Knox County ethics panel debates anonymous tips, training and limits on enforcement authority

Knox County's ethics subcommittee spent its meeting reviewing redlined changes to the Knox County Code of Ethics and hashing out how complaints, training and enforcement should work in practice.

The committee chair opened the session and asked members to consider a work product submitted by Mr. Sanders; members agreed to review his redlines offline and return next month with consolidated edits. "Once I have given it to you, as long as it is the decision of the committee and not an individual within the committee," Mr. Sanders said, urging the body to decide collectively how to incorporate comments.

A major point of contention was a proposed anonymous-complaint intake. Mr. Sanders read his suggested edit and argued that anonymous tips are "completely at odds with the rest of how the ethics complaint process is structured," noting the code otherwise requires sworn, notarized written complaints. Several members, including Miss Gibson and Commissioner Frasier, countered that anonymous channels can provide an avenue for constituents or employees who fear retaliation. Miss Gibson said the existing anonymous link currently routes to internal audit and "there are several individuals that work for certain entities that would like to file complaints, but they cannot" sign their names.

Committee members agreed to invite the head of internal audit, Zach Florton, to the next meeting to explain how anonymous submissions are triaged and whether matters would be referred to the law director or returned to the ethics committee for formal processing.

Members also debated enforcement language that had suggested fines of up to $10,000 for serious violations. Mr. Sanders and others clarified that the ethics committee lacks statutory authority to impose monetary fines. "The ethics committee does not have the authority to issue fines," Mr. Sanders said, and the committee agreed to strike or reword language so the code would reflect referral to appropriate authorities rather than internal penalties.

Other business included: confirming that minutes and records are maintained by the county clerk and available for public inspection; keeping a five-year full review cycle for the code; clarifying training expectations so that new committee members confirm completion of available Knox County ethics training (with acknowledgment sent to the chair); and moving the conflict-of-interest disclosure form to an appendix with clearer submission instructions.

The chair said staff would consolidate Sanders' comments, avoid online discussion between meetings to preserve attorney-client boundaries, and bring an updated draft at the next subcommittee meeting. The body set a subcommittee meeting for Jan. 14 at 8:30 a.m. and the next public ethics committee meeting for Jan. 26 at 8:30 a.m.

Procedural votes during the session included approval of the previous meeting's minutes (motion by Miss Gibson, second by Mr. Goodpastor) and a motion to adjourn (mover: Mr. Goodpastor; seconder: Mr. Hilliard), both carried by voice vote.