Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts county code of conduct and ethics, adds requirement to copy CEO on staff requests
Summary
Supervisors adopted a county code of conduct and ethics after amending it to require that supervisors include the CEO on requests for information outside public meetings; motion passed with one dissent.
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors adopted a code of conduct and ethics on Feb. 25, adding a floor amendment to require that supervisors copy the county CEO on requests for information sent to departments outside public meetings.
The document, modeled on codes in other counties, sets norms for professional conduct, public communications, and interactions between supervisors, staff and the public. During board discussion supervisors debated whether certain provisions risked creating Brown Act issues by encouraging pre‑meeting exchanges. County Counsel Charlotte Scott advised that individual requests for information to staff are an express exception to the Brown Act’s definition of a meeting, and that the code does not by itself alter legal requirements.
Supervisor Norvell proposed and the board accepted amending the draft to require that "initial requests for information to department staff include the CEO on the communication," with the caveat supervisors exercise discretion to avoid needless volume. The board also agreed to strike a provision (Roman numeral 5) that directed that questions arising from published agenda items should be asked of department heads prior to meetings — the board removed that item after debate about potential conflict with open‑meeting law.
Board action: The board adopted the code as amended; the motion carried with Supervisor Williams dissenting. County Counsel said the code is advisory and administrative in nature and does not override Brown Act obligations.
Why it matters: Supervisors said the code is intended to set shared expectations and improve professional interactions with staff and members of the public. Supporters said it promotes transparency and predictable workflows; critics cautioned against any language that could be interpreted as limiting supervisors’ ability to ask questions or that might chill public criticism.
Ending: The code will be posted for public view; the county will monitor whether the CEO‑cc requirement proves practical and revisit if necessary.
