Advisory Opinion 95-12-1139

Board of Ethics/Nepotism & Appointments to Boards & Commissions

ISSUE: WHETHER NEPOTISM RESTRICTIONS APPLY FOR APPOINTMENTS TO KING COUNTY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES?

Opinion: The King County Board of Ethics finds that nepotism restrictions do not apply for appointments to county boards and commissions when responsibility for confirmation rests with the Metropolitan King County Council and when there is full public disclosure of the familial relationship between the appointing authority, or agency head, and the prospective appointee. Such disclosure must be entered into the minutes of any Council proceeding where action, or a recommendation of action, occurs.

Analysis: Subsection 3.04.030(P) of the Code of Ethics prohibits close relatives from serving on the same King County board or commission. Close relatives include husband, wife, father, father-in-law, mother, mother-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law, niece, nephew, grandparent, grandchild, uncle, and aunt. However, this prohibition applies to board and commission members themselves, and does not address the question of whether an appointing authority, e.g., the King County Executive or Metropolitan King County Councilmembers, may appoint his or her own close relatives to county boards or commissions, or whether close relatives of an agency head may be appointed to boards or commissions affiliated with the same agency.

The Board of Ethics believes that there may be situations in which it may be in the county's interest for a close relative of an appointing authority or agency head to be appointed to a county board or commission. Such situations would include circumstances where a close relative possesses exceptional professional or technical expertise which could significantly enhance the contributions of a particular board or commission to county government. In these circumstances, it may very well be in the public's interest to allow such an individual to serve. The Board is also aware, however, that appointing a close relative may result in the perception that special consideration or treatment is being granted, or that county actions may be influenced by the presence of a close relative on a county board or commission.

These perceptions may be mitigated by the proviso that a close relative may be appointed to a county board or commission when responsibility for confirmation rests with the members of the Metropolitan King County Council, and when there is full public disclosure before the Council of the familial relationship between the appointing authority, or agency head, and the prospective appointee to a county board or commission. Such disclosure must be entered into the minutes of any Council proceeding where action, or a recommendation of action, occurs.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.030(P) and 3.04.100..

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Timothy G. Edwards, Chair

Members:

Timothy Edwards, Chair
Rev. Paul Pruitt
Ron Carlson
Dr. Lois Price Spratlen

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
David Krull, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics