May 21, 2007

KING COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING NOTICE

Note: Please note change of usual time and location

AGENDA

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2007

3. Request for Advisory Opinion. Solicitation for county initiatives.

4. Acceptable Use of Information Technology Assets Policy, Guidelines and FAQs

5. 2007 Financial Disclosure Program.
   • Final report
   • Filing compliance status
   • Show cause letters
   • Final letters for non-compliance
   
   
6. Multi-Lateral Statement of Principles.
   • Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission meeting
   • University of Washington funding status
   • Ethics mini-conference at University of Washington – June 4, 2007
     • Conference agenda and related participants
     • Formal acknowledgement of sponsorship
   
   
7. Staff Report.
   • Staff informational response summary
   • Staff changes in Department of Executive Services
   • Strategic marketing in the public sector
   • Miscellaneous correspondence
     • Jerry Saltzman
     • Ethics complaint
   • Executive Ethic Board newsletter

Upon advance request, reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available by calling 206-296-1586 or TTY Relay: 771

ALTERNATE FORMATS AVAILABLE

King County Board of Ethics
Columbia Center
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3460
Seattle, WA 98104 MS BOA-ES-3460
206-296-1586 Fax 206-205-0725
board.ethics@kingcounty.gov
http://www.kingcounty.gov/ethics/

Minutes of the May 21, 2007, Meeting
of the King County Board of Ethics

The May 21, 2007, meeting of the King County Board of Ethics was called to order by Chair Price Spratlen, at 10:00 a.m. Board members in attendance were:

Lois Price Spratlen, Ph.D., Chair
Roland H. Carlson
Margaret T. Gordon, Ph.D.
Rev. Paul Pruitt

Others in attendance:
Catherine A. Clemens, Executive Director, Board of Ethics
Alan Abrams, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Board Counsel
Vernette Stowers, Corrections Sergeant, Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, and Take Our Children to Work Day (TOCTWD) Committee Member
Rosalind Monteros, Human Resource Analyst, Department of Executive Services (DES), and TOCTWD Committee Chair
Christine Hogue, Communications Program Manager, Human Resources, DES, and TOCTWD Committee Member
Ralph Johnson, Chief Information Security & Privacy Officer, Office of Information and Resource Management (OIRM)
Patti Cole-Tindall, Human Resources Service Delivery Manager, OIRM

Attendees introduced themselves.

1. Approval of Agenda. Mr. Carlson moved and Rev. Pruitt seconded that the board approve the proposed agenda. The board unanimously adopted the motion.

   Dr. Gordon and Ms. Stowers arrived at 10:05 a.m.

2. Approval of Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2007. Rev. Pruitt moved and Dr. Gordon seconded that the board approve the April 16, 2007, meeting minutes. The board unanimously adopted the motion and the minutes were approved.

3. Request for Advisory Opinion. Ms. Clemens introduced the topic and then deferred to the requester who was present at the meeting. This county employee, who serves on the TOCTWD committee, asked the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion whether she may solicit items of value for this annual, official county event. Specifically, she wishes to know whether she would violate the Code of Ethics if she solicits items for this annual event from various sources on her own time, using her own resources. The requester described the TOCTWD committee structure, its activities and her idea to solicit guilds and unions to contribute money so that the committee could purchase t-shirts for the event. She had asked the ethics office for guidance and received a staff informational response, but felt it was unclear and went ahead to solicit the union, receiving $1,000 for t-shirt production. Mr. Carlson stated that he had also read the response, and felt that it was very clear in advising that county employees may not solicit for county initiatives except from other municipalities or unless approved through county council action. The board and attendees discussed possible activities and options to approve such activities, including appealing to the council. Ms. Monteros stated that Ms. Clemens will attend a meeting in early 2008, when the new TOCTWD committee forms, to discuss allowable activities under the ethics code and to ensure that committee members are all of the same understanding. Mr. Carlson then moved to issue an oral opinion that based on the Code of Ethics and advisory opinion 1108, county employees – whether or not acting on their own time, using their own resources – may not solicit or accept donations for county initiatives or events unless the activity is restricted to municipalities or other public agencies or unless specifically authorized by ordinance. Dr. Gordon seconded the motion and the motion passes unanimously.

   Dr. Price Spratlen commended Ms. Stowers, Ms. Monteros, and Ms. Hogue for seeking advice and encouraged them to continue to work with the ethics office to ensure compliance. Ms. Stowers, Ms. Monteros, and Ms. Hogue left the meeting at 10:22 a.m.

   The board directed Ms. Clemens to send a letter to the requester and copy the others detailing the results of its decision. Members also directed Ms. Clemens to write the TOCTWD chair and verify that any funds received by the committee from entities other than other public agencies had not been used and had been returned to the donor or donors.

4. Acceptable Use of Information Technology Assets Policy, Guidelines and FAQs. Ms. Clemens briefed the board explaining that the Office of Information and Resource Management has been developing policies, guidelines and frequently asked questions related to use of the county's technology assets for over two years. While the ethics office and board were not directly invited to participate, the documents came to Ms. Clemens' attention in early 2007, and since they specifically related to the Code of Ethics K.C.C. 3.04, she asked to review them. Based on that review, she provided comments to the prosecuting attorney's office and human resources representatives involved in the development. She noted that she has consistently urged policy developers to involve the ethics board since reference to use of county resources is a significant provision in the ethics code.

   Later in the year, Ms. Clemens received another copy of the documents from James J. Buck, now CAO and director of the Department of Executive Services. Together with board counsel Alan Abrams, she reviewed the documents and provided comments, copies of which were provided to board members as well as to Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cole-Tindall of OIRM. Ms. Clemens invited board members to comment on these documents and determine what action, if any, they would like to take as a board.

   Mr. Carlson asked about the role of the board in this process and who is ultimately responsible for setting this kind of policy. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cole-Tindall explained the process and that they are now bargaining these policies with the union. They stated that many union employees have been using county computers for various personal purposes, and in order to enforce more stringent rules, they would have to change workplace conditions for union employees. Mr. Johnson stated that first he drafted the policy, guidelines, and at the union's request, created the FAQs. Next, OIRM management reviewed the documents, together with subject matter experts and representatives from departments and agencies. Ms. Clemens asked if the ethics office or board would not be considered 'subject matter experts' in the realm of county resources use. Mr. Abrams stated that this policy should be in conformance with the Code of Ethics (K.C.C. 3.04) and advisory opinions. If they are not, the result will be conflict among those documents, lack of clarity for employees, and difficulty in holding employees accountable. Ms. Clemens noted that one of the most frequent questions from county employees to the Ethics Help Line is about use of county resources. She also noted that the Office of Citizen Complaints (O.C.C.) may have a difficult time issuing findings on ethics complaints if the policies do not conform to the law. Ms. Cole-Tindall recognized that the documents are inconsistent, but that OIRM and the prosecuting attorney's office will do what is necessary to reconcile, including changing the Code of Ethics. Mr. Abrams asked if they had considered possible outcomes if they instituted policy before a code amendment had been realized since there would be a significant period of time when the policies, code and advisory opinions would be inconsistent. The board discussed potential inconsistency, the OCC and ethics board review and enforcement difficulties, and union member activities related to use of county resources.

   Mr. Carlson then moved that the executive director send a letter to the developers of the acceptable use of information technology assets policy, guidelines and FAQs, asking that they now include additional subject matter experts, namely the O.C.C. – Ombudsman, O.C.C. legal counsel, the Board of Ethics, executive director and board counsel; further, that developers keep these significant groups apprised of the status of these documents so that they may advise on matters related to use of county resources; and further, that because of the involvement of the Prosecuting Attorneys Office in the policy development, the matter be brought to the attention of Sally Bagshaw, Chief Deputy, Civil Division. Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

   Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cole-Tindall left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

5. 2007 Financial Disclosure Program. Ms. Clemens briefed the board and reviewed with them the final report on the 2007 financial disclosure program. As of the filing deadline at 9:00 a.m. on April 16, 2007, of 2,461 employees required to file, 13 had not filed for a filing compliance of 99.4%; of 449 board and commission members required to file, 21 had not filed for a filing compliance of 98.2%. Overall filing compliance for 2,910 individuals required to file was 99.3%. Since that time, all but three board members have not filed. Ms. Clemens reviewed the process and the show cause letters sent to non-compliant filers. The board commended Ms. Clemens, Ms. Diaz and Mr. Abrams for their efforts resulting in a successful 2007 program. They also directed Ms. Clemens to communicate with the O.C.C. no later than June 4, 2007, regarding any non-complaint filers at that time.

6. Multi-Lateral Statement of Principles. Ms. Clemens briefed the board on the presentation to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission at its meeting on May 2, 2007. Dr. Price Spratlen and Dr. Gordon represented the Board of Ethics. They explained the change to the statement from bi-lateral to multi-lateral to include more cities and counties in Washington State, and the plans for a signing ceremony on June 4, 2007. The SEEC agreed to the changes and to continue as a signer. Dr. Price Spratlen informed the board on outreach efforts, including the Spokane ethics committee.

   The University of Washington funding status, conference agenda, related participants and formal acknowledgement of sponsorship were not available at this time. The board discussed the importance of have transparency and accountability since public funds in the amount of $10,000 each from King County and the UW are being expended toward the statement of principles initiative.

   Mr. Carlson left the meeting at 11:26 a.m.

   Mr. Abrams stated that if the scope of work identified in the written agreement between the UW and King County changed, the letter of agreement must reflect these changes. Dr. Price Spratlen stated that she will meet with Dean Archibald to seek an agenda, list of participants and accurate reporting on UW spending.

7. Staff Report. Staff informational response summary. The executive director issued 14 written staff informational responses (SIR) between April 18, 2007, and, May 9, 2007, as requested by employees and elected officials of King County. Ethics issues addressed by the responses include: free offer to county employees; conflict with official position (2); solicitation for county sanctioned events (2); use of county resources for employee groups (2); post-employment (3); definition of 'responsible' county employee; union campaigning at work; and gifts (2). Staff changes in Department of Executive Services. Notice on the retirement of Paul Tanaka and appointment of James Buck as CAO and Director, DES. Strategic marketing in the public sector. Notice of completion of this Cascade Center course by Catherine Clemens. Miscellaneous correspondence. Letters of appreciation to resigning board member Jerry Saltzman from the Board of Ethics and Executive Sims. Letter of response by the executive director to an ethics complaint from a county citizen. No action required or taken. Executive Ethics Board newsletter. No action required or taken.

   The board discussed moving the meeting time from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Ms. Clemens will communicate with board members about their availability and preference.

   The chair directed Ms. Clemens to forward candidate names to the executive for nomination to the position left vacant by Mr. Saltzman's resignation.

Dr. Gordon moved and Rev. Pruitt seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The board unanimously approved the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

Approved this —1st day of October, 2007, by the King County Board of Ethics.

Signed for the Board: __________________________________________________

Dr. Lois Price Spratlen, Chair