Thanks to Steve LaBrake, we now can find out who really puts out at City Hall.Let me explain.

In the wake of the LaBrake scandal, in which he was accused of taking bribes for awarding housing construction contracts and furthering the career of his then-girlfriend-now-wife, the city tightened its Code of Ethics to prohibit managers from sleeping with their subordinates.

The changes, made last year as part of the first reforms in office for newly elected Mayor Pam Iorio, were an attempt to avoid a repeat of the LaBrake scandal. They were good and sensible, and widely applauded as necessary reform. After all, the public has a right to trust that its government is working on its behalf, and not on the behalf of construction buddies and girlfriends.

What followed, however, is a bit less commendable.

Earlier this year, the city of Tampa started requiring new applicants and existing employees who want a promotion to fill out some new paperwork. Form 2004, which went into effect in June, is titled, "City of Tampa Ethics Code." It requires applicants for new jobs and promotions to list any and all relatives who are city employees. That part has been on the books for years.

Then the form gets downright nosy.

Form 2004 requires anyone applying for a job or promotion over at City Hall to list any city employee with whom they have had a "close personal relationship." Just so there is no mistake on what exactly constitutes a close personal relationship, it is spelled out as follows:

"Close personal relationship means dating, cohabitation, and/or having an intimate sexual relationship. Dating includes but is not limited to casual dating, serious dating, or casual sexual involvement where the parties have no intention of carrying on a long-term relationship, cohabitation, and any other conduct or behavior normally associated with romantic or sexual relationships. This definition applies regardless of the sexual orientation of the employees involved. Persons involved in a close personal relationship shall be referred to as a 'close personal relation'."

"Casual sexual involvement." Now there's a term you don't see on a whole lot of government forms.

Using the city's definition, you must disclose the names of any city employee you have dated or had sex with. Regardless of the number of times. Regardless of their gender(s). Regardless of what type of sex act. Regardless of it being a one-night stand many years ago.

Theoretically, then, it is possible, by going through the nearly 10,000 job applications that the city receives each year, to begin to construct a matrix and database that would list the most sexually active and/or promiscuous city employees.

"The ordinance has been in effect for quite a while but we now have this form that puts the applicant on notice about the ethics ordinance," said Sarah Lang, director of human resources for the city. She said she is not aware of any complaints about the form, nor does she know of any instances where an applicant has actually listed sexual partners.

You can guess the reaction of employment and civil rights advocates.

"It sounds pretty outrageous," said Matt Fenton, a trial lawyer in downtown Tampa who specializes in employment law. "I've never heard of anything like it."

On its face, it appears to be an invasion of privacy. Fenton also raised the possibility of the information being misused to harass or discriminate against workers. Those who do not disclose could face later termination if it becomes known they actually did once have relations with a city employee. Fenton, however, cautioned that he could not render an opinion on whether the provision violates the privacy requirements of Florida's Constitution.

The form is online at http://www.tampa gov.net/dept_employment_services/application_ instructions.asp if you want to check it out for yourself.

A random sample of 50 recent applications undertaken by city employment officials at the Weekly Planet's request showed none of them disclosed close personal relationships.

* * *

It may be a cliché, but in this case it's true: They don't make reporters like former St. Petersburg Times cop beat writer Jane Meinhardt anymore.

Feisty, even crusty. Hard-nosed in sniffing out a scoop. Well-connected on her pressure-cooker beat in Pinellas County, which she covered for more than a decade. Her editors in the late 1980s and early 1990s called her a "mainstay" of the Clearwater bureau; a "consummate reporter"; a journalist with "a flair for scoops"; and a "rock solid professional." One police spokesman labeled her a "pain in the ass" for her ability to ferret out details he didn't want in the paper from police officers who leaked.

When the story of former National Baptist Convention U.S.A. president Rev. Henry Lyons, his wife, the arson at the condo he secretly owned with another woman, and subsequent allegations of misusing church funds broke, it was Meinhardt who got the first tip about the arson. She uncovered serious engineering flaws in the Sunshine Skyway bridges.

But today, Meinhardt no longer works at the Times, where she spent 25 years (including a stint at the now-defunct sister paper Evening Independent). She is suing the Times for age discrimination under state civil rights laws. In four large volumes and more than 1,000 pages of depositions of editors and reporters filed in circuit court in Clearwater, Meinhardt is accusing the Times of a "purge" of older reporters from the Clearwater bureau under Managing Editor Joe Childs and former City Editor Sebastian Dortch (now the Times' top human resources official). The Times has strongly denied the charges, calling them "shocking" and insisting that Meinhardt was never discriminated against. (By way of disclosure, I worked for Childs and alongside Meinhardt as a reporter for two years in the Clearwater bureau, from 1992 to '94, so I'll refrain from commenting on the case other than to report what is in the case file.)

Meinhardt has testified in depositions that her biggest stories were taken away from her and given to reporters in their 20s. Starting in 2000, when she was 51 years old and the oldest and most experienced reporter in the bureau, she maintains in court documents that her editors began labeling her as not aggressive enough, tired on the police beat and trudging around the office.

If you read the Tampa Tribune, this is news to you. The Trib has not touched the story. In the Times itself, the only coverage the case has received was a short blurb when Meinhardt filed suit in 2001.

Last week, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge James R. Case refused to dismiss the case at the Times' request and ordered that a trial start on Monday, Nov. 15. Several former Times reporters have agreed to testify on Meinhardt's behalf and are expected to take the stand.

I'll be surprised if the dailies give it a lot of ink. Stay tuned here for the outcome.

The Political Whore has not had "casual sexual involvement" for quite some time, and certainly not with anybody at City Hall. He can be reached by telephone at 813-832-6427 or by e-mail at waynegar@tampabay.rr.com

This article appears in Nov 17-23, 2004.