Oral arguments heard in Damon Gordon ethics appeal; board to decide in closed session

An administrative law judge heard oral arguments on motions in the appeal of Damon Gordon on March 13, 2026, after the Executive Ethics Board convened its enforcement docket. The judge framed the two issues before the board as whether Gordon used state resources for private benefit in violation of RCW 42.52.160 and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.

Board staff, through the assistant attorney general, asked the board to grant summary judgment and impose a $2,500 penalty, arguing the evidence shows Gordon “browsed the Internet for personal reasons on two different DOC computers” across multiple days and that the use exceeded any de minimis exception. The attorney cited RCW 42.52.160 and the Washington Administrative Code criteria that define limited personal use exceptions.

Board members pressed staff on process and evidence. Member Hankins questioned whether the board has authority to entertain a dismissal under civil Rule 12(b)(6) and whether converting a pleadings-based motion to summary judgment without evidentiary development was procedurally appropriate; Judge T.J. Martin advised the board it could decide whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists and, if so, the matter would proceed to a fact‑finding evidentiary hearing. Members also asked whether Gordon had completed ethics training and whether time stamps suggested browsing occurred outside a consistent lunch period. Staff said training records were not in the record and that the logs showed browsing “all over the place,” making a de minimis defense unlikely.

Judge Martin closed oral argument and directed the board that, if it finds a genuine dispute of material fact, the board should schedule a fact-finding hearing; if it finds no such dispute, then the board may determine the matter as a matter of law. With the respondent absent at the start of the hearing, the judge invited board staff to present argument and later noted the respondent joined the meeting after oral argument concluded.

The board moved the enforcement matters into a closed (executive) session for deliberation on the motion and other quasi‑judicial matters; a written order with the board’s decision and appeal rights will be mailed to the respondent. No final public decision was announced on March 13.

Why it matters: The case centers on interpretation of RCW 42.52.160 (use of state property for private benefit) and the WAC de minimis exception for limited personal use; the board’s written order will determine whether summary judgment is appropriate or whether additional fact-finding is required.