Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Rules Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenosha County board rejects amended rules but approves new ethics code and several grants and appointments
Summary
The county board failed to adopt amended board rules by the required two-thirds majority but unanimously approved an updated county ethics ordinance and a package of routine resolutions including a small JAG grant and committee appointments.
Kenosha County supervisors voted down proposed changes to county board rules (Ordinance 17 as amended) but approved an updated county ethics ordinance (Ordinance 18) and a series of routine resolutions and appointments.
Ordinance 17, a second-reading amendment to Chapter 2 (County Board rules), was debated at length and amended on the floor; the amended ordinance failed to reach the two-thirds threshold. The clerk announced that Ordinance 17 “fails required 16 yes votes to pass so it fails 15 yes 5 no.” Several supervisors objected to last-minute amendments and argued that the rules process should have unfolded earlier in committee meetings.
Separately the board unanimously approved Ordinance 18, an updated Kenosha County ethics policy that supervisors and staff had been developing for more than two years. County leaders described the ethics code as a step to strengthen transparency, create a complaint process and codify standards of conduct.
Other actions taken by the board during the meeting included:
- Resolution 86: Appointment of Supervisor Daniel Gaskke to the Kenosha County Human Services Board (approved unanimously). - Resolution 89: Approval of a governmental responsibility resolution for urban nonpoint source and stormwater grants (approved unanimously). - Resolution 90: Acceptance of a Bureau of Justice Assistance award of $18,757 to purchase deployable license-plate readers for the sheriff’s office (approved unanimously). - Resolution 91: Acceptance of the 2023 annual report for the county’s multi-jurisdictional plan (approved unanimously). - Ordinances 20 and 21: Zoning rezonings in the towns of Brighton and Paris (both passed unanimously at first reading).
During the rules debate, Supervisor Gersten proposed three bundled amendments (including procedures to surface petitions to the board and a change affecting committee service). The board voted to adopt those amendments 12–8 but the final amended ordinance later failed by a single vote short of the 16 needed. Supporters of the amendments said the changes improve procedural clarity; opponents warned the amendments could be used for political maneuvering and reduce committee accountability.
Supervisor Morrissey and others urged caution about last-minute changes, saying the board had spent multiple meetings over two years to craft rules and that substantial changes should not be introduced days before a final vote. Several supervisors urged separating the bundled changes so parts could be considered independently.
The ethics ordinance was described as a multi-year effort involving staff and outside counsel; committee members present had recommended approval at committee and the full board passed it unanimously on roll call.
