The Richland County Finance and Executive Committee on a routine agenda item discussed drafting an ethics ordinance for elected officials and whether employee ethics should be enforced by ordinance or placed in the county employee handbook.

Committee members were presented background by county staff on an earlier discussion and asked whether employee-focused ethics rules should carry the force of law or be an employment policy subject to disciplinary procedures. County staff said many counties handle elected-official ethics by ordinance and employee conduct through personnel policies but noted both approaches appear in local practice.

The discussion focused on practical differences: an ordinance could expose employees to forfeiture or other legal penalties prescribed by statute, while an employment policy would permit discipline or termination under standard personnel procedures. A staff member summarized that the county’s intent would be to allow the administrator to discipline employees and, when appropriate, refer matters that rise to criminal conduct to prosecuting authorities. "If it gets to...selling county equipment out of the back of the highway shop or something like that, that's a potential referral for potentially criminal," the staff member said.

Board members said they prefer handling most employee issues in-house through the committee or administrator rather than pursue a legal enforcement path for routine personnel matters. Supervisor Sandy told the committee she had an October 25, 2022 version of the Richland County "Handbook of Personnel Policies and Work Rules" and urged the body to ensure the personnel manual and any ordinance are harmonized.

Committee members asked staff to prepare a draft that references the existing ethics ordinance where useful, aligns language between the ordinance and the personnel handbook, and clarifies referral authority and the appointment process for the proposed ethics board for elected officials. The staff member said the proposed ethics board would be appointed by the Committee on Committees and "consist of five members and one alternate," with at least one member possessing legal training in due-process or quasi‑judicial procedures and no current county employees or officials allowed to serve.

Members also discussed timing and next steps. The committee acknowledged a prior board decision that the county's current ethics board would end on March 15 and agreed to present finalized language to the full county board no later than the last meeting in February or the first meeting of this committee in March so the board could act before the March 15 deadline. Members asked staff to provide the current personnel handbook version and to identify where overlapping provisions already appear in county policy.

The committee did not take formal action on the ethics ordinance at this meeting; members provided direction to staff to prepare drafts and to present the issue to the full board for a March decision.