Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Ordinance Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tallahassee ethics board votes to send broad ordinance to City Commission to cover advisory bodies
Summary
The Independent Ethics Board voted April 21 to forward a broadly worded ordinance to the City Commission clarifying that advisory committees — including CRA advisory committees — fall under the city's ethics code; the board adopted draft C with the insertion of the word 'charter.'
The City of Tallahassee Independent Ethics Board voted April 21 to adopt a broadly written ordinance revision and forward it to the City Commission to clarify that advisory boards and committees, including community redevelopment agency (CRA) advisory committees, are covered by the city's ethics code. The board approved draft C with the additional word "charter" inserted before "ordinance."
The decision followed a lengthy discussion in which the city attorney argued that CRA advisory committees are separate legal entities created under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes and therefore are not, in his view, "boards, commissions, etc. thereof" of the city. "Community redevelopment organizations are separate legal entities," the city attorney said, arguing that advisory committees to those entities were not necessarily subject to the board's charter-defined jurisdiction.
Board members pushed back, saying the board should cast a wide net to ensure uniform ethical standards for volunteers who advise on significant public spending. One member argued that many advisory bodies make recommendations that affect "millions of dollars of very scarce public funds" and said the proposed broad language would provide clarity and enduring coverage for future advisory bodies. After discussion, a board member moved to adopt draft C with the insertion of the word "charter"; another board member seconded the motion and the board approved it by voice vote.
The ordinance drafts discussed included three options: (A) limited coverage applying mainly to the ethics board itself; (B) coverage limited to CRA advisory committees (the Frenchtown CAC example was discussed); and (C) broad language capturing "board, commission, committee or similar body of the city" whether appointed by commission or established by ordinance, resolution, interlocal agreement, charter or other official action. Counsel recommended adding the word "charter" to remove ambiguity about bodies created by the city charter.
Board members and staff noted the likely path to test jurisdiction would be an enforcement complaint, administrative proceedings (Department of Administrative Hearings/administrative law judge) and potential judicial review. The board directed staff to prepare the ordinance language for transmittal to the City Commission for consideration.
The vote and next steps: a board member moved to adopt option C with the specified insertion; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board did not record roll-call votes by name; staff will prepare the formal ordinance package and forward it to the City Commission.
The board also reviewed pending state legislation relevant to ethics oversight, including bills that affect definitions of "relative," training requirements and other disclosure matters. No formal action on those state items was taken at the meeting. The board adjourned after completing the agenda.
