A proposed ordinance making its manner by means of Seattle’s Governance, Accountability, and Financial Improvement Committee would amend the Code of Ethics to permit elected officers to vote on laws even once they have a direct monetary curiosity within the end result. Supporters argue this alteration is important for “readability” and “flexibility.” In actuality, it will additional erode public belief in native authorities and let council members profiteer by means of public workplace.
Seattle’s present code is evident: Public officers should stay unbiased, neutral and act in service of the general public good — a precedent grounded within the very basis of consultant democracy.
This invoice, sponsored by Councilmember Cathy Moore, would upend this normal of habits by decreasing a council member’s accountability to public disclosure of monetary curiosity earlier than they vote on laws. However disclosure isn’t accountability. Voters ought to (and do) count on greater than a quick assertion of a possible battle of curiosity earlier than a council member casts a consequential vote. They count on moral safeguards robust sufficient to make sure public choices are made for the frequent good — not a council member’s non-public acquire.
Proponents argue the present code prevents council members from absolutely partaking on points that matter to their constituents. There are two issues value mentioning: First, council members’ engagement would solely be restricted when the monetary curiosity isn’t shared by a considerable phase of the inhabitants, and, second, whereas probably the most decisive motion a council member can take is to vote, their strongest software is their potential to construct and leverage coalitions of assist amongst their colleagues.
Some council members have complained that phrases like “substantial phase” and even “monetary curiosity” itself aren’t outlined within the present code. Somewhat than arguing for moral regression, the council and the Ethics and Elections Fee must outline these phrases to make clear when recusal ought to apply.
Folks discover the proposed modifications problematic as a result of some council members’ monetary pursuits are shared by too few within the metropolis. No person expects council members who personal properties to recuse themselves from land use, zoning and complete planning. No person even expects council members who hire to recuse themselves from tenant rights choices. Many Seattleites personal properties. Most are renters. Only a few are landlords.
The issue arises when folks mistake representing the desire of a particularly small however vocal cohort with representing their constituency at giant. Particularly when they’re a part of that small cohort and derive advantages from choices.
When elected officers are allowed to vote on issues that ship monetary profit to an unique class of which they’re a member, public belief turns into public cynicism. Folks imagine each resolution to be pushed by self-interest, not the general public good. The looks of impropriety irreparably damages confidence in authorities, making folks really feel the system is rigged and their voices don’t matter.
If a council member has to recuse themselves and can’t persuade their colleagues {that a} invoice ought to go, then the invoice shouldn’t go. Seattleites have a proper to count on that when their leaders think about public contracts, or regulation of housing or companies, they’re not doing so with their financial institution accounts in thoughts.
Democracy will depend on belief. Belief will depend on clear, enforceable and enforced moral boundaries.
This isn’t a hypothetical concern. We live in a time when cynicism about authorities is already dangerously excessive. Persons are determined for leaders who act with integrity, and assist for this invoice illustrates precisely why these leaders are in brief provide.
Seattle needs to be setting the usual for moral governance, not failing to fulfill it. The council ought to cease and replicate on the message this invoice sends: that governing ethically is elective, that conflicts of curiosity needs to be no barrier to energy and that the general public good is of no concern. This ideology has no place in Seattle.
Seattle Metropolis Council must reject the proposed amendments and search for methods to strengthen the moral guardrails of our democracy. We want extra transparency, not much less. Extra accountability, not loopholes. Public service, not self-service.
If you need to share your ideas, please submit a Letter to the Editor of not more than 200 phrases to be thought of for publication in our Opinion part. Ship to: letters@seattletimes.com
