An EC Member Who Sues Her City Government

I've written recently about the propriety of the new chair of D.C.'s ethics commission practicing in matters that involve the city government. In that case, there was an appearance, based on the chair's own website, that he was seeking benefits for his clients from the council and certain city agencies. He said he would not do this while sitting on the ethics commission.

But what if he represented a different sort of client, not those seeking benefits from the city, but those having issues relating to mistreatment by officials? This is the situation that has arisen in Seattle, where M. Lorena González is to be appointed to Seattle's ethics commission today by the council, according to a council press release.

González seems to be another perfect choice for an ethics commission. She is a young attorney who, according to her webpage, "focuses her practice on representing individuals who have been victimized by people in authority positions – employers not giving workers the pay and benefits owed to them, police officers abusing their powers, and sexual aggressors preying on those unable to defend themselves." This is someone who clearly is not afraid to stand up to those in authority.

But then I looked at the firm's news headlines on the right margin. The first announces the advancement of her nomination to the ethics commission. The second announces the settlement of a suit against Seattle's police department (which is itself not overseen by the ethics commission). All of a sudden, her goal of representing victims of people in authority positions takes on a new meaning. The very high-level officials who will come before the ethics commission are possible defendants in suits pursued by her firm.

There is no question here, as there was in D.C., that González's clients are seeking benefits, such as contracts and grants, from the city government. They are seeking fair treatment and the correcting of mistreatment. González would not be seen as easy on officials in order not to have them biased against her clients. Her clients are already asserting some form of bias against them.

But would she be seen as too hard on officials in order to get back at them for treatment of her clients, or out of some sort of perceived bias against those in authority? Such a perception could be damaging (it would also be refreshing, considering that the problem is usually seen as bias toward high-level officials, since they are the appointing authority).

I don't believe that public officials or employees should represent those suing their city government. It creates a serious appearance problem and, effectively, the official is on both sides of the suit. But an ethics commission member is not a normal official. She is not really part of the government, but rather a watchdog. Her obligation is to making the ethics program work fairly and well. Representing someone who is suing the city should not conflict with this obligation, except with respect to the agency and officials her client is suing and that, therefore, she may be negotiating with on behalf of her client. Too many suits, or suits against the mayor or council, may create problems, however.

If she or her firm were involved in a suit against an agency currently or recently (or even where she had reason to believe her firm would be involved), she should withdraw from participation in a matter involving an official from that agency. But, unlike in the D.C. situation, González does not have an ongoing practice before multiple agencies of the sort that puts an attorney in an ongoing conflict due to relationships with and the future desire for benefits from a variety of officials. In the case of an attorney with such a practice, every official is someone you do not want to offend, for the good of both your clients and yourself. González can offend anyone she wants without jeopardizing her clients.

It is unlikely that González would have to withdraw on many occasions. But if it turned out to be a problem, perhaps because ethics complaints were tied to suits against officials, or simply because she or her firm were involved in an increased number of suits against the city or its officials (and, therefore, negotiations with them), this might change the situation and require González to resign from the commission. Otherwise, despite possible appearance problems, she is a much less problematic choice than Spagnoletti was in D.C.

Postscript: Seattle EC executive director Wayne Barnett wrote me that the EC member Ms. González will be replacing had been appointed to the State Public Disclosure Commission. Because this commission has concurrent jurisdiction with the Seattle EC on campaign finance matters involving city candidates, she chose to step down from the Seattle EC. This is a case where there was no legal conflict and no financial benefits involved, but where the individual would be wearing two hats in certain situations. Legal conflicts and financial benefits are not everything.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---