Boyle County Fiscal Court adopts revised ethics ordinance, agrees to extend filing window for disclosure form

The Boyle County Fiscal Court on a voice vote approved the second reading of ordinance 2 80.5, a revision to the county's ethics ordinance that removes a sentence requiring elected officials to file a county disclosure form the year after their term concludes.

The change was approved after a lengthy discussion about the county's SOPHIE disclosure form and how the county should handle incomplete or confusing returns. Court members voiced frustration about repeated administrative work when disclosure forms are returned for small omissions and directed the ethics commission and staff to simplify the form.

Judge Executive Trillie L. Bonham read the ordinance change and the court voted to adopt the second reading. During debate some magistrates pressed staff and the ethics committee to revise the form to make it easier to complete, suggesting options such as a pre-filled "none" checkbox or clearer highlighted instructions. Several speakers said the form previously required listing stocks and securities, which was removed, and a new bankruptcy question was added; other layout changes, not content changes, were noted by staff.

Court members asked county counsel to review language so blank items could be handled administratively rather than triggering automatic re-mailings. After discussion the court agreed to add a provision to the motion stating filings received before March 15 would not be penalized while staff and the ethics commission finalize the revised form and distribution process.

Court members and staff said the form's technical requirements and the county ordinance diverge in places from state statute language for special districts, which raised questions about which employees and individuals must file. Officials asked the ethics commission and the directors of affected special districts to help educate board members and streamline submission.

The judge and other court members emphasized the county will continue to accept returns and that sanctions such as a class A misdemeanor would be reserved for intentional false statements rather than minor omissions. The court also asked staff to consider low‑cost electronic options and targeted outreach before new enforcement steps are imposed.

Court members said they expect the ethics commission to present finalized form changes and any implementing procedures promptly so the office can close the outstanding returns. The motion to adopt ordinance 2 80.5, as amended to include the March 15 accommodation, passed by voice vote.

The court also asked the county attorney and ethics commission to coordinate with directors of special districts that have procurement authority and to report back to the court on outstanding filings and next steps.