Whatcom Democrats Respond to Ethics Commission Ruling

The Ethics Commission determined that the act of appointing a replacement member of the County Council was "not a vote on a matter of law or policy" and therefore the ethics code does not apply.  The decision on who would have a vote on matters of law and policy on the County Council is not a matter of law or policy?  If the decision to appoint a member of the County Council is so unimportant that the ethics code does not apply, then we might as well just put that decision in the hands of some County staff person, so they can pick their out-of-work brother-in-law who then gets a $20,000-a-year salary to show up at a couple meetings a month and vote on some stuff.  I do not agree with this "finding of fact" and am troubled by it's lack of common sense.

According to the Herald article, "the ethics commission determined that [Nelson] didn't obtain a special privilege by voting during the process, because as a sitting elected official he already had that right to vote."  This statement suggests that the Commission does not understand the concept of time. Nelson voted in 2009, at the end of this term, to pick someone to serve on the Council in 2010. Nelson did not already have the right to vote on the council in 2010.

The Commission ignored completely the fact that the vote on appointing someone to fill the Council vacancy could result in only one winner. There was only one position to be filled.  Of the 25 nominees, only one could be appointed, and therefore any vote on any of the 25 nominees had an effect on the outcome.  The council members didn't have just one vote to cast.  They voted on each nominee separately.  Any one or more of them could have garnered a majority of votes. Every vote Nelson cast, yeah or nay, for each of the other nominees, affected his chances of winning the appointment.  The Commission determined that "by abstaining from voting on his own candidacy [Nelson] avoided using his position to secure special privileges or to derive a private interest." Here they are acknowledging that voting on his own candidacy would be a conflict of interest. He had the power to vote "no" on any other nominee in order to keep them from getting a majority and winning the council position. And he voted "no" on many of the nominees.  The reason for those votes is not the issue.  He had a clear conflict of interest and should have abstained from the entire process.

I am disappointed in the Ethics Commission ruling. It does not bode well for Whatcom County governance that ethics in government can be taken so lightly.

Natalie McClendon
Chair
Whatcom Democrats

Read the story of the ruling in the Bellingham Herald HERE

Read the Blog post on the Whatcom Democrats response HERE

Read another Herald Politics Blog on the definition of "policy" HERE