08/13/2026
Hello, everyone. I was unable to attend Tuesday’s Board meeting. Following the passing of my father, I needed to step away because I simply wasn’t feeling well.
Regardless, I wanted to share the letter I submitted regarding our current Board Conduct and Ethics Policy and the ways I believe it could potentially cause, and in some cases has caused, elected officials to become hesitant to ask questions or speak openly.
This is an issue I am very passionate about because I am here to represent you. Asking tough questions, gathering information, following up, and gaining a clear understanding of County operations are essential to making educated decisions and having informed conversations with all of you.
I won’t share the details of my personal experience with this policy, but I will say that I have had one. For reasons that will become clearer as you read my letter below, the details of that experience cannot be shared.
Here are the comments I submitted for the public record along with the board item itself:
To the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors and County Counsel:
I am submitting these comments in writing because illness prevents me from attending the Board's discussion of Resolution 2024-88.
I support standards requiring Board members to conduct themselves professionally, ethically, and lawfully, and I support protecting employees from harassment, discrimination, and retaliation as does employment law. My concern is that Resolution 2024-88 goes well beyond those principles, blurring the line between misconduct, administrative direction, legitimate oversight, and subjective perception. Experience has also exposed real gaps in the accountability provisions: who may initiate an investigation, what protections apply, how taxpayer resources get committed, and what happens when the person administering the complaint process is personally involved. I believe the policy needs a substantial rewrite.
1. The policy no longer reflects our current administrative structure.
Adopted in March 2024, before the County's move to a strong CAO model, the policy still tells Board members to "provide leadership and direction to department heads" while elsewhere barring Supervisors from directing or supervising employees. I support a clear chain of command — an individual Supervisor should not assign work or exercise authority belonging to the CAO or the full Board — but direction must be distinguished from inquiry. Asking questions, requesting documentation, and following up are oversight, not direction. Under a strong CAO model, substantial non-agendized requests could route through the CAO, who coordinates with departments and can flag the full Board if a request needs extraordinary resources.
This same distinction applies to constituent casework. When a resident brings a Supervisor a problem — a stalled permit, a road repair, a services issue — working that issue through the CAO and potentially the relevant department head to reach a resolution is core constituent service, not employee direction. That kind of coordinated problem-solving should be expressly recognized as legitimate, not treated as a Supervisor overstepping.
2. Staff workload should not be an ethics standard.
The policy limits Supervisor requests to those needing only a "reasonable expenditure of staff resources" — an unworkable, undefined standard that invites inconsistent or selective enforcement. Elected officials sometimes need repeated follow-up to understand what they're voting on. A burdensome request is an administrative issue for the CAO to manage, not an ethics violation. Otherwise, a scrutinized department could effectively decide a Supervisor asked too many questions and turn oversight into a conduct complaint — a chilling effect even if never misused intentionally.
3. Personality conflicts and subjective perceptions are not misconduct.
A Supervisor asking hard questions doesn't commit misconduct merely because an employee feels singled out or uncomfortable. Those feelings may be sincere, but a subjective perception is not an objective policy violation. The relevant question should always be: what did the Supervisor actually say or do, and does it violate a specific, defined provision? Discomfort, personality conflict, and persistent questioning are not misconduct.
4. The ban on "negative" or "critical" comments is too broad — and raises a free-speech concern, not just a policy one.
"Rude" is different from "negative" or "critical." A Supervisor may legitimately conclude a program is failing or money was misused — a critical conclusion, not an unethical one. This is not only a governance concern: an elected official's speech on matters of public concern, including criticism of how public funds or programs are managed, carries real First Amendment weight. A provision that could be used to formally sanction a Supervisor simply for being "critical" of County operations regulates protected speech, not just workplace conduct, and exposes the County to legal risk beyond the policy-design problem it creates. The revised policy should explicitly protect good-faith criticism, questioning, and disagreement with staff recommendations.
5. Employee protection and elected oversight are not opposing interests.
Employees already have legal protection from harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; a Board Code can add standards for elected officials, but they must be objective and narrow enough not to interfere with legitimate oversight. A right to a respectful workplace shouldn't become a right to be free from the questioning of County operations.
6. The accountability procedure must actually be followed.
My own experience shows the written process and the process used were not the same. The policy requires the CAO to agendize an open-session consideration of any alleged violation, requires notice to the accused, and states that "Board members not subject to allegation(s) will consider the allegation(s) and vote on whether an investigation should be conducted by an independent third party." That's a gatekeeping step reserved for the unaffected Board — not the CAO or HR unilaterally. In my case, the matter was disclosed to the Board in closed session instead, and the unaffected members never got the contemplated vote.
This is not just a procedural technicality — it may be a legal one. The Brown Act's personnel exception, which allows a body to discuss "employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal" in closed session, defines "employee" for that purpose to specifically exclude elected officials and members of the legislative body itself (Gov. Code § 54957(b)(4)). If that exception does not reach a Board member's own alleged conduct, then a closed-session discussion of my case may not have been authorized under the Brown Act at all — and the open-session procedure this policy already prescribes may track the law more closely than what actually occurred. I ask County Counsel to confirm on the record whether the personnel exception applies to allegations against a sitting Board member, and if it does not, to ensure the revised policy requires open session as the default, consistent with Section 54962's rule that closed sessions are permitted only where a specific statutory exception applies.
An allegation is not a finding — it may reflect a misunderstanding or legitimate oversight that, even if true, violates nothing. But whatever the correct legal answer is, a written policy that prescribes one process while the County follows another is not a real protection, and the discrepancy should be resolved and documented before this policy is relied on again.
7. The investigation process is also a taxpayer-stewardship issue.
Independent investigations are costly — outside investigators, attorneys, staff time, document production. That expense is justified for real misconduct, not for every disagreement or subjective perception. Before an investigation proceeds, there should be a threshold review: What provision is alleged to have been violated? What conduct is alleged? Assuming the facts are true, would it actually violate that provision? Is there a sufficient basis to spend taxpayer money? This matters especially given how many vague terms — "reasonable," "negative," "critical," "rude," "appearance of impropriety" — already exist in the policy unchecked by any threshold.
8. The policy doesn't address conflicts involving the CAO or other administrators.
The policy puts the CAO at the center of bringing a violation forward but never addresses what happens when the CAO — or County Counsel or HR — is the complainant, a material witness, or otherwise personally involved. A revised policy should require recusal in those cases, with an alternate administrator facilitating the process without inheriting the Board's decision-making authority.
9. The policy tries to do too much in one document.
Ethical standards, employee protections, chain of command, information requests, and misconduct investigations are all legitimate but distinct goals. Combining them under broad language has blurred where administrative authority ends and where oversight begins.
I respectfully recommend the Board direct County Counsel, with Board and administration input, to bring back a substantially revised Resolution 2024-88 that:
1. Clearly distinguishes Board direction, individual Supervisor inquiry, and misconduct.
2. Preserves the ban on Supervisors directing employees while protecting legitimate information-gathering and oversight.
3. Establishes a CAO-coordinated process for substantial non-agendized requests, preserving reasonable Supervisor access to information.
4. Recognizes constituent casework — working with the CAO and potentially a department head to resolve a resident's issue — as legitimate constituent service, not employee direction.
5. Treats excessive workload as an administrative issue, not an ethics violation.
6. Preserves strong protections against harassment, discrimination, retaliation, threats, misuse of confidential information, conflicts of interest, and misuse of public resources. Most of these are already written into law.
7. Explicitly protects good-faith criticism, questioning, and disagreement with recommendations.
8. States that personality conflicts and subjective perceptions do not independently constitute violations.
9. Requires violations to rest on objectively identifiable conduct tied to a specific provision.
10. Requires complaints to identify the provision allegedly violated and the underlying facts.
11. Provides the accused meaningful notice and a chance to respond before any investigation decision.
12. Establishes an objective threshold — would the conduct, if true, violate the Code — before taxpayer funds are committed.
13. Preserves a meaningful gatekeeping role for unaffected Board members, consistent with law.
14. Clarifies which parts of the process occur in open versus closed session, including a definitive determination — confirmed by County Counsel — of whether the Brown Act's personnel exception (Gov. Code § 54957(b)) applies to allegations against a sitting Board member at all.
15. Requires mandatory recusal for any conflicted CAO, County Counsel, or HR administrator.
16. Establishes an independent alternate process for conflict situations, without transferring the Board's authority to an administrator.
17. Requires consideration of taxpayer cost before authorizing an outside investigation.
18. Ensures the final procedure is legally sound, clearly written, and actually followed.
I am not suggesting we eliminate accountability — I am asking that we improve it. A well-written Code should protect employees from genuine misconduct without shielding government from scrutiny, protect taxpayers from unnecessary expense, preserve the chain of command without blocking elected officials from information, and distinguish oversight from actual misconduct. It should recognize that discomfort with a Supervisor's questions doesn't make those questions misconduct — and it should protect the integrity of any investigation with neutral administrators, an objective threshold, and a procedure that is actually followed. These goals do not conflict; a properly written policy should protect all of them.
I respectfully request that these comments be entered into the public record for this item, and that County Counsel consider the issues and revisions above in any future revision of Resolution 2024-88.
Respectfully submitted,
Jenni Kiser
District 4 Supervisor
Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
