I knew heading into the Sept. 20 Madison Common Council meeting that it was going to be a long night. The agenda posted on the city website was 55 pages long and two contentious issues were open for debate: the smoking ban and the lobbying ordinance.

Though I attended primarily to hear the smoking ban debate, I decided to study up a little on the lobbying ordinance before the meeting. From what I could read online, the compromise reached between the city and local businesses seemed reasonable, if not ideal.

Proponents of the changes lauded the compromising parties for finding a solution that "protects small businesses" and made city government more accessible and easy to navigate. It turns out the lobbying ordinance wasn't as perfect as I thought — and the main reason I know this now is thanks to the numerous, but pointed, questions raised during discussion of the ordinance by Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2.

The meeting had already been going on for about two and a half hours before the council started their portion of the debate on the ordinance, but there seemed to be a collective understanding in the room that this ordinance was not going to be passed without a fight. The council had the opportunity to postpone debate until a different night (in order to get to the smoking ban), but that motion was soundly defeated, 14-4.

Members who voted to deal with the issue as scheduled were kidding themselves if they didn't foresee a lengthy debate. Ald. Konkel, one of the leaders in pushing for a stricter retooling of the lobbying ordinance, had not been present during the discussions that led to its final compromise. Of course she was going to take issue with the new portions she felt weakened the ordinance's purpose!

While I didn't necessarily agree with all of Ald. Konkel's complaints, I certainly learned more details about the ordinance that weren't mentioned in the public discussions leading up to the council's consideration of the revisions. The lengthy debate also revealed clues about individual members' dispositions and concern (or lack thereof) for the public's right to know who is trying to affect city policy.

The first fact that became evident during Ald. Konkel's questioning was that the lobbying ordinance contains more loopholes than its proponents let on. The most odious of these shortcomings would exempt employees who are paid to lobby on behalf of their employers from having to register as lobbyists. A business owner could be paying his or her entire staff to lobby the city council and they wouldn't have to disclose their relationship to the business.

Ald. Larry Palm, District 15, correctly pointed out that the bar employees who showed up that night to testify against the smoking ban could be getting paid by their employers to do so and that under this exemption the public would not have the right to know. Observers around me seemed surprised that this would be allowed — this was never highlighted in the press releases about the compromise leading up to the Sept. 20 meeting. This obvious defect, brought to light by Ald. Konkel, was given little thought by many members of the council who seemed to have already made their minds up about the way they were voting on the ordinance. Ald. Konkel's amendment to rectify this loophole was defeated 11-8. The opposing members' votes seemed to be as much an expression of their anger that Ald. Konkel wanted to debate ordinance language as actual conviction that employees should be allowed to be paid for participating in lobbying activities.

In addition to exposing the revised lobbying ordinance's shortcomings and ambiguities, Ald. Konkel's questions also prompted interesting responses from other council members. While some alders listened attentively to Ald. Konkel's questions for clarification, keeping their minds open to remedying the loopholes she identified, others, perhaps afraid of what they might learn from debating her points, angrily closed their minds to her suggestions. It's sad that some alders seemed more concerned with performing exasperated sighs and rolling their eyes than fixing the ordinance at hand. In doing this, they deflected their responsibilities as guardians of the public interest by using Ald. Konkel's extensive objections as a distraction.

The council meeting that night lasted nearly 12 hours, but I walked away early that morning with a much-needed reminder about civics and local government. I saw firsthand how policy is enacted at the local level, and unfortunately witnessed the ramifications of incomplete debate within the political process.

Liz Sanger ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in literature and violin performance.