Nerditorial: When The President Of The Council Does It, That Means It Isn't Unethical

Check out this article at the Herald.

Kremen is one of the hundreds of landowners countywide that would be affected by the rural zoning changes, which have been ordered by the state Supreme Court. A Bellingham Herald analysis of property records also shows that four council members' properties would be affected, although not in the same way as Kremen's.

Jared Paben

Guess who doesn't see any problem or conflict of interest with voting on this? (No fair peeking first...)

Kremen and council members said they don't see conflict-of-interest issues with their upcoming decision because they're not expected to see big benefits, if any, from the vote. Council Chairman Sam Crawford pointed out that many council decisions, including on taxation rates and septic tank rules, affect everybody in the county, including council members.

Jared Paben

Ah, the perils of public service...

In addition to Executive Kremen, the persons on County Council who own property affected by this zoning change are...

Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, and Carl Weimer.

Pete Kremen
Owns enough land in one affected area to allow him to place 17 homes on it, based on current zoning. The changes recommended, if passed, will reduce this to one home. He will be undeniably and directly effected by that change.

Barbara Brenner
Owns property that is currently zoned to one house per acre, and would be zoned to one house per ten acres. She already has one house on her property, so there appears to be no immediate effect on her.

Sam Crawford
Owns property that current zoning allows for two homes per acre. This proposed zoning change would have a direct affect on him, since the new zoning would only allow one home per ten acres.

Bill Knutzen
Owns commercial property that will be zoned to place more limits on the size and scale of business development. There appears to be an immediate and direct effect on him. However, this direct effect would also apply to every other business in that area, and it is unlikely that he is the only commercial property owner in the area affected.

Mr. Knutzen has indicated that he is likely to abstain from voting on the zoning on that particular portion of the County, but will participate in the votes on zones where he doesn't own property.

Carl Weimer
Owns property that is currently zoned to one house per acre, and would be zoned to one house per ten acres. He already has one house on his property, so there appears to be no immediate effect on him.

That about sums that up.

Now, allow me to retort...

It is a special challenge to serve in municipal government, particularly as a citizen-legislator. Every County in Washington is served by some Members of Council who are also property owners and business owners. This renders it profoundly difficult for county councilors to make decisions that will not sometimes also affect them directly.

Still, there are ethical imperatives in play, both at a state level and a county level.

I read somewhere, some time ago, that a member of the County Council has an obligation to refrain from voting on a matter of direct financial interest, particularly if that member stands to gain or lose more financially than others affected by the vote...

Hmmm. Where did I stumble on that?

Oh, yeah... that was here:

WCC 2.104.020
...A public official who has a private interest in any law or policy proposed or pending shall disclose the fact to the department head of which he is a member, and in the case of a county councilmember shall not vote thereon.


WCC 2.104.030 (N)
“Private interest” means any interest from which an elected public official will derive a direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of his or her official activity. Unless the benefit or detriment does not accrue to the elected public official as a member of a business, profession, occupation, or group in any greater extent than to other members of such group.

According to the story, no one except Pete Kremen has addressed the notion that there is also an obligation to abstain from a vote if there is a direct monetary loss that a Council Member might suffer as a result of the vote. Abstaining from a vote due to an anticipated financial gain is only half of the equation.

In the cases of Barbara Brenner, Bill Knutzen, and Carl Weimer... any direct financial losses they might experience appear that they would be experienced to the same extent as any other land owners or business owners in those same areas. They each own one piece of property, and that property is small enough so they won't lose any more opportunity to develop those properties more than any other member of the group of land owners in those zones that own one piece of property of similar size.

Since Bill Knutzen is in the cell phone business, which is a relatively mature business, it doesn't seem likely that this zoning change will have a direct impact on him. It remains unclear what effect this would have on cell phone businesses in general (including the ability to build additional cell phone towers in areas that would be zoned rural instead of urban) and how this would effect his business or that of his competitors. But it would be interesting if the Herald were to maybe, kinda, sorta... ask him.

What the Herald doesn't touch on is the fact that Sam Crawford's "day job" is as a land-use consultant. (At least Mr. Knutzen's cell phone business is mentioned by the Herald.) It is unclear how much this zoning change will affect Sam Crawford's clientele... since the public has no clue who the hell they are, or where the hell they own property.

The impact that these zoning decisions will have on Mr. Crawford's clients will also have a direct financial impact on Mr. Crawford as well. The public has not one clue as to the true extent of the direct financial impact this will have on Mr Crawford. If Sam Crawford has clients who own land in any of the 40 areas of the County that will be directly impacted by these zoning changes, then he will also be directly impacted financially by those votes. The public currently has no ability to determine whether or not Mr Crawford will be affected more or less than any other land use consultant in these 40 areas.

I think the public is entitled to know how these votes will impact Mr. Crawford's consulting business.

Mr. Crawford apparently believes that his duty to his private clients is greater than his duty to the public at large. He will decide what the public needs to know and what they don't need to know.

And so long as the public is fine with that, he and his clients will be fine, too.

Hugs!