A package of government transparency reforms, which would require the city to publish text messages and emails exchanged between council members and lobbyists and shine new light on discreet trips officials have taken on the dimes of opaque political committees, will face an uphill fight when it goes before the City Council for approval Tuesday.
Our Florida Times-Union news partner reports the legislation encountered a hostile reception during a hearing last week by the council Rules Committee.
Instead of postponing the hearing, as requested by bill sponsor Councilwoman Anna Brosche, the committee moved with the review.
One by one, council members criticized the bill as redundant, burdensome and draconian. The committee then voted 8-0 in denial of the bill, which serves as a recommendation to the full council that, while not binding, is a clear sign that it’s in grave danger of being voted down by a 10-person majority.
“I see nothing in this bill that will do anything except threaten people and scare people of ethics,” said Council President Aaron Bowman, who attended the committee meeting specifically to discuss the legislation.
In addition to requiring council members to submit electronic communications they exchange with lobbyists and the city to publish the messages online, the bill would also force companies to disclose their political giving in order to bid on city contracts worth at least $1 million.
The legislation would also require elected and appointed officials to provide details about any trips that have been paid for by political committees.
A common criticism council members made during the hearing was the bill’s redundancy. Most records covered under the legislation, like council members’ emails and text messages and political contribution information, are already public under Florida law, although it would allow people to view them without filing public records requests, an often onerous and sometimes expensive endeavor.
However, some council members incorrectly asserted the bill would force officials to share information about reimbursed travel costs they already have to disclose.
“The travel information is already available,” said Councilman Greg Anderson in his explanation about why he wouldn’t support the bill.
“I don’t have heartburn about the travel provisions, but I think it’s redundant,” said Councilman Bill Gulliford.
Brosche’s legislation would require local officials to provide details about any trip that was paid for by a political committee within five days of it ending, including how and where they traveled, the cost of the trip, the committee that paid for it and who the committee reimbursed.
Individuals are not required to disclose any of that information.
Under the state’s campaign finance law, a political committee must report basic transactional information about its spending on a monthly basis.
That means if a committee covers the costs of an official’s business travel — which isn’t considered a gift and is allowed as long as the official conducts some political business — the committee only needs to disclose who and how much it paid, the date of the payment and that the expense was travel related.
The travel issue came to light after the Times-Union revealed a string of below-the-radar trips that Mayor Lenny Curry has taken on private planes, including a two-day, three-city trek to discuss downtown development ideas on a jet owned by Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who is in negotiations with the city for a mega-development on the St. Johns River in downtown Jacksonville that will likely receive a handsome package of public incentives.
A longer version of this story is available at Jacksonville.com.
