The Florida Commission on Ethics on Sept. 10 adopted an advisory opinion saying Flagler County School Board member Lauren Ramirez may not sell private training services to students who attend schools in her district.

The opinion, drafted by staff attorney Steve Zukalski and presented to the commission, concluded that Ramirez’s business — which provides phlebotomy and medical-assistant training and youth courses such as babysitting certification — is sufficiently similar to prior tutoring and art-camp scenarios that the commission has treated as creating a prohibited conflict for a school-board member. "In the strongest possible terms, the staff recommends to you that you adopt version 1a," Zukalski told commissioners during the meeting.

The advisory opinion addresses five related questions asked by Ramirez (who did not appear in person). It says she may volunteer in schools but may not market inside schools or use school resources to solicit students; she may not obtain logo placement on district team shirts in exchange for a sponsorship; and she may not hire district teachers for her business if those teachers are among the staff she has evaluative or disciplinary influence over. The draft noted that some existing sponsorships entered into before Ramirez took office could be "grandfathered" under the statute that exempts preexisting contracts, but new agreements or materially different extensions would not be.

Why it matters: the opinion applies the second clause of Florida Statutes Section 112.313(7)(a), which bars a public officer from having an employment or contractual relationship that would create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict with public duties or that would impede the full and faithful discharge of those duties. The commission framed the matter by comparing Ramirez’s business to prior opinions involving tutoring, art camps and coaches, and by distinguishing those businesses from retail or restaurant businesses that do not require student enrollment or repeated personal contact.

The commission debated two draft versions. Version 1a — the staff-recommended version adopted by the commission — applies a "scalpel" approach: it examines whether the board member has public responsibilities over a defined set of students and whether the private business has characteristics that create temptation to subordinate public duties to private gain. Version 1b, which would have permitted sales on the present facts, argued the business lacked characteristics likely to produce recurring conflicts; commissioners expressed concern that version 1b relied on factual assumptions about the absence of repeat business and the district composition.

Commission discussion focused on practical hypotheticals the commissioners raised: purchasing a sponsorship table at a school gala, buying tumblers sold as fundraising merchandise, or a business repeatedly purchasing goods or services from the district. Commissioners also debated whether ordinary small transactions (buying a ticket or a hot dog) could be read as a "contractual relationship" under the opinion. Staff said the statute and precedent support treating recurring or enforceable bargains as creating contractual relationships; they recommended clarifying language in the opinion that a single, isolated purchase is distinct from an ongoing, bilateral business arrangement.

The opinion is explicit that Ramirez may still sponsor community teams outside the district and may accept donations (which the commission does not consider "doing business" with the agency). It also reiterates that the commission’s rulings are fact-specific and binding only on the requester with the facts presented.

The commission voted to adopt staff recommendation version 1a on the central selling question and to adopt the drafted answers to questions 2 through 5 with limiting or clarifying language on question 5. The motion passed after discussion and recorded opposition from at least one commissioner during roll call.

The advisory opinion provides specific guidance to Ramirez and to other district public officers who own businesses that interact with students: selling services that require student enrollment, personal instruction, or repeated follow-up business presents a higher risk of a prohibited conflict than common retail or mass-market businesses that do not identify or enroll students.

Looking ahead: the opinion anticipates future advisory requests asking the commission to analyze closely fact patterns that fall along the spectrum between "tutoring/art camp" scenarios and mass-market commerce, and it signals staff willingness to add explicit limiting language so the opinion applies to the facts presented only.