Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Opinion Uniform Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics board finds firefighter likely cannot wear city uniform while running a private, for‑profit program under presented facts
Summary
The Independent Ethics Board issued an advisory opinion concluding that, based on the facts presented, a firefighter should not wear a city uniform while operating a private business or for‑profit program; the board also revised wording about intent in the opinion to avoid foreclosing future fact‑specific inquiries.
The City of Tallahassee Independent Ethics Board on June 17 issued an advisory opinion concluding that, under the facts presented to the board, a firefighter should not wear the city uniform while operating a private, for‑profit program because that use would create a special benefit and therefore constitute misuse under the local ethics ordinance. The board also revised language in the opinion on whether the local ordinance requires proof of corrupt intent and made a targeted wording change so the opinion focuses on whether use of a public resource is consistent with the proper performance of public duties.
Board staff described the facts as a separation between the firefighter’s private business and city activities and said there was no city authorization for wearing the uniform in the private context. Under the local ordinance language the board applied, an unauthorized use of a uniform tied to a private business can be treated as a misuse because it confers a special benefit to the employee who owns or profits from the private enterprise. Board members noted that city policy (referenced in the meeting as 706.06) sets out a separate administrative authorization process that might allow uniform use in limited, approved circumstances, but the facts presented did not show such approval.
Members discussed Florida Commission on Ethics advisory opinions cited in the meeting (examples referenced as CEO 07-24, CEO 02-13 and CEO 20-98/20-19) and case law that interprets the state statute’s “corruptly” language. Several board members urged care in phrasing the local opinion because Tallahassee’s ordinance uses different wording than the state statute; the board ultimately agreed to soften a paragraph that might be read as foreclosing consideration of subjective intent in future, fact-specific matters. The final sentence in that paragraph was modified to end after "proper performance of their public duties," and the board inserted a clarification that the local code does not verbatim include the state’s corrupt-intent wording.
The board made the advisory opinion public and approved the draft opinion as modified in the meeting’s final motion. Staff said anyone with changed facts — for example, a supervisor authorization or a change in the affiliation between the private activity and the city — may return for a new opinion. The ethics office also advised that questions touching state statute or city policy should be referred to the Florida Commission on Ethics or the City Attorney where appropriate.
