(The Center Square) – Washington’s Legislative Ethics Board will determine whether an investigation into a complaint against Rep. Tarra Simmons, D-Bremerton, will proceed after her attorney filed a motion to have it dismissed following a conclusion by the board last year there was “reasonable cause” that she did.
The complaint concerns whether she violated two state statues, one related to special privileges and another related to conflicts of interest, by helping obtain funds for the American Equity and Justice Group and the Equity in Education Coalition, the latter of which employs Simmons. The complaint against her was filed by American Equity and Justice Group’s Treasurer Kim Gordon.
However, her attorney Doug McKinely argued before the board during a May 20 hearing that if “legislators are violating the legislative ethics act because they acted (within) their position of benefiting others, then I would hope that everything that all legislators do…is for the benefit of others. I think the actual standard is who they can’t benefit is themselves, and that’s why I think the board is getting this wrong.”
“Each allegation is missing a necessary element for them to show a violation of the Ethics and Public Service Act,” he argued further. “The first allegation is that Representative Simmons’ act of submitting a proviso that would ultimately result in a state contractor grant funding her employer EEC is insufficient, because it does not allege a benefit to Representative Simmons, and that’s where I think the distinction applies.”
Yet, Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout asserted that the ethics board should deny McKinely’s motion, citing their prior finding that there was reasonable cause Simmons violated ethics rules.
“Board staff have sufficiently outlined how the facts establish that Representative Simmons violated this provision in a couple of different ways,” she said, citing Simmons’ sponsorship of a 2024 budget proviso that gave her employer money.
“Based on her involvement with EEC, she had an interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, that was in conflict with the proper discharge of her duties based on the involvement with the proviso, as demonstrated by board staff’s evidence,” Eisentrout argued.
Additionally, she said that Simmons’ employment with EEC created a conflict of interest because “at one point her listed job duties…included language that she facilitate connections with key stakeholders, including legislators, community leaders, governmental entities, and other organizations to build alliances and strengthen advocacy efforts.”
However, McKinley argued that “employees do not have an interest in their employers by virtue of their employment, and this is, I think, the fundamental disagreement we’re having with the board.”
