Advisory Opinion 95-01-1115

Mental Health/Boardmember Post-Employment Restriction

ISSUE:

1. WHETHER A MENTAL HEALTH BOARDMEMBER MAY ENTER INTO A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AGENCIES WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTRACT WITH THE REGIONAL SUPPORT NETWORK?
2. WHETHER A MENTAL HEALTH BOARDMEMBER MAY CONTRACT WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCIES WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTRACT WITH THE REGIONAL SUPPORT NETWORK WITHIN TWO YEARS OF LEAVING THE BOARD?

Opinion: It would be a conflict of interest for a boardmember to enter into a contractual relationship with community agencies or other persons when that boardmember has official duties and responsibilities which can affect County actions vis-à-vis those same agencies or persons.

It would be a conflict of interest for a boardmember to contract with community agencies or other persons within a two-year period after leaving the County board where the terms of the contractual relationship are related to actions that the former boardmember participated in while serving on a County board or commission.

Statement of Circumstances: The King County Mental Health Board has broad powers and responsibilities for managing and providing oversight to the County's Mental Health Program. Pursuant to R.C.W. 71.24, the board reviews and evaluates mental health needs, services, and special problems for the population of King County. It also advises on programs of community health services, reviews applications for financial support, and makes recommendations to the County Council. With the transition of the Mental Health Division to a Primary Health Provider (PHP) of outpatient mental health services within the Regional Support Network, the board would continue to oversee coordination of mental health services, evaluate the quality of care delivered, and ensure access to those in need of services. A member of the Mental Health Board has asked the Board of Ethics to decide two separate but related questions: if she would be prevented from contracting with community mental health agencies which have contractual relationships with the Regional Support Network, and whether she would be restricted from contracting with those same agencies for a period of two years after leaving the Mental Health Board?

Analysis: In response to the first question, the Board of Ethics has issued several advisory opinions which clearly establish the principle that boardmembers or other County employees would have a conflict of interest when they engage in any activity which could interfere with their official responsibilities on behalf of King County (Advisory Opinions 1023, 1042, 1081, and 1086). In addition, subsections B, E, and I of K.C.C. 3.04.030 establish a conflict of interest whenever a County employee, and including board and commission members, directly or indirectly:

• Is beneficially interested in any contract, sale, lease, option or purchase that may be made through, or under the supervision of the employee, in whole or in part, or accepts, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gift or thing of value from any other person beneficially interested therein; or,
  
• Participates in, influences, or attempts to influence, the selection or the conduct of business or a transaction with a person doing or seeking to do business with the county if the employee has a financial interest in or with said person; or,
  
• Engages in or accepts compensation, employment, or renders services for any person or a governmental entity other than King County when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties or would impair independence of judgement or action in the performance or official duties.

Therefore, it would be a conflict of interest for the Mental Health Boardmember to enter into a contractual relationship with any community agency if she participated in any County action relating to such agency. County actions include making recommendations or rendering advice.

In response to the second question, section 3.04.035 (A) of the King County Code of Ethics provides that a former County board or commission member may have a conflict of interest if that member:

...does within a period of two years after the termination of such service, appear before such board or commission, or receives compensation for any services rendered on behalf of or in assistance of any person in relation to any action with respect to which such individual was directly concerned and in which he or she personally participated, either directly or indirectly, during the period of his or her service. The foregoing shall also apply during the same period of time to any individual who is a partner, associate, or member of a person with which the former board or commission member has a financial interest;

The intent of K.C.C. 3.04.035(A) is not to unduly restrict employment opportunities for former board and commission members, but rather to prevent such members from gaining an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of their County service and thereby benefiting from decisions ostensibly made in the public interest. In this request, the boardmember suggests that she would most likely perform consulting work for agencies which have contracts with the Mental Health Division. In the absence of specific details concerning the type of proposed consulting work and the exact nature of the contractual relationships, the Board of Ethics can only offer guidelines as to whether the boardmember would incur a post-employment restriction under 3.04.035 (A).

Given the mandate of the Mental Health Board, a member would be subject to the post-employment restriction in instances where he or she had directly or indirectly participated in decisions affecting or influencing the contractual relationship between a particular community mental health agency and the Mental Health Division. Such participation would include evaluating services provided and recommending whether an agency should receive financial support from the County, providing advice to the division on the ability or inability of an agency to provide mental health services attendant to a contract, and evaluating the quality of care provided by an agency to its clients.

In these situations, the exercise of fair and impartial judgement may always be called into question whenever a boardmember, or County employee, participates in any action affecting a contractual relationship between the County and another person, and subsequently leaves County service to work for that same person.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.030 (B, E, and I), 3.04.035 (A), and R.C.W. 71.24. Advisory Opinions 1023, 1042, 1081, and 1086.

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
Ron Carlson
Dr. Lois Price Spratlen

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
Barbara Gletne, Director, Department of Human Services
Lynn Davison, Manager, Mental Health Division
Joanne Asaba, Assistant Manager, Mental Health Division
Harriet Berliner, Chair, King County Mental Health Board
Jane Finch, Member, King County Mental Health Board
Staff Liaisons, King County Boards and Commissions