Leelanau County Government Nears Completion On New Ethics Policy

Details are coming into focus regarding Leelanau County’s new code of ethics, which outlines expanded rules around conflicts of interest, processes for reporting and investigating alleged unethical conduct, and consequences for violations. The county’s conflict of interest and complaint policy committee will meet today (Monday) at 1:30pm to review the fully drafted policy and consider further revisions.

The Leelanau County Board of Commissioners voted to establish the conflict of interest committee at its final meeting of 2025. The committee, consisting of board chair Steve Yoder and commissioners Alan Campbell and Gwenne Allgaier, was spurred in part by concerns about now-former County Administrator Jim Dyer. Dyer faced ethical questions around his unsuccessful campaign for a seat on the Cherryland Electric board, his representation of the Village of Northport in a legal matter, and his concurrent service on the nonprofit Peninsula Housing board and two county boards that made decisions affecting that organization.

Commissioners opted not to reprimand Dyer, but the allegations helped spur talks of a new countywide policy. A memo to the board last September noted that existing conflict-of-interest policies were sometimes inconsistent in their standards and definitions, potentially leading to different outcomes.

A year later, the 10-page ethics code is nearing completion. It seeks “to establish ethical guidelines for public officers and employees of Leelanau County,” covering commissioners, county-wide elected officials, employees, and board appointees.

Notably, the draft addresses several concerns raised about Dyer. One provision says “county resources, property, and funds shall not be used for personal gain or private benefit except as expressly authorized by law or county policy.” Last year, Tony Borden of Taxpayers of Leland Township (TOLT), a vocal Dyer critic, noted that Dyer’s State Bar of Michigan listing used the county building as his address and alleged he was “practicing law out of this office at taxpayer expense.” The new provision would appear to prohibit such use of county property.

Another provision prohibits county officers from accepting private employment or services that conflict with their official duties or impair their independence. Similar concerns arose during Dyer’s Cherryland Electric board candidacy. TOLT argued that because Cherryland sells power to the county and Dyer oversaw county contracts and operations, serving on Cherryland’s board would put him on “both sides of this relationship.”

The policy also establishes clearer procedures for county officers to disclose “any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest.” Commissioners would declare conflicts on the record before deliberation or action. The board chair would determine whether state law or other rules require abstention; if not, commissioners would vote on whether to allow the member to abstain. A commissioner not granted an abstention would remain required to vote.

That process addresses another concern identified in last September’s memo: The county lacked clear rules for determining when a board member should be excused from voting. The memo warned that an overly broad approach could allow members to avoid difficult votes or even leave a board without a quorum on controversial decisions.

The policy also creates a chain of reporting and investigation for potential unethical conduct. Campbell previously raised concerns that existing county policy puts the administrator in charge of investigating employee grievances even when the administrator is the subject of the complaint. Under the new code, complaints against the administrator would go to the Board of Commissioners chair. Concerns involving county-wide elected officials could be reported to the board chair, administrator, HR director, prosecutor, outside counsel, law enforcement, or another appropriate authority.

Consequences would depend on who violated the code. Because the county administrator is an employee reporting to commissioners, violations could result in discipline “up to and including dismissal.” For commissioners and other elected officials, however, the board would generally be limited to actions such as public censure or referral to an outside authority. As the policy notes, censure formally condemns an official’s behavior but does not remove the official from office or alter their statutory authority or duties.