[0:04] And uh we could have a roll call.
>> Commissioner Campbell
[0:10] » here.
>> Commissioner Elgy.
[0:11] » Yes.
>> Commissioner Yoder
[0:13] » here.
>> All present.
[0:23] I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic
[0:29] for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:36] justice for all.
[0:46] » Thank you.
I think I could hear everybody's
[0:50] individual voice on
on the pledge with so few of your
[0:56] » and if we're going to have a moment of
silence. It would be nice if you said
[1:00] that.
>> Did I not say that?
[1:02] » I just was
>> you just said let's do the pledge.
[1:07] » Oh, okay.
>> I just knew it was a
[1:10] » I thoroughly agree with doing that.
>> Yes.
[1:17] But I don't want to appear to be
>> the only one doing it. Just their
[1:20] district. Sorry about that.
>> So we have approval of agenda
[1:26] additions.
>> Make that motion.
[1:31] » Support.
>> Okay. All in favor?
[1:35] » I
>> I
[1:35] » I
>> opposed.
[1:39] any uh
declarations of uh conflicts uh before
[1:46] we determine what a declaration of
conflict is.
[1:50] » I'm a human being. Does that count?
>> That counts for everything. I think that
[1:56] that's important to to have.
>> Commissioner,
[2:00] » yes.
>> I'm sorry. Um
[2:03] I the the minutes were not on the
agenda. Um, they're on the
[2:10] » Oh, right.
>> I'm sorry about that. I meant to get
[2:13] with I meant to get with Jenny and
totally forgot until we just did that.
[2:18] So, whether you want to approve them
today or go to the next committee
[2:21] meeting, whatever you want to do.
>> You have four time.
[2:25] » Let's get her done.
>> I agree.
[2:30] » So, do we need to amend the agenda?
>> Yes.
[2:34] So I make a motion to amend the agenda
to approve.
[2:41] » Thank you.
>> Support.
[2:44] All in favor say I.
>> I. Oppos.
[2:49] » Pass unanimously.
Okay. So
[2:56] wasn't a whole lot of action but a lot
of discussion which I think is
[3:01] accurately stated here.
[3:15] I note the the uh uh
the part about having legal look over
[3:23] this and lest anyone think that some
legal mind
[3:29] here put finish put those finishing
touches on it legal. I thought Matt did
[3:34] a really nice job of
>> he did and I'm I'm seeing in the minutes
[3:38] um saying well we can approve the
minutes and we then we can discuss them.
[3:42] » Sure.
>> Should we have a legal review?
[3:45] » Yes.
>> Should we Yeah,
[3:49] » we already did.
>> Yeah, we did.
[3:51] » I did. I said so we
>> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what
[3:54] you said.
>> Yeah.
[3:58] Um, I'll vote to approve the minutes as
presented.
[4:03] » All in favor say I. I opposed.
[4:09] I move to.
[4:13] Okay.
And did we already do declarations?
[4:18] Think we did. None heard, none
expressed. Since there is no public,
[4:24] it's kind of tough to gather public
comment.
[4:29] And now to the action in front of us or
the document in front of us
[4:38] and I'm someone never had a chance to
look at it. Do you want to start at the
[4:42] beginning or you want to just go through
questions uh that staff or and I
[4:48] consider staff
you know part of our part of our
[4:52] discussion here too. So feel free to
speak up. I have a question on section
[4:57] 1A.
Um, I think that the term not for
[5:02] private or personal interest is
extremely general and open to
[5:09] misinterpretation.
>> Do you want to strike it?
[5:14] » I do.
>> Does anyone have a problem with it?
[5:20] » Can we address it? I mean, is it
addressed elsewhere?
[5:24] Well, it is because we talk about it um
advancing positions or
[5:30] um
the sections marked.
[5:38] That one is just so
[5:43] susceptible to individual
interpretation.
[5:49] » Is your concern? Yeah. Commissioner
Campbell
[5:53] promoting motions that deal with the
parks. Well, that's a personal interest
[5:57] of his. He's on the board and he likes
parks. I mean, of course you would do
[6:04] that.
Yeah, I'm fine with it just being a
[6:08] general statement. That's all it's
really meant as a way to get into the
[6:13] nuts and bolts of the whole thing.
>> You could almost argue that on page two
[6:18] down at the bottom E. Well, let's let's
deal with that one first. Everyone's
[6:22] fine with striking that.
>> Well, my point was just it almost covers
[6:25] it in E.
It almost work for the common good and
[6:29] not for private or personal interest.
And E, it says not engage in business
[6:32] transaction that may result in personal
profit due to the officers or employees
[6:36] official position or authority.
>> That's a better way.
[6:39] » So, it could it kind of covers itself
there.
[6:42] » So, I I wouldn't have a problem striking
it.
[6:45] » The whole sentence or just the last
part?
[6:47] » Just the last part. I mean, it just
makes a nice general tone to get
[6:52] started.
Ed, if I may, I wanted to
[6:57] start the discussion with
I just had some thoughts on the on
[7:03] finally getting some press or some news
attention to this and and I just don't
[7:10] want uh the general public to think that
this was this uh policy or a need to
[7:18] look policy was a result of of uh our
previous administrator or any individual
[7:24] deeds anywhere
>> and they absolutely did.
[7:29] » They targeted they they start they
decided to review the policy after
[7:34] administrator Dyer's I mean it was one
all in the same sentence.
[7:38] » Yeah. And and but
>> and it was not and that's not why we're
[7:42] doing this. So that really
>> that that would that's my statement is
[7:46] that that that's a misnomer or misguided
uh to believe that because we started
[7:51] meeting before while Mr. Dyer was still
employed and and I think have had the
[7:57] full backing on the of the county board
and it just I it's unfortunate that
[8:04] that's that's what happened but that was
not the intent of this. our current
[8:09] policy deals only with only with
financial
[8:15] um conflicts that might arise and we
wanted something that that went a little
[8:20] further. And truthfully, most of the
provisions that I saw in that article
[8:25] that they brought up were taken from
Grand Travers County which was kind of a
[8:31] kind of a basis for what we did. So
there's that's that was a link that did
[8:38] not exist in my mind and I think in
other committees or the or the county
[8:43] board's minds when we decided that our
ethics policy needed a review. So
[8:49] » So you I made a comment in the post.
>> Did you?
[8:54] » Yes. Okay. You can do that too.
>> Post that would help.
[8:58] » I'm not I'm not a commenter.
>> You could say that.
[9:02] » Yeah. I'll I'll look at doing that.
>> Say
[9:06] » I'll have my son tell me how to do it.
>> See, are you even me?
[9:12] » You know, all you have to say is I don't
agree with that interpretation.
[9:15] » Sure. I don't agree with that
interpretation.
[9:18] » Because we're endlessly beating someone
up and that's
[9:23] » Yeah. That this doesn't have anything to
do with past uh
[9:27] » that makes us look.
>> No, this is not retaliatory in any
[9:31] nature. Um this is just an a need.
Okay.
[9:38] Uh so we we cut down already. Our
editing has resulted in fewer words. So
[9:45] that's progress.
[9:48] And I'm on page two. Folks with me
there. Any other questions,
[9:56] thoughts?
[10:01] Okay, hearing none, let's look at page
three. On on page three on G.
[10:07] » Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Did you just go
ahead?
[10:10] » I did.
>> Still looking at my
[10:12] » Okay. I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry. I didn't hear you say too.
[10:18] » Thank you, Tom.
Except for Steve Austin.
[10:24] » He's got to go catch his three-year-old.
[10:28] » Good luck with that, Dad.
farming duties today. So
[10:40] » I don't know what C I had yellow but
[10:49] benefits, privileges, favors position.
[10:58] That was tough.
[11:03] The performance of official duties
perhaps cleans well.
[11:23] Okay, I'm I'm good.
See, it's a little murky.
[11:31] » It's pretty tight. No doubt about it. I
mean, I understand what you're saying.
[11:37] Does it go too far and being so tight? I
I didn't mean to. Anyways, uh on page
[11:44] three,
um
[11:48] G goes right into uh the disclose.
Uh it says in discussion or action on
[11:58] the matter and I think it I think that
the intent of that is is strictly for
[12:03] public meetings.
Um
[12:08] it says disclose any
uh conflict before participating in
[12:14] discussion or action on the matter. I
think we all intended for that to be at
[12:20] a public meeting rather than you know
three people in a hall and talk about
[12:25] it. But
>> does that make sense to add add a public
[12:29] meeting in that sentence to you guys?
>> Sure. Where would it be added?
[12:36] » Uh
[12:42] uh probably sec right after disclose
disclose at a public meeting any actual.
[12:51] » Oh okay.
[12:55] » The next sentence said the disclosure
shall be made in writing before the
[12:58] meeting or orally on the record before
deliberation or action. Well, that might
[13:03] cover it.
[13:08] » Well, that first sentence leads I mean I
would rather have the at a public
[13:13] meeting first. So that sentence can't be
taking taken on its own.
[13:20] » I I kind of agree with you. Just just
make it clear at the beginning.
[13:30] Oh, and and uh I talked to Matt about
having more specific direction as far as
[13:40] at our board meetings how that would
handle. And so that's why this next
[13:44] paragraph or whatever the indented part
is there. Um
[13:50] » that's from that board.
>> Yeah.
[13:59] You guys are done with that one. I'd
like to talk about it.
[14:07] So that puts a little pressure on the
chair,
[14:16] but it also allows the county,
should there be uh
[14:23] uh some disagreement, that allows the
county board to step in and have a vote
[14:28] if they feel that that's necessary.
[14:48] is that okay the way he wrote that or
would you
[14:52] Yeah. The only thing that when I read it
originally was should it just apply to a
[14:57] county commissioner? Does that apply to
boards and committees?
[15:04] cuz isn't this policy pretty much
written up for any committee established
[15:10] through county board?
>> Correct.
[15:13] » So that was my only question if should
we limit it at a county commissioner or
[15:18] should it be
a little bit broader in the sense that
[15:22] it applies to committees, subcommittees
and all such things.
[15:26] and and later on it
authorizes the county board to take
[15:33] certain actions, but I think that's
that doesn't have
[15:40] I don't know how closely those two are
related. I mean, when you get way down
[15:46] the line when it talks about what county
board can do as far as censorship and
[15:49] stuff like that, I guess that's a
separate action though,
[15:53] » right? rather than when it initially
comes before a board or doesn't come
[16:00] before a board.
>> I just know in the beginning of the
[16:02] policy it states that
this policy applies to
[16:08] » commissioners,
>> commissioners, elected officials,
[16:10] » board appointees, employees, and other
persons acting on behalf of the county.
[16:15] » Right.
So I didn't know if we're talking about
[16:19] disclosing at a public meeting a
potential conflict and then that indent
[16:25] could read that it only applies to
commissioners and I think it should
[16:28] apply to any committee that's structured
within the county that falls under this
[16:33] policy
>> does officer.
[16:36] » So the way that it reads in the first
sentence says public officers and
[16:40] employees.
So we could say when a public officer
[16:45] or employee because public officer would
>> not be an employee
[16:50] » or a public officer would encompass
your positions as well as other
[16:55] appointed positions like leave.
>> But would it need to be employees here
[17:01] if this is strictly referring to a
meeting?
[17:04] » Cuz an employee wouldn't necessarily
have to vote at a meeting.
[17:07] » Yeah.
Could just say public officer.
[17:17] I'm fine with putting public officer in
there and then having uh having Matt
[17:23] think through that a little deeper than
>> but it should be then wherever it's
[17:26] commissioner in there should be changed
to public officer in there.
[17:29] » Right.
>> Yeah. And have Matt
[17:31] » just double check that I guess cuz maybe
I'm overthinking it.
[17:34] » No, I think you're right.
[17:40] For instance, if we have a department
head
[17:44] uh someone like that, they would be
under the same
[17:47] » well yeah like land bank brownfield like
she got elected
[17:52] departments that are you know and that
would fall within that scope I would
[17:56] think.
>> Um land bank G's not elected.
[18:00] » Oh well brownfield. Yeah
>> public officer though not an elected
[18:05] » construction code. She's not elected. I
mean, so I don't think if you want
[18:09] department, hence public officer isn't
enough.
[18:16] » But I think what Steve was saying is
that that like on building safety, Amber
[18:22] doesn't vote, Gail doesn't vote on the
committees that she coordinates,
[18:27] » right? So it wouldn't apply to them.
It would only apply to the individuals
[18:32] voting on a committee. And sometimes,
like for instance, Brownfield, isn't the
[18:36] treasurer the chair of that or
something?
[18:38] » No.
>> Oh, he isn't.
[18:40] » Land bank
>> or is or maybe it's land bank. Okay.
[18:44] » So then that would apply. Would that be
a public officer then? Right.
[18:47] » Mhm.
>> So that land but not brownfield,
[18:50] » right?
>> Brownfield has their own chair, but the
[18:52] administrator is a voting member of
Brownfield.
[18:54] » Right. No. So, I'm more like looking at
just focusing in on the individuals.
[18:59] Whatever whatever title they hold aside
from a committee
[19:06] doesn't really matter as long as they're
held to this standard when they're
[19:09] sitting on the committee. I guess was my
point.
[19:14] » And you're you're looking specifically
at voting members, which makes sense.
[19:18] » That's what this full right
>> provision is for.
[19:28] Well, he could say
voting member.
[19:33] » Oh, he could say I'm a voting member
rather than a public officer. He could
[19:36] say that.
[19:40] » Yeah.
[19:43] » Why don't I ask him about both and what
would be a more all-encompassing term
[19:49] » to place there? cuz I'm my guess is Matt
just and I can't put words in his mouth
[19:54] but based on what G is saying it kind of
looks like you know referencing the
[19:58] board of commissioners and that's
probably where his mind was going but
[20:01] this policy itself encompasses a lot
more than that. So
[20:06] I had that discussion with him as
between the last meeting and this
[20:11] meeting I had this revelation well are
we trying to do too much within this?
[20:17] Should we h this actually be too
which I know I've been a lot more work
[20:22] but I sometimes you know you you you
feel headwinds and you you question why
[20:28] do I feel these headwinds? Is it is the
structure proper? He said uh he's seen
[20:33] it both ways
um and he could understand uh the
[20:38] reasoning behind both ways but he was
very comfortable having this as all one
[20:43] policy
um and thought that be just one place
[20:47] for people to work. So
so I kept my mouth shut after that which
[20:54] might surprise me
just saying
[20:57] » shocking
>> shocking.
[20:59] » We need to know his secret. Don't tell
Mr. Walter.
[21:04] All right,
other questions on that particular page.
[21:09] H
>> HH
[21:12] » um
[21:15] I was really bothered
by the condemnation
[21:21] of administrator Dyer for being on a
board
[21:27] and
[21:31] when this came up he did become a what a
non- voting member but one of The
[21:38] reasons we
liked him as a hireer was he was very
[21:44] involved in housing and wanted to
advocate for it and had experience
[21:52] and he got here and he got kicked for
it.
[21:56] Um
>> well not for advocating but for his um
[22:02] » he was a voting member
>> voting member of
[22:05] » but but
I I don't agree with that we want people
[22:12] who are involved in the community for
gosh sakes
[22:17] if it if we tell our administrator that
they can't be involved in projects or
[22:24] organizations
that are doing good things in the
[22:28] county.
Um, that's really limiting.
[22:33] Sorry. All you can do is this job.
>> I don't think that's what this says,
[22:37] though.
>> It says, yeah, not accept private
[22:40] employment or render services.
>> Render services
[22:44] » if it's in conflict with the proper
discharge of official duties
[22:49] » or would impair independence of
judgment. really broadly
[22:54] used to attack
>> and we have to be really very very
[23:00] careful.
We want an administrator who's
[23:04] interested in what's going on in the
county and involved.
[23:10] Obviously, he can.
It would be different than like starting
[23:15] a a a company on the side.
>> Yeah.
[23:18] » Where he's going to make a lot of money.
That's totally different. But just being
[23:23] involved in
something that is going to help the
[23:27] county.
I hope we want that.
[23:32] So I think we have to tread really
carefully.
[23:38] It's not like he was going to make good
gobs of money doing that. Wasn't going
[23:42] to make anything.
>> Well, I I mean, if you remove and which
[23:47] I think we should remove Mr.
Jim, from the discussion, this makes a
[23:54] lot of sense. Um,
I I think that was a, as you say, an
[24:00] unusual circumstance. And I think from a
myself from a 30,000 foot view, I don't
[24:07] have a problem with what's with what's
stated here. Truthfully, if there it's
[24:13] it's you can be involved in these
organizations. It's just if they're
[24:18] going to do business with the county,
um, you have to really be careful about
[24:23] which hats are being worn. Well, we have
to be very, very careful about how it's
[24:30] implemented
because
[24:34] in that case, this kind of thing was
used.
[24:37] Housing is not doing business with the
county.
[24:43] It's
>> rendering a service for the county. It's
[24:46] interesting with our our
the services we offer to the county. I
[24:54] hope it would. We offer services to the
county for the good of the county.
[24:59] » Well, it is.
>> And that they take advantage of it.
[25:03] That's what they're supposed to do.
I I think that the intent is not to
[25:08] choose whether we have good companies or
bad companies, but to look at the
[25:13] relationship between companies with the
county. Um I, you know, I I don't want
[25:19] to be in the position of saying, well,
this is a good company and this other
[25:24] company I I don't think uh someone
should be associated with either. It's
[25:29] kind of a black and white thing for me.
Not really sure where that fits it.
[25:40] » I I'm fine the way it is. Right.
>> Um,
[25:45] I guess the way I I understand where
Gwen's coming at with this, but the way
[25:50] I read it,
>> I guess for me, what I can tell you what
[25:54] I want what I don't want it to read and
I don't see that in here, but what I
[26:00] don't want it to say is that an employee
or an individual
[26:06] or anybody that's falls in this
parameter of this policy can have any
[26:10] outside private employment
that works for the county. I don't want
[26:16] to hinder that in any way whatsoever
because I think anybody should be able
[26:19] to do that.
>> Say that again. That works for like if
[26:22] you took a part-time,
>> let's say we Yeah. Let's say, you know,
[26:28] you got an employee here or somebody
that sits on a board, you know, or Yeah.
[26:33] has a full-time job at the county here
and has a side job on the side where
[26:36] they, you know, do a little farming on
the side or something like that
[26:41] » for a longare company for a longare
company that goes and works in the
[26:44] evenings. Like I don't want to hinder
that,
[26:46] » right?
>> You know, where they can do that or
[26:49] » get involved with a nonprofit that is
doing things in the community. Like I
[26:53] don't want to hinder that.
>> Yes, that that last one is really
[26:57] important to me. But I don't see what's
stated in here that hinders that, I
[27:02] guess, because it in essence says
um or in conflict with the proper
[27:07] discharge of official duties or would
tend to impair independence of judgment
[27:11] or action in the performance of official
duties.
[27:15] » Well, maybe what I'm really saying is we
have to be extremely careful in how this
[27:19] is interpreted.
>> I agree. And I think if this comes into
[27:23] question with something then that should
be a discussion that should be held by
[27:27] the committee or the board and have a
full discussion among the members as to
[27:31] the interpretation of that and whether
that individual falls within that
[27:34] conflict and that would clear the air on
that.
[27:39] But for as it reads right now, I don't
have
[27:43] I get it. Like it might have some teeth
in here, but I don't I don't read that
[27:49] an employee is barred from private
employment
[27:53] or being a member of a nonprofit or
any such thing. And it I don't see that
[28:00] as the way this reads that that would
bar them from doing that.
[28:05] I think where we're where it could be is
in conflict with the proper discharge of
[28:12] duties
[28:15] in conflict
tend to impair independent judgment tend
[28:22] to impair. Boy, is that a hole you could
fall into?
[28:25] » I I I agree. It's very broad here. I
think they leave it broad on purpose
[28:31] » so that there is room for interpretation
>> because I you know I would say that that
[28:36] if there is a confusion then it should
be brought in front of the said
[28:39] committee said subcommittee said board
to determine
[28:45] » and this board
decided that he couldn't shouldn't be
[28:51] involved with housing. I'm not sure we
ever had a broad motion. I don't know if
[28:56] there was ever really broad motion or
discussion necessarily any
[29:01] » but that was a music
stop.
[29:07] » I wish we could.
[29:15] We just have to walk very carefully
[29:20] when we're deciding whether something is
a conflict with the proper discharge of
[29:25] duties
and not let our personal priorities.
[29:30] » I agree. But that's where I think if
there is confusion or there is something
[29:35] in question then it needs to be brought
to the set boards and committees for
[29:38] clarification.
>> Could we say to
[29:43] Cuz
[29:48] what I don't want is an employee here
>> barred from being a member of Rotary or
[29:54] being a me, you know, that that's great
things in the community like that's what
[29:58] and so that's but I don't read that in
here that that would not allow that.
[30:04] How about putting her in clear conflict?
[30:10] Just just stress that it has to be very
real conflict.
[30:16] » Well, the throughout here the word
conflict is used.
[30:20] » I know, but that's clear conflict would
highlight this.
[30:26] » I don't I don't have a problem with
clear conflict if that puts your mind at
[30:30] ease. doesn't I don't see that alter the
sentence in any major way. So
[30:35] » I don't either and it would make me feel
better that
[30:39] that we have to that it has to be a real
conflict
[30:43] and not just somebody's opinion that I
don't like housing so much that you
[30:49] could argue that a clear conflict some
people are going to determine that is a
[30:53] clear conflict. So that's up to each
individual's opinion. And on the next
[30:57] page it says that too when we define
conflict of interest it could be a
[31:00] reasonably perceived.
>> Right?
[31:03] » That's pretty common language
throughout. It's just very open.
[31:06] » Very careful there too. Reasonably
perceived.
[31:11] » Um
two wanted to clear conflict.
[31:17] I it's I don't have any heartburn one
way or the other and it's I if
[31:21] » that would make me feel a little better
>> when is happy with that and it makes her
[31:24] comfortable then I am
>> doesn't get rid of your heart
[31:27] » comfortable I'm feeling
>> would you clearly be comfortable it's
[31:34] » I'm I'm fine
>> clearly will help
[31:47] And a lot of this is legal
avenue. Yeah, it is.
[31:53] You guys ready to go to the next page?
[31:59] Mhm. I am. Three.
[32:19] The only question I have is for the
section of definitions.
[32:24] I don't read very often in a ordinance
policy or anything that definitions is
[32:29] in the middle of a policy.
>> I always see it in the beginning.
[32:33] » Yeah. you did we didn't we talk about
switching uh one and two
[32:39] » I don't remember but I'm I've typically
seen definitions at the top of a policy
[32:45] or like maybe right under authority and
limitations just so that everything is
[32:49] defined at the top
>> that's kind of what I had in mind if we
[32:52] could just switch one and two that to me
would
[32:56] » be more
>> I'm sure we talked about that somehow
[32:59] » maybe I missed that okay
>> maybe I don't know anyways
[33:03] So guidelines are two.
>> Okay.
[33:07] » Uh and definitions are one.
[33:13] Still on page four.
Um I
[33:18] And maybe Allison can help on this. I'm
not sure there is a county seal. Is
[33:23] there?
>> No.
[33:25] Um the the seal that the our office uses
is a clerk seal and a circuit court
[33:32] seal. Um so that is the only one that I
know of but we do not have like a county
[33:40] issued seal. I mean, we have the county
logo and then we have individual
[33:45] um letterheads and um different
departments have their own letter
[33:49] department, but
>> but the seal would be within each office
[33:52] type of thing, not a county seal.
>> The only seal would be out of her would
[33:57] be out of the clerk's office.
>> So, that's the only seal that the county
[34:00] has. Period.
>> And it says,
[34:02] » but it it's the clerk's seal.
>> It says it says label county, but it
[34:06] also says 13 circuit court.
[34:11] and 13th Circuit Court has more than one
county,
[34:16] right? Yeah. So, uh, anyways, I don't
know if we need that or if we need to
[34:22] get a seal or
>> It would be kind of cool to have a seal,
[34:28] I guess.
>> Well, I mean, we have the logo. I don't
[34:31] know how
>> can turn that into our seal.
[34:37] We don't have a seal. I don't know why
we would get a seal. That's my personal
[34:41] opinion.
>> They look cool.
[34:43] » And if it will cost us money, then
>> I don't think it cost us that much.
[34:48] » Where where is that on
>> and
[34:50] » and we can we can leave it in in case we
eventually get a seal or we determine
[34:56] that we'd like a seal. It is nice for
official letters. I guess people don't
[35:01] look at them necessarily to see that it
doesn't say Leonol County official seal.
[35:07] Um, but when uh like for instance uh we
had those letters that we gave the
[35:11] tribe, it was nice having that that on
the top.
[35:14] » But that was just a letter
>> with the logo.
[35:17] » Yeah. It wasn't a seal.
>> I had one with a seal. You can actually
[35:22] put a seal on it, right? Like
>> we we do when it comes from Michelle's
[35:26] office. Yes.
>> Yeah.
[35:28] » That's for like legal documents and
stuff like that.
[35:31] » We even we stamp the same thing. That's
the same seal. If we stamp a um a
[35:37] certified copy for uh court records or
if we stamp a copy of um a resolution or
[35:45] something like that, it's the same one.
[35:51] » Well, my my thought is we can leave it
in there.
[35:54] » And if we don't have one, don't worry
about it. But maybe it's something we
[35:57] can
>> Doesn't create I don't think it creates
[36:00] a conflict with having it in there.
>> No.
[36:05] Okay.
>> You know, would that be a fun contest
[36:08] though for high school kids?
>> It would.
[36:14] » Oh, well, no, that may happen. I just
know we do have an official logo. Is
[36:19] that right, Allison? Our logo is
>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. I
[36:23] don't know anything about it.
>> Okay.
[36:24] » I don't know that it's a copyrighted
logo, but I do know that it was um
[36:30] intentionally created and that is our
official logo. Yeah. I mean, it was here
[36:34] in existence and I don't know where it
originated from
[36:37] » or how long ago.
>> Okay.
[36:43] Page five.
[36:50] » I don't have any more question marks.
>> I need to change G because it references
[36:57] section 1 C and that will need to be
changed to two. 2.
[37:03] » So, where are you? Cuz there are no
page.
[37:06] Oh, I'm looking at the wrong one. Page
five.
[37:09] » Mine
doesn't.
[37:12] » The final one will make sure that
there's a footer with page numbers on
[37:15] it.
>> Okay.
[37:23] » So, you made a change to C. I'm a little
behind because I just
[37:26] » No. On page five,
>> G,
[37:28] » letter G, it references section 1 C. And
that that will just be a clerical change
[37:34] » since we switched definitions and
[37:38] » guidelines.
And I'll look for those throughout the
[37:42] document. I don't have any.
>> Oh, right. There probably is more.
[37:51] Any
[37:57] other questions, thoughts, improvements
on page five?
[38:04] » Good, Gwen.
>> I'm good.
[38:07] » Good.
[38:22] So this is reporting.
[38:42] Heat. Heat.
[38:57] Heat. Heat.
[39:35] Do we want concerns involving a
countywide elected official reported to
[39:41] so many folks.
[39:47] » I'm on E on page
>> page six E.
[39:55] I mean,
[39:58] it's kind of like or another appropriate
authority kind of says anybody
[40:04] » depending on the nature of the concern.
[40:11] I agree. You got to have
>> depending on and limited by
[40:16] the nature.
[40:19] » Uh
[40:29] um
[40:33] board chair, county administer. I'm not
sure you have to have human resources
[40:37] director. You have the board chair or
the county because you're talking about
[40:42] uh complaint if you will filed against
the treasurer or clerk or the sheriff or
[40:49] whatever.
Um
[40:53] » I think it has to go to human resources.
Well, I'm not
[41:00] » I'm not sure if it's if it's a treasurer
or if it's a I mean or if it's uh
[41:07] » depending on the nature.
>> I'm just saying there are a lot of
[41:12] folks. And then what is outside counsel?
I don't know what outside counsel is
[41:19] that our lawyer. Do we want
>> I don't know that it's referring to the
[41:24] county's lawyer. I mean, are we talking
about if an employee has an issue or if
[41:28] a member of the public? Maybe that's
something to keep in mind depending on
[41:34] the nature of the concern. It's a
personnel issue. There's a path to that.
[41:45] » I don't think you can. This is all
depending on the nature of the concern.
[41:50] So, it's not saying everyone on that
list is going to be notified.
[41:57] » It says may be reported shall be
>> it. This and this is only for county
[42:03] officials and employees according to the
>> okay
[42:06] » the beginning it's not
>> from citizens.
[42:13] Uh I I just I don't I don't know some of
the the people they would be reporting
[42:20] to. I don't even know who they are. What
is an outside counsel?
[42:24] » I have no clue.
>> I think that's just saying you can refer
[42:27] to outside counsel. That's one of the
possibilities.
[42:32] » Well, they don't have any authority
within our county government if they're
[42:35] outside counsel. Not just an attorney is
how I
[42:38] » we've used outside counsel for some,
>> right? But that would have to be an
[42:42] action by the board. I mean what Alan's
saying it's just employee could just go
[42:45] to outside counsel. That doesn't hold
much teeth
[42:49] » unless it's approved by the board
>> depending on the nature of the concern.
[42:55] » Well, I'd like to get rid of outside
counsel. I mean, and it does not say our
[43:00] county attorney. Outside counsel is
>> ask the intention there was for it to be
[43:07] our corporation council. and should be
our personal legal counsel instead of
[43:12] outside counsel.
>> But do we really want people
[43:17] complaints if you will uh to by step to
to bystep everyone here
[43:25] » to go directly to our
>> attorney? We have a we have a policy
[43:28] about contacting legal counsel.
>> Well, then we should follow that policy
[43:34] rather than have this say you can go to
council.
[43:43] I'm afraid to put
limits around it because it says
[43:48] depending on the nature of the concern.
We don't know.
[43:56] I I just I I don't know. I think it's
bad practice to have
[44:01] uh have someone
[44:05] talk directly to our attorney about a
complaint if it's if it's that serious.
[44:10] I can agree that law enforcement should
be there, but you don't start a a a
[44:17] legal complaint with outside counsel.
You go right to law enforcement or I
[44:23] should say a criminal complaint. Any
response shall be consistent with the
[44:27] authority limitations stated in this
policy.
[44:32] Where does that take us?
[44:35] Authority limitations stated.
Well, this is response. So, you report
[44:42] it and then the and that deals with how
it would be responded to.
[44:50] But the first sentence just deals with
where it's reported.
[44:56] » Yeah, I have no issues with taking
outside counsel. It's kind of
[45:02] seems a little backwards.
>> Are you okay with that commissioner?
[45:08] » Or another appropriate authority. So
sure
[45:14] cuz if we come into a situation like
that then
[45:19] we have used outside counsel.
>> We have but it's it was with board
[45:23] direction.
>> The board had to hire the outside
[45:25] counsel.
>> Yes.
[45:26] » So you shouldn't just be any employee
shouldn't just go be able to get outside
[45:30] counsel and expect the county to pay for
it. It's not going to happen.
[45:33] » Well would
but yeah. So I would I don't think it's
[45:37] appropriate to have that in there.
[45:42] I I didn't say anything. You pay for it.
>> Well, who pays for it? Someone has to
[45:50] pay for it.
>> You're going to call a lawyer. You
[45:52] You're bringing up money.
[45:59] » And I do like that next sentence, you
know,
[46:03] innocent until proven guilty.
[46:36] So,
Then it says, "The receiving official
[46:41] may review credible complaints within
the scope of that official's lawful
[46:46] authority and may resolve them through
appropriate internal responses.
[46:53] » This is where I'd like to compare it
pretty closely to our non-union policy
[46:58] because we do have a complaint procedure
in there. Um,
[47:06] but that's for more
maybe it wouldn't relate because that's
[47:10] for
like staff complaints,
[47:13] » not ethics complaints.
>> Not ethics complaints.
[47:21] » Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And the next sentence
determines that it presents a conflict
[47:26] of interest. So it's it it doesn't apply
in the same way.
[47:39] Uh my uh I guess my question or or
reluctance on that is that if the
[47:47] complaint goes to a receiving official
who is
[47:54] inappropriate, if you will, to handle
the complaint, it should be transferred
[47:59] to uh an appropriate official to handle
one. If it's if it's an ethic ethic
[48:07] ethic complaint within the uh uh say the
clerk's office, well, the clerk should
[48:14] be the first one dealing with it as
opposed to the prosecuting attorney
[48:20] because we're not talking a violation of
law. We're talking about an ethics
[48:24] complaint, a policy violation.
>> Yeah. But if somebody has a complaint
[48:30] against their supervisor, they shouldn't
have to report that to the supervisor.
[48:36] » Well, there's a path for that. We're
talking about public officials on public
[48:39] bodies, not employees
with issues. There's a different path
[48:45] for employees.
>> Maybe I heard you wrong.
[48:48] I bet she's meant somebody in her
department reporting to the
[48:55] » that's well if it's an ethics complaint
within the clerk's within the clerk I
[49:02] and you know I use that as an example
within the clerk's office um
[49:09] » if it's within between two employees yes
go to the clerk if it's with
[49:19] supervisor,
>> they can have to go elsewhere.
[49:22] » Sure. Then then that makes a lot of
sense. But if it is amongst
[49:27] » Yes.
>> employees then it and if if they if the
[49:31] person individual go say they know uh
someone they know they know the chair
[49:37] really well so they go to the chair well
that's the chair is now the receiving
[49:42] official. So
they are put in in control of the of the
[49:50] decision making as opposed to the person
the elected official who probably should
[49:57] be the start of the process. So the
policy itself though we need maybe I
[50:02] need a little more clarity here because
in three reporting 3A
[50:08] it says employees may report concerns to
their immediate supervisor department
[50:12] head human resources administrator or
the elected official with authority over
[50:16] the employee.
So
[50:20] we have a non we we have a personnel
policy
[50:25] with complaint procedures
but this policy is not for employees.
[50:31] This policy is or is it for employees as
well?
[50:35] » It can be for ethic complaints.
>> Okay.
[50:38] » Not for
>> covers employees in the beginning there.
[50:42] » Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure
that it's nothing is in conflict with
[50:47] itself.
>> Yeah. No, that makes a lot of sense and
[50:49] it's it's easy to get wrapped up into
any complaint because we're dealing it
[50:55] just says complaints,
>> but we've defined what complaints are
[50:59] before. So, we have to it's tough to do
that to think only as far as ethics
[51:04] complaints
as stated and defined earlier.
[51:09] » Okay.
Am
[51:14] I overstating that or is that or does it
just need a clause that say the proper
[51:20] official?
[51:23] » Uh it does under reporting the first
sentence to the appropriate reporting
[51:29] authority commissioners, elected
officials, board appointees and
[51:32] employees. I see.
>> Report to the appropriate reporting
[51:36] authority.
[51:42] And then there's a different path for
each
[51:45] vein of this. So employees,
electeds, administrator, commissioners,
[51:52] » right? Where did you see reported ends
up with the uh appropriate
[51:59] » uh bottom of page five? The first
sentence under item three reporting.
[52:20] I see.
[52:27] And then my concern was when we had
[52:36] um
let's see
[52:41] that helps a lot. Yeah. So we're already
we've already narrowed the scope.
[52:54] So now we're on page seven. Is that
correct
[52:57] » as we move along?
[53:02] » You know what?
Took me back to five.
[53:07] » That was a mistake. Sorry.
[53:12] » Personal interest
means a non-financial interest,
[53:17] relationship or benefit
that could be expected to impair
[53:23] independence of judgment or create the
appearance of impaired independence.
[53:31] That is scary.
[53:36] So, let's say you're a conservationist
and you've been one your whole life and
[53:42] that's your overarching goal in life.
Does that mean you could never
[53:50] vote on some issue about preserving land
or
[53:58] that one's that one's
any interest? Well, I I don't
[54:04] » It could be expected to impair your
independence and judgment.
[54:08] » I I don't see where that reasonably
could be expected to impair your
[54:12] judgment.
>> I don't either.
[54:15] that pin that in the case brought up
that's your I mean any you could if you
[54:22] wanted to go that wide on your
interpretation any uh any
[54:28] political stance or personal belief
would I just I just don't think that
[54:33] rises to that level
>> personal interest yeah that sure could
[54:38] be grabbed and interpreted
[54:43] to impair dependence or judgment.
I think that could be used as a tool.
[54:52] » Well, I've seen
>> if you've been a builder your whole life
[54:57] » or an electrician,
does that mean you can never vote on
[55:00] anything with construction codes?
>> No.
[55:04] » Or or
>> the one example I'm thinking of actually
[55:09] is with Commissioner Campbell. you
abstained from the vote on buying the
[55:13] fish. You won't have a you don't have a
financial interest in it, but that
[55:18] project is of a personal interest and
you did step back from that.
[55:24] » And you could make an argument either
way on that,
[55:26] » of course.
>> Yeah. And I don't see
[55:30] on
I don't see that being an impairment.
[55:36] » No, but it was a personal interest. It
was
[55:40] » I think this could be used as a weapon.
[55:45] » We want people who have been dedicated
to things
[55:49] in their life.
>> Mhm.
[55:56] » Is personal interest referred to
anywhere in this policy? I mean,
[55:59] obviously, if it's a definition for it,
I guess we could look at where it's
[56:03] referred to in this policy and see if
that fits. I would have to do a word
[56:07] search.
>> How about just take out interest and
[56:10] relationship? Well, relationship
interest relationship and just leave
[56:16] benefit.
[56:23] I if I'm going to benefit, let's say,
so why don't I see if it's referred to
[56:29] in this way in the policy at all?
[56:34] Um,
>> my guess is that came from Grand
[56:37] Traverse County.
[56:43] » Cuz yeah, I mean, I can see to your
point this could be widely interpreted
[56:46] and taken and abused. So,
>> yeah,
[56:54] » generally the kind of people who decide
to do this are people who have been
[57:00] dedicated to things.
>> Mhm.
[57:07] playing cards.
[57:13] » Do you want to take out interest and
just leave relationship or or benefit?
[57:21] » That tightens it a bit. I don't like the
interest.
[57:26] » Let's get rid of the interest.
>> Which words are we removing? Just
[57:30] interest in
what would be
[57:35] uh one
>> just the word interest.
[57:38] » Yes.
>> Means a non-financial
[57:41] » relationship or benefit.
>> Okay.
[58:06] page seven, right?
>> Mhm.
[58:10] » Thank you for taking that off.
>> Yeah. No problem.
[58:17] Manager
[58:36] under C board review.
[58:42] I'm not sure
how something gets to the board when a
[58:48] matter is properly before the board of
commissioners.
[58:52] Mhm.
>> Um
[58:56] I take items that would come before the
board as right now for non-union.
[59:03] » Mhm.
>> It's it's an appeal process.
[59:06] » There's a polic there's a procedure to
follow with steps.
[59:09] » Right. And under this that would extend
to ethics violations that were
[59:14] determined to actually be violations.
Mhm.
[59:19] » They could appeal to the county board.
>> We don't have that detailed in here. The
[59:25] steps.
[59:28] » We have an effort to resolve it. But are
there other policies that would throw it
[59:34] to the board
that this would cover when it does come
[59:39] to the board?
>> For employees,
[59:43] » non-un employees,
>> non-un employees. that if it's non-union
[59:47] employees, then it would follow policy
1.07,
[59:51] the non-UN personnel policy. But for
members of a public body like parks and
[59:58] wreck, that wouldn't apply,
>> right? And and department heads wouldn't
[1:00:04] apply or no, it would apply. It would
for department heads but not for elected
[1:00:08] officials
>> under items covered in the non-personnel
[1:00:13] policy but
>> they may not be items I'm not sure how
[1:00:17] detailed that is as far as ethics
complaints.
[1:00:20] » It's not
>> right.
[1:00:24] So the going before the board uh is more
of an appeal process
[1:00:33] than it is a determination process
except for we have the exception earlier
[1:00:42] about uh voting again like that whether
you can vote or not
[1:00:48] » and it says that the board determines
the appropriate process
[1:00:53] » and
The goal of this is that the board
[1:00:58] doesn't that has a a clear path follows
a clear path the same time every time.
[1:01:04] » Um so that need I to me that needs to be
set up as as a more of a pee
[1:01:11] » which is which which isn't in this
>> I'm sorry what
[1:01:14] » the step if there was a step process
that that's not in here
[1:01:18] » right which I don't think it is. No.
[1:01:24] » What do you guys think about that?
>> Are you saying there needs to be more
[1:01:29] process laid out in here or taken out?
>> No. All I'm saying is that uh the
[1:01:35] board's role
um is more for
[1:01:42] uh
for issues that aren't just within the
[1:01:48] board. conflict issues within the board.
The board's role in dealing with issues
[1:01:53] with uh say
Brownfield doesn't a member of
[1:01:58] Brownfield doesn't like a decision that
was made
[1:02:01] » against them or a department head
doesn't like a decision made against
[1:02:06] them based on the definitions within
this policy.
[1:02:11] Um then there would be an appeal process
to the county board to take up
[1:02:20] So
>> Brownfield didn't like a decision
[1:02:24] that was made in Brownfield.
>> Yeah. No, the individual didn't like it.
[1:02:29] Brownfield voted to
I don't know Brownfield can censor
[1:02:34] anyone, but it was to not allow to
declare an interest a conflict of
[1:02:38] interest among one of its members. and
they took that wrongly and perhaps
[1:02:43] they're justified in taking that wrongly
so they could appeal the county court.
[1:02:54] » Usually all punitive actions have some
type of appeal.
[1:03:00] » Yes. And if there is an appeal process,
then there there should be steps laid
[1:03:04] out in this policy.
[1:03:10] Okay.
[1:03:17] So, somebody comes before the ground
and request help with a project. Request
[1:03:23] one help with a project. That's what it
always is.
[1:03:28] Um,
Brownfield acts according to state laws
[1:03:36] given to them,
handed down to them. They brownfield
[1:03:42] doesn't make up stuff. It it operates
with clear definitions of what a can
[1:03:48] cannot do in a group. If you have you
sat in a lot of brownfield meetings over
[1:03:54] the many years?
>> No. Okay.
[1:03:57] » Handful as well. Not even a handful.
>> No, I'm
[1:04:01] these poor guys end up taking taking a
lot of notes.
[1:04:05] » Not not for Brownfield. I have not. I've
only watched a few of them. I haven't
[1:04:08] sat through.
>> Yeah. No, I was just thinking if you'd
[1:04:11] sat in there for 10 years. Um,
so if it's not in accordance with this
[1:04:18] state,
they have a pretty tight wicket. They
[1:04:21] have to It's It's usually not an opinion
thing. is whether does this qualify
[1:04:28] and is there money. So I'm try I'm
trying to think of a decision that would
[1:04:34] come before the county board. I probably
used it for example as far as something
[1:04:38] that could be appealed. But what I you
what I actually what I talked about was
[1:04:43] an au
determination that the brownfield might
[1:04:48] have that there was a conflict of
interest among one of its members.
[1:04:54] the brownfield would be the first to act
on that and then the individual would
[1:04:59] have an opportunity to appeal that
decision
[1:05:04] uh to the county board
but not I'm not thinking
[1:05:10] » you're right that's not a good example
>> yeah and I'm not thinking in context
[1:05:14] » so I don't want to waste your time on
that one
[1:05:16] » okay and then on on page eight they do
we do talk about methods of enforcement
[1:05:20] which I know we're not there yet but
>> and I'm Not saying there aren't any good
[1:05:25] examples. Maybe Helen, maybe there are.
>> That's just that's just not a good one
[1:05:30] to go cover.
[1:05:34] just kind of get a little bit.
[1:05:39] » So, I don't know how easy of an affix
how easy of a fix that is cuz usually
[1:05:46] appeals
fall under uh a separate category
[1:05:53] rather than just being blended in with
whatever administrative review.
[1:06:00] So,
I don't want to skip ahead. Yeah, I
[1:06:05] don't want to get too far.
[1:06:31] Do we want to leave that with
as a an ask of Matt to
[1:06:40] uh to review this as far as having
appeals?
[1:06:43] » I think it would probably go under
section four because this is
[1:06:47] enforcement,
>> right? Well, this is
[1:06:52] administrative review
reporting.
[1:07:02] So, it's enforcement for each category.
[1:07:08] See if I got these in.
[1:07:17] This is on I got this under
administrative review. I got the wrong
[1:07:21] page.
>> Do you have the one that says draft on
[1:07:24] the top?
>> Well, I printed it out.
[1:07:33] » Section 4, page 8, enforcement.
[1:07:45] I I got four as enforcement and I've got
three as reporting. I was under
[1:07:53] AB
[1:07:58] a administrative review, B unionize
employee, C board review on page seven.
[1:08:05] Okay, I'm with you. Okay, that's what I
would where we were talking about board
[1:08:09] review.
>> Yes. But as far as an appeal, I think
[1:08:14] that would go in the next section,
right?
[1:08:16] » After enforcement, if it was not
resolved during the proper path of
[1:08:20] enforcement, then appeal would have to
go after that.
[1:08:23] » Sure.
[1:08:28] » So the first question is that do we have
an appetite as a board to hear those
[1:08:33] appeals?
I'm not sure who else would besides us.
[1:08:38] Um,
so we'd be hearing appeals of ethics
[1:08:45] of determinations of ethics violations
of this policy.
[1:08:52] » Would they come to this body first? You
>> no, not first.
[1:08:59] » Only during the voting part. If you know
if something comes before and someone
[1:09:03] declares then we have to make a decision
and if they vote
[1:09:07] » you know what so if it's an employee the
administrators in charge of the
[1:09:12] employees
not us
[1:09:15] » and that's in here under enforcement
>> I think it's gets appealed to the
[1:09:21] administrator right under enforcement
>> uh yeah it depends
[1:09:28] I don't think employee concern should
come to us.
[1:09:32] » They have to go through certain steps
that are in the non if it's a non-union
[1:09:36] employee, there are steps that they have
to take. If it's not resolved in each
[1:09:40] step, then you are the last stop.
>> In 5 years, we've never had
[1:09:48] » Might have one now.
>> We got one now.
[1:09:54] » Yeah. I mean,
but I think it's it's
[1:09:59] I don't know if it's required, but it's
very common to have an appeal proc. You
[1:10:04] got to have an appeal process.
>> And the union employees have one, the
[1:10:08] non-UN employees have one.
>> Yeah,
[1:10:11] » you're right.
>> I don't know who else would be the
[1:10:16] appeal process.
[1:10:25] So, under board review,
it says when a matter is properly before
[1:10:31] the board of commissioners. I don't know
how anything gets before the board of
[1:10:35] commissioners unless it's a review an
appeal.
[1:10:39] » But wouldn't that appeal happen with the
within each jurisdicting committee?
[1:10:48] » A committee. What's what do you mean by
committee?
[1:10:51] » Brownfield Lamb Bank.
>> Oh, okay. Committee commission,
[1:10:55] » right?
>> Well, they make it.
[1:10:57] » They have a process in place that if
there is an appeal there, it would come
[1:11:03] to the board where it doesn't have to be
outlined here. We just take it when it
[1:11:07] comes based on their policy or their
their bylaws.
[1:11:13] » So, what kind of I don't think they have
any
[1:11:17] » I can't imagine. I don't have any ethic.
>> No.
[1:11:20] » Yeah. I mean, this is going to cover
brownfield and plan commission and
[1:11:25] everybody like that.
[1:11:29] » They would make a determination and then
if you do have an appeal process, I
[1:11:34] think we're the only logical spot for it
to go.
[1:11:38] » And you're saying this, you want more of
an outline in here as to how we take it?
[1:11:43] » Well,
yeah. There is no explanation for how
[1:11:47] something properly comes before the
board. How does something properly come
[1:11:52] before the board? Well, you want to make
sure that first it goes through the
[1:11:56] proper channels and then upon appeal it
would go to the board
[1:12:03] » and we can limit what
>> so that can be easily added. So it can
[1:12:06] say like that can be expanded in this
first sentence
[1:12:09] » had that it can when all like if all
proper channels have been exhausted
[1:12:14] » that's yeah
>> then it comes
[1:12:16] » just one little statement in there to
cover that up with
[1:12:22] » I'm all for simple
>> I don't have any problem with that
[1:12:26] » yeah I think it should it just be a a
mere short statement in there as to
[1:12:32] agree
Yeah, when it properly comes before the
[1:12:37] board of commissioners,
you know. Oh, Lauren's better at writing
[1:12:40] something up like that than I am.
>> I'm I'm going to have legal write it.
[1:12:46] » But I think I know what you're saying.
>> Yeah, I would suggest we move that down
[1:12:51] then below investigations if it's the
appeal because you have to have the
[1:12:56] investigation before you have the the
appeal.
[1:13:00] So I would suggest making that D the
board review D in the investigation C.
[1:13:07] Does that make sense?
[1:13:12] » Although we investigate after it comes
to us too
[1:13:17] » in certain situations you do.
>> Yeah. Can
[1:13:29] you want to die in that cross?
>> I don't want to die in any crush.
[1:13:36] Someone already did that for me.
[1:13:40] » Okay. So, we're swapping investigations
and board review.
[1:13:44] » I just Yeah.
>> Mhm. And then I think the last one, the
[1:13:47] good faith stays is the last one. Makes
a nice patient statement.
[1:13:55] » Maybe I should say done on that.
>> I didn't know what you meant.
[1:14:09] Well, I thought we were going to be able
to get this to the county board this
[1:14:12] time, but I'm kind of
asking for a lot of
[1:14:18] the only option would be if legal could
review it and have it back before a
[1:14:23] regular.
>> I think we could have a meeting before
[1:14:26] the regular. That's the only option I
see right now. But that would have to
[1:14:30] happen within the next 10 days.
>> Oh, I know.
[1:14:33] So, I don't know if that's possible. It
might put too much work on
[1:14:37] » I don't see any problem.
I think October.
[1:14:43] » Yeah,
>> it's not like we
[1:14:44] » we got a full agenda anyway, so might as
well that off.
[1:14:47] » No, you're okay.
>> No complaints for me.
[1:14:54] Okay.
[1:14:58] So, page eight, enforcement.
[1:15:04] Right.
>> Mhm.
[1:15:11] So, on E, I I wrote on my notes,
however, if a pattern is seen, but I
[1:15:17] think that's covered in good faith
report.
[1:15:21] There are some people we will just
complain about everything. That's just
[1:15:26] human nature.
[1:15:29] » I think good faith
>> Mhm.
[1:15:31] » covers that.
[1:15:40] » Well, you better have some receipts if
you're going to go through this process.
[1:16:02] And the next paragraph covers
>> Yeah. Ellis.
[1:16:11] Heat.
[1:16:31] Heat.
[1:16:42] Not sure why it's the commissioner who
is a subject of the whatever censor
[1:16:49] uh may abstain from voting were
permitted by law. That may be some law
[1:16:56] or jurisdiction that I'm not aware of,
but you would just think they would be
[1:17:02] that that would be a conflict from
having them vote.
[1:17:09] I think that just covers all situations.
[1:17:15] And you know,
[1:17:22] » you see what I'm saying though?
>> You in essence vote against your own
[1:17:25] censure.
>> Yes, that's saying.
[1:17:28] » That's what that's how I get it. You
start off one zero.
[1:17:36] » I mean, if if you don't mind, would you
mind asking Matt if we could change that
[1:17:40] to will abstain?
[1:17:43] There may be a reason that that he asked
Maine. I I don't know.
[1:17:50] I mean, Maine doesn't mean anything.
Might as well not have a sentence.
[1:17:57] I'll just put Will with a question mark.
I He may have a reason for that. There
[1:18:02] may be some kind of
>> Mhm.
[1:18:05] » uh precedence that
allows that.
[1:18:11] That was page eight. Any other questions
on page eight
[1:18:17] thoughts, improvements?
[1:18:26] On page nine,
[1:18:35] um
says a county administrator found to
[1:18:39] have violated this policy. may be
subject to corrective or discipline a
[1:18:43] action and I think it should say by the
county board.
[1:18:51] I think it's pretty obvious by the
county board, but it takes away any
[1:18:57] it just kind of completes the f
[1:19:08] and underneath that board appointees da
da da may be subject
[1:19:15] as determined by the county board to
corrective action. And
[1:19:21] again, um I think it's obvious, but it
just doesn't doesn't state that
[1:19:29] » any removal or disciplinary action shall
be conduct conducted in accordance with
[1:19:33] the legal authority governing the
appointment
[1:19:36] with you and any applicable procedural
protections.
[1:19:41] » Where are you at?
>> It's at the bottom of that sentence.
[1:19:46] » Board appointees. the last sentence.
[1:19:51] » Yep. It says board rule, but
[1:19:58] » yeah, it to me it should it it should
just say right there by the county
[1:20:03] board.
>> It says by the legal authority governing
[1:20:07] the appointment.
>> I think that's better.
[1:20:13] » Mhm.
[1:20:19] That covers it.
[1:20:35] » It doesn't say who's taking this action
though.
[1:20:39] » The legal authority governing the
appointment.
[1:20:43] That covers us.
[1:20:49] » If you
>> you're on you're on C, right?
[1:20:53] » If you get
>> So like NA, they can they they govern
[1:20:59] their own.
>> We make we make some of the
[1:21:02] appointments, but they can decide.
>> No, thank you.
[1:21:06] » That doesn't automatically come back to
you.
[1:21:09] » Yeah, we don't. Let's go back to
Brownfield again. Yeah. Their own body.
[1:21:15] » Yeah. So, I just think that covers if
you if we get too specific there, Alan,
[1:21:20] then we're going to run into some
situation where
[1:21:25] it's the governing board.
It's it's kind of the same issue that we
[1:21:30] ran into before with the appeal thing.
Um, I took this to mean more of of an
[1:21:38] appeal.
um
[1:21:41] which would put it in front of the
county board. Are we going to have an
[1:21:46] appeal process where someone uh action
is taken uh about an ethics violation by
[1:21:54] the planning commission that the that
the individual who is the center of the
[1:21:58] the action can appeal that to the county
board or is the planning commission in
[1:22:05] charge of
I mean
[1:22:08] » it depends on the board. I wouldn't say
the planning commission is that the
[1:22:11] county board is in charge of the
planning commission.
[1:22:14] » The county board is not in charge of
other things.
[1:22:16] » But the county board is not in charge of
brownfield or like we're not in charge
[1:22:20] of that.
>> But they have well they have to follow
[1:22:23] our policies
>> and
[1:22:25] » they have their own bylaws and their own
policies.
[1:22:29] » So you're just talking about an appeal
comes here. But let me discuss.
[1:22:34] » So
>> I don't think we should get too
[1:22:35] specific.
And are you really going to over like
[1:22:39] let's think about the other side like
are you going to override like if we
[1:22:42] have someone on
>> area agency on aging or senior services
[1:22:46] advice like you're going to override
that?
[1:22:49] » Probably not. However, that person will
have felt like they've had their due
[1:22:53] process.
>> That's a whole another issue.
[1:22:58] » Well, and that that's part of the appeal
process, but that's not covered under
[1:23:01] this. That's covered in the part we
talked about earlier. Let's say we
[1:23:05] decided to take somebody off area agency
on Aging.
[1:23:11] They could come to us and go, "You don't
have that authority."
[1:23:15] » Well,
>> we can make all we can make all the
[1:23:17] judgments we want, but
>> Well, if they violated our ethics
[1:23:21] policy,
and that's that's what we're talking
[1:23:24] about. We're not talking about just
removing for political reasons.
[1:23:27] » Why do you want to put the board there?
Any governing the appropriate governing
[1:23:32] authority covers it.
[1:23:35] I I would feel better with an appeal
process to the county board. I mean, I
[1:23:43] I'm more than willing to be overruled on
that. I just think it's better policy to
[1:23:49] uh have someone have an alternative
means to express their defense.
[1:23:56] » I think you're talking about a whole
another step.
[1:24:02] But let's say somebody comes to us and
says, "We I don't like the fact that I
[1:24:05] was kicked off Brownfield." We have no
authority there.
[1:24:10] We can't they can't bring an appeal to
us.
[1:24:12] » I don't think they can kick anyone off
Brownfield.
[1:24:15] » Well, that's the thing. This stuff never
happens. But even if it did, they they
[1:24:20] can come and appeal to us and we'll go,
"Oh, we're really sorry."
[1:24:24] » Well, they can censor someone from
Brownfield, I think. I don't know that
[1:24:29] for sure.
um they should be able to vote to uh uh
[1:24:36] require someone not to vote to declare
someone um has a conflict.
[1:24:43] Does this get where we want to go? If
that's a concern of ours,
[1:24:50] quoting what the legal government told
you,
[1:24:56] » where were you reading that? I'm sorry.
the last sentence of C board appointees.
[1:25:00] » Okay.
[1:25:05] » Yeah. I just I think
>> I don't know that you want all that
[1:25:08] coming back to the
>> governing the appointment covers
[1:25:11] everything
>> that goes back to the root.
[1:25:14] » If it's your committee or commission, it
will come back to you. If it's somebody
[1:25:17] else's, it goes through their process.
>> Yeah.
[1:25:22] » You're talking about a whole another
step. if there's an appeal.
[1:25:26] Well, some I
>> but I don't like for other things
[1:25:31] » put put the airport authority on that.
They're their own authority. We have no
[1:25:35] jurisdiction over that.
>> You make our multi-county authority. So,
[1:25:40] » but
>> we make our recommendation for an
[1:25:42] appointment and that's the end of it.
>> But let's say one of our members gets
[1:25:46] censored on there and they want to come
to us for an appeal. We can't take that
[1:25:49] up. We're they're we're not their
authority.
[1:25:52] That's what it's referring to. the legal
authority governing the appointment. So,
[1:26:00] yeah.
>> Well, it's the legal authority governing
[1:26:03] the appointment. We are the legal
authority governing the appointment.
[1:26:09] » No, we're not.
>> Yeah, we are. We appoint.
[1:26:14] It's not the legal authority of the
board. It's the legal authority of the
[1:26:19] appointment and we make the appointment.
And I I'd like to call a question.
[1:26:25] » I don't You're right. I'm I'm out
somewhere out
[1:26:31] » like a dog on a bone. Alan,
>> well, we we can ask we can ask Matt,
[1:26:37] » I have a note.
>> Is that Yeah. Is that directed at the
[1:26:40] county board or is that directed at the
individual boards?
[1:26:45] » Because I I I just read that that we're
the appointing legal authority.
[1:26:51] Yeah, but a board has the authority
to dismiss somebody.
[1:26:57] I don't think so.
>> They and they often appoint their own
[1:27:00] people too.
>> I don't think they do. It all comes to
[1:27:03] us.
>> No, there are there are independent
[1:27:06] people who are on beta. There are
independent representatives that we have
[1:27:11] appoint.
I think that's a big fight
[1:27:16] that the basis of the legal
>> an area agency on aging NMCA they have
[1:27:23] » they have just
>> well let's get some clarification not
[1:27:28] appointed by anyone
>> Renbach was on NMCAA for years and years
[1:27:35] she's moving to Trevor City NMCAA
appointed her to take Tony and Sord's
[1:27:41] place but has nothing to do with us. I
mean, with their board,
[1:27:46] » I I agree other than I think there is a
that was a reason for our lawsuit is
[1:27:52] that they changed their their uh
constitution to say that they could
[1:27:57] appoint people and Grand Traverse County
did not like that they different.
[1:28:02] » You'll get all of this in your
>> um
[1:28:05] » completely different issue. I was on the
way.
[1:28:08] » Anyways,
>> we're talking about different numbers.
[1:28:10] » Well, maybe you can inform me on what
that lawsuit was. I thought that was it.
[1:28:14] » You have an update coming
>> different members.
[1:28:17] » Uh anyways, uh
uh
[1:28:22] I think we're just dealing with strictly
county
[1:28:26] uh county commissions and committees,
not multi-count
[1:28:31] committees and commissions of which we
were appointing board.
[1:28:35] » So I have a note to ask about about
that.
[1:28:38] » Okay.
[1:28:41] Do I need to call the question then? I
just don't think
[1:28:46] » we're going to ask the jury.
>> The juror. The
[1:28:50] » juror.
I just I think it's very dangerous to
[1:28:54] get too specific and assume that we have
all this power
[1:28:59] as a rule of thumb.
>> Well, yeah. Just asking who if if one of
[1:29:05] our appointed committees can kick
someone off their own board. I think
[1:29:10] that was a question.
That's what you stated.
[1:29:16] » Let's not go into it again.
>> Okay.
[1:29:21] » Okay. Countywide officials.
[1:29:32] I think he's he took this from
someplace. I I don't know where, but
[1:29:51] The only question I had on that was who
would determine that we would take up
[1:29:57] the issue of a public sensor.
[1:30:01] I mean, is that something that
[1:30:06] » I haven't walked through that. I don't
know. I would imagine it would be you
[1:30:10] » as a board
>> vote to put it on the agenda. We'll put
[1:30:14] it on the agenda.
>> Would that be in close session? I hope
[1:30:19] » typically not.
>> I think that's true.
[1:30:24] » Well, I hope it doesn't come down.
Um,
[1:30:30] that was my only question I know.
[1:30:47] Um, under ethics policy violation
reports involving employees.
[1:30:51] » Where are you?
>> I'm down to the bottom of page nine.
[1:30:58] And uh
I think they should be provided to the
[1:31:03] board of commissioners as appropriate
and consistent with
[1:31:08] these.
>> I think may is a better word.
[1:31:14] » Well, I think we're better off knowing.
>> You know what that's again? The
[1:31:19] administrators in charge of the
importance. We aren't.
[1:31:24] » Well,
>> we're the administrator reports to us
[1:31:26] but not the employees. and it only gets
to you as a lastditch effort.
[1:31:32] Um,
yeah.
[1:31:36] » So, I think the word may is important.
Only is appropriate and consistent.
[1:31:44] » Yeah. Cuz I don't I don't
if everything comes to the board, it
[1:31:50] could potentially get political. I don't
want that.
[1:31:53] » Well, this is actual violations.
So this has already gone through the
[1:31:57] process. This isn't just a complaint.
This is if there is an actual violation,
[1:32:03] » right?
>> Um so if there is an actual violation of
[1:32:09] uh uh an elected official, a department
head, someone like that, I I don't want
[1:32:15] to hear about it going down the street.
I want to know about it.
[1:32:19] » Yeah. Now, for non-union, there is a
reporting to the BOC procedure where you
[1:32:24] would be notified of of things that are
going on. But as far as like ethics,
[1:32:30] policy, violation reports,
it's contingent on the what what is
[1:32:35] listed below, confidentiality,
personnel, privacy,
[1:32:40] applicable law,
>> but I don't why is collective in there
[1:32:45] when that's non.
>> Yeah, I don't think that should be in
[1:32:48] there.
Yeah, cuz
[1:32:51] » but again I think the word may is
important
[1:32:57] » because the administrator is in charge
of the employees
[1:33:05] may leaves the door open if it's
appropriate.
[1:33:22] Everybody good with page nine?
>> Mhm.
[1:33:31] » During our
marathon session,
[1:33:36] how you doing timewise, Dad?
[1:33:42] » Got a few more minutes.
house.
[1:33:45] » Should we need to be
>> should we stall or move
[1:33:49] » faster? Move on.
>> Uh,
[1:33:55] okay. So, last page. Uh, enforcement
considerations.
[1:34:00] Just kind of cool. I like that.
[1:34:16] This is a good sentence. Clearly written
by an attorney
[1:34:23] » or stolen from another county. One of
the two and their attorney.
[1:34:27] » Yeah, their attorney wrote it.
[1:34:34] » They've been trying to cover all bases.
And the only other thing I have is under
[1:34:39] questions. Again, we have this
open-ended
[1:34:43] uh ability to question legal counsel
and I think they should go through the
[1:34:50] board chair, the response elected
official as it but I I don't want folks
[1:34:56] to just be able to go to our legal
counsel.
[1:34:59] » You want me to take that out?
[1:35:03] It says as appropriate to the position
and they should
[1:35:06] » and again we do have a policy as as
pertains to employees on the proper
[1:35:12] procedure for contacting legal counsel.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I just don't the way
[1:35:19] this leads employees decide if they want
to contact legal counsel
[1:35:25] and you can interpret as appropriate to
the position and issue involved is
[1:35:30] doesn't say anything actually.
[1:35:35] » Are you guys okay with just not having
folks have the authority to call our
[1:35:40] legal counsel every time they have an
ethics? How about or legal counsel
[1:35:46] with appropriate permissions?
>> Or
[1:35:52] that get that gets weedy.
>> Why don't I ask our legal counsel?
[1:35:58] » Yeah, that's a good one to answer
[1:36:05] because what this is just saying is that
is a possibility.
[1:36:10] doesn't mean hey just
[1:36:15] » I would rather have the board chair
authorize them to or to go through a
[1:36:22] channel before they can directly contact
legal counsel
[1:36:26] » on an ethics complaint.
[1:36:30] Let's see.
[1:36:37] Outside your authority.
[1:36:43] Actually, again, it's the county
administrator that would give somebody
[1:36:48] that permission if it's just one of the
employees.
[1:36:52] » He's in that lineup, isn't he? Nice.
[1:37:00] » Unless it involves somebody outside
there.
[1:37:06] » Elected official.
>> Elected official.
[1:37:08] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:37:18] It's pretty open. It sounds to you like
an employee can
[1:37:24] call the attorney
without going through any channel.
[1:37:29] » If there's a lot of options before legal
counsel, human resources administrator,
[1:37:33] board chair, elected official or legal
counsel,
[1:37:38] » you could ask him about that. how we can
limit that or or phrase it so that
[1:37:44] people know they don't have they can
just pick up the phone call.
[1:37:56] » All right. Not as simple never, is it?
>> No.
[1:38:00] » As envisioned,
>> but we're looking at finishing up
[1:38:05] and having this on the October agenda.
>> Great. Great.
[1:38:09] » So these actually if these changes are
made and it's sent to us
[1:38:17] » you can't do business outside of the
meeting
[1:38:19] » to actually get together.
>> Well, I'm sure we want to look at some
[1:38:24] of the comments provided to us from
legal and some of the stuff. That's what
[1:38:27] we're asking.
>> Okay.
[1:38:30] » So
just trying to get you out of another
[1:38:33] baby. I know
>> I'm curious about some of this stuff.
[1:38:38] So,
>> okay.
[1:38:44] » It's hard to sum up everything that we
talked about. A lot of it had to deal
[1:38:48] with uh
process on how things get to the county
[1:38:54] board level.
[1:38:58] I didn't see any
I mean we're in the weeds in this but I
[1:39:03] didn't see any major
major changes or or uh discussion points
[1:39:10] really.
>> Yeah.
[1:39:13] » Yeah.
But I like the I like I think in
[1:39:19] something like this that affects
everybody, you got to get in
[1:39:24] because so many different situations
could come before us.
[1:39:30] Any other discussion items, guys? What
are you thinking?
[1:39:33] » Not for me.
[1:39:38] » Steve wants to talk. I know him. He's a
big loud mouth. Go ahead, Steve.
[1:39:43] » Move on.
[1:39:47] Okay.
Public comment. I hear none. Uh board
[1:39:52] member comment. We will repeat and uh
turn the meeting.