CITY OF BLAINE WHITE COLLAR CRIME

"For direct financial conflicts, recusal is not a cure" and the conflict "simply cannot coexist with public office." 

--Blaine City Attorney at city council ethics workshop, February 21, 2025

Councilwoman Sarbjit Bains Self-Dealing Violation

On March 9, 2026, Blaine City Councilwoman Sarbjit Bains voted in favor of Ordinance 26-3043, which suspends height, design, and parking requirements in the Central Business District, directly and materially increasing the commercial development potential and real property value of her and her husband's properties downtown. Councilwoman Bains did not disclose these financial interests, either her own commercial property in the affected zone or her spouse's property interests, before deliberations or the vote. She did not recuse herself. She knowingly voted in favor of legislation that directly benefits her family's financial interests.

Freeman Real Estate Scandal, aka the Randhawa Affair

On March 13, 2025, at the Blaine Planning Commission hearing on the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) rezone, Commissioner Sam Randhawa failed to disclose his conflict of interest, and voted to approve, making a false declaration under oath that he had no conflict. Randhawa, real estate agent at Freeman Real Estate, had a direct financial interest in properties within the UMU rezone area at 2670 Bell Road, which as a result of the UMU rezone vote increased from an assessed value of $629,639 to a market listing price of $2,700,000 within 27 days of his vote. The potential realtor commission as a result of the UMU rezone jumped immediately from $15,741 on assessed value to approximately $67,500 after Randhawa's vote.

Commissioner Sam Randhawa's concurrent roles as planning commissioner and real estate agent for properties directly impacted by the rezoning constitute a prohibited "beneficial interest" under RCW 42.23.030. Despite an explicit and direct inquiry by planning commission chair Armerding, Randhawa did not recuse himself, thereby violating his statutory duties. Under Blaine City Attorney guidance, recusal is mandatory and may warrant forfeiture of office. While Randhawa resigned, he can still be prosecuted.

The UMU rezone vote was not area wide, but highly localized to confer substantial development rights and financial benefits upon two key properties: the Freeman Family Trust parcel, and the Lincoln Village LLC property. The commission's vote granted specific landowners new, valuable entitlements, functioning as a site-specific rezone for their direct benefit. Commissioner Randhawa's direct and undisclosed financial stake created an impermissible "entangling influence" and a "pall of partiality" over the proceedings. His failure to recuse himself, despite prior legal warnings, constitutes a procedural defect that renders Ordinance 25-3028 void.

Blaine City Council Rules of Procedure

Rule 22 (Conflict of Interest)

"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." 

This rule requires a councilmember with a conflict of interest to: (1) disclose the conflict on the record; (2) recuse themselves from voting; and (3) leave the chambers before any discussion.

Rule 29 (Appearance of Fairness) 

"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."

Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (RCW 42.36)

The targeted elimination of restrictions within a specific geographic zone, with immediate and documentable financial benefit to an identifiable property owner who is also the voting official, invokes the Revised Code of Washington Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, regardless of whether the city classified the action as legislative. Blaine City Attorney Ruffatto explicitly warned all Blaine officials on February 21, 2025: "for direct financial conflicts, recusal is not a cure" and the conflict "simply cannot coexist with public office." The controlling precedent, City of Raymond v. State Auditor (1998), holds that such violations render the decision void and require forfeiture of office, regardless of good faith or intent.