Tampa council pulls contested ethics ordinance language, schedules broader review in February workshop

Tampa City Council removed item 642 — a first-reading ordinance that would revise the city's ethics code2from the agenda and agreed to place a review of the city's ethics code on a Feb. 26, 2026 workshop agenda.

The item drew extended discussion during agenda review and a large public turnout. Many speakers and council members objected to proposed changes that would require unpaid private citizens who meet with officials to register as lobbyists. Legal staff and council members said the contested language went beyond state requirements and had been miscommunicated in an earlier memo.

Why it matters: Council members said the language as written could chill public participation, by requiring neighborhood leaders and ordinary residents to register as lobbyists when they seek to communicate with elected officials or staff. Legal staff also flagged sections that must be updated to align the code with changes in Florida law and the state constitution.

City attorney Andrew Zelman told the council the controversy centered on one provision and on errors by the legal department in packaging multiple changes together. "The legal department caused a lot of what the controversy that's swirling today," Zelman said, adding that a portion of the ordinance had been intended to increase transparency but had been "lost in translation." Zelman recommended the council continue the noncontroversial, state-required updates on a clean ordinance and defer the broader policy items.

Several council members and speakers said they worried the measure would make ordinary residents who stop a council member in public register as lobbyists. "If somebody stops me in the grocery store ... they have the right to speak to us," Councilmember Guido Maniscalco said during the discussion.

The council took three formal steps: it voted to remove item 64 from the meeting agenda; it approved a Feb. 26, 2026 workshop to consider how to update the city's ethics code and the ethics commission's role; and it separately approved placing a discussion on whether the city's ethics code duplicates state law on that same workshop agenda. All three motions passed on voice votes.

Legal staff present recommended that the council not proceed with the lobbying-registration language as written. Megan Bridal, senior attorney in the legal department, identified several sections she said must be revised to comply with state law, including changes tied to personal-knowledge standards for complaints and training requirements. "These deal with the personal knowledge standard and complaints," Bridal said, citing sections she recommended revising.

Members of the public and multiple council members urged caution. Several speakers described the proposal as overly broad and said it would raise barriers for civic participation. "The effort it takes to be involved is so high," said public commenter Caroline Bennett. Other speakers and council members said the ethics commission has not consistently enforced existing rules and therefore should not gain expanded authority until enforcement improves.

What the council did not do: The item was only at first reading and no ordinance was adopted. Council directed staff to prepare clean, state-required changes and scheduled a workshop to consider both those statutory updates and broader questions about whether a local ethics code is still necessary when state law applies.

Next steps: The legal department was asked to prepare a clean ordinance that addresses only items legally required to conform the city code to Florida law. Councilmembers also requested that the Feb. 26 workshop include a discussion of the ethics commission's effectiveness and whether the city's ethics code duplicates state rules.

By way of record: The council also noted that, were the city to eliminate its local ethics code in whole, certain local reporting requirements that currently exist only in the city code (for example, meeting logs for visitors who meet with officials) could be lost unless explicitly preserved in another ordinance.

The council recessed for a closed attorney-client session and will return for the scheduled workshop discussion in February.