By Niki Cervantes
Staff Writer

March 3, 2016 -- First it was too complicated; then it was too simple. But on Tuesday, a once-again revised law that requires greater disclosure on public issues by both lobbyists and Santa Monica City officials finally won initial adoption by the City Council.

“I think the third time is the charm,” said Council Member Kevin McKeown as the Council began winding its way toward a vote after much discussion during its meeting.

The re-written measure, adopted 6-0 (Council Member Pam O’Connor was absent) includes some language that is more specific about who to include as a City official, how to define lobbyist and how to require up-to-date information from lobbyists detailing who they’ve spoken with and why.

It doesn’t take effect for at least six months – time, the City Clerk’s Office said, it will need to institute required changes and to start educating the public about the ordinance.

California’s Brown Act already requires Santa Monica’s public officials to disclose on an individual basis any interactions in which they discuss City business. A City staff report also noted that the Council has the authority to dictate, independent of the new law, how employees interact with lobbyist.

Still, Tuesday’s vote came at a time when the Council had been battered by recent controversies involving both elected and appointed City officials.

The disputes basically revolve around a different City law meant to avoid corruption and conflict of interest.

That includes campaign donations from developers to Council Member Pam O’Connor, her alleged behind-the-scenes role in the 2014 firing of an upcoming communications head for political reasons and a job accepted by former City Manager Rod Gould with a company that conducted business with Gould as he represented Santa Monica.

Lobbyists were not the specific targets of those controversies. But City officials are engaged in attempts to increase transparency in general at City Hall and gain more trust with the community.

Tuesday’s meeting refined the ordinance. For instance, the law won’t include representatives of such organizations as Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., closely linked to the city but independently operated.

City contractors also will be excluded. That upset Council Member Sue Himmelrich, an early proponent of the law. “We are missing out on a whole class of people who should be included,” she said.

One particularly divisive issue involved including in the law a “right of private action.” It would grant citizens the right to sue over alleged violations on which the City itself does not act.

Without that provision, “citizens have no recourse,” said Mary Marlow of the Transparency Project, a Santa Monica group that sued Gould over conflict-of-interest allegations and won a settlement with him in November. The City Attorney’s Office had declined to act, as did county prosecutors.

At the Council meeting, Council Member Gleam Davis said that a right of private action clause could be used as “vengeance” and hit its targets with civil penalties and attorney fees “because they didn’t turn in the right report at the right time. “

“It would turn into the Wild West,” Davis said, “with people suing each other all over the place. That troubles me.”

Himmelrich was a proponent of the right of private action provision, but did not force the argument.
“I won’t insist on that tonight,” she said. “But I think it might come up again.”

McKeown also was worried. “If we find this law, as well intentioned as it is, not being enforced or enforceable, I’ll be coming back,” he said.

Under the law, lobbyist register annually but are also ordered to report recent contact with City officials at least 10 days before the issue in which they are involved comes up for City Council action.

Supporters said the requirement would give the Council the most up-to-date information on lobbying possible. But Davis it would miss the last-minute contacts made by lobbyists, who sometimes even approach council members for a final word on the steps to their City Chamber seats.

Davis said that is an example of problems the lobbyist regulations will have capturing all communications – especially in a city where even social gatherings are filled with political players people to make a case about public issues.

“I’m not sure how this works in the real world,” she said.

The law is enforced by the City Attorney’s Office and the City Clerk’s Office and penalties can include fines of $500.

The Council asked for a law for overseeing lobbyist and their business with City officials in December of 2014. What staff delivered in July of 2015 -- based on similar laws in more than a dozen other cities --was too complicated, the Council said.

A second, simpler version was delivered for the March 1 meeting. The Council’s vote Tuesday marked its third round of revisions and was the first reading of the final ordinance.