Wayne County commissioners weigh giving Ethics Board investigative and subpoena powers, remove anonymous advisory-opinion option

Wayne County commissioners spent much of their recent ethics task force meeting reviewing proposed revisions to the Wayne County Ethics Ordinance, including a request from the Ethics Board to add explicit investigative authority, subpoena power and the ability to administer oaths.

The Ethics Board’s outside counsel, Charles Long Street II, told the commission the board currently "receive[s] a complaint, we receive evidence from complainants, we review that evidence" but lacks the resources and statutory tools to pursue independent fact-finding. He said the proposed addition to §40-7—subsection D—would allow the board to investigate complaints rather than rely solely on materials supplied by complainants, and that subsection E would grant subpoena authority and permit the board to administer oaths.

County counsel cautioned commissioners that some of the powers the ethics board seeks typically flow from a charter or must be exercised through the legislative body. "That's not an option for this body if you want to put out a charter amendment," counsel said, noting that a charter change would require a public vote. Counsel suggested alternatives, including a route in which the commission chair could be authorized to help enforce subpoenas or the commission could adopt clarifying ordinance language and supporting procedures.

Commissioners raised practical limits on enforcement. One commissioner noted that the county’s large number of unionized employees may limit the board’s ability to impose discipline directly, because collective bargaining and personnel rules constrain actions against union members. Commissioners and legal staff discussed paths where the Ethics Board could investigate and then forward recommendations to appointing authorities or human resources, and where court action might be necessary to enforce subpoenas or collect fines.

Beyond investigative tools, the Ethics Board and several commissioners pressed for changes to reduce the appearance of impropriety. Counsel described a proposed disqualification clause to require recusal when a board member has a personal interest or a loyalty duty that could affect deliberations. Commissioners also discussed restructuring appointments: one proposal would have three members nominated by countywide elected officials, two members who are active or retired judges or Michigan Bar members (or licensed MCO officers), and two members drawn from the general public; the commission asked staff to draft an amendment to §40-7 reflecting that composition.

On advisory opinions, the commission debated whether the Ethics Board should accept anonymous requests. Supporters of anonymity, including the board’s counsel, said anonymity can protect employees from retaliation and enable someone to get guidance before engaging in conduct that could trigger discipline. Opponents argued advisory opinions are requests about an individual’s conduct and that anonymity complicates FOIA compliance and returning guidance to the requester. After discussion the body directed staff to remove the anonymous-request option from the advisory-opinion provision and to draft language for posting or publicizing issued opinions in a manner consistent with privacy and FOIA obligations.

The commission approved the meeting minutes from April 30, 2026 earlier in the session, and it recorded a motion requesting staff draft the proposed §40-7 composition changes (moved on the record by Commissioner Kim; support recorded but not named). No final ordinance amendments were adopted at the meeting; commissioners and counsel asked staff to prepare draft language and return for further review, noting some changes may require additional legal steps if a charter amendment is needed.

County and board members flagged several follow-up items: whether subpoena authority can be granted by ordinance or requires charter change, how to fund investigative capacity (there is no dedicated Ethics Board line item), how recusal and appointment timing will be handled as current terms expire, and how advisory opinions will be posted or redacted to balance transparency and privacy. The task force scheduled further drafting work rather than immediate ordinance changes.

The meeting concluded with public comments from Ethics Board members who expressed frustration with the board’s current limitations and thanked commissioners for taking the matter up. A motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and carried.