CEO 79-34 -- June 6, 1979

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

STATE REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER OF LAW FIRM REPRESENTING PERSONS WHO WISH TO SELL PROPERTY TO COUNTY, USING STATE MATCHING FUNDS

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

Prepared by: Phil Claypool

SUMMARY:

No provision of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees would prohibit a law firm of which a state representative is a member from representing persons selling property to a county which uses state matching funds for the purchase. Section 112.313(7)(a), F. S., prohibits a public officer from having a contractual relationship with a business entity or an agency which is subject to the regulation of, or which is doing business with, his public agency. However, even assuming that the law firm would have a contractual relationship with the property owners or with the county, the question of whether matching funds would be provided is a decision which rests with the Governor and the Cabinet, in their capacity as head of the Department of Natural Resources, not with the Legislature.

QUESTION:

Would a prohibited conflict of interest exist were the law firm of which I am a member to represent persons selling property to a county which uses state matching funds for the purchase?

Your question is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry you advise that you are a member of the Florida House of Representatives who privately practices law as a senior member of a law firm. You also advise that recently another member of the firm undertook to represent the owner of certain undeveloped oceanfront real property which has been offered for sale to St. Johns County. In addition, you advise that the firm's member, together with county officials, intends to seek state matching funds to enable the county to purchase this property, which will entitle your firm to an attorney fee to be paid by the owners. Finally, you advise that you intend to take no part in the proposed transaction either as an attorney or as a legislator.

In a telephone conversation with our staff, Ney Landrum, the Director of the Division of Recreation and Parks of the Department of Natural Resources, advised that any purchase of the subject property which would involve the use of state matching funds would fall within the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of the department. Under this program, he advised, the Federal Government allocates funds to the state which are matched with local funding for the purchase of property. As there are limited funds available, proposals from the various units of local government are evaluated, with the final decision as to allocation of funds being made by the Governor and Cabinet in their capacity as the head of the Department of Natural Resources. See s. 375.021(3), F. S. 1977.

We find no provision of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees which would prohibit the transaction you have described, prohibit your firm's representation in the proposed transaction, or prohibit the receipt of an attorney fee in connection with that transaction. Section 112.313(7)(a), F. S., prohibits a public officer from having a contractual relationship with a business entity or an agency which is subject to the regulation of, or which is doing business with his agency. Even assuming that you would have a contractual relationship with the property owners or the county, the question of whether matching funds would be provided is a decision which would be made by the Governor and the Cabinet, not by your agency, the Legislature.

Accordingly, we find that no prohibited conflict of interest would exist were a law firm of which you are a member to represent persons selling property to a county which uses state matching funds for the purchase.