Enforcing the Lobby Law
December 12, 2005
Lobbying was back in the news last week. The New York State Lobbying Commission announced that it would not aggressively enforce a new mandate that requires lobbyists seeking to influence government contracting to report their activities.
Should the Lobbying Commission enforce the lobbying law? Of course. Is the Lobbying Commission justified in a less vigorous enforcement of the law's new procurement requirements? Sadly, yes.
Here is some background. In June lawmakers agreed to expand the jurisdiction of the Lobbying Commission to cover those who are paid to influence government contracting decisions. This change had been a top proposal of reformers over the past few years. Its passage was fueled by controversies and scandals that had long dogged the Pataki Administration. Prison sentences for two legislators and a top Administration official pushed the issue over the top.
But the bill did not only require lobbyists to report, it also dramatically changed the way contracts were awarded. Given the complexity of the new law and the short timetable for enactment (the bill passed in June and is to go into effect on January 1, 2006), the legislation created an advisory committee to help the Commission implement the new requirements and to develop guidelines for other changes in the law. Pulling together experts in the field to help make these changes seemed like a good idea.
But the members of the committee were not immediately chosen and the group did not hold its first meeting until mid-November. At that meeting, the members complained that they did not think that they would be able to develop guidance by the end of the year as required by the new law.
As a result, Lobbying Commission director Grandeau stated that his agency would initially focus more on education than enforcement when the new year goes into effect. According to the Commission, it seems that procurement lobbyists would still be required to report their activities under the new law and the Commission will still investigate violations, but will issue warnings for first violations -- unless they are egregious.
It is dismaying, yet understandable, why the new law may not be aggressively enforced. How can the procurement community comply with a new requirement when the rules are not yet written? The Governor and the legislative leaders should have quickly made their appointments to the advisory committee and then demanded action. But they did not. As a result, implementation of this new law could be chaotic.
As New York State enters the last year of the Pataki Administration, there is a strong suspicion that those with close ties to the Governor will seek to enrich themselves and their clients seeking government contracts. And given the problems that have plagued the Administration, this feeling that there are some well-connected lobbyists licking their chops over a last minute “gold rush” for contracts cannot be discounted.
There have been far too many procurement controversies and scandals. New Yorkers deserve to have government contracting decisions made on the merits and in a transparent manner. Enforcement of the lobbying law is an important component of a good contracting system.
But a clumsy implementation of the new law is unfair to those involved in procurement and may end up punishing some for violations that result merely from confusion and ignorance. So, it is reasonable to allow some enforcement flexibility. But for big time lobbyists that should know better, that margin for error must be small.
That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week.
www.nypirg.org | www.straphangers.org | support nypirg
|
