Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– 2 years ago
**files (1)**
– ## response2.docx
**## response2.docx**
200 word response 1 reference/ intext citation from the internet
Due 2/22/2025
Etienne
Explain how the public would lose confidence in the person who requested the opinion if that person failed to follow the opinion's guidance (ie. would that hurt the agency's reputation in the public's eye and undermine government in general? why/why not)
1. A) The Question Posed:
A city council member inquired whether applying for an executive branch employment position within the same city would create a conflict of interest under Florida’s Code of Ethics.
1. B) Who Posed It and Why:
The inquiry was made by city council members who were considering employment opportunities within the city’s executive branch. They sought guidance to ensure that pursuing such positions would not violate ethical standards or result in conflicts of interest.
1. C) Download and Save the Ethics Opinion:
I have downloaded the relevant ethics opinion, CEO 19-6, and attached it to this post.
1. D) Summary of the Opinion and Final Advice:
In CEO 19-6, the Florida Commission on Ethics examined whether city council members could seek and accept employment in the city’s executive branch without breaching ethical standards.
The Commission reviewed Section 112.313(7)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits public officers from holding employment or contractual relationships with entities regulated by or doing business with their agency, as well as those that would create recurring conflicts between private interests and public duties. The Commission determined that because the council members planned to begin employment only after their terms had ended, there would be no overlap between their public duties and private employment. Thus, no prohibited conflict of interest would arise under this statute.
Additionally, the Commission examined Section 112.313(10)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits a public employee from simultaneously holding a position on the governing body that employs them. Since the council members intended to start their employment only after their council terms ended, this provision would not be violated.
However, the Commission pointed out Section 112.313(14) of the Florida Statutes, which imposes a two-year restriction on former local officers from representing another person or entity for compensation before the government body they previously served. This “revolving door” prohibition would prevent former council members, who are now employed in the executive branch, from representing the executive branch before the city council for two years after leaving office.
Rationale:
The Commission’s rationale was based on the timing of the employment transition and the specific language of the statutes. Ensuring council members would not start executive branch employment until after their council terms ended prevented potential conflicts of interest and violations of dual office-holding prohibitions. The two-year representation ban prevents undue influence or the appearance of impropriety by restricting former officials from using their previous positions for private gain shortly after leaving office.
This opinion underscores the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines in government transitions to maintain public trust and uphold ethical standards.
**## response2.docx**
200 word response 1 reference/ intext citation from the internet
Due 2/22/2025
Etienne
Explain how the public would lose confidence in the person who requested the opinion if that person failed to follow the opinion's guidance (ie. would that hurt the agency's reputation in the public's eye and undermine government in general? why/why not)
1. A) The Question Posed:
A city council member inquired whether applying for an executive branch employment position within the same city would create a conflict of interest under Florida’s Code of Ethics.
1. B) Who Posed It and Why:
The inquiry was made by city council members who were considering employment opportunities within the city’s executive branch. They sought guidance to ensure that pursuing such positions would not violate ethical standards or result in conflicts of interest.
1. C) Download and Save the Ethics Opinion:
I have downloaded the relevant ethics opinion, CEO 19-6, and attached it to this post.
1. D) Summary of the Opinion and Final Advice:
In CEO 19-6, the Florida Commission on Ethics examined whether city council members could seek and accept employment in the city’s executive branch without breaching ethical standards.
The Commission reviewed Section 112.313(7)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits public officers from holding employment or contractual relationships with entities regulated by or doing business with their agency, as well as those that would create recurring conflicts between private interests and public duties. The Commission determined that because the council members planned to begin employment only after their terms had ended, there would be no overlap between their public duties and private employment. Thus, no prohibited conflict of interest would arise under this statute.
Additionally, the Commission examined Section 112.313(10)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits a public employee from simultaneously holding a position on the governing body that employs them. Since the council members intended to start their employment only after their council terms ended, this provision would not be violated.
However, the Commission pointed out Section 112.313(14) of the Florida Statutes, which imposes a two-year restriction on former local officers from representing another person or entity for compensation before the government body they previously served. This “revolving door” prohibition would prevent former council members, who are now employed in the executive branch, from representing the executive branch before the city council for two years after leaving office.
Rationale:
The Commission’s rationale was based on the timing of the employment transition and the specific language of the statutes. Ensuring council members would not start executive branch employment until after their council terms ended prevented potential conflicts of interest and violations of dual office-holding prohibitions. The two-year representation ban prevents undue influence or the appearance of impropriety by restricting former officials from using their previous positions for private gain shortly after leaving office.
This opinion underscores the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines in government transitions to maintain public trust and uphold ethical standards.