Legislative Department
Seattle City Council
Memorandum
Date:

June 6, 2016

To:

Councilmembers

From:

Councilmember Tim Burgess

Subject: Changes to the Ethics Code
Later today, the Council will vote on CB 118701 which modifies the current ethics code.
The ethics code is contained in SMC 4.16. The purpose section of the ethics code states:
“The City finds that the proper operation of democratic representative government
requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to
the people; that government decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of the
governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the
public have confidence in the integrity of its government.” (SMC 4.16.020 Emphasis
mine.)
The ethics code (SMC 4.16.070) requires city employees, including elected officials, to
disqualify themselves from participating if they or an immediate family member “has a
financial interest” in the pending matter.
The current disqualification requirement is a “bright line” prohibition, in other words it is
unequivocal and mandatory, and it’s regarded as a very high bar. “Bright line” rules in
ethics law are considered best practice. Seattle has adhered to this high standard since
1980.
The ordinance before the Council changes this ethics standard from disqualification to
disclosure and then allows a Councilmember to participate in the legislative matter
pending before the Council, including voting on final resolution of the matter. The
disclosure standard does not meet the stated intent of the Council in SMC 4.16.020 that
“public office not be used for personal gain.” Nor does disclosure “cure” the perception
that an elected official has a conflict of interest. Quite the contrary, the proposed change
allows a Councilmember with an actual conflict of interest to disclose that fact and then
vote, a deeply troubling lowering of our ethical standards.
It’s also important to remember that the ethics code already includes an exception when
the “prohibited financial interest is shared with a substantial segment of the City's
population.” (SMC 4.16.070.A.4) This exception mitigates any concerns that a Council
member’s financial interest based solely on the member’s address could prevent that
member from voting on a matter.

An equal opportunity employer

600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2, PO Box 34025, Seattle, Washington 98124-4025
Office: (206) 684-8888
Fax: (206) 684-8587
TTY: (206) 233-0025

 Councilmembers
June 6, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Ethics laws serve a dual purpose: (1) to regulate the actions of covered persons, in this
case elected officials, and (2) to establish a culture of practice, norms of behavior, and
expectations supportive of and consistent with the adoption of the ethics law.
It’s been suggested that this change in Seattle’s standard is necessary because of the
voters’ decision to establish City Council districts, but I don’t believe the voters ever
intended their actions to be interpreted as a desire to lower city government’s ethical
standards. Nor do I believe that the argument addresses the potential for harm to the
appearance of fairness in our decision making process.
For these reasons, I will vote against this proposal.
As an alternative, I propose that the Council modify the current exception language to
specifically address district representation: “Subsections 4.16.070.A.1 and 4.16.070.A.2
do not apply if the prohibited financial interest is shared with a substantial segment of
the City's population or, in the case of a councilmember elected to represent a district, if
the prohibited financial interest is shared with a substantial segment of the district’s
population.”

2