April 19, 1999

KING COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING NOTICE

When: Monday, April 19, 1999; 4:30 p.m.

Where: Bank of California Building; 8th floor

King County Prosecuting Attorney Conference Room

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Approval of Agenda. (2 minutes)

2. Approval of Meeting Minutes of March 15, 1999. (4 minutes)

4. Financial Disclosure Program Report . Staff report. (15 minutes)

7. Staff Report

• Policies and Procedures
• Request for ‘Loaned Staff’
• Training & Education
• 1998 Annual Report
• May 18, 1999 Board Reception
• Miscellaneous Correspondence

The April 19, 1999 meeting of the King County Board of Ethics was called to order by Chair Price Spratlen at 4:33 p.m. Board members in attendance:

Others in attendance:

1. Proposed Agenda. Mr. Carlson moved the agenda be approved; Mr. Howell seconded the motion and the agenda was approved.

2. Approval of Meeting Minutes of March 15, 1999. Mr. Howell moved to approve the March 15, 1999 meeting minutes; Mr. Carlson seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved.

3. Request for Advisory Opinion—Post Employment. Ms. Clemens briefed the Board on the request. Within the past twelve months, Mr. Ken Nilsen was a county employee working as a senior engineer for the Department of Natural Resources. He held a ‘responsible’ position within the county in that he played a major role in designing and managing projects in his department and he supervised some staff. Prior to leaving the county, Mr. Nilsen discussed future employment with Penhallegon, an engineering consulting firm, and he contacted the ethics office for information. He received a staff informational response, including a relevant past advisory opinion, a brochure for exiting employees published by the ethics office, and a copy of the Code of Ethics.

Subsequently, Penhallegon hired Mr. Nilsen and the firm then applied for jobs within Mr. Nilsen’s former department. They listed Mr. Nilsen as the project lead and main contact. Members of the review panel, convened by the county procurement division to consider contract applicants, expressed concern about a conflict under the post employment restrictions of the Code of Ethics. The procurement division informed Penhallegon that if they should be selected as contractor, the firm must provide a statement of non-conflict from the Board of Ethics. Procurement did not contact the ethics office prior to issuing this statement, nor did they contact the Ombudsman or Prosecuting Attorneys office. Penhallegon now asks for an opinion.

The King County Board of Ethics has authority to issue advisory opinions requested by county employees or when it deems it of interest to the general public.

Mr. Carlson asked why procurement was not making a decision in light of the information available to them and the concern expressed by its own review panel? Mr. Wittenberg stated his firm researched the issue and learned that Mr. Nilsen might not be eligible. Procurement told Penhallegon they could not review because of perceived bias, since Mr. Nilsen had worked for that department within the past twelve months. Chair Price Spratlen asked, if Penhallegon was aware of the post employment restrictions, why had they applied anyway? Mr. Wittenberg stated that Mr. Nilsen would be working on new projects. Ms. Clemens noted that the contract was an ‘on call’ contract and all of the projects had not yet been identified.

Mr. Carlson stated that this was exactly the kind of case the ordinance was written to protect against. Mr. Howell stated his agreement. He noted that since Mr. Nilsen had been a employee in the department, he might possess inside information. Mr. Johansen reminded the Board that, in advisory opinion 1090, they had softened the Code’s prohibition language. He stated that the brochure lists questions one can compare to one’s own circumstances, most of which refer to involvement in specific work or projects. Mr. Carlson stated that the problem with that interpretation is that appearance is not taken into consideration and is an important factor. He also stated that the Board has issued many post employment advisory opinions, enough so that procurement should be able to make their own decision.

Mr. Wittenberg stated that he understands the Board’s position and would abide by whatever the Board decides. Penhallegon plans to continue to apply for future county contracts.

Mr. Howell moved that, because the Board of Ethics provided nine past advisory opinions on the issue of post employment, and because the procurement division had adequate information on which to base a decision, the Board decline to issue an opinion. Mr. Carlson seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Clemens asked that the Board direct her 1) to review the brochure so You’re Leaving the County? to ensure the information and language is clear and current; and 2) to investigate training or informational opportunities through the Office of Human Resource Management "Employee Exit Classes" held monthly for employees leaving county employment. The Board unanimously agreed. Chair Price Spratlen stated that, whether the information be delivered in person or through a brochure, Code restrictions on post employment should be a part of the educative process to reduce the liklihood of violations.

4. Financial Disclosure Program Report. Ms. Leber reported on the status of the financial disclosure program as of April 15, 1999, at 3:00 p.m. This year, the program placed an emphasis on information and education, holding four separate training sessions in late January and early February. Fourteen department coordinators and 36 board/commission staff liaisons attended, or about 50%. Those unable to attend received their informational packets in interoffice mail. Ms. Leber provided consistent and timely compliance status reports to all liaisons via email. Recipients indicated this system worked well. Ms. Leber described the receipt, review and audit process of each statement and reviewed the statistics to date. Employees and Elected Officials: 1879 total required to file; 66% in compliance; 14% audited. Board and Commission Members: 468 total required to file; 53% in compliance; 4% audited. Future action will include a formal status report to directors, coordinators, staff liaisons, the Executive, Council and Ombudsman, with a final report in late May. Ms. Leber drew attention to the documents attached to her report, including: status report by department; status report by board/commission; information packet; sample audit memo; sample reminder email.

Ms. Clemens noted that, based on past years, the compliance statistics looked relatively good. She also pointed out that theaudit cover memo included information regarding the Board’s efforts to amend the ordinance and gave web site directions to access that information.

Ms. Clemens acknowledged Ms. Leber’s excellent work and contributions to the ethics office. She noted Ms. Leber’s flexibility to meet the needs of the office; computer skills, particularly in the area of power point presentation development; and her ability to communicate productively and courteously with county employees. Chair Price Spratlen thank Ms. Leber for her work on behalf of the Board and office.

5. Proposed Ordinance to Amend Financial Disclosure Requirements. Ms. Clemens briefed the Board. Following the March 15^th meeting, the Board directed Ms. Clemens and Mr. Johansen to edit the proposed ordinance, retaining the major portions agreed to by the Executive and removing language of concern that described greater involvement by departments. Ms. Clemens also sought review from Ms. Whitney and Mr. Buck, and incorporated their suggestions. After completing those changes and receiving approval on the draft transmittal letter from Chair Price Spratlen, Ms. Clemens delivered the finalized documents to Executive Sims on March 30. Chair Price Spratlen thanked Mr. Johansen for his work on the proposed amended ordinance.

Mr. Buck stated that at a recent executive cabinet meeting, Ms. Whitney reminded directors about filing dates and a discussion ensued about the relevance of the current ordinance language. Mr. Buck stated that being in the middle of the disclosure program was good timing to bring the Board’s suggested changes to the attention of the Executive and Council and increased chances for change. He noted that filers did located the proposed changes on the ethics web site and made their feelings known to the Executive. Further, the Executive had seen the finalized documents and is in support. Following staff process, he will respond to the Board and then move the process to the Council. Mr. Carlson asked if we have ever heard anything from the Council on this matter? No.

6. Meeting with Executive Sims Regarding Board Appointments. Chair Price Spratlen briefed the Board on her meeting with Executive Sims on March 31 to discuss board appointments. She asked Mr. Sims to give priority attention to the position left vacant by Judge Feinsod’s death and made a suggestion. In addition, the Board will be functioning with three members in expired terms by June 1. Following this meeting, the Chair received a telephone call from Ms. Whitney to discuss the appointments.

Rev. Pruitt stated he knew someone who would be a good candidate and it was suggested he make contact to learn if the individual was interested. Ms. Clemens stated that, whether there was an open position or not, having a list of potential and interested candidates was always a good idea. She encouraged members to suggest names at any time.

7. Staff Report. Ms. Clemens reported on current activities and initatives within the ethics office.

• Policies & Procedures. Mr. Buck, Mr. Johansen and Ms. Clemens are working on developing policies and procedures regarding the functions of the ethics office and will have materials for board review at the next scheduled meeting.
• Request for Loaned Staff. At the January retreat, the board discussed the need for additional staff; the .5 FTE budget request had been denied. During his last quarterly meeting with the Chair, Executive Sims had proposed ‘loaned staff’ as a solution to needed staff support. At the January retreat, when the issue again came up for discussion, Ms. Whitney requested Ms. Clemens to identify what tasks need to be done and the required location. A description of those tasks are attached and were discussed with Mr. Buck in March. Chair Price Spratlen stated it was important to have some overlap before Ms. Leber leaves at the end of June and asked for some agreement with DIAS in June. Mr. Buck discussed the scarce resources of this year’s budget and the difficulties in finding staff support. No definitive plan or agreement for staffing was decided upon.
• Training & Education. The 1999 schedule shows over 450 employees trained, including groups that transcend all county departments, such as the personnel forum, and board and commission staff. Ms. Clemens noted she is now planning to team teach a class with the finance department on contract forms which should help with consultant disclosure compliance. The Board discussed the positive evaluations received from county supervisory staff following training. Chair Price Spratlen suggested that all courses of one hour or more be evaluated through forms distributed at the end of the session. (Ms. Clemens noted that evaluation forms are now used for all three and one half hour supervisory trainings.) The forrms should be gathered and sent to another office, providing an objective way to get quantifiable evaluations. Ms. Clemens asked generally of the board, who might serve this function in light of the discussion about loan staff? It was decided that the forms should be sent to Ms. Whitney’s office for tabulation.
• 1998 Annual Report. Ms. Clemens informed the Board that she had distributed the report to legislative and executive leadership the previous week. The Board expressed their approval of the report and deemed it ‘outstanding.’ Chair Price Spratlen stated her pleasure at being part of an organization which produces such quality work.
• May 18, 1999 Board Reception. Ms. Clemens stated plans were in place for the reception. She noted that Executive Sims will be able to make only a brief appearance at the beginning of the event. Chair Price Spratlen stated that Mr. Sims sets an example and should be there. Ms. Clemens and Mr. Buck agreed to keep the item before him. After discussion, the Board agreed to pay for the reception, accepting Ms. Whitney’s generous offer to pay 1/5 of the cost. Ms. Clemens estimated cost would range from $175 - $200. She will seek a caterer who can work within our budget and provide all services. It was agree that past board members and staff should be invited.
• Miscellaneous Correspondence. Mr. Howell stated his approval of the March 23 letter of appreciation from Ms. Clemens to the Council regarding Judge Feinsod’s memorial. The Board shared thoughts and recent memories about Judge Feinsod. Chair Price Spratlen noted she had received a letter in response to a newspaper article regarding the treatment of a citizen by the board at their last meeting. She stated she had communicated with the individual, and had invited her to attend any meeting so that she could observe first hand the proceedings. Chair Price Spratlen also asked that the corresondent be invited to the Board’s reception in May.

Due to scheduling conflicts and the May reception, the Board unanimously determined to cancel the May 25, 1999 meeting. Chair Price Spratlen expressed her appreciation for the positive and quick way in which they had dealt with matters before them.

At 6:02 p.m., Mr. Howell moved to adjourn the meeting; Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion; the motion was approved unanimously and the meeting was adjourned.

Approved this ______day of ____________________, 1999 by the King County Board of Ethics.

Signed for the Board:____________________________________________________________

Dr. Lois Price Spratlen, Chair