For what it is worth, I strongly support Agenda Bill 2012-158, which amends the County's Code of Ethics.
The clarifications make the code easier to understand. The changes to the complaint process promise to make an already difficult job for the volunteers who chose to serve on the Planning Commission meaningfully easier to accomplish. And it is difficult to overstate the importance of insuring that at least one attorney serve on the commission at all times.
Since it really wouldn't be a letter from me if I didn't add something cheeky... I have a few recommendations of my own.
I ask that a Member of Council offer an amendment to the language in 2.104.080 describing the requirement for an attorney as follows:
One of the five members shall be a practicing or retired attorney.
A retired attorney would actually in some ways be better suited than a practicing attorney to serve on the Ethics Commission. While I'm sure there is no shortage of practicing attorneys in Whatcom County,
I submit there may be a shortage of practicing attorneys who have the time to spare to serve on any Commission. Allowing retirees to serve in this capacity on the Ethics Commission would seem to serve the interest and intent of this new ordinance.
I ask that a Member of Council offer an amendment to the language in 2.104.020 as follows:
All Whatcom County elected officials shall hold themselves fully accountable to the highest ethical, professional, and legal standards while holding office. The highest ethical, professional, and legal standards shall be understood to those standards compatible with that of a fiduciary duty of care. No elected county official shall participate in the decision making process on any issue in which the official has a private interest. In the case of a county councilmember, he or she shall announce his or her intent to abstain from voting prior to the beginning of any discussion or deliberation on the issue.
This is a bone of contention with me as a citizen in general and as a former complainant in specific. A fiduciary duty of care is a well established legal standard of conduct which substantially reduces any need for any future Ethics Commissioner, complainant, or respondent, to divine what conduct might or might not fulfill the definition of "the highest ethical, professional and legal standards". My experience with the Ethics Commission suggests that there is lack of objective consensus on what the highest standards of conduct might be. Including in this ordinance that language which codifies this standard and fixes it to a term that has deep roots in the common law promises to reduce uncertainty about such a matter, particularly if an attorney is serving on the board at all times. An attorney will know what fiduciary duty of care means.
I am sending a copy of this letter to your legal counsel, Ms. Frakes. I ask that a Member of Council formally inquire with Ms Frakes about any legal implications that might attach to these amendments. I am asking this without regard to the likelihood that this amendment enjoys enough support from the Council to pass. I just want the Council to make an informed decision one way or the other.
I am not going to take it personally if the Council does not act upon these recommendations. I mean, really, who am I? Jack Swanson? Please.
I thank the Council.
Cordially,
Shane Roth
Bellingham
P.S. I am still going to be busting your chops on the Reconveyance. Hugs!
No comments:
Post a Comment