March 15, 1999

KING COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING NOTICE

When: Monday, March 15, 1999; 4:30 p.m.

Where: Bank of California Building; 8th floor

King County Prosecuting Attorney Conference Room

PROPOSED AGENDA

3. Recognition of Judge Paul M. Feinsod (5 minutes)

4. Request for Advisory Opinion. Staff briefing; Board consideration of whether to issue an advisory opinion regarding Executive appearance on billboard. (20 minutes)

6. Response from Executive on Board Initiatives. Board discussion. (20 minutes)

• Proposed Ordinance to Amend Financial Dislcosure Requirements
• Proposed Policies & Procedures Relating to the Conduct of Administrative Support and Board of Ethics Meetings.

7. Report on January 26 Meeting with Executive Sims. Dr. Lois Price Spratlen. (15 minutes)

8. Board Reception. Discussion. (5 minutes)

cc: Ron Sims, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
Duncan Fowler, Director–Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Sheryl V. Whitney, Director, DIAS
James J. Buck, Acting Deputy Director, DIAS
Carl A. Johansen, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Brian White

Minutes of the March 15, 1999 Meeting of the King County Board of Ethics

The March 15, 1999 meeting of the King County Board of Ethics was called to order by Chair Price Spratlen at 4:30 p.m. Board members in attendance:

Others in attendance:

Ms. Catherine A. Clemens, Administrator, King County Board of Ethics

Mr. James J. Buck, Acting Deputy Director, Department of Information and Administrative Services (arriving at 4:50 p.m.)

Mr. Carl A. Johansen, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (leaving at 6:00 p.m.)

Mr. Duncan Fowler, Director, Office of Citizen Complaints--Ombudsman (leaving at 5:25 p.m.)

Mr. Brian White (leaving at 5:10 p.m.)

Mr. Neil Modie, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (leaving at 5:10 p.m.)

1. Proposed Agenda. Chair Price Spratlen requested the addition of Item #9, Executive Session, to discuss staff evaluation. Mr. Howell moved the agenda be approved; Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion and the agenda was approved.

2. Approval of Meeting Minutes of January 25, 1999. Mr. Howell moved to approve the January 25, 1999 meeting minutes; Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved.

3. Recognition of Judge Paul M. Feinsod. Chair Price Spratlen described the County Council memorial honoring Judge Feinsod, held on March 8, 1999. In attendance were Ms. Barbara Johnson, widow of Judge Feinsod, board members, friends and councilmembers. The Board directed Ms. Clemens to write a letter of appreciation to the council. The Chair made her letter to Ms. Johnson available to the Board. Board members had the opportunity to talk about Judge Feinsod and a moment of silence was observed in his memory.

4. Request for Advisory Opinion. Ms. Clemens briefed the Board on the request. The image of County Executive Ron Sims appeared recently on a public billboard which promoted the Seattle Super Sonics and the beginning of the basketball season. Mr. Brian White, a citizen of King County, saw this billboard and contacted the office of the King County Board of Ethics asking for information about potential conflict of interest regarding this advertisement. Following discussion with the Ethics Administrator, reviewing the Code of Ethics, and contacting the Executive's office, Mr. White requested an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics regarding two issues. First, whether or not Executive Sims is in violation of the Code of Ethics regarding his participation in the Sonics promotion, and second, if the Board would 'establish a judgment' concerning county officials acting as 'advertising pitchmen' for private business under the Code of Ethics. Ms. Clemens offered a brief analysis, including jurisdiction and board authority.

Mr. White, the requesting citizen, stated his request was based upon the propriety of Mr. Sims' action and the fairness of supporting one, private, for-profit corporation. The Sonics are a subsidiary of Mr. Ackerly who owns various businesses, including billboards, which are regulated by the county. He felt Executive Sims appearance in the ad set a poor precedence for other elected officials. Mr. Howell asked Mr. White the exact nature of the violation vis-à-vis conflict with executive duties and stated he did not see one. Mr. White responded that the Sonics are owned by Mr. Ackerly, who owns the Sonics, and Mr. Ackerly's other businesses are regulated by the county in matters of zoning. He stated he did not feel Mr. Sims was doing anything wrong, but his actions were inappropriate. Mr. Howell suggested various situations where an elected official might appear in connection with a private corporation, such as appearing on a television news program. Mr. White countered that Mr. Sims was using his stature to identify and endorse a private business. Mr. Howell again asked what rule under the Code of Ethics did Mr. Sims violate? Mr. White responded that Mr. Sims' action could impair his judgment in dealings with Ackerly-owned businesses.

Mr. Clemens offered a recommendation on the requests made by Mr. White. On the first issue, whether the Executive is in violation of the Code, the appearance by Executive Sims on the Sonics billboard is an action which has already taken place. Therefore, Ms. Clemens recommended that the Board not issue an opinion on this particular situation, but refer Mr. White to the Office of Citizen Complaint--Ombudsman. On the second issue, whether commercial appearances by public officials in specific circumstances, such as billboards, conflict with their official duties and responsibilities based on the provisions of the Code of Ethics, Ms. Clemens recommended the Board issue an advisory opinion offering general guidelines since this issue had come up from time to time, and as recently as that day.

Chair Price Spratlen moved the board not issue an advisory opinion on the request because the occurrence had already taken place and that Mr. White be referred to the Office of Citizen Complaints--Ombudsman. Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Howell moved to oppose issuing an advisory opinion to provide general guidelines, but to consider issuing opinions on a case-by-case basis. Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously.

Mr. Fowler introduced himself and invited Mr. White to contact him if Mr. White wished to discuss the matter or to file a complaint. At this time, Chair Price Spratlen asked for introductions of all present.

5. Ombudsman Findings and Recommendations on Ethics Complaint 9605-03E. Ms. Clemens briefed the Board and noted that it is the usual practice to always include the latest Ombudsman findings in Board packets. Because the complaint involved the office of the Board of Ethics, Mr. Fowler offered to attend the meeting should any questions arise. Mr. Fowler briefed the Board on the background and process for the complaint and investigation. Mr. Howell stated he was pleased with the findings and stated he felt Mr. Charles, the respondent, was an honorable man. Chair Price Spratlen noted the testimony of the highly regarded former Chair, Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, and stated that his comments were well spoken. Mr. Howell voiced his concern over anonymous complaints, such as this one, which he felt were contrary to basic due process. Mr. Fowler agreed to a point, but noted that whistleblower laws have helped to protect those who would come forward at great risk to themselves. The Chair and Ms. Clemens thanked Mr. Fowler for attending.

6. Response from Executive on Board Initiatives. Ms. Clemens introduced and summarized the Executive response to the proposed ordinance to amend the financial disclosure requirements under the Code of Ethics. Because the Executive supported and approved the portion dealing with the nature of the required information, and because his areas of concern had to do with the increased involvement by departments in the review of employee statements, Ms. Clemens recommended that the Board revise the proposed ordinance amendment and remove the offending language. She further recommended that the departmental involvement be dealt with at a later time, and that the Board now resubmit the revised proposal to the Executive so that the changes might be reviewed and passed by the council in a timely manner for next year's filing. Mr. Howell moved that the Board accept the recommendation of the Administrator; Mr. Pruitt seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Chair Price Spratlen asked Mr. Johansen how much time he anticipated would be needed to make the necessary changes. Mr. Johansen responded that it should not take more than one half hour. Ms. Clemens offered to begin work with the Chair to plan outreach meetings with department directors to exchange information and hear feedback on ethics related issues affecting them and their departments. Chair Price Spratlen agreed to this plan.

Next, Ms. Clemens briefed the board on the Executive's response regarding policies and procedures relating to administrative support and board meetings. After reviewing the relevant portion of the document, the Board directed Ms. Clemens to work with Mr. Johansen and Mr. Buck to make the appropriate changes and present the revised document at the next Board meeting, with an eye to maintaining congruency between the Administrator's job description and the document. Chair Price Spratlen also stated that the overall supervision of the Administrator cannot be the sole responsibility of the Board, since it is not there on a day-to-day basis, and because the Board and staff are funded by the County administration. Board members agreed that shared responsibility for the administrator by the board and county was desirable.

7. Report on January 26 Meeting with Executive Sims. Chair Price Spratlen reported that she and Judge Feinsod met informally with Executive Sims on January 26 to discuss ethics related issues. At that meeting, issues for discussion included: 1) a request for a letter of endorsement from the Executive affirming the importance of ethics to be used by the office of the board; 2) a statement of unanimous support from the Board regarding the outstanding work of the Administrator, Catherine Clemens; 3) the presentation of the 1998 Annual Report and selected highlights; 4) a proposal for meetings with the Executive Cabinet and Councilmembers to exchange information and receive feedback; 5) an inquiry on the status of the proposed ordinance to amend financial disclosure requirements; and 6) request support to continue monthly, centralized, new employee training. The Executive responded positively to all of the above. He also stated, however, that he had not seen the proposed ordinance to amend financial disclosure requirements, and asked that another copy be sent to him. Ms. Clemens reported that the letter from Executive Sims in support of county ethics had been drafted and was under review. In addition, it was her understanding that the new employee orientation is to be continued.

8. Board Reception. The Board unanimously agreed to hold the second annual reception in May. They also agreed that, although they were grateful to Ms. Whitney for funding the reception last year, they themselves would finance the event this year. They also agreed to invite past board members and asked that casual photos be taken during the event. Ms. Clemens stated she would begin the process of scheduling the reception with the Executive and Council Chair.

9. Executive Session. At 6:24 p.m. the Chair requested that the meeting move into executive session for the purpose of discussing the annual evaluation of the Administrator. The Chair announced that the executive session would conclude in 15 minutes.

At 6: 26 p.m., the Board completed the executive session and resumed its regular meeting.

At 6:28 p.m., Rev. Pruitt moved to adjourn the meeting; Mr. Howell seconded the motion; the motion was approved unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.