Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Ordinance Conflicts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tallahassee ethics board moves ordinance to require conflicted advisory members to disclose and leave meetings
Summary
The City of Tallahassee Independent Ethics Board voted to forward an amended ordinance to the City Commission that would expand abstention and disclosure requirements to members of voting bodies — including nonvoting and ex officio members — and to require disclosure and leaving the meeting chamber during discussion of conflicted matters.
The City of Tallahassee Independent Ethics Board voted May 19 to forward to the City Commission an amended ordinance that would broaden conflict-of-interest rules so that members of voting bodies — including nonvoting and ex officio members — must disclose conflicts and leave the meeting chambers during discussion of affected matters.
The recommendation, developed over two meetings and carried by the board with a voice vote, amends section 2-13 to add statutory clauses addressing conflicts that inure to a member’s own special private gain or loss, to the gain or loss of a principal that retains them, or to the gain or loss of a relative or business associate. Board member John (presenting the proposal) explained the drafting changes and said the language mirrors the operative parts of the statute while preserving the ordinance’s broader definition of “relative.”
Why it matters: the change would extend the city’s existing abstention practice — which already requires recusal in some situations — to many appointed and advisory roles that previously had more limited obligations. Proponents said the presence of a conflicted member in a meeting can influence deliberations even if the member does not vote, eroding public trust in government decisions about limited public resources.
Board debate focused on two main concerns. One board member argued the city ordinance should at minimum mirror Florida’s statutory standard to avoid confusion; members agreed to adopt language from the statute into subsection a and to add a new subsection b addressing nonvoting members. Another board member, Adam Commissar, warned the requirement to leave the room could discourage volunteers and raise free-speech concerns, suggesting conflicted members still be allowed to comment from the public podium. Commissar said, “If the person wants to do the riff right, recusal and then still whatever they get at these meetings to come and say your piece … they just don’t get it from this side of a dais.” John and other members countered that presence alone exerts undue influence and that disclosure plus leaving the room better protects public trust.
The board worked through detailed drafting points — punctuation, use of conjunctive "or," and whether to reference the ordinance’s definition of "relative" versus the narrower statutory definition — ultimately agreeing to keep the ordinance’s broader relative definition and to insert the statutory clauses (with agreed formatting) so the ordinance is at least as stringent as state law.
A motion to forward the amended recommendation to the City Commission (to be placed on the June 10 commission agenda) was made, seconded and approved by voice vote. The board asked staff to circulate the final, edited language to members by email before submission.
The board’s action is a recommendation to the City Commission; final adoption would require commission approval. The board recorded no roll-call tally in the transcript (the motion was approved by voice vote).
