ATTACHMENT 3
Excerpt from Minutes of March 22, 2004
Item 12 - Report from the Council Committee in
Response to Lobbying Petition
Council Member Greene, the convener, explained that this had been the result of a petition brought by the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus (CNC). The Council Committee had gathered information for lobbyist registration ordinances throughout the country to consider what one might look like for Chapel Hill, she said. Council Member Greene explained that the Committee had addressed related questions, such as why the Town would have an ordinance, what it would involve, and if such an ordinance would apply to any State agency, such as a university. They were bringing a report on that tonight and opening the discussion, she said.
Gene Pease, speaking on behalf of the CNC, thanked the Council and Committee for their thoughtful consideration of the lobbying ordinance. He distributed a proposed ordinance that CNC had crafted from information that the Council Committee had submitted to the Council in their report. Mr. Pease read highlights from CNC's draft ordinance.
Bob Durovich remarked that the Town Council was the most influential body in Chapel Hill. So, he continued, Council members need to have guidelines regarding lobbying interests. Mr. Durovich remarked that people need to have some standard against which to hold themselves accountable. He could understand a debate around what the Council should be doing to create this standard, he said, but not around whether they should be creating one. Mr. Durovich strongly encouraged the Town Council to come up with principles for handling lobbyists.
Will Raymond quoted from questions that he had submitted to the Town last summer regarding lobbying tactics concerning red light cameras. He also read answers from the Town stating that there had not been such a lobbying effort on the part of ACS, the company promoting the cameras. Mr. Raymond recommended having clear guidelines so that the Town Council will report any lobbying efforts that have come before them in a timely and public manner.
Mayor Foy noted that the Committee's report had outlined twelve questions, but did not offer a recommendation. It was up to the Council to decide what the next steps might be, he said.
Council Member Strom expressed support for the initiative regulating paid lobbyists. He proposed forwarding the draft ordinance to the staff and asking the Town Attorney to bring back a report and possible ordinance at a later meeting.
Council Member Greene commented that there had been phony grassroots organizations in this country for some time now. She wanted to do something about the problem, she said, predicting that it would persist in Chapel Hill as long as development interests are high stakes.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council clarify what it was trying to remedy. He noted that Mr. Raymond had said it was important to report lobbying efforts quickly. "But that's not what this does," said Mayor Foy, adding that the Committee's recommendations were more focused on regulating what Council members do.
Mayor Foy said that the lobbying ordinance seemed to him like campaign spending reports, which come out in January when the election has already happened in November. They are a good effort, he said, but it is questionable how well they work. Mayor Foy wondered what a quarterly report telling citizens that a lobbyist spent a certain amount of money would accomplish. He asked if it would be more effective for Council members to post their calendars on the Town’s website. Mayor Foy pointed out that posting their calendars would address the issues of transparency and timeliness. He had not sensed that any Council member had not been open about Town business, he said, but institutionalizing that, as Council Member Greene had suggested, did not seem like a bad idea.
Council Member Greene stated that there was a clear distinction between paid lobbyists and individual citizens who promote their own interests. She noted businesses always have resources to be in Town Hall. Having them register would not be as timely as posting Council members calendars every week, she said, but it would provide a record that would shed light on the process and put the burden on the lobbyist rather than the Council member.
Council Member Verkerk commented that posting a calendar on the website would not be an onerous burden if it would allow citizens to feel more comfortable.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins argued, however, that knowing when lobbyists are in Town and approaching Council members would shed the most light. And posting calendars had not been her idea, she said, but she had been the one who brought it to the Committee.
Council Member Wiggins explained that she had told ACS lobbyists that the red light camera issue was not about them and their business and she had finally had to tell them not to call her anymore. She had confidence in herself and in every other Council member to act with integrity when lobbyists approach them, Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated. But, Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted, exposing what they were doing would raise their conduct to an above board level and shine a spotlight on it.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that she would feel more open to considering the lobbying ordinance if the request had come at the time when the Council was dealing with ACS. But, she pointed out, Mr. Raymond was the only one who had inquired about that. Mayor pro tem Wiggins remarked that lobbying had not been an issue in Town until UNC attempted to meet with individual Council members. She would not support an ordinance that was directed at controlling the University's conduct rather than the Council's, she said.
Council Member Kleinschmidt recalled that the petition had come the same week that Leslie Blakey had called him about red light cameras and not told him that she was working for a corporation. This is the problem with placing the burden on Council members who might not know that a caller is a lobbyist, he said. Council Member Kleinschmidt argued that it was important to know who was operating with greater resources than ordinary citizens. Talking to someone whose livelihood depends on their ability to persuade Council members is different from contact with a constituent, he said, noting that the constituent "is my boss, who can fire me at the next election." Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the number of calls he had received over the past two weeks on the same-sex marriage issue would have raised it to the level of ridiculousness if he had been required to calendar each one.
Council Member Hill stated that lobbyists have a stranglehold on the State legislature as well as the national government. There was evidence in this report that their influence at the city level is even stronger because citizen input is so much less, he said. Council Member Hill said that enacting an ordinance would acknowledge the problem, but would not reduce the effectiveness of lobbyists in government. He mentioned that staff members had been lobbied as well, adding that the degree to which that influences what happens in Town would become clearer to people if the Town had an ordinance. Council Member Hill concluded that, given the enormity of this situation in government, having an ordinance was a useful thing to consider.
Council Member Verkerk left the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Council Member Strom expressed agreement with Council Member Kleinschmidt's comments, adding that the important point was to regulate paid lobbyists. Even if the Council posts their calendars on the Internet, there is no context for citizens to understand that, he said. Council Member Strom explained that he had been contacted by registered State lobbyists for various corporations in his role on the TTA Board, and they tell him who they are when he picks up the phone. He stated, "I find that remarkably helpful that they know the rules and that there is this level of disclosure that immediately helps me do my job better."
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL REFER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO COME BACK WITH A REPORT AT A LATER MEETING. COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE SECONDED.
Mayor Foy agreed with Council Members Kleinschmidt and Strom that people sometimes contact the Council without the Council knowing who they are. This would create a difficulty that is not addressed by the Council posting their calendars on the Town’s webpage, he said. Mayor Foy pointed out that his email was public record, however. It goes straight to the press, Mayor Foy commented, adding that he has no problem with that. He also agreed with Council Member Wiggins that this petition had been explicitly directed at UNC. But, Mayor Foy noted, contacts with the University would not be addressed with this petition because the Town cannot regulate UNC.
Council Member Greene suggested that the Town Attorney come back with a memo about what the Town does have authority to regulate in that respect.
Mayor Foy pointed out that these things do not have to be mutually exclusive. The Council could hybrid something to deal with the perceived problem, he said, adding that he did not think there was a problem. People should not be left with the notion that lobbyists are unduly influencing the Council, Mayor Foy said. He proposed merging some of these ideas together so that people would know that the Council is open about how they conduct themselves.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins agreed that Council Members Kleinschmidt's and Strom's comments made sense. She would support a lobbying ordinance that did not try to “catch UNC in the net,” she said.
Council Member Ward welcomed the idea of finding ways to shed light on the Council's activities. ACS had been an anomaly in terms of his experience on the Council, he said. Council Member Ward stated that most of his contact had been with constituents, who could be defined as lobbyists as well, he said. He proposed arriving at a clear definition of who is and who is not a lobbyist. Council Member Ward noted that in terms of undue influence, he did not know that a paid lobbyist was different than a PAC, for example, or some other type of organization that gathers together to influence Council decisions.
Mayor Foy asked Council Member Greene if she would object to the Council referring this discussion back to her Committee to work with the Town Attorney to bring something back that is informed by tonight's discussion. Council Member Greene asked why Mayor Foy thought that would be better than just referring tonight's comments to the Attorney. Mayor Foy explained that the issue Council Member Ward had raised was a policy-type question that could be hashed out in the Committee. And, he explained, what the Committee would recommend might be different from what the Town Attorney would draft. Council Member Greene asked for a little time to think about how that would work.
Council Member Harrison disclosed that he had been a paid lobbyist for the Audubon Society of North Carolina. He described the ordinance as a good starting point, but noted that the Council should decide whether they want an ordinance at all. The ethical guidelines that some citizens were requesting were not the same as an ordinance, he pointed out.
Council Member Greene remarked that she thought ACS might have been the "canary in the mineshaft." If this is a trend, she noted, then it would be proactive to give serious thought to having a disclosure ordinance. Council Member Greene told the Council that every ordinance she had found had applied only to paid lobbyists and had put the entire onus on the lobbyist to do the reporting. They accept the distinction between those who come to Town Hall because it is their jobs and those who come as interested citizens, she said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins remarked that she did not mind continuing to serve on the Committee to bring back an ordinance. But as far as the University is concerned, she stated, everyone knows that UNC works with the Council toward its own ends. Mayor pro tem Wiggins argued that it was not necessary for UNC to register as a lobbyist. If a UNC member calls and asks her to meet them for lunch or dinner, she will go, she said. Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that everyone in the community knows that the University is actively trying to move its agenda forward. She remarked that she would support an ordinance in which the University was not a target, because they are not trying to do anything undercover in terms of influencing the Council.
Council Member Hill stated that nothing new had come out of the Committee's discussions and that he was not sure there was much value in meeting again. It was determined fairly early on that UNC would be exempted from this rule, he said, because it is not in the Council's province to legislate them in this regard. Council Member Hill recommended referring the document and comments to the Attorney to come back with a response at his leisure. He did not see any reason for the four Committee members to keep discussing this issue, he said.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that she had not had a chance to read Council Member Greene's memo, except while others were talking tonight. Council Member Hill told her that it was fairly un-ambitious and a good distillation of what the Committee had discussed. If that's true, Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented, then the Town Attorney should "take a stab at it."
Council Member Greene asked if the matter could be left open until the following Wednesday.
Mayor Foy accepted that, but expressed a preference for having an ordinance and policy recommendations. He pointed out that this would be a lot to ask the Attorney to do.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO REFER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE ATTORNEY ALONG WITH COMMENTS TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A REPORT ON APRIL 14, 2004. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Excerpt from March 24, 2004 Minutes
b. Council Committee on Lobbying Follow-up Report.
Council Member Greene explained that Mr. Karpinos would propose a draft lobbyist registration ordinance, which would apply to commercial entities but not to State agencies. Then the Council Committee would confer with Mr. Karpinos and bring something forward to the full Council, she said. Council Member Greene noted that there were legal issues involved with imposing a lobbyist registration ordinance on a state agency.
Council Member Greene read from a written statement in which she reviewed the history of lobbying ordinances from the mid-1800s to the present, citing several legal decisions throughout those years. "The professional manufacturing of volunteer organizations" is now an $800 million industry, she said, adding that corporations have learned how effective it is to look like a grassroots movement, particularly on environmental issues. Council Member Greene cautioned that Chapel Hill appears to be an easy mark for lobbyists. The Town would be well served to be proactive on registration of paid lobbyists, she said. With regard to having the University register, Council Member Greene pointed out that the University of Wisconsin had done so voluntarily and that the State University of New York (SUNY) system had complied with a statewide registration requirement.
Mr. Karpinos explained that there were certain principles of law in North Carolina that indicate that the Town does not have the authority to enact a local ordinance that would require State agencies to register their lobbyists. He could find no authority in North Carolina that specifically mentions the ability to regulate lobbyists of State agencies, he said. However, he had found some law in both the Charter and the General Statutes that would support the Town enacting a local ordinance. Mr. Karpinos explained that he and the Council Committee had reviewed a number of ordinances from around the country. In most cases, they had found exceptions for state agencies, he said. Mr. Karpinos pointed out that those from the SUNY system in New York were complying with a state statute, not a local ordinance.
Mr. Karpinos told Council members that he and the Committee had discussed the fact that the original petition contained two parts: the lobbyist portion, and the suggestion about ethical guidelines. The Council had discussed the latter on March 22, he said, noting that they had discussed posting their calendars online as well as the burden of doing so. Mr. Karpinos noted that Council Member Greene had suggested enacting the lobbying ordinance and inviting the University to voluntarily comply. Another alternative might be to propose a lobbying ordinance for non-governmental officials and have the Council consider a set of guidelines that would have Council members report substantive conversations with University and other State officials, he said. So, Mr. Karpinos stated, the Committee was considering a lobbying ordinance and a set of guidelines, and probably would bring that back before the Council's summer break.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the ethical guidelines would address Council members’ conduct only as it relates to meetings or conversations with public officials. Or would it address other ethical aspects of the Council's behavior, she asked. Mr. Karpinos replied that he would start with the idea of documenting conversations. But he would take other issues into account if the Council wanted to include them in the guidelines, he said. Mayor pro tem Wiggins explained that the Committee had seen ethical guidelines from another municipality that she had particularly liked. Those had covered many other aspects of Council behavior, she said, but she could not remember which town they were from. Mr. Karpinos agreed to show what those possibilities would be in his report.
Mayor Foy stated that Mr. Karpinos would bring back a proposed ordinance as well as some proposed guidelines. Mr. Karpinos would confer with the Council Committee as necessary, said Mayor Foy.