SR 04-18-2017 7A
Ci ty Cou ncil
Report
City Council Meeting : April 18, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk , Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Lobbying
Regulations
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Cou ncil introduce for first reading an ordinance
amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.85 to update the current lobbyist
regulations .
Executive Summary
The lobbying regulations have been in effect since September 19, 2016, at which time
lobbyists be gan registering with the City Clerk's Office. Upon adoption of the ordinance
regulating lobbying, the Council requested staff return with an update on the lobbyist
registration process. Based on staff’s experience in implement ing of Santa Monica
Municipa l Code Chapter 4.85, staff recommends the proposed modifications listed
below to clarify definitions, registration and reporting requirements, and exemptions
(Attachment 1).
Background
On March 22, 2016 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2511 regulat ing lobbying
(Attachment 2). The ordinance was set to become effective 180 days from its adoption ,
on September 19, 2016, and Council requested staff come back with suggested
improvements and/or expansion in the future. On August 9, 2016, the Council ado pted
Resolution No. 10983 (Attachment 3) establishing lobbyist registration fees and
regulations (Attachment 4).
2 of 6
Lobbyists are required to register annually, and no later than ten days after qualifying as
a lobbyist. Amendments must be filed within ten d ays of any change in the information
required to be disclosed on the lobbyist registration. Since its inception, on September
19 , 2016, 46 lobbyists have registered with the City Clerk's Office, with 52 amendments
to those registrations .
Discussion
St aff has considered comments submitted from local lobbyists and organizations and ,
based on experience and current practice, staff recommends the following
amendments to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.58.
Proposed Amendments to Lobbyist Ordinance
Clarify the types of “action” covered under the lobbyist definition
Questions were raised as to what constitutes a legislative or administrative
action. Staff recommends the definition of “Lobbyist” in Section 4.85.010 be
modified as follows: “Lobbyist” means 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 the purpose of influencing a legislative or
administrative City actions. For the purpose of this Chapter, “Lobbyist” does not
include City contractors or those seeking City contracts through bids and
proposals.
Clarify the definition of “Official”
Staff recommends modifying the definition of “Official” as follows:
“Official” means any pe rson who is:
(a) Elected to the City Council;
(b) Appointed by the City Council to serve o n a board or commission or as a
City employee Planning Commissioner, Architectural Review Board Member,
3 of 6
Landmarks Commissioner, Personnel Board Member, City Manager, City Attorney, City
Clerk ;
(c) A City employee appointed to serve as a director of a City department;
(d) A City employee who makes direct recommends to a person listed in
subsection (a), (b) or (c) or who has decision -making authority as to contracts, permits
or other governmental approvals or benefits. Any City employee who is required to file
a Statement of Economic Interest.
Clarify registration and reporting requirements.
Section 4.85.020 outlines the registration and reporting requirements. Ba sed on
current practices, staff recommends amending the information required on the
registration form. Additionally, this section could distinguish what constitutes an
amendment or addendum. Since increased transparency is a goal of the lobbyist
regulati ons, staff distinguished between an amendment and an addendum. An
amendment would be required to be filed when a new client is represented by the
lobbyist. An addendum allows the lobbyist to update its existing registration such
as to indicate new contac ts with City officials on behalf of existing clients. Finally,
staff recommends adding a section regarding exemptions to the registration and
reporting requirements to reflect Council’s direction exempting lobbying at public
meetings and current practices implemented based on discussions with local
lobbyists and community groups.
Staff recommends the following:
Section 4.85.020 - Registration and reporting requirements.
A. A Lobbyist shall annually register with the City Clerk, no later than
ten days afte r qualifying as a Lobbyist under this chapter, on a registration form
provided by the City, and shall thereon disclose:
(a) name Lobbyist/Lobbyist Firm ;
(b) Business street and /mailing address;
(c) E -mail address;
(d) Telephone number;
4 of 6
(e) The names of all owners of the Lo bbyist's business if the business
is a sole proprietorship or partnership of less than 5 members;
(e)(f) Names of each individual L obbyist;
(f)(g) A description of the nature of the business entity or organization;
(g)(h) The name, business address and phone number of each cli ent
receiving lobbying services;
(h)(i) The nature of each client's business;
(i)(j) A brief description of the governmental decision that the Lobbyist
seeks to influence on each client's behalf and the names of the
Officials the Lobbyist has contacted on each client's behalf.
(j)(k) The name of each person employed or retained by the Lobbyist to
engage in lobbying activities on each client's behalf; and
(k)(l) The date, amount, and description of any payment made to, or on
behalf of any City official or member of an official's family .
Payments to be disclosed include gifts, meals, fees, salaries and
any other form of compensation or remuneration, but do not
include campaign contributions.
B. A Lobbyist shall file an amendment to his or her registration and reporting
form within ten days of representation of a new client. An addendum must be
filed within ten days of any change in the information required to be disclosed on
the form related to existing clients. and Lobbyists shall report the names of all
Officials contacted about a g overnmental decision prior to any public hearing on
that decision
C. The following are exempt from this Chapter:
(a) Persons who attempt s to influence government action are limited to
appearing at public meetings or preparing, processing, or submitting wri tings for
consideration of use at public meetings if their communications are part of the
public record; and
(b) Persons representing themselves in attempting to obtain decisions
relating to their own properties or business; and
5 of 6
(c) Persons whose communica tions relate solely to a memorandum of
understanding or collective bargaining agreement between the City and an
employee organization .
Section 4.85.040 authorizes the City Clerk to promulgate rules and regulations for
implementing the regulation of lobbyi ng. In order to provide additional clarity, the
following is proposed to be incorporated in the regulations.
Proposed Amendments to Regulations
Address continual, generic lobbying such as that done by neighborhood groups
or the Chamber of Commerce .
St aff suggests adding information regarding individuals who continually lobby on
behalf of a group must register. General terms such as “outreach and promotion
of interests of members” may be used to describe lobbying activity.
Registration, Renewal, Amen dment and Addendum Fees
The Council adopted Resolution No. 10983 setting the registration fee at $40 and
amendments and renewals at $25. Staff effectuated a process to allow addendums to
be filed without a fee. This practice encourages regular and timel y filings of
addendums, allowing public awareness of lobbyist activity. Staff recommends
addendums be included in the lobbyist registration fee to encourage the timely
reporting of lobbyist activities . The fees are under review as part of the Citywide Co st
of Services Study and will be updated for Fiscal Year 2017 -18.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
6 of 6
Prepared By: Denise Anderson -Warren, City Cle rk
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Ordinance
B. Ordinance 2511 (CCS)
C. Resolution 10983 (CCS)
D. Lobbyist Regulations
E. Written Comments
City Council Meeting: August 9, 2016 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER aCI b (CCS)
City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ESTABLISHING
LOBBYIST REGISTRATION FEES
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (the
City Council") adopted Ordinance Number 2511 (CCS) ("Ordinance 2511") adding
Chapter 4.85 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to regulate lobbying activities within
the City; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, or 180 days after its adoption, Ordinance
2511 will become effective; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.85.030 establishes an annual registration fee to be set and
periodically adjusted by Council resolution in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of
administering Chapter 4.85; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to establish fees in accordance with
Section 4.85.030; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the fees established by this Resolution
are sufficient to cover but do not exceed the actual costs of administering Chapter 4.85.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Lobbyist Registration Fees are hereby established as follows:
Initial Registration: $40.00
Annual Renewal: $25.00
Amendment: $25.00
SECTION 2. The fees established by this Resolution shall be effective as of
September 19, 2016.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mr/
AR HA JOfJ S MOUT, IE
City A me,
F
Adopted and approved this 9t" day of August, 2016.
Tony azquez, o
I, Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 10983 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meeting of
the Santa Monica City Council held on the 9t" day of August, 2016, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers McKeown, Davis, Himmelrich, O'Day, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Winterer, Mayor Vazquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Taffy Patton <taffypatton1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:46 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Sue Himmelrich; Pam
OConnor; Terry O’Day; Rick Cole; David Martin
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Home
Subject:Council Mtg 4-18-17. Item 7A. Amend Lobbying Regs. Residents Coalition.
Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Staff:
The proposed amendment to the Lobbyi ng Regulation would identify non-prof it neighborhood groups as lobbyists.
Lobbying would include neighborhood groups’ “outreach and promotion of interests of members." Neighborhood
group officers, Neighborhood Council members and other civically engaged residents who often speak at City
Council and Commission meetings on behalf of their group would also be required to register and pay yearly fees.
This amendment is an outrage to the values of our progressive city.
The original purpose of the Lobbying R egulations was admirable - - to limit the economic and polit ical influence of
lobbyists on Santa Monica's el ected and appointed officials.
But civically engaged residents are not paid lobbyists. Neighborhood groups are gatherings of resident
volunteers. These non profit groups po ll their members to gauge interests and then share informat ion around these
interests,as well as other important city priorities, encouraging civic engagement when tr ust in city government is
faltering.
Categorizing neighborhood groups and their leaders as lobb yists is an attempt to intimidate residents who
may have alternate perspectives. This amendm ent also monetizes residents' free speech.
Please do NOT amend the Lobbying Regulat ions to include neighborhood groups, their members or any of their
activities.
Also, it is not appropriate to exempt unions from t hese regulations. Unlike neighborhood groups, unions have a clear
economic and political motive for l obbying efforts. Those efforts, though they may be valuable , fit the classic
definition of lobbying and must remain highly transparent.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Taffy
Taffy Patton
Chair, Residents Coalition
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 1 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mary Marlow <m.marlow@verizon.net>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 2:14 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Mary Marlow; Danilo Bach; Zina Josephs; Tricia Crane; stacy dalgleish; Andrew Gledhill;
Oscar de la Torre; Chris McLeod; Laurence Eubank; Patricia Hoffman; Denny Zane;
Diana Gordon; Carol Lemlein; Rick Cole; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:Agenda Item 7A - Lobby Ordinance
Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
While the Staff Report states “increased transparency is a goal of the lobbyist regula tions,” the staff’s proposed
changes appear largely to weaken, not strengthen, the Lobby ing Ordinance. Indeed, th e Staff Report states that
it was done in part in consultation with lobbyists. The Transparency Project was not included in the
consultations. This is an example of the influence of paid lobbyists.
We discuss both problems with the implementation of th e Ordinance and discuss some of the changes being
proposed by Staff.
But first, we would like to discuss and oppose th e inclusion on page 5 of the Staff Report if our City staff wants
to require volunteer residents fr om neighborhood groups, and presumably SMRR, the Conservancy, etc. to
register as lobbyists.
The staff report states:
“Proposed Amendments to Regulations: Address continual, generic lobbying as that
done by neighborhood groups or the Chamber of Commerce. Staff suggests adding information regarding
individuals who continually lobby on be half of a group must register. Ge neral terms such as “outreach and
promotion of interests of members” may be used to describe lobbying activity.”
Thus, non-paid community volunteers from neighborhood groups (and SMRR, the Conservancy, etc.)
who, for example, talk to their Counc ilmembers, Police Chief, City Attorney, City Clerk or the City Manager
about City services, affordable housing, parks, school funding, driving safety, development or the DCP, etc.
would be labeled lobbyists and required to register. It would actively discourage community involvement.
“Proposed Amendments to Regulations: Address continual, generic lobbying as that
done by neighborhood groups or the Chamber of Commerce. Staff suggests adding information regarding
individuals who continually lobby on be half of a group must register. Ge neral terms such as “outreach and
promotion of interests of members” may be used to describe lobbying activity.”
Thus, non-paid community volunteers from neighborhood groups (and SMRR, the Conservancy, etc.)
who for example talk to their Council members, Police Chief, City Attorney, City Clerk or the City Manager
about City services, affordable housing, parks, school funding, driving safety, development or the DCP, etc.
would be labeled lobbyists and required to register. Requi ring residents active in the City to register is the
opposite of being a progressive place. It looks like an attempt to shut up critics, those who raise questions and
want to improve things. It also, of course , raises important first amendment issues.
As it presently stands, we are unsure what the staff is proposing. From the Staff Report it seems to include
volunteers. From yesterday's Lookout News, an unidentified "City Official " says it does not. No official
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 2 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
2
statement has been issued or change or clarification made in the Agenda item, though the City surely knows that
many people read the Report otherwise. At a minimum there is an ambiguity that should be promptly corrected.
Lastly, we are unaware of an i ssue with people being "paid " by nei ghborhood groups to speak for them.
This is creating an unsubstantiated perception.
The staff also seems confused as to the meaning of “regulations fo r implementing the regulation of
lobbying”. The City can’t “in order to provide add itional clarity” promulgate a regulation that is in
contradiction to the very Ordinance that you want to “clarify.” The Ordinance defines “Lobbyist” as “any
individual who receives economic consideration…” Community volunteers are thus not covered by the
Ordinance on its face. The City cannot in the name of “clarity” include them.
1. Definition of “Official”:
(a) While not mentioned in the Staff Report, th e inadvertent exclusion in (a) of individuals “appointed” to the
City Council to fill a vacancy should be corrected. Right no w it reads as only those “el ected” to the Council.
(b) We oppose the limitations of boards and commissions to be c onsidered as “Officials” as proposed by staff,
without any reason given. Other comm issions—for example, Parks and the Pi er —deal with issues that have
economic consequences and influence Council decisions. Lobbying to them by paid lobbyists should remain
part of the law requiring disclosure.
(d) We oppose the significant cut-back in the coverage that appears to be recommended here by limiting the
exclusion in (d) for City Employees to those required to file a Statement of Economic Interest. The Staff Report
makes no effort to describe who exactly must file this Statement and who was include d before but would not be
now, so it’s difficult to fully analyze. Does that incl ude planners in the Planning Department, individuals who
recommend contract approval in public works, for example?
2. Exemptions from this Chapter:
(b) We oppose exempting those trying to influence decisions rela ting to their own business. No explanations is
provided for this. It is also vague. If a business has sh areholders or partners (or ev en a sole owner), why would
they be exempt from disclosing lobbyi ng activity? This is often the case with the largest real estate businesses
in Santa Monica. Neil Shekhter of NMS might, for example, be excluded. This creates a large hole in
coverage and weakens this disclosure law.
c) We oppose exempting unions. Again, no explanation is given to exclude paid lobbyists for unions. This is a
strange request at a time when union contracts and pay to employees ha s become a growing matter of public
concern and taken up by Audit Committee of the City Council.
3 . Problems with the Current System from the Point of View of Openness and Transparency. Without
these the practical impact of the Lobbying Ordinance is limited.
1. The on-line chart of lobbyists maintained by the City excludes vital information , including (a) who is
being lobbied and (b) the government decision the lobbyist seeks to influence. These should be included.
2. There is no on-line link to the actual filing or amendment by the Lobbyist , requiring either a time-
delaying filing of a Public Records Re quest or contacting the clerk. The f iling includes information beyond that
in the on-line chart ev en including those we recommend. The link(s) should be included.
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 3 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
3
3. These on-line changes should be carried out promptly after the filing.
Respectfully,
Mary Marlow for the
Transparency Project
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 4 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:04 AM
To:Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole; David Martin; Su e Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Ted Winterer;
Tony Vazquez; Kevin McKeown
Subject:Item 7A on Calendar for 4/18/2017
To Whom It May Concern;
Please regard this letter as part of your public statements. I hope to do everything correct as you try to make
residence go in circ les to be heard.
Letters, the written word, are very st rong,especially in lawsuits. Long letter s with legal threatening documents
are very strong. But they are pa id for. Residences also have a financial interest in the City as tax payers and
property owners or users as renters. Ar e our letters given equal consideration?
I oppose the lobbyist categories as pr oposed by staff. Any group that pays for campaign ads should be
considered lobbyists. That would include Unions, Developers, Non Profits, Political Clubs or anyone who
annoys me with postcards and phone calls during elections . I understand some groups like SAME, SMLC,
Chamber, Residocracy would be include . This is where, unfortunately, the pressure comes that benefits you.
However, I think the lobbyist shou ld be considered for all commissions . I don't mind stating who I am, why I
am speaking, financial benefit or my my contacts. HOWEVER, I do mind losi ng time out of my 2 minutes to do
that. Housing Commission is a great example. Also, Parks and Rec are he avily involved in important City
discussions. And I wish Senior Commission and Social Serv ices were strongly involved.
The Planning Director must be includ e in the process. The LUCE and Zoni ng give the Director power to make
many decisions. Some are appeal able to City Planni ng and Counsel but at a grea t expense to the average
person. Citywide residents are not even notified of these decisions. The Directors contacts effect his entire staff.
The Director directs. All staff repor ts are at his/her discretion, to his/her liking as influenced by the City
Manager and outside interest.
Thank you.
Ellen Hannan
1218 9th St #6
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 5 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 7:04 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: City staff proposal to define Ne ighborhood groups as paid lobbyists
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: lobbyist ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Lorraine Sanchez [mailto:ms.lorraine.sanchez@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: City staff proposal to define Neighborhood groups as paid lobbyists
Dear council members,
Those of you who have been members of Neighborhood Gr oups or supported by them know full well that they
are not a special interest group who pa y representatives to lobby you and st aff members re decisions about our
city!
Residents are the core of the city w ho elected you to direct staff and overs ee the city management to ensure
fairness and appropriateness in forming city goals
and the measures of implementation.
It's interesting to note that resident groups historically have been encouraged
to form and have been eligible for fina ncial support from th e city to increase
the engagement of residents in the affairs of our city..
I'm beginning to think that the city staff should register as lobbyists who are devot ed to increasing their
numbers and share of the re venue created in the city.
Lorraine Sanchez
1947 C 19th St
Santa Monica
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 6 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 7:05 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Lobbyist code amendments (proposed)
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: lobbyist ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Marilyn Judson [mailto:marilynjudson@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Lobbyist code amendments (proposed)
Dear City Council Members,
As a member of a neighborhood group and a homeowner since 1977, I am quite worried about the city’s staff
recommendation to classify many residents like myself as “lobbyists,” per the April 18, 2017 council meeting agenda and
associated staff report regarding proposed changes to Municipal Code Section
4.85: http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1091 . Please see page 5 of the staff report
associated with the April 18, 2017 meeting agenda item #7.A, “Ordinances:"
"Proposed Amendments to Regulations
Address continual, generic lobbying such as that done by neighborhood groups or the Ch amber of Commerce. Staff suggests adding
information regarding individuals who continually lobby on behalf of a group must register. General terms such as 'outreach and
promotion of interests of members' may be used to describe lobbying activity. “ [underlining added]
The intent of code section 4.85 appears to be to promote transparency by businesses and others who hire lobbyists to
promote their financial interests, so that City government is not more influenced by money than by voters. This is the intent
of all State and Federal statutes governing lobbyists. A democracy cannot thrive unless the voters’ interests have priority over
financial interests in governmental decision ‐making. Indeed page 2 of the staff report suggests that is the intent of code
4.85:
"Staff recommends the definition of “Lobbyist” in Section 4.85.010 be modified as follows: “Lobbyist” means any individual who receives
economic consideration as the employee, representative, or cont ractor of a person or entity ot her than the City of Santa Monica for the
purpose of influencing a legislative or administrative City actions. “ [underlining added]
Lobbyists almost always receive remuneration for their efforts. That is quite different from voters of the City forming
neighborhood association with no paid staff, small voluntary donations, and the City’s assistance with an annual membership
mailer. Additionally, Code section 4.85 already exempts ”…persons representing themselves…relating to their own properties
or business…,” per page 4 of the staff report on this agenda item. Neighborhood associations usually include many prope r ty
owners and occasionally business owners.
In sum, many residents will be discouraged from coming together on issues of common interest if any such organization is
potentially governed as lobbying. It is a way of dividing us, rather than uniting us, both as neighborhoods and as a city. It
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 7 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
2
discourages residents from voicing their concerns for fear of being labelled a “lobbyist,” and subject to intimidating
regulations.
Please, please, please do not take this step against democracy! Remember that most of your constituents are residents.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Judson
850 Princeton St.
Santa Monica, CA 90403-2218
Phone: 310-453-1892
FAX: 310-453-1892
(must call prior to FAXing)
Cell: 310-804-5300
Before printing a copy of this email, please cons ider the impact on fore sts and global warming.
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 8 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Coalition for a Livable City <info@smclc.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 8:43 AM
To:Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelric h; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor;
Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:SMCLC Comments on Item 7-A , Lobbying Ordinance
April 17, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC)
SMCLC Comments on 4.18.17 Council Agenda Item 7.A re Lobbying Ordinance
The Inclusion of Neighborhood Groups is Wrong and Show s Serious Misunderstandings
SMCLC strongly opposes the proposal in the staff report to the extent that it calls for a regulation that
volunteers active in neighborhood and other resident groups be required to register as lobbyists if they
engage in something called “continual, generic lobbying.”
The Lobbying Ordinance is limited to PAID lobbyists. Santa Monica’s neighborhood groups are made up of
volunteers. Yet, the staff report specif ically recommends the registration of persons from neighborhood groups (and
apparently other all-volunteer community groups) under t he Lobbying Ordinance, affirm atively stating that the
purpose of the proposed regulations is to:
“Address continual, generic lobbying such as that done by neighborhood groups or the Chamber of
Commerce.”
We are now told , not by a change to this wording, but in the press quoting unnamed “City officials” and by word of
mouth, that this is not an attempt to force volunteers to register as lobbyists, only those who are paid to
lobby. That’s good. But it doesn’t answer wh y neighborhood groups are specifically mentioned. What
PAID lobbying is “continually” on-going by them (and it is plural in t he staff report— “neighborhood groups”)?
At a minimum, the language in the staff report is confusing and also evince s a serious misconception of resident
groups, like neighborhood groups and SMCLC, for exampl e, which are volunteer groups who give their time
because we care about Santa Monica, our home. Staff apparently consult ed lobbyists on the proposed changes to
the Ordinance, but not the rest of us, both to chec k out their (mis)conceptions before staff included their
recommendations, and to learn what our experience has been so far. This preferential treatment is troublesome.
Unfortunately, despite revising the agenda, the staff report with these inapt recommendations has not been
revised. If they are meant to apply to volunteers, it would be an attempt to stifle free speech and citizen
participation in community groups. This would be a very disturbi ng, highly divisive and anti-progressive
proposal.
Other Proposals to Weaken the Lobb ying Ordinance Should be Rejected
SMCLC also opposes the automatic exclus ion from the Ordinance of lobbying by o wners or partners of a
developer or contractor (thus excluding a number of key developer lobbyists) and paid lobbyists for
unions. Developers and City unions are the subjects of increased public interest and concern over their
influence. No reason is provided for these exclusions which would weaken the Ordinance, not clarify or
strengthen it.
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 9 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
2
We also oppose the apparent limiting of those who would be the subject of lobbying, by including only staff
who must file an unrelated Statement of Economic Interest . Again, no
reason is provided, nor does t he report state who would be eliminated or added by this change.
We do not understand how these propos als that would weaken the Lobbying Ordinance accomplish the goals as
attributed to our City Clerk in the Lookout News: "The overall goal was to do a clean-up and use best practices to
better execute" the Ordinance.
How these are best practices remains unex plored, unexplained and unsubstantiated.
###
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 10 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 8:07 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:FW: April 18, 2017, Item 7-A
Council ‐
Please see the below email re: lobbying ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: oppenhoff@earthlink.net [mailto:oppenhoff@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: April 18, 2017, Item 7 ‐A
Dear Mayor Winterer and Councilmembers:
As the co-chairs of Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights, on behalf of SMRR, we want to add our voices to those who are
opposing adding volunteers to your list of people who must register as lobbyists. The purpose of lobbying laws is to
guarantee that the Council and members of the public are able to follow the effects of money on the public process.
Adding volunteers to the list of lobbyists has a chilli ng effect on public participation and public process.
Please use lobbying laws as they were intended, to ident ify those who are getting paid to make their statements.
Thank you,
Patricia Hoffman and Dennis Zane
Co-chairs,
Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 11 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; denice.martin@smgov.net; Rick Cole
Subject:Subject: Item 7A Lobbying Ordinance
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
April 18, 2017
Re: Item 7A
The changes to the ordinance and regulations proposed in Item 7A do not address the issue of registration of
the neighborhood organizations. However, under the staff report and proposal, members of NOMA, as well as
other neighborhood groups, would be required to register as lobbyists. If such a requirement were enacted it
would completely undermine one of the hallmarks of Santa Monica- our robust democracy in action!
The whole basis of the Lobbying Ordinance was to require registration for those “who receive economic
consideration” for their lobbying. This should in no wa y include volunteers from community groups who give of
their time strictly out of concern for the public go od. Santa Monica would be among a very small number of
places to enact such as policy would be the exact opposite of progressive!
This proposal appears to be aimed at reducing community involvement- volunteers would need to think twice
about expressing their views if to do so would require them to fill out disclosure forms each time they talk to
a Council Member or the City Manager, or others in government, about traffic lights being out, neighborhood
crime, affordable housing, the DCP, development, or other issues of community concern.
NOMA supports the points made by Mary Marlow and t he Transparency Project, including that this proposal,
“… looks like an attempt to shut up critics, those who raise questions and want to improve things” and that “It
belongs in current day Washington, not Santa Monica”, and …of course, raises important first amendment
issues”.
As the board of a neighborhood group, we at NOMA are concerned, and we believe the Council should be
concerned, as to how the proposal, which appears only in the Staff Report, and in neither the ordinance or the
regulations, came to specifically include “volunteers” of neighborhood organizations”. Where did that strange
concept originate? Surely staff understands that true grass roots groups neither employ nor compensate any
individual to represent their views in the public realm.
The NOMA Board asks the City Council to publically assure the residents of Santa Monica that unpaid
volunteers of Neighborhood Organizations and unpaid volunteers of other community advocacy groups will not
now, not ever, be required to register as lobbyists. This assurance should in no way serve to undermine the
requirement, which NOMA supports, that those “who receiv e economic consideration” for their advocacy work,
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 12 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
2
whether on behalf of the Chamber or other groups or individuals, should be required to register under the
ordinance.
Sincerely,
The NOMA Board
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 13 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:16 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKe own Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Santa Monica City
Manager's Office
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 4/17/17 Item 7A - Lobbying Ordinance
April 18, 2017
To: City Council
From: Board of Directors , Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 4/18/17 agenda item 7-A -- Lobbying Ordinance
As unpaid, volunteer residents r epresenting other residents in our City-recognized neighborhood
organization, Friends of Sunset Park, we oppose the proposed changes to the lobbying rules.
We agree with the comments of T he Transparency Project below a nd incorporate them into our
comment in their entirety.
************************************************************************************************
From: Mary Marlow <m.marlow@verizon.net >
Subject: Agenda Item 7A - Lobby Ordinance
Date: April 14, 2017 at 2:14:04 PM PDT
To: councilmtgitems@smgov.net
Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
While the Staff Report states “increas ed transparency is a goal of the lobbyist
regulations,” the staff’s pr oposed changes appear largely to weaken, not strengthen, the
Lobbying Ordinance. Indeed, the Staff Report states that it was done in part in
consultation with lobbyists. The Trans parency Project was not included in the
consultations. This is an example of the influence of paid lobbyists.
We discuss both problems with the implementation of the Ordinance and discuss some
of the changes being proposed by Staff.
But first, we would like to discuss and oppo se the inclusion on page 5 of the Staff
Report if our City staff wants to require volu nteer residents from neighborhood groups,
and presumably SMRR, the Conservancy, et c. to register as lobbyists.
The staff report states:
“Proposed Amendments to Regulations: Addr ess continual, generic lobbying as that
done by neighborhood groups or the Chambe r of Commerce. Staff suggests adding
information regarding individuals who contin ually lobby on behalf of a group must
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 14 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
2
register. General terms such as “outreach and promotion of interests of members” may
be used to describe lobbying activity.”
Thus, non-paid community volunteers from ne ighborhood groups (and SMRR, the Conservancy,
etc.) who, for example, talk to their Councilmembers, Police Chief, City Attorney, City Clerk or
the City Manager about City se rvices, affordable housing, parks, school funding, driving safety,
development or the DCP, etc. would be labeled lobbyists and re quired to register. It would
actively discourage community involvement.
“Proposed Amendments to Regulations: Addres s continual, generic l obbying as that done by
neighborhood groups or the Chamber of Commer ce. Staff suggests adding information
regarding individuals who conti nually lobby on behalf of a group mu st register. General terms
such as “outreach and promotion of interests of members” may be us ed to describe lobbying
activity.”
Thus, non-paid community volunteers from ne ighborhood groups (and SMRR, the Conservancy,
etc.) who for example talk to their Councilmembers , Police Chief, City Attorney, City Clerk or
the City Manager about City se rvices, affordable housing, parks, school funding, driving safety,
development or the DCP, etc. would be labeled lobbyists and re quired to register. Requiring
residents active in the City to register is the opposite of being a progressive place. It looks like
an attempt to shut up critics, those who raise ques tions and want to improve things. It also, of
course, raises important fi rst amendment issues.
As it presently stands, we are unsure what the st aff is proposing. From the Staff Report it seems
to include volunteers. From yesterday's Lookout News, an unidentified "City Official" says it
does not. No official statement has been issued or change or clarification made in the Agenda
item, though the City surely knows that many peopl e read the Report otherwise. At a minimum
there is an ambiguity that s hould be promptly corrected.
Lastly, we are unaware of an issue with people being "paid " by neighborhood groups to speak
for them. This is creating an unsubstantiated perception.
The staff also seems confused as to the meaning of “regulations for implementing the
regulation of lobbying”. The City can’t “in orde r to provide additional clarity” promulgate a
regulation that is in contradict ion to the very Ordinance that you want to “clarify.” The
Ordinance defines “Lobbyist” as “any indivi dual who receives economic consideration….”
Community volunteers are thus not covered by the Ordinance on its face. The City cannot in the
name of “clarity” include them.
1. Definition of “Official”:
(a) While not mentioned in the Staff Repor t, the inadvertent exclusion in (a) of
individuals “appointed” to the City Council to fill a vacancy should be corrected. Right now it
reads as only those “e lected” to the Council.
(b) We oppose the limitations of boards and commissions to be considered as “Officials” as
proposed by staff, without any reason given. Other commissions—for example, Parks and the
Pier —deal with issues th at have economic consequences and influence Council
decisions. Lobbying to them by paid lobbyist s should remain part of the law requiring
disclosure.
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 15 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
3
(d) We oppose the significant cut-back in the coverage that appears to be recommended here by
limiting the exclusion in (d) for City Employees to those required to file a Statement of
Economic Interest. The Staff Report makes no effo rt to describe who ex actly must file this
Statement and who was included before but w ould not be now, so it’s difficult to fully
analyze. Does that include planners in th e Planning Department, in dividuals who recommend
contract approval in public works, for example?
2. Exemptions from this Chapter:
(b) We oppose exempting those trying to influence decisi ons relating to their own business. No
explanations is provided for this. It is also vague . If a business has share holders or partners (or
even a sole owner), why would they be exempt from disclosing lobbying activity? This is often
the case with the largest real esta te businesses in Santa Monica. Neil Shekhter of NMS might,
for example, be excluded. This creates a large hole in coverage and weakens this disclosure
law.
c) We oppose exempting unions. Again, no explanation is given to exclude paid lobbyists for
unions. This is a strange request at a time when union contracts and pay to employees has
become a growing matter of public concern and taken up by Audit Committee of the City
Council.
3 . Problems with the Current System from the Point of View of Openness and
Transparency. Without these the practical impact of the Lobbying Ordinance is limited.
1. The on-line chart of lobbyists maintained by the City excludes vital information ,
including (a) who is being l obbied and (b) the government decision the lobbyist seeks to
influence. These should be included.
2. There is no on-line link to the actual filing or amendment by the Lobbyist , requiring either
a time-delaying filing of a Public Records Request or contacting the clerk. The filing includes
information beyond that in the on -line chart even including th ose we recommend. The link(s)
should be included.
3. These on-line changes should be carried out promptly after the filing.
Respectfully,
Mary Marlow for the
Transparency Project
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 16 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:Item 7A for Tues 4/18/2017 Council Agenda
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The Board of Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors support the letter of the Transparency Project written by Mary
Marlow. and sent to you on 4/14/2017 on Item 7A.
Santa Monica Mid City Neighborhood is impact ed by your decisions. There is no elected
representative from our area on the Council. We know that it is vital to speak in front of Council to make our
concerns known.
Andrew Hoyer has volunteered to speak for our Boar ds and neighborhood. He has taken an interest in
Government Affairs.
The Board holds it monthly meeting toni ght and we will not be able to atte nd the Council session. This letter
should make clear our views on the need for more co mmunity involvement and less reliance on paid lobbyist
from special interest groups.
Ellen Hannan
Treasurer Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors
1218 9th St #6
Santa Monica ,CA 90401
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 17 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Andrew Hoyer <abhoyer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:28 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Rick Cole; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown; Pam OConnor; Terry
O’Day; Gleam Davis; Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Clerk Mailbox; Elaine Polachek; Ellen
Hannan; Catherine Eldridge; Stefani Kong-Uhler ; Stacy Dalgleish; Nick Boles; Catherine
Huh; John C. Smith
Subject:Concerns regarding SM City Council Agenda 4-18-17 Item 7-A
Before you proceed with this amendment I think you need a written opinion from the city
attorney in regards to whether or not this violates state law concerning volunteers and
volunteer organizations.
I often wonder what our city staff is thinking when they meet with the lobbyists regarding
changes to rules that regulate them but then do not meet with the neighborhood
organizations they intend to impose these rules upon. Does this not imply unfair and
improper treatment?
As I have pointed out in the past in an Item 14 statement my organization cannot even
include the hours that I frequently spend here as part of the matching funds from the city
grant. It is patently absurd that I should have to register as a lobbyist when neither my
organization nor I get paid in any way, shape, or form to perform these functions. (In fact,
we are not allowed to use the grant funds for anything other than increasing our
membership.) And if you move forward with this regulation of my organization can we then
pay the lobbying fees with the city grant funds?
And why, specifically, are unions exempted from this regulation? All of their leaders who
have spoken out on items before you are definitely paid to do so by their union. I am a firm
supporter of unions but they must register their lobbyists as well. Obviously this should
not include their rank and file members who come to express their concerns.
I wish I could be there tonight to listen to your deliberations regarding this matter but
unfortunately our organization's monthly open board meeting for membership is being held
tonight. I sincerely hope that you do not need the wisdom of Solomon to realize that these
changes are not an improvement to the existing regulation.
Thank you,
Andrew Hoyer
SMMCN Board Vice President & Govt Affairs Officer
There is only one moment in time when it is essential to awaken. That moment is now.
- Buddha
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 18 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Mike Salazar <mikedsalazar@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:52 PM
To:Council Mailbox
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; Rick Cole
Subject:Item 7.A Concerns
Dear City Councilmembers:
I am writing today to say that the confusion around am endments to the lobbying regu lations (Item 7.A) possibly
including "neighborhood groups" such as Ocean Park Asso ciation (of which I am a Board member, but writing
this as an individual) warra nt at minimum a clarification of the sta ff recommendations or possibly the delay of
amendments.
This is a section of the Staff Report th at certainly reinforces my concerns:
"Proposed Amendments to Regulations
Address continual, gene ric lobbying such as that done by neighborhoo d groups or the Chamber of Commerce.
Staff suggests adding information re garding individuals who continually lobby on behalf of a group must
register. General terms such as “outreach and promotion of interests of members” may be used to describe
lobbying activity."
The thought that at some level Staff equates neigh borhood volunteers equivalent to paid lobbyists is beyond
rational. This, in my eyes an example of a lack of r eal world contact between Staff and those of us working
(without pay whatsoever) for our neighborhoods.
Please address this issue tonight a nd clarify what is the intent of this recommendation. Equating neighborhood
associations with lobbyists and their sometimes questionable motiv es just rubs me the wrong way.
Mike Salazar
--
Mike Salazar
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
is not the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemin ation, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or reply by e-mail a nd promptly delete the message. Thank you.
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 19 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:21 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:FW: Concerns regarding SM City Council Agenda 4-18-17 Item 7-A
From: Andrew Hoyer [mailto:abhoyer@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 11:28 AM
To: Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox
<Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor
<Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Tony
Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox
<Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Elaine Polachek <Elaine.Polachek@SMGOV.NET>; Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>;
Catherine Eldridge <catherine@westsiderc.org>; Stefani Kong ‐Uhler <stefaniuhler@gmail.com>; St acy Dalgleish
<sdalgleish@mac.com>; Nick Boles <nickgboles@gmail.com>; Catherine Huh <huh.catherine@gmail.com>; John C.
Smith <johncysmith@gmail.com>
Subject: Concerns regarding SM City Council Agenda 4 ‐18 ‐17 Item 7 ‐A
Before you proceed with this amendment I think you need a written opinion from the city
attorney in regards to whether or not this violates state law concerning volunteers and
volunteer organizations.
I often wonder what our city staff is thinking when they meet with the lobbyists regarding
changes to rules that regulate them but then do not meet with the neighborhood
organizations they intend to impose these rules upon. Does this not imply unfair and
improper treatment?
As I have pointed out in the past in an Item 14 statement my organization cannot even
include the hours that I frequently spend here as part of the matching funds from the city
grant. It is patently absurd that I should have to register as a lobbyist when neither my
organization nor I get paid in any way, shape, or form to perform these functions. (In fact,
we are not allowed to use the grant funds for anything other than increasing our
membership.) And if you move forward with this regulation of my organization can we then
pay the lobbying fees with the city grant funds?
And why, specifically, are unions exempted from this regulation? All of their leaders who
have spoken out on items before you are definitely paid to do so by their union. I am a firm
supporter of unions but they must register their lobbyists as well. Obviously this should
not include their rank and file members who come to express their concerns.
I wish I could be there tonight to listen to your deliberations regarding this matter but
unfortunately our organization's monthly open board meeting for membership is being held
tonight. I sincerely hope that you do not need the wisdom of Solomon to realize that these
changes are not an improvement to the existing regulation.
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 20 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
2
Thank you,
Andrew Hoyer
SMMCN Board Vice President & Govt Affairs Officer
There is only one moment in time when it is essential to awaken. That moment is now.
- Buddha
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 21 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Elaine Polachek; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:FW: lobbyists
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michele Perrone [mailto:micheleperrone@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>;
Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: lobbyists
Dear City Council. I und erstand that the agenda tonig ht includes an item that could approve lobbying by neighborhood
groups. Admittedly, I am not completely familiar with this proposal, so forgive me if I speak out of line. But, for the
record, I am against any ordinance or anything else that would allow this for ob vious reasons. I i magine you will be
against it, as well, however, if you are on the fence, here’s a letter opposed.
Thank you,
Michele Perrone
Resident, Ocean Park
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 22 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Elaine Polachek; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:FW: lobbyists
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michele Perrone [mailto:micheleperrone@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>;
Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: lobbyists
Dear City Council. I und erstand that the agenda tonig ht includes an item that could approve lobbying by neighborhood
groups. Admittedly, I am not completely familiar with this proposal, so forgive me if I speak out of line. But, for the
record, I am against any ordinance or anything else that would allow this for ob vious reasons. I i magine you will be
against it, as well, however, if you are on the fence, here’s a letter opposed.
Thank you,
Michele Perrone
Resident, Ocean Park
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 23 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:22 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Denise Anderson-Warren
Subject:FW: Item 7A
Council ‐
Please see the below email re: lobbying ordinance.
Thank you,
Stephanie
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Andrew Gledhill [mailto:andrew@agledhill.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Item 7A
Mayor Winterer, Mayor Pro Tempore Davis, Councilmembers Himmelrich, McKeown, O’Connor, O’Day, and Vasquez,
Please do not require boar d me mbers of Neighborhood Associations to register as lobbyists.
We are not paid for what we do on behalf of our groups.
Thank you,
Andrew Gledhill
Ocean Park Association
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 24 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: lobbyists
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michele Perrone [mailto:micheleperrone@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez
<Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich
<Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>;
Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: lobbyists
Dear City Council. I und erstand that the agenda tonight includes an item that could approve lobbying by neighborhood
groups. Admittedly, I am not completely familiar with this proposal, so forgive me if I speak out of line. But, for the
record, I am against any ordinance or anything else that would allow this for ob vious reasons. I imagine you will be
against it, as well, however, if you are on the fence, here’s a letter opposed.
Thank you,
Michele Perrone
Resident, Ocean Park
Item 7-A
4/18/17
Page 25 of 26 Item 7-A
4/18/17