Advisory Opinion 97-06-1156
County Council/Nepotism

ISSUE: WHETHER A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITHIN COUNCIL STAFF CONSTITUTES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BASED ON NEPOTISM?

Opinion: The Board of Ethics finds no conflict of interest based on nepotism in this situation because the employee involved had first notified supervisory personnel of the potential conflict and had agreed to recuse himself from rendering any legal advice with regard to matters affecting the personal interests of his spouse.

Statement of Circumstances: An associate legal counsel to the King County Council is married to the individual recently selected to serve as Clerk of the Council. Prior to any selection process, the employee disclosed to his supervisor a potential conflict of interest and recused himself from the Employment Committee's consideration and eventual selection of his spouse as Clerk. In an effort to resolve potential conflict of interest situations, the employee and his supervisor agreed that the employee render no legal advice with regard to county matters affecting the personal interest of the Council Clerk. The Board of Ethics has been asked by the Chair of the Metropolitan King County Council, Jane Hague, to issue an advisory opinion to assist the Council in resolving any potential areas of conflict.

Analysis: In Advisory Opinion 1133 (December 1995) the Board defined nepotism to be:

" . . . a conflict of interest based on familial relationship or domestic partnership, and is inconsistent with basic principles of the Code of Ethics. Nepotism occurs whenever a county employee participates, directly or indirectly, in a county action which affects the interests of a close relative or domestic partner. Such actions include employment decisions relating to hiring, appointment, reappointment, classification, reclassification, evaluation, promotion, transfer, discipline, supervision, or pay increases."

In this Opinion, the Board further offered guidelines and identified responsibilities for employees and supervisors alike where a potential conflict may exist, specifically:

". . . notifying their supervisors or appointing authority of such potential conflicts. Supervisors and appointing authorities are responsible for disposing of these conflicts in writing or, in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that routine measures to dispose of the conflict are not in the county's best interest, referring such cases to the Board of Ethics for a formal advisory opinion."

In this instance, potential conflict of interest exists based on the marital relationship and respective positions within the County. However, if the employee first notifies his supervisor of the potential conflict and then recuses himself from taking part in any employment decisions affecting his spouse, that conflict would be removed. Further, the assurance of the employee's supervisor to provide adequate screening for legal advice provided by the employee to the Clerk of the Council, affords adequate safeguards against the appearance of or actual conflict of interest.

References: King County Code of Ethics Advisory Opinion 95-11-1133.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Dr. Lois Price Spratlen, Chair

Members:

Mr. Roland Carlson
Judge Paul M. Feinsod
Lembhard Howell, Esq.
Rev. Paul Pruitt

LPS/cac

cc:

Ron Sims, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
James L. Brewer, Legal Counsel
Jeffrey Slayton, Associate Legal Counsel
Steve Ohlenkamp, Chief of Staff
Anne Noris, Council Clerk
Oma LaMothe, Counsel to the Board