City eliminates duplication in disclosure laws

EDMONDS – Life will get a little easier for elected city of Edmonds officials and candidates when it comes to complying with disclosure laws.

And the move was made without compromising the public’s right to know, according to city officials

The City Council voted unanimously Feb. 24 to eliminate a chapter in the city code that covers which dealings elected officials should disclose prior to voting on related matters, and that also includes a requirement that elected officials file their financial disclosure forms with the city as well as the state.

Many of the disclosure requirements are either duplicated by state law – which elected city officials are sworn to uphold – or are covered more extensively there than in city code, said city attorney Scott Snyder.

These include disclosure in cases in which an elected official has a financial interest in something being sold to the city; participating in decisions on matters regarding property in which an elected official has a financial interest; a prohibition on elected officials appearing in a representational capacity before city boards and commissions; personal use of public property, such as city vehicles; and disclosing or using of confidential information for personal gain.

Another requirement – that Council members prior to voting disclose any contribution of $250 or more received from a party involved in any quasi-judicial matter being decided upon by the Council – has been changed to a recommended “good faith” disclosure.

Neither state law nor the state Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this type of disclosure, Snyder said. For example, “How do you know who the shareholders of a company are?” he said.

City code previously allowed for a fine of up to $250 and-or 90 days in jail for violating any provision of the disclosure chapter. A complaint was filed at the end of 2002 against City Council member Michael Plunkett for allegedly violating the verbal disclosure provision on a case involving a developer who had donated to Plunkett’s campaign chest. Plunkett admitted to technically violating the ordinance. But said he had filed the contribution on his state disclosure forms and had been told by city legal staff that was sufficient. The case was referred to outside counsel who recommended against any action being taken, and the city followed the recommendation.

At the Feb. 24 meeting, Mayor Gary Haakenson cautioned against having a “good faith” provision.

“Either require it or don’t require it, but just asking it as a good faith effort is just going to cause problems down the road,” he said.

Council members considered making the disclosure a requirement without penalties. Snyder noted that the Council is in an awkward position in trying to police itself and that recent complaints filed by citizens had to be sent outside the city for review.

He noted that a Council member could be recalled for violating a required provision, penalty or no, and reminded the Council of the potential difficulty in knowing who is affiliated with a company making a donation.

“It can be difficult on the fly to make that determination,” he said.

Council members agreed to leave the provision as a “good faith” suggestion for now, noting that adverse publicity could serve as a deterrent in itself, and agreed to have a Council committee review the matter further.

The requirement for filing disclosure forms with the city also was a point of contention recently. City Council member Richard Marin was found last year to have failed to file numerous forms with the city. A citizen filed a complaint and the city again sent it to outside counsel for review. The attorney recommended against action in this case as well, calling the ordinance outdated in light of the fact that state disclosure forms are readily available on the Internet.

To make up for whatever citizen access is lost by striking the law from the books, the city recently installed a computer at City Hall for people to use free of charge to look up disclosure forms. Staff will be available to print out paper copies of on-line forms.

“My recommendation was not to have the dual filing,” said city finance director Dan Clements, who supervises the city clerk’s office where the records were kept. “It eliminates a lot of recordkeeping that we had to do that really made no sense.”