And as a former English teacher, I'm glad to hear that, that my colleague was also an English teacher.
Councilman, what year was that when you were teaching English?
That's quite possible. My parents were definitely little kids 190 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 that at that time. This is -- I love this place. Section 131.5 goes to, I think, as Councilman Cohen has referred to, the belts and 5 12 suspenders. This section pretty much remains 6 unchanged, I believe actually, except for one 7 significant addition. 8 This says that "it is the intent of 9 Council that distributions to retirees, their 10 beneficiaries, and survivors through the Pension 11 Adjustment Fund pursuant to this section should be 12 funded solely from investment returns generated by Pension Fund assets." I think all of the testimony has always indicated that these distributions should only come from the Pension Adjustment Fund. "Nothing in this ordinance is intended to require the City of Philadelphia to make any contributions from the General Fund to support the Pension Adjustment Fund in any way." And what was added was the comma and "except by ordinance of City Council." The purpose of that phraseology is to deal with the previous section. If in the event that the worst-case scenario were to play out, as 191 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 again, as well articulated by Councilman O'Neill in the hour-plus discussion earlier, and if there is a two-year period during which the Pension Fund itself has returns in excess of percent, but 6 because of the pension system's valuation method, 7 there are no credits made to the Pension 8 Adjustment Fund, one, City Council wants to know 9 about it; and, two, we would take the position by 10 this phraseology that we would have the right by ordinance to make credits to the Pension Adjustment Fund from sources that we determine.
The record will note that I never made objection to the statement. I'm in full agreement.
I would desperately like to move on if you have no objection.
All right. As I mentioned earlier, this bill, Section 1 will mirror Section 2; or in the reverse, Section 2 will mirror Section 1. And unless there are any objections or unless anyone has found any inconsistencies between Section 1 and Section 2, 192 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 I'd like to move to Section 3 on . There was a concern expressed about the sunset provision of the bill. That sunset provision would allow the Pension Adjustment Fund to expire in five years unless reauthorized by City Council. And so virtually inaction by the body could result in the expiration of the Pension Adjustment Fund. There was an objection raised to that certainly, I'm sure, by the unions; I don't recall it by any members, but there was discussion about it. That provision has been deleted. The new Section 3 would allow for review periods, and that reads: "Within 60 days after every sixth anniversary of the establishment of the Pension Adjustment Fund, the Board shall determine whether the authorizations, directives, or provisions of this ordinance should be amended. If the Board, by a majority vote of its members determines that amendments are necessary, the Board shall provide a written explanation of said amendments and make a recommendation in writing to City Council requesting that the amendments be implemented within one year by ordinance. The 193 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 recommendation by the Board shall also include a statement documenting the actuarial impact of any recommended amendments. City Council expressly reserves the right to amend the authorizations, directives, and provisions of this ordinance at any time as it deems necessary. Any amendment by City Council shall be accompanied by a written explanation of said amendment and an actuarial impact statement documenting the impact of any recommended amendment." I would believe that that would actually be for our own protection, to make sure that we know what the particular amendment is about and what the potential actuarial impact is of that particular amendment. Madame Chair, that at least represents a reading into the record of the general provisions of the proposed amendments. And if there are any other questions that I can answer -- I think there are some other questions, they may not be for me, I'd be prepared to answer them at this point in time.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? 194 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 I would urge all Councilmembers to please come to the chamber. All Councilmembers, please come to the chamber.
Would it simplify and make clearer Section 3 if we deleted everything in that section except the last sentence. It would make it about half as long, and I think it would achieve --
The very last -- 7 and 8. I'm suggesting that the suggesting Section 3 review period, that the only sentence needed really is the final sentence -- "City Council expressly reserves the right to amend. . ." That whole sentence.
I would only take 195 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 the position that it was necessary from the standpoint of -- we have asked the Board of Pensions to do a number of things. What I'm proposing that we ask them to do here, again, from a monitoring and accountability standpoint, is that they review what's going on an even extended basis to make sure that whatever was put in place -- whether it's now in 1999, or, I guess, 2005, 2011, in these six-year time frames -- that they review and reevaluate and be required to do so for certain periods of time. If there is no recommendation that they want to make, then they don't have to make one. But it's really more putting in an additional responsibility on them to make sure that things are working right, that whatever it is that you're doing is consistent with the times and the financial circumstances of the Board. They are merely required to review it and to make a recommendation. The recommendation could be one of two things: either everything is all right and we have no recommendation to make; or we think that there is something that needs to be changed, and it has to be accompanied with an 196 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 explanation and an actuarial impact statement. And that's only a recommendation to City Council. There's no requirement for us to implement any of those recommendation, but it's an additional reporting requirement, and nothing more.
All right, I think that's a reasonable explanation. I don't see any harm. Madame Chair, I'd like to correct the record. I stated before that I received certification as an English teacher in 1937. The year was wrong; it was 1934.
Madame Chair, at this point in time, if there are no further questions for me, I don't know if there are other 197 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 questions for other people, nor do I know if there's any further discussion or debate at this point in time, I would like to -- or even if there is further discussion and debate, I'd like to be in a position to be able to offer these amendments in a public meeting, have whatever action is to be taken on them, and continue from that point.
In Section 131.4, I had raised the question about the clause containing the "subject to" phrase.
Councilman, you're talking about the phrase "however, that all disbursements made pursuant to this section shall be consistent with all federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations," is that the phraseology you're talking about?
Just a moment, please. Yeah, that's the section I had 198 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 referenced to, the one beginning with "Provided, however. . ."
Right. Councilman, you and I have had a couple discussions about this. I had committed to trying to get in writing an explanation from the Law Department as to what that phraseology was about. I believe on Monday it was distributed to you and all members. There were three letters or memoranda from the Law Department to me on three different issues, one of which was the legal limits on distributions and the phraseology in question. What I'd first like to do is read into the record the response that we received back and take it from there.
This is a memo from Evan Meyer, Deputy City Solicitor, to me, Councilman Nutter, dated January 22, 1999. The subject is Bill No. 990001, Pension COLA and legal limits on distributions. The letter reads as follows: "You have asked for an opinion as to the effect of a sentence in Bill No. 990001, as 199 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 introduced, that subjects future distributions from the Pension Adjustment Fund to certain other laws. Your question relates to a specific phrase in Section 131.4. I quote the entire sentence with the phrase in question underlined." Councilman, what I'd like to do, since there is a proposed amendment on that whole section, is just to read the phrase in question, is that okay?
"Provided, however, that all disbursements made pursuant to this section shall be with all federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations." The letter continues. "A concern that you may have is that the underlined phrase could be interpreted to prohibit any distribution whatsoever so that none would be made. I advise you that the underlined phrase does not have so broad a meaning. I am certain that the intent of the phrase is to ensure that the Board, in exercising its discretion, would not create a benefit that Council would not have been legally prohibited from enacting by 200 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 ordinance. "An example of such a prohibited benefit would be a benefit that violated the anti-discrimination rules of the Tax Code by providing a benefit only to the highly compensated members and not to lower-compensated members. Paying such a benefit could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the Pension Fund. "Another example would be a benefit that violated Act 205, the Municipal Planning Funding Standard and Recovery Act, or the PICA Act, by increasing City's unfunded liability, which does not appear to be a possibility since the bill provides that all distributions are to be funded solely from investment returns." "Another example would be a benefit that violated the federal Uniform Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, by failing to provide a required benefit to a veteran -- also unlikely since any disbursements are likely to be, quote/unquote, across the board. "The underlined phrase does not contemplate that a disbursement would be prohibited if it was not specifically authorized 201 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 in the current Retirement Code, Title of The Philadelphia Code, as enacted by Bill 980843 since no disbursement would meet that requirement. "Clearly, in enacting Bill No. 990001, Council would evidence an intent that the Board may make disbursements in addition to benefits specifically authorized in the current Retirement Code. It may be helpful to arrange for testimony on the intent of this provision at the hearing on the bill. Then the legislative history of the bill will make the legislative intent clear."
I would like to 14 respond to that -- either now or I'll have to 15 offer an amendment. Obviously, the City 16 Solicitor's Office is not going to say, We're 17 going to use this for other than proper purposes. 18 The fact that the City's administrations 19 historically have been opposed on pension bills 20 and have presented Council with all sorts of 21 reasons why no action should be taken. They tell 22 us either everything has to happen at the negotiating table or they tell us that we're fiscally irresponsible. That's one area. The second area is that the City 202 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Solicitor will have full opportunity to present their case. If they find any reason object to anything, we will hear them at the hearing on the bill. I can't see any conceivable reason for this provision except to give the Mayor of the city an additional super veto power. After Council overrides a veto of the Mayor, he can then have the City Solicitor rule under this provision that City Council itself said to the City Solicitor, Protect us from our errors, we are too stupid to know if we violate some law, so we're counting on the City Solicitor. If they fail to note it at the time of the hearing, if Council failed to note anything wrong, if the Mayor in his veto message failed to note anything wrong, that we'll have one last crack at voiding the pension legislation by having the City Solicitor find some reason that there may be a question of legality. I assert that the City Solicitor always has the right to find something illegal, whether it makes sense. But certainly we should not, in City Council, empower the City Solicitor to use against City Council its own language. 203 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 So I am asking that that be removed from the bill. I want to take away their argument that you, City Council, asked us to make this final check. And that's the purpose for my amendment.
And I would like to ask you, since it has not been, you know, introduced as of now, to eliminate that language from the amendment that you propose.
And I might suggest that I think it's a matter of collegial courtesy that you ought to accept the legal advice of a member of the City Council over the legal advice of a City Solicitor who works for the Mayor. I think you ought to at least assume that the City Councilmember who is a lawyer has the interest of this City Council at heart. And I find it personally offensive to have any Councilmember take the Mayor's lawyer over a lawyer who serves in the City Council.
Councilman, I 204 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 appreciate that, and no disrespect is intended.
I would be glad to adhere to that if you're willing to take a member of Council who is financially trained -- their advice over someone else's advice.
But, Councilman, the lawyer is giving -- the City Solicitor's lawyer is not giving you any examples of improper use of the power.
They're merely explaining in the normal course of events, we'd only do it under these circumstances.
We don't really have an argument, Councilman, between us. 205 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 From our previous conversations. And I would generally believe also, your position on this is probably that whether the phrase is in or out, it doesn't really make much of a difference; is that correct?
No, no, it makes a very big difference. It gives the City Solicitor the --
Then if the phrase is out, then you're all right with it? If it's out.
Okay, one last question. Would you agree in that same section 17 that before any distribution is made, that the Board itself should seek advice of its own legal counsel, that whatever distribution is going to be made will not have any impact on the tax-exempt status of the Pension Fund?
I would impose that on the grounds that I think it's an insult to the retirees. The Board has the right to consult with any whatever legal counsel it wishes to. I don't 206 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 think we have to tell the Board, especially now, We're worried that maybe you're going give a little money away, make sure you get a legal opinion.
And we might very well even ask them if they've consulted.
Okay. Under that scenario, then, the sentence would read: "To retirees, their beneficiaries, and their survivors, and the Board may, by a majority of its members, authorize distributions from the Pension Adjustment Fund."
Right. 207 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Madame Chair, based on the discussion that has taken place so far -- and I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I'm in error -- there are corrections and/or amendments that would need to be made to the proposed amendments, all of which can be made at one time. I'd like to, Madame Chair, offer a proposed amendment to Bill 990001, which is dated 1/27/99. The corrections or amendments to this proposed amendment would be the deleting on of the -- in small letter (d), of the phrase "or such other generally accepted valuation methodology as may be approved or adopted from time to time by the Board." That phraseology should be stricken.
We have discussed a lot of amendments. Certainly we will like to see these amendment in writing.
They're here; you have them before you. 208 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
No, he's talking about the amendments that we just discussed, but we want to see the changes that were recommended in writing. I mean, we've talked about a lot of amendments. The one in discussion is the one that Councilman Cohen just mentioned that we had deleted.
But some of the other things that we mentioned are not as simple, and we would certainly like to see clean bill on something that's been this debated. We'd like to see a clean bill before we vote.
I understand. Councilwoman, are there some other places where there's a more complicated deletion or -- 209 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
All those things that we've been talking about all day, we would certainly like to see a clean bill, and I don't think it's too much to ask to see a clean bill before we vote on it.
Actually, for the deletion on , all you have to do is draw a line.
Well, that's one. I'm saying, obviously, that one's easy.
But what other amendments are you referring to, Councilwoman?
We mentioned several other ideas, one which, Councilman Nutter, we talked about, for example, the July 1 date, July 1, 1999 -- not July 1 1999. We didn't mention that just to mention that; we mentioned that seriously. Now, if he's going to tell me that he's going to change that effective -- or take that phrase out or have it effective on that July '99, when the Board establishes and also 210 1 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 deletes this other part. . . See, I don't know how that looks. We talked about that. We didn't make these suggestions and these recommendations just to --
Excuse me, Councilwoman, are you talking about ? Are you talking about the Pension Adjustment Fund? What are you referring to exactly?
I am talking about -- I'm talking about -- we talked about the -- establishing the Pension Adjustment Fund and how having that effective at the same time. When we made these suggestions, we did not make them to make them; we made them because we wanted them to be a part of this bill. So I don't know -- until we see this bill in writing, I want to make sure that all of our amendments are enacted. Now, if you want us to orally read again what we said over again, we can spend another -- I don't know, however long we've done this, about three hours talking about them. But I believe that we should be able to see a clean bill with all of the amendments that 211 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 we've suggested included. I don't think that's too much to ask for. For something that's been this controversial, this much debated, we ought to have a clean, clear bill that we can look at and to vote on.
Councilwoman, at this point, that is not an amendment that I am offering; it's someone else's.
I offered it. You didn't offer the amendment, but I did. I want to see a clean bill.
How do I know whether or not my suggestions have been included in his amendments? He may have one idea on what he wants to amend, and I may have another.
I want to see a clean bill, and I don't think that's too much to 212 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 ask. How are we supposed to know whether or not our amendments have been incorporated into the bill unless see it in print? A bill this detailed and this --
Councilwoman, you will know by whether the amendment is offered and voted on.
But I think we should be able to see it in writing.
I understand; I'm not objecting to that. All I am putting forward is the amendments that I am making.
You as a Councilmember have a right to make other amendments.
But we already went over your amendments. Then what are we doing now? We went over all of yours already, did we not? Are we reviewing it all over again?
No, we're not. What we are doing is, there have been proposed amendments generally revolving around language to be stricken, and I'm going back over what those 213 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 strikings are before I make a final motion to offer these amendments.
I understood that we went through this process today so that you -- we didn't say you, did not say, and the president didn't say that we offer your amendment or Administration amendments first --
-- and then other people offer amendments. We did it together.
You offered one, I offered one. You offered one, Councilman Cohen offered one. So it's been a joint process.
So to review yours and not ours is unfair. I would like to see a clean bill with all of the amendments. I don't 214 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 want to go over the same thing over and over and over. If we are expected to consider a bill, I think we certainly have a right to see one that incorporates all of the amendments suggested. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't see why there's reason for debate about the issue.
What I would like to do is point out what the further amendments are to the document that is in members' hands, that I am prepared to offer as amendments. Every member of this Council has a right to propose their own amendments. And just because something was discussed extensively does not necessarily mean that that is being offered as an amendment by me. It may be offered by another member, and they will have, you know, their right to do that.
Excuse me Councilman. Councilman Rizzo, I know your light's 215 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 been on.
Madame President, I agree with the Councilwoman that after all the amendments are offered, it would be helpful to me to have a clean document so that I can understand it 'cause this is has been very difficult, very hard to follow, and I'm not sure what's been stricken, what's been added. So I would like to have time to read it to be sure I know exactly what the issues and the amendments are.
I also find it absolutely regrettable that, all of a sudden, that my colleague wants to only entertain his own amendments. So, in other words, we've got to --
With all due respect, Councilwoman, I think all of us reserve the right to -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over one another.)
Right. 216 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
If this is your bill and you agreed to prepare it you and agreed to write the amendments and this was the way you were doing it, if the process was somehow changed, then you should have said so. You should have said, I'm going to submit mine in writing and you submit yours in writing -- which we still could not have done because we just got this amended bill today. So we could not have been prepared with our amendments in writing, and now you want us to go through this whole process all over again because you want to offer only your amendments. And that is absolutely unfair. You want to consider all of the amendments and you want to go through 'em 1400 times, that's fine. But I don't think it's right for you now to consider that you want to repeat your amendments and not deal with all of the amendments that are on the table. That's unfair, Madame Chair, and I take issue with that.
Councilman Cohen? 217 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
I have an in-between point of view. Councilman Nutter is the chief sponsor of the bill. He -- after lots of discussions, he's offered many amendments. Some of them, I know I have felt ought to be in turn amended; that's why I've asked him not to introduce certain things before they become official amendments. But I do think it would be in the interest of everybody if Councilman Nutter's amendments were voted on today, and I think they'll be approved at this stage. And then we'll get an opportunity to study them and I will know what amendments I may want to offer. For example, I have one other question that did not get raised. I'm worried about that situation where the Board offers a nickel as a pension, you know, and thereby defeats the ability of City Council to act. Now, I don't know whether I'm right at this stage. I would like to see the complete Nutter bill with Nutter's amendments and with an opportunity for us to see it to see whether or not any amendments are needed. We've had lots of 218 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 discussion. Councilman Nutter has agreed to a number of the changes; and other things, we're still thinking about it. So what I would like to suggest is partly what Councilwoman Blackwell speaks of and partly what Councilmember Nutter speaks of, that Councilman Nutter put in all of his amendments. He has the right to change own bill. Any sponsor at any time has the right to change their bill and offer their own amendment, and then circulate that among us Councilmembers and give us an opportunity to study the situation. As we pointed out before, we have a week before anything can happen, before there's any need for any action. That will give everybody an opportunity. We may probably agree with his amendments or have a chance to offer other amendments that he may very well accept. But still, we haven't solved the most basic question of that amount, that 9 to 10. I would like to have some discussion on that 9 to 10 matter. But can't we get those amendments in so that we'll know whether we want to change 219 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Councilman Nutter's bill further?
Certainly on that question, I disagree with my colleague. Due to the political nature and certainly -- I'll say two things: Number one, we have two deputy mayors in the room. We've asked the Mayor to come. The Commissioner's back, and if he was out of town with the Commissioner of Recreation, the Commissioner of Recreation is back, so it seems to me the Mayor should be back. We would love to hear the Mayor respond to the initial questions raised by Councilman O'Neill with regard to the amount, whether it's 5 million or 100 million dollars talking about. That issue has not been raised. I do not agree that we should have the Nutter amendments on the table. Due to the political nature of this, I don't want a bill in any way perceived in its final form by the Administration. I don't think that's fair. I don't think it gives -- for those of us who have other interests, I would rather see a more balanced bill on the table before we are asked to 220 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 consider it. I think that is the fairest way. Given the nature of this bill, given the controversial aspects of it, I would prefer that we have a bill on the table with all the amendments in place.
Thank you, Madame Chair. In response to Councilwoman Blackwell, there is work being done on the amendments again that I am offering. If another member has an interest in offering amendments, as Councilmembers, they have a right to do that.
And Madame President, I will agree only if we agree that we not vote on it. I do not want to have to vote on amendments to a bill without all of the amendments being in. That's my point. Let's hear from the Administration, let's hear from the Mayor on the initial questions raised earlier. Let's hear from them. We still haven't decided on 9 or 10 percent, and I would rather have all the amendments on the table before 221 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 a vote.
Well, I think the question of or percent has been 5 constantly said, Councilwoman and -- 6
And the 9 Administration will not go for anything less than 10 10 percent.
Well, then they should say that. We're not the Administration.
I don't think so, I don't think so. The Administration should state that. Mr. Herkness and Ken Kent answered questions with regard to that. Nobody specifically answered that question and said that they are the Administration or that they are speaking for the Administration. I want an answer to my question. It is not fair and it violates the Charter to be asked to vote on a bill without a 222 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 specific provision defined. I want a full bill if I am required to vote on a bill. I want a bill 4 where all sides are defined. I want the Administration to say where they are, and I want Council with all of its members having the right to have input into a bill so that we vote on one that is as least as fair as we can get it. And I really don't think that's unreasonable to ask.
Councilwoman, if I can just try to get one basic understanding. Councilwoman, are you asking -- you're asking that the amendments that you're interested in you, are asking me to write them and discuss them and propose them?
What I'm asking for, Councilman Nutter, is an opportunity for the Administration to respond as to their position on the 9 or 10 percent, and I'm asking for the opportunity for everybody that's been a part of this debate all day today to have an opportunity to submit their amendments so that we have a balanced picture as far as we can go.
Okay, Councilwoman, I'm not stopping anybody from submitting 223 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 amendments.
Well, then I make that question to the Chair that we not be told that we need to vote on a bill, that we do not have to try to vote and report out a bill that does not reflect a balanced picture of the concerns of all of the members in this body. That's all I'm asking.
Councilwoman, all I can say to you is that if you have --
And I'm not saying that that's your question to answer, Councilman Nutter. I understand that.
But I think that we want the opportunity to see them in writing. We want to see a balanced bill.
Okay, we -- Councilman, we're working -- 224 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
I don't want to see -- (Unintelligible; parties speaking over each other.)
Councilwoman, Councilwoman, please. This will go on and on. Do you have amendments to introduce?
I have amendments but I don't have them ready today, Madame Chair. We just got this bill today. We just got this today. We just got this today. Do you want to recess for a couple hours? We are not prepared, I do not have my amendments written. Given the fact that we just received this today, I think it is unfair that we are asked to review, to evaluate, and to submit amendments to this today. I think that's unfair. I think we all as deserve a right to review and to amend where we see fit. I don't think we should be forced to vote on this today. Fair is fair. That's all I'm asking, that we have the opportunity to review this and that we not have to vote on this today. I really don't see where that's a big problem and 225 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 why we can't have an opportunity the for review. That's all I request.
Excuse me, I'm asking for a ruling by the Chair, if you don't mind.
Councilman Nutter, no disrespect intended, but if we don't have to vote on this, I'm happy to hear all of your amendments as long as it takes.
Well, we're going to take the Councilman's amendments because he never completed --
He completed them, he went through the last page on the bill.
No, he didn't. He was still talking when he was interrupted.
Councilman 226 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Nutter, please continue.
I'm asking that we not have to vote, and I would like a ruling from the President on this matter, that we not have to vote on the amendments until all are on the table. That's all.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco for a point of order.
Are we at the point of voting, Madame Chair? I thought we were at the point where we were still listening to the amendments being offered by Councilman Nutter.
We heard them all already. We're reviewing them again.
Thank you, Madame 227 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 Chair.
One question. I'm asking for again, for determination on us not having to vote on this issue today until we all have an opportunity to see a clear bill and until we have, one, a response from the Mayor; and, number two, until we have an opportunity to see all of our amendments in writing.
Councilman, what other amendments did you make other than --
Madame President, would you make a ruling on that issue?
Do you mind? Do you mind my asking a question, please, Councilwoman?
But I would like a ruling on the question. We have a question on the table to which we ask a response.
And I am saying that Councilman Nutter was still addressing his proposed amendments. He did not have an opportunity to complete them. We are now considering amendments. I think he has -- he should be given the courtesy to at least finish. 228 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
And I am further going to say that once he is finished, it's my understanding that we have one more witness that would like to testify, and that is Mr. Costello. Is that so? Somebody just told me that you wanted to testify. If you don't, that's fine. (Mr. Costello responds inaudibly, off mike.)
Madame President, I would defer any further discussion on this matter until then.
I mean, we 229 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 have to continue on with this hearing. That's my opinion.
I defer any further discussion until after that. Thank you.
Madame Chair, you stated at one point a few minutes ago that the Mayor will veto anything under 10 --
I said he would not agree to anything less than 10 percent.
Oh, all right. Because I don't think we have to confine our discussions or decisions to conform to the Mayor's concept of what's appropriate for Council to do. I think Council makes that decision, not the Mayor. If we come out with a bill and the Mayor vetoes it, then we're going to try to 230 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 override it again 'cause we're going to have this pension thing up and back, up and back until we get a right bill. You know, I just want to make that clear I don't think we ought to be thinking that we got to do a bill that the Mayor is going to accept; we got to do a bill that we think is right on behalf of the retirees. The Mayor will do what he wants to do.
Councilwoman Blackwell says maybe others will be retired, but I won't be. Okay. (Laughter.)