You are here
Mayoral Disclosure of Meetings with Lobbyists in New York City
Friday, June 6th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
Good news and bad news about lobbying from New York City's new
mayor. The good news, according to a
recent article on the Capital New York website, is that the
mayor has said that his administration will disclose "substantive"
meetings that members of his administration conduct with lobbyists.
This is, he says, a practice he followed when he was the city's
public advocate (a sort of ombuds), before he was elected mayor.
Disclosure of such meetings by officials is an excellent check on disclosure by lobbyists, and provides an official-by-official view of the lobbying that is done. This could be required by ordinance or regulation, but when it is not, it is good to see high-level officials setting up a procedure in the meantime.
However, voluntary disclosure is not a replacement for making disclosure part of the lobbying or conflicts of interest program, because a voluntary procedure usually lacks detailed definitions and requirements, training, neutral advice, and independent enforcement. It is a valuable gesture, and can provide useful information, but it works best for a mayor – as opposed to an independent office like an ombuds — as a step toward the goal of institutionalizing the procedure.
The bad news is that, according to a New York Daily News article from last year, the then public advocate did not disclose meetings with lobbyists when it was he who requested the meeting. According to investigation by the Daily News, meetings with 47 lobbyists were not reported. A spokesperson said that many of the meetings had nothing to do with lobbying, that the individual was not representing anyone at the meeting or seeking any benefits. But how is anyone to know if this isn't disclosed? It's better to disclose all meetings, and identify the subject as one that, say, involved the individual's advice not as a lobbyist, but as, say, an attorney or former state legislator. Or, perhaps, talking sports.
The fact is that any meeting between a high-level official and a lobbyist is about lobbying, because establishing and maintaining personal relationships with such officials is an important part of lobbying. This needs to be openly recognized for there to be an honest conversation about lobbying.
It is especially important to recognize this when an elected official has used lobbyists to raise campaign funds for him (see a Daily News article from last fall) and when individuals close to him have been hired as lobbyists to influence the administration (see a Crains New York article from this week).
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Disclosure of such meetings by officials is an excellent check on disclosure by lobbyists, and provides an official-by-official view of the lobbying that is done. This could be required by ordinance or regulation, but when it is not, it is good to see high-level officials setting up a procedure in the meantime.
However, voluntary disclosure is not a replacement for making disclosure part of the lobbying or conflicts of interest program, because a voluntary procedure usually lacks detailed definitions and requirements, training, neutral advice, and independent enforcement. It is a valuable gesture, and can provide useful information, but it works best for a mayor – as opposed to an independent office like an ombuds — as a step toward the goal of institutionalizing the procedure.
The bad news is that, according to a New York Daily News article from last year, the then public advocate did not disclose meetings with lobbyists when it was he who requested the meeting. According to investigation by the Daily News, meetings with 47 lobbyists were not reported. A spokesperson said that many of the meetings had nothing to do with lobbying, that the individual was not representing anyone at the meeting or seeking any benefits. But how is anyone to know if this isn't disclosed? It's better to disclose all meetings, and identify the subject as one that, say, involved the individual's advice not as a lobbyist, but as, say, an attorney or former state legislator. Or, perhaps, talking sports.
The fact is that any meeting between a high-level official and a lobbyist is about lobbying, because establishing and maintaining personal relationships with such officials is an important part of lobbying. This needs to be openly recognized for there to be an honest conversation about lobbying.
It is especially important to recognize this when an elected official has used lobbyists to raise campaign funds for him (see a Daily News article from last fall) and when individuals close to him have been hired as lobbyists to influence the administration (see a Crains New York article from this week).
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
