CEO 78-5 -- January 19, 1978

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE WITH PURCHASING AUTHORITY

APPLICABILITY OF STATUTORY FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE LAW

To: (Name withheld at the person's request.)

Prepared by: Phil Claypool

SUMMARY:

For purposes of the annual filing of financial disclosure, the term "local officer" is defined in s. 112.3145(1)(a)3., F. S. 1975, to include "a purchasing agent having the authority to make any purchase exceeding $100 for any political subdivision of the state or any entity thereof." The Ethics Commission has consistently advised that the power to sign purchase orders is one which normally is conferred upon purchasing agents and therefore that a person who actually signs a purchase order is a "purchasing agent." Accordingly, a city employee with authority to sign purchase orders and make purchases exceeding $100 on behalf of the city, either with or without prior approval of the city's chief purchasing officer, constitutes a local officer subject to the financial disclosure requirements contained in s. 112.3145.

QUESTIONS:

1. Would I, a city employee with authority to make purchases of not more than $250, constitute a "local officer" for purposes of filing financial disclosure where city purchasing regulations require prior approval as to source and price by the chief purchasing officer or his designee, except in cases of emergency?

2. Would I, a city employee with authority to make purchases of not more than $250, constitute a "local officer" for purposes of filing financial disclosure where city purchasing regulations require no prior approval by the chief purchasing officer or his designee as to source or price?

Question 1 is answered in the affirmative.

As referenced in your letter of inquiry, you are employed by the City of Jacksonville as an Accountant II in the business office of the Department of Recreation and Public Affairs, with the authority to make official purchases of not more than $250 on a recurring basis subject to regulations issued by the city's chief purchasing officer and approved by the mayor in accordance with the city purchasing code. New regulations promulgated by the chief purchasing officer will authorize the use of field orders not to exceed $100 per transaction by employees of the city designated by department directors and division chiefs. However, some officials of the city would prefer that the value of authorized transactions be increased to $250 with certain, but not total, prior approval conditions imposed.

The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees provides that each "local officer" shall file financial disclosure annually. Section 112.3145(2)(b), F. S. 1975. The term "local officer" is defined to include:

Any person holding one or more of the following positions, by whatever title, including persons appointed to act directly in such capacity, but excluding assistants and deputies unless specifically named herein . . . a purchasing agent having the authority to make any purchase exceeding $100 for any political subdivision of the state or any entity thereof. [Section 112.3145(1)(a)3., F. S. 1975.]

We have consistently advised that the power to sign purchase orders is one which normally is conferred upon purchasing agents, and that therefore we look to the person who actually signs the order to determine who is a "purchasing agent" in a particular situation. Thus, in CEO 75-115, we advised that the power to make requisitions or requests was advisory in nature and that persons with that authority are not purchasing agents. In CEO 75-172, we found that a chief purchasing officer had the sole authority to make purchases under a procedure whereby he would sign field orders for purchases of not more than $50 for use of various city employees. Similarly, in CEO 77-73, we found that the subject employees merely had the authority to advise and did not have the actual authority to make purchases. Finally, in CEO 77-89, we found that persons with the limited authority to authorize a purchase order of up to $200 for automobile repairs were purchasing agents.

Here, since you would have actual authority to sign purchase orders and make purchases exceeding $100 on behalf of the city, we find that you would fall within the definition of a "local officer" for purposes of financial disclosure, notwithstanding the limitations placed upon your authority to make purchases.

Question 2 also is answered in the affirmative, based upon the rationale of our answer to your first question, above.