— from Kat Fennell —
During the Women’s League of Voter’s Candidate’s forum for District 2 Candidates, there was a question as to whether if Council Members owned or operated a transient rental should recuse themselves from voting on legislation related to transient rentals. Apparently, Council Members who own or operate transient rentals had voted on related legislation.The following is a quote from the mrsc.org County Commissioner Guide Published in 2015, Ethical Issues, Conflicts of Interest Page 27.
“Washington law governing conflicts of interest regarding municipalities is derived from the State Constitution, statutes, and from law made from court decisions (known as common law). The general rule from which our state’s conflict of interest law derives is that a municipal officer shall not use his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself, herself, or others. As expressed by our state supreme court over a century ago, the common law principle that a municipal officer is prohibited from adjudicating his or her own cause is “a maxim as old as the law itself.” Smith v. Centralia, 55 Wash. 573 (1909).
State law forbids county officials from having personal financial interests in public contracts made by, through, or under their supervision, regardless of whether or not they vote on the matter. There are some exceptions, based on contract amounts. Review the statute carefully and, when in doubt, consult with your county prosecutor. RCW 42.23.030.
State law regarding conflicts of interest is based on the fundamental principle that municipal officers hold a public trust and they are required to uphold that trust. These rules apply to real and perceived conflicts of interest and, as below described in more detail, include a prohibition against elected officials voting on matters in which they stand to benefit financially.” For a more detailed overview, see Conflicts of Interest, MRSC.
This brought a lot of questions for me with regard to not only transient rental legislation, but the increased development allowed by the new Shoreline Master Program and application of code enforcement regulations.
PS Vote Durland District 2.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Well, if we are going to look at conflicts-of-interest, that should include those current and former council members who broke with ethics while weakening environmental protections, re-wroting our laws, and who repeatedly went ahead against massive public outcry. How else can you explain the County’s willingness to permit Shawn Demeritt’s 8,000 foot monstrosity with subterranean parking on shoreline lands near herring spawn? We can name names – and they should be outed, especially since they continue to sit on boards in positions of power after leaving council. These findings should be public record in perpetuity.
If Michael or any other challengers wants my vote, they are going to have to say what they stand for and be willing to stand BY what they say. I’d like to know Michael’s and the other candidates’ thoughts on this permit; what they would DO about it if they were on Council? Tourism as sole industry is killing this place – the pandemic is showing us that we need a change!
As I understand it, the principal proponent of vacation rental limits owns vacation rentals.
Also, if the current Council members who have vacation rentals recuse themselves, there would be no quorum for Council meetings.
Just sayin’.
Demerit has nothing to do with the proposed building.
The amount of misinformation being espoused about the building itself and the process surrounding it is nearing an intolerable level.
EPRC is looking for members. Building Advisory Committee is always seeking new blood. Want to have a hand in changing the laws, get involved.
By the way, the building is not permitted yet.
As to the Commissioners recusing themselves, go for it… you officially killed any chance of change, because there would not be anyone to vote.
Oops. Ms Manning stumbled over her own logic rather badly. If some VR reform advocates own VRs, then doesn’t that show that VR reform has become a “bipartisan” cause which includes VR owners themselves who wish to help curb the excesses of overtourism? As to the ethicall question, a CC member could either recuse or divest, and it is my understanding that at least one such CC member is doing the latter.
Thanks for your research on this hot topic Kat.
“As to the Commissioners recusing themselves, go for it… you officially killed any chance of change, because there would not be anyone to vote.”
This may be accurate at the city level (Friday Harbor), but only one of the three county councilmen (Rick Hughes) owns a vacation rental at this time. Asking him to step down from a vote on vacation rentals seems reasonable, and would not jeopardize the quorum.
“As I understand it, the principal proponent of vacation rental limits owns vacation rentals.”
Is it merely coincidence that the councilman being singled out (Rick Hughes), who has had years to do what the public, and more recently also what the vacation rental working group has asked of him in regards to limits on vacation rentals… only to be rebuked– is now, in the face of the coming election suddenly the most progressive person on the planet; one who’s willing to say “Yes” to everybody on every subject under the sun.
Thank you, and yes, Vote Durland. He puts our quality of life, the rural beauty, the clean environment and the local community before profit. Time to create a community that supports its members first.
Would the legislation related to transient rentals referred to in the Letter effect current VR owners? Or is it more about limiting future permits?
Reading the quoted state law unemotionally, I believe it means that there would be NO CONFLICT unless “special privileges or exemptions” are involved (in the language that Kat Fennel quoted). There is nothing “special” (and therefore no conflict) if a proposed ordinance would limit everybody in the same way. Whether the issue is future VRs or future property tax rates or future building codes, they all could conceivably affect council members financially – but they usually would do so in the same way they might affect you and me and everybody else. As Toby pointed out, it’s important to show how a council member’s vote would create a “special” benefit to that council member (rather than perhaps a negative) before jumping to the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest. Our state and local lawmakers have been struggling with these dilemmas since before we gained statehood, and they must be thought through carefully.
Toby–I don’t know anyone who doesn’t seek to curb the excesses of “overtourism.” I just haven’t heard a rational practical plan yet. One could just as easily argue that participation of VR permit holders indicates the wish to lessen potential competition.
Sorry, but the optics of a County Commissioner owning a vacation rental and voting on VR measures are simply terrible. The only decent options are divestment, recusal, or shutting down that VR completely, so that there is NO possibility of financial gain from one’s vote. Period.