Florida Commission on Ethics advisory opinion holds that Newberry Mayor Tim Marden’s work does not violate Florida’s lobbying ban

Updated on June 11 with formal decision from the Commission on Ethics.

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

NEWBERRY, Fla. – In response to a question from Newberry Mayor Tim Marden about whether he can advocate for certain policies in Washington, D.C., on behalf of his private employer, an advisory opinion for the Florida Commission on Ethics states that his activities “will not violate the in-office lobbying ban” in Florida statutes.

Joy Glanzer, Marden’s opponent in the April 8 mayoral election, alleged during the race that Marden’s application to be a federal lobbyist violated Florida statutes and stated in a press release on March 29, after Marden announced that he would withdraw the application, “It is shocking and almost unbelievable that a sitting City of Newberry Commissioner for the last 12 years would fail to vet himself to ensure compliance with state law. This severe lack of oversight should not be seen by any elected official.”

On April 10, Marden sought an opinion from the Florida Commission on Ethics about whether the exemption in the last part of the statute shown below would apply to his work for the John Birch Society or if he should recuse himself from doing anything in Washington, D.C, on behalf of his employer.

In the initial letter, Marden explained that he is the National Development Officer with the John Birch Society; his main responsibility for the organization is to raise money, and the scope of his duties in D.C. would be “advocacy; encouraging our elected officials to adhere to the Constitution on matters of various legislation.”

An attorney responded with questions, including examples of topics Marden planned to lobby on, and Marden wrote, “Our organization believes the United Nations is detrimental to the prosperity of America and we advocate getting the U.S. out of the UN. We are also anti-war and anti-central banking. These are all topics we would hope to influence. We are pro-Constitution and want to educate people about the proper role of government, as it has gotten too big, too expensive, and too intrusive in our lives.”

Marden added that he did not think his work would rise “to the level of a traditional lobbyist, by any means, but since it was free to file and increased transparency, our CEO agreed to file, anyway.”

The advisory opinion notes that Florida’s Constitution “prohibits public officers lobbying for compensation on issues of policy, appropriations, or procurement before the federal government… during their term of office.” The advisory opinion concluded that since Marden is a mayor and that is included in the definition of a “public officer,” the lobbying ban applies to him, but only if his work meets the definition of “lobbying for compensation,” since that is the prohibited conduct.

The advisory opinion states that “lobbying for compensation” excludes “instances where a public or private employee is acting in the normal course of his or her duties, unless he or she is principally employed for governmental affairs. Because the advocacy you will be engaged in during your trips to Washington, D.C., will be part of the normal course of your private job duties at the John Birch Society,” the next step would be to determine whether Marden is “principally employed for governmental affairs.”

Since Marden’s primary job with the John Birch Society is to raise money for the organization and he would only go to Washington, D.C. every other month, the opinion states, “it does not appear that your employment” meets the definition of being “principally employed for governmental affairs.”

The advisory opinion concludes that Marden’s activities do not appear to constitute “lobbying for compensation” and therefore, “the conduct you have described in your inquiry as it relates to your private employment will not violate the in-office lobbying ban.”

At their June 6 meeting, the Florida Ethics Commission adopted a formal opinion indicating that the in-office lobbying ban found in Article II, Section 8(f)(2), Florida Constitution, does not apply to an Elected Mayor who, in his private capacity, wishes to advocate on behalf of his employer for certain policies before the Federal Government because he is not principally employed for government affairs.

Marden told Alachua Chronicle, “Although this is just the initial opinion, I think the committee will agree that it doesn’t cross a line. I think honesty and transparency wins at the end of the day.”