ADVISORY OPINION 1069

DDES/Conflict of Interest

ISSUE: WHETHER IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR A KING COUNTY FIRE PLANS EXAMINER TO BE AN INSTRUCTOR FOR TECHNICAL TRAINING CLASSES ON DESIGN AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE ALARM PLANS TO PERSONS WHO MAY LATER SUBMIT SUCH PLANS TO KING COUNTY.

OPINION: Based on the Board's understanding of the issues involved in this case, there is no conflict of interest involved in either the employee's intended area of outside employment, or in the fact that students may later submit plans to King County.

STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES: A fire protection engineer and plans examiner in the Department of Development and Environmental Services reviews and approves plans for fire alarm systems. During his off-duty time he would like to provide technical training classes on design and installation requirements for these systems through the Construction Industry Training Council (CITC), a licensed vocational school. Students who enroll in these classes may later submit plans for fire alarm systems to King County. The Board of Ethics has been asked to determine whether a conflict of interest would exist in this situation

ANALYSIS: In Advisory Opinion 1015 the Board considered whether an employee could evaluate a contract proposal submitted by a consultant if the employee had been trained by that consultant. In that case the Board concluded that the employee could not evaluate such a proposal in those circumstances. The present case before the Board is different because it involves an employee who wants to provide training to students who may later submit plans for review by the County.

When deliberating this issue, the Board considered the following questions:

1. Whether students attending these particular classes would have a competitive advantage over other students who attended similar classes through other organizations?

2. Whether the instructor's level of compensation would be linked to the number of students enrolled in these classes?

3. Whether the student-teacher relationship could lead to a conflict of interest if students eventually submitted plans for review and approval by King County?

In addressing these questions, the Board established that CITC is a licensed vocational training organization which serves an association of various groups in construction and industry, including building contractors, general contractors, painting and decorating contractors, Washington State electrical contractors, and underground utility contractors. The Executive Director at CITC asks members of the association to recommend candidates for instructor positions. After interviewing these candidates, the one who is best qualified is tendered an offer of employment as an instructor. All CITC instructors are practicing tradesmen employed by other area entities. They are equally compensated and compensation is contingent upon a minimum class size of 10 students. Course enrollment is open to all without restriction.

The fact that CITC is a bona fide vocational training organization and that its classes are a competitive advantage over students enrolled in similar classes elsewhere. In addition, instructors are hired on the basis of their overall qualifications and receive equal compensation for their instruction. The Board assumes this arrangement between the instructor and the training institute obviates any type of business relationship between the instructor and his students. However, it is possible that a relationship could develop between a former student and the instructor and that this relationship could pose a potential for conflict. In this case, the employee should comply with Section 3.04.037 of the Code of Ethics and notify his supervisor or appointing authority.

When deciding whether the student-teacher relationship in this case contained a potential for a conflict of interest, the Board considered the constraints imposed on plans for fire alarm systems. Design and installation requirements for fire alarm systems are bounded by strict compliance with criteria established by the National Fire Protection Association, as well as by provisions of the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Fire Standards, and the National Electrical Code. Variances, if granted by the Building Code and Appeals Board, must demonstrate that the proposed system will provide equal or greater protection than the minimum standards imposed by the law. These safeguards are significant in preventing most of the undue influence which might otherwise result in situations where the interaction of a training environment may be combined with a process of evaluation (Advisory Opinions 1015, 1017, and 1066).

References: King County Code of Ethics, section 3.04.030 and 3.04.037.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF _____________, 1999.

Signed for the Board: _____________________________