Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.360 (2026)
Authority of executive ethics board
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The executive ethics board shall enforce this chapter and rules adopted under it with respect to statewide elected officers and all other officers and employees in the executive branch, boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education.
(2) The executive ethics board shall enforce this chapter with regard to the activities of institution of higher education faculty and research employees as provided in this subsection.
(a) With respect to compliance with RCW 42.52.030, 42.52.110, 42.52.130, * 42.52.140, and 42.52.150, the administrative process for university research employees shall be consistent with and adhere to no less than the current standards in regulations of the United States public health service and the office of the secretary of the department of health and human services in Title 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart F relating to promotion of objectivity in research.
(b) With respect to compliance with RCW 42.52.040, 42.52.080, and 42.52.120, the administrative process shall include a comprehensive system for the disclosure, review, and approval of outside work activities by institution of higher education faculty and research employees while assuring that such employees are fulfilling their employment obligations to the institution of higher education.
(c) With respect to compliance with RCW 42.52.160, the administrative process shall include reasonable determinations by the institution of higher education of:
(i) Acceptable private uses having de minimis costs to the institution of higher education and a method for establishing fair and reasonable reimbursement charges for private uses the costs of which are in excess of de minimis; and
(ii) Acceptable private uses having more than de minimis costs to the institution of higher education, but which are performed as part of the faculty or research employee's duties or job requirements.
(3) The executive ethics board shall:
(a) Develop educational materials and training;
(b) Adopt rules and policies governing the conduct of business by the board, and adopt rules defining working hours for purposes of RCW 42.52.180 and where otherwise authorized under chapter 154, Laws of 1994;
(c) Issue advisory opinions;
(d) Investigate, hear, and determine complaints by any person or on its own motion;
(e) Impose sanctions including reprimands and monetary penalties;
(f) Recommend to the appropriate authorities suspension, removal from position, prosecution, or other appropriate remedy; and
(g) Establish criteria regarding the levels of civil penalties appropriate for violations of this chapter and rules adopted under it.
(4) The board may:
(a) Issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence relating to any matter under examination by the board or involved in any hearing;
(b) Administer oaths and affirmations;
(c) Examine witnesses; and
(d) Receive evidence.
(5) The board shall not delegate to the board's executive director its authority to issue advisories, advisory letters, or opinions.
(6) Except as provided in RCW 42.52.220, the executive ethics board may review and approve agency policies as provided for in this chapter.
(7) This section does not apply to state officers and state employees of the judicial branch.
Notes:
Finding—2013 c 190: See note following RCW 42.52.410.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. v. Pac. Nw. Power Co., 217 F. Supp. 481 (D. Or. 1963).
Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. v. Pac. Nw. Power Co., 217 F. Supp. 481 (D. Or. 1963). “260, we find that the Commission is directed to represent the State of Washington and to join with Canada, the United States and the states thereof in an effort to develop and integrate the water resources and other resources of the region. Included in the command is a *487…”
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.360 provides both mandatory and discretionary responsibilities of the Ethics Board, including that: (3) The [Ethics Board] shall: (a) Develop educational materials and training; (b) Adopt rules and policies governing the conduct of business by the board, and adopt…”
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Although we generally construe “shall” to be mandatory, in context within RCW 42.52.360, “shall” is an adverb modifier for “[i]nvestigate, hear, and determine,” which calls for the exercise of discretion within the mandatory duty of “determining” complaints.”
Flaxman v. Ferguson (W.D. Wash. 2024). “CODE § 42.52.360(3)(d)–(e). The 6 Executive Ethics Board adopted a rule permitting anonymous complaints.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.360(1) — 2 cases
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.360 provides both mandatory and discretionary responsibilities of the Ethics Board, including that: (3) The [Ethics Board] shall: (a) Develop educational materials and training; (b) Adopt rules and policies governing the conduct of business by the board, and adopt…”
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Although we generally construe “shall” to be mandatory, in context within RCW 42.52.360, “shall” is an adverb modifier for “[i]nvestigate, hear, and determine,” which calls for the exercise of discretion within the mandatory duty of “determining” complaints.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.360(3) — 1 case
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.360 provides both mandatory and discretionary responsibilities of the Ethics Board, including that: (3) The [Ethics Board] shall: (a) Develop educational materials and training; (b) Adopt rules and policies governing the conduct of business by the board, and adopt…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.52.360(3)(d) — 3 cases
Roger Leishman V. Kathryn Nadine Reynolds (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Although we generally construe “shall” to be mandatory, in context within RCW 42.52.360, “shall” is an adverb modifier for “[i]nvestigate, hear, and determine,” which calls for the exercise of discretion within the mandatory duty of “determining” complaints.”
Brady Horenstein v. Exec. Ethics Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 42.52.360 provides both mandatory and discretionary responsibilities of the Ethics Board, including that: (3) The [Ethics Board] shall: (a) Develop educational materials and training; (b) Adopt rules and policies governing the conduct of business by the board, and adopt…”
Flaxman v. Ferguson (W.D. Wash. 2024). “CODE § 42.52.360(3)(d)–(e). The 6 Executive Ethics Board adopted a rule permitting anonymous complaints.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.