Adjustments to Seattle’s code of ethics are overdue. Following suggestions from Seattle’s ethics chief, the Metropolis Council must move commonsense reform.
Councilmember Cathy Moore proposed laws that will amend Seattle Municipal Code to make sure extra council members can take part in crucial coverage selections.
Presently, council members with monetary pursuits or different conflicts of curiosity associated to pending laws are required to recuse themselves and can’t talk about or vote on the matter.
Whereas that sounds affordable, it has been taken to extremes lately. Particular pursuits have latched onto ethics legal guidelines to attempt to knock out council members who might query their favored laws.
That concern prompted Wayne Barnett, government director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Fee, to achieve out to council employees final 12 months.
In a Nov. 6 electronic mail, Barnett famous that he had suggested Councilmembers Sara Nelson and Tanya Woo to recuse themselves from minimal wage laws as a result of they’d private ties to the restaurant business. The invoice was later withdrawn.
Nonetheless, excluding council members primarily based on their skilled expertise put the ethics code “in pressure right here with primary democratic ideas,” wrote Barnett.
“On a matter that considerations many individuals, we’re excluding some folks from the decision-making. And with our small Metropolis Council, we’re doubtlessly tilting the taking part in subject to learn one aspect of the talk,” he noticed.
“I absolutely acknowledge the validity of those (Barnett’s) considerations,” mentioned Moore in a news release. “It’s what this new Council has witnessed firsthand since taking workplace in 2024 — the system isn’t functioning as meant. This has been irritating for the legislative course of. It additionally comes on the expense of voter illustration inside our district illustration system.”
The council is now contemplating CB 120978, which might ditch recusal in favor of disclosure. It could permit council members to take part in coverage growth in the event that they first announce any private monetary or different battle of curiosity in an open public assembly, put it on the official metropolis webpage, and file a written disclosure with Seattle Ethics and Elections Fee and metropolis clerk.
That could be a truthful and clear approach to transfer ahead.
A few factors relating to those that oppose Moore’s laws and need to maintain the established order:
First, it’s necessary that the council replicate the make-up of Seattle. That features enterprise house owners and entrepreneurs of all stripes, a few of whom could also be affected by legal guidelines handed by the council. Silencing the voices of these with pores and skin within the recreation doesn’t guarantee the very best public insurance policies. Certainly, it creates a state of affairs the place solely a sure class of individuals — resembling skilled organizers or longtime authorities workers — make the legal guidelines.
Second, let’s make it clear: President Donald Trump doesn’t know or care about Seattle’s ethics code. Opponents of Moore’s reform who invoke Trump’s identify by saying it’s by some means anti-democratic miss the purpose fully.
Folks elected to Seattle Metropolis Council have an obligation to symbolize their constituents. Forbidding them from getting into coverage debates as a result of they know firsthand the repercussions of laws deprives residents of an knowledgeable dialog.
If voters consider there’s a battle of curiosity and don’t like what they see from leaders at Metropolis Corridor, there’s already a superb treatment for that. It’s referred to as an election.
