TRAVERSE CITY — Five years after a previous attempt failed, the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners is once again considering a major update to its code of ethics that could include specific sanctions for elected officials.
Several board members said “it’s time” to create an ethics code that creates “clear expectations” for behavior and integrity.
Board members took up the issue at a Wednesday morning study session, which was an outgrowth of a decision at the end of 2024 to begin the process by the end of this month.
It comes at a time when two controversies have dominated public discussion about the county board:
On Dec. 23, 2024, then board-Vice Chair Brad Jewett was sentenced to five days in jail and other penalties for soliciting prostitution, concluding a six-month public saga that began when he was arrested June 20.
On Dec. 10, 2024, county and state law enforcement authorities confirmed that Rob Hentschel, then chairman of the county board, is under investigation for alleged first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony.
A 38-year-old woman is alleging that Hentschel sexually assaulted her during a party in East Bay Township on Oct. 4-5. No one has been charged or arraigned in the case thus far.
Hentschel denies the assault allegations, stating: “The implications in the report you were provided are false.”
Both cases have revived public interest in an ethics code that could include specific consequences for elected officials who violate basic norms of conduct.
“I would expect a new ethics code would be – and should be – nonpartisan,” said Commissioner T.J. Andrews, who represents District 7. “There are enough scandals on both sides of the aisle in history and I definitely think it should be an equal opportunity process.”
At the same time, she added, “I don’t think the potential for partisanship is a reason not to have one. It better apply to everyone, no matter what their political persuasion.”
Current policy
Grand Traverse County has an official “Code of Ethics Policy,” but several local observers say it has a fundamental flaw: No consequences when the violator is a county board member.
“The policy we have is all good stuff, but there are no teeth behind it,” said Commissioner Ashlea Walter of District 3. “We all supposedly sign it each year, but there’s nothing in the current one that really has anything about enforcing it for commissioners.
“I feel it should be updated so that there’s some enforceability of some kind, some kind of options,” she added. “I think it’s important to have some kind of public process, to hold each other accountable for what we do.”
For example, if a county employee allegedly commits a serious violation of the ethics code, those allegations must be reported to the county’s Human Resource Director.
One or more officials will then investigate the allegations and report the result to the county administrator or other designated person(s).
“Any employee or appointed official who violates the provisions of this Code shall be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge,” the policy states.
However, county board members cannot be removed from office by the board itself or other county officials.
According to state law, a sitting county commissioner can only be removed from office in three ways: 1) A recall vote, 2) Voting the person out during a regularly scheduled election, or 3) Removal by the governor under certain circumstances.
As far as a recall vote, state law prohibits even submitting recall petitions during the elected official’s first six months or last six months of service, regardless of term length.
Moreover, the board’s current ethics policy doesn’t provide for any other type of sanction against elected officials in the county, such as censure or removal from various committee assignments.
As a result, under the current policy, Grand Traverse County commissioners may engage in ethical misconduct and continue to serve, unless they are later removed from office by the governor or voted out by citizens.
For his part, Commissioner Darryl Nelson said he is “open to improving” the existing ethics code, but that it’s “even more important not to make it too complicated.”
“Anytime you try to control one another’s behavior through a document, it can become messy, can be political,” he said. “I’d be interested to see what other counties have” in their ethics codes.
New board member Fern Spence is an outspoken advocate for ethics in public service, as well as professional life.
“I definitely think a (stronger) code of ethics would help guide us in our decisions,” she said Friday. “My vision would be to have an ethics officer and a committee that would review grievances.
“At this stage, I like to review what other counties do as disciplinary matters, and what do they do if there’s ethical misconduct.”
One point all of the commissioners agreed on was the necessity of insulating county administrators from the task of enforcing ethics standards when elected officials are under scrutiny.
“When concerns about (commissioner) ethics arise, we should have a clear, unbiased, impartial process in place that doesn’t put our administrator in an awkward position,” said Andrews. “I think having something like that has the potential to improve compliance and possibly serve as a deterrence against unethical behavior.”
Other counties
Some counties handle ethical problems differently, depending on terms in official policies.
For example, Emmet County commissioners voted in September 2023 to remove fellow board member Rich Ginop from the Regional Board of Health because he opposed health grants, which are a vital source of funding for most local health departments.
In justifying their action to remove Ginop, five other board members cited a specific clause in the Emmet County code of ethics that states:
“County Commissioners shall represent the official policies or positions of the Board of Commissioners to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose.”
Fraught history
Grand Traverse County has a fraught history when it comes to updating or strengthening its Code of Ethics.
The last attempt came in late 2019 when then-Commissioner Betsy Coffia served on an ad hoc ethics committee with Ron Clous and Brad Jewett.
Coffia argued in favor of new ethics rules that would require commissioners to recuse themselves from voting on issues that present a clear conflict of interest.
But that ad hoc committee voted 2-1 to disband itself for the second time in three months.
“I’m embarrassed,” Coffia said at the time. “It feels like a sham at this point. Do we believe in ethics or don’t we? Because this looks like we don’t.”
At the time, some members of the public expressed outrage, particularly in reference to Clous, a property developer. They cited Clous’ apparent conflicts of interest by serving on three county authorities that dealt with building-related issues.
Now five years later, residents are again urging a major overhaul of the 2019 code of ethics.
Next steps
Wednesday’s study session offered a brief starting point for the latest round of ethics code discussions.
The county’s civil counsel, Matt Nordfjord, provided board members with two drafts for a revised ethics policy, one of which included a proposed bi-partisan “ethics panel” that would investigate alleged violations and have the power to:
— Issue a public statement regarding the person’s conduct
— Recommend a resolution of formal censure by the complete board
— Contact appropriate prosecutors regarding potential criminal investigation and charges
— Nordfjord also provided sample ethics policies from Ingham and Oakland counties.
— Andrews, Nelson and other board members said the issue of a new ethics policy will require additional research and discussion before a final vote could be taken.