Candidates say elected officials should resign if convicted; call for transparency and recusals to avoid conflicts

At the forum several candidates said they would resign if convicted or if they pleaded guilty to non‑protest crimes such as fraud, theft or DUI, and described steps they would take to avoid potential conflicts of interest while in office.

"Do I get two shots too? Yes. I resign," said Jim Voorhe when asked whether he would step down if convicted. Several other candidates, including Nilu Jenks, Julie Kang, Rob Wilson and Katie Imo, said they would also resign under the specified circumstances. Deborah Juarez and others said transparency, public disclosure and recusal procedures are central to retaining public trust.

Why it matters: The question sought to clarify the ethical baseline for a potential appointee and followed high‑profile ethics controversies in recent council history.

Details and safeguards • Katie Imo and others emphasized proactive disclosure and recusal; Imo said she would “recuse myself from a decision in which I would have financial, ethics issues.” • Deborah Juarez urged practical transparency — newsletters, district office hours and regular community events — as a way to stay accountable. • Several candidates referenced Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission procedures as the institutional route for resolving conflicts.

The forum indicated broad support for high ethical standards and for using disclosures and recusals to manage conflicts, while recognizing the need to retain representation for constituents when officials face ambiguous or protest‑related incidents.