This post on the senator from the 36th district reminded me of an ethical problem I noticed in the last session of the legislature, but never got around to writing about. I think the problem important enough to mention, especially since it is likely to reoccur.
Kohl-Welles's ethical problem is best explained with an analogy. Let us suppose that a state legislator has a mid-level job at, for example, Weyerhaeuser. There is nothing wrong with working for that fine company, but it may from time to time pose ethical problems for the legislator. Most of us would, I believe, be troubled if the legislator acted more as a representative from Weyerhaeuser than someone who put the interests of the public first. Suppose, for example, the legislator sponsored a bill opposed by most Washington voters — but strongly desired by the company. Would that cross an ethical line? I think it would, even if the legislator was convinced that the bill was in the best interests of the state. The potential conflict of interest is simply too large, and it would be best for the legislator to avoid sponsoring such bills.
As it happens, Senator Kohl-Welles is an employee of the University of Washington, to be specific, a lecturer in Sociology, Education, and Women Studies. (Shouldn't that be "Women's Studies"?) And last year, as you probably recall, she sponsored a bill to bring back racial preferences in admissions to the University of Washington. That change was strongly desired by UW administrators. (Though it was not, in my opinion, in the best interests of the University.) To me, her actions are exactly the same as my hypothetical Weyerhaeuser employer; she should not have taken the lead in this matter because it was not clear whether she was speaking for the people of this state — or for the University bureaucrats.
It does not matter, by the way, that her position was almost certainly popular in her district. The same might be true of the Weyerhaeuser employee, but that would not remove the conflict of interest in either case.
In the future Senator Kohl-Welles should avoid such conflicts of interest, so that the voters can know whether she is representing them, or her employer. I would not expect her to avoid votes on issues affecting the UW. That would be too much to expect, especially in a part time legislature. But she can and should avoid looking more like a lobbyist than a senator. And if the administrators at the UW are honest, they'll find sponsors for their bills who do not have such direct conflicts of interest.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 03, 2006 05:48 PM | Email ThisIf Ms. Kohl-Welles has an ethical problem, then perhaps someone might explain away another real-life ethical problem that King County simply punted when it had a chance to address.
A very powerful King County Councilman was sued for his alleged bias in a massive Weyerhaeuser development project 7-8 years ago. This councilman consistently demonstrated himself to be Weyerhaeuser's principal advocate on the Council and there was nothing he wouldn't and didn't do to help this mega-developer, as he demonstrated at every opportunity. In one instance, proposing changes to the law that created special exceptions for Weyerhaeuser when the project would otherwise have been denied approval.
Under deposition in the bias lawsuit alleging this councilman's clear bias in this project's approval process, he was asked if he knew anyone employed by Weyerhaeuser. His response was, paraphrasing now, "you mean besides my family?". Amazed at the response, the lawyers followed up later asking him exactly who within his family was employed by Weyerhaeuser. His response was that his father-in-law was a manager for Weyerhaesuer, a sister-in-law was a manager with another Weyerhaeuser fully-owned subsidiary, and another sister-in-law was in management in the Weyerhaeuser credit union.
Despite family members employed by the company that he was actively helping from his chairmanship of the Growth Management Committee (among other actions during the project's "quasi-judicial" review), the King County Ombudsman excused his violation of the King County Ethics Code and his failure to disclose these relationships publicly or recuse himself from Weyerhaeuser issues before the King County Council, as required under the code.
The judge in the case would eventually dismiss the testimony from 5 citizens and find with the county - and Weyerhaeuser - despite this councilman's admission on multiple issues that demonstrated alleged bias. A finding against the county would have killed this project's approval.
Who was this councilman, you might ask? Non-other than current Wasthington State Republican Party chairman Chris Vance.
Posted by: MJC on January 3, 2006 06:39 PMThe press new all about Vance's alleged ethcial problem and they showed no more interest than they are showing with Kohl-Welles. I think it's fair to say that the issue of ethics is one of little interest to the press regardless of who is involved, Democrat or Republican.
Posted by: MJC on January 3, 2006 06:41 PMChuck Schumer is taking a page right out of the same playbook by stating that we should understand the motives of people who leak national secrets. At least the ones he doesn't agree with.
As some Seattle voters have begun to figure out, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the state of the city's single party politics. And, if you don't believe me, ask the hyphenated last name, newly appointed city council member, whoever she is.
Posted by: Ingraham on January 3, 2006 09:40 PMOK...now back to the topic.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 3, 2006 09:46 PMremember that name RePUGnicans
Posted by: Donkey_Courage on January 3, 2006 11:14 PMSure, I'll remember the name. I'll remember it just as long as you also remember all the Democratic names involved.
Here's just one for you... Patty Murray, IIRC she's in the number nine position on the contribution list.
Actually, come to think of it, I'll bet my memory turns out to be longer than yours...
Posted by: jep on January 3, 2006 11:47 PMBack..to the topic..
Posted by: Deborah on January 4, 2006 12:21 AMI know you can find corruption in government (by both parties). But this ain't it.
Posted by: Bruce on January 4, 2006 12:53 AMThe same emailer noted that several other legislators are also part time faculty at the UW and WSU.
Bruce - If you will look carefully, you will see that I did not say that Senator Kohl-Welles did something illegal or corrupt. A legislator can do things that are unethical without breaking the law or lining their own pocket.
But the fact that she is a public employee makes no difference in this case. In fact, public employees are more likely to have conflicts of interests when they hold public office.
Consider this example: Suppose the senator had sponsored a bill to raise the pay of lecturers at the UW. Would you consider tha unethical? I would. What about a bill to raise the pay of everyone at the UW? That's more in a gray area, but I still think that would be inappropriate.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 4, 2006 05:42 AMI agree. I don't believe it is unethical for an employee to introduce legislation favorable to their employer. It may be the right thing to do. It is unethical, however, to do it without disclosing at the same time that you are an employee of the company that will benefit from the legislation.
When any government official or employee engages in governance in such a way to affect a personal of financial interest, they have an obligation to disclose those interests. Only then can their involvement be challenged if desired by others involved.
My original post about Vance was not about a complaint alleging a conflict of interest. It was a complaint alleging that Vance had intentionally failed to disclose his relationship with Weyerhaeuser because it would have deminished his ability to carry their water. If he had been asked to recuse himself after such a disclosure, there were 12 other members of the council that could have stepped up if it was the right thing to do. If no one else had, then maybe there was more to his Weyerhaesuer activism than anyone thought.
Because he violated the King County Code of Ethics and failed to make the disclosure, the people of King County were denied their right to challenge his involvement and get an explanation from Vance why it was ethical for him to be doing so much for a company that employed several of his in-laws.
Posted by: MJC on January 4, 2006 12:53 PMShe is elected to represent the people in her district and as long as she does that she is fine, no problem. They elected her.
Seems people in the legislature advocate for their constituents all the time, that is what they are elected to do. Look out for the individual interests of their district. Then if a represenative is any good they will COMPRIMISE with other members to get some of their issues passed so tey can go home and say what a good job they have done for their people.
StePHan,
Why don't you stop trying to distract from the REAL scandle in washington - DELAY, ABRAMHOFF, FRIST, BUSH, and LIBBY. oh i forgot, that dosen't matter when a local elected represents the views of her voters.
Bruce....
Blame God?
That's not how it works.
I DO thank God for the life of the single survivor. I'm sure the families of those lost in the mine - are thanking God for the time they had with their loved ones..
I am seeing a pattern here of Democrat Governor's - withholding information from their citizens and running to hide while crisis situations and tragedies unfold in their state...... (think New Orleans...?) I can only pray that our state doesn't suffer any such catastrophy while in the grip of Democrat rule....
With that said, the Abramhoff scandal needs to be dealt with harshly. Harry Reid is guilty from accepting money from one of Abramhoff's associates and needs to be punished just like the Republicans and the rest of the Democrats (maybe Patty Murray) who accepted money there.
Posted by: KS on January 4, 2006 08:10 PMY'mean, if I work at the UW and am a legislator, I can do my employer's bidding at the State Capitol, reaping all sorts of tangible benefits for myself, like tenure, bigger office, more RA's, etc. and THAT'S NOT UNETHICAL OR A CONFLICT? Please pass the hookah, William Jefferson Bogart.
Posted by: Ingraham on January 5, 2006 11:19 PM"Less surplus"? Neither the University of Washington nor any the state's other public higher education institution gets a "surplus" if it enrolls lower-income students. State financial aid is appropriated to the Higher Education Coordinating Board and administered by that agency, with students of lower family income receiving larger awards. It has no effect whatsoever on the individual institutions' budget. Not to be rude, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: jsa on January 5, 2006 11:51 PM