ADVISORY OPINION 1067

DPH/Conflict of Interest

ISSUE: WHETHER IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR A KING COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH EMPLOYEE TO TAKE OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR?

OPINION: From the information provided, the Board can find no cause for a conflict of interest. However, if the employee's intended area of outside employment later shifts to include work for landfill sites located either within King County or sites contracted for by the City of Seattle, a conflict would arise and a further opinion should be solicited from the Board. In addition, the employee must disclose the intent to enter into outside employment to her appointing supervisor.

STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES:An employee in the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health evaluates the chemical composition of waste streams against the requirements of state regulations and recommends disposal at appropriate landfill sites. These landfills are located either within King County or at a site in Oregon which is contracted for by the City of Seattle. Prior to employment with King County, the employee worked for a private company where she ensured waste site compliance with environmental regulations. This company contracts with King County to provide landfill disposal sites. Recently, this company hired an engineering consulting firm which in turn approached the employee with an offer of outside employment as a subcontractor. The employee would like the Board of Ethics to determine whether working as a subcontractor would present a conflict of interest with her official duties.

ANALYSIS: In Advisory Opinion 1042, the Board established two criteria when evaluating whether employee acceptance of compensation for consultant work violated the Code of Ethics. These criteria were based on whether a business relationship existed between a person and the County and, if a business relationship did exist, whether the employee participated in or was responsible for decisions or actions regarding that person and the County. The present request is interesting because the employee has been offered outside employment as a subcontractor to a company which does not do business with the County, but which has been contracted for by Waste Management, Inc., a company that does do business with the County. This fact notwithstanding, the connection of the employee with a person doing business with the County is tangential and as such does not violate the Code.

The key issue in this case is the scope of the employee's official duties as a County employee and whether her intended area of outside employment is "incompatible with the proper discharge of those duties or would impair independence of judgement or action in the performance of her official duties." In an official capacity, the employee evaluates waste streams and recommends their disposal based on chemical composition and state requirements. Her subcontracting work would consist of developing policies and procedures for landfill sites operated by Waste Management Inc. and located in the northeastern United States and Canada. It is the Board's understanding that there seems to be no connection between the duties this employee will perform for the subcontractor and the work performed by Waste Management in King County, nor is there a connection between the employee's official responsibilities and her intended area of outside employment.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.030(l) and 3.04.037

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF _____________, 1999.

Signed for the Board: _____________________________