[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.

Conflict of Interest and Complaint Policy Committee, 8/31/2026

Transcript