0
No more talk about a lobbyist registry
27 June 2008
[indent]With a small majority, Collingwood Council chose to shelve the ill-advised "lobbyist registry" proposal, Monday night. I was somewhat surprised to see this nonsense raise its head again on the agenda, but frankly pleased that enough others felt it was superfluous - even fatuous - and defeated any effort to bring it back for consideration.
The idea of creating a registry that requires everyone who wants to talk with council or staff or who represents or speaks on behalf of someone else, an organization, a developer or any group - in fact anyone who wants something, be it support, acceptance, approvals or money from the town - was first touted in the last election. It was one of those 'bubble ideas' - ideas that sound good at election time and make great sound bites, but are fragile shells, ill-conceived plans, hollow of substance.
The idea seemed to have been buried in the post-election kitty litter with the rest of the impractical proposals, but up it came last April in a staff report (C2008-05). But that initial discussion had no conclusion (or rather debate was truncated before we arrived at one), and left to simmer for a few months.
The latest revisions to the Municipal Act gave municipalities the authority to create a lobbyist registry and appoint a lobbyist registrar. That might be something a large city needs - Toronto is required to have one - but why would anyone think a small town needs that sort of noisome bureaucracy?
Since we've never had any problems dealing with each other one-on-one, many people asked if this was aimed at anyone in particular. And some thought it was. After all, it's not like this is the US Congress, corrupted by lobbyists paying for junkets, buying votes and legislation to suit their own corporate interests. I can't even get a developer to buy me a cup of tea, let alone send me on an all-expenses paid junket to Barbados. (That's not an invitation to buy me beverages, by the way. It's just a comment that when people talk to me - and the rest of council - about political issues, they don't shell out lavishly for that privilege. Besides, my vote can't be bought for a mere tea: it takes at least a venti chai green tea latte with a non-fat cranberry muffin on the side...
)
Here's Section 223.9 of The Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, as amended:
Most of this seems pretty draconian to me, not simply unnecessary. And it seems to me to fly in the face of the often-promised-but-seldom-delivered "open, accountable and transparent" government we were led to believe would be brought in under the new mayor and this council.
But what, you rightfully ask, is a lobbyist, and what defines lobbying? The staff report said it like this:
So basically anyone who wants to get council or the town to act on any issue, to consider a particular stand, or to get funding, seek planning or development approval, challenge a proposal, fight against unfair taxation, demand a change in bylaws, demand a new bylaw to control something (pesticides comes to mind), request support for a project or event, holds an open house to show off a proposed development, or simply comes to make a presentation for anything that could affect future decision making would be lobbying.
That includes almost every charity, sports team, ratepayer's group, developer, environmental group, school band, charity, veteran's association, activist, business association, NGO, board or committee we deal with. Heck, it would even include neighbours who wanted to object to a local building plan at a public meeting.
Does having someone come into my store and talk to me about a political issue constitute lobbying? What if that person is a customer doing business at the same time? Is a newsletter from a ratepayer's group demanding action about an issue lobbying? Is a developer's open house a form of lobbying? A resident complaining about a plugged sewage line while waiting to be served by a member of council at the annual pancake breakfast? Someone standing in line at Tim Hortons who sees a councillor in the same line and comments on an issue?
Basically any form of communication could be construed as lobbying. So everyone who communicated with us in any form could be required to register as a lobbyist.
There's that promise of "open, transparent, accountable" government being trampled on. Again. Instead of making us more accessible, it would make it progressively more difficult to communicate with one's elected representative. Perhaps that was the reason behind this promise.
As the staff report notes, there are three general categories of lobbyists, recognized at federal and provincial levels:
In the original discussion last spring, some members at the table suggested to be considered a lobbyist, one needs to be paid. But employed doesn't necessarily mean paid; it also means :
The verb employ means:
So money isn't a qualifier: anyone can be employed on behalf of someone else or a group by simply being appointed to or volunteering for the role. We're back to saying that everyone in town is a potential lobbyist.
Of course, the Act allows council to also exempt people or groups from the definition of a lobbyist. The staff report contained some examples of exemptions: Hmm. So one can be selective - maybe exempt one's friends or supporters, maybe exempt a ratepayer's group that helped lobby to get one elected, or a charity or sports groups one is sympathetic to? And who decides whether someone is or is not a lobbyist? Do we debate it in open, public session, or behind closed doors? Or does staff decide for council?
The idea of selectively determining lobbyist status sounds suspiciously partisan to me: it flies in the face of what I know of as democracy. You know: Open, Accountable, Transparent Government™. If you are fair and just, you have to include EVERYONE. Or better yet, no one.
Perhaps the most telling thing was this line in the staff report's conclusion:
Was this a cautious way of trying to tell council we don't need this sort of restrictive bureaucratic control on our citizens because we're not actually seeing any problems? That perhaps we would create an oppressive red-tape monster, not in response to any real need, just a perceived need by some at the table to inject life into vapid election promises?
The report ended by saying it was, "...an opportunity to debate the merits of determining whether there is a "small town" need to implement a Lobbyist registry." Well, we had somewhat of a debate last spring. We didn't really debate it, Monday night, it was just thrown open to a vote as to whether we would continue to debate its merits. Without discussion, it was defeated by a slim margin. So let's hope we've seen the end of this idea. We have enough town business on our plates without having to deal with blatant challenges to our democratic ideals.[/indent]
The idea seemed to have been buried in the post-election kitty litter with the rest of the impractical proposals, but up it came last April in a staff report (C2008-05). But that initial discussion had no conclusion (or rather debate was truncated before we arrived at one), and left to simmer for a few months.
The latest revisions to the Municipal Act gave municipalities the authority to create a lobbyist registry and appoint a lobbyist registrar. That might be something a large city needs - Toronto is required to have one - but why would anyone think a small town needs that sort of noisome bureaucracy?
Since we've never had any problems dealing with each other one-on-one, many people asked if this was aimed at anyone in particular. And some thought it was. After all, it's not like this is the US Congress, corrupted by lobbyists paying for junkets, buying votes and legislation to suit their own corporate interests. I can't even get a developer to buy me a cup of tea, let alone send me on an all-expenses paid junket to Barbados. (That's not an invitation to buy me beverages, by the way. It's just a comment that when people talk to me - and the rest of council - about political issues, they don't shell out lavishly for that privilege. Besides, my vote can't be bought for a mere tea: it takes at least a venti chai green tea latte with a non-fat cranberry muffin on the side...
)Here's Section 223.9 of The Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, as amended:
Quote
Registry
223.9 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to establish and maintain a registry in which shall be kept such returns as may be required by the municipality that are filed by persons who lobby public office holders. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Requirement to file returns, etc.
(2) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to provide for a system of registration of persons who lobby public office holders and to do the following things:
1. Define “lobby”.
2. Require persons who lobby public office holders to file returns and give information to the municipality.
3. Specify the returns to be filed and the information to be given to the municipality by persons who lobby public office holders and specify the time within which the returns must be filed and the information provided.
4. Exempt persons from the requirement to file returns and provide information.
5. Specify activities with respect to which the requirement to file returns and provide information does not apply.
6. Establish a code of conduct for persons who lobby public office holders.
7. Prohibit former public office holders from lobbying current public office holders for the period of time specified in the by-law.
8. Prohibit a person from lobbying public office holders without being registered.
9. Impose conditions for registration, continued registration or a renewal of registration.
10. Refuse to register a person, and suspend or revoke a registration.
11. Prohibit persons who lobby public office holders from receiving payment that is in whole or in part contingent on the successful outcome of any lobbying activities.
223.9 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to establish and maintain a registry in which shall be kept such returns as may be required by the municipality that are filed by persons who lobby public office holders. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 98.
Requirement to file returns, etc.
(2) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize the municipality to provide for a system of registration of persons who lobby public office holders and to do the following things:
1. Define “lobby”.
2. Require persons who lobby public office holders to file returns and give information to the municipality.
3. Specify the returns to be filed and the information to be given to the municipality by persons who lobby public office holders and specify the time within which the returns must be filed and the information provided.
4. Exempt persons from the requirement to file returns and provide information.
5. Specify activities with respect to which the requirement to file returns and provide information does not apply.
6. Establish a code of conduct for persons who lobby public office holders.
7. Prohibit former public office holders from lobbying current public office holders for the period of time specified in the by-law.
8. Prohibit a person from lobbying public office holders without being registered.
9. Impose conditions for registration, continued registration or a renewal of registration.
10. Refuse to register a person, and suspend or revoke a registration.
11. Prohibit persons who lobby public office holders from receiving payment that is in whole or in part contingent on the successful outcome of any lobbying activities.
Most of this seems pretty draconian to me, not simply unnecessary. And it seems to me to fly in the face of the often-promised-but-seldom-delivered "open, accountable and transparent" government we were led to believe would be brought in under the new mayor and this council.
But what, you rightfully ask, is a lobbyist, and what defines lobbying? The staff report said it like this:
Quote
Generally, lobbying involves communicating with a public office holder, in respect of a defined subject matter with the intent to influence.
So basically anyone who wants to get council or the town to act on any issue, to consider a particular stand, or to get funding, seek planning or development approval, challenge a proposal, fight against unfair taxation, demand a change in bylaws, demand a new bylaw to control something (pesticides comes to mind), request support for a project or event, holds an open house to show off a proposed development, or simply comes to make a presentation for anything that could affect future decision making would be lobbying.
That includes almost every charity, sports team, ratepayer's group, developer, environmental group, school band, charity, veteran's association, activist, business association, NGO, board or committee we deal with. Heck, it would even include neighbours who wanted to object to a local building plan at a public meeting.
Quote
Council, if intending to establish such a registry, will have to consider what types of communication are considered lobbying: oral (formal meeting, telephone conversations, etc.) and/or written (letter, email, etc.).
Does having someone come into my store and talk to me about a political issue constitute lobbying? What if that person is a customer doing business at the same time? Is a newsletter from a ratepayer's group demanding action about an issue lobbying? Is a developer's open house a form of lobbying? A resident complaining about a plugged sewage line while waiting to be served by a member of council at the annual pancake breakfast? Someone standing in line at Tim Hortons who sees a councillor in the same line and comments on an issue?
Basically any form of communication could be construed as lobbying. So everyone who communicated with us in any form could be required to register as a lobbyist.
There's that promise of "open, transparent, accountable" government being trampled on. Again. Instead of making us more accessible, it would make it progressively more difficult to communicate with one's elected representative. Perhaps that was the reason behind this promise.
As the staff report notes, there are three general categories of lobbyists, recognized at federal and provincial levels:
- Consultant lobbyists paid to lobby on behalf of a client;
- In-house lobbyists employed by persons (including corporations) and partnerships that carry on commercial activities for financial gain; and
- In-house lobbyists employed by non-commercial organizations such as advocacy groups, industry, professional and charitable organizations.
In the original discussion last spring, some members at the table suggested to be considered a lobbyist, one needs to be paid. But employed doesn't necessarily mean paid; it also means :
Quote
- To engage the services of; put to work: agreed to employ the job applicant.
- To provide with gainful work: factories that employ thousands.
- To put to use or service. See Synonyms at use.
- To devote (time, for example) to an activity or purpose: employed several months in learning Swahili.
The verb employ means:
Quote
- to hire or engage the services of (a person or persons); provide employment for; have or keep in one's service: This factory employs thousands of people.
- to keep busy or at work; engage the attentions of: He employs himself by reading after work.
- to make use of (an instrument, means, etc.); use; apply: to employ a hammer to drive a nail.
- to occupy or devote (time, energies, etc.): I employ my spare time in reading. I employ all my energies in writing.
So money isn't a qualifier: anyone can be employed on behalf of someone else or a group by simply being appointed to or volunteering for the role. We're back to saying that everyone in town is a potential lobbyist.
Of course, the Act allows council to also exempt people or groups from the definition of a lobbyist. The staff report contained some examples of exemptions:
Quote
These individuals include public officials at the municipal, provincial and federal level; staff of the federal, a provincial or other municipal government; union representatives; and, staff of not-for-profit or volunteer groups.
The idea of selectively determining lobbyist status sounds suspiciously partisan to me: it flies in the face of what I know of as democracy. You know: Open, Accountable, Transparent Government™. If you are fair and just, you have to include EVERYONE. Or better yet, no one.
Perhaps the most telling thing was this line in the staff report's conclusion:
Quote
Some of the options may be viewed as solutions to problems that Collingwood, as a much smaller municipality, does not encounter.
The report ended by saying it was, "...an opportunity to debate the merits of determining whether there is a "small town" need to implement a Lobbyist registry." Well, we had somewhat of a debate last spring. We didn't really debate it, Monday night, it was just thrown open to a vote as to whether we would continue to debate its merits. Without discussion, it was defeated by a slim margin. So let's hope we've seen the end of this idea. We have enough town business on our plates without having to deal with blatant challenges to our democratic ideals.[/indent]
There are long term dangling projects such as the Shipyards and Admiral Collingwood that require action. Its embarrassing for both residents and visitors to see the weathered walls around these developments. If the problems are beyond the personal vindictiveness of the Mayor and some Councilors, they should be public and immediate corrective action taken.
The Mayor is responsible for the Council meeting agendas and he should be controlled by a Council directive to present meaningful issues for decisions and be prevented from introducing frivolous items at a meeting.
Dick Hill