Leelanau County committee asks administrator to draft conflict-of-interest definition, new ethics code and complaint-panel options

Leelanau County's Conflict of Interest and Complaint Policy Committee met Dec. 19 and asked county staff to draft clearer rules on when elected officials or employees must recuse themselves, to prepare a separate code of ethics for non‑union staff, and to outline options for an ethics or complaint panel that could appoint independent investigators.

The committee, made up of Commissioners Steve Yoder (chair), Gwenne Allgaier and Alan Campbell, opened the meeting at 3:02 p.m. and approved the agenda before electing Yoder as committee chair. Executive Assistant Lauren Cypher reviewed the county's current Conflict of Interest Policy and the Non‑Union Personnel Policy (last revised March 18, 2025); materials cited by commissioners included model policies from Grand Traverse County and the City of Traverse City.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the county needs clearer guidance about whether conflicts are limited to financial gain or extend to relationships and other non‑monetary influences. Administrator James Dyer summarized four questions the committee should answer: what is a conflict, who decides whether a conflict exists, how determinations are finalized, and what happens after a determination.

Discussion highlights: HR Manager Jen Kain said the current policy is "straight forward for monetary regard" but could be expanded if the board wants broader coverage. Commissioner Gwenne Allgaier urged focus on the specific local case that prompted the review, stressing that participants she described (a Peninsula Housing volunteer, referenced as Mawby in the discussion) did not appear to gain personal financial benefit and that temporary Land Bank holding could further affordable‑housing goals. Allgaier said: "There was never any financial gain for anybody," a point Administrator Dyer and others acknowledged as part of defining the policy's scope.

Commissioners debated whether to adopt a separate code of ethics for non‑union employees rather than folding conduct rules into the existing non‑union policy. "I like the idea of a whole different policy," Committee Chairman Yoder said during the discussion; Commissioner Campbell similarly recommended a standalone code of ethics that borrows appropriate goals from Traverse City's document while remaining tailored to county needs.

Complaint and investigation process: The committee focused at length on who should investigate complaints, particularly complaints involving the county administrator or other high‑level officials. Options discussed included using the county's retained corporate counsel (Cohl, Stocker & Toskey), designating outside counsel or a third‑party HR investigator, or empowering a three‑commissioner panel to determine whether a complaint should be investigated and whether to hire an external investigator. Administrator Dyer cautioned that some investigative functions cannot properly be performed by staff who report directly to the person under investigation.

On the role of mediators versus investigators, Dyer said: "Mediators don't do investigations, Alan." On confidentiality and disclosure, the group wrestled with competing priorities: protecting whistleblowers and preserving the integrity of interviews versus giving a subject of a complaint enough information to understand the basis for a decision. Dyer warned that overly broad disclosure can deter reporting and cited state whistleblower protections. Commissioner Campbell said he would accept a redacted investigative report but pressed for procedures that allow a subject to see how conclusions were reached.

Decisions and next steps: The committee reached consensus on a set of next steps for staff: Administrator Dyer and HR Manager Kain will draft (1) a definition of "conflict of interest" and a recommended process for declaring and resolving conflicts; (2) a standalone code of ethics applicable to non‑union staff and guidance about how it would interact with union bargaining requirements; and (3) options for an ethics/complaint panel (including a three‑commissioner panel model and procedures for referring matters to outside counsel or investigators). The committee asked staff to return with draft language and legal review recommendations.

Formal actions taken: The committee approved the meeting agenda (motion by Yoder, second by Allgaier; AYES 3, NO 0) and elected Commissioner Steve Yoder as committee chair (motion by Allgaier, second by Campbell; AYES 3, NO 0).

What remains unresolved: The committee did not adopt final language on whether complaint reports are released publicly or how much of an investigative report must be redacted; members agreed that any disclosure decisions must follow legal advice and state law, including the Michigan Whistle Blowers Protection Act cited during discussion. The committee also left open the precise selection method for panel members (volunteer pool/random draw, bipartisan picks, or other), asking staff to provide options for the committee's next meeting.

The committee adjourned at 4:51 p.m.