CEO 85-21 -- March 6, 1985

VOTING CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING ON MATTERS AFFECTING CLIENTS OF THEIR TRAVEL AGENCY AND INSURANCE AGENCIES

To: Mr. David M. Carr, Attorney for Tampa City Council

SUMMARY:

Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit a city council member who is employed by a travel agency from voting on a measure which would benefit a person or business entity which purchases tickets and makes travel reservations through that travel agency, where neither the council member nor the travel agency which employs him stands to benefit directly from the measure under consideration. Nor is a city council member who is an insurance agent prohibited from voting on a measure that would benefit a person or business entity for which he writes insurance policies, where neither the council member nor his insurance agency stands to benefit directly from the measure under consideration.

QUESTION 1:

Does Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, prohibit a city council member who is employed by a travel agency from voting on a measure which would benefit a person or business entity which purchases tickets and makes travel reservations through that travel agency, where neither the council member nor the travel agency which employs him stands to benefit directly from the measure under consideration?

This question is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry and in a telephone conversation with our staff, you have advised that Mr. Eddie Caballero is a member of the Tampa City Council and is an employee of a travel agency. You also advise that frequently the question arises as to whether the Council member may vote on a matter affecting a customer of that travel agency.

Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), prohibits a municipal officer from voting on a measure which inures to his special gain and from knowingly voting on any measure which inures to the special gain of a principal by whom he is retained. As your inquiry does not provide any particular facts concerning a specific situation, we will assume that the measure under consideration by the City Council would not directly benefit either the subject Council member or the travel agency which employs him.

In previous opinions we have advised that a public official's employer is a "principal by whom he is retained." See CEO 85-5, CEO 84-108, and opinions cited therein. Therefore, the subject Council member should abstain from voting on any measure which would inure to the special gain of the travel agency which employs him. In our view, the statute does not reach so far as to require the Council member to abstain from voting on a measure which would benefit a customer of the travel agency, as opposed to the travel agency itself.

Accordingly, we find that the subject City Council member is not prohibited from voting on a measure which would benefit a person or business entity which purchases tickets and makes travel reservations through the travel agency which employs him, where neither he nor the travel agency stands to benefit directly from the measure under consideration.

QUESTION 2:

Does Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, prohibit a city council member who is an insurance agent from voting on a measure that would benefit a person or business entity for which he writes insurance policies, where neither the council member nor his insurance agency stands to benefit directly from the measure under consideration?

This question also is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry and in a telephone conversation with our staff, you have advised that Mr. Tom Vann and Mr. Lee Duncan are members of the Tampa City Council and privately are engaged in the insurance business as principals in their own insurance agencies. You also advise that frequently matters involving clients of their agencies come before the City Council.

As you have not provided specific facts concerning these situations, in responding to this question also we will assume that the measure under consideration would not directly benefit either the Council member or his insurance agency. In CEO 81-59 we noted that generally, in the absence of special circumstances, an agent of an insurer who solicits or effects insurance is not the agent of the insured. In other words, the principal who retains an insurance agent is the insurance carrier, rather than the insured. For this reason, we are of the opinion that an insurance agent is not required to abstain from voting on a measure which would benefit a person or business entity for which he writes insurance policies, in the absence of any special circumstances which would make the Council member an agent of the insured.

Accordingly, we find that the subject City Council members are not prohibited from voting on measures which would benefit persons or business entities for which they write insurance policies, in the absence of the special circumstances noted above, where neither the Council members nor their insurance agencies stand to benefit directly from the measure under consideration.