The first two installments of Tallahassee Reports’ “On the Clock” series documented hundreds of anonymous comments posted under the name “NE Moderate,” which TR has attributed to Ryan Ray, a taxpayer-funded aide to Tallahassee City Commissioner Jeremy Matlow. Now the next question: What rules apply to political and social-media activity by a City employee during the workday? Part 1 documented the timing: 225 of 343 comments — 65.6% — were posted between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. A review of Ray’s City timecards found dozens of comments during periods overlapping his documented City work schedule. Part 2 examined the politics. NE Moderate repeatedly defended Matlow and Commissioner Jack Porter while criticizing Mayor John Dailey and Commissioners Curtis Richardson and Dianne Williams-Cox. Some comments went beyond policy disputes and addressed elections — advocating against candidates or discussing their prospects for winning or losing. Florida Law: No Campaigning “While on Duty” Florida law makes an important distinction between political activity conducted on an employee’s own time and political activity while working. Section 104.31(2), Florida Statutes, states: “An employee of the state or any political subdivision may not participate in any political campaign for an elective office while on duty.” A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor. But the statute also protects the political rights of government employees. Subsection (4) permits public employees to express opinions about candidates and issues and participate in political campaigns during off-duty hours, subject to other provisions of the law. The law therefore does not prohibit Ray from supporting Matlow, Porter or other candidates, or criticizing Richardson, Williams-Cox or Dailey on his own time. The issue raised by the NE Moderate records is narrower: whether any of the anonymous activity constituted participation in an election campaign while Ray was on duty. The distinction matters because some NE Moderate comments directly addressed elections. On July 19, 2023, at 2:54 p.m., NE Moderate wrote about Richardson: “Voted 3x to raise property taxes in 2023? No thanks Curtis.” Ray’s City timecard shows his regular 8 a.m.-to-5 p.m. schedule that day. Other posts predicted Richardson would “struggle and probably lose” and said a controversial City project would “help Curtis lose.” Williams-Cox was also targeted. On Sept. 21, 2023, at 8:58 a.m., NE Moderate wrote that the same City controversy could “make sure Dianne is not viable for mayor in 2026.” Ray’s timecard shows a regular City workday on that date. TR has not identified a Florida appellate decision specifically deciding whether anonymous comments on a news website advocating for or against a candidate constitute participation in a political campaign under Section 104.31. And the timecards do not establish that every comment between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. was made while Ray was legally “on duty.” His records generally credit eight hours of work during a nine-hour span, indicating a meal period whose exact timing is not shown. The records establish that the comments occurred during periods overlapping Ray’s recorded City workday. Determining whether individual comments were posted while he was legally “on duty” would require additional evidence gathered through an independent investigation. A Recent Broward County Case A recent Broward County case demonstrates how investigators have approached similar questions involving political activity, government working time and public resources. Abiodun “Abbey” Ajayi was an operations manager in Broward County’s Records, Taxes and Treasury Division while running for the newly created elected position of Broward County Tax Collector in 2024. After Ajayi announced her candidacy, her supervisor specifically instructed her to keep campaign activities separate from her County employment. The Broward Office of Inspector General later investigated. Investigators reviewed Ajayi’s timecards, County email activity, campaign activity and two political podcast appearances conducted from her County office. One podcast was recorded at approximately 10 a.m. on a Friday. Investigators determined Ajayi had not taken leave and was working her normal County schedule. During the program, she discussed her campaign and what she would do if elected. A second podcast was recorded from her County office after working hours and included a solicitation for campaign contributions. Investigators also determined Ajayi used her County email account for campaign-related matters 44 times. The Broward OIG concluded that Ajayi had improperly mixed her campaign with her government employment and referred findings to other enforcement authorities. In January 2026, the OIG filed a formal administrative complaint. The matter was resolved in April 2026 when Ajayi admitted liability and agreed to pay a $4,000 fine. The case is not identical to Ray’s situation. Ajayi was herself a candidate and Broward County had specific rules governing County employees seeking office. Investigators also had evidence showing the use of County email, equipment and an office. TR has not established that Ray used a City computer, City email account or City Internet connection to post the NE Moderate comments. But the Broward investigation demonstrates the type of evidence used to answer such questions: timecards, leave records, electronic communications, devices, government facilities and the precise content and timing of the political activity. Tallahassee Has Its Own Social-Media Policy The City of Tallahassee also has rules governing employees’ personal social-media activity. Administrative Policy 408 defines social media broadly, including blogs, message boards, online forums and news-media comment-sharing platforms — categories that could encompass comments posted on a news website. The policy specifically addresses “City Employees — Personal Social Media Activity.” It states that employees using social media strictly for personal purposes outside the workplace do not need City approval. However, it also states: “Employees should limit time on personal Social Media accounts while at work.” The policy goes further for City-related subjects. Employees are directed to consult the Department of Communications before discussing City-related matters through social-networking sites. For employees whose City affiliation is publicly known, the policy says personal content should be appropriate to the public trust associated with their position. Employees are expected to be truthful, courteous and respectful and “shall not engage in name-calling or personal attacks or other such demeaning behavior.” Those provisions are potentially relevant to NE Moderate. The anonymous account repeatedly discussed City business, including taxes, the City Manager, police, development projects and actions taken by individual City commissioners. Some comments included disparaging descriptions of elected officials. Whether Ray’s activity violated Policy 408 is ultimately a determination for the City. The policy’s statement that employees “should limit” personal social-media activity at work is also not the same as an absolute prohibition against all personal Internet use. TPD Case Shows City Social-Media Rules Have Been Enforced The City’s social-media restrictions are not merely theoretical. In 2020, Tallahassee Police Sgt. Gavin Larremore was investigated over a Facebook post he made concerning Black Lives Matter demonstrations and the City’s decision to paint a BLM mural near Gaines Street. Larremore criticized the City’s support for the mural and referred to protesters as a “mob of thugs.” Police Chief Lawrence Revell ordered an Internal Affairs investigation, saying he held TPD representatives to a high standard “whether on duty or off.” The investigation substantiated violations of TPD’s social-media protocols and rules of conduct. Larremore received an 80-hour unpaid suspension, was demoted and was required to undergo counseling. Larremore disputed the findings. He argued that the Facebook comments were made off duty, in a private capacity, and were protected by the First Amendment. These actions demonstrate that the city of Tallahassee has previously investigated and disciplined an employee over personal social-media activity when officials determined the content violated applicable City and departmental standards. The City’s current TPD social-media protocols continue to reference Administrative Policy 408 and state that officers are responsible for complying with social-media rules during official duties and, in specified circumstances, at other times as well. Two Different Questions The Ray records therefore raise two separate issues. The first is time: Were comments advocating for or against candidates posted while Ray was legally on duty? The second is resources and workplace conduct: Did Ray use City equipment, Internet access, accounts or working time to engage in the activity, and did the content comply with City social-media standards? The IP-address records alone cannot answer the second question. An Internet address does not establish that a comment was posted from City Hall, through a City network or from a City-owned device. But Florida law and Tallahassee’s own policies establish that the distinction between personal political activity and activity conducted as a government employee matters. The Broward investigation shows how another Florida government examined that distinction by comparing political activity with timecards, leave records, government email and workplace resources. And Tallahassee’s handling of the Larremore case demonstrates that the City has previously investigated personal social-media activity by an employee and imposed discipline after determining applicable policies had been violated. The remaining question in the NE Moderate investigation is therefore increasingly specific: Were Ray’s anonymous political activities simply protected personal political speech — or did activity occur while he was performing his taxpayer-funded City job or under circumstances governed by City workplace rules? ...read more read less