There is nothing subtle, obscure, or “buried” about the authority granted to the Saint
Petersburg City Council to retain independent legal counsel.


It is black and white, written plainly in the very front portions of the City Charter, and
available for every citizen—and especially every City Council member—to read,
understand, and rely upon.


The 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 Saint 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?

I. The City Charter Is the Constitution of Saint Petersburg — And It Must Be Taken Seriously
The City Charter is the constitution of the City of Saint Petersburg. 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.

II. 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.

III. 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. Saint
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.

IV. 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, Council Member 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.

V. 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.

VI. 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.

VII. 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 Saint Petersburg.