COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 2, 2010 10:15 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY BILLS 100080, 100081, 100225, 100334, 100335, 100342 and 100343 RESOLUTION 100088 - - - 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Law and Government. We're going to get started, because we have a long agenda and there's other hearings later today. So for the record, we have a quorum: Councilman Kenney, the Vice-Chair of the Committee, Councilman Goode and Councilman DiCicco. Ms. Marconi, will you read the first bill before us today, please.
100225, an ordinance amending Title of The 16 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public 17 Employees Retirement Code," by further 18 providing conditions under which a member 19 of the Retirement System may purchase 20 credited service for other governmental 21 employment, under certain terms and 22 conditions.
Thank you. Mr. Dubow, I think you're the 3 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. first witness. And if I just make a general statement for everybody that's here on all the bills. If you have written testimony, you can submit the testimony. It will be recorded in full. And when you give your verbal statement, if you could abbreviate it, we'd appreciate it for the time restraints that we have. Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.)
Mr. Dubow, if you could identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning, Chairman Greenlee and other members of the Committee on Law and Government. My name is Rob Dubow. I'm the City's Finance Director, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the Administration regarding Bill No. 100225. The current code allows members of the retirement system to pay into the 4 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. pension system to obtain credit for service for other full-time government employment which occurred prior to the member's current employment with the City. In order to be eligible for that, the member has to -- cannot apply past credit on behalf of a public employer for whom the member is or will be entitled to receive a pension. The provision is used by many government entities to increase the portability of retirement plans for public-sector employees. However, the cost of the service credits that members have to pay generally does not cover the increased value of the benefits paid to the member over time. Under this bill, The Philadelphia Code would be amended so that credits purchased by civil service exempt, non-represented members hired on or after July 1st, 2010 would not count towards the vesting requirements set forth in the Code until the member has 5 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. attained a minimum of five years of credited service with the City. We fully support this legislation. In a system that's only 45 percent funded, this type of benefit is no longer sustainable without the limitation proposed in this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding this bill. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Dubow. Any questions from the members of the Committee? Councilman Kenney.
Thank you very much. Mr. Dubow, just so I understand your testimony, these are folks that are coming into municipal service from another government?
Correct, and would be buying up their service from the other governments and have it count towards 6 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. their time here.
The other issue is -- and I've worked for state government before and the argument is whether or not the municipal pension is more of a benefit than the state pension. Have you developed an opinion as to whether federal, state or local pensions, which are the better one to be in?
No; I'm saying here. Say for Pennsylvania, federal Pennsylvania and municipal.
Just out of curiosity. There's always been that 7 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. discussion with folks who have worked for other governments before whether or not you want to buy --
Which one you want to be in. But this just gives a five-year requirement?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that Councilman Kelly, a member of the Committee, is also present. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
I know there's at least one other witness. Sir? 8 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
If you have copies or anything, you can give it to the Sergeant-At-Arms. He'll make sure we get it.
They're in the back. If you want them now, I'll give them to you now.
Okay. Sir, if you can identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony, please.
My name is Chester Skaziak. I wasn't sure who was going to be here today, so my text is with Council President Verna. Good morning, Council President Verna, members of Council and all in 9 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. attendance. My name is Chester Skaziak. Today I come to speak on this Bill 4 100225. Though it addresses the unfairness of the past, it doesn't address a more serious problem; that is, the manner in which Dr. Barnett made this purchase. By the conduct and actions of the Philadelphia Pension Board and its employees associated with it, it was inappropriate. Dr. Barnett as Managing Director, she was responsible for overseeing the pension fund. It is inconceivable that someone of her education may claim ignorance to not knowing that there was a nine percent penalty after one year of service compounded associated with her purchase of prior government service. Since she knew that she was eligible to purchase ten years, did she not read all the Philadelphia Code's 22-800? I believe she knowingly avoided paying these penalties. As I see it, Dr. Barnett has 10 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. been given special considerations. Before continuing any further, I wish to remind everyone that The Philadelphia Code is protected by the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, of which all elected and appointed officials have sworn to uphold to protect. I have brought with me today copies of correspondence that I have had with these City agencies. They are Debra Beatrice, Office of Finance; Mr. Christopher DiFusco, City Solicitor; Jane Shaw, City Solicitor; Charles Carlin, Fraud Investigation Unit of the City Controller's Office; Amy Kurland, Inspector General. I spoke to Ronald Rouse, a member of Inspector General's Office; Clarence Armbrister, Mayor Nutter's First Assistant; and each member of this City Council. On April the 7th, 2010, I sent to the Mayor's First Assistant, Mr. Armbrister, and to each of you or to a representative of your office with an 11 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. e-mail. In this e-mail, I provided you with the facts that Dr. Barnett's pension calculations were not correct, that she was not being charged nine percent interest compounded annually to purchase prior government service. In this e-mail I did provide the location of the law pertaining to my claim. I feel there was ample time to correct this issue. However, my e-mail, it seems, was ignored. Because of this behavior, I'm holding Dr. Camille Cates Barnett, Debra Beatrice, Christopher DiFusco, Jane Shaw, Alan Butkovitz, Gwendolyn Bell and Mr. Armbrister and each member of this City Council all accountable for the monetary loss to the pension fund, a loss I have projected to be in the amount of $20,000. On April 15th, Dr. Barnett's final payment was received by the Pension Board. It did not contain the penalties that should have been imposed. Her final payment was due on April the 12th, 2010. 12 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. The Pension Board accepted her payment on April the 15th, 2010. But, again, they accepted it with no penalties. I believe this was an inappropriate act. You may ask what grounds would I be making such a claim for retribution. Under the Home Rule Charter, Chapter 3, Legislative and Executive Officeholders and Employees, 8-302, Fidelity Bonds. Before entering upon the duties of their respective offices or positions, the Managing Director, the Director of Finance, all department heads, the City Treasurer, the Personnel Director, and such other officers and employees of the City, including those of Council, as Administrative Board shall determine, shall execute and file with the Department of Records corporate surety bonds, conditioned for the faithful performance of their respective duties in such penal sums as shall be fixed by the Administrative Board, but the amount of the bond shall not in any case be less 13 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. than $5,000.
All such bonds and sureties thereon shall, before being accepted by the Department of Records, be approved by the Law Department. Annotation. Sources: The Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, Public Law 177, Section 219 as amended; see the Act of June 25, 1919, Public Law 155, Article IV, Section 6. Purposes: The principal officers of the City named in this section are required to execute and file 15 corporate surety bonds conditioned by the faithful performance of their duties to protect the interest of the City. Since officers and employees not named in this section may also hold special positions of trust or may handle City or other public funds in the custody of the City, the Administration Board may require them to be bonded. The amounts of the bonds will depend on the duties of the particular offices and positions. The 14 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Administration Board is empowered to determine such amounts but a minimum standard of protection of $5,000 is fixed by the Charter. See Section 4-300(2)(b). Approval by the Law Department of all bonds and sureties is required to assure their meeting legal requirements so that the legal inadequacy of the obligation cannot be later put forward as a defense. I am a former City employee and a Philadelphia pensioner and a taxpayer. For this reason, my request is that the fund be made whole. Let the responsible parties make retribution with the Fidelity Bonds they were to have made with the City. It has been reported in the past that the City employees are responsible for much of the pension fund's problems. I submit to this City Council that there should be a review on the entire Pension Board and how it does business. This is not an isolated incident. I shall find the means to 15 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. answer the question as to how this incident came to be. The actions or no 4 actions of those I have questioned regarding this issue I feel are the same people who have accepted this fraudulent behavior. They should be chastised.
Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, Ms. Marconi, will you please read the next bills and resolution before us, please.
100080, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of a proposed amendment of The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, set forth in a Resolution approved by Council, to authorize Council to provide that fines imposed for violation of any ordinance prohibiting witness and victim 16 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. intimidation must be paid into a special fund to be used only for assistance to victims and witnesses, and to make arrangements for the special election. 100081, an ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, 8 entitled "Regulation of Individual 9 Conduct and Activity," by adding 10 provisions prohibiting the intimidation of witnesses and victims of crimes, providing fines for violations, and requiring that all such fines be paid into a special fund to be used for witness relocation assistance, all under certain terms and conditions. 100088, resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to authorize Council to provide that fines imposed for violation of any ordinance prohibiting witness and victim intimidation must be paid into a special fund to be used only for assistance to victims and witnesses, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the 17 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. electors of Philadelphia.
Thank you. First witness, Mr. Agostini, Budget Director. (Witness approached witness table.)
Mr. Chairman, members, good morning. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Steve Agostini and I'm the City's Budget Director. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the Nutter Administration on Bill Nos. 100080 and 100081 and Resolution No. 100088. Bill No. 100081 would amend The Philadelphia Code to establish a civil offense for witness intimidation. The Administration is, of course, in strong 18 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. support of efforts to address the problem of witness intimidation, as the criminal justice system cannot work without the cooperation of witnesses. If the Office of the District Attorney believes that this measure will help to deter witness intimidation, then by all means the Administration supports the measure. Bill No. 100080 and Resolution 11 No. 100088 together constitute a proposal to change the City's Home Rule Charter. The proposal would authorize Council by ordinance to provide that fines collected in connection with enforcement of an ordinance prohibiting witness intimidation would be segregated into a special fund which could be used only to provide assistance to witnesses and victims of crime. Currently, under our Charter, fine money collected by the City generally goes into the General Fund, which can then be appropriated by Council to any City department. The Charter 19 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. currently provides -- contains no 3 provisions for the dedication of any source of General Fund money for use for any particular service or program. There are a number of instances in which City funding, as you know, by law is segregated into a special fund to be used for a particular purpose. For example, special funds have been established for the use of hotel tax money and Housing Trust Fund recording fees, which can only be spent for limited purposes. Those situations are very different from the current proposal. In each of those cases, the City access to the funding at issue is dependent on our compliance with the requirements of an outside authority, such as the state government, to use the money obtained for a stricter purpose. The authorization under state law that allows us to charge a hotel tax requires that we use money for tourism-related purposes. The state authorization that allows us to charge add-on document 20 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. recording fees which we segregate into the Housing Trust Fund explicitly requires us to spend money on affordable housing and related purposes. In this case, we are not depending on any specific authorization from the state or other authority to establish fines for the offense of witness intimidation. Therefore, the limitations on use of the fine money set forth in the proposal would be purely self-imposed. Our concerns in this regard are not financial. Even assuming a high level of success and prosecutions for the offense of witness intimidation, the fine amounts generated are not likely to have any significant budget impact. In our view, however, this legislation would set a bad precedent. Establishing self-imposed restrictions on the use of money that otherwise would go into the General Fund directly contravenes the flexibility laid out in the Charter that 21 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. allows the Mayor and City Council together to make our yearly budgeting decisions. We should not be starting down the road of self-imposed restrictions in the use of General Fund dollars. That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. First, for the record, Councilman Green, a member of the Committee, is also present. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Agostini. Ofttimes when the Commonwealth or legislation requires us to segregate monies, it's something that we're not happy about. On one occasion I guess relative to the hotel tax, it's something that the hoteliers and the tourism industry wanted, so it was okay. There are other times when they require 22 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. us to do certain things that is not something we want to do because it somewhat takes away our own ability to have our own self-destiny. I think in this particular situation, and considering the importance and the critical nature of the issue, the fact that we have not done this in the past I think has been the problem. Because in all -- every budget process, there are always limited funds available, and the limited funds that are available wind up not getting used for this purpose. So to set up a situation where outside of the general revenue stream we can provide assistance to these folks who are really suffering and hampering the criminal justice system because they're afraid, that it's to me as important as the hotel tax or the airport revenue -- the money that goes for the take-off and landing dollars and passenger facility charges and all those things. And since it doesn't have a great budgetary impact, 23 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. in your own view, I see no reason why we should not self-impose this in order to protect our citizens and to make it more effective in prosecuting criminals who are setting people's houses on fire and shooting people and just basically creating mayhem in the neighborhood.
I believe, Councilmember, in the last budget we did set aside approximately $200,000 for the purpose of providing assistance in these cases.
Well, what I was about to say is that I don't believe all of that money was spent. I can provide you what was actually spent out of that. It is not the purpose per se that we are objecting to. We believe that it is a proper, appropriate one, an important one, as you yourself described. We are concerned about the potential of setting a precedent of segregating 24 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. resources that could then be taken to segregate for much larger purposes with very significant budgetary impacts.
Hypothetically, if the Legislature required us to do this, would you have a problem with it?
If the Legislature requires us to do this, then our hands are conceivably tied by that, but until that day, I think we would prefer not setting the precedent.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I understand your position from a governance perspective. However, this epidemic problem needs to be addressed, and the new District Attorney, Administration I think would be the perfect new form and new group of folks to really go at this problem, and having money that's set aside for this purpose in their hands makes me feel comfortable that this problem will be addressed. 25 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Thanks.
As one of the bill sponsors, I just want to say I appreciate your testimony, especially with respect to the limitations of the Charter and the power the Charter gives the Administration to determine how money should be spent and the broad powers given to the Administration in that regard. That's specifically why this is a Charter change, and the people of Philadelphia can decide whether or not this is an important enough goal to segregate funds for that purpose. I don't really have a question there. I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you. 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on the comments of my two colleagues. I'm not really sure this is precedent setting. When Mayor Nutter was a Councilperson, he introduced legislation regarding the Board of Ethics being an independent body. That legislation, approved by this Council and then approved by the voters, set aside a budget. This Administration also has introduced legislation regarding an independent Office of Inspector General. Within that legislation I also believe there was a budget set aside. So I believe this is the proper way to do it, if we choose to do it, and it's not necessarily precedent setting at all. Thank you. 27 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Jones is present, obviously one of the sponsors of the bills and resolution, and I have a feeling he may have something to say. Councilman Jones.
First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for, members of the Committee, showing up for this important, important, important issue. Albert Einstein said that the world was a dangerous and evil place, not because of what evil men do, but because of what good people don't do. And I believe that was true then and it is true now, that a dodge city style of justice has begun to permeate our community, where people understand that there are several ways to beat a case. We had an opportunity to be invited by District Attorney Williams to 28 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. a tour. All members, except for one, attended that briefing, and when the issue of witness intimidation came up, what was striking was that every Assistant District Attorney to a person start nodding their head that this was a major, major issue. I will have a lot of witnesses here to talk about this today, but one that comes to mind is a young lady who was in a homeless shelter. She was at 17th and Berks. She was well on her way to getting Section 8, went to the local store and witnessed a murder. She was torn between the no snitch culture and doing what she believed as a citizen she should do. She did the right thing and cooperated with the police, and they felt that this actor was dangerous enough that she needed to be relocated into a secret location, a secret location. When she did, the process went along, and she was coming out of that secret location to walk to get something 29 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. for her daughter. When she came out of the place, the individual that she was accusing of murder ran into her, because he was in court and he just so happened to see her. And when that was brought to that then-District Attorney, there were no funds, there was no ability to relocate her, and so it fell through the cracks. It is common knowledge in barber shops around Philadelphia that there are two ways. I can do the old style of "boys will be boys" where Uncle Billy goes over because my nephew shot your son and offers them a payment in lieu of prosecution, or there's the plain, more nefarious way that they say, Kill my dog, I'mma kill your cat. Prosecute my friend and we're going to take out our street justice on you. Well, when there's that type of dodge city justice, there is no justice, and when good people lose faith in a system that is broken because the bad 30 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. guys control the system, we have to fix it, and I'm very encouraged by this District Attorney's emphasis on that. Last year, there were 200 cases of people prosecuting for witness intimidation, of which there were only 8 convictions. We intend to fix that. We 9 intend to fix that to restore a sense of 10 order and justice in our communities. 11 We believe that this bill, this 12 body, this Council, is going to go a long 13 way in lighting a candle to deal with 14 that. And trust not what people say; 15 trust where they put their effort and 16 money. Trust not the support that an 17 Administration gives; trust where they 18 finance their projects. 19 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20
Any other 25 questions? 31 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. (No response.)
Thank you very much, Mr. Agostini. Our next set of witnesses are District Attorney Seth Williams and company, whoever is with him. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee and Councilman Jones. It's an honor to be here. I have given to Councilman Jones' staff a copy of my testimony. I'd ask to submit that for the record.
Thank you. 32 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc.
Joining me today is Mr. Ed McCann, who is the Deputy of our Trial Division at the District Attorney's Office. He was formerly the Chief of the Homicide Unit. He may also be able to give you some insights into the daily operations and the impact of victim -- I'm sorry; most importantly, the impact of witness intimidation as it relates to our homicide cases and rape cases. Seated directly to my right is Mr. Leland Kent, who is a Victim Witness Coordinator in our office and does a tremendous job. He specifically oversees our Witness Relocation and Protection Program. So I'm going to keep my comments brief, but I thought he'd be very helpful and possibly could give insight to the Committee as to what the daily operations are currently. And also to my left, members of Council, is Ms. Antonia Whitt, W-H-I-T-T. Ms. Whitt was unfortunately the victim of 33 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. a rape, and she was to give testimony. She was contacted repeatedly, as were other members of her family, by the defendant. She was threatened. As a result of that, our office helped her to relocate herself to protect her prior to trial. She was able to testify, which resulted in this defendant being convicted of four -- actually, a total of five rapes. There were four other victims that could not identify the defendant, but as a result of Ms. Whitt being protected as a result of her testimony, the defendant was swabbed, DNA samples were taken, and he was convicted of the four additional rapes. So I thought more important than just my testimony, you could hear from a person who has been in the program, and you may be able to judge the merit of funding, having an allocated funding stream, for witness protection. When I spoke about witness intimidation during my budget hearing in 34 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. April, several points that I made then bear repeating and further discussion now. I believe that when you consider the scope and depth of the problem, meaningful attempts to address this problem like Councilman Jones' attempt and proposal should be implemented. Let me put this to you in stark terms. Many victims and witnesses believe that if they cooperate with law enforcement, they or their loved ones will be killed. That is the reality. That is why we must fight against this. I ask you to consider the following: Virtually every homicide case in our office is negatively affected in some way by witness intimidation, either on the streets or in the courtroom. Other violent cases, including garden variety gun matters, are increasingly more difficult to prosecute because of witness intimidation. If we do not attack this problem aggressively and proactively, Philadelphia will become 35 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. less safe, more Philadelphians will be scared to come forward, murderers and straw purchasers and other violent criminals will escape prosecution. The don't snitch culture is a reality. It is not going away. In fact, it is getting worse. To do nothing is to endanger the safety of our city. Saying no to good proposals or funding requests to tackle this problem is no longer acceptable. The status quo is unacceptable. It is an abdication of our collective responsibility to keep Philadelphians safe. I will not stand by as violent career criminals flout the system and literally get away with murder. Chairman Greenlee, by holding this hearing, you are shining light on this issue, and I thank you for your leadership. Councilman Jones, by introducing this important legislation, you are seeking solutions and demanding 36 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. action. Councilman Green, for your continued leadership on demanding that we address this issue, you are working to make Philadelphia safe. And to all of the members of this Committee here today, your presence and interest is critical and very appreciated. We must continue to work together.
During my budget testimony, I outlined important investments we could make to put away more violent criminals and stop them and their cohorts who try to intimidate their way out of prison sentences. One way was to supplement our state funding for witness relocation. As you know, funding for witness relocation is provided by the Commonwealth through the Attorney General's budget. The current budget provides $885,000 in funds, with 75 percent allocated to Philadelphia. Unfortunately, we cannot 37 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. expect any additional money from the Commonwealth. Several years ago, the total state funding was a million dollars. Another was to provide my office funding to hire three prosecutors and two detectives to be dedicated exclusively to going after witness intimidation cases. That is because the most direct and immediate way to reduce cases of witness intimidation is to prosecute those who commit that crime. We have to do it expeditiously to make a real statement by prosecuting those individuals. I understand that we have to have a holistic approach, that we have to educate young men, try to teach them other ways of conflict resolution. Of course, we have to do that. We have to make a very visible statement by protecting these witnesses, relocating them and prosecuting the men and sometimes now even the women that 38 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. threaten them and intimidate them. Although the newly enacted budget did not include funding for these two important programs, I believe that together with you and the Mayor, we will be able to identify sources of funding to allow me to implement them. I support Councilman Jones' attempt to amend the Home Rule Charter to create a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for those convicted in Philadelphia of witness intimidation. What is especially positive about the legislation is that it seeks to provide a dedicated recurring fund to support witness relocation efforts that the taxpayers of Philadelphia do not have to fund. Taxpayers are getting hit enough these days. The legislation would have those who commit the horrible crime of witness intimidation effectively fund these efforts. I want to advance any possible solutions to combat witness intimidation. 39 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. I have offered some in my budget testimony and now again today. Councilman Jones has offered this proposal. I thank him for his great efforts, and I'll work with him and with you, Chairman Greenlee, to do whatever it takes to further important legislation and proposals to attack this problem directly. At this time, I would like to defer to Mr. Kent and then to Ms. Whitt so that they can give you some of their own brief personal insights into witness relocation. Thank you.
Good morning. To members of this Honorable Committee, to Councilman Jones and to my District Attorney, Seth Williams, I'm honored to be here today to present to you on behalf of all the victims and witnesses that we assist, which is roughly about 50 to 60 40 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. families a year that we relocate in our program. My testimony is written, and I will definitely give it to the Sergeant-of-Arms, but briefly the impact of witness --
My name is Leland Kent. I'm the Assistant Director of Victim Services in the District Attorney's Office. The impact of witness intimidation affects verdicts in courtrooms as well as the quality of life in Philadelphia. It is our belief that the surety of justice can be obtained when citizens feel free to participate in the justice system without fear of reprisal. Witness intimidation threatens to undermine the integrity of the justice system. This issue is not endemic to Philadelphia. Witness intimidation is a national issue that must be addressed at 41 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. every level of government and the judicial system. Simply put, "no witnesses, no 5 case," as quoted by one of Philadelphia's most recently convicted violent drug kingpins. As we call upon our fellow community members to step up and speak up, we must collectively do our part to be prepared to help them from becoming casualties. Quick facts about the Witness Relocation Program: No witness has been harmed while participating in the Witness Relocation Program. Since the inception of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Witness Relocation Program in 2002, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office has provided relocation assistance to approximately 414 families from 2002 to 2009. All funding that is allocated for witness relocation goes directly to participants and service providers. None of that goes to the funding of our office 42 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. or administration costs. The Witness Relocation Program is an initiative established by the Office of the Attorney General to aid in the relocation of witnesses to criminal acts. The program provides temporary relocation to eligible witnesses testifying on behalf of the Commonwealth in criminal prosecution of violent offenders through the judicial process. The witness relocation is not being provided in exchange for a witness's testimony. Any financial assistance provided is not to exceed four months past the signing of our Memorandum of Understanding, and it is for that reason that I am very -- I'm in support of Councilman Jones' bill, because four months is not enough time in regards to the average homicide case or any serious felony case. The average trial takes 12 months to 18 months to happen. Our victims and witnesses definitely need support longer than four months, and I 43 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. believe that this bill will be very helpful in regards to providing extended care in cases that need it. And with that, I am honored to have as a guest today Ms. Antonia Whitt.
Good morning. Ms. Whitt, just identify yourself for the record and proceed.
I would just like to share how Victim Services helped me. In April of 2007, I was a victim of a really bad crime of rape. I was taken by gunpoint, forced into a vehicle, taken to like an abandoned house -- well, a house that I didn't know of. Later, I was afraid. I went through like two weeks of not pressing charges, because it was someone I knew, someone I grew up with. And after talking to a detective, she 44 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. encouraged me. She said, Look, you need to come forward. They had a sketch of the guy, and I was the only one that could identify him, so I wind up coming forward, and with the help of the Victim Services, I wasn't as fearful, because my first thought was just to run, like go out of state, just run away and hide out and just start over. But I know I need to do the right thing. I needed to tell the -- press charges. And when I did that, the Victim Service, they were very supportive. They found out I was getting terroristic calls, terroristic threats, not only me but my best friend, who was also a witness. She got calls. My dad got phone calls, and all the messages were we were going to die if we came to court. So I reported that to Victim Services. They then put me in protective custody, which allowed me to have a peace of mind through the trial. Well, part of the trial. 45 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. I continued to go to court. My trial was about a year, and after the trial was over, they even helped me relocate to a new apartment. I was able to move to a new apartment. They helped me with the deposit to move in, and it just created -- gave me a peace of mind, because I was really afraid, like afraid for my life, and I never would have pressed charges had they not been there to help me through it. And when I pressed charges, the other four women came forward as well. So it was a good thing that they were there.
Thank you, Ms. Whitt, and thank you for your testimony, and I'm sure I speak for everyone to say we also thank you for the courage you showed through this whole process.
Chairman, in conclusion, I recognize that we're going to do all that we can to prosecute in a 46 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. much more aggressive and to investigate in more much proactive ways those who are intimidating witnesses. Everything from homicide -- and we've had, I believe -- I was just asking Mr. McCann what the number is most recent. I think we're close to about 114 homicides for this year. In those cases, of course, we get threatened, threats, and witnesses are intimidated. Everybody wants us to do something about that. We had flash mobs. Everybody wanted us to go out and to talk to people and if people saw things, to let us know, to let us know when the kids were going to go out. We had people that were intimidated because they were going to tell their -- let us have information about their kids going out on South Street. So everybody wants us to do something, and we're going to do what we can to investigate and to prosecute those cases better. I just think this is a 47 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. very good start, Councilman, for us to try to figure out what we can do to help relocate those witnesses to protect them, those that are already willing to come forward and to help. I go out to community meetings almost every night and talk to people how we have to create a real partnership with the community to reduce crime so that witnesses can come forward. Well, they're not going to want to do that when they see that people are being shot or people aren't being protected that are trying to help. So to all the naysayers, I say, Well, what are your thoughts, what are your goals, what are you going to do? But they want me to stay in places with them to talk about reducing crime. So with that, we'll answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Williams. Thank you for all your office does. 48 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Williams. In a federal capital case or a federal drug case, in the instance of witness intimidation, what generally happens?
Well, frequently -- and Mr. Kent or Ed might also want to jump in -- in those types of cases, the victims can be relocated anywhere within the United States.
I'm talking more about what happens to the individual accused of the intimidation in a federal capital or drug case. So a defendant or a defendant's family or associate threatens a witness with death or whatever, mayhem, what does the FBI and the Justice Department do with the defendant? MR. McCANN: Councilman Kenney, that's a really good question, because it just happened actually. You may have heard about it. About a week ago, a 49 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. defendant, who was part of the drug organization that fire-bombed the house and six people were killed, there was all -- that murder itself was based on witness intimidation. So the federal government conducted an extensive investigation into that. There are two defendants on trial capital -- are going to be tried capitally in the federal system, but there were also some prosecutions attended to that. They used a ton of resources, wire taps, things of that nature, and one of the defendants just pled guilty and got a lengthy sentence for that last week.
Is there instances when individuals, defendants or people associated with defendants, who intimidate a witness, are they taken into custody and held? Is there some statute, federal statute, that allows the Justice Department to take a person off the 50 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. street that has threatened someone in a federal criminal case? MR. McCANN: They have a similar statute to the state statute in Pennsylvania against witness intimidation, but in terms of detention, those cases -- you're correct, in virtually every one of those cases, the defendant will be detained pretrial.
And recently, Councilman, Senator Specter introduced legislation that would allow for the federal prosecution of witness intimidation in state court trials.
Because I've always found that in federal criminal cases, pretrial detention with really bad actors or people who are intimidating witnesses or detained, it stops it obviously because -- or at least it lessens it dramatically, because that person is no longer on the street. Do we have the capacity on the state level -- and I see Representative 51 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Kenyatta Johnson here today. Do we have the ability to legislate pretrial detention or detention upon witness -- a founded witness intimidation? Is that something that we could pursue on a state level so that these guys could be scooped up off the street and taken to a state facility so we can lessen the relocation issues for us? MR. McCANN: Practically speaking, that happens on a pretty regular basis on these cases now, but even -- one of the things that we face on a regular basis is actually intimidation from the jail, from cell phones, and intimidation that's facilitated from the jail. In other words, people that are outside that are getting communication from inside the jail.
I'm just trying to look at ways to strengthen our state code or state criminal statutes to see if we can't have a bigger impact on the family members and associates of 52 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. those folks that are incarcerated intimidating witnesses on the street. So I just was curious as to your opinions on those issues, but thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you all very much for coming. We appreciate your time. The next witness I have is State Representative Kenyatta Johnson, but I understand Mr. Johnson has agreed because we have another witness who has a real time issue, so I appreciate Representative Johnson's patience, and I'll call Mr. Ted Canada to the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Canada. If you could just 53 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Good morning. My name is Ted Canada. I'm the founder of an organization by the name of Fathers Fed Up. I would like to thank you guys for having me, Councilman Jones and the rest of the Councilmembers. I was called on very short notice, so I'm not that well prepared, so I will be brief. However, I just testified a few months ago at the Senator Arlen Specter's trial, and that testimony could be obtained if anyone desires to obtain it. I was unfortunately a victim of witness intimidation. In 2005, I lost an 18-year-old son to street violence, and there was a very strong, courageous young man stepped up and testified at that trial, and right after he testified, he wound up getting killed. And I believe that it was his testimony that allowed for my son's criminals to be brought to justice. 54 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. However, with the organization that I founded, I am trying to see why we can as city, state and even the federal, can we try to use more better motions of preventing things from happening before they do. And it's a lot of other ways that I think that with the witness intimidation, we can minimize them if we just use certain technology. I had some examples about when you're in a courtroom, it seemed like all the information of anybody is just so public. I mean, is there a way that we can stop publicizing everybody's name and address and so on and so forth? I mean, it's just too easy for the witness who are intimidated, it's just easy for everyone to obtain their information. The young man who got killed testifying for my son, they had it plastered all in the neighborhood, calling the young man a snitch and, you know, so on and so forth. And, I mean, how did they obtain that information? I 55 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. mean, it's just too easily obtainable. So my thing is, if we can use a preventive maintenance and try to find some ways that -- with today's technology, it shouldn't be a problem. I mean, we could implement different strategies in courtrooms where all this information is not so easy, and that, to me, I think that will lessen the witness intimidations, because if they don't have the resources of getting to these people or knowing these people, then they have no way of intimidating them. So, like I said, I will keep it brief, but it's really a problem that should be looked at carefully, and like I said, with today's technology, maybe some folks can testify via video. I mean, we can do a lot of things differently than we're doing to prevent things from happening so that we don't have these problems. But, once again, I thank each and every one of you guys for having me, 56 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. and God bless everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Canada. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
No 13 questions. Thank you very much, sir. Representative Johnson. (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you for your patience. Good morning. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: State Representative Kenyatta Johnson of the 186th Legislative District. 57 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Good morning, Councilmembers. Councilman Greenlee, I thank you for hosting this hearing. More importantly, I thank Councilman Curtis Jones for allowing me to come and offer my support for his Resolution 100088/80/81, which would allow an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter that imposes fines for violations of any ordinance prohibiting witness or victim intimidation and creates a fund that will provide financial support to witnesses and victims. Although I submitted copies of my testimony, I'm just going to be brief and just paraphrase why I decided to come down here in support Councilman Jones' resolution. Most recently in my district, a young man was murdered in South Philadelphia, who was soon to come and testify against another young man who committed an act of violence several years ago, and the young man allegedly 58 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. who is in prison made a couple phone calls out on the street and a constituent of mine was murdered. And so, of course, I felt helpless as an elected official, because my main concern was how could we have prevented this or, more importantly, how could we aggressively address this issue. Although I think the $2,000 fine, I think it's okay. I think it should be at least raised to $5,000 or even $10,000 to send a clear message that any types of witness intimidation shouldn't be tolerated. As an elected official on the state level, I'm part of -- I'm not part of, but I represent the institution that actually cut back some of the funding. So I will commit to work with Councilman Jones as well as District Attorney Seth Williams and Attorney General Tom Corbett on the state level to begin reviewing my witness intimidation program to see how we can be supportive on the state level 59 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. and supporting this City ordinance from a financial standpoint but, more importantly, from a policy standpoint. My main concern, separate from the fine, is in order to send a clear message to those who intimidate witnesses, they have to understand that if they're intimidating a witness, they will be prosecuted. I'm not really with the whole let's educate them and the soft, feely and touchy aspect. If you intimidate a witness, you're basically gambling that you're going to get away with threatening someone else's life so they won't go to court. And so I'm an advocate for harsher sentences for those that intimidate witnesses, and that's what we will be reviewing on the state level. But I believe this is a good start that Councilman Jones has done by introducing this resolution. I'm in full support of it, and, again, I just wanted to come down today and show my personal 60 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. support for this resolution. And just to answer Councilman Kenney's question, some of those issues we're going to look at under review, particularly about the sentencing guidelines for those that intimidate witnesses, because I think if you know in your mind you're going to get an automatic five, ten years, you're going to think twice, but right now the bad guys seem to think that they're in control, and unless they know they're going to be penalized and prosecuted, then I think that's what will change their behavior. On the last note, the conviction rate, I'm a full supporter of Seth Williams' gun zones -- I mean court zones, because unless we increase the conviction rate in the City of Philadelphia, then we're not really going to be finding anyone. And so hopefully his proposal goes through, and as we increase their conviction rate, the funds 61 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. that are dedicated to that funding will help our witnesses relocate and have that financial security to live productive lives for serving their community. Thank you.
Thank you, Representative Johnson. Any questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you for all the work you do up in Harrisburg for us. Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Thank you.
Thank you very much. On my list I have two other witnesses. I hope I'm pronouncing her last name right. Barbara Clowden and Maurice Ragland. Are either here? Mr. Ragland, you can come up, please, to the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.) 62 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc.
Good morning. Identify yourself for the record, please, and proceed with your testimony.
Well, you know, four years ago, you know, I had somebody shoot me in the head twice, you know. He got brought to justice like last April, you know. That was like a roller coaster ride for him. He tried to buy my silence at first, offer me everything, but, you know, when he seen I wasn't going along with it, that I was going to have him prosecuted, threats started coming in, you know. Names start coming my ways. People start calling me all kind of snitches and things like that, you know. Some folks that was with him was telling me things like, Next time we're going to put more than two bullets in your head, 63 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. you know, all them kind of crazy things, you know. I feared for my life, but since God gave me a second chance, I trusted God. God said, Come forward and tell the story. So, you know, I told the story. I was staying like in a shelter, right, just hiding from my community basically, you know, because there was a problem with people saying things to me, issuing all threats. I just recently returned home, you know. So far, nobody haven't said anything to me, you know. My story made the paper. The defendant end up getting to 50 years, 18 you know. I'm still worrying about my 19 life and my family's, you know. At 20 certain times of night, I don't be out in 21 the streets, you know. I'm always 22 watching my back, because that night, he 23 snuck up behind me, you know, showing me 24 he didn't care for my life. He even shot 25 me in front of a church. He didn't have 64 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. no respect for God. Didn't even respect God's law. His friends, it's with that don't snitch culture and things like that, but when they knew my intentions was I was going to have him prosecuted, everything was coming at me, violence, threats, all kinds of crazy things like that. I still fear for my life, because the street laws, it's eye for eye, ear for ear, life for a life. So, you know, I got to watch myself, because I don't know when it's going to come my way, because, you know, he got a lot of time to do and eventually if I slip up, they going to end up getting me, too, since, you know, he got that amount of time of jail time to do. So my life is always in danger, you know, just coming forward corroborating with the Commonwealth. So, you know, I'm weary about things, but me being on the less side of 65 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. the law, I still got a little bit of time to walk off before I can relocate, you know. How I've been doing my thing, I trust my God, and from that point to this point, he looked out for me, you know. I'm nervous. I'm nervous for my family. I'm even nervous for my own life. A lot of people look at me funny today, you know. I'm a convicted felon. People call me the police. I don't understand it. They call me a rat, a snitch, all kind of crazy things. Then, you know, if the guy that got convicted had the resources where he can offer like maybe a couple thousand dollars, it wouldn't surprise me if somebody try to come at me and take my life just for the money. So, you know, I'm nervous. Some things need to be done, because information -- like they were saying, he knew things that I knew. He was passing messages to me, you know. He was contacting me from the jail, like somebody said, through the cell phone, 66 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. you know. I would walk the streets, since we live in the same community, and people would, you know, give me the phone and it would be him. And, you know, I'd be amazed, like darn, how the hell he contact me from jail when the jail supposed to be locked down, you know. I'm very familiar with going up State Road, because I've been there, you know. It's like this is a big cat through the criminal system. The criminals have access to anything they want. How I made it, you know, I was lying to him all along until the preliminary came up, you know.
I was telling him I wasn't going to come to court and I was going to come to court and say he wasn't the one that actually committed the crime against me. You know, I had to lie. When he realized my true intentions, that's when all the problems started. I'm still nervous about things. 67 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Something has to be done. Something has to be done. I don't have no answers for that. I'm just a victim, you know. Y'all are the ones that need to do something. Something need to be done.
Mr. Ragland, we certainly understand, and we hope this is one of the tools. Obviously it's not the only one. One of the tools that will help people in your situation. But we appreciate you coming down and taking the time to testify. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill 22 or resolution? (No response.)
Seeing none, Ms. Marconi, if you could read the 68 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. last two bills and the two resolutions before us today, please.
100334, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to modernize the City's procurement process, including by allowing for electronic bidding, electronic reverse auctions and electronic execution of contracts; for appropriate bidder security; and for cooperative purchasing; all under certain terms and conditions; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 100335, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution 25 approved by Council proposing an 69 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. amendment to The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to further provide for non-discrimination clauses in City contracts; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 100342, resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to modernize the City's procurement process, including by allowing for electronic bidding, electronic reverse auctions and electronic execution of contracts; for appropriate bidder security; and for cooperative purchasing; all under certain terms and conditions; and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. 100343, resolution proposing an amendment to The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to further provide for non-discrimination clauses in City contracts; and providing for the 70 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. We called these bills and resolutions up together because I know, Mr. Wilson, I think your testimony encompasses all four, correct?
If you could identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Good morning, Chairman Greenlee and members of the Committee. I am David Wilson, the First Deputy Managing Director for Administration. I am joined by Hugh Ortman, the Commissioner of the Procurement Department, as well as Rue Landau, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission. We are here today to testify on Bill Nos. 71 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. 100334 and 100335 and Resolution Nos. 100342 and 100343, which provide for two amendments to the procurement process in Philadelphia's Home Rule Charter. Through the Managing Director's Reform Team initiatives, several constraints were identified that prohibit the City from implementing a modern and efficient procurement process. Bill No. 11 100334 and Resolution 100342, if enacted, would ease these constraints. Specifically, the proposed amendment to the Charter allows for: Electronic bidding: Currently, sealed bids must be submitted on paper. This proposal will permit the electronic submission of sealed bids to the City and should ease the bidding process for many vendors while decreasing the City's administrative costs. Reverse auctions: In recent years, the private sector and other governments have taken part in reverse auctions to drive down bids and decrease 72 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. administrative costs. Reverse auctions are a version of electronic bidding that allows bidders to compete against one another for the lowest bid. During the auction, each bidder will be informed whether or not they are at that time the low bidder. If they are not the low bidder, they will have an option to lower their price. Following the new bid, their competitors will then have the opportunity to bid again. This process continues until the bidding is over. Bidders are competing in realtime for the City's business, which should lead to reduced payments for commodities. Electronic execution of contracts: With the concurrence of the Law Department, the Procurement Department will be permitted to execute contracts electronically, reducing the time necessary for contract conformance. Updates to bidder security: Currently, the City only accepts certified checks or bonds as bidder 73 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. security. The new language will allow for other methods of security, such as a bank's letter of credit, which should ease the burden of the bidding process. The amendment also updates security terminology in several places. Cooperative purchasing: By partnering with other public entities, the City may aggregate demand in order to lower prices. The larger the order, the lower the price. While Philadelphia's purchasing power is significant, we do not have contracts in place for every commodity. Cooperative purchasing will allow the Procurement Department to piggyback on existing contracts of other public entities. To protect the City's interests, in order to enter into a cooperative agreement, the Procurement Commissioner and the Director of Finance must certify that the arrangement will likely result in a lower total cost to the City. Additionally, the Procurement Commissioner, with the Law Department's 74 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. concurrence, may waive compliance with otherwise applicable ordinances if, and only if, they determine that the resulting contract will not materially impact the City's annual participation goals. Bill No. 100335 and Resolution 9 No. 100343 will update the non-discrimination clause in City contracts. Currently, the Charter does not permit discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. The proposal adds ancestry, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age and disability to the protected classes. I understand that the Human Relations Commission will offer an amendment to Bill No. 100335 and Resolution No. 100343. We have no 21 objections to that amendment.
Good morning. I'm 75 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. offering an amendment to the proposal that changes the word "gender" to "sex." The word change will keep the Home Rule Charter consistent with governing federal, state and local statute and caselaw. Everything, as you may know, everything from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance uses the word "sex." So making this change will keep it consistent with the governing law.
And we all have copies of that amendment. Thank you, Ms. Landau. Anybody have any questions or comments? (No response.)
I'm sorry. Mr. Ortman, did you want to testify? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: No. 23
Anybody else? (No response.) 76 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc.
I just finally wanted to thank you and Councilman Kenney for introduction of both these measures. This concludes my testimony. I'll be happy to take any questions.
Thank you. I had to step out for a second to talk to Councilwoman Sanchez, so I think I missed your testimony. Did your testimony include electronic procurement?
That's great. Well, I just wanted to take the opportunity to commend Councilman Kenney and the Administration for moving forward on that. Mr. Ortman and I have discussed that since we first met in 2008, and I wrote a paper called Paperless Government, which called for the City to 77 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. move to electronic procurement. In New York City, it has managed to save the City $75 per transaction. I don't know what the total number of transactions that we have as a city, and I'm just wondering if you have that information, the total number of sort of purchase orders that are issued. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I can get that information for you, but I don't have it with me, sir.
I'd just be interested in taking a look at that number to sort of estimate what this measure will save the City. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
We're making it easy today for everybody. Anyone else here to testify on these bills or resolutions? (No response.)
Seeing none, that concludes the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government, and in about 30 seconds, we'll have the meeting. (Pause.)
See that? I kept my word. I think it was exactly 30 seconds. I timed us. This is the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding an amendment for Bill No. 20 100080.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 100080 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
And just 79 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. for the record, that's to change the date of the election until November 2nd. Thank you. It was moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the amendment is approved. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 100080, as amended, be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Opposed? 80 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. (No response.)
Hearing none, Bill No. 100080, as amended, is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules suspended for reading at our next session of Council. Once again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 13 100081 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing 81 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. none, the motion carries. Once again, Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution 6 100088 be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the motion carries and the resolution is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 100225. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 22 100225 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session 82 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, Bill No. 100225 will be reported out of Committee with a rules suspension. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green regarding Bill No. 100334.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 18 100334 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. 83 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the motion carries. Once again, Councilman Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 11 100342 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the resolution is moved out of Committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill 100335.
84 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment to Bill 100335 be reported out of this Committee and be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the bill is amended. Once again, Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 17 100335, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and also a request of the suspension of the rules so this bill may be read at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. 85 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the motion carries. Once again, Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to report out the amendment to Bill No. 100343 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the amendment is adopted. Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 24 100343, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable 86 6/2/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100080, etc. recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the motion carries. That concludes the business today of the Committee on Law and Government. I appreciate everybody's cooperation and attendance. Thank you. (Committee on Law and Government concluded at 11:25 a.m.) - - - 87 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 2, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. -------------------- MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)