Proposal puts Seattle City Council at ethical crossroads
Jun 9, 2016, 5:35 AM | Updated: 5:37 am
Seattle City Council member Tim Burgess argues that proposed changes to the city's ethics code would weaken accountability at the city level. (Seattle Channel)
(Seattle Channel)
The Seattle City Council is at an ethical crossroads and council member Tim Burgess is holding a big stop sign in front of his colleagues.
The council is considering a bill that would change the city’s ethics rules. Under the proposal, council members could vote on legislative issues even if they have a potential conflict of interest, so long as the conflict is disclosed ahead of time.
“The ordinance before the council changes this ethics standard from disqualification to disclosure and then allows a council member to participate in the legislative matter pending before the council, including voting on a final resolution of the matter,” Burgess wrote in a memo to the council.
The council was expected to discuss the bill, CB 118701, on June 6. That bill was put on hold this week after Burgess raised opposition via his memo. The council will take up the issue again in about two weeks.
Seattle’s present ethics code is similar to many other cities in that they generally prevent council members from voting on matters where they can potentially benefit from the vote — especially financially. The same principle holds true if their family members could financially benefit. Council members are therefore disqualified from voting to their own benefit.
The argument for the change is that residents of newly formed districts will be unrepresented if a council member is not able to vote on matters because of the conflict of interest.
Burgess disagrees.
“It’s been suggested that this change in Seattle’s standard is necessary because of the voters’ decision to establish city council districts, but I don’t believe the voters ever intended their actions to be interpreted as a desire to lower city government’s ethical standards,” Burgess wrote, noting that an alternative move would be to address the district representation issue specifically in the code.
Burgess also argues that the city’s current ethics code, and its disqualification rule, is considered a “bright line,” meaning it is mandatory and considered best practice.
