Complaints alleged that Respondent's use of public resources (state stationery) on behalf of a third party constituted a violation of the ethics act according to standards identified in Advisory Opinion 2006

Print Version | No está disponible en español

Inside the Legislature

		Find Your Legislator
		Visiting the Legislature
		Agendas, Schedules and Calendars
		Bill Information

	Advisory Opinions
	Complaint Opinions

Type	Complaint
Date	1/31/2008
Number	07-03
Topic	Special Privileges - Private Benefit or Gain
Respondent	Marr, Oemig and Tom
Question/Complaint	Complaints alleged that Respondent's use of public resources (state stationery) on behalf of a third party constituted a violation of the ethics act according to standards identified in Advisory Opinion 2006 - No. 1.
Summary	The letter in question was appropriate in part and inappropriate in part. Opinion concludes that reasonable cause did exist to believe the ethics act had been violated by the inappropriate part but the case was dismissed. Board noted the facts presented a new issue - the mixed use of a letter designed to assist a third party. The board determined that the use of public resources in this fashion will violate the ethics act if the non-legislative use is not de minimis - test to be applied prospectively. RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.160
	View this publication in Acrobat (PDF) Format