Commission finds school‑board member’s current government‑affairs role conflicts with in‑office lobbying ban but approves non‑lobbying alternative

The Florida Commission on Ethics on Dec. 18 adopted a draft advisory opinion advising that a newly appointed school‑board member who is employed in a government‑affairs role for a private company may not perform compensated lobbying duties while serving on the school board, but may accept a different position with no lobbying responsibilities.

Staff attorney Steve Zokowski presented draft opinion file 2827 concerning Annie Kate Wallace, who the staff said was recently appointed to the Pulk County School Board and is "the director of state government affairs for Charter Communications." Zokowski told the commissioners that the new constitutional in‑office lobbying prohibition (Article II, Section 8(f)(2)) bars certain public officers from lobbying for compensation before federal, state or local governmental entities during their terms of office. He told the commission the statutory implementing language treats an employee as "principally employed for government affairs" when the employee's most significant responsibilities are overseeing relationships with or contacting government entities.

Wallace had disclosed that about 5% of her listed duties involved efforts to influence local governments, primarily on right‑of‑way permitting. Zokowski explained that the relevant statutory text leaves no de minimis exception: "any amount" of compensated lobbying can trigger the prohibition unless an exemption applies. Under the staff's reading, because Wallace’s job description identifies government relations as a primary responsibility, the "principally employed for government affairs" definition would apply and the exemption in §112.3121(12)(b)(2) would not protect the current role.

Zokowski said Wallace later provided a revised job description — described as a "senior manager for government and community" role — that staff characterized as focused on community outreach, communications and public image and that the revised description "does not include any responsibilities that would involve influencing legislative actions or discretionary actions of local governments." Staff concluded that taking on that revised role would not trigger the in‑office lobbying ban.

During questioning, commissioners pressed whether the constitutional amendment allows narrow geographic distinctions (for example, prohibiting lobbying only in the official’s jurisdiction) and whether the statute offers exceptions that would apply to nonprofit employment. Wallace responded that she is not a registered lobbyist, said she volunteered for public service "out of an abundance of caution," and described her work history and industry context, including that school boards do not regulate her industry. Wallace said the company and she were considering either keeping her present role but omitting lobbying duties or moving her into the non‑lobbying senior manager role.

After discussion, the commission voted to adopt the staff's draft opinion.

The opinion advises that, under the facts and job descriptions supplied, Wallace’s existing director of state government affairs position would conflict with the in‑office lobbying ban; if she assumes the revised senior manager role with no lobbying duties, that role would be compliant. The commission’s advisory opinion applies to the specific facts presented and to the statutory and constitutional provisions staff relied upon.