August 03, 2005

allehseya on 03 Aug 2005

While I agree with the majority of transparency efforts in the City -- I do think that there is such a thing as going too far.

I'm just thinking of the reverse scenario -- if I had to hand over my day book to public scrutiny. I dont need to know, for instance, the particulars of when or where Commissioner Leonard may choose to go for lunch on any given day -- nor do I need to know whomever it is he chooses to share his lunch with. All I need to know is whether or not a lunch was used for lobbying purposes on an issue that may affect me.

It's very easy to look at ones day book and jump to conclusions and assumptions regarding the nature of a simple lunch or series of phone calls. It invites an unnecessary level of scrutiny that doesnt necessarily lend to the kind of transparency I'm most interested in - but rather - invites public harrassment through the ease of taking that information out of context.

Leonard, above all other Commissioners, gets more than his fair share public harrassment already. The press especially, as recent as this past Sunday's edition of the (h)Oregonian, for instance -- completely misrepresented similar public information and used it to distort Leonard's personal history -- this is, I fear, what making public the day books would invite more of -- and no-one needs that.

The One True b!X on 03 Aug 2005

This isn't about where an official goes or what they do in their downtime. Look at Potter's schedule sometime -- it says what public events he will be at, what meetings he will be taking, which things are open to the media and which aren't, and then has "personal time" blocked in for things unrelated to the public's business.

allehseya on 03 Aug 2005

Ah. A matter of semantics then.

In my organizer I have two separate sections for recording my daily schedules -- one is daily log and one is my calendar. My day log records telephone calls both personal and professional (as I have to keep a record of phone use as a sub-contracter on site and when using company provided and paid for cell phone) -- while my calendar section records meetings in one color of ink if professional and another color of ink if personal.

Pretending to be a City Official, I wouldnt have a problem with transparency of my calendar (aking to tom Potter's 'schedule') -- however my daily log without context? That's just too much.

Randy Leonard on 03 Aug 2005

Since I arrived at city council I give a copy of my calendar to the Oregonian every Monday morning.

Any member of the media who asked I would be happy to email a copy to each week.

Amanda on 03 Aug 2005

I think Sam's process has been good, and I trust him when he says this ordinance is needed. He should know. I was ready to say "let's try it" on the last draft, without another month for more discussion. Without the Len Bergstein amendment, of course.

The reporting requirements may deter citizen participation if Neighborhood Associations go back in, which would be a huge problem. Neighborhood volunteers choose what they work on. If the city makes communicating with Council even more arduous, by not only ignoring what we ask but also requiring us to track the time we spent not succeeding, citizens are less likely to bother participating at all.

The main purpose of lobbying registration is to shine light on those who are influencing Council's decisions, i.e., getting what they want when they ask. How many examples where the neighborhood "won" can you remember in the past few years? The reservoirs, skinny lots, buying Washington High School come to mind. And in every one of those instances, it was entirely transparent who was doing the lobbying, because the citizen activists testified at Council, wrote letters to the media, tried everything they could to bring attention to their cause and the people trying to make it happen. What would have been gained by requiring Friends of the Reservoirs, or Friends of Neighborhood Zoning, to keep track of the time they spent working to save their neighborhoods?

I believe the burden of recording/reporting should be on the paid elected officials and their staff, not on unpaid volunteers, and not even on paid lobbyists who may have an incentive to under or over-report. Council members and staff should keep logs of who they talk with and hear from, and submit a report when the matter is considered in a public hearing. In zoning code reviews, planners keep records of who they talk with and briefly what was said, which is available for all quasi-judicial land use cases including appeals at Council. So it can be done. Sam said he couldn't get three votes to do it that way. And yes, b!X, of course all members of the Council should post their calendars in an easily-accessible location for all to see, like Sam and the Mayor do.

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

Any member of the media who asked I would be happy to email a copy to each week.

I don't understand why you don't notice how silly this is. Since it's clearly a public record, anyone could get it anyway (although through that process, they'd probably end up getting it after the fact), and since, for example, The Oregonian could just publish the thing every week if they wanted to, there seems to be no reasonable premise on which to refuse to just post it to begin with.

The fact that Ben from Metroblogging Portland called as a citizen and was told it couldn't be released for "security" reasons is just bunk.

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

The reporting requirements may deter citizen participation if Neighborhood Associations go back in, which would be a huge problem.

I might (might) buy this if the proposal said that the individual lobbyists had to do the reporting. But since it's the entity which employs them (be it paid or volunteer employment) which is responsible for the reporting, I just don't buy this argument.

I believe the burden of recording/reporting should be on the paid elected officials and their staff, not on unpaid volunteers, and not even on paid lobbyists who may have an incentive to under or over-report.

My understanding is that both parties have their own set of reporting responsibilities, which creates at least a partial system of checks and balances which would not exist if only one side of the equation was solely responsible for all reporting.

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

What do you see as the reporting requirements for the Council and their staff, other than publishing the Council's calendar?

"The entity that employs" neighborhood volunteers is the same neighborhood volunteers. The Neighborhood Association *is* its volunteer participants. If I testify and encourage others to testify on behalf of my Neighborhood Association's position, there's nobody who can help with the reporting. So in addition to donating my time to tell the City Council what participants in our public involvement process want, I'd have to spend my volunteer hours recording how much time I spend researching issues, calling neighbors to inform them, writing on this blog, and other related pursuits and chores. And I'd have to call everyone back and ask how much time they spent talking about it with their neighbors, once the entity (NA) hit the reporting threshold. You don't think that would deter citizens from participating in civic discussions?

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

And another thing - there should be a provision in the ordinance that prohibits City Council members from using electronic communication to receive input after the close of the public hearing, while the Council is debating and voting on an issue. With text messaging already and wireless Internet coming, there's a huge potential for special interests to be able to communicate with Council members during the crucial discussion period. These contacts wouldn't have to be declared under the current proposed ordinance, if the person making them hadn't hit the reporting threshold. And even if they had, they could be reported as "attended and testified at Council hearing - 2 hours" rather than "Sent Councilman X a text message, asked him to propose an amendment after the close of the public hearing".

Whether it's in this ordinance or in the operating rules for the Council, the code should respond to the changing modes of communication available today, and prohibit all private communication with Council from the close of public testimony until after the meeting adjourns.

allehseya on 04 Aug 2005

Simple solution Amanda. Meet public meeting and record laws as set forth by the state.

Even if I have a complaint about NAs and Coalitions being provided the loophole -- (which I do) -- the loophole exists in the current draft of Sam's proposal. I just dont see how you can demand to Not meet them and Not be held accountable to the same reporting requirements of any other volunteer working with any other non profit. Remember, in most other cities and certainly at the state level -- the lobbying laws affect and apply to the individual -- not just organizations.

In any event, I disagree with your premise that reporting would deter from citizen engagement. I dont get paid for the majority of my 'activisit' work either but I'm not crying "EXEMPT ME!" nor does it deter me from my involvement now or in the future if Im merely held accountable for what that involvement consists of.

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

Can one of you please explain/outline the change in the Open Meeting laws governing NAs in the recent revisions to the Guidelines? I agree, NAs should follow Open Meeting laws, and almost all are very careful to do so - under the new rules as well as the old. I didn't review the revised NA code language in detail, but I thought the intent was for the new language to clarify what the state Open Meetings rules mean, rather than exempting NAs from the open meeting requirement. No?

The lobbying ordinance loophole/exemption isn't just for NAs, anyway. Watershed Councils are "recognized" by the city, follow open meeting laws, and don't require dues. There may be other examples of groups that would meet the exemption. Perhaps the solution is for the city to "recognize" a wider range of non-profit volunteer organizations that meet the standards, rather than seeking to make NAs do more pointless record-keeping because the other groups have to.

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

What do you see as the reporting requirements for the Council and their staff, other than publishing the Council's calendar?

I'm actually apparently wrong about this one, at least as I look at the most recent draft I have.

So in addition to donating my time to tell the City Council what participants in our public involvement process want, I'd have to spend my volunteer hours recording how much time I spend researching issues, calling neighbors to inform them, writing on this blog, and other related pursuits and chores.

Or do what lobbying entities currently do in other contexts/jurisdictions: Simply assume the neighborhood association going to break over the time threshold and register it was a lobbying entity. Then you don't need to track the time (since the proposal doesn't require that you report some massive and methodical time-spent breakdown.

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

Can one of you please explain/outline the change in the Open Meeting laws governing NAs in the recent revisions to the Guidelines?

Page 10 of the adopted standards:

Neighborhood Associations shall abide by the open meetings/public records policy governing the neighborhood system as set forth in these Standards. (See Section VIII: Open Meetings and Public Records, page 37)

Pages 37-46 outline the new records/meetings policy. In contrast, the old guidelines specifically referred to Oregon law, although pointed out that courts had determined that NAswere not accountable to state records/meetings laws. Council had adopted compliance with state laws in this realm for NAs.

It was specifically stated during the public hearing leading up to the adoption of the new standards that the new standards don't use state records ad meetings law, but have fashioned a policy specifically for NAs and other ONI entities.

allehseya on 04 Aug 2005

Amanda,

I will put aside my argument that the nature of NA work, more often than not, will fall under the definition of *lobbying*. I will put aside the loopholes and all the criteria for exemption. I will even put aside the irony that prominent NA volunteers themselves have (through successful lobbying) become the 'city officials' vulnerable to lobbying activity.

I just wonder if you would consider this:
Wouldnt the one website be much easier for people to access for information on citizen engagement on public policy / issues than the current process your average citizen has to undergo for such information?

Why make people look through every issue of the news paper for the alleged transparency NAs provide -- search through countless websites for meeting minutes, schedules, issues, etc. that may or may not be updated due to the nature of NA volunteer work, hours, etc?

Certainly you will acknowledge that ONI's Neighborhood Association page is (still) "under construction". While I believe that the plans for that section are a good starting point -- surely we will agree that one cannot say that such transparency Sam's ordinance would ensure -- has been there all along and that the information has been / is easily accessible?

So why not ensure it?

Randy Leonard on 04 Aug 2005

You're probably right, B!X. Points well taken.

Randy Leonard on 04 Aug 2005

Of course, I was referencing the posting of the my calendar discussion.

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

FYI, I notice now that there appear to be two different issues regarding calendars. There's the issue of a sort of real-time posting of calendars (Potter and Adams come close to this), and then the specific matter of what's in the lobbyist ordinance.

It turns out, the draft I have of the lobbyist ordinance simply says that commissioners are to post, each quarter, their calendar for the quarter just ended -- an after-the-fact posting anyway.

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

The old ONI Guidelines and code refer to state Open Meetings laws, which a legal ruling said don't apply to Neighborhood Associations. So the new ONI Guidelines and code provides more specific language on the open meetings laws NAs are now required to abide by. It's more restrictive, more open than the old rules.

Registering as a lobbying entity doesn't mean *ta-da!* you're done. Registered lobbyists have to provide detailed information quarterly on who is authorized to lobby, who they speak or write to, how much time they spend educating their members, etc. That's a big burden to ask of volunteers - all volunteers, I agree, not just those in NAs. But it's particularly burdensome for NAs. If I print in the neighborhood report, "the NA supports position X, please contact the City Council in support", how am I supposed to know which of the 32,000 people reading the SWNI Newsletter will respond, so I can add their name to my list?

Apart from that, so far Sam hasn't incorporated my suggestion of changing the title to "Lobbyists and Concerned Citizens". Although I still believe many citizens will choose not to participate rather than being named on a register, it's partly the label we object to. When I help with litter pick-up at the end of a neighborhood potluck, I'm a clean-up volunteer, not a registered garbage hauler. If you take your kid's temperature when they're sick, you're a concerned parent, not a registered nurse. And it matters to me and others that volunteer citizen activists are not professional lobbyists, and we shouldn't be named as such.

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

And yes, allehseya, I agree there should be a central one-stop shopping site to find out who's doing what in city issues. The Task Force on Neighborhood Involvment I served on in 1995 made this recommendation. It's never been funded. And I don't believe it should be titled "Lobbyist Register", because that doesn't invite the average citizen to use it and become involved.

Mary Jo Markle on 04 Aug 2005

The discussion about Len Bergstein's suggestion at the July 20 public meeting provided Commissioner Adams with useful feedback as to why the original definition of "official action" was better than the changes that were made prior to the meeting. Commissioner Adams has decided to keep the original definition in his draft.

“Official action” means introduction, sponsorship, testimony, debate, voting or any other official action on any ordinance, measure, resolution, amendment, nomination, appointment, or report, or any matter, including administrative action, that may be the subject of action by the City.

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

The old ONI Guidelines and code refer to state Open Meetings laws, which a legal ruling said don't apply to Neighborhood Associations. So the new ONI Guidelines and code provides more specific language on the open meetings laws NAs are now required to abide by. It's more restrictive, more open than the old rules.

My point is this: Under the new regime, NAs are not under the auspices of the state's laws, but under the new ONI-specific policies. Hence, they do not qualify for the exemption in the lobbyist porposal, because that proposal only applies to entities which "comply with" state records and meetings laws.

allehseya on 04 Aug 2005

Ok -- lets not get bogged down in the semantics game. Who cares what the potential one-stop resource is called as long as there is a valid and consistent process that ensures its ongoing existence? I dislike the taint to the word 'lobbyist' as much as anyone else -- but lets do be practical. Would you feel better if it were called the "advocates" and "activists" ordinance? Because in essence -- that's who it will address when they are affiliated with an organization like you and I are. It all boils down to the same objective in the end: Who and what organizations are working towards what issues, with who, and why.

Also, I think you may be envisioning a lot more paperwork than is actually required as well. For instance, in your proposed scenario, the only thing you'd have to report as the person identified to speak on behalf of the organization regarding a particular initiative is your time and actions on any given initiative in which you represent leadership or representative roles. The report you create would have to indicate merely that it went out to 32,000 people. What's so horrible about that?

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

So since the new ONI Guidelines do require Open meetings and records, and therefore organizations operating under them are transparent, surely the solution is to change the wording in the lobbyist ordinance to "comply with Section VIII of the ONI Standards" or suchlike, instead of referencing the state open meeting laws?

Allehseya, apparently the name does matter, because I and others have suggested changing it to "lobbyists and other concerned citizens" several times, without success. Thank you for changing the language for "city action" back to the previous version, though, Sam and Mary Jo.

The problem with the ordinance including volunteers in recognized groups is that it would be saying, "unless the city's Neighborhood Association participants register on our site, even though we know who they are and that they are lobbying because that's what we invite and recognize them to do, we are going to call their volunteers criminals. Neighborhood volunteers may not talk to their elected officials on behalf of their neighbors unless they register." That's simply unacceptable.

Neighborhood Association (and Watershed Council) members jump through special hoops in order to be recognized. They publish agendas and minutes, are responsible for listening to anyone who walks into a meeting, take on a wide range of issues with no compensation and only the good of the community as their reward. And if NAs had to keep track of all the time they spend organizing citizens to participate effectively, they might stop doing it, as the number of times we're successful is miniscule in relation to the amount of effort expended.

The purpose stated in the ordinance is "that, to preserve the integrity of the decision making process, lobbying entities that engage in efforts to influence City officials, should report their lobbying efforts to the public." Neighborhood Associations already report everything they do to the public. Other than "because other groups have to", can you give me a purpose for including them in this ordinance? Can you give me even one example where an NA was successful in persuading Council, and you were left wondering who made it happen?

The One True b!X on 04 Aug 2005

So since the new ONI Guidelines do require Open meetings and records, and therefore organizations operating under them are transparent, surely the solution is to change the wording in the lobbyist ordinance to "comply with Section VIII of the ONI Standards" or suchlike, instead of referencing the state open meeting laws?

Indeed.

But this will require Adams' office to just give up ad admit that the three-prong exemption all along is about neighborhood associations, rather than pretending it isn't.

allehseya on 04 Aug 2005

"unless the city's Neighborhood Association participants register on our site, even though we know who they are and that they are lobbying because that's what we invite and recognize them to do, we are going to call their volunteers criminals. Neighborhood volunteers may not talk to their elected officials on behalf of their neighbors unless they register."

The point is -- the City may know who they are and what they are advocating for but Citizens dont.

Amanda on 04 Aug 2005

Allehseya, if citizens want to know who is talking on behalf of Neighborhood Associations, they can go to
http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/search/index.cfm?&cid=28381 and look it up. They can identify the NA they're interested in by typing in the address on Portlandmaps.com, and call or e-mail the chair and other volunteers. It's open, it's transparent, it's public record. If they're still not sure, they can call the coalition or district office identified on the ONI site, and ask to be put in contact with the volunteer working on the particular issue they're interested in.

There's already a required registration system for NA volunteers - anyone who doesn't know who they are has chosen not to access it. And by requiring all NAs to register their board's contact information with ONI, that's equivalent to saying yes, all NAs will most likely be doing some advocacy work to improve the city, and here's who'll be doing it. What more would requiring a second registration as lobbyists do?

allehseya on 05 Aug 2005

Allehseya, if citizens want to know who is talking on behalf of Neighborhood Associations, they can go to
http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/search/index.cfm?&cid=28381 and look it up.

That's precisely my point. They have to look it up. And even if they did (click on any series of links from that starting point) you will not get meeting minutes regarding what the issues are in those neighborhoods. The page that should provide that does not, at this time, exist -- and therefore -- isnt "transparent."

Randy Leonard on 05 Aug 2005

Allehseya-
Your concerns are on point. I agree with you analysis and conclusion.

Anne Dufay on 05 Aug 2005

allehseya Says: "That's precisely my point. They have to look it up."

But if they register as a lobbyist folks will be able to just lick their little finger and put it up to the wind and, just know???? I mean, sorry to be sarcastic, but somehow or other "having to look it up" will be a requirement to knowing, no matter what the system.

>>And even if they did (click on any series of links from that starting point) you will not get meeting minutes regarding what the issues are in those neighborhoods. The page that should provide that does not, at this time, exist -- and therefore -- isnt "transparent."

Posting minutes online is an issue entirely separate from the lobbying registration question. I would also add that while the notion that posting online would ensure transparency is one that a blogger might find unquestionable, there are still people in our city who are NOT computer users. The system, as it stands right now, is as equally open to them, as it is to any computer-literate-equipped person. Come to our office, read the minutes. Take copies if you wish. We never turn anyone away.

Posting minutes online would be an enhancement, of course. It would certainly be a convenience for some citizens. However the NA system as it stands does not have the resources to do this. And, given the multitude of unmet financial needs our NA system is dealing with now I'd put that little enhancement way way down the priority list. There are very few instances where people actually WANT to read the minutes, outside the NA folks, who already read them regularly, because they have to vote to approve them. We probably get about one to two requests, at NWNW, in an entire year. That's not enough demand to push that (unfunded) priority up above the many many more urgent (unfunded) neighborhood needs we are currently struggling under.

One issue I have not heard raised in this thread is the disincentive excessive reporting requirements exert on folks who are less familiar with "The City", whose comfort level, or just plain language capacity, at filling out "government forms" and tracking their movements and activities is about, oh, say, zero... The NA system is struggling to bring more diverse populations into our pool, and the LAST thing we need to make this happen is a slew of new paperwork and reporting requirements for folks who may not even speak the language to complete in order to be allowed to participate in our governing system.

So, in my opinion, one clear "unintended consequence" of putting this requirement on the NA's would be to "elitize" the system ever further.

Now, there is one thing that ONI could do that might fulfill the spirit of what you're seeking, allehsaya, without requiring a whole new passel of reports and record-keeping. Every quarter the Coalitions complete an exhaustive set of reports which we turn into ONI. They list all the projects our NA's are working on, what their status is and who is partnering with them on each one. They provide highlights of special projects, and more facts and figures than anyone, as far as I've ever been able to ascertain, cares to read or know... Perhaps ONI could post those online? Would that be something you'd be interested in seeing?

Randy Leonard on 05 Aug 2005

"you" should have been "your".

Randy Leonard on 05 Aug 2005

It is interesting to me that those that are arguing here why their lobbying efforts should be exempted are the same individuals that would criticize vociferiously any other entity that would attempt to parse their arguments to receive the same exculsion.

It seems to me that one is in favor of full disclosure of all activities that seek to influence how a particular member of the city council votes...or one is not.

Amanda on 05 Aug 2005

My statement: "Perhaps the solution is for the city to "recognize" a wider range of non-profit volunteer organizations that meet the standards, rather than seeking to make NAs do more pointless record-keeping because the other groups have to"

Randy's comment: "those that are arguing here why their lobbying efforts should be exempted are the same individuals that would criticize vociferiously any other entity that would attempt to parse their arguments to receive the same exculsion"

Making my point that one issue isn't what NA folk are saying in public, it's whether elected officials are listening and responding to what they say, or not.

Besides, it's interesting that this entire thread has morphed into a debate about whether NAs are in or out, when the real problem is the impact that paid lobbyists and Big Money special interests can have. Doesn't anyone want to comment on my suggestion that there should be a prohibition on electronic contact with City Council members after the close of the record in public hearings?

The One True b!X on 05 Aug 2005

Perhaps the solution is for the city to "recognize" a wider range of non-profit volunteer organizations that meet the standards...

Ok, I'll bit on this one: No, the answer to this ordinance's problems is most definitely not to find even more entities to exempt. If nothing else, that will be one of the fastest ways to (1) kill it and/or (2) make people not trust it.

Doesn't anyone want to comment on my suggestion that there should be a prohibition on electronic contact with City Council members after the close of the record in public hearings?

Yes, but in all the rush here I forgot. I do believe it's a restriction that needs to be put into place, regardless of whether or not it's even caused any specific problems to date. If public testimony is closed, then it's closed, and there shouldn't be a way for special people to get around that.

Randy Leonard on 05 Aug 2005

As I have mentioned here before, I continue to be proud to have received the endorsement and subsequent $2,000 contribution from the NW Portland neighborhood association in 2002.

However, it is the only time in my entire political career that my vote on an issue was tied by a supporter to their support of me.

I am absolutely supportive of all lobbying activity stopping at any given point. However, I would hope everyone would agree that there should be no exclusions as to which groups that prohibition applies to.

The One True b!X on 05 Aug 2005

And just wait until the day when City decides to give NAs, directly, some sort of financial support, from the City budget, for neighborhood improvements whcih the NAs themselves get to decide upon.

Do then the NAs themselves arguably become an official body subject to lobbying, and anyone who tries to influence where that money is spent will have to register as a lobbyist?

Amanda on 05 Aug 2005

b!X, that's one reason why I'm very concerned about the potential outcome of the Bureau Innovation Project. Most NA board members I know have no desire to become rulers of one of 95 mini-City Halls. And any allocation of money for improvements would have to come with hugely increased funding for communication and outreach in neighborhoods - funding that is currently woefully inadequate.

Implementing "community governance" would mean switching the NA system from the current participatory activism model to an entirely different representational government structure. A whole lot more than lobbying regulations would have to be changed if the city decides to go that route.

Amanda on 05 Aug 2005

I guess I meant "Community Visioning Project", which is a part of the "Bureau Innovation Project". Not to be confused with the "Task Force on Public Involvement", the recently-completed multi-year study taking thousands of hours of volunteer time.

The One True b!X on 05 Aug 2005

Actually, no. What you meant was recommendation #8 from the Bureau Innovation Project, on revitalizing -- if not outright recreating -- the Office of Neighborhood Involvement.

The Community Visioning Project -- #1 on the BIP list of recommendations -- is something else entirely.

Anne Dufay on 05 Aug 2005

Amanda, sorry, I too forgot to add my support to your call for prohibition on electronic contact. I think that one's a no-brainer.

Regarding the Commissioner's statement that NWDA gave him money -- Portland neighborhood associations, as 501 C3 nonprofits, are prohibited from engaging in any political activity supporting a political candidate. NWDA did not give him any money. A local political action committee did give him $2,000 around that time, I'm guessing that's what he's getting confused in his memory about.

As for the charge that some folks just don't want the rules to apply to them -- I think that's a fair one to discuss, but in the end I come down on the side of Linnton's NA's occasionally cantankerous and incredibly hard-working land use chair -- he has stated more than once his absolute affront at being told that he would have to register and track his time, just for doing what he considers is his civic right -- interacting with his elected representatives over issues of concern to him in his neighborhood.

When weighing the benefits of increased paperwork/reporting requirements on small, volunteer organizations it is crucially important to consider whether the theoretical gain in information would be worth the potentially crippling blow the requirement would put on the organization. That's why I really like the requirement of posting the Commish's calendars -- a great gain in public info/benefit which would add little new bureaucratic structure or costs to the city budget.

Forcing Linnton's Mr Gray to register as a "lobbyist" would reveal nothing new - no information about his activities not already readily available -- there would be no net public gain for all the bureaucratic paper-pushing -- and Mr Gray would (he has said, and I would not doubt his word) not comply, and thus be banned from doing the great work he does.

It is naive to expect that putting more impediments on plain folks who want to talk to "The City" will NOT result in fewer folks participating.

B!X - your "what-if" really made me laugh. Sometimes taking something to its most convoluted-impossible-but-possible end shines an important light on the absurdities hidden within.

The One True b!X on 05 Aug 2005

When weighing the benefits of increased paperwork/reporting requirements on small, volunteer organizations it is crucially important to consider whether the theoretical gain in information would be worth the potentially crippling blow the requirement would put on the organization.

Well, it can't be reduced to this because if it were then we'd have to ask questions like, "Why isn't Portland Copwatch exempt, too?"

Now, that doesn't fit into the proposal as written, of course, because Copwatch wouldn't meet all three criteria. But I raise it as an example not just because of your statement above but because Mayor Potter himself, when this proposal was discussed before Council, asked about including organizations like Portland Copwatch amongst the exemptions.

We really can't walk down that road, and the discussions of any exemptions at all is what's causing the proposal to get bogged down.

The One True b!X on 05 Aug 2005

Also, I would argue that this assertion that NAs would have some sort of insurmountable burden by having to report their activities raises a different questiion for me: Why aren't NAs keeping track of their activities already, just for internal purposes? What would my local NA do, say, if I walked in and said I would like to know how much time they are spending on Issue X? They are my NA, shouldn't I be able to get that sort of information from them?

Yes, I should. So if they aren't tracking that already, they're already failing to do something they really ought to be doing.

Also: Remember that the ordinance only requires the lobbying entity to report/register lobbying by people authorized by the entity to engage in lobbying on that entity's behalf.

Simply being a member of an organization doesn't count towards that.

Randy Leonard on 05 Aug 2005

Anne-
I am confident you are not trying to intentionally mislead anyone. However, your comment may have that effect unless readers understand how these PAC's are organized.

The same people that organized the PAC that I received my contribution from are the same people who are the leadership of the NW Portland Neighborhood Assn.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact that kind of thing is common. For an example, the Portland Firefighters Assn. used to have a PAC organized as "Citizens for a Better Government". However, the media reported any contributions from that PAC as a contribution from the Portland Firefighters.

Technically wrong. Practically speaking, correct.

Steve on 05 Aug 2005

I have to agree with Mr B!x about posting everything and allowing the concerned public to sort it out. I still don't understand why just not register everyone is it that cumbersome?

As far as Mr Leonard's worry about the crazies seeing his calendar (thanks for the respect), then post it after the date has passed.

Unfortunately, a lot of the back-room stuff they try to hide are the things that cost us the most which is why openness in government serves as a check and balance mechanism.

allehseya on 05 Aug 2005

Amanda, sorry, I too forgot to add my support to your call for prohibition on electronic contact. I think that one's a no-brainer.

Ditto.

allehseya on 05 Aug 2005

Every quarter the Coalitions complete an exhaustive set of reports which we turn into ONI. They list all the projects our NA's are working on, what their status is and who is partnering with them on each one. They provide highlights of special projects, and more facts and figures than anyone, as far as I've ever been able to ascertain, cares to read or know... Perhaps ONI could post those online? Would that be something you'd be interested in seeing?

Yes, and I've expressed as much to the ONI director and am confident that the page will come to manifest in some form or another during the BIP process -- but let me ask you -- why not simply register the NA under Sam's Ordinance and use those same reports you mentioned to meet Sam's reporting requirements in his proposed ordinance?

I'm assuming that the NAs have to provide their Coalition with a report in order for the Coalition to compile their final report to ONI? So really -- the only additional burden is that you'd be handing them in as part of your registration requirements for the "Lobbyists and Concerned Citizens" record -- and maybe have to designate an official representative for each of your NA initiatives (which, if not already a part of the NA structure -- then would be an improvement to it).

allehseya on 05 Aug 2005

We really can't walk down that road, and the discussions of any exemptions at all is what's causing the proposal to get bogged down.

Agreed. Take the exemption out.

If, however, if the exemption remains -- then those looking to have it apply to them must meet each of its three prongs -- and that would mean having to meet State open meeting and record laws. So in actuality -- this entire discussion is pointless. NA's do not meet that prong of the exemption.

Frank Dufay on 05 Aug 2005

Comm Leonard writes "Anne, I am confident you are not trying to intentionally mislead anyone. However, your comment may have that effect unless readers understand how these PAC's are organized. The same people that organized the PAC that I received my contribution from are the same people who are the leadership of the NW Portland Neighborhood Assn."

Ummm....no, that's wrong commisioner. One, there is no such thing as the NW Portland Neighborhood Association.

Two, NPAC, which contributed to your campaign, has NO organizational relationship to ANY particular neighborhood association. People from across the city have contributed to NPAC...including folks like Anne and I who live in SE Portland.

There is no comparison. NPAC is no more a creature of some non-existant NW Neighborhood Association then "Citizens for a Better Government."

One of the problems with the "transparent" reporting of campaign contributions is that contributions are made, uh, not so transparently. One needs to look at the number of contributions from not only PACS but limited liability corporations.

Along with the City registering lobbyists --and I guess I'd stop at people who are PAID to lobby, INCLUDING paid neighborhood "activists"-- I think we'd all benefit from better, and more transparent, campaign contribution reporting.

allehseya on 05 Aug 2005

I think we'd all benefit from better, and more transparent, campaign contribution reporting.

Ah, a new topic! Yes. One of the many reasons I have so much respect for Commisioner Erik Sten is due to his most excellent initiative in the area of campaign finance reforms (to say nothing regarding the sheer amount of .... well ... courage -- surrounding the issue of Portland's PGE purchase)

Chris Smith on 06 Aug 2005

b!X, while I'm somewhat on the fence on the issue of including NAs (philosphically I believe they should be, practically and politically I see lots of challenges and they're not the entities whose reports I most want to read anyway), I think your description of how NAs should keep records is completely out of alignment with reality.

If a neighbor wants to know in detail what a NA is doing on a particular topic, they can easily find out, but that will generally happen through a phone or e-mail conversation, not be querying a bunch of written records. If someone calls a coalition office with a question, they will quickly and accurately refer them to the committee chair or other leader with the info. It works and works well. Adding a lot of paper to this would not add value!

Addressing the broader discussion here, I think the heated discussion about the 'burden' is somewhat misunderstood (although I know Amanda understands it). The burden is not in counting hours of effort or registering folks - the easy answer is to register all your 'authorized representatives' (and in most cases that could be a short list). Once you have made the leap to registering, you don't have to count hours. The burden is in keeping track of all the contacts with the "City Officials". Every meeting, phone call, letter and e-mail has to be tracked.

Unquestionably a pain, and I have had to think about how City Club (which hates the idea of being called lobbyists as much as NAs do) will comply with this. But, I also think that this is the level of reporting that is NECESSARY for this system to have real value.

Chris Smith on 06 Aug 2005

I would hasten to add that the above is NOT disagreement with the idea that NAs should follow open meetings and public records processes. It is vital that the decision making processes in NAs should be transparent and recorded.

What I was objecting to was what I read as an implication that the implementation of those decisions needed to be recorded with the same level of diligence.

The special case of that implementation involving exerting influence on City Officials is of course what we're discussing here, and I'm enjoying the discussion!

But lots of implementation actions are mundane and informal, and work better that way.

The One True b!X on 06 Aug 2005

The burden is not in counting hours of effort or registering folks - the easy answer is to register all your 'authorized representatives' (and in most cases that could be a short list). Once you have made the leap to registering, you don't have to count hours.

Yeah, but you've been in the Lovejoy Room for these discussions. You know that many of the people trying to exempt themselves either (1) still don't understand this, no matter how often it's explained or (2) understand it, but continually misrepresent it anyway.

Randy Leonard on 06 Aug 2005

Frank, I am sorry, but your comment here is disingenuous. Anne may have made an honest mistake in her post, however, I cannot find any reason to give you the same benefit of the doubt.

501 C3's are prohibited from engaging in political activity. Thus, neighborhood organizations created the NWPAC to avoid that prohibition.

As I said, nothing wrong with that. Many 501 3C organizations do that.

However, when the same people who are the leaders of a neighborhood organization create another legal entity to skirt the 501 3C rules it is important to be transparent and forthright about that. Your comment here has the effect of misleading the readers of this site.

allehseya on 06 Aug 2005

The burden is in keeping track of all the contacts with the "City Officials". Every meeting, phone call, letter and e-mail has to be tracked.

The number of hours that Sam's ordinance constitutes for lobbying time and lobbying activitites are so narrow that the NAs should just designate a lead person authorized to speak on their behalf on whatever initiatives they have, register and be done with it.

Besides, the burden that everyone is whining about really isnt all that big of a weight. You just keep a folder and put a copy of your contacts, bills and correspondance in it. You keep a phone log which really isnt that hard to keep and staple to a phone bill --- and you time-manage.

As an experiment in time-management, just try telling yourself that you wont spend more than X amount of time on any given task -- and time it to see how well you do. Jot down the nature of the task and the time -- and -- if you meet it, do something you enjoy as a treat -- go do yoga, catch a movie or walk the dog. Any and every volunteer, activist and advocate should have good time-mangement skills -- or we burn-out. The city wants a record of our time? GOOD! Now we can see how much time we give to our tasks and maybe balance them with other activities that offer us a more well-rounded life!

The 'burden' is really just Basic Organization Skills 101 -- that any organizer at Office Max can help one develop if the NA structure doesnt build it in as a matter of process. They really arent all that difficult to maintain and the NAs must have a process in place for the development of their reports to the Coalition / ONI -- so I beleive that even the 'burden' is over-rated.

Chris Smith on 06 Aug 2005

b!X, whether it's confusion or misrepresentation, the response is to keep making the point clearly in this forum and others :-)

allehseya, the kind of record keeping you suggest is challenging in all-volunteer organizations. Even at City Club where we have staff, the Advocacy program is volunteer-based and essentially unstaffed. Keeping track of every e-mail and phone conversation will be a challenge. I'm up for the challenge based on the benefit (and that's my personal position, City Club has taken no collective position on this proposal), but the challenge should not be minimized.

Amanda on 06 Aug 2005

Randy, Frank, and Anne - isn't it wonderful that we have public campaign financing in place now, so in the future there won't be arguments about what a particular donation meant, or who it was from, or how much support the elected official has/had from the donors of large sums of money?

Allehseya, the problem isn't just the amount of record-keeping. If NAs were included, the law would say that unless NA volunteers keep track of which of their members make calls, send e-mails, show up, then those volunteers are subject to fines. And it's literally impossible for my NA board to comply with the regulations, because we don't know which of the 32,000 people reading the SWNI Newsletter will contact Council to support the NA position. Many NAs have in their bylaws that when you live within the boundaries and participate in a meeting or action, you become a member. But I have no way of knowing which of the potential members respond to a call to action in the newsletter, and anyone who does is welcome to support and expound on why the NA's position makes sense. So if Sam's records show he received an e-mail from Citizen Jane in support of my NA's position, and I haven't reported Citizen Jane on my list because I didn't know she responded to my article, I'm subject to a fine. Hey, I know, let's list all 32,000 readers of the SWNI Newsletter on the site, that way I'm covered!

Take it to the logical conclusion - is the City really going to take its NA volunteers to court, if they don't comply with this ordinance? As a parent, I'm very, very cautious about making rules I know I can't/won't enforce. I realize some readers don't like it, but Neighborhood Associations are special, here in Portland. They help make our city's neighborhoods wonderful places, and they provide a forum for participatory action for anyone and everyone willing to use them. Council affirms that special status every year, by recognizing them and providing some funding to support them. I agree with b!X, don't dance around saying NAs are excluded by trying to define why without saying so - just state in the ordinance that Recognized Neighborhood Associations are exempted, then we can debate the merits of that rather than skating around the issue.

Nobody can make me do something, as a volunteer. They can entice me to do it, by offering incentives or by making a good case for why it's in the long term public good to do it. Threatening me doesn't work. What is the public good in registering NAs twice - once on the ONI pages, once on the lobbyist page? Could a compromise be achieved by having a link to the ONI pages on the Lobbyist Registration page, noting that recognized NAs are expected to interact with their city government?

Better yet, during the 6 months trial period, let's have the Council members list on a separate website every NA representative they met with, and every time they respond to something requested by NA members in refining proposals and casting votes on the Council. Now THAT would provide transparency. I'm more interested in recording results than I am in seeing how much effort is expended in attempting to achieve them.

The One True b!X on 06 Aug 2005

If NAs were included, the law would say that unless NA volunteers keep track of which of their members make calls, send e-mails, show up, then those volunteers are subject to fines. And it's literally impossible for my NA board to comply with the regulations, because we don't know which of the 32,000 people reading the SWNI Newsletter will contact Council to support the NA position.

My memory may be failing here, so Chris will hopefully be able to weigh in here, but my recolelction of the two meetings I've attended is extended conversations where Adams and his staff said members aren't covered, only authorized representatives are covered.

If that memory is accurate, than the above is just wrong.

allehseya on 06 Aug 2005

Adams and his staff said members aren't covered, only authorized representatives are covered.

Yes. This is my understanding as well. The reporting requirement of the organization is in direct relation to their official authorized representative. Which is why I don't spend a lot of time addressing this repeated argument. (but I'll do it anyway) All the NA would have to do is to appoint an official representaive for each NA issue or initiative that is being addressed with City officials. That person would log their work as the recognized 'lobbyist' and the organization would submit the final report.

allehseya on 06 Aug 2005

allehseya, the kind of record keeping you suggest is challenging in all-volunteer organizations. Even at City Club where we have staff, the Advocacy program is volunteer-based and essentially unstaffed. Keeping track of every e-mail and phone conversation will be a challenge. I'm up for the challenge based on the benefit (and that's my personal position, City Club has taken no collective position on this proposal), but the challenge should not be minimized.

Heh. Tell ya what, Chris. You get City Club to agree with your position and support Sam's proposal and I'll donate a free workshop or two on how to do it that will make it appear easy - consider it training in time management skills for your staff of most excellent volunteers ; ]

Chris Smith on 06 Aug 2005

Yes, the 'authorized representative' language takes members off the hook unless they have been specifically empowered by the organization. In NAs I think that would most often take the form of bylaw provisions (e.g., land use chairs) or specific authority conveyed by the board of directors (e.g., I was authorized to represent NWDA before Council on parking issues).

allehseye, I may take you up on that. It's a little bit difficult to get City Club to take a position without a research study (not enough time for that), but I might put a membership resolution on the floor if I think the ordinance needs the extra support.

Amanda on 06 Aug 2005

If that's so, then this entire conversation is moot. If the total lobbying effort doesn't count, only the time spent by the "authorized representative", then NAs aren't going to have to register anyway. All we do is designate someone who hasn't done much else to be the "authorized representative" to sign the official letter and read it at Council, and everything all the worker bees do to support and drive home their message doesn't count. Is that what you're saying?

Surely that wouldn't work very well even in capturing some of the moneyed lobbying that goes on? "Hi, Councilman, I'm millionaire developer X, I support the position of the Portland Business Alliance but I'm not their authorized representative so this conversation is just between you and me, right?"

allehseya on 07 Aug 2005

Amanda,

Your authorized representative will have to be more than a puppet and signature. They should be the person(s) that coordinate the issues surrounding your organization's stance on any given initiative that your organization may be approaching council members on. I suggest that your busiest worker bees, as you refer to them, -- or rather -- the busiest one for each issue or initiative -- should become your authorized representative(s) -- or you're gaming the system. There is an assumption that others in your organization are actively involved in the initiative as your report will indicate, roughly, how many members your organization has, who the authorized representative is, and roughly to how many people your message regarding your stance (call for action, alerts, etc.) may be addressed to.

As for your scenario -- as I understand it, according to Sam's proposed ordinance -- the citizen that testifies on any given issue -- even if it meshes with the objectives of some organization -- is merely considered to be exercising their civil liberties in free speech.

Amanda on 07 Aug 2005

In many NAs. the President is the authorized representative per the bylaws. That's as it should be. The President often isn't the one doing the most work on a particular issue - that's one reason NAs can manage with volunteers, because some of us work on land use, others are more interested in transportation, parks, crime prevention, etc. But ultimately, one person should be designated to speak for the organization, to avoid the land use chair saying one thing, the transportation chair another. So now allehseya wants NAs to change their bylaws to fit this ordinance? Seems to me it should be the other way around - the ordinance language should reflect how NAs work, if Council decides NAs should be in.

I just re-read the latest proposed language. Groups of all kinds don't even fit under the proposed definition of "lobbying entity". A "lobbying entity" is defined as "a person who...." NAs aren't a person. Neither is Copwatch, or the League of Women Voters, etc.

The way I read the latest proposal, it would capture mostly professional lobbyist activity. The only trigger that would pull in some volunteer organizations is that time spent preparing emails, letters, and for oral testimony counts in the 16 hour per quarter threshold. Most volunteer groups I'm involved with don't get 16 hours of personal contact time with Commissioners, their staff, and bureau heads on an issue. And if the "member" worktime doesn't count, then only groups with oaid staff such as the City Club, or volunteer groups whose designated leader is the mover-and-shaker rather than the coordinator, are likely to reach the trigger.

I'd still put in a reference to NA activity, by linking the ONI page on the lobbyist registration page with a note that NAs are the city's recognized citizen participation organizations. Since it's the professional lobbyists who are being most successful in persuading Council to vote their way, I think tracking the activity of those who do get paid to spend 16 hours a quarter getting to talk to Council would be a good way to start for the lobbying ordinance. Seems to me that's mostly what the proposed language does, in its present iteration.

allehseya on 07 Aug 2005

"So now allehseya wants NAs to change their bylaws to fit this ordinance?"

(Wow) There's a stretch. I shall try to be clear inspite of how this post grabbed me before tea....

No. Allehseya doesn’t want you to change the by-laws, Amanda. Allehseya wants you to recognize and identify your most dedicated people that are doing the real work, on a consistent basis, and register them as (don't judge the word, now) lobbyists as per section 2.12.020 Definitions of CHAPTER 2.12 “REGULATION OF LOBBYING ENTITIES which states:

I. “Lobbyist” means:
1. Any individual who lobbies on behalf of a lobbying entity for money or any other consideration.

Allehseya wants you to do this because even though the NAs have been subject to open meeting and record laws as defined by the state, Allehseya has searched for such records in all the likely places and has not found them to be transparent, as previously discussed in this thread among others.

Allehseya wishes to remind you that if NA's met public meeting and record laws as defined by the state, and -- were transparent with citizens regarding their agendas -- there would be no need to consider her suggestions, but for some reason the NA’s have decided to no longer comply with state record and meeting laws, and the logic, of course – is that they were too burdensome.

In light of this, Allehseya additionally wishes to point out that section 2.12.050, entitled ”Exemptions to Registration and Reporting Requirements for Lobbying Entities.” provides NA's a loophole – provided that the lobbying entity (NAs):

1. Is subject to and complies with state public record and
meeting laws;
2. Is an Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) 3
Organization; and
3. Is formally recognized by the City of Portland.

Furthermore, Allehseya is baffled as to why you will not comply with this request for transparency, as you and I both know, your best and most competent volunteers will, in fact, likely go over the allotted time in their *activism*, *advocacy* -- (whatever fluffy word you feel better using) -- when it pertains to public issues.

Now, I don't know where you are getting your copies of the proposal with such massive changes? And please excuse my sarcasm -- it's just that my frustration level is rather high in all of this misrepresentation....

You see, the copy that I have referenced above is from Sam's website, following the link called “Archive of Initiatives” and clicking on the headline: ”UPDATE: Registering city lobbying entities: Why is this important to Sam? How is he going to do it?” and then clicking on the bullet: read “proposed code language”. What you get is a pdf file outlining CHAPTER 2.12 REGULATION OF LOBBYING ENTITIES

So when you state:
“In many NAs. the President is the authorized representative per the bylaws. That's as it should be.”

I don’t argue it. Under Sam’s code, I presume your President will be recognized and registered as the “Lobbying Entity Official” who is aware of the Initiatives that your lobbyists are acting towards.

Furthermore, when you state “I just re-read the latest proposed language. Groups of all kinds don't even fit under the proposed definition of "lobbying entity". A "lobbying entity" is defined as "a person who...." NAs aren't a person. Neither is Copwatch, or the League of Women Voters, etc.” (bold emphasis mine) you are misrepresenting the proposed code and its meanings.

For clarity, and to avoid any further misreprentation, please refer to section 2.12.020 Definitions

G. “Lobbying Entity” means any person who lobbies either by employing or
otherwise authorizing a lobbyist to lobby on that person’s behalf.

H. “Lobbying Entity Official” means the designated representative of the
lobbying entity who is authorized to sign documents on behalf of the
lobbying entity.

I. “Lobbyist” means:
1. Any individual who lobbies on behalf of a lobbying entity for
money or any other consideration.
2. Any individual not otherwise subject to subsection 2.12.020 I.1.
who lobbies on behalf of a lobbying entity for the purpose of
lobbying.

J. “Person” means any individual, business association, corporation, partnership, association, club, company, business trust, organization or other group.

The One True b!X on 07 Aug 2005

Ok, this is just galling. I don't mean to be a pissant, but Amanda were you not actually present at the meetings on this proposal which you attended? Almost everything you've said here representing the proposal has been wrong, and repeatedly discoutned or explained at those meetings. So I really, really, quite honestly don't understand what's going on in this thread.

The most blatant example of the misdirection going on, intentionally or unintentionally, is quite nicely described by allehseya above, using the full language of the proposal rather than just conveniently-selected bits of it. Are any of the people fighting for NA exemptions actually reading the damned thing?

Then there's this:

All we do is designate someone who hasn't done much else to be the "authorized representative" to sign the official letter and read it at Council, and everything all the worker bees do to support and drive home their message doesn't count. Is that what you're saying?

Again, covered -- extensively -- in the two meetings at which I've lurked from the windowsill of the Lovejoy Room. The work that goes into preparing some lobbying counts towards the time threshold, but the authorized representative(s) is/are who gets listed as a lobbyist. So while it's that person's activity and contacts which must be reported in detail, the support work by everyone else to prepare that person for that activity/contact doesn't get reported in detail, but counts towards the time threshold.

It's been beaten into the ground that this is the case. It's clear that this is the case. It's been discussed ad infinitum in these meetings that this is the case.

Why, in this thread, is the proposal continually being misrepresented?

If you really don't want NAs to be covered, at least argue that position based upon the actual facts of the proposal, not some invented series of boogeymen.

Amanda on 07 Aug 2005

Thanks, Allehseya, I missed the definition of "person". My computer doesn't handle pdf files well and wouldn't print it out, so it's been challenging reading the version on Sam's site.

I thought I understood it. Then b!X, Chris, and Alleyseha said the work done by members doesn't count. Then I re-read the proposed language and question whether it says what any of these posts thinks it says. And now Allehseya and b!X are saying the work done by other members counts. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either workers count (as I presumed at the start of this thread, and you told me I was wrong) or they don't. How can I count the amount of time members-at-large in the community do to support the NA's position, when I don't know who they are and how much they've done? Or are you saying some members count more than others? How do I know who counts and who doesn't?

My NAs bylaws clearly state that on the President represents the organization, unless the Board authorizes another person to do so. That changes on an issue by issue basis. So when someone asserts it's no big deal for NAs to register their activists, that's not true. Especially when it's not clear who counts and who doesn't.

You seem to think there's a defined set of people who "are" the Neighborhood Association. Not true. And what I'm saying is that by my reading, most NAs won't reach the threshold to qualify as lobbyists under this ordinance. If you think they should, then the language needs to be modified. By my reading (and reasonable people can and apparently do disagree on this), the language right now would capture mostly paid lobbyists. Which is fine with me.

And by the way, I'm off to work now. I'm attempting to participate in this thread in between my other responsibilities, because I think the spirit of the ordinance is in the right direction, and I'd like to see something adopted. And I don't want to see anything adopted that impacts citizens' democratic participation and interaction with our city government. That's all.

Amanda on 07 Aug 2005

P.S. On the topic of "where you actually present at the meetings?", I've attended three of the meetings on this ordinance. By the end of the second, Sam had decided NAs would not be included. Throughout the last meeting (did you ever write up and post the notes, b!X?), NAs were "out". There was no discussion about how the revised proposal would apply to NAs. So it's not fair to give your readers the impression I wasn't paying attention about how the regs would apply to the unique entities we call Neighborhood Associations and their volunteers. At the last meeting, I was more focused on thinking through how it would apply to paid lobbyists, and I'm glad I was there to help turn back the Bergstein amendment. It's not undue influence from NA folk that deserves the attention in this matter.

Chris Smith on 07 Aug 2005

Amanda (and everyone else). There are two distinct issues: counting the hours and reporting the contacts. How much of the 'prep effort' gets counted in the hours is somewhat gray, but it's really not critical. That only matters for hitting the threshold, and as has been said here before, the easy way around that is just to assume you've hit the threshold. This is the recommendation I've made to City Club, we'll simply report for all of our Advocacy Committees that work on any City issues (e.g., PDC, Community Policing, Affordable Housing).

The real rub (and pain) is the reporting of contacts. And that is only applicable to authorized representatives. Could PBA work around that by sending a volunteer? Maybe, but if you send a board member to visit a Council office and they say "hey, I'm not authorized, but here's the position of my organization", I think the Council office might call you on it :-)

Certainly if you hire Len Bergstein or Gwenn Baldwin to carry your message, then for sure they're authorized. So again, the reports I most want to read are going to be the ones most certainly captured by this system.

In fact, I'd even argue for LOWERING the 16 hour threshold, because I want to make sure that Len and Gwenn (and other paid lobbyists, I don't want to pick on the two of them unfairly) get reported for every client they work for, even if in some quarter they happen to do less than 16 hours of work.

allehseya on 07 Aug 2005

[disclaimer: apologies for the long post, I am merely attempting to be thorough and as clear as possible]

Amanda,

I don’t understand how you can interpret the proposal language to be restricted to that of “paid lobbyist”.

The proposal isn’t meant to solely “catch” paid lobbyists. It’s designed to make transparent lobbying activities. Refer to Section 2.12.020 Definitions, Item F:

“Lobby” or “Lobbying” or “Lobbies” means attempting to influence the official action of City officials. Lobbying includes time spent preparing emails and letters and preparing for oral communication with a City official.” (bold emphasis mine)

Nor does it matter how “successful” one is in their lobbying attempts – the objective is to provide transparency in lobbying efforts.

For further clarity regarding the purpose of sam’s Regulation on Lobbying Entities, you should read the FAQ sheet on his website which states:

“ Important policy decisions are made at the administrative and quasi-judicial level. The public should know who influenced or wanted to influence those policy decisions.”

Again, it says nothing regarding the selective transparency of only the “successful” lobbying influence – it clearly states that the objective is to make transparent the attempt to influence – period.

I do sympathize with your confusion regarding the proposal’s definitions. It’s difficult to change our preconceived notions and everyday use of words such as “persons”, “lobbyists” and “authorized representative”. I have struggled with coming to my current understanding and acceptance of them, myself.

It helps, I think, to erase the associations we typically have with what we consider a “lobbyist”. In Sam’s proposal, the term applies to activists and advocates such as myself and Chris – when we are authorized to represent the shared views and objectives of an organization.

The organization, under Sam’s proposal thereby is defined as a “lobbying entity” due to its mission in influencing change in public policy/issues that it may care deeply about addressing with City Officials.

Surely you can see how many non-profits that exist in the city – which never considered themselves as a lobby or having employed lobbyists (paid or unpaid) to address their missions -- are suddenly subject to the new definition of “lobbying entity”? The natural inclination is to reject the definition due to the tainted association we apply to such groups. I think your reaction, in large part, falls into this category.

The leap that Chris and I had to make was to adjust our thinking based on the larger purpose of the proposal: that of “providing transparency in and of improving public confidence in city government decision-making”. After that initial hurdle is overcome, and we come to grips with the definition (lobby, lobbyist, lobbying entity) being applied to the nature of our work – the next step is to understand the ongoing process that will lend to and ensure that transparency and public faith.

The first step toward that is to ask yourself “Will I, or the organization I work for, spend more than the allotted time in my activism or advocacy with/to City Officials?” If the answer is “yes” or even “maybe” – you should register the organization as a Lobbying Entity.

The next step is to take a good look at your organization. And here is where I think we may have inadvertently contributed to your confusion (for which I apologize) . To clarify, your President would most likely be correlated to “Lobbying Entity Official” while the “authorized representative(s)” that has been made reference to are actually your organization’s most dependable, competent and trustworthy activists and advocates working on any given initiative – which would be registered as your “lobbyists”. I suggest that you choose one such person for each initiative that involves approaching City Officials to address.

These “authorized representatives” (under the new definition) will have to provide your organization with a record of their activities as outlined in the proposal wherever it refers to “lobbying activities” – while the remainder of your member’s activities are protected under civil liberties in their right to free speech – regardless of whether or not they are voicing support of your organization’s stance. This is acceptable due to the final report your organization will submit which will indicate how many members you have and to approximately how many people your message is sent / addressed to.

In regards to the NA’s being “out” of the discussions as to how all of this may or may not affect them – I am confident that there was an assumption that NA’s met all three prongs of the much-referenced exemption.

Now that this is no longer the case – this puts NA’s squarely back “in” along with other non-profits reliant upon volunteers (such as a number of the organizations I work with).

I would strongly suggest, if you insist on exemption, that you begin advocating the NA’s and Coalitions to revert to their former compliance with state laws – and I would also suggest that you advocate for the proper funding to ensure that ONI provide the transparency for NAs and Coalitions that Sam’s ordinance would ensure.

Amanda on 08 Aug 2005

Thank you for your posts, Allehseya and Chris. I understand when random participants "count", now. One clarification, Allehseya - the old NA regulations referenced state Open Meeting Laws. The courts ruled state Open Meeting Laws can't be applied to NAs. NA volunteers want to be open and transparent, because that protects the participants as well as the public at large. So in the latest revisions, the unlawful obsolete reference to state Open Meeting laws was changed to spell out exactly what is expected. The new language offers more assurance of open meetings, not less.

We're discussing potentially conflicting values. On one side are the values of transparency and accountability in city government. On the other are the values of citizen participation and freedom of speech. Unless we can craft an ordinance that honors all of these values, the balance will tip towards one side or the other.

The problem we are trying to solve is lack of information on who influences City Council members. My proposed solution is to require Council members to report who they speak and correspond with, and to write a short summary on each matter Council votes on, explaining why they chose their position. Council members have refused to do that. They want to shift the entire burden of reporting to citizens, except for posting their official calendars. So this is Value Call # 1 - should we be asking for more accountability from paid elected officials and their staff?

Value Call # 2 is Freedom of Speech versus Transparency. A particular example is whether what volunteers choose to call ourselves, in shunning the label "lobbyist", is more important than the reporting of contacts. If the exact proposed ordinance language were adopted except with the option that volunteers could choose to register on a Concerned Citizens site instead of the Lobbyist Registration site, I believe citizens would sign up in droves. It would become an open lobbying vehicle, whereby citizens could post for all to see, "yes, I care about this issue, use my name". Those who think the label is no big deal should consider which is more important - transparency or the chosen mechanism to achieve it.

Value Call # 3 is the relative importance of accountability versus participation. If the ordinance is passed as proposed, with the addition of citizen volunteers being required to register as lobbyists, I know for a fact that some citizens will either ignore it and run the risk of being sued by their city for using their rights of free speech and assembly, or stop participating. So those who support registration for all must consider whether the benefits outweigh that risk.

A real world example: Last month, I attended an NA meeting as a League of Women Voters study group observer. A neighbor had been appalled by a huge new house towering over the adjacent homes and covering almost all the lot, and had independently printed and delivered 300 postcards within the NA boundary. She had attended meetings to find out the current regulations allowing new construction like this, and invited the developer to the NA meeting. She wants to change the regulations, eventually, so new homes are more compatible with existing neighborhoods. Under the current system, she was welcomed by the NA chairman with excitement and enthusiasm. A summary of the meeting was printed in the SW Neighborhoods Newsletter. The citizen and her NA are beginning a citywide effort to address a perceived problem.

Under the lobbying ordinance, her initiative and activism could be greeted with "Oh dear. You just independently hit the 16 hour lobbying threshold. By bringing it to the NA, you require me as chair to register as a lobbyist. You have just set me up to record and report everything I do to support this effort, regardless of whether it has a snowball's chance in .... of succeeding. I am a volunteer. I'm not willing to do that. I quit."

Are the values of the ordinance, and including citizens already openly participating in the city's designated involvement system, worth the risk of losing citizen participants?

Anne Dufay on 08 Aug 2005

We're just back from a nice weekend in Seattle. (For those of you who know him -- the dog Dufay, Homz, standing in the bow of a ferry with the wind blowing his hair straight back is a sight to behold. The Titanic's got nothin' on us!)

Anyway, I read through the thread and am struck by a couple of things. First, alleysaya - no, you're wrong, the 95 NA's do not write up regular reports about their activities which they then send to the Coalitions for the Coalitions to include in their ONI reports. I don't know why you would assume that, except that you are hampered by a lack of familiarity with the NA/Coalition's structure, culture and activities.

From that follows your blithe assumption that the NA's would just have to "assign" one person for each issue and that person would be the "only one" who would have to write up reports of their activities. With a little help from a daytimer, I gather.

I can tell you've never tried to get someone to serve as Secretary on your NA board...

Don't get me wrong. There are NA's that do have the capacity to take on this additional reporting activity. But there are many that do not. Some just don't have the human or technological resources. (We have committee chairs and board members who still type up their minutes on an IBM Selectric. Others who do not have email.)

Others have a culture that would lead them to refuse to participate. As it stands, we respect and include them all. We provide a forum that is open and assessable to them, regardless of their techno or PC-handicapped cultural values... :)

We do require that they hold open meetings and provide minutes and notice their meetings. (Oh, and I find your refusal to acknowledge that - in your statement that we don't do it because it would be "inconvenient" to be pretty amazing. You've had the new ONI guideline open meetings rules, and reasons, explained to you in exhaustive detail. You appear to have simply closed your ears to every bit of it, as "inconvenient" to your argument.

A workshop on time management would not change any of our various NA’s basic cultural characteristics. (It is also rather insulting to presume that folks working full time, who balance in addition the needs of children, school and aging family members, just need a lesson in time-management to become happy little pencil-pushers during the one hour of free time they have left on a given weekend -- all because they wanted to speak out against a cell tower being planned down the block, or in support of a community center for their children to swim at.)

As for your exhortation to Amanda that she should be advocating for additional financial resources from ONI so the NA's could accomplish these additional reporting requirements -- the sheer hypocrisy of that one takes my breath away -- either that, or the sheer ignorance... I'm not sure which it is.

Otherwise, while I respect Chris' stance, I come back again to my bottom line -- small, fragile, poorly funded non-profits should not be burdened with excessive reporting requirements unless those can be shown to substantially improve the public good -- AND -- unless those new mandates come with the funding to implement them.

What City Club has the resources to contemplate is entirely separate from what some little NA with $12.00 in its checking account and no computer equipment at its President's house, has the resources to accomplish.

Every new reporting requirement in the history of every organization in the history of the entire world comes with great reasons, the best of intentions, and high expectations of benefit.

What is often missed is that by piling these new reports on top of all the current reports, one gets only the most minuscule of incremental benefit, while threatening to bury organizations under an ever-advancing paper-work avalanche.

allesaya - I offer you a report, currently produced, and very informative. You immediately jump right over it to wanting a new, different report, which of course would not take any work to speak of to produce (easy for you to say, since you don't have any idea what the work entails.) What is the human-nature-pathology (I don't mean this to be directed at you, specifically, as I've seen it over and over in so many other's as well) that won't let you spend even a moment considering using the current report? Have you even taken just one hour to read through just one of them? I recommend the worksheets that accompany them -- they will really give you an idea of the breath of activities currently underway in any given Coalition. Look through a couple of year's worth, wow.

So I say again, what will be gained by requiring the NA’s to produce more reports on activities they already report on? What new knowledge will be available that is not available currently? What?

Chris Smith on 08 Aug 2005

Amanda, great summary of the value conflicts! But I disagree a little bit on your example. I don't think anyone gets a reporting burden for taking testimony from a neigbhor on an issue, or talking about appropriate policy, or summarizing that in a newsletter. The whole mechanism doesn't really start until you undertake to influence a City official. And I think it is relatively easy to designate who the 'authorized representatives' are to carry the official NA position to the City.

Nonetheless, I also appreciate Anne's comments about the challenge even a little bit of reporting can be for some NAs. That's why even though I philosophically agree that NAs should be included, I'm pragmatically OK if this gets adopted without them (and because I think there would be a lot fewer surprises in their reports than in others).

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

In just catching up with this thread -- and I'm not sone -- but this struck me as needing an immediate response:

"We do require that they hold open meetings and provide minutes and notice their meetings. (Oh, and I find your refusal to acknowledge that - in your statement that we don't do it because it would be "inconvenient" to be pretty amazing. You've had the new ONI guideline open meetings rules, and reasons, explained to you in exhaustive detail. You appear to have simply closed your ears to every bit of it, as "inconvenient" to your argument."

I dont believe that I've ever stated that you dont hold open meetings and/or provide minutes because its inconvenient. What I've said (repeatedly) is that while I understand that Neighborhood Associations and Coalitions have, in the past, been required to operate under state open meeting and public record laws – the New standards (and this is critical) 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 (and I quote) “the state laws contain some ”burdensome” provisions” (all bold emphasis mine).

Amanda, however, is providing new information when she states that "The courts ruled state Open Meeting Laws can't be applied to NAs." So I'm somewhat confused: was it by CHOICE, REQUEST or by ORDER that NA's are no longer in compliance with state laws?

It was my understanding that NA's didnt have to comply, but Chose to -- and there was never a legal issue with that?

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

That bit aobut the courts isn't new. I mentioned it four days ago. That ruling was not a recent one, so the NAs following the state laws was always a voluntary policy.

The new policies of not following the state laws came out of the GREAT committee, which of course associations and coalitions were heavily involved in, so the new policy also is entirely by choice.

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

For reference's sake, the stuff about the new meetings and records policies for NAs comes from an earlier item here, and this is what I wrote in full on that subject:

Leonard Gard of Southwest Neighborhoods (and member of the committee) testified that the new Standards no longer require neighborhood associations to follow the state's open meeting and records laws. Instead, the committee decided to write their own versions. Gard said that the state laws contain "some burdensome provisions" (although he didn't describe them) and so the committe opted to draft their own.

"The guiding principles," he said, "were to keep these rules simple for the neighborhoods, to have rules that were workable for neighborhoods." He added that the committee "did follow the spirit" of Oregon's public meeting and records provisions.

(An interjection here: Gard's testimony left us wondering what impact having neighborhood-specific meeting and records rules, rather than following the state's as had been the case up until now, will have on Adams' proposal to register lobbying activity, since as we recently reported that proposal as it currently stands exempts organizations which meet three criteria -- one of which is following the state's public meeting and records laws.)

So, the trouble being had here for some is that we have two instances here of NAs trying to avoid "burdonsome" requirements -- state meetings and records law, and lobyist registration -- even while using their meetings and records policies as ana rgument for avoiding lobbyist registration.

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

In regards to Anne’s post: I'm having a difficult time going around in the same vicious circles, addressing the same arguments with the same responses (albeit in slightly different contexts) -- so have decided to not address the majority of the vitriolic comments and accusations addressed to me within it. I would just be redundant if I did honor them with a response and it would be a waste of my time.

In regards to Coalition reports provided to ONI: It should be clear that I am in support of a reliable, ongoing process that would ensure the information resource and transparency of those influencing Public Policy/Issues (including NA’s and Coalitions) – and, no, I don’t particularly care what it’s called as long as it’s in place. That transparency, that resource is not, at this time, in place. It is not evident to your average citizen, no matter how much one may scream that it is. While I appreciate Amanda’s understanding that it’s a much-valued resource that I seek, and Anne’s suggestion that ONI post it on their website, she, nor Anne, nor any NA -- can provide assurance to citizens like me that it will come to exist – Sam Adams, however, can. This process can. That is why I suggest such reports go towards his efforts and follow his outlines.

In regards to Amanda’s Value Call # 1 – “should we be asking for more accountability from paid elected officials and their staff?”

Yes. Absolutely. Sam’s proposal outlines a few (there could be more) in section 2.12.070 Reporting Requirements for City Officials

It states:
A. City officials shall file written reports documenting any gifts, meals or entertainment in excess of $25.00 received from a lobbying entity or any person authorized to lobby on the lobbying entity’s behalf. Such reports shall include:
1. Name of lobbying entity, and if applicable, name of lobbyist;
2. Subject of lobbying;
3. Value of gift, meal or entertainment; and
4. Date of receipt.

B. City officials shall file written reports after requesting that a lobbyist or lobbying entity make a donation of personal or real property to the City.
Such reports shall include:
1. Name of lobbying entity, and if applicable, name of lobbyist;
2. Gift or donation requested;
3. Purpose of donation; and
4. Date of request.

C. The reports, if any, required by subsections 2.12.070 A. and B. shall be filed with the City Auditor on the last business day of every calendar quarter. City Officials are not required to file reports with the Auditor if the amount of the gift, meal or entertainment is less than $25.00 or if no gifts or donations have been requested in the calendar quarter.

D. Elected Officials and Bureau directors shall post their calendars to the lobbyist website 15 days after the end of the calendar quarter for the previous calendar quarter.

In regards to Amanda’s Value Call # 2 "Freedom of Speech versus Transparency." I’ve gone over this, as has Chris and b!X – and it boils down to the same thing eveytime -- the civil liberties of your members are not infringed upon. I’m sorry I’m not addressing this more in-depth (again) – I just can’t continue repeating myself.

In response to Amanda's Value Call # 3 "is the relative importance of accountability versus participation." This falls into the same category as Value Call # 2 (above) for me -- but Chris addressed it in his post.

Amanda,

I mean you no disrespect, in fact, I admire your dedication to NAs and your concern for the ongoing nature and support of Citizen Involvement. I do have to ask though -- could you be anymore dramatic and extreme when you state:

”Are the values of the ordinance, and including citizens already openly participating in the city's designated involvement system, worth the risk of losing citizen participants?”

I've tried to explain, in excruciating detail no less, how the registered "lobbyists" of your organization serve as “authorized representatives” for your organization's efforts, yet you continue to relate the burden to the entirety of your organization and each member, then you call it an infringement upon free speech, the right to assembly and such. Why?

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

"So, the trouble being had here for some is that we have two instances here of NAs trying to avoid "burdonsome" requirements -- state meetings and records law, and lobyist registration -- even while using their meetings and records policies as ana rgument for avoiding lobbyist registration.

This is why my frustration -- is at least tempered -- with the irony that surrounds it. Damn vicious circles.

Anne Dufay on 08 Aug 2005

Oh, and Commissioner Leonard. I am pleased that you acknowledge the organization which gave you money is not named NWDA. It's important to call folks, and organizations, by their correct titles. Not just because it's respectful, but because otherwise it can lead to confusion on the part of some readers, which I'm sure was not your intent.

I agree that there are members of NWDA who were among those who started NPAC. I would point out, however, that this is not analogous to what I believe you mean by "the way it is always done." In the case of NWDA and NPAC some individual members of NWDA joined with other folks from around the city looking for ways to increase the, er, receptivity of council to neighborhood concerns. No funds, not the smallest penny, of NWDA went to NPAC. No resources, staff, or otherwise, not even one single stamp of NWDA's was used. No dues were collected from NWDA members and funneled to NPAC (and, as Frank pointed out, not at all disingenuously, but just, in the spirit of "frankness" - no shell corporations or brother-in-law LLC's were accomplished to move money from one organization to another.)

The two organizations, while sharing some members, are legally and functionally separate. This is not just because to be otherwise would be illegal, but because they only overlap in the goals of some individual members. NWDA is a membership organization that is defined by geography, not politics. Members of NWDA may be active in (and contribute money to) such varied organizations as the RNC, the DNC, the Socialist Party, Basic Rights Oregon and on and on and on. Some worked on the Dean campaign, some for Kerry. Many were active supporters of, and contributors to, Mayor Potter's run for office. Others supported Commissioner Francesconi.

It's important to discriminate between the organizations, for to fail to do so is to fail to recognize the civic rights of these NWDA members to organize and participate in these other groups -- without that participation being used to impugn, or target, their NA.

Chris Smith on 08 Aug 2005

With regard to 'burdensome provisions' of open meeting law, one that always irked me is that under the law NAs could not elect their board members and officers by secret ballot. Instead ballots identifying the voter and their choices had to be available for inspection as open records. In at least one case in NWDA, this led to the votes of some groups being reported in the neighborhood newspaper :-(

This is not directly on point to this thread, but just an illustration why blindly applying the law in all its particulars might not make sense for NAs.

Anne Dufay on 08 Aug 2005

All right. "Burdensome" not "inconvenient". Sorry for the misquote. So then all this comes down to a sentence from one person, which you arguably agree is quoted without any context to allow you to interpret what it means.

I think it is sad that one person's perhaps poorly-chosen word, if taken out of context, as in this case (hey, which of us haven't done that on occasion?) would be siezed upon in this way to demean an entire system of organizations struggling so hard to do everything as openly and properly as possible.

I'd ask, what are the provisions of the State Open Meetings law that you find are not supported in the ONI guidelines? Why do you feel they are necessary components of transparency in NA operations?

I ask you, not to beg off responsibility for the answer, but because I do not know of any pertinent, or relevant, provision now going wanting. I ask you, because from my vantage point, you are doing the "when did you stop beating your wife" thing with this accusation...

Thank you, Chris, for acknowledging the issues of the smaller NA's. I would also like to add that this conversation takes place in a much larger context. There are related (ie non-profit regs and reporting requirements) discussions going on in the Senate Finance Committee, as well as in the Congress, even as we post now on this blog. The Senate Finance Committee staff have issued recommendations, and the national non-profit community has convened a panel -- which has held working sessions and taken testimony across the country -- which has looked at the recommendations and provided responses and suggestions and further aspirations, as well. (Their report, though long, is very interesting reading. I recommend it.)

The short story here is that there will be, nationally, new reporting and regulatory provisions for nonprofits instituted in the coming year, more the next year. This is an absolute given. The national nonprofit sector has been, I am proud to say, careful to articulate and support the need for graduated reporting requirements based on organizational and financial capacity. The national legislative bodies, and IRS commissioners, have clearly understood the importance of this -- no one wants to lose the good work done by small orgs (which make up 73% of the non-profit sector) by, in essense, burying them in paperwork.

With the best intentions in the world, it will be hard for our NA's and Coalitions -- cutting staff hours these days, not increasing them -- to meet those new national reporting requirements, not even to get to additional city requirements. The ONI contract with the Coalitions was formulated to pay for a bare-bones operation - 2.5 staff to open the office during working hours, attend meetings, keep the books and archive the NA's records, pay the rent so they'd have an office for them to open, and pay the telephone bill so the public could contact them. Over the years many further requirements have been added to the contract, but no money ever has.

Today, we struggle to balance our part-time schedules and evening meeting requirements in order to just keep the office open during office hours. We don't always succeed.

It is SO frustrating to me to read allesaya's bright - "you should advocate for more funds from ONI" comment. God help us, what do you think we've been doing, to deaf ears, for years?

We're no more likely to get relief in this case, then we were 4 years ago when we lost D&O insurance for our NA board members. Or, when our health insurance costs started going up 20+ % a year, while our contract was frozen in a decades long-dead model...

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

FWIW, my only point in raising the lack of requirement to comply with the state's laws is to make it clear that the lobbyist registration exemptions therefore don't actually, currently, exempt NAs.

This new policy means that if Adams and his staff really do want NAs to be exempt, they are going to have to do it blatantly, rather than backdooring them in through language they say would apply to any organization which meets the three-prongs. While it's no secret that the exemptions were intended to make sure NAs weren't covered (because for as long as the registration idea has been floated, NAs wanted out of it), Adams' office keeps pretending it isn't geared specifically towards NAs.

(That's all aside, of course, from my opposition to having to have fights over exemptions in the first place, which is just causing the proposal to bloat itself into near incoherence.)

But if NAs want the exemption, and Adams' office wants them to have the exemption, they are going to have to fight that fight aboveground and in the open, rather than writing slightly-broader language which "happens" to cover NAs (since now, of course, the language doesn't).

Amanda on 08 Aug 2005

Allehseya: "I've tried to explain, in excruciating detail no less, how the registered "lobbyists" of your organization serve as “authorized representatives” for your organization's efforts, yet you continue to relate the burden to the entirety of your organization and each member, then you call it an infringement upon free speech, the right to assembly and such. Why?"

Because Neighborhood Associations are participatory, not representative. NAs are about We, not I. The less focus on the leader and the greater importance of the group and the community, the better.

There's another value I want to identify here, which connects with your question, Allehseya. We should be setting up a system that fosters the kind of government we want. The entire concept of lobbying is tied into a patriarchal patronage system where the plebs ask and the patricians decide whose pleas are granted and whose rejected. I keep relating this lobbying proposal to the broader public because the kind of government I want to see is one where decisions are made in open conversations with all stakeholders contributing, and every citizen encouraged to participate in a fair, clear process, as much as they want to. All the current proposal will do is identify who the powerful people are, while wasting more time for the rest. We have to decide whether the value of knowing the powerbrokers is worth the impact to the powerless. But I want a system of government where more citizens are empowered to participate in the decision-making process - not just as supplicators, but as key proponents of solutions.

Like Sam's meetings on this ordinance. Nobody has had to wonder who is pulling strings, because either stakeholders came to a meeting, or Sam announced something like "this is a Len Bergstein amendment." It's even been obvious who isn't at the table and should be. And participants have made significant contributions to refining the proposal. All done with one elected official committed to open process, and multiple citizens willing to participate and be known, without onerous record-keeping and registration.

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

All right. "Burdensome" not "inconvenient". Sorry for the misquote. So then all this comes down to a sentence from one person, which you arguably agree is quoted without any context to allow you to interpret what it means.

Whoever this is directed towards, I should points out two things: First, I provided the context by pasting the totality of that segment of my report from the Council hearing in question. Second, that "one person" was a member of the GREAT committee respoonsible for drafting the new standards for ONI, and his statement was part of his participation in what amoutned to the "staff report" describing to Council what the new standards and guidelines said.

"So then all this comes down to a sentence from one person, which you arguably agree is quoted without any context to allow you to interpret what it means," is how you describe this. That's just disingenous, and suggests the comment was made by some random perosn with no connection to the policy.

You can't get much more of an official word on the new records and meetings policy than testimony before Council, as part of the "staff report," by a member of the GREAT committee.

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

"I think it is sad that one person's perhaps poorly-chosen word, if taken out of context, as in this case (hey, which of us haven't done that on occasion?) would be siezed upon in this way to demean an entire system of organizations struggling so hard to do everything as openly and properly as possible.

Well, it is not my intention to demean the NAs and it’s unfortunate that every time I hold NAs to the criteria of the exemption, or quote the logic behind the reason its not met, you see that as demeaning. In light of b!X' response, do you truly mean to state that if it comes out of my mouth it’s demeaning, but if from the mouth of an NA member its merely “poorly chosen words”?

To be clear, Sam’s ordinance defines the exemption – not I.

I, among others, are merely stating that NA’s don’t meet it. This is not meant to demean NAs -- it's simply stating a fact.

I believe that I’ve made it pretty clear that what I’m most interested in is the online resource that Sam seeks to deliver to the public if this ordinance is passed.

It's not compliance with state laws that I want. I want to see a comprehensive list of who is doing what, with whom. I am interested in the process being in place that will ensure this. I am interested in the reports – presented in a public and open manner on that web resource. With all due respect to ONI’s efforts, and they are a deeply rich and valuable resource of information for citizens and I have told the director of ONI as much – but when I search ONI’s site for such information on NA initiatives – and click on all the obvious things such as a link called “Neighborhood Association Pages” with a description that states: ”Links to Web Sites of Neighborhood Associations in Portland” -- this is what I get:

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

”Each Neighborhood Association will have a page that you will be able to link to through this home page. The pages will contain contact info, meeting dates and times, maps, demographic info, etc concerning the particular neighborhood.

Until then you may find this information through our Searchable Neighborhood Directory Database

(go ahead and cut and paste the url in your browser if you don’t believe me: http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?c=28385)

For some reason, the ”Searchable Neighborhood Directory Database Link” it lists as the alternative on that page doesn’t work either. So after stumbling about -- the best that you get is a list of the NAs and contact info.

I think I counted somewhere around 53 of those NA’s having websites listed on that ONI page when I finally found it (out of the more than 90 NA’s) – and all of those sites don’t appear to be regularly updated although a good number of them are very thorough in providing what I’m looking for. Now, I’m not saying that this is poor diligence on the part of NAs – regardless of what you may think -- I’m aware of the difficulties that volunteer organizations face. ONI officials will state that there isnt a reliable process to ensure the page will regularly contain the information I'm looking for and what it promises by any specific date. They site the same things that we hear onthis thread. Limited resources, the nature of volunteer work, etc.

The point is – what I look for as a citizen -- is not consistently presented to the public as a matter of ongoing process across the board. Therefore, not as transparent as what Sam’s ordinance would not only provide – but ensure.

All the other valid points raised by Anne regarding the various requirements of non-profits on the national level applies to ALL non profit organizations.

I work with such non-profits that will likewise be affected and they simply are not arguing exemption as some here even though they are held to the same standards requested of the NAs with the equivalent minimal resources.

I believe that these reporting requirements – which are in two different arenas, in fact, share one goal: accountability in transparency of transactions. As an example, consider one arena as justifying our tax exempt status and the other as the influencing public policy/issues arena. Claiming that the necessity to provide clarity in one of these arenas (justifying our tax-exempt status reports) should not be used as an argument to reduce or eliminate the levels of accountability required in the other arena (influencing City Officials).

I sympathize with the argument that the paperwork within our organizations are tedious – the nature of a non-profit, period, is full of tedious bureacracy. When it’s all said and done, however, we cannot escape the nature of the NA non-profit. It is precisely there, in large part, to empower citizen’s mobility towards influencing public policy/ issues. The ordinance would—and should, naturally, address such entities – as that is its purpose. The key words being organizations not -- individual Citizens.

The thing that bothers me most about this thread is not whether NAs comply with state laws – (I just want the site to be thorough) – the thing that gets me is that so many people keep losing sight of the fact that we are talking about organizations, in this case, a 501(c)3 non-profit.

We are talking about the transparency of that organization’s “authorized members” that approach City Officials on a collective stance. This all that Sam’s ordinance affects. It does not affect each of it’s members. It simply does not – I repeat -- and I cannot stress this enough – it does not affect each NA member’s time and work in their activism – it only serves to reflect the efforts of the organization's authorized representatives work on any issue that the organization adopts as an initiative.

This is not an issue on Civil Liberties or Free speech.

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

(wow I can't believe how many comments I missed prior to posting my last one)...

Amanda,

Again -- with utmost respect -- and I truly feel your call for the kind of government and process you called out for in your last post (but I have a dinner engagement and cant address it indepth just yet, sorry) -- I just quickly want to ask you or pose to you a thought -- what about those Citizens that cant make the meetings and engage in the meetings and make the public testimonies? Where and how do they catch up? I rely on b!X site more than the damn main stream media for local issues -- without the resource and forum he provides -- as well as Randy Leonard's use of the medium and Sam Leonard's as well -- I'd be lost in this town! But I do feel you and hear you and -- well -- we'll talk.

Off to time-manage a bit...

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

[disclaimer] uhm..... "Sam Leonard's" should....read "Sam Adam's".....(said she low on blood-sugar!)

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

Let me post this question/observation, if I can.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that compliance with a robust set of records and meetings policies serves the value of transparency. The issues in this thread fall apart for me in this regard: While NAs may technically be transparent in this sense, the difficulty a citizen would have in tracking the activity of the 90+ associations makes that technical transparency not very transparent from a pragmatic or functional standpoint -- regardless of the reasons why (failure on the part of any given NA, lack of resources, etc.)

What I'm confused on, then, is why all the conversational capital from 'hood people actively debating the lobbyist proposal apepars to be spent on trying to get exemptions rather than one trying to fashion a route which would permit them to adequately comply.

If the goal is transparency, and current NA processes allow for a transparency which technically exists but is pragmatically non-functional (from the standpoint of the aberage citizen who might try to trach all 90+ NAs), why isn't that the debate, instead of everyone jockeying for exemptions?

As it stands right now, should Adams office decide to overtly exempt NAs, they will be exempt from the transparency ofl obbyist registration and functionally (if not technically) exempt from transparency via records/meetings laws.

I fail to see how that advances the value of transparency all that much.

Chris Smith on 08 Aug 2005

Perhaps the issue is that public records law has simply not caught up with the Internet? Neither the notice provisions of open meeting law or the filing requirements of public records law require that either piece of information be online, but rather simply published at known locations (e.g., a file cabinent or bulletin board at a coalition office).

allehseya's definition of transparency seems to require online retrieval, and I would agree that's the pragmatic 2005 definition!

My experience is that most of these documents go out by e-mail and then disappear from online view, even if otherwise preserved as required by law.

It seems to me that ONI could provide a great service by providing an e-mail address that these various things could be CC'd to that would automatically put them into an online repository. A few standards for subject lines could let the reposity sort them for easy consumption (by association, committee name, date, etc.).

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

"allehseya's definition of transparency seems to require online retrieval, and I would agree that's the pragmatic 2005 definition!

Yo, Chris, you callin' me a geek? ; ]

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

"If the goal is transparency, and current NA processes allow for a transparency which technically exists but is pragmatically non-functional (from the standpoint of the aberage citizen who might try to trach all 90+ NAs), why isn't that the debate, instead of everyone jockeying for exemptions?"

Not to open up a whole other can of worms -- and certainly at the risk of "your naive" attacks -- but a few compromising suggestions for Sam's Office:

1. They could use the Coalition Reports that Anne mentioned earlier while City Officials tracked their phone calls from NA members and provided something appropriate to NA mentality -- like... "Citizen Input" reports?

2. GREAT could consider revisiting their open meeting / record laws to meet the requests of other Pragmatic Geek Citizen such as me?

Amanda on 08 Aug 2005

I don't see how you categorize my suggestion of having a "Concerned Citizens" site, specifically pulling together all volunteer activists who don't call themselves "lobbyists", as "trying to get exemptions rather than one trying to fashion a route which would permit them to adequately comply", b!X. Do you have a problem with not labeling the parallel site "Lobbyist Registration"? Wouldn't the compromise achieve the goal of transparency, accountability, and one-stop shopping for anyone interested in what NA activists are up to? Except that with 95 NAs, even on one site that's a lot of information to sort and digest. How to address the problem that 95 NAs are working on probably 200+ different issues, and someone wants them categorized and indexed? Call your local district/coalition office staff, and they'll help you find out what you want to know. Forms and systems can only do so much - if you want to connect to other people, the best way is to ask a person, not a website. If all that's desired is transparency, not participation, then an unsorted listing on the Concerned Citizens site might be a solution.

I still believe the main debate for the lobbying ordinance should be why the onus is on citizens to report, rather than Council members and their staff to record. Council and their staff get paid to take citizen input. Citizens do not get paid for giving input, unless they are professional lobbyists. And even then, do we want to add the costs of lobbyist reporting to the bottom line for the tram, or for some tax-exempted condominium tower? Shouldn't we be able to trust Council members to record honestly, more than we can rely on volunteers to keep track of their hours even if they're willing to? Shouldn't we be able to trust Council members to declare contacts, perhaps more than we would feel confident that lobbyists would report every "oh, by the way..." on the golf course?

The answer to Allehseya's question of how a citizen knows about contacts and/or participates if they're unable to attend a meeting, is for every Council member to behave like Sam has in this process, all the time. If every Council member had a website on which their initiatives were posted and open for comments, and every Council member declared who they had contact with on every issue, we would have transparency, accountability, and an inclusive, participatory system with many different options/modes for citizen involvement. And yes, every person contacting Council and their staff should be required to state, straight up at the start of the conversation/email/letter, whether they represent anyone or anything or not. And then the burden of promoting open government would be on those elected and paid to shoulder it, rather than on some over-extended unpaid volunteer who's trying to raise a family, run the Scout troop and work two jobs in addition to being an NA participant, who will scream or quit if asked to fill in one more expletive-deleted form just for trying to be a good citizen who participates instead of watching Survivor.

Chris Smith on 08 Aug 2005

allehseya Says:

Yo, Chris, you callin' me a geek? ; ]

Only in the most complimentary way :-)

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

Amanda,

In my effort to find a common-ground and workable compromise (I still have very strong views that I’m putting aside for now), I’m sitting here trying to rethink how tweaking the reporting requirements can ensure that all needs are met that this proposal is meant to address.

Towards that end, I agree with you when you state:

”Wouldn't the compromise achieve the goal of transparency, accountability, and one-stop shopping for anyone interested in what NA activists are up to?”

But then in the same paragraph, you go on to state:

”Except that with 95 NAs, even on one site that's a lot of information to sort and digest. How to address the problem that 95 NAs are working on probably 200+ different issues, and someone wants them categorized and indexed? Call your local district/coalition office staff, and they'll help you find out what you want to know. Forms and systems can only do so much - if you want to connect to other people, the best way is to ask a person, not a website. If all that's desired is transparency, not participation, then an unsorted listing on the Concerned Citizens site might be a solution.”

Which brings me back to one of my main points in this thread – that of process. Sam’s proposal outlines one that ensures such transparency, and transparent resource --- albeit not with the compassion for those not wishing to be considered “lobbyists”, granted. Nonetheless, my point is – how, in light of everything you’ve mentioned regarding limited resources, etc. do you propose to guarantee that the additional resource, or parallel website will manifest with the necessary and equivalent information as Sam’s? By what (realistic) process?

While I tend to agree that City Officials can certainly log incoming calls from Citizens and reference their affiliation with Coalitions or NAs --- by what process do you propose to get network the additional records – the meeting minutes, the initiatives, the records etc. that Sam’s ordinance additionally requests of other volunteer non-profits for transparency purposes? Surely you can see that your statement of “the best way is to ask a person, not a website.” is not the solution?

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

I don't see how you categorize my suggestion of having a "Concerned Citizens" site, specifically pulling together all volunteer activists who don't call themselves "lobbyists", as "trying to get exemptions rather than one trying to fashion a route which would permit them to adequately comply", b!X.

Well, I kind of skipped over it because the way it's been portrayed here has mostly been a distraction. If you had simply been pitching that idea without seemingly also continuing to argue about why NAs should be exempt (I mean, which is it: covered, but under a different name? or exempt?, I might have paid more attention to it along the way.

But addressing it now: I have mixed feelings on the matter. If we're talking about a totally parallel listing, subject to all the same requirements as those covered by the related "paid lobbyists" site, I might be able to be convinced.

In general, however, I don't get the sense that's what is being pitched here, given all the lengthy inveighing against subjecting NAs to the reporting requirements. So we're not just talking about some sort of "parallel but equal" listing, but an entirely separate and different listing for NAs. While a distinction in name might ultimately be no big deal, a distinction in definition I'm not ready to buy into.

(Let alone that the entire exemption thing is setting up the City for yet another lawsuit about laws which make impermissible distinctions. Not saying if I think such a suit would be successful, just that I presume one will be filed.)

Forms and systems can only do so much - if you want to connect to other people, the best way is to ask a person, not a website. If all that's desired is transparency, not participation, then an unsorted listing on the Concerned Citizens site might be a solution.

But that is what this proposal is after: Transparency. Here's the problem with trying to make it about participation (a value that of course, in and of itself, I support): People have the right, whether they participate in an NA or not, to know what an NA is up to. People have the right to be concerned not with "connect to other people" but with "what are these people up to?" -- the systems should be in place for these people to have the transparency they seek.

I'll come back to the matter of citizen reporting versus Council reporting in a bit.

The One True b!X on 08 Aug 2005

Ok, actually, let me try to focus some of this ongoing discussion (not that peope can't continue what's already underway, of course).

While I myself am still working on my own answer to the question I'm about to pose, I think maybe each of us should answer this: What would your preferred system under this proposal look like?

I'm sure the answer already is contained scattered around int his thread, but the discussion has reached a point, I think, where maybe everyone should take a comment and devote it just to describing their preferred system, so we can all view each person's preference in a self-contained comment.

allehseya on 08 Aug 2005

I don’t know how I missed this:

Amanda states: ”I still believe the main debate for the lobbying ordinance should be why the onus is on citizens to report, rather than Council members and their staff to record. Council and their staff get paid to take citizen input. Citizens do not get paid for giving input, unless they are professional lobbyists.”

At the risk of literally turning into a 1970’s, vinyl, scratched, vintage recording of Allehseya doing a screeching, painful, deafening impersonation of Janis Joplin belting out:

This ordinance is not about citizens it’s about organizations!!!!!
Over and over and over and over again I have tried to clarify this for you. Why, I beseech you, Amanda, must you torment me so?!?!

First of all -- Technically all organizations are comprised of citizens and many organizations are reliant upon the ”unpaid” volunteers for their lobbying (I mean advocacy) work – not just NA’s.

Second of all – absolutely not, no way should there by a one-way street of accountability only at the City level. The goal should be a two-way check and balance type of model.

I swear, Amanda – you have to be willing to compromise and seriously mean it—at least while I’m being all…. I don’t know….open and receptive and such (you may convince me?). All kidding aside, it’s just that you appear to not really be sure what it is you or the NAs are really willing to do and not do?

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

Ok. Homework done, Mr b!X. I have to preface what follows with the fact that I really don’t have a problem with the proposal as it currently stands. This is for the sake of finding some common ground more than anything else. I should also warn everyone that due to the late hour, I mostly stuck to the ideal online resource as opposed to any new psuedo-legal proposed wording. (heh)

City Level: Keeps track of general Citizen Input on issues by keeping track of calls, testimonies, concerns, etc. by individual and/or their affiliations. They write report and send to online resource. Info is found in “Citizen feedback” section of site.

Organizational Level: If advocating City Officials beyond allotted “lobby time” – they designate authorized representative and keep record of such activities. Organization writes report and sends to online resource. Info found in “Organizational Advocacy” section.

Neighborhood Associations and Coalitions: Listing of current major Initiatives, Calendars, Records with contact info (including Anne’s refernced Coalition reports) sent to online resource. Listed in “Neighborhood Action” section.

Paid Lobbyists: Anyone employed with more than one entity as an “authorized representative” follows the same criteria as “Organizational Level” for each of their clients. Sends reports to online resource and info is listed in “Paid Lobbyists” section.

Does this leave out activists and advocates that may not be listed as the “authorized representative” of some entity and aren’t involved with NAs and Coalitions and yet still regularly attempt to influence City Officials? Probably – but Sam’s proposal was never meant to dissuade such individual people from free speech anyway – which is why I support it as is.

Frank Dufay on 09 Aug 2005

And what of the "free speech" rights of our Limited Liability Corporations? How do we capture, reflect and report on their lobbying efforts and influence?

Irving Street LLC...what WERE you thinking or hoping for when you donated $250 to Jim Fancesconi's mayoral campaign? Or you, 23rd & Kearny LLC...what's your beef? What did YOU expect to get for YOUR $250? Burnside & King LLC? Singer Dazzle Bldg LLC? Singer Burnside LLC? Singer Family LLC?

Oh, sure, its easy to pick on the dearly departed Francesconi's C&E report, but, geez, six LLCs listed one after the other, all seperate entities, and so no "cumulative contribution" even though all contributions were written with the same pen, from the same hand, and from the same address.
(And who's pen is that?)

No, not a "new" topic...money talks. It always has. And, despite our hopes with "voter owned elections" that money may speak with a less compelling voice...let's get real, folks. We have "transparency" and reporting aplenty on political contributions...that tells us what, exactly? WHO is represented, exactly, by this half dozen LLCs, and what are they, he, she, buying?

Or are they just civic minded LLCs? Transparency is not about filling our forms. Not in reporting campaign contributions...and not in reporting "lobbying" efforts.

While I appreciate Sam's efforts, as well as the idealism of the "voter owned elections" crowd...do we really think that's it's corporate money's time spent bending a commissioner's ear, the effort made formulating the "better" argument, that's left neighborhood activists often feeling they've gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to city largess and attention?

C'mon, Commissioner Leonard can't remember NPAC from NWPAC, and NWDA from some made-up Northwest Neighborhood Association...but I'll bet he can remember Homer Williams, Clear Channel and Walsh Construction!

The "lobbyist" for my neighborhood association, Hosford-Abernethy (HAND), is NOT equivalent to the lobbyist for Schnitzer Steel. HAND is not about to --and CAN'T, by law-- write out a check for $10,000 during a meet & greet, and oh, by the way, about that ordinance or contract...

All "lobbyists" are not equivalent. The NA system is far from perfect, but it's an attempt to give "voice" to neighbors and citizens not ordinarily heard...or not easily heard above the sound of big money changing hands.

THAT'S the framework for this discussion, or should be, in my opinion. This is about tipping the scale a bit, in favor of giving a voice to the average citizen who isn't well-heeled or a full-time paid, professional policy wonk. The NA system has its flaws and weaknesses, but its what Portland's got right now to help level the playing field. Let's not overburden it with MORE rules and regulations that shed little light, but also serve to discourage citizen involvement.

Amanda on 09 Aug 2005

Allehseya: NAs are organizations of citizens. When you talk of organizations reporting rather than citizens, it means nothing. The same person would be doing the recording and reporting as is doing the participating. There is no other "organization". The organization is the citizens. And that you don't seem to understand that is as tormenting to me as my continued insistence on it is to you. Can anyone else see where the disconnect is here???

I like your summary of potential requirements for different kinds of participants - especially the part that calls for responsibility for elected officials to record and report contacts as they know them.

b!X, my initial proposal was to have the whole system titled "Lobbyist and Concerned Citizen Registration", and use the exact same website and rules for both. Many NA volunteers are ideologically opposed to signing up on a site than names us lobbyists (only), because we consider ourselves participants in government, not supplicants. Then comments on this site indicated a desire to see all the NA input categorized in some manner, so I suggested having the parallel Concerned Citizen site to help anyone wanting to know figure out what the volunteers are up to. I think many NA folk would like a separate site better, too.

Anne Dufay on 09 Aug 2005

B!x writes>>>Whoever this is directed towards, I should points out two things: First, I provided the context by pasting the totality of that segment of my report from the Council hearing in question. Second, that "one person" was a member of the GREAT committee respoonsible for drafting the new standards for ONI, and his statement was part of his participation in what amoutned to the "staff report" describing to Council what the new standards and guidelines said.

It was directed to both you and allesaya, who were using the term burdonsome with a particular implication -- with no context given (or understood) as to what the speaker meant. It was stated that this was another example of NA's trying to "get out" of things. Suspicious, no?

Burdensome: The teenager feels it's burdensome to be expected to wash his own dishes. The slave carrying a horses' ass on his back feels it's burdensome for his owner to ask him to carry it another mile, in the hot sun... Anyway, not to be too over the top, but burdensome means many things, and the claim that something is or is not, can be valid, important, or just a childish whine. Without knowing what "burden" the person was refering to, without having context to evaluate the claim, one is completely unable to judge. However, I did feel a whiff of judgement in the way the quote was used in this discussion...

So, in order to bring a little "transparency" to the discussion, or at least, a little more useful info. - I called Leonard and let him know that he and his sentence had been quoted here, and sent him the posts in question, so he could get a little context on how it had been interpreted.

I'm sure we'll all be pleased to learn the real issues that led to that statement. (I will copy him on this post, as well.)

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

and use the exact same website and rules for both. Many NA volunteers are ideologically opposed to signing up on a site than names us lobbyists (only), because we consider ourselves participants in government, not supplicants.

Well hell, by all means. Call the site "Lobbyist and Concerned Citizen Registration". I'll join you on that one. All settled. We all use same rules. Let the site provide the clarity along what I suggested for sections then -- and we're halfway to a solution!

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

Grrr (I need tea) I was trying to quote Amanda's statement in my last post as it reads below (bold emphasis mine):

"b!X, my initial proposal was to have the whole system titled "Lobbyist and Concerned Citizen Registration", and use the exact same website and rules for both. Many NA volunteers are ideologically opposed to signing up on a site than names us lobbyists (only), because we consider ourselves participants in government, not supplicants."

Anne Dufay on 09 Aug 2005

B!X writes>>>"So then all this comes down to a sentence from one person, which you arguably agree is quoted without any context to allow you to interpret what it means," is how you describe this. That's just disingenous, and suggests the comment was made by some random perosn with no connection to the policy.

No, I did not suggest it was made "by some random person." I said it was a word taken out of context -- ie, without any explanation as to what it meant, and you yourself stated you did not have the slightest clue what he meant by it (context, in this case btw, means understanding or explaining to your readers the GREAT rule in question, what it means and how it came to be) -- then you used the word to imply a pattern of avoidance of legitimate regulation -- a "we want special rights" cry by the NA's.

"burdensome" was perhaps an unfortunate word choice (like I said, any of us can make that mistake -- and -- I wasn't just referring to NA folks, I said and meant, any of us) But, come on. Don't you think it would have been a good thing, before haring off on a wild-goose chase of wild surmise, to just ask Leonard what he meant? Then, you would have information to share, not just suspicions.

(It is almost comical that Leonard, of all people, would be the one to have an innocent comment blown up in this fashion. Quiet and thoughtful -- far more careful with his words than say, oh, me (:-)), he's the last person to try and slide by some slimy "get-along-go-along" escape hatch into the guidelines.)

Leonard's contact info is listed in the ONI directory. He answers his own phone.

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

Pooh. Of course the state's laws could be described as burdensome. There's no demeaning of any one or any organization for stating as much -- with or without detail. I think Anne may be over-reacting to anyone using this word -- whether its Leonard or b!X or myself. My work is burdensome. The requirements of getting things approved by a non-profit are burdensome. Grant writing is burdensome. This thread is burdensome.

Anne Dufay on 09 Aug 2005

I made it down to the part about what we would like the system to look like. So I'll quit my bitchin and try and be positive.

My first request would be one of process -- if NA's are going to be required to file, than FIRST review all the CURRENT reports we are required to file with the city. Figure out if any of them would be applicable. Keep those. Those that have no use (obviously our financial filings would still need to go to ONI) can be discontinued, thereby freeing up staff time to file new, and better reports.

(We are, alleysaha, not the same as all the other small non-profits in the city - we already provide extensive tracking and reporting on our activities to the city. Further, the simple number of projects we are working on with the city is huge in comparison to the size of our resources, making our reporting and tracking requirements much more onerous, just by their sheer number. Amanda estimated 200 projects going city-wide at any given time? Our quarterly average number of projects, just for our coalition and 10 NA's, runs 90 - 100...)

I am not at all adverse to reporting - but I chafe at reporting requirements that are cumbersome, balk at those that diss-incent participation, and refuse to waste my time producing one single more report that NO ONE CARES to read or know about.

I am very concerned about penalizing volunteers who don't get their reports in as required. I forsee a bitter citizen backlash the first time "Sally", who has been putting in every waking hour not at work organizing a neighborhood park revival, hearing she is no longer allowed to speak to her Commissioner about her project. I'd really be more receptive to the whole idea if we could tailor the reporting so it could be done by Coalition staff, (always presuming we've gotten rid of some other, redundent staff reporting.)

Second, keep it simple. I am confused by some of the postings here -- is it just a few folks register, while the rest get to do their citizen involvement thing --- or is it a huge web-based reporting system, with minutes, (board, general and committee???) a more sophisticated NA directory system, websites for every NA and all supporting documentation nessesary for background to the minutes? Maps? Annotated maps? Land use applications and all related testimony?

Is "transparency" just that everything is on the website, even if not sorted for ease of access, or is it -- "I can find what I'm looking for, even if I don't know what I want to look for?"

If it's everything nessesary to understand everything every individual NA is engaged in - that's going to be one huge website (and somehow you're going to have to put real people in there, the ones who answer the questions at the Coalition offices and in the NAs.) I cannot imagine who is going to manage it, or how it will be kept current.

I think, before I go any further, I need to understand more what the term "transparency" is intended, in this context, to mean.

Anne Dufay on 09 Aug 2005

allesaya says?>>Pooh. Of course the state's laws could be described as burdensome. There's no demeaning of any one or any organization for stating as much -- with or without detail. I think Anne may be over-reacting to anyone using this word

but, earlier she said >>Allehseya wishes to remind you that if NA's met public meeting and record laws as defined by the state, and -- were transparent with citizens regarding their agendas -- there would be no need to consider her suggestions, but for some reason the NA’s have decided to no longer comply with state record and meeting laws, and the logic, of course – is that they were too burdensome.

("for some reason"?)

and, earlier B!x said>>>So, the trouble being had here for some is that we have two instances here of NAs trying to avoid "burdonsome" requirements -- state meetings and records law, and lobyist registration -- even while using their meetings and records policies as ana rgument for avoiding lobbyist registration.

("the trouble being had here"?)

I find the implication clear, myself. However, perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps you both meant that you expected NA's had good and worthy reason to write the ONI Guidelines as they did and that since they had done so you felt that was an indication that they probably had good and worthy reasons for their concerns around the lobbying registration issue and you just wern't understanding them??? (Though, allesaya, later you may recall you ask to have the Guidelines re-written, to your standards, though I seriously doubt you can tell me what, in them, you object to and would like have re-written.

I'll leave this issue at that. I find the discussion burdensome, myself.

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

"Though, allesaya, later you may recall you ask to have the Guidelines re-written, to your standards, though I seriously doubt you can tell me what, in them, you object to and would like have re-written."

I thought you were gonna (and I quote) quit your bitchin? I made it clear what I want. Perhaps I was too concise, tongue in cheek (whatever) in the one "Pragmatic Geek Citizen" reference to what that is -- but what I object to has been clearly stated and just because you didnt grok it, I nonetheless tire of repeating it. My stance is clearly spelled out in this thread if anyone is truly interested in knowing what it is.

Anne Dufay on 09 Aug 2005

I had a thought! (Yeah!) Maybe the following will make more sense to allesaya. (First though, a digression -- I just heard that ONI is hoping to have the entire new, approved guidelines doc up on their website -- ta da -- today!)

anyway, back to the subject

You say - I work with such non-profits that will likewise be affected and they simply are not arguing exemption as some here even though they are held to the same standards requested of the NAs with the equivalent minimal resources.

But allesaya - we are contracted to provide exactly the service we are now being asked to register as "lobbyists" to provide. So are you saying that if the city contracts with you to provide art classes at IFC - you should, after winning the contract, be required to register as a lobbyist in order to meet with the commissioners or staff to talk about your art program at IFC or to present an update on your new galary to council?

The city pays us to bring its citizens to talk to them. It is a service that we provide them. Our citizens see themselves as "lobbying" no more than a city manager does when advocating a particular project to his bureau head.

I think it's an interesting legal question. Can we really be required to register as outside lobbyists - when organizing citizens to help them interact with their city is the very job the city pays us to do? (When, and here it gets even more fun, from a tricksy legal standpoint, some of the coalitions are actually city staffed and run, as well?)

What about Elders in Action? The Exec is an ONI employee, by which I do not mean that she works for ONI and moonlights for Elders. No, ONI pays the salary of the Elders in Action Executive Director, as a part of their contract, and she is a full-bore city employee in that job. But Elders is a nonprofit, with a contract with ONI, like the Coalitions. So now, what happens if she talks to her Bureau head about an Elder's issue or need - is that "Lobbying?"

The One True b!X on 09 Aug 2005

I haven't yet read through this morning's comments, but I just waned to say this: We are all such hopeless wonks.

Chris Smith on 09 Aug 2005

Anne, to clarify what is required (if NAs were to be included), the ordinance covers influencing decisions by City Officials. It does not cover other business of NAs, etc. The reporting requirements cover certain financial information, which NAs will almost never trip, because there is a blanket exemption when expenditures for the purpose of influencing City decisions are under $1000 (I forget if that is per quarter or per year, but NAs won't get there either way). The real burden for NAs will be to report the CONTACTS with CITY OFFICIALS (narrow definition including Council, a few commissions, bureau directors and Council staff) by AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES for the purpose of influencing decisions. When you report a contact, you have to include who the representatives were, who the official contacted was and the general topic of the contact.

So if you e-mail Randy to tell him how to fix BDS, and you were authorized by your NA to do that, then your NA has to report it. Ditto for meetings, phone calls and letters. You don't have to report how you arrived at your neighborhood's position (although the replacement for the open meeting law stuff may require that separate from this ordinance).

It is intended that you will be able to do all your reporting through a web form.

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

"I think it's an interesting legal question. Can we really be required to register as outside lobbyists - when organizing citizens to help them interact with their city is the very job the city pays us to do?"

Uhm. I dont get paid by the City to do what I do. I'm one of those community volunteers at IFCC that works with the other stakeholders there in the NoPo community that has to talk to City Officials just to keep doing what we do -- or hope to do there -- for the larger community. While I dont consider myself a lobbyist, per say, the nature of what we do certainly does fall under the realm of trying to influence City Officials to see the pertinence of our work in hopes of them allowing us to conitinue it.

The One True b!X on 09 Aug 2005

No, I did not suggest it was made "by some random person." I said it was a word taken out of context -- ie, without any explanation as to what it meant, and you yourself stated you did not have the slightest clue what he meant by it...

The implication (intended or otherwise) of the way you used "one person" is that the remarks by "one person don't tell us anything. Same goes for your assertion that the remark was mentioned here without context. When I originally reported what Gard said, it was very much in context, a context I then very overtly pasted over here.

(And I didn't state I had no idea what he meant by it, I said he didn't specify what the "burdensome" provisions were.)

The point of mentioning the switch away from the state's laws and the push for an NA exemption to lobbyist registration wasn't to assert there was some grand conspiracy amongst NAs to get out of things. It was simply to point out a parallel, as well as (this was the original intent of mentioning it, after all, which has gotten lost), to mention that the lobbyist exemption doesn't in fact apply to NAs until and unless it specifically exempts them, because of the change to the ONI standards.

People were using the NA compliance with state meetings and records laws to show why they should be exempt. It's possible that I got overzealous in pointing out that the NAs no longer complied with those laws, but that's because the people debating the issue here are not at all unfamiliar with ONI and should have known going into this discussion that NAs no longer had to comply with the state laws.

When people who should know better don't, I go off a littel half-cocked. Especially when one of them (not you, Anne) is trying to run for Council.

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

Here's the alternative scenario, Anne.

Say I write a grant for a program that I'm developing for a non-profit. Say it becomes awarded to the non-profit I work with.

I, as the grant writer, have to file a grant report, provide assessments of the program, prove its validity and the fact that what I said would be done, is, in fact -- done. This goes to the funder. I also have to provide the organization with reports, a breakdown of my time as a sub-contractor in how I've used organizational resources, etc. Budgets for the program, my schedule and activities, etc.

Reports, reports, red tape and bureacracy --- all of it. But is it necessary for the accountability in each area of my job?

Yes.

allehseya on 09 Aug 2005

b!X,

Lovely. A "geek" and a "wonk" -- all in the same post no less. Thought you might get a kick out of the following url:

http://www.alternet.org/story/13176/

Randy Leonard on 09 Aug 2005

Anne and Frank-
All I have to say is... I am happy you found one another :)

The Schedule that Commissioner Randy Leonard Doesn't Want You To See on 03 Aug 2005

An aside on the Communique recently noted that Leonard was fighting to keep his schedule off the internet, so I called his office to try and get my grubby little hands on a copy. Randy Leonard won't share his schedule...