The Charter Review Commission discussed a proposed amendment to create an Ethics Review Board that would receive and review complaints against elected county officials and make findings public, but committee members raised legal and fiscal concerns and did not advance the item.

The draft provision would have the county administrator appoint one citizen from each commissioner district to serve on an unpaid Ethics Review Board. The proposal reads in part: “The Ethics Review Board will consider the evidence presented to it supporting the complaint and the evidence presented to it pertaining the complaint and make a determination as to whether or not the preponderance of the evidence supports the complaint. Findings of the Ethics Review Board shall be made public. The Ethics Review Board shall establish procedures for due process and for appeal of its findings by the complainant or the official against whom the complaint was made.”

Commissioners and staff raised several concerns. The county’s civil deputy prosecutor, identified in discussion as Mr. Bohen, warned the commission that complaints alleging official misconduct can trigger multiple legal representations—attorneys for the county, for the board and for the accused—and can expose the county to significant legal expense. “You can have as many as three attorneys representing the process and the individual,” a commissioner summarized during the discussion, noting prior counties had confronted large legal bills.

Commissioners also debated scope and overlap with existing discipline channels. Some members asked whether judges or prosecutors should be excluded because judicial and attorney discipline follow separate state systems. Others asked how members would be appointed and who would insure independence; one proposal discussed in the meeting would have mayors of the largest cities appoint some members and the superior court appoint another to create insulation from county administration.

Supporters said the amendment responds to voters’ calls for accountability. Opponents said the mechanics presented risk substantial legal cost and administrative complications. Several commissioners urged the committee to return with alternative language, qualifications for members, a more insulated appointment process and an estimate of fiscal exposure before any ballot placement.

Ending: The committee will continue drafting and seek additional legal and comparative research on how other counties have structured similar boards and on potential liability and representation costs.