Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Determination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SeaTac city attorney finds no code-of-ethics violation in complaint against deputy mayor
Summary
Senior assistant city attorney reported the city's written review found the statement at issue did not fall within the 14 categories of prohibited conduct in the city's Code of Ethics and recommended no further action.
Senior assistant city attorney Cindy Korsellis told the SeaTac City Council that a recent allegation against an elected official did not amount to a violation of the city—s Code of Ethics.
Counsel said the council had received an ethics complaint alleging a council member made a pejorative comment about a community member who also is the complainant. "In conclusion, upon review of the city code, the statement made by the council member ... does not constitute a violation of the ethics code. And no further action is warranted," Korsellis said.
The report to the council focused on the narrow legal question of whether the remark fit within an enumerated list of misconduct in the code. Korsellis told the council the code contains an "exclusive list" of 14 categories of prohibited conduct, which mainly address conflicts of interest, improper use of city funds, undue influence and similar matters. She said the alleged comment did not fall into those categories and that policy statements in the code are aspirational guidance rather than independently enforceable prohibitions.
City Manager Jonathan Yang introduced the item and provided the council packet that included the written determination and a copy of the relevant code sections for members' review. The city clerk recorded no formal motion or vote on the city attorney—s determination during the meeting; the decision was presented as the city attorney's legal conclusion and the council moved on to other business.
The council acknowledged the presentation and proceeded with the agenda. Deputy Mayor Mary Iris Guzman was noted as excused/absent earlier in the meeting; the determination concerned a statement attributed to a council member but the complaint and complainant identity were not detailed during the presentation.
The city made the written determination available to council members in the meeting packet but did not open a separate investigatory process or impose discipline during this session. The city attorney—s finding described above is the action recorded in the meeting materials.
