Ahearn-Koch and Trice object to proposed regulations as ‘overkill’
After nearly an hour of their own discussion — without any public comments offered — the majority of the Sarasota city commissioners voted against a lobbyist registration ordinance that Commissioner Erik Arroyo proposed last fall.
Following the Aug. 19 public hearing, Mayor Liz Alpert was the only other board member to vote with Arroyo for passage of the new regulations, even though Alpert had said at one point that she felt they were not necessary. The ordinance, she added, “seems very cumbersome.”
Commissioner Debbie Trice had agreed, characterizing the proposed regulations as “overkill.”
Later, though, Alpert told her colleagues, “I can see a benefit to this in that we get accused of doing things, meeting with certain people, being in people’s pockets.”
Vice Mayor Jen Ahearn-Koch noted several times that she was having trouble trying to recall scenarios that had occurred to which the ordinance would apply. She told Arroyo, “I really respect where … you want to go with [this],” but she was not certain she could support the ordinance. “I feel like this is a big, big boulder being dropped on a tiny little thing.”
After he made the motion to approve the ordinance, with a few tweaks that City Attorney Robert Fournier had suggested on the basis of the discussion, Arroyo told his colleagues, “Are we open to seeing that there is a world out there where there is clandestine lobbying?”
He called the ordinance “a tool for us and a tool for the public to know who is being compensated” to advocate for specific commission action.
Yet, Trice pointed out that people who chose not to register as lobbyists who later were “called on that” could remedy the situation by registering within the 20-day window Fournier had included in the regulations.
She added, “After the first time somebody screwed us over, we would know the registration form really wouldn’t make a difference. I think it’s an awful lot of administrative overhead for very little value,” Trice said of the ordinance.
At one point, Arroyo stressed to his colleagues, “Over the course of us being city commissioners, we interact with people, stakeholders, who represent their views and concerns and have proposals on policy matters. While many of these stakeholders are passionate citizens, genuinely concerned about the community” he continued, “there remains some uncertainty about those that might be representing interests beyond the common welfare, particularly if they are compensated for such representation.”
He added, “We owe it to our residents and ourselves to differentiate between these two groups because if we give equal weight to somebody being paid to be here and not disclose that they are being paid to be here, it diminishes the value of true advocacy of somebody [representing a neighborhood organization, for example], and actually caring about their communities.”
Following the vote, Trice put forth a new motion, calling for the cards that all individuals must sign before addressing the commission to include a box asking whether the person is being compensated to speak on a specific issue at the meeting. An individual will need simply to check a “Yes” or “No” box on the card.
Arroyo questioned why his colleagues felt they would benefit from that change but they would not “benefit from knowing who is being compensated in every other situation outside of [the Commission Chambers], outside of [a] public meeting.”
Trice responded that it was a question of “the return on the investment,” adding, “This is a minor investment with a big return.”
That motion passed unanimously.
Directions given to the city attorney and details of the draft regulations
Before the discussion began, City Attorney Fournier reminded the commissioners that, during their last discussion of a proposed ordinance on lobbyist registration — conducted in April — their direction was to keep the regulations simple, so as “not to create a large new bureaucracy.”
He added, “The word ‘minimalist’ was used.”
Therefore, Fournier continued, the ordinance did not call for a registration fee or a requirement for logs of visits to commissioners to be kept. He noted that the comment was made in April that the commissioners’ calendars already make clear the names of persons who meet with them.
Further, he said, the proposed ordinance did not require the disclosure of the amount of money spent on lobbying.
The ordinance, as drafted, did call for the completion and filing of a registration statement with the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk “[p]rior to engaging in lobbying,” with a list of the required information, including the full name and address on behalf of the person the lobbyist was representing, if that was different from the individual’s employer.
It also said, “A Lobbyist shall file, on or before January 15 of each year following the Lobbying Activity, a registration statement for each separate Employer on whose behalf the Lobbyist has engaged in lobbying during the previous calendar year or on behalf of the Person on whose behalf the Lobbyist has engaged in lobbying if that Person is not the Lobbyist’s Employer.”
Further, the proposed regulations directed the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to “maintain a current list of registered Lobbyists and the registration statements required … all of which shall be available for public inspection and shall be posted on the City’s website.”
The ordinance included the following exceptions:
- “Those Persons who, in their individual capacity and without compensation of any kind, merely communicate with City Commissioners or with City employees for the purpose of self-representation; (i.e. a Person lobbying on their own behalf);
- “Any employee, public officer or appointee of an Agency, who is acting in the normal course of their duties;
- “An attorney, or any other person, who is actively representing a client in a quasi-judicial hearing before the City Commission or before any other City board or committee;
- “Any person who communicates with City Commissioners or City staff as a representative of a not-for-profit community-based organization for the purpose of requesting a grant, funds, or in-kind services.”
The Definitions section said that “Lobbying or Lobbying Activity meanscommunicating directly or indirectly, either in person, by telephone or by letter, or by any other means of communication, with any City
Commissioner or City employee, when the Lobbyist advocates for the approval, adoption, defeat, denial, modification or repeal of any item which may be presented for a vote before the City Commission.” It defined Lobbyist as “any Person who receives payment from an Employer, which payment may include present or future economic consideration of any kind, for the purpose of lobbying,” while the definition of Person meant “any individual, business, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, not-for-profit entity, or other organization , group or legally recognized entity.”
An individual would be in violation of the ordinance if the person had engaged in lobbying “without having initially completed and [filed] a lobbyist registration statement [described above],” or if an individual engaged in lobbying “concerning a general or specific subject matter” that was not described on the current lobbyist registration statement.
During his Aug. 19 remarks to the board members, Fournier added that he believed other violations should be identified in the ordinance: failure of a person to disclose that he or she was acting as a lobbyist; and providing inaccurate information to the city.
If an individual were found in violation of the ordinance, Fournier explained, the city would give that person 20 days to file the registration form or an update to a form on record.
If the person did not comply within that window, the proposed ordinance continued, then the City Commission would conduct a hearing on the matter and decide whether to “warn, reprimand or censure the violator” or fine the person up to $500.
Moreover, if the commission held a second appeal hearing for the same lobbyist within two years of the first hearing, the commission could suspend or prohibit the violator for lobbying for up to one year.
Fournier said he based the proposed regulations on those in place in the City of Gainesville.