June 30, 2005
Lobby, Lobby, Who's In The Lobby?
Discussion On Registration Proposal Continues
Late this afternoon, we attended a discussion in the Lovejoy Room at City Hall on Commissioner Sam Adams' proposed ordinance requiring the registration of lobbyists.
At this point, our own sense is that the ordinance is pretty damned close, finally, with remaining issues mainly centering either on still-open questions about how it interacts with recognized public employees unions or on quibbles quite clearly motivated by the desire of some parties to have to suffer the effects of registration as little as possible.
The bulk of today's discussion centered around a Powerpoint presentation (pdf) -- although the version linked doesn't appear exactly to match the version used at the meeting -- with discussion participants interjecting questions, concerns, and feedback along the way.
More or less right off the bat, a representative of the Portland Police Association asked why labor unions which are recognized by the City are considered lobbyists under the proposal. According to Adams, the State of Oregon considers those organizations to be lobbyists, and much of what his proposal does follows the lead of state rules.
We'll come back to this guy from PPA a little later, because he nicely illustrates the way some powerful organizations appear to be checking the nooks and crannies of the proposal for loopholes.
Adams pointed out that the proposal does not seek to cover any individual who is representing to a public official their own personal point of view, and said that other jurisidictions (such as the State of Oregon and Metro) have rules covering registration of lobbying activity, but the City does not. He argued that it's all the more important for the City to have such rules in place because of the sheer size of the City as a public entity and the large amount of money it represents.
Also cited as a reason for lobbyist rules was the fact that a City commissioner possesses legislative, administrative, and quasi-judicial powers all wrapped up into one position -- a not insignificant amount of authority and influence.
According to Adams, accessible disclosure of lbobying activity, especially via the Web, has in other localities given the public a good idea of what organizations work to present their views or preferences to government officials.
Adams also stated that the proposal "differentiates" between those who are authorized to act as a lobbyist or spokesperson for an organization and those who represent no opinion other than their own, even if that opinion has been informed by the work or views of various organizations.
One aspect of what's covered by the ordinance was made clear by Adams as a result of a question from Chris Smith: If a person is a member of any board or committee created by an act of City Council, that person is considered a City official who might be the target of lobbying which would trigger the reporting requirements on the part of lobbyists. "We're going to have to be clear if [a committee] is created by City Council," Adams said.
Upon clarifying that point when asked about it by the PPA representative, Adams said: "This is why it's so confusing and so necessary." As an example, he cited his chief of staff who also operated a non-profit related to support for skateparks. When operating in that capacity, his chief of staff would be considered a lobbyist and would be covered by the proposed ordinance -- but would not be considered a lobbyist for his time spent acting as Adams' chief of staff.
Someone else who was there will have to catch this if it's incorrect, but another question sought to nail down this issue further. We believe the question was asked by someone who sits on the Citizen Review Committee of the Independent Police Review (part of the Auditor's office).
In that capacity, she said, she (and, obviously, the other committee members) often receives information and input from Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch, which would appear to be activity defined as lobbying. "But I wasn't aware that I'd be considered a City official," she said. "Is that accurate?" Based upon the above-described inclusion of people appointed to committees by an act of City Council, said Adams, that indeed would be accurate.
To wit, and to reiterate: Members of a body such as the Citizen Review Committee (which was created by, and whose members are appointed by, City Council) would be considered City officials for the purposes of the lobbyist registration ordinance.
Continuing on the same issue, Adams was asked (if we recall correctly, by a representative of one or more of the unions with which the City deals) that if the Council at some point provides its "blessing" on labor/management committees as a result of the work going on with the Bureau Innovation Project, the co-chairs of such committees would be considered City officials, but anyone who tries to lobby them would fall under the authority of the registration ordinance.
Stressing these distinctions, Adams said that people performing Council-delegated work as an extension of the Council are not considered lobbyists. It's the people, authorized by one party or another, who try to change their minds who are considered lobbyists.
Another union representative asked that if he were a co-chair on a Bureau Innovation Project committee, and the president of his local union sought to give him input into the direction of the committee, would she be considered a lobbyist? SImply: Yes, she'd be considered a lobbyist.
It also was made clear that in such a situation, the onus for the paperwork under the ordinance, in that situation as the example, would be on the president of the local, not on the co-chair of the committee (who, just to keep hammering this, would be considered a City official).
Here's another aspect which can et a little tricky to follow. According to Adams, the state's rules require the individuals actually doing the lobbying to handle the reporting of the lobbying activity. "We are trying to simplify, by having the entities do the reporting," Adams said. By entities, he in essence means the parties which employ the lobbyists (be they paid or unpaid), rather than the lobbyists themselves.
Adams said that he was first pitching the proposal, duringhis election campaign, he had restricted it to paid lobbyists. But, he said: "Almost all have paid staff to lobby and also volunteer boards which will lobby." That created "a big loophole" which led Adams to include unpaid lobbyists as well -- which in part then led to putting the reporting requirements upon the entity making use of lobbyists rather than upon the lobbyists themselves.
According to Adams, these are examples of activites not covered by the ordinance or considered as lobbying: Sitting in the room with him; going to a party with him; attending a hearing. Prompted by a crack from the back of the room somewhere, he added: Going to the men's room with me.
(There was some odd discussion awhile back about whether or not three members of Council coincidentally ending up in the men's room at City Hall at the same time technically constituted a public meeting at which they could in theory make actual policy decisions. That would appear to be partial context for the crack from the back of the room.) But, obviously, asking him to change his position on something ("in the men's room," he joked) would certainly be considered lobbying.
"We've built in checks and balances," Adams said. "But a lot of this is the honor system."
The representative from the Portland Business Alliance pushed a hypothetical, in which she was on a recognized committee (and therefore considered a City official under the registration ordinance), would "just talking about an issue" with a colleague at the PBA be considered lobbying on the part of that colleague?
"That's the part that gets down to the honor system," Adams said. "The gray areas are exactly that, gray areas." If you see a difference between education and opinion, he said, and there are only two people in the room, it's going to be up to them to decide whether or not lobbying took place.
Chris Smith wondered if they hadn't "gone too deep" in the definition of City officials. "Many of these committees appointed," he argued, "include stakeholders to try to balance interests." He wondered if "the reporting you're creating is greater than the value of the disclosure of interests" in such cases, since, in essence, it's clear in that balance of interests that members are representing particular entities on those committees.
Picking up on that, the woman we previously and hopefully-correctly identified as a member of the Citizen Review Committee restablished that in her capacity as a member of that committee she would not be considered a lobbyist. But, she said, as a member of another committee (related to 122nd Avenue, but we didn't catch the specifics) she is "absolutely a stakeholder on that one". But since she was asked to participate, she wanted to know, even as a stakeholder she would not be considered a lobbyist? According to Adams, that interpretation would be correct under the current version of the proposed ordinance.
"But if the stakeholder you represent tried to change your mind," Smith interjected, "that would be lobbying."
Adams underscored that under state law, any extension of the City Council is required to operate in a particular way -- for example, compliance with open meetings and records law. He also reiterated (not to use that word overly much here) that in any of these cases, it would be teh responsibiltiy of the entity sponsoring the lobbying who would be responsible for reporting that lobbying, not the individual lobbyists themselves.
Sam Chase (who among other things has lobbied for the Communtiy Development Network) picked up on something Adams had mentioend earlier, which was the fact that Adams, in addition to being a City Commissioner, is also on the board of the Cascade AIDS Project. If Adams were to appear before a City official in his capacity as a board member of that organization, the organization would have to include that as part of its report of lobbying activity.
Another potential loophole that came up, according to Adams, was whether or not it was lobbying if a Commissioner, or the executive director of the Portland Development Commission, invited a person to their office for a conversation. In the current proposal, it doesn't matter who initiated the meeting, it would still be considered lobbying.
One participant wanted to know how the "reverse of this" would work -- meaning, suppose a City Commissioner came to an organization's function and proceeded to "hang out with the board". Would that organization have to register all of that time?
"If you're trying to change our mind," Adams said. He also clarified that on the state level, entities often simply register and report themselves as lobbyists, rather than keeping tracking of all of the time spent to see if it crosses any designated threshold.
"But offering your opinion as to what should proceed, out in the corridor, is education," this participant argued. "Your education is another person's lobbying," Adams countered.
Another participant (we think it was one of the union representatives, but don't hold us to that recollection) argued that avoiding the potential loophole regarding who invited who "could actually end up with unintended consequences." To wit: A lobbyist could be near the threshold of time spent on lobbying (above which they have to file) and "decline to come in to meet with you and provide the information you're seeking."
"Yep," Adams said. "[But] I don't think that's going to happen." He added that a lobbyist is not going to turn down meeting with a decision-maker on something they care about.
The representative from the Portland Business Alliance wondered if the section of the ordinance requiring a lobbying entity to report the names and information of their lobbyists means they "had to submit to you our 1,500-member membership list".
"Is the entire list authorized to lobby on your behalf?" Adams asked. The PBA representative indicated that sometimes various members (beyond board members) might come to testify, for example, on particular issues. "Again," said Adams, "this keys off the concept of 'authorized to speak on behalf' of your entire organization." He added that one thing the proposal does do is result in organizations needing "to be clearer who is authorized to speak on behalf of your entire organization."
The PBA representative said that any given member might be authorized to speak on behalf of the organization on a particular issue at a particular time.
"And I assume you guys keep track," Adams said. "I assume that isn't done with a flip of a coin." So, the rep asked, only those individuals the PBA authorizes in any given quarterly reporting period and who actually engage in lobbying would trigger the proposal's reporting requirements? "Correct," Adams said.
ANother exchange with Sam Chase established that sending out action alerts or organizing rallies does not count as lobbying activity. But organizing people, for example, to testify -- that does count as lobbying activity which would need to be reported.
One of the union representatives said that the concern of all of the unions is that they "have a right to represent our members" during things such as grievance procedures. He said that various of the reporting requirements in the proposed ordinance go to "the heart of the discipline process" and "fair representation".
"We're going to have to work through those issues," Adams said. "I'm not interested in getting in the middle of mediation either."
Now comes the moment we said we'd get to, in relation to the representative from the Portland Police Association, who (correct us on this, if we're wrong) may have been Leo Painton, listed on the PPA website as being Secretary-Treasurer. We say it might have been him because our notes on the exchange which follows has "Leo" marked as the questioner here.
He offered a hypothetical, in which the PPA authorized only Robert King (PPA's president) to lobby for the union. "I come in and, say, offer an opinion," maybe-Leo said. "Even though it's the same opinion the board has, but I'm not authorized to lobby. Is that okay?"
"Yes," Adams replied.
"Oh, okay," maybe-Leo said. "We can maybe skirt around this thing."
Now, this is a pretty fine example of what we meant at the start of this item when we said that some of the remaining issues with the proposal appear "quite clearly motivated by the desire of some parties to have to suffer the effects of registration as little as possible."
Some of the conversation during this meeting unquestionably was geared at trying to clear up confusions or obtain clarifications about how the ordinance would and would not work. But other parts of the discussions were just a clearly meant as attempts to find the wiggle room, attempts to figure out how to game the system Adams wants to put into place.
That bit up there from the police union representative? We're kind of glad it happened, because it illustrates that latter motivation quite nicely. We'll come back to this issue of gaming the system later, when we wrap up this item, because we do have one brief thing to say about it.
But returning to the exchange itself, that crack by maybe-Leo pushes Adams into something of a stern lecture mode.
"This is a very serious issue," he said to maybe-Leo. "We have all kinds of lobbying going on in this building, with all points of view, and no way to track it." And, he said, the public knows this. "Compliance with all laws requires good faith," he added. "I hope it won't require skirting."
Maybe-Leo pushed back that it was difficult enough as it is to do business with the City. "This is going to make it [more] difficult and add another layer." He said that as it is, the City sometimes has a hard time getting people to respond to Requests for Proposals, the implication being that if any additional requirements were imposed by the lobbying ordinance, it would only get worse.
"I'm not shy of discussing one reason people won't apply for RFPs," said Adams, "is that people think a decision has already been made -- which speaks directly to transparency in decision-making." (And, the point was, transparency in lobbying.)
Continuing on, there was a question about whether the amount of time spent lobbying or the amount of money spent on lobbying was the trigger for the reporting requirements. "Both trigger the reporting," Adams said (or, perhaps it would be better to say that either one triggers). But small organizations which spend less than $1,000 on lobbying are exempt from the money trigger, although they still are subject to the time trigger.
Here there was another brief conversation about the position of public employee unions when it comes to the proposal, and a comparison of how they function when it comes to activities in Salem. We didn't actually grasp the specifics of this part of the discussion, so perhaps if any of the participants happens upon this item they can try to fill in this particular blank.
But that discussion then led into the argument (from one of the union guys) that "there is a big difference" betwee professional lobbyists and others. Adams countered that he can't craft public policy with that distinction, because it just creates "a big loophole."
On the labor-related issue, the union representative posited that there must be a distinction somewhere between a meeting with a City official on some union-related issue on the one hand, and "day-to-day collective bargaining issues" on the other hand.
Maybe-Leo from the PPA asked how the salaries paid to himself and Robert King factor into the reporting requirements. Adams said that at issue was the portion which applies to their time lobbying. Maybe-Leo was concerned about how to track that, but Adams said it's done at the state level.
To specify how such tracking is done (and to what extent, Janice Thompson of the Money in Politics Research Action Project offered a rundown of sorts of her experience in Salem. In essence, the lobbying entity takes the time spent lobbying and the compensation of those doing the lobbying, and calculates out what amount of money that lobbying time represents.
(To make it clearer: The proposal, as we understand it anyway, doesn't require the reports to break out all the time spent lobbying. It's just that the lobbying entity needs to keep track of that time in order to know whether or not they've hit the time-trigger in the proposal. This, as we udnerstand it, is why, at the state level, lobbyists often simply register and report as a matter of routine, rather than even bothering to calculate out all of their lobbying time.)
Here we have a few notes that we apparently typed out so quickly that even we can't determine what they address. We do notice, however, that is was about this time that well-known local lobbyist Len Bergstein entered and took a seat at the back of the room.
In the Powerpoint presentation being viewed at the meeting, there was a section which explained what entities would be exempt. Amongst these was a bit which said that any lobbying entity which satisfies three criteria would be exempt: Comply with state public meeting laws, are non-profits, andare formally recognized by the City of Portland.
"Is that a way of saying neighborhood associations without saying neighborhood associations?" someone asked. "No," Adams said. (Although it certainly seems to us like something crafted to address the question of neighborhood associations, even if it doesn't, theoretically, apply only to them.)
In the ensuing conversation with Chris Smith, it was established that, for example, if the City Club of Portland opted voluntarily to comply with public meeting laws, they still would not be exempt because they are not a body officially recognized by the City of Portland.
On the other hand, if a neighborood business district opted to comply with public meeting laws (apparently they don't currently), because they are officially recognized by the City, they could become exempt. By the same token, if a neighborhood association fell out of compliance with public meeting law, it would lose its exemption and would be required to report its lobbying activities.
(The premise here, as we understand it, is that an officially-recognized body which operates under open meeting and records laws already is fulfilling a transparency criteria, and therefore wouldn't also have to fulfill the transparency intentions of the lobbyist registration proposal.)
"If the goal is more transparency, and neighborhood associations and others are excluded," asked the representative from the Portland Business Alliance, "why is public testimony at public hearings included in the amount that adds up to the sixteen hours? Public hearings are by nature public and open." (Sixteen hours per quarter is the time trigger.)
The answer to "why" is something we didn't appear to capture in our notes, it would seem. But it was established that indeed a three minute public testimony counts towards the sixteen hours which the obbying entity is supposed to keep track of.
On the other hand, as clarified by Chris Smith, if some random member of, for example, the Alliance signs up for three minutes, references their membership, and gives their opinion (even if it happens to coincide with the Alliance's own), that doesn't count.
Adams said that it's going to have to be clear to City officials who the authorized representatives are. "Believe it or not," he said, "it is not clear to us."
Questions were raised about including "preparation time" in the lobbying entity's calculations of how much time they spend lobbying, with one participant arguing it'd be nearly impossible to tally.
"We expect you t make a good faith effort," Adams said. What the ordinance is trying to do, he explained, was avoid a loophole whereby staff could spend countless hours preparing remarks and turning people out for a meeting, only to hand off the material to the authorized representative who then only spends three minutes testifying.
Janice Thompson wondered how gifts from people who are not lobbyists are handled. According to Adams, those are covered by the City's ethics code (though we have not checked that ourselves).
There was some discussion over fod and entertainment, that apepared to center around whether or not one consumed the food on site or elsewhere, which makes no sense to us, but it's possible we weren't following along properly. Or, it just didn't make any sense. At some point, it digressed into a dispute over whether or not $25 provides a good lunch. "You think a good lunch is more than $25?" Adams asked. "I don't eat very well, then."
There was some further discussion about issues potentially unique to public employees unions, collective bargaining, and grievance and mediation processes. In the end, it's clear that these issues are not hashed out, and Adams asked if the lawyer for one of the unions represented in the meeting could provide him with a list of all such concerns and issues, possibly including actual proposed Code language that might address them.
Also raised by one of the union-related representatives was the prohibition on lobbying by a former City official within the first year after their employment with the City ends. For our part, we're not sure why there should be any sort of exemption just because a City official wants to go work for a union rather than for some corporation -- and we say that knowing that some of the other issues raised by the union representatives (bargaining, grievance, mediation, etc.) do seem like they need to be addressed somehow.
Also raised, in an exchange between Adams and Smith was a situation wherein (to use Adams' example), an official sponsors the contracting out of all Fire apparatus for repair, then turns around and gets a job with the company that owns that contract.
It's unclear from our notes where this conversation went (read: don't count on what we're about to say), so we are unsure whether or not this is covered by the one-year prohibiton, although on the surface it certainly seems as if it would be.
There was what to us was a bizarre attempt at drawing distinctions by the representative of the Portland Business Alliance. In this premise, "lobbying" would be distinct from "advocating". For example, lobbying for permitting of zone changes on a particular project would be lobbying, but pushing one position or another regarding amendments to Code dealing with historic structures would be advocating.
This makes no sense to us whatsoever as a distinction. But, to be fair, the PBA rep did follow it up with, "I'm not trying to be sneaky."
Smith described the proposed distinction as lobbying for good public policy versus lobbying for someone's specific interests.
"It's lobbying," said Adams.
Which, except for a minor technical issue with making the Code say that City officials would post their calendars to their own websites, not to those of the lobbyists (which, apparently, the Code currently says), brings us up to the end of this afternoon's meeting.
So, back to the last thing to which we wanted to return: Gaming the system, which we said we had something to say about, after reporting the "skirting" comments by Maybe-Leo of the Portland Police Association.
There is one reason why such gaming really might not work, even if some lobbying entity tries it: Someone, somewhere, at some point, is going to notice that someone appears by all indication to be lobbying, yet their activity is not being reflected in anyone lobbying reports or registration. And, whether by City official or media outlet, that's going to be outed, publicly.
A few bad actors (apples, if you prefer) may try to game this system. But is the system is in place, and most entities indeed are reporting their activities, it won't take overly long, we'll wager, before someone notices that there's undisclosed lobbying going on.
So, feel free to try "skirting" the system if it's adopted by Council, whoever you gamers are out there. It will be mighty fun watching you get kicked for it.
Comments (54)
Chris Smith on 01 Jul 2005
A couple of factual things:
1) Gwenn Baldwin is the person on the Review Board and 122nd Task Force.
2) I was not the one who raised the Fire Bureau contracting issue, that was one of the union reps.
I think it's important to understand the major distinctions between this version of the proposal and the original. In the original, the level of reporting required was very minimal, but the net was cast broadly. Tracking this for City Club of Portland, I was looking at a scenario in which the 50+ members who (urged by the Club) had sent a postcard to Council in favor of Voter Owned Elections would all have technically been lobbyists, and required to register individually! There was a significant concern that this would chill citizens aligned with an organization from participating at all.
The new version puts the reporting burden on the organizations, not the individuals, and only requires reporting for actions of individuals specifically authorized to speak on the organization's behalf. This is a lot more reasonable.
But at the same time, the reporting bar for those authorized representatives has been raised quite a bit. Once the threshold has been reached EVERY meeting, phone call, letter or e-mail has to be reported, including the general subject matter.
This is a much larger reporting burden (and the reason why the definition of "City Official" is so important), but it's based on feedback from the first round of discussions that this is exactly what needs to be reported to really create transparency.
While I should be careful to say that City Club has no official position, I personally think this is a big improvement and good policy.
Kari Chisholm on 01 Jul 2005
I wasn't there, and haven't followed all the details, but this all seems a bit, well, bureaucratically insane here.
Wouldn't it just be good enough if all five members of the Council (and maybe some collection of the staff) were simply required to disclose on a weekly basis the names of every single person they met with and discussed city policy? Wouldn't that accomplish the task of full disclosure without all the worrying about money triggers and time triggers and who is authorized to speak on behalf of whom?
Another point: I see a lot of discussion about "attempting to change our minds". Am I to take that it is not considered lobbying if you say to a commissioner, "Hey pal - love what you're doing on that policy thing. Keep up the good work!" If you agree, it's not lobbying?
Kari Chisholm on 01 Jul 2005
Another question - how far down does this go among city employees? If a representative of a local kid's soccer league is complaining to a parks supervisor about something related to city soccer fields... is that lobbying?
The One True b!X on 01 Jul 2005
Wouldn't it just be good enough if all five members of the Council (and maybe some collection of the staff) were simply required to disclose on a weekly basis the names of every single person they met with and discussed city policy? Wouldn't that accomplish the task of full disclosure without all the worrying about money triggers and time triggers and who is authorized to speak on behalf of whom?
No, because it does not necessarily reveal who the person represented. There's always the possibility of stealth lobbying.
Another point: I see a lot of discussion about "attempting to change our minds". Am I to take that it is not considered lobbying if you say to a commissioner, "Hey pal - love what you're doing on that policy thing. Keep up the good work!" If you agree, it's not lobbying?
I think it's just short-hand for lobbying activity of any kind.
Another question - how far down does this go among city employees? If a representative of a local kid's soccer league is complaining to a parks supervisor about something related to city soccer fields... is that lobbying?
According to the definitions, City official means "any City elected official; staff of City elected officials; City bureau, department or agency director; or appointee to a City Council created board, committee, working group or commission."
Jack Bog on 01 Jul 2005
I hope there's going to be immediate posting of the reports on the internet. And it would be very helpful to post them in .xls or some other spreadsheet format that's easy for readers to process (not someone's spouse's handwriting, *cough*). Perhaps lobbyists with a certain level of resources or more could be required to file electronically in a specified format. Works pretty well with taxes, I think.
Bill McDonald on 01 Jul 2005
Dear One True b!X,
I'm back in town and after Chicago, Portland looks like a beautiful little gem. I see my offer to advertise was followed by some new clients. I'm still game to promote my cable access show, but only if I can pay in person. I don't use things like PayPal. They might take the money but they are not my pals. Get back to me if you want.
Bill McDonald
Eric Berg on 01 Jul 2005
It's interesting that, considering all the attention and scrutiny the Portland Developement Commission has received of late, the PDC didn't appear to be brought up during the discusssion.
The proposal makes me wonder how the Burnside Bridgehead selection process would have been different if these lobbying rules were in effect.
ron ledbury on 01 Jul 2005
The motivation for any particular action by a public official is not relevant in the judicial arena. A bad motive behind an otherwise sound piece of legislation cannot be used to assail the legislation. A good motive behind a clearly invalid piece of legislation does not save the legislation either.
Case in point: The motive of goodness behind Diane Linn's actions on the gay marriage issue was totally irrelevant. The court looked to the scope of authority of the public official and matched that against the action itself.
No one is asking Sam Adams to list the particular groups of folks who support him on each and every decision he makes. The cross section of interested parties for anything that comes before the City Council and that of Sam Adams' ears could be quite varied or there could be no cross section at all and Sam Adams just has a personal view that is not held or expressed by any lobbyist at all, it would be just his personal view.
Asking individuals to list their affiliations (even if only where they are officially authorized to speak) is just as absurd as asking each public official to list to whom they are beholden to for their support for official act x y or z.
Loose associations, as in unincorporated associations, whether it be for purposes of action alerts versus for making a group appearance before the City Council is not a distinction that can survive vigorous challenge before a court. You see, the motives of folks, for purposes of determining the validity of some public action are irrelevant in court and likewise -- by extension -- the motives and affiliations of the presenters of opinion that precede some official action are also irrelevant to the act itself.
Thus, public official knowledge of the motives and affiliations of presenters is just an idle curiosity of the public official. The public official cannot do anything about it, they can neither exclude or include someone from the list of folks that sign up to testify at the start of a session nor can the public official meet out civil penalties for failure to register their motivations or affiliations. A court, upon reviewing the validity of public official acts specific manipulating the allowed speaker list or for assessing civil or criminal penalties must invariably ask why do you, the elected public official, need to know more about the presenters than we do when we review your action? Shall we (a theoretical judge or court) say that your lobbyist law clearly violates unfettered free speech rights but that it is quite OK because we think you have good intentions, and so do we?
Mr. Sam Adams is neither more nor less a mouthpiece for someone else than is any lobbyist. If Sam wants to list his support base and then, by implication, list his political enemies (by not listing them) then he can hardly be considered to be acting in the "public interest" can he? Is the lobbyist law, by the same reason a device to make each presenter someone who is is not representing the "public interest" and thus somehow suspect . . at least more suspect in their motivations than is Mr. Sam Adams? It seems that I might have to turn to Sigmund Freud to describe this kind of transference of his own guilt upon us all, all the while not making the law applicable to himself. (The debate by public officials about lobbying and motivations is like one long drawn out Freudian slip.)
(comment posted at "PDX's Sam Adams Shares A Long Slow Freudian Slip With The Public On Lobbyist Law")
Randy Leonard on 01 Jul 2005
I am concerned about the exemption of neighborhood associations from the lobbying requirement.
As well they should, some neighborhood associations do work hard to influence decisions that the council makes in an organized and sophisticated manner. I support those efforts, but if the idea of Commissioner Adam’s ordinance is to make our decision making at council more transparent, why would we exclude organizations that the state lobbying law would not?
If we are going to require those who attempt to influence our positions to report their lobbying efforts, then it needs to be done exactly as the state does it...no exemptions for anyone. In the legislature if an individual passes a certain number of hours lobbying state officials, then they are required to register as a lobbyist....period.
I am not interested in creating a system where the public is allowed to know of some lobbying efforts but not others.
Jack Bog on 01 Jul 2005
That's why the neighbors love you so much, Randy. 8c)
Randy Leonard on 01 Jul 2005
Well, it just seems to me if we want the general voting public to know who is spending time meeting with the council, then it should be an entire picture...not just a cropped version.
In fact, the only time in the 12 years I have been asked to explain my vote to any organization that has given me their endorsement and a campaign contribution is when members of the NW Neighborhood Assn asked me to attend one of their meetings to explain why I had voted different than they wanted me to on the NW Portland Transportation Plan.
I was honored to have their endorsement in my prior election and very grateful for their generous $2,000 contribution, but there was no mistake in the email I received that they considered my endorsement as a committment by me to support their postion and that the meeting I was attending was for the sole purpose of me explaining my vote in opposition to their position.
I was happy to do so, however, I do think if the point of Commissioner Adam's ordinance is to make transparent those types of interactions, there is no consistency in exempting some lobbying groups while not others.
It would seem that fair is fair. However, as I interpret your comment, I would agree that fairness is like taxes. It is OK as long as it applies to someone else.
Randy Leonard on 01 Jul 2005
And oh yeah...if your looking for Love...don't run for office.
Chris Smith on 01 Jul 2005
Randy, the logic behind the exemption (which is not just for neighborhood associations, although I will concede that at the current time there are no organizations other than neighborhood associations that meet the criteria) is that neighborhood associations are ALREADY TRANSPARENT because they are required (by contract with the City) to operate under open meetings law and public records law. If a neighborhood association is going to adopt a position and authorize representatives to try to persuade a City office toward that position, that fact is readily discernable from their meeting minutes, which are public record.
To use the NW Parking example that you cited, there was no mystery about what Frank Dixon, John Bradley and I were advocating for (or that we were the representatives) when we met with you and your Council colleagues. On the other hand, Dick Singer had at least three lobbyists working the building, and who they were and what they were saying was not at all transparent (or who paid them, NHBA or Dick?).
Randy Leonard on 01 Jul 2005
What some call "exemptions" others may view as "loopholes".
I don't know if the amount of time I have spent meeting and working with neighborhood leaders in my office are recorded in minutes or not, but if it is, I am not aware of it. I am also aware that some in the neighborhood system are adamant that they are not part of -nor want any part of- being at all associated with being an arm of the city's governmental structure. As I understand it, most coalitions and their member associations are separate non-profits...not public bodies. If I am mistaken about that please correct me.
I support making government as transparent as possible. Exempting a strong lobbying entity that promotes it's particular part of the city's interests for increased funding, capital projects and other such goals, often at would be the expense of other neighborhoods priorities, strikes me as somewhat inconsistent with the notion of transparency.
ron ledbury on 01 Jul 2005
Chris there is still an issue with the City giving any aid to a non-governmental association such as the neighborhood associations when that aid is contingent also upon the non overlap of territory. The non-overlap thing seems like it converts the private associations over to look ever more like a mere appendage to the city rather than something else entirely, and totally private. They are wholly private. My beef, if I have one, is with the notion that they cannot overlap with other associations. The City's insistence upon not having any overlap, as a contingency of receiving dollars, seems like it is devised by a bureaucrat rather than a free speech nut that adheres to the notion that the more voices the better.
Only government needs to aoid having overlapping geographic jurisdiction; for example as between to two cities battling to annex a particular piece of unincorporated territory.
The neighborhood associations are just a loose collection of folks and are not in any way an elected body that owes some heightened duty to the folks within their claimed geographic territory. The contract with the city does not alter their private character. If a citizen has a complaint with an association they can whine to the city to alter the terms of of a contract or they can form their own association and then perhaps even get the contract themselves in the future.
Just such a competing association, competing for the contract money, would not be covered by the terms of a city contract. Exempting the neighborhood associations, but only those with contracts with the city, feels pretty odd, just as Randy has recognized. They are private.
I would be the kind of guy to insist that the contracts between the associations and the city prohibit the use of the city money to engage in any effort to restrict a competing and overlapping association from either forming or to restrict them from effectively competing to get the next city contract. The exclusion of coverage by the lobby laws of a subset of neighborhood associations, those that have contracts with the city, would be subject to potential invalidation on its face. I wouldn't need to lobby the city on this issue I could just stroll on over to the Federal Court.
Chris Smith on 01 Jul 2005
Randy, my point is not that the individual contacts are in the minutes, they are not. My point is that the goals and objectives are transparent.
I don't want to get into whether neighborhood associations should or should not be considered linked in some way to City government. I know we won't get agreement on that. The point is that in exchange for the coalition funding, the City requires that we operate under open meeting and public records law, and the theory is that the additional burden of reporting lobbying for the neighborhood associations would not yield much additional transparency. If in fact Council members feel that having neighborhood associations report their contacts yields a level of additional transparency worth the reporting, then by all means remove the exemption.
ron ledbury on 01 Jul 2005
Randy,
The government is not supposed to play favorites with regard to which entity represents a bargaining unit of public employees. That choice is reserved to the employees, and is made abundantly clear in labor law. I believe that you have enough personal experience in such a realm. Transpose that free association right over to the notion of neighborhood associations and the citizen's choice of their own advocate on matters of importance as they determine on their own. The issue of the scale of the burden on free association, even if it is argued to be de minimus, is not the issue. The body of law about conflicts among neighborhood associations or between neighborhood associations and the city is rather sparse but the body of law for analogous conflicts in labor law are as deep and varied as one can possibly imagine.
Imagine that I again try to deliver a simple one page sheet to new teachers who are on PPS paid time for orientation where PAT is allowed to speak for a couple hours. My one page sheet would again outline their rights to select an alternative bargaining agent or no agent at all and the claims they have to split off as a distinct bargaining unit based on PERS status. While the PPS district counsel might dismiss it is inconsequential, such as Chris Smith might argue inconsequentiality as to the isolated issue of transparency pertaining to lobbying by currently recognized and contracted neighborhood associations, it is not inconsequential to either me nor to PAT.
allehseya on 02 Jul 2005
Regarding the exemption -- can somone clarify what "formally recognized by the City" means and why or how that definition would qualify the entity to be exempt?
allehseya on 02 Jul 2005
disclaimer: I'm aware that the above question is probably really stupid -- but I was looking for clarification in the definitions section of the proposed code and couldnt find it --- I'm just confused regarding why the exemption exists and how it is justified?
Chris Smith on 02 Jul 2005
allehseya, the City has a process for extending formal recognition to both neighborhood associations and neighborhood business associations through the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.
The rationale for the exemption is that neighborhood associations are already required to have a high degree of transparency in their actions, and the burden of the additional reporting may not yield additional transparency proportionate to the effort.
doretta on 02 Jul 2005
Randy, I'm surprised that after having ONI in your portfolio for so long you don't appear to understand this issue better.
As Chris has pointed out, whether a neighborhood association considers itself an "arm of the city's governmental structure" and what its legal status is as a non-profit is are irrelevant. To be recognized by the city as a neighborhood association the group must agree to follow open meetings and public records laws. Unions don't do that and businesses don't either.
The proposed new guidelines for neighborhood associations, which you will be considering at City Council on Tuesday, would eliminate the $2000 problem you described above by disallowing neighborhood association participation in candidate elections. I think that's a good rule and I recommend you adopt it.
Like most people here, I am in favor of maximum transparency in government and in maximum citizen participation. One of the problems with new rules/laws is it is often hard to sort out exactly how they will play out in real life over time. I think that's particularly true in this case. It's hard to figure out how to get transparency from groups with lots of money and time and legal resources that they can devote to getting around the rules while at the same time not limiting participation by citizens who don't have much of either time or money.
I don't know what the ultimate best answer is but I know that we need to be careful about throwing around words like "fairness" and "exemptions" and "favoritism" as though all organizations are created equal and without looking to the practical realities. There are a few exceptions, but the rule in neighborhood associations is that they have very little money and everything they do is done by volunteer labor which is limited by the fact that most volunteers do their volunteering in addition to having jobs, as well as families, etc. Unions and corporations have paid staff and lawyers on retainer, the overwhelming majority of neighborhood associations don't have either. Putting the same requirements on both sorts of groups does not result in putting the same burdens on both sorts of groups. Making Bill Gates and Randy Leonard both pay $500,000 fines might seem perfectly equitable but I suspect it would result in a different outcome for you than it would for Bill.
Randy Leonard on 02 Jul 2005
Doretta-
To be fair, the neighborhood associations do have paid staff in the form of Conation Directors and support staff.
In fact, I do know from having ONI in my portfolio that most associations are not public entities but, rather, private non profits that do have staff that support them. Don't interpret that as me being critical, that is just a fact.
I also know from the debate we have had surrounding Neighborhood Service Centers that some associations are so careful about their relationship with the city they do not want to have traditional city services provided out of Coalition offices for fear of losing their independence from the city.
Interests such as the Oregon Environmental Council or the Bicycle Alliance certainly are not motivated by the same goals as Bill Gates is. I have worked closely with the OEC and the BA over the years and support nearly all of their goals.
However, both of those organizations would have to register as a lobbyist under Sam's proposed ordinance. I do not understand the distinction between them and the Coalitions and their member Neighborhood Associations.
For an example, I worked hard with the Linnton Community Association to get them a $50,000 allocation to keep open their community center. I am also working with them on a major land use issue along the Willamette in Kenton that has far reaching impacts on the value of all residences owned in Linnton. Both of those efforts on my part were the result of private meeting I had with various interests in the Linnton Community.
I support Linnton's work and most of their goals, however, why should that lobbying be exempt from public disclosure and my meetings with Oregon Environmental Council regarding toxic wastes being cleaned up in the Willamette not?
Chris Smith on 02 Jul 2005
Randy, the short answer is that Linnton has to adopt their positions and authorize their spokespeople in open meetings, recording those actions in minutes which are public. OEC may take parallel actions outside of the view of public scrutiny.
doretta on 02 Jul 2005
Randy, I have more questions about this subject than I do answers, I just feel I have been hearing some discordant notes in the discussion.
Neighborhood associations and coalitions are unique in that they agree to provide the transparency that comes with open meetings and public disclosure laws combined with the fact that the city can withdraw recognition from them at any time if they don't meet that agreement. The way the proposal currently stands f they failed to provide the transparency the city could withdraw their recognition and they would no longer have an exemption.
Do you have an argument for why that level of transparency isn't enough?
"It's not fair because nobody else gets it" isn't an argument--nobody else works under those rules.
Yes, coalitions have some staff, typically a director and some clerical support, the overwhelming majority of neighborhood associations have no paid staff. However, even if you ignore the fact that neighborhood associations and coalitions are separate legal entities, if you stretch that coalition staff to the neighborhood associations that's a pretty small sliver of a person for any given neighborhood association, most coalitions are associated with about a dozen neighborhoods. That coalition staff person is also primarily not a paid lobbyist but is providing all the staff support for the entire program of the coalition and all its neighborhood associations, the overwhelming majority of which isn't lobbying. I'd say that comparing that with entities that employ one or more full time paid lobbyists is comparing apples and oranges but that would be way too much of an understatement. Rocks and oranges, maybe.
Did the neighborhood association or the coalition vote to work on those things with you or did people just meet with you and work on them? Are you counting any meeting you had with anyone from Linnton as lobbying by the neighborhood association and expecting the coalition to report it? It's my understanding that only lobbying by a person officially speaking for the neighborhood association or coalition would count under this proposal anyway. Back to the staff issue, it would certainly be unworkable otherwise. That coalition director doesn't even have a way to know what everyone in the neighborhood is doing with you, how could the coalition report it?
Randy Leonard on 02 Jul 2005
Doretta-
I appreciate the points you are making. In many ways I agree with your premise.
However, if we look at how the state defines those who must register as a "lobbyist" there is no exemption for any organization, public or private.
If I were to go to Salem often enough to exceed the maximum hours allowed before registration kicks in, I would have to register as a lobbyist though I am clearly lobbying on behalf of the city as a member of the city council. That requirement applies to private individuals, neighborhood assns., gov officials or private business interests.
The point of that disclosure is that there is a centralized place any member of the public can go to view who it is that is attempting to influence our state legislature. It does not matter that I am subject to the open records law.
With all due respect to those crafting this local lobby requirement, you either require all who hit the maximum number of hours to register or you create a system that will, I predict, be less than forthright if the public expects to go to one centralized location to view who is spending a significant amount of their time attempting to influence what the city council does.
Transparency does not imply, in my opinion, that we are suggesting something is wrong with lobbying the city. It just means that the public should know, in one easy, convenient location, who it is that is spending significant amounts of time lobbying the city council.
Frankly, I would have this be a blanket requirement that would include anyone who reached a certain number of hours per quarter would be required to register...be they elected officials, private individuals or whoever.
The less exemptions that exist, the more registering lobbyists will be truly transparent.
paul gronke on 02 Jul 2005
I am quite poorly informed on this issue, but after reading the comments, I think the distinction Randy is making is this:
A neighborhood association may make its decisions subject to public meetings laws, but these meetings do not constitute its lobbying activity. If a member or multiple members then go to Randy's office and attempt to influence his behavior a a Commissioner, we don't necessarily have any information on how much of that lobbying activity occurred from the records of their meeting.
Perhaps I don't know what is in those records.
What I find a bit troubling from Chris and Doretta is that I have not heard a *positive* argument why the neighborhood associations should *not* have to report.
Doretta's argument that they have less staff surely is not a justification; we don't impose lobbying requirements based on the resources of the lobbying organization. Randy's example of OEC and BA pretty much defeats that point.
Chris's argument seems contrary to his previously stated position in favor of more openess=better (say, for instance, in campaign finance). He must see some harm in imposing the reporting requirement, because otherwise, isn't this just another case of more info=better?
To give one example, suppose I am interested in Randy's position on Burnside Bridgehead. It seems overly burdensome to require me to monitor the meeting minutes of every neighborhood organization and see what their positions are on this issue; it is far better to allow me to use the lobbying report as my cue to who is active and who is not.
steve schopp on 02 Jul 2005
Transparency?
What for? There is no one looking.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/111952064419160.xml&coll=7
,,,developers keep anchor stores secret until fall
Thursday, June 23, 2005
DYLAN RIVERA
,,,, Cascade Station,,,
Dallas-based Trammell Crow Co. plans to buy rights,,,
,,,,Bechtel Corp., the oil and construction giant ,,,,,
the Port of Portland owns.
,,,Portland City Council, which rezoned the property,,,
,,, a meeting of the Portland Development Commission,,,.
,,, PDC, the airport, the Federal Aviation Administration and the city Bureau of Planning,,,,
,,,. Under the deal, the PDC gained development rights,,,
,,, in exchange for $14 million it kicked in,,,,,,
,,,,,will work out who pays for traffic improvements,,,
,,,, which could cost about $8 million, PDC staff said.
Suzii on 02 Jul 2005
Ok, Steve, I'm sure I'll regret asking, but what does the Cascade Station story mean to you about the audience for governmental transparency?
Chris Smith on 02 Jul 2005
Randy, I think trying to do an apples-to-apples with the state system is not directly on-point, because there are some signficant differences:
1) The state system captures individuals lobbying only for their own interests, Sam's proposal does not cover these folks, it is only aimed at those representing other individuals or an organization.
2) The state system does not require reporting of contacts and subject matter of contacts (only money spent), the local system does.
Randy, I have not heard you respond directly to the idea that neighborhood associations are unique amongst all the potential groups required to report in that they are constrained by open meeting laws. Do you think that this counts for anything? (Fine if you don't, but you haven't really responded to the point).
Paul, as to why I am open to singling out neighborhood associations, I think it's a little unfair to put them under a double burden, operate under open meetings law AND under lobbyist reporting. I'm all for transparency, but let's keep the burden on these organizations reasonable. Pick one or the other :-)
Randy Leonard on 03 Jul 2005
Chris-
NA's justifying that they should not report their lobbying efforts because they comply with the Oregon open meeting law is not a rationale, in my opinion, for not also submitting reports as to the amount of time spent lobbying city hall.
I have worked in the Senate, House and now the City Council. The open meeting law does require the posting of meetings, the agenda, etc. But those quiclly find their way into a file somewhere and rarely, if ever, are easily accessible to a curious citizen...and that is in government offices that are staffed daily.
In a NA, who does a citizen contact for meeting notices and agendas? Where do they go to get the information? Is it available on line? And if they finally obtain a meeting notice with an agenda, how is that relevant to what may be occurring in meetings at city hall relative to lobbying efforts?
I just do not see the connection you are making between NA's complying with Oregon's open meeting law and a requirement to submit disclosure reports if you lobby more than a certain number of hours per quarter.
If we are going to create a system that allows the average citizen to be able to get an accurate picture of who is at city hall and why they are there my opinion is that it needs to include anyone who lobby's over a certain amount of hours be registered.
I understand why someone may not want to submit themselves to the reporting requirement, but it just seems to me that the exclusion of any group then defeats the purpose of Sam's proposal.
steve schopp on 03 Jul 2005
Suzii asks, --- "Ok, Steve, I'm sure I'll regret asking, but what does the Cascade Station story mean to you about the audience for governmental transparency?"---
Like so much of what happens in this city, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars go unmeasured and unreported as to their ultimate destination and public benefits.
The lack of transparency at Cascade Station today and going back to the Airport MAX no bid contract to Becktel is a perfect demonstration.
Even where there is transparency there is no agency compiling and assessing the bottom-line costs and benefits.
There is not a report in existence that details the TOTAL public investment in the Cascade Station/Airport MAX. There is not a report that details the success or failure of that MAX line. There is not a report that details the true contributions and profits from the private side of the public-private partnership. The agencies who facilitated the scheme to sidestep the public no vote for more rail do not provide an accounting of what they have done. Not the Port, not Metro, not the PDC and not the city.
Instead they provide self promoting public relations which reveal nothing for the public to adequately assess merit.
It is left up to the public to seek out various components and assemble the full picture. It's a daunting task which should be performed by nearly every agency.
In South Waterfront for example it was the citizenry who worked, with no public funding, (Ironically their own money) to gather the very basic concerns, red flags and fatal flaws the plan represented. Every city agency worked against their effort to ultimately neutralize their efforts and make sure nothing presented would effect the predetermined policy.
What good is public participation if it is ignored, or worse, deliberately undermined by staff and public officials pretending to appreciate the private citizen's diverted time, effort, money and family time.
Public involvement is worse than useless when it is used as a charade and has no effect on the process or outcome.
SoWa and the Tram was the premier example of this.
The PDC is one of the best examples of no accounting and no accountability.
There is no collection of total costs or total public benefits devoured or produced by the PDC.
It's all hide and seek with an emphasis on self promotion and self sustaining.
That's why saveportland.com had to be put together by a private volunteer citizen.
doretta on 03 Jul 2005
Steve, you are arguing in circles. Making informaton available isn't important because no one is watching because information isn't being made available?
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2005
I'm currently undecided on the three-prong exemption ("Comply with state public meeting laws, are non-profits, and are formally recognized by the City of Portland.") which currently would only apply to neighborhood associations, but one thing occurs to me: If NAs arguably satisfy transparency, and if (for the sake of argument) lobbyist registration wouldn't necessarily yield much more information, then where's the harm in including them rather than exempting them?
(Other that the real or perceived harm of their political opposition to not having the exemption.)
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2005
Personally, I think the tricky part is going to be the union-prompted questions about how lobbyist registration does or does not impact grievance and labor/management processes. Don't know what I think there either, at the moment, but that seems to me to be the largest point of open oppositionn, if this meeting was any indication.
doretta on 03 Jul 2005
Back to the "Weren't you just the commissioner in charge of ONI?" question. Contact info for all neighborhood associations, along with notices of meeting times and places are readily available on the ONI section of the city website, the info appears in multiple places--the neighborhood directory and the calendar, for two examples. Most NA meeting times and places and more limited contact info can also be found in various newspapers. I went to my first neighborhood association meeting after seeing a notice in the St. Johns Review. Many NAs send notices out via email to anyone who has signed up for them. Call or email the primary contact for agenda info in most cases. In my experience NA agendas are pretty fluid, lots of the more interesting stuff ends up getting brought up for the first time at the meeting. Remember, it's all volunteer labor organizing this stuff.
NA's are required to make meeting minutes readily available to anyone who asks. I must say, the idea that it's easier to get things from fully staffed government offices is a novel point of view not often heard outside of government itself. We'll email our minutes to anyone in the neighborhood who asks us to. They are also filed in a notebook at the NPNS office, as is all our official correspondence, anyone can drop by and ask to see it. We also keep minuites on our website and were doing a very good job of keeping them up-to-date until our webmaster moved to Washington DC. I'm working on it in the spare time I'm not spending whiling away the hours on Portland Communique. (Do I count the time I spend on this discussion as lobby time?)
As I understand the proposed rules, the only lobbying that needs to be reported by an organization is lobbying that is done officially on behalf of the organization. If Joe Blow bends your ear about something of his own accord and not as a representative of some organization, the org is not on the hook to report it even if he's a member and they officially share his opinion. The only way a person can lobby you as an official representative of an organization is if the organization authorizes it. For a neighborhood association, that has to come from a vote at a meeting, which is required to be recorded in the minutes and available for all to see. I suppose theoretically a NA could authorize a person to lobby on their behalf on any side of any subject of that person's choosing--which fact would also appear in the minutes. Let me know the first time that happens so I can invest in an ice hockey team in hell.
Paul asked a fair question about why neighborhood associations should be exempt. I haven't argued that they should be, only that I'm concerned about the practicalities and would not like to see people discouraged from getting involved in their neighborhoods or with their city government. I think we need more good people involved, not fewer.
If I understand the proposal correctly, my NA wouldn't have had to report anything in the four years I've been involved. We almost always do our lobbying as individuals, not as an organization, and the times we have written a letter as a board have not added up to 16 hours in a whole year. We don't see ourselves as primarily a lobbying organization.
I have some other specific concerns about the proposal. I think the preparation time thing is problematic. I get the problem that if an organization spends 50 person-hours creating a document and then spends 20 seconds handing it to a commissioner the 20 seconds does not properly represent the lobbying effort. I'd be tempted to fix that with a "number of pages of documents provided" requirement or some such. That's easier to measure and should be more representative. I don't think the time spent preparing a three minute speech needs to be recorded. I think preparation time in that case is likely more representative of the person and circumstances than of the force of the lobbying. I suppose we could have all lawyers count whatever time they spent in law school as prep time.... To me if what a person gets is three minutes of face time with a commissioner, I'm happy with that being counted as three minutes no matter how much preparing went on. Organizing other people to speak is a different issue, I think that time should count.
I also have a problem with the definition of a city official. I think we all understand where the power lies at city hall and, depsite how it may feel at times to Randy, it isn't in Joe Schmuck, citizen member of some committee or other. I'd like to see this limited to the mayor, the city commissioners and their staffs to begin with. Expand it once you have the kinks worked out, if at that point it seems useful, but it seems to me that casting so broad a net adds exponentially to the possible difficulties without adding a similar level of usefulness.
The One True b!X on 03 Jul 2005
I also have a problem with the definition of a city official. I think we all understand where the power lies at city hall and, depsite how it may feel at times to Randy, it isn't in Joe Schmuck, citizen member of some committee or other. I'd like to see this limited to the mayor, the city commissioners and their staffs to begin with. Expand it once you have the kinks worked out, if at that point it seems useful, but it seems to me that casting so broad a net adds exponentially to the possible difficulties without adding a similar level of usefulness.
I don't think that would work. As I understand it, the premise is that any body created by City Council as a designated authority for a certain purpose is in essence an extension of City Council and Commissioners' staff, and so is a lobbyable entity. Boards, commissions, and workgroups often are responsible for creating recommendations to City Council -- and while Council is free to accept or reject those rec's, the end product of a committee's work is certainly something that various interests have a stake in.
Lobbying those Council-created bodies has got to be a part of this from the start, imho.
Chris Smith on 03 Jul 2005
Randy, thanks for responding on the open meeting law issue. I take your point and am going to rethink me position on the NA's for a while. I think now that reporting of contacts is included, your point may be more important. In the prior version when it was just about registering WHO the lobbyists were, I think the argument to exempt NA's was stronger.
doretta, I don't think the prep time issue is significant. The only thing this counts toward is the 16 hour threshold. It's not like you have to report the hours, you just have to have a sense of whether it's over 16. Wearing my City Club hat, I suspect we will just assume we're going to hit 16 and register and report all our contacts by our Advocacy Committees.
b!X, I DO think the definition of City Official is important. I think going too deep could generate a lot of reporting burden for not much gain in transparency, and this could potentially overwhelm the system and cause it to fail (i.e., become so unpopular it gets yanked). I have suggested to Sam that initially we draw the circle around Council, their staff, bureau directors and the 'main' commissions (PDC, Planning, Design, etc.).
ron ledbury on 03 Jul 2005
Could an NA that does not have a contract with the city and has overlapping territory with a city-contracted NA nevertheless compel the city to place their agenda on the ONI website and obtain an exclusion from lobbying requirements merely by agreeing to voluntarily comply with open meeting laws?
One of the statewide land use planning goals includes a policy of encouraging local governments to include citizen involvement. An NA that gets involved in land use planning issues, but that does not have a contract with the city, could object to the city making a preferential choice of NA's to support (politically not merely monetarily), indirectly, through their choice of which NA to contract for services.
That is sort of how I feel when the PPS claims to have a happy agreement with labor, when they really mean they have a happy relationship with PAT in particular, which may involve being hostile to any other competing LABOR organization.
I do wonder whether I could compel the city to post notices of meetings of an alternative labor entity to represent Portland teachers and provide equal access to posting of notices on the peg-boards in teacher lounges to that of PAT, merely by agreeing to comply with the open meeting laws? (And get an exclusion from lobbying registration to boot.) While state law says that labor negotiations must be secret, I do wonder whether the city could try to demand that the secrecy be waived by a labor group in the interest of becoming the city's designated and officially approved entity. Including such an open meeting law component right into a CBA would not be any more bizarre then some things that are now included, such as time for the labor entity to speak to new employees on publicly paid time at orientation.
Then again, Randy, I might need another stick to hit PAT. You might as well exclude both NAs that the city contracts with for services and labor organizations to which the city has a CBA agreement.
doretta on 03 Jul 2005
Neighborhood associations aren't labor unions and I don't find the comparison particularly useful.
As far as I'm concerned, "neighborhood association" in this context means those entities recognized by the city, the confusion related to the screwup in SW notwithstanding. The open meetings and reporting requirements are not the only rules that recognized NAs are required to follow. They also must not require dues, must allow anyone who lives or owns property in the neighborhood to be a member, etc. Near as I can tell, the only reason to create a competing organization in a neighborhood is so your narrow group can control the other entity and the only way to do that is to exclude people. If you have sufficient support in the neighborhood the existing NA should do as well as any.
ron ledbury on 03 Jul 2005
doretta,
The argument you make that the city-selected NA is adequate to the citizens relies on the same reasoning that employers tried to use in forming company unions and then aserting that they could refuse to recognized an employee selected bargaining agent other than the one presented by the employer. The notion is encapsulated in the concept of a company union and they are expressly rejected in labor law as an unsatisfactory excuse not to bargain with the employee's selected bargaining agent.
The First Amendment right to associate is relevant from the perspective of the individual. All it takes is one citizen to be dissatisfied and perhaps form an association of two people, to then go to court and claim the denial of their right to associate with whom they choose. The "screwup in SW" would be best resolved not by challenging the election but simply by starting up an alternative NA, from scratch. Surely a competent lawyer could have presented that option and the disappointed client simply rejected it out of some foolish spite, or the lawyer simply did not have sufficient breadth of experience in First Amendment cases. The "screwup in SW" is almost a joke from my perspective because of the subsequent tactics, but it does illustrate the significance of having the City on your side.
The First Amendment is not written so as to accommodate creative distinctions between an association formed for the purpose of bargaining collectively to offer services related to land use approvals and an association formed for the purpose of bargaining collectively to offer services related to education or public safety. The dividing line is not whether an association offers land use related services versus other labor services but whether the association is private versus public. The line seems to have been crossed in your mind such that NAs are not private but are just simply a part of the government itself.
If I was a staff member in one the NA offices I would assert that I should be made a member of PERS and that I am entitled to a salary, and pension and medical benefits, on par with other folks performing like services in government and in private enterprise (other than the low pay for private NAs). Perhaps there might even be some empire builders within the city that might like the idea and jump on it. If you are an employee you are surely significantly underpaid and are a perfect example of why company unions are unfair to employees. The only benefit you are getting is the little contract from the city. This is embarrassing and you need a better bargaining agent. Should I offer my services?
Would I be a lobbyist if I were to assert that the NAs should be provided an exception so as to make it easier to assert my labor representation argument, that is that the NAs are really just a branch of the city. Would my labor organizing efforts be with the employees and volunteers of a private entity, the private view of NAs, and not subject to the city lobbying registration or with a part of the government, the public view of NAs, and thus perhaps subject to the city lobbying registration? This would be great fun.
I would not be a lobbyist through my labor organizing efforts because I would only be lobbying the individual employees of the city in the NAs. Only once I seek, we seek, recognition would we then be lobbyists. But, is your lobbying to be excused from the lobbyist law actually working toward you becoming a full fledged city employee? Hum? It sure looks that way.
doretta on 04 Jul 2005
You are mistaking coalitions for neighborhood associations. There are no NA offices, for the most part, and no staff members. I'm not an underpaid employee, to be underpaid you have to get paid and to be an employee you have to have someone telling you what to do. Unlike most other areas of the city, we don't have a coalition with a contract in North Portland. Our equivalent of a coalition director is a city employee with PERS and the rest-- the services you offer would be superfluous here.
That labor union filter you use has drastically narrowed your perspective. You see coalitions as primarily providing land use services and more or less ignore neighborhood associations. It may be their genesis, but to me land use is a tiny part of what makes neighborhood associations useful entities for the city. Land use represents a small part of what neighborhood associations do today. I think it's fine that neighborhood associations be "part of the city" in the sense you describe. The city funds the structure to benefit the city. Why would taxpayers want their money spent otherwise? Citizens don't need a union-like structure to represent them with the city--unlike your average group of employees, we vote for the mayor and the city council after all.
The strength of neighborhood associations, in my view, is as vehicles for citizen involvement in their neighborhoods and with the city. The strength of neighborhood associations is community building.
The more the model is about representation, which is what your labor union analogy forces, the more people's time is spent on wrestling for control rather than building community. I know it's convenient model to think of neighborhood associations as merely representative of their neighborhoods. That way you can have 10 or 30 or 60 people stand in for thousands of others. The main problem with that approach is that it is a fiction. Neighborhood associations are not really representative of the neighborhood for any of the meanings of the word "representative". We waste a lot of time bemoaning that as reflected in low levels of participation, particularly by minorities, instead of recognizing that there is tremendous power in neighborhood associations that has nothing to do with representation. The irony is, I think that if we focused more on enabling citizen participation and less on "representation" we would become more representative in levels, breadth and variety of participation.
ron ledbury on 04 Jul 2005
It was Chris that was taking the mere existence of the contract between NAs and the city (and the inclusion of features pertaining to transparency) and then extrapolating from that a justification to treat the NAs as if they were full fledged employees, but only for purposes of lobbying. That was and is myopic.
I am posing the alternative argument that if we were to take Chris's argument to the logical extreme then we can have an entirely new dynamic.
There is a spectrum between wholly private and wholly governmental, and a set of features that help identify to which end of the spectrum an organization fits. By analogy the courts have easily looked at features that distinguish whether someone is an employee versus whether a person is an independent contractor and the key thing is not the name which someone attaches to the relationship but the elements of the relationship; the right to control would be the most important in the context of distinguishing employee versus independent contractor. The features and elements are more important than the name one chooses to attach. Or in simple terms, substance trumps form.
A purely private collection of individuals can associate for a particular purpose, as described informally or set out in black and white within a set of purposes listed in Articles of Incorporation. There is a demarcation between "mutual benefit" entities such as unions and public benefit entities such as that envisioned by classic NAs (where no contract exists between the association and the city). The existence of the contract pushes the non-profit characterization over to one where it resembles a collection of folks, for purposes of securing a contract, are more concerned with the mutual benefit of the members of the association. It thus becomes more like a union, because it is a mutual benefit organization. If there was no contract over which to fight then there would be no city-contract-based argument of existing transparency upon which the Chris justifies excluding NAs from the lobbying registration requirement. The lobbying law must treat both the NAs with whom the city contracts and those with whom the city does not contract in like manner. This universal application, among all NAs, thus defeats Chris posture because he is viewing the NAs as though they were each a mutual benefit entity. As a mutual benefit entity the NAs are in direct competition with other folks for the purposes of offering services to the city.
I could drift off to point out the dynamics of old labor law disputes where the employers objected to collective labor action as violative of notions of anti-competitive practices. The legislative authorization for collective bargaining, at both the federal and state level, exist to overcome such claims of anti-competitive collusive practices. Here, where one set of associations, that of the NAs that have contracts with the city, attempt to leverage that contracting power to exempt themselves from the lobbying laws against any other associations that do not have a contract does not merely affect economic contract rights and judicial attitudes in the context of economics but extends to notions of First Amendment rights.
If the NAs are private then the First Amendment battle would be between the free speech rights of alternative private parties, and the differential burden placed on NAs which do not have a contract-based exception to the lobbying law. If the NAs are more like public entities, as Chris appears to believe, then the issue for free speech analysis, rather than economic analysis, is the speech of a private individual or non-contracted NA versus the speech of the city itself via the contracted NAs. The exclusion of contracted NAs for the lobbying registration seems to be that they speak for the city itself. The risk that a contract would be entered into for an NA that is radically hostile to the city's agenda is too great. Or the risk that the city would reward political toleration of an NA by offering a contract, or even losing their heads and lavishing money, for such cooperation is likewise too great.
If I do not like the speech of the city, as spoken by and through the NAs, then my recourse is through the ballot box so as to get a politician to force the NAs to speech differently on behalf of the city, with the contract as the leverage. If the NAs are fully private then my recourse is quite different and that is to simply form an alternative NA that speaks words that I agree with, and then add my voice to the background noise. The fact that we elect our city leaders is relevant to the first, in terms of accountability for the city's political agenda, and is not relevant to the other.
There can be no distinction, based on a contract requirement to provide transparency, between NAs with and without such contracts, for purposes of the free speech rights that are central to the notion of lobbying. The city surely cannot compel any private association to comply with open meeting laws, without such a contract. The tool to accomplish the same via the extension of contracts for commercial services, thereby converting a public benefit association to a mutual benefit association, converts the association (however characterized) into an organ of the city for lobbying purposes. The NAs, those with contracts, would then effectively speak for the city. Therein lies the great sense of frustration by any objector to the treatment of NAs as mere appendages of the city . . . it relates to free speech.
It is virtually impossible for Chris, or the city attorney, to isolate out all possible free speech based claims to challenge any distinction that substitutes a contract demand, or exception to lobbying registration via a contract, in place of a policy that would on its face be subject to challenge.
Why is it that NAs want an exception to lobbyist registration anyway? Is it that there is a burden associated with complying or is it something different . . . perhaps the word lobbyist has a negative connotation. If there is a burden, then this burden and risk of arbitrary use of discretionary power to seek penalties for non-compliance, then this makes the claims of an impermissible burden on free speech of a non-contracting NA, versus a contracting NA, all the more likely to find an immediate remedy in federal court . . . on its face . . . for the mere existence of the contracted demand for transparency is the very basis offered for the distinction.
As to the notion that only certain folks are official employees I could rebut as follow: The PPS could pay only the school principles (as official employees) who then oversee a set of dedicated volunteers who wish to teach our children, for free. The person that is concerned with assuring that our kids are educated and the person that wants to make our community more livable are not really all that different. The difference is in the role of the city itself and the funding scheme the general public chooses to advance the general welfare.
Chris Smith on 04 Jul 2005
Woah! Ron, I think you've taken my position (which I am now rethinking) down a path that has nothing to do with what I said.
My main point is whether some organizations are already sufficiently transparent in their activities that the addition of lobbyist reporting creates less value in additional transparency than the cost of the burden of the additional reporting.
My focus is on the 'complies with open meeting law' bullet of the exemption requirement, yours seems to be on the 'recognized by the City' bullet, which is much less meaningful to me.
Meanwhile, Randy is in the process of convincing me that the open meeting law compliance does not provide a lot of transparency on the actual contact activity, thus my rethinking...
doretta on 05 Jul 2005
I'm not sure what the point you were trying to make with that analogy was. In any case, there are significant differences between your volunteer teachers and NA volunteers. The main one is that the principal would have educational goals in mind and would presumably be directing and evaluating the work of the teachers accordingly. That's not so for NA volunteers. NA volunteers set their own agendas. The requirements the city puts on NAs in order for them to be recognized are all about structure and not at all about content.
My concerns are purely practical ones. Most of the structure the city imposes on neighborhood associations is aimed at facilitating citizen particpation and reducing the barriers thereto. As I've said before, I'd hate to see a lobbying ordinance discourage citizens from getting involved in their neighborhoods and with their city government and I hope the people considering the issue keep the practicalities in mind as they craft the ordinance.
I'll leave the legal considerations to the lawyers to sort out. Recognized neighborhood associations have been treated differently from other groups for some purposes by the city for several decades now. As far as I can tell, case law on the subject is limited and most everything you or anyone else has to say on the subject is speculative on that account.
doretta on 05 Jul 2005
Oops, apparently I did not get that bloquote closed.
ron ledbury on 05 Jul 2005
Chris,
2.12.050 (D)(1)(DRAFT) provides an exclusion for an entity that
"Is subject to and complies with state public record and meetings laws;"
The statutes pertaining to open meetings and public records pertain to government entities, and not to private entities. You could find a clearer set of words to identify governmental entities that are exempted, such as "public body" as is used in the public records law.
Is the exemption drafted so as to accommodate private parties? The state law does not mandate anything for private parties as to open meetings law, because, by definition they are not public bodies, they are simply private. A private body that cannot otherwise be compelled to adhere to "public record and meetings laws" can hardly be "subject to" anything in this regard but for their exercise of a voluntary choice to comply with such laws as are mandatorily applicable only to public bodies.
In determining whether a private body has made such a choice for purposes of the lobbying law it is wholly irrelevant that the city also has a contract with a private body and included a term within that contract such that discontinuance of compliance with "public record and meetings laws" would constitute a breach. The breach just allows the city to stop payment of money pursuant to the contract. The contract, if breached in such a manner, could NOT serve as a basis to obtain, on behalf of the city, a court order that the private body thereafter comply with the term of the contract requiring compliance with the "public record and meetings laws." The contract is just a condition placed on the payment of money, one that the opposing party is free to bargain over and free to repudiate and lose their funding. If it is found within the contract one must assume that the NA could choose NOT to agree to it, thus making it inconsistent with the notion that they are today considered a public body.
The exception could be split such that
(1) public bodies are excluded, and;
(2) private bodies that voluntarily comply with "public record and meetings laws" are excluded, and/or;
and as I interpret the discussion regarding NAs
(3) private bodies with whom the city has a contract containing a provision requiring compliance with "public record and meetings laws" are excluded
It is my assertion that option (3) is legally flawed and must be substituted with option (2).
If option (2) is selected then the Portland Police Association would have precisely the same opportunity as does the NAs to be excluded from the lobbyist registration. But so too would any Joe Schmoe organization, even Bob's Backyard BBQ Babblers (BBBB) who would publicize their feasting and record their cackling at the goings-on in the city. BBBB could even post .MP3 files on the web. Interested parties could gather round the periphery and watch or perhaps it could be a BYOB gathering and a jolly good time for all.
The One True b!X on 05 Jul 2005
For the sake of the context, the exemption in the proposed 2.12.050(D) is actually comprised of three parts. The lobbying entity must be following public record and meeting laws, must ba a 501(c)3 non-profit, and must be formally recognized by the City.
ron ledbury on 06 Jul 2005
Oops, I did forget to look at the "and," as I did not view it as necessary to the attack on the first prong.
The additional prongs merely add more vulnerabilities. The flaws in the first should alone be dispositive in court all by its lonesome without the need to address that latter two prongs. The second prong (501(c) 3 organization) is a standard to apply but could instead be written to accommodate small non-profits that do not file articles of incorporation and have donations below 25,000 (thus exempted from certain registration requirements by the feds). This second prong apparently makes the first prong wholly inapplicable to any governmental entity and thus exclusively applicable to private entities, where I see one set of flaws. A for-profit or mutual benefit entity is no less entitled to exist than a person is allowed to offer their labor services for a fee and should not be distinguished from entities that claim to advocate for the public benefit. Many so-called non-profits are actually the effective mouthpieces for for-profit entities or the rich in much the same way that NAs can be used as a mouthpiece for the city itself. (It can be an exercise of form over substance, again.)
The third prong is not a standard but a documentation requirement that the test in the first and second standard have been met.
I had tried to decipher whether 2.12.020 (J) (DRAFT) was intended to functionally exempt all public bodies via a broad description of nearly all private bodies to which the registration would be required. But I could not conclude that that was the precise goal; to define everybody except public bodies.
2.12.020 (J) provides a definition of person as follows:
"Person" means any individual, business association, corporation, partnership, association, club, company, business trust, organization, organization or other group.'"
A governmental entity is just a non-profit entity with special features. I have a separate set of issues (objections) pertaining to intergovernmental cooperation to speak with one voice as through the League of Oregon Cities or through the Oregon School Board Association, etc. I have a particular beef with the Oregon State Bar, who's members often use a statutory right to have closed Executive Sessions so as to exclude the public from the demands for transparency that the public would otherwise have under "public record and meetings laws." Some non-profits must surely spend considerable time contemplating litigation and could comply with "public record and meetings laws" and nevertheless remain just as non-transparent as a public body in such contexts. Likewise, contract negotiations too could be held in secret by non-profits as well. The enforcement and verification mechanisms for the city to police compliance with "public record and meetings laws" by private entities would be a nightmare, and invite arbitrary use of power by city officials. The existence or non-existence of a city contract could surely not be the sole method to achieve verification and compliance by private bodies -- particularly where the private entity secretly discusses negotiations with the city on a contract or the city is the target of possible legal action by the private entity.
paul gronke on 07 Jul 2005
Chris,
Yes, you've identified my concern as well. I don't know the burden of reporting so I can't comment on the burden vs. the gain. I still worry that forcing citizens to rely solely on the records of the NA meetings is not at all a transparent way to measure how much 'face time' an NA representative is spending with this or that council member.
allehseya on 09 Jul 2005
Wow. Ask a question and then get distracted with work -- return for an answer -- and spend a weekend doing homework. : /
(....catching up on all of these comments...)
Great thread!
allehseya on 09 Jul 2005
Alright. Conclusions thus far:
I do support Sam Adam’s proposed ordinance requiring the registration of all lobbyists and lobbying activity (although I have some issue with what constitutes the allotted time in such activity). Regardless of the tainted perception as to what a “lobbyist” is or isn’t, should be or could be defined as by the general public, I do accept the fact that under the proposal definitions, I would be considered a lobbyist due to the nature of my day job and primary affiliations and their objectives.
The reason I support Adams’ proposal is primarily based, however, on the perspective of myself as an ordinary citizen of Portland. As such, in theory anyway, I could utilize the website listing lobbying organizations and activity, causes, etc. to gain a greater understanding of where to go and who to contact regarding any public issue or area of involvement that I may be interested in contributing my efforts towards. In theory, the transparency would alert me to the progress made in those areas of my interests and reduce my efforts in organizing via traditional ‘grass root’ avenues that we all know require time and momentum to become truly effective. For these potential benefits, I welcome the tedious record-keeping and encourage the organizations that I work with to support the proposed ordinance.
Having said that, I do not endorse the proposed exemption being applied to NA's and Coalitions. While I understand that Neighborhood Associations and Coalitions have, in the past, been required to operate under open meeting and public record laws as defined by the state – the New standards as testified by Leonard Gard ”no longer require neighborhood associations to follow the state’s open meeting and record laws.”
Gards rationale for this motion is that “the state laws contain some ”burdensome” provisions” (all bold emphasis mine)
Now, I’m the first one to admit that the red-tape and reporting requirements are “burdensome” – but I don’t believe that I should qualify as exempt due to this fact. If I have to adhere to the burdensome activity without city funding, I don’t see why an organization with city funding should be exempt – especially if the new Standards of operation reduce their burden to such a degree that they are no longer in compliance with state laws.
In light of this (and correct me if I’m wrong regarding the New standards in relation to their compliance with state laws) -- if the NAs and Coalitions continue to argue that they qualify for the exemption -- it appears to me that the NA’s and coalitions are wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Make no mistake about it though – they are, however, lobbying for their piece of the cake.
I say: eliminate the exemption clause altogether.
ron ledbury on 10 Jul 2005
One proper comparison is between one neighborhood association and another neighborhood association, both of whom are poor and made up largely of volunteers, one of whom contracts with the city and the other that does not. Many forms of such associations that each seek to improve the community are possible and perhaps creates a problem of fitting a square peg into a round hole, a round hole that conforms to the City's vision of the function of an NA.
Associations that are concerned with community livability might instead be analogized to the function served by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
Community involvement involves the mechanism of individual expression working its way from the individual up, and then to be presented to officials at the top in a decision making capacity. Art is likewise an individual expression that is no less political than was the Statue of David. There are folks at the national level, those that control the purse strings, who object to the placement of a likeness of Jesus within a vat of urine. It is undeniably true that such expression is Art, but the issue is the control of the dollars and the means used to either limit particular pieces of Art, that which some find objectionable, or to limit the entirety of all funding for the NEA. Speech, by a lonely little citizen, or collection of citizens, that does not fit within the City's vision of NAs is far more complicated than just whether an NA is transparent.
Speech is about bottom-up communications not top-down down communications, where the control of public dollars is the weapon. An entire set of arguments posed by Chris Smith could just as easily be transplanted to an argument over federal funding of the NEA . . . so long as the executive branch of the federal government can pick and choose, via a contract for providing aid, among various umbrella Art Foundations then there is no risk of loss of the liberty, from the individual's perspective, to communicate freely. (This is generally recognized as a patently absurd proposition.)
The executive branch of the federal government could cut off funding to any Art Foundation, in total, without reference to any particular piece of art that such Art Foundation had funded but never ever publicly mention the objectionable piece. It would all be wrapped up in the notion of being formally recognized, without standards to apply other than the single notion that the entire decision making process of the Arts Foundations were open to the public (transparent) . . . and thereby also open to the government officials themselves who exercise the power to grant or withhold public dollars for such expression.
Free speech is all about protecting objectionable speech. Art that is considered objectionable by those who control the money is much like citizen speech about their potentially competing vision about the future of the city; speech that may be at odds with the City officials charged with negotiating contracts with NAs. The willingness or unwillingness of an NA to support a top down vision of the City is an entirely improper basis for delivery of any public funding. An NA is a bottom-up entity from which the government is itself a passive listener. The contracting authority of the City, without a standard to constrain the choices made by the City so as to protect speech (with equal scrutiny to that of Art) is little more than a government claimed right to be arbitrary, or worse the right to demand conformity with the City's vision (which is a patently disallowed public purpose justification for deliver of funds).
I find that it is bizarre (politically) and absurd (legally) for the City to claim the authority to link its contracting authority, and any built-in contract provision encompassing compliance with open meetings law, to a set of laws designed to regulate lobbying activity. The absurdity gets even worse where the City could assert a like power to distinguish between groups based on how it chooses, arbitrarily, to officially recognize one private group versus another private group. If the City wishes to enhance its' power to present a vision of a community it must do so in some other manner than via its contracting power over NAs. Any civil liberty's advocate for freedom of the arts community would demand no less.
The One True b!X on 10 Jul 2005
I find that it is bizarre (politically) and absurd (legally) for the City to claim the authority to link its contracting authority, and any built-in contract provision encompassing compliance with open meetings law, to a set of laws designed to regulate lobbying activity.
Of course, the City isn't making this claim -- one Commissioner is making this claim, while at least one other one (Leonard) is questioning it.
There is no "City" making any claim either way yet, since this still isn't up before Council for debate, discussion, and vote.
allehseya on 11 Jul 2005
"The statutes pertaining to open meetings and public records pertain to government entities, and not to private entities. You could find a clearer set of words to identify governmental entities that are exempted, such as "public body" as is used in the public records law."
My confusion is, at least, tempered with the irony that surrounds it: (or perhaps I just need some tea)
So it appears that on the one hand -- NAs and Coalitions agree to abide by statutes that pertain to government bodies -- while they simoltaneously struggle to retain their private identity -- and yet -- they want all the same public benefits and recognition applied to them as they redefine the statutes that would legally apply to such entities.
To make things even more convoluted -- Adam's proposal defines anyone serving on a committee (created by the city) as a 'city official' that is vulnerable to lobbying activity.
Mind you -- these are often-times commitees that prominent NA members and 'volunteers' actively chair (through successful lobbying?). Commitees that decide who comes to the table (predominantly NA's and Coalitions) and that (re)/define process for 'citizen involvement' (via NAs and Coalitions).
So all of a sudden -- little miss-hypothetical-bottom-up-concerned-citizen is now a city official with organizing clout because she can gather her NA and Coalitions members around her -- but she'll swear that she isnt a city official and she'll swear that her NA is just a collection of individuals not speaking on behalf of any collective agenda at all.
I find it odd that the community is unwilling to acknowledge how this 'bottom-up' structure that everyone is so fond of referencing has slowly, over time -- been turning upside down -- and the amazing thing is the level of sheer denial that accompanies it.
My most recent concern is how the loopholes will be used based on such denial.
Inevitably we will hear things like: "We dont have any individuals that speak about / or address an agenda." etc. NA 'lobbyists' (formerly known as 'advocates' and 'activists') will be rationalized into "ordinary individual citizens" not *officially authorized* to speak on behalf of a larger, collective group -- so therefore -- not lobbyists and not subject to the reporting requirement.
This would be a real shame -- because it forces the citizens of Portland looking for information the website potentially offers to do even more research to obtain a clear and transparent picture of who and what organizations are interacting and why.