Advisory Opinion 91-06-1021
Taxpayer/Employee/Sale of Property

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE PURCHASE OF A SAID PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM A TAXPAYER BY AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS IN THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE CONSTITUTES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN VIOLATION OF THE KING COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS?

Opinion:

1. The Code of Ethics Applicable at the time of the actions described in the report and recommendation, contained no specific enumeration of actions prohibited by the code which conclusively declared the actions at issue here to in violation. However, the list is not exhaustive and the Board believes that the activities chronicled in this record if established as factually accurate, would constitute a serious conflict of interest, in violation of the then existing Code of Ethics.

2. If the activities described in the record had occurred following the effective date of Ordinance 9704 (March 31, 1991) amending the King County Code of Ethics, and if established as factually accurate, those activities would constitute a violation of Section 3.04.020 (C) of the King County Code in that the employee induced Mr. Mattson into selling his house based on information gained as part of his employment with the County. Section 3.04.020 (C) reads as follows:

Except as authorized by law and in the course of his or her official duties, no county employee shall use the power or authority of his or her office or position with, the county in a manner intended to induce or coerce any other person to provide such county employee or any other person with any compensation, gift, or other thing of value directly or indirectly.

3. In examining the record, the Board of Ethics has been concerned about the apparent unwillingness of the Assessor's office to take the issues raised by the complaint seriously, when they first came to the attention of management within that department.

4. The Board of Ethics had been frustrated in performing the duties imposed on it by the ethics code in that when the record was completed, the Assessor's Office transmitted the confidential report to the affected employee and unilaterally imposed discipline upon the employee, there by preempting any further meaningful activity by the Board in processing and resolving the complaint. The Board hopes that County agencies will both cooperate with the Board and the Ombudsman in the administration of the amended ethics code and allow the significantly more clearly enunciated and legislatively mandated process to function as the King County Council intended.

Statement of Circumstances: On October 13, 1989, a King County taxpayer came to the Department of Assessments to inquire about the market value of his home. The taxpayer was helped by an employee in the Department who on January 19, 1990, purchased the tax payers' home for the amount of $7,000.00 and on March 19, 1990, sold the property to a third party for $162,000. On April 16, 1990, the same taxpayer came to the King County Ombudsman Office and made a complaint stating that County rules had been violated****. (See appended Report and Recommendations in the matter of Complaint 9004-020).

Analysis: The taxpayer's complaint was first brought to the attention of the King County Board of Ethics in June of 1990. The Board requested that the Ombudsman conduct an investigation and forward the results of that investigation to the Board for its deliberations. The Board of Ethics received the final Report and Recommendation in December of 1990.

The Board of Ethics began its deliberations, but learned that the Office of the king County Assessor had also received a copy of the confidential report and had transmitted the report to the affected employee and imposed disciplinary action on the employee in the form of a suspension from work without pay for 30 days. This course of action taken by the Assessor was conducted without consulting the Board of Ethics nor the Ombudsman.

Upon learning of the disciplinary action taken against the employee and following passage of Ordinance 9704 on March 31, 1991, which contains new provisions pertinent to the issues raised in this matter, the Board of Ethics determined that it was not in the public interest to further pursue an investigation as part of a complaint procedure in its matter and relayed this information in a letter dated May 10, 1991 to the parties of record. In the letter, the Board however, reserved the right to issue an advisory opinion. Based on the facts of this case, as contained in the Ombudsman's report and recommendations, which is appended to this opinion, the Board concluded the following: (see Opinion section near top of the page)

AUTHORITY RELIED UPON

Section 3.04.020 Just and equitable treatment.

C. Except as authorized by law and in the course of his or her official duties, no county employee shall use the power or authority of his or her office or position with, the county in a manner intended to induce or coerce any other person to provide such county employee or any other person with any compensation, gift, or other thing of value directly or indirectly.

ISSUED ON THE _______________ day of __________________, 1991.

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

Members:

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

JPD:dwm

cc:

Tim Hill, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
Rella Foley, Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Ruth Ridder, King County Assessor