The Executive Ethics Board convened in Regular Session at at the Lee Ann Miller AGO ConferenceCenter, 4224
6th Avenue SE, Building 1, Lacey,
Present:CherylRohret, Vice Chair
GwendolynFoyd, Board Member
PaulGillie, Board Member
SutapaBasu, Board Member
Also Present:MegGrimaldi, Executive Secretary
WilliamCollins, Legal Counsel
1. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
a.ROLL CALL.Vice Chair Rohret,
Board Members Gillie, Foyd and Basu were present.Ms.Lim
had an excused absence.Also present
were Executive Secretary Meg Grimaldi and Counsel BillCollins.
b.APPROVAL OF AGENDA.Ms.Grimaldi recommended that item 4,
Settlements, be moved to item 2 on the agenda, and that Draft Advisory Opinion
99-04 be discussed in conjunction with the Stipulation and Order in EEB Case
Number 98-06.The Board accepted the
c.APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE
REGULAR MEETING ON MARCH 12, 1999.Board
member Foyd moved to approve the minutes of the March 12, 1999 meeting.Board Member Gillie seconded the motion and
the Board unanimously approved.
2.SETTLEMENTS AND DRAFT ADVISORY OPINION 99-04
a.Stipulation and Order in EEB Case
No. 98-06.AAG Richard McCartan
presented the proposed Stipulation and Order in EEB Case No. 98-06 resolving
allegations that former UW Husky Football Coach JimLambright violated the state’s ethics law by
accepting outside compensation in violation of RCW 42.52.110 and RCW
42.52.120.Mr.McCartan introduced Mr.Lambright’s counsel, Mr.TracyCodd
reviewed mitigating circumstances that led to agreement on payment of
investigative costs, including the cooperation of the University
of Washington and Mr.Lambright in the investigation, and the fact
received outside compensation pursuant to contracts that had been approved by
Ms.Grimaldi reviewed Draft Advisory Opinion 99-04
relating to the receipt of outside compensation by university coaches.Ms.Grimaldi
emphasized that the intent of the opinion was not to prohibit the receipt of
outside income, but rather to ensure that such compensation complied with the
requirements of RCW 42.52.Ms.Grimaldi reviewed the general requirement
that state officers and employees could not receive outside compensation for
performing duties for the state of Washington,
and then discussed how various provisions of RCW 42.52 would affect outside
compensation received by university coaches.
b.Stipulation and Order in EEB Case
No 98-08.Ms.Grimaldi presented the proposed Stipulation
and Order in EEB Case No. 98-08 resolving allegations that Ms.CyndyBrunken,
an employee at WashingtonStateUniversity, violated the state’s
ethics law through her personal use of state resources.
Adjournment to Executive Session
At , Vice Chair Rohret called the Board
into Executive Session for the purpose of deliberating on a quasi-judicial matter.
Resumption of Regular Meeting
At , Mr.Collins
announced that the Board had concluded its deliberations and that the regular
meeting would continue.The Board
announced its acceptance of agreements in EEB Case Nos. 98-06 and 98-08.
3.REQUESTS FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS [Agenda
a.Draft Advisory Opinion 98-10 relating to receipt of door prizes.Mr.Collins presented the Board with an
alternative draft for consideration.Mr.Collins explained various approaches to the
question of whether door prizes could be received.The Board reached a consensus that it would
review the different approaches and continue discussion on this issue at the
Board member Gillie left the meeting at
b.Draft Advisory Opinion 99-02 relating to the operation of a spouse’s
business within a facility supervised by her husband.Ms.Grimaldi reviewed a draft opinion that would
address conflict of interest concerns raised by a spouse who was operating her
business within a state facility under the supervision of her husband.Ms.Grimaldi
outlined concerns that could be raised under RCW 42.52.020, RCW 42.52.140 and
RCW 42.52.150, and RCW 42.52.160.Vice
Chair Rohret and Board Member Basu expressed concern that the use of confidential
information could also be a concern and asked that the analysis should also
include RCW 42.52.050.
asked to address the Board and expressed her concern that the spouse’s business
could be disadvantaged if she was not allowed to operate her business in the
facility, but others were.Ms.Grimaldi advised that no other business
operated from the facility, and that a conflict exists because the husband
supervises the facility and also has an interest in his wife’s business.Ms.LouAnnDunlap expressed the opposite concern, that
there was a conflict based on appearance.Ms.Dunlap
said the relationship creates the likelihood that the spouse’s business could
be advantaged by her husband’s position.
The Board agreed
the draft should be revised to include concerns under RCW 42.52.050.
c.Draft Advisory Opinion 99-03 relating to
organization of non-profit organization by state employees.Ms.Grimaldi reviewed a draft opinion analyzing
whether state employees could organize and operate a non-profit corporation
from within a state agency.Ms.Grimaldi outlined concerns that confidential
information could be used either to disseminate information about the
corporation or to determine whether certain agency clients were eligible for
assistance from the corporation.Additional concerns were raised under RCW 42.52.070 in that the
corporation would secure a special privilege or exemption by being allowed to
operated from within a state agency; and, RCW 42.52.160(1) in that the intended
scope of activities by the corporation was likely to exceed de minimis use
standards under RCW 42.52.160(3) and WAC 292-110.[Note:Advisory Opinion subsequently issued as Advisory Opinion 99-02.]
unanimously approved the Advisory Opinion.
4.CONTRACT, Schmidt/Clover Park.Ms.Grimaldi proposed potential resolutions for
a contract between a state employee and CloverParkTechnicalCollege
because the contract appeared to be related to the performance of official
duties.The Board agreed that Ms.Grimaldi should work with DavidStolier, AAG, to attempt to resolve this
matter.Board Member Basu asked that Mr.Schmidt provide information on the amount of
working hours and non-working hours he spent on software development.
updated the Board on a letter sent by the Chair to the Public Disclosure
Commission relating to the Petition of the University
of Washington for a Declaratory
Order on whether gift monies or discretionary funds were public or private
money.Ms.Grimaldi explained that a determination that
the monies were private might raise concerns under RCW 42.52.140 and RCW
42.52.150, and that this could be a matter for the Board to consider at a later
date.Ms.Grimaldi also read a letter from FredOlson, Director of Administration, AGO,
which informed the Board that it was likely there would be no funding for an
additional investigator.Ms. Grimaldi
also asked Board members whether the July meeting could be moved until later in
Board members agreed to move the July meeting to July 30.
COMMENTS.Harvey Gertson expressed
his appreciation that the Board is always willing to listen to the concerns and
comments of attendees during meetings.
Vice Chair Rohret announced a short
recess at 1:05 p.m. to be followed by an Executive Session to receive and
evaluate complaints against public employees.
SESSION.The Executive Session
convened at 1:15 p.m. and ended at 1:25 p.m.Mr. Collins stepped into the hall and ascertained that no one was
resumed.The regular meeting resumed
at 1:25 p.m.
discussed and adopted Advisory Opinion 99-04 relating to the receipt of outside
compensation by university coaches.[Note:This Advisory Opinion was
issued as Advisory Opinion 99-03.]