APPENDIX ll

PORT OF SEATTLE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 25, 2011
T0: Tay Yoshitani, CEO
FROM: Craig Watson, GC

SUBJECT: Commissioner Con?ict of Interest

 

Issue: Is Commission Bryant?s participation in the upcoming Moses Lake joint commission
meeting and associated eastern Washington customer calls represent an actual or perceived
con?ict of interest?

Short Answer: No

D_iscussion: The question of a possible con?ict of interest was raised in an email from
Commissioner Creighton. As I read it, there are two separate paths of inquiry. First, because
Commission Bryant has made no secret of his possible interest in statewide of?ce, the
prohibition against using any facilities of a public of?ce or agency in assisting a campaign for
election may come into play. RCW 42.17.130. Second, the allegation of a con?ict of interest
may implicate provisions of the Port of Seattle Commission Ethics Code.

 

liaelggrogngz As Port staff and Commission representatives have done in the past, there is a
planned customer call tour planned for 201 1. Among other things, the Port representatives will
participate in a number of roundtables organized by a variety civic groups and political entities
and particularly focused on trade and transportation issues that relate directly to Port of Seattle
operations. The Port representatives will also pay visits to several media editorial boards to
discuss regional trade and transportation connections between Eastern Washington and Seattle.
In addition, the Port Commission will meet in a joint session with the Moses Lake Commission.
This latter activity is at the invitation of the Moses Lake Port Commission, and follows that
commission?s recent visit to the Port of Seattle.

The entire trip has been part of staff planning efforts since at least the beginning of the year. The
list of customers, businesses, community and political groups included in the visit was prepared
by Port staff, with minimal input from the Commission. Commissioner Bryant was asked to
provide his insight with respect to Eastern Washington contacts and he provided a few
suggestions. It appears that these were not adopted by staff.

Allah-sis: RCW 42.17.130 prohibits the use of any public facility or agency to promote a
political candidacy.1 However, RCW excludes from application of this prohibition
activities ?which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the of?ce or agency.? In my view
the Moses Lake trip ?ts squarely within this exception. As long as Commissioner Bryant strictly
performs his role as a Commissioner, and for that matter the current President of the

 

I This analysis is limited to this Port speci?c RCW, and does not include any review of campaign laws applicable to
candidates generally.

Page 5 of 6

Commission, RCW 42.17.130 will not apply to those activities. Of course, if Commissioner
Bryant were to use the trip as an opportunity to promote his personal political goals, the
exception to RCW 42.17.130 would not apply. In light ofthis, Commissioner Bryant has
indicated that he will not participate in the editorial board visits where he might be invited to
address questions directed at his possible statewide political aspirations.

Port Commissioners are bound to comply with the Port of Seattle Commission Code of Ethics
(the ?Code? or The Code states in part that a Port Commissioner shall not use his
or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for themselves. POSC CE Sec. 3.

Section 4 of the Code deals with con?icts of interest. Among other things, the Code admonishes
the Commissioners to avoid circumstances in which it appears, or to a reasonable person might
appear, that the Commissioner is requesting or otherwise seeking special consideration,
treatment, or advantage. In addition the Code prohibits actions that are in con?ict, or which have
the potential to create a con?ict, with the performance of of?cial duties including but not limited
to: in?uencing the conduct of business between the Port and any entity when the Commissioner
has a ?nancial interest in the entity or its competitors; or, accepting compensation which is
contingent upon a speci?c action or non-action by the Port Commission.

As described above, the Moses Lake trip is a staff driven event. Commissioner Bryant has had
very little input and no control over its planning and development. While Commissioner Bryant
does have business in eastern Washington, speci?cally with several agricultural industry groups
and growers associations, it is dif?cult to fathom how his participation in the Port?s regional
trade and transportation and customer visits will result or would appear to result in any special
bene?t or advantage to him. Nor is there any apparent ?nancial interest that would be implicated
by Commissioner Blyant?s participation.

Page 6 of 6