An EC Member Who Sues Her City Government
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/dealing-potential-conflicts-involved-…; target="”_blank”">I've
written recently about</a> the propriety of the new chair of D.C.'s ethics
commission practicing in matters that involve the city government.
In that case, there was an appearance, based on the chair's own
website, that he was seeking benefits for his clients from the council and certain
city agencies. He said he would not do this while sitting on the
ethics commission.<br>
<br>
But what if he represented a different sort of client, not those
seeking benefits from the city, but those having issues relating to mistreatment by officials? This is the situation that has arisen in Seattle, where
M. Lorena González is to be appointed to Seattle's ethics
commission today by the council, according to <a href="http://council.seattle.gov/2012/07/18/seattle-city-council-committee-ad…; target="”_blank”">a
council press release</a>.<br>
<br>
González seems to be another perfect choice for an ethics
commission. She is a young attorney who, according to <a href="http://www.sgb-law.com/attorneys/m-lorena-gonzalez/" target="”_blank”">her
webpage</a>, "focuses her practice on representing individuals who
have been victimized by people in authority positions – employers
not giving workers the pay and benefits owed to them, police
officers abusing their powers, and sexual aggressors preying on
those unable to defend themselves." This is someone who clearly is not afraid to
stand up to those in authority.<br>
<br>
But then I looked at the firm's news headlines on the right margin.
The first announces the advancement of her nomination to the ethics
commission. The second announces the settlement of a suit against
Seattle's police department (which is itself not overseen by the ethics commission). All of a sudden, her goal of
representing victims of people in authority positions takes on a new
meaning. The very high-level officials who will come before the
ethics commission are possible defendants in suits pursued by her
firm.<br>
<br>
There is no question here, as there was in D.C., that
González's clients are seeking benefits, such as contracts
and grants, from the city government. They are seeking fair
treatment and the correcting of mistreatment. González would
not be seen as easy on officials in order not to have them biased
against her clients. Her clients are already asserting some form of
bias against them.<br>
<br>
But would she be seen as too hard on officials in order to get back
at them for treatment of her clients, or out of some sort of
perceived bias against those in authority? Such a perception could
be damaging (it would also be refreshing, considering that the
problem is usually seen as bias <i>toward</i> high-level officials, since
they are the appointing authority).<br>
<br>
I don't believe that public officials or employees should represent those suing their city government. It creates a serious appearance problem and, effectively, the official is on both sides of the suit. But an ethics commission member is not a normal official. She is not really part of the government, but rather a watchdog. Her obligation is to making the ethics program work fairly and well. Representing someone who is suing the city should not conflict with this obligation, except with respect to the agency and officials her client is suing and that, therefore, she may be negotiating with on behalf of her client. Too many suits, or suits against the mayor or council, may create problems, however.<br>
<br>
If she or her firm were involved in a suit against an
agency currently or recently (or even where she had reason to
believe her firm would be involved), she should withdraw from
participation in a matter involving an official from that agency.
But, unlike in the D.C. situation, González does not have an
ongoing practice before multiple agencies of the sort that puts an
attorney in an ongoing conflict due to relationships with and the
future desire for benefits from a variety of officials. In the case
of an attorney with such a practice, every official is someone you
do not want to offend, for the good of both your clients and
yourself. González can offend anyone she wants without
jeopardizing her clients.<br>
<br>
It is unlikely that González would have to withdraw on many
occasions. But if it turned out to be a problem, perhaps because
ethics complaints were tied to suits against officials, or simply
because she or her firm were involved in an increased number of
suits against the city or its officials (and, therefore, negotiations with them), this might change the
situation and require González to resign from the commission.
Otherwise, despite possible appearance problems, she is a much less
problematic choice than Spagnoletti was in D.C.<br>
<br>
Postscript: Seattle EC executive director Wayne Barnett wrote me that the EC member Ms. González will be replacing had been appointed to the State Public Disclosure Commission. Because this commission has concurrent jurisdiction with the Seattle EC on campaign finance matters involving city candidates, she chose to step down from the Seattle EC. This is a case where there was no legal conflict and no financial benefits involved, but where the individual would be wearing two hats in certain situations. Legal conflicts and financial benefits are not everything.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---