Council Member Cathy Moore’s Ethics Code Changes May Be An Ethical Breach In Itself

Photo credit: Be:Seattle

Sorry Council Member Cathy Moore, but your ploy to revise the City’s ethics codes may be an ethical violation in and of itself. 

“While any number of systems may ultimately be justifiable from an ethics standpoint, the reasons for adopting them are certainly not all created equal,” Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission (SEEC) Chair Zach Pekelis said at Thursday’s meeting of the council’s Governance, Accountability, and Economic Development Committee. 

“It is one thing if the council amends the financial conflict of interest rules because it determines in good faith the bill would improve the orderly functioning of democratic government,” Pekelis continued. “But if the council amends the code with an eye towards particular policy objectives, anticipating one or more disqualification would be compelled under the current provisions, that would be cause for concern.”

Perkelis gave a lawyerly voice to the overwhelming outcry against the changes from public commenters over the past few days. Moore’s proposal (goded by Council President Sara Nelson, sources say) would allow council members to vote in their own financial interest so long as they disclose the conflict, a change from the current standard, that theoretically requires total recusal. Public commenters, likely taking cues from my old reporting, accused the council of changing the rules as part of a plot to secure enough votes to pass Moore’s upcoming renters’ rights rollback, policies that landlord council members, such as Council Members Maritza Rivera and Mark Solomon, would have to recuse themselves from. 

Pekelis acknowledged that political opponents often assume the worst and he personally did not want to impugn any council members' motives. But he urged them, as chair of the commission, to consider the bill “on its own merits from a governance standpoint, independent of how it might affect any specific pending legislation or anticipated legislation.”

While Moore has repeatedly denied that she proposed the ethical changes as part of a plot to rollback renters rights, some of the behind-the-scenes conversations cast doubt. Policy opponent Council Member Dan Strauss tried to expose Nelson and Moore's intentions in his pseudo cross-examination of SEEC Director Wayne Barnett in the meeting.

Strauss, in a series of questions to Barnett, laid out what I previously reported: This bill comes after an email exchange last fall in which Nelson complained to Barnett about his guidance that former Council Member Tanya Woo should recuse herself from Nelson’s bill to repeal the gig worker minimum wage, a recusal that killed the bill. In that email exchange, Nelson admitted she requested clarification on his decision-making because the financial conflict of interest rules would come up again, specifically for zoning reform and landlord-tenant law. Soon after, Barnett suggested changing the rules from a recusal standard to a disclosure standard in an email to the council’s legal counsel.

Strauss tried to drive that point home in the meeting, but Nelson repeatedly cut him off, reminding him that she’s the chair, and scolded him from disrespecting the presenters. It looks like she doesn’t want anyone talking about those emails! Almost as though they point to her desire to change the rules in anticipation of future policy, something SEEC Chair called "cause for concern."

If the council wants to neutralize some of the public criticism, Pekelis suggested the council delay implementation of any policy change until 2028, when their terms end. But between Moore acting surprised by her own stirring of controversy, Solomon questioning the public’s perception of reality, Council Member Bob Kettle asking for “grace” instead of “attacks” in testimony, and Nelson all but pulling Strauss off the dais for asking pointed questions, the City Council seems more keen to shield itself from criticism than to contend with it.