Advisory Opinion 1077
CCS/Cellular Group Plans

ISSUE: WHETHER EMPLOYEES MAY PARTICIPATE IN GROUP PLANS OFFERED BY BUSINESSES UNDER CONTRACT TO KING COUNTY AND WHETHER THESE PLANS MAY BE ADVERTISED BY A COUNTY DIVISION?

Opinion: In this instance the Board of Ethics finds that acceptance of discounts offered through group plans does not constitute a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics as long as the offer is a standard business practice and rates being offered are comparable to those offered to similarly situated employees working for other businesses or organizations. Furthermore, the offer of a group plan cannot be linked to the existence of a contractual relationship with the County. However, County resources may not be used to advertise such plans to employees.

Statement of Circumstances: Cellular One and US West Cellular are currently under contract to provide cellular services for King County. Each company is proposing to offer a group plan opportunity for County employees whereby employees may purchase cellular services at a reduced rate over what they could acquire as individual subscribers. The Board of Ethics has been asked to determine whether acceptance of this group plan would constitute a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics and, if these plans do not constitute a conflict of interest, may a County division advertise the plans?

Analysis: The Computer and Communications Division has a contract waiver which allows the awarding of sole source contracts with both Cellular One and US West Cellular. Each company provides a different range of services, and contract terms allow the Computer and Communications Division to place its customers with the appropriate cellular service provider based on specific needs. Cellular One and U.S. West provide cellular services to King County at a negotiated rate which is less than half the rate available to individual users, and are proposing to offer a discounted group rate to King County.

U.S. West does not currently offer discount plans to all government employees; although, a discount plan has been authorized for Washington State employees and it is anticipated that the same plan would be extended to County and City employees. Rates would be based on the state contract if offered. Cellular One will offer an employee plan at a government rate which is based on that company's current business plan for any organization which has 20 or more cellular phones. Employees may purchase their cellular phones from any source and need only present a pay stub to establish their eligibility for the discount. This plan will be a separate government plan and will not be tied to whether Cellular One has a contractual relationship with the County.

In its analysis of this issue, the Board considered the implications of subsection 3.04.030(D) of the Code of Ethics which states that a County employee shall be deemed to have a conflict of interest if the employee directly or indirectly accepts:

any gift, favor, loan, retainer, entertainment, travel expense, compensation or other thing of value from any person doing business or seeking to do business with the county when such acceptance may conflict with the performance of the employee's official duties.

A conflict shall be deemed to exist where a reasonable and prudent person would believe that the gift, compensation, thing of value, or more favorable terms was given for the purpose of obtaining special consideration or to influence county action.

Although the offer of a discounted rate to employees clearly constitutes a "thing of value" under the Code of Ethics, there is no reason to believe that the discount is being directed at King County employees for the purposes of either obtaining special consideration or to influence County action. The offer, if extended, will be based on the fact that King County employees are government employees. As such, the offer is not exclusively targeted to King County employees and will be extended to other groups of governmental employees. To avoid the perception that acceptance of the discount might conflict with the official duties of certain County employees, those employees directly involved in negotiating and awarding contracts with either of the cellular service providers are advised not to avail themselves of the discount plans if offered.

When considering whether a County division may advertise the offer of a special group rate on behalf of a business which contracts with the County, the Board interpreted section 3.04.020(A) of the Code which states that:

No county employee shall request or permit the use of county-owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property or the expenditure of county funds for personal convenience or profit. Use or expenditure is to be restricted to such services as are available to the public generally or for such employee in the conduct of official business.

The offer of a group plan for employees is a personal benefit which, although stemming from employment with King County, should not be promoted through the use of County resources. In addition, using County resources to advertise on behalf of businesses which contract with the County does not serve the purpose of conducting official business. Such advertisement also conveys the impression that the County is in the business of endorsing products or services and this type of activity is clearly not in the public interest.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.020(A) and 3.04.030(D).

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair

Members:

Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair
Rev. Paul Pruitt
Timothy Edwards, Esq.

JPD/mag

cc:

Tim Hill, King County Executive
King County Council Members
Susan Baugh, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Quentin Yerxa, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Clif Burwell, Manager, Computer and Communications Services Division
ATTN: Keith Kilimann, Communcations Services Manager