At 1:06 p.m., the Jackson County Legislature Rules Committee voted to refer Ordinance 6016 — a proposed change that would bar county employees from knowingly making false statements — to the full Jackson County Legislature without a committee recommendation, while urging amendments to the draft and suggesting the committee’s desire for immediate effect if legally permissible.

The ordinance as introduced would amend the county code of conduct. Committee member Whitney Miller, a representative of the county counselor’s office, told the panel that the underlying ethics code is located in a separate part of the county code. "The ethics code is actually section 9, whereas section 74 is what outlines the ... procedures if there's a violation of the ethics code, but the code itself is in a different chapter," Miller said, noting the draft ordinance’s chapter reference needs correction.

Committee Chair Sean Smith framed the ordinance around concerns about truthful information reaching the legislative body. Smith cited memos and personnel paperwork he said show senior administration officials requested "out of class" pay increases in July and August and said the pay requests resulted in what he described as "a 22 and 12 and a half, I think it was, percent increase in compensation for themselves." Smith said those documents, and video from an Aug. 18 legislative meeting he had prepared, motivated his push for the ordinance.

Smith also criticized the administration’s absence from the committee meeting and said a local ethics rule that relies on administrative self-governance limits the legislature’s ability to hold employees accountable. "We as a body, a legislative body, I don't think can govern effectively if we're not given truthful and accurate information," he said.

The committee debated whether the ordinance could be amended in committee or should be sent to the legislature as a whole. A motion to "perfect" the ordinance was moved and seconded but later withdrawn. The committee instead agreed to refer the ordinance to the full legislature "without a recommendation," with members indicating they expect amendments to (1) reference the correct chapter of the code (chapter 9 rather than chapter 74) and (2) consider language that would make the policy effective immediately and, where lawful, retroactive dating was discussed as an option.

The committee recorded the referral by voice vote; no roll-call tally naming individual votes was provided in the transcript. Committee members said additional legal review is needed to ensure due process and lawful authority for any disciplinary provisions or retroactivity.

The ordinance and related documents, including memos from July and August that Smith described as requests for out-of-class pay, will be considered by the legislature as a whole; the committee did not set a specific date in the record for that consideration.

Video excerpt and personnel paperwork the chair referenced were raised during discussion but the administration’s representatives did not appear to present in committee. Committee members asked the legislative auditor and county staff to avoid diving into individual personnel matters in open committee discussion and to reserve detailed inquiries for after the meeting or in closed session if appropriate.