1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 11:22 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra
Cc: councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox; David White; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Heidi von Tongeln; Denise Anderson-Warren; Nikima Newsome
Subject: Agenda Item 10-D (Lobbying Ordinance)
EXTERNAL
Dear Hon. Mayor Himmelrich and Hon. Councilmembers,
Thank you very much for taking this opportunity to strengthen our City's lobbying ordinance ‐‐ ethics and transparency are essential to a functioning participatory democracy.
I also appreciate your willingness to add exceptions for commissioners who regularly appear before the City Council or boards and commissions in a professional capacity, such as architects and engineers. I am respectfully asking you to add attorneys to the list of those who are exempt from the definition of lobbyist in the proposed redlines to Mun.
Code section 4.85.010.
There are a number of attorneys on our boards and commissions who, from time to time, will represent community stakeholders in important matters affecting Santa Monica (e.g., fighting evictions and displacement, preserving landmarks, fighting for parks and open space, helping local small businesses navigate the permitting process etc.). To ensure that these attorneys can continue to serve their community while being fairly compensated for their time, I respectfully request that you make the following revision to the relevant portion of the redlines for Mun. Code section
4.85.010:
For purposes of this Chapter, “Lobbyist” does not include the following:
(a) City contractors and those seeking City contracts on their own behalf through bids and proposals; (b) Licensed architects;
(c) Licensed professional engineers;
(d) Representatives of other government agencies; and
(e) Licensed attorneys engaged in the practice of law.
To the extent that lobbying ordinances (like Santa Monica's ordinance) purport to govern lawyers' activities that constitute the practice of law under the State Bar Act, then those local lobbying ordinances may invade a field that it preempted by state law. (See Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535.) Accordingly, adding attorneys to the above‐referenced list of exemptions will help attorneys, City staff, and members of the public avoid any confusion as to attorneys' obligations under the Lobbying Ordinance.
Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any questions.
Best,
Ellis Raskin
Item 10.D
10/25/22
1 of 6 Item 10.D
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 5:25 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Douglas Sloan; David White; Jorge Casuso; Sam Catanzaro; Santa Monica Observer Subject: 🛑10D - OBJECT TO $7,500 THRESHOLD —> INSANE!
EXTERNAL
Who authorized staff to include a compensation threshold in this proposed amendment? A threshold was never discussed at prior Council meetings, nor was there any direction given to staff to include a threshold. The only amount that was ever mentioned was the expenditure lobbyist limit, i.e. the money *spent* by a lobbyist on lobbying rather than money *paid* to a lobbyist for lobbying.
This amendment as drafted seeks to invite and legitimize even more corruption at the City Hall, and as such should become part of pre-election conversations.
Our current lobbyist definition reads:
"Any individual who receives economic consideration as the employee, representative or contractor of a person or entity other than the City of Santa Monica for communicating with any official or employee of the City for the purpose of influencing a City action must register as a Lobbyist [emphasis added]."
Per the above, there is currently no threshold, and that is how it should remain. If you are getting paid anything to lobby, you are a lobbyist. Period.
The threshold appeared in the proposed amendment seemingly out of nowhere, and I would like to hear during the City Council meeting who is responsible for this idea. This information will give the residents a lot of insight as to who is working diligently to promote more corruption in the City.
1. I absolutely object to limiting the definition of a lobbyist to individuals who receive more than $7,500 per year for their lobbyist efforts. This is unacceptable: it would leave the City wide open to behind-the-door lobbyist efforts, instead of limiting them. The truth is that the City is already being run by special interest groups while you, the Councilmembers, are for the most part just an impotent front.
Do not approve this amendment as written!
2. Where is the expenditure lobbyist definition that exists in the Beverly Hills ordinance this amendment was supposed to be based on? Last time the Council spent about twenty minutes trying to explain to Councilmember Negrete what an expenditure lobbyist is, and I fully expected the definition to be included in the amendment to our lobbyist ordinance.
Beverly Hills definition:
“EXPENDITURE LOBBYIST: Any person, other than any government entity, or officer or employee of a government entity acting in an official capacity, who advises regarding, or makes, payments or incurs Item 10.D
10/25/22
2 of 6 Item 10.D
10/25/22
2 expenditures of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more during any calendar year for directing or guiding public relations, media relations, advertising, public outreach, research, investigation, reports, analyses, or studies with the intent of soliciting, requesting or urging, directly or indirectly, other persons to communicate directly with a City official in order to influence Municipal legislation. Expenditure lobbyist shall not include: a) a person who pays compensation to a legislative advocate or who pays compensation to another representative who appears at a hearing on Municipal legislation, b) a person who pays dues to a membership organization that is ongoing in nature and whose membership services do not consist exclusively of legislative advocacy, c) an organization who makes payments to distribute communications to its members, and d) a person engaged in publication or broadcasting of news items, editorials, or commentary, provided that the person is not compensated to take a specific position.” A definition of an expenditure lobbyist must be added to our ordinance. Such definitions have been included by the City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, the County of Los Angeles and the state of California. There is a reason for that.
3. It is my belief that Executive Directors or main fundraisers seeking funding from the City should have to register as lobbyists. Individuals like whose organizations receive millions of dollars in funding per year, e.g. John Maceri, Tod Lipka and Tara Barauskas, should have to log their lobbyist encounters with City officials and staff. This is much needed in Santa Monica as too many deals are being cut with the upper level staff behind closed doors that the public never becomes privy to. It's extremely unhealthy. This City is basically run by the corrupt staff who is remotely controlled by the special interest groups. When staff introduces certain proposed projects at a Council or Commission meeting, it often sounds like the staffer is literally advocating on behalf of the developer or proposed service provider, rather than the City. The Council should be looking to curtail this, rather than enable it.
4. Please make sure that the amended lobbyist ordinance would capture individuals like Leonora Camner, who remained on the Housing Commission for 2.5 years despite being the salaried Executive Director of the legislative advocacy nonprofit organization called Abundant Housing LA, which spends large amounts of money lobbying for urban density.
5. A lobbyist ordinance is only as good as its administration and enforcement. Currently both are practically nonexistent in Santa Monica. The Council should give staff direction to work on this. One thing to do is follow the example of Beverly Hills by adopting a user friendly lobbyist search tool instead of the difficult to navigate scrolls of tiny print spreadsheets that evidence our City Clerk and her information systems are still stuck in the 1980s.
Beverly Hills:
https://www.beverlyhills.org/application/lobbyist/search.jsp?action=search Santa Monica:
https://santamonica.gov/media/Document%20Library/Process%20Explainers/How%20to%20Register %20As%20a%20Lobbyist/22.23.LobbysitRegistrationLog.pdf
City Clerk should not be tasked with the enforcement of the ordinance. Especially not the current City Clerk, who is utterly incompetent, corrupt and does the bidding of the special interest groups while collecting a handsome salary as a public official for the City of Santa Monica. What happened to the requirement that city officers be politically neutral?
Item 10.D
10/25/22
3 of 6 Item 10.D
10/25/22
3 I urge the Council NOT to approve this amendment as written. The $7,500 limit would increase the influence of special interest groups which can afford to pay a professional lobbyist $7,500 to take Councilmember Brock or Councilmember Negrete to a couple lunches to influence their decisions, and the public will never learn about those cozy sessions.
Again, this is unacceptable.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 10.D
10/25/22
4 of 6 Item 10.D
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra Subject: OPPOSE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 10D - IMPOSE A ZERO THRESHOLD - Beverly Hills STOPS AT $50 Bucks! Then they have to register.
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please find out WHO came up with a dollar amount that would change the lobby ordinance an amount which can be paid to or taken, even as a bribe, to advocate on behalf of a council item and let that be okay? DO NOT LEGITIMIZE pre-election unregistered lobbying at City Hall! THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRUPTION! The amendment you are being asked to approve tonight seeks to invite and legitimize actions that may have ALREADY TAKEN PLACE!
Staff seems to want you to legalize corruption - even at the highest levels - in an attempt to support dirty dealings like those of Ex-LA City Councilman José Huizar, a criminal, but hey, it's only at half the rate so why not! Huizar's brother agreed to testify against him for having received at least $600,000 in cash in at least 20 envelopes. This averages $15,000 a pop. Staff is asking you to approve a change to the ordinance for half that amount - up $7,500 - in pay outs or receipts without having to register as a lobbyist.
Why would it be okay for a council member or their family to pay people, for instance, to work to pass something and then those people not have to reveal the fact that they have been paid to show up to or write into the council or meet with the council to lobby for that thing?
Why would it be okay for council or staff to accept gifts in the form of free lunches, free or reduced price (pay taxes only) hotel or vacation stays while advocating for or directing council at meetings to choose a path that they received benefits from for advocating for?
What about inside deals on housing rents or sales by quid pro quo facilitators serving as intermediaries for the council members and or staff and the lobbyists actions set up by vultures who want things from our city coffers in terms of money or land use?
Include the language of what a lobbyist is in the ordinance and leave the rest along.
Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 10.D
10/25/22
5 of 6 Item 10.D
10/25/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 12:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; David White; [email protected]; Sue Himmelrich Subject: 10D public comment—oppose $7.5k per tear threshold
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
While a strong lobbyist ordinance is sorely needed in Santa Monica, I oppose the inclusion of a $7,500 threshold as indicated in the draft. The Beverly Hills ordinance, which I believe we initially modeled this on, has a $50 threshold, and our current definition of a lobbyist says anybody who receives compensation for lobbying (meaning ANY compensation) is a lobbyist.
This threshold has never been discussed, is inappropriate, and is counterproductive as it would open the door to even more corruption. Please remove it from any lobbyist ordinance you approve.
Thank you,
Michelle Gray
Item 10.D
10/25/22
6 of 6 Item 10.D
10/25/22