Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission introduces sweeping updates to county Code of Conduct; board adopts manager and clerk‑backed amendments
Summary
The Code of Conduct Review Board and county staff presented revisions to align the county code with state law, add complaints procedures, broaden requirements to contractors and candidates, adjust gift/disclosure rules, and add candidate training; the commission introduced the ordinance and adopted multiple amendments today.
The Bernalillo County commission introduced a broadly rewritten Code of Conduct ordinance and approved a package of amendments aimed at clarifying applicability, enforcement and disclosure requirements.
Martha Brown, chair of the Code of Conduct Review Board, and board attorney Veronica Gonzalez explained the changes. Key provisions added or clarified include expanded applicability to contractors and prospective contractors, creation of a formal process for informal (unsworn) complaints, a new "sensitive personal information" category with protections, and updated definitions and penalties to better match state law. The review board recommended increasing the maximum civil penalty the board can propose to $5,000 and adding regular review intervals so the county’s ethics rules remain current.
The commission considered a series of commissioner and manager amendments: requiring candidates to file financial interest statements with the county clerk at filing; enabling the review board to impose penalties or petition the county clerk to remove candidates from the ballot for failure to comply; adopting candidate training requirements with enforcement language; revising gift limits and removing a recommended 'restricted donor' registry in favor of uniform gift limits and quarterly gift disclosures to the clerk; and accelerating the reviewboard’s advisory timeline on elected‑official salary recommendations and market studies.
Commissioners expressed support for greater transparency and the need to avoid procedural confusion; they also discussed operational impacts (staff resourcing to maintain registries). The county manager asked that some prioritizations be folded into the budget/CIP process and confirmed staff would return with administrative details and implementation plans. The ordinance was introduced for formal adoption at a subsequent meeting (more than 30 days).
