Deciding budget and policy proposal for us today.

But before we get started, let's go around the room and do introductions, and I'll start to my right.

Hi, Kevin Flynn, South West Denver's District 2.

Hello, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4.

Jamie Torres, West Denver District.

Hi, everybody.

Serena Gonzalez Cucheras, one of your council members at large.

All Cashman, South Denver District 6.

Daryl Watson, fine district 9.

Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

And then thank you all.

We have a proposal for oh, Councilman Parity.

Go ahead.

Okay.

We have a proposal for a lobbying ordinance, an update to our lobbying ordinance.

So councilman Torres, I will let it I'll let you take it away.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

And I'll let the clerks' uh team, clerk and recorders team introduce themselves, and then we'll kind of do I'll do an intro.

Andy Secaris, Chief Deputy City Clerk.

I'm Ben Schlair, Senior Policy Advisor for the Court's Office.

Nick Mayo, the campaign finance administrator.

So we've been working with this team for the past several months.

Council members uh Gonzalez Cutieres and Lewis are also signed on as co-sponsors of this effort.

Um Andy and I started talking before last year budget around um the need to update the lobbying ordinance.

And they've done incredible work diving really deeply into what exactly needs to be updated because it's um having been on council for uh seven years now, the number of really controversial things that we've taken on, none of them have garnered lobbying activity in their reports as of yet because of the way that the law is written.

And um, so it's giving no um no visual as to who's were who's lobbying on what um issue or how much they might be spending on it.

Um and so uh I think that uh the work that's been done so far in um uh amendments to this um really get at I think the point of it without being um over cut overwrought or cumbersome.

Uh but there are a couple decision making points that we want to get your feedback on as well before we file for committee on Thursday.

Um we'll be going to commute uh community planning and housing committee.

Um you think that doesn't relate to lobbying, but it totally does.

Um but it's also the committee we could get in before August.

Yeah, um uh but um I'll turn it over to Andy.

I'll stop and see if my co-sponsors want to say anything.

Okay, yeah, all right.

I'll turn it over to Andy and his team.

Great.

I'll try to go through this promptly because I think most of you have received a variation of this, but please stop me.

Um and I also added a slide to sort of explain some of the mechanisms at the end as well.

Um that I've gotten some questions about both from the lobbying community and some of the members of council.

All right, so um why we really looked at why reform is needed.

Um our laws are a little dated, um, they are confusing.

Um I've heard that from the media, I've heard that from you all, I've heard that from the lobbyists quite frankly.

Um, and they really don't provide a lot of meaningful transparency to the media and the public about um other than the client lists that the lobbyists represent, are really the only things that are getting reported.

Um, there's been some opportunity that we sort of noticed in some policy gaps around some of the high profile lobbying um that where there was spending done to influence you before you referred it to a ballot measure.

We saw it around tobacco um on both sides.

I think we've seen it on some surveillance stuff where they're asking their members or their uh supporters or they're going into paid media to tell you to vote no, vote yes.

Um that's not captured anywhere at all.

Um because it's not on the ballot, it's not captured in our campaign finance.

So they can spend as much as they want right now to influence you all or ask the mayor to veto something or or not veto something, and that doesn't get captured anywhere.

Um, and you know, it's just sort of a clear case based on sort of modern reforms to track this.

It's we're seeing it as a trend across the whole sort of lobbying community.

They're trying to sort of influence it before it goes to a campaign which is more expensive.

Um really the goals of the rewrite, increase transparency in local government, government decision making, provide clear and relevant information to the public, and to the lobbyists, quite frankly, um, align with, you know, other jurisdictions, and then really create a fair and consistent enforcement uh mechanism that is a little unclear in the current law, which I'll talk about in a little bit.

Um, new disclosure requirements, compensation, on how much lobbyists make per client per reporting period in a range, so it's not an exact dollar figure.

Um we heard from the lobbying community that they were concerned about sort of business issues of dollars and cents, and so we figure a range, and then we can run a report of how much was spent on a certain category over the period.

So lobbying activity disclosure, so uh disclose which covered officials were lobbied in the reporting period along with the client represented.

So we sort of went and looked at how that would look, which I'll talk about in the end a little bit, and disclose a lobbying topic if it if it is available.

Um grassroots lobbying, which I was just talking about, it's also known as astroturfing or grass tops lobbying, activating a membership base.

Um we set a limit or at least a trigger of $5,000 to sort of start that.

Um that's what gets you in the paper, that's what gets you on TV or on radio.

We didn't want to scoop up folks with a change.org petition or you know, small list that I'm sure you get many of those emails anyway.

But we wanted to sort of really identify the big spenders.

Um a little bit more clarification on who can be lobbied.

So elected and appointed officials would be covered under this.

Um it does not include career service employees.

Um, and I probably have said this joke too many times, but I know you love when I harass you to fill out your searchlight reports for other things.

Um, this all falls on the lobbying community to report unless you feel that there has been a violation and you can file a complaint against or a citizen can file a complaint against a lobbyist.

It also clarifies who a lobbyist is, um, is only a person that receives compensation for lobbying in a total of a thousand dollars in a year or more.

That will also include like government affairs officials that sort of are sort of in a gray area, but if a thousand dollars of their salary goes into lobbying, they would need to be covered under this law.

Um but really we don't want to pick up people that are volunteering as a lobbyist.

Um they're lobbying for themselves in a personal capacity, um, they're public officials providing testimony.

Um, but really, if they make a thousand dollars or more, they would have to register and be part of this.

And so that could be, for example, some of the folks that came and lobbied around labor, you know, the labor ordinance, those government officials would have to register that they met with you and on behalf of whom.

Um the creation of a cooling off period, which there's some discussion on timing.

So I'm gonna put 18 months is what's in in the current bill, but um that is a point for discussion for you all.

Um but to prohibit former electeds and cabinet members from lobbying for 18 months, um, star, that is up for discussion, and then really to prevent revolving door influence for personal gain.

Um, to sort of touch on the fact that there is also a companion sort of piece in the ethics code that really prevents you from using knowledge that you have in your official role as any city employee to profit.

Um, I talked to the board of ethics, they think there should be a clear line of whatever you all decide in this code around lobbying.

Um, we will probably have to open up the ethics code at some point to make sure the citing is correct, and you all can have sort of discussions then on that side of the um fence, but um cooling off period, don't 18 months is up for discussion in a minute.

Um, and then improve the enforcement language.

Um, right now the enforcement language is pretty vague in what we can and can't do.

Um, really the only thing that allows me to do is not allow someone to be a lobbyist for a year, even for a minor offense, um, which we really haven't ever activated because it tends to be like they haven't filed there, they filed late.

Um, so really um the goal is is this is not to be, you know, our goal is substantial compliance, right?

Like we know that not everyone's going to be perfect, so really it allows us to re-educate, to question, to issue a small fine if they are late, similar to campaign finance, but really um if it becomes blatant or really fraudulent, there is a mechanism that doesn't relate in the in the regulator's side.

There is gonna be a um uh hearing officer that this would get referred to that could issue subpoenas, could issue larger fines that could issue um even you couldn't be a lobbyist for a set period of time, but that doesn't, it's you know an independent body, it's a judge, it doesn't fall on us to do that um to create those those those lines.

But really, but really um our goal is to re-educate these folks and explain and not sort of come out guns blazing like you didn't file in the first one, you're going to hear officer, right?

Really the goal is is substantial compliance, and we know stuff's gonna get missed, but I think the level of data we're gonna get is really gonna tell a much better picture.

Um, some bill updates um after stakeholdering, we did meet with a lar number of the large lobbying firms.

We also did a survey out.

Um, they were really concerned about having to report every contact, which we also fully got, you know.

I think we thought it and concept sounded great until we started thinking about it.

Um so they would only, for example, I'm just making it up, but Andy Sicaris, lobbyist contacted councilwoman Torres and client was I love puppies in the period, right?

I took that meeting director.

And then if I adopted put it on your gift report.

Um, but you know, um, so it would just have to, you just see who lobbied you, who are the client, and was it in the period?

Would would be sort of in the report.

Um we narrowed the cooling off period to elected officials and cabinet members, um, because there's some ambiguity in those pieces.

Um, and then raise the grassroots lobbying to disclosure to $5,000, not to scoop up small entities that may just be trying to activate their their base with some accounting things and nonprofit land, it just sort of got a little questionable.

Um items under discussion, and I'm gonna go one slide forward and then come back.

Um cooling off period length for you all to discuss, and then should council aids be covered as covered officials.

Um I will say, probably from our agency side, we don't believe so, but that is a discussion for y'all because they're not uh appointed officials.

And then implementation, just so so I sort of explain this piece uh as well.

Um, so covered meetings, direct contact, and email communications where they are directly asking you to take an official action in your official capacity, would be what would be covered.

This is not transferred to you know, sitting down, having discussions about long-term planning or gathering information, or um hanging out just as friends, right?

This is if they are asking you in your official capacity to take an official or administrative action, a yes or no vote, um, I need you to get involved in this, things like that.

That's what would be covered in the reporting.

Um in the reporting period, it would as well as one thing that isn't sort of highlighted in here is when they communicate with you in official capacity, they must tell you they're a lobbyist, and they must tell you the client that they're reaching out on their behalf.

That also includes public testimony.

So if they come up into the dais and they are they're paid to be there, they have to say, I am Andy Sicaris on behalf of I love puppies and I need you to vote for this, right?

Um, and so that would be what's disclosed, right?

Not your personal meetings, not your sitting together at a table.

If they invite you to something, that wouldn't be unless they reached over and said, Hey, I really need you to vote on XYZ thing.

Um, that's what it will be disclosed.

Um, and then reporting of compensation.

Um, this is just a line, so you can sort of see, this is how we're sort of seeing it.

So it would be uh Andy Sicaris was paid, you know, one thousand dollars from I love puppies in this two-month period per client.

Every client will will be in here.

Um, this is just a visual range.

We expect it to go higher.

One lobbyist firm said $5,000 is way too low.

I was like, thank you for that information.

Um, so you know, but it is per two-month period, and then we can aggregate it all.

Um, because some of the lobbyists did say, like, look, I get paid in a chunk, right?

It's for the whole metro, or it is just for anything that comes up.

So I may have no lobbying activity in Denver except for two months of the year.

How would I report that?

And you know, you just have to sort of look at your contract and figure out how many hours and report those pieces directly.

We don't want to scoop up if you're talking to Aurora or the state.

So and then we're still continuing incorporating stakeholder feedback as we go through this, and um really want to make sure we get it right for both our agency and the lobbying community and the public.

Um so that is all I have.

I'll move back to items under consideration, but um open it up for questions and comments, or then who's smarter at all the the bill code than I am?

Any final, any other additional comments?

Great, Andy.

Okay.

A couple things that I want to make sure um we took key consideration on, and I wanted to thank everyone for signing up for a briefing.

We've gotten through almost all of them.

Um, maybe one or two that we've got to um uh uh wrap up.

So I really want to thank everyone for making time about this.

Um we wanted to make sure that um uh folks are still able to participate in working groups as we develop legislation.

Councilwoman Sawyer, you mentioned wage theft.

We had brought a lot of folks from all sectors around the table for years.

That's not lobbying, right?

We didn't have a bill yet.

Um so we want to make sure that we're not circumventing or creating a wall for folks that feel like I can't participate in this thing because it's a cumbersome process, or it's considered lobbying.

Um it was I I think where where I landed on AIDS.

Um I will send an aide to take a briefing.

Um she'll report back to me, but I'm ultimately the one who makes the voting decision.

So that was why we opted not to include AIDS um in this, but very open to your feedback on this one.

Um and then our our language that we've we've had, even though it's been modified over time.

I think we're seeing just a different level of lobbying taking place um in our current political climate.

And um, we can't be behind the ball and not be able to be transparent with the public and with the media about what's happening when it comes to that.

Um so that nothing really falls through the cracks in a major way there.

And for, you know, it things like um the Pitbull ban for flavor tobacco twice as some of the most lobbied kind of um uh issues we've taken on.

For there to be no reporting because nothing met the criteria of the law, um, is wild to me when we knew that there was lobbying going on there.

So that's kind of what brings us to this space, but we don't want to overreach.

We do want to make sure that it is sensible.

Even if over time maybe we come back and modify something because it's not working out.

Um, this is worthy of updating um now.

So um thank you so much.

And can I take yes?

One quick thing.

So this will not take effect till January 1st, 2027 because about a six-month period of technology development.

So as we get in there, if we get in there and we're like we really bit off more than we can chew, we can come back and and change things, but um this won't take effect till 2027.

And additionally, um, we're planning on on shifting some resources around to have a dedicated lobbying support staff to do the education to develop more materials to be much more supportive of the community as well than currently that we have.

So, yeah.

Councilman Gonzalez, yeah.

I just wanted to add on that, um, like one of the things, and I think Andy mentioned this, but I'm uh very interested in is the feedback around the cooling off period at the state.

It is two years.

Um when you leave office, you cannot just jump right into a lobbying role because of those like connections and and things like that that happened that you still have and that still exist, and so uh I think there's kind of a difference across the table, but we're really interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on that.

Thank you.

Followed by followed by Heinz.

Is anyone else any more time?

Councilmember Flynn, start us off.

Uh, some of what I heard here addressed what I thought after our briefing was that this was just a ginormous burden on a whole lot of people that wouldn't produce you know, out on the margins wouldn't produce a lot of useful information.

So I think I understood that any time I would bump into someone in a social setting and they say, Hey, uh, have you read the thing I sent over about council bill XYZ?

Uh oh, yeah, I did read that, and you suck, you know.

So that it would be encompassed by one report for two months that I lobbied Councilman Flynn, and he wasn't very grateful for it.

It would just it would just show you carried us lobbied Councilman Flynn on behalf of I won't say puppies, we'll say puddles.

Uh, and you know, whatever it is, right?

And so it but that's all it would be, and it wouldn't be I met him three times every five minutes, you know, because we did hear, well, if I send a text chain and they respond the next day, what does that look like?

And so really we just want to show that you were contacted by them on behalf of a client in the period.

Just that there was contact.

Okay.

And what constitutes contact, I guess, is a form of art rather than a science.

Well, it would be in whatever format, it could be, you know, via the mail, it could be, you know, whatever.

But let's say you just run into somebody on the sidewalk and they say, Hey, have you read that report yet?

So, yeah, I did.

I I think we're pretty good, but I could use this much.

Sure, I could use uh clarification.

That wouldn't be covered, it would be hi.

I need did you get that report?

I need you to vote for this, right?

This is it is in the ask.

It has to be yes, so it has to be an ask of you to take an official action or an administrative action, or if it was, hey, I need you to figure out why this, you know, I'm using your your sort of influence, um, it would be what we cover.

Okay, that gives me a lot more clarity, and I appreciate that.

Uh as I said during our briefing, uh, I think the cooling off period is way too long.

I think two years is much too long.

18 months is way too long to deny people the ability to use skills that they developed on the job because and then secondarily I think a cooling off period does not belong in this ordinance at all.

We should simply, if we want to make it longer, we should update the ethics code because the ethics code applies to all city employees, even career service.

You are not permitted for six months, and whether that's too short, we can discuss, but it prohibits anybody, our aides, some career service person in Dotti from engaging with the city on that topic for six months, which is the same thing.

So putting it in here, I think is a good place because this is to regulate lobbyists, and a cooling off period regulate regulates not lobbyists.

Can I tell you kind of where because we've thought a lot about that since we had that discussion with you, Councilman Flynn, and I think that we still do think it goes in here.

Um, absolutely think that the that the ethics provision overlaps with lobbying, but it's at the same time more broad and more restrictive under the ethics code because it talks, it's kind of like if you look at that provision combined with the conflict of interest provision for an existing employee, it's essentially saying after you leave, those conflict of interest requirements still apply to you to a certain extent so that you don't use um some specific matter that you took that you took an official action on in order to benefit yourself through employment.

Whereas with lobbying, um and so that may encompass lobbying, right?

But it may not encompass lobbying because you may become a lobbyist for uh for a client who has nothing to do with any official action that you ever took, and that this is more about the you know, the appearance of or the possibility of additional access based on your prior employment.

So we think those two things are different, and then from and I think from a uh uh enforcement perspective, we like having it here because we have the registration process, and so we'll know who are these former individuals, and that and that you know, it's specifically triggered if they register with us um whether or not they've violated that provision.

Whereas under the ethics code, I'm not super familiar with it, but I don't know how uh or when the last time it was that something like that got brought up, but I think that that's more of kind of like in front of the ethics board presenting evidence.

There's not like that bright line that we're looking at under this, and that's I think how we see those two things as distinct, and that they should both remain they should ethics code shouldn't go away, but that this is different.

I still think it's misplaced in this location because we can easily we if we need to amend the ethics code to say that again this is regulating lobby uh lobbyists, and the cooling off period attempts to regulate people who are not lobbyists.

It says you can't become a lobbyist until six months, eighteen months, whatever.

Uh so I think if we want to do that, we should make it live in the ethics code still.

Okay, first and then finally, uh Madam President, I I do believe it should apply to council aides uh because they do take meetings and you do get a lot of benefit, and I hate that.

It would hinder them when they leave for six months or eighteen months, so we wouldn't be able to pursue uh of course they could become a lobbyist, just not with long city issues.

They could lobby the state, or for other clients of a whoever they join with.

Uh but but I do think it should apply to them.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I'm taking notes.

Did you say how long you felt like the clean off period should be?

Ethics code is six months.

Do you feel like that should align with the comfortable with that?

Thank you.

Next up we have Councilwoman Alvides.

Thank you, Council.

I'd like to welcome Councilwoman.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, thank you all for bringing this forward.

I think it's really important and have heard from uh people that have worked at the state that they felt like there was some improvements needing to be made here.

I will say it has been confusing, particularly one for me with the Excel Energy.

There's people coming at me from all directions, some people were paid.

I don't know if everyone was, so it is very confusing.

I think as a council member when you're taking meetings to understand the dynamics that are in that meeting.

Um of the things, and I appreciate the conversation about AIDS.

I feel very conflicted about that whole piece.

Um there's been situations in my district that I have it back-checked, um, to be quite honest, but where former government affairs staff where the city um got involved in lobbying on an issue in my district, which then led to a reversal of decisions that were made by a city department.

And so, from my understanding in my briefing, those government affairs people are excluded, but they are very counterpart to the government affairs people in some of those other companies.

Um, and I I appreciate what you said about AIDS.

Uh first of all, I wouldn't want my aides to be precluded from making a living for themselves in whatever way they can because they are so poorly paid, especially when you compare it to the mayorals appointees, and everything I've seen has said that they are appointees, not career service, but I could be wrong there.

Um so I'm just curious how we're making sure this is fair and how we're not making loopholes for certain people.

Yeah, to touch on um part of the part of the point.

I think in your sort of case, as someone left the city and and was paid to lobby, right?

They were doing government affairs work, they would be captured, they would have to register as a lobbyist, and you would see their income and who paid them from that perspective.

Um, I did sort of talk to HR, and there's not a super clear class and comp for like government affairs staff in the city.

You know, there's so many different class and codes.

It's really hard to sort of nail down, and I did a lot of thinking of how we would like sort of classify that after our conversation.

Um, there isn't like a specific job title in the city in a pay class that's just government affairs staff.

Um, so we'd have to think about how we would capture that.

Um, and so, but you know, in in your case, that person would have had to register as a lobbyist, right?

Because they were doing sort of that isn't the question.

The question is how much cooling off would they or would they not have to have?

Um currently they would have they wouldn't have any cooling off period, but they would still be sort of restricted by the ethics code, and that's sort of a different discussion that I'm not qualified to have, but um uh you know, I think they would be able to become a lobbyist right away and under the current ordinance.

And I think they have just as many connections, if not more, than even I do as a council member, and so just that part.

So anyway, that's all I have.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Councilwoman Sawyer, followed by Councilmember Hanks.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thanks, you guys.

Oh, that was really loud.

Um, so I really appreciate this.

Um a little bit of feedback.

Uh I appreciate you recognizing that the citizen complaint system that existed before council member Watson and I updated the Fair Elections fund and we kind of took a look at the um rules around complaint of that system.

So is that basic are you essentially just mirror that language?

And that we haven't really had an election since we did that.

We have not had an election since we did that.

Not really, we have not.

We haven't, uh, councilwoman, although um, although the your bill did great work to clarify that general um approach is what we had done the year prior.

So for the 2023 cycle, we use that plus some significant um administrative rules that we promulgated that create like spell out the process very specifically to make sure that people have due process once there's a uh administrative hearing officer involved.

It's been really good.

It's given us a lot of ability to dismiss complaints directly from our office that don't have validity or just have not asserted enough facts for us to be able to send it off to a hearing officer and pay for that fact from our office.

Um and it has also allowed us to send um real complaints to hearing officers and have those go through the process and put it in the hands of the hearing officer to decide the penalty once they've they've gone to the end.

Okay, really appreciate that.

And so this language incorporates that, and you'll do rules and regs um development after assuming the ordinance passes.

Yes.

Got it.

Okay, cool.

Um, in terms of the cooling off period or non-compete, um, as it relates to AIDS, I'm a little bit concerned because I will say we pay our aides very little given the amount of work that they are supposed to be doing, the expectations that they have put up on them and the level of confidentiality, professionalism, all the things that they are required to have in this job.

Um I am really uncomfortable with telling them then if you're gonna leave here, you can't go lobby.

I have had three aides graduate from my office to go lobby, and I'm thrilled for them.

They should go do that.

That's like that's why you take a job like this with such low pay.

Um, because it is about the professional development, it is about the growth and understanding of um the way all of these different government structures structures work, it's about all of these different things.

And I do not think it is fair to them to take away an opportunity like that.

We certainly do not pay them enough money where they can cover it for six months.

They can't.

And so it literally interferes with their job future job prospects for us to apply this to our aides.

As much as I understand why we were we're having the conversation, and I think it's really valuable conversation, it is not fair for us to do that to them.

And so I feel really, really strongly about that.

Um, and and I think that that's probably true of many staff members across the city of Denver in many different classifications.

So I just I'm just gonna register my opposition on that one.

Can I ask you for a clarification?

Please, yeah.

Um I hear that.

Are you how do you feel about um requiring reporting to be done on meetings taken by your aides?

That's where we're a little bit more if you are.

Let me just uh I'm gonna say back to you what I think you are asking me to make sure that we're both on the same page, because like maybe we're just talking in cross purposes here.

Um, so what you're saying is the ordinance will require that the lobbyists, if they are meeting with your aides, are required to report.

Yes.

Yes, I have no problem with that.

Okay, that's all right.

Just not included in the cooling off.

It's not included in the cooling off period.

Got it.

Yeah.

Um for the timeline, I think the ethics code is probably spot on on this one, and I'm gonna say I have a massive conflict of interest here because I have 433 days left in this job.

Um, and but two things.

Um the first one is is that six months the right number right now?

I don't know the answer to that question.

I think if there's six months written into our ethics code for a reason, I don't know what that might be.

Um I think it's worth a conversation with uh with Lori Weiser to see is there some like background history there of why it was six months or whatever.

Um I did ask you in our briefing, and we'll just ask again um when council president Sandoval and I were looking at the potential of switching um from 12 years to eight years to three terms to two terms for elected officials.

Um of the things, one of the pieces of um advice that we were given was a concern that when someone runs for office under the understanding that they could run for three terms, and then that changes to two terms that impacts the expectation under which they ran for office originally, and so like when this happened at the state in the late 80s ish um there was like an eight year gap between when the voters voted on it and when it was actually implemented um we're a little bit talking about the same thing with the potential optional two-year budget cycle moving forward same kind of a thing that there has to be like a lag time so I'm curious whether you guys had an opportunity to look at that lag time I like concern to see if that's even an issue here um it's a great question um very much piqued my interest when you asked about it on Friday I haven't had time to connect with John or our our representation from city attorney's office but I have looked into the question um as it relates to kind of your analogy to term limits and there being like a reliance interest or otherwise um uh from courts have generally not found there to be a reliance interest in uh post-service employment and so they haven't looked at it that way but there are other cases that have been brought or at least one case that's been brought is out of Missouri um where the Eighth Circuit found there to be a First Amendment interest um in lobbying because you're you are seeking influence in on government things and so um and I'm not saying this is how Colorado would do it because it's the eighth circuit but um that they've because of First Amendment they saw it as you know they applied strict scrutiny so they said you have to have compelling government interest and that the law has to be narrowly tailored and the compelling interest in that case they basically said that uh Missouri had shown no evidence that there was any type of corruption um or any type of revolving door I think there's probably um something a little different here in Denver and then the other thing was that it was extremely broad um it it covered not only elected officials but any employee whether uh no matter their role at the general assembly which is what that covered um and so they invalidated it based on that I think ours is is different but I think that is something that's you know worth you all knowing that is out there even though it's from another jurisdiction um and doesn't apply here and the two year uh revolving door here in Colorado has not been challenged um but um as far as a current elected officials right uh not to have the rules changed on the midstream haven't found anything that would that's on point for for this type of change okay that's great if you don't mind just like looking through it a little bit more so that by the time we get to committee we just know a little bit more clearly from the attorneys what the what their kind of opinion on that is that you can awesome that's it thanks guys awesome thank you council member heinz followed by Watson.

Thank you Madam President thank you for the conversation thanks for the briefing in advance also since I'm thinking thanks for the uh clarification on volunteer lobbyists um that's something that I was um and at the state level you must um the state of Colorado I think is the most uh stringent on lobbyists and requires even volunteer lobbyists to register uh at the state uh thanks for the clarification uh aids I say yes for lobbyist reporting no to cooling off um just because multiple council members have talked about that already um uh I love puppies um I do puppies um uh you know yes who's in the I puppies caucus I don't know if you know I wouldn't say I didn't say puppies uh okay well um so anyway the um speaking of I love puppies we um passed a ban on puppy mills and last week the governor signed a state bill um uh you know sponsored by majority leader Duran uh that banned puppy mills statewide so same stuff we were doing here in Denver um that had already been done in other cities and so um with that thought process of what happens in Denver sometimes happens statewide.

Let's go back to the cooling off period.

What about city employees lobbying at the state level or federal level um is there a cooling off or no cooling off?

It would only apply to city lobbying in the fault okay just just making sure um I know that uh Dan Pabone in was majority leader and in his off session, he would lobby at the local level um so an actual thing that happened, not just um theory.

Sometimes I get one lobbyist and who has a list and we go through six or seven items.

I want to make sure that all like even though they're going, it's one meeting, all those items get covered, the lobbyist, the who they're lobbying, and I'm guessing a date to so it would be in the period.

So it wouldn't be in the period.

So it'd be the two-month period.

So if you said there were six clients that they lobbied you on, they'd have to list it six times, right?

It wouldn't be like, you know, Andy, I love puppies, Heinz, and I also said I love kittens, I love dolphins, right?

It would have to be, you know, it would be just definitely trying to be, you know, PC here.

So if I say something, be like, oh my god.

But you know, I think it's um, but I think it's uh so you'd be like there'd be six entries, right?

But it'd be by client.

Yeah, and some lobbies are pretty good at letting us know who they have a financial interest in, and sometimes you know they're just talking about.

Um but uh that I think um I think that will help us with the discipline when lobbyists give us seven items and they're paid on six of them, um, and then you know we go look at the list and we don't see that one, that helps us to go, oh right.

Um, you know, uh lobbyists let us know that you were not compensated by that so that uh that that interest so that we don't look at the list and not see it and wonder what's going on.

Okay.

Um what about um uh say an architect that um that is paid.

Um they don't really classically see themselves as a lobbyist, but um I know one architect that's uh that's you know reached out about on behalf of a couple clients.

Um I think we might have to do some education um just you know to to help some of the people who don't necessarily feel that they're a lobbyist, they're getting paid for architectural work and want to advocate on behalf of that as opposed to specifically lobbying work.

So I I think if unless you have comments on that, yeah, I mean, I think it will it will definitely be helpful to have an additional staff person to like help educate, but you know, I think we will be relying on on your staffs and and some of the folks of, you know, we want to provide you tools too.

If they come to you and you feel like it's veering into that you have like, hey, these are the rules you probably want to check with the clerk's office to make sure you're not in violation, right?

I mean, I don't want to put on too much work on you all, but we want to give you those simple things because a lot of people don't know what they don't know, right?

They're not being malicious.

Um so we want to make it as easy as possible, but I think um, you know, we we want to do a lot more proactive education out there um to you know, and and pop by council, see who's talking, right?

And it's it this isn't trying to be you know the bad guy wheating in the bushes, but I think it's it's we really want to make sure that um we're we're doing a lot of proactive education, and this sort of also period before it launches will help us develop a lot of those materials to start sort of pre-inoculating some of the the folks about the information.

So I since our briefing, I just thought some other you know, like brainstorming ideas.

So one other um what if, and maybe this is education too.

We have a former uh city employee who is uh legislative liaison, leaves um a wealthy benefactor asks the this individual to lobby to change a decision, say on Alameda, and that person is not a director, not an elected official, and that person talks to not a director or executive, but actually that team that is responsible for that um that particular decision, like is that not covered?

I mean, I think we've seen an example of change affected, but I don't see any of the boxes checked from this legislation.

Yeah, I think if I have your hypothetical correct, uh that they were wrong.

Yeah, that they were discussing that the discussion was limited to those who would not be defined as covered officials under this.

Yeah, and you owner is on.

Yeah, I mean, I think you are right that that type of communication that that um is not directed at a covered official would not be covered under this.

Um I think that yeah, I mean, I think we have to draw the line somewhere, um, and I think that's kind of where we drew that line.

I mean, hypothetical, they wouldn't be voting on anything, right?

Well, they did make a change to the I mean, voting.

True, yes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, in that case, council no one had a vote.

Correct.

Any sort of opportunity for us to vote on.

Okay.

Um last thing, um, you mentioned delay until January 1.

Uh, there's something else that's happening on April 5th.

Um, and then maybe something in June.

Um, I wonder if the programming, if you're wanting to wait until Jan 1, should it be July 1?

Um, I think for you could look at the cooling off period for that.

I think for us, the annual registration for lobbying, so sort of changing the program mid-year would be tough for us.

But if you wanted to look at cooling off starting at a different time, you know, if it lives here or in the board of ethics code, um, you could also look at that as as a change.

But um, for us, because we do an annual registration that starts Jan 1, it would be it would be kind of hard for us to sort of shift that around in terms of of launch date for us.

Yeah, it's okay.

I think we'd also like to work out the kinks of implementation so that way when uh you know the council turns, that way, you know, we're ready, we have our guidance, we've got, you know, some reps under our belt um to you know go in with, you know, if there's new department heads, new council members, we have that all set up.

We're not trying to educate new folks and the existing um electeds all at the same time in uh what's gonna be a very, very busy July.

I guess um I'm playing counterpoint double damage to my own question, but um obviously have a um a particular perspective, but really this is more meant for someone else as opposed to the um we elected, so maybe it isn't as uh as important that it is or is not timed around elections.

So thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome.

Except we have Councilmember Watson, followed by Pro Tim Remaro Campbell.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Thanks for pulling this together.

Thanks for the briefing.

It was very helpful for me.

Uh cooling off period, my hope would be that we try to mirror what's in ethics.

I it's and it's just me, my OCD.

I having different timelines for things that seem similar, um, drives me nuts.

Um and so whether it's six months, twelve months, eighteen, uh, love for those to be consistent.

I know we're not changing ethics right now, and but my recommendation is we if we're putting this in the ordinance that it's closer to where ethics is at.

Um reporting when it comes to council aids, um, I cooling off period.

I I don't believe we should have that for council aids and all of the above what was stated by other um council members um that I agreed with another thought.

And then grassroots lobbying, I'm still struggling.

The state has decided uh to do a lot of housing um builds, tons of builds on housing.

And we have a lot of folks who aren't registered lobbyists that are providing us direction on things that we're doing, or that's providing community planning and development stuff, and then we're in meetings with them.

I just want to make sure is it a registered, an outright registered lobbyist that this impacts or folks who are paid by organization that does housing policy statewide, regionally, or whatever, that's working on builds that we're doing in response to some of the stuff.

I I that's where I'm a little bit off on who has to do this in an official registered lobbyist.

Yeah, so uh I'll use I'll use flavored tobacco as as an example, not just picking on them, but I think um you saw ads that were paid for both by I think it was the American Heart Association and the Wyoming uh tobacco group group that were running TV ads, newspaper ads, radio ads asking you to to for people to contact you through their paid system to vote no or vote yes to refer something to the ballot.

Um we were contacted by CPR, I'm sure you all were to say how much was spent, why is there nothing on these reports?

Um that's a whole, right?

So there is there is significant money getting spent on those um those actions to get you to vote yes or no on something.

Um that's why we sort of set that sort of five thousand dollar threshold.

I think if it's an RNO or a community group or or something asking you to say like, put this on that that that's different for us than if they're running a T V ad saying like we need more housing, we need you to change the zoning rules or whatever it may be.

Um so really we want to capture the the spending on behalf of of groups, um, which wouldn't it's sort of a different report in the lobbying report, right?

So it would be by all in Wyoming, sorry, I don't forget what it was.

You know, tobacco spent $50,000 on paid communications to in opposition or support of the bill, right?

And and that's um, or if they stopped everything and also went to the mayor and said we need you to veto this or not veto this, that would also be covered.

Um so it would be asking you to take an official action with paid communications of $5,000 or more that would be covered under the grassroots lobbying, and it has like 50 different names.

I would AstroTurf is probably the better word in it, but um, really that's what we're trying to capture.

Um I wanted to spend some more time with you all on it.

Because I just have so many examples.

I don't want to call really amazing groups out that provide us stuff, and their stuff isn't like in writing that they would do like uh or do a TV add, they would do maybe a campaign that there is some cost to like a land use issue that they're trying to get us to support a bill here or there are they gonna be tied up into this.

Um, so maybe one off.

I can we can go through some of the stuff that I see because I mean tobacco, yes.

I wrote an ode to the lobbyists for tobacco.

Some folks like it, some folks hated it.

I think it makes sense.

But we have a lot of folks that do zoning and housing, and it isn't is it is in response to a lot of stuff we're getting coming to the Sydney County of Denver, and I'm still not certain because I don't want to call their names out here on the table, maybe on another one off.

I can show you what folks are doing, and I think it's costing them money to do stuff with us to say vote yes, no, whatever.

But I'm I don't know.

Some of I think the value of us updating this language is also making it clear to folks, you are lobbying when you are lobbying, right?

When you are asking me to vote up or down a particular item, and we think we're just having a civic conversation.

But if you're being paid to do that on a regular basis uh or a substantial amount of money, that's something that we need to get recorded.

If you're doing it on behalf of your group of neighbors who say we we want you to vote no on this thing because it affects our daily life, they're not doing it as part of their job, they're not being employed by somebody else to make that request.

Um those I think are the starker differences, but because we haven't really had a lot of really bright lines creating guardrails, I think it's it's been a too familiar kind of a space.

Um, and we want to have those conversations and we want to hear from groups, particularly those who are representing under represented voices, right?

Um, but we have to be able to record it.

We're not saying you're doing something bad because we get lobbied on all sides of issues, right?

Um, who we end up appealing to and who we end up opposing.

Um we just need it recorded.

Helpful, yeah.

Thank you, Council President.

It's okay.

Next up, we have Council Protomer, Mario Campbell, and then back in the queue and councilman.

Sorry, back in the queue.

Thank you, thank you, Council President.

Um, so thank you.

I appreciate the briefing, it was really helpful, and um the the gaps when you were naming all of the kind of different instances, it was like, oh yeah, you are right.

Um I wonder uh can you remind me what is the reporting cadence that we would have for this?

Yeah, so it's every two months, so it would be caught in a two month period.

So a lot of this reporting would actually be probably a lot of times after um the bill, so it's not sort of live reporting like similar at the state, but um it would be they they report every two months and we would continue on that schedule.

Um, and then what was the amount to be able to you would talk about upgrading the system?

So is that where does that come from?

Is that just a budget?

Yeah, we would be looking to seek a supplemental appropriation for the 2026 year one time for what was it, 40, 49,524 dollars.

Um but yeah, it would be a one-time expense.

Um that we currently can't absorb into our budget that um, but we will be absorbing in the the additional staff person.

Um and then so if I understand correctly, part of this is like the education for those who are lobbying what those lobbying activities.

So is this intended just to be for information purposes, or would there also be some penalty or if somebody violates um what's being put forward?

Um so when you say will there be a penalty, so if, for example, somebody just failed to report those types of things.

Fail to report, or maybe somebody um leaks one of these appointee positions and starts lobbying the next month or something like that.

Yeah, yeah.

So there's so we uh like I was saying in my discussion with Councilwoman Sewer, we kind of crafted the complaint process over from uh campaign finance, and it's very similar, and it's either one of you all, a member of the public, or even our office can bring its own complaint if we see a violation, and then that leads us to basically an initial review that says is there a potential violation?

If there is, off it goes off to an independent hearing officer who um, if they do find that person to have violated the code, can issue a fine, they can issue a warning.

This is you know, uh non-sophisticated actor who just didn't understand the system, you know.

Um, they can revoke their ability to register for a certain period of time.

There's kind of kind of runs a gamut of of what those penalties can be.

In addition, similar to campaign finance, um, there would be a late reporting fine of $50 a day.

So if someone was late by a day, but again, similar to campaign finance, it you know, you make a mistake, we work with you, right?

Like it's it this is to capture the bad actors, not the whoops it, I thought it was tomorrow folks.

Um, you know, and a lot of it will be, hi, we saw you didn't file is something wrong, was there something wrong with the system?

Similar to, I'm sure you get a lot of emails from us of like, hey, still haven't gotten this, right?

Like, you know, to everyone that hasn't filed, you know.

I think we want to be more proactive, which we haven't been able to in our current capacity with the lobbying community as we do with campaign finance.

And I should mention too, um, since we implemented the new complaint process um after Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Watson's bill, um, we have a cure period, uh, which basically says, hey, we think you violated uh this provision, you have 30 days to respond to that, and including within that 30 days, you can also cure.

And what that looks like is them calling Nick and saying, I didn't know that I was supposed to do this thing, and Nick helps them fix it, and then they send back to us uh, you know, something in writing that says I fixed it, and then we say all good.

Great.

Um, and then just um around the council aids, I wouldn't include council aides.

I also think the reporting for um meetings with them, I agree with having that included.

And then I don't really have strong feelings about the cooling off period at this point.

I mean, I think if you just don't want to deal with it.

I feel like the idea is.

Yeah, I like the idea of the consistency, but don't have strong strong feelings about it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Council member Ken.

Um, when I first when I saw the presentation and then during the briefing, uh I hadn't yet it hadn't yet hit me that one of the expectations I had when I heard of this wasn't really in there.

So I want to make sure I understand.

So when I saw grassroots lobbying, I thought it was going to be an effort to capture a lot of the campaigns that we are uh subject to uh that won't get reported.

Sounds like only some of them will be uh and it all hinges around money.

I've gotten hundreds of emails urging me to vote yes or no on an issue here or there that I'm clearly certain didn't come from a lobbyist, but came maybe from a an organization, maybe a national organization or a statewide organization that activates its members, and in fact, and I know I recognize these because a lot of them are you know down at the bottom, it says assigned your name, and they didn't put in their name.

So I know that it's basically it's a form email that they've been given.

And I would love to be able to capture where is this coming from?

So it's not always apparent, but this does not do that.

Is that correct?

Um it seems to be in the same category as the Wyoming petroleum marketers against the tobacco ban and the smoke free color or whatever the other ones were that were in favor of it.

Yes and no, and check me if I am incorrect.

So I think um we don't want to capture so because it sort of falls into then is it every RNO, is it everyone that has an email list?

So it wouldn't have to be initiated from a lobbyist.

It's the the spending on a lobbying activity that we're capturing in this this piece.

So it wouldn't be if it's Andy LLC lobbying, you know, it is you know, so so what would happen is if they've spent five thousand dollars, even if it was an out of state group or an in-state group, if they spend five thousand dollars, they would have to report that they spent five thousand or more in this piece to capture that.

Um, we would never know if you spent five thousand dollars and didn't tell us.

One thing is is if you get a digital ad that says click here to tell Councilman Flynn to say no, and you click there and it takes you to a form.

The payment for that advertisement would be encompassed in the 5,000.

If I've already given the organization, yeah, it's exactly it's an email blast.

Correct.

If I if if it's I love puppies LLC and I have I have signed up for I love puppies, so I'm on their email list, that would not be triggered unless they're making an expenditure.

But if it's an ad that they are paying for that says join this so it uh it is hinged on the money, you're right.

Um, but uh the form of the email, how how they contact the person to write the form email, it may be covered by it.

Okay, understood.

It's uh yeah, it's it would be nice to have information for me.

Not that it would sway me one way or another beyond what the words themselves had to say.

Uh because but they're on the same footing, getting emails from the white that were sent through the Wyoming petroleum marketers versus the Sierra Club or some other organization.

Uh it to me it's part and parcel of the same thing.

They're asking me to vote yes or put it to vote no on something.

And so it's uh I think it's a gap, and but maybe it's not that important.

It's just it's just missing.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, my comments were kind of along the same line as council member Flynn's, um, as I was kind of thinking through this a little bit more.

So I don't know if you guys remember in 2021 when we were looking at the RISE bonds, and there was um a stadium project that was improved included in the facilities of those bonds, and we split it out to have its own on the floor in order to have its own, it was its own consideration on the ballot, on like its own ballot section.

And um there was a lobbying firm who that sent out postcards to several different council members, like there were like 800 people who got postcard in my district because they were associated with a certain group, right?

Um that's not five thousand dollars, but that is real messy.

Now when they did it, they didn't just do it to me, they did it to several other council members too.

So I guess maybe this doesn't need to be an ordinance because it's so specific, but like in the rules and regs piece, I think, worth considering that there should be like a the ability to aggregate, because them sending, you know, eight hundred crappy postcards to district five residents was less than five thousand dollars, but them doing it to multiple districts full of residents probably will put them over that threshold.

So, visioning it that way, yeah, is that it wouldn't be just I spent five thousand or you know, five thousand dollars lobbying you, it would be the body as a whole, right?

So it would be how much was spent in the total campaign.

Um, it's uh so for uh the trigger for registration is spending five thousand dollars,000 more than five thousand dollars during a calendar year.

So if you so it's aggregating.

So if you're spending on the I'm sorry to interrupt, but just to clarify, on a single issue, no.

Um no uh total.

So not on a single issue.

Um as long as you are making grassroots lobbying expenditures, meaning that you are sending a public communication to members of the public that refers to a legislative matter.

And that takes a position and says contact your covered official.

If you're spending five thousand dollars within the year to do that, whether that means you're doing it in chunks for different matters, then you have to register.

Got it.

So like issue A, issue B, issue C, they're aggregated.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you for the clarification.

Really appreciate that.

Councilmember Cashman.

Thank you.

Excuse me if I miss this, I'm wondering.

Does lobbying need to include someone ask me for my vote?

Because most of the time, most of my meetings with lobbyists are they're just presenting information.

I mean, I know what they're there for.

You know, and and I spoke to in depth with a lot of the lobbyists too to make sure this would work, and really um we don't want to stifle the information gathering, you know, because they're a lot of times the direct source for information about things that quite faster than the city can provide and other things, right?

Um, and that's their job to do so.

Um, but I think really our goal is is to capture the actual sort of yes or no, or asking you to in your official capacity to support or oppose something.

Um so and and that is sort of the the goal of the trigger, um especially or in administrative action, and so um, yeah, I I I don't disagree with you.

I see it a little broader than that, and so it talks about influence the the definition talks about influencing a legislative matter or an administrative matter.

We have just like we do in campaign finance.

Under this bill, we have some pretty broad rulemaking authority that allows us to uh define and implement, and I think that the idea of influence is something we'd love to kind of tackle under those administrative rules, not to necessarily say it has to be a yes or no vote, but it has to be influence that includes some action, you know.

There's a definition in that bill about grassroots lobbying.

Can you help me get that out of that bill?

That's lobbying, right?

I mean, I guess for me, it's if someone's being paid by another company to talk to me about a particular topic, I don't care what whether they ask me for my vote or not.

That's lobbying.

So um, yeah, okay, thank you.

Appreciate the clarification.

Thank you.

Um, thank you all for working on this.

I think this is a really big issue.

Um, I the first time that I thought about this was when I listened to the NPR, um about uh flavored tobacco, and it was said that a lobbyist had met with me.

I was called out, and I was like, What?

How do you mean with that person?

And they had attended committee, and they literally put that down as a meeting with me, and I was like, that's fascinating.

I would never, and they weren't even in the room, they watched, and so I was like, how does that even count?

So um I remember calling councilwoman Torres, and I was like, hey, I don't even understand how this happened, and she was like, I think they watched the committee, and I was like, that's insane.

So I appreciate um the the work on this, and I don't know, but however, you all with the cooling down period.

I think the ethics rules apply to all city employees, and I'm not in a city employee.

I am, but I'm an elected official, so if I have different rules, I do have different rules than my um everyone else.

I can't take PTO, for instance.

My council aides can.

We can't we have to you can't participate in furloughs, we have to write the check back, and so we do have to actually um live in a different world than our council our council aides.

Um, but I do agree.

If you do include the council aides, I would not want them to have 18 months.

That's a really long time for them to not be able to go and work in a different job.

Um, again, they don't get paid very well.

I mean, I don't my aides only get paid like my all my council aides could qualify for affordable housing.

All the programs that we do for affordable housing, all my council aides could actually qualify for.

So I think about that oftentimes.

Um when we're doing things, so I don't have any other concerns about that.

Just want to say thank you.

I think that this helps.

I would have never replied on a Sunday afternoon had I known that this was like official city business.

So appreciate that clarity around that because I think that that's really important.

So seeing no other further business, would remind us of the timeframe.

Yeah, we'll be in committee next Wednesday, May 19th.

So we'll be filing by Thursday.

So I anticipate by the end of day, Wednesday, we'll be sending you maybe a revised ordinance that firms up kind of where we've landed on recommendations for the couple items that we were still in decision making around, cooling off and reporting uh who it applies to.

So we'll be um in touch.

Uh but please reach out if you have any additional questions or need an additional conversation.

Uh, that puts us at first reading on June 1st and final reading on um June 8th.

Um in committee, it will have a 15 minute public comment period.

Awesome.

Okay.

Thank you all.

Thank you.