The Knox County Ethics Committee Subcommittee met Nov. 7 to review a redline draft of the county Code of Ethics and to develop recommendations for the Knox County Commission; no proposed changes were adopted at the meeting.
The subcommittee chair said the redline draft displayed on the screen used black text for current code and red text for suggested additions and emphasized the group’s task: to finalize a code the county commission could consider. County legal counsel cautioned members that "the body that will approve or not approve a code of ethics is the county commission, not this body," and said the law department would review any proposed language for conformity with state and federal law.
Members concentrated discussion on several topics the draft highlights. On definitions, the committee considered expanding "personal interest" to include investments, outside employment or relationships with entities doing business with the county; Commissioner Terry Hill said ethics also concerns "the way that the person who might be looked at is perceived by the general public," urging the group to account for public confidence as well as legal tests.
The draft also proposes a broader list for "anything of value" (explicitly naming flights and campaign‑related benefits) and a policy requiring annual disclosure filings with the county clerk even when no conflicts are reported. Committee members discussed scope and mechanics of disclosures, noting a conflict‑of‑interest disclosure form is included at the back of the draft packet and that Mr. Sanders would review any filing requirements to determine legal ramifications.
On gifts and solicitation the subcommittee debated tighter phrasing to address promises of future employment and whether to reference federal restrictions such as the Hatch Act; counsel said he was not prepared to rule on Hatch Act applicability without further review. Members suggested adding the word "offer" to the solicitation prohibition to reduce ambiguity about promises of employment or favors.
Travel and expenses were also discussed. A proposed addition would tie travel reimbursements to federal per diem rates and require officials and senior management to sign an annual acknowledgment of the county’s travel and expense policies. County staff and counsel advised that finance and the county auditor already hold primary responsibility for travel rules and audit functions; the committee agreed to reference existing Knox County finance policy rather than attempt to mandate auditing duties for other county offices.
The subcommittee examined new language aiming to address misuse of public position, including misuse of social media and sharing confidential data. Counsel warned the committee to distinguish between county‑controlled official platforms and employees’ personal social media accounts, noting First Amendment considerations that affect how personal accounts may be regulated.
Other topics reviewed included prohibitions on former officials lobbying the governing body for compensation (the current one‑year state standard was discussed and retained for now), nepotism (members favored prohibiting advocacy or direct supervision of relatives rather than broadly banning relatives from county employment), and whistleblower protections. Members confirmed anonymous reporting channels exist (internal audit hotline and HR reporting portals) and requested clearer links to those channels from the subcommittee’s web page.
The subcommittee asked the law department to review several proposed provisions and agreed to return to the draft at its next meeting. Chair announced the next meeting for Wednesday, Dec. 3 at 8:30 a.m.; the session will resume at Section 8 of the draft.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved the Oct. minutes by voice vote and later approved adjournment by voice vote. Both were voice votes recorded as "ayes"; the transcript does not list a roll‑call tally.
The subcommittee did not forward any final code language to the County Commission; Mr. Sanders will provide legal review before further action.