Advisory Opinion 95-12-1137
Former County Employee/Post-Employment Restriction

ISSUE: WHETHER A FORMER TEMPORARY COUNTY EMPLOYEE MAY CONSULT WITH EMPLOYEES IN A COUNTY AGENCY WHERE HE WAS FORMERLY EMPLOYED WHEN HIS NEW EMPLOYER HAS NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY?

A former county employee worked as an environmental planner in the SEPA section of the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) from November 1994 to May 1995. Upon completion of 910 hours of employment, the employee was laid off. As an environmental planner, the former employee’s primary responsibility was to conduct environmental reviews of various projects pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Such reviews included site visits, applicant and public contact, identification of significant environmental impacts, development of mitigation measures, and the making of recommendations to the county decision-making authority.

The former county employee has an opportunity to work for an environmental organization as a land use planner. The organization sponsors seminars on environmental issues, comments on environmental reviews, lobbies the Metropolitan King County Council, advocates for environmental protection during public hearings on county permits, and generally assists members of the public in addressing environmental concerns. Some of this work entails discussing specific projects with DDES staff. As a land use specialist with responsibility for wetlands projects, the former county employee has asked the Board of Ethics to determine whether he would be restricted from discussing wetland and environmental reviews with DDES employees if he meets the criteria established in K.C.C. 3.04.35(B) for career service employees?

ANALYSIS: Subsections 3.04.035(B) and (C) of the King County Code of Ethics form the basis for the Board’s analysis of this question. Subsection (B) provides in relevant part that:

All other county employees are prohibited from attempting to influence for compensation their former departments within one year after termination of employment…provided that such prohibition shall not apply to former career service employees whose termination of county employment is solely the result of a reduction of force due to lack of work, lack of funds, or considerations of efficiency so long as such former employee does not participate in work related to any application, permit, approval or contract on which, while a county employee, he or she personally participated or acquired information in the course of official duties which is not available as a matter of the public knowledge or public record. For two years after leaving the county's employ, former employees are required to disclose past county employment prior to participation in any county action;

while section (C) provides that:

No former county employee may assist any person for compensation or share in compensation received by any person on matters concerning which the former employee is prohibited from participating personally. (Ord. 10841 § 1, 1993: Ord. 9704 § 5, 1990: Ord. 6144 § 2, 1982).

These subsections–the post-employment restriction–were specifically written with the intent to limit the actual or potential influence exerted by a former county employee on a county department where he or she was formerly employed. Such influence may be exercised through lobbying (Advisory Opinion 1050) or in situations which create the appearance of competitive advantage or special consideration. Although Ordinance 10841 in 1993 mitigated the outright one-year prohibition for career service employees only, it proscribed certain activities even for these employees. The intent of Ordinance 10841 was that the one-year prohibition would still apply to other classes of county employees.

Although the Board understands that the former employee is fully willing to refrain from participating in any matter he had worked on, or had knowledge of, as a county employee, the fact remains that the former employee was not a member of the career service; therefore, there is no basis for an exemption from the post-employment restrictions in K.C.C. 3.04.035(B) and (C). The former employee may still be perceived as gaining special treatment or consideration from DDES, particularly with regard to environmental reviews, and is therefore subject to the one-year prohibition.

This prohibition would not limit the former employee from participating in other activities of the environmental organization, including the ability to lobby the Metropolitan King County Council.

OPINION: A temporary former county employee is still subject to the one-year post-employment restriction contained in K.C.C. 3.04.035(B) and (C) even if he refrains from participating in matters he formerly worked on or had knowledge of as a county employee. The intent of these restrictions is to limit influence or the perception of competitive advantage, special treatment or consideration.

References: King County Code of Ethics, subsections 3.04.035(B) and (C).

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: _______________________________________.

Timothy G. Edwards, Chair

Members:

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

JPD/mag

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
David Krull, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Bob Derrick, Director, Department of Development and Environmental Services
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Michael Frawley, Manager, Administrative Services Division, DDES
Mark Carey, Manager, Land Use Services Division, DDES