-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shotgun/lobbyists-lobbying-against-ordinance-that-would-register-them/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Personally, I believe that there is a problem if a perception of unethical activities exists. Lobbyists are paid to influence city staff and elected officials. They have access other people don’t have. They have the money to entertain and entice. Not all are decent. Some have a long, sordid history of unethical behaviors. If registration helps to improve the perception, it is a small price to pay.
It appears that the Council sub-Committee is reviewing the lobbyist ordinances in other cities. They seem to be leaning toward Oakland’s ordinance. I’m not sure how loosely it is contrived. However, several times, I heard Gerrie Schipske say that it was most important that Long Beach’s ordinance be very specific, with no wiggle room. Please stick to your guns.
I know this won't happen, of course, since it might lead to our finding out who wants to get their hands on the Lincoln Park/Civic Center/Library property.
(1) Never talk when a tape recorder is on (2) Never write anything down
(3) Never talk on the telephone if you can talk "face to face." (4) And never
talk if you can wink!
And their cardinal rule......***Stick to your script! When you blurt out the truth, that's what gets everybody in trouble**
HT -Dancing Queen
In the Industry and elsewhere, and sadly, Long Beach has had the reputation as a 'Dirty' or 'Greasy' town for far too long.
We should adopt Ethics rules similar to those used by the Coastal Commission . Before any matter is heard, each Commissioner must publicly reveal any and all 'Ex Parte ', or outside, prior contact, gratuity or communication relevant to the pending matter. Everything has to be disclosed to avoid even 'An Appearance of Impropriety'.
Simply trying to chat with a Commissioner about any matter brings a warning that they will have to subsequently disclose what is said. Any material 'Conflict' causes one to step aside by 'Recusing' themselves and not voting.
We could do a lot of healing around here by finally taking Professional Ethics seriously, but, we are not holding or breath.
The bottom line for me is this: we, as the citizens of a republic, have a definitive right to know what persons and organizations are attempting to influence our government, at any level, and what means they are employing to do so. Nor should we have to go search for it. This information should be reported to us, the electorate, as a routine part of government’s overall accountability to us.
If you want to be really disillasioned with Long Beach....get ready!
Did we really think that on Tuesday the Elections/Oversight Committee was trying for a Lobbying ordinance? Shame on us. This Committee met twice last month with same lobbyists. Please go into Legistar on site and also look at their 7/08/08 meeting and look at the Legislative file text where you will see the comparisions Heather Mahood, (Assistent city attorney) did on major city Lobbying ordinances. Amazingly. they are all from March 2007. Well....then go back to the same committee meeting on April 10, 2007. Same Committee members and the same lobbyists at the meeting.... AND almost the same wordage as in the meeting on 8/05/08....LA or Oakland...what shall we do? At that time (4/10/07) they had even drawn up a draft Lobbyist ordinance which you can download and be appalled at how anemic it is. Meanwhile on 7/08/08, the meeting had Heather Hart, Los Angles Ethics Commissioner there. There is no cost for the city on a Lobbying ordinance. If we did it L.A's way they charge $450.00 per year for a Lobbyist to register, (much less then my association dues for my business) and $75.00 a client. No gifts or campaign contributions from Lobbyists allowed.. no neighborhood Association Lobbying unless ID'd. LA' registry is electronic...pays for itself and then some, and penalties . Oakland (on the other hand is so weak..allows contributions and gifts etc) Why would Schipske , who makes you feel this is a new endeavor...even though they have been through it in 2007.... say they were leaning towards Oakland's Ordinance. Softer? We live in LA County. Most of the Lobbyists at the meeting on Tuesday raised their hands to say they were on another city's Lobbyist Register, (probably LA). LA's Municipal Lobbying ordinance is clean, and strict. Gerri.Bonnie and Val, I am so disappointed in your charade. Fumble some more.
I have also come up with the same conclusions after spending 3 hours online.
Yes, these same committee members went through the same thing in 2007, even same remarks. To fool the public-what's new? ButI I, as you, am sorely disappointed in Gerri. I thought she was a straight shooter!! All pretense.
The LA Lobbyist ordinance is of course the best one...once you compare the others. Have learned alot about my city. And Mayor Bob, if you think this is a "no brainer" make it happen!l Why wait til 2009??.
Surfer Meg, I hope you score some big ones on the southside of Huntington.
Additionally, there is no provision in this statute for the City Officials to make their contacts public. It's a great way for them to avoid accountability. It seems that transparency and public scrutiny is only for others, not for our electeds.
While I'm not necessarily fond of many of the projects that have been lobbied, I believe it is a very slippery slope to prohibit or discourage freedom of speech.
People forget that those rights denied to others may one day be denied to them.
Most lobbyists are a step away from being the clipboard carrying individuals that you find in front of grocery stores trying to collect signatures for a cause they could probably care less about just to earn a buck.
Long Beach grow some balls and clamp down on lobbyists!
It is the City Officials who buy into this that are to blame and should be held accountable. It's easy to legislate what others must do.
If there is to be an ordinance, then the most important factor in this whole scenario should be governed--that of gifting. This is what needs to be prohibited. It should include campaign contributions in any form, including manpower.
To remain representative, government (and all of those, beyond the individual citizen, who would influence government) must remain accountable to us. Lobbying ordinances like these enhance that accountability.
Lobbying ordinances like these do *nothing* to restrict free speech. All they do is require lobbyists to register with and report to us...you know, the people in charge...about why they are attempting to influence our government and what means they are using to do so.
That's all they do.
Come on, people, wake up! Some of you routinely whine and snivvel and moan and groan on this website (and others) about all of the shady, smoke-filled, backroom wheeling and dealing that you feel occurs as a matter of course in this city. Fine, this kind of ordinance helps to proactively address that.
This kind of ordinance will provide us with vital, factual information which we, in turn, can use to:
1. Question our elected officials more intelligently
2. Provide better input and direction to our elected officials
3. More closely monitor our elected officials and the decisions they make and the actions they take on our behalf and,
4. Vote more intelligently during elections.
Win-win-win-win.
Please allow me to repeat myself … reported to US as a routine part of GOVERNMENT’S ACCOUNTABILITY to us.
I strongly believe it is the responsibility of the public servant to report and to be held accountable to the public for their work and for their actions. To hold a private citizen accountable for a public official’s comings and goings is catastrophically wrong.
I happen to believe it’s a good boundary to have in place an ordinance requiring Lobbyists to register. Knowing who the Lobbyists are is fine. But why ask the Lobbyist to pay a fee and write reports? The fees proposed in the ordinance will not cover the costs of the new city employee and department. And the writing of reports that are to include personal financial information is just plain wrong. What a private citizen earns is nobody else’s business but the private citizen. Way too much government here. We are holding the wrong people accountable. A Lobbyist being held accountable to the public is plain silliness. Once again I strongly believe our elected public officials are the ones to be held answerable, seriously folks, we elected them -- don’t they work for us?
Come on people, stop whining, and wake up! It’s time to start holding our elected government officials accountable. Ask them to open and publish their calendars, viewable online, it’s easy to do and wouldn’t cost us- the City, a dime. FYI: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Villaraigosa publish their calendars.
By demanding our public officials open their calendars, we can then hold them accountable and in-turn, it will provide us with the factual information we can use to:
1. Question our elected officials more intelligently
2. Provide better input and direction to our elected officials
3. More closely monitor our elected officials, the decisions they make and the actions they take on our behalf
4. Vote more intelligently during elections
What about homeowners associations that wish to have an alley closed, or new trees planted, or parking meter money re-allocated? Are they lobbyists? Would they have to register?
What about business improvement associations like those found in Bixby Knolls, Belmont Shore or downtown who wish ordinances or laws that affect their business districts or streets? Are they lobbyists? Would they have to register?
What about the police and fire associations who request more funding, or new stations, or new equipment for their personnel; and who also door knock and mail campaign literature? Are they lobbyists? Would they have to register?
What about the contractor who specializes in a certain area of town and one of the expert skills he brings to the job is his knowledge of the building department and how to obtain variances? Is he/she a lobbyists? Would he/she have to register?
How about the writer/editorialist who presses on a specific issue, say reconfiguring the breakwater, or not tearing down a bookstore? Lobbying or not?
My issue with any lobbyist ordinance crafted by council members is how they define "lobbyist".
Just like with the "ethics commission" it appears an easy way to pass the buck of personal responsibility to an ordinance or other body so they do not have to worry about it. And at the end of the day what difference will it really make? Seriously will having Carl Kemp or Mike Murchison, or Randy Gordon or Steve James register as "lobbyist" really change anything? If you think so please tell me how.
Where government accountability is concerned, I say the more information and input the better!
I would also assert that the moment private citizens choose to begin professional lobbying efforts to influence our government we ABSOLUTELY have a right to know both who they are and what methods they are employing to do so. If they employ money then full financial disclosures must be mandated. If they employ gifts, then a full accounting of such gifts must be mandated. I don't care if all they do is make telephone calls or send emails to our representatives: If they do so then they should produce call logs and transcripts and they better archive every single email they send to or receive from our elected and appointed officials in furtherance of their lobbying efforts.
Much as most people who accept and enter public office necessarily abdicate a certain amount of privacy so, also, do those who choose to professionally lobby a government that is constitutionally mandated to remain representative of a majority of the electorate. If a person doesn't want to be subject to that level of scrutiny, then they shouldn't presume to professionally lobby our government.
Period.
So hear, hear, Elizabeth! Let's mandate that our elected and key appointed officials maintain open and fully accessible public calendars AND require all professional lobbyists to register.
The more we scrutinize our government and all of its activities on our behalf, the more honest and representative it is likely to remain.
Thus your neighborhood association *would not* need to register but if they hired a person or firm to lobby on their behalf, that person or firm *would* be required to register.
This is, I believe, an important distinction because when operating on their own the neighborhood association is simply a group of citizens petitioning their government. But the person or firm they might hire is not. That person or firm's primary motivation is to receive compensation.
When receipt of compensation becomes the primary motivator for influencing government, lines demarking ethical behavior tend to blur or, in some cases, disappear altogether. Combine that truth with another true statement...that many who seek elected office as a *career* have, in many cases, subordinated the public good for personal gain. The result, of course, is an environment tailor made for governmental corruption.
There are many, many ways to safeguard our government from corruption. One such is, as mentioned, to carefully and constantly scrutinize our government and all of those who would presume to professionally lobby it.
And again: what would change if the ordinance is passed? Would our city government change in any substantial form--other than more bureaucracy?
Mr. Dennis...if you had taken the effort to attend the Long Beach Elections Oversight meeting regarding the Lobbyist Ordinace you would know that non-profits are to be exempt in this ordinance.
HT (Dancing Queen)
I can only presume that you are naming your new company after yourself, and I am completely blown away when I realize you are STILL one of the cleverest, most devious men I know.
To suggest forming a phony non-profit, (for profit) and then comparing it to true non-profits like the Salvation Army, Goodwill or the American Red Cross is truly diabolical...and so like you! But dear Dr. Evil--it wouldn't work. The people in my neighorhood are completely incorruptible, especially when it comes to Home Depot!! And you,always the villian-- would be found out. Fines? Jail? One can hope.....My very best regards to Mini Me.
#1 Please note my moniker is Mr. Suspicious and not Dr. Evil.
#2 I have no new company.
#3 You do not know me.
#4 Forming a phoney non-profit IS diabolical and has been and is being done. (See the saga of Jack Abramoff for a primer)
#5 It does work. The successful ones don't get caught and become famous.
#6 You won't find ME out, much less someone who is bent on illegal activity.
#7 I have no idea who Mini Me is.
#8 You should not be such a sloppy reader. We are actually on the same side.
Hey Dude---dancing queen was just messing with you. I though her little satire
on your letter was pretty cool. Guess you were hurt cuz you replied with all your numerical statements--hate that. To clue you in. Mini-Me was Dr. Evil's clone--who always wanted to express himself through written notes. He was really short.
Since you're bumed about Dr. Evil, I'll call you what you wanted--Dr.Suspicious.
Hey, register non-profits-- remember no one has to register unless they earn
$1000 a month lobbying.
What would change? Good question…maybe nothing, maybe a lot. All such ordinances do is to provide the electorate with another tool with which to monitor their government and hold it fully accountable to them. If the electorate doesn’t use this particular tool, not much will change. Just as not much has changed in California, or L.A. County, or Long Beach for *decades* now because a majority of the electorate has not effectively used yet another very useful tool to compel governmental change…their intelligent votes.
Our government is just that…”ours”. The actions it takes, it takes on our behalf. The money it spends is our money. If government grows, it’s because we allow it to and if it shrinks it’s because we require it to. Our government (at every level) is corrupt only to the degree that we permit it to be.
There is *not one single aspect* of our government that should not be subject to constant and comprehensive scrutiny, whether by us, personally, or by the people we elect to represent us.
After putting Thank You For Smoking on my list of films to see (thanks to you) I failed to catch the Austin Powers reference (along with the films) and am mortified to have thought you to be so thick as to have missed my point when it is I who is the dull one. Maybe I'm wrong about everything else too. Horrors.
http://thedistrictweekly.com/print/news/i-cant-...
Fees for registration/renewal and ethics courses are not much. So as long as there are no additional taxes on top of what I already pay, I'm all for it.
Sincerely,
Randy Cannon, MPA
A Public Policy Advocate