That's the purpose of the contract. 191 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731
Right. So from your perspective, you are doing your job as you signed up for it and signed on the dotted line for.
And this is not an issue that I'm unfamiliar with, even in the private sector, where the holding company may have three executives and they charge to the various subsidiaries, which is consistently reviewed by regulatory authorities and governmental authorities to assure that excess allocations are not being made to regulate the jobs.
So in the final analysis, Madame Solicitor, notwithstanding the 1983 opinion, which was based on an analysis having been done of the two senior executives at that time and what they were doing, does this opinion have any particular basis with regard to 192 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 how expenses are split between PFMC and PGW based on the contracts that were signed by the individuals and in lieu of the fact that no 5 analysis has apparently been done to make any determination that they are operating outside of the jobs for which they signed up for and signed a contract for? You can give me the long answer or you can say yes.
Has the '83 opinion overruled your more recent 1998 opinions? Does it have -- the question earlier today was, when we didn't have the '83, was: Does your November 17, 1998 opinion change in any way, shape, or form as a result of your opportunity from a couple of hours ago to read the 1983 opinion which the Finance Director said you were not aware of or possibly not aware of at the time and put forth an opinion dated November 17, 1998, which may be affected by an opinion which you had not read?
Councilman, the short answer to your question is that the 1983 opinion does not overrule the opinion that I've 193 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 issued. And based upon my reading of it, what I said previously was that I certainly would be willing to reconsider my opinion, but I do not think it's necessary to reconsider my opinion. First of all, I don't necessarily read this as being inconsistent. But frankly, to the extent that it's inconsistent, my view is that it is no longer controlling in any event. I think if the point of bringing the opinion to your attention was to simply explain that there certain had been a reason from, let's say, 1983 to 1993 for the company to have engaged in a certain practice, then the opinion, I think, sheds some light on why things were being done in a certain way at that time.
And I don't necessarily think if we go through an analysis and we go through and are very clear about the allocation of expenses, that we wouldn't necessarily reach a conclusion that's similar with regard to certain of the functions. That hasn't occurred. It may be something that the board elects to do. 194 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 But, again, what the opinion does not say is that all employment expenses are properly allocated to PGW. It clearly recognizes that for the chief executive officer, it does not stand for the proposition that any of the costs of employment are allocable to PGW. That's number one, it deals with these two particular officers. Number two, it clearly recognizes that to the extent that they are performing duties as COO and CFO, those are allocable to the management fee. That is what my opinion says. So to that extent, they are not consistent. If the rationale for charging benefits to PGW is based on the notion that for these officers that are performing duties outside the scope of their employment, they're literally working under that scenario outside of the scope of their duties and it's proper to charge it to PGW, we may end up reaching a similar conclusion if we do an analysis of functions. But that's not where we are today, and I don't think that that's inconsistent with the opinion that I've issued.
Last statement. 195 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 Madame Solicitor, I would like to formally make an opinion request of you, in light of the earlier discussion, if not debate, about privilege and confidentiality with regard to solicitor opinions. I would like to formally request in this hearing an opinion of you as to the nature of privilege and confidentiality of opinions as issued by the City Solicitor and the Law Department and who has the right to receive and release the opinion, notwithstanding any other person in the government.
Councilman Nutter, I will go a step further. This, I consider to be a public request. I think it's important for all of our clients to understand what the protocol is. The protocol was established before I became city solicitor. I will make sure that we recirculate it. We will address in the opinion the issues of privilege and confidentiality. But I do think it's important for all of our clients to understand the opinion protocol. All of our clients are entitled to privilege and confidentiality. And all of our 196 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 clients have the right to work with the Law Department on a confidential basis. And they have the right to request opinions. And they the right to elect to release it publicly or not.
Because if that wasn't the case, then theoretically, I guess, if a member of the Administration asked for an opinion of the Law Department about, you know, they might have an interest in one of the bills I introduce, you know, which generally are not controversial. But if a member of the Administration asks for an opinion on a matter that I was involved in, your perspective is that I have no 15 right, no matter how many times I ask you or one of your attorneys in the Law Department, that I have no right to get any information about that opinion until that requesting party gets it and chooses whether or not they want to release it to the rest of the government or the world? I mean, is that --
Absolutely not. 197 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 If the Mayor asks for an opinion and I send it to him, I certainly will not share that opinion with you. If the Mayor decides to share that opinion with you, that's his prerogative.
The Mayor told me that any opinions he ask for, said I automatically can get a copy of anytime I want. He told me told me that privately.
Thank you. I'm always proud of our city solicitor. She always does us proud.
But I certainly have enjoyed that relationship with her and have been involved in some controversial things from time to time, and I appreciate having that relationship and knowing. And, frankly, this is the first time I've seen it and the first solicitor with whom we have enjoyed that 198 11/18/98 FINANCE COMMITTEE - Resolution No. 980731 relationship. So she has treated us with solicitor-client confidentiality. And I say that especially to my colleague Michael Nutter so that he understands that it has happened. Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions or comments at this time.)
Hearing none, the committee will stand in recess until the call of the chair. Thank you. (Adjourned at 5:58 p.m.) - - - 199 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, November 18, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE RESOLUTION NO. 980731 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter