ADVISORY OPINION 1062

DDES/ Board Membership

ISSUE: WHETHER A FORMER TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE WORKING IN THE BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF LEAVING COUNTY EMPLOYMENT.

OPINION: In Advisory Opinion 1050 the board decided a very specific case involving a former executive office employee's attempt to influence his former branch of government within one year of leaving County employment. The Board found that the employee could not influence his former office. This decision is consistent with section 3.04.035(B) of the Code of Ethics which explicitly forbids former employees from attempting to influence their former departments within one year of termination of County employment.

STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES: A temporary employee worked as a Fire Protection Engineer in the Department of Development and Environmental Services from July 1991 to July 1992. As a Fire Protection Engineer, the employee reviewed plans for automatic sprinkler systems to ensure code compliance prior to the issue on the permit. Four month a after leaving the County employment, the former employee wants to submit a permit application to Building a Land Development for a residential sprinkler plan he designed. The Board has been asked to decide whether this would be a violation of the Code of Ethics.

ANALYSIS: When reviewing this case, the Board examined several issues of importance, including the former employee's status as a temporary employee while working for King County, the level of responsibility involved n the former position, the nature of the permit process, and the provisions of the Code of Ethics. In Advisory Opinion 1019, the Board decided to that temporary employees and interns were considered County employees and were therefore subject to the Code of Ethics.

In reaching this decision, the two factors which weighed heavily were the former employee's level o f responsibility and the discretionary nature of the permit process. The former employee was directly responsible for reviewing fire protection plans, including those relating to the design, installation, and operation of sprinkler systems. Employees, including former ones, who occupy responsible positions often possess a level of inside knowledge which could present the appearance of unfair advantage over other citizens Section 3.04.020, particularly when they are doing business with a former department. The amount of discretion and negotiation involved in the permit process itself only reinforces this appearance and could conceivably lend itself to a perception of undue influence.

References: King County Code of Ethics, section 3.04.020 and 3.04.035 (B).

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF _____________, 1999.

Signed for the Board: _____________________________