Anchorage ethics officers brief Assembly members on conflicts, municipal resources and disclosure rules

At a May 8 work session, Paul Urbasti, a municipal ethics officer and the municipality's administrative hearing officer, told Anchorage Assembly members the "basic principle of the ethics code is that public service is a public trust," and outlined how the ethics framework applies to elected officials, boards and municipal employees.

Urbasti said ethics officers exist to provide timely, confidential guidance when the Board of Ethics' formal advisory-opinion process is too slow for members facing imminent meetings. He described the board as a volunteer body that issues advisory opinions, and said ethics officers like himself and an alternate (Joe Busse) can give quicker, practical advice.

The presentation centered on three recurring practical topics: conflicts of interest, use of municipal resources, and political/partisan activity. On conflicts, Urbasti summarized the two-part test used in practice: a private interest plus an official action (which can include deliberation, not just voting). He emphasized the gray area between ‘‘minor’’ and ‘‘substantial’’ interests and urged members to err on the side of disclosure: "If it's a close call, disclose," he said.

On municipal resources, Urbasti reviewed the "de minimis" personal-use exception and its limits: brief personal calls on a municipal phone can be acceptable, but uses tied to campaign activity or outside business are not. Municipal attorney Eva Gardner added that even records that are public in principle may be treated as municipal resources if an employee has special, ready access to them: "you have special access because they're on your... laptop. You can't pull those and then use them for a private endeavor," she said.

Urbasti distinguished political activity (ballot measures, candidate support or opposition) from broader partisan activity (taking sides on divisive public issues), and noted that elected officials have limited exceptions allowing modest municipal support for their elected duties (for example, printing speaking notes or minimal clerical assistance).

The briefing also covered gifts and travel disclosures. Urbasti said timing and the nature of a gift determine whether it is permissible, even if it falls under a small-dollar threshold; he gave an example of refusing food or gift cards tied to a pending administrative hearing. He noted a travel-disclosure form is required when travel-related gifts exceed $500 and that the municipal clerk posts such disclosures three days before the event.

Urbasti explained practical steps for handling potential conflicts: make an on-the-record disclosure with the facts (the "five W's") so the chair and the body can rule; the chair typically rules first and the body may overrule. He stressed that once the body decides, the Board of Ethics generally cannot second-guess the Assembly's determination, although it can review whether the member provided adequate disclosure.

Members asked clarifying questions, including whether past advocacy (for example, work with the American Cancer Society on tobacco legislation) would create a conflict. Urbasti responded that past advocacy by itself usually does not automatically create a disqualifying conflict, but the specific relationship, benefit and timing matter and should be disclosed if there's any question.

Urbasti closed by reminding members that disclosure forms must be filed within the timelines provided in the code and encouraged members to consult the ethics officers or the Board of Ethics website, which posts past decisions and guidance. Chair noted the group would reconvene for a Robert's Rules training later in the room.

The session did not include any formal votes or motions; it functioned as training and guidance for Assembly members and staff.