Disclosure programs administration

King County Board of Ethics

King County is the second-largest government in Washington state and the 14th largest county in the nation. With one administrator, the Board of Ethics serves over 13,000 employees. In addition to providing board support, giving guidance to employees on ethics issues, and conducting training to over 900 individuals annually, the ethics administrator manages the annual program for disclosure of financial and other interests required under the ethics code.

Five years ago, the Washington state auditor conducted a routine review of the King County financial disclosure program and found significant problems with program compliance. Specifically, he found that employees with contract management authority had failed to file the proper forms, that forms revealing potential conflict had not been reviewed adequately, and that a significant number of forms had not been signed. Since there were few systems in place to track and monitor who had filed, compliance was essentially voluntary. Affected employees routinely ignored the requirement or resisted disclosure of certain personal and financial information. Although the board chair announced the annual program by memo to county leadership, they were not involved to an extent that encouraged or ensured filing. Following the audit, the ethics board was held responsible for improving the program and bringing it into compliance with code requirements.

Today, the disclosure program for financial and other interests has seen positive changes. By the April 15th filing deadline this year, compliance for 1,927 affected employees was 96%; compliance for over 460 board and commission members was 87%. One month later, only three employees and seven members had not filed a complete and approved form. What made the difference in response between the recent past and present? The answers may be found in three areas: the appropriation of additional resources, a change to a more meaningful disclosure requirement under the code, and an infusion of county leadership support.

Charged with improving the program, the Board of Ethics and administrator quickly determined that understaffing was a central issue. The board lobbied the executive and county council for additional funding and the county council appropriated funding for temporary staff during the active program months, January through April. Additional staff meant that, for the first time, essential tracking and monitoring systems could be put in place. This allowed the administrator time for increased outreach and training, and for frequent and consistent communication with departments about their progress toward 100% compliance. The administrator and board counsel also developed formal rules on the financial disclosure program and placed them on the ethics Web site along with current forms.

Once tracking and monitoring systems were established and compliance with the program became more visible, employees began to offer feedback about the information required to be disclosed. For example, employees and board members particularly resisted listing their mutual funds. They felt the information seemed unnecessarily intrusive since they had little or no control over bonds or securities within the funds. The board responded to these comments by initiating a review of the code provisions. It agreed that some of the requested information was non-specific and served no useful purpose and drafted a proposed amendment whereby the information requested was more closely linked to potential conflict between an employee's job responsibilities and their personal or financial interest. The proposed draft omitted requests for mutual fund ownership or lists of all properties owned in King County and turned the focus on the employee's official participation in transactions between the county and those entities with which they or immediate family members had received anything of value, had a financial interest, or held a position. In 1999, with the executive's support, the county council adopted the amendment by a vote of 11-0. By making the requirement reasonable and useful in revealing actual and apparent conflicts of interest, the board made the second important step in a successful program.

With systems and substance in place, the board and ethics staff worked to build relationships with county leadership for program support. Using its platform of quarterly meetings with the executive, the board urged him to make 100% filing compliance a county priority. The executive responded by making clear to department directors the importance of the program, for both ethical and legal reasons. Disclosure of potential conflicts by employees on an annual basis would first serve to enhance the public's trust in government; second, to underscore the county's commitment to ensure that private interests remain separate from official responsibilities; and third, to maintain strict compliance with the law. Department heads agreed to designate key personnel to coordinate and manage the program at the department level, with responsibilities including identifying affected employees required to file by virtue of their official duties, attending training sessions, and communicating regularly on compliance.

But there is still room for improvement in the county's disclosure program. Designated coordinators frequently have competing responsibilities within the department or do not have the necessary clout to demand or enforce compliance. Because there are no penalties for non-compliance, the ethics office relies on time-consuming reminders and requests for late filers. The program's successful compliance level requires high maintenance for four months out of the year that takes priority over other important programs, such as training, developing informational materials, and responding to employee inquiries. County leaders must prioritize work demands to ensure prompt filing compliance if they wish to demonstrate their commitment to the program.

In order to be successful, public disclosure programs must demonstrate both an ethical commitment and mandated compliance. The commitment to ethical standards helps ensure that there is no conflict between the public trust and private interest. The commitment to legal compliance helps ensures timely filing. Adequate resources, meaningful disclosure requirements, and strong leadership provide the basis to reach these goals.

For further information, see: King County (WA) Board of Ethics - www.kingcounty.gov/ethics/

This article was written by former King County Ethics Director Catherine Clemens, and was featured in the July 2001, Volume 21, Issue 2 edition of The Guardian, a publication by the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws (COGEL). COGEL is a professional organization for agencies and individuals with responsibilities in governmental ethics, elections, campaign finance, freedom of information and lobby law regulation. Its membership is drawn from federal, state, provincial, and local governments as well as from other interested parties. The Guardian provides quarterly reporting on recent developments in areas of COGEL interests.