To: Frank S. Messersmith, Former State Representative (Tallahassee)
SUMMARY:
A former State Representative is prohibited from attending and monitoring legislative committee meetings or sessions and from asking questions about a proceeding or proposed legislation from a legislative staff member, even for informational purposes only, when done in behalf of another for compensation during the two years after leaving office. Article II, Section 8(e), Florida Constitution, and Section 112.313(9)(a), Florida Statutes, prohibit a member of the Legislature from personally representing another person or entity for compensation before the Legislature for a period of two years after leaving office. The term "represent"
QUESTION 1:
In your letter of inquiry you advise that you formerly served as a member of the Florida House of Representatives.
No member of the legislature or statewide elected officer shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation before the government body or agency of which the individual was an officer or member for a period of two years following vacation of office.
You advise that attending and monitoring the proceedings of meetings does not entail any identification of a client by you or require you to discuss the issue with a legislator.
For purposes of Article II, Section 8(e), and Section 112.313(9)(a)3, the terms "represent" and "representation"
actual physical attendance on behalf of a client in an agency proceeding, the writing of letters or filing of documents on behalf of a client, and personal communications made with the officers or employees of any agency on behalf of a client.
Although attending legislative meetings would not involve writing letters, filing documents, or personal communications with legislative personnel, the definition of "representation" also specifically includes "actual physical attendance on behalf of a client in an agency proceeding."
We recognize that it can be argued that the phrase "in an agency proceeding" contemplates a degree of participation in the proceeding, with an intent to influence the agency's action, as opposed to simply sitting as a member of the audience at a meeting or hearing in order to observe the proceedings, just as any member of the public is entitled to do. Further, had the definition used the phrase "at an agency proceeding,"
However, especially when contrasted with the other two activities that comprise this definition, both of which expressly entail communicative actions, whether written or oral, it appears to us that attendance at a legislative meeting to observe the proceedings falls within the definition of "represent." If the intent were to prohibit only activities that involved a form of active communication from the former officeholder, the definition's inclusion of "personal communications," "the writing of letters," and "the filing of documents" would have sufficed, and the addition of "actual physical attendance . . . in an agency proceeding" would have been unnecessary. Instead, the definition specifically mentions attendance as an additional form of representation and, therefore, must have been intended to refer to action other than writing letters, filing documents, or personal communications.
QUESTION 2:
You also question whether you are prohibited from asking questions about a proceeding or proposed legislation from a legislative staff member for informational purposes only, as long as this does not involve a legislator. As noted above, the definition of "represent" specifically includes "personal communications made with the officers or employees of any agency on behalf of a client."
Asking questions for informational purposes only may not necessarily involve any communication intended to influence legislative action, but it appears to us that this is a blanket prohibition, designed to preclude a former agency official from being compensated for actions in behalf of another that involve the agency. In addition, we note that many questions, in the guise of asking for "information,"