CEO 87-36 -- June 11, 1987

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; VOTING CONFLICT

COUNTY COMMISSIONER VOTING ON MATTERS AFFECTING PROPERTY

FOR WHICH HE HAS WRITTEN TITLE INSURANCE

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

SUMMARY:

No prohibited conflict of interest exists under Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, where a county commissioner owns a title insurance company which has written title insurance on parcels of land in the county which may be located in the right-of-way of a proposed bypass road, or on parcels which abut a county road for which a request is made that the county vacate the road. CEO 81-59 is referenced. In addition, the county commissioner would not be prohibited by Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, from voting on the route of the proposed bypass road or from voting on requests to vacate the county roads. Here, decisions on the proposed bypass route and on requests to vacate roads would not lead directly to additional business for the title company. CEO's 85-21 and 85-37 are referenced.

QUESTION 1:

Does a prohibited conflict of interest exist where you, a county commissioner, own a title insurance company which has written title insurance on parcels of land in the county which may be located in the right-of-way of a proposed bypass road, or on parcels which abut a county road for which a request is made that the county vacate the road?

This question is answered in the negative.

In your letter of inquiry and in a telephone conversation with our staff, you have advised that you serve as a member of the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners and that you are the sole shareholder and president of a title insurance company which has provided title insurance for thousands of parcels of property within the County. In your private capacity, you serve as an agent for the title insurer, and not as agent for the insured.

You also advise that the County is in the process of deciding which of two routes a proposed bypass road will take. You have insured property which may be located in the right-of-way of both routes. After the County Commission selects a bypass route, you advise, former clients may request your services again. You advise that the County's action would not require property owners along the route to obtain new or additional title insurance. However, the property owners may want to develop their property or to sell the property after the bypass route is selected. Although the County might want title insurance for the right-of-way it selects, you advised, you do not do work for the State or for the County.

You also advise that occasionally requests are made to the County for the County to vacate its interest in county roads. Sometimes you have written title insurance for property that abuts the road that is the subject of the vacation request. However, the property owner would not need new or additional title insurance as a result of the County's decision to vacate the road.

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).]

In a previous opinion, CEO 81-59, we advised that this provision would not prohibit a school board member from selling life and health insurance to an architectural firm which had been employed by the school board as its consulting architect. Similarly, here, we find that Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, would not be violated. We note that you have no contractual relationship directly with the land owners who may be affected by the County's decisions on the route of the bypass road or on the request to vacate a County road. In addition, it is clear that there would be no increase in your business as a direct result of the decision on the route of the bypass road or on the vacation of a County road.

Accordingly, we find that no prohibited conflict of interest exists where your title insurance company has written title insurance on parcels of land which may be located in the right-of-way of a proposed bypass road or on parcels which abut a county road for which a request is made that the County vacate the road. Nor would the Code of Ethics prohibit you from selling title insurance after the County Commission has made its decision to persons who own land along the proposed bypass road or along a road which has been vacated by the County.

QUESTION 2:

Are you, a county commissioner, prohibited by Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, from voting on the route of the proposed bypass road or from voting on requests to vacate county roads where you have written title insurance on parcels of land which may be located in the right-of- way of the proposed bypass or along the road to be vacated?

This question also is answered in the negative.

Regarding voting conflicts of interest for local officials, 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 (and requires certain disclosures to be made) on a measure which inures to your special private gain or to the special gain of a principal by whom you are retained.

In CEO 85-21 we advised that this provision would not 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 would stand to benefit directly from the measure under consideration. In CEO 85-37 we advised that a planning commissioner who was employed by a title company was prohibited from voting on the rezoning of a parcel of property where the sale of the property was contingent upon the rezoning action and where the title company was to provide title insurance for their client on that parcel if the sale was made. In your situation, however, decisions on the proposed bypass route and on requests to vacate roads would not lead directly to additional business for your company. Therefore, these measures would not inure to your special private gain or to the special gain of a principal by whom you are retained, the title insurer which you represent as agent.

Accordingly, we find that you are not prohibited from voting on the route of the proposed bypass road or from voting on requests to vacate County roads where you may have written title insurance on parcels of land located in the right-of-way of the proposed bypass or adjacent to the road to be vacated.