City Council is entitled to good legal advice. Why won’t they take it?

Welcome to the Catalyst’s Community Voices platform. We’ve curated community leaders and thinkers from all parts of our great city to speak on issues that affect us all. Visit our Community Voices page for more details. 

The St. Petersburg City Charter expressly authorizes City Council to retain its own legal counsel, independent of the Mayor’s Office, to advise council members in the performance of their legislative duties. This authority is not hidden, technical or debatable. It exists because the Charter’s framers understood a basic truth of democratic governance: a legislative body cannot fully and faithfully perform its duties if it is structurally dependent on the executive branch for legal advice.

And yet – year after year, election after election – the St. Petersburg City Council, both as a collective body and as individual members, has declined to exercise this plainly granted authority.

The question is no longer whether City Council can hire independent legal counsel. The Charter answers that question decisively.

The real question – the one that now deserves careful, respectful, but firm discussion – is this: Why won’t City Council accept the legal advice it is expressly entitled—and obligated—to receive?

The City Charter is the Constitution of St. Petersburg – and it must be taken seriously

It is the highest and most binding legal authority governing the City, adopted by the voters and entrusted to City officials to honor and enforce.

Every ordinance, resolution, executive action and City Council vote must conform to the Charter. When City Council fails to exercise powers the Charter affirmatively grants, or allows those powers to atrophy, it is not merely making a political choice. It is failing to fully honor the governing document it swore to uphold.

This makes Section 3.06 of the City Charter critically important. Section 3.06, entitled “Legal Department,” expressly provides that the Mayor and City Council are separate legal clients and may each appoint their own legal counsel. The Charter states verbatim:

“The Mayor and City Council may each appoint, without the consent of the other, one Assistant City Attorney and the titles for these positions shall be respectively Special Assistant City Attorney to the Mayor and Special Assistant City Attorney to City Council.”

The Charter then makes clear the independence and purpose of that role: “Said Special Assistant City Attorneys shall be responsible to the appointing entity … serve only in an advisory capacity … including drafting of ordinances, legal research and providing advisory opinions … and be subject to termination by the appointing entity.”

This language is deliberate and unambiguous. It establishes that City Council is entitled to its own attorney, answerable only to City Council, whose job is to provide unfiltered legal advice, research, drafting assistance, and constitutional guidance.

Every reader – and especially every City Council member – should read this section directly in the Charter itself. It can be found here.

The Charter is not symbolic. It is binding. And when it authorizes City Council to act independently, it does so to protect the citizens of Saint Petersburg from exactly the kinds of failures that occur when legislative oversight collapses.

Respect for City Council members — and the reality of the job

Before criticizing outcomes, it is essential to acknowledge the reality of City Council service.

City Council members are volunteers. They are neighbors, parents, professionals and civic-minded individuals who step forward to serve the City under intense public scrutiny and with limited time and resources.

They are routinely presented with agenda packets thousands of pages long, covering land-use law, constitutional issues, bond financing, environmental regulation, procurement rules, labor law and public-private development agreements. These matters often involve billions of dollars and decades-long consequences.

It is unrealistic and unfair to expect City Council members, no matter how intelligent or diligent, to master every one of these disciplines without dedicated, independent legal support.

This article is written to support City Council members, not to attack them. The Charter’s independent-counsel provision exists to empower them to do their jobs more effectively and with greater confidence.

Dependency in practice — and why the Welch administration raises the stakes

City Council is the legislative branch of city government. Its duty is to question, challenge, scrutinize and refine executive action – not to defer to it by default.

Under the Welch administration, the City has been led from one poor decision to another, resulting in extraordinary losses of public trust, goodwill, accountability and respect. St. Petersburg’s reputation as a well-run city has been damaged by a series of very public failures. Against that backdrop, City Council’s continued dependency on executive-branch legal advice is deeply troubling.

If there were ever a time when independent legislative oversight was critical to the future of the City, it is now. Structural dependency is not neutrality – it is abdication.

Consultants everywhere, accountability nowhere

City Council has shown no hesitation to spend taxpayer money on consultants. Millions of dollars have gone to studies, reports and analyses.

Too often, however, those reports serve as political insulation rather than accountability.

A clear example involved outrageously high water bills. City Council authorized $65,000 of taxpayer money for a consultant to examine the City’s handling of those bills. A report was produced.

During a City Council hearing, Councilmember Corey Givens asked a direct question about that report. The Mayor’s Office deflected, stated there would be no further findings, and the matter ended.

City Council did not follow up. The report was shelved.

In a proper oversight relationship, that moment would have triggered sustained inquiry, clarification and accountability.

When oversight fails, Constitutional rights are at risk

This structural failure has real consequences.

The City recently adopted an employment-related ordinance that appellate courts later ruled unconstitutional, finding that it violated the constitutional rights of citizens.

Taxpayer money was spent defending an unlawful ordinance and paying judgments. More importantly, the City’s legislative body violated the constitutional rights of the people it was elected to serve.

Independent City Council legal counsel exists precisely to prevent such outcomes.

The mayor has lawyers. Council should too.

The Mayor’s Office is well represented by legal counsel. That is appropriate.

City Council represents a different client: the citizens of Saint Petersburg. Relying exclusively on executive-branch legal advice to evaluate executive-branch proposals is not balanced governance. It is dependency.

The Charter was written to prevent exactly that.

A supportive call to action

This article is written with respect for City Council members and appreciation for their service.

The Charter gives City Council the authority – and the responsibility – to hire independent legal counsel so that members can better fulfill their oath to the taxpayers and citizens they represent.

Using that authority would strengthen decision-making, protect constitutional rights, restore public trust, and support City Council members in an extraordinarily difficult role.

Conclusion

Read the Charter. Respect the Charter. Use the authority it grants.

Hire independent legal counsel. Ask the hard questions.

City Council members are capable, dedicated public servants. This article urges them to fully use the tools provided so they can best serve the City of St. Petersburg.

Matthew Weidner is an attorney with Weidner Law.