Advisory Opinion 94-11-1109
Public Safety/Solicitation for Legal Defense Fund

ISSUE: WHETHER IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND?

Opinion: The Board of Ethics finds that the establishment of an account for the purposes of soliciting for a legal defense fund would not violate the Code of Ethics if County property and resources are not used to support the solicitation; if County employees and agencies do not directly solicit from co-workers, the public, or other persons; if the anonymity of donors can be guaranteed; and, if the name "King County" is not used to designate the fund.

The Code of Ethics contains a strong presumption against solicitation by County employees or agencies for any reason. Such issues are decided by the Board on a case-by-case basis.

Statement of Circumstances: Several members of the Department of Public Safety are under investigation by the U.S. District Attorney. In anticipation of possible legal costs stemming from this investigation, members of the department would like to solicit contributions from other members of the department and the public for a legal defense fund. These members propose to set up an account at a local bank wherein all funds would be deposited. Information concerning the fund would be printed and distributed during off-duty time and no County resources will be used in the effort. No direct solicitation of other officers, or members of the public, will take place. The department would like to know whether solicitation in this context would violate the Code of Ethics?

Analysis: The issue of solicitation, whether by a County employee or a County agency, raises concerns under section 3.04.020C of the Code of Ethics which states 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 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.

While this section of the Code clearly links solicitation to the possibility of coercion and inducement, in a number of opinions the Board has also viewed donations from the public or other persons as plainly constituting gifts as defined by section 3.04.017G. One intent of the Code is to restrict acceptance of gifts by public employees as incompatible with their obligations to serve the public in a fair and impartial manner. The Board has therefore interpreted both sections to prohibit solicitation and the receipt of donations. The question before the Board implicitly acknowledges these issues, but aims to mitigate concerns by constructing a non-coercive method for solicitation.

In Advisory Opinion 1083 which considered solicitation for a Gun Buy-Back Program, the Board concluded that it might be possible to conduct solicitation if a County agency can ensure that there is no possibility, or perception, that a person or organization will be coerced or unduly influenced into donating. The proposed structure for solicitation to support a legal defense fund mitigates many ethics concerns. However, the Board emphasizes that the department must ensure that it meets the following conditions:

• Official resources, including County time, facilities, equipment, or supplies may not be used to support the solicitation effort.
  
• County employee or agencies may not conduct personal solicitations on behalf of the legal defense fund.
  
• The anonymity of donors must be guaranteed.
  
• The name "King County" may not be used to identify the fund because such use could create the appearance that the fund has official endorsement.

The Board cautions that these safeguards do not constitute an authorization for County agencies or employees to establish funds for whatever purpose. Under different circumstances, a violation of the Ethics Code could occur.

References: King County Code of Ethics, section 3.04.017G, 3.04.020C; Advisory Opinions 1075 and 1083.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Timothy G. Edwards, Chair

Members:

Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair
Timothy Edwards, Esq.
Rev. Paul Pruitt

JPD/mag

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Council Members
Susan Baugh, Director–Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
James E. Montgomery, Sheriff-Director, Department of Public Safety
Major Rebecca Norton, Precinct Four, Department of Public Safety
Kyle Aiken, Legal Advisor, Department of Public Safety