Ethics complaints filed against a Clark County staff member or elected official finally have a place to go instead of sitting in limbo or waiting for the county council to review. On Tuesday, the county council unanimously approved an ordinance creating a code of ethical conduct, ethics review commission and ethics oversight office.
The county council suspended its review process for ethics complaints in July 2020 because the review process itself was a “huge mess,” according to Councilor Gary Medvigy at the time. Although the council has reviewed a handful of complaints since then, a definitive process had not been established.
The county was required to adopt a new ordinance by July 31 per charter amendment, which was passed by voters in November. The amendment called for the county council to establish a code of ethics and penalties for violating that code that applies to all county departments, elected officials and entities receiving funds through the county budget.
Rather than specifying its code of ethics, the ordinance instead states, “Clark County adheres to the requirements of state law, including Chapter 42 RCW, and Clark County human resources policy.”
Several residents providing public comment during the meeting said they wanted to see a more thorough ordinance and ethics code.
“You are weakening, not strengthening the ordinance. Those RCWs, Chapter 42, are very narrow,” Washougal resident Rob Anderson said. “Overall, these ethics resolutions are weaker, not necessarily because there are fewer pages but what they’re doing is weakening the ethics standards and policies already in place. This in no way honors what voters wanted.”
Anderson also noted the ordinance lacks any specific penalties for violations, which are required by the charter amendment.
“Please just start over. This does not meet and raise ethical standards,” Anderson said.
Bridget McLeman, of Vancouver, said it shouldn’t be left to residents to determine what state law requires.
“The council is assuming people will know how to Google the RCWs and read the 10 to 20 sections,” she said.
McLeman also noted the charter amendment requires the ethics commission to hear and rule on ethics complaints, but the ethics oversight office is charged with accepting and investigating complaints. She said the ordinance does not make that distinction clear.
Terri Niles, also of Vancouver, said residents are left with “the impression that the ethics oversight office right now is defined as just having a place where you can call in.”
“What they considered an office was somebody that would help with training, whether it was a (human resources) employee that would do ethics training with staff, with electeds. They are not seeing a robust office and that was clearly defined in the charter amendment,” Niles said.
During Tuesday’s meeting, the county council spent much of its time discussing the ethics code and ethics review commission, with no mention of the oversight office.
In response to concerns over the county manager selecting the members of the ethics review commission, Medvigy said it was “something that never really caught my attention, because it seemed so familiar and similar to all the other appointees for different boards and committees where we select from the public.”
Medvigy said the county manager and council work together on naming members of a committee, noting the charter language upholds this for the commission. As with other boards and commissions, he said the council would still have to approve or veto any nominations from the county manager.
Councilor Julie Olson defended the council’s decision, noting that linking it to state law and county policy allows for a broader interpretation. She said this also means the county’s ordinance wouldn’t have to be updated any time the law or county policy changed. Olson also pointed out that the county’s 24-page human resources policy is extensive.
“It talks a lot about honesty and integrity and how we operate as public officials, both elected and not elected. These will change over the years so referencing them makes sense,” she said. “I’m having a hard time understanding why people think this is weak.”
Olson said while the county’s policy was in place previous to the ordinance, the county “now has a process in place for both electeds and nonelecteds to have a complaint reviewed by a body that’s been selected and purposefully understands the process by which they’re going to review those complaints.”
