Amid Waning Council Support, Cathy Moore Withdraws Bill to Lower Ethics Standards

Moore's bill was widely unpopular with the public, and it was unclear that she had the votes to pass it.

Cathy Moore and Maritza Rivera supported replacing the recusal standard for conflicts of interest with a lower "disclosure" standard.

By Erica C. Barnett

City Councilmember Cathy Moore announced Friday that she is withdrawing a bill that would have lowered ethical standards for city council members, allowing them to vote on legislation in which they have a direct financial conflict of interest. Currently, council members must recuse themselves from participating in legislation that would benefit or harm them financially; the proposed standard, supported by Seattle Ethics and Elections director Wayne Barnett, would have allowed members to vote but required them to disclose their financial conflicts first.

In a statement, Moore said her conversations with colleagues made it "clear that we require more time to ensure we get this right."

A council committee moved the legislation forward last week with just two votes in favor and three abstentions, indicating the council's reluctance to go on the record supporting a bill that had galvanized massive public opposition (and virtually no public support.) In addition to removing an ethical requirement that has worked for more than four decades, the bill would have allowed the council's two landlords, Mark Solomon and Maritza Rivera, to vote on an upcoming Moore bill to roll back eviction protections passed by the previous council.

Moore's legislation may not have had enough support to pass at all in its current form. Bob Kettle, who abstained from last week's vote, told PubliCola on Tuesday that we shouldn't assume he's a "yes" on the bill. Before Moore pulled it, Kettle was planning to introduce an amendment that would have changed the legislation's effective date to January 2028, after the next district council elections—and long after Moore introduces her proposal to roll back renter protections, which is supposed to be coming any day now.

Mark Solomon, who voted for Moore's bill in committee, told PubliCola on Thursday (before Moore pulled her legislation) that he planned to vote against it at full council unless it included a true recusal requirement—and he said an amendment added by Hollingsworth that would require recusal in extremely narrow circumstances didn't cut it.

"I like that there’s a call for more transparency, I like that there's a call for disclosure, but when I ask [Barnett] if this bill, as currently amended, is going to strengthen our ethics code and I can't get a yes or no, that gives me pause," Solomon said. "I want recusal. I want disclosure. I want transparency. And if what is being proposed does not provide that, then I’m a no."

If the council had passed the legislation on a 5-4 vote, Mayor Bruce Harrell—who opposed similar legislation when he was on the city council—would have been able to issue an effective veto, since overriding a veto requires a 6-3 vote of the council. On Thursday, Harrell's office declined to say whether he would veto the bill if it passed. In a statement, Harrell said, "I do not support this proposal that appears to diminish the City’s strong ethics rules," adding that the current recusal standard establishes "a clear, objective line to demonstrate to the community that decisions are being made solely with the public interest at heart," while disclosure does not.

In her statement, Moore said she hoped to reintroduce an amended version of her bill at some future date.

"As the Council further discusses the appropriate policy choice for our city, it’s my hope that we can collaborate to find a standard that both upholds the accountability of elected officials and preserves the integrity of our system, without impeding the essential functions of local government," Moore said.

Supporters of Moore's bill have claimed that requiring district council members to recuse themselves from voting "disenfranchises" their voters and robs them of representation on important issues. Many of those constituents showed up at public meetings week after week to express their opposition to the proposal, saying they did not want their district representatives to be allowed to vote in their own self-interest.