40 comments

• 

  Juan Pardell

  11 months ago

  I believe if registered lobbyist measure is put forward, that it be written by someone who can provide legislation that leaves no loopholes. I suggest getting someone like Harvey Rosenfeld. You can easily provide a legal definition of a lobbyist. However, how can their activities be monitored? What will be the enforced system of checks & balances? Let's hope Long Beach receives a well written description piece, before they enact a loosely contrived lobbyist measure.
  reply
• 

  DWR

  11 months ago

  If Val Lerch can't make up his mind, that must mean that the lobbyists often make up Val's mind for him.....
  reply
• 

  Mike Ruehle

  11 months ago

  I attended the meeting and heard several times that Long Beach is the only major city in the State of California that doesn’t have a lobbying ordinance. Conversely, I also heard from the lobbyists that there is no reason for this ordinance because a problem doesn’t exist. They contend that it will cost too much to administer and an ordinance will be a violation of free speech.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Duke

  11 months ago

  Damn, Carl. You had so much potential, but now you're just another person the city has to keep away at arm's length. Has money really made you sacrifice your soul?
  reply
• 

  Sick'o'pols

  11 months ago

  OK, I know the councilpeople are reluctant to make the bag men sign a roster since it might make it easier for us to "follow the money", but maybe they could make a temporary rule that lobbyists lobbying against the lobbyist registration measure have to register just this once while we think about it.
  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.
  reply
• 

  LB City Girl

  11 months ago

  I wonder how many boyfriends and girlfriends of our council members will show up on the lobbyist list?
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  Just so you know, Poster No. 2, Val Lerch was making a funny.
  reply
• 

  HT

  11 months ago

  Yes, this profession certainly requires a moral flexibility BUT Lobbyists do have a set of rules. (Movie Buffs)
  (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
  reply
• 

  Coastal Advocate

  11 months ago

  This reform is long overdue and in the public interest. Let's all start to 'Lobby it' !
  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.
  reply
• 

  John_B

  11 months ago

  Many such ordinances already exist, of course; San Francisco (not exactly your average hotbed of conservative thought), Oakland, San Diego and Los Angeles and many, many other cities already have such ordinances. L.A.’s Municipal Code 48.01 et seq., revised just last month, for example, focuses on the level of lobbying activity (“…more than 30 hours in any consecutive 3 month period…”) rather than upon the amount of compensation.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  DWR

  11 months ago

  Dave (7): Thank you for the clarification about Lerch making a "funny", but remember there's usually a strong undertow of truth in "kidding".....
  reply
• 

  Juan Pardell

  11 months ago

  This opinion piece is precisely why Long Beach needs to have lobbyist registration: http://longbeachtaxpayers.org/tools/qp.dwp?task...
  reply
• 

  Surfer meg

  11 months ago

  I also surf the net!
  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.
  reply
• 

  RH Naples

  11 months ago

  Surfer Meg....I love you!!
  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.
  reply
• 

  Dave Wielenga

  11 months ago

  Hey, Surfer Meg! Can you e-mail me at dave@thedistrictweekly.com? I need a little clarification. Thanks!
  reply
• 

  Juan Pardell

  11 months ago

  This matter is rather simple. If the lobbyists don't like it, there has to be a reason. Why doesn't Mike Murchison, or Carl Kemp, provide a written piece as to why they oppose having to register with the city as a lobbyist?
  reply
• 

  Diana Lejins

  11 months ago

  I was at that same Ethics Committee meeting where the Chair (B. Lowenthal) specifically called this a "sunshine" law. Similarly, the Brown Act which protects public input is the "mother" of sunshine ordinances. Yet, after waiting through almost an hour of pro-legislation dribble, time ran out for public comment. Not only was the public cut short, but some were interrupted before their paltry one minute was up with counter remarks.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Gunther

  11 months ago

  Follow the trail of greasy palms behind most major crap projects in the downtown and chances are you'll find a smiling lobbyist.
  
  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!
  reply
• 

  Diana Lejins

  11 months ago

  It is difficult for me to understand why the lobbyists are being villified here. I don't believe they were holding a gun to anyone's head.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  835

  11 months ago

  Food for thought: Sex offenders and political lobbyists are the only people legally mandated in California to register their names, addresses and activites with the state.
  reply
• 

  John_B

  11 months ago

  Permit me to repeat: "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.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  Diana: In the industry that is politics, money is the gun.
  reply
• 

  Elizabeth

  11 months ago

  Mr. John B and others. I wholeheartedly agree, we do have the right to know what persons and organizations are attempting to influence our elected officials, and by what means they are employing to do so. And yes, this information should be reported to us as a routine part of government’s overall accountability to us.
  
  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
  reply
• 

  Dennis

  11 months ago

  What defines "lobbyist?" Only those who contact government officials on behalf of private/public companies and put forth their interests, opinions and projects?
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  John_B

  11 months ago

  Elizabeth (23): You make a couple of good points but you seem to feel that government accountability is a zero-sum game. Let's do both: Require open calendars of our elected and key appointed officials AND require full reporting from lobbyists. The two requirements can serve as an effective check and balance upon one another.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  John_B

  11 months ago

  Dennis (24): I draw a clear distinction between a person or group that lobby's their government for desired and/or needed changes (i.e. neighborhood associations, etc) and professional lobbyists that are compensated, either in whole or in part, for their lobbying efforts on behalf of others.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Dennis

  11 months ago

  JB (26): What about non-profits who have paid staff that lobby on behalf of their issue or organization? From catching up on post-vacation reading it appears that non-profits would be subject to this ordinance.
  
  And again: what would change if the ordinance is passed? Would our city government change in any substantial form--other than more bureaucracy?
  reply
• 

  dancing Queen

  11 months ago

  ALERT...ALERT....Lobbyists on board this blog---And they aren't flying below the radar.
  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)
  reply
• 

  Mr. Suspicious

  11 months ago

  So if I'm Evil, Inc. and want to push my project through I will form a locally run non-profit "Citizens For Home Depots In Your Neighborhood" and pump it full of payola exempt from scrutiny? Isn't this going to be a loophole? Why shouldn't Everyone lobbying have to report? Shell organizations or non-profits with ulterior agendas would become the norm. Just a thought.
  reply
• 

  dancing Queen

  11 months ago

  Dear Dr. Evil,
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mr. Suspicious

  11 months ago

  dancing Queen,
  #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.
  reply
• 

  LB City Girl

  11 months ago

  The city could require non-profits to register as lobbyists, but waive the fees for them-- especially in cases where the group is legitimate.
  reply
• 

  JuanPardell

  11 months ago

  I believe non-profits that operate taxpayer controlled assets should be required to register with the city. Furthermore, they should be subjected to biannual financial audits so that there are no questionable discrepancies. Based on what occurred over at the Queen Mary, Long Beach has already experienced what can happen when a non-profit entity becomes a cash-cow for someone's personal inurement and wealth.
  reply
• 

  RH

  11 months ago

  #31 (To Dr. Evil)
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  John_B

  11 months ago

  Dennis (27) et. al: As mentioned, *any* person or entity that receives compensation, either in whole or in part, for their governmental lobbying efforts should be required to register. If there are no exceptions to this then there will be no loopholes. It doesn’t matter who hires the lobbyist: A corporation, a labor union, a neighborhood organization or Ma and Pa Kettle. If they compensate someone else to lobby our government on their behalf, then the person or entity they compensate *must register*.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mr. "Sloppy" Suspicious

  11 months ago

  dancing Queen (and RH),
  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.
  reply
• 

  Mike Ruehle

  11 months ago

  On Tuesday, LA Councilman Huizar was fined $15,000 for taking illegal contributions from lobbyists. Long Beach voters deserve to know how common similar acts occur that influence our city staff and elected officials. Without a tough lobbyist ordinance, Long Beach's reputatation will continue to suffer.
  reply
• 

  Lobbythis

  10 months ago

  OK so this town is dirty veeerry dirty. All I see at events are lobbyist. They are former city employees with fist full of dollars.
  reply
• 

  Elizabeth

  10 months ago

  Hmmm ... Let's get this straight; on Tuesday, LA Councilman Huizar was fined for taking illegal contributions. And you want a tough LOBBYIST ordinance??? If I ask you to jump off a bridge …
  reply
• 

  wswaim

  10 months ago

  This conversation continues with the updated story here:
  
  http://thedistrictweekly.com/print/news/i-cant-...
  reply