City of Madison Legistar System

Registered to Speak/Did not indicate if she supported or opposed:

Delora Newton, Representing Smart Growth Madison

Ms. Newton had concerns that the ordinance doesn't differentiate on types of

contacts. Her concern was for the "little guy" being penalized. She noted as an

example a liquor license renewal - they have contact with the city or alders and

appear before the ALRC. She doesn't think that they will know that they need to

comply with the lobbying ordinance. She thought the intention of the ordinance

to get at those that influence policy decisions and feels that the ordinance will

affect a broader population. She distributed a memo that highlighted Milwaukee's

lobbying ordinance provisions and thought that these should be considered for

Madison's lobbying ordinances. She also included her Smart Growth Madison's

recommendation that "administrative action" and "legislative action" should be

defined. (see attached memo).

Ald. Jean MacCubbin asked Ms. Newton if she had concerns about the lack of the

posting/accessibility of the lobbying information. She would like to be able to file

the form electronically on-line.

Ald. Paul Van Rooy asked City Attorney Michael May if the definition of "lobbying"

could be more clearly defined. City Attorney May believed that the definition was

clear on who was a lobbyist and that by deleting exemptions it further clarifies the

definition.

Ald. Brian Benford asked what the downside was of the registration process. City

Attorney May noted that the simple act of registering is not the issue with

lobbyists but rather reporting the information. He indicated that if the person

spent less than $500 there was no reporting other than checking a box.

Ald. Paul Van Rooy asked if there was a distinction between someone who

lobbying to change policy and someone who is lobbying on a project. City

Attorney May indicated that there was no distinction - it is either an administrative

action or a legislative action.

Ald. Brenda Konkel asked how the City Attorney's office would be checking on

complaints. City Attorney May stated that they would be reviewing registration

forms and be relying on the person to identify themselves as lobbyist or

committee members to ask the person is they are representing someone or not.

Ald. Brian Benford asked what the downside was of the ordinance. City Attorney

Michael May indicated that education and complaints about the paperwork have

been the two frequent complaints. Both of those issues have been worked on

and appear in the new ordinance language.

Ald. Paul Skidmore indicated that he didn't think that the ordinance was a bad

idea and that he thought that the effort to provide more education to the public on

the ordinance would be beneficial. He believed that the ordinance would need to

be "tweaked" as time goes on but fully supported the ordinance changes.

Ald. Judy Compton thought that at times the paperwork had a chilling effect and

would like to see the definition of "payment" defined more fully.

Ald. Robbie Webber stated that when someone appears before a committee at the

grassroots level and is not being paid that it is very different from a person who is

being paid to represent someone appearing before a committee. She thought that

the registration form is very clear on that distinction.

Ald. Brenda Konkel disclosed that she works for an agency that employs a

lobbyist.