AGENDA #12
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Council Committee on Lobbying Petition: Council Members Sally Greene, Cam Hill, Dorothy Verkerk and Edith Wiggins
SUBJECT: Report
DATE: March 22, 2004
The purpose of this report is to update the full Council on the Committee’s work and to assess the Council’s interest in considering further the issues raised by the petition of the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus.
INTRODUCTION
On January 12, 2004, the Council received a petition from the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus (the Petition). The Petition was placed on the Council agenda for its Planning Retreat on January 15. At that retreat the Council established this Committee to consider the Petition. The Committee has met twice, on February 2 and on February 23, and has gathered a great amount of information pertaining to lobbying policies and regulations in municipalities throughout the United States. This report is presented to the Council for the purpose of sharing some of this information and to determine whether the Council is interested in considering this matter further.
THE PETITION
The Petition asked the Council to:
1. “Recognize that these meetings (between University of North Carolina representatives and Council members) are lobbying efforts and are a de facto end run around the Open Meetings law.”
2. “Cease all such meetings until the Council can adopt a policy dealing with such concerted efforts by developers to attempt to influence the Council outside the public process.”
3. “Recognize that those UNC officials participating in this effort are acting as paid lobbyists and that the town should adopt a regulation requiring registration of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activity similar to that of Madison, WI.” (Emphasis added.)
Further, the Petition states: “We recognize that the Council may have no binding authority over what may be construed as social activities of its members. However the Council can establish ethical guidelines.”[1]
February 2, 2004 Committee Meeting
On February 2, the Committee met and reviewed copies of information previously distributed and received additional documents at the meeting. Included in the materials were copies of lobbying ordinances, information on lobbying regulations in other municipalities throughout the country and articles related to the issues raised by the Petition. Committee members discussed the issues raised by the Petition and agreed to review the materials distributed and continue to do further research on other communities’ lobbying regulations.
February 23, 2004 Committee Meeting
On February 23, the Committee met and considered additional information that had been collected on lobbying ordinances in other municipalities across the country. (No lobbying regulations have been found for other North Carolina municipalities. For comparison purposes, North Carolina lobbying statutes were considered by the Committee.)
A number of key issues were identified at this meeting that the Committee believes should be considered if the Council wishes to pursue this matter further. Among these issues are the following:
1. Is there a need for such an ordinance in Chapel Hill? What is the purpose of such an ordinance? What are the benefits of such an ordinance?
2. How is lobbying to be defined?
3. Should some minimum level of activity or expenditure of money for lobbying be exempt from regulation?
4. Who should be regulated? How is “lobbyist” defined? Who should be exempted?
5. Specifically should and can an ordinance apply to officials of public agencies, namely the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill?
6. Would additional legal authority be needed for a lobbying ordinance in general or, specifically, if it were to apply to State officials?
7. If public officials are exempt can some type of filing still be required similar what to North Carolina State officials who contact State Legislators are required to do under State Law?
8. Is there a minimum threshold for the amount of money or percentage of salary or time devoted to “lobbying” before registration would be required?
9. Should the lobbyist be required to register or the agency which hires and pays the lobbyist or both?
10. What type of regulations should be considered? What reporting and accounting procedures should be required? What type of documentation?
11. What fees should be required for registration of lobbyists?
12. Are there procedures the Council could agree to with respect to their own conduct that would address concerns raised by the petition? For example, could Council members agree to post their individual Council-related calendars on the Town’s web site indicating all meetings they have with lobbyists or agree to make some other type of public disclosure regarding their contacts?
SUMMARY
Information on regulations enacted by various municipalities throughout the country was considered by the Committee in evaluating issues raised by the Petition. In addition, differences in state laws were noted by committee members. For example, in New York there is a State Statute regulating local lobbyists. In Maryland, the State Statutes require local governments to enact local lobbying regulations. Also, some states give local governments greater authority to enact local regulations than North Carolina provides to its municipalities and counties.
Committee members are not of one mind regarding the need for such an ordinance. Some noted that a proposed ordinance might not actually limit any activity, but would at least require disclosure and that such disclosure would provide a degree of comfort to Town citizens. Others noted that the examples from other places tend to be from cities much larger than Chapel Hill. Further, the question of what influence lobbyists actually now have and whether there is a need for an ordinance was raised. We look forward to working with the full Council to further consider these matters.
ATTACHMENTS
Attached are some of the materials considered by the Committee and that address some of these questions:
2. Memo from Council Member Greene to Council Committee on Lobbying, Feb. 23, 2004 (p. 9).
[1] On January 30, Gene Pease of the Coalition of Neighbors near Campus emailed the Council a “clarification” of the petition in which he wrote, “[a]lthough our position was catalyzed by learning of the meetings with UNC officials, we by no means consider UNC to be the specific target of such a regulation. Indeed, recent events surrounding ACS and the red light cameras demonstrates that there might be any number of parties engaging paid lobbyists to influence your decisions.”