A complaint filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) in September 2024 alleges that Renton City Councilmember Ruth Pérez continued to report income from her privately owned business, Checkerboard Consulting, even after the company had been administratively dissolved by the state in 2020.

The PDC opened Case 179251 to review the matter. A related 2023 case involving the same business ended when Pérez signed a Statement of Understanding and paid a small fine for an earlier filing error.

---

The Allegation

According to the complaint, state records from the Washington Secretary of State’s Corporations Division show that Checkerboard Consulting received delinquency notices in 2017 and 2019 before being administratively dissolved in 2020 for failing to file annual reports. Despite the dissolution, Pérez listed Checkerboard Consulting as an ongoing source of income on her 2023 and 2024 financial disclosure statements required under RCW 42.17A.

The complainant, a Renton resident, argued that reporting income from a legally dissolved company may mislead voters about the current nature of Pérez’s business interests and her sources of compensation.

---

Pérez’s Response

In her formal response to the PDC, Councilmember Ruth Pérez maintained that the issue stemmed from a temporary administrative lapse, not from an effort to conceal information. She wrote that Checkerboard Consulting Services LLC “has maintained full compliance with finance disclosure requirements,” describing it as a small, single-member business earning less than $50,000 per year with no employees.

Pérez stated that the company’s state business license had briefly lapsed but was renewed within 24 hours of the complaint’s filing and is now fully active. She also met with staff at both the Secretary of State’s Corporations Division and the Department of Revenue, who confirmed the business owed no delinquent taxes and qualified for Active Non-Reporting status because of its small size.

“The income reported on all F-1’s were filed accurately and correctly as required by the PDC,” Pérez wrote. “Due to an administrative oversight, the state business license temporarily lapsed but it has been immediately renewed and is now fully active with updated registration.”

She further argued that reporting income—even from a temporarily inactive business—was the transparent action, noting that omitting it would have violated disclosure requirements:

“Non-reporting of actual income would be the offense, not the accurate reporting and transparency of information,” she said.

Pérez’s statement emphasized that Checkerboard Consulting Services LLC has “consistently demonstrated transparency and accountability in all its filings,” and she formally requested that the complaint be dismissed.

---

What the Law Requires

Washington’s public-disclosure law requires elected officials to list all sources of income, property, and business ownership to allow the public to identify potential conflicts of interest with their political position and dealings. Officials may continue consulting work through LLCs or sole proprietorships, but filings must accurately describe the entity through which income is received.

The PDC will determine whether Pérez’s filings met those requirements and whether continued references to the LLC during its brief lapse were materially misleading.

---

Why This Matters

The purpose of Washington’s disclosure laws is to give the public a traceable money trail.

Reporting income through a business is common for local officials. It can separate personal finances from professional work and provide clarity around consulting or contract income. But when the legal status of that business changes, those same disclosure records must still allow the public to follow the money.

Listing an unregistered or inactive entity, rather than oneself or an active business, creates a blind spot. Even if done unintentionally, it blurs who is actually generating income, how those payments are categorized, and whether they relate to official duties or campaign activity. The problem grows sharper when the business exists only as the candidate themself.

Without a legally operating structure, there is no longer a true boundary between the individual and the enterprise; the money flows directly to the person, not the business. That distinction matters because it is what allows the public to verify whether an official’s income is professional or political, legitimate or potentially self-serving.

---

What Comes Next

The PDC’s review will determine whether any correction or enforcement action is needed. Outcomes could include dismissal, a request to amend filings, or a minor penalty if a technical violation is found.

Either way, the case will clarify how officials should report income when a business’s status temporarily lapses—a situation not uncommon among small, single-owner firms across Washington.

---

About the PDC

The Public Disclosure Commission, established by voters in 1972, oversees campaign finance, lobbying reports, and public-official disclosures. Its aim is to make political and financial information open to the public through pdc.wa.gov.
Most cases the agency reviews end with guidance or corrections rather than punishment, reflecting its educational mission as much as its enforcement authority.

Cases like this one show how Washington’s transparency framework works in practice. A resident raises a question; the official responds; the PDC reviews; and the process itself becomes part of the public record.

Whether or not the PDC finds a violation, the system functions as a routine check on trust. Even minor administrative oversights invite the public to see how officials account for their work and how the state maintains its standards for openness.

Have a story or a lead? Contact ellsberg.danny@gmail.com