At the last City Commission meeting, Commissioner Scott Maddox asked the City Commissioners to vote for a resolution that supported Florida Senate Bill 582, entitled Misuse of Public Office Act which has been proposed for the 2016 session of the Florida Legislature.

The stated purpose of the proposed legislation is to address certain provisions in State law that have prevented law enforcement and State Attorneys from pursuing certain persons suspected of conduct that would constitute unethical or corrupt behavior.

Other cities around the state of Florida have adopted similar resolutions.

The vote by the City Commission was 3-2, with Mayor Gillum and Commissioner Richardson voting against the resolution.

Mayor Gillum also failed to support an independent ethics officer as recommended by the Ethics Advisory Panel and the citizen driven referendum that called for an independent ethics board in 2014.

Approximately 70% of the electorate voted in the last election cycle to change the City Charter and adopt the referendum.

City Commissioner Richardson said he could not support the resolution because he was not familiar with the specific impact of the proposed state legislation. He did point out that he supported the establishment of the independent ethics board for the City of Tallahassee.

Even more curious was Gillum’s reason for opposing the resolution.

Gillum said he agreed with the intent of the resolution but was troubled by the references that Commissioner Maddox made about a local elected official when asking for support of the resolution.

While Maddox never mentioned a local official by name, Maddox referenced news articles that addressed Leon County Superintendent Jackie Pons and the year long controversey over school construction contracts.

Maddox is running for Leon County Superintendent of schools.

But why is this relevant to Mayor Andrew Gillum? Why would a reference to another elected official effect the vote for a resolution that would be good not only for the state of Florida but for the City of Tallahassee?

Gillum would not answer any of our questions.

Tallahassee Reports has learned that the City of Tallahassee narrowed the selection of the City’s Ethic Officer to three candidates after interviewing nine candidates from a pool of approximately 150 applicants.

The three candidates selected were Julie Meadows-Keefe, who was eventually hired by the City of Tallahassee, Michael Ramage, former General Counsel of Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), and Charles Faircloth, former Chief of Staff of the Florida Department of Financial Service.

All three candidates were interviewed by City Attorney Lew Shelley, City Auditor Bert Fletcher, City Treasurer Clerk James Cooke, and City Manager Anita Favors Thompson.

The full applications for the three finalists can be reviewed by clicking on the links below. Summaries of the applicants latest work experience as provided by the applicants are listed at the end of this post.

Julie Meadows-Keefe

Michael Ramage

Charles Faircloth

Ultimately, the City Attorney and the City Auditor were responsible for the hiring decision and chose Julie Meadows-Keefe to fill the position.

City Attorney Bert Fletcher told Tallahassee Reports that Meadows-Keefe was the only candidate offered the job.

Reviews of the candidates’ applications show that both Mr. Ramage and Mr. Faircloth provided significantly more details about their work history than Ms. Meadows-Keefe.

Michael Ramage told Tallahassee Reports that the hour long interview focused on how his experience would translate to the City position.

When asked why he applied for the position, Ramage said “I applied because I thought my experience at FDLE would be a good fit for the position.”

Ramage confirmed he was not offered the job but indicated he would have probably accepted an offer.

When asked what specific qualifications separated Meadows-Keefe from the other two candidates, Fletcher first stated she was “the most qualified” and then added she “was the best fit for what we are doing.”

The timing of the hiring of the in-house ethics officer, right after a charter amendment requiring an independent ethics officer was approved for the November ballot, has raised questions about the motives of the City by those seeking independent oversight of City actions.

In fact, a Tallahassee Democrat editorial wrote about the hiring, “The City has a new ethics officer. But it still has a problem.”

Now supporters of the ballot initiative, off the record of course, are questioning the qualifications of the recently hired ethics officer.

“How can you review the applications and say Meadows-Keefe is more qualified that Mr. Ramage – it’s not possible.”

Another said, “How do you pass on the Chief Ethics Officer of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement?”

______________________________

Applicants’ Latest Full-Time Work History Details As Provided On Application
___________________________

Julie Meadows-Keefe

Employer: Grossman, Furlow & Bayo
Job Title: Of Counsel
Number of Employees Supervised: 0
Start Date: 2/1/2012
Description: Practice focused on HIPPA and Professional Licensure Defense.

___________________________

Michael R Ramage

Employer: FDLE
Job Title: General Counsel
Number of Employees Supervised: 20
Start Date: 6/15/1992-2/28/2014
Description: Chief counsel for statewide law enforcement agency (the activities of which include complex fraud and rug investigations, the state’s Capitol Police, the state’s domestic security function, the state criminal history database, multiple statewide crime labs, and the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission officer licensure functions). Personal duties include: -FDLE Chief Ethics Officer and Privacy Officer. -Florida State Fusion Center Privacy Officer. -Registered legislative lobbyist. -Supervisor of 14 agency attorneys around the state, responsible for hiring & termination; monitoring quality and accuracy of legal work performed; addressing workload locations and resolving conflicts and “law office issues.” Also supervised 5 support (administrative and secretarial) staffers. -Member of FDLE’s Command Staff. –Assisting internal affairs and inspector general inquires. –Assisting in CALEA certification/recertification legal issues. -Counsel tot he Florida Violent Crime and Drug Control Council –Working with the Florida Police Chiefs association, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Florida Sheriffs Association, the State Law Enforcement Chiefs Association ad the Florida Association of Police Attorneys on matters of mutual interest. Testifying before state and Congressional committees. Developing (writing and narrating) online in-house ethics and public records training segments as well as developing and presenting live presentations on ethics, public records, privacy, sexual harassment, and police legal issues. Policy and procedure drafting and review.

___________________________

Charles T Faircloth

Employer: Florida Department of Financial Services
Job Title: Chief of Staff/Exec. Dir.
Number of Employees Supervised: 2
Start Date: 2/07/2011-7/31/2014
Description: Senior manger supporting Florida’s Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud Strike Force, a multi-governmental anti-fraud task force chaired by Florida’s Chief Financial Officer and vice-chaired by the Attorney General. The Strike Force members also include the agency heads of DCF, AHCA, DOH and FDLE as well as two Police Chiefs, two Sheriffs and a State Attorney. Plans and leads all Strike Force activities including quarterly Strike Force meetings, monthly subcomittee meetings and preparation of the annual report. Extensive interagency intelligence ordination ad communication fraud issues involving state funds, state agencies and local prosecution ad law enforcement agencies. Oversees efforts to improve and innovate IT data systems commonality, connectivity and consolidation for anti-fraud programs. Responsible for improving the State of Florida’s communication, cooperation and regulatory and law enforcement actions against Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud. Leaving because the Strike Force has ended its existence.

The City Commission appointed a citizen Ethics Advisory Panel (EAP) that first convened on November 8, 2012.  The EAP was charged with examining the various City policies, procedures and practices relating to ethics, financial disclosures, and transparency of the government.  The City Commission accepted the final EAP report on July 10, 2013.

On November 20^th, 2013, the City Commission adopted a number of the EAP recommendations. However, consensus could not be reached on a number of issues and Staff was directed to gather more information.

A review of the documents prepared for the upcoming meeting by Tallahassee Reports finds two important changes brought forward from the last meeting.

First, grandfathering of certain items related to elected officials was discussed in the prior workshop.  However the staff recommendation states that “based on consensus of the Commission from that workshop, none of the items addressed includes a grandfathering clause.” This means that once adopted, current elected officials will be required to follow the new rules.

The second change addresses the most controversial recommendation from the Ethics Advisory Panel and that is the creation of an Ethics Officer as an Appointed Official.

The Chairperson of the EAP, Martha Barnett, has stated previously that the appointed Ethics Officer was a crucial part of the recommendation. After much debate, the EAP voted 5-2 for an appointed Ethics Officer.

Back in November, 2013, during the first workshop, the City Staff recommended against the EAP recommendation of an Appointed Ethics Officer and instead offered that the Ethics Officer report to the City Auditor or another existing appointed official.

Since that time, the EAP recommendation has remained the same, however, the City Staff’s recommendation has changed.

Staff now recommends that City Commission “Authorize the City Attorney and City Auditor to jointly hire a full time Ethics Officer for the City of Tallahassee.”

Ms. Barnett has previously stated that she was not in favor of combining ethics responsibilities with the City Attorney’s office and recommended creating an appointed Ethics Officer and advisory board with responsibilities detailed in the city’s Charter.

Sources tell Tallahassee Reports that City Staff has been working with individual City Commissioners trying to come up with a proposal that will be accepted by the Commissioners that oppose the appointed Ethics Officer recommended by the EAP.

During the first workshop, only City Commissioner Gil Ziffer offered support for an appointed Ethics Officer. City Commissioner Gillum voiced support for an Ethics Officer under the authority of the City Auditor and City Commissioner Scott Maddox voiced support for an Ethics Officer under the authority of the City Attorney.

It appears the Staff recommendation is a combination of the two proposals supported by Commissioners Gillum and Maddox.

City Commissioner Gill Ziffer told Tallahassee Reports he was not aware of the email.

The following email was sent to Gary Yordon, a registered lobbyist with the City of Tallahassee, on October 14, 2013:

Hello to All:  Commissioner Ziffer is leading a walk team for the Making Strides Event to raise money for Breast Cancer prevention.  I am a member of the COT-4^th Floor Team and am walking on Sunday.  I have already made my donation and if you are interested in making a donation towards my walk for this important cause, please feel free to donate at the site below.  Any amount is helpful.  We have all been impacted and prevention and cures are most critical.  Thanks so much!

An email reply by Mr. Yordon indicated that the email had been sent to a number of city employees and at least two individuals who have a history of doing business with the City of Tallahassee.

Most state and local governments address the issue of gifts and donations in policies and laws because of the possible influence or perception of influence on decisions made by elected officials as well as public employees.

The Tallahassee City Manager has wide ranging responsibilities that include the operations of all public utilities, the airport, the police department, procurement services and other core services.

Does the email sent by City Manager Anita Favors Thompson violate any state or local laws or city policy?

Florida state law prohibits the solicitation of or acceptance by any public officer or employee of any gift, loan, favor, reward, or service that would cause a reasonably prudent person to be influenced in the discharge of official duties, or that is based upon any understanding that the action and/or judgment of the public officer or employee “would be influenced thereby.”

The Florida state law does have some exceptions for charitable donations and does require certain elected and appointed officials to report charitable contributions under certain circumstances.

The City of Tallahassee Policies and Procedures Manual appears to be more stringent than state law in regards to gifts, but does not specifically mention charitable donations. Chapter 706, Section E of the manual reads as follows:

No public officer or employee or member of the employees family may solicit or accept any gratuity from any person who is seeking to obtain a contractual business agreement with the City; who conducts activities regulated by the City; or who has interests that may be influenced by the performance or non-performance of the employee’s official duties.

No public officer or employee, or member of the employees family may accept gifts or gratuities from contractors and suppliers doing business with the City of Tallahassee. This policy shall not be interpreted to prevent an employee from engaging in a bona fide business transaction for goods and services from a firm doing business with the City when no special privilege or benefit is granted to or sought by the employee because of status as a City employee.

The second paragraph would seem to indicate that if a charitable donation was considered a gift then it would appear that the email sent by the City Manager would be a violation of city policy.

How do other municipalities in Florida address this issue?

The City of Jacksonville, which has recently put an Ethics Officer in place, puts a limit on gifts. Their policy states:

 No officer or employee of the City or of an independent agency, or any other person on his or her behalf, shall knowingly accept, directly or indirectly, any one gift with a value greater than $100, or an accumulation of gifts in any one calendar year that exceeds $250 dollars, from any person or business entity, when the gift is given as a result of the officer or employee’s official position, or as a result of the business relationship developed as a result of the officer or employee’s position or employment. For purposes of the $250 annual accumulation of gifts, gifts of food and beverage not exceeding $25 on any given day shall not be included.

The City of Sanford’s policy is concise and clear:

 City policy prohibits the offering of gifts and gratuities to City employees by a vendor, contractor, and/or consultant. Also, City employees are prohibited from acceptance of gifts from either potential or actual contractors, consultants or vendors. Employees must not become obligated to any supplier and shall not participate in any City transaction from which they will benefit directly or indirectly.

The Palm Beach County Ethics Commission specifically addresses charitable donations. The gift law enforced by the Palm Beach County Ethics Commission allows for the solicitation of charitable contributions under certain condition but expressly prohibits any solicitation of charitable donations “if made to any person or entity with a pending application for approval or award of any nature before the county or municipality as applicable.”

Tallahassee Reports is seeking more information about the amount of donations made by individuals and if any of the individuals were doing business with the City of Tallahassee or had any pending decisions before the City Commission.

Also, Tallahassee Reports is checking to see whether or not Ms. Favors Thompson is required to file a report with the Florida Commission on Ethics listing charitable contributions that were solicited from individuals doing business with the city.

But then it happened. Without any planning, unexpectedly and spontaneously, a woman named Martha Barnett took charge of the Ethics Advisory Panel (EAP)and its eight other members and demonstrated how transparency, citizen engagement, and respect can make our community better.

The EAP met 17 times and some citizens attended every meeting. Ms. Barnett soon knew them by name. Ms. Barnett allowed “regular” citizens to participate in the deliberations. Yes, you had committee members discussing issues with “regular citizens.” It was special.

Then things got way out of hand. Ms. Barnett and other members actually stated that the public testimony from the previous meeting impacted how they were going to craft their recommendations! Unbelievable – this was democracy at work!

The end result were ground breaking recommendations that included an appointed ethics officer, penalties for elected officials who violate the new rules, and the requirement for City hired lobbyists to disclose their clients. But then, as quickly as it happened…it ended!

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013, the day the EAP recommendations were to be presented to the City Commission, someone named “Staff” rained on the parade. “Staff”, nameless and faceless, asked the City Commissioners to vote against the major recommendations made by the EAP.

Just like that it was all coming back- this was how it normally works. Hear the citizens out and then ignore them – nobody will care! And nobody with any credibility will challenge us!
But this time they were wrong! They were challenged and by people with credibility.

Retired Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Harry Anstead, a member of the EAP stood up to defend the EAP recommendations. Jay Landers, former Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation and Director of the Florida Department of Natural Resources was there to speak on behalf of the EAP.

And then there was Martha Barnett, a former President of the American Bar Association, fighting for what she worked six months to accomplish and truly believed in. It was inspirational!

Now the City Commissioners must decide. At the meeting on Wednesday they could of voted to accept the EAP recommendations. But instead, only Commissioner Gil Ziffer offered support. The others decided to wait until December 11 to make their final decision.

This is a defining moment for the government and the citizens of the City of Tallahassee. Will the insiders that have held the power for so long, give into the will of the people and allow oversight into the decisions that affect our lives or will nothing change?

Chair Martha Barnett said about the EAP “we are here because there are problems and we have a once in a decade opportunity to make a difference.” Something special can happen again at City Hall!

The Ethics Advisory Panel, made up of nine citizens, including a retired Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court and a former President of the American Bar Association, spent over nine months debating the need for more stringent ethics rules and policies.

The end result were ground breaking recommendations that included an appointed ethics officer, penalties for elected officials who violate the new rules, and the requirement for City hired lobbyists to disclose their clients.

Retired Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Harry Anstead, said during one of the last meetings that  “Tallahassee is the capital of the fourth largest state. We are missing a golden opportunity to distinguish Tallahassee if we don’t do this. Ethics and professionalism is the heart of public service.”

Chair Martha Barnett, former President of the American Bar Association in the debate about an appointed ethics officer stated “we are here because there are problems and we have a once in a decade opportunity to make a difference.”

But City Staff was not persuaded. Instead they have crafted their own recommendations that go against the findings of the Panel.

Staff recommended against an appointed ethics officer because of cost and because it would have to be a ballot measure.

Staff recommended against City hired lobbyist being required to disclose clients, but gave no substantive reason for the recommendation.

And finally, the Staff recommended against penalties for elected officials violating the new ethics rule because “there is no history to indicate that elected officials would fail to comply.”

Check back to Tallahassee Reports for more updates on this story.

With that, the members of the Panel spent over two hours reaching consensus on major changes to the current rules and laws that regulate the ethics of City Commissioners.

The Panel agreed that City Commissioners and candidates should be required to file financial disclosure information that goes beyond current state and local law. Currently, elected officials and candidates are required to file Form 1. However, the Panel wants more information.

Former Commissioner Debbie Lightsey, in an earlier appearance before the Panel, stated that Form 1 “was merely a mechanism for officials to pretend that they are engaging in disclosure while in fact disclosing very little.”

The Panel will move forward with a recommendation to require more financial disclosure.

The Panel also proposed expanding requirements on how elected officials disclose business relationships at the time of votes. The Panel’s approach will require City Commissioners to disclose conflicts and business relationships that have existed prior to a vote, not only on the day of a vote, as is current law. The Panel is considering a 12-month time period.

The Panel reached consensus on new rules that will implement post-employment restrictions on City Commissioners. The Panel wants to prevent elected officials from using their insider knowledge for personal gain. The new rules will place restrictions on who and when elected officials can have business relationships with after they leave office.

The next meeting is May 29th at City Hall and is structured to get public input on the Panel’s proposals.

Based on today’s meeting, there will be major amendments to current policy.

The meeting began with the acknowledgement that an audio recording of one of the meetings had been completely deleted by accident. City staff purchased recovery software and were able to restore a majority of the recording.

However, comments made by City Auditor Sam McCall, about his view of an independent ethics process, were part of the recording that was deleted and never made into minutes of the meeting. Members of the panel agreed to ask Mr. McCall to complete the record with written comments.

The focus of the remainder of the meeting was on presentations by panel member Jay Landers on voting conflicts and Chairperson Martha Barnett on post employment issues.

Mr. Landers’ presentation indicated that Florida Statutes Chapter 112, the current law regulating voting conflicts, has a history of being interpreted rather strictly. For example, a violation was only upheld if an elected official had knowledge of a conflict on the precise day of the vote.

Mr. Landers’ argued, and the panel concurred, that more burden should be put on the elected officials by requiring standards consistent with “should of known” or “upon a reasonable inquiry” should know that a conflict exists. Also, the Panel agreed this standard should not just apply on the day of the vote, but for the 12 months before the vote. In other words if a city commissioner had a conflict that ended 11 months before a vote on an issue, that elected official would have a conflict on the day of the vote.

The Panel also agreed that a conflict should be identified as early as possible and the elected officials should not only not vote, but should not participate in any workshops or issue meetings that address the issue at conflict.

Chairman Martha Barnett discussed the fact that city had no post employment restrictions on elected officials. Post employment restrictions limit the ability of elected or appointed officials to take advantage of votes or relationships developed while serving in a public capacity.

Chairman Barnett recommended, and the Panel concurred, that some type of policy should be adopted that restrict employment opportunities for elected and appointed officials after their public service is complete. She noted that for state officials certain employment opportunities were limited for two years in areas relevant to an officials area of service.

Ms. Barnett also recommended that elected and appointed officials be required to disclose any ongoing negotiations to accept a new job while serving in their present capacity.

The Panel directed staff to come back with language that would implement these proposals to current policy and to also investigate enforcement mechanisms.

The next Ethics Advisory Panel meeting is May 21, 2013.

The panel’s research includes gathering information from around the state on how other cities address ethics, listening to testimony from citizens, former city commissioners, and the former Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Ethics.

The ultimate goal of the panel is to make recommendations to the full city commission sometime in June of this year. The panel was created to investigate the need for improved ethics rules by a unanimous vote of the City Commission last year.

The Ethics Advisory Panel meetings have been structured to have each member address one of the “focus areas” that was determined to be relevant by the panel. The panel has identified 10 such focus areas and they include financial disclosure, procurement practices, business conflicts, the revolving door and the establishment of an oversight authority.

While no votes have been taken, the discussions during the meetings indicate a level of consensus on a number of important issues. Panel members seem to agree on the following: (1) a more comprehensive financial disclosure form is needed for city commissioner’s, (2) the forms should be on the city website for easy access, (3) the establishment of an ethics hotline, and (4) the city is doing a good job with ethics training and enforcement for city employees.

Given the fact the panel sees fit to make policy recommendations that go beyond what is currently in place for elected officials, the next important issue to resolve is who will have ultimate oversight authority.

The current oversight authority rests with the city attorney, who is appointed by the city commission. The alternative approach that has been discussed is the establishment of an independent board that would appoint an ethics officer who would be responsible for implementing the ethics rules for elected officials.

During previous meetings, the former director of the Florida Commission on Ethics, Phil Claypool, told the panel that for ethics reform to be taken seriously by the public, the oversight authority must be independent of influence from City Commissioners.

In addition, appointed officials City Attorney Lew Shelley and Auditor Sam McCall indicated that it would be difficult develop a structure within the City Commission that would allow the oversight authority to be completely free of influence from elected officials.

During last Thursday’s meeting, the agenda called for panel member Lila Jaber to present her views on oversight authority. Ms. Jaber has impressive credentials. She is an attorney, a former Florida Public Service Commissioner and was recently appointed to the City’s Utility Advisory Board by City Manager Anita Favors-Thompson.

The thrust of Ms. Jaber’s recommendation was to “create a formal Ethics Officer position that reports to the City Attorney to address city staff-level issues.” When panel member Brant Copeland asked “what about elected officials”, Ms Jaber recommended “proactive ethics training by an outside consultant” and to leave further responsibility of oversight to the Florida Commission on Ethics. Ms. Jaber stated, while she considered an independent oversight authority, she ultimately concluded such a board would have responsibilities already vested in the Florida Commission on Ethics.

The discussion that followed revealed a consensus for an independent oversight authority, but the need to limit the creation of another bureaucracy that would have unlimited authority. However, as one of the panel members stated, “the devil is in the details.”

It is obvious from the discussions of the panel, that oversight authority is an issue that will ultimately decide the effectiveness of any recommendations made to the City Commission.

Mr. D’Alemberte, a lawyer, former politician, former president of FSU, and writer of the ballot initiative that created the Florida Ethics Commission, shared his thoughts on ethics in government. He stated he wasn’t sure if the creation of the Florida Commission on Ethics “was worth the effort.” He agreed it was a toothless tiger used by some to pursue political objectives.

D’Alemberte cautioned the city about creating a local ethics commission, but recommended increased financial disclosure. He said he believes in “wide disclosure” and commented that not much is required by the state of Florida.

He also recommended that an independent person should have a “comprehensive sit down” with elected officials about business relationships and what is expected.

Debbie Lightsey, who served as a city commissioner for 21 years, followed D’Alemberte and talked about how she had tried to increase disclosure requirements in 1998 because the state form “was a sham.” She was then, and is now, concerned about elected officials cashing in on land deals and undisclosed partnerships. She recommended disclosure forms that listed sources of incomes and were updated during the year to reflect new ownership interests.

Alluding to the Mayor Marks ethics issues, Lightsey stated that those with complicated financial relationships, such as lobbyists and lawyers, should be expected to disclose those relationships, despite client confidentiality.

The meeting concluded with a discussion about what financial forms are currently required, the impact of increasing disclosure requirements, and how the public can get access to financial disclosure forms.

The next meeting of the Ethics Advisory Panel is March 14^th, 2013.

The City Manager’s presentation provided background information by informing the Panel about transparency efforts implemented by the City that included the recent addition to the website of a database that allows citizens to track city expenditures. She also spoke of the newly-adopted “Cone of  Silence” ordinance which prohibits vendors from communicating with City staff or officials once the procurement process reaches a certain stage and was adopted when the city commission decided to register lobbyists.

City Manager Thompson also informed the Panel that the City of Tallahassee was not a typical Florida municipal government in that it was rare for a city to own and operate an airport, electric power generating stations, and a transit system in addition to a host of other public works such as a natural gas utility, water utility, solid waste service, stormwater, etc.   Due to the large-scale nature of City operations, City Manager Thompson noted that the City procures a vast array of goods and services – many of which are very expensive.

City Manager Thompson discussed the Commissioner-to-City Manager relationship and reiterated that the City Charter specifically prohibits the elected officials from giving direction to rank-and-file employees.  City Manager Thompson stated that the Commissioners are limited to setting major policy decisions, which are then implemented by the four Appointed Officials, and that the commissioners did not make any hiring decisions other than to appoint a City Manager, City Attorney, Treasurer-Clerk, and City Auditor – and to hire their own Commission Aides.

City Manager Thompson indicated she has recognized the Panel’s interest in several key areas impacting the elected officers including education & training, awareness, professionalism, etc.  City Manager Thompson expressed that frank and open discussions with the officials were necessary and that such discussions do typically occur when newly-elected commissioners first begin their terms in office.  In addition, City Manager Thompson also noted that similar discussion occur with each Commissioners’ aide to ensure each aide knows the City Charter prohibition on interference and to explain why the boundary was established and necessary.

Chair Barnett thanked the City Manager for a thorough review and inquired if the City Manager had any specific recommendations for the Panel to consider.  City Manager Thompson responded that she has reviewed the Panel’s deliberations to-date and that she recognizes there is interest in designating a single employee to serve as an  Ethics Officer or  Ethics Advocate, which City Manager Thompson reiterated that these duties have historically been the responsibility of the City Attorney and his staff. City Manager Thompson agreed that designating someone to serve in this official capacity would place organizational emphasis on ethics and would provide the public with a definitive, single point of contact to express their concerns.

At the upcoming City of Tallahassee Commission meeting, there will be a public hearing for ordinance No. 11-O-03AA – Providing for Registration of Lobbyists. The agenda item states that “Mayor Marks has requested that the City Commission consider the adoption of a City ordinance providing for lobbyist registration in the same manner that the Leon County ordinance provides.”

However, the last two lines of the agenda item analysis states: “The Leon County ordinance, when passed, was written to include a communications prohibition regarding county procurement activities. This prohibition has not been included within the proposed ordinance in that it applies to individuals involved in self-representation and is not limited to regulations regarding lobbyists.”

The COT staff analysis indicates that this provision was taken out because it applies to individuals as well as lobbyists. Tallahassee Reports contacted county officials and asked about this issue. County officials said that the language applies to individual citizens and lobbyists because we do not want individuals or lobbyists talking to decision makers during the “cone of silence” without a written record. “Cone of silence” refers to a specific period of time when critical decisions are being made about contracts and RFP’s.

Former County Commissioner Cliff Thael, who pushed for the lobbyist registration ordinance currently on the books with Leon County, said the “cone of silence” is the whole point of lobbyist registration. “Without this language, the ordinance is nothing more than window dressing. An ordinance without that language is saying to lobbyists, ‘just file the paperwork and pay $25 – you can still talk to decision makers without a paper trail’. Lobbyists registration is supposed provide transparency, not condone secret conversations.”

Research by Tallahassee Reports indicates that other jurisdictions that register lobbyists restrict communications during the procurement process. For example, Palm Beach County just passed an ordinance that requires lobbyist registration and includes a “Cone of Silence” provision like the one included in the Leon County ordinance.

According to the Palm Beach County website, “The ‘Cone of Silence’ means a prohibition on any communication, except for written correspondence, regarding a particular Request for Proposal, Request for Qualification, bid, or any other competitive solicitation. The “Cone of Silence” is in effect from the time/date of the deadline for submission of the proposal, bid or other response to a competitive solicitation, until the time that the Board or County Department authorized to act on behalf of the Board, awards or approves a contract, rejects all bids or responses or otherwise takes action which ends the solicitation process.”

Other jurisdictions that include similar provisions are Tampa, Orlando, Boyton Beach, Coral Gable, and Miami-Dade.

The hearing on the lobbyist ordinance is Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at City Hall.