CEO 86-20 -- February 20, 1986

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; VOTING CONFLICT

COUNTY COMMISSIONER ACTING AS BROKER IN SALE OF LIQUOR LICENSE TO CORPORATION OWNED BY INDIVIDUAL PLANNING DEVELOPMENT IN COUNTY

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

SUMMARY:

No prohibited conflict of interest exists where a county commissioner is acting as a broker in the sale of a liquor license to a corporation which is owned by an individual who also owns a planned development complex which currently is before the county commission for review as a development of regional impact. Here, the commissioner had contracted with the seller of the liquor license rather than with the buyer and therefore does not have a contractual relationship which would violate Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes. The county commissioner would not be prohibited by Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, from voting on matters relating to the proposed development of regional impact unless his commission from the sale of the license is contingent on county approval of the development.

QUESTION 1:

Does a prohibited conflict of interest exist where you, a county commissioner, are acting as a broker in the sale of a liquor license to a corporation which is owned by an individual who also owns a planned development complex which currently is before the county commission for review as a development of regional impact?

Your question is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry you advise that you serve as Chairman of the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners and that you are a real estate broker. You also advise that you have contracted with an individual who owns a liquor license issued by the State. Under the contract you function as a broker representing the seller. You have located a buyer who is to purchase the liquor license under an option contract through a corporation owned by the buyer and his wife. Apart from your involvement in the sale of the liquor license, you have no contractual or employment relationship with the buyer.

In addition, you advise that the buyer is the owner of a planned development complex which currently is before the Board of County Commissioners for review as a development of regional impact. However, the County has no regulatory authority over the sale of the liquor license, and the County Commission would not have occasion to consider that matter.

The Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees provides in relevant part:

CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP. -- No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is doing business with, an agency of which he is an officer or employee . . . ; nor shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any employment or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and the performance of his public duties or that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his public duties. [Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1985).]

This provision prohibits you from having any employment or contractual relationship with a business entity which is regulated by, or doing business with, the County Commission.

Under the circumstances presented, your contractual relationship is with the seller of the liquor license, and not with the buyer of the license, who is involved in the development coming before the County Commission. For a similar example, see CEO 81-59, in which we advised that a school board member could sell insurance to an architectural firm doing business with the school board, as the insurance agent would be functioning as an agent of the insurer rather than of the architectural firm. Finally, we do not find that your contract with the seller of the liquor license would present you with a continuing or frequently recurring conflict of interest in violation of Section 112.313(7), as the matter is not regulated by the County and would not come before the County Commission.

Accordingly, we find that no prohibited conflict of interest exists in your acting as broker in the sale of a liquor license to a corporation owned by an individual whose development must come before the County Commission.

QUESTION 2:

Are you, a county commissioner, prohibited by Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, from voting on matters relating to the proposed development of regional impact?

This question also is answered in the negative.

Regarding voting conflicts of interest, the Code of Ethics provides:

No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to his special private gain or shall knowingly vote in his official capacity upon any measure which inures to the special gain of any principal, other than an agency as defined in s. 112.312(2), by whom he is retained. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of his interest in the matter from which he is abstaining from voting and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his 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. However, a commissioner of a community redevelopment agency created or designated pursuant to s. 163.356 or s. 163.357 or an officer of an independent special tax district elected on a one- acre, one-vote basis is not prohibited from voting. [Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes (1985).]

This provision prohibits you from voting on a measure which inures to your special private gain or to the special gain of a principal by whom you are retained.

Under the circumstances presented it does not appear that you have any interest in the proposed development of regional impact. Therefore, unless your commission from the sale of the liquor license is contingent on County approval of the development, and you have presented no facts which would indicate that to be the case, measures relating to the development would not inure to your special private gain. Nor do we find that measures pertaining to the development would inure to the special gain of a principal by whom you are retained, as you have been retained by the seller of the liquor license rather than by its purchaser, the owner of the proposed development.

Accordingly, we find that you are not prohibited from voting on matters relating to the proposed development of regional impact.