Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Tampa debates changes to ethics code

After the state banned lobbyist gifts this week, Tampa still must decide on its rules about receiving gifts.

By JANET ZINK
Published December 10, 2005

TAMPA - Florida lawmakers this week approved a total ban on gifts from lobbyists.

By law, the city can't have more lax provisions than the state. So the Tampa City Council also has to tighten its rules on lobbyists, which currently let city officials take freebies that are worth less than $100.

Tampa already was debating changes to its ethics code governing gifts, and now the state's tougher rule settles the question regarding lobbyists.

Still unresolved for Tampa is the question of how much, if anything, city officials can take from people who have city contracts, an area not covered by the state rules.

The current city ethics code bars officials from accepting contractors' gifts that are worth more than $100.

The city's ethics discussion began in May when council member Linda Saul-Sena asked city attorney David Smith and City Council attorney Martin Shelby to recommend ways to improve the city's code.

Mayor Pam Iorio suggested changing it to allow elected officials to accept gifts and admission tickets worth more than $100 if they were for "community events" and attendance was part of governmental duties, as long as the event sponsor isn't a lobbyist.

But the council, citing a desire for simplicity, agreed to mirror state law, which would still limit handouts from lobbyists, but allow gifts from anyone else of any amount, as long as those valued at more than $100 were disclosed.

Then in October, the council took a preliminary step toward loosening the provision to let city officials accept free admission to football games, fundraising soirees and other events, as long as the event sponsor is not a lobbyist.

Now some council members who supported that move say they've had a change of heart.

"We should just leave it like it is," said council Chairwoman Gwen Miller. "It worked for me."

Council members say the reversal has less to do with what the state did than with the months of wordsmithing their own policy.

The city's Ethics Commission asked to the review the language in the provision before the council voted on it. So the council postponed the tricky gift policy decision until January, and on Thursday gave preliminarily approval to several less controversial changes to its ethics code.

Meanwhile, the Ethics Commission also met on Thursday and tentatively agreed to allow officials to accept tickets to events such as football games and charitable events, but they couldn't eat or drink at them unless they paid for it.

"That's still under review, and we haven't taken a final vote on it," said Fred Karl, a former city attorney who chairs the commission.

City attorneys are now drafting a policy and the commission will review it Jan. 12.

Council member Shawn Harrison said he'll wait to hear the commission's recommendations before making up his mind.

"The state ethics policy is much, much more stringent than it was the last time we talked about this," Harrison said. "Whether we need to go beyond that will be for the Ethics Commission to help us decide."

But other council members now say the simplest approach is to leave the existing policy alone.

"I was perfectly happy with the way the policy was originally," said council member Kevin White.

He said he voted to follow the state's rules in the first place because it seemed the administration was trying to finagle a policy that would allow officials to accept tickets to certain pricey events.

"It seemed a much easier process to just mirror what the state had," he said.

White said Friday that at this point the "long drawn-out discussion and bantering" has changed his mind and he thinks the city's policy on gifts from people with contracts with the city should stay as it is.

Council member Mary Alvarez, who also voted for the change in October, said she, too, thinks the city's existing policy is fine.

Council member John Dingfelder missed the October vote, but said if he had been there he would have voted against the change.

"The gift policy is fine the way it is, period," he said Friday.

Council member Rose Ferlita, who cast the dissenting vote in October, has said from the beginning of the debate that if city officials want to attend an expensive event they should pay for admission themselves.

And as far as she's concerned, the existing policy could be even tighter.

"I want us to accept nothing for free. Not for charitable events, not for sporting events, not for anything," she said. "That keeps everybody clean."

Janet Zink can be reached at 813 226-3401 or jzink@sptimes.com

[Last modified December 10, 2005, 00:50:10]