[00:00:41]
[00:10:40]
ALL[00:10:40]
RIGHT.I'D LIKE TO CALL THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND EFFICIENCIES COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 21 AT THREE 40.
CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COUNCILMAN'S IN DAYJA? PRESIDENT, VICE CHAIR RICK SODI HERE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
ALRIGHT.UM, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
CAN WE MOVE TO THE FIRST ITEM? CAN YOU READ THE FIRST ITEM, PLEASE? ITEM ONE IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND
[ROLL CALL]
EFFICIENCY COMMITTEE MEETING OF TUESDAY, MARCH 10TH, 2026.CAN I GET A MOTION IN A SECOND? ALRIGHT.
[1. 26-54916 Recommendation to approve the minutes for the Government Operations and Efficiency Committee meeting of Tuesday, March 10, 2026. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
A PRES? THERE'S NOTHING ON THIS.UH, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE.
CAN YOU CALL FOR A VOTE? THAT'S WEIRD.
UH, CAN YOU READ ITEM TWO PLEASE? ITEM TWO IS A RECOMMENDATION TO REF TO APPROVE AND REFER BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.
THE NAMING OF CENTRAL FACILITY CENTER AT MARTIN LUTHER.
MARTIN LUTHER KING PARK, TO THE DALE CLINTON FACILITY CENTER.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES WITH THE NAMING OF THIS FACILITY THAT WE HEARD ABOUT TODAY FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND FROM THE COMMUNITY.
UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND REFER BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND
[2. 26-54917 Recommendation to approve and refer back to City Council for consideration and approval, the naming of the Central Facilities Center at Martin Luther King Park to the "Dale Clinton Facilities Center", in accordance with City of Long Beach Administrative Regulation AR 8-7 facility naming process. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
APPROVAL.THE NAMING OF THE CENTRAL FACILITY CENTER AT MARTIN LUTHER KING PARK TO THE DALE E CLINTON RESOURCE CENTER.
THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF LONG BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION AR EIGHT SEVEN FACILITY NAMING PROCESS.
UH, IS THAT A FRIENDLY, UH, FRIENDLY, FRIENDLY MOTION? UH, ACCEPTED.
AND IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? PUBLIC COMMENT.
SEEING NONE, THE MOTION IS CLEAR.
I BELIEVE THE FRIENDLY IS CLEAR.
UH, CAN WE CALL FOR THE VOTE, PLEASE? OH, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK ON A SECOND? OH, UH, NO.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE REFERRED.
I, I THINK YOU JUST SAID IT ALL.
I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S NOTHING.
THERE'S NO, YOU CAN COME UP AND COME UP AND, AND SPEAK TO IT.
UH, THERE WAS JUST A LITTLE CONFUSION ABOUT IT AND WE THOUGHT THIS NAME, THE FAMILY.
MY NAME'S ROL PARKER, AND I'M REPRESENTING THE FAMILY, AND WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE PROPER TO CALL IT A RESOURCE CENTER, THEN A FACILITY CENTER, BUT THE, THE, THE COUNCILWOMAN HAS TAKEN CARE OF IT, AND I DON'T THINK I NEED TO SAY MORE THAN THAT.
THANK YOU FOR COMING AND SPEAKING TO IT, SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS AND WE'RE GLAD TO MAKE THAT, UH, CHANGE TO THE MOTION.
ITEM THREE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AND REFER BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.
THE NAMING OF THE LOS ALTOS PARK PLAZA PARK TO PARK ESTATES COMMUNITY PARK.
IT'S MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RICKS ODI AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN DEJAS.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? UH, NO.
JUST, UH, HAPPY TO SUPPORT NAMING THAT BETTER REFLECTS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.
ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE.
[3. 26-54918 Recommendation to approve and refer back to City Council for consideration and approval, the naming of the Los Altos Plaza Park to "Park Estates Community Park", in accordance with City of Long Beach Administrative Regulation AR 8-7 facility naming process. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
ALRIGHT, LET'S CALL FOR A VOTE.[00:15:07]
MOTION CARRIES.UM, CAN YOU READ THE NEXT ITEM, PLEASE? ITEM FOUR IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND DISCUSS THE STAFF MEMORANDUM, PROVIDING FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, INTEGRITY AND REPORTING.
PROVIDE STAFF WITH INPUT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL AS APPROPRIATE.
UM, IS THERE A STAFF REPORT ON THIS ITEM? UH, WE DON'T HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION, BUT I FIGURED IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO GIVE JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE PROCESS AND, UH, FOR THE DISCUSSION, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
[4. 26-54919 Recommendation to receive and discuss the staff memorandum providing feedback and recommendations on the Framework for Accountability, Integrity, and Reporting (FAIR Act), provide staff with input, and make recommendations to City Council, as appropriate. Suggested Action: Approve recommendation. ]
YEAH, UM, WE RELEASED A MEMO YESTERDAY AND I, WE WERE HOPING TO GET OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THERE, UM, IN RESPONSE TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AT THE COMMITTEE LAST TIME.SO, UM, QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYISTS AND HOW WE, UM, DISTINGUISH DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOBBYISTS.
THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT EXEMPTIONS IN THE DEFINITIONS AS WELL WITH 5 0 1 C3 QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, EXPENDITURE LIMITS, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAME UP IN THE COMMITTEE LAST TIME THAT WE INCORPORATED IN THE, UM, MEMO.
AND WITH SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT OF THE COMMISSION'S INITIAL INTENT AND DISCUSSIONS, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE, UM, CASE, YOU KNOW, CITIES THAT HAVE ETHICS ORDINANCES IN PLACE, JUST TO GIVE OPTIONS FOR THE DISCUSSION FOR THE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
UM, BUT TAKING A STEP BACK, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY WHAT THIS IS, IS WE HAD, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, UM, TO IDENTIFY A WAY TO PACKAGE TOGETHER ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ETHICS RELATED POLICIES, UM, WITHIN THE CITY AND NEW STATE LAW THAT HAD COME ALONG, OR DIFFERENT BEST PRACTICES.
TRY TO PUT THAT ALL TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE ORDINANCE, WHICH THEN WAS PROPOSED TO, UM, THE COUNCIL AS THE FAIR ACT.
UM, BUT THIS INCLUDED OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION, UM, THE PUBLIC THROUGH, UM, THEIR COMMISSION MEETINGS.
WE'VE HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE MEMOS THAT KIND OF OUTLINE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE, THE FAIR ACT, BUT THIS IS A BIG, UM, POLICY.
SO IT INCLUDES EVERYTHING COMBINING, UM, OUR ETHICS PROGRAM, UM, OUR DIFFERENT POLICIES RELATED TO THE ETHICS PROGRAM INTO A SINGLE ORDINANCE PLUS, UM, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE LOBBYING PIECE OF THE, THE ORDINANCE.
SO THAT'S JUST ONE CHAPTER WITHIN THE LARGER FAIR ACT.
UM, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S GOTTEN THE MOST ATTENTION WHEN IT CAME TO COUNCIL.
I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF THE FOCUS OF THE MAYOR'S COUNCIL LETTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE, UM, LOBBYING ORDINANCE.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE KIND OF RESPONDED TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE DISCUSSION WITH THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AT THE COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT THIS IS JUST, WE'VE REALLY BEEN FOCUSED ON ONE CHAPTER WITHIN THIS MUCH BIGGER FAIR ACT.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A, A BROADER DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE WHOLE FAIR ACT IS DOING, UM, AND WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR CITY STAFF.
UM, AND SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, TALK MORE ABOUT ANY ASPECT OF THE FAIR ACT.
WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE SPECIFIC, UM, RESPONSES THAT WE GAVE IN THE MEMO.
UM, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, WE'RE HERE AS WELL, BUT I THOUGHT MAYBE JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL JUST TO TAKE A STEP BACK.
THE FAIR ACT DOES INCLUDE A LOT OF THINGS THAT, UH, WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO DISCUSS.
UM, BUT I THINK AT THE MOMENT, THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE WITH THE COMMITTEE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT, UM, BACK AND FORTH WITH YOU ALL IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, UM, HERE, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL.
AND THEN FROM THERE WE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE MIGHT WANNA MOVE FORWARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO HAVE ANY FRAMING REMARKS, BUT NO.
UM, I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THIS, UM, BUT THANK YOU TYLER FOR, UH, YOUR INPUT AND OVERVIEW ON THIS.
OVER THE PAST MONTH, I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH STAFF HAVING MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE FAIR ACT AND IT'S CLEAR, ESPECIALLY, UM, IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS IS MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE COMMITTEE BEFORE.
[00:20:01]
LOBBYING CHAPTER HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY DISCUSSION.I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN YEAR, IT WAS YEARS IN THE MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THERE'S 10 CHAPTERS TO THIS.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD FULL DISCUSSION IN THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT ALL, ALL OF THESE CHAPTERS.
SO I THINK, UM, THE FAIR ACT CODIFIES SEVERAL AREAS AND WE HAVEN'T HAD FULL DISCUSSION AND I DON'T THINK COUNCIL HAS HAD FULL DISCUSSION.
AND I THINK MUCH OF IT IS STRONG AND WORTH TALKING ABOUT AND IMPLEMENTING, BUT IT DOES WARRANT A BROADER CONVERSATION SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE, UM, I'D LIKE TO TALK A BIT MORE ABOUT THE CAL CALENDARING SECTION AS A STEP TOWARDS GREATER TRANSPARENCY, AND I AM PULLING THAT OUT OF THE ITEM SO WE CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT.
UM, THE CAL CALENDARING SECTION SPECIFICALLY WOULD APPLY TO MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, CHIEFS OF STAFF, DEPUTY MARY MAYORS, AND FOLLOW A MODEL SIMILAR TO THE CITY OF SAN JOSE WITH A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE LIVE LINK.
AND FOR CLARITY, I WOULD DEFINE A MEETING AS A DISCUSSION WHERE A TIME WAS ESTABLISHED IN ADVANCE ON OUR CALENDARS, AND I WOULD LIMIT THIS REQUIREMENT TO EXTERNAL MEETINGS.
I WANT THIS TO BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE OTHER NINE CHAPTERS OF THIS, UM, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A FRIENDLY MOTION AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TAKING THIS BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A STUDY SESSION ON THE FULL FAIR ACT WITH THE CALENDAR PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL SUPPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
UM, THIS IS A FRIENDLY, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE FRIENDLY THE CALENDAR PROPORTION OF THE PROPOSAL TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE THAT SAN JOSE APPROACH WITH A SHARED LINK.
AND THEN JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, COUNSEL, UM, I, WHAT YOU CALL YOU CHAIR, UH, CHAIR DUGGAN.
SO WE'RE REFERRING THIS BACK TO A STUDY SESSION WITH THE FULL COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL CHAPTERS OF THE FAIR ACT THAT WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED, AND THEN ALSO ASKING COUNSEL THEN TO KIND OF DELIBERATE AND DISCUSS THE CALENDARING PORTION, SPECIFICALLY USING THE SAN JOSE MODEL AS A TEMPLATE YES.
WITH CONSIDERATION FROM US AS A COMMITTEE, UH, SUPPORTING THIS ITEM.
UM, BUT SO, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I JUST WANNA CLEAR, SO WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO NECESSARILY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FAIR ACT SO MUCH AS WE WANT A, A BROADER CONVERSATION WITH THE FULL CITY COUNCIL YEAH.
AROUND THE FAIR ACT AND SPECIFICALLY PULLING OUT THE CALENDARING PORTION AS A ASPECT TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL.
YES, THAT'S WHAT I SAID, BUT I'M WILLING TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT MOVING IT FORWARD TODAY AS PART OF THE, I THINK I, YEAH, NO, I'M, I THINK I'M, I'M FINE WITH THE IDEA OF BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BROADER DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL.
UM, I THINK YOU ALL KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD A, A CONVERSATION AROUND LIKE THE CONCERNS AROUND THE CALENDARING, RIGHT? WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE REFERRED IT HERE.
AND I THINK NOW HAVING, AND ADMITTEDLY I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO READ THE ENTIRE MEMO FROM, UH, THE CITY, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IN, ITS IN ITS ENTIRETY IN DETAIL, RIGHT? BUT I DO THINK THAT YOU ALL BRING UP SOME VERY IMPORTANT AND ENT ASPECTS RIGHT, AROUND HOW WE'D OPERATIONALIZE THIS THINKING ABOUT STAFFING BURDENS, RIGHT? THINKING ABOUT POTENTIAL MODELS THAT OUR CITY CLERK COULD HOST, RIGHT? UM, AND I DO THINK THAT THOSE WARRANT A BROADER CONVERSATION WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES, RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO, LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS GONNA IMPACT EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
SO I SUPPORT THE, I SUPPORT BRINGING THIS BACK FOR A STUDY SESSION SO THAT WE CAN HEAR FROM OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES AND DETERMINE THE BEST, BEST PATH FORWARD SPECIFICALLY WITH US SUPPORTING THIS, THIS ITEM.
WELL, SO, BUT WE'RE SUPPORTING THE BRINGING IT BACK AS A STUDY SESSION.
THAT'S THE, THE, YES, BUT I WANNA HEAR OUR COMMITTEE SUPPORTING THIS WHEN IT GETS TO COUNCIL.
WE ARE, I THINK I'M, SO, WHAT AM I SUPPORTING? YOU'RE SUPPORTING CALENDARING AS AN OPTION.
SO I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF CALENDARING AS AN OPTION.
HOWEVER, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SAYING WE HAVE NOT, WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED HOW THAT CALENDARING WOULD BE OPERATIONALIZED, RIGHT? SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE IDEA OF THE CALENDARING.
I JUST WANNA GET, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING, UM, UM, WE'RE DEFINING THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING, HEY,
[00:25:01]
WE ARE USING THE SAN JOSE MODEL AS THE MODEL, BUT WE'RE SAYING, HEY, USING THAT AS A TEMPLATE AND THEN HAVING A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF HOW WE OPERATIONALIZE THAT.IS THAT CLEAR? I'M GONNA TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS FOR ALL OF US, UM, PRIMARILY FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE WHO'S TRACKING OUR AMENDMENT MOVEMENT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO BE, TO KIND OF CLARIFY THE LAST PORTION OF THIS MO MOTION, WHICH IS TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO BRING THE FULL FAIR ACT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A STUDY SESSION WITH A POSITION OF SUPPORT FROM THIS COMMITTEE AROUND USING A CALENDARING MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THE LARGER, UM, COMPONENT AROUND LOBBYING.
AND THAT'S, I WOULD ADD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD ADD TO THAT A WITH A, TO BE DETERMINED, UM, METHOD OF IMPLEMENTING THE CALENDARING.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? SUPPORTIVE.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT VERY CLEAR.
LET'S MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU CHAIR P*****K FOR COMING.
UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHY WE'RE HERE.
UM, AND LET ME FIRST ADDRESS THE LOBBYING PROVISIONS UNDER THE CURRENT LAW.
AN EXECUTIVE OF A LOCAL BUSINESS CAN MEET WITH THE MAYOR, EVERY MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND FIVE SENIOR CITY OFFICIALS INDIVIDUALLY FOR ONE HOUR EACH, THEN COME BACK THE NEXT MONTH TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE INITIAL MEETINGS, AGAIN, SEPARATELY AND FOR ONE HOUR EACH.
AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL OR THEIR COMPANY REGISTER OR REPORT ON THEIR ADVOCACY BECAUSE THERE'S NO OBLIGATION FOR CITY OFFICIALS TO REPORT ON SUCH CONTACTS.
EACH CITY OFFICIAL MAY BE UNAWARE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE OTHER CITY OFFICIALS, AND THE PUBLIC IS COMPLETELY IN THE DARK UNTIL THE MATTER IS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
THE ETHICS COMMISSION DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT LOBBYING IS MALIGN.
IN FACT, IT SERVES A VALUABLE PURPOSE BY EDUCATING DECISION MAKERS ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF POTENTIAL ACTIONS.
YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE EXPERTS IN ALL THE MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE YOU, BUT JUST AS A LOBBYIST OR ADVOCATE WILL INFORM YOU FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
THERE MAY BE OTHER VALUABLE POINTS OF VIEW THAT WILL NOT BE BROUGHT OUT IN A FULSOME OR TIMELY FASHION.
IF THERE IS NO TIMELY DISCLOSURE REGARDING ADVOCACY ON THIS ISSUE.
I, I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT ON CALENDARING.
UM, I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, THEY ALREADY GO ON A CALENDAR SO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE MEETING WITH, WHEN YOU'RE MEETING WHERE YOU NEED TO BE, ET CETERA.
I WOULD LIKE THAT THE, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS THIS, THEY DO CONSIDER A REQUIREMENT TO CALENDAR UNSCHEDULED MEETINGS.
WE, THEY NEED TO BE DEFINED OF SOME DURATION OR, UH, OF, UH, WITH SOME BOX AROUND IT.
AND PUTTING THAT ON THE CALENDAR SIMPLY MEANS AFTER A 20 MINUTE DISCUSSION ON A MATTER WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW THAT WASN'T PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED, EITHER YOU OR YOUR STAFF NEED TO INPUT MEETING WITH SO AND SO REGARDING ISSUE ONE, THEN THE CALENDAR WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED.
WITH THAT, I, I, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE REMAINDER OF THE FAIR ACT, I WANNA NOTE THAT THE CITY AUDITOR HIRED AN OUTSIDE FIRM TO ASSESS THE CITY'S ETHICS PROGRAM.
IN A REPORT OUT IN 2020, THAT FIRM NOTED THE LACK OF A CONSOLIDATED ETHICS CODE AS AN ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY.
THE FAIR ACT RESPONDS TO THAT IDENTIFIED WEAKNESS, AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR ACT, THE LOBBYING PROVISIONS, OR ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS AT YOUR CONVENIENCE.
UM, MY NAME IS CELESTE WILSON.
I AM THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER FOR THE LONG BEACH AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE POLICY INTEREST OF OUR MEMBER ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS JUST SHY OF 1100 MEMBERS.
UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE FAIR ACT, WE ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGING THAT THE, UH, SPECIFIC 5 0 1 C3 EXEMPTION NOT BE INCLUDED.
UM, OUR APPROACH TO THIS, WE LOVE THE IDEA OF TRANSPARENCY.
WE ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE.
UM, BUT OUR APPROACH TO IT IS, UH, EVERYBODY IS EXEMPTED.
SO ALL 5 0 1 CS OR NOBODY IS EXEMPTED.
UH, CREATING THIS SPECIFIC CARVE OUT FOR
[00:30:01]
5 0 1 C THREES IS NOT ACTUALLY, I THINK, REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE FAIR ACT IS TRYING TO DO.UM, ALSO IN THE STAFF BREAKDOWN, IT KIND OF SAYS THAT 5 0 1 C THREES ARE INCREDIBLY LIMITED BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN ITS STRUCTURE, IN TERMS OF ITS TAX ACCOUNTABILITY.
UM, HOWEVER, TRYING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN WHAT IS LOBBYING AND WHAT IS ADVOCACY IS KIND OF A PERSON BY PERSON BASIS.
AND ONE MEETING CAN BE AN ADVOCACY MEETING TO ONE PERSON AND A LOBBYING MEETING TO ANOTHER PERSON.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS IT'S A ALL OR NONE APPROACH TO THE CARVE OUT FOR THE 5 0 1 C EXEMPTIONS.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALRIGHT, UH, SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT.
IF ANYONE AT THIS TIME WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WANTED TO SPEAK, SEEING NA CHAIR.
ALRIGHT, UM, I DECLARE THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.