Code of Ethics
3/13/25 letter to Whatcom County Planning Commission:
Blaine City Council at the March 10, 2025, meeting rejected the motion by Councilman Lewis to establish a code of ethics for City of Blaine officials using the City of Ferndale code as an example. Ferndale's code, like that of Whatcom County, is typical in that it is designed to prevent council members from lining their own pockets by their official votes. Below is a comparison between the rules of procedure in Blaine and Ferndale.
Rule 22
Each member present shall vote on all questions put to the City Council except on matters in which he or she has been disqualified for a conflict of interest or under the appearance of fairness doctrine. Such member shall disqualify himself or herself prior to any discussion of the matter and shall leave the City Council Chambers.
Rule 29
Councilmembers should recognize that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not require that a conflict of interest be established, but whether there is an appearance of conflict of interest to the average person. This may involve the councilmember or a councilmember’s business associate or a member of the councilmember’s immediate family. It could involve ex parte communications, ownership of property in the vicinity, business dealings with the proponents or opponents before or after the hearing, business dealings of the councilmember’s employer with the proponents or opponents, announced redisposition, and the like.
Prior to any quasi-judicial hearing, each City Councilmember should give consideration to whether a potential violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. If the answer is in the affirmative, no matter how remote, the City Councilmember should disclose such facts to the City Manager, who will seek the opinion of the City Attorney as to whether a potential violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. The City Manager shall communicate such opinion to the City Councilmember and to the Mayor. The City Councilmember shall also disclose such potential violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine on the record prior to the start of the public hearing.
Public trust is the cornerstone of a healthy city government. City Elected Officials are in a unique position to influence the public’s confidence and trust since they are the visible representatives of the City. Elected officials must be committed to a philosophy of ethical behavior and integrity. To this end this Ethics Handbook has been adopted to serve as a guide in assessing behaviors and decisions that may compromise the City’s and the public’s standards of behavior. Note: This Handbook is intended to supplement relevant state law regarding ethics including but not limited to RCW 42 Public Officers and Agencies and RCW 35A.12 Mayor-Council Plan of Government.
GENERAL CHARACTER AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
The preservation of public trust is critical for the preservation of democracy. At the core of ethical behavior are some basic standards that public officials should use to reach a level of conduct that strives to be beyond reproach. Some of the items that define the general character of high ethical behavior include the following: Honesty and Integrity – The public trust in the City Council and Mayor can be a reality only when public officials are truthful. Impartiality and Respect – All issues and all citizens shall be handled with fairness, impartiality, and respect. This includes dividing time reasonably among potential speakers on an issue at a public hearing and being accessible, open and direct to other members of the Council and Mayor. The public is entitled to communicate with their public servants and to understand the position of the Council on public issues. Fair and Equitable Treatment – As public servants, we must perform our duties in a fair and equitable manner. This means that elected officials shall not exceed their legal authority to assist private entities or individuals where this would result in preferential treatment, not permitting oneself to be placed under any kind of personal obligation that could lead to expectations of favors, and not treating anyone less favorably because of their race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, or political affiliation. Effort – Elected officials have an obligation to attend meetings and to be prepared. It is expected that officials will review materials, participate in discussions and make informed decisions on the merits of an issue. Accountability – Elected officials understands that they shall accept responsibility for his or her actions and is accountable and responsible for their own personal code of ethics.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
A conflict of interest occurs when an elected official is no longer able to remain impartial or objective between the interest of the City of Ferndale and the interest of oneself. The citizens have a right to expect independence and fairness and expect you to act for their benefit and not favor a few individuals. A situation can sometimes make it appear that a conflict of interest exists but does not meet the technical definition. The appearance of a conflict may be just as damaging to the City’s reputation as an actual conflict. All individuals are encouraged to avoid situations that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The overall public’s interest must be the primary concern. • If an elected official is in a position to vote on an issue that involves a conflict of interest, they should abstain and remove him or herself from participating in the discussion pertaining to the item and not vote or attempt to influence the vote.
An elected official shall not discuss and/or vote on an issue that they stand to gain from financially – one for which either they or an immediate family member has an ownership interest. • An elected official shall not solicit or accept any compensation which might influence the manner in which they perform their official duty. • If the issue creates an appearance of a conflict or impropriety, the individual should, at a minimum, disclose the nature of the concern to the other members of the body prior to the vote. Failure to do so jeopardizes the public perception of the outcome of the vote. • An elected official shall not represent his or her personal opinion as that of the City. • An elected official shall not solicit, negotiate, renegotiate, or approve, directly or indirectly, any contract or agreement representing the interest of the City unless specifically authorized to do so.
UNDUE INFLUENCE
As leaders within City government, elected officials need to set the standard through their words and actions by demonstrating the qualities needed to ensure that our workplace culture supports personal responsibility, professionalism, collaboration, honesty, fairness, respect, and accountability. Undue influence involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. Elected officials are expected to engage in the highest level of professional behavior when dealing with City employees or others who are supported by the City. No elected official shall knowingly, or with reason to know: • Use or attempt to use their official position to secure for him/her or for others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are not available to similarly situated individuals. • Act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to conclude that the official can improperly influence or unduly enjoy favor through the performance of their official duties. • Place pressure on other elected officials and employees that would cause them to deviate from preferred and acceptable public processes or to deviate from accepted ethical behavior. • Use the prestige of their office for his, her or another’s personal gain or preferential treatment. • Use the public office for private gain, provide preferential treatment, impede government efficiency or economy, make government decisions outside of official channels or adversely affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of the local government.
REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS
The integrity of individual councilmembers and the Mayor reflects, both positively and negatively, on the overall public perception of the ethical behavior of the entire Council. The behavior of an elected official colors the public confidence and therefore the City Council and Mayor have a vested interest in promoting ethical behavior and adherence to established levels of professional public interaction. To promote these goals and to provide a progressive discipline atmosphere wherein the Council is in a position to affect the behavior of its members and the Mayor, the following remedies for violations of this Ethics Handbook are hereby adopted. It should be noted that, depending on the severity of the ethical lapse, the Council has the authority to choose the appropriate level of discipline without strictly adhering to the progressive steps outlined below. Step One – Should, by majority vote of the Council, it be determined that an elected official violated one or more sections of this Ethics Handbook, a public Declaration of Admonishment shall be read and entered into the record of a public Council meeting. Step Two – Should, by majority vote of the Council, it be determined that there have been additional violations of the Ethics Handbook subsequent to the issuance of the Declaration of Admonishment, or if the ethical lapse is determined to be of such magnitude, the Council shall issue, via a formal Resolution, a Public Censure. Step Three – Should there be a subsequent violation of the Ethics Handbook either following the issuance of either a Declaration of Admonishment and/or the passage of a formal Resolution of Public Censure, or if the violation is deemed to be of such severity, the Council shall, by a majority plus one vote, remove the offending elected official from his/her intergovernmental and liaison assignments and publish notice of such action in the newspaper of record. The Council shall also determine the duration of such removal. Step Four - Should there be a subsequent violation of the Ethics Handbook either following the issuance of either a Declaration of Admonishment, the passage of a formal Resolution of Public Censure, or the removal of the offending elected official from his/her intergovernmental and liaison assignments, or if the violation is deemed to be of such severity, the Council shall, by a majority plus one vote, remove the offending Councilmember from all Council Committee assignments and publish notice of such action in the newspaper of record. The Council shall also determine the duration of such removal. Note: The invocation of one of these remedies shall not preclude the application of other or all of the remedies as listed in this section. These remedies shall not be exhaustive in that certain ethical issues might be subject to prosecution or other legal action pursuant to Washington State law. In these instances, the matter may be referred to the County Prosecuting Attorney for review and further legal action.
Comments
Post a Comment