by David Ball
Staff Writer
At the last City Council meeting, City Ethics Officer Carla Miller caught and corrected one of her first in-meeting snafus as a paid employee.
Well-known lobbyist Paul Harden breached a rarely enforced protocol by entering into the “pit” area in front of the Council dais restricted only to select City staff.
A few non-City officials, mainly lobbyists, had done this before to either pass out written or verbal information to a particular Council member. But you won’t likely see it again.
“That has been clarified,” said Miller, who had previously served in a volunteer ethics position until the Council approved her full-time position earlier this month.
“The fact is that this kind of thing is observed by citizens and they think, ‘why does this person have access to this area?’” added Miller. “It’s the appearance of special privilege. If you have citizens that don’t trust what’s going on in government, they see signs and may read into it much more than what’s there.”
Miller is hoping to restore the public’s perception with passage of the current ethics reform legislation bouncing back between the City Council and its committees, which have so far focused on the employment of City staff with contracted firms and how much food and gifts City officials can receive from lobbyists.
But one crucially overlooked issue, said Miller, is to clarify who exactly those lobbyists are – specifically in light of a perceived loophole that could exempt attorneys who are in fact acting as lobbyists.
The City’s current definition of a lobbyist states, “any natural person who, for compensation seeks, or sought during the preceding 12 months, to influence the governmental decision making of an officer or employee of the City...or modification of any proposal or recommendation by an officer or employee of the City.”
However, the City Ethics Commission had added a final sentence to the definition that was removed by both the Council Rules and Finance committees during first reading three weeks ago. It stated, “Attorneys who are retained for compensation for the purposes aforedescribed are lobbyists.”
Finance Chair Art Shad, who made the motion to remove the language, later said the definition was clear enough, and adding that sentence could create more confusion.
“If somebody was suing the City, for instance, would that attorney then be a lobbyist?” said Shad. “I know that’s not the intent of the language, but to say that all attorneys are lobbyists is simply not true.”
Assistant General Counsel Steve Rohan told the council removing the language didn’t remove the intent to include lawyers who are acting as lobbyists.
However, Ethics Commission Vice Chair Katie Dearing said her board wanted to bring the City’s code in line with state ethics law, which specifically clarifies that lawyers can be lobbyist even if they don’t define themselves as such or register as a lobbyist.
“Under state law, a lawyer, if acting as a lobbyist, would be defined that way,” she said. “But it appears in Jacksonville, those people who don’t register as lobbyists tend to be lawyers. They say ‘I’m here representing my client, not acting as a lobbyist,’ but they could be acting as both.”
Dearing added that the main concern is that some lawyers could feel they don’t need to follow the ethics code provisions, such as for gift and food limitations.
“To the extent lawyers don’t wish to be defined that way, then those provisions, in theory, wouldn’t apply,” she said.
But according to Harden, that clarification may not be necessary.
“Everybody that I know that’s a lawyer that is a lobbyist is registered,” said Harden, who has registered as a lobbyist with the City since 1984. “I don’t think there’s a problem to be dealt with.”
But the registration itself also has Miller and Dearing worried. Currently, lobbyists are required to register with the City’s Legislative Services office every year and provide contact information and who they are representing.
The registration list currently has 32 names, although the list had as few as 10 names in Dec. 2003. And while some lobbyists list specific clients such as Comcast, the University of North Florida or the Northeast Florida Builders Association, most simply list “various clients and issues.”
“To me, don’t bother telling me that. It’s not useful information,” said Miller. “You should take a look at what is required by the state to register.”
The state’s 291-page list of registered legislative lobbyists includes detailed information on the lobbyist’s employer or firm and every client being represented. The Florida Bar even created a section of its Web site to help attorneys navigate the comprehensive state ethics laws passed in 2006.
In addition, state lobbyists are required to disclose payments received from each client in $10,000 increments. On the state’s Web site, anyone can easily see how much Ward Blakely from Tidewater Consulting is being paid by the Jacksonville Aviation Authority, Jacksonville Port Authority, JTA, the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office (all between $1-$9,999) and JEA (between $10,000-$19,999).
Dearing and Miller told the Finance and Rules committees they wanted to see the same details from the City’s lobbyist, but the request was shot down. Harden also said he had a problem with listing income.
“Lawyers have privilege with their clients as do doctors,” said Harden. “I think that’s inappropriate, providing information that most clients would prefer remain privileged.”
The issue never came up before the Finance Committee last Monday, who again approved the entire legislation after being re-referred from the full City Council. Shad said he is still happy with the lobbyist definition and the apparent consensus from the Council.
Although both Dearing and Miller said the overall legislation would put Jacksonville well ahead of other Florida cities in its ethics law, they are still going to continue pushing the lawyers-as-lobbyists issue, Miller particularly.
“I didn’t really feel I could get into that kind of stuff until I was confirmed (as full-time staff),” said Miller. “I pulled the list of lobbyists, and I’m going to be taking a good look at the form to see how we can better enforce the current code and make the new code stronger.”