Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates creation of independent ethics board; agrees to split employee and public‑official processes
Summary
The committee reviewed other Wisconsin counties’ practices and directed staff to draft separate ethics procedures for employee matters and for public‑official oversight, with a target to have an ordinance and appointments ready ahead of a March 17 deadline.
The Richland County Executive & Finance Committee on Jan. 14 reviewed options for an ethics board and directed staff to draft separate, parallel ordinances: one to handle employee/personnel ethics matters (to stay within committee oversight) and one to establish an independent citizen ethics board to review allegations involving public officials.
Committee counsel and members said a majority of Wisconsin counties they reviewed use a citizen panel, often 3–5 members, for public‑official ethics matters and recommended including at least one person with legal or quasi‑judicial training on the board. Counsel said board chair appointments — with full board confirmation — are a common selection method, though committee members suggested consulting Iowa County and other peers about practical experience and recruitment.
Members debated whether public officials or recent county employees should be eligible to serve on the citizen panel. Several members argued that the ethics board should be free of current local‑government officials to avoid conflicts of interest; others suggested limiting ineligibility to people who served as a county official or employee within the previous two years or anyone with a significant contract with the county. Committee counsel noted many ordinances also make the county corporation counsel available to advise the board and recommended orientation and due‑process training for members.
The committee directed staff to return a draft ordinance that (1) splits employee personnel ethics handling from public‑official oversight, (2) proposes a citizen panel composition (a working suggestion was five members with at least one person having legal/quasi‑judicial training), (3) sets reasonable eligibility and conflict‑of‑interest standards (including discussion of restricting recent officials/employees), and (4) includes appointment mechanics (board chair nomination with county board confirmation or appointment via committee on committees, as the board prefers). Counsel said the county has a March 17 deadline to name a successor ethics body; the committee requested a draft ordinance and recommended appointment process in time to meet that deadline.
No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the committee agreed on the approach and called for a follow‑up meeting to refine membership, eligibility and appointment details.
