Shall We Dance?

As Rob Shapard points out in this morning's CHH (http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-437671.html), the Madison ordinance that the petitioners offered to the Town Council as a model to examine does not include the local University. Maybe the anonymous "A Neighbor" can tell us why that is a good model for managing Town Council - UNC representatives talking to each other. Is there something else that we are missing here?

Never heard from "A Neighbor" about the Madison ordinance question, so I don't know if s/he will answer this one about their proposal. As I understand the petition that was presented, it called on the council to immediately cease all individual meetings with UNC officials until it passes a law that would require campus officials who deal with the town on policy matters to register as lobbyists.

Dan Colman's column this morning in the CHH supporting the petition does not mention UNC one single time. Has the focus of the petition changed or has the coalition's members/supporters shifted the strategy?

Perhaps meetings with UNC have become overshadowed by Council members' undisclosed meetings with out-of-state lobbyists. Say from an astroturf organization from DC?

A citizens' group like CAN for example would not need to register. Nor would you, Fred. Unless you were being paid by someone to talk to mayor or council about an issue underconsideration.

Having a sunshine law benefits everyone. Except those who have something to hide. Aaron Nelson or Nancy Suttonfield have nothing to hide do they? Of course not.

And speaking of editorials, Thatcher Freund's on WCHL showed a complete misunderstanding of the proposal. Could you talk with him and clear him up? During the campaign, I thought he could get a better grasp of the issues than that.

Of course, we still need a place like this for annonymous natterers.

Fred,

I actually hadn't realized that my column did not mention UNC until you mentioned it. I wasn't writing about UNC. When CNC first made their proposal it was in reaction to a UNC lobbying effort and therefore that became the focus of much discussion. But the proposal itself, "adopt a regulation requiring registration of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activity", is quite general. In analyzing its merits, I did not view UNC as different from any of the many other organizations that employ paid lobbyists in Chapel Hill

--Dan

Thanks for the response, Dan. I guess that the focus on the Council immediately ceasing all individual meetings with UNC officials until it passes a law that would require campus officials who deal with the town on policy matters to register as lobbyists told me that it was pretty narrow in its design. Your broader registration desire is clearly different, so does that mean the Council is to refrain from all potentially "troubling contacts" until this is resolved?

Personally, I think Joe C. has the right take (see above); he's been there and done that.

As for Mr. Doody's conclusion about "sunshine" and its value, why did't the highly touted Madison ordinance inclue its University? Are we so different?

This morning's CHH story by Rob Shapard quotes Gimghoul resident Gene Pease, who recently wrote to town officials on behalf of the citizens' group, saying the group didn't mean for UNC to be the specific target of their petition. So, reading the petition below, I am to conclude that the petition as written is not what they meant?

Sure makes UNC the specific target when I read it?

Can someone explain what's really going on with this?

Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus

January 12, 2004

Petition to the Town Council

I am Elaine Barney representing CNC, the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus.

Recently it has come to our attention that the University of North Carolina has assigned high

ranking administrative staff members to meet regularly with individual Town Council members. It

is our belief that these meetings, while technically permitted, are nonetheless improper, especially

given the importance to our community of issues that might be discussed.

As Senator John McCain has often said when discussing the national campaign finance problem,

"access is influence." The leaders of the University of North Carolina seem to believe in this principle.

We therefore request that theTown Council take the following steps:

o One: recognize that these meetings are lobbying efforts and are a de facto end run

around the open meetings law;

o Two: cease all such meetings until the Council can adopt a policy dealing with such

concerted efforts by developers to attempt to influence the Council outside the public

process; and

o Three: recognize that those UNC officials participating in this effort are acting as paid

lobbyists and that the town should adopt a regulation requiring registration of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activity similar to that of Madison, Wl. We offer the case of Madison, also home to a flagship university, only as an example but as one that appears to be well constructed with clear objectives and appropriate exemptions.

CNC appreciates your consideration of action on this item. We recognize that the Council may have no binding authority over what may be construed as social activities of its members. However, the Council can establish ethical guidelines. We believe that this is a case that disturbs many citizens and that deserves your attention.

While we understand that it is your custom to receive and refer petitions, we urge you to agree informally to place a moratorium on private meetings with UNC administrators until you have had an opportunity to address our concerns.

Thank you very much.

Information on the Madison ordinance can be found at:

http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/clerk/

Here's my Lobbyi...er two cents' worth.

Our elected officials in Chapel Hill and Carrboro are smart --

smart enough to understand when their arms are being

twisted with biased marketing. Mark Kleinschmidt has just

described one example of this by his ability to research and

face the organization that is being funded by the

company that runs the cameras. Would Mark be better off

if he were forbidden to hear their view? I think not.

Would we as citizens be better off? I think not also, for

he can represent us better if he knows more, even the things

that we might disagree with.

I believe that it is reasonable for an elected official to

hear all the sides of an issue before making a decision,

including the views of the company who might profit by

the decision, the views of the individual citizens who

might be impacted by the decision in a good way or bad,

or in the case of UNC, by its officers who wish to justify

why they are doing some action, such as constructing a large

campus addition. Fortunately, in CH, everyone has

very easy access to our public officials and I

would not want to do anything that would discourage this

practice.

Two concerns that have been tangentially discussed in the

media, ex parte communications and gifts, are well covered

in town ordinances and council procedures. (Ex parte

communications is the term for evidence about specific proposals,

usually development plans, that must be provided only in

quasi-judicial public hearings, but which is presented in

private).

Todd Todd Todd

"UNC needs to deal with a hostile Town Council." ???

Even if "hostile" were the correct word - and I don't believe it is - could it possibly be the case that the Council is responding to the attitude UNC has demonstrated toward the Town for several years:"Here's what we're going to do next and if you don't like it, we'll go to the Legislature and have them take away your authority to tell us anything."

I agree the Town and UNC don't HAVE to be adversarial and their intersets (for the most part) are the same. But my alma mater needs a serious attitude adjustment to make that a reality.

GO HEELS!

Many people seem to not quite get our proposal: it does not prevent any lobbyist or citizen from talking to a Council member. If it is like most lobbying regulations, it would merely disclose who the paid lobbyists are and report after the fact on their activities. It requires no work on the part of individual Council-members.

As Cam Hill pointed out, there is no implication that paid lobbyists or their activities are a bad thing. Only that they should be disclosed to the public.

Wesley Clark said last week that his work as a lobbyist for the defense industry was undertaken only to make America more secure. Whether you agree with that evaluation or not, aren't you in a better position having his work there in the public record?

I would be happy to explain to "chamberofcommerce" why there are serious concerns at the CH-C Chamber of Commerce about the lobbying proposal. It's unfortunate that in the dumbing down of political discourse, some folks see Chamber of Commerce = bad without ever considering any reason or facts.

As a former journalist who is more than a little sensitive to Open Meetings Law and (ahem...) one of the "paid lobbyists" in town, I certainly have some thoughts about the proposal.

Preview argument: Say an existing Chapel Hill business owner wants to open a new shop on Franklin Street. Good thing, right? He/she wants to talk with Council members about what would best add to the Downtown mix, not just another student-focused T-shirt or sandwich shop (bless their hearts). Perhaps that new shop would then require permits that require a hearing before Town Council. Is that business owner, who is paid by his/her business, a lobbyist on behalf of his/her interests? Yes. Does that mean all business owners in Chapel Hill must register as paid lobbyists if they ever plan to appear before Town Council to advocate for their businesses?

A more disturbing step: The Chamber has 90 nonprofit members. One of these members is seeking a grant from the Town to improve their services to a disadvantaged segment of our community. Can the (paid) executive director of this nonprofit call up Council members to urge them to support the grant? Not without registering and reporting their activies, as I read the Madison ordinance. Is that a good use of their time?

I respect the Town Council members who represent this community, and I would expect them to set their own boundaries when it comes to lobbying of any form, such as Mark's example regarding red-light cameras. I agree with Joe that this community is one that respects debate and open discussion, and I do think this proposal could have a chilling effect.

I understand "a neighbor's" concerns that lobbying by the University should be disclosed. However, in a town this size (not the 208,054 in Madision) it is not hard to figure out who's who and what they represent.

If the issue is how discussions between the Town Council and the University are conducted, let's focus on that. Todd and Barry's exchange is closer to the heart of the issue than the petition. Let's not create an ordinance that doesn't actually address the underlying issues.

With apologies in advance for coming across as a little heated on this issue,

Ginny

Dan,

One quick problem with your definition above: does that make Council members "paid lobbyists?" After all, they spend hours trying to influence each other to vote their point of view. We pay them, we expect them to try to build majorities on positions being voted upon, and of course they are government officials. What about when an Orange County Commissioner tries to influence a Council member?

As I said, some committee will spend many hours trying to operationalize what this all means.

Dear Mr. Black,

Have you been following the other, more recent thread on this subject?

Lovingly,

Mr. Murrell

Dan,

I am not involved with creating a straw man at all. I asked what I considered to be legitimate questions only to have them construed to be part of some agenda. I cannot read the original petition and conclude anything other than it was targeted towards UNC. If you can, fine, but are we reading the same original petition (see above)? As for "Aristotle," he said about the petition, "Much confusion has ensued because items 1-3 refer to UNC while item 4 does not." To me, three out of four requests in a petition is significant in trying to understand what is being asked for.

I have a problem with such a broad definition of "paid lobbyists," as some committee will spend many hours trying to operationalize what it means. If Mrs. Broad wants to meet with Council members to discuss something that she wants to see happen in Chapel Hill, is she a "paid lobbyist?"

Fred,

If I said that Enron had inappropriate access to Congress and the administration and that therefore we need better lobbying regulations, why would that mean that I was singling out Enron rather than just learning from their case that a generally applicable principle must be developed to prevent future problems whether from Enron or not?

A "paid lobbyist" is someone whose paid employment involves efforts to influence government officials.

--Dan

Fred,

I believe you, Edith, and the Herald editors are constructing a bit of a straw man argument here.

The fact that CNC is concerned about the University (duh!) does not invalidate its point that we should consider disclosing the acitivty of paid lobbyists. That position should be discussed on its merits which I attempted to do in my column which was why no mention of the university was particularly relevent.

I'm in agreement with "aristotle" (much as I disapprove of anonymous posters) that the original petition was sloppily written but did not single out UNC for regulation. Therefore, the second petition was not backpedaling but merely clarifying as Gene Pease stated therein.

The Herald was also mistaken to criticize Hill's point about the University's emphasis on profit-making ventures. The argument against including the University is that they are an entirely benign, public interest institution. Hill's point is basically the well-known "if it quacks like a duch... " no-brainer. There's been a lot of quacking, waddling, and water off the back around UNC lately.

--Dan

Mr PU,

Often folks see one specific problem then on stepping back a bit see that it is only one example of a more general one.

I think this is the case with CNC, but you would have to ask them to be sure.

Your fan,

Howdy

Those who ignore the lessons of logic are doomed to repeat them.

Dear Mr. Murrell,

It appears that I should have just waited just a few days to have my confusion cleared up, thanks to the editorial writer(s) at your former place of employment. I'm sure that massive denials and more spin will follow.

http://www.herald-sun.com/opinion/chhedits/57-444174.html

And yes, I am personally concerned about the petition as originally written because I think it is bad public policy. Obviously, others must also, including maybe some of those who wrote it.

Respectfully submitted, I am,

Mr. Black

Now I'm confused, Duncan. CNC's focus I thought was on UNC and the impact of their action on those who live near campus property. So now you are saying they are interested in lobbying writ large and not just by UNC officials?

Dear Mr. Black,

I believe it's very clear that the committee is dealing with the broader issue of lobbying and has not limited itself to addressing only the language of the original petition. From what I know, this is the understanding of every member of the committee, the Council, and the staff. The committee was formed at the Council retreat and given a very general mandate to explore the general issue of lobbyist registration.

I don't believe that you're all that concerned for the fate of Ms. Barney's original petition, I know that you understand that "what's going on" is that the committee is trying to do the work it was charged with doing, and that their work is to find information for the larger Council to use in deciding what, if anything, they're to do about the issue raised by Ms. Barney's original petition.This isn't a radical departure for the Council, nor a confusing one -- the Council often appoints committees to study issues. The only thing that could confuse the issue, as I see it, is if members made up their minds about the subject _before_ doing the work; that would raise the question of why the committee was even appointed in the first place, and you would be justifiably confused.

(For example: what if a member of the committee decided that the university had to be exempted from any hypothetical ordinance, even before the committee had begun it's work? One might be confused about what that member could add to the discussion, or what that member would get out of it. Or not.)

Respectfully submitted, I am,

Mr. Murrell

Mr. Black is not implying they are backing away from it, Mr. Black is quoting the paper where Mr. Pease says that the group didn't mean for UNC to be the specific target of their petition. From my reading, that means they changed their position, and that was the question in the first place.

The letter that you provide above negates in my mind the original petition, so to me it appears that we are now dealing with a different issue.

What else is happening in "The Jungle?"

I think it's clear that the CNC is trying to clarify its original position rather than back away from it, as Mr. Black is implying. They're trying to distinguish between what motivated them to write (the activities of UNC officials) and what they were concerned about (lobbying in general). I don't think that's so hard to understand, given that this particular citizen's group coalesced around a university issue; the efforts of the university are familiar to them.

Here's the note that Shapard refers to; it's in the public record so I don't believe I'm violating anyone's privacy:

Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:33 AM

To: Town Council

Subject: Clarification to Council

Mayor and Council,

I am Gene Pease, speaking for the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus (CNC). I would like to clarify some misconceptions about our recent petition on the activity of paid lobbyists.

First, although our position was catalyzed by learning of the meetings with UNC officials, we by no means consider UNC to be the specific target of such a regulation. Indeed, recent events surrounding ACS and the red light cameras demonstrates that there might be any number of parties engaging paid lobbyists to influence your decisions.

Second, our understanding of the mechanics of similar programs

leads us to believe that there is no burden placed on individual Town Council members. You would do nothing differently under such an ordinance.

Third, it in no way reflects on our beliefs about your integrity

or any aspect of your character. We only seek to bring to local

government a level of transparency that has been deemed important by many democraticgovernments.

Fourth, contrary to the suggestion of some, we do not consider paid

lobbying to be an untoward occupation. Many fine people are

engaged in such pursuits.

In conclusion, we hope you will consider our proposal on its merits, as a tried and true program for fine-tuning our already well-functioning democratic processes. CNC thanks the Council for appointing a committee to work on this and for taking a proactive approach.

Sincerely,

Gene Pease

Thank you Mr. Murrell for your analysis, but why does a basic set of questions deserve such an answer, especially as it has been asked serveral times without result?

As a pratical matter, does your take mean that the Council is now not dealing with the petition that was introduced that specifically referred to UNC, but the general concept of registering lobbyists?

The flaw in the CNC proposal is that they ask for four things but only provide three bullets:

1) recognize that these meetings are lobbying efforts

2) cease all such meetings until ...

3) recognize that those UNC officials participating in this effort are acting as paid

lobbyists

4) adopt a regulation requiring registration of lobbyists and the disclosure of their activity

Much confusion has ensued because items 1-3 refer to UNC while item 4 does not.

Chapel Hill needs nothing so much as a competent editor.

Perhaps they changed their minds? I know that might be disappointing, and it's _certainly_ not typical of Chapel Hill politics (get on your highhorse and ride it to death, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc etc) but sometimes people do that in the real world! They change their minds! Next thing you know, people will start admitting they don't know everything, and then where will we be? How will we talk to each other? It's so confusing. I feel for you, man.

Am I weird?

When the Chamber of Commerce has a point of view I always think the opposite one must be correct, even if I don't know anything about the issue.

Is this fair and/or good?

When the chamber says it is against lobbying disclosure I think it must be good to have.

The biggest problem with lobbyist I've had in my 2 years on Council came last week when I was contacted by Leslie Blakey of the so-called "grassroots organization" created by ACS and other red-light camera operators to lobby local governments. If I hadn't already known who was really paying the bills for that telephone call, it would have been very difficult to marshal the information necessary to counter this person's arguments. Blakey & Agnew and their ilk make their living lobbying local governments and specialize in hiding their activities behind the veil of a "public interest group." Blakey is obviously very skilled. (Learn more by googleing the firm name. They outline their entire array of lobbyist skills that give their patrons a leg-up over ordinary citizens in influence policy-makers.)

It seems that my comments in the Herald relating to the lobbying petition appeared to connect my concerns directly to UNC. While I do believe it's in the best interests of the citizens of Chapel Hill to be aware of techniques used by UNC administrators to improve relations with the Council, I carefully limited my comments at the retreat to generally explaining the value of lobbyist registration for the general public in response to another Councilmembers concerns that such a registration policy could never be valuable and concerns that it would add meaningless tasks to Councilmember service. A registration program could easily be conceived of that required no work on for Councilmembers. Also some Councilmembers seemed unaware how the system works well at other levels of government and the principles underlying it.

I made the analogy to the General Assembly and Congress to highlight how registration can address the power/influence differences between highly skill professional lobbyist and ordinary citizens because that's the level at which lobby registration is most familiar to us.

(By the way Todd and others demonstrate the skill of professional spin-meisters when they pounce on the Congress analogy. I admit that rhetorically it's a good strategy -- by referencing Congress you can attempt to show how faaaaaar away the concern is from the small town of Chapel Hill, you can charge the discussion by tapping into the almost unconscious suspicions that many people have about the motives of Congress members, etc., etc. When I was a debate coach, I taught my students only use this rhetorical cliché when you had nothing else. You can do this, while the whole time ignoring (or choosing not to learn about) how the reference was originally used. Because in fact, there never was a claim that the mayor is like a Senator or a Congressman. Congress AND the General Assembly were used to counter the absurd notion that registering lobbyist never serves a valuable end.)

And another thing – I don’t have a position on whether a system like this is necessary in Chapel Hill, but given the out-of-state lobbyist working on behalf of ACS who’ve injected themselves into our RLC debate, it’s worth looking at.

I’ll talk about how I’m not a UNC adversary in another post some other time.

Todd, if you have read ANYTHING that I have written about UNC and Chapel Hill, you will see that I do not "percieve that the two have different interests." Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't believe me, ask Linda Convissor.

Here is just the most recent example: http://www.orangepolitics.org/archives/000130.html

What I don't get is why people (like you, apparently) think that the Town asking to be on level footing when negotiating with the University is a hostile act. The University can talk about "collateral damage" ( http://www.unc.edu/news/newsserv/archives/may01/moe052901.htm ) against the Town, but we can't ask to be treated with respect?

Until we can deal fairly with each other there's neccesarily going to be going to be hostility. Meanwhile, the Town will be forced to defensively to protect itself.

Ruby Ruby Ruby

UNC needs to deal with a hostile Town Council. Call it Lobbying if you want, but this aint Washington DC, Mayor Foy aint a U.S. Senator or Congressman, and having Lobbying laws in a town this size seems absurd at best. Why do we have to model everthing after Ann Arbor Michigan, or Madison Wisonsin?

Also, why do UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill need to be adversarial? Why do you and others percieve that the two have different interests? I would think we are all on the same team.

GO HEELS!

Todd

Having been a resident of Chapel Hill and now retired, I'd like to ask any/all
candidates up for election Nov. 2004
to consider the following items to be
included in their platform for election:
NOTE: This is intended for Chapel Hill
Council AND Orange Co. Commissioners.
- WHY DOESEN'T C.H./OR. CO.
adopt precinct representation ???
- WHY DOES THE TOWN MGR. at
$130K-140K/year have someone
at staff level be the communications
link ---- We were w/o electric for
7 days last case. Nice Job !!
- How come the public is NOT informed
about the closing balance of each and
EVERY bank account at the end of EVERY fiscal period ?????????
-Have you ever noticed the Town
Parking area and counted vehicles
and checked 2-6 hrs. later ??? I have
for several years now and I'm always
surprised at how many SUV's plus how
many cars are still there.
TIF's - Believe me it will be another
burden put on taxpayers if ' they slip
this one by us.
This year we got burned by the Town by there calling for new "FEES" By the way folks, fees are NOT deductible.
WELCOME TO CHAPEL FOLKS !!!!
Last but not least as C.H. gains more
seniors, I have another surprise for you. Tractor trailer and UPS trucks,
along with soda trucks take up 1 lane
of traffic on Franklin St. w/o worry when making deliveries. As we all get older our reflexes slow down etc. and if a driver of one of those trucks steps and is hit by a senior driver -- headlines
will read pedestrian hit by senior driver.
Isn't it fun getting older and especially
living here w/o even precinct reps????
I WANT YOUR WRITE IN VOTE !!!!!

Remember this issue? I would like to commend the Town Attorney, the Town Council, and especially Council Member Greene for what they did at last night's (10/27/04) meeting.

The matter was tabled until a later date when it would be appropriate to consider it again. Council member Greene indicated that she met with the petitioners, whose primary interest was in a lobbyist registration ordinance that could cover UNC. (Note the discussion in the comments above about this key part of the issue)

As it was not clear at all that the Council had the legal authority to impose such an ordinance over UNC (remember, the University of Wisconsin in Madison complies with the Madison ordinance voluntarily), the ordinance drafted by the Town Attorney would only apply to private lobbying interests.

It was concluded that passing the draft would be “overkill,” as it would be addressing a problem that we really don't have in Chapel Hill. If passed, it would target a lot of small businesses and people it didn't intend to target. Thus, the real problem that they were trying to address was not being addressed, so Council Member Greene concluded that it was better to leave well enough alone for now and revisit it later if conditions change or if there were changes in the law as it relates to UNC.

It's a great day when we can avoid making bad public policy!