CC 07-06-2023 Item No. 13. Regulation of Lobbying Activities Ordinance_Desk Item1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: July 6, 2023
Agenda Item #13
Subject
Introduction of Ordinance No. 23‐2249, amending Municipal Code Chapter 2.100
(Regulation of Lobbying Activities).
Recommended Action
Conduct a first reading of Ordinance No. 23‐2249: ʺAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER
2.100ʺ (Regulation of Lobbying Activities).
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from Councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: What much legal fees the City has spent in response to the LWV‐Cupertino‐
Sunnyvale lawsuit? How many city staff hours have spent in response to the lawsuit?
(Chao)
Staff response: Through June 15, 2023, the City has incurred $47,217 in legal fees in defending
against the lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Cupertino‐Sunnyvale (“LWVCS”).
The City does not have an estimate of the amount of staff time spent on the response to the lawsuit.
Q2: From the staff report, it is unclear that the City in fact has been successful in
defending the lobbying ordinance adopted in February 2020. Please clarify. The staff
reports reads: ʺThe City moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to
state a claim for relief under the federal or state constitutions, and the court granted the
City’s motion on May 1, 2023. LWVCS was granted leave to file an amended complaint.ʺ
My understanding is that the court found the LWVCS complaint has no legal basis and
dismissed the complaint. But it is not clear from the staff report. Please clarify. (Chao)
Staff response: The staff report notes that LWVCS’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend
because it failed to state a claim for relief under the U.S. or California constitutions.
2
Q3: (Chao) [omitted – the question discloses attorney‐client communications]
Q4: Why is the City negotiating with LWVCS if the court has dismissed their complaint?
(This is the question on the mind of a few members of the public. So, I feel I cannot
sufficiently answer their questions with appropriate languages) (Chao)
Staff response: The City’s litigation strategy is confidential and privileged and cannot be disclosed
in open session.
Q5: The staff report states: ʺThe City Attorney’s Office has also consulted with LWVCS,
which has provided input on clarifying language and various policy issues.ʺ What input
has been provided beyond the lawsuit? (Chao)
Staff response: The City Council has been provided with a confidential memorandum that
discusses the proposed revisions to the ordinance. The content of discussions between the City
Attorney’s Office and LWVCS are confidential settlement communications, and any attempt to
characterize the discussions as requested would require disclosure of confidential attorney work
product. The proposed ordinance provided with the agenda materials reflects the recommendations
of the City Attorney’s Office, which are based on its own analysis of the ordinance.
Q6: Prior to the adoption of the Lobbying Ordinance in February 2020 or shortly after,
has the LWV‐Cupertino‐Sunnyvale sent any communication to the City to express their
concerns? If so, please provide any relevant communication to and from LWV. (Chao)
Staff response: Staff is not aware of any such communication. It is unclear why such
correspondence would be germane to the ordinance amendments presently before the City Council.
Q7: At any time before the lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2022, has there been any
communication from the LWV‐Cupertino‐Sunnyvale to the City to express any concerns
on the Lobbying Ordinance? If so, please provide any relevant communication to and
from LWV. (Chao)
Staff response: Staff is not aware of any such communication. It is unclear why such
correspondence would be germane to the ordinance amendments presently before the City Council.
Q8: Since the Cityʹs Lobbying Ordinance is based on the City of Santa Claraʹs and some
from San Joseʹs. Has there been any lawsuit challenging other lobbying ordinance?
(Chao)
Staff response: The City of San José’s lobbying ordinance was upheld against a similar
constitutional challenge. (See Smith v. City of José, 2013 WL 6665712 (Cal. Ct. App. 6th Dist.
Dec. 17, 2013).) The City Attorney’s Office is not aware of any litigation involving the City of
Santa Clara’s lobbying ordinance.
3
Q9: Please provide all the court documents to/from the City and the LWV if they are
public records. (Chao)
Staff response: It would not be practicable to include all of the court documents from LWVCS’s
lawsuit in the agenda materials, and the parties’ legal arguments are not a proper subject for
discussion in open session.
Q10: To this date, I am still confused as to which part of the Lobbying Ordinance the
LWV‐Cupertino‐Sunnyvale takes issue with, which must be addressed in a lawsuit.
Please summarize the issues raised by the July 19, 2022 if it is appropriate to do so. Or
please point me to any previous summary or news release from the city with such
information. (Chao)
Staff response: The City Council has been provided with a confidential memorandum that includes
a summary of LWVCS’s arguments.
Q11: Which part of the recommended revisions would address the concerns raised by the
LWV‐Cupertino‐Sunnyvale? What other issues they have requested , but are not
included in the recommendation What other issues they have raised that have no legal
basis? (Chao)
Staff response: The City Council has been provided with a confidential memorandum that
discusses the proposed revisions to the ordinance. Addressing these questions in open session
would require the disclosure of confidential attorney work product.
Q12: What other cities and counties in Bay Area have lobbying ordinances? If the
information is readily available. (Chao)
Staff response: Among jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, staff is aware of lobbyist registration
requirements in the cities of Santa Clara, San José, Milpitas, and Gilroy and in Santa Clara
County.
Q13: In order to determine which option to choose below, I need more information on the
current registration statistics. How many registrations are there and their compensation
levels. (Chao)
Section 2.100.030: Revises the definitions of Lobbying and Lobbyist, including
the deletion of the registration requirements for “Expenditure Lobbyists.”
Option A: Retain the existing $1,000 threshold compensation for registration as
a Contract
Lobbyist.
Option B: Increase the threshold compensation to $5,000 threshold for
registration.
4
Staff response: For the most recent reporting period, two contract lobbyists submitted quarterly
reports. Neither reported receiving any compensation during the quarter.
Q14: Would there be any impact on staff time between quarterly versus semi‐annual
reporting? I heard that the City of Santa Clara is the only one with semi‐annual reporting,
is that true? Whatʹs the reporting period for other cities, like San Jose and Santa Clara
County? (Chao)
Section 2.100.100: Replaces quarterly reporting requirements with semi‐annual
reporting, consistent with the City of Santa Clara ordinance, in order to reduce
the burden of administering the ordinance
Staff response: Jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have reporting periods that range from weekly
(San José) to semi‐annually (City of Santa Clara). Staff recommends that Council adopt a semi‐
annual reporting requirement due to the small number of lobbyists registered under the ordinance.
The reduced reporting frequency would reduce the administrative burden on the Clerk’s Office.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.100 (clean)
B. Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.100 (blackline)