Isn't Potter's pronouncement of innocence, as incorrect as it is, yet another "conflict of interest?"

As I've shown in posts below, there is no question that Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt has committed multiple illegal acts in the form of conflicts of interest where he, at a minimum, materially and either directly or indirectly stood to gain from his actions.

Specifically, Boldt voted for contracts with a private organization wherein his wife was employed.  On at least the last occasion, the contract was to "loan" the organization $175,000 specifically to "make payroll," a payroll where Marc's wife, Dawn, would have been paid.

As Washington is a community property state, there is no doubt that Boldt would benefit as a result of that vote, taken without declaring either that his wife was employed at Lifeline, as he would be required to declare even if the interest was "remote," or without waiting for Commissioner Tom Mielke's return to vote, since votes from those with even a remote interest are not to be counted if such vote is required to pass the motion.

There does not appear to be any dissension in considering this fact set; the newspaper, which is, of course, never wrong, has reported all of this, no matter how badly or incompletely.

There is an argument that no official pronouncement has been made in this matter, just a quote in another of the series of badly written articles by Stephanie Rice.

That said, considering that the Clark County Commissioners approve the Prosecutor's Office Budget, does not such a pronouncement represent at least an ethical violation, given that Potter stands to benefit directly from that budget in the form of his own pay?

Potter's view is based on the incorrect application of one part of an overview concerning conflicts: that is the issue of the question of either ownership (Did Marc Boldt have any ownership interest in Lifeline?) or other form of position of guidance that addresses the issue of direction of the company (Was Dawn Boldt a director or in some other position akin to that?)

The answers are no... and no.  There's no dispute there, either.

And that's fine, as far as it goes.  So where did Potter drop the ball?

Easy.

There are many more possible conflicts then that which a lawyer who contacted me told me Potter likely used to make his decision.

The over-arching criteria is this:

Did Marc Boldt benefit, directly or indirectly, by agreeing to a contract to provide taxpayer dollars to a company where his wife worked for purposes of payroll, in this instance, making sure his wife, among others, was paid?

It's clear that no one disputes the facts of the matter:

Dawn Boldt has worked for Lifeline for quite some time, starting as a volunteer and then paid employee AFTER her marriage to Marc Boldt;

Dawn Boldt began her relationship with Lifeline, both unpaid AND Paid, after Marc Boldt was elected to the county commission.

Marc Boldt has withheld the fact that Dawn Boldt had a relationship with Lifeline for the past several years generally and the last two plus years specifically while she was on the payroll.

As a result, any vote taken by Boldt to provide Lifeline with any funding during that time represents a conflict of interest, if for no other reason then his failure to declare the relationship between his wife and Lifeline.  (Page 10 )

A question often arises when the spouse of a local government employee or contractor is elected or appointed to an office of that local government that has authority over the spouse’semployment or other contract:

Question: Must the existing employment or contract be terminated immediately? 

Answer: The answer to the question is, ordinarily,“no’; however, any subsequent renewal or modification of the employment or other contract probably would be prohibited. For example, in a letter opinion by the attorney general to the state auditor, the question involved the marriage of a county commissioner to the secretary of another official of the same county. If the employment had occurred after the marriage, the statute would have applied because of the community property interest of each spouse in the other’searnings. The author concluded that the statute was not violated in that instance because the contract (employment) pre-existed and could not have been made “by, through, or under the supervision of” the county commissioner or for the benefit of his office. However, the letter warned, the problem would arise when the contract first came up for renewal or amendment. That might be deemed to occur, for instance, when the municipality adopts its next budget. Or, in a case where the spouse is an employee who serves “at the pleasure of” the official in question, the employment might be regarded as renewable at the beginning of the next monthly or other pay period after the official takes office. Attorney General’s letter to the State Auditor, dated June 8, 1970

Each of the bold-faced portions of this paragraph appear to apply to this existent situation.

During the course of Dawn Boldt's employment with Lifeline, there has been at least one, if not two, budgets adopted.  Each of these appear to be a conflict on the part of Commissioner Boldt, who voted for the budgets in question.

During the course of Dawn Boldt's employment, the contract has been renewed and or modified at least 3 times.

What makes this a conflict is the simple language in the paragraph, excerpted here:

If the employment had occurred after the marriage, the statute would have applied because of the community property interest of each spouse in the other’s earnings.

Is there any question that the employment took place after the marriage?  Of course not.  Is there, then, any question that this represents a violation of this state's conflict of interest laws?

You be the judge.

Further, on the same page, it states:

A municipal officer may not vote even though one of the exemptions allowing the awarding of such a contract applies. The interest of the municipal officer must be disclosed to the governing body of the municipality and noted in the official minutes or similar records of the municipality before the formation of the contract.

It also appears that Commissioner Boldt is in violation of the law because until this most recent episode, he NEVER disclosed this relationship on the record, through two budgets and this modification.  And, of course, he DID vote.

Further, each and every vote Boldt took to provide that funding represents a violation, "remote" interest or no, because Boldt failed to declare the relationship between his wife and Lifeline at the time of the vote, particularly while she was on the payroll.

As a result, any contract where Boldt voted to provide Lifeline with any funds, particularly while Dawn Boldt was on the payroll, appears to be void.

What is the penalty for these violations? (From Page 17)

Penalties 

1. A public officer who violates chapter 42.23RCW may be held liable for a $500 civil penalty “in addition to such other civil or criminal liability or penalty as may otherwise be imposed.”

2. The contract is void, and the jurisdiction may avoid payment under the contract, even though it may have been fully performed by another party. 

3. The officer may have to forfeit his or her office.

"The contract is void."

Kind of speaks for itself.  Lifeline appears to have been operating under a void contract subsequent to any new budget, renewal or modification that has taken place during the entirety of Dawn Boldt's employment there.

So where did Potter screw this up?

It appears that none of the issues I've raised were even considered.  As I pointed out, there are many more than one particular way to violate these rules/laws, and it appears to me that only the one standard was applied, when many, many standards must be met.

Enlightened self-interest?

Perhaps.  But out of all of this comes the following:

Commissioner Marc Boldt, who, in the interests of full disclosure is my brother-in-law, appears to have repeatedly violated the law and repeatedly engaged in conflicts where he stood to, and did, benefit materially due to the community property nature of this state.

And secondly, not even a paper trail will get the rag on your back if they like you... their excuse for failing to do their job on the Jim Jacks debacle, where they buried his misconduct with female staff... as a "favor," no doubt, in return for Jacks being their, forgive me, bitch... based on the lack of any such trail, and, of course, bias and laziness.

So, the choices are these:

The county can act in much the same way they would with any other elected official in similar circumstances, by requesting an independent investigation from a disinterested party... someone a little more versed on conflict law and someone a little less beholding to the county commissioners.  They can, and should, hire an outside attorney with a background in conflict law to investigate.

The state can act on this matter as a result of the county's deliberate inaction.

Or I can act.

But unlike the Jacks' Scam, this one isn't going away.