City attorney tells charter review committee the city is the client as members debate council counsel's independence

Scott Stead, the city attorney, told the Charter Review Committee that his legal client is the municipal corporation — the City of Tampa — and not the mayor or the council as individuals, a statement that framed an extended committee discussion about where responsibility and immunity lie when the mayor and council disagree.

The exchange began after the committee invited Stead to outline the city attorney's office. He described an office of roughly two dozen lawyers that handles day-to-day litigation, human-resources matters, land-use questions and contract review. "We advise the mayor in that capacity, city council, and all the departments," Stead said, adding: "the client is the municipal corporation." He repeatedly emphasized that, in his view, the office's role is to protect the legal interests of the city as a whole.

That view prompted detailed questioning from committee members about real-world conflicts. Members asked how the office would respond if city council and the mayor gave opposing directions, whether following the city attorney's advice confers qualified immunity, and who would represent each side if the disagreement escalated to litigation. Stead said he had limited direct experience with such conflicts during his nine weeks on the job but explained the practical approach: if the mayor and council were adversarial in litigation, the city would retain separate outside counsel for the conflicting party and the city attorney's office would step aside for that matter.

Committee members pressed for clarity about the separate city council attorney position, which some members said had in the past been drawn from the city attorney's office and later reconstituted as an independent council counsel. One member summarized the history included in the committee's packet: a 1994 ordinance (cited in materials as Ordinance 94-286) created an assistant assigned to council, and subsequent ordinance language (noted in the materials) retitled that position "city council attorney." Members asked whether that separate role creates the risk of conflicting legal advice and additional expense to the city.

Stead described the practical day-to-day relationship between the offices as collaborative: his office provides advice and support, and he said he'd worked with the council attorney on items such as rules for council meetings. But he also acknowledged the ethical and operational risks: where there is a direct conflict, lawyers must examine bar rules and potentially recuse or the city may hire outside counsel. On the question of qualified immunity, Stead stated that following the city attorney's advice is a protective practice for officials but that there are hypothetical circumstances where an official acting clearly outside legal authority would not receive defense or indemnity.

The committee discussed staffing and procurement options for the council attorney's office, including whether the council attorney can hire full-time staff or must rely on procurement processes and the city budget. Stead noted the charter appears not to provide the council attorney unilateral hiring authority; in practice, council can create staff positions through the budget process.

Committee members described past episodes where differing advice created confusion (one member cited a case in which the council and mayor both communicated competing positions to state delegates). The session closed without immediate charter changes but with an instruction to staff to research specific issues — including the precise charter language and historical ordinance changes — and to return with options that would clarify roles and limits.

The committee's next steps include staff research into the legal and procedural questions raised, potential draft language for charter amendments if members choose to pursue them, and follow-up briefings. Several members urged practical remedies short of charter rewrite — for example, clearer written protocols about when outside counsel should be engaged and when the city attorney's written advice is controlling.

Ending: The committee did not vote on charter amendments at the meeting. Members asked staff to compile sources and precedent so the committee can consider targeted changes or procedural rules at a future meeting.