The public will get a chance to comment today on a new code of conduct for Santa Fe County officials and employees.

The County Commission is scheduled to consider a replacement for existing rules adopted in 2004.

One of the main differences between the ordinances is that most restrictions in the new document would apply to appointed officials, volunteers and employees of the county, not just elected officials.

For example, Section 9 of the new code would prohibit any employee, volunteer, elected or appointed official from having a financial interest in county government business.

Had that clause been in effect over the past two years, County Development Review Committee Chairman Jon Paul Romero would not have been allowed to perform the more than $100,000 worth of design and construction management work he did for the county while sitting on the advisory board.

Commissioner Kathy Holian said in an e-mail message to constituents Monday that the new 17-page ordinance will "greatly enhance the scope" of the 27-page ordinance it replaces. She said the older version almost entirely deals with election campaigns.

But Holian said Monday she hadn't had time to read the existing ordinance and was relying on information from county attorney Steve Ross when making comments that compare the two documents.

One thing that is definitely new in the proposed ordinance is that it calls for creation of an ethics board that would "investigate complaints filed by persons alleging violations" of the Code of Conduct. If the ordinance is passed, each commissioner will appoint a member to the five-person board. At least one member of the board would have to be a citizen with no direct affiliation with county government.

Section 23 of the code, which concerns the reporting of violations, states that complaints would be passed via the county attorney to an "internal audit contractor" who would determine if the complaint constituted a violation of the Code of Conduct before passing it on to the ethics board.

Holian said she didn't know if the county already has an internal auditor. Ross — whose department wrote the code and is presenting it for consideration today — didn't return phone messages seeking clarification. Acting Manager Penny Ellis-Green also did not return a phone call seeking more information on the proposed code.

The new code allows for a $300 fine against individuals who violate the ordinance. Other possible penalties include a written censure or a referral to the appropriate government office. The existing code allows for a fine of $500. Holian said Ross told her $300 is the maximum fine for the offense allowed by state law.

Holian said she didn't know if the written complaints would be matters of public record before or after their resolution or whether the meetings of the ethics board would be open to the public.

An ongoing sheriff's office investigation into allegations of fraud and theft in the county's Public Works department prompted the county's renewed interest in its code of conduct and sparked a similar re-examination of ethics rules at the city of Santa Fe.

A city ethics board has recently discussed ambiguities in the city's requirement that officials recuse themselves from voting on cases in which they have a conflict of interest.

The issue was highlighted after it became public knowledge that City Councilor Matthew Ortiz is the attorney for Advantage Asphalt, a paving company that has received millions of dollars worth of city and county contracts and is at the center of the sheriff's investigation.

An examination of the record showed that in most cases when a city contract involving Advantage was up for consideration Ortiz did not vote, but neither did he formally recuse himself. Ortiz has argued that by not voting he effectively recused himself, but some of his colleagues are lobbying for more specificity in the rule that would require officials to clearly state that they were recusing themselves.

The language in Santa Fe County's proposed new code does not specify how such a recusal by a county official should be made, stating only that an official with a conflict "shall recuse himself or herself."

Holian said she would support a more transparent form of recusal that would require the official to state the exact nature of the potential conflict.

Holian said the commission can legally vote to pass the ordinance today — which would mean today's hearing would be the public's first and only chance to comment on the ordinance. But given that she still has questions about some aspects of the document, she said she might be inclined to call for a second hearing on the matter. Holian said she also would be more likely to recommend an extension of the comment period if there seemed to be a lot of interest from the public or if the commission decided substantive changes need to be made to the document.

Today's hearing is scheduled to take place during a County Commission meeting that starts at 11 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers, 102 Grant Ave.

For more information and to view an ordinance enacting a Santa Fe County code of conduct visit http://www.santafecounty.org/event_detail/1149.

Contact Phaedra Haywood at 986-3068 or phaywood@sfnewmexican.com