Advisory Opinion 94-11-1113
Public Safety/Receipt of Compensation

ISSUE: WHETHER IS WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO ACCEPT A REPORT WRITING ROOM IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AT NO EXPENSE?

Opinion: The Board of Ethics finds that acceptance of a report writing room would not violate the Code of Ethics because the intent of the offer is neither to influence County action, nor to interfere with the performance of official duties and responsibilities. Such an offer, however, would have to be on a contractual, rather than ad hoc, basis. The Board cautions that this opinion is fact specific. Offers under different circumstances could violate the Code of Ethics.

Statement of Circumstances: A property manager in SeaTac has offered the Department of Public Safety a room in an apartment building for the purpose of writing reports. By making this offer, the manager hopes that his tenants will benefit from increased security which may result from the presence of more marked patrol cars. The area around the apartment building is among the busiest in terms of dispatched calls for service. The department would like to know whether it can accept this offer without violating the Code of Ethics?

Analysis: In approaching this issue, the Board of Ethics agreed that the offer of a report writing room constitutes a "thing of value" under the Code of Ethics. A "thing of value" is anything of tangible worth which is neither compensation nor a gift (3.04.017 N). However, in most requests for advisory opinions on this type of issue, i.e., whether or not employees may receive gifts, compensation, or things of value, there is a fairly clear connection between receipt and the appearance that such receipt could impair independent judgement and impartial decision-making and therefore compromise the performance of official duties. Section 3.04.030 D of the Code of Ethics provides that an employee would have a conflict of interest if that employee directly or indirectly:

Accepts, directly or indirectly, 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 my 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 Code prohibits the receipt of compensation, gifts, or things of value when such receipt could appear to influence County action or the performance of official duties and responsibilities, the Board does not believe that the intent of this prohibition was to restrict acceptance of offers which could legitimately enhance the County's ability to serve in the public's interest. In this particular instance, the offer of a report writing room is a general offer to the Department of Public Safety rather than an offer directed toward specific employees. In addition, the offer is intended neither to influence a particular County action, nor to affect the performance of official duties and responsibilities by King County police officers. As such, acceptance would not violate the Code of Ethics as long as the offer is on a contractual and not an ad hoc basis. If an incidental benefit to particular County police officers should result from this offer, the Code would not be violated.

The Board cautions that there is always a risk in accepting any thing of value, and that is that one member of the public may be better served than another. Section 3.04.020 C of the Code provides that "No county employee shall grant any special consideration, treatment, or advantage beyond that which is available to any other citizen." If special consideration or favorable treatment were to result from any offer to the County, the Ethics Code would be violated.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.017 N, 3.04.020 C, 3.04.030 D.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

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

Members:

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

JPD/mag

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Council Members
Susan Baugh, Director–Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
James E. Montgomery, Sheriff-Director, Department of Public Safety
Kyle Aiken, Legal Advisor, Department of Public Safety