Originally published Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Seattle council member pays ethics fine with his own funds

Heading off a confrontation with the city's ethics watchdog, Seattle City Councilmember Richard McIver today paid a $1,000 ethics fine with his own money.

By Jack Broom

Seattle Times staff reporter

Heading off a confrontation with the city's ethics watchdog, Seattle City Councilmember Richard McIver today paid a $1,000 ethics fine with his own money.

McIver, who earlier had insisted on paying the fine with city funds, directed a staffer to hand-deliver a check from McIver's personal account to Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.

"This certainly does resolve the issue," said Barnett, who had earlier indicated he'd pursue legal action to get McIver to pay the fine himself.

The commission assessed the fine last month, ruling that McIver violated the city's ethics code when he awarded a no-bid contract to a company after vacationing at the Virgin Islands condominium of one of the company's owners.

In a prepared statement, McIver said he still disagrees with the commission's decision, and feels he was legally justified in paying the fine under a little-known law which indemnifies city employees facing penalties for misconduct.

"While my earlier action to have the City's Judgment Claims Fund pay this fine is legally defensible," McIver said, "It is clear that it is not politically acceptable and creates the appearance that I somehow feel that the City's ethics sanctions do not apply to me.

"That is not the case and not the impression that I want to give to the citizens of Seattle."

The matter may not be entirely finished. Barnett indicated the ordinance that McIver cited in his attempt to pay the fine with public money is the likely next target.

"It's my understanding the council is eager to close that loophole, and we will provide whatever advice we can to support that," Barnett said.

McIver, in his statement, said he still is uncertain why the commission fined him, since he did not commit an intentional violation or personally benefit from his action.

"My position has been that if I showed no 'actual impairment,' what am I guilty of?" McIver said, adding: "However, I've lost that battle and I concede that fact."

McIver said the ethics panel "has now established a nebulous or undefined precedent, which troubles me ... I fear that the current standard is so vague that no one knows to which standard they are to be held accountable."