Borough ethics board details past conflict rulings, advises on recall-petition participation

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Board of Ethics on March 30 reviewed its recent rulings on conflict-of-interest disclosures and offered guidance to elected officials on participation in recall petitions and compatibility of holding multiple offices.

The borough attorney presented a chronology of disclosures dating back to September 2025 involving grants, contracts and familial relationships. The attorney said the mayor ruled there was no conflict of interest for a Sept. 15 opioid-settlement grant to the Ketchikan Wellness Coalition even though an assembly member who later became mayor served on that nonprofit's board. The attorney also recounted October and February grant and contract matters involving an organization identified in the record as "Full Cycle" and said the presiding officer repeatedly ruled those disclosures did not amount to a disqualifying conflict.

The attorney told the board that in one instance, however, an assembly member who is an employee of RYC was found to have a conflict and was directed to abstain from discussion and voting on that matter. On Jan. 20 the attorney reported a temporary employment appointment for Marvin Liotis in the finance department prompted a different result: Vice Mayor Palmer ruled the mayor had a substantial conflict of interest and was directed to abstain from presiding over and discussing that item.

Why it matters: Board rulings determine whether elected officials must step aside from discussion or votes and help shape public confidence in municipal decision-making. The attorney emphasized that rulings by the presiding officer are subject to challenge and vote by the assembly.

The board also addressed whether school board members may sign recall petitions or otherwise participate in recall advocacy. The attorney advised that school board members may take part in political campaigns in their personal capacities, but officials should make clear in public communications — for example, on social media or when speaking at a podium — that they speak only for themselves and not on behalf of the board. The attorney clarified that a petition signature itself does not require a written disclaimer next to the signature and that the petition circulation process is distinct from election-administration duties such as serving as a poll worker, where oath and screening rules may apply.

The attorney additionally discussed questions about incompatible offices, citing a code reference noted in the record as "220.o2o (R code)." The attorney advised that when someone simultaneously holds roles with overlapping powers or oversight responsibilities — for example, certain assembly roles and school district superintendent duties — the offices may be incompatible; the assembly could, in limited circumstances, vote to provide an exception. The attorney noted that the borough provides roughly 30% of the school district's funding each year, with about half of that portion discretionary, a funding relationship that factors into the incompatibility analysis.

Other administrative matters included a reminder that the clerk's office posted the annual APOC disclosure filing deadline (updated March 15), and that new-officials training on records, disclosures and meeting conduct had been held with sparse attendance. The board approved the meeting agenda and the minutes from the prior meeting by voice vote and set its next meeting for June 8.

Quotes: "The mayor ruled that there was no conflict of interest," the borough attorney summarized of repeated rulings on several grant and contract items. "If facts change, the advice may change," the attorney added when discussing a parcel mentioned in the Trails Master Plan where a member had previously been a listing broker.

The meeting ended with brief member comments and scheduling of the next meeting; no new formal policy changes or ordinance actions were taken by the ethics board on March 30.