By Erica C. Barnett
The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission declined to take action Wednesday afternoon on a request for a second opinion from City Council Tanya Woo, who asked the full commission to reconsider Ethics director Wayne Barnett’s recommendation that she recuse herself from voting on a bill that would roll back minimum wage guarantees for gig delivery workers. Woo’s family, including her husband and father-in-law, owns Kau Kau Barbecue, a restaurant that uses Doordash and other delivery services.
Delivery app companies have spent months lobbying for legislation, sponsored by Council President Sara Nelson, that would reduce the minimum amount they have to pay their workers by requiring workers to pay for expenses such as employer-side taxes and mandatory insurance and business costs such as maintenance, business insurance, and gas.
After the law went into effect, most delivery companies added a $5 surcharge to every order, reducing order volume overnight in what many drivers viewed as an attempt to turn customers against the new minimum wage. Nelson’s legislation would reduce drivers’ hourly wages to Seattle’s legal minimum, $19.97 an hour; accounting for expenses, drivers and labor advocates say that works out to a sub-minimum wage of around $13 an hour.
Barnett recommended that Woo recuse herself from an upcoming vote repealing parts of the minimum-wage legislation, known as the PayUp law, because the city’s ethics law bars city officials from participating in “matters,” such legislation, when they or a close family member has a financial stake in an entity that will be impacted by that matter. Woo asked for a second opinion from the commission, which effectively let Barnett’s recommendation stand.
On Wednesday, Woo said Kau Kau (“a small neighborhood restaurant in the Chinatown International District” and “a legacy business,” Woo said) had seen a steep decline in small orders after companies added the $5 surcharge, but that large orders had increased, minimizing the financial impact of the price increase. “I believe that the small business benefit is unclear, and that it’s an indirect connection, basically, because if this legislation were to go through, it’s unclear… whether there’d be more sales or less sales,” Woo said.
Commissioners’ comments were split. Zach Pekelis, a litigation partner at Pacifica Law Group, said he didn’t think “anyone in these circumstances could reasonably conclude that her vote is going to be based on a questionable, and potentially quite, small pecuniary interest of her in-laws and … husband.”
PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.
But Richard Shordt, a senior attorney at T-Mobile’s compliance and ethics division, said he believed Woo’s family ownership of a restaurant that uses delivery services “presents a pretty clear conflict of interest.” After the commission tabled Woo’s request without taking action, Woo thanked them for their comments, adding, “I will accept whatever you think is best.”
The council could consider the partial repeal of PayUp as soon as next Tuesday, but it’s unclear whether, without Woo, Nelson has the five votes she’ll need to pass her legislation. Last week, six councilmembers voted to forestall a vote on Nelson’s bill until a later date, with Woo recusing herself and Tammy Morales and Dan Strauss saying the council should vote on the legislation right away.
Thought experiment – did you agree with Donald Trump that Judge Merchan had to recuse himself from that case because his daughter worked for the Democratic Party? Because unless Woo has an ownership interest in her father-in-law’s business and/or actually receives income from it this is pretty much the same kind of nothingburger.
IIRC, the Judge asked for an ethics opinion which cleared him. The Seattle ethics person mixed Woo (but cleared Nelson)
The SEEC isn’t exactly a legal body whose word is like the tablets of Moses. I remember some time back when they were enthusiastically defending limits imposed on Voters’ Guide statements that didn’t allow a candidate to criticize their opponent – which was basically an incumbent protection act (and was since abandoned on First Amendment grounds).
PS – I was on the working group that imposed 11th hour contribution limits on Seattle initiative campaigns many moons ago, which was also found to be unconstitutional post-Citizens United. I still think this is a nothingburger.
I use Instacart a lot (Senior with very limited mobility). Their “regulatory response” fee is way more than $5. Their new fee is about 10% of the value of your purchase. So if I order $150 of groceries, the new fee is $15, added to their usual fee and delivery charges.