Austin ethics commission backs lobbying law reforms
Development interests oppose tightened rules.
A city commission gave a thumbs up to reforming the city’s lobbying law, aiming to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement of regulations that haven’t been significantly updated in four decades.
The Ethics Review Commission voted unanimously Tuesday evening at a standing-room-only meeting to support most of City Council Member Leslie Pool’s suggested changes to the city’s lobbying laws.
Her proposal has been controversial, pitting neighborhood activists who want to shine a brighter light on the influence of the real estate industry on city government against various development-oriented industries who say it would force architects and engineers to register as lobbyists.
The commission supports broadening the definition of who is a lobbyist, requiring disclosure of how much money lobbyists earn from clients and closing a loophole that allowed people who lobby part-time to avoid registering.
The 11-member commission’s vote is not binding. It’s treated as a recommendation to the City Council, which can choose how much it wants to rely upon their guidance.
The lobbying reform proposal was first suggested by Pool in August. It followed an investigation by the American-Statesman that revealed many people acting as lobbyists were not registered, that there was little enforcement of the city’s lobbying law, and that even registered lobbyists were not filing the correct forms.
But almost immediately after Pool unveiled her proposal, it was greeted with strong opposition from the city’s design, development and building industries.
They argued that the ordinance was overly broad as written and would force “thousands” of architects, engineers and building contractors working in Austin to register as lobbyists. Beyond objecting to the label of “lobbyist,” they are concerned lobby reform would force people who work in these industries to resign from various boards and commissions, robbing those groups of needed expertise.
City code prohibits lobbyists from serving on city boards and commissions. Interestingly, full-time lobbyists who are already registered with the city haven’t raised any objections yet. Under Pool’s proposal, they would be required to disclose more information about who they are representing, provide greater detail about how much money they are spending on lobbying, and reveal how much they are being paid.
The Ethics Review Commission did single out a few sticking points that the council should consider in crafting updates to the lobbying law, including the impact on the city’s boards and commissions.
The commission meeting coincided with the first attempt by the development-oriented groups to offer a counterproposal after months of raising general objections. Last week, these groups, represented by architect Stuart Sampley and attorney Casey Dobson, suggested a scaled-down version of the lobbying reform.
Their idea is to get rid of the “incidental” provision that allowed parttime lobbyists to not register and include a specific exemption for people who work on the administration of “permitting, platting, plan approval and technical matters.”
Pool responded to their counteroffer by making some modest changes, including stipulating that to be considered a lobbyist you have to spend at least 26 hours a quarter on lobbying. She addressed the commission Tuesday, saying it wasn’t her intention to “cast a net so wide as to capture everyone” who communicates with city staff on development matters.
“That wouldn’t be fair and that isn’t what I proposed,” Pool said.
Supporting her reform efforts is a loose coalition of neighborhood activists, the League of Women Voters and ethics attorney Fred Lewis, who helped write Pool’s proposal.
But Pool didn’t budge much on the substance of her proposal, and the developers, architects and engineers made it clear they were still miles apart on their ideas for how to reform the city’s lobbying law.
This debate is far from over. The council’s Audit and Finance committee will review Pool’s proposal before sending it to the full City Council in December. There will likely be negotiations between the two sides in the ensuing weeks. And even the council vote isn’t final.
The city manager will have to develop an ordinance based on what the council voted to support. A final vote on an actual ordinance would come in early 2016.