You are here
Ethics Reform in Seattle
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
Yesterday, the Seattle City Council passed amendments
to the city's ethics
code, based on recommendations from the city's ethics commission,
according to an
article in the West Seattle Herald
(highlights of the amendments can be found here).
Financial Interests
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.
Appearance of Impropriety
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:
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.
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.
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.
Jurisdiction Over Contractors
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.
Ethics Fines and Campaign Solicitation in City Hall
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Financial Interests
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.
Appearance of Impropriety
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
Jurisdiction Over Contractors
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.
Ethics Fines and Campaign Solicitation in City Hall
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
