Speaker 0: The bill passed and Cheryl sign it. Please read the first agenda item and if the Governance, Equity and Technology Committee section.
Speaker 6: To be part of the Governance Equity and Technology Committee and item one cancel 119 254 relating to the ethics code, the many sections for point 16.0 38.0 77 is for code requiring elected officials to disclose financial interests in legislative matters prior to participating in those matters and creating a limited exception to the requirement that elected officials disqualify themselves from participating. Such matters committee recommends the bill passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you very much. So this legislation was initiated by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission after our city council structure moved to a At-Large and district structure and currently under the ethics code. If a council member, of course shares a financial interest with a substantial segment of the city population, he or she does not need to disclose or recuse. But if that financial interest is not shared, he or she must recuse himself or herself from participate participate in voting. And with these changes presented by this new bill, basically there's a disclosure process if in fact there's a financial interest shared with a substantial segment of the population. And that sort of terminology becomes sort of critical, to be very candid, if a council member still has a direct financial interest in matters that are being legislated or discussed, of course he or she still has a conflict and there's a different mechanism that is recusal. But in a situation where there is a it is shared with a substantial segment of the population, there is a sort of disclosure process that I will describe in a minute. There will be a slight amendment from Councilmember Herbold, 12 counts for her. I go through the base legislation and will reserve some time for that. In addition, this new bill also applies to all elected officials, which now would include the mayor and the city attorney, whereas the previous ordinance just applied to council members. So what are those disclosures? If, in fact an elected official holds a financial interest with a substantial segment of the of the public? Hiroshima's post a written disclosure on the officials web page and file a copy. The Executive Director and the City Clerk. The Council member must additionally make a disclosure on public record at an open public meeting of the Council or one of the committees at which the Legislature led legislative matters discussed. The Council members shall also, before participating in that legislative matter at any subsequent Council Committee meetings, repeat the oral disclosure on the public record of that meeting . We've actually started discussing this some time ago, back in 2016, in 2017. And so we try to work with the commission sort of to better understand both the the basis, the legal and factual basis for this legislation and make sure we weren't sort of overlooking any practical concerns. So I want to thank the commissioners all for unanimously recommending this this legislation. And again, we want to air on the side of complete transparency. So that means repeated disclosures, making sure, again, a person since we were by district can have, if affected, can have district representation in critical legislative matters and still again weighing the need for transparency with having representation in a particular district. I'll tell you what, there might be a question to someone may say, but at this point, I'm going to suspend the rules to allow councilman or herbal to present a an amendment, which I don't think is controversial. And then we could have some discussion about the base amendment to have to make a formal motion. And can I just exercise my authority? Okay. By unanimous consent hopefully of for no one stands up and hollers by unanimous unanimous consent and no objection. We're going to suspend the rules now and allow Councilor Herbold to present an amendment which I was chastised for doing things that the ladies are. And let's see if we're going to chastise her as the way you did me.
Speaker 1: The way the record did, that I.
Speaker 0: Assume you have the floor it.
Speaker 7: Is owed me and I will take it. Thank you. Thank you, Council President, for allowing me to speak to this proposed amendment to the the rest of the amendments that are before the Council. This is, I think, neither strict in conflict with what has come out of committee, nor is it prescriptive to to the commission. One of the elements coming out of the legislation voted by the committee before us now is to ask that the Ethics and Election Commission develop a rule. And the rule relates specifically to what a substantial segment of the public is. And my amendment only app asks the Commission to consider whether or not the rule should. Include a distinction of whether or not the elected official is elected by district or citywide. It doesn't require them to make a distinction. It just ask them to consider whether or not there should be a distinction.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that amendment. I certainly support it. Is there a second?
Speaker 5: It's like.
Speaker 0: Okay, this is just for the amendment that for the base legislation. Any other questions about Councilman Herbold amendment? And thank you for bringing that concern back show.
Speaker 3: Thank you. So, first of all, I just want to say.
Speaker 1: I know we are trying very hard to get these things in early. I think.
Speaker 3: Getting this at 215 on the same day that we're supposed to be voting on, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: Qualify as especially when we've been working on it for about four years now. But that said, considering that you.
Speaker 3: And Councilmember Gonzalez both live in District one as an example, hypothetically speaking.
Speaker 1: How would you think the.
Speaker 3: Rule would apply and impact the two of you.
Speaker 1: Differently? What are you looking for?
Speaker 7: The rule hasn't been developed. I'm simply asking the Commission in its development of the rule to consider whether or not there should be a difference. I don't know the answer to that question. I'm just asking. They are the experts and they are they're going to be the ones who are developing the rule. I'm just flagging this as as an issue for them to consider in their rule development. Okay.
Speaker 1: And I'll just say that nothing in the amendment that Councilmember Herbold is advancing or the underlying legislation would actually resolve.
Speaker 7: The conflict of interest that I've.
Speaker 1: Identified in terms of my direct or your soundtrack's.
Speaker 7: Financial interests with regard to the sound transit.
Speaker 0: Preferred.
Speaker 7: Preferred alternative identified by the Stakeholder.
Speaker 1: Advisory Group.
Speaker 7: Which is right on top of my condo. So these rules are going to I'm still going to be completely conflicted out and will not see any really through. So there is no impact for me as an elected official making decisions in that other space.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. And I just want to underscore, I was not thinking specifically of that incident. I was just thinking that both of you are in district one. And how would this be impactful for the two of you just going forward and let's just say your condo issue is off.
Speaker 1: Is is not an issue. I mean, I'm I'm I'm at large representative.
Speaker 7: So I think the formula and calculation of the conflict would have to be evaluated through that at large months of substantially substantial number of people across the city would have to be benefiting it. I just happen to live in District one.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we're just going to vote on the amendment. Any other questions on just the amendment? All those in favor of Councilmember Herbold amendment s8+. Please vote i. I opposed. Okay, so the base legislation is amended. Would any councilmembers like to comment on the base legislation before we take a vote?
Speaker 1: Sure. I'll just be. Thank you. I want to say thanks to my colleagues. We have actually been working on this since 2013.
Speaker 3: I think the first time I am here appeared in front of the Ethics Commission was the summer of 2013.
Speaker 1: I believe.
Speaker 3: Now, Councilmember Gonzales was on the commission at that time and very much appreciate the fact that we've been.
Speaker 1: Going through this with.
Speaker 3: Great care. Wayne Barnett's here. Appreciate how hard that that office has been working for me. It's really about.
Speaker 1: Being able to.
Speaker 3: Represent the constituents in District seven. Initially, when I was told I could not be involved, I've had to recuse myself.
Speaker 1: As all of you know.
Speaker 3: This waterfront project is something I've been working on since.
Speaker 1: 2004 in different.
Speaker 3: Capacities, and I look forward to being able to come back and meet with my constituents here again, their concerns and make decisions with the rest of you. So thank you today for.
Speaker 1: All of your work on it. Council President Hiro leading the group and the government subcommittee and I appreciate going forward today.
Speaker 0: Very good. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm going to be voting against this today, but I want to just speak briefly. Why? I also want to state my appreciation for the work that's been done in the last few weeks to really narrowly tailor this. And I think that makes this much harder decision for me. I understand the desire of the commission to be able to focus on this unique circumstances we now have because we have district council members. And I think that that's a valid concern that is being weighed against what I think is our existing ethics in elections code, which is, I believe, one of the best in the country. And for me, that tradeoff is just not quite enough to support this right now. I understand why. And I think that reasonable minds I certainly understand why folks would support it. But for me, my preference would be to leave things as they are. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Bryant. Any other comments or concerns? Councilwoman Johnson.
Speaker 8: Just briefly, I want to say that in contrast to Councilmember O'Brien actually will be voting yesterday. I was opposed to the approach as it was originally proposed in 2016 when I first started on the council. That was because I thought that it was written a little too broadly in the instance of potential future conflicts. I live just outside a urban village in Roosevelt Ravine, a neighborhood. The way that that legislation was described to me in 2016 would have been that I would have still been allowed to vote on council matters that could potentially rezone my own property that seemed like too big of a conflict of interest. And in this instance, I would now still be prohibited from voting on the rezoning of my property, which I think many folks would perceive as an accurate conflict of interest, that I, as a councilmember, shouldn't be able to vote on changes to my own property values based on that particular conflict. So this is more this more narrowly tailored approach is one that I can support, and we'll be voting yes today.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Okay. I think we're cancer. I'm a skater.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the amendments that have been put forward. Thank you to Wayne and your team for trying to find a path forward. I, too, was concerned with some of the initial language that I saw. Obviously, I think that we believe that any elected should not be lining their own pockets with any policy decision that's made and that there should not be a direct financial benefit for votes that are taken. I think a great example is the one that was just mentioned. If a rezoning decision were in front of us and that related to anybody's specific property and there was direct financial benefits, that would be a conflict that I would want to make sure somebody had had the requirement to recuse themselves. Under this scenario, it appears that that is the case, and we have crafted this carefully. I think that it's important that we allow for folks to vote on policies that allow for us to act as good stewards of the public dollar and make good public policy decisions. For example, I want everybody on this council to be able to make decisions about how we create new sidewalks for people to walk carefully to school or to work. I want to be able to have this entire council be able to vote on up zones so that we can create more density and the opportunity to live in this city. Those are two examples of ways that we improve the quality of life for all Seattle and don't have a direct benefit to any one individual, though it may be a direct benefit to a region or certain portion of Seattle. It's not a direct financial lining of anybody's pocket. So I think that this is a good compromise. Thank you to Wayne again and your team and to the council members that have put this forward. I'll be supporting this version.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilmember skater. Okay, I think we're ready to vote, so let's do that. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Swatch.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Rosen Herald. I respect Councilmember O'Brien's concerns, but I think if there is full disclosure, then that is the important thing and I think that remains existing here. I will be voting yes on it. I also wanted to just note that ultimately the biggest financial impact on council members and our politicians in general is the campaign donations they get from big business, which is still going to be allowed. So I think that that's the essential point. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes. Matt Herbold.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just wanted to take a moment to speak to the base Bill, if I could. When we originally started deliberating on this piece of legislation, I turned to the Ethics and Elections website where it says that the code seeks to prevent conflicts of interest. In other words, the objective is not to make conflicts known to the public, but instead is to try to ensure that they don't occur at all. A financial interest in itself is not a conflict of interest. And that's why by asking the Ethics and Elections Commission to, through its rulemaking process, determine what a substantial segment of the public is, we are still maintaining that bright line in prohibiting conflicts of interests, because we are we are giving them the ability to to determine when a financial interest is held by primarily the council member or a small number of folks, and whether or not that really meets that that standard. So given the pivoting of this legislation, more again towards the the the the bright line that we've had for a very long time and has benefited us in the city, I am going to support the legislation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herbold. Okay. I believe we are now ready. Councilmember, anyone change your mind? Could do a nine. And over here I got nine and I'll kick in here for you. Okay.
Speaker 5: Keep it interesting.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the amended bill.
Speaker 1: So on I make sure. By Gonzales. I Herbold II. Johnson Suarez. Mr. O'Brien.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: President Herrell. All right. Eight in favor.
Speaker 0: One opposed. Thank you. The bill passed and chose. Sign it. Please read the next agenda item.
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Ethics Code; amending Sections 4.16.030 and 4.16.070 of the Seattle Municipal Code; requiring elected officials to disclose financial interests in legislative matters prior to participating in those matters; and creating a limited exception to the requirement that elected officials disqualify themselves from participating in such matters.