King County Ombuds Office
REPORT, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Whistleblower and Ethics Case # 2018-00443
Complainant: Kevin Brown
Respondents:
Dow Constantine, King County Executive
Christie True, Director, Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Bob Burns, Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources and Parks
September 3, 2019

Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………….…………………………………….……………………..1
ALLEGATIONS AND PARTIES ……………….………………………………………………………………………………1
OMBUDS AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION ………………………………………………………………………….2
BURDEN OF PROOF AND ELEMENTS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ………………….…..……………….…5
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION ……………………………………………….……………….…..6
FACTS OF THE CASE …..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….……....9
FINDINGS ……...……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…...…...62
OMBUDS COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION …………..………………………………..……………….75

 King County Ombuds Office
REPORT, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Whistleblower and Ethics Case # 2018-00443
Complainant: Kevin Brown
Respondents:
Dow Constantine, King County Executive
Christie True, Director, Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Bob Burns, Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources and Parks
September 3, 2019

1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document comprises the King County Ombuds Office (Ombuds) final Report, Findings and
Recommendations (Report) regarding Complaint No. # 2018-00443 (Complaint).
A summary of the Complaint's allegations, scope of the Ombuds authority and jurisdiction,
applicable criteria and standards under the King County Code, and a procedural summary of the
investigation are described in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5. The pertinent facts related to the allegations
are described at length in Section 6, followed by the Ombuds Findings at Section 7 and the
Ombuds concluding Comments and Recommendation at Section 8.
Following a thorough investigation and evaluation of the Complaint and its underlying facts, the
Ombuds finds that there is insufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof needed to sustain
any allegation of the Complaint.
A brief final section of this report observes that the Executive serves two roles in County
government that became factors in this matter. The Ombuds recommends that the Executive
develop and issue guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of Executive staff and
Departmental staff in the solicitation, selection, and administration of contracts.
2.

ALLEGATIONS AND PARTIES

Complaint No. 2018-00443 was filed on April 11, 2018 by Complainant Kevin Brown (Brown) while
serving as Director of Parks. The Complaint alleges that Respondents King County Executive Dow

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 2 of 76

Constantine (Constantine), Director of the King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks (DNRP) Christie True (True), and Deputy Director of DNRP Bob Burns (Burns) violated the
following sections of the King County Code (KCC):
•
•
•
•
•

Abuse of authority under KCC 3.42.020(F)(1)(b);
Gross mismanagement under KCC 3.42.020(F)(1)(c);
Gross waste of public funds under KCC 3.42.020(F)(1)(e);
Special consideration or treatment under KCC 3.04.020(B); and
Use of authority to induce or coerce under KCC3.04.020(C).1

The alleged violations are related to Respondents' (Constantine, True and Burns) involvement in
certain vendor contracts at Marymoor Park dating from 2012 to 2018, and fall within four broad
categories: (1) vendor selection and contract negotiation related to the five-year contract for the
Marymoor Park Concert Series commencing in 2013; (2) accommodations made to the vendors
who received that contract; (3) vendor selection and contract negotiation related to contracts
for the Marymoor Park Concert Series commencing in 2017; and (4) vendor selection for the
contract to provide concessions services at the CHOMP! Festival held at Marymoor Park.
3.

OMBUDS AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION

The voters of King County (County) established the King County Ombuds Office in the County
Home Rule Charter of 1968. The Ombuds operates independently within the legislative branch
of County government and is vested in KCC Chapter 2.52 with authority to investigate the
administrative conduct of County agencies and employees in response to complaints from the
public or on the Ombuds' own initiative, and to publish findings and recommendations for
improving the administration of County government. The Ombuds strives to promote public
confidence in County government by responding to complaints in an impartial, efficient and
timely manner.
The Ombuds is further vested with jurisdiction and authority to investigate alleged violations of
the County Whistleblower Protection Code, KCC Chapter 3.42 (Whistleblower Code); Employee
Code of Ethics, KCC Chapter 3.04 (Ethics Code); and Lobbyist Disclosure Code, KCC Chapter 1.07
(the latter is not at issue in this case).

1

Brown filed a second complaint alleging retaliation by True under KCC 3.42.030(F), identified as Complaint No.
2018-00444. The Ombuds dismissed the retaliation complaint pursuant to a settlement agreement between Brown
and King County. Because of the settlement, this Report does not address Brown's retaliation claims. However, some
of the facts underlying those claims also comprise portions of a factual basis for non-retaliation claims under KCC
Sections 3.42.020(F)(1)(b), KCC 3.42.020(F)(1)(c), KCC 3.04.020(B) and KCC 3.04.020(C). To the extent this Report
discusses True's actions underlying the alleged retaliation claims, it does so in the context of the noted KCC sections.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 3 of 76

Whistleblower Code Jurisdiction and Remedies
The Whistleblower Code provides County employees with avenues to report what they believe
to be “improper governmental action” (IGA). IGA is broadly defined as any action by a County
officer or employee that is undertaken in the performance of official duties, whether or not the
action is within the scope of employment, that, pertinent to the allegations in this case, includes
the following:





violations of any state or federal law or rule or County ordinance or rule;
actions constituting an abuse of authority;
actions constituting gross mismanagement;
actions resulting in a gross waste of public funds.2

The Whistleblower Code defines "gross mismanagement" to mean "the exercise of management
responsibilities in a manner grossly deviating from the standard of care or competence that a
reasonable person would observe in the same situation."3 A "gross waste of public funds" means
"to spend or use public funds or to allow public funds to be used without valuable result in a
manner grossly deviating from the standard of care or competence that a reasonable person
would observe in the same situation."4 The Whistleblower Code does not define "abuse of
authority", but the Ombuds interprets the term to mean an intentional improper use of authority
granted by law, rule or policy, or the unlawful use of such authority.
If the Ombuds finds an IGA following an investigation, the Ombuds must send the final report to
the Complainant and the department head, and also to the County Executive and County Council
if a department head is implicated. The responsible department must send the Ombuds and
Complainant an action plan for addressing the IGA and completing corrective actions within a
reasonable timeframe. If the department’s actions are unsatisfactory, the Ombuds must report
that to the County Executive and County Council. The Ombuds may impose a fine up to $10,000
on the responsible department in "exceptionally egregious" cases where corrective actions are
"highly unsatisfactory."5
Ethics Code Jurisdiction and Remedies
The Ethics Code establishes the following County policy:
the private conduct and financial dealings of public officials and employees and of
candidates for public office shall present no actual or apparent conflict of interest
2

KCC 3.42.030; 3.42.020(F)(1).
KCC 3.42.020(D).
4
KCC 3.42.020(E).
5
KCC 3.42.067(G)(2)(c) & (d).
3

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 4 of 76

between the public trust and private interest. Public confidence in government is
essential and must be sustained by establishing and enforcing rules to assure the
impartiality and honesty of officials and employees in all public transactions and
decisions.6
This policy states the County Council's intent and informs the Ombuds' interpretation of the
operative sections within the Ethics Code. The operative standards of the Ethics Code pertinent
to the allegations in this case provide as follows:
No county employee shall grant any special consideration, treatment or
advantage beyond that which is available to every other citizen.7
Except as authorized by law and in the course of the employee’s official duties, no
county employee shall use the power or authority of the employee’s office or
position with the county in a manner intended to induce or coerce any other
person, directly or indirectly to provide the county employee or any other person
with any compensation, gift or thing of value.8
A County employee found to have violated the Ethics Code is subject to civil penalties and
discipline up to and including termination. A negligent or willful violation by a County employee
may be prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor. An elected official who violates the Ethics Code
is subject to civil penalties and the possibility of recall.9
Application of Whistleblower and Ethics Codes in This Case
The Whistleblower Code directs the Ombuds to investigate any IGA report that meets the
requirements of a complaint under the Ethics Code using the Ethics Code procedures. To
constitute a valid complaint under the Ethics Code, a signed, written complaint stating the basis
of the allegations must be filed with the Ombuds within five years of the date of the alleged ethics
violations.
When ethics allegations are filed as IGAs but are not reported within five years of their
occurrence, and the Complainant is a County employee covered by the Whistleblower Code, then
the complaint may be investigated under the Whistleblower Code (if the complaint otherwise
meets that Code’s jurisdictional thresholds) because the Whistleblower Code does not contain a
statute of limitations for IGA violations. This also shifts the focus of applicable penalties: If five
years have passed since commission of an Ethics Code violation, the personal penalties that arise
6

KCC 3.04.015.
KCC 3.04.020(B).
8
KCC 3.04.020(C).
9
KCC 3.04.060.
7

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 5 of 76

under the Ethics Code cannot be applied and the remedy is instead limited to the agency-directed
remedies available under the Whistleblower Code.
In this case, County employee Brown filed his IGA complaint on April 11, 2018, concerning actions
occurring as far back as 2012. Under the jurisdictional rules described above, the Ombuds
investigated the alleged ethics violations that occurred on or after April 11, 2013 under the Ethics
Code, and investigated the alleged ethics violations occurring before April 11, 2013 under the
Whistleblower Code as potential IGAs.
These requirements mean that all ethics allegations leading to Parks entering into five-year
agreements for concert and concessionaire services with AEG and SES on January 28, 2013 may
be analyzed only as alleged IGAs and are subject only to agency-directed penalties under the
Whistleblower Code, whereas the IGA claims arising from actions occurring on or after April 11,
2013 must be analyzed under the Ethics Code and are subject to personal penalties.
4.

BURDEN OF PROOF AND ELEMENTS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

The burden of proof applicable to this investigation is the preponderance of evidence standard.
This preponderance is judged on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or
accuracy, not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide
a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony; or a signed agreement
with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended.
Because the standard is not described in the KCC, citation to Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
is appropriate:
Preponderance of the Evidence. The greater weight of the evidence, not
necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but
by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that,
though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still
sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than
the other.
The KCC defines "improper government action" as any action by a County officer or employee
that is undertaken in the performance of official duties, whether or not the action is within the
scope of employment, that: (a) violates any state or federal law or rule or County ordinance or
rule; (b) constitutes an abuse of authority; (c) is gross mismanagement; (d) creates a substantial
and specific danger to the public health or safety; (e) results in a gross waste of public funds; or
(f) prevents the dissemination of scientific opinion or alters technical findings without
scientifically valid justification, unless disclosure is legally prohibited.10

10

KCC 3.42.020(F)(1).

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 6 of 76

The KCC does not define "abuse of authority." The Ombuds construes an abuse of authority to
mean an intentional improper use of authority granted by law, rule or policy, or the unlawful use
of such authority.
Gross mismanagement is defined by the KCC Whistleblower Code as "the exercise of
management responsibilities in a manner grossly deviating from the standard of care or
competence that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation."11 To sustain a
finding of gross mismanagement under KCC 3.42.020(F)(1)(c), there must be facts that meet the
preponderance of evidence standard.
A "gross waste of public funds" under the Whistleblower Code means to spend, use or allow
public funds to be used without valuable result in a manner grossly deviating from the standard
of care or competence that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation.12 To sustain
a finding of gross waste of public funds under KCC 3.42.020(F)(1)(e), there must be facts that
meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
The Ethics Code states that "[n]o county employee shall grant any special consideration,
treatment or advantage beyond that which is available to every other citizen."13 To sustain a
finding of special consideration or treatment under KCC 3.04.020(B), there must be facts that
meet the preponderance of evidence standard.
The Ethics Code also states that "(e)xcept as authorized by law and in the course of the
employee’s official duties, no county employee shall use the power or authority of the
employee’s office or position with the county in a manner intended to induce or coerce any other
person, directly or indirectly to provide the county employee or any other person with any
compensation, gift or thing of value."14 To sustain a finding of special use of authority to induce
or coerce under KCC 3.04.020(C), there must be facts that meet the preponderance of evidence
standard.
5.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION

On March 29, 2018, Brown and his attorney met with Ombuds staff to discuss a whistleblower
complaint and the Ombuds investigation process, and to outline Brown’s substantive concerns.
On April 11, 2018, Brown and his attorney met again with Ombuds staff and its Director, during
which Brown delivered his signed and dated whistleblower complaint alleging IGA against the
Respondents. That Complaint No. 2018-00443 is the subject of this report. Later that day,
Brown's attorney filed a second signed and dated complaint alleging retaliation against True.15
11

KCC 3.42.020(D).
KCC 3.42.020(E).
13
KCC 3.04.020(B).
14
KCC 3.04.020(C).
15
Complaint No. 2018-00444, resolved by the parties in mediation. See notes 1 and 17 and accompanying text.
12

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 7 of 76

In the following weeks, Brown submitted a binder of records in support of his Complaints. The
Ombuds reviewed those records and determined that the complaints were validly filed pursuant
to the jurisdictional thresholds in the Whistleblower Code. Because the allegations were
unverified, the Ombuds made no findings at that time.
The Ombuds commenced its investigation on May 9, 2018, and on that date transmitted Brown's
Complaints by letter, together with copies of his submitted records, to the Respondents through
their legal counsel. The transmittal asked that the Respondents submit written responses to the
Ombuds by June 8, 2018, along with records concerning relevant topics listed in the Ombuds'
transmittal letter. On June 18, 2018, after an extension requested by the Respondents and
allowed by the Ombuds, the Respondents through counsel submitted written responses and
records as requested.
The Whistleblower Code imposes a one year timeline for completion of the whistleblower IGA
investigation.16 It also affords an opportunity for the parties to settle complaints via mediation,
and provides that investigation timelines be tolled during the mediation process to support
potential resolution.17 For various periods of time following commencement of this investigation,
the parties jointly or separately discussed, considered, initiated, and engaged in mediation
processes. The Ombuds participated in, or was advised of, these activities and accordingly tolled
the investigation timelines, resulting in a final report deadline of September 3, 2019.
The Whistleblower Code provides that the Ombuds shall close a retaliation investigation if the
parties reach agreement as a result of mediation.18 On May 21, 2019, Brown and County signed
a mediated settlement agreement resolving his retaliation Complaint No. 2018-00444. The
Ombuds accordingly closed that investigation.
The Whistleblower Code further provides that the Ombuds may close a whistleblower IGA
investigation if the parties reach a mediated agreement.19 The May 21, 2019 mediated
settlement between the County and Brown provided that Brown would ask the Ombuds to close
both the ethics investigation and the IGA investigation from which it originated. Brown did so by
letter to the Ombuds dated May 22, 2019. The Ombuds has discretion to close a pending IGA
investigation when closure is requested pursuant to a mediated settlement, and will do so if the
Ombuds determines that closure is in the public interest. Here, the Ombuds reviewed the
settlement and determined that the public interest would be best served by completing the IGA
investigation and making an independent assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Factors considered in making that determination included the nature of the allegations, the facts
16

KCC 3.42.057(G) and 3.42.060(E). Retaliation claims are to be investigated within 135 days, subject to tolling during
a mediation process.
17
KCC 3.42.057(H) and 3.42.060(G).
18
KCC 3.42.060(G)(1).
19
KCC 3.42.057(H)(1).

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 8 of 76

of the case, the mediation settlement terms, and the senior positions of public responsibility and
trust held by Brown and the Respondents.
As part of this investigation and report, the Ombuds received and reviewed more than 5,000
pages of documentation and statements submitted by the parties, and interviewed the following
witnesses (totaling more than 30 hours of recorded testimony):
















Kevin Brown, former Director, Parks and Recreation Division, DNRP
Bob Burns, Deputy Director, DNRP
Marcus Charles, Principal, Seattle Event Solutions
Dow Constantine, King County Executive
Ryan Dotson, Acting Business Development & Partnerships Manager, Parks Division
Allen Draher, Law Office of Allen Draher, PLLC
Jessica Emerson, Acting Deputy Director, Parks Division, DNRP
Lisa Fitzhugh, Founding Partner, Creative Ground
Danielle Hinz, former Chief Procurement Officer, King County
Alex Kochan, former Vice President, Northwest, AEG
David Meinert, former Principal, Seattle Event Solutions
Rachel Smith, Deputy Executive and Chief of Staff, Office of the County Executive
Katy Terry, Acting Director, Parks Division, DNRP
Christie True, Director, DNRP
Sung Yang, former Deputy Director and Chief of Staff, Office of the County Executive20

The Ombuds Bates stamped most of the records it transmitted to the Respondents. Counsel for
the Respondents then re-stamped the records it received from (and subsequently resent to) the
Ombuds. When citing those records in this report the Ombuds uses the Respondents' Bates
stamp identifier with the accompanying Respondent name and designated page number (for
example, "OMSBUDS-553"21). The recorded witness interviews are cited in this report as "[Name]
[Date] at [Time]" (for example, "Burns 6/3/19 at 01:35:56").22
The Office of the Ombuds conducted this investigation with the oversight and direction of
Ombuds-Director Amy Calderwood. This report summarizes that work.

20

Sung Yang is no longer a County employee and thus is not a respondent in the case.
Due to typographical error the Ombuds Bates documents are prefixed "OMSBUDS" instead of "OMBUDS."
22
The Ombuds made audio recordings of all but two witness interviews, retaining written notes reviewed for
accuracy by those two witnesses. Breaks taken during two of the recorded interviews resulted in the time stamps
resetting to 00:00, which are cited using the letter A or B after the date to indicate the first (A) or second (B) portion
of the paused interview (for example, "Meinert 5/16/19A at 12:02").
21

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 9 of 76

6.

FACTS OF THE CASE

King County Parks
King County Parks and Recreation Division is one of four divisions within DNRP and manages more
than 200 parks and 390 miles of trails, comprising more than 28,000 acres. The 2019-2020 King
County Biennial Budget appropriates $48,494,000 for Parks operations, mainly from the current
levy.23 True has served as Department Director of DNRP since 2010. True was previously Director
of the Wastewater Treatment Division and has been a King County employee for 34 years.24 Burns
has served as Deputy Director of DNRP since 2003 and has been a King County employee for
approximately 19 years.25 Brown served as Director of the Parks Division from 2006 until May
2019.26 Katy Terry (Terry) has been Acting Director of Parks since Summer 2018 and was Deputy
Director of Parks for the previous nine years.27 Jessica Emerson (Emerson) was Business
Development and Partnerships Section Manager for Parks from September 2010 until February
2019 when she was appointed as Acting Deputy Director of Parks.28 Ryan Dotson (Dotson) has
been Acting Business Development and Partnerships Manager since April 2019.29 His regular
position since March 2011 is Business Development and Partnerships Program Manager.30
Big Ideas Open Proposal Process
In 2002, the County Council changed Parks' funding structure by adopting the "Big Ideas" open
proposal process. Big Ideas was intended to “increase[] flexibility to enter into concessions,
leases and similar agreements that will facilitate the operation of, and revenue generation at,
county park facilities.”31 Big Ideas expanded Parks' noncompetitive concession contracting
authority by allowing the County Executive or designee to "negotiate and enter into concession
contracts with any person”, including for-profit entities.32 That authority had previously extended
only to concession contracts with non-profit organizations.
23

Ord. 18835, Sec. 88, adopted November 14, 2018.
https://directory.kingcounty.gov/EmployeeList.asp?txtfname=c&txtlname=true&btnSearch=Search (last
accessed June 12, 2019); True 5/31/19 at 02:42.
25
https://directory.kingcounty.gov/EmployeeList.asp?txtfname=b&txtlname=burns&btnSearch=Search (last
accessed June 12, 2019); Burns 6/3/19 at 02:45, 04:40.
26
Brown Follow-Up Answers at 7; Agreement and Release of All Claims, May 21, 2019. Brown resigned as Parks
Director on May 27, 2019, and was appointed the next day as a Grants Officer for Parks per the mediated settlement
agreement resolving his whistleblower retaliation complaint.
27
Terry 2/14/19 at 03:10.
28
Emerson 1/23/19 at 03:00; Emerson email to Stier, June 12, 2019.
29
Dotson 6/13/19 at 38:29.
30
Id. at 39:51; Dotson 12/21/18 at 22:59.
31
Transmittal Letter from Ron Sims, King County Executive, to Cynthia Sullivan, Chair, Metropolitan King County
Council, September 16, 2002,
https://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/View.ashx?M=F&ID=780378&GUID=AB68A4D2-707B-4FC2-B2B8542D2AFDCC7A (last accessed June 15, 2019); Ord. 14509 § 38, 2002.
32
KCC 4.57.010; see KCC 7.12.150.
24

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 10 of 76

The Big Ideas program also did not require that concession contracting include features common
to ordinary competitive public bidding processes such as published requests for proposals,
predetermined project scopes or specific selection criteria available to all bidders.33 Without the
requirement of using predetermined selection criteria or the County’s formal procurement
system, Big Ideas loosened the oversight of certain contracts and enabled potential private
partners, rather than Parks alone, to develop and propose creative revenue-generating
proposals.34 There is no standardized procedure for selecting a particular proposal if more than
one proposer submits substantially similar proposals through the Big Ideas web portal.35
Parks publishes an annual version of the Big Ideas process on its website, and that web portal
remains open year-round.36 The Big Ideas process has typically been used to secure agreements
for active recreation proposals and events smaller than the Marymoor Park Concerts,37 but also
for some larger events or programs such as Cirque du Soleil, Big Backyard 5K,38 and Cavalia,39 as
well as for food concessionaires like Subway.40
Since 2002, Parks has used various names for the Big Ideas concessions process, which included
the 2012 "Request for Ideas and Proposals" when Parks received and negotiated the contract
proposals at issue in this case.41 In 2012, the Big Ideas announcement stated that Parks was
"looking for ideas and proposals for new public-private partnership opportunities. If you have an
idea, we want to hear it!"42 Under the heading "Evaluation and Selection", the announcement
33

See KCC Chapter 2.93; Bob Burns written response to Kevin Brown complaint, June 18, 2018 (hereafter, "Burns
Response") at 4; Thomson Reuters, "Public Procurement in the United States: overview", March 1, 2013,
https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I2ef1290d1ed511e38578f7ccc38dcbee/View/FullText.html?originati
onContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 (last
accessed June 15, 2019); National Institute for Public Procurement, "Values and Guiding Principles of Public
Procurement", https://www.nigp.org/home/find-procurement-resources/guidance/values-and-guiding-principles
(last accessed June 15, 2019).
34
In that way, Parks could "bring in ideas that we just didn't think of" from those new potential partners. Terry
2/14/19 at 16:49; Emerson 1/23/19 at 12:21.
35
Burns 6/3/19 at 01:15:39.
36
Emerson 1/23/19 at 12:21; True 5/31/19 at 47:18.
37
Brown Follow-Up Answers at 5.
38
Parks' first Big Backyard 5K, in 2010, netted Parks approximately $13,000. "Parks 2010 Second Quarter Report", at
10, https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/parks-and-recreation/documents/about/2010Q2_Final.pdf (last
accessed June 17, 2019).
39
Parks received $371,708 in revenues from Cavalia in 2012. "Parks 2012 Second Quarter Report", at 6,
https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/parks-and-recreation/documents/about/2012Q2_Final.pdf (last accessed
June 17, 2019).
40
Burns Response at 2, note 5. In 2010, the King County Council approved a ten-year concession agreement with
Subway for its Marymoor location, with anticipated revenues to King County beginning at nearly $14,000 per year.
2010-0551 Staff Report, https://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/View.ashx?M=F&ID=1110098&GUID=E5F5567C5FD4-453D-851E-89E9BB39DD39 (last accessed June 15, 2019).
41
See BURNS 480; Burns Response at 2.
42
BURNS 480.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 11 of 76

broadly stated that "King County may select proposals that are determined to be in the best
interest of the public" based on various principles including projected revenue or other benefits
to the County, compatibility with selected location, timing and feasibility, and "other relevant
information."43
Marymoor Park and the Concert Series
Marymoor Park was purchased by the County in the early 1960s as the County's first44 and now
most popular park with more than three million visitors per year.45 The Marymoor Park Concerts
summer series began in 2003 under a 2002 Special Use Permit and agreement between the
County and The Lakeside Group (TLG),46 a locally-based concert promoter aligned or affiliated
with worldwide entertainment company Live Nation.47 The initial five-year agreement allowed
(and was amended in 2005 to require48) TLG to produce a minimum of eight and up to
approximately 15 shows per year, and granted TLG exclusive use of certain portions of the park
for those concerts.49 TLG was required to pay the County the greater of $10,000 per concert or
10% of ticket sales, sponsorships and merchandise. The TLG agreement allowed TLG to sell
concessions itself or to contract with a concessionaire and required that TLG pay 10% of
concession revenues to Parks.50 Parks and TLG renewed the agreement for a second five-year
term in 2007.51
Combined concert, food, and beverage revenues to the County during the TLG operating period
was below $300,000 for the inaugural 2003 concert season, dipped lower for two years, rose to
a high of nearly $500,000 in 2008 when TLG booked nineteen shows,52 and fell to $200,000 for
the 2012 season.53 Parks and others attributed the revenue decline partly to TLG booking fewer

43

BURNS 483.
"Marymoor Park", December 10, 2002, https://www.historylink.org/File/4044 (last accessed June 17, 2019).
45
https://www.kingcounty.gov/services/parks-recreation/parks/parks-and-natural-lands/popularparks/marymoor.aspx (last accessed June 15, 2019).
46
YANG 096-106.
47
Dotson 12-21-18 at 01:25:32; Charles 5-22-19 at 47:30; https://www.livenationentertainment.com/ (last accessed
June 15, 2019). The record is not clear as to whether Parks procured the TLG agreement using the Big Idea portal or
another process.
48
CONSTANTINE 000020-000025.
49
YANG 096.
50
YANG 097-098.
51
See BURNS 038; Burns Response at 2.
52
Redmond Reporter, "Lineup set for season of Marymoor Park Concerts", May 30, 2008, http://www.redmondreporter.com/life/lineup-set-for-season-of-concerts-at-marymoor/ (last accessed June 17, 2019).
53
Burns Response, Attachment A (Graph: Marymoor Concert Revenue); BURNS 6-3-19 at 23:46.
44

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 12 of 76

shows each year: Eleven shows in 2010,54 seven shows in 2011,55 and six shows for 2012.56 Parks
and others also observed that TLG was booking more and better shows at Chateau Ste. Michelle
winery, a rival summer concert venue in Woodinville where TLG promoted another concert
series.57
Clise Mansion
The Clise Mansion is a part of Marymoor Park. From 1968 to 2002, it housed a museum dedicated
to the history and heritage of lands and peoples east of Seattle.58 The County ended the museum
lease in 2002, intending to develop more-commercial activities in support of Parks and in accord
with the Big Ideas partnership process.59 Parks eventually entered into a concession agreement
with Premier Properties to manage and operate Clise Mansion with the objective of offering a
high quality facility for public rental that would maximize Parks' rental and event revenues.60 By
2011 Parks was dissatisfied with Premier Properties' management because the company was late
on payments and did not effectively promote Clise Mansion or attract events meeting the venue's
potential.61 The concession agreement was not renewed in 2012.
AEG and SES; Meinert and Charles
Anschutz Entertainment Group is headquartered in Los Angeles and describes itself as the world’s
leading sports and live entertainment company. Its music division, AEG Presents or AEG Live
(AEG), "is dedicated to all aspects of live music, including producing and promoting global and
regional concert tours, music events and world-renowned festivals." AEG is involved in more than
twenty-five music festivals and hosts more than 10,000 shows annually at more than ninety clubs
and theaters worldwide.62 In the Seattle area, AEG manages Seattle’s two Showbox music
venues,63 is the music promoter for the annual Bumbershoot music festival,64 and books and
54

"Marymoor Park Concerts 2010 lineup", https://mynorthwest.com/67125/concerts-at-marymoor-2010-lineup/
(last accessed June 17, 2019).
55
BURNS 038; Patch, "Marymoor Summer Concerts Series Includes Sublime, Ben Harper and Alison Krause", June
18, 2011, https://patch.com/washington/bellevue/marymoor-summer-concerts-series-includes-sublime-ben6d9dbe92c1 (last accessed June 17, 2019).
56
The Seattle Times, "Norah Jones to headline Marymoor Park summer concerts", April 2, 2012,
https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/norah-jones-to-headline-marymoor-park-summer-concerts/ (last
accessed June 17, 2019).
57
OMSBUDS 257; Burns Response at 1; Brown Answer to Burns Response at 1; Emerson 1/23/19 at 20:50; Dotson
6/13/19 at 41:34; Constantine 6/5/19 at 30:14; Charles 5/22/19 at 42:13.
58
"Marymoor Park", December 10, 2002, https://www.historylink.org/File/4044 (last accessed June 17, 2019).
59
"Marymoor Park", December 10, 2002, https://www.historylink.org/File/4044 (last accessed June 17, 2019).
60
See Concession Contract—Premier Properties, August 10, 2009.
61
OMSBUDS 257; BURNS 047.
62
See https://www.aegworldwide.com/ (last accessed June 17, 2019).
63
https://www.aegworldwide.com/divisions/music/venues (last accessed June 17, 2019).
64
https://www.bumbershoot.com/; https://www.aegworldwide.com/divisions/music/bumbershoot (last accessed
June 17, 2019).

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 13 of 76

operates Marymoor Park concerts.65 AEG then-Vice President Alex Kochan (Kochan) managed
AEG’s Northwest Office in Seattle from 2006-2014,66 when Rob Thomas (Thomas) took over.67
Seattle Event Solutions (SES) is a concessionaire first formed in April 2011 to sell food and
beverages at music-related events.68 SES is the concessionaire for AEG's Showbox music venues
and Bumbershoot festival, and for the Marymoor Park concerts since 2013.69 The Marymoor
concessions contract is SES's only contract with County government.70
The original owners of SES were Marcus Charles (Charles) through a limited liability corporation,
and David Meinert (Meinert).71 Before forming SES, Charles and Meinert had an interest in the
annual Capitol Hill Block Party72 and significantly expanded the scale and length of that event.73
Charles is an entrepreneur who has owned a number of businesses. In addition to co-producing
the Capitol Hill Block Party, he started an e-cigarette business for cannabis and owns or is
involved in Seattle’s Local 360 Café & Bar, Mama's Cantina, The Crocodile music venue, and both
Showbox music venues.74 Charles said he had raised millions of dollars in Seattle and frequently
speaks with "high-powered people."75 Meinert has worked in the restaurant, bar, music, and
festival businesses.76 In addition to his previous roles as co-producer of the Capitol Hill Block Party
and co-owner of SES, he has owned or had interests in the Seattle establishments Lost Lake Café

65

https://www.marymoorconcerts.com/venue-info (last accessed June 17, 2019).
Kochan 6/25/19 at 03:02; Charles 5/22/19 at 36:19; Dotson 6-13-19 at 09:12.
67
Constantine 6/5/19 at 14:03.
68
https://ccfs.sos.wa.gov/#/BusinessSearch/BusinessInformation (last accessed June 17, 2019).
69
Meinert 5/16/19A at 24:35. SES employs up to 60 people seasonally. Charles 5/22/19 at 30:43.
70
Charles 5/22/19 at 04:30.
71
Meinert 5/16/19A at 23:12; Washington Secretary of State, Certificate of Formation, April 6, 2011,
file:///C:/Users/StierJ/OneDrive%20-%20King%20County/Downloads/3c7a38bf-ae45-47d5-ad8eeb558f4639cb%20(2).pdf (last accessed June 17, 2019).
72
Meinert 5/16/19A at 23:19.
73
Christopher Werner, "The Capitol Hill Block Party and How It Grew", Seattle Met, June 29, 2011,
https://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2011/6/29/seattle-capitol-hill-block-party-july-2011, (last accessed June 17,
2019).
74
Charles 5/22/19 at 03:06, 54:22.
75
Id. at 01:16:57
76
Meinert 5/16/19A at 05:26.
66

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 14 of 76

and Lounge, Comet Tavern, Grim’s, Queer/Bar, Big Mario’s New York Style Pizza, and Wide Open,
Inc., which operates the 5 Point Café.77 Meinert no longer holds a governing interest in SES.78
Interactions Between Respondents and Principals of AEG and SES
Constantine Interactions
Constantine said he may have met Kochan before 2009 in the music community, and that their
relationship was cordial but not very familiar.79 Kochan said he never met Constantine one-onone or in a group setting, but that he attended some of Constantine’s political fundraising
events.80 Constantine said he was introduced to Thomas after his tenure with AEG’s Seattle office
began, and that his relationship with Thomas is friendly and professional. They last saw each
other briefly at an event in late May 2019.81
Constantine said he has known Charles since the mid-2000s through the Seattle music
community, and likely through earlier efforts regarding live music access for people under age
twenty-one.82 Constantine said his relationship with Charles is cordial and professional, and that
they last met in Spring 2019 for about 20 minutes to discuss business and politics.83 Charles
attends political fundraising events including those for Constantine, and has donated space at
The Crocodile for events at the request of the Executive’s Office.84
Constantine and Meinert met in the 1990s while working with the Washington Music Industry
Coalition on under-21 access to music.85 Constantine said the relationship was friendly and
professional until Meinert became the subject of 2018 press articles (concerning sexual assault
and misconduct allegations). Constantine said he has not spoken with Meinert since, and their

77

jseattle, "'Change of Corporate Officer' — the paperwork of the Meinert misconduct accusations", September
18, 2018, Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2018/09/change-of-corporate-officer-thepaperwork-of-the-meinert-misconduct-accusations/ (last accessed June 17, 2019); Lester Black, "David Meinert
Sells Stake in Lost Lake and Comet Tavern", The Stranger SLOG, August 2, 2018,
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/08/02/30146767/david-meinert-sells-stake-in-lost-lake-and-comettavern (last accessed June 17, 2019); Josh Feit, "Last Night: Big Mario’s New York Style Pizza", Seattle Met, July 19,
2010, https://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2010/7/19/last-night-66 (last accessed June 17, 2019); Washington
Secretary of State, Annual Report, September 18, 2018, file:///C:/Users/StierJ/OneDrive%20%20King%20County/Downloads/0011075838_OnlineReport.pdf (last accessed June 17, 2019)
78
Washington Secretary of State, Amended Annual Report, October 8, 2018, file:///C:/Users/StierJ/OneDrive%20%20King%20County/Downloads/0011169262_OnlineReport%20(2).pdf (last accessed June 17, 2019).
79
Constantine 6/5/19 at 12:14.
80
Id. at 28:20.
81
Id. at 14:01.
82
Id. at 16:25.
83
Id. at 17:56, 18:28.
84
Charles 5/22/19 at 53:26, 02:00:47; CONSTANTINE 001540; OMSBUDS 791-793.
85
Constantine 6/5/19 at 16:15.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 15 of 76

interactions are currently nonexistent.86 Constantine also knew other individuals in the music
and restaurant communities, including The Lakeside Group (TLG) owner David Littrell (Littrell).87
Meinert said he has known Constantine through politics for years because groups Meinert was
involved in supported some of Constantine's campaigns and because Meinert personally donated
to Constantine campaigns and provided support by attending and hosting fundraisers.88 Meinert
characterized his participation in politics by saying ”I've had beers with every mayor of Seattle
except Durkan."89 The record shows Meinert and Constantine interactions have included a range
of public and personal matters over the years.90
True Interactions
True has had little or no interactions with AEG and SES representatives. She said Kochan's name
was not familiar to her and she did not believe she knew him.91 Kochan said they may have met
at some point but that his main point of contact at the County was Emerson.92 True similarly said
she does not know Thomas and believes she has never met him,93 and that she does not know
Charles and thinks she has never met or corresponded by email with him.94 True recalled meeting
Meinert once with Brown to discuss Marymoor Park's CHOMP! Festival, after she heard from
Constantine or his chief of staff that Meinert had some ideas about Marymoor Park.95
Burns Interactions
Burns said he met Kochan only one time in February 2012, has not emailed with him, and
86

Id.
Meinert 5/16/19A at 11:23; Constantine 6/5/19 at 33:50.
88
E.g., CONSTANTINE 001539-001542; CONSTANTINE 001381; CONSTANTINE 001564; CONSTANTINE 001845001853.
89
Meinert 5/16/19B at 43:05.
90
E.g., CONSTANTINE 001365, 001367 (Meinert suggested Executive Office involvement with City Center Initiative
Advisory Group); CONSTANTINE 001378 (Meinert email exchange with Constantine concerning small business
awards); CONSTANTINE 001388-90 (Meinert introduced Constantine to head of Live Nation Northwest Office);
CONSTANTINE 001493-001496 (Meinert secured tickets to a 2013 Marymoor Park concert of a band Meinert
managed); CONSTANTINE 001415-001418 (emails regarding 2014 event booked at Marymoor Park); CONSTANTINE
000313-000327 (Meinert and Thomas reserved 2016 concert tickets for Constantine); CONSTANTINE 001341,
001344 (Meinert invited Constantine to watch Seattle Seahawks games at Meinert's restaurant with Charles and
others); CONSTANTINE 000275, 000368 (Meinert and Constantine met at Meinert's 5 Point restaurant);
CONSTANTINE 001630-001639 (Meinert contacted Constantine about a food delivery company using his restaurant);
Meinert 5/16/19B at 02:01:27 and Smith 5/21/19 at 01:03:33 (Meinert joined Constantine's table at a Washington,
DC event recognizing Constantine as one of Governing magazine's 2016 Public Officials of the Year); OMSBUDS 493497 (2010 Seattle Times item including characterization of Constantine/Meinert relationship).
91
True 5/31/19 at 26:09.
92
Kochan 6/25/19 at 30:07.
93
True 5/31/19 at 26:09.
94
Id. at 25:22.
95
Id. at 24:26.
87

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 16 of 76

indicated there was no further relationship.96 Kochan said he may have met Burns (like True) at
some point, but that his main point of contact at the County was Emerson.97 Burns said he met
Thomas once in 2016, and said they had no further relationship.98 Burns said he met Charles in
February 2012 and has attended 15 to 20 meetings with him, last seeing him in 2016, and is not
friends with him.99 Burns said he met Meinert in February 2012, has attended five to seven
meetings with him, does not have a relationship with him, and has not spoken with him since
meetings in 2016.100
Burns said that in 2012 and up to the present, he did not and does not know the "exact nature"
of connections between Constantine, Meinert, and Charles.101 Burns said Brown told him that
Meinert and Charles "drop names all the time, and I just sort of was like, I don’t know who they
know and don’t know; it's kind of irrelevant to me." Burns did not recall True ever mentioning
the interactions or relationships between Constantine, Meinert, or Charles.102
AEG/SES Communications with County before 2012
Witnesses and Respondents gave differing accounts of AEG and SES communications with the
County before 2012, which sometimes corroborated and other times contradicted statements of
other witnesses.
Kochan said he had been seeking new opportunities for AEG and understood at some point that
TLG’s agreement with Parks would expire.103 Kochan said he attended a meeting with two other
AEG employees (and Dotson) of Parks in 2011, who suggested that AEG submit a proposal if they
were interested.104 The Marymoor Concert Series was a desirable opportunity, Kochan explained,
and he was immediately interested and believed AEG could produce it better than TLG.105 Kochan
submitted a proposal for AEG (dated September 30, 2011) to Parks for the Marymoor Park
Concerts "if and when those booking rights become available."106 AEG's proposal offered a threefold approach: (1) book, produce and market a minimum of 12 shows per season; (2) sell and
administer sponsorships; and (3) promote greater use of Marymoor Park and increase the
number of paid events. AEG proposed to pay Parks a minimum use fee of either $120,000 per
year or a sum comprised of five percent of ticket sales, five percent of concession sales through
a third-party concessionaire, and $2.50 per ticket sold. AEG would have the exclusive right to
96

Burns 6/3/19 at 03:26:14, 43:34.
Kochan 6/25/19 at 30:07.
98
Burns 6/3/19 at 43:34.
99
Id. at 42:09.
100
Id. at 39:01.
101
Id. at 01:17:03.
102
Id. at 03:28:07.
103
Kochan 6/25/19 at 06:45, 10:10.
104
Id. at 10:10.
105
Id. at 11:42.
106
BURNS 500. Dotson believed the proposal was a draft. Dotson 6/13/19 at 23:33, 24:11.
97

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 17 of 76

obtain sponsors and keep 100% of those revenues.107 Kochan submitted the proposal in order to
show "what [AEG] could do" in the event TLG's agreement was not renewed at the end of the
2012 concert series.108
Charles said that Dotson approached him and Meinert in 2011 about becoming the Marymoor
Park Concerts promoters because TLG was not performing well and that Parks might end the TLG
contract early. Charles and Meinert toured the Park but told Dotson they were not interested
because the concert series was not viable ("it was a dud, like no one wanted to take it over").109
Charles said Dotson kept checking back to see if there was any interest, asking what it would take
for Charles and Meinert to develop the venue's potential. Charles suggested that Parks should
involve a much larger player (AEG), but Dotson said that he had already done that and been
turned down by Kochan, who said the concert series was in disarray and would take too much
work.110 Charles said Dotson kept "coming back around trying to be the economic development
guy, and he's like, what would it take to do something with you?" Charles and Meinert told
Dotson they would need to have AEG's involvement and to have the many factors that stood in
the way of a successful concert series improved. When Dotson encouraged SES to begin that
process with Parks, they met with Kochan, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
(WSLCB), and beer companies to begin assembling a viable package.111
Meinert said Constantine told him that Marymoor Park Concerts were underperforming, that he
was interested in finding a new promoter-concessionaire team, and wondered if concert
promoters would be interested in a different proposal process. Constantine or other County
representatives also spoke with others in the concert community, including AEG and Seattle
Theater Group.112 After conferring with Charles, Meinert said they decided they did not want to
become concert promoters in part because Meinert had just begun managing a band (the
Lumineers) that saw quick and major success; Meinert owned, was opening or buying seven other
businesses at the time; and Meinert and Charles were exiting their involvement with the Capitol
Hill Block Party. While Meinert thought Marymoor Park Concerts could be better, he did not want
to be involved with either the concert or concessions side of it. Meinert was also concerned about
profitability compared to his other businesses and perceived that the concert series was
underperforming.113 Sometime after the September 2011 AEG proposal, Meinert said
Constantine approached him again indicating that the County was considering whether to issue
a request for proposals and whether Meinert would be interested. Meinert thus contacted AEG
and developed the partnership idea that resulted in Parks' first agreement with AEG and SES.114
107

BURNS 492-500.
Kochan 6/25/19 at 33:26.
109
Charles 5/22/19 at 35:20.
110
Id. at 34:11, 36:09.
111
Id. at 39:30.
112
Meinert 5/16/19A at 29:27.
113
Id. at 35:20.
114
Id. at 36:30.
108

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 18 of 76

Dotson said that Kochan and another AEG representative asked to have lunch in 2011 with
Dotson and his supervisor, Emerson,115 and that AEG was looking for growth opportunities
including outdoor venues.116 AEG advised that the concert series was desirable for them, asked
when the existing agreement would expire, and that AEG would like to submit a proposal.117
Dotson separately reached out to Meinert because the two had met when Dotson worked at One
Reel Entertainment in Seattle while Meinert had a consulting contract there. Dotson, Emerson,
Charles and Meinert met at Marymoor Park in late summer or early fall of 2011 because, as part
of Dotson's job duties, Dotson had been reaching out to marketing and production firms to
explore new event opportunities at Marymoor Park other than the concert series.118 The
discussion included Meinert’s idea to move the Capitol Hill Block Party to Marymoor as a separate
event from the concert series, and discussion about SES interest in managing Clise Mansion.119
Dotson denied that he brought up to Kochan, Meinert, or Charles the possibility that Parks might
not honor the remainder of its agreement with TLG.120
Emerson's recollections of the 2011 meeting at Marymoor Park generally track Dotson's but she
did not recall specifics of the discussion beyond Meinert mentioning contact with Constantine.121
Emerson agreed TLG had not been performing well, recalled meeting with TLG about those
concerns, and may have looked at early termination of the TLG agreement but was unaware of
anyone other than Parks working on that.122
Burns recalled that AEG had "expressed interest in and had submitted a formal proposal to Parks
for a concert series in September 2011 at Parks' invitation."123
Vision for Marymoor Park and Concert Series
Constantine described his vision for Marymoor Park as a multi-use space serving many
constituencies and used by many people in ways that burnish the County's brand and generate
positive associations with the Park and the County.124 The park should be "the premier place in
our region."125 He has described this vision to many people, including DNRP, but did not recall
whether he expressed it to Brown when he was Director of Parks.126
115

Dotson 6/13/19 at 01:45.
Id. at 09:12, 11:54.
117
Dotson 12/21/18 at 26:55, 28:38.
118
Dotson Email to Stier 6/14/19.
119
Id. at 11:54, 16:51, 17:13. Dotson email to Stier, June 14, 2019.
120
Dotson 6/13/19 at 20:10.
121
Emerson 1/23/19 at 47:38.
122
Id. at 22:37, 23:16.
123
Burns Response at 3.
124
Constantine 6/5/19 at 19:04.
125
Id. at 21:49.
126
Id. at 25:47.
116

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 19 of 76

Early in his tenure as Executive, Constantine expressed to his staff the idea of a multi-day festival
at the Park to showcase County-grown food, beverages, and music in ways that would augment
the historic County Fair in Enumclaw and be a summer draw for families.127 Constantine said,
however, that his vision has not been fully realized. Though he “pretty clearly” expressed the
vision to his staff and DNRP, he said, the plan brought to him was a much mellower, more modest
event that ended up as the "CHOMP!” festival dedicated to local foods, sustainability, and music,
which Constantine described as a “lovely, but modest” festival that “doesn’t really throw the
doors open to all things King County.” Constantine still hopes the festival he originally envisioned
can be realized, with hot air balloons possibly, pony rides, or other amusements that would “get
kids ask to their parents to bring them to the fair.”128 But, he said, there was a culture clash or
resistance within the county bureaucracy to doing “something big”, and “ultimately breaking
through that bureaucratic inertia was more than I had the time or energy to do because I have a
big county to run.”129
Sung Yang (Yang), Constantine's then-Chief of Staff and Deputy Executive, said that "vision is too
strong a word" for Constantine's ambitions for the park.130 Yang said Constantine wanted
Marymoor to be a great venue as well as a park, but "it wasn't like he had like this grand plan."131
Yang said he never had an explicit conversation with Constantine about it,132 but recalls
Constantine telling him that Meinert and Charles "might have some ideas and we should talk to
them … so I recall there was a meeting” but he didn't know when it occurred.133
DNRP Department Director True said Constantine "just in general really thought that we could
do more with Marymoor as a whole, that we could attract more activity and generate more
revenue from Marymoor, I think in concerts, but also there was an idea of trying to move the
King County Fair that's been in Enumclaw to Marymoor; so in general, those kinds of
discussions”134 True did not specifically recall how Constantine's vision was communicated to her
other than in "casual conversations", including times when she laid out maps of the park for him
and his staff to show the locations of Park features.135 True did not describe how direction was
provided to County leadership beyond an "interest[] in us looking at what the various
opportunities were … and being open to them and growing them … there was a concern about
Lakeside [TLG] … just in general not really bringing in the kind of events to Marymoor that we

127

Id. at 20:38.
Id. at 21:49, 24:35.
129
Id. at 23:40.
130
Yang 5/29/19 at 33:57.
131
Id. at 33:57, 34:29.
132
Id. at 34:47.
133
Id. at 37:04.
134
True 5/31/19 at 14:06.
135
Id. at 15:50.
128

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 20 of 76

wanted."136 True was unaware of any direction from Constantine or his office about preferred
ways to use Clise Mansion, other than maintaining its landmark status.137
DNRP Deputy Director Burns said that Yang spoke to him "on multiple occasions about, we need
to be a little … bolder and more entrepreneurial … hey, why can't Marymoor pay for itself? It’s
the kind of place that you can drive revenue."138 Those conversations occurred in Spring 2012
stemming from a recognition at DNRP and the Executive’s office that the concert series was
underperforming.139 "It wasn't a sort of, here's a three-ring binder vision; it was more
dialogue.”140
Meinert did not recall Constantine reaching out to him and Charles with a vision for Marymoor,
but rather to ask whether the Marymoor Park concerts were truly underperforming and whether
the series could be done better.141 Meinert's and Charles' thoughts were "to increase the number
of shows, to get more popular shows that sold more tickets and to create a food and beverage
area that was more attractive," and to improve the venue with better bands, production, and
marketing.142 When discussing the increased popularity of the Marymoor Park Concerts after
AEG began promoting the series, Meinert said "I would suggest it is [now] the most popular
concert series in the region of this size; and so what I see is that, you know, Dow had a vision, it
did something good, Parks picked the right promoter, and it worked."143
January 31, 2012 Gathering at Local 360 Café & Bar
Most witnesses recalled a gathering that occurred in early January 2012 at Local 360 Café & Bar
(Local 360), a restaurant owned by Charles. The witness recollections of the event varied as to
the attendees, purpose, topics discussed and outcomes of the gathering, and are summarized
below.
Brown stated that on January 31, 2012, Constantine sent a text message asking Brown to contact
him about Marymoor Park, the first time he had received a direct email, voicemail, or text from
Constantine. He called Constantine, who asked him to attend a meeting at Local 360 that night
regarding the concert series and concessions at Marymoor.144 Brown is unclear as to how much
136

Id. at 17:05.
Id. at 02:11:03.
138
Burns 6-3-19 at 29:25.
139
Id. at 30:13.
140
Id. at 31:04.
141
Meinert 5/16/19A at 55:46, 56:23.
142
Id. at 54:13.
143
Meinert 5/16/19B at 02:15:53.
144
OMSBUDS 037; Brown Follow-Up Answers at 1. Brown said Constantine told him the concert series and
concessions were the subject, but Brown also said he was not made aware of the topic before the meeting. Id.;
OMSBUDS 545 (January 31, 2012 email from Brown to Yang with subject "got message thru Bob" and stating "I was
planning on being at Local 360 at 7:00").
137

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 21 of 76

of the subject he was told ahead of time. The gathering included Constantine, Yang, Charles,
Meinert, Kochan, and Dotson (who Brown asked to attend with him).145 Brown did not know
Charles and Meinert, who introduced themselves as "good friends" of Constantine.146 Brown
described the discussion this way:
As Dow was late, Sung Yang started the meeting by stating that Dave had
contacted Dow regarding their interest in becoming the next concert series
promoter and concessionaire at Marymoor. Dave then spoke about how it was his
observation and those in the industry, that the concert series at Marymoor was
poorly managed. He introduced Alex Kochan of AEG, and they spoke of how they
could improve the concert series at Marymoor. When Dow arrived, his focus was
on what we could do now.147
Brown said Yang asked him about the length and terms of the current concert agreement and
about TLG's performance. Constantine asked whether TLG had breached any terms of the
agreement; Brown replied that he was not familiar enough with the terms to answer at that
time.148 Constantine asked him and Yang to review the concert series agreement and determine
if TLG was in breach and whether the agreement could therefore be terminated for
nonperformance. Brown concluded that "King County would then contract with AEG for a concert
series and Dave/Marcus would provide concession services."149
Constantine's June 2018 written response to Brown's Complaint states that he thought a
conversation between him and Meinert about a new version of a King County Fair at Marymoor
Park "may have led to" the Local 360 gathering.150 In his June 2019 Ombuds interview,
Constantine recalled initiating the idea for and attending a dinner during the general time frame
of Brown's allegation, and that the reason it was held at Local 360 was that Charles owned the
restaurant.151 The purpose of the gathering was "to introduce SES and AEG to Parks in order to
facilitate communications" regarding the concert series, with a goal of increasing concert
revenue to support Parks because "AEG and SES had asserted that the County was earning less
than it should from the concert series."152 Constantine knew who Brown was and recognized him
from County meetings but had little previous one-on-one contact with him; Constantine did not
specifically recall Brown in attendance but did recall that a Parks representative was present.153
145

Id.
Id.
147
Id.
148
OMSBUDS 037; Brown Follow-Up Answers at 2.
149
Id.
150
Constantine Response at 2.
151
Constantine Response at 2; Constantine 6/5/19 at 38:59 ("I was involved at least starting the ball rolling.")
152
Constantine Response at 2; See Constantine 6/5/19 at 39:21. Constantine did not recall hearing about deficiencies
with the concert series from people other than Charles and Meinert. Constantine 6/5/19 at 37:06.
153
Constantine 6/5/19 at 40:10. In a letter to the Ombuds Office dated July 1, 2019, counsel for the Respondents
asserted parenthetically that Brown was included at the January 31, 2012 gathering "in place of" True and Burns.
146

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 22 of 76

Constantine said his role was mostly to listen. He recalled "people from outside County
government telling us that we have a really nice venue that could be making more money and
hosting better concerts."154 He did not remember whether there was discussion about AEG and
SES interest in the concert series, or the TLG contract and its status.155 He did not remember
anyone saying Meinert had contacted him about an interest in being a Marymoor Park Concerts
promoter or concessionaire.156 Constantine did not recall directing that efforts be taken to
determine whether TLG was in breach of its contract. Constantine did not recall specific directives
to anyone at the conclusion of the gathering,157 and denied directing that TLG be found in
breach.158 Other than statements about wanting Marymoor Park Concerts to be a successful
series, he did not think he gave specific directions or specified any tasks to be performed; nor did
he recall tasks assigned by others at the gathering.159
Dotson recalled Brown asking him to go to the Local 360 gathering during early 2012 and that
Brown had first asked Emerson to come but was unavailable.160 Brown told Dotson that Kochan
wanted to meet with them.161 Dotson and Brown entered the restaurant together, and Dotson
noticed Yang (who he had not previously met) standing at the greeter's kiosk.162 Charles greeted
them and escorted them to a private room where they sat at a table with Constantine, Yang,
Charles, Kochan, and Meinert.163 Dotson was surprised that Constantine and Yang were present
and that the gathering took place where it did, but he was also a relatively new Parks employee
attending in place of his supervisor, so he "was kind of rolling with it."164 There was a "general
vibe" in the room concerning what Dotson felt "was some sort of relationship there … there
wasn't like introductions—for example, Dow didn't like introduce himself to Dave Meinert … in
my mind it was like people, they all knew each other from some capacity."165 Kochan shared that
AEG and SES had formed a partnership (which Dotson had not previously known) and wanted to
share a proposal. They handed out copies166 and Dotson and Brown listened to Kochan lead the
conversation, describing specific proposals for AEG, SES, and the County.167 Meinert or Charles

Letter from Susan Slonecker and Paul Lawrence to Amy Calderwood and Jon Stier, July 1, 2019, at 2. Counsel for the
Respondents later acknowledged that the record does not support that parenthetical statement. Slonecker email to
Stier, July 15, 2019.
154
Constantine 6/5/19 at 43:32.
155
Id. at 44:54.
156
Id. at 46:46.
157
Id. at 50:03.
158
Constantine Response at 2, 6.
159
Constantine 6/5/19 at 50:03.
160
Dotson 12/21/19 at 22:00, 23:38.
161
Id. at 24:50.
162
Id. at 32:48, 33:54.
163
Id. at 33:53, 35:55.
164
Id. at 47:45, 01:09:07 .
165
Id. at 01:10:59, 01:12:03.
166
Id. at 37:32, 38:35; BURNS 131-147.
167
Id. at 39:45, 45:03.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 23 of 76

explained what SES’s contribution to the partnership would be.168 Dotson and Brown were asked
about the length of TLG’s agreement with Parks and someone brought up the number of shows
TLG was producing. Dotson did not recall if the current state of the concert series itself was
discussed, though he knew AEG was aware of it; Dotson did recall someone (he does not recall
who) discussing the possibility of TLG being in breach of contract and that TLG’s agreement could
possibly be terminated for nonperformance.169 Dotson says Yang contributed to the conversation
but could not remember specifics.170 He remembered Constantine sharing the importance of the
concert series to Parks and to the County, and that he is a music fan.171 Dotson did not recall Yang
saying that Meinert had contacted Constantine about the AEG/SES partnership interest in being
the next Marymoor concert promoter and concessionaire.172 He said that after Kochan, Meinert,
and Charles finished speaking, he and Brown thanked them for sharing their proposal, and the
gathering broke up soon afterward.173 Dotson left with the understanding that AEG had formed
a partnership with SES and that they were interested in producing the Marymoor Park
Concerts.174
Emerson confirmed that Brown asked her to attend the Local 360 gathering, that she was
unavailable, and that Dotson attended in her place. She recalled receiving a brief phone call from
Dotson after the gathering, which was not unusual because he was then a recent hire and had a
habit of calling her after meetings.175 She heard that the meeting was about AEG and SES doing
a joint proposal, "sort of throwing their idea out there about what they want to do at Marymoor
Park."176 Emerson was not aware of discussions at the Local 360 gathering concerning an idea to
find TLG in breach of its agreement or to replace TLG with AEG and SES for the remaining year of
the agreement.177
Yang generally recalled the Local 360 gathering but not whose idea it was or how it came about.
He thought the other attendees may have been Charles, Meinert, Brown, Constantine, and
Burns.178 It was not unusual to schedule a meeting regarding County business off of County
property and outside normal business hours.179 He did not recall having conversations ahead of
time with County staff about the gathering.180 Yang said the purpose of the meeting was to
168

Id. at 45:31.
Id. at 42:19, 44:37, 53:24, 54:38, 01:00:34, 01:04:33.
170
Id. at 47:01.
171
Id. at 59:44.
172
Id. at 52:16.
173
Id. at 57:41.
174
Id. at 01:05:40.
175
Emerson 1/23/19 at 14:02, 15:52, 17:09.
176
Id. at 19:21.
177
Id. at 25:44.
178
Yang 5/29/19 at 50:30, 52:01. Burns denied attending the Local 360 gathering. Burns 6/3/19 at 43:40. No other
witnesses recalled Burns being in attendance.
179
Yang 5/29/19 at 52:37.
180
Id. at 56:58.
169

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 24 of 76

discuss how to improve the quality of music services at Marymoor Park and whether there were
other ideas for utilizing the asset.181 He did not recall whether he told the attendees that Meinert
had contacted Constantine about his partnership interest in being the next Marymoor promoter
and concessionaire.182 Yang said he would have asked about TLG's agreement with the County,
TLG's performance, and whether TLG was out of compliance or in breach.183 He thought he said
to someone that they should contact the Prosecuting Attorney's Office about "what they think"
and whether there is "a basis to terminate the contact.”184 Yang denied that the idea was that if
TLG could be found in breach of its agreement that it would be terminated and AEG/SES could
replace them and improve the concert series, saying "just handpicking a contractor is obviously
highly inappropriate if not a violation."185 He denied that anyone at the gathering said or implied
that AEG and SES should or would take over the concert series and concessions.186 He said the
information conveyed during the gathering was "just inputs into … what should we do next with
Marymoor.”187
Charles recalled the Local 360 gathering being about "how we can make Clise Mansion actually
work and the catering styles that you need and the sustainable message that we will be bringing
if we had Local 360 brand Clise Mansion."188 Charles testified, "I don't know how it got organized,
but you know, I'm meeting people and doing deals and, and having a conversation at high
levels.189 He did not recall discussion at Local 360 about the TLG agreement or its performance,190
and said "the very first time we met [Dotson]" he discussed ending TLG’s agreement with Parks
early, before the first time that Charles said he and Meinert declined to pursue the concert
series.191 Charles did not recall whether there was discussion at the gathering about an approach
for removing TLG and installing AEG/SES in its place.192
Meinert has no recollection of an early-2012 gathering at Local 360 with the participants
mentioned above, but allowed the possibility that it occurred since he has met with Constantine,
Yang, Kochan, Brown and Dotson several times over the years.193

181

Id. at 57:46.
Id. at 58:49.
183
Id. at 59:15.
184
Id. at 59:42.
185
Id. at 01:01:14.
186
Id. at 01:02:37.
187
Id. at 01:05:35
188
Charles 5/22/19 at 01:01:33.
189
Id. at 01:02:06.
190
Id. at 01:03:22.
191
Id. at 01:03:41.
192
Id. at 01:06:29.
193
Meinert 5/16/19A at 41:09, 41:26, 42:00.
182

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 25 of 76

Kochan recalled numerous lunch meetings with Charles and Meinert to assemble their joint
proposal to Parks, but said he had no recollection of the Local 360 gathering.194
Activity Following Local 360 Gathering
Brown summarized the immediate follow up to the Local 360 gathering in this way:
This was a priority item over the next several days with frequent check in from
Sung Yang on what progress we were making. Sung Yang updated Bob Burns, my
boss, and he was also included in the discussion. We were directed by Sung not to
put any content with respect to this issue in email, and any documents would be
draft. During this time I was primarily working with my Department Deputy
Director Bob Burns as a conduit to the Executive’s office. I expressed concerns
about what was taking place – trying to terminate a contract and replace with
friends of the Executive. I strongly conveyed to Bob that I felt it was unethical and
crossed the line and gently pushed back. Bob agreed that it sure did not look good,
but that we should proceed cautiously.195
Burns recalled Brown describing the Local 360 gathering to him after it happened, to the effect
that "there was a meeting, you don’t know about it", that it was "awkward", that persons
involved were "a little pushy", and that Brown expressed concerns about ending the TLG
agreement early.196 Burns felt a need to be careful and await the legal analysis.197
Burns did not recall discussing the gathering with Yang, but remembered Yang saying "not to
speculate over email" about whether TLG might be in breach of its contract.198 Yang did not
specifically recall whether he gave that instruction, but felt confident that he would not have
done so.199 Neither Emerson nor Dotson recalled receiving or hearing about an instruction not to
write things down about the status of TLG's agreement or the AEG/SES proposal.200
In a February 8, 2012 three-page legal memorandum addressed to Yang, the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office wrote "The option of termination is available under the contract, however,
there may be risks associated with that course of action" due to a potentially ambiguous term
that a court could or might construe against the County, resulting in litigation over the
termination.201 The next evening, February 9, 2012, Yang sent Constantine a pdf copy of the TLG
194

Kochan 6/25/19 at 50:27.
OMSBUDS 037-038.
196
Burns 6/3/19 at 52:04.
197
Id. at 01:02:10.
198
Id. at 53:00, 01:05:23.
199
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:09:19, 01:09:58; 01:10:44.
200
Emerson 1/23/19 at 27:10; Dotson 12/21/19 at 01:26:13.
201
BURNS 038-040 (no “draft” marking); OMSBUDS at 552 (first page of legal memorandum, watermarked “DRAFT”).
195

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 26 of 76

agreement and his assessment that the agreement was "very poorly written."202 Later that
evening, Yang sent Constantine a longer update that said in part:
It sounds like Meinert's highest priority is to secure the long term contract with
Parks to have events and concerts starting in 2013. I will get a better sense for this
in a 10:00 am phone call tomorrow with Meinert and Alex. They'll tell us whether
AEG believes it can secure [travelling music festival] Warped this year and, if not,
what else they would do on August 4.203
After discussing various scenarios and specific terms of the TLG agreement (which included TLG's
affiliate Live Nation), Yang concluded his Marymoor update as follows:
I guess the question for us is whether we want to give exclusive dates to AEG this
year and risk a legal confrontation with Livenation. We also may not get the
Warped tour regardless of whether we give exclusive dates to AEG. On the other
hand, Livenation has clearly not upheld their end of the bargain. Unless you have
feedback about this, I will follow up with you tomorrow after talking with Meinert.
I also have legal memo draft per our earlier conversation. Idea is to get done for
your return to office.204
Yang stated he did not know whether the decision of how to proceed with the TLG agreement
was in the hands of the Executive's Office or Parks, but that they "were both working on it
together." In such situations, Yang said he would begin with the department involved, defer to
their expertise, listen, and give guidance based on their feedback.205 True said "we were all
involved" in the decision but that "potentially the Executive could be the final decisionmaker."206
King County did not terminate the TLG agreement early.
Burns stated that in February/March 2012, AEG and SES jointly approached the County about the
Marymoor Park Concerts and other potential events at Marymoor Park, and that Yang arranged
"a couple of meetings" between himself, Yang, Burns, and AEG/SES representatives.207 Brown
denied attending any meetings that included all of those participants from 2012 through 2015
based on his recollections and review of his calendar. Brown also stated he was not aware of such
meetings, but said it was possible that Burns and Yang separately met with AEG and SES.208 Burns
stated that he and Yang did steer AEG and SES to the Big Ideas proposal process in

202

CONSTANTINE 000015.
Id. at 000204.
204
Id.
205
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:16:29.
206
True 5/31/19 at 42:18.
207
Burns Response at 3.
208
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 1.
203

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 27 of 76

February/March 2012, and told them to submit a proposal if they were interested in becoming
the next promoter and concessionaire.209
Brown stated to the Ombuds that Parks "made very clear" to the Executive's Office in early 2012
that it did not want to receive concert and concessionaire proposals through the Big Ideas
process, but rather through a competitive public RFP process.210 However, in support of that
assertion, Brown provided only an undated three-page draft document, titled "Proposal to King
County Parks", which states that "Last night King County Parks received a proposal from a
potential partner to exclusively produce/book the concert series, King County Fair, large-scale
events and general events at Marymoor." In a "Recommendation" column on the first page, the
document states "2012 – Status quo" and "2013 – Open RFP for competitive bid."211 Under a
separate "Parks recommendation" heading at the end of the third page, the document states
"Pursue new partnership in 2013 and beyond."
Brown stated that shortly after the Prosecuting Attorney's Office produced its memorandum on
breach and termination of the TLG agreement, Yang directed Brown to tell his staff that Parks
would not be developing a competitive RFP using the standard process managed by the
Procurement Section within the County's Finance and Business Operations Division (FBOD).212
Instead, Brown said Parks was to use the Big Ideas process, which he characterized as "a little
known tool."213 Yang did not recall what proposal process was used, or whether there was any
direction provided to Parks about using Big Ideas.214 Dotson recalled that AEG/SES used Big Ideas
for their 2012 Marymoor contracting proposal due to the Local 360 gathering and their
knowledge of that portal.215 However, Emerson recalled that Parks had planned to use Big Ideas
but she did not recall whether she had understood there was to be a choice between using that
portal or the more formal competitive procurement system. Emerson was not aware of Parks
being directed or urged to use Big Ideas by senior County officials.216
AEG/SES Joint Proposal Submission to Parks
Kochan testified that he initially developed a relationship with Meinert through his interest in
booking an AEG-supported national tour for The Lumineers, a band Meinert managed.217 When
Kochan later approached Meinert in 2010 or 2011 to discuss a joint proposal for Marymoor
concerts, Kochan said Meinert indicated he had submitted a proposal regarding Marymoor the
209

Burns Response at 3.
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 1.
211
OMSBUDS 048-050.
212
OMSBUDS 038; Brown Follow-Up Answers at 4.
213
Brown Follow-Up Answers at 4.
214
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:36:20, 01:37:19.
215
Dotson 12/21/18 at 01:22:03.
216
Emerson 1/23/19 at 36:48.
217
Kochan 6/25/19 at 23:05.
210

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 28 of 76

year before, but he didn't get the business.218 Kochan's recollection is that it was his idea for AEG
and SES to prepare a joint proposal, and that he "wrote the proposal" with SES providing pieces
regarding the work they had agreed SES would perform and adding graphics prior to the joint
proposal's submission to the County.219 When asked if he knew whether Meinert had any
relationships with key people at King County, including Constantine, Kochan answered that he
assumed Meinert had knowledge of those people due to his involvement in the market, but that
he did not recall Meinert indicating his relationship with Constantine or others would be a factor
that would help the joint proposal. Further, Kochan stated that even if Meinert had made such a
statement, "I don't know that I would have believed that anyway if he said it."220 Kochan testified
that he "just assumed that the course of proposing was the same thing that we did with Dotson
and Emerson, and now I would make a stronger proposal because .. we had a concession piece
and … part of the deal was reviving … a historic building and upgrading everything that had to do
with food and beverage."221
Meinert submitted the AEG/SES joint Marymoor Park proposal for a five-year term by email
directly to Brown on March 26, 2012.222 Brown believed the email "stated they expected us to
quickly award them the new contract."223 The relevant sentence in Meinert's email reads "We'd
love to get a contract finished quickly to allow us to start on the 2013 planning."224
The submission to Parks proposed that AEG guarantee a minimum of twelve shows with a goal
of up to twenty; sell sponsorships with SES and Parks; promote Marymoor Park to attract other
events like large-scale outdoor festivals; develop a new nationally-recognized festival "akin to
Coachella or New Orleans Jazz Fest"; and bring corporate special events to the amphitheater. SES
pledged to manage Clise Mansion booking, catering, and events "utilizing a sustainable mission
similar to our restaurant Local 360"; become the sole Marymoor Park state liquor licensee;
develop and use produce for Clise Mansion events from the Willowmoor Farmstead garden in
Marymoor Park; develop additional programming for Willowmoor Farmstead and Clise Mansion;
and work with AEG, Parks and others to develop "a reimagined" or "future King County Fair."225
Key terms offered by AEG in the joint proposal included the greater of a minimum annual "use
fee" of $120,000 for the concert venue, or 5% gross ticket sales and artist merchandise sales plus
$2.50 per ticket sold. Key terms offered by SES in the joint proposal included SES payment of the
leasehold excise tax of 12.84%; payment to King County of 10% gross concession sales, 42% gross
218

Id. at 42:18-43:32. Kochan later stated, in response to a clarifying question, "I don't know that [Meinert] said
"submitted" [a proposal for Marymoor concessions]. He said he tried to get it."
219
Id. at 51:50.
220
Id. at 48:37.
221
Id. at 48:37.
222
OMSBUDS 553.
223
OMSBUDS 047.
224
OMSBUDS 553.
225
BURNS 131-147.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 29 of 76

rental receipts for Clise Mansion, and 20% of "partnering services receipts." AEG and SES further
proposed that they and Parks would collaborate to obtain and implement concert series
sponsorships with revenue divided equally three ways after a 20% finders fee paid to the partner
that secured the sponsorship.226 The proposal noted that SES was willing to "invest capital in Clise
Mansion" for a new kitchen and updated restrooms," and said they were "well connected and
politically active" and "willing to partner on parks [sic] levee campaigns."227
AEG/SES proposed County responsibilities for maintenance and repair of the concert venue and
Clise Mansion (to the standard of a "first class facility in the United States"); work with SES to
provide reasonable infrastructure to operate concessions; and perform structural maintenance
and capital improvements to Clise Mansion."228 The joint proposal contemplated that AEG and
SES would negotiate separate agreements with the County that would run concurrently with the
other, apparently owing to the commitments offered by SES regarding management and
operation of Clise Mansion which would not have directly involved AEG.229
Monqui Presents' Proposal Submission to Parks
Portland, Oregon, based Monqui Presents (Monqui) is a live-music promoter and production
company,230 and one of five such firms that may have had the capacity to produce the Marymoor
Park Concerts in 2012 and 2013 (the others were AEG, Live Nation, One Reel, and Seattle Theater
Group).231 During and before 2012, Monqui contacted Parks to share its interest in the concert
series and to ask about the expiration of TLG’s agreement. Parks occasionally reached out to
Monqui about the concert series.232 Brown stated that Monqui called Parks to inquire about the
concert series in roughly the same time frame that Parks received the AEG/SES proposal.233 Parks
had informed Monqui of the opportunity to manage and operate Clise Mansion,234 but Parks did
not specifically ask Monqui to respond to the Clise Mansion opportunity as part of the 2012
proposal process, and Monqui did not know what weight Parks might accord to the quality, depth
or details of proposed Clise Mansion terms.235

226

Kochan testified that there is no industry standard for sponsorship terms, but rather "what do you need to do in
order to make the deal work?" Kochan 6/25/19 at 01:23:49.
227
BURNS 135.
228
BURNS 135, 141-143.
229
OMSBUDS 026. Parks' agreement with TLG, as well as the 2011 AEG and 2012 Monqui proposals all included
terms allowing the concert promoter to sell food and beverage concessions itself of through a subcontractor.
230
http://www.monqui.com/ (last accessed June 23, 2019).
231
Dotson 6/13/19 at 04:40; Charles said no local promoter had capacity to produce the Marymoor Park Concerts at
the scale Parks envisioned. Charles 5/22/19 at 36:09.
232
Emerson 1/23/19 at 41:48; Dotson 12/21/19 at 28:45; OMSBUDS 038.
233
OMSBUDS 038.
234
Dotson 12/21/18 at 01:49:42.
235
Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:51:53; Dotson 12/21/18 at 01:50:30.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 30 of 76

Brown said that "when [he] informed Bob Burns and Sung Yang that we had another interested
party which we wanted to consider, I was directed to tell my staff by Sung Yang to put an artificial
ending date in place two weeks out so no additional parties could submit proposals."236 Yang
recalled discussion about what the timeline should be in order to administer the selection
process, but he denied directing any aspect of the timeline.237 Burns said he, Yang, and Brown
met to discuss Monqui's interest and Burns thought the two week period suggested by Yang was
reasonable because "it was after the timeline in which Kevin was suggesting that the other party
was going to submit a proposal."238 True said that whether a timeline is imposed for Big Ideas
proposals varied, but indicated that timelines could be set if appropriate to a specific kind of
proposal.239 A lawyer contacted Parks in late June 2012 seeking an extension of the proposal
timeline for a client that wished to participate. Parks denied the request.240
Monqui's proposal, dated May 7, 2012, offered a five-year agreement with the County to produce
a minimum of twelve shows up to a maximum of twenty shows. It pledged to the County a
$150,000 annual guarantee from all revenue streams, and a 50/50 split on all venue and series
sponsorships, minus a 15-17.5% fee if Monqui were to hire an outside vendor to solicit the
sponsorships. Monqui offered 10% of gross ticket sales to the County, as well as 10% of food and
beverage concessions that it would sell itself or through a Monqui-contracted concessionaire.
Monqui proposed that it have exclusive use of the concert areas during the concert season and
that it would have the exclusive right to book national or regional touring acts at Marymoor Park.
The proposal included general "venue upgrades" as "topics of discussion" but did not mention
Clise Mansion or the development of other events at the park.241
Parks' Process and Decision after Receiving Monqui Proposal
On May 21, 2012, Yang called Burns for an update on the selection process. Burns asked Parks to
produce a short overview including selection criteria. Emerson summarized the timeline by email,
including notification of award by June 15, and July/August for negotiation of the agreement.242
She summarized the selection criteria as follows:
•
•
•
236

Revenue for Parks
Vision for the series (user experience, public perception, aesthetics)
Event related logistics, tasks, marketing, promotion and labor

OMSBUDS 038; Brown Follow-Up Answers at 5.
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:40:02.
238
Burns 6/3/19 at 01:19:42
239
True 5/31/19 at 50:17.
240
OMSBUDS 576. The lawyer said recently he did not recall which of his clients wanted to participate, as it could
have been one of several, and said he did not believe Parks’ process used in 2012 was fair. Telephone conversation
with Allen Draher, June 24, 2019.
241
OMSBUDS 116-121.
242
OMSBUDS 123-126.
237

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 31 of 76

•

Collaborative partnership243

Yang, Burns, and Brown met before Parks conducted its final review. During that meeting, Burns
said that Brown asserted his staff preferred Monqui. Burns perceived this was due to Monqui's
smaller size, which he said made them easier to manage. Yang favored a bigger, more
entrepreneurial promoter to transform Marymoor into a regional destination.244 According to
Burns, when Yang heard Brown's preference Yang "emphasized that the review should also
include consideration of AEG’s size and reach, potential opportunities for new events with SES,
and other intangibles (such as the fact that one of SES’s employees managed successful
bands)."245 Burns acknowledged that Brown "was directed to ensure that Parks staff included
additional factors into the evaluation process," but Burns denied telling Brown or Parks staff "that
they should choose AEG/SES over a better qualified candidate."246
Brown's version of the meeting is different, and he stated numerous times that Meinert and
Charles were difficult to work with.247 He denies that he stated a preference for Monqui to Yang
or Burns at that time, and stated he was "directed before the interviews took place that AEG/SES
would be awarded the contract and the justification was the intangibles brought to the table by
SES."248 Brown added that "[t]he basis of this contract and interviews was supposed to be about
securing a new promoter for the concert venue. It was not about the Clise Mansion or other
events in the park."249 Brown stated that Parks' calculations showed "Monqui would have
generated more revenue than AEG/SES for Parks within and related to the concert venue," citing
a draft "Concert Series Comparison" that Parks produced.250 (As to that, Burns thought the
revenue estimates were not "all that clear" based on terms he recalled from the two
proposals.251)
Dotson recalled that the elements of the AEG/SES proposal related to Clise Mansion, and SES’s
desire to explore new events there like the sustainability festival and pop-up food truck events,
were the deciding factors in Parks decision to select AEG/SES because an analysis Dotson
produced showed that concert revenues from the AEG/SES proposal were comparable to those

243

Id.
Burns 6/3/19 at 01:33:09. True's testimony was that Brown had indicated Parks staff preferred Monqui because
staff felt "Monqui was easier to work with than AEG/SES and that the concert revenue that they proposed sharing
with Parks was higher." True Response at 2.
245
Burns Response at 5.
246
Id.
247
E.g., OMSBUDS 039; Brown Follow-Up Answers at 7.
248
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 3.
249
Brown Follow-Up Answers at 7.
250
Id. at 7 and Attachment; BURNS 885 (slightly varying version of same attachment); Burns Response at 4 (reasons
Burns believed the two proposals required additional consideration); Brown Answer to Burns Response at 3 (reasons
why Brown ultimately believed Monqui's proposal was superior).
251
Burns 6/3/19 at 01:35:56.
244

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 32 of 76

Parks had received under its agreement with TLG.252 Dotson did not recall receiving direction
from the DNRP Director’s Office or Executive's Office about changing or adding scoring criteria.253
Emerson recalled that SES’s pledges about Clise Mansion "put them over the line, 254 and said she
was not aware of Burns or Yang adding criteria or new factors to the evaluation of the two
proposals.255
At the same meeting concerning factors/criteria for selecting a promoter and concessionaire,
Brown said Yang and Burns directed him to be part of the Parks team reviewing the AEG/SES and
Monqui proposals. As Parks Director since 2006, Brown claimed he had never before been a part
of a bid review process.256 Burns said that he, Yang, and Brown discussed the composition of
Parks' proposal review team and that Burns and Yang told Brown he needed to either convey the
review criteria the three men had just discussed to Brown's staff, or Brown needed to be a part
of the review team.257 Yang denied knowing of any input or communications from the Executive’s
Office regarding who would be on the review team, although it was possible that Parks told Yang
and he no longer recalls.258
Emerson was part of the Parks review process and said she and Dotson compared the two
proposals side by side.259 Emerson testified that "… we were very careful just to make sure that
we're, I would say neutral in that, but at the same time I did feel like in the back of my head; this
is an important customer to the Executive."260 Dotson recalled that he, Brown, Emerson, and
Parks contracting expert John Villapudua served on an "informal scoring committee", but also
said he did not remember the exact composition of the committee.261
Parks selected the AEG/SES proposal. Negotiations began in Summer 2012, the last season of
TLG’s Marymoor agreement with Parks.262
Parks Negotiation and Approval of AEG Concert Series Contract
Emerson led the County contract negotiations with AEG through contract execution, with support
from the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO).263 Kochan recalled that he and AEG’s lawyers in
Los Angeles negotiated with Parks, and said "there were a few things that [Parks] didn't like …
252

Dotson 12/21/18 at 02:03:29; Dotson 12/24/18 at 04:07, 05:58; BURNS 889.
Dotson 12/21/18 at 01:51:49.
254
Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:26:49.
255
Id. at 42:32.
256
OMSBUDS 039; Brown Follow-Up Answers at 7.
257
Burns 6/3/19 at 01:32:57; 01:34:16.
258
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:37:59.
259
Emerson 1/23/19 at 39:03.
260
Id. at 44:43.
261
Dotson 12/21/18 at 01:44:23.
262
Burns Response at 5.
263
Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:00:35.
253

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 33 of 76

issues with sound, with the neighbors, and so we came up with [the idea of] let's see how it goes
and if it's bad we'll spend some money on the next season to … moderate the noise."264 True
recalled that she was not involved in the negotiations but received progress updates from Burns
during their normal one-on-one meetings because he was involved.265 Burns did not recall that
he was involved at all in the AEG negotiation, other than to answer periodic questions from
Emerson.266 Yang generally recalled being involved with or tracking both AEG and SES
agreements.267
Brown said the process with AEG was "relatively straightforward with very little negotiation ….
The AEG contract mirrored their proposal. It was not a long negotiation process."268 In materials
submitted with his April 11, 2018 Whistleblower Complaint, Brown charged that both AEG and
SES sought and received exclusive rights to all of Marymoor Park due to pressure from the
Executive's Office; whereas he stated Parks had been clear that the agreements would extend
only to the concert venue and Clise Mansion.269 In Brown's quotation above (submitted to the
Ombuds on May 30, 2018) he appears to abandon the allegation of pressure from the Executive's
Office regarding AEG, though he has maintained it regarding SES.
Brown and Kochan signed the AEG agreement on January 24, 2013.270 The final AEG/Parks
agreement grants AEG exclusive rights to any Park event at which live music is a "primary
featured event", and grants Parks the right to schedule events where live music is not a "primary
or featured attraction."271
Parks Negotiation and Approval of SES Concession Contract
True stated that "negotiations with SES became more challenging."272 Yang said County staff
were frustrated with SES because they were "heavy-handed" and would "agree to something and
then they try to get more."273 Emerson said:
The whole negotiation was a moving target…. [Dotson] would get off the phone
with [Charles], write an email and say, this is what we talked about. We'd put it in
the contract. Their lawyers would look at it or they would look at it, and then we
would be doing another thing, something completely different. So then we would
264

Kochan 6/25/19 at 01:16:09.
True 5/31/19 at 10:46.
266
Burns 6/3/19 at 02:00:10; Burns Response at 5.
267
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:23:38.
268
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 3.
269
OMSBUDS 040.
270
Email attachment from Emerson to Stier, 6/26/19 per request.
271
Special Use Agreement between King County Parks and Recreation Division and AEG Live NW, LLC (hereafter
"2013 Parks/AEG Agreement"), January 24, 2013, at 2.
272
True Response at 3.
273
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:54:57, 01:55:03.
265

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 34 of 76

change the contract or have another conversation about how that doesn't work
for [Parks], how that might not work for [SES].274
After Parks' had awarded both the AEG and SES contracts, Brown said "it became very clear that
SES was looking for a different agreement than what they proposed. One issue after another
arose."275 Brown stated that:
No less than 50 times did I make my concerns known to my bosses, Christie True
and Bob Burns. … At the end, due to my comments and opposition, I was removed
from any negotiations. The final contract was negotiated by Sung Yang and Bob
Burns.276
True denies that Brown was removed from the contracting process.277 True testified that her
understanding was that Parks staff other than Brown negotiated the SES contract, not Brown,
whose involvement she characterized as the "normal role as a Division director, probably being
kept appraise[d], but he was not at the negotiation table."278
Burns stated that he was only marginally involved in the SES negotiations from summer 2012
until early-January 2013, when he became more involved after SES complained to Parks and the
Executive Office about negotiations stalling and Yang requested that Burns assist in finalizing the
deal.279 Burns testified that his understanding was that Dotson was the lead negotiator of the SES
contract, not Brown, and though he didn't understand that there was any problem with Brown's
involvement in the SES negotiations, he didn't think Brown was that involved in the negotiations
until January.280
Burns said his objective at the time was to reach an agreement to protect the County on risk and
liability given that negotiations had dragged out for six months and SES had already covered four
events without an agreement in place.281 Email communications between Burns and True
274

Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:04:01.
OMSBUDS at 039.
276
OMSBUDS 780-781; OMSBUDS 040-041 (Brown indicates he was extremely upset when he learned the language
he requested "was then dropped when Sung Yang and Bob Burns negotiated the final contract."); Dotson 12/21/19
at 2:00:02 (Dotson states that he thought Parks was "still in negotiation" with SES and "neither Kevin, Jessica, or I or
anyone kind of working on and then negotiating this agreement was aware of that or had agreed on the final terms
of the agreement.").
277
True Response at 11.
278
True 5/31/19 at 1:33:16; Burns and True provide contradictory testimony here. Burns stated that Dotson was the
lead for the SES contract negotiation and True stated that Emerson was the lead. The documentary record indicates
that both were involved in the negotiations. See BURNS 222-223 (Burns email to True "I talked to Kevin yesterday
about how to help Ryan and Jessica get sharper on contract details.").
279
Burns Response at 6, citing to BURNS 194-221.
280
Burns 6/3/19 at 2:38:42-2:41:21.
281
Burns Response at 7.
275

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 35 of 76

reference Brown's concerns with AEG and SES as partners but also show Brown's continuing
involvement with the SES contract negotiations on January 25, 2013 and note that Burns "told
him that's something for him to manage, and steer into something more positive."282 The
contract with SES was signed by Brown on January 28, 2013.
When asked whether he was informed that Brown had been removed from the AEG and SES
contract negotiations, Yang testified that "No, in fact, I kind of assumed that he was there the
whole time helping support … Bob and myself."283
The relevant portion of Brown's materials submitted in support of his Whistleblower Complaint
focuses mainly on four issues that arose during the SES contract negotiations: exclusive
concession rights, payment of the leasehold excise tax, Cirque du Soleil, and Clise Mansion. Each
is discussed below.
Exclusive Concession Rights
AEG and SES initially proposed that SES would "act as the exclusive concessionaire at Clise
Mansion and food and beverage concessionaire for 'the Venue'", defined as "the concert venue
at Marymoor Park."284 During negotiations, Brown said SES expanded its request to be the
concessionaire for the entire park.285 Dotson said that he, Brown and Emerson disagreed with
that because Parks had many partners that scheduled small events in the Park (like private
picnics) where the partner obtained a banquet permit allowing alcohol service, "and we didn't
feel like they should have to contract with SES to do that."286 Emerson explained that non-profit
organizations have events in the Park "where the alcohol is actually a bit of a revenue generator
for them, and if they have to give a cut to SES, well, they're not going to come to us anymore."287
Burns recalled an interaction in October 2012 where Brown informed him:
that they were close to an agreement with AEG but had run into difficulties with
SES (through SES's principals, David Meinert and Marcus Charles) regarding
exclusivity. In that email, Mr. Brown indicated that he had talked to Mr. Yang
about Parks' desire to carve out of the concession agreement with SES about a
dozen events that had historically occurred at Marymoor Park and had their own

282

BURNS 222-223.
Yang 5/29/19 at 1:33:30-1:33:53.
284
BURNS 141.
285
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 3; Dotson 12/21/19 at 02:11:41.
286
Dotson 12/21/19 at 02:12:15.
287
Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:14:42; Brown Answer to Burns Response at 3 (partners included "very small non-profits,
who would often have an annual event to fundraise").
283

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 36 of 76

food and beverage arrangements in place, and that Mr. Yang wanted to see the
list of those events and groups.288
Burns said he met with Yang, reiterated the need for the carve-out, and it was ultimately included
in the final Parks/SES agreement.289 Emerson said Parks "got most of what we wanted" on that
issue.290 Yang said he did not recall the episode.291
Leasehold Excise Tax
Leasehold excise tax (LET) is "a tax on the use of public property by [a] private party … in lieu of
the property tax."292 The AEG/SES proposal stated that SES "will pay the applicable leasehold
excise tax … pursuant to Chapter 82.29A of the Revised Code of Washington … currently set at
12.84%" and that SES would pay the LET on "all Clise Mansion rental fees" collected by SES.293
Brown said LET "is normally passed on to the party leasing public property" but that "SES
contacted [Yang] and indicated to him that Parks never made them aware of this tax, even though
it was identified in their original proposal." Brown stated that Yang asked Burns to resolve this
issue, after which Brown, Burns, and Dotson met with Charles, who reiterated SES' position that
the LET information was new, SES could not afford to pay it, and SES would not manage Clise
Mansion if it were forced to do so.294 According to Burns, Yang suggested that he "assist in
finalizing the deal" in January 2013.295 Yang did not recall anything about the LET issue.296 Charles
pointed out that SES' initial proposal had included SES exclusivity for Clise Mansion, and SES no
longer felt it should pay LET after SES consented to a non-exclusive Clise Mansion concession
contract.297
However, Emerson, Dotson, and Brown explained that in anticipation of the AEG/SES deal, Parks
and SES had defined the "premises" to which the state liquor license would apply as comprising
the concert venue, event pad where Cirque du Soleil performs, and Clise Mansion. SES obtained
a state liquor license with the premises so defined. Because of an interpretation of state liquor
laws that would prohibit more than one holder of a liquor license for the same "premises", SES

288

Burns Response at 5.
Id. at 5-6.
290
Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:15:36; Dotson 12/21/19 at 02:14:20 ("a compromise was struck"); OMSBUDS 232-233,
251 (contract carve-out provision; list of small events).
291
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:45:02.
292
https://dor.wa.gov/find-taxes-rates/other-taxes/leasehold-excise-tax (last accessed June 23, 2019).
293
BURNS 141.
294
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 11.
295
Burns Response at 6.
296
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:46:23.
297
Charles 5/22/19 at 01:30:33; BURNS 141 (The 2012 joint AEG/SES proposal stated "SES shall be the exclusive
concessionaire at Clise Mansion").
289

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 37 of 76

functionally had the exclusive right to serve alcohol at Clise Mansion (other than small legacy
events, regardless of whether the Parks/SES agreement included exclusivity on its face).298
Brown said Parks staff ultimately felt they could concede the LET issue to SES because Parks
expected to receive significant revenue from SES-managed Clise Mansion events during the
contract term.299 Burns' written response to Brown's Whistleblower Complaint states "Parks
indicated the LET was a small dollar amount and that Parks would approve of removing it. Based
on that representation, Mr. Burns agreed with removing the LET."300
Cirque du Soleil
Brown said SES wanted to be the concessionaire for the Cirque du Soleil series, which was "a six
week tour comprised of roughly 60 shows" at the Park "event pad", an open area separate from
the concert venue within the Park. Though the initial AEG/SES proposal did not include the Cirque
du Soleil series, Brown said Parks agreed on condition that Parks receive 10% of concession
revenues.301 Burns stated that before he became involved in negotiations in January 2013, Parks
had agreed to a contract term designating SES the exclusive concessionaire for the event pad and
requiring SES to pay Parks 10% of concession revenues for all Cirque du Soleil events except for
the imminent 2013 performances. Charles complained that paying Parks 10% of concession
revenue in addition to the 35% that he stated Cirque du Soleil wanted from SES "makes it almost
not worth doing, unless there is a certain volume, which according to Cirque, they can deliver."302
Charles further objected conceptually, stating "At the end of the day, SES doesn't understand
how the right to concessions can be effectively sold to both Cirque and SES by the County under
separate agreements for separate amounts due."303
Through Burns' direct negotiations with SES, the final agreement states "the Concessionaire shall
pay the County a fee of ten percent (10%) of gross receipts, except for gross receipts from the
Cirque du Soleil Event in 2013."304 Burns later stated that the term meant SES would pay Parks

298

Dotson 12/21/19 at 02:25:02; 02:28:08; Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:12:50, 01:15:36; Brown Answer to Burns
Response at 11. Emerson said state liquor laws are "very gray" and difficult to navigate. In 2014 (the year after the
AEG/SES contracts were executed), Parks met with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board to gain clarity,
but "we can never really get a clear answer from that agency." Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:15:36, 01:58:03. Brown
Answer to Burns Reply at 12 (Liquor and Cannabis Board recognizes that "liquor license laws are really complicated").
299
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 11; see Dotson 12/21/18 at 02:44:06 ("our final negotiation, it was like, you
know what, if you manage and operate Clise Mansion we’ll pay the leasehold excise tax … but you need to stay true
to what you proposed…. I feel like we really bent over backwards to make it work and … accommodate their needs").
300
Burns Response at 6; OMSBUDS 271.
301
OMSBUDS 040; Dotson 12/21/18 at 02:23:05 (recalling that Parks was "OK with" SES having concession rights for
Cirque du Soleil, as a precedent for that was set in the previous agreement with Premier Properties); Id. at 02:27:50
("lucrative" Cirque du Soleil concessions).
302
OMSBUDS 213.
303
Id.
304
OMSBUDS 234.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 38 of 76

10% for all Cirque du Soleil events after the 2013 series.305 Emerson said she had shared that
understanding.306 Brown noted the agreement does not explicitly provide for future Cirque du
Soleil events and there was no guarantee that Cirque du Soleil would return to Marymoor Park
because Parks and Cirque du Soleil (which historically visits the park every other year) were then
in the fourth year of a five-year agreement.307 Brown said that conceding the 10% fee in the
agreement was a result of "pressure to get the contracts negotiated" from the Executive's Office
after Yang became "heavily involved."308
Clise Mansion
Brown and Burns agree that when Burns expanded his role into direct negotiations with SES in
January 2013, the draft agreement still contained SES’ initial proposal to become the exclusive
concessions vendor for Clise Mansion.309 SES would pay Parks $300 per month rent, 10% of all
concessions revenue, 42% of rental receipts, and 20% of partnering services.310 The AEG/SES
proposal stated that SES would "manage, book, and cater gatherings at Clise Mansion" and
"Develop additional programming" there.311 Charles, however, became dissatisfied with this.
Burns stated "SES claimed it learned late in the negotiations that there was a long date hold in
place at Marymoor's event pad for Cirque du Soleil and that concert holds and historic carve-outs
during the summer months would negatively impact SES's ability to plan and hold events at the
event pad and at Clise Mansion."312 Burns and Charles continued to negotiate in late January
2013, with Burns proposing and Charles rejecting an idea to sign a one-year agreement to ensure
that the upcoming 2013 Cirque du Soleil events and the concert series had concessions, which
would give Parks and SES more time to work on disputed issues.313 Brown said SES indicated in
late January 2013 that it was no longer interested in managing Clise Mansion or promoting special
events there and elsewhere in the Park due to the profit margins being lower than SES had
hoped.314
Commitments offered by SES regarding Clise Mansion in its 2012 proposal with AEG had been a
key Parks goal (Parks business development staff said they viewed them as the deciding factor in

305

Burns Response at 6.
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:06:53.
307
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 5.
308
OMSBUDS 040.
309
Burns Response at 6; Brown Answer to Burns Response at 5.
310
Id.
311
BURNS 140.
312
Burns Response at 6; Charles 5/22/19 at 01:23:42, 01:35:09 (discussing "squabbles" about Clise Mansion and lack
of certainty about Cirque du Soleil booking dates and practices); Brown Answer to Burns Response at 7 ("given that
the event pad is roughly ½ mile away from the Clise Mansion, there would be no impact by Cirque on the Clise").
313
Burns Response at 7. Brown stated that the idea of a one-year agreement was True's and that Burns said he would
speak with Yang about it. Brown Answer to Burns Response at 14.
314
OMSBUDS 040.
306

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 39 of 76

awarding the AEG/SES contract over Monqui).315 The final agreement provided SES with facially
nonexclusive vendor rights to Clise Mansion and did not commit SES to any Clise Mansion
operations, management or investments.316 When Brown learned about the final compromises
in the SES contract, Brown said he was:
extremely upset … I stated that I still wanted their original proposal … I requested
to get one paragraph installed [stating] KC and SES would agree to meet and
explore new events within 6 months…. This language was then dropped when
Sung Yang and Bob Burns negotiated the final contract.
At each step of the way I relayed to Bob Burns that I felt this … process and
relationship was inappropriate. In addition, we were being taken advantage of and
I did not believe it was in the best interest of Parks to continue … with SES. It was
very clear to me that … Marcus Charles and Dave Meinert were using their
relationship with Executive Dow Constantine to negotiate an agreement which
allowed them to take those elements which were very lucrative at Marymoor Park
… and stripping out all of the pieces which were not as lucrative.317
On January 25, 2013, Brown said he told Burns and True that "I did not support the [SES] contract
and I would not sign." Brown said Burns called him late that night and "let me know that he
expected me to sign the agreement on Monday."318 Burns remembered the call and said he
"believed that while Mr. Brown had concerns, he was on board to move forward with the
agreement."319
Burns sent Brown an email the morning of January 28, 2013 with the final draft of the SES
contract, stating "Kevin, see attached. Let's discuss and sign this morning. Bob."320 Burns, Brown
and Parks Deputy Director Katy Terry (Terry) met that morning, where Brown says he reiterated
his objection that the final draft was "a bad contract for the County to enter into. Bob directed
that I sign."321 Burns recalled that he "urged [Brown] to sign…. I was absolutely saying, I think you
should sign this, I think we should sign this, I think this is a good, fair deal."322 Brown "thought
long and hard" about whether to sign the contract and finally did so "with the letters UD between
my first and last name" to signify that he was "signing under duress."323 Brown said he signed the
contract that way rather than complain to the Ombuds at that time, because he had a small child
315

Dotson 12/24/18 at 07:40; Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:26:49.
OMSBUDS 232-251.
317
OMSBUDS 040-041.
318
Id. at 041.
319
Burns Response at 7.
320
Id. at 581.
321
Id. at 041.
322
Burns 6/3/19 at 02:46:10, 02:47:42; 02:48:47.
323
OMSBUDS 041 (bold font in original); OMSBUDS 244 (SES agreement signature page included "Kevin UD Brown").
316

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 40 of 76

at home, his husband was primarily a stay-at-home parent, Brown thought the SES contract
would be a one-time-only arrangement, and he was concerned about possible repercussions.324
Terry confirmed her contemporaneous understanding that Brown meant "UD" to mean "under
duress" and recalled Brown wanted her to witness the signature because "he felt like he was
being pressured to sign … [a]nd should anything ever come of it, that he wanted somebody to
have seen that."325 When asked if Brown's perception of being directed to sign the contract might
be a misinterpretation on Brown's part, Terry said "that wouldn’t be my expectation … I don’t
know what all the conversations were, but I'm not aware of any other situation that's like this …
he’s never had anyone witness him signing anything else … Kevin doesn't tend to be a
grandstander, so it doesn't fit."326 Terry said she had worked with Brown since 2006 and had
observed times when Brown disagreed or had concerns with decisions made in the DNRP
Director's Office above him, but Terry did not sense that Brown had a history of longstanding
misinterpretations of other people's directions and comments.327
Perceptions Regarding Executive Office Involvement in AEG/SES Contract Negotiations
Brown maintained that "It is not normal for the Chief of Staff for the County Executive to be
involved in such small details of a concession contract", pointing to the alcohol concessions carveout for small or legacy events within the exclusivity section of the SES concession agreement.328
Brown further stated:
I did not have a relationship with Mr. Yang in which I felt I could ever say "No" to
any request that was made to me. Mr. Yang was the boss of my boss, the Chief of
Staff for Dow Constantine, and I therefore always felt there were no options other
than to follow his direction. I constantly challenged Mr. Burns, my direct boss, on
pushing back on the demands which came from Mr. Yang or from Dave Meinert
and Marcus Charles.329
Yang said it was his job to implement Constantine's agenda and it was customary for him to be
involved in contract negotiations involving Constantine's priorities.330 In addition to the
Marymoor Park Concerts and concession agreements, Yang was involved in a contract between
King County Metro and the Washington State Public Stadium Authority concerning use of a
parking garage; negotiated for King County about the SODO arena development proposal; and
participated in renewing arrangements with UW Medicine to operate Harborview Medical
324

Brown meeting with Stier, 6/29/18.
Terry 2/21/19 at 07:24.
326
Id. at 09:19.
327
Id. at 10:56; 11:41.
328
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 3; OMSBUDS 232-233, 251 (contract carve-out provision; list of small events).
329
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 4.
330
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:29:17; 01:42:35.
325

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 41 of 76

Center.331 Regarding the SES agreement, Yang said "the two sides were kind of bickering over the
terms…. And unless I get involved and understand what each side is saying and what their
demands are, it's hard for me to just sit there and … just listen to them…. I’m going to have to
kind of get involved to understand what each side's bickering is."332 Without citing specifics, Yang
said there were times when he told SES to do what Parks told them to do, and other times when
Yang would "follow up with the department." Yang said he viewed his activities as a "referee role
that I would have to play."333
True said Yang was "not involved very often" in DNRP contract negotiations, but pointed out that,
unlike the Big Ideas process, most DNRP contracts go through the formal procurement process
in which requests for proposals state exactly what should be included in a bid, specify the criteria
for every item, and the number of points available for each item.334
Emerson thought it was "odd" that the Executive's Office was involved to the extent it was in the
Marymoor concession agreement. Having negotiated 25 to 50 contracts for Parks, Emerson said
the only others where she could recall any Executive's Office involvement (characterized as
"maybe we did get a call") were "big national events" like the USA Diving trials, a Professional
Golfers Association event, and the Special Olympics.335 She believed each of those events offered
"a national recognition, regional vitality piece to it" that she did not believe was present with
Marymoor Park Concerts and concessions.336 Emerson said she did not have conversations with
the Executive's Office regarding the Cirque du Soleil contract, which she said brings Parks
$700,000 per visit, significantly more than the concert series generated until 2015 and 2016
(when combined concert and concessions revenue to Parks also topped $700,000).337 Emerson
had not felt pressured before Parks made the concert series and concessions award to AEG/SES,
but said she began to feel pressure during negotiations for several reasons:338 Timing issues; her
feeling that Parks needed to on-board a new concessionaire so the new concert promoter could
begin its work;339 Cirque du Soleil's first performance was scheduled for January 31, 2013, just
three days after Brown signed the SES contract, and her assessment that Parks was concerned
that having no concessionaire for those shows could result in Parks losing that contract in the
future.340

331

Id. at 07:27, 01:29:17. Yang also said he and Burns had been lead negotiators together for the County during the
successful effort to purchase land on Maury Island that was slated for development as a gravel mine. Id. at 49:00.
332
Yang 5/29/19 at 01:53:52.
333
Id. at 02:32:42.
334
True 5/31/19 at 01:17:55.
335
Emerson 1/23/19 at 55:01.
336
Id. at 55:54, 56:46, 58:49.
337
Id. at 56:46; Marymoor Concert Revenue, Attachment to Burns Response.
338
Emerson 1/23/19 at 42:32, 43:13
339
Id. at 43:40.
340
Id. at 01:08:15.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 42 of 76

Based on numerous names of concessionaires other than SES that Parks staff had researched,
Brown was optimistic that Parks could have quickly retained a concessionaire to service the
upcoming 2013 Cirque du Soleil performances if Parks had ended negotiations with SES in January
2013. Brown believed that the WSLCB understood the complexity of state liquor laws and that
they afforded flexibility such that the WSLCB would have permitted a late-contracted
concessionaire other than SES under the circumstances.341 Yet, Brown also acknowledged “It’s
possible” that the WSLCB might not have permitted alcohol sales by a different concessionaire in
time for any Cirque du Soleil performances that year.342
Aside from Parks' own programmatic concern about timing, Emerson said she perceived pressure
"coming from above Parks…. I know Sung was involved … there aren’t a lot of written
communications on that."343 Throughout the SES negotiation, she said Burns and Brown were
asking questions about the agreement "like anything we were negotiating with Marcus [Charles]
or Dave [Meinert] … and I know that information was being funneled."344 Emerson perceived that
the Executive's Office "wants this contract done and we should get it done." When asked to
identify the basis, she stated "I am only speculating, but I felt like they had a friendship or
relationship. Dave Meinert is a huge player in this city, or was a huge player in this city, and those
kinds of things, you know, those kinds of people get things done, get what they want."345
Dotson said he "kind of realized that Kevin was being forced to sign this agreement" on January
28, 2013. That day, Dotson said Brown asked him to make copies of an agreement Brown
"received from upper management" that did not include terms concerning Clise Mansion that
Brown had asked Dotson to prepare several days before. Dotson said he thought Parks was "still
in negotiation" with SES at that point and "neither Kevin, Jessica, or I or anyone kind of working
on and then negotiating this agreement was aware of that or had agreed on the final terms of
the agreement."346 Dotson said that risks are typically shared when Parks enters into
partnerships, but he perceived SES received a "no-risk deal." Asked to explain, Dotson said:
I don't know specifics, but I go back to that first meeting when, at the restaurant
… with the Executive and Sung being there, there's obviously some sort of
influence going on, right? Like, at least that was my perception. And again, I don't
know specifics, but kind of knowing how negotiations ended, it seemed like that
influence carried through to the end.347

341

Brown 7/9/19 at 02:09—13:41.
Id. at 12:44.
343
Emerson 1/23/19 at 50:55.
344
Id. at 52:04, 52:20.
345
Id. at 54:01.
346
Dotson 12/21/19 at 02:00:02.
347
Id. at 02:40:42.
342

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 43 of 76

Terry said she was not directly involved in the contract negotiations but would hear about "very
specific questions" coming from above Parks during that period. Then she would hear that
"everybody was scrambling" to answer the questions,348 which was atypical as "We wouldn't be
usually contacted that much about a contract."349 In response to an Ombuds question, she said:
this was clearly all coming through the Exec's Office and then it would come to us
and … it'd be about three layers till then it would come to our staff, and then they
would have to have meetings. I think there were a lot of like, going and meeting,
if not meeting with Sung, then having to get Bob Burns up to speed to then talk to
Sung; there was a lot of that kind of activity.350
SES Contacts with King County (2013 to 2017)
County Payment of Deposit to Adecco on Behalf of SES
On January 29, 2013, one day after signing the SES agreement, Brown emailed True and Burns
about SES declining to pay approximately $9,000 of a $14,000 deposit to the temporary staffing
company, Adecco, that Cirque du Soleil used to obtain concessions staff for its upcoming shows.
Brown's email recited the staffing company called Charles on four separate days and finally
received a response on January 29, when Charles apparently said SES would only pay $5,000 "and
that if Adecco was unwilling to accept that offer, then perhaps it just was not going to work
out."351 To resolve the issue, Parks paid the outstanding $9,000 deposit to Adecco, about which
Brown said "We wanted the public to have a good experience and needed to ensure beverages
would be served."352 Burns believed Parks agreed to pay the deposit because Parks would
eventually be reimbursed for the outlay, and Cirque du Soleil was an important partner that
needed the deposit "to proceed with its upcoming event." Burns stated it was a group decision
between Parks, DNRP and the Executive's Office "for the purpose of keeping Cirque du Soleil
happy, not to accommodate SES."353 SES repaid Parks for its $9,000 deposit.354
New Events for Marymoor Park
Burns said he had been optimistic that Parks and SES could create new events at Marymoor Park
as AEG/SES's initial proposal had envisioned. Burns also said guaranteed dates at the event pad
and Clise Mansion were difficult to secure, and disagreements about exclusivity, scheduling, and
financial considerations resulted in no progress. Parks attempted to work with SES concerning a
348

Terry 2/14/19 at 02:40:42.
Id. at 59:26.
350
Id. at 01:00:09.
351
BURNS 673, 692; OMSBUDS 290-291.
352
Brown Answers to Ombuds Follow-Up Questions at 16.
353
Burns Response at 8.
354
Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:21:42.
349

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 44 of 76

Clise Mansion business model that "did not materialize."355 Burns said Brown raised concerns in
2012 and 2013 that SES was difficult to work with. During Spring 2013, Burns said he:
saw firsthand some of the interactions SES had with Parks staff related to Clise
Mansion and began to see SES as a difficult and inflexible business partner. SES
also had a pattern of going around Parks and straight to the Executive Office to
make requests, which resulted in an uncomfortable relationship between Parks
and SES.356
True said "SES would often bypass Parks' staff and go to the Executive's Office when they were
unhappy with Parks" but noted "In a political environment it is not unusual for a frustrated
constituent or contractor to go around the front line staff they are dealing with and try to get
Department management or the Executive's office involved."357
Whether Parks was Owed 10% of Net Concession Receipts or 10% of Gross Receipts
In July 2013, SES argued that it owed Parks 10% of net rather than gross receipts.358 Parks
calculated that it had received approximately $10,000 per show from concessions on the basis of
gross receipts, versus approximately $100 per show on the net basis.359 Burns said he supported
Parks' position that 10% of gross receipts was due, informed Yang about it, and Yang agreed.360
SES dropped the issue.361
CHOMP! Festival, Long-Term Contract Extension, and Venue Capacity Expansion
In Spring 2015, Parks asked AEG if it could book a musical performance for the inaugural year of
the CHOMP! Festival that Parks had selected Artist's Home to operate. AEG offered Parks a
performer that Parks believed did not offer broad enough appeal to the targeted audience.
Brown sent True an email suggesting that Constantine ask Meinert to help find a performer.
Brown also asked whether Parks should request Constantine to make the 'ask' to Meinert, or if
Parks should reach out directly to Meinert. True replied she would ask Constantine about it.362
True sent Constantine a four-paragraph draft email for him to send Meinert, prepared by Parks,
introducing the Festival, its purpose, and making the request to help secure a musical
performance.363 Constantine sent the email to Meinert on May 29, 2015, commenting "our parks
355

Burns Response at 8.
Id.
357
True Response at 3.
358
BURNS at 339-340.
359
OMSBUDS at 288.
360
Burns Response at 8.
361
BURNS at 339.
362
BURNS at 354, 802.
363
CONSTANTINE at 000100-000101, 000344.
356

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 45 of 76

department wanted me to send to you under my name. Since I would never talk like that, I'm just
emailing it as is."364 Meinert replied on June 1, 2015 that he was "psyched this event is
happening" but he was unable to help secure musical talent for it. Meinert assumed SES would
be selling beer at the event, asked if there was a beer sponsor, and offered to help with that.
Constantine wrote back "Let's have a meeting with the organizers" and forwarded the email
string to True,365 writing "Need meeting btw our team and Meinert/Charles."366
On June 17, 2015, True emailed Constantine with two options for CHOMP! performers: those not
then touring (such as DEVO or English Beat), or a less-well-known local band with a local
following. True wrote she was seeking time on Constantine's calendar, that "I am not trying to
get you to make every decision on this I just know you are very interested", and "We have a
meeting scheduled with Meinert."367
On November 20, 2015, Meinert emailed Constantine at his Gmail address asking, "Can we meet
and talk about upping the capacity of Marymoor and expanding the venue? Also, there's some
booking issues we should discuss where Parks are going to lose the county money from dumb
stuff[.] We should have Sung join us too, with Marcus and Rob." Constantine replied "Yes" and
forwarded to email string to his executive assistant with a request to "Pls contact Dave and set
this up."368 On December 2, 2015, Meinert emailed Constantine and his executive assistant, Yang,
Charles, and Thomas at their personal email addresses, stating "Hey all, can we set up a meeting
this month to discuss improvements to Marymoor, expanding capacity, and extending our
contracts?" Yang promptly replied "Sure. We’ll email you some available times."369
On January 4, 2016, Constantine told True he "would like to get together to talk about CHOMP!."
True emailed Brown, Emerson, Terry, and Lee Ann Hughes (Hughes) of Parks saying "Dave Minert
[sic] came in to talk with [Constantine] about their ideas. We should meet with him soon …."370
On January 5, 2016, Meinert emailed Yang, and copied Charles and Thomas (the new head of
AEG’s Northwest Office), stating:
Sung – Happy New Year. Hope you had a great holiday break. I wanted to follow
up on the meeting we had before the holidays. Any word on the issue around
CHOMP, lengthening the season, upping capacity, and working towards a longer
deal?371

364

Id.
Id.
366
OMSBUDS at 287.
367
CONSTANTINE 000336.
368
Id. at 001397-001401.
369
Id. at 001395-001396.
370
TRUE at 001.
371
YANG at 154.
365

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 46 of 76

In a detailed document titled 2016 Update, Brown described a series of meetings that he said
occurred between mid-January and early February of 2016, mainly involving himself, Burns, Yang,
Meinert, and Charles. Brown described the subjects of the meetings as primarily about SES
seeking a 15- to 20-year extension of its agreement with Parks; expansion of the concert venue
maximum capacity from 5,000 to 6,000 or 7,500; and the possibility of becoming the
concessionaire for the CHOMP! Festival.372
On January 19, 2016, Charles emailed Yang concerns about Trucktoberfest, an event where
entities other than AEG/SES were "effectively selling concert tickets" at Marymoor.373 Yang
forwarded Burns the email on January 21, 2016, and later that day Burns provided a detailed
reply after engaging with Emerson, explaining that the event was allowed on the event pad per
Parks' agreements with AEG and SES.374 On January 25, 2016, Burns emailed Brown a list of
questions titled "Marymoor Park Logistics bb q's.pdf" regarding the issues raised in the email
forwarded by Yang.375 The next day, Brown sent Burns a document, Marymoor Park
Logistics/Follow Up, in which Brown provided answers to Burns’ questions, noting that AEG was
not eligible to apply for CHOMP! because its application was turned in after the deadline.376
Separate from the 2016 Update described above, Brown provided a half-page of written notes
he said he produced roughly contemporaneously with a February 5, 2016 meeting between
Brown, Meinert, Charles, Thomas, Yang, and Burns. Those notes indicate that the group discussed
Brown's answers to Burns' written questions above, and then shifted to extending the current
contracts by twenty years with Brown explaining that contracts longer than five years require
approval by the County Council and perhaps the County Procurement Section.377 The notes then
state participants "brainstormed alternative strategies to get around Council and to get around
Procurement," with Yang suggesting multiple extensions of five years to avoid the need for such
approvals or developing a "tightly worded and limiting [RFP] structured to limit competition."
Brown's notes end after stating that "To his credit, Bob attempted to contain direction on this
issue. On the way back to the office Bob and I talked about how Sung was putting us in a difficult
situation."378
On February 8, 2016, Charles sent Brown an email, copied to Burns, Yang, and Meinert, proposing
to extend SES’s agreement with Parks "for 15 to 20 additional years" in exchange for investments
372

OMSBUDS at 292-295. The record includes several versions of the 2016 Update document. The 'properties' tab
to an MS Word version provided to the Ombuds by Brown in a September 19, 2018 meeting indicates the document
was created, last modified, and printed on February 11, 2016.
373
BURNS at 777.
374
Id. at 798-799.
375
BURNS at 801.
376
Id. at 809-812.
377
See KCC 4.57.020 ("The county council must approve any concession contract with an original term that exceeds
five years. For the purpose of this section, 'original term' includes extensions that could be effective without county
approval.")
378
OMSBUDS 316.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 47 of 76

that SES would make to the Clise Mansion kitchen.379 Brown and Burns agree that Parks and DNRP
did not support that idea.380 However, Brown stated that Yang supported it and "scheduled a
follow-up discussion about how to accomplish this goal."381 Burns recalled SES proposing a
fifteen- or twenty-year extension, and a meeting about it with SES. He said he and Brown were
there only to listen and he thought Yang asked him and Brown to "go do analysis on this", but
nothing was resolved at the meeting.382 Meinert said he typically tries to obtain leases for fifteen
to twenty years, and that five years is a "short amount of time."383 Kochan said there is no
standard length for concert series deals and that five years was "a reasonable number."384 The
County did not extend the AEG/SES agreements by fifteen or twenty years.
Brown speculated that the effort to extend the contract to a longer term ended due to Charles
sending the proposal to him by email when communications about the matter were, Brown
stated, intended to be in-person only; and due to Brown specifically telling Burns and True why
he felt further conversations with AEG/SES about the extension were not appropriate.385
Collection of SES Disputed Gross Concession Receipts for Cirque du Soleil
The 2013 Parks agreement with SES provided that "the Concessionaire shall pay the County a fee
of ten percent (10%) of gross receipts, except for gross receipts from the Cirque du Soleil Event
in 2013."386 SES paid Parks 10% of gross receipts for concessions sold during the concert series,
but SES did not pay Parks for any concession sales at the Marymoor event pad where Cirque du
Soleil performed.387 Emerson stated that she and Brown discussed the issue with Burns "a couple
of years" after 2013, and she thought they were all agreed that Parks would not collect the 10%
because SES also paid a percentage to Cirque du Soleil per those two entities' bilateral contract
(which had been Charles' written objection to paying Parks the 10% share in 2013).388 Emerson
said she did not receive any direction about what to do when she brought up the non-payment
to Burns and Brown. With other vendors, Emerson said, Parks' business office sends invoices and
reminders to remit payments; when asked to elaborate by the Ombuds, she said:
not with this agreement … because I think there was an understanding that they
were never going to pay back for a second…. I do not think that I would have made

379

BURNS at 363.
Burns Response at 9; Brown Answer to Burns Response at 7.
381
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 7.
382
Burns 6/3/19 at 03:57:05.
383
Meinert 5/16/19B at 26:55.
384
Kochan 6/25/19 at 01:31:45.
385
Brown Answer to Burns Response at 8.
386
OMSBUDS 234.
387
OMSBUDS 350-351.
388
Emerson email to Stier, March 6, 2019; OMSBUDS 213.
380

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 48 of 76

any headway on that if I had tried to enforce that part of the contract; I really
honestly do not believe that I would have been allowed to take that further.389
Emerson's perceptions were based on Charles' January 2013 email objecting to paying the 10%
for Cirque du Soleil shows,390 as well as her perception that "my boss being told to sign a contract;
like, this was not your normal contract … there were so many holes in that agreement, I don't
think that would have held up anywhere."391 Terry said she knew SES was not paying Parks the
10% of Cirque du Soleil concessions revenues,392 and that Emerson had checked about what to
do,393 but that "this was a more political contract, and I think there was a sense that there were
things that were negotiated in it—it's what was the intent? ... kind of picking your battles."394
Later, in 2017 when DNRP and Parks prepared to negotiate new concert and concession
agreements, Burns and True noticed that SES had not paid any receipts for Cirque du Soleil
concessions. Burns asked Emerson why that was so, since the SES agreement appeared to require
10% gross receipts for all concessions except for the 2013 Cirque du Soleil shows (an exception
which Brown later wrote that Parks opposed). True also sought confirmation that Parks had not
collected the 10%. In preparing to respond to the 2017 questions from True and Burns, Brown
drafted an email stating that 2013 had been the last year of Parks' contract with Cirque du Soleil
and there was no guarantee of another contract at that time. When Cirque du Soleil later
committed to 2015 and 2017 performances, Brown wrote "it was understood" that the 2013
terms allowing no payment "were the status quo for the entirety of this contract."395
True denied that she, Burns, Constantine, or his staff directed Brown not to collect revenue from
SES.396 Burns recalled that Emerson told him that collecting the 10% "was very difficult for them
because they 'have been burned before' when pushing on SES, that SES would just complain to
the Executive Office and it would put Parks in a difficult position."397 In May 2018, Brown emailed
Burns saying "Given past challenges with SES and the relationship they have, Parks staff have not
felt they had the authority to enforce this component of the agreement. This was an area of
concern which we were hoping to address in an updated RFP." In response, Burns wrote to Brown
"You need to enforce the contract and the concessionaire must pay what they owe the County
per the contract terms."398 Burns and True both later confirmed that they did not know of a
similar situation where the County had not collected revenue owed to it under a contract, though
389

Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:08:05.
OMSBUDS 213.
391
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:13:35.
392
Terry 2/21/19 at 01:13:02.
393
Id. at 01:13:54.
394
Id. at 01:14:35.
395
OMSBUDS 350-351; True Response at 6-7.
396
True Response at 7.
397
Burns Response at 12.
398
BURNS 455.
390

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 49 of 76

True added she knew of other instances in which the County had sought to collect from other
types of contractors and consultants that owed the County money.399
On August 6, 2019, after all in-person interviews in this investigation were complete, the Ombuds
received a memorandum drafted by True titled "New Information Regarding Brown Complaint"
dated July 19, 2019, and a number of related documents.400 True states that the memorandum
was prepared based on information she received after asking Parks employees to provide
updated information regarding revenue collected form SES between 2013 and 2018, particularly
focused on facts related to Brown's allegations regarding Parks' collection of concessions revenue
for the Cirque do Soleil and Teatro ZinZanni events at Marymoor Park. This memorandum and
the related records provided by True document the series of events leading to Parks failure to
collect 10% of concessions revenues from SES, and also address the events leading to Parks' 2017
amendment of its contract with Teatro ZinZanni to reduce fees paid to King County. In sum, True's
memorandum asserts that Parks' failure to collect fees from SES and Parks' reduction of the fees
collected from Teatro ZinZanni are related to terms set forth in the County's contracts with Cirque
du Soleil and Teatro ZinZanni that conflicted with terms in the County's contract with SES. True's
memorandum states that "[i]n hindsight, there were ways we could have better addressed and
corrected the contract conflicts but there is nothing in these records or my recall of the events
that point to the Executive, Burns, or I directing or suggesting to Parks staff not to collect
concessions revenue from SES."401
Reduction of Teatro ZinZanni Fees and Payments to County Due to SES Involvement
In 2018, Teatro ZinZanni realized that SES's liquor license at Marymoor Park is exclusive, and that
Teatro therefore could not contract with another concessionaire. Teatro ZinZanni claimed they
would sustain a loss for their 2018 season at Marymoor due to "the unfortunate situation of SES’s
involvement."402 A representative of Teatro ZinZanni contacted Dotson on March 19, 2018,
regarding the "critical financial situation that Teatro Zinzanni is in as a result of using SES as our
alcoholic beverage provider."403 SES did not remit payments to Parks for concessions it sold at
Teatro ZinZanni performances at the Marymoor event pad.404
Brown wrote that both Teatro ZinZanni and Cirque du Soleil told Parks that SES charged them
higher fees than other providers.405 Teatro ZinZanni requested, and Parks approved, a
modification of fees and other payments to Parks to resolve the matter for Teatro ZinZanni's 2018

399

Burns 6/3/19 at 03:08:56; True 5/31/19 at 02:02:46.
"Memo to Slonecer Re Cirque 7_19_19.pdf", attached to Slonecker email to Stier 8/6/19.
401
Id. at 3.
402
OMSBUDS 455-456.
403
Id.
404
BURNS 455.
405
Id.
400

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 50 of 76

season. Teatro ZinZanni paid Parks $2,700 per month rent instead of $5,000, and 1% gross ticket
sales instead of 2%.406
The July 19, 2019, memorandum True provided to the Ombuds discusses conflicts between the
relevant language in the SES and Teatro ZinZanni contracts and indicates that the True believes
that the County's amendment of the Teatro ZinZanni contract was necessitated by that
conflict.407
Planning for Expiration of First AEG/SES Agreements and Subsequent RFP Process (2017)
In Spring 2017, Parks was planning for the expiration of the AEG/SES agreements at the end of
that year.408 Parks stated preference was to allow the next concert promoter to subcontract with
a food and beverage concessionaire of its choice.409 True later said she had told Brown she
wanted a transparent open, competitive RFP process using the County's Procurement Section.410
Brown disputed that and said he had actually said that to her.411 True said she discussed having
the Procurement Section post the concert series RFP first, then post the food and beverage RFP
later, to create more time to determine programming objectives at Clise Mansion.412 Brown
denied that a specific conversation about working with the Procurement Section took place.413
True and Brown did agree that there was a meeting of the minds in May 2017 that Parks would
use a transparent and competitive RFP process for the next concert and concessions contract.414
True said she briefed Yang on that proposal on May 25, 2017.415 Brown believed Yang had told
True that he preferred linking the concert series and concessions together in one contract
because that would reduce competition and qualified applicants as such services are not
ordinarily provided together. Brown also believed Yang told True that he would check with
Constantine and provide direction based on Constantine's decision.416 True denied that Yang
directed her to link the concert and concessions contracts in that way.417 A March 2018 text
message from True to Rachel Smith (Smith), Yang's successor as Constantine's Chief of Staff and
Deputy Executive, said:

406

OMSBUDS 454-456, 544.
"Memo to Slonecer Re Cirque 7_19_19.pdf", attached to Slonecker email to Stier 8/6/19.
408
True Response at 4. Yang, Meinert, and Charles met on February 15, 2017, at Charles' Local 360 restaurant. The
subject and content of the meeting is unknown. YANG 016.
409
Id. See OMSBUDS 346.
410
True Response at 4.
411
Brown Answer to True Response at 5.
412
True Response at 4.
413
Brown Answer to True Response at 5.
414
True Response at 4; Brown Answer to True Response at 5.
415
True Response at 4.
416
OMSBUDS 330-331.
417
True Response at 4.
407

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 51 of 76

Ok, as a bit of background, last spring [2017] when we were getting ready to issue
the RFP for the concerts we proposed having the concert promoter hire the
concessionaire. Sung talked to Dow and the direction was to do them separately.
AEG's contract includes a provision to do this if we trigger it. It is an option to doing
another RFP. But AEG chooses the contractors and submits the list to us for
approval.418
Brown's written narratives allege that on June 14, 2017, True entered his office, shut the door
and "let me know that Dow wanted to ensure that Seattle Event Solutions got the contract for
concessions."419 Asked by the Ombuds exactly what True said, Brown replied that her words were
"I've spoken with Dow. He wants to ensure that SES gets the contract for concessions."420 Brown
said SES was a "terrible partner" and was difficult for Parks staff to work with, to which True
responded "I know" and discussed how to manage the situation, bringing Emerson into the
conversation to brainstorm. With Emerson present, Brown said True slightly changed what she
had previously told Brown – saying that "Dow wanted SES to be 'eligible' to apply through the
RFP process."421 Brown said the conversation led True to ask Emerson to check with Procurement
to see if Parks could run the concessions RFP separately, then transfer the contract to the
promoter after it was executed.422 True denied Brown's version that she went to Brown's office,
denied shutting the door, and denied that she made any statement about Constantine wanting
to be sure SES was selected as the Marymoor concessionaire.423 True stated that she instead told
Brown she "thought it might be easier" to assign the concessionaire agreement to the promoter
after selection through the Procurement Section.424 Emerson later said True's alleged statement
about wanting SES to be 'eligible' for the RFP sounded "familiar", but she was not sure and could
not confirm having heard it.425 Emerson did not recall the scenario in which the concession
agreement might be assigned to the promoter after execution, but did recall the idea to let the
promoter itself subcontract with a concessionaire.426
True said when she learned the concessionaire agreement could not be assigned after execution,
she abandoned that idea.427 However, when Brown followed up with an email stating "I assume
you want us to move forward with RFP in which the event coordinator [concert promoter] hires
concessionaire," True replied "I need to talk to you."428 Brown said True reverted to the idea of
posting two separate RFPs for the promoter and concessionaire, but in materials submitted to
418

CONSTANTINE 000018.
OMSBUDS 331; OMSBUDS 782; Brown Answer to True Response at 5.
420
Brown interview, June 29, 2018.
421
Brown Answer to True Response at 5.
422
Id. at 5-6.
423
True Response at 5; True 5/31/19 at 02:48:58.
424
True Response at 5.
425
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:34:54.
426
Id. at 02:37:57.
427
True Response at 5; see OMSBUDS 356.
428
OMSBUDS 607.
419

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 52 of 76

the Ombuds he questioned why it would have been acceptable to assign a food and beverage
concession contract to the promoter but not acceptable to allow the promoter to subcontract
itself with a concessionaire from the start.429
Brown's contemporaneous notes dated June 22, 2017, state that Yang had wanted to meet with
Burns about the concessions RFP and contract, but Burns was on vacation, so True recommended
Yang meet with Brown. The notes state: True said "This is really political, but we need to deal
with this the best we can;" to which Brown replied "Christie, you know my concerns on this. I just
want a fair an open process;" to which True replied "Stay calm and maintain your composure."430
Brown's notes of the June 23, 2017, meeting he attended with Yang indicate Yang asked about
numerous details of the next Marymoor RFPs, including: schedule; exactly what day the concert
RFP would be published; criteria; how broadly it would be advertised; whether Parks would run
a concessions RFP, when it would be published and if it would include the entire Park; and
whether a concessionaire percentage would be included in the concert RFP.431 The notes indicate
that Yang "want[s] to be updated regularly."432 True said that, at the time, she believed Parks
would work with the Procurement Section in summer and early fall of 2017 to post separate RFPs,
one for the concert promoter and one for the concessionaire.433
Brown said that after True (according to Brown's allegation) directed him to ensure that SES was
selected as the concessionaire based on Constantine's wishes, Brown "changed the approach"
for the concessions contract since he no longer trusted "that an open, competitive process would
occur." Brown asked Emerson and Dotson to aggressively recruit potential partners, including
those that could develop Clise Mansion programming. Brown said he wanted "the highest
revenue stream" and to "strengthen partnership relationships." 434 Brown said he advised True
in a bi-weekly one-on-one meeting "that we were in touch with several parties and that there
was interest in providing services particularly at the Clise Mansion."435 Brown's undated written
notes for this meeting, titled “Christie 1:1” appear to cover 10 topics, each with a bold heading
and two to three lines of text, among them:
Marymoor Concerts/Concessions – AEG identified as top qualified responder.
Moving forward with notification/negotiations. We have two potential parties
which may have interest in Concessions/Marymoor Clise. (Culinary SchoolCaterer, Tom Douglas). Due diligence on viability.436

429

Brown Answer to True Response at 6.
OMSBUDS 361.
431
OMSBUDS 344.
432
OMSBUDS 363.
433
True Response at 5.
434
Brown Answer to True Response at 6.
435
Id. at 7.
436
OMSBUDS 505.
430

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 53 of 76

In a one-on-one meeting with Brown that True recalled from late October or early November
2017, True said Brown did mention interested parties possibly submitting proposals regarding
concessions, and she assumed Brown meant proposals that would be submitted through the
formal RFP process run by Procurement.437
In written materials submitted to the Ombuds, Brown said that Parks had not been "actively
solicit[ing] Big Ideas proposals"; rather, that staff had been seeking partners for programming
and concessions at Marymoor Park, including Clise Mansion.438 In a later interview, Brown said:
I moved forward on two tracks. I am like, if we're going to do an RFP as they're
asking us to do, we are going to make sure that we beat the streets and get as
much competition out there as possible … we want the right people in there that
are going to be good partners, but more importantly, bring revenue streams ….439
Brown said he did not tell True that he was moving forward on two tracks, and did not tell her he
was considering using the Big Ideas portal.440 Brown handled it that way, he said, not because he
was trying to deny SES an opportunity to apply, but because he was concerned that an open RFP
process would be manipulated to ensure that SES was awarded the concessions contract
consistent with the (disputed) instruction Brown said True had relayed to him regarding
Constantine's desire that SES have it.441 Emerson recalled that Brown said he briefed True on the
new proposals, including "potentially … awarding a contract … working through our Big Ideas and
that [True] had okayed that."442 However, in an email dated October 31, 2017, Emerson
recommended to Brown that "Parks contract[] with Edible Entertainment to manage and
program the Clise mansion."443
2017 Marymoor Park Concert Promoter Contract Actions
The County's Procurement Section posted the concert series RFP on July 13, 2017.444 AEG and
Seattle Theater Group submitted responsive proposals, and Parks selected AEG for a second fiveyear concert series agreement.445 True stated that Brown did not share any issues or concerns
with her about the award or negotiation of that agreement.446 Brown disagreed with that
437

True Response at 6.
Brown Answer to True Response at 6-7.
439
Brown 7/9/19B at 26:03.
440
Id. at 28:06.
441
Id. at 29:42.
442
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:41:16.
443
OMSBUDS 612; OMSBUDS 521, 000529-000531.
444
True Response, Exhibit A.
445
The 2017 Parks/AEG agreement provides that Parks may contract directly with a food and beverage
concessionaire to work with AEG, or that AEG may subcontract with a concessionaire of its choice if Parks did not
execute such an agreement. OMSBUDS 385.
446
True Response at 6.
438

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 54 of 76

characterization, stating that there had been what he termed a "minor sticking point" at the end
of the AEG negotiations concerning September concert dates. He said he had recommended not
extending the series into September for the same reasons he had presented in 2016, but that
True directed Parks to see how to accommodate AEG while accounting for Parks’ concerns.447
On November 13, 2017, Meinert emailed Smith as follows:
Rachel
Thanks for meeting with Rob [Thomas] and I last week. Wanted to follow up and
make sure we're on this, so here's a list of things we discussed:
1.
Rachel – Changing contract with Parks and AEG to allow for more shows
in September
2.
Rob – start plans to extend capacity of concerts to 7,500
3.
Rachel – we need to renew the SES deal with Parks which expires in
January. We should get that done this year. We need to plan for next
season asap.448
Meinert and Smith exchanged emails on November 21, 2017. Meinert wrote "following up on
this" referencing his November 13 email. Smith responded that Kelli Carroll (Carroll), Director of
Special Projects in the Executive's Office, was "working on this." Meinert replied "sounds good.
We really need the SES contract done asap", to which Smith replied "Roger that. We will approach
with urgency!"449 Brown said he received a call on November 21st from Executive Office staffer
Diane Carlson (Carlson), who told Brown the Executive had questions or concerns about the
concert series contract and that Smith had asked her to contact Brown to "see if we could change
the terms of the agreement with AEG."450 Later that day, Brown emailed Carlson reiterating
Parks' concerns about the September dates, and that Parks had been "very flexible" about
approving such dates previously and rarely denied a request. He also said "Little disappointed
Rob/Dave have contacted Dow/Rachel as we would prefer to manage conversation. Jessica has
been point and there have not been any issues raised with her."451
On November 27, 2017 Emerson forwarded to Brown a voicemail from Carroll requesting
background information on AEG in response to a contact from Meinert, who was seeking

447

Brown Answer to True Response at 7; see OMSBUDS 620.
CONSTANTINE 000506.
449
CONSTANTINE 000505. Ms. Smith later said, "I probably did not approach it with urgency, but I probably assured
him that I would … to get him off my back and to buy me some time." Smith 5/21/19 at 01:02:06.
450
OMSBUDS 332, 382.
451
Id.
448

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 55 of 76

resolution of an issue related to Marymoor and AEG. Carroll's said she had spoken with Burns
and was contacting Emerson for background before connecting with Smith about the matter.452
In a December 14, 2017 email to True and Burns, Brown reviewed Parks' concerns about
September concert dates and provided draft language "per request" to allow September dates
under specified conditions.453
2017 Marymoor Park Concessions Procurement
On November 22, 2017 Brown emailed himself at his personal Gmail account. He wrote he had
met True that day after Burns told her of Brown's efforts to recruit concessionaires other than
SES for Marymoor Park. Brown wrote he and True disagreed about whether he had previously
briefed her on his plan, and that True "stated that this is not what Dow expects and that this is
not a message she can go back and deliver to Dow." Brown listed reasons why Parks should not
contract with SES again, and wrote True "stated that we had many projects up in the Executive's
office [and] that the department needed his support … and that we could not afford to piss him
off."454 In her interview with the Ombuds, True denied making this statement and denied that
she had been told she could not or should not bring proposals other than those including SES to
Constantine.455 True also said:
I'd been telling him [Brown] and the Executive that the process we were going to
use was to go through FBOD's [formal procurement] process. So I could very well
have said [to Brown] well, we can't just all of a sudden go to a process now and
just say, okay, here are the two proposals that Kevin found and then head down a
different path. That wasn't what I had communicated to Kevin or to the Exec's
Office that we were going to do …. I would say I don't know if it'd have been Dow
necessarily, but the Executive's Office would be very angry if we were, if Parks was
soliciting proposals without going through the RFP process … because they [Parks]
were going about a process to exclude SES from being able to compete and that
could've been the case for anybody … it would fly in the face of what we'd all been
talking about for several months.456
True's account is not inconsistent with written notes (titled 'Context') Brown submitted to the
Ombuds concerning the Brown/True November 22, 2017 meeting, which state:

452

"Jelly Carrol.m4a" audio file, provided via email from Hagin to Stier, April 30, 2018; OMSBUDS 006; Burns
Response at 10 ("In November 2017, Mr. Burns received a call from Kelli Carroll in the Executive Office about a
parking issue and AEG doing shows later in September").
453
BURNS 406-410.
454
OMSBUDS 407; see OMSBUDS 521.
455
True 5/31/19 at 03:03:03; 03:04:16.
456
Id. at 03:03:38; 02:49:24.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 56 of 76

She got very angry and said this is not at all what we agreed on. This is not at all
what the Executive is expecting and you did not brief me on this…. Her position
was that she had given very clear direction of what the Executive was expecting
and there is no way she can go back to him with something else.457
Terry did not recall hearing anything about True saying that Constantine did not want Parks to
take a particular course, or that "we couldn't afford to piss Dow off."458 Emerson generally
recalled Brown telling her about the November 22nd meeting, including that True told Brown "the
Executive's Office said that … this is not the direction we can take." Emerson did not recall
whether Brown had specifically referenced "the Executive's Office" or "Dow" when Brown
relayed True's comment.459 Emerson did not recall Brown telling her that True said they could
not afford "to piss [Constantine] off."460
In December 2017, the same time frame in which Brown drafted conditions for the September
concert dates to include in the new AEG agreement, Brown told True that the concessions RFP
would cover only the concert venue, not food and beverages for the entire park.461 Brown later
said that Parks was seeking flexibility to contract with a provider that could program and utilize
Clise Mansion, and to work with event pad partners individually on their concessions needs. He
said Parks intended to work with the WSLCB on ways to accomplish Parks' goals.462 However,
True's understanding was the WSLCB would authorize only one liquor license for the park which
"required the liquor license to be tied to a fixed structure and the only structure that the [WSLCB]
considered to be adequate at Marymoor was Clise." True said she asked Brown to have his staff
provide her with a better understanding of the issues involving the concessions agreement, and
that she told Brown or his staff "that she had heard them discuss two schools of thought about
whether Clise should be in the food and beverage concessions RFP and she needed to understand
how best to proceed with the food and beverage RFP."463 Brown denied that there had been two
schools of thought. He stated later that Parks "specifically wanted the ability to negotiate with a
programming partner in the Clise Mansion."464 Neither Emerson nor Dotson recalled the phrase
"two schools of thought," but they both remembered conversation about whether to have
separate RFPs for the concert series and Clise Mansion, and Emerson recalled conversations with
WSLCB about whether separate agreements were possible.465

457

OMSBUDS 406; but see OMSBUDS 616 (Brown's written notes reiterating and expanding on his allegation about
True passing on to him "a directive from Dow, not that Dow hopes we will consider SES." (italics in original)).
458
Terry 2/21/19 at 01:48:47.
459
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:43:20.
460
Id. at 02:45:32.
461
True Response at 8; Brown Answer to True Response at 10.
462
Brown Answer to True Response at 10.
463
True Response at 8; OMSBUDS 426.
464
Brown Answer to True Response at 10.
465
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:47:30; Dotson 12/24/18 at 01:15:28.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 57 of 76

2018 Marymoor Park Concessions Procurement
On February 16, 2018, Emerson prepared and sent a draft scope of work for the Marymoor
concessions RFP to True, copied to Brown and Terry.466 True returned edits, among them adding
Clise Mansion to the agreement language. True said she made that addition because she believed
the liquor license was tied to the entire park unless Parks could identify a building other than
Clise Mansion that would meet WSLCB requirements.467 Brown later told the Ombuds that Parks
had identified "several other buildings which we felt could meet" WSLCB criteria,468 but he did
not identify the buildings and the record contains no reference such other buildings. True said
she communicated directly with Emerson and Terry about the concessions RFP in February 2018
because she wanted some concerns addressed before the Procurement Section posted the RFP.
Those included her feeling that the scope of the RFPO was vague as to "how the contractor would
meet the County's strategic plan and equity and social justice strategic plan"; that the draft RFP
did not adequately address promotion of local food and beverages;469 and that the draft RFP
timelines seemed too short to ensure competition in the RFP process.470
Emerson sent the edited RFP to Brown, Terry and True on March 5, 2018, noting that "We are
scheduled to advertise this week on March 8th. Please let me know as soon as possible if there
are any final edits."471 Shortly after, True sent Smith a text message asking "Rachel, we are ready
to advertise the Marymoor Concessionaire RFP on Thursday. Do you have anymore questions?",
to which Smith replied "Yes! Can we chat?"472 However, True and Smith appear not to have
communicated about the matter again until March 9, 2018, four days after Emerson sent her last
draft RFP to True.473
Meanwhile, on March 7, 2018, Emerson recommended to Brown that "we allow AEG to exercise
their right under the contract to sub contract for concessions" based on information she had
received from WSLCB indicating that a new liquor license for a different concessionaire would
likely not be issued in time for summer programming at the Park. Emerson pointed out that her
recommendation would result in Parks retaining the same 10% for concert concessions as the
Parks/SES agreement.474 Later that day, Emerson sent Brown the draft concessions agreement
and RFP with updated language including Clise Mansion, who forwarded it to True explaining the
timing challenge for a new liquor license. Brown listed three options in his message to True: (1)
466

OMSBUDS 422.
True Response at 8.
468
Brown Answer to True Response at 10.
469
Brown later asserted that inclusion of the local food and beverage criterion gave SES "an immediate advantage"
due to Charles' ownership of Local 360 Café & Bar, which focuses on locally-sourced fare. Brown Answer to True
Response at 11.
470
True Response at 9; OMSBUDS 426.
471
OMSBUDS 425.
472
CONSTANTINE 000017.
473
Id. at 000017-000019.
474
OMSBUDS 427.
467

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 58 of 76

move ahead with the RFP for a new concessionaire and "push on" WSLCB to compress the license
issuing schedule; (2) extend the SES agreement through the concert season "to allow us the time
needed"; and (3) allow AEG to exercise its right to subcontract with a concessionaire.475 In
statements provided to the Ombuds, Brown later wrote that he recommended option (3) to
True,476 but his March 7 email to her containing the three options does not state that, and the
only other mention of it in the record is a later (March 26) email from Brown to Emerson stating
that "our recommendation was to allow AEG to obtain their own concessionaire.”477
On March 8, 2018, True sent edits back to Brown and Emerson., noting the previous draft had
"made it look like at our sole discretion we would just pull out Clise so I modified that. Are you
ok with these changes? I think we need to just push ahead on doing this now … if you accept
these changes I will try to get a green light quickly."478 However, Parks had previously advised
Procurement of its short timeline and "arranged a go live date awhile back"; thus, Procurement
posted the RFP on March 8, even though True had not communicated her approval to do so.479
The following day (March 9), True texted Smith as follows:
FBOD [Procurement] posted it even though we told them we are still working on
it. They said they would just issue addendums and my people just went along with
that even though I told them not to issue it yet. Very frustrated right now. They
are trying to reach [Procurement] now and will pull it back ….480
On Sunday March 11, 2018, True noticed the RFP was still available online, and instructed Brown
and Emerson to be sure it would be removed the next day, stating "please do not take any further
action until you hear from me."481 On the morning of March 12, 2018, True emailed Brown and
Emerson that "It is really unfortunate that the time is constrained now" and expressed concern
about the start of the concert series.482 That afternoon, Emerson cancelled the RFP posting,483
and True texted Smith asking "What would you say if we extended SES for this season and posted
the RFP in the fall?" Smith replied "I would say you are a mind reader. Chat for a min?" Smith's
March 5-12 text string with True was forwarded to Constantine's personal Gmail account.484 True
later said she had viewed allowing AEG to subcontract with its own concessionaire as viable, but
such option "would not provide a food and beverage concessionaire for Cirque so Parks would

475

Id. at 428-429.
Brown Answer to True Response at 11.
477
OMSBUDS 450.
478
OMSBUDS 431.
479
See OMSBUDS 436.
480
CONSTANTINE 000019.
481
OMSBUDS 436.
482
Id.
483
OMSBUDS 437.
484
See CONSTANTINE 000019; Smith 5/21/19 at 01:34:10.
476

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 59 of 76

have to move quickly to run an RFP process and have a vendor hired in time for Cirque."485 True
"believed this is why Parks staff chose to extend SES through 2018."486 However, Brown had a
different recollection of the decision making process and asserted that it was True, not Parks
staff, who made the decision to extend SES' agreement.487
Parks extended SES's 2013 agreement twice. The first extension to April 29, 2018 was done
because the agreement would have expired in the middle of Teatro ZinZanni's Marymoor Park
performance schedule.488 The second extension to November 17, 2018 was done to cover the
event season at the Park.489
On March 19, 2018, Brown emailed True informing her the erroneously advertised concessions
RFP had been taken down and asked for her input on several issues, including "Should we work
with the PAO on SES extension and would you like to see it before final. And given that we have
extended beyond the 5 year period, we will need some direction on how to address Council issue
of their review of contracts longer than 5 years."490 True asked for more information about this
requirement the next day:
With respect to extending the current contract I assume you are not negotiating
any new terms just making an amendment extending the time so it seems like you
would fo low [sic] your normal process. I believe you have already extended it
once before. If it is normal for you to work with the PAO on an amendment then I
assume that is what you should do.
This is the first I have been made aware that there is a council issue with respect
to this contract exceeding 5 years. Jessica did not mention this in her 3/8 email to
me indicating extending the current contract could be an option since we were
running out of time to do the RFP. I would like to know more about what the
requirement is and then we can discuss next steps.491

485

True Response at 10. It is not entirely clear why True would have believed that Cirque du Soleil could not have
subcontracted with a concessionaire just as AEG could have. However, Emerson mentioned the possibility that
allowing the SES agreement with Parks to expire might also result in termination of SES's liquor license. Emerson
1/23/19 at 03:00:32.
486
Id.
487
OMSBUDS 448 ("We are following your instructions to pull the RFP and grant SES an extension."); Brown Answer
to True Response at 12.
488
TRUE 311; BURNS 845; Emerson 1/23/19 at 01:52:25.
489
TRUE 310.
490
OMSBUDS 452-53.
491
OMSBUDS 453.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 60 of 76

Brown followed up by email on March 20, 2018 regarding extension of the SES contract, and
asked True to "Please let us know what you think we should do, if anything, about any Council
approval or process required with this directive."492 True responded later that day, stating:
Unfortunately I can't just tell you what to do because I don't know. When Jessica
proposed this option, I thought she knew that it could be done and you also
indicated you thought this was a good solution. So my next steps would be to find
out what procurement recommends and the PAO. Normally I would expect the
division to do this work but apparently you want me to. Is that right? I have no
idea why the council should have to review it. Who told you this?493
On March 27, 2018, True emailed Brown, Emerson, and Terry indicating that she spoke with
Danielle Hinz (Hinz), King County's Chief Procurement Officer, and that extending the SES
contract would require a waiver to be drafted and approved.494 True also said "I am not aware of
any requirement for council review and approval and neither is Danielle. There is no need for
PAO engagement. If there is something different about this contract that requires PAO and
council review you will need to tell me why."495 Subsequent emails between True and Emerson
discuss which KCC section governs the concessions contract and True recommending Emerson
confer with Hinz about the matter.496 On March 30, 2018, True emailed Hinz about the
concessions contract and let her know that instead of extending the SES contract, Parks would
issue a new one-year contract.497 Hinz replied that "Sounds good" and raised no concerns about
any Council approval requirement.
AEG and SES Contract Performance
Burns provided information from Parks records showing steady overall increases in total
Marymoor Park revenues to the County, with approximately $1 million received in 2004, rising
to approximately $3.75 million by 2015. Parks revenues from Concerts at Marymoor, including
receipts from concessions, were inconsistent during the TLG era (2003 through 2012), with sharp
increases beginning in 2013, AEG/SES's first season at the park. The concert series brought nearly
$275,000 to Parks in TLG's first year (2003) and $388,873 in AEG/SES's first year (2013). By 2016,
Parks receipts from AEG/SES totaled a record $723,717. Brown agreed "the partnership with AEG
has been very successful." 498 He also noted "it is entirely possible that Monqui would have been

492

OMSBUDS 452.
OMSBUDS 452 (internal paragraphs collapsed).
494
OMSBUDS 458-59.
495
OMBSBUDS 459.
496
OMSBUDS 458.
497
OMSBUDS 462.
498
Burns Response at 14 and attached chart, citing Parks Fourth Quarter Reports for years 2003-2016.
493

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 61 of 76

equally successful had a fair and transparent RFP process been implemented. There may have
been other parties who could have achieved the same results as well."499
Regarding the service provided by SES during the time he was involved in the concert series on
behalf of AEG, Kochan said "I could never figure out where it went wrong … they would say the
County didn't … ante up something … but I was very unhappy with their work … it was really
poorly done."500 He said SES provided food trucks the first year, but it "looked rinky-dink" with
too few offerings and long lines. Kochan's expectation that SES would be offering "great organic
food … never panned out", though Kochan placed some responsibility on AEG for not adequately
investing.501 Kochan acknowledged the concert concessions improved in the 2014 season, and
did not know the extent of additional improvements in the five seasons after he left AEG.502
The SES concession agreements have produced no receipts to Parks other than from the concerts
at Marymoor.503 Revenue to Parks from those concert series concession sales to date are:
YEAR
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
TOTAL

SES REVENUE TO PARKS
$18,964
$99,602
$121,542
$118,640
$126,148
$124,332
pending
$609,228

Source: Parks concert revenue spreadsheet504

Burns acknowledged that "facility rentals at Clise Mansion have not performed as well as hoped
under AEG/SES" but pointed out that overall revenue from Parks' selection of AEG/SES "is much
higher than projected at the time the agreement was signed."505 Brown disagreed that the SES
agreement was beneficial to the County, citing the five years during which Clise Mansion was not
utilized; the "1/3 split of sponsorship revenue despite [SES] not bringing in any sponsorship";506
499

Brown Answer to Burns Response at 10.
Kochan 6/25/19 at 55:24.
501
Id. at 56:40.
502
Id. at 01:04:19.
503
Terry email to Stier, June 25, 2019.
504
Concert Concessions Revenue Excel Spreadsheet, attached to Terry email to Stier (July 13, 2019).
505
Burns Response at 14.
506
OMSBUDS 284 (from 2013 through 2016 the County secured sponsorships in the amount of $535,000, AEG
secured $188,150, and SES secured $0. Including the 1/3 split and 20% finder fees provided by the 2013 AEG/SES
agreements, the County retained total sponsorship revenues of $230,632, AEG retained $161,262, and SES retained
$106,783.
500

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 62 of 76

SES not paying the 10% gross concessions receipts to Parks from Cirque du Soleil and Teatro
ZinZanni performances; and the difficulty for Parks staff in working with Meinert and Charles.507
Emerson said that while Parks' trust in SES to "negotiate in good faith" was damaged, "there was
a trust with the [SES] staff that was on the ground, some very strong trust in the person who was
on the ground all the time, Keri. She delivered on everything. She made things happen. Those
things worked."508
7.

FINDINGS

The findings below are organized according to the four broad categories identified in Section 2
above: (1) vendor selection and contract negotiation related to the five-year contract for the
Marymoor Park Concert Series commencing in 2013; (2) accommodations made to the vendors
who received that contract; (3) vendor selection and contract negotiation related to contracts
for the Marymoor Park Concert Series commencing in 2017; and (4) vendor selection for the
contract to provide concessions services at the CHOMP! Festival held at Marymoor Park.
The Complaint includes several allegations that stem from the Complainant’s perception that
Constantine, and True and Burns on his behalf, sought and obtained special treatment of AEG
and SES and did so primarily due to Constantine’s close relationships or prior connections with
SES principals Meinert and Charles. However, Constantine and Charles both denied a close
relationship and the record supports that conclusion. While the record contains some evidence
showing what appears to be personal rapport, familiarity, shared interests and coordination
between Meinert and Constantine (and his chiefs of staff), Constantine and Meinert both denied
a close relationship, and the number of documented communications between them is small
given the multi-year timeframe at issue. While the relationship between the two was
longstanding, the record does not support a conclusion as to the degree of significance, nor that
the relationship resulted in improper governmental action or abuse of authority.
The Complainant believed that True and Burns shared his perceptions about the
Constantine/AEG/SES relationship, but True and Burns both disagreed that it motivated their
actions. True’s and Burns' beliefs about the Constantine/Meinert/Charles relationship could have
influenced their actions regarding the AEG and SES contracting and implementation processes.
Brown’s belief of a close relationship is uncorroborated and the record elsewhere does not
contain sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that True and Burns shared Brown’s
perception. However, if True and/or Burns believed the relationships were close and that
Constantine would have wanted them to accommodate AEG/SES, they may have felt pressure to
do so; this is addressed in Section 8, Ombuds Comment and Recommendation.

507
508

Brown Answer to Burns Response at 10.
Emerson 1/23/19 at 02:50:58.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 63 of 76

The Complainant also alleged that the involvement of the County Executive’s chiefs of staff in
details of contract award, negotiations and administration in this case indicated an improper use
of authority. Brown believed that Yang’s involvement in the contracting and implementation
processes at issue was highly unusual, inappropriate, and amounted to pressure to accommodate
AEG and SES on Constantine’s behalf, and that the involvement of Smith (Yang’s successor) was
similar. Other Parks staff also testified that they felt influence or pressure from Constantine or
his office beginning with the January 2012 gathering at Local 360, continuing through contract
negotiations, extensions, implementation, and planning. Yang’s involvement was sustained and
substantial. Parks staff testified that they had experienced little or no previous similar
involvement regarding other significant contracting opportunities. However, most of those other
contracting processes occurred under the administration of Constantine’s predecessor, whose
interests, priorities and management style may have differed from Constantine’s. Moreover,
Constantine’s longstanding interest in the music scene and his stated vision for improving and
expanding the Marymoor Concert series provides a reasonable explanation for the Executive’s
comparatively greater involvement in the Marymoor Parks Concerts. Though the Ombuds
understands and takes at face value that Brown felt intruded upon by Yang’s and Smith’s
involvement, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that their activities amounted to an
improper use (or abuse) of authority.
The Ombuds makes its findings based on a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. A
preponderance exists if the Ombuds determines, considering all the available facts and
circumstances, that an allegation is more likely true than not.
Group 1: Findings On Allegations Related to Selection and Initial 2013 Contracts with AEG and
SES
The Ombuds does not find Brown's allegations of misconduct by Constantine, True, and Burns
related to the initial 2013 Marymoor Park Concert Series contracts with AEG and SES to be
supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Allegation: Constantine Directed Yang to Find a Strategy to Terminate TLG Contract and
Replace TLG with AEG/SES
The evidence shows that there were issues regarding The Lakeside Group's performance under
its contract, including TLG's failure to present the agreed number of concerts each summer, but
that a review of the contract by the PAO found that early termination of the contract presented
risks to the County. Based on this information, the County chose to allow the TLG contract to
expire without renewal. Because the TLG contract was allowed to expire, AEG and SES did not
replace TLG as vendors for the concert series during the term of TLG's contract.
Moreover, Constantine did not recall directing efforts to determine whether TLG was in breach.
Yang admitted only that he may have asked someone to see whether the PAO believed there was

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 64 of 76

a basis to terminate the contract, but he denied handpicking AEG/SES to replace TLG. The PAO
memo itself hardly supports Brown's allegation, as the memo did not propose a strategy to
terminate so much as state the risks to the County of doing so. No other evidence corroborates
Brown's allegation.
Accordingly, the allegation that Constantine directed Brown and Yang to identify a strategy to
immediately find the Marymoor Park promoter in breach of contract and replace them with AEG
and SES is not sustained as an abuse of authority or gross mismanagement under the KCC.
Allegation: At True's Direction, Burns had Parks Hold an Abbreviated and Unpublished RFP
Process to Ensure No Competition.
Parks utilized the Big Ideas contracting process in selecting AEG and SES as the vendors for the
concert series. The Big Ideas process is separate and significantly different from a traditional RFP
because it is open year-round and leaves it to individual applicants to define the scope of
proposals that are suggested to Parks. Each year the County invites anyone to make a proposal
at any time. Because of this structure, the Big Ideas process does not normally include a
submission deadline as a traditional RFP would. The investigation found that Monqui made an
inquiry to Parks about the concert series at about the same time AEG and SES submitted their
proposal for the 2013 contract. In response to Monqui's inquiry and with consultation from Yang,
Parks held off on evaluating the proposal it had already received from AEG and SES to allow
receipt of Monqui's submission so Parks could compare the proposals against each other. Burns
testified that the two-week time period provided to Monqui (which is not required under the Big
Ideas structure) appeared reasonable as Monqui had told Brown they would be submitting their
proposal within that time, and Monqui did submit its proposal during this period.
Brown's allegation suggests that the two-week deadline was artificial because the Big Ideas
process included no deadline for submission. Parks did exclude a potential third applicant based
on the two-week deadline. However, the record does not support by a preponderance a finding
that Parks denied that other applicant an opportunity to submit a proposal due to Constantine's
relationship with Meinert or Charles. Further, while the Big Ideas contract portal was not
publicized specifically to attract Concerts at Marymoor Park applicants, the notion that Big Ideas
was an obscure portal used here to hide the opportunity from proposers other than AEG/SES is
not supported, as Parks had previously used Big Ideas to secure large and small concession
agreements.
Accordingly, the allegations that True and Burns had Parks hold an abbreviated and unpublished
RFP process to ensure no competition cannot be sustained as an abuse of authority or gross
mismanagement under the Whistleblower Code.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 65 of 76

Allegation: True and Burns had Brown Removed from Contract Negotiation to be Replaced
by Burns and Yang.
Brown alleges that True and Burns inappropriately removed him from the 2013 AEG and SES
contract negotiations and that he was replaced by Burns and Yang. However, Brown testified that
the 2013 contract negotiation with AEG was relatively straightforward with very little negotiation
because the AEG contract mirrored the AEG proposal, contradicting his assertion that he was
removed from the AEG contract negotiations. Accordingly, it appears that Brown abandoned his
claim that he was inappropriately removed from the 2013 AEG contract negotiations. Thus, the
allegation that True and Burns inappropriately removed Brown from the 2013 AEG contract
negotiations is not sustained by a preponderance of evidence.
Brown claims that he was removed from the SES contract negotiations because he repeatedly
made comments to True and Burns regarding his opposition to SES stepping away from a number
of the commitments made in their proposal to Parks, and the final contract was instead
negotiated by Yang and Burns.
True denied that Brown was removed from the contracting process. She testified that her
understanding is that Brown's role in the 2013 negotiations was typical of a Division Director—
he was kept appraised of the process by his staff, but he was not at the negotiation table, so
Burns becoming involved in the negotiations did not affect Brown's role.
Burns testified that he was asked by Yang to get involved in the SES contract negotiations to help
finalize the deal after SES complained to Parks and the Executive's Office that negotiations had
stalled. Burns also testified that he was "not really" aware of Brown's role in the SES negotiations
prior to the time Burns became involved, but that it was his understanding that Dotson was the
lead negotiator, not Brown. Further, the record shows that Burns was in contact with Brown
about how to help Emerson and Dotson "get sharper on contract details" on January 24, 2013,
days before the SES contract was signed by Brown on January 28, 2013.
Yang testified that he was not informed that Brown had been removed from the AEG and SES
investigations, and that he assumed Brown was involved the entire time providing support to
Burns and Yang.
Dotson called into question the testimony of Burns and Yang regarding Brown's and Parks'
involvement in the final negotiations, testifying that he, Emerson, Brown, and others involved in
working on and negotiating the SES contract were unaware that an agreement had been reached
on the final terms of the contract.
Brown's allegation that he was improperly removed from the negotiation of the 2013 SES
contract is not sustained by a preponderance of evidence. As a threshold matter, it is not
established that Brown was in-fact "removed" from the negotiations. True and Burns both

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 66 of 76

questioned Brown's direct involvement in the negotiations prior to January 2013 and the
evidence does not establish that Brown was heavily involved. Burns and Yang became involved
in January 2013 after SES complained to Parks and the Executive's Office that negotiations had
stalled, and it reasonably follows that Burns and Yang would be directly involved in the
negotiations with SES in this role.
The record does not indicate that Brown was formally removed or otherwise ordered not to
participate, though functionally it appears that he had little to no role at the end. However, Burns’
explanation for his increased involvement is plausible, and the record does not support by a
preponderance that Brown's role was diminished due to Constantine’s relationships with
Meinert or Charles. The testimony of Dotson and Brown indicating that they were unaware of
the final terms of the agreed contract supports Brown's assertion to the extent that it shows he
was not at the negotiating table, but it falls short of establishing that True or Burns
inappropriately removed Brown from the contract negotiations in violation of the KCC.
Accordingly, the allegation that True and Burns removed Brown from the 2013 SES contract
negotiations is not supported by a preponderance of evidence and thus cannot be sustained.
Allegation: True and Burns Directed Brown to Sign the 2013 SES Contract.
Brown alleges that Burns, with True's knowledge or involvement, directed Brown to sign the 2013
SES contract. The investigation found Burns did direct Brown to sign the contract but does not
sustain a finding that this direction was an abuse of authority or gross mismanagement.
Brown indicates that he expressed his concerns to both Burns and True regarding the contract
with SES in the weeks and days leading up to execution of the contract. However, Brown's
description of what occurred the morning he signed the contract shows that despite his belief
that the contract was not in the County's best interest, he signed it and included "UD" in his
signature to signify he was signing "under duress" due to concerns about possible repercussions
if he refused to sign. Burns testified that his understanding from previous conversations was that
Brown had concerns about the contract, but was on board to sign it, and that he urged Brown to
sign the contract on the date of execution because it was Burns' belief that the contract was a
good deal for the County. Rather than refuse to sign the contract based on his concerns, Brown
signed and did not tell Burns that he was signing the contract under duress, nor point out the
significance of the "UD" in his signature. There is no indication that True directed or was present
at the time Brown signed the contract. It is not entirely clear why Burns considered it important
that Brown, rather than Burns or True, sign the SES contract when either of those officials could
have done so on the County's behalf. But the evidence is, at most, weakly inferential that Burns'
direction to Brown was motivated by further direction from Constantine or his office due to
relationships with SES's principals, and does not amount to a preponderance.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 67 of 76

Accordingly, the allegation that Burns (and True through her knowledge or involvement)
committed an abuse of authority or gross mismanagement when Burns directed Brown to sign
the 2013 SES contract is not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.
Allegation: Burns and Yang Directed Brown to Ensure AEG and SES were Awarded FiveYear Concessions Contracts and Coerced Brown to Tell Parks Staff AEG and SES Brought
Intangibles that Made Them Better Qualified than Other Applicants.
Brown alleges that Burns and Yang directed Brown to take steps to ensure that AEG and SES were
awarded the five-year contract for the Marymoor concert series and concessions He also alleges
that Burns and Yang coerced him into telling Parks staff that potential intangibles AEG and SES
brought to the table were the reason for choosing them over a better qualified applicant. Neither
of these allegations are sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.
The County received two proposals from vendors interested in the contract, first from AEG/SES
and then from Monqui. Because the proposals were received through the Big Ideas process, there
was no published evaluation criteria for the vendors to base their proposals. Emerson
summarized the initial selection criteria in an email to Brown: revenue for Parks; vision for the
series (user experience, public perception, aesthetics); event related logistics, tasks, marketing,
promotion, and labor; and collaborative partnership. Yang, Brown, and Burns met prior to Parks'
final review of the proposals where Yang indicated that the review should also consider the
vendors' size and reach and ability to partner for new events, which is aligned with the vision for
a more significant event described by Constantine. Burns acknowledged that Brown was directed
to have Parks include additional factors in the evaluation process. That direction came after Parks
received both the AEG/SES and Monqui proposals, thereby supporting an inference that the
additional factors may have been devised to weight the selection process in AEG/SES's favor. But
Burns denied telling Brown that AEG/SES should be selected over a better qualified candidate.
Dotson produced an analysis showing that concert revenues under the AEG/SES proposal would
be comparable to revenues received in the prior concert series contract with TLG. Both Dotson
and Emerson recalled that the elements of the AEG/SES proposal regarding SES's use of the Clise
Mansion were the deciding factors in choosing the AEG/SES proposal over Monqui. The
testimony of Emerson and Dotson, who were involved in the selection process, was that Parks
picked the AEG/SES proposal based on the evaluation criteria, including those Brown was
directed to add. But neither Emerson or Dotson testified that they though Burns or Yang had
directed the selection of AEG/SES. Moreover, the additional evaluation criteria provided by Yang
apparently provided an advantage to the AEG/SES proposal, but they also reasonably served the
County's interest in a building the concert series and better utilizing the Clise Mansion.
In the absence of evidence tending to prove otherwise, the allegation that Burns committed
abuse of authority or gross mismanagement by directing Brown to ensure AEG/SES were
awarded the 2103 contract for concessions cannot be sustained. Thus, the allegation that Brown

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 68 of 76

was coerced into telling Parks staff that AEG/SES were better qualified due to the intangibles they
brought cannot be sustained as an abuse of authority or gross mismanagement by Burns.
Group 2: Findings on Allegations of Inappropriate Accommodations Provided to AEG and SES
The Ombuds does not find Brown's allegations of accommodations to AEG and SES during the
pendency of their 2013 contracts for the Marymoor Park Concert series by Constantine, True,
and Burns to be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Allegations: Constantine Approved SES's Effort to Obtain Additional Revenue Sources Not
Intended to be Part of Concessions, Including Not Paying Fees for Cirque Contract, and
Obtaining Revenue Sharing for Sponsorships.
Brown alleges that Constantine committed an improper governmental action by approving SES's
effort to obtain additional revenue sources not intended to be part of providing concessions for
a concert series. These allegations are tied to the contract provision providing a portion of
concert series sponsorship revenues to SES and the County's failure to collect 10% of gross
concessions receipts from SES for Cirque du Soleil events.
The 2013 contracts with AEG and SES specified that the vendors and Parks would collaborate to
obtain and implement concert series sponsorships, with sponsorship revenue divided equally
three ways after a 20% finder fee paid to the partner that secured the sponsorship. The
investigation uncovered no evidence that Constantine had a role in negotiating or approving this
sponsorship provision. Further, even if the investigation found that Constantine had a role in
negotiating or approving this provision, its inclusion in the contract does not result in an abuse
of authority or gross mismanagement as there is no evidence that Constantine intended to obtain
a benefit or deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege. Though SES received a financial
benefit for Concerts at Marymoor sponsorships secured by Parks and AEG but did not secure any
sponsorships itself, there is no evidence that inclusion of the sponsorship provision is a deviation
from the standard of care or competence a reasonable person would exercise in the same
situation.
The 2013 SES contract provided that SES would pay the County a fee of 10% percent of gross
receipts, except for gross receipts from the Cirque du Soleil event in 2013. Though this carve-out
in the contract was to apply only to the 2013 Cirque du Soleil season, Parks did not pursue
collection of these revenues from SES in the subsequent years of the contract. The investigation
found no evidence that Constantine was aware of, or otherwise condoned or directed, Parks'
failure to collect these revenues. The records and testimony provide somewhat contradictory
explanations for Parks' treatment of this revenue stream, and Parks staff held some assumptions
about what they believed to be the political nature of the SES contract, which may have played
a role in how they handled the matter, but no evidence was presented establishing that

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 69 of 76

Constantine (or True or Burns, at the direction of the Executive's Office) directed Brown or other
Parks staff to overlook this requirement.
Accordingly, these allegations are not sustained by a preponderance of evidence.
Allegation: Executive's Office and DNRP Made it Clear that Parks Accommodate SES in any
Way, Including County Payment of Deposit for Cirque and SES Attempt to Pay Less than
Contract Stated.
Brown alleges that Constantine, True, and Burns committed gross mismanagement, gross waste
of public funds, and abused their authority by providing inappropriate accommodations to SES
through the County's payment of a staffing deposit that was SES's responsibility and due to SES's
attempt to pay Parks 10% of net receipts rather than 10% of gross receipts.
On January 29, 2013, the day after the SES concessions agreement was finalized, Parks was
contacted by Adecco, a temporary staffing service company used by Cirque du Soleil for
concessions staffing, who informed Parks that Marcus Charles at SES had refused to pay
approximately $9,000 of a $14,000 deposit it was obligated to provide for Adecco's services.
Failure to provide this deposit could have prevented liquor sales at the upcoming Cirque du Soleil
event. Because of the importance of the County's partnership with Cirque du Soleil, and because
the County was confident the deposit would be repaid, the Executive's Office, DNRP, and Parks
jointly agreed to pay the deposit to Adecco even though the deposit was SES's obligation. Burns
testified that this decision was not made to accommodate SES, but instead was focused on
keeping Cirque du Soleil happy. Brown also acknowledged that this decision was based on the
County's interest in ensuring that beverages were served at Cirque du Soleil and that public had
a good experience. Though the County's payment of the Adecco deposit did provide a benefit to
both SES and Cirque du Soleil, the County's decision to cover this deposit was based on a
combination of factors, primarily related to preserving the County's relationship with one of its
most important partners at Marymoor Park and ensuring the public was not disappointed with
the event.
Brown alleges that Constantine, True, and Burns committed an improper governmental action
related to an attempt by SES to pay the County 10% of net receipts rather than 10% of gross
receipts set forth in the 2013 contract. SES argued that it owed the County 10% of net rather than
gross receipts in July 2013. Parks calculated that this would reduce the per-show concessions
proceeds from SES to the County from approximately $10,000 to approximately $100. Burns
testified that he supported Parks' position on this matter and communicated this position to Yang
(who agreed). The County required SES to pay 10% of gross proceeds, as set forth in the contract.
SES relented on the issue and paid the County 10% of gross receipts. The investigation found no
evidence that the County accommodated SES on this issue and no evidence that Constantine,
True, or Burns advocated otherwise.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 70 of 76

Accordingly, these allegations are not sustained by a preponderance of evidence.
Group 3: Findings on Allegations Related to 2017 Contracts with AEG and SES
The Ombuds does not find Brown's allegations of wrongdoing related to Parks' negotiation of the
2017 Marymoor Park Concert series contracts with AEG and SES into be supported by a
preponderance of evidence.
Allegation: Constantine Pushed for an Extension of Contracts to 20 Years Without Council
Approval; a Strategy to Skirt the Council Approval Process (No Need to Consult with PAO)
Despite SES's Failure to Perform; and a Plan to Increase Concert Capacity from 5,000 to
7,500 Despite Parks' Concerns.
Brown alleges Constantine and True violated the KCC by directing DNRP and Parks to investigate
ways to provide AEG and SES extended 20-year contracts, and to expand the seating capacity of
the concert series, both without County Council review. Brown further alleges that True
specifically told Brown and Parks staff that they did not need to consult with the Prosecuting
Attorney's Office about the one-year contract with SES signed in 2018.
The evidence shows that AEG and SES expressed their interest in extending the contract length
and expanding the capacity of the venue, but these changes were never incorporated into the
vendors' contracts with the County. The KCC contains no prohibition on expansion of the concert
venue at Marymoor Park, so any position taken by Constantine or True regarding expansion of
the venue's capacity without evidence of improper motivation, is not a basis for any finding of a
KCC violation. The documents and testimony establish that there was confusion at DNRP
regarding the requirement for County Council approval of contracts longer than five years, but
that once True became aware of the issue she worked with DNRP, Parks, and Finance & Business
Operations staff to determine what requirements were applicable and to abide by those
requirements. The investigation did not find that Constantine or the Executive's Office directed
DNRP or Parks to ignore the requirements identified by True. The contracts issued to AEG and
SES comported with those requirements. Accordingly, Brown's allegation that Constantine and
True violated the KCC by directing DNRP and Parks to investigate extensions of the concert and
concessions contracts and expansion of the venue's capacity without Council review cannot be
sustained because the allegations, even if confirmed to have occurred, do not establish an abuse
of authority, gross mismanagement, improper special consideration or treatment, or the use of
authority to induce or coerce.
Further, True's statements regarding PAO review and Council approval of an extension of the SES
contract included her requests for more information about the purported need for these actions
and left open the possibility for Brown or others to explain why these actions would be necessary.
Brown's allegation that True specifically directed him to not consult with the PAO regarding the
extension of the SES contract in 2018 is contradicted by the record and thus cannot be sustained.

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 71 of 76

Accordingly, these allegations are not sustained by a preponderance of evidence.
Allegation: Multiple Executive's Office Staff Contacted Brown on Constantine's Behalf to
Inquire about New AEG Contract and Related Amendments and Renewal of SES Contract.
Brown alleges that Constantine abused his authority, committed gross mismanagement,
inappropriately provided special consideration or treatment, and used his authority to induce or
coerce through multiple Executive Office staff contacting Brown to inquire about a new AEG
contract and new amendments they wanted added to the AEG contract, as well as renewal of
the SES contract.
The investigation found insufficient evidence to sustain this allegation. Records and testimony
confirm that Executive's Office staff was in touch with Brown and others at Parks regarding AEG's
desire to extend the concert series into September. Brown responded via email that Parks had
previously been very flexible about approving dates and that he was disappointed that AEG and
SES were contacting the Executive and his staff instead of allowing Parks to manage the
conversation. While the record supports Brown's allegation of multiple inquiries from the
Executive's office about the AEG and SES contracts, and that staff may have viewed those
contacts as motivated by a desire to help SES, it does not support a finding that these contacts
resulted in a violation of the KCC.
Accordingly, these allegations are not sustained by a preponderance of evidence.
Allegation: True Advised Brown that Constantine Wanted to Ensure SES was Awarded the
Next Concessions Contract; and that Parks Could Not Pursue Other Proposals.
Brown alleges that True indicated Constantine wanted to ensure SES was awarded the concert
concessions contract, and that Parks could not pursue proposals other than what Constantine
directed even if other proposals were superior.
Brown claims that in a closed-door one-on-one meeting, True told him that Constantine wanted
to ensure that SES received the contract for concessions, but when Emerson was brought into
the conversation, that True instead said that Constantine wanted SES to be eligible to apply
through the RFP process. True denies making any statement about Constantine wanting to
ensure SES was selected for the contract. Emerson said that a statement by True about wanting
SES "to be eligible" to apply for the RFP "sounded familiar", but she could not confirm hearing it.
This allegation is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and thus cannot be
sustained.
Brown alleges that True told him there was no way Parks could pursue proposals other than SES's,
even though other proposals were better than the SES proposal. True claims she told Brown she

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 72 of 76

wanted a transparent, open, competitive RFP process using the County's Procurement Section
and that she discussed having the concert series RFP posted first and the concessions RFP second
to allow time to determine programming objectives at Clise Mansion. Brown denies any specific
conversation regarding use of the Procurement Section. True and Brown agree that in May 2017
there was a shared understanding that Parks would use the transparent and competitive RFP
process for the next concert and concessions contracts. A March 2018 text message from True
to Smith recounted that Constantine previously directed Yang to have separate RFPs issued for
the concert and concessions contracts.
The records and testimony show that though Brown acknowledged there was an understanding
that the concessions contract would be run through the traditional RFP process that was shared
(and directed by) the Executive's Office, but that Brown proceeded to ask Emerson and Dotson
to aggressively recruit potential partners for the concessions contract outside of that RFP
process. Brown provided somewhat contradictory testimony, stating that Parks had not been
actively soliciting Big Ideas proposals for concessions at Marymoor Park, but also acknowledging
he had "moved forward on two tracks. I am like, if we're going to do an RFP as they're asking us
to do, we are going to make sure that we beat the streets and get as much competition out there
as possible." Emerson testified that Brown said he had briefed True on the new proposals,
including potentially awarding a contract through the Big Ideas process, and that True had okayed
that. Brown admitted that he did not tell True that he was moving forward on two tracks or
considering use of the Big Ideas portal.
Brown and True met on November 22, 2017, to discuss Brown's efforts to recruit concessionaires
other than SES for Marymoor Park, which True had learned of from Burns. Brown claims that
True said that Brown's efforts to recruit concessions partners outside of the traditional RFP
process was not what Constantine expected and that she could not deliver this message to
Constantine. True denied telling Brown that she could not bring proposals other than those
including SES to Constantine. She explained that her concerns arose from the fact that
Constantine and the Executive's Office were expecting a formal RFP process, so soliciting
proposals outside of the RFP process and in a manner that would exclude SES from being able to
compete would be contrary to what had been discussed for several months. True's account can
be viewed as largely consistent with a written statement Brown provided to the Ombuds
regarding the November 22, 2017 meeting, which states that True told him "this is not at all what
we agreed on. This is not at all what the Executive is expecting and you did not brief me on this
…. Her position was that she had given very clear direction of what the Executive was expecting
and there is no way she can go back to him with something else." At the same time, Brown's
typed statement can also be viewed as consistent with his version of what True said in the
meeting.
The evidence shows that True's statement that she "could not go back to [Constantine] with
something else" could just as plausibly refer to her being unwilling to tell Constantine that Parks
chose to forego the RFP process and instead select a vendor through the Big Ideas process, as it

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 73 of 76

could refer to her alleged (according to Brown) inability to bring a proposal other than SES's to
Constantine. Because the documents and testimony do not support this allegation by a
preponderance of evidence, it cannot be sustained.
Allegation: True Directed Brown to Develop RFP Process that True and Constantine Must
Preapprove.
Brown alleges he was directed by True to develop an RFP process that was to be preapproved by
True and Constantine, resulting in an abuse of authority, gross mismanagement, improper special
consideration or treatment, and use of authority to induce or coerce. Constantine and True, by
virtue of their positions, had the authority to require preapproval of the RFP. Accordingly, to
sustain the alleged code violations it must be shown that the purpose underlying True's
preapproval requirement was improper. As discussed above, there is not a preponderance of
evidence regarding Constantine's motives viz-a-viz SES's principals; nor regarding True's beliefs
about the nature of those relationships.
The record does not provide a preponderance of evidence to support a finding that True violated
the KCC by requiring Brown to submit the concessions RFP for approval by Constantine and True
prior to its release to the public.
Allegation: True Directed Parks to Pull the RFP and Instead Draft a One-Year Contract
Extension for SES.
Brown alleges that by abruptly directing Parks to pull an RFP for concessions and instead draft a
one-year contract extension for SES, True committed an abuse of authority, gross
mismanagement, improper special consideration or treatment, and improperly used her
authority to induce or coerce. These allegations are not supported by a preponderance of
evidence.
In early-2018, Emerson prepared and sent a draft scope of work for the Marymoor concessions
RFP to True, Brown, and Terry. True reviewed the draft, provided edits, and subsequently
communicated directly with Emerson and Terry about concerns she had with the RFP that would
need to be addressed before it was advertised. Emerson sent the RFP to True, Brown, and Terry
on March 5, 2018, asking for any final edits and noting that it was scheduled to be published on
March 8. An unapproved version of the RFP, which did not include True's final edits, was
published on March 8, 2018. On March 11, 2018, True directed Brown and Emerson to have the
RFP taken down and to not take any further action until they heard from her. On this information,
Brown's allegation that the withdrawal of the RFP was inappropriate cannot be sustained by a
preponderance of evidence.
Further, Brown had already emailed True on March 7, 2018 (prior to issuance of the RFP),
expressing concerns that Parks could end up without a concessionaire with a liquor license when

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 74 of 76

the concerts started based on the timeline for WSLCB license issuance. In that message, Brown
suggested three options: (1) move forward with the RFP and push on the WSLCB to compress the
licensing schedule; (2) extend the SES agreement through the concert season to allow Parks the
time needed to address the liquor license issue; or (3) allow AEG to exercise its right to
subcontract with a concessionaire. Based on this concern, which was exacerbated by the delay
stemming from withdrawal of the RFP, True followed Brown's suggestion and directed Parks to
draft an extension of the SES contract through the end of 2018. The evidence shows that Brown
suggested an extension of the SES contract through the concert season, and thus the record does
not sustain Brown's allegation that True's decision to extend the SES contract was a violation of
the KCC.
Group 4: Findings On Allegations Related to CHOMP! Festival
The Ombuds does not find Brown's allegations of abuse of authority, mismanagement, or special
consideration to be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Allegation: Constantine Wanted SES to Run the New CHOMP! Festival and Called Meetings
to Find Out Why AEG and SES were Not Involved when Another Group Received the
Contract
Brown alleges that Constantine informed SES that the County had funding for a new fair, that he
wanted SES to run the fair, and that Constantine called meetings to determine why AEG and SES
were not involved when he learned another group had obtained the contract for the CHOMP!
Festival, and that in doing so Constantine committed an abuse of authority, gross
mismanagement, improper special consideration or treatment, and improperly used his
authority to induce or coerce. The record does not support this allegation by a preponderance of
the evidence.
In Spring 2015, Parks was searching for a musical performance for the inaugural year of the
CHOMP! Festival to be held at Marymoor Park. Parks first reached out to AEG, then asked
Constantine to reach out to Meinert to see if he could help find an artist to perform. Constantine
made this request via an email drafted by True. Meinert replied that he could not help with a
musical act, but he assumed that SES would be selling beer at the event and offered assistance
in obtaining a beer sponsor. Constantine responded that they should have a meeting with the
event organizers and followed up by forwarding the email chain to True and asking her to set up
a meeting between Parks, Meinert, and Charles. In January 2016, True sent an email to Brown,
Emerson, Terry, and Hughes indicating that AEG and Meinert had met with Constantine to discuss
ideas, and that they should meet with Constantine soon to discuss CHOMP! and "download from
last year and talk about next year." A series of meetings involving Brown, Burns, Yang, Meinert,
and Charles occurred in January and February 2016, which Brown described as focusing on an
extension of the concert and concessions contracts to 15-20 years, expansion of the concert
venue capacity, and the possibility of SES becoming the concessionaire for CHOMP!. In late-

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 75 of 76

January Burns sent Brown a list of follow-up questions, which asked "What were the
circumstances by which AEG was not eligible to apply for CHOMP![?]" Brown explained that AEG
did submit an application, but it was turned in after the deadline.
The record does not establish by a preponderance of evidence that Constantine's discussions of
the CHOMP! Festival with AEG and SES, or his subsequent interactions with Parks or DNRP
regarding the festival, resulted in any violation of the KCC.
8.

OMBUDS COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION

The Ombuds has reviewed, correlated and evaluated extensive records and testimony to reach
the findings in Section 7 above. As noted in Section 3, the Ombuds operates independently within
the legislative branch of County government and is vested in KCC Chapter 2.52 with authority to
investigate the administrative conduct of County agencies and employees in response to
complaints from the public or on the Ombuds own initiative, and to make and publish findings
and recommendations for improving the administration of County government. This Complaint
was investigated pursuant to the Employee Whistleblower Protection Code, KCC 3.42. The
Ombuds provides the following comments and recommendation pursuant to Section 3.42.057.G
which states, in part, that the Ombuds shall make a final report summarizing the results of the
investigation, including findings with regard to each allegation and recommended actions.
The Ombuds recommends that the Executive develop and issue guidelines for the roles and
responsibilities of Executive staff and Departmental staff in the solicitation, selection and
administration of contracts. The Executive and staff may appropriately wear “two hats,” relating
to the administration of County government and relations with constituents (some of whom may
have business pending with County government). The Executive and staff may engage with
Department staff at all levels to provide guidance and in efforts to ensure that the administrative
acts are consistent with the vision, goals and intentions expressed by the King County Executive.
This engagement with Departments can have a positive influence on the administration of county
government. The Executive and his staff may also engage with constituents, including those who
may have business pending with the County, to ensure that their concerns are being heard and
considered. This engagement with constituents can promote public confidence in government.
While each of these Executive functions is appropriate, taken together, these two roles have the
potential to influence the County’s solicitation, selection and administration of contracts in ways
that may not prioritize the County’s interests. Department staff may perceive the engagement of
the Executive and his staff as signaling desired positions and outcomes related to contracts. The
Ombuds did not find that any allegations of this Complaint are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence, but testimony of the Complainant and other Department staff indicates that staff
perceived the engagement of the Executive staff as signals and felt pressure to take actions that
would be responsive to those perceived signals. When this occurs, there is the potential for
Department staff, and therefore the County, to be disadvantaged in negotiations with other

 King County Ombuds Office
Whistleblower & Ethics Case No. 2018-00443
Report, Findings & Recommendation
Page 76 of 76

parties. Guidelines for the participation of the Executive and Departments in the solicitation and
selection processes for and the administration of contracts with the County could improve the
administration of County government and promote public confidence.
The Ombuds notes that the Executive recently forwarded legislation to the County Council that
is intended to clarify the contracting process for the Marymoor Park live music concert series,
including concessions, consistent with this recommendation.
The Ombuds appreciates the full cooperation of the Complainant, Respondents, all witnesses,
and County staff who supported requests for records and interview scheduling during the
investigation.