Advisory Opinion 92-04-1043
Union-Employee Submission of Own Design Plans & Short Platting Own Property

ISSUE: WHEN SEEKING TO DEVELOP THEIR PRIVATE RESIDENCE, DOES A COUNTY EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE OF HIS OR HER OWN DESIGN WORK FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNTY'S PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS VIOLATE THE KING COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS?

AND

DOES A COUNTY EMPLOYEE'S SHORT PLATTING OF HIS OR HER PROPERTY VIOLATE THE KING COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS?

Opinion: When seeking to develop their private residence, employees may perform their own design work or short plat their own property and submit the plans for review in the County's permit application or property review process and not be in violation of the King County Code of Ethics. The Board believes that the creation of a "wall" to maintain the complete insulation necessary to not affect the plan review process would be necessary.

The King County Board of Ethics finds that neither the language in Section 3.04.030 (Conflict of Interest) nor the information contained in this Advisory Opinion should be interpreted as prohibiting the County agencies from developing more restrictive policies regarding additional employment activity or the necessary measures employees must take to have personal projects approved by the County.

Statement of Circumstances: The Business Representative for a union representing County employees has solicited an advisory opinion from the King County Board of Ethics to determine the impact of the new Code of Ethics on its members. The union prepared a questionnaire for its members to respond to. As set forth above, the two questions here involve employee ability to develop and also short plat their own property when the County is the agency that reviews such developments.

Analysis: The Board finds nothing in the Code of Ethics which makes it a violation for employees to design their own houses or short plat their own property. We see no general problem with regard to employee preparation of the plans.

A problem does arise in the application or plan review process when an employee or supervisor who is responsible in an area submits plans to his or her agency. This does not appear to be a problem for the employee submitting the plans but for the County agency conducting the reviews and other County agencies and employees who have to make determinations affecting the building or development of the employee's private property.

It is crucial that the employee's position and relationships in their County Department not undermine the appearance of fairness or the reality of impartial deliberations. Therefore the Board believes that the County department must create a process which establishes a "wall" to maintain the complete insulation necessary to avoid this. Both the receiving and submitting employee have a duty to notify supervision.

The creation of a "wall" established between the County employee and the County review panel would have to be a firm enough separation to avoid an appearance of fairness problem. This is also necessary to avoid a conflict of interest for employees involved in the plan review process. The "wall" should remain and be in existence during all formal and informal communications between the employee and the County officials involved in the plan review process or other processes affecting the building or development of the employee's private property.

In some instances, such as involving high ranking officials or supervisors within a regulatory agency, this process may involve using outside evaluators or review panels. The Boar believes that the County agency must create a process which maintains a "wall" to protect the impartiality of the plan review process.

The Board also notes that both conclusions in advisory opinion ADV1038 and ADV1042 clearly prohibit persons from doing business or seeking to do business with the County for which the employee has responsibility or with regard to which he or she may participate.

AUTHORITY RELIED UPON

3.04.020 Just and equitable treatment.

B. Obligations to Citizens. No county employee shall grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage beyond that which is available to every other citizen.

3.04.037 Duty to notify supervisor. Any employee who becomes aware that he or she may have a potential conflict of interest which arises in the course of his or her official duties shall notify in writing his or her supervisor or appointing authority of such potential conflict.

Upon receipt of such notification the supervisor or authority shall take action to resolve the potential conflict of interest, including but not limited to designating within a reasonable time an alternative employee to perform the duty which is involved in the potential conflict. The disposition of the potential conflict shall be stated in writing in files maintained by the supervisor or official. The supervisor or official may request an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics before disposing of such potential conflict. (Ord.9704 S8, 1990).

ISSUED ON THE ___________________ day of ___________________, 192

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

Members:

Timothy Edwards, Esq.
Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair

JPD:dwm

cc:

Tim Hill, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
Robert Stier, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Legal Counsel, King County Board of Ethics
Rella Foley, Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints