Thoughts on Conflict of Interest and Complaint Policy Committee Meeting
I am providing this overview to fellow commissioners (as well as county staff and constituents) for a couple of reasons. The first is to pass along information about the work of an ad hoc committee established by the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners. The second is that I find writing synopses of meetings helps me—and hopefully readers—better understand the outcomes of our work.
The ad hoc committee assembled on Dec. 23.
Good discussions were held during the committee’s meeting, which signaled the first tangible work to update county ethics policies during the present term of the County Board. The meeting lasted two hours, until nearly 5 p.m., signifying the importance of the topic even on the verge of Christmas. It is confidence in our dedication to high ethical standards that serves as the underpinning for all authority granted to us by the citizens of Leelanau County.
Overall Takes From the Discussion
Leelanau County’s policies have not been updated in a long time—nearly a dozen years in the case of conflict of interest. I’m not certain when the non-union grievance policy was last reviewed. Consequently, the policies were sufficient for a time when many local governments relied on state law for guidance, but they lack solutions for handling most ethics issues that go beyond financial ramifications.
This conclusion was reached through comparisons with policies now in place in the City of Traverse City—where voters overwhelmingly thought ethics in government important enough to pass into ordinance—and Grand Traverse County, which relies on a six-page Code of Ethics.
The topics before the committee—conflict of interest and the process for handling grievances—both have ethical underpinnings but in Leelanau County have been addressed in separate and skeletal policy statements.
Possible Structural Paths
That’s the number I identified as plausible, but as input grows, more will likely emerge. The three are:
Update the current two policies and create a generalized third policy dealing with ethics.
Combine the conflict-of-interest policy with ethics guidance and update the complaints procedure included in the non-union personnel policy. The personnel policy section under the Rules of Conduct (Chapter 11) is dominated by common workplace expectations—being on time, honesty in filling out forms, proper grooming—and touches on a few basic tenets of ethical expectations. For instance:
“Employees shall not accept any gifts or gratuity from any individual or agency that may be construed as influencing a decision of a County employee.”
Create a single, comprehensive policy that handles all three categories. The advantage would be eliminating overlap; the challenge would be organizing such a policy in a way that allows readers to quickly navigate to sections relevant to their interests.
Who Falls Under What Policy?
Central to all these possible policy paths is the question of which groups they will cover.
Presently, we have one policy dealing with the County Board and another for non-union employees. Unionized employees are governed by their union contracts. Neighboring governments have chosen to combine all groups under a single document.
Grand Traverse County’s Code of Ethics states that:
“It is expected that all County Commissioners, county-wide elected officials, appointees of the Board of Commissioners, and employees of Grand Traverse County will perform the duties of their office or employment with an emphasis on fair dealing, responsibility, accountability, and transparency.”
The code then goes on to define expectations.
The City of Traverse City—which has the most extensive guidance through its ethics ordinance—includes “public servants” and others. A public servant is defined as:
“The elected mayor, members of the City Commission, any member of any local government agency, board, commission, or other voting body established by the local government charter or code of ordinances, and any appointee or employee.”
In terms of conflicts of interest, relatives are included. “Relative” is defined broadly to include relationships by marriage, blood, or adoption, such as parents, children, siblings, in-laws, grandparents, step-relations, and half-siblings.
Implementing policy changes that include such a wide swath of people would require notice, input, and possibly approval from other county officials and potentially public unions, should they agree.
(Please note: the link to the Traverse City ordinance included in the ad hoc committee public notice is incorrect.)
Specifically: The Conflict of Interest Policy
The present policy is limited to commissioners and members of appointed commissions and boards. It focuses heavily on financial conflicts but fails to address the types of conflicts bound to occur among officials active in their communities.
Among ad hoc committee members, there was agreement to expand the policy to address conflicts beyond personal financial benefit. For example, should a commissioner be obligated to declare a conflict for an issue that directly affects another entity—perhaps a nonprofit—on whose board the commissioner serves? The county’s current policy does not address this.
The limited umbrella of officials subject to the policy could be expanded to include department heads and possibly other elected officials, though expanding to elected officials would be largely ceremonial. The County Board holds authority to censure other county elected officials, but little more.
Unionized employees are governed by individual contracts with the county. However, given their demonstrated dedication, they may agree to abide by an ethics policy that upholds standards they already follow.
Committee members did not work in a vacuum. The Traverse City ordinance and Grand Traverse County policy offered guidance on wording for conflict of interest, including:
The City of Traverse City includes actions that would create a “lack of confidence or impartiality of action” or that would “affect adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the local government.”
Procedures for Handling Conflicts
The procedure for handling conflicts during meetings also needs updating. County Administrator James Dyer was an important part of this discussion.
There appeared to be agreement on outlining a process whereby:
An item would be added near the beginning of all agendas allowing declarations of possible conflicts of interest.
An official declaring a possible conflict would explain the circumstances.
The public body would vote to confirm the conflict through a motion and public vote.
If confirmed, the affected member would be excluded from discussion and voting on the matter. Some bodies also require the person to leave the room to avoid even the appearance of undue influence.
Grievance Policy
What and how much of the grievance policy should be updated was discussed, but no decisive direction was reached. All agreed, however, that the current policy’s lack of guidance for grievances filed against the county administrator must be addressed.
This situation occurred during the first year of the current commissioners’ term. An investigation and recommendation were made by the Kohl Stoker law firm under contract with the county.
(While I may not have stated this at the meeting, I have concerns about this approach. Kohl Stoker also represents the county in civil lawsuits. Regardless of the firm’s ability to reach an independent opinion, the perception may persist that the opinion was written by a defense attorney on behalf of the county, which could later be used in legal argument.)
Both the City of Traverse City and Grand Traverse County refer credible reports of unethical behavior to third parties to ensure impartiality.
In Grand Traverse County, complaints may be referred to an ethics panel by the administrator or human resources director. If resolved administratively and not referred, an appeal may be filed with the County Board chair, who may also refer the issue to the ethics panel. The panel holds broad investigative and dispute resolution authority.
In Traverse City, the city attorney recommends a qualified neutral third party (“arbiter”) at the annual organizational meeting. The arbiter may investigate, conduct hearings, issue referrals for disciplinary hearings, and refer violations to appropriate authorities, but only upon receipt of a written complaint.
I did not hear consensus on the best path forward for Leelanau County’s grievance procedure, but it was clear that our current policy does not address all possible grievances.
Discussion With Mr. Dyer
Jim and I discussed these and other issues following our Dec. 30 meeting. He shared that he has already spent several hours researching, taking notes, and contemplating policy changes that will eventually come before the committee and the Board of Commissioners for a final decision.
We discussed conflict declaration and procedure, ethics policy and enforcement, and the structural forms these changes may take.
In the meantime, I wanted to provide colleagues who are not on the ad hoc committee with an update on our progress.
