Writing Shotgun

LOBBYISTS LOBBYING AGAINST ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REGISTER THEM

Dave WielengaWed. August 06
 

Strange enough that the most-influential lobbyists in the city were gathered on the same side of an issue being considered by a Long Beach City Council committee Tuesday afternoon. The really weird part is that they seemed to be sitting on the side that was losing.

Two-thirds of the council’s three-person Election Oversight Committee appeared to be leaning in favor of recommending that lobbyists in the audience—and any of them that work in Long Beach—be required to register with the city and report their contacts with all city officials.

“I’m not ready to make a decision yet,” said Ninth District council member Val Lerch, the committee member who seemed most resistant to the proposed Lobbyist Registration Ordinance. “I don’t think I’ve talked to enough lobbyists to make up my mind.”

Lerch’s little zinger, delivered at the end of an hour-long meeting, evoked just about the only laugh during a tense 60 minutes. Lobbyists who have forever operated without local restriction in Long Beach don’t like the idea of civic oversight, and they came out in force to voice their objections.

However, they were forced to sit in silence for most of the meeting, which principally consisted of conversation among Lerch, Fifth District council member Gerrie Schipske and First District council member Bonnie Lowenthal, who chairs the Election Oversight Committee and who is sponsoring the proposed Lobbyist Registration Ordinance.

The committee members were trying to hammer out the details of how such an ordinance would work—who is and isn’t a lobbyist, how lobbyists would register, with which city department, what they might have to report, how they would be policed, what the penalties for violations might be.

Registering lobbyists has been one of Bonnie Lowenthal’s projects since 2001, when she persuaded the city council to appoint a 12-member Ethics Task Force headed by retired Judge Robert W. Parkin. The council has been considering, tweaking and slowly adopting many of the panel’s other recommendations since 2002, but Long Beach’s lobbyists remain unregistered. Lowenthal is pushing especially hard to get that done before the November election—she’s running for state assembly—potentially ends her tenure as a city council member.

Mayor Bob Foster has already signaled his support. “It’s kind of a no-brainer,” he told The District almost a year ago. “In the interest of fair play and transparency, professional lobbyists working in Long Beach should have to inform the city, reveal who employs them and periodically report their interactions with city officials. To me, it’s really a simple issue.”

Local lobbyists see the issue simply, too, although from the opposite perspective. And when they finally got a chance to talk on Tuesday, they presented their idea for correcting the perception that lobbyists might be secretly influencing the decisions of Long Beach’s elected officials and city staff.

“All city officials need to do is open their calendars and put them on the Internet,” says Mike Murchison, who represents some of the biggest players in Long Beach, including Queen Mary leaseholder Jeff Klein and Los Cerritos Wetlands owner Tom Dean. “That would solve the problem beautifully without adding another layer of bureaucracy—and forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab.”

High profile lobbyists Carl Kemp (second+pch project, Yellow Taxi), Larry Alswede (apartment building owners) and Diane Ripley (Signal Hill Petroleum) were among the other paid movers-and-shakers in the audience who were left rolling their eyes at the prospect of having to register with the city. Those who spoke sometimes showed why they’re so good at what they do.

“I want to thank you for bringing this forward,” Kemp, a former city staffer, told the panel. “This is well-intentioned.”

Kemp then went on to schmooze each council member individually.

He lauded Schipske for the transparency she offers in her blog and the ethics she displays in her behavior, saying “I’ve never paid for any of your lunches, and that is commendable.”

 Kemp called Lerch “a champion of the people.”

And when Kemp addressed Lowenthal he seemed to stumble over his words, first calling her “councilwoman,” then quickly correcting that to “assemblywoman-elect”—although the election for state assembly is still three months away. Of course, Kemp wasn’t really stumbling at all, and every council member knew it.

“No campaigning!” Schipske snapped, almost as irritated as she sounded. “No lobbying!”

“I can’t help it,” Kemp replied, chuckling. “I’m a lobbyist.”

The hearing was cut short by a scheduling conflict, and will be continued on an as-yet-undetermined date, leaving Kemp and the others with time remaining to do what they just can’t help doing so well.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I believe if registered lobbyist measure is put forward, that it be written by someone who can provide legislation that leaves no loopholes. I suggest getting someone like Harvey Rosenfeld. You can easily provide a legal definition of a lobbyist. However, how can their activities be monitored? What will be the enforced system of checks & balances? Let's hope Long Beach receives a well written description piece, before they enact a loosely contrived lobbyist measure.
    • ^
    • v
    If Val Lerch can't make up his mind, that must mean that the lobbyists often make up Val's mind for him.....
    • ^
    • v
    I attended the meeting and heard several times that Long Beach is the only major city in the State of California that doesn’t have a lobbying ordinance. Conversely, I also heard from the lobbyists that there is no reason for this ordinance because a problem doesn’t exist. They contend that it will cost too much to administer and an ordinance will be a violation of free speech.

    Personally, I believe that there is a problem if a perception of unethical activities exists. Lobbyists are paid to influence city staff and elected officials. They have access other people don’t have. They have the money to entertain and entice. Not all are decent. Some have a long, sordid history of unethical behaviors. If registration helps to improve the perception, it is a small price to pay.

    It appears that the Council sub-Committee is reviewing the lobbyist ordinances in other cities. They seem to be leaning toward Oakland’s ordinance. I’m not sure how loosely it is contrived. However, several times, I heard Gerrie Schipske say that it was most important that Long Beach’s ordinance be very specific, with no wiggle room. Please stick to your guns.
    • ^
    • v
    Damn, Carl. You had so much potential, but now you're just another person the city has to keep away at arm's length. Has money really made you sacrifice your soul?
    • ^
    • v
    OK, I know the councilpeople are reluctant to make the bag men sign a roster since it might make it easier for us to "follow the money", but maybe they could make a temporary rule that lobbyists lobbying against the lobbyist registration measure have to register just this once while we think about it.
    I know this won't happen, of course, since it might lead to our finding out who wants to get their hands on the Lincoln Park/Civic Center/Library property.
    • ^
    • v
    I wonder how many boyfriends and girlfriends of our council members will show up on the lobbyist list?
    • ^
    • v
    Just so you know, Poster No. 2, Val Lerch was making a funny.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, this profession certainly requires a moral flexibility BUT Lobbyists do have a set of rules. (Movie Buffs)
    (1) Never talk when a tape recorder is on (2) Never write anything down
    (3) Never talk on the telephone if you can talk "face to face." (4) And never
    talk if you can wink!
    And their cardinal rule......***Stick to your script! When you blurt out the truth, that's what gets everybody in trouble**

    HT -Dancing Queen
    • ^
    • v
    This reform is long overdue and in the public interest. Let's all start to 'Lobby it' !
    In the Industry and elsewhere, and sadly, Long Beach has had the reputation as a 'Dirty' or 'Greasy' town for far too long.
    We should adopt Ethics rules similar to those used by the Coastal Commission . Before any matter is heard, each Commissioner must publicly reveal any and all 'Ex Parte ', or outside, prior contact, gratuity or communication relevant to the pending matter. Everything has to be disclosed to avoid even 'An Appearance of Impropriety'.
    Simply trying to chat with a Commissioner about any matter brings a warning that they will have to subsequently disclose what is said. Any material 'Conflict' causes one to step aside by 'Recusing' themselves and not voting.
    We could do a lot of healing around here by finally taking Professional Ethics seriously, but, we are not holding or breath.
    • ^
    • v
    Many such ordinances already exist, of course; San Francisco (not exactly your average hotbed of conservative thought), Oakland, San Diego and Los Angeles and many, many other cities already have such ordinances. L.A.’s Municipal Code 48.01 et seq., revised just last month, for example, focuses on the level of lobbying activity (“…more than 30 hours in any consecutive 3 month period…”) rather than upon the amount of compensation.

    The bottom line for me is this: we, as the citizens of a republic, have a definitive right to know what persons and organizations are attempting to influence our government, at any level, and what means they are employing to do so. Nor should we have to go search for it. This information should be reported to us, the electorate, as a routine part of government’s overall accountability to us.
    • ^
    • v
    Dave (7): Thank you for the clarification about Lerch making a "funny", but remember there's usually a strong undertow of truth in "kidding".....
    • ^
    • v
    This opinion piece is precisely why Long Beach needs to have lobbyist registration: http://longbeachtaxpayers.org/tools/qp.dwp?task...
    • ^
    • v
    I also surf the net!
    If you want to be really disillasioned with Long Beach....get ready!
    Did we really think that on Tuesday the Elections/Oversight Committee was trying for a Lobbying ordinance? Shame on us. This Committee met twice last month with same lobbyists. Please go into Legistar on site and also look at their 7/08/08 meeting and look at the Legislative file text where you will see the comparisions Heather Mahood, (Assistent city attorney) did on major city Lobbying ordinances. Amazingly. they are all from March 2007. Well....then go back to the same committee meeting on April 10, 2007. Same Committee members and the same lobbyists at the meeting.... AND almost the same wordage as in the meeting on 8/05/08....LA or Oakland...what shall we do? At that time (4/10/07) they had even drawn up a draft Lobbyist ordinance which you can download and be appalled at how anemic it is. Meanwhile on 7/08/08, the meeting had Heather Hart, Los Angles Ethics Commissioner there. There is no cost for the city on a Lobbying ordinance. If we did it L.A's way they charge $450.00 per year for a Lobbyist to register, (much less then my association dues for my business) and $75.00 a client. No gifts or campaign contributions from Lobbyists allowed.. no neighborhood Association Lobbying unless ID'd. LA' registry is electronic...pays for itself and then some, and penalties . Oakland (on the other hand is so weak..allows contributions and gifts etc) Why would Schipske , who makes you feel this is a new endeavor...even though they have been through it in 2007.... say they were leaning towards Oakland's Ordinance. Softer? We live in LA County. Most of the Lobbyists at the meeting on Tuesday raised their hands to say they were on another city's Lobbyist Register, (probably LA). LA's Municipal Lobbying ordinance is clean, and strict. Gerri.Bonnie and Val, I am so disappointed in your charade. Fumble some more.
    • ^
    • v
    Surfer Meg....I love you!!
    I have also come up with the same conclusions after spending 3 hours online.
    Yes, these same committee members went through the same thing in 2007, even same remarks. To fool the public-what's new? ButI I, as you, am sorely disappointed in Gerri. I thought she was a straight shooter!! All pretense.
    The LA Lobbyist ordinance is of course the best one...once you compare the others. Have learned alot about my city. And Mayor Bob, if you think this is a "no brainer" make it happen!l Why wait til 2009??.

    Surfer Meg, I hope you score some big ones on the southside of Huntington.
    • ^
    • v
    Hey, Surfer Meg! Can you e-mail me at dave@thedistrictweekly.com? I need a little clarification. Thanks!
    • ^
    • v
    This matter is rather simple. If the lobbyists don't like it, there has to be a reason. Why doesn't Mike Murchison, or Carl Kemp, provide a written piece as to why they oppose having to register with the city as a lobbyist?
    • ^
    • v
    I was at that same Ethics Committee meeting where the Chair (B. Lowenthal) specifically called this a "sunshine" law. Similarly, the Brown Act which protects public input is the "mother" of sunshine ordinances. Yet, after waiting through almost an hour of pro-legislation dribble, time ran out for public comment. Not only was the public cut short, but some were interrupted before their paltry one minute was up with counter remarks.

    Additionally, there is no provision in this statute for the City Officials to make their contacts public. It's a great way for them to avoid accountability. It seems that transparency and public scrutiny is only for others, not for our electeds.

    While I'm not necessarily fond of many of the projects that have been lobbied, I believe it is a very slippery slope to prohibit or discourage freedom of speech.

    People forget that those rights denied to others may one day be denied to them.
    • ^
    • v
    Follow the trail of greasy palms behind most major crap projects in the downtown and chances are you'll find a smiling lobbyist.

    Most lobbyists are a step away from being the clipboard carrying individuals that you find in front of grocery stores trying to collect signatures for a cause they could probably care less about just to earn a buck.

    Long Beach grow some balls and clamp down on lobbyists!
    • ^
    • v
    It is difficult for me to understand why the lobbyists are being villified here. I don't believe they were holding a gun to anyone's head.

    It is the City Officials who buy into this that are to blame and should be held accountable. It's easy to legislate what others must do.

    If there is to be an ordinance, then the most important factor in this whole scenario should be governed--that of gifting. This is what needs to be prohibited. It should include campaign contributions in any form, including manpower.
    • ^
    • v
    Food for thought: Sex offenders and political lobbyists are the only people legally mandated in California to register their names, addresses and activites with the state.
    • ^