Ordinance 2010-349 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- i.e., a former employee who is called to testify in a publicly noticed quasi-judicial proceeding. The County Code at Sec. 2-11.1 (s)( 1 )(b) defines lobbyist to mean- ... all persons, firms, or corporations employed or retained by a principal who seeks to encourage the passage, defeat, or modifications of (1) ordinance, resolution, action or decision of the [city commission]; (2) any action, decision, recommendation of the [city manager] or any [city] board or committee; or (3) any action, decision or recommendation of [ city] personnel during the time period of the entire decision-making process on such action, decision or recommendation which foreseeably will be heard or reviewed by the [city commission], or a [city] board or committee. (Emphasis added.) The County Code at Sec. 2-11.1 (s)( 1 )(b) specifically excludes from the definition of lobbyist- attorneys or other representatives retained or employed solely for the purpose of representing individuals, corporations or other entities during publicly noticed quasi-judicial proceedings where the lmv prohibits ex-parte communications (Emphasis added.) expert witnesses who provide only scientific, technical or other specialized information or testimony in public meetings (Emphasis added.) These subsections, read together, support the presumption that the legislative intent of the Ethics Code was to exclude from the definition of lobbying testimony proffered at a publicly noticed quasi-judicial proceeding.2 Commission on Ethics Opinions The Ethics Commission has opined on the two-year rule numerous times, but has never addressed the issue of whether providing testimony before a publicly noticed quasi-judicial hearing violates subsection 2-11.1 (q) of the ordinance. In 2004, the Director of the County Building Department was advised about the two-year prohibition as it applied to former employees who came in contact with the County Department.) These former employees, who were self-employed in the building industry or worked as consultants, permit expediters, or employees of developers, were not allowed to meet with County staff except for routine requests. Typical meetings that were not allowed included those related to negotiate settlements on unsafe building structures or discussions 2 These sections of the code, which relate to the same subject matter and are not inconsistent with one another, may be read together under the precept of in pari material. "The doctrine of in pari materia is a principle of statutory construction that requires that statutes relating to the same subject or object be construed together to harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature's intent." Florida Dept. of State, Div. of Elections v. Martin, 916 So.2d 763, 768 (Fla. 2005). ) RQO 04-33, opinion given to Charles Danger, Director of the County Building Dept. RQO 10-19 Poliakoff July 20,2010 201'3