Lobbyist Registry left blowin’ in the wind
With an adequate budget finally in place, it looked like smooth sailing for the City’s Lobbyist Registry. But, as the cliche goes, looks are deceiving.
Like panes of glass at Yonge and Eglinton on a windy January morning, the registry was tortured again this week by a council that agreed to this accountability mechanism only because provincial legislation demands it.
This time the attack came from north Etobicoke councillor Suzan Hall.
Councillor Hall bemoaned the user fee of $150 for registrants who choose to submit a paper-based form instead of sending in their 
information through the City’s online portal. Although the Office of the Lobbyist Registrar will provide a computer for the use of registrants and assistance in person or over the phone to help people use the online form, this wasn’t enough for Councillor Hall. Councillor Hall was concerned that a taxi driver or small businessperson wouldn’t have access to an internet-enabled computer, wouldn’t be capable of using the online forms if they did and/or would have to make an inconvenient visit City Hall to use the computer in the Registrar’s office (it might interest readers to know that Councillor Hall accepted $300 from the taxi lobby in the last election).
The $150 fee is the same fee charged by the provincial and federal lobbyist registries for paper-based applications. The purpose of the fee is to cover the expense of the additional administration required for paper pushing and data entry, as those functions are not covered by the budget allocated to the lobbyist registry last year. The administration component is particularly important as the Registrar is obligated to have a turn around time on registrations of no more than 48 hours, as set out in the by-law [PDF] that governs the registry.
But no matter the imbecilic nature of Councillor Hall’s whining, as always, responsibility rests with Council. And instead of reminding Councillor Hall (and Councillor Sandra Bussin, as she was also a vocal proponent of scrapping the fee) that it is 2008, not 1990, and that all Toronto Public Library branches provide free access to internet-enabled computers, Council humoured the deferral motion and will now take a “wait and see†approach to user fees.
Let’s hope few lobbyists take up the City on its offer of free data entry and administration because if the Office of the Lobbyist Registrar turns into a paper pushing agency, what little funds it has to work with will not be used for the right things. Although she shares the same hope I do, Lobbyist Registrar Marilyn Abraham told me this afternoon that she has already had inquiries from law firms that want to use the paper-based system to off load their administrative costs on the City of Toronto.
Council also decided to make the “in force” date of the lobbyist registry by-law February 11, 2008. So if you’re lobbying on or after that date, be sure you’re registered and in compliance with the lobbyist code of conduct. Otherwise, read the by-law because you’ll want to know what your rather hefty fine will be.
Cesar’s Palace
This week Integrity Commissioner David Mullan reported to Council on his year-long investigation into Councillor Cesar Palacio’s alleged conflict of interest that involved the councillor negotiating the rental fee of his constituency office with himself.
Commissioner Mullan concluded that Councillor Palacio, who is the guarantor of the mortgage and a director of the numbered company that owns the office on St. 
Clair Avenue West that the constiuency office is in, was, indeed, in a conflict of interest but recommended that sanctions not be brought against him as it appeared the Councillor’s error was in “good faith.†The proof, according to Commissioner Mullan, was in the below-market rent being paid by Palacio the councillor to Palacio the mortgage guarantor.
Call me sceptical but Councillor Palacio has been around City Hall as an executive assistant and city councillor for most of the last quarter century. The man should know the rules and this one was just bloody obvious.
Although no one intended to amend the recommendations in the Integrity Commissioner’s report, Council’s progressives lined up at their mics to take every shot possible at the feeble west end ward boss. Included in the barrage of questions was an interesting assertion by Councillor Joe Mihevc: If Councillor Palacio has a financial interest in a building on St. Clair Avenue West, why didn’t he declare a conflict during the St. Clair Right of Way debates?
The Integrity Commissioner doesn’t investigate conflicts of interest so that one will have to be referred to the courts [PDF] if anyone wants to pursue it.
In the end, Council received Commissioner Mullan’s report [PDF], which means Councillor Palacio avoids any punishment for his indiscretions with the public purse.
Thelma and Louise meet Kyle and Rob, almost
Councillor Kyle Rae will be going to Mexico City this summer for the International AIDS Conference, the follow-up to the summit held in Toronto in 2006. Councillor Rob Ford, however, will not.
Councillor Rae required the approval of Council to go as a representative of the City and, true to form, the homophobic and frugal Councillor Ford couldn’t get up 
fast enough to denounce the trip, calling it “a waste of taxpayers’ money.â€
Among those defending the trip was Councillor Brian Ashton. Councillor Ashton pointed out that it’s good manners to go to the conference directly after you host it to let participants know the importance of the issue to Toronto and to show our appreciation for other delegates’ attendance in Toronto. He also added that if Toronto gets a bad rap in the conference organizing circuit, that could short circuit Toronto’s chances of hosting future international events. Councillor Ashton also noted that the financials make sending a representative to Mexico City the smart choice as the cost of sending Councillor Rae is $5,500 [PDF] and the money brought into Toronto’s economy from the AIDS conference in 2006 was more than $45 million.
In the spirit of inclusivity (or mischievous vengeance), Councillor Howard Moscoe put forth a motion to extend approval and encouragement to Councillor Ford to join Councillor Rae in Mexico City for the conference.
Always willing to provide a laugh when his sexual orientation becomes the invisible elephant in the room, Councillor Rae shot across the council chamber, “(Ford) can come but I’m not sharing a room with him!†The clam shell errupted with laughter.
The Moscoe motion failed 16-18, with Mayor David Miller voting on the prevailing side.
Shuffling the deck chairs
For those who watch City Hall too closely for their own good, they may have noticed that Councillors Ron Moeser and Frances Nunziata exchanged seats. Though you could be forgiven for assuming that Councillor Moeser just desperately wanted to get away from the antics of Councillor Ford, I’m told the real reason for swapping seats is to accomodate Councillor Moeser’s partial hearing impairment (speakers are mounted on the wall that devides the council chamber from the members lounge).
Photographs courtesy PixelSnap and City of Toronto.
19 comments
If you are so worried about paying $150 to join the lobbyist registry, go to the public library. There are computers with internet access there.
Can you really buy influence at city hall with $300? Something tells me that this wouldn’t work if you were looking for more bike lanes.
Ben, $300 doesn’t buy anyone undue influence, nor does donating the maximum $750.
What $300 buys you is a place on a councillor’s radar and their ear, on occasion. This is important to those that have an agenda but little profile at City Hall. Clearly the taxi industry had Hall’s ear on this issue.
typo above – that should be Suzan Hall, not “Suzanne”
As for the AIDS conference, it might have brought in $45 million but did the City of Toronto even see $5,500 revenue from it? The Province and Feds saw plenty I’m sure.
Sometimes I wonder if Toronto should get out of seeking conferences. After all, they are hardly Kyoto friendly, encouraging air travel as they do, and while the venues do employ GTA residents plenty of them are not from the 416 area code. If Toronto started promoting activity which contributed to its bottom line rather than Queens Park and Ottawa’s maybe some of that sales tax cash might make its way to 100 Queen West.
Hard to believe Spacing readers but there are some people who do not know how to use computers and find them intimidating. They would probably be the least able to afford that fee (which seems high to me). The ability to use a computer should not be a financial penalty to submit to a process that the City demands.
It might interest readers to know that Suzan Hall’s donor was “Associated Toronto Taxicabs Co-operative Ltd.” — better known as Co-op Cabs, which is a taxi company, not a lobby group.
It might further interest them to know that Co-op Cabs also donated to candidates (in alphabetical order) Ainslie, Aybars, Aynedjian, Berardinetti, De Baeremaeker, Di Giorgio, Ford, Giambrone, Kelly, Mammoliti, Milczyn, Minnan-Wong, Moscoe, Nunziata, Ootes, Saundercook, and Shiner. Of these councillors, 12 received larger donations ($400-$750) than Hall, and only Giambrone received less ($250). How did the rest (who got elected) vote on the registry fee?
Covering City Hall votes that doesn’t make the papers makes this post a news article, taking a position on the issues makes it an opinion piece, and I can appreciate both. But the drive-by smear on Hall undermines it all for me.
Matt L: don’t be so quick! Who voted with Hall? Maybe all of them did. Hall did lead the charge on this so you wonder who she’s listening to. Besides, they keep watering the lobbyist registery down so some of these shitheads deserve a little smearing. Its grossly undemocratic of them to keep stalling.
Matt: My pointing out the donation to Hall was not meant as a smear. I think that donating to campaigns and lobbying are both entirely legitimate business practices. At the same time, I think it’s important to let people know who is lobbying and donating to who when the issues arise because it’s part of transparency. Unfortunately, not being at City Hall, I couldn’t scribble down all the names of the yay/nay votes fast enough to give you a How They Voted list.
Scott: People who are lobbying aren’t going to be people without means and they will only be registering if they stand to gain something individually. When was the last time a tenant made an application to the Committee of Adjustment, let alone with an architecht or lawyer? I’m willing to guess never. Lots of things in this city should be subsidized. The lobbyist registry isn’t one of them.
“My pointing out the donation to Hall was not meant as a smear.”
Adam – when you refer to Hall’s contribution to the debate as “imbecilic whining” you can hardly expect people not to see your pointing that out as meaning more than a simple fact.
Milo, I did look to see if I could find vote info (no luck). It’s just that I don’t think it takes a donation to Suzan Hall to get her to do something stupid — she seems quite capable of doing that without undue influence.
Adam, my point is that presenting one factoid out of context doesn’t accomplish the goals of transparency. 16 serving councillors got contributions from a variety of taxi companies in the 2006 campaign, and the average across those 16 was $640. There’s probably a good post in those stats on the taxi industry’s cozy relationship with councillors in general. But to include only the donation to Suzan Hall because you disagree with her stand on the lobbyist registry fee looked an awful lot like a partisan jibe.
You guys are reading too much into this smear thing. Adam’s right that Hall is doing stupid stuff and good for him for calling her out on it.
It doesn’t matter who else gets donations from taxi companies. Hall is the one who wasted time and money so knowing what influences her thoughts is good journalism since she used the taxis as an example to make her case.
Like Matt I also want to know more about the taxi industry so another article on that is a good idea. But this is enough for this topic.
Adam> I’m willing to guess never.
You are still guessing though. (You are also assuming that only people who rent are hard up for money.) And what about literacy, housing, and poverty groups, don’t they lobby too?
with open discusions and criticism of our councillors maybe we can convince them that we the people demand honest open and transparent government.A lobbyist registration is a start and next give the auditor general the power not only to investigate but also to lay charges and stop discretionary spending when needed.
Adam:
Seriously, your coverage of city hall reeks of bias and partisanship. Calling Hall’s motion “imbecilic whining” is hugely unfair. It’s not at all unreasonable to question why there should be differing fee structures for submitting registration info in different formats. Her examples may be weak, and I mostly can agree on the higher administrative burden of processing paper applications, but it is at least worthwhile for council to consider the question of equal access.
While I mostly side with the progressives on council, believe it or not, they have been the engineers of some fine messes in their time (the spiraling costs of the downspout disconnection program jumps to mind). The readiness with which you resort to name-calling and condescension when discussing the more conservative corners of council is hugely damaging to your credibility.
You would do well to let the facts and the arguments speak for themselves.
Scott, we may need to agree to disagree on this but I encourage you to look through the links above to see who is obligated to register. Most people who don’t hire a lobbyist or other professional to make a case on their behalf will not have to register. If they are utilizing the services of a professional, it will be the professional’s obligation to register.
On non-profit/charitable organizations: So long as their staff/volunteers/board members are not lobbying outside the prescribed process to receive a grant and their advocacy does not include a professional to make their case, they will not have to register as a lobbyist. The other caveat to the non-profits is that they aren’t setup by a for-profit corporation to advocate on a business interest (eg, Big Tobacco-like tactics) and they are not doing for-profit advocacy (eg, Toronto Environmental Alliance has, or used to have, a few for-profit clients that are consistent with its values but generate revenue for the organization).
scott, literacy, housing and poverty groups all have access to the internet, either through their offices, or through the public library. If they can’t pay the $150, the most it’ll cost them is the $2.75 to take a subway to a library (in most cases, they can walk to the library – there are libraries everywhere).
Asher, I write opinionated posts. It’s what I do. Call it bias or whatever you like but I’m not offering a straight news piece and I rarely, if ever, will.
But with that said, your suggestion that the lobbyist registry portion of this post is partisan is a little rich. Suzan Hall is not someone I would group among the conservative faction of council. She is firmly planted on the fence of this council. In fact, this lobbyist registry issue as a whole hasn’t been an overly partisan exercise. People from across the political spectrum have had a hand in watering this thing down, though Hall and Del Grande are the most culpable in my books (Hall for the above and Del Grande for moving the motion that incapacitated the lobbyist registrar for all of 2007).
Finally, “imbecillic whining” is fair. Hall’s weak argument mostly involved contrived hypothetical sob stories of taxi drivers and small business owners that took up 30 minutes of Council’s time (whining). And if she were really serious about the fee, she would have made time in her schedule to appear (or even write to) at Executive Committee in early January to speak against it. She didn’t do that. Thus, she was trying to remove a $150 fee that is important for successful operation of the lobbyist registry on the fly without going on any particularly informed analysis of how her amendment would impact the registry (imbecillic).
What Hall ought to have done was gone to EC, said her piece and requested a report directly to Council come forward at the January meeting to outline the impact of not having the fee. That’s just good governance. Flying by the seat of your pants on the floor of Council is not. (To be fair to Hall, she’s not even close to the only councillor who does this kind of thing. Not using the committee system properly is one of the worst ailments of Council.)
good post Adam.
If e-filing is so easy – why allow paper filing at all. No fee, no paper, no problem!