ADAMS SHINES LIGHT ON CITY HALL LOBBYING
David Gonzalez
Today, at the final City Council meeting of the year, Commissioner Sam Adams, along with Commissioners Saltzman and Sten passed a landmark ordinance that requires many City Hall lobbyists to register with the City Auditor.
Passing the ordinance was a hard-fought battle for Adams, who made lobbyist registration a cornerstone of his campaign to shake up city hall. “Although it took a full year of consistent work to pass this into law, I have always remained steadfast in my commitment to day-lighting the conversations lobbyists have with city officials,” Adams said after the vote. “The public deserves this transparency. When you know it’s good for the city, you work until you’re done.”
Adams’ extensive outreach has included:
· Soliciting input at six public meetings attended by a broad range of stakeholders including representatives of City Council staff;
· Sending nine drafts out for public comment to more than 5,000 email recipients; and
· Hosting three rounds of face-to-face meetings with the each of the City Commissioners.
Key supporters of the ordinance include: Money in Politics Research Action Project; League of Women's Voters; OSPIRG; Sam Chase, Community Development Network; Robert King, Portland Police Association; Jack Finders, Portland Fire Fighters Association; Michael Dehner, Laborers Local 483; and Chris Smith, NW neighborhood activist.
Adams reminds us that shining light on city hall conversations does not end with the passage of this ordinance. “Like all legislation, it’s a work in progress. It’s just the beginning. With today’s vote, we’ve entered the pilot phase. We’ll evaluate its performance over the next year and based on our findings we’ll work to make a good process even better. Portland wants accountability and transparency; this helps deliver it.”
Posted by David Gonzalez on December 21, 2005
(8) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Front Page, Good Government
Comments by site visitors
I spend a lot of time personally advocating for business and tax and fee reforms. I am acting as an individual, not representing an organization or business. Am I affected?
Posted by: Dave Lister | Dec 22, 2005 7:46:01 AM
B!X, read section 2.12.050. It refers to the ONI Standards too. That reference was intended to acknowledge neighborhood associations follow the open meetings/public records section in the updated Standards. I've noticed most media accounts have failed to note this point. Also, Business Associations would not be exempt being as they have chosen to not be required to follow the open meetings section in the Standards.
2.12.050 Exemptions to Registration and Reporting Requirements for Lobbying Entities.
C. Any lobbying entity that satisfies all three of the following requirements:
1. Complies with state public record and meeting laws or with the standards referenced in Section 3.96.020 G.;
Hope that helps. Contact me directly if you have further questions.
Brian Hoop, ONI, bhoop@ci.portland.or.us
Posted by: Brian Hoop | Dec 22, 2005 10:30:56 AM
Dave,
No, only when you are speaking on behalf of an organization.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Dec 26, 2005 11:47:02 AM
I've been trying to get a definitive answer as to how NA's without 501(c)(3) status will be handled. Currently 6 out of the 10 NA's in the NW Coalition do not have c3 status, and I'd bet that percentage is actually low compared with other Coalitions. SWNI, with 16 NA's in SW, for instance has 0 - zero - na's with c3 status...
Many NA's (including my own home NA in SE, HAND) fly under the banner of their Coalition's c3 status in order to accept tax-free donations. So, one, fairly shaded, question, is whether they can use this same strategy in this case?
Other NA's have c4 status, which allows more lobbying than does the c3.
Then there are the two Coalitions without c3 status, themselves...
In sum, without some further clarification on this I'd guess it is wildly overstating the case to say that "NA's are exempt" under this ordinance...
(I've talked with Colleen in the Auditor's office and Maria in Sam's office -- they referred me to Mary Jo Markle as the expert on this. She's on vacation so I've left a query on her phone. I'm trying this venue in hopes of at least raising the issue of folks' radar.)
Posted by: Anne Dufay | Dec 27, 2005 10:16:02 AM
For a layman, what does this mean as far as what will be on the public record?
1) A list of any "lobbyist" who may have contact with Mayor/commissioners?
2) A list of official meetings? From 8-5? Lunches? Anytime?
I appreciate Mr Adams efforts and I think transparency of operations is a major step forward.
Posted by: Steve | Dec 28, 2005 8:28:05 AM
I think the c3 exemption issue (for all but the c4 orgs) could be dealt with by adding a line to the ordinance (similar to the way the open meetings exemption was handled -- as in:
2. Is an Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) 3 Organization or has fiscal sponsorship by a IRS 501(c)(3) under an IRS approved Support for Common Issue Organization project; and
Posted by: Anne Dufay | Dec 28, 2005 8:54:33 AM
In a piece entitled: "The $4bn Industry That Is America's Guilty Secret", Rupert Cornwell of Britain's The Independent writes: "Usually you hear little about the quiet meetings, the lavish lunches and junkets that lubricate American politics. But every once in a while something comes along to open the system to what it hates most: daylight." We have got to end the real and perceived political corruption in our sickly democracy. I intend to back fully the efforts of the Portland City Commissioners to adopt public financing of local elections. Their move is a small, yet bold, step into the daylight.
Posted by: ThomasWinstonMorgan | Jan 5, 2006 7:59:13 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
So, how was the this problem addressed in the final ordinance: Last I was paying attention, it exempted orgs which complied with state public records/meetings laws. But earlier this year, Council adopted new standards for neighborhood associations which removed them from compliance with state records/meetings laws in favor of a set of ONI-specific records/meetings guidelines.
If that remains the case, then NA's are not in fact exempt from this ordinance.
Did that ever get addressed, or has a conflict been set up that could have been avoided?
Posted by: The One True b!X | Dec 21, 2005 4:28:23 PM