Oakland tanks “emergency" ordinance to establish insurance notification procedures for officials’ ethics complaints

Oakland’s town commission Tuesday tanked an “emergency" ordinance intended to establish procedures to alert the town’s insurance carrier if a commissioner or town official is required to legally defend themselves against an ethics complaint filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics. 

The vote was evenly split, 2-to-2 , with Commissioners Sal Ramos and Vice Mayor Mike Satterfield voting in favor of the measure while Mayor Shane Taylor and Commissioner Joseph McMullen voted against it. 

The commission is currently functioning with just four members since Commissioner Rick Polland resigned two weeks ago on Dec. 30, with two years to go on his term. With the vote tied, the measure failed.

Mayor Taylor argued strenuously against adopting the emergency aspect of the ordinance while recommending that the item be brought back as a regular ordinance with first and second readings for reconsideration before the board.

“There is not public emergency that exists. It’s not affecting public welfare,” Taylor said. “An emergency ordinance needs to be used for an emergency.”

Reasonable Fees Covered

Introducing the emergency ordinance, Town Attorney Stephanie Velo explained that the Florida Supreme Court already mandates that public officials receive legal representation at taxpayer expense for defending themselves against litigation that might come in the course of doing their jobs.

“The right to compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees exists regardless of whether you opt for an ordinance providing that right or not,” Velo told commissioners. She said the emergency ordinance “simply provides procedures which would govern in the event such a complaint would arise to allow the town to get out ahead of such a claim. We could alert our insurance company, and we could have some say in which attorney would represent a commissioner.”

She said she wanted to avoid the possibility of officials hiring their own lawyers, incurring huge legal bills and then demanding reimbursement from the town. While that idea found purchase with Ramos, Mayor Taylor remained unconvinced that the measure merited emergency status especially since public officials are already protected by the Florida Supreme Court ruling.

“When I think of an emergency ordinance I think of something like a natural disaster. That would constitute an emergency ordinance,” he said. “My question is why are we doing this, and who determined this needs to be an emergency situation?”

During the more than 50 minutes of discussion commissioners spent on the issue, Satterfield eventually volunteered that the “emergency” was the resident complaint lodged against him with the state Commission on Ethics. The vice mayor added that he has not received any communication from the Commission on Ethics that would have been required to be sent to the town’s insurer.

VoxPopuli reported last month on the complaint to the Commission on Ethics that alleged the vice mayor was not full-time resident of the town and therefore was ineligible to serve on the commission. Cliff Shepard, a board-certified government law expert and founding partner of the Maitland law firm Shepard, Kohlmeyer, Hand & Brackins, told VoxPopuli at the time that residency issues don’t typically fall under the umbrella of ethics code violations.

McMullen said the discussion focus on the word “emergency” was a waste of time and the main question was whether the procedures suggested by the attorney were needed.

“That’s where I’m trying to land,” he said. “But to get this far and say we’re focusing on a word, I think it’s a disservice to everyone that’s in this room. Because at the end of the day, we know in the last 24 months, we need something in place just to make sure we all feel comfortable. The only reason it’s here now is because something that’s floating around has finally landed and is presented and is being discussed.”

McMullen  said he supported tabling the item as long as they got “something like this on our books.”

Residents Weigh In

Residents came down on both sides of the issue with some suggesting that the town attorney look at how neighboring municipalities handle legal coverage for their officials.

Speaking during Public Comment, resident Kurt Gies expressed grave concern that town officials could potentially run up exhorbitant legal bills. 

“I think it’s trivial that you’re worried about the word emergency,” he said. “It is an emergency. Something has happened to our town that’s never happened before, and we need to stop this at the head before this gets to a bill that we can’t afford to pay.

“If we don’t do something tonight, if somebody gets a complaint tomorrow, they can go hire their own attorney at any rate they want. If we do something tonight, they’re now obligated to come to the city. They take it to the insurance company for a claim. If it’s denied, the attorney for the town decides who will represent at a rate we feel is reasonable.

“The gap is whoever that person goes out and hires versus what this attorney over here can find for us. So if we continue this, that person has no obligation to notify the town, which means they’ll run up a bill that I, as a taxpayer, will have to pay.”

Speaking next, resident Jimmy Wiedeman took a more charitable view.

“I don’t think this gentleman is going to take advantage of us just to rack up a bill,” he said, gesturing to Satterfield. “I don’t think we have to deny ourselves the ability to do the right thing because we’re afraid something’s going to happen.”

Wiedeman urged commissioners not to be “rash right now” in adopting the ordinance without more discussion.