Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board attorney says statute bars Brooks from voting on Mace matters; board rescinds and revotes use authorization
Summary
Board members debated whether Commissioner Barbara Brooks should have voted on county support for Mace, a local nonprofit whose board includes Brooks’s mother. The board rescinded a prior approval and voted to re-authorize facility use while directing Brooks not to participate.
Get email alerts on the Ethics Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A dispute over whether a board member had a conflict of interest ended with the Washington County board rescinding an earlier decision and re-authorizing use of county facilities while excluding the member from participation.
Barbara Brooks (speaker 1) disputed that her mother’s service on Mace’s board created a conflict, saying she had been told by the attorney general’s office that the nonprofit did not pay her mother directly. Brooks said, “I gave you what the attorney general's office told me.” The board attorney (speaker 4) replied that the county’s conflicts statute focuses on pecuniary benefit and advised the board that Brooks should not participate: “The law says miss Brooks cannot participate in matters pertaining to Mace because her mother is on the board.”
After debate, members proposed rescinding the prior authorization and then reconsidering the matter without Brooks participating. A motion to reconsider and a subsequent motion to rescind were made and the board carried the actions to permit a revote without the conflicted member. The attorney clarified recusal practice for the record, explaining that recusal generally requires stepping aside from deliberations and votes.
The board also asked staff to document whether Mace continues to provide the musical-appreciation activities that previously justified county support and to return factual findings for the minutes and any future action. The attorney said the board has not required an annual review and recommended staff-level follow-up to establish current facts.

