Seattle’s Inspector General, Lisa Judge, is facing serious allegations after it was revealed she improperly used public funds to cover personal parking expenses over a multi-year period. According to a report published by The Urbanist, Judge used approximately $26,000 from her office’s general fund to pay for a reserved parking spot at the SeaPark Garage, a practice that continued from the start of her tenure in 2018 through July 2024. This use of public money violates Seattle city policy, which requires city employees to pay for parking through payroll deductions unless they have written authorization—something Judge never received.
Badge access records obtained during the investigation showed that Judge used her office access card infrequently, raising questions about the necessity of the reserved parking space and whether taxpayers received any justifiable return for the expense. Despite multiple attempts by journalists to obtain a statement, Judge has not responded to requests for comment by phone or email. The Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission and the city’s Finance and Administrative Services Department both confirmed that public funds cannot legally be used for personal parking costs without explicit written approval.
This latest controversy adds to growing concerns over ethical standards and accountability in Seattle’s municipal government. In recent years, audits have uncovered issues such as nepotism and conflicts of interest, particularly in departments like the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections. The misuse of public resources by a high-ranking official tasked with overseeing integrity and transparency in city operations has reignited public discussion about systemic oversight failures.
As of now, no disciplinary action has been formally announced, but public pressure is mounting. Many are calling for a deeper investigation into how this financial misuse went unchecked for so long, as well as broader reforms in how city departments handle internal oversight and expense approvals. The case has also renewed calls for a more transparent and accessible reporting system that can prevent misuse of taxpayer dollars in the future.
