Advisory Opinion 95-11-1136
Solid Waste/Post-Employment Restriction

ISSUE: WHETHER A FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE MAY BID AS A SUBCONSULTANT ON A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) WHICH INVOLVES WORK FOR THE COUNTY DIVISION WHICH FORMERLY EMPLOYED HIM?

Opinion: In limited circumstances, a former county employee may do business on a project that involves his or her former county agency. The former county employee may not have been directly involved in the project; nor could he or she have participated in the development of a Request for Proposal; nor can there be a direct relationship between the work performed by the former county employee and their former agency. The former employee must disclose previous county employment for a period of two years after leaving the county.

Statement of Circumstances: A project-specific temporary program analyst worked for the Solid Waste Division from September 1992 until July 1995. His work entailed assignments and responsibilities relating to the county's moderate risk waste management programs, as well as the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program. The Solid Waste Division issued a RFP for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the county's updated Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The former employee would like to bid as a subconsultant on the EIS in the areas of general solid waste management planning and economic analysis. He has asked the Board of Ethics to decide whether his intention to work as a subconsultant would violate the one-year post-employment restriction in the Code of Ethics?

Analysis: Chapter 10.22 of the King County Code establishes policy direction for the development of the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Under subsection 10.24.040, the Solid Waste Division is also given responsibility for preparing a hazardous waste management plan, which may be adopted separately or incorporated into the comprehensive plan. In this instance, the Board understands that the former county employee had no direct involvement with the development of the updated comprehensive plan, and has had no involvement with or knowledge of the EIS or the attendant RFP; however, the former employee did contribute to those portions of the comprehensive plan dealing with the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

The one-year post-employment restriction appears under subsections 3.04.035(B) and (C) of the Code of Ethics, and provides in relevant part that:

All other county employees are prohibited from attempting to influence for compensation their former departments within one year after termination of employment...provided that such prohibition shall not apply to former career service employees whose termination of county employment is solely the result of a reduction of force due to lack of work, lack of funds, or considerations of efficiency so long as such former employee does not participate in work related to any application, permit, approval or contract on which, while a county employee, he or she personally participated or acquired information in the course of official duties which is not available as a matter of the public knowledge or public record. For two years after leaving the county's employ, former employees are required to disclose past county employment prior to participation in any county action;

while section (C) provides that:

No former county employee may assist any person for compensation or share in compensation received by any person on matters concerning which the former employee is prohibited from participating personally. (Ord. 10841 § 1, 1993: Ord. 9704 § 5, 1990: Ord. 6144 § 2, 1982).

In Advisory Opinion 1080, issued in October 1993, the Board looked at an analogous issue when a former county employee participated in the design review process for the Harborview Project and then asked if she could come back and bid as a subcontractor on that same project. Because the former employee did not appear to have a competitive advantage over others as a result of her county employment, and because she was bidding as a subcontractor, rather than as a general contractor, the Board found that she would not violate the post-employment restriction.

The former employee in this request appears not to have had any involvement with the comprehensive plan's EIS, nor with the development of the RFP, and is proposing to act as a subconsultant on a specific part of the EIS. His work as a subconsultant would therefore not pose a conflict under the Code of Ethics. However, the former employee must disclose his previous King County employment for a period of two years after leaving the county.

References: King County Code of Ethics, sections 3.04.035(B) and (C); Advisory Opinion 1080.

ISSUED THIS ___________ DAY OF ___________________, 199__.

Signed for the Board: Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair

Members:

Dr. J. Patrick Dobel, Chair
Timothy Edwards, Esq.
Rev. Paul Pruitt
Ron Carlson
Dr. Lois Price Spratlen

JPD/mag

cc:

Gary Locke, King County Executive
Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
David Krull, Director-Ombudsman, Office of Citizen Complaints
Robert I. Stier, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Counsel to the Board of Ethics
Paul Tanaka, Director, Department of Public Works
Rod Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division