ADVISORY OPINION 97-01-1152

Transportation/Contracting with Current Department

ISSUE: WHETHER A COUNTY EMPLOYEE IS RESTRICTED FROM CONTRACTING WITH HIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT?

OPINION: A county employee may not contract with his or her county department because such contractual relationshipscreate the appearance of a conflict of interest that would violate the just and equitable treatment standard in the Code of Ethics, and also the appearancethat the decision to award a contract has been influenced by the employee’s position with the county. The Board therefore advises that the employee terminate either his employment or contractual relationship with the county to avoid a continuing conflict of interest.

STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES: A City of Seattle police officer is employee part-time as a Metro Transit police officer in the Department of Transportation. The police officer also has a private business and conducts injury avoidance training for transit operators through a contract with the department. The officer contends that the training offered through his private business is sole source. The Board of Ethics has been asked to determine whether this contractual relationship would be a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics.

ANALYSIS: The county’s ethics policy affirms that the “private conduct and financial dealings of public officials, employees, and candidates for public office shall present no actual or apparent conflict of interest between the public trust and private interest” (K.C.C. 3.04.015). Inherent in this policy is the notion that public employees shall not derive a financial or other private benefit, other than the compensation, costs, and fees allowed by law, as a result of their public employment. The Board generally considers that contractual relationships between a county employee and his or her department create the appearance of a conflict of interest that would violate the just and equitable treatment standard found in K.C.C. 3.04.020(B) and which states:

No county employee shall grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage beyond that which is available to every other citizen.

The argument that special treatment or advantage may be a consideration in a contract award is enhanced when contracts are not awarded on the basis of competitive bidding, and when there are no well defined criteria for “sole sourcing” such contracts. Furthermore, it may also appear, to a reasonable person, that the decision to award a contract has been influenced by the employee’s position with the county. Such perceptions undermine public confidence in county government, regardless of the benefits of the contract to the agency.

It is for these reasons that the Board of Ethics finds that the employee’s contractual arrangement would be a conflict of interest because such arrangement creates the appearance that the employee is using his county position to further a personal financial interest, and that the contractual process has been influenced by this position. The Board therefore advises that the employee terminate either his employment or contractual arrangement with the county to avoid a continuing conflict of interest.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.020 (B).

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: _______________________________________.

Dr. Lois Price Spratlen, Chair

Members:

Rev. Paul Pruitt
Ron Carlson
Lem Howell

TGE/mag

cc:

Ron Sims, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
Rella Foley, Interim Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Paul Toliver, Director, Department of Transportation
Gloria Overgaard, Manager, Operations Section, DOT
Peggy Renfrow, Acting Operations Administrator, DOT
Julia Greenlee, Training/Operations Administrator, DOT