CEO 12-11 – April 4, 2012

VOTING CONFLICT

CITY COUNCILMEMBER VOTING ON PROPOSAL
FOR CITY CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH SHERIFF'S OFFICE
WHERE COUNCILMEMBER'S FATHER IS EMPLOYEE OF SHERIFF'S OFFICE

To:        Hayward Dykes, Jr., Esquire (Destin)

SUMMARY:

A city councilmember is not presented with a voting conflict under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, regarding a measure/vote of the council concerning a proposal to contract for law enforcement services with the sheriff's office, where the councilmember's father is an employee of the sheriff's office. CEOs 07-05, 11-04, and 11-08 are referenced.1


QUESTION:

Is a member of a city council presented with a voting conflict of interest regarding a measure/vote of the council concerning a proposal to contract for law enforcement services with the sheriff's office where the councilmember's father is an employee of the sheriff's office?


Under the circumstances presented, your question is answered in the negative.


You write on behalf of … ("Councilmember") who serves as a member of the City Council of the City of Fort Walton Beach, to which he was elected in March 2011. Further, by your letter of inquiry and additional information provided to us, you relate that the Councilmember's father has been a salaried civilian employee of the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office since 2010, after having retired in 2003 from an 18-year career as a sworn officer with the Sheriff's Office. The father's current position is that of deputy director of administration and his duties include supervision over fleet vehicles, crime scene evidence, and chaplains. You state that in May 2011 the Councilmember proposed and voted in favor of a measure to seek information related to the costs of contracting for law enforcement services for the City from the Sheriff's Office. You relate that the Councilmember expects that the Council will vote in the near future on a definitive measure as to whether or not the City will enter into a contract with the Sheriff's Office for law enforcement services. You further state that the Councilmember and his father have related to you that the father expects to receive no additional compensation in the form of promotion, salary increase, bonus, or other benefit if the City contracts with the Sheriff's Office for law enforcement services.2


Section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, is the portion of the voting conflicts law applicable to city council members and other local public officers. The law provides:


VOTING CONFLICTS.--No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss; which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom the officer is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained, other than an agency as defined in s. 112.313(2); or which her or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the public officer. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of the officer's interest in the matter from which he or she is abstaining from voting and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his or her interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the minutes.


In order for an officer to be presented with a voting conflict under the law, the measure or vote must inure to the special private gain or loss of the officer, to that of his "relative" (defined in Section 112.3143(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to include "father"), or to that of another person or entity listed in the statute. There is no indication in the situation you presented that the City's contracting with the Sheriff's Office would impact the Councilmember's father. To the contrary, you represent that the father expects to receive no additional compensation in the form of promotion, salary increase, bonus, or other benefit if the City and the Sheriff's Office enter into the contract. As the measure would not result in any gain or loss to the Councilmember's relative, the Councilmember is not prohibited from voting.

Our finding herein is consistent with our prior decisions, including CEO 07-5 (county commissioner voting on measures affecting clients of lobbying firm employing her husband), CEO 11-4 (county commissioner voting on land use matters in which son-in-law's law firm represents a property owner), and CEO 11-8 (city commissioners voting on contract where bidders employ their sons). In each of these opinions, we found that while the measures/votes would have affected employers or clients ("principals") of the officers' relative, they would not have affected the relative himself, and therefore no voting conflict under Section 112.3143 existed.


The question is answered accordingly.


ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on March 30, 2012 and RENDERED this 4th day of April, 2012.

____________________________________

Susan H. Maurer,Vice-Chair

[1]Prior opinions of the Commission on Ethics may be obtained from its website (www.ethics.state.fl.us).

[2]Your inquiry phrases the situation as involving "consolidation" of the City's police department with the Sheriff's Office. However, the substance of the matter would appear to be a proposed City contract with the Sheriff's Office for law enforcement services.