Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leelanau County committee reviews draft conflict-of-interest and complaint policy, schedules follow-up
Summary
The county committee reviewed competing drafts of a code of ethics and a conflict-of-interest policy, debated bright-line disqualifications versus appearance-based rules and whether an outside ethics panel is needed, and set a tentative June 12, 2026 meeting to continue work.
The Leelanau County Board of Commissioners’ Conflict of Interest and Complaint Policy Committee reviewed draft ethics and conflict-of-interest language at a May 14 meeting in Suttons Bay and agreed to continue drafting before taking formal action.
Human Resources Manager Jennifer Kain told the committee that 18 county staff participated in a fall 2025 customer service training that raised questions about where officials and employees should “draw the line” on conduct. “It can be hard to navigate and it’s a personal opinion,” Kain said, describing the training as an interactive three‑hour session with small-group scenario work.
Committee Chairman Alan Campbell introduced a draft Leelanau County Code of Ethics he adapted from another jurisdiction and asked Administrator James Dyer to present his separate Conflict of Interest Policy draft. Dyer told commissioners his draft separates mandatory, bright-line disqualifications from conditional, appearance-of-impropriety disqualifications so officials know when recusal is automatic and when exclusion should be decided by peers. “There are bright‑line standards that are clearly defined and gray areas that require a peer vote,” Dyer said.
Members discussed several specific guideline items. They agreed to clarify that opportunities, benefits and services available to the general public also include conference attendees and to add “food” to that exemption. The committee debated increasing a proposed de minimis threshold for gifts or refreshments from $75 to $100. Members also revised wording to require that a prohibited action be one “which results in a personal profit,” rather than language reading “which may profit.”
The group discussed how recused officials should participate in meetings and agreed to seek legal counsel on whether a recused person may remain seated or speak; Dyer said he would reach out to counsel for guidance. The committee also noted limits on releasing employee records under state law and agreed to add language that records are released only as permitted by state or federal law, citing the Bullard‑Plawecki Right to Know Act in discussion of privacy protections.
Committee members debated whether to establish an outside ethics panel or to have the Board of Commissioners serve as the appellate body for contested conflicts. Commissioner Gwenne Allgaier said she favored having the Board decide. Dyer warned that any panel would require legal advice and might be difficult to implement in practice.
Chairman Campbell and Administrator Dyer said they will work to combine their drafts into a single revised document and bring a new version to the next meeting. The committee set a tentative follow-up for June 12, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Several substantive items — including a formal complaint filing procedure, investigative and determination processes and a review of the range of penalties — were not discussed and will need to be addressed in future drafts.
Votes at a glance: early procedural motions included approval of the agenda (motion by Commissioner Steve Yoder; second by Alan Campbell; AYES 3), approval of the committee minutes of Dec. 19, 2025 (motion by Alan Campbell; second by Gwenne Allgaier; AYES 3) and election of Alan Campbell as committee chairman (motion by Steve Yoder; second by Gwenne Allgaier; AYES 3).
The meeting began at 1:04 p.m. and adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
