Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Recusal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutor: Commissioners should recuse if charter amendments would confer personal benefit
Summary
The Clark County prosecuting attorney’s office advised the Charter Review Commission that commissioners who are candidates for offices affected by proposed amendments should recuse themselves from discussion and voting; commissioners debated the scope and practicality of that guidance.
Katie Jolma of the civil prosecuting attorney’s office read a legal opinion to the Clark County Charter Review Commission advising that RCW 42.23.070 bars municipal officers from using their positions to secure special privileges and that a commissioner who has filed as a candidate for an office should recuse from discussion and voting on amendments that would directly benefit that office. Jolma read a staff email concluding the commissioner "should not be in the room when it is discussed or voted on and should not vote on the matter."
The opinion was prompted by a proposed amendment related to county council compensation and whether commissioners running for county council seats must recuse. Jolma said the statute supersedes conflicting bylaws and recommended erring on the side of caution when a commissioner "has knowledge personally that they are intending to file" for an office and then participates in deliberations affecting that office.
Several commissioners pushed back. Commissioner Klein argued that the opinion treats speculative future benefits as disqualifying and that review standards such as Clark County HR 13.1 evaluate four specific factors — degree of personal benefit, benefit to relatives, influence by personal interest and whether the consideration was solicited — none of which, Klein said, were satisfied by hypothetical future scenarios. Klein said such an expansive rule could disqualify commissioners from many meaningful topics and "paralyze" the commission.
Commissioner Hos announced publicly that he intends to run for District 5 county council and rejected the prosecuting attorney’s reasoning as "exaggerated," saying the commission’s first-reading votes only advance proposals to voter consideration and do not themselves enact salary changes or guarantee future benefit.
Chair Ericson and others agreed further discussion and a formal policy on recusals is needed; commissioners asked legal staff for follow-up clarification and to place the issue on a future meeting agenda. The commission did not adopt a binding recusal rule at the March 4 meeting.
