I'm actually more interested in who makes political contributions. I'm not sure making certain people register as lobbyists will accomplish anything more than just keeping a complete list of who meets with councilors and the purpose of the meeting. I would argue almost anyone who meets or talks to a councilor is probably lobbying for something.Seems like a no brainer to have it and should have been universally implemented after Iveson made his public voluntarily.
That said, I don’t think lobbying was much of the reason this was sole sourced but the cost saving realities of using the same GC who is building/has built all the existing structures and infrastructure on-site. But I do think a question could be raised about public transparency for exactly the reasons why admin chose to recommend this be sole sourced.
In this particular case the argument may be tangential for councilors, if the recommendation came from the administration, but I would also agree there should be a complete list of who meets with senior administration and the purpose of the meeting.
I can understand the reason for the sole source decision in this case to integrate using the same GC, but I agree it probably would have been better to go through a bidding process.
I would also be interested to know the reasons the previous council did not create a lobbyist registry.