ADVISORY OPINION 1071

County Council/Use of County Property

ISSUE: WHETHER USE OF ASSIGNED COUNTY VEHICLES FOR COMMUTING TO AND FROM WORK WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS.

OPINION: The use of a County vehicle driven to or from one's residence is not a perse violation of the Code of Ethics. However, it could be a violation if not authorized by a specific ordinance or if not used in the legitimate function of serving County purposes. In addition, the Board considers that the Code of Ethics has a strong presumption against the personal use of County vehicles for commuting purposes. In the absence of a specific authorizing ordinance, it is the responsibility of every County employee who uses a County vehicle, and the supervisor who approves such use, to assure that the use of a County vehicle serves a bonafide County purpose.

STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES: A King County Council member has expressed concern that some assigned county vehicles may be used for commuting to and from work, and that such use could be a violation of the Code of Ethics. Specifically, the Councilmember has requested the Board of Ethics to consider whether such use conflicts with the intent of section 3.04.020(A) of the Code which states:

"No county employee shall request or permit the use of county-owned vehicles, equipment, materials, or property or the expenditure of county funds for personal convenience or profit. Use or expenditure is to be restricted to such services as are available to the public generally or for such employee in the conduct of official business." [emphasis added)

The key issue in this case is whether use of assigned vehicles for commuting purposes would in fact convey a personal convenience to County employees.

ANALYSIS: It is difficult if not impossible for the Board to make a categorical determination of whether the use of county vehicles for commuting is a violation of the Ethics Code in all instances. The Board recognizes that some county employees are assigned county vehicles pursuant to a county ordinance or to an established policy based on legitimate needs. In these cases, the Board does not consider the incidental use of assigned vehicles for commuting to be prohibited by the Code of Ethics when the permanent assignment of a vehicle is intended to facilitate a legitimate County function.

The Board emphasizes, however, that any departmental policy which allows for the incidental personal use of a vehicle when such use is not expressly authorized by ordinance must, in accordance with the intent of section 3.04.020 of the Code of Ethics, be strongly justified by an underlying County purpose that would be served by such use.

The Board further acknowledges that in many instances the use of an assigned vehicle for incidental commuting may well be justified. Circumstances surrounding the assignment of a vehicle may, for example, require the employee to be in a remote location. Allowing the employee to drive the vehicle home may promote the efficient use of county resources. In such cases the Board does not consider the incidental use of a County vehicle for commuting a violation of the Code when the use of the vehicle is primarily for the convenience of the County and not for the personal benefit of the employee. However, given the plain meaning of section 3.04.020 of the Code of Ethics, the Board finds that there is at the very least an appearance of impropriety when a county vehicle is used for commuting.

References:King County Code of Ethics, section 3.04.020 (A) and R.C. W. 42.18.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF _____________, 1999.

Signed for the Board: _____________________________