ISSUE: WHETHER IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR AN EMPLOYEE IN METROPOLITAN SERVICES TO PERFORM WORK AS A SUBCONTRACTOR TO HIS OWN DEPARTMENT?

Opinion: Based on the above circumstances, the Board of Ethics finds no conflict of interest if these employees were to become subcontractors to Metro. However, if circumstances change, or the employees attempt to seek a direct contract from Metro, this opinion could change and further guidance from the Board should be sought.

Statement of Circumstances: Two electronics technicians in Metro's Transit Department have formed a private corporation which specializes in the repair and maintenance of electronics equipment for transit agencies and industrial concerns. The corporation is also attempting to become the "factory authorized" servicing agent to manufacturers of electronics equipment. At least one of these manufacturers supplies equipment to Metro and is under contract to provide warranty service. The possibility exists that the manufacturer will contract with the employees' corporation to provide warranty service on Metro's electronic fareboxes. The employees have asked the Board of Ethics to determine whether a conflict of interest would exist if they perform electronics work for Metro as a subcontractor to this manufacturer.

Analysis:In considering this issue, the Board reviewed two previous decisions involving the relationship between employees as subcontractors and the County. Advisory Opinion 1067 concluded that there was no conflict of interest for a subcontractor if there is no connection between the employee's official responsibilities and the intended area of outside employment. In Advisory Opinion 1080, the Board advised that there was no conflict if the employee, or former employee, was not involved in actions which may have given his or her company a competitive advantage over others.

In this particular instance, the employees are electronics technicians and perform repair and maintenance on electronics equipment. Ostensibly, this is the same kind of work that would be performed in their outside employment. However, neither employee is responsible for making decisions on whether equipment needs to be sent out for warranty repairs. This is an official responsibility of the Chief, Electronics at the Atlantic Base in Metro's Vehicle Maintenance Division. Requests for warranty repair are routed through the Warranty Administrator. In addition, the employees do not appear to have a competitive advantage over others for warranty repair work at Metro, because the question of whether they will receive the work depends on receipt of a contract for such services from the manufacturer of Metro's fareboxes, GFI. Therefore there is no direct contractual link between the employees and their employer.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.030(E); Advisory Opinions 1042, 1067, and 1080.

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

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Council Members
Carolyn Purnell, Deputy County Executive and Executive Director, Department of Metropolitan Services
Susan Baugh, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Carin Weiss, Deputy Director, Department of Metropolitan Services
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Paul Toliver, Director, Transit Department, Metro
Jim Brickley, Chief, Electronics, Transit Department, Metro
Peter Eagan, Electronics Technician, Transit Department, Metro