An Attempt to Get Rid of New Ethics Provisions in Three Broward County Cities

In November 2010, Broward County, FL voters approved an ethics code for officials of the cities in the county (the code also applies to the county commissioners). The code finally became effective January 2, 2012.

Three cities in Broward County (home to Ft. Lauderdale) have put referendum questions on the January 31 ballot seeking to strike the applicability of certain of the code's provisions to their cities' officials. The principal one is the requirement to disclose one's outside salary. Personally, I don't think disclosing a salary is necessary. It's sufficient to ask officials to say they are paid, say, more than $20,000 by an employer, or more than $5,000 by a client, to show that the job is serious and there is a financially meaningful relationship with a client.

What is notable about changing this particular provision is how self-serving it is for mayors to waste the public's time on a question that is only intended to protect their privacy. Of course, the argument is made that otherwise officials will resign in huge numbers. But if officials were to resign in huge numbers, the law would likely be changed. The fact is that disclosure requirements always lead to this argument, but rarely to the reality. When there were mass resignations in Oregon a couple of years ago (see my blog post), the officials either quickly were appointed again or others were appointed to replace them. The predictions did not come true, and the public did not suffer.

There are other problems with what the three cities are trying to do, according to a recent article in the Sun-Sentinel. One, it is not clear that city voters can change the county law. Two, the ballot language makes no mention of the county ethics code, making it very unclear to voters what exactly they are voting on. This does not indicate a commitment to transparency, to say the least.

Third, one mayor argues that “I fully support giving residents the opportunity to choose how their city is governed.” And yet city voters already voted for the ethics code. Should they now be asked to vote for it again, provision by provision, and without the ethics code even being mentioned?

Here's the language of the ballot question, and an explanation, from a flier from one of the three cities. The explanation (below) does refer to ethics laws, but only those approved by the county commission, with the implication that they have not been passed (that sneaky "subsequent" — to what?), and without mention of the referendum that established the ethics program.

First Question:
City Elected Officials Serve Part-Time and may be Concurrently Employed Pursuant To Florida Law.
Should service on the Wilton Manors City Commission be recognized as a part-time position whereby the City’s elected officials shall be permitted to engage in outside/concurrent employment consistent with Florida law and that any disclosures associated with such employment shall be consistent with and limited to the requirements of Florida law? 

What does this mean?  
The Mayor and Commission’s responsibilities in making the right decisions on behalf of the resident are currently governed by Florida State Statutes.  These Statutes state that the Mayor and Commission are of part-time service and they are able to be employed in outside professions.   By approving this question, the Charter of Wilton Manors will be amended to indicate that Florida State Statute requirements are fair and just, and to ensure that subsequent laws approved by the Broward County Commission regarding ethics will not affect the ability of the Mayor and Commission to have outside employment and will not affect the ability of future Commissioners to earn a livelihood by their professions. 

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---