Advisory Opinion 92-03-1037
Public Works/Consultant Sponsored Open Houses

ISSUE: DOES EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE AT OPEN HOUSES, RECEPTIONS, DEDICATION CEREMONIES AND LIKE EVENTS SPONSORED BY PERSONS DOING BUSINESS OR SEEKING TO DO BUSINESS WITH KING COUNTY IN THE EMPLOYEE'S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY VIOLATE THE KING COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS?

Opinion: Open houses, receptions, dedication ceremonies and like events are held to build relations between the sponsors and clients and potential clients. These occurrences can affect the competitive status or the relationship between the sponsors and County employees. These events should not be considered simply celebrations or purely educational. The Code requires a professionalization of all relations between those doing business or seeking to do business with the County.

The Board categorized open houses, receptions, dedication ceremonies and like events into two categories:

I. EVENTS WHERE THERE IS NO REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE VALUE
These events include on-site open-houses or holiday office parties, where the "entertainment" is primarily limited to light refreshments and snacks. Such an event may also include other kinds of entertainment, which is incidental to the gathering.

II. EVENTS WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE IDENTIFIABLE OR DISCERNIBLE VALUE
Those events have identifiable costs and provide something beyond De minimis value to the employee, whether because of the location, type of entertainment, value of food and drink provided or other valuable considerations. Examples would include parties in banquet facilities, on boats or other facilities not associated with the normal activities of the person sponsoring the event; purchased performances or tickets to performances; full meals or buffets; open bars.

If an event has no reasonably ascertainable value to the employee, the employee may attend such events sponsored by persons who do business or may seek to do business with the County in the employee's area of responsibility provided that the employee makes a nominal payment the person sponsoring the event.

The Board recommends that a county policy be promulgated to determine a uniform payment to be made to the event sponsor for such circumstances and suggests that the amount of five dollars is a reasonable payment for these circumstances.

The Board recognizes that particular circumstances may exist, including regulatory or permitting relationships, where such attendance without compensation to the person sponsoring the event may violate Section 3.04.030 (D) of the Code.

If the function has a reasonably identifiable or discernible value, County employees may attend the function, consistent with the Code of Ethics, if a determination is made in advance of the fair market value of the event and its costs and payment is made in advance to the person sponsoring the event in that amount.

Section 3.04.030 of the Code relies upon the assessment of a "reasonable and prudent person" to determine if an activity, gift, or other thing of value has the potential to, or the appearance of, undermining employee judgment. The King County Board of Ethics finds that neither the language in Section 3.04.030 nor the information contained in this advisory opinion should be interpreted as prohibiting County departments or divisions from having more restrictive policies regarding employee attendance at events including a complete prohibition, if they deem it necessary.

Statement of Circumstances: On behalf of the Engineering Services Section of the Department of Public Works Road and Engineering Division, the King County Road Engineer, has requested an advisory opinion from the King County Board of Ethics to determine whether employee attendance at open houses, receptions, dedication ceremonies and like events violates the King County Code of Ethics.

Analysis: The members of the King County Board of Ethics realize that vendors and consultants commonly host ceremonial and informational events. Invitations to these events are often extended to employees who have responsibility in the area that they do business or are seeking to do business with the County.

The King County Code of Ethics explicitly prohibits the receipt of gifts or things of value such as travel, food, or entertainment from persons doing business or seeking to do business with the County by employees who have responsibility or participate in decisions in the area where the persons does business. It also prohibits such receipt if the receipt could conflict with the performance of employee official duty or undermine the appearance of fairness.

AUTHORITY RELIED UPON

3.04.030 Conflict of Interest. No County employee shall engage in any act which is in conflict with the performance of official duties. A County employee shall be deemed to have a conflict of interest if the employee directly or indirectly:

C. Accepts or seeks for others, directly or indirectly, any employment, travel expense, service, information, compensation, gift or thing of value on more favorable terms than those granted to other County employees or the public generally, from any person doing business, or seeking to do business with the County for which the employee has responsibility or with regard to which he or she may participate, provided that this subsection shall not apply to the receipt by receipt by elected officials, or by employees who are supervised directly by an elected official, of meals, refreshments or transportation within the boundaries of King County when given in connection with meetings with constituents or meetings which are informational or ceremonial in nature;

D. Accepts, directly or indirectly, any gift, favor, loan, retainer, entertainment, travel expense, compensation or other thing of value from any person doing business or seeking to do business with the County when such acceptance may conflict with the performance of the employee's official duties.

A conflict shall be deemed to exist where a reasonable and prudent person would believe that the gift, compensation, thing of value, or more favorable terms, was given for the purpose of obtaining special consideration or to, influence County action. ****

ISSUED ON THE ____________________ day of ______________________, 1992

Signed for the Board: Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair

Members:

Timothy Edwards, Esq.
Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair

JPD:dwm

cc:

Tim Hill, King County Executive
King County Councilmembers
Bob Stier, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Rella Foley, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Jesus Sanchez, Director, Department of Executive Administration
Paul Tanaka, Director, Department of Public Works
Louis Haff, P.E., County Road Engineer
William S. Vlcek, Manager, Engineering Services Section
ATTN: Lon Penton, Supervising Engineer