Ethics complaint dismissed against Kennewick mayor. Should ethics code cover personal life?

The ethics officer for the city of Kennewick has reversed his February finding that there should be a hearing to consider evidence that Mayor Don Britain may have violated the city’s ethics code.

Attorney Thomas Atwood, who serves as the ethics officer on an as-needed basis, issued a ruling in mid-May that there was no reason to have a public hearing after all.

His decision effectively dismisses the complaint.

Atwood was convinced to change his recommendation based on the mayor’s argument that the ethics policy for city council members should only apply to conduct directly related to city activities or council business.

The Herald received the mayor’s arguments in response to state public records requests.

Atwood said an exception could be made to consider personal conduct if there were egregious behavior outside of city business, such as a felony conviction or conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, neither of which applies to Britain’s case, Atwood wrote in his decision to the council.

A hearing initially was scheduled for April to hear evidence on the complaint filed against the mayor, but was postponed because of COVID-19 meeting restrictions and not rescheduled.

Britain responded to the ethics complaint filed against him after Atwood’s original ruling.

The mayor argued that the council had not intended the ethics policy approved by the council in August to apply to conduct in the personal lives of council members.

Ethics code complaint

An ethics complaint was filed against Britain after he was fired from his job as a Washington state Department of Social and Health Services case manager. An administrative investigation by the Washington State Patrol had looked into his relationship with a female welfare client.

The city complaint alleged that he violated the requirement in the ethic’s policy that “professional and personal conduct of officials must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”

The ethics complaint alleged he improperly helped the client, who shared an apartment with him, to obtain state benefits, including an electronic card for food, a gas card and allegedly unneeded items for a welding class.

Britain previously noted that in most cases other DSHS officials gave final approval for those benefits for the client.

The ethics complaint went beyond the WSP investigation to accuse Britain of possible crimes, including theft, perjury or interference with official proceedings.

The WSP investigation did not accuse Britain of any criminal activity and he is not under criminal investigation in the matter.

Britain has denied he was in a romantic relationship with the client or that his professional conduct in handling her case was improper.

The city ethics officer found that while Britain “may not have strictly followed his employer’s procedures, he did not do so for the purpose of personal gain. Termination of employment does not necessarily show improper behavior.”

Whether Britain and his client had a romantic or platonic relationship is not relevant to the matter before the city because the personal relationship was not directly related to city business, Atwood wrote.

Intent of ethics code

Atwood made the determination after Britain argued in a letter to him that the ethics policy was intended to mirror the state’s recall process and applied only to a council member acting on behalf of the city.

A recall petition filed against Britain in Benton County Superior Court was dismissed in February because the allegations were not related to his work for the city.

“Even though not specifically cited in the ethics policy, the intent of the ethics policy is that no acts done outside of a council member’s official capacity of a council member could be a basis for an ethics complaint,” Britain told Atwood.

Britain said the presentations to a city committee meeting, which only certain council members are assigned to attend, made the intent clear.

But Councilman John Trumbo, one of three councilmen who signed the ethics complaint against Britain, said in a written statement to news media after the ethics officer’s latest decision that he disagrees with Britain’s explanation of the intent of the ethic’s code.

There was no discussion by the council before approving the ethics code 5-2 in August that it was intended to mirror the state law on recalling elected officials, Trumbo wrote.

Atwood said in his May ruling that after Britain filed his response to the complaint, that Atwood contacted City Attorney Lisa Beaton.

She said the intent of the ethics code was that it apply only to acts done as a city council member, though the code did not explicitly state that, according to Atwood.

‘Politically motivated’

Councilman Bill McKay said at the June 2 council meeting that he was displeased that the ethics officer sought interpretation from city staff when the ethics code was clear. He said he was disappointed with the “meddling.”

Britain countered that the ethics complaint against him reflected a zest to try to cause harassment and financial harm and was “politically motivated.”

He said tremendous staff resources were being wasted on “silly little side games.”

Dismissing the complaint before a hearing was the right thing to do, Britain said. But it also deprived him of the opportunity to question under oath those who had falsely accused him of theft, perjury and fraud, he said.

McKay, who took the lead on filing the ethics complaint against Britain, responded that calling the ethics complaint “politically motivated” was “a very unfair statement,” and he would have filed a complaint against any council member who acted as Britain was accused.

Councilman Chuck Torelli said that the council should consider addressing problems with the ethics code and recommended that the ethics officer make recommendations.

This is the second ethics complaint filed by council members under the new city ethics code. The first was filed against Councilman Trumbo and will be considered at the council’s June 16 meeting. It will be livestreamed on the internet at 6:30 p.m.

This story was originally published June 15, 2020 at 12:53 PM.