We have. As I indicated, it is a statutory requirement. And if in fact we did not vote for the bill by a two-thirds majority, we would not be able to do the borrowing.
Okay. The reason I ask that question is because this is the first time I have heard of it since I have been in Council. And I know I haven't been in Council for a real long time, but this is the first time I have heard of this.
Has there been an acknowledgment of that 1919 statute in prior passage of the bills? Because I don't recall it ever having been said prior to the vote on similar types of bills.
It is just being called to my attention that, apparently, it is new to the script because we never had controversy such as we are witnessing on this SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 bill today. So, therefore, to make everybody understand what their vote meant, I thought I would read that so that everyone was fully cognizant of what their vote meant.
I think it has probably been read only when there have been issues of controversy, such as there, apparently, is on this particular bill.
Would the controversy be because of the proposed amendment or the controversy because of the substance of the bill?
Or is the controversy because of the climate or the newspapers, or what?
It will be normal to the script from here on in, if that's SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 exactly what we are asking for. So we will move on. Councilman Mariano.
I just want a point of information, Councilman. It might clear up. So did we ever do this before? We never did this before?
And we are doing it now. I am not saying there is anything wrong with doing it now, but we are doing it now because you said we are taking new debt. Did we ever vote before to pass something with new debt that wasn't a two-third vote, or does this happen to be clarified?
On Charter change SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 amendments, I am told that this is a statutory requirement. And -
And we always tell people there's always a two-thirds requirement.
Councilman Nutter, maybe you could shed some light on this.
Madam President, I am not asking about the amendment; I am asking about what you said as relates to the two-thirds requirement, which Councilman Nutter did not say. I am not asking about Council Nutter's amendment.
I am sorry. I am having a difficult time hearing you. I don't know what's wrong with the mike.
I will elevate SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 my voice. I am not asking about Councilman Nutter's amendment; I am asking about the two-thirds requirement in the statement that you made on that. So I don't know why you would call on Councilman Nutter to clarify that.
You are not asking him to clarify, or you are asking him to clarify?
Two-thirds requirement wasn't his statement. I am just trying to understand. I have been here six years, and I have never heard -
Do you mind if I have Mr. Auerbach testify on this issue so that we could all feel at ease as to what we're doing is proper and appropriate?
Madam President, I doubt if I will be at ease because -
Thank you, Madam SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 President. In sentiment, I concur with Councilman Clarke; in terms of, we should pass this bill with two-thirds majority. But in actuality, I understand since I have been here that has been a requirement, and it is in our rules. It is on of our rules. It was in the rules from my first term, as well. So while I concur with him that we should pass this bill with two-thirds, people are worrying about whether there will be two-thirds, it has been a practice that requires two-thirds and it is the law.
If you say it is, I believe you. I am just wondering why it came up today. And you said it is because of controversy, and I am wondering what is the controversy.
If it is not controversial, then why don't we just go ahead.
Those are your words, Madam President. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05
I am trying to understand what's controversial about this bill.
Well, I guess when we take the vote, we will find out, won't we?
I will yield to Councilman Goode and speak after Councilman Goode, Madam President.
I wanted to speak on the amendment. We are still on the issue of two-thirds? I'm not sure.
Are we still on the issue of the two-thirds or have we moved to the amendment?
I believe it is a requirement. As I said, it is in the SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 statutory code, A; and, B, it is part of our rules.
I don't have any question about that. I just wanted to know what we were now speaking on.
I notice that Councilman Goode's light is on, Councilman Nutter's light is on, and Councilman Cohen's light is on. Are we putting aside the issue of the two-thirds? Okay. So Councilman O'Neill.
Has Councilman Nutter spoken on his amendment yet? I would not want to pre-empt him on the amendment.
I wanted to give an answer to Councilman Mariano's question with regard to have we ever done this kind of bill before. The answer, of course, is yes. We did it last year. We do it on a regular basis because this is the city's annual capital bond offering. The last time we voted on such a bill was last September, Bill No. 040328A, SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 which was approved by this body on September 30, 2004. This is -- the bill type is rather routine. I'm not going to jump into the other controversy. But we approve a bill of this type on a fairly regular basis whenever we want Capital Budget. Thank you, Madam President.
You are welcome. Councilman O'Neill, did you want to be recognized?
I would like to just speak in favor of it. I believe that as we go forward with bond issues, unlike the airport issues, both the one in the past in April by a very close vote, I believe it was 9/6 or 9/5, it was something that had to be done at the time it had to be done, and there was very good reason to move ahead, as much as several members felt that reform should be made in the way we do SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 bond issues. The bill we just passed, the airport revenue bonds, I feel the same way, became clear in committee. The airport bond issue was well on its last leg. The teams have been together for a long time. And it really would have been unfair to the airport and to the construction project to interfere with that. On the other hand, this particular bill is not in that position. The teams won't be picked for some time. The acting Finance Director testified that this would not be an impediment to the issuance of the bonds. And I believe that while I voted for the amendment in committee and last week on first reading, I had mentioned just a few weeks ago how the rotational system under Mayor Goode really took out all the issues dealing with the concerns, what we call the pay to play, the way they are often described. And I believe having the ability to bid out this work really saves the taxpayer money and reduces the cost of the deal, SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 without necessarily putting any teams in place that the Administration would not feel comfortable with. So I think it is an improvement to the amendment last week. And while it would require us passing this bill in September when we come back on the 15th, I don't see that being any problem. I believe last year's bond issue went on the ballot, was certified on September 30. And the election is November 8 this year, it is the last possible day in November that we can have the election, so it is later than last year's. So I think from a time standpoint, we are okay. And I can't see voting for a bond issue like this that doesn't have the time requirements of the airport issues. I can't see voting for it without changing the way we do these bond issues. So, hopefully, this will pass. I would love to vote yes on this today, but I won't be voting yes unless I can vote yes as amended. Thank you. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05
I would like to take, and I think it would be good for all of us, to hear from Rick Auerbach.
Councilman, I think I spoke before realizing that Mr. Nutter was introducing the amendment. All we are considering is the amendment, and not the passage of the bill today.
That's right. We could consider the passage of the bill. If the amendment fails, we are only restrained from considering -
Precisely. And at that point, as I said, we would need two-thirds of the votes to pass the bill.
If the amendment failed, I am sure that Councilman Nutter would want the bill considered in its present form. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 I don't know.
And wouldn't it need a two-thirds vote? Because wouldn't it still be incurring debt?
So the question is whenever the bill, in whatever form -
It comes up, whether it is amended or it is considered today, would need two-thirds vote.
Thank you, Madam President. I should first acknowledge that authors of the amendment have the prerogative SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 to frame the language in any way that they like. And as we go forward with bond issues, I believe theoretically that the rotational process is objective and transparent, and I would be inclined to support a rotational recommendation. However, I will not support the rotational process as it is currently written, tied to a nonbonding resolution. So I will not be supporting the amendment in its current language. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to speak vehemently against this amendment, and I ask Councilman Nutter to hold it. And I ask him to hold it for the right reasons, and for the same reasons that I withdrew my sponsorship of the resolution. I did not want to have to say these things today, but there are things that need SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 to be said. Let me start with the resolution, and when I was approached for sponsorship of the resolution. I said to Councilman Nutter at that time, I can't be for this because I'm for rotational system. He said that all he was trying to do was start a process and a dialogue, he was not trying to tie us to the process in that resolution. As the resolution was being considered the next week, it became obvious that he was trying to tie us to a process, so I withdrew my sponsorship. Since that time he has tried to attach it to bills, and we have defeated it. Last week there was a vote that was 9 to 8 to not even consider this amendment based on a resolution which was simply done by affirmation. It doesn't mean it was unanimously passed; it means people in many cases didn't vote for or against it. My problem with this, particularly in light of this amendment adding rotational SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 system, is if the process in the original resolution was right, then why add language in terms of rotational system? And if rotational system is right, then why tie us to a nonbinding resolution where, obviously, the process may be flawed? This can't be do-anything reform; it should be the right type of reform. It can't be reform in the context of an environment down here in terms of climate. I don't believe there is an ethical crisis in government. The truth of the matter is, we should always be for good government reforms, whether there is an ethical crisis or not. The proof that this is do-anything reform, we'll do it this way, we'll do it that way, as long as we show we are doing anything. But this proves to me this is not the way to go, that we don't know what way to go, and that this is not good government but this is petty politics.
Actually, I have SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 some more to say.
The rotational system was put in place at a very special time in this city, as we had the first African-American Mayor, who was in the previous Administration of Bill Green, which was during the Abscam era, which was actually a serious point of corruption where there were actually highly elected officials that were taken down. At the same time in that Abscam era of politics, you still have Bill Green giving as much work as he wanted to his law firm. No one said anything. Wilson Goode came into the process, into government, and cleaned it up. You then have the next Mayor, Rendell, who was district attorney in the Abscam, come back and take away the reform. And no one said anything. Until we know what we want to do and until we are doing good government for the SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 purpose of really doing good government, this is petty politics.
Thank you very much. Any other speeches? Anyone else want to be recognized? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. Will you make your motion again, please, for the adoption.
Okay. All right. I didn't have my light on. I move the adoption of the proposed amendments to Bill No. 050006. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. I would ask the Chief Clerk to please call the roll. THE
Councilman Cohen. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05
Aye. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 THE
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. Your light is on.
Sure. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 (Short recess.)
The motion for the adoption of the amendments failed. Therefore, this bill having been read on two different days, the question is shall the bill pass finally. One moment, please. (Short recess.)
Is someone here from the law department? I would ask that Councilman Clarke and Councilman Nutter approach the bench.
In the event that Bill No. 050506 is called, I would like to be recorded as voting no. I would also like to be recorded as voting no on Resolution No. 050022. And I would request that I be recorded as voting aye on all other bills that are called today. And I need to leave the chamber. Thank you, Madam Chair. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 Councilwoman Blackwell.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 050506 be held until the end of today's calendar. Is there a second? (Duly seconded.)
All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. We are trying to work this out as best we can, and it is a shame that things have to be done like this at the very last minute. But it is what it is, as I often say. I would ask the Chief Clerk to please read the title of 050338. THE
An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property to execute and deliver to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development a deed located at 2227-2251 island Avenue.
This bill having SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Councilman Kenney voting aye. Councilwoman Krajewski. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05
Council President Verna. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05
Aye. The ayes are 15, the nays are 2. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 050340. THE
An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property a deed located along the southern side of Westmoreland Street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Councilman Clarke. Councilman Cohen. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. THE
Aye. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 THE
Aye. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 THE
Aye. The ayes are 15. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 050378. THE
An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property a deed conveying for nominal consideration, fee simple title located 1113-1125 North 3rd Street.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll. THE
Aye. SECOND READING/FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR - 6/16/05 THE
Councilman Clarke. Councilman Cohen. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye. THE