Seattle ethics panel requires Kshama Sawant to pay $3,516 for violating regulation

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with comments posted Tuesday by Seattle City Councilor Kshama Sawant.

The Seattle Ethics and Election Commission ratified a settlement agreement with Councilor Kshama Sawant in which the politician admitted he had misused city money and other resources in support of a proposed election measure.

Monday’s unanimous vote among six commissioners, a seventh of whom are self-reusing, means Sawant will have to pay the city $ 3,516, double what it spent promoting a wage tax for big companies like Amazon.

The decision comes as a recall campaign collects signatures for an election initiative aimed at overthrowing Sawant. The councilor’s admission to the deal, announced on Friday, acknowledges one of three allegations the campaign has made that she and her supporters have relentlessly denied in the past.

Commissioner Judy Tobin called it a dry topic at a meeting on Zoom.

However, there was a brief discussion of the size of the fine, with a commissioner noting that members of the public had signed up to claim up to $ 100,000.

The Commission’s executive director Wayne Barnett said he arrived at the fine after examining similar cases. The best comparison is when former mayor Greg Nickels used the city’s resources in 2005 to distribute a document announcing his accomplishments at a time when he was running for re-election. The commission asked Nickels to repay the amount spent, not twice as much as the Sawant settlement, but the case law relevant to the former mayor is unclear and the commissioners are divided, Barnett said.

Some commissioners also questioned whether Sawant would continue to oppose the charges brought against her despite expressly acknowledging that she had violated the codes of ethics and electoral codes set out in the agreement. A letter to the commission from John McKay, a former US attorney for West Washington who represents the Recall Sawant campaign, referred to the Kshama Solidarity Campaign website.

“Kshama has not broken the law or used the city’s resources to promote an election initiative,” the website said late Monday afternoon. The allegation was also said to be similar to the “thought crime” charge in that Sawant only attended a community meeting to discuss the possible measure.

According to the agreement, however, Sawant or her employees also created posters with the city seal, on which a measure on the “Amazon Tax” was stated. published hyperlinks on its Council website to websites promoting the proposal; and spent at least $ 1,759 in city dollars on advertising, phone banking, and bulk text services.

In the context of the settlement, would it be appropriate to oblige Sawant not to make statements that exactly contradict the document she signed? Commissioner Zach Pekelis asked Jones.

Sawant’s lawyer, Dmitri Iglitzin, said it would mean regulating political speech that would exceed the authority of the commission. The commissioners dropped the matter.

Sawant said she doesn’t believe city officials are forbidden to support election campaigns that have not yet been submitted. However, the commission director has consistently found that the city’s ethical and electoral codes prevent officials under the agreement from promoting actual or proposed action, and the state Supreme Court reviewed that interpretation in an April ruling.

“There are no more ambiguities,” admitted Sawant’s lawyer.

The recall campaign, which must get 10,000 signatures in Sawant’s District 3 by mid-October to get the matter on the ballot, also accuses Sawant of opening City Hall to Black Lives Matter protesters last June, even though the building was closed, and lead a march at the home of Mayor Jenny Durkan, a former US attorney whose address is protected by a confidentiality program.

Some Commissioners expressed concern that the Commission’s actions would conflict with the recall efforts. At the same time, they asked Barnett if anything in the deal was preventing the commission from addressing additional issues raised by the recall campaign or by members of the public.

No, said Barnett. He said he had considered the protest at Durkan’s house but received no indication that Sawant had used her position to obtain the mayor’s address.

In a lengthy statement Tuesday, Sawant described her ethics violation as minor and criticized the recall as a right-wing attempt to undo her support for workers and tenants in town hall. Other officials have settled ethical inquiries and paid fines without facing recalls, she said.

“My understanding of the rules for electoral initiatives was that I was allowed to use my office resources before an initiative was submitted,” Sawant said. “Instead of continuing to fight on this issue, I would far rather prioritize the fight over profit control and workers’ rights.”

She added: “One thing I can say in no uncertain terms: I plead guilty to fighting for taxation on Amazon and big business without an apology. I plead guilty of spending much of 2020 in the midst of a pandemic fighting with hundreds of other activists to get Jeff Bezos to fund affordable housing. “

In an early version of this story, corporate wage tax was misrepresented as an income tax.

Employee reporter Daniel Beekman contributed to this story.