Print 🖨

Senate Local Government met on April 6 to take up a number of bills. This report covers discussions concerning SB 10 (Bettencourt et al.), SB 1437 (Bettencourt), and SB 1879 (Bettencourt et al.). A video of the hearing can be found here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Vote Outs

CSSB 604 (Bettencourt, Birdwell) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

SB 630 (Hinojosa) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

SB 659 (Buckingham) (5 ayes, 4 nays)

SB 725 (Schwertner et al.) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

CSSB 916 (Seliger) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

SB 1212 (Seliger) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

SB 1338 (Zaffirini) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

CSSB 1355 (Taylor) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

CSSB 526 (Kolkhorst) (9 ayes, 0 nays)

  • Kolkhorst – Main concerns were the cost of livestreaming and posting videos about meetings from special purpose districts and other stakeholders
  • CS eliminates the requirements they post/livestream each meeting on their website
  • Incorporates flexibility in the location for the in-person meeting requirements
  • Provision for rural districts that they have quarterly meetings

 

SB 1437 (Bettencourt) – Relating to the requirement that certain municipalities and counties conduct an efficiency audit before holding an election to approve the adoption of certain ad valorem tax rates

  • Audit would take place to find efficiencies/savings prior to the vote to approve a tax rate
  • Hall – Why does this only apply to those with a certain number of the population? Why limit to 500,000?
    • Is bracketed down, would like to talk to you to extend that at some point
    • Is the same in HB 3
  • Hall – How much do these cost?
    • Low $10,000s
  • Eckhardt – Efficiency audits are expensive, but supports the audits themselves; not a fan of a prescribed list/criteria and local officials would be better suited for that
  • Eckhardt – What do you anticipate is the timeframe for these audits?
    • Passed the same kind of audits in HB 3, could go into the six digits for a universal audit
    • Audits can have large cost savings
  • Eckhardt – Would you look at a cyclical audit schedule rather than before an election?
    • Will hear from testimony on that

 

Susan A. Spataro, Self – For

  • Was the auditor in Travis County and a CPA
  • Need to be careful on what is being spent
  • Austin passed a 24.55% tax increase, so there needs to be an examination over raises over 3.5%
  • Governments need to cover basics first rather than funding non-essential things; efficiency audit would help with this
  • Bettencourt – You are confident there is a major payoff from these audits?
    • You have to define what you are looking for because if you do not, they could be expensive
  • Eckhardt – Spot audits are helpful, but an increase in the tax rate is a global response; concerned this is another “check the box” hurdle
    • Needs to be more scrutiny; need to see what those increases would be for
    • This is a good step
  • Eckhardt – That measure was voted for? There is a statutory provision for an automatic 5% budget increase for auditors annually?
    • Not sure; the tax rate passed because people thought it was a bond issue and people did not understand that
  • Eckhardt – It passed overwhelmingly; asks again about the 5% budget increase
    • Not sure if that is true

 

James Quintero, Texas PPF – For

  • Voters need to have the verified expertise that a tax increase is necessary
  • Audit is focused on fiscal management and operational opportunity
  • Concerned about the amount of federal funds that will be unleased on local governments; bill will be a good tool to work through this

SB 1437 left pending

 

SB 10  (Bettencourt et al.) (CS) – Relating to the use by a county or municipality of public money for lobbying activities

  • Bettencourt – Was estimated $40 million was spent on taxpayer lobbying where funds could be better spent on items in better interest
  • CS limits the power of cities and counties from spending funds for lobbying; only applies if they register under Chapter 305
  • Does not prevent a city/county for a non-profit or related entity to advocate for certain legislation, just those who filed under Chapter 305
  • Cities/counties may not establish a non-profit that advocates for legislation
  • Citizens may seek injunctive relief when the local government is under violation of the law

 

SB 1879 (Bettencourt et al.) – Relating to the authorization and reporting of expenditures for lobbying activities by certain political subdivisions and other public entities

  • Bettencourt – is a transparency bill; governing body must approve this as a standalone item on the agenda
  • Disclosures must be made on the Ethics website and the entity’s website on such lobbying expenditures
  • Political subdivision fails to do so, may seek injunctive relief; similar to SB 27 from last session
  • Hall – Thanks for both bills; SB 1879, does “political subdivision” include a school district?
    • Yes; covers all taxing entities who must disclose how much they are spending
  • Hall – But SB 10 only applies to a city or county? School districts may spend the money, but must tell about it?
    • Yes
  • Hall – Bill did include schools last time and died in the House; and previous intent was to include them
  • Hall – Can we continue to get a bill where schools are included in it
    • Will continue conversations with whatever you want to
  • Eckhardt – Why is that SB 10 only covers cities and counties?
    • Like how we compartmentalized before by splitting it up by city/county and then schools
  • Eckhardt – Language in both “indirectly/attempt” to influence outcome of legislation? What is the difference here?
    • Attempted to clarify as it applies to those closely associated with cities/counties
    • Prohibition against property tax lobbying
  • Eckhardt – CS still has that language in it though?
    • Is not a prohibition on behavior, but trying to tighten up that associations can testify except on property tax issues?
    • Can get more legal definition from ledge council
  • Eckhardt – Bill intends to prevent a lobbyist on contract?
    • Yes; is intent there is no primary lobbyist for a city/county
  • Eckhardt – Is no prohibition on employing a lobbyist through session?
    • No prohibition to monitor; but those temporary/full time employees would not fall under the definition
    • From an operations point, there is no difference; intent is to prohibit…
  • Eckhardt – Whether paying a contract lobbyist or a full time equivalent, it is the same?
    • Public objects to hiring third-party lobbyists especially on property tax issues
  • Eckhardt – Why not just have everyone who is lobbying register? Whether state or local
    • Could make your own bill about this
  • Eckhardt – A contract lobbyist during session is cheaper than an equivalent
    • Is data that says otherwise
  • Eckhardt – Hired contract capacity are usually lawyers/financial experts who lobby; why would we not want that information?
    • That information would come through already
  • Eckhardt – Is about rented capacity; many would not want bond council/financial advisor on staff as they are too expensive; if they are under contract and they come to talk to legislators about a bill, that would be prevented
    • If they are registered under 305, then that would be prevented
    • Total lobbying expenditures in Austin
    • With your example, I would respectfully say that argument was a red herring
    • Austin the range was 575 to 1 million in 2017, in 2021 it’s projected to only be 300k-600k
    • Substantial expenditures that are unnecessary in this day & age
  • Eckhardt – Highlights Statesman article on lobbying, public compensation is significantly lower than private lobbyists; if we silence local official’s agents, amplifying private sector that can spend much more
    • One of the things about SB 1879 is if it had passed we would already know if this article is correct
    • What I’ve seen & what resonates with the public is when the public has to fight through their own tax money to get property tax relief
    • What private business does with their own money is up to them
  • Eckhardt – What if a lawyer lobbyist advises a city manager on a regulation that carves out certain services
    • Do not want to get into hypotheticals, but can get an opinion
  • Eckhardt – Language covering attempt seems to apply to lawyer lobbyist
    • If they’re registering under 305 they can’t do it
  • Eckhardt – Why have a private cause of action
    • Some ability of the public to find out what is wrong and get results is important
  • Eckhardt – Highlights inability of some local officials to be present at hearings & need for representatives
  • Eckhardt – Ethics Commission can create a lobbyist list, state and local, why not make this shall?
    • Bill basically does this, just adds expenditures as well
  • Gutierrez – Full time employees required to register under 305?
    • Yes
  • Gutierrez – You are allowing cities and counties to come with full time employees
    • Yes, would still need to register under 305
  • Gutierrez – You are not allowing them to hire outside bill
    • Correct
  • Gutierrez – Statute also provides that employees can advocate if those actions would not require registrations?
    • Trying to avoid stampede of registrations under 305, not making changes to who is a lobbyist under 305
    • Clarifies that you cannot hire someone who is already registered under 305 and do this conduct either
  • Gutierrez – CS is trying to fix it
    • Someone doing something that falls under 305, must fall under 305
  • Gutierrez – What if city hires a lobbyist on non-property tax issues
    • Any primary expenditure for contract lobbyists is not allowed
  • Gutierrez – So almost superfluous to have property tax language?
    • That is the association portion

 

Cheryl Johnson, Galveston Tax Assessor Collector – For

  • Will continue to have the ability to testify on, for, or against bills as a public official
  • Highlights info on lobbyist expenses and local lobbyists hired
  • Concerned about exclusion of the association escape hatch, associations previously worked to strip tax assessor collector powers
  • Voters of both parties support prohibiting taxpayer funded lobbying
  • Confused on SB 1869, concerned it would prevent public officials from taking a position
  • Bettencourt – What would the residents of Galveston County say about this issue?
    • They would say it’s criminal that county or city could use taxpayer funds against them
  • Gutierrez – Understand the tax portion; sometimes city and county officials need to hire an outside lobbyist to discuss water issues, what happens then?
    • They have a relationship with state Rep. and Sen., work with them to pass things
  • Gutierrez – What if a large corporation hires a large team of lobbyists to mess with projects to the detriment of local communities
    • Would work with local communities, legislature does a great job of listening to concerns

 

Bruce Houghtsy, Let the People Vote – For

  • Lobbyists are very present at the Capitol, cities have major influence & make amendments in their favor against voters and citizens
  • Bettencourt – What do you think the average person thinks about fight for property tax relief and the fact that so many cities fought them with their own tax dollars?
    • Concerned about how often and the extent cities will go to
  • Gutierrez – Are you okay with cities hiring lobbyists to talk about water or eminent domain issues? Sounds to me like you’re advocating on the tax side?
    • Have had issues with Houston over water, bond issues were moved up to Austin which takes significant time and effort to combat
    • Bonds can cause water rates to rise, etc.
    • Citizens can’t afford to fight these issues, have hired lawyers
  • Gutierrez – So lawyers could represent citizens
    • Houston has a team of lawyers, plenty of people work at the local level and can advocate for city issues

 

Susan Spataro, Self – For

  • Tax is an involuntary taking, have a greater responsibility when doing this and citizens have right to look at everything being spent
  • Hired lobbyists are a hidden/non-transparent cost to the taxpayer
  • Supports TAC and COC; if they want to testify, the cities/counties should come

 

Judge Rich Aubin, Councilmember City of Garland – Against SB 10 and For SB 1879

  • Officials cannot achieve the level of knowledge of those who have experience; citizens need an educated voice at the table
  • Indirectly support language is not attempting to block cities/counties conduct their business
    • For example, would affiliations with Dell be “indirectly supporting”

 

Judge Joe Shuster, County Judge Pecos – Against SB 10

  • From a rural county 350 miles from Austin; when we need representation, either hire a lobbyist or utilize the Texas Association of County Judges/Commissioners
  • Provides an anecdote of bills they had to fight against creation of a water district; citizens did not complain about the ability
  • Gutierrez – So you had to hire designated experts to litigate/lobby for you
    • Yes, and we did hire lobbyists
  • Gutierrez – How long have you been an elected official?
    • 19th year as county judge and previously mayor of Fort Stockton for 12 years
  • Gutierrez – Your constituents trusted you in hiring these experts/ this is about local control for municipalities to decide what they need to do
    • Yes; agrees, are urban and rural communities who are in same
  • Gutierrez – Concerned this bill starts a cause of action for citizens to sue the county/city?
    • Yes, would be crazy
  • Bettencourt – Is a third way, you being here to drive in and testify
    • Have learned a lot, but need those experts on their advice
  • Bettencourt – Did not need those experts when you testified against SB 2 or now
  • Eckhardt – Have you read the CS? The author has taken associations out unless they pay or a lobbyist or advocate on property taxes?
    • Is cherry-picking; schools have lobbyists, TAC, and other organizations do
    • If we do this, Texas Association of County Judges/Commissioners will not be able to serve us; is a gag of local control
    • If you want to cherry-pick, go against those who abuse the system

 

A.J. Louderback, Sheriff’s Association of Texas – Against SB 10

  • Concerned whether or not a sheriff can spend travel funds and use county equipment to get here
  • Bettencourt – Is nothing in the bill that would prevent you from coming here as you have; trying to get elected officials up here
  • Hall – Have heard this, and is a mischaracterization of the bill by organizations
  • Bettencourt – Can be reimbursed for travel expenses; does not know where you have heard that
  • Eckhardt – Does the Sheriff’s association have a contract lobbyist; that would be barred by the CS, does that concern you?
    • Yes; and rely on their advice
  • Eckhardt – Do you and other counties rely on TAC?
  • Eckhardt – Notes that “direct” or “indirect” language concerning property taxes be an issue
    • Property taxes are a budgetary item; biggest concern was limitations of our voice
  • Eckhardt – Concerned about a sheriff’s department that advocates for compensation could be affected by this bill
    • Is outside of our scope; budget comes from the court
  • Menendez – Would you hire a lobbyist who would work against the best interest of your constituents
    • Would not do that

 

Commissioner David Stout, El Paso County – Against

  • Oppose restrictions on local governments to communicate with the legislature/agencies
  • Aware of CS changes, still prevents them for advocating for us; want interests to be represented
  • Are a part of the Texas Association of Counties and Association of Urban Counties who help monitor/advocate for best interests
  • Is the second time to testify against these types of bills; is time spent away from constituents/county issues
  • Would increase the cost of travel expenses and staff costs
  • Menendez – Did you hear the budget debate? Would it surprise you to hear the state gave the AG’s office $40 million to hire outside counsel to sue Google?
    • Did not; and does seem like counties/cities are being held to the same standard
  • Bettencourt – You testified against SB 2 last session, so you did not hire anyone either time
    • Yes, but we are here because the legislature wants us to be here
  • Bettencourt – Not here to debate SB 2
  • Gutierrez – If you are not monitoring consistently, who do you pay to be able to do that, an expert
  • Gutierrez – You need experts that are watching at the capacity they can
  • Eckhardt – You mentioned holding cities/counties at different standards; can you give us examples of necessary lobbying?
    • We see the state going to D.C. to lobby for immigration issues and border security issue
    • Ultimate disdain is people trying to tell local communities what to do
  • Bettencourt – You have come here as an elected official and that is the intent of the bill
    • Cannot be here 24 hours a day seven days a week to cover the bills we want

 

Mia Garza McCord, Texas Conservative Coalition – For

  • SB 10 does not prevent localities from using their voice; prohibits the hiring of lobbyists using taxpayers’ funds
  • SB 2 was an example of how elected officials who came to speak against constituent’s wants
  • Concerned elected officials do not have direct access to representatives/senators
  • Prevents taxpayers from being misrepresented using their own money
  • Eckhardt – Asks about the type of organization they are; are you lobbying today?
    • Are a 501C3; yes
  • Eckhardt – Is the tax exemption a form of taxpayer lobbying?
    • Does not think so

 

Gil Hernandez, Mayor Pro Tem Corpus Christi – Against SB 10 On SB 1879

  • With SB 1879, are not against it, but are concern about some of the language Eckhardt has talked about; could be more specific on violations
  • Could tie up cities in a lot of expensive lawsuits; should maybe go through the Ethics Commission
  • Are unintended consequences for SB 10; currently spend $110,000 on a government relations person, could spend five times that if it were in-house
  • Would not be able to match the spending power of privately funded lobbyists
  • Important we have expertise in the process to help eliminate costs as much as we can, we spend $112,000
  • Menendez – Are you fiscally conservative?
    • If you ask my counterparts on city council they would probably say yes
  • Menendez – You are here in regards to TWEA?
    • They constantly try to raise rates, so we constantly have to monitor
  • Menendez – You cannot pay all your incentives with the $8,000 a year?
    • We are reimbursed for travel and I own a consulting company, but this takes time away from that
  • Bettencourt – Corpus Christi is spending $423,000 to $886,000 on total lobbying expenses from 2017-2021?
    • On an annual basis we went up from $108,000 – $112,000
  • Bettencourt – How much is this over the 4 year period?
    • $400,000, it is 4 times to have an expert in session and legal advice
  • Bettencourt – Since you are a Republican, how would your city vote on SB 10?
    • Removed language from being sent here specifically on SB 10, had very little influence, had no problem with the cap, this will add costs
  • Bettencourt – By sitting here you are not creating any costs, I’m fascinated with the pay
  • Springer – We have not had the chance to have the conversation, but I assume you don’t want to see Gainesville suffer?
    • I do not
  • Springer – Your lobbyist did, I would rather talk to the source, your lobbyists could have a target on your head
    • I am not aware of these efforts and that wasn’t our intent
  • Springer – When you hire a lobbyist, they have other influences in their clients and that could contradict with your intentions
    • We just need a professional advocate for the city
  • Hall – One of the issues we face here is small and big towns, urban and rural
    • Correct
  • Hall – The lobbyists are being paid by urban and rural clients, hard to tell who they are representing, would rather hear from an elected official
    • I do not have an issue against SB 2, but my council did, professional advocacy helps us limit costs
  • Hall – I am saying it wouldn’t cost as much with your hired advocacy
    • Even with the advocacy, our city’s position was against it
  • Eckhardt – Your annual for lobbying was $112,000?
    • Correct
  • Eckhardt – It is a flat contract?
    • Correct, we also have a federal contract for $6,500 per month
  • Eckhardt – How many FTEs could you pay for?
    • One or less than one
  • Eckhardt – SB 1879 is good transparency?
    • Yes, a process to keep us out of litigation would be helpful on SB 10

 

Judge Ben Zeller, Victoria County Judge – Against SB 10

  • Provided support to 254 commissioner courts in Texas by weeding through legislation
  • The substitute bill has some improvements, but SB 10 would prevent counties working on issues relating to property taxes
  • Hard to afford advocacy from a rural perspective, forced to neglect other duties or be excluded from other local processes
  • False claim to say that associations work against interest of property taxpayers, want to end the practice of raising property taxes
  • County officials have duties and responsibilities outside of this purview
  • Language in substitute would cut out many associations that defended us and many can’t afford an individual
  • Hypocrisy, the state spends tens of millions of taxpayer funded lobbying at the federal level, do as I say not as I do
  • Eckhardt – Are you in favor of SB 1879?
    • I am not familiar with it

 

Judge Rick Hill, Brazos County Justice of the Peace Precinct 3 – Against SB 10

  • Rely on consultants so we can focus on local issues
  • Without the assistance, I would be less efficient in proposing legislation to benefit constituents
  • Open discussion is key to bright future
  • Bettencourt – This does not prevent your association from helping
    • What about our consultant?
  • Bettencourt – The purpose is to not have a pass through the primary consultant, existing staff is not affected
    • I would not be where I am today without the consultant
  • Bettencourt – The bill is trying to get you to this instead of the lobbyists
    • SB 2 was the first time I came to testify, I have other priorities
  • Bettencourt – The taxpayers are up in arms about this issue due to strong statewide polling, it is the feeling that the money is used against them
    • When you mention taxpayer funded lobbying the initial reaction is bad, but when I explain, they are not as against it
  • Eckhardt – Do you have any intentions running for state government?
    • No
  • Eckhardt – During a session, would you be able to do your jobs?
    • 100% no

 

David Billings, Mayor of Fate – Against SB 10

  • Process is hard to navigate, have to wait 15 hours to testify for 3 minutes
  • Hard to keep track of bills to worry about
  • Sent letters to representatives with no ability to influence
  • Bills get passed in the middle of the night, last second substitutes, etc.
  • Strong laws already in place, bill prevents interaction and data sharing
  • Denies local influence, intent needs to be cleaned up in language
  • Hall – Where did you read the data sharing restrictions?
    • It is under the new section, invited based on request of committee member
  • Hall – It does not, there are organizations that are putting out false information, this does not prevent communication
    • We cannot be there every day to fight these battles
  • Hall – You do not need to be a registered lobbyist to read the bill, this does not prevent people from providing information as long as they aren’t a registered lobbyist
  • Bettencourt – This does not prevent an employee of a local government from appearing in front of a committee
    • The way I read it was to mean that I would have to be invited
  • Bettencourt – The intent is for you to come speak directly
    • I disagree, it prevents our understanding of legislation
  • Eckhardt – I do not believe this bill allows you to utilize lobbyists to help your community understand dangerous bills
    • Correct
  • Eckhardt – Even if you were personally coming to the hearing, you cannot come after receiving advice from a lobbyist?
    • Correct, I cannot be here while running city

 

Connie Schroeder, Bastrop Mayor – Against SB 10 On SB 1879

  • Was happy to see I could be reimbursed for travel and parking
  • Testimony is late and parking can be very expensive
  • Over 2,000 bills impacted a municipality, sometimes good and sometimes bad
  • 7,000 bills is impressive, a lot to keep track of
  • Hard to advocate if I do not fully understand bills

 

Gerald Welty, Convention of States – For SB 10

  • Appalled taxpayer money is funding lobbyists who have conflicting interests
  • Millions of dollars are wasted
  • Bettencourt – Thank you for your support

 

Russell Schaffner, Assistant Tarrant County Administrator – Against SB 10 For SB 1879

  • Judge could not make it to meeting, read letter
  • SB 10 ties the hands of cities and counties
  • Does not ban taxpayer funded lobbying, does not prohibit special tax districts or anyone who can raise property taxes from lobbying, does not prohibit state lobbying, does not prohibit the gift of sports tickets to legislators, etc.
  • Eckhardt – Could you provide the data with regard to state expenditures on lobbying?
    • I can do that

 

Eric Fox, Chairman of the Board of the North Texas Commission – Against SB 10

  • Complaints about using lobbyists to represent communities are minimal
  • Costs could go up at local level, unrealistic to assume locals can be in Austin during session while managing local government
  • Numerous examples of how investments in advocates have helped such as airports, relocations, etc.
  • Want to ensure communities are represented in transparent manner
  • Bettencourt – What is your position on SB 1879?
    • We could be for it, but we need transparency
  • Bettencourt – Have you read the SB 10 substitute?
    • We got it late, but there is still a need to hire full time lobbyists, one person is $550,000, which is approximately one pumper truck
  • Gutierrez – Lots of late night debate that you won’t be available for?
    • Correct
  • Gutierrez – Comprehensive issues require comprehensive efforts, thanks for coming

 

Charles Reed, Assistant Dallas County Administrator – Against SB 10

  • Technical problems with fix requiring a full-time requirement, will hurt smaller municipalities
  • In county land, everything goes to property taxes, can’t not let them talk about it
  • Unclear on where payments can go, if we pay membership dues for attorneys, could be in violation under this law
  • Implementation on September 1st is not in line with our fiscal year that falls on September 30th
  • Eckhardt – The enforcement provision has some vagueness, if the county is following the substitute as written, could the county become liable by inadvertently facilitating lobbying?
    • It could subject them to a lawsuit if anything regarding property taxes is mentioned
  • Eckhardt – If an auditor hired a contract lobbyist, would the county be liable?
    • The Commissioner’s court would be liable, not the auditor

 

Jeff Coyle, Assistant City Manager of San Antonio – Against SB 10

  • The premise that we are acting against taxpayers is not true because we vet the process
  • Contracted lobbyists give presentations and report weekly to the city, as I have done in the past
  • Only hire during legislative years
  • Bettencourt – If you are a full-time employee you are not prohibited from doing this work
    • My understanding is that I would only be able to answer questions if asked
  • Bettencourt – Are you referring to your past role?
    • Yes, I still am doing this on the side
  • Menendez – If the law were in effect, the new person would not be able to lobby?
  • Bettencourt – I do not think they would fall under this timeline
  • Menendez – Why do you hire contract lobbyist?
    • It is a force multiplier, we have two full time employees
  • Menendez – How many bills are you tracking?
    • 2,000
  • Zaffirini – What percentage of your time is spent answering questions from members of the legislature?
    • We often do get calls, but we also work on advancing bills
  • Zaffirini – Do you simultaneously collaborate with other entities?
    • We do work together with other communities for a common goal
  • Zaffirini – So you are cumulatively working for Texas?
    • We work for San Antonio
  • Zaffirini – Do you work with the office of State and Federal Affairs?
    • We have consultants at that level, but it is not a strong partnership
  • Zaffirini – Is there a question that has not been asked?
    • No, but we are proud to represent San Antonio

 

Bill Kelly, Director of Governmental Relations Houston – Against SB 10 Against 1879

  • Houston has a wide array of interests due to its diversity
  • Transparent with testimony and information before city council
  • City hired lobbyists would be prevented while pension boards could still hire under this law
  • Helped secure $200 million from state, and $2 billion from the Federal level for Harvey Recovery
  • Issue has not been raised by a single constituent
  • Zaffirini – What would be the impact of no lobbyists for city and counties?
    • Bills that have insufficient language would result in anti-city bills without even knowing it
    • You would not be able to get the necessary information
  • Bettencourt – Why are you testifying against SB 1879?
    • Capriglione has a bill that is tailored for chapter 305, that one is a better bill than this one
  • Bettencourt – Does your city council take record positions?
    • The bills were not filed yet
  • Bettencourt – You are here for the mayor to oppose these bills?
    • Yes
  • Bettencourt – The intent of SB 10 is transparency and you are the first major association to oppose it, not surprised this is coming from Houston
  • Springer – You are not giving credit to the legislation for the Harvey legislation, I did not talk to a single lobbyist about this
    • On our report, we talked specifically about an amendment added to SB 7 to delineate the match requirement
  • Menendez – How many bills are you tracking?
    • 2,000

 

Adam Haynes, Conference of Urban Counties – For SB 1879 Against SB 10

  • The claims from private individuals give us pause, but transparency helps good stewardship in SB 1879
  • Appreciate the direction of the CS for SB 10, but when you limit counties ability to talk about property taxes you are neglecting that over 90% of the funding is property taxes
  • If we are your partners, it is good to have us at the table so we can implement proper policy
  • Menendez – The state would not move inmates during Covid-19, how much did the counties absorb, do you hire contract lobbyists?
    • We do not hire them
  • Eckhardt – Local contribution and property tax makes up the funding difference, can you give me context about how much Harris County contributes in property taxes on judicial expenditures?
    • I may not be qualified to answer that, counties prosecute and serve as attorney for the kids in cases, payed for by property taxes
  • Eckhardt – How much of the dollar for this is covered by the state?
    • Around 12%
  • Eckhardt – What does silencing county lobbying surrounding expenditures do to you?
    • By and large, property taxes are 95% of our funding

 

Tom Forbes, President of the Professional Advocacy Association of Texas – Against SB 10

  • Need the ability to hire experts they need
  • Requiring registration through the ethics commission is a far better way to regulate this
  • 305 is more effective than an outright ban
  • Zaffirini – What would happen to you if this becomes law?
    • I suppose they will not be able to represent as council
  • Zaffirini – What would be the impact on cities and counties?
    • Cities and counties will not be able to take advantage of the help necessary
  • Eckhardt – Would it be better to register everyone under 305?
    • Yes
  • Eckhardt – So we should change the language from may to shall?
    • Yes

 

James Quintero, Policy Director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation – For SB 10

  • No better cause than to eliminate taxpayer funded lobbying on citizens
  • Doing the right thing is also the popular thing, 9 in 10 Texans oppose taxpayer funded lobbying
  • Status quo enables citizen oppression by pro-government advocates, dilutes first amendment of citizens
  • Zaffirini – Why is there no better cause?
    • It affects everything
  • Zaffirini – It is more important than pro-life?
    • This is an economic issue
  • Zaffirini – I hope you would care about many issues
  • Menendez – You are not required to disclose your donors?
    • No, under law we are not required
  • Menendez – So there is no transparency?
    • It was set by precedent, as established by Alabama v. NAACP
  • Menendez – Are you aware Texas has federal lobbyists?
    • Yes, but they do not register as 305 lobbyists
  • Menendez – Should we suspend this practice?
    • Yes
  • Eckhardt – No compensation in any manner is ideal?
    • Correct
  • Eckhardt – Paying in free office space would not be acceptable?
    • I would question the intent and what it does, but I would not support this
  • Eckhardt – Does the Texas Public Policy Foundation have lobbyists?
    • Yes, out of an abundance of caution
  • Eckhardt – Caution for what?
    • We feel it is necessary to register to avoid the appearance of impropriety
  • Eckhardt – Are you attempting to influencing the outcome if this legislation?
    • Yes
  • Eckhardt – how much money do you spend on your 22 lobbyists?
    • I’m not familiar with their compensation, we separate policy and development so we don’t pollute our research
  • Eckhardt – What is your total budget?
  • Bettencourt – Direct your questions to the bills at hand
  • Eckhardt – You want to ban lobbying, but you lobby at the same time?
    • We finance ourselves, this is related to public funding
  • Eckhardt – Do local governments disclose how much they spend on lobbyists?
    • No
  • Eckhardt – They gave us a handout
    • Those are estimated ranges and projections, had to send public information requests, not disclosing entirety of expenditures
  • Eckhardt – Counties and cities have to publish adopted budgets?
    • Yes
  • Eckhardt – They have to respond to open record requests?
    • In normal times yes, but a lot of jurisdictions did not disclose this during Covid-19
  • Eckhardt – So why don’t you disclose your finances?
    • We are privately funded and they can withdraw at any time
  • Eckhardt – Isn’t your building on Congress Ave. taxpayer funded?
    • We follow current law regarding taxes, it is funded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation
  • Menendez – Your testimony leads me to believe that government entities should not use taxpayer dollars to fund what they do not want?
    • Local governments should not hire contract lobbyists
  • Menendez – What if my residents do not support funding suing Google outlined in the budget?
    • Was there a governmental entity lobbying for the inclusion of that is the question I would ask
  • Menendez – I see a disconnect in the lack of how we spend the money vs how locals spend the money
  • Bettencourt – What does your research show about taxpayer funded lobbying?
    • It increases spending, government, and taxes
    • Goal is to incentivize local officials participation in the process

 

Rick Bailey, Commissioner in Johnson County – Against SB 10

  • County Judges are opposed to this bill
  • We pay $3,000 per year in contributions
  • Larger counties hire lobbyists, but we do not hire lobbyists
  • Travel here on my own dime, depend greatly on associations
  • Zaffirini – Have you collaborated with county judges in other counties?
    • Yes, amongst other locals
  • Zaffirini – Have you reached out to your elected officials?
    • Yes, and they support this bill, so that is why I am here
  • Zaffirini – Would it be possible to collect data on the percentage of elected local officials that oppose this?
    • We just ask around, but they have proposed resolutions against this
  • Zaffirini – It would be persuasive to see this
  • Hall – What is the population of Johnson County?
    • 164,000, anticipate 175,000 with next census
  • Hall – How many local officials oppose this bill?
    • All that I know
  • Hall – So a dozen out of the rest of the population, completely ignoring the citizens will
    • The senator and state representatives are supposed to listen to the local elected officials
    • The word lobbyists has always been a four letter word, but transparency is great and is why we aren’t opposed to SB 1879
  • Bettencourt – 16,420 people voted against taxpayer lobbying in the Republican primary in 2020, a rate of 96%
    • The way it was written was very misconstrued, but the R next to my name does not mean RINO

SB 10 and SB 1879 left pending