Contract and Compliance Board presses legal counsel for clarity on complaint SOP and investigatory powers

The Contract and Compliance Board spent the bulk of its meeting reviewing a draft complaint standard operating procedure and asking Metro legal for written guidance on the board's investigative and hearing powers.

Julie, the board's consultant, walked the board through proposed edits to the SOP, including adding a field to record a complainant's language preference, removing an unclear reference to "metro safety personnel," and ensuring the full board is notified "if there's a critical safety issue or a death on a job site," rather than limiting notice to the chair. "We would like the full board to be notified if there's a critical safety issue or a death on a job site," Julie said.

Board member Barnett summarized the subcommittee's work and the need for more time: "We spent our entire hour digging into that and only got halfway through it," Barnett said, and the subcommittee scheduled a follow-up meeting for June 16 to continue detailed review and aim for a recommendation to the full board.

Several board members said the SOP should clarify when the board, rather than the executive director, might hold hearings or call complainants. One member cautioned against micromanaging staff, saying the board hires professionals to do day-to-day work and should avoid stepping into those duties except where necessary for policy or due process.

Members repeatedly raised a broader question: what can the board lawfully do? "I could read the statute, but ... there's ambiguity in that statute," one member said. Derek, Metro's counsel, responded that he would review applicable statutes and the Metro code and provide a written response, noting legal ambiguity constrains expanding the board's powers. "I can't authorize you to act beyond [the statute]," Derek said, adding the office must interpret powers literally to avoid exposing board members to risk.

Several members asked that the board present legal counsel with a concise list of specific questions so legal can deliver clear, actionable answers. Fabian urged members to "ask specific questions that create a list of things that are important to you and send it to a lawyer," noting that precise queries yield more useful legal guidance.

Julie offered to draft proposed hearing language and to circulate it to the subcommittee and legal counsel before the next subcommittee meeting so members could discuss a concrete scenario-based proposal. Board members also asked for clarification about recordkeeping, how complaint files will be stored, and what information will be public.

The board directed staff and the subcommittee to coordinate with legal counsel and the consultant, finalize edits to the SOP, and return recommended language for the full board's consideration after the June 16 work session. The meeting concluded without a vote on the SOP itself.