Advisory Opinion 94-10-1107
County Council/Use of Kingdome Executive Suite

ISSSUE: WHETHER THE COUNTY ETHICS CODE WOULD BE VIOLATED BY A POLICY THAT ALLOWS THE EXECUTIVE SUITE TO BE USED TO MARKET THE KINGDOME TO POTENTIAL CLIENTS?

Opinion: The Board of Ethics finds that using the executive suite at the Kingdome for the purposes of either marketing or governmental oversight does not violate the Code of Ethics. Likewise, acceptance of tickets for Seahawks and Mariners sporting events up to the legal limit for the suite, and as specifically negotiated for in amended use agreements, would not violate the Code. However, regardless of the contractual rights asserted in agreements with each sports franchise, all uses of the suite should be clearly defined and described in official policy or by County ordinance. Neither marketing, nor oversight, nor ceremonial functions should be ad hoc decisions made by individuals. Public accountability and credibility depends on open, public, and clearly defined policies and procedures.

Use of the Kingdome and its facilities, including attendance at events not covered by amended use agreements and acceptance of free catering services from a vendor, must be negotiated and specified by contract or paid for at full value. Any ad hoc arrangement violates the Code of Ethics.

Statement of Circumstances: Whether it is appropriate under the Ethics Code for County officials and employees to attend events at the Kingdome for non-marketing purposes, such as legislative, executive, and administrative oversight of operations in the Kingdome, and for official functions such as receptions for visiting dignitaries?

In July 1994 the State Auditor issued Report No. 56020 which detailed the results of a special audit on use of the executive suite at the Kingdome from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993. The report concluded that public resources were being misused by King County officials and recommended that the Board of Ethics assist in providing guidelines to bring suite usage within the parameters established by the Code of Ethics. As a result of the Auditor's report, several County Council members have asked the Board to determine whether the Ethics Code would be violated by a policy that allows the executive suite to be used to market the Kingdome to potential clients; and, whether it is appropriate under the Ethics Code for County officials and employees to attend events at the Kingdome for non-marketing purposes which are legislative, executive, and administrative oversight activities, and for official functions such as receptions for visiting dignitaries?

The Board of Ethics has read the Auditor's report and generally agrees that there is a need to establish basic ethics guidelines to address the issues raised by the County Council, as well as related issues such as use of non-County suites, receipt of tickets, and use of free catering services from a person which contracts with the County.

Analysis: Use of Executive Suite for Marketing

It is the Board's understanding that the County has amended use agreements with the Seahawks and Mariners which assign the use of one loge to the County, otherwise referred to as the executive suite. Legislation and policy relating to the suite directly and indirectly specify that the suite is to be used for marketing purposes. Council motion 6745 directs the Department of Stadium Administration to establish regulations for use of the County's loge at the Kingdome and clearly links financial integrity to "an aggressive marketing program to secure tenants." Executive policy explicitly designates the purpose of the suite "as a location to showcase the facility to prospective or existing Kingdome clients" (DP–FES–7–1–1). Further, Ordinance 8034 established the "implementation of a sound marketing and promotional program" as a primary responsibility of the Stadium Advisory Board. In sum, marketing appears to be an established legislative and executive purpose and as such does not in and of itself violate the Code of Ethics.

Legislative, Executive, and Administrative Oversight

In answering whether non-marketing purposes such as legislative, executive, and administrative oversight may be legitimate functions, the Board of Ethics references R.C.W. 67.30.010 which makes a declaration of public purpose and necessity for multipurpose sports stadia:

The participation of counties and cities in multipurpose sports stadia which may be used for football, baseball, soccer, conventions, home shows or any and all similar activities; . . . the operation and maintenance necessary for such participation, and the exercise of any other powers herein granted to counties and cities, are hereby declared to be public, governmental, and municipal functions, exercised for a public purpose, and matters of public necessity....

Although neither the Council nor the Executive have identified governmental oversight in policies or procedures relating to the executive suite, governmental oversight for public stadia is clearly in the public interest and as such does not in and of itself violate the Code of Ethics. However, "oversight" can be easily abused and can contribute to public disillusionment. Therefore, legitimate oversight functions should be clearly defined by policy and administered in an accountable manner. Oversight should never be an ad hoc decision made by individuals.

Acceptance of Tickets and Use of Kingdome Facilities

In exercising both marketing and oversight functions, special obligations are placed upon public officials and employees by the Code of Ethics. The Code itself contains important provisions which prohibit the use of public property for personal convenience, ensure that County employees will not receive additional compensation for official duties, and prevent situations from arising which might lead the public to believe that a public official or employee has a conflict of interest which could impair the exercise of legitimate governmental purposes on behalf of the public. These provisions include:

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. (3.04.020A)

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. (3.04.020C)

No county employee may ask for or receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gift, or thing of value, or promise thereof, for performing or for omitting or deferring the performance of any official duty, or action by the county other than compensation, costs or fees provided by the law. (3.04.020D)

And finally, no county employee shall engage in any act which is in conflict with the performance of official duties. A county employee shall be deemed to have a conflict of interest if the employee directly or indirectly:

Accepts or seeks for others, directly or indirectly, any employment, travel expense, service, information, compensation, gift, or thing of value on more favorable terms than those granted to other county employees or the public generally, from any person, doing business or seeking to do business with the county for which the employee has responsibility or with regard to which he or she may participate, provided that this subsection shall not apply to the receipt by elected officials, or by employees who are supervised directly by an elected official, or meals, refreshments or transportation within the boundaries of King County when given in connection with meetings with constituents or meetings which are informational or ceremonial in nature; (3.04.030C)

Acceptance of tickets assigned exclusively to the executive suite for attendance at Seahawks or Mariners sporting events, or to perform legitimate marketing or governmental oversight activities which have been clearly defined by policy and are administered in an accountable manner would not violate the Code of Ethics. However, public accountability should be ensured by maintaining records which account for suite attendees on any given date. The Board cautions that in the absence of an adopted official policy governing the use of the suite facility, even in the context of the use agreements, the potential for misuse of the facility, even inadvertently, appears to be significant. The Board's opinion regarding use of the suite is not a blanket authorization and does not insulate County officials and employees from possible Ethics Code violations on a case-by-case basis if the suite is used inappropriately.

As to use of the Kingdome and its facilities, which use involves complementary admission to Kingdome events for county officials or employees or other persons at the request of county officials or employees, aside from use of the executive suite associated with events covered by existing use agreements as described above, such use must be contractually authorized or else paid for by the county or on an individual basis, in accordance with clear written procedures and in an accountable manner.

The Board believes that sections 3.04.020(A), 3.04.020(C) and 3.04.030(C), in particular, apply to this situation. The Board does not consider ad hoc, bartered arrangements as complying with the Ethics Code, because such arrangements invite abuse, damage public credibility, and provide no basis for determining whether the activity is or is not serving a legitimate public purpose, as opposed to simply constituting a "perk".

Acceptance of Free Catering Services

With regard to the acceptance of free catering services from Ogden Entertainment Services, which holds exclusive rights as the stadium concessionaire, the Board believes that this arrangement raises similar issues to the arrangements discussed above, again primarily because the arrangement is ad hoc rather than contractual.

Section 3.04.030(C) clearly bars receipt by responsible County employees, or others at the request of such County employees, of services or other things of value on more favorable terms than those granted to other employees or the public generally, from any person doing business with the County. Absent a contract, there is also at least the appearance of a conflict arising under section 3.04.020(C). In this context, the Board believes that unless contractually negotiated with the concessionaire, free catering services provided by the concessionaire to Kingdome employees or other elected or appointed County officials involved in marketing, ceremonial, or oversight activities would violate the Code of Ethics.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.017 (N), 3.04.020 (A, C, and D); 3.04.030 (C and D), Council Motion 6745, K.C.C. 22.16; R.C.W. 67.30.010.

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
Department Directors and Division Managers
Stadium Advisory Board members