Well, I wouldn't propose to take them out of the equation. What I would propose is that the Inspector General work together with them. As I said during my testimony, despite the fact that these different entities exist, we still have the perception throughout the City that there is a corruption and fraud problem within 115 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Philadelphia City government, and these entities operating by themselves up to this point have not changed that perception.
I agree with that, but you don't change the Charter simply to change perception, or a Charter change, in and of itself, will not change perception.
No, sir, but I would point to what has happened in other cities that have established an independent Office of the Inspector General.
I'm not going to go there either, but I guess -- and I know Councilman Green had a question, but you talk about other cities. I mean, every city is different. Every city is set up different. Do they 116 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. all have what we have here as far as the Ethics Board, as far as the City Controller? I mean, I don't know. So I'm not sure every city is set up the same way. And do they all have the duties that is now being given or would be given to this Inspector General?
I have looked at the law in the other cities that have established Inspector Generals that are independent. In Chicago, there is a very similar setup with a Controller and with a Board of Ethics, but yet they have an independent Inspector General. In New York, Miami and New Orleans where there are also independent Inspector Generals, the powers and duties are virtually identical to the powers and duties established or set forth in this proposed Charter change. But in those cities I don't have the answer right now about whether or not there is also a Controller and a Board of Ethics. I'd be happy to research that and get back to 117 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the Committee on that.
And in all those cities, do they have powers over all branches of government?
They do in New York, Miami and New Orleans and Chicago. Chicago does not have jurisdiction over elected officials. The other cities do.
Thanks. I'm going to echo a little bit of the point that's been made by Councilman Goode and Councilman Greenlee. Does the Administration have a chart showing sort of a job description and where there's overlap and where there's not overlap between the City Controller, the Board of Ethics and the proposed Chief Integrity Officer, which we haven't seen yet, but apparently the Administration is going to propose some permanence to that office? We don't have 118 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. that context in terms of the powers and duties that we're being asked to give you?
I do have something that's been prepared by the Administration that gives an overview of the scope, powers and duties and funding for the City Controller's Office, the Ethics Board and the proposed independent Inspector General. As far as the Chief Integrity Officer goes, that role doesn't have any investigative function. That role is to identify, prevent and educate.
Okay. So how much overlap -- I mean, if you've prepared something, is there a chart showing how much overlap there is?
I don't have a chart. I just have a summary that has been prepared by the Administration, and there is an overlap with regard to audit, as everybody has pointed out, with the Controller's Office. I don't see as much of an overlap with the Ethics Board, 119 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. except in the matters of training and education.
Right. With respect to the Ethics Board, would it be an ethics violation for someone to be engaged in criminal conduct?
I'm not certain. I would think so, but I don't have the ethics rules in front of me now.
I think the Ethics Board is supposed to refer matters that are criminal to the District Attorney.
Okay. And then presumably the Inspector General makes the decision to refer to the -- are you talking about under the proposed legislation or currently?
Well, under the 120 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. current legislation as well as the proposed legislation, what would happen if the Ethics Board was doing an investigation of ethics violations and found something that they thought might be criminal, they would refer it to the Inspector General's Office. There we would do an investigation and either work with the District Attorney or the U.S. Attorney to further the prosecution.
I find it interesting that you keep saying U.S. Attorney. We're the City and County of Philadelphia. The District Attorney is our chief sort of law enforcement officer for the County of Philadelphia. Why would you ever refer something in the first instance to the U.S. Attorney and not to our District Attorney?
Well, I can speak from the U.S. Attorney's Office, and there what we found was that there were many violations that were not criminal violations locally but were violations 121 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. federally. For example, if an individual tries to bribe a City official, there is no real local violation that that City official has committed. On the federal side, if the City official takes money, that is a federal crime. So many of those cases have been prosecuted federally rather than locally.
There's no 11 state law in Pennsylvania that prevents an elected official from taking a bribe?
No, no. I'm sorry if I misspoke. I'm speaking more of not necessarily a bribe but of doing a favor that's in relation to their duties or possibly -- not even if it's not completed, if it's just an attempt. But the other issue would be, for example, the plumbing inspection violations. There were numerous five, ten and 15 dollar bribes that were paid to these plumbing inspectors. Had they been prosecuted locally, there would have been many, many counts of five, ten, 15 122 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. dollar cases. On the federal side, there was an opportunity to prosecute that as a racketeering case where everything was grouped together and all the defendants were tried in one indictment. So there are different ways of prosecuting federally and locally, and that's part of the decision-making in deciding whether the case should be referred to the DA's Office or to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Good afternoon. You speak to other cities that have created the Office of the Inspector General. Aside from perception, is there any -- and I know it's only been a couple of years in 123 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Chicago. Is there anything that has really changed aside from perception that you can speak to in terms of had not the Inspector General been in place, certain things would have still continued to go on? I mean, is there any empirical evidence that there is something that actually happened that would not have happened had there not been an Inspector General? Do you know of any?
I don't have the specifics of cases, but when I met with the Inspector General in Chicago, they listed a significant number of cases that they have prosecuted and they believe would not have happened had they not been able to proceed independently. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why? That's what I'm trying to get. The devil is in the details. What are the details that would have not happened in terms of prosecution had not the IG been in place?
And I have to apologize because I don't have those 124 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. specific cases. Again, I'd be happy to look into that and present them to the Committee. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because it really kind of sets up a whole other level of corruption, because it suggests to me that the IG was able to do certain prosecutions or find certain things and there's some level in the middle that was either overlooking it intentionally or not, and that's -- I'm just a little confused.
Well, I don't mean overlooking it intentionally, but I think, for example, in Chicago before the independent Inspector General was established, it was a small office and didn't have the budget, the staffing and the experience to be able to look into more significant criminal violations. Now that office has a staff of approximately 70 people with a large budget and they are looking into things that previously had not been 125 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. investigated. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And what was the office that did not have enough money in staffing? Was that the District Attorney's Office?
No. That was the Inspector General in Chicago when it was not independent.
But if I could just interrupt, but I think Councilman DiCicco's question is, wasn't there another entity that was supposed to be doing this?
So are we talking about maybe they just didn't do their job well enough? Councilman, is that where you were going with this?
Well, they certainly had a District Attorney and a U.S. Attorney in Chicago that were doing criminal cases. I don't know what the involvement of the Office of the 126 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Inspector General was before and after with those entities.
Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, it's kind of like it's plugging that hole between the DA and the United States Attorney, and I'm just trying to figure out why someone at the District Attorney's Office would not have been able to do the same -- and I understand you're saying there's some laws that locally they can't be prosecuted, but I would expect that the District Attorney would then bring that to the United States Attorney General's attention if there was something that he or she couldn't prosecute at the local level.
I think the problem comes in when those things are not brought to the attention of the District Attorney. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's like another question. Why? I mean, is someone concerned about retaliation, 127 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. political retaliation, for going to the DA?
Many of these investigations are proactive. An informant may -- a City employee may walk into the Inspector General's Office and complain about something that their supervisor is doing, and that's where the investigation would get started. At the District Attorney's Office, I'm not certain how it works there, but I don't know that there's that type of proactive investigation that originates from a complaint by a City official or by a business. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're a former prosecutor. Is it fair to say that the majority of cases that are brought to a prosecutor, whether it's the local, state or federal level, are a result of people coming in to give you information?
Some of them are. In fact, the plumbing inspection case 128 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. that I spoke about earlier came from the Inspector General's Office. However, the Inspector General's Office didn't really get any credit for that, and when that case was brought, it looked to the people in the City that it was the federal government that was coming in and cleaning up the City. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But could you tell me how the IG Office got that information? Did someone walk in or someone tipped them off, I would assume?
That's right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So that same person could have gone to the DA?
That's correct, but they didn't. And part of that could have been confidence in the District Attorney's Office -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's what I'm trying to get at.
-- confidence in the U.S. Attorney's Office. But I think the ability for somebody like that to 129 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. come to an independent office that's free from any type of political influence, it's greater. I think that there will be more people coming forward. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No 7 disrespect. I've been in politics, it will be 41 years, and I don't know of anybody, whether it's even in the private sector, that there's some influence or political connection that doesn't have something to do with what we're all doing. I mean, you're going to be appointed by a mayor, whatever the case may be. There's some influence. Someone has touched that other person in some way, shape or form. So I don't know if that let's all the stuff go away. I've always been of the opinion that no matter how many laws are created, if someone wants to do something that is illegal, immoral or corrupt, they're going to do it regardless of that law. I mean, it's illegal to rob banks, but people rob banks every day. 130 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. I'm not minimizing the importance of what we're trying to do here. I'm just trying to figure out what the real necessity is when we have all these other different agencies and the duplicity and things that we talked about earlier.
My only comment on that is that for the past years, 11 we've had all of these different agencies 12 and we continue to have a problem in the 13 City. 14
But 15 doesn't that go back to what Councilman 16 DiCicco just said, that there are 17 unfortunately going to be people who are 18 going to try to do these things? I mean, 19 is there any indication that's really 20 going to solve anything? 21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What's to 22 prevent that from continuing? You get to 23 the prosecution maybe a little bit sooner 24 and then maybe do a better job at the prosecution level, but it doesn't stop 131 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the initial violation of the law or the criminal intent. It never stops that. It may be good in perception, and people out there, Oh, we got an Inspector General, the corruption is going to go away. Although, people in my neighborhood never figure it's going to go away. They just figure we're all corrupt no matter what we do, but that's -- what can I tell you? Forty-one years clean record, it still doesn't make me, in some people's eyes, as being non-corrupt. They figure I'm here because I'm corrupt or something like that.
I don't think there's any law that you can pass that's going to prevent all crime, but I think that this is an additional step that would try to prevent the crime that's part of what Mayor Nutter has tried to do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Another set of eyes watching over. 132 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Exactly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. Thank you. No further questions.
Yeah. You mention the City of Chicago Inspector General's Office has 70 employees. Once we're past the two years, a million dollars, what do you imagine the number of employees is that you will have and what could you -- is there a writ of mandamus in here?
How many employees do we need in the Inspector General's Office and how much will it cost?
That I don't know, sir. That's why I -- this two years is sort of a trial period, but I can tell you right now that in the Inspector General's Office, we have 133 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. several possible issues of misconduct to look into, but we don't have the staff to do it.
What is in the Mayor's Five-Year Plan in terms of your funding for the last three years?
You mean what has been funded in the last three years for this office?
No. The Mayor just introduced his Five-Year Budget Plan. How much is allocated for the Inspector General in the three out years in the Five-Year Plan?
I don't think there's anything specifically allocated at all, because the budget of the Inspector General's Office as it is just comes from the Mayor's Office. For example, if we order paper, we call up the Mayor's Office and they order the paper for us. So there is no specific amount of money that is earmarked for the Inspector General's Office. 134 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Clarence Armbrister, Chief of Staff. I don't know the specific number, Councilman, but there is an allocation within the Mayor's Office, as Ms. Kurland was mentioning, that is allocable for the Inspector General's Office. When Ms. Kurland came into or was appointed to the government, she immediately did an assessment of the office and has made several recommendations to the Mayor's Office about increasing the staffing, for which she just described that they are low on staffing. So we're taking a look at their request, but we have not assigned significant additional dollars. We did provide some additional support above prior year's budgets for Ms. Kurland, but probably, in her opinion, not enough.
Well, that 135 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. sort of gets to the point of the difference between Chicago when it didn't have 70 people in the Chicago Inspector General Office, when it did have 70 people, and it's a question of how we're going to allocate the City's resources, whether it would be appropriate to allocate more money to the DA's Office specifically for a public corruption unit, whether it would make sense to allocate -- because the DA never thinks they have enough money from City Council. Whether it would make more sense to allocate -- and the DA also has a writ of mandamus, I believe. No? Okay. And then also to allocate -- do we ask the City Controller, who the last time I spoke to him in the previous Administration was against this legislation because he felt it duplicated his duties, and if he had the resources, he would be conducting forensic audits and other kinds of investigations and looking into this stuff and making the 136 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. proper referrals to federal, state and local bodies. Are we hearing from the Controller, Bill?
Okay. So if it's a question of resources, how does -- as we're thinking about the Five-Year Plan and prioritizing the budget and giving the DA more money, the Controller more money, the Ethics Board more money, how do we sort of make that conclusion in terms of where these resources should go, and how much will it be?
I'm not sure what the answer is to your last question about how much it would be, but if we can imagine that the Inspector General's Office was in fact independent, it would, like other independent agencies, come to the Administration or City Council, quite frankly, and make its budget request with 137 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. respect to resources, much like the DA does, as you indicated. I think, though, to get to your other point about whether or not there are duplicative efforts, I think Ms. Kurland indicated that the importance of the proposed Charter change is reflected in the fact of its independence, that it is not an elected body in that it could take on and withstand with other political concerns. And I understand what Councilman DiCicco said, that almost everything is political, but there's a certain level of independence. By elevating this office to a Charter-constituted independent body, it would give the kind of protection for the citizens of Philadelphia and enhance the integrity of all public officials that we have been looking to ensure through this Administration.
Thank you, Councilman. 138 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finally, Ms. Kurland, I have a slight problem with your description of the need for the Office of Inspector General to be independent based upon perception of corruption. As I said before, I support the Office of Inspector General. I support it becoming independent. I support this Charter change in some form, but not to deal with the perception of corruption, but for it to be part of a team of ethics-related entities that actually roots out corruption, because as far as I know -- and you can tell me differently -- as a former U.S. Attorney, there's nothing new to the laws as they relate to bribery, extortion and theft. There are no new nuances there in terms of whether if you're caught stealing or bribing someone or extorting someone, you should go to jail and whoever catches you should make 139 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. sure you go to jail. Please explain where the whole issue of perception of corruption falls into this in reality and as separate from the actual functions of an independent IG to root out corruption.
Often times in investigations or, I would say, most times in investigations they begin with somebody coming forward, often times somebody from inside the City or inside a business. As long as there is a perception among the community that the Office of the Inspector General is part of the Mayor's Office and not independent, I think that there is some reluctance of people to come forward, and that makes it a lot more difficult to conduct investigations. If somebody is going to come forward to an entity that they believe is free from political influence and independent, I think that they will be more forthcoming, and that would further 140 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. an investigation significantly.
And why because it's associated with the Mayor's Office would someone be reluctant?
Why because it's associated with the Mayor's Office would somebody be reluctant to move forward?
Well, in the City Hall corruption case most recently, the Inspector General's Office was not really a part of that investigation or very effective in forwarding the investigation because it was part of the Mayor's Office.
I'm not following you. Without getting into the case too deeply, it could be said that someone else caught it, and that's my point in the end, is that if stealing is still against the law and bribery is still against the law, extortion is still 141 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. against the law, it doesn't make a difference to me who catches it. Yes, I want to expand our tools to catch it, but we should define how we're going to do it and whether we're actually, in the most effective way, establishing a new tool or not, because I don't think that this particular legislation -- well, I know this particular legislation does not redefine the role of the City Controller within the Charter. It does not redefine other roles. It only defines this role. And so the issue of how we define this role is still one that remains not totally resolved, because at the end of the day, we should define it and we should define it as an independent entity, but that doesn't mean that we should accept the way it's defined within this legislation. And we definitely shouldn't do it based upon the perception of corruption as opposed to creating a new tool that actually is taking a targeted approach toward absolutely 142 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. rooting out corruption.
I apologize if I left the impression that we were only concerned about the perception of rooting out corruption. I do believe that the proposed Charter change as it's written would be a very effective tool and would establish an investigative agency that would be very effective in rooting out corruption.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you both very much. Mr. Stalberg, did you want to say something on this, or anyone else? Is there anyone else that wants to testify? (No response.)
Good. Thank you. 143 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. I'm Zach Stalberg, President of the Committee of Seventy. The Committee of Seventy does support the Administration's proposed Charter change that would make the Inspector General permanent and independent and put the Inspector General beyond the reach of political influence, which has not always been the case. I do think that any changes that you make in this should be done very carefully and very precisely, and let me just make a few points. The Charter amendment should be as clear as possible on the division of responsibility between the ethics agencies, which include the Board of Ethics, the Controller's Office, the Chief Integrity Office and the Office of 144 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the Inspector General. For example, the Special Fraud Investigations Division of the Controller's Office is charged with investigating contract fraud, which could also come under the purview of the IG. So it's that kind of potential overlap that I hope will be addressed by the Committee and the Council as it shapes this legislation. Council should amend the legislation so that appointment and removal of the Inspector General mirrors the Charter requirements of the Board of Ethics. Under the Mayor's proposal, the Inspector General is appointed by the Mayor. Members of the Board of Ethics, however, are appointed by the Mayor but must be confirmed by City Council. This is the method used for appointing Chicago's Inspector General. Also under the Mayor's amendment, the Inspector General can only be removed for cause and is given the opportunity for a hearing before the 145 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Mayor. The Committee of Seventy favors the more stringent test for removal that applies to members of the Board of Ethics. Removal of an Ethics Board member requires concurrence of two-thirds of Councilmembers and can take place only after a public hearing in City Council. It also makes sense to appoint an Inspector General whose professional experience qualifies him or her to perform the investigative duties of the office. The proposed Charter amendment here does not specify any criteria for choosing an Inspector General. And, finally, the amendment also imbeds the Inspector General's salary in the Charter. Given the nature of salaries, Council should amend the provision to explicitly define the salary as a minimum amount as opposed to a fixed number. Thanks very much.
Thank you. 146 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. So I guess just as I'm listening to you, it seems like there's a lot of things we still need to discuss on this, in my personal opinion, and that's why I would, just speaking for myself, think that maybe taking a little more time in getting it right and vetting this a little more makes some sense.
I should say that our history with this, the Committee of Seventy's history, is that we support the idea of an independent Inspector General. When it came time for a vote, many of these issues had not been really addressed or carefully resolved and we asked for a delay. We still support the idea. However, I think back to the point we discussed when we were talking about deputies, the changes made now will likely last for a very long time, beyond the terms of the individuals involved right now, and I just hope they're done very carefully. 147 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Yeah. I'd like to hear from the City Controller and the DA and others involved in this in terms of what they think about this legislation and the sort of working -- how they see themselves working with the Inspector General, including maybe the Board of Ethics, if they'd be willing to testify. I mean, it's not clear to me, even though the Mayor has some small description, what the job description is really of these different people, and I think we're putting in place permanence in terms of all these different boards and commissions and agencies, et cetera, in the Philadelphia Charter without sort of clear job descriptions, and I'd kind of like to get a handle on that.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Goode. 148 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stalberg, just for the record, does the Committee of Seventy have a formal opinion on whether there should be a comprehensive overhaul of the City Charter? I know in the past year or two the Committee has suggested that a lot of this has been done piecemeal and in testimony against Charter changes has mentioned the piecemealing of it and the testimony in favor of Charter changes has not. So is there a formal opinion in terms of whether any of this should be done piecemeal?
In the abstract, we would like to see a comprehensive overhaul of the Charter and have been worried about piecemeal changes in the Charter, especially some which appear to be trivial or not related to the actual workings of City government. Offsetting that, I should say, is the 1994 experience in which there was an attempt 149 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. to make wholesale changes and we saw that contribute to the defeat of the Charter change. So certainly theoretically we would -- it's a 60-some-year-old document and it's probably time for a comprehensive look. The trick is doing it right, and I think we've had trouble imagining a way in which it could be done smartly with the right kind of outcome.
If I may just say to Councilman Green, we definitely support this change. However, we have gone through the exercise of trying to put down on a piece of paper sort of what falls where under the Controller, the DA or whatever, and it's based on what's been publicly said. It is a little 150 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. difficult to complete that chart. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you both very much. Anyone else here to testify on this or any of the other bills or resolutions? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government, and in one minute we will go into the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. (Short recess.)
Sorry for the delay. This is the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Bill No. 080006.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 23 080006 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to 151 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 080006 be approved by this Committee and that the rules of Council be suspended for first reading at the next session of Council. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 080041.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 21 080041 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Resolution 080041 152 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. be approved by this Committee. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for an amendment to Resolution 12 080040.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An amendment to Resolution 15 No. 080040 has been circulated to the members of the Committee. I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that the amendment to Resolution 080040 be approved. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
Opposed? (No response.) 153 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
The motion carries and Resolution 080040 is amended. That resolution, Resolution 6 080040, and Bill No. 080008 will be continued today until Thursday, February 28th at 8:30. Further, Bill No. 080007 and Resolution 080039 will be held to the call of the Chair. No further business before the Committee today, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Law and Government adjourned at 12:50 p.m.) - - - 154 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 February 19, 2008, 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.)