Advisory Opinion 94-9-1104
WPCD/Conflict of Interest for Boardmembers

ISSUE: WHETHER IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ADVISORY BOARD TO PARTICIPATE IN AND VOTE ON INDUSTRIAL WASTE ISSUES THAT COULD HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYERS OR MEMBERS OF THEIR TRADE GROUP?

Opinion: Whenever a County board or commission member participates in discussions or votes on recommendations which may have a direct financial impact on an employer, standards of fair and impartial judgement can be impaired. To prevent a conflict of interest and the impairment of these standards, members of boards and commissions are advised to follow the guidelines established in Advisory Opinion 1081. These guidelines include disclosing potential conflicts of interest in advance to the appropriate department director or division manager; publicly disclosing conflicts of interest at meetings; and, abstaining from participation in discussions or voting on any issue where a conflict of interest may be involved.

Statement of Circumstances: The Industrial Waste Advisory Board (IWAB) consists of ten voting members who represent industrial activities located in the County. Three members represent the food and kindred products, chemical manufacturing and chemical waste treaters, and metal processing industries; three members are selected at large from other industries; and, the remaining four members are provided equally by the Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee and the Citizens' Water Quality Advisory Committee. The board advises the Water Pollution Control Department on industrial waste matters and reviews, on request, decisions relating to the discharge of industrial wastes into public and private sewers, or side sewer tributaries to the metropolitan water system. Given this mandate, members of the board have asked the Board of Ethics whether participation in discussions or voting on recommendations to the Water Pollution Control Department would present a conflict of interest when such participation and voting could have a direct financial impact on their respective employers or members of a trade group?

Analysis: In June 1991 the Board issued a definitive opinion on whether or not members on the Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials incurred a conflict of interest when they assisted in the development of markets for recyclable materials. As in the present issue, the Commission consists of many representatives from areas which naturally invite a conflict of interest, e.g., representatives from solid waste collection companies, the recycling industry, County manufacturers, and citizen groups with an interest in recycling. The Commission exercises considerable influence in policy development and decision-making and has a substantial budget. It also has the authority to award contracts to further the marketing and promotion of recyclable materials. Based on this broad mandate, the Board concluded that:

... to ensure fairness of deliberations, equal access to all individuals, impartial judgement in decisions, as well as protecting the appearance of fairness in deliberations . . . Commission members should recuse themselves from all deliberations, formal and informal, and voting on any recommendations, actions, or decisions which the Commission makes which might affect the economic welfare of the organization with which they are affiliated. Not to do so would constitute a conflict of interest. (Advisory Opinion 1022)

The Board further underscored the fact that standards which ensure fairness in deliberations and impartial judgement exist to prevent conflict of interest issues from arising.

The Board understands that the IWAB is entrusted with providing advice to the director of the Water Pollution Control Department "based on a synthesis of views from the industrial community, area municipalities, and concerned citizens;" however, the Board of Ethics finds that rendering advice on a particular industry's needs or concerns could result in a conflict of interest. Section 3.04.017(J) of the Code of Ethics defines participation in connection with a transaction involving the County to be:

involved in a county action personally and substantially as a county employee either directly, or through others through approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise.

Furthermore, participating in discussions which involve a particular member's employer, or voting on recommendations which may have a direct financial impact on that employer, are actions which can impair the appearance of fair and impartial judgement and invite the perception of a conflict of interest.

References: King County Code of Ethics, section 3.04.030; K.C.C. 28.84.070; Advisory Opinions 1022 and 1081.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Timothy G. Edwards, Chair

Members:

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

JPD/mag

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
Susan Baugh, Director–Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Carolyn Purnell, Executive Director, Metro
Carin Weiss, Deputy Director, Metro
Susan Baugh, Director–Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Daryl Grigsby, Director, Water Pollution Control Department
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Denise Healy, Program Manager, Industrial Waste Section, WPCD
Members, Industrial Waste Advisory Board