Advisory Opinion 95-12-1141

Adult Detention/Family Member Conflict of Interest

ISSUE: WHETHER A COUNTY EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF HE OR SHE INTRODUCED A CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER TO A DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTANT, AND THE CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVES COMPENSATION AS A RESULT OF WORK DONE WITH THAT CONSULTANT?

Opinion: The Board of Ethics finds that this is a conflict of interest based on nepotism and would therefore violate the Code of Ethics. Although the Board does not believe that the county employee intended that a close family member would financially benefit as a result of an introduction to a departmental consultant, such actions give the appearance that public position has been used to influence the interests of a close family member.

Statement of Circumstances: The Department of Adult Detention contracts with a psychologist to screen new agency hires, and the Associate Director for Operations is directly responsible for new hires. The consultant recently initiated a study to determine if pre-hiring testing is successful in selecting appropriate candidates, and uses employees hired on his recommendation as its target group. The Associate Director introduced his daughter, a psychology student at a local community college, to the consultant who subsequently asked her if she wanted to participate in the study.

The study was subsequently turned over to an internationally recognized psychologist at the University of Washington who will be working with the consultant and a number of University of Washington volunteer students on the project. The university obtained a grant to fund the study and proposes to pay the original volunteers for their participation. The Associate Director's daughter is the only non-University of Washington student involved in the study, and she will be examining the consultant's records. The Associate Director has asked the Board of Ethics to determine whether he would appear to have a conflict of interest?

Analysis: In Advisory Opinion 1133, the Board of Ethics determined that nepotism was a conflict of interest based on familial relationship, and that nepotism clearly creates situations which can give the appearance of improper influence or favor. The Board further concluded that no county employee should participate in any matter which could directly or indirectly affect the interests of a close family member or domestic partner. Although the situation before the Board is not a workplace situation involving two closely related county employees, it is nonetheless a situation involving nepotism, wherein the Associate Director participated in actions that resulted in a financial benefit to a close family relative.

Although the Board of Ethics does not believe that the Associate Director intentionally acted to advance his daughter's financial interests, there is nonetheless the appearance that the Associate Director, through his official position with the county, influenced his daughter's selection as a volunteer in the study by introducing her to the consultant. This action had the effect of allowing his daughter to be in a unique position to receive compensation for her work on the study as the only non-University of Washington participant. The Board cautions that although this effect was unintentional, county employees must not act in any manner which could appear to advance the private interests of themselves or close relatives.

References: King County Code of Ethics, subsections 3.04.020(C) and Advisory Opinion 1133.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Timothy G. Edwards, Chair

Members:

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

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
Art Wallenstein, Director, Department of Adult Detention
David Krull, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Michael Graber, Associate Director, Department of Adult Detention
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics