="http://www.seattle.gov/council/clark/attachments/proposed_changes_ethic…; target="”_blank”">here</a>).<br>
<br>
<span>Financial Interests</span><br>
The definition of "financial interest" was expanded from an official's
personal interests to those of family members, the official's
household, and individuals and entities the official serves or is
seeking employment from, essentially businesses the official is
associated with. An important expansion.<br>
<br>
<span>Appearance of Impropriety</span><br>
An interesting addition is to require disclosure and, except for
elected officials, approval by one's appointing authority when there is
an appearance of impropriety, even if there is no "financial interest"
involved. Here is the language:<br>
<br>
<div>when it could appear to a reasonable
person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, that the
Covered Individual’s judgment is impaired because of either (1) a
personal or business relationship not covered under subsection a or b
above, or (2) a transaction or activity engaged in by the Covered
Individual<br>
</div>
<br>
This is, of course, a vague standard, but it does encourage officials
to disclose possible conflicts that don't fit the financial interest
definition. This is an important step. However, for elected officials,
such transparency might cast a shadow over their participation and
vote. I do not favor requiring conflict disclosure without recusal. It
invites the news media and opponents to take an appearance of
impropriety and treat it as impropriety itself, arguing that elected
officials with conflicts are participating and voting when they
shouldn't. This undermines rather than encourages trust in elected
officials.<br>
<br>
As for employees, they can proceed if their appointing authority either
approves participation or does not respond within seven days. But seven
days can be a long time to wait to find out if one can participate or
not. In many cases, employees will not be able to participate, and if
appointing authorities are not responsive, the tendency will be to
recuse and not bother asking for approval.<br>
<br>
This would create a two-tier approach to appearances of impropriety,
which might cause resentment on the part of employees. And if the
appointing authorities rubber stamp requests for approval, they too may
be seen as ignoring the public interest in favor of letting officials
and employees with conflicts participate and vote.<br>
<br>
<span>Jurisdiction Over Contractors</span><br>
Another interesting addition is jurisdiction over contractors who work
at least 1,000 hours in a 12-month period (essentially half-time).
Thus, contractors who effectively act as employees are treated as
employees with respect to ethical requirements. This is a good idea.<br>
<br>
<span>Ethics Fines and Campaign
Solicitation in City Hall</span><br>
In separate ordinances, the council also prohibited officials and
employees from paying ethics
fines using city dollars (this happened recently), and gave the ethics
commission authority to enforce a state law that prohibits
city candidates from directly soliciting
campaign contributions from city employees.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>