by David Ball
Staff Writer
While not quite reaching the “gold standard,” the City Council Finance Committee on Monday did approve an ethics reform bill that brought the rules restricting lobbyists‚ gifts back to what the City Ethics Commission originally proposed.
City officials can accept a gift or food purchase of $100 or less from a lobbyist with total gifts from a single lobbyist not to exceed $250 in a year. However, food purchases of $25 or less can occur more frequently, as they do not count towards the yearly total.
“The gold standard would be zero (gifts allowed),” said City Ethics Officer Carla Miller, who added that the adopted provisions would still put Jacksonville “in the forefront of ethical standards” in the state.
The adopted limit wasn’t unanimously accepted, however, with Council member Stephen Joost opposing it as too restrictive, and Council member Jay Jabour opposing it as not restrictive enough.
The committee approved the ethics bill, for the second time, to be sent back to full City Council. A joint meeting of the Finance and Rules Committees approved the bill two weeks ago, but the Council sent it back to committee last Tuesday, with one of the key issues being the limits on gifts.
Monday, Jabour continued to support his stance on a zero-gift policy he supported at last Tuesday’s Council meeting. Jabour, chair of the Rules Committee, originally proposed a $100 limit when the bill first came out of the joint meeting two weeks ago.
“We shouldn’t receive gifts or food from anyone registered on the lobbyist list,” said Jabour in his motion. “The other thing is we need to look at the definition of what a lobbyist is.”
The bill defines a lobbyist, essentially, as anyone who receives compensation for work to influence the decisions of officials, whether Council, staff or the mayor. However, the Rules and Finance committee originally voted to remove language that clarified the extent to which most lawyers could act as lobbyist — a definition that exists in the state ethics code.
All lobbyists are required to register their name, address and what clients they represent with the City, although there is no real enforcement procedure, according to Miller.
Jabour’s motion failed, with Joost saying a zero-gift, or even a $25 gift limit, would greatly restrict any Council member’s ability to attend community functions or interact with constituents.
“Now, this makes it illegal for me to have lunch with the symphony orchestra because they lobby the city?” Joost asked Assistant General Counsel Steve Rohan, who answered yes. “This is my problem with this, the unforeseen consequences.”
Miller said a zero-gift policy could potentially hamper officials who would be worried about every free cup of coffee or doughnut, and the original proposal was a good compromise.
“I don’t like to see ethics degraded into ‘gotcha’ provisions,” she said. “But if all gifts were limited, it would do a lot to increase the public’s confidence in government.”
The gift policy also applies to principals of lobbying firms and officials from companies doing business with the City. Rohan said it is duty of city officials to inquire about any gift-giver’s employment and intentions.
“I don’t want to hire a legal team to figure out if this person is a lobbyist,” responded Joost. “When are we going to be able to do our jobs?”