Advisory Opinion 95-09-1132
Solid Waste/Doing Business with Former Department

ISSUE: WHETHER A CURRENT COUNTY EMPLOYEE IS RESTRICTED FROM ENGAGING IN OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT WHICH INVOLVES DOING BUSINESS WITH A COUNTY AGENCY WHERE HE WAS FORMERLY EMPLOYED?

Opinion: A current county employee may not pursue outside employment which involves doing business with any county agency other than such business which is related to the employee's personal affairs or personal property. Such outside employment invites the perception that official position is being used to further a private interest, and could result in a competitive advantage to others. This would be a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics.

Statement of Circumstances: An employee in the Waste Reduction and Recycling Section of the Solid Waste Division proposes to work as a consultant to a permitting firm that does business with the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES). The employee worked at DDES from April 1987 until June 1993, at the residential building permit counter, subdivision counter, and as a planner in charge of boundary line adjustments, innocent purchaser requests, and separate lot reviews. He has asked for a formal advisory opinion as to whether proposed outside employment will create a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics?

Analysis: In analyzing this question, the Board of Ethics must determine whether an appearance of conflict or special advantage could result if current county employees engage in outside employment which involves doing business with other county agencies. The Board finds guidance for this issue in K.C.C. 3.04.015 which establishes ethics policy. This subsection provides, in relevant part, that:

It is the policy of King County that the private conduct and financial dealings of public officials and employees and of candidates for public office shall present no actual or apparent conflict of interest between the public trust and private interest.

Based on this policy, the Board concludes that there may be a clear perception that the public interest is compromised whenever county employees have a private interest in a person who does business, or seeks to do business, with a county agency. Support for this conclusion may be found in K.C.C. 3.04.020(C) which provides that:

Except as authorized by law and in the course of his or her official duties, no county employee shall use the power or authority or 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. [Emphasis added]

and in K.C.C. 3.04.030(D) which provides in relevant part that:

A conflict shall be deemed to exist where a reasonable and prudent person would believe that the gift, compensation, things of value, or more favorable terms, was given for the purpose of obtaining special consideration or to influence county action.

When engaging in outside employment with persons who do, or seek to do business, with the county, a reasonable and prudent person might conclude that use of position to induce compensation is a factor in several instances. For example, if an employee had official contacts with a person in one county agency, and is reassigned to another agency, but later accepts outside employment with this person, were his or her official actions made in the public's interest or did they enhance opportunities to further a private interest? Likewise, if two equally qualified individuals offer their services to a person who does business with the county, and one is a county employee, while the other is not, and the person employs the county employee, would there not be a perception on behalf of the outside employer that a competitive advantage might be gained by hiring a current county employee? And would there not be a perception on the part of the public that the county employee was hired precisely because he or she could help the outside employer obtain special consideration or influence county actions? Finally, if a county employee represents or acts on the behalf of an outside employer in any county agency, would there not be the perception that the independent and impartial judgment of other county employees might be impaired, and that they might be persuaded or feel obligated to grant special consideration or treatment because they are dealing with a fellow county employee?

These concerns are sufficient for the Board to determine that current county employees may not engage in outside employment when such employment involves the conduct of private business with any county agency, unless such business is related to the employee's personal affairs or personal property. To engage in such employment is to invite the perception that official position is being used to further a private interest, and could result in a competitive advantage to others; this would be a conflict of interest under the Code of Ethics.

References: King County Code of Ethics, subsections 3.04.015, 3.04.020 (C), and 3.04.030(D).

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Timothy Edwards, Chair

Members:

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

TGE/mag

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
David Krull, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Department Heads and Division Managers