Thursday, April 5, 2001
Page 6
(LETTER TO THE
EDITOR)
City Lobbyists Do Need to Report Donated Services
Dear Editor:
Your March 27th and 29th columns discussing the enforcement proceeding taken last October by the City Ethics Commission against Councilmember Hal Bernson and the law firm of Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano and Hatch, and questioning whether free legal services provided by lobbyists to elected officials must be reported, misconstrue City disclosure laws. Moreover, your columns inaccurately characterize the Commission’s actions as having misled the public. We write to set the record straight on both accounts.
First, your columns are premised on the flawed conclusion that "a lobbyist who is also an attorney may supply unlimited free legal services to a City Council member and no one has to report it." In fact, the City’s Municipal Lobbying Ordinance requires all lobbyists and lobbying firms that are required to register with the City Ethics Commission to disclose on quarterly lobbying reports each "activity expense" they make of $25 or more. An "activity expense" is any payment, including any gift or other item or service of value, that benefits an elected official. The provision of free services, legal or otherwise, is therefore reportable by a registered lobbyist if the value of those services to an elected official total $25 or more. Had Mr. Papiano been a registered lobbyist when he provided free legal services to Councilman Bernson in 1996 and 1997—which he was not—the value of his pro bono legal services would have been required to be disclosed to the public. Your columns, therefore, erroneously conclude that a registered lobbyist may "secretly donate free, volunteer legal services to an unlimited extent."
Second, your columns unjustifiably attack the Commission’s October 30 press release wherein we noted that those who provide free or discounted legal services to candidates and elected officials should be treated no differently than those who contribute any other services or monetary sums. This is, in fact, an accurate account of the regulations that govern the limits on and reporting of pro bono services, which under the laws do apply equally to lawyers and non lawyers alike. Your column’s attempt to infer a broader "implication" in our statement and to suggest that the Commission was "entirely unconcerned" about the extent of the benefit conferred on the Councilmember by Mr. Papiano is belied by the record.
The question of the total value of the legal services provided by Mr. Papiano and his firm, and the manner in which that value was required by state law to be calculated, were discussed extensively in open session at the Commission’s meeting last October. Indeed, at that meeting, Commission Enforcement Director Luis Lavin and President Krinsky engaged in a long and detailed colloquy regarding the calculation of the fair market value of the legal services. During that discussion, clear reference was made to a $20,000 fair market value of the legal services provided by the three law firm employees who met the contribution threshold. That discussion also clearly addressed the fact that the $20,000 figure did not include legal services provided by any firm employee—whether a partner or associate—if that individual was not compensated by the firm for the time spent on that matter. Anyone who attended that meeting, or reviewed the minutes or tape recording of that meeting (both of which are readily and routinely made available to the public), would have heard Mr. Lavin explain that the fair market value of the enforcement penalties were based, consistent with applicable law, on the legal services provided by the three law firm employees who met the contribution threshold. Characterizing the Commission’s discussion of these issues as anything less than full and open, therefore, is simply contrary to what the facts demonstrate.
As always, we welcome public input and debate regarding additional steps that may be warranted to effectively address outstanding regulatory issues that arise from all areas of the Commission’s activities. To suggest, however, that the issuance of a press release to highlight the Commission’s approval of a single stipulated settlement in an enforcement matter is a final determination of all possible related policy issues implicated by that matter ignores the nature and full scope of the Commission’s ongoing work.
Sincerely,
Miriam
A. Krinsky
President
LeeAnn
M. Pelham
Executive
Director
(A response to this letter appears in a "Perspectives" column.)