A temporary hiring freeze and an overhaul of the county’s conflict-of-interest policies are two key items on the docket for a Leelanau County Board of Commissioners meeting this week. The hiring freeze is under consideration as part of the board’s in-progress budgeting deliberations for the 2026 fiscal year, while the conflict-of-interest policies have arisen in recent months around County Administrator Jim Dyer and his board service outside of county government.

Hiring freeze

The county board kicked off its 2026 budgeting process last month, and as part of that process, District 1 Commissioner Rick Robbins is proposing a temporary hiring moratorium for the county government. A memo included in the meeting packet for tomorrow’s executive board session explains the proposal:

“Since the approval of new positions or filling currently vacant positions authorized in the 2025 budget would have a financial impact on the 2026 budget and the ability of the Board of Commissioners to modify the number of full time equivalent employees authorized in the 2026 budget, Commissioner Robbins asks the Board to consider implementing a temporary hiring freeze to commence immediately and remain in effect until the approval of the 2026 budget, unless the relevant elected official or department head, and the County Administrator jointly agree in a written report provided to the County Board, that filling that position is essential to continuation of the existing level of service.”

The proposed hiring freeze won’t see a vote at tomorrow’s meeting, but will be discussed. Per the aforementioned memo, “if a majority supports this hiring freeze,” then a resolution will be developed and presented for a vote at next week’s full board meeting scheduled for 6:30pm next Tuesday, September 16.

There is only one job currently listed on the county’s “Employment Opportunities” page: a law enforcement deputy position with the Leelanau County Sheriff’s Department, first posted in January.

Conflict-of-interest policy

Also up for discussion at tomorrow’s meeting are a pair of memos related to the county’s handling of conflicts of interest – a topic that has gotten extra attention in recent months, as Administrator Dyer has come under fire for multiple alleged or potential conflicts.

This past spring, Dyer unsuccessfully ran for a seat on the Cherryland Electric Board of Directors, prompting a group called Taxpayers of Leland Township (TOLT) to buy an ad in the Leelanau Enterprise warning of a potential conflict of interest. Since Cherryland “sells electric power to the County Government Center” and Dyer “oversees county contracts and operations” in his capacity as county administrator, TOLT argued that Dyer holding a Cherryland board seat would amount to “serving on both sides of this relationship,” thereby creating “the appearance – and risk – of a conflict of interest.”

Dyer has also drawn light criticism – including from some county commissioners – for continuing to serve on both the Leelanau Land Bank Authority and the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority despite also being a board member for Peninsula Housing, a nonprofit working to acquire land in Leelanau County for attainable housing development. That alleged conflict is the subject of one of the two memos commissioners will consider in relation to the county’s conflict-of-interest policies.

Per the memo, the county's legal counsel in July “issued an opinion discussing the application of several conflict-of-interest policies and their potential impact on the County Administrator's service on both the Land Bank Authority and Brownfield Development Authority, while also a member of the Board of Directors of Peninsula Housing…”

While the results of that legal opinion “were discussed in a public meeting,” they are considered to be protected by attorney-client privilege and have therefore not been publicly disclosed. The memo recommends that the county board “waive its attorney-client privilege” and release the July legal opinion, citing “the disclosure of the conclusions contained in the opinion, and the public interest in the circumstances that led to the opinion.”

Waiving attorney-client privilege and releasing the legal opinion would help kick-start a larger conversation about conflict-of-interest policies throughout county government. A second memo on the topic included in tomorrow’s meeting packet notes that “the county, and several of its constituent boards, have adopted conflict-of-interest policies,” but adds that those policies “are, in some cases contrasting or inconsistent in their treatment of conflicts, using different standards or definitions, and leading to potentially inconsistent results.”

The memo states that the county’s assortment of policies “typically do not contain a procedure for identifying if a specific relationship or involvement justifies excusing a person from the obligation of voting on issues that come before the County Board they have been appointed to serve.” Such muddied waters can occasionally “lead to a member excusing themselves from making a difficult, but essential, decision, or casting an unpopular vote,” which can be especially problematic if such a recusal leads a board “to lack a quorum when a controversial decision is pending.” In light of these concerns, the memo calls for “a uniform process for declaring a potential conflict, relieving the person from the responsibility of debating, or voting on, a given topic.”

The memo continues: “Additionally, there is a sense with some commissioners that our current conflict-of-interest policies are too focused on whether a board member has a more than minimal financial interest in the outcome of a vote, when other, non-monetary relationships, or even simply acting as an employee, agent, or director of an entity that is ‘doing business with the County’ may present and even greater appearance of impropriety, or conflict.”

The memo ultimately recommends that the Board “direct the County Administrator to identify all existing County Conflict of Interest Policies, and present the same to legal counsel to consider the drafting of a uniform County Conflict of Interest Policy.” Such a vote would also likely take place at next week’s full board meeting, if commissioners decide to pursue it further.

Tomorrow’s executive board session is set to begin at 9:30am at the Leelanau County Government Center.