Right, right. Or it could be a service-corrected death, which covers literally anything in the line of duty -- whether you are walking on the street in L&I and you're robbed or whether you're killed in action in the Police Department or in the Fire Department. When the benefit is going to be paid under those circumstances, eventually, it will have to be a service-connected death benefit. Now, there's a determination --
There is -- a recommendation will come from the department. 303 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 There is then a decision at the Pension Board. And if necessary, an outside independent medical examiner or a medical panel will render an opinion. But it's one or the other. All people who receive it have been determined to have died in the line of duty.
Let's take Mr. Yost's example. That's a real live situation that happened some time ago; I don't remember exactly when. If that happened again, if that happened next week, last week, would that person qualify, using the language to experience the service-connected death?
Any situation, anytime anywhere must be considered a service-connected death by the Pension Board. If that's not done, then the person will not receive service-connected death benefits across the board. There then can be a debate about the facts and it can appealed to court, it can be appealed to the Board, etc. But if the Board does not declare the individual eligible for service-connected death benefits, then a service-connected death benefit 304 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 would not be paid.
The Board typically doesn't recognize lung disease as something that kills us, and we have had, over the last five years, at least four members that have come down with lung disease, never went back to work, came down with lung disease at the scene of a fire emergency.
They are classified as "ordinary deaths" by the Pension Board, and we wind up going in and fighting for the family to win some kind of a Workman's Comp. award. They would get whatever small pension the widow would be entitled to.
In order for us to try to resolve this issue, I'd like to hear from what you would propose as language to try to cover the situations and circumstances that you're concerned about, and then let me try to better understand how my conflict with the Board of Pensions and their determination. Do you have any suggestions? 305 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Excuse me, Councilman. Excuse me, Mr. Yost, at this time I'd like to recognize Councilman Longstreth, who has very urgent business to attend to and would like to be recognized.
I would like to cast my vote in favor of the Nutter amendments only and also in favor of voting the bill out of committee and request your permission to leave the chambers.
I believe the wording should say something about "killed" or "died in the line of duty," and should be tied to an occurrence at the scene of -- whether it's a fire emergency or some type of a work-related. The man has to be in work when the initial injury or disease is contracted. Now, it's not just police and firefighters that are killed at work. There are other people that get killed typically in every department -- it could be a secretary, I don't know.
Mr. Herkness. 306 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
Mr. Herkness, we had a disastrous, unfortunate recent incident involving the Streets Department.
Tell me whether or not, based on the current definition that the Board uses, whether the beneficiary or survivor of those two employees who were killed would or would not benefit based on the phraseology that you've laid out versus what Mr. Yost has laid out.
On that specific example, the recent unfortunate deaths of the two Streets Department employees, both employees, it was ruled that it was a service-connected death. One employee's beneficiary has not yet made a selection. There is an option of ordinary death and going to the State Workers Compensation Board, if you want; or taking the service-connected death benefits from the Pension Board. One employee's beneficiary selected the service-connected death benefit; the second one has not made a selection yet but has an option. 307 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001 But they both were declared service-connected.
Okay, let me give you this language. Hopefully, you can live with it. The sentence starts earlier than this but: "For any beneficiary or survivor of a member who was killed or died in the line of duty related to the work environment. . . "
That's fine. I've been told many times by the Law Department that I don't have a right to interpret the ordinance; they have to look at it and say whether it's a --
All right, your response is you don't have a response, thank you very much.
Yes. I'd like to discuss the amendment that I've introduced.
Well, can we do that in a public meeting? 308 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Bill No. 990001
The recent cost discussion with respect to what happens to survivors --
Are we about to go into the public meeting and then have a full discussion about all the amendments? Do you agree with that?
No, we're not; we're still in the public hearing. Does anyone else want to be recognized? (No response.)
Seeing none, this concludes our public hearing. 309 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting - - -
We are now going into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Madame Chair, I would like to move the adoption of the proposed amendment to Bill No. 10 990001, dated January 27, 1999, designated as "Version 2," with now an additional amendment.
Technically, Councilman Cohen, yes, right. If you go to the third line of 131.1, where it says "Each beneficiary or survivor of a member who was or would be 60 years of age or older. ." insert "or any beneficiary or survivor." 310 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
Could you go a little slower. Any beneficiary or survivor.
" . . . of a member killed in the line of duty. . . " -- I'm sorry -- ". . . killed or who died in the line of duty related to the work environment."
I'm sorry. Again, it would read: "Each beneficiary or survivor of a member who was or would be 60 years of age or older, or any beneficiary or survivor of a member who was killed or who died in the line the duty related to the work of environment related to the work environment."
That is the additional amendment to the Version 2. And I move the adoption of all of those amendments.
Second. 311 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
It's been properly moved and seconded that all of the amendments regarding Bill No. 990001, Version 2 as of this date, along with the added amendment be adopted. All in favor signify by saying aye.
To get a unanimous vote on as much of it as possible, could all the amendments except the amendment dealing with the 10 percent floor be separated out?
Madame Chair, I would ask that all the amendments, except for the amendment that includes the 10 percent floor before sharing, be done first.
Separately, yes, and I believe the sponsor of the amendments agreed to that.
Madame Chair, I 312 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting only move amendments that I have put forward. The other amendment is Councilman Cohen's amendment, and he has not made a motion on that yet. We are only voting on the amendment that I've put forward, including the issue of the death survivors and beneficiaries of those killed in the line of duty. That is the only amendment that's been offered, that's the only motion that's been made.
I was asking for a separate vote on the one particular amendment dealing with the 10 percent.
All those in favor of Councilman Nutter's motion? I'm sorry, the Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
There was a famous author who said that if everyone visited packing houses or saw the making of sausage, that person would forever be cured from eating meat. I think the same thing would apply to any visitor to this chamber who today saw amendments being written by hand, some of which we understand in part, some of 313 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting which we will later regret 'cause we, to the very last minute until Councilman DiCicco or the members testifying -- I forget who it was -- first raised the question of people who die in the course of duty, we were going to leave that out. God knows what else was left out. I don't understand. The Mayor, I think, must have a lot of basketball tickets or hockey tickets for every night this coming week 'cause I can't understand why we're in a hurry on a Wednesday afternoon -- on a Wednesday afternoon when we don't have a Council meeting for eight days why there is this urgency to make sure we pass --
Madame President, I ask the relevance of this line of questioning and ask Mr. Cohen if he would direct his comments to these amendments.
No, I will direct my comments to whatever I think is relevant to this discussion. 314 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Councilwoman Clark, I would appreciate it if you would -- Councilwoman Clark, if you --
There's no lateness of the hour; we have unlimited time.
To me, to me, given the lateness of the hour, that we might infer that everything that is not written here is left out go, and we should forward and make our yea or nay vote on what is written on these amendments which have been presented to us.
Point of order, Madame Chair. 315 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
Anyone who makes a point of order is free to discuss it but must merely state there point of order, and I refer to Mason's which is the bible for this City Council and Parliamentary procedure. I think Councilwoman Clark, if she discusses her point of order is totally out of order.
I though she made a point of order and then she went on to discuss it. 316 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
No, because she's not letting me finish. Why should I let her finish? I started first, I have the floor. (Laughter.)
But if you want to discuss this for the next two or three hours, fine, I cancelled all other appointments to be available here.
Well, I resent being interfered with in a discussion. I don't know how many times Councilwoman Clark has orated at great length, and no one has stopped her from talking, so I don't know why she's trying to stop anyone from talking. I just don't understand it. She came late today and --
Madame Chair, Madame Chair, I respectfully submit that orating a great mess is not something that characterizes my way of speaking on the floor of Council. And today, I still think that there is much merit in our confining our comments to those issues that 317 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting will make it possible to vote this up or down, and that is my point of order.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Thank you. I think there's absolutely no reason for us to be considering this or any other amendments or the bill today. I don't understand what the hurry is, I don't know what the pressures are. I think it's a disgraceful exhibit by this Council of an inability to legislate properly. The one thing where we've had differences, we've been proud of fact that we've been free to discuss the differences that we have and to show courtesy to others who want to know what their legislating on, who want the opportunity to consider what's before them and to evaluate whether there should be other changes or other additions. There's absolutely no reason that I know of, Councilman DiCicco, I don't know whether Mayor spoke to you and I don't -- and nothing I said ever indicated that I thought you were acting. I'm saying we all know we recognize the 318 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting representatives of the Mayor who are in this room 3 here. We know when they're talking to people, we know what the Mayor's position is. He has the right to do whatever he's doing. But I'm saying legislators have a responsibility to the voters who put them in office not to just bend their knee to the Mayor. We're busily engaged in the first serious pension bill. We've never -- all of us are just learning as we're going through, and there's an extreme rush, and it makes no sense. There may be other amendments we're going to want to deal with. As we were going, all of us were learning. Isn't it quite a thing that at the end of this discussion, after Version 2 -- today's Version 2, not counting yesterday's version or the version that came before us, that at the very end, suddenly, we all became aware that we left out something important. I just think we ought not to be moving in such haste and, therefore, I don't want we ought to be asked to vote on any amendments today. I think we're all entitled to the opportunity of 319 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting studying these things, and as a result of this, having the opportunity to come up with other proposals. I, therefore, suggest, Madame President, that this meeting not go forward with the fact of amendments that are now going to be in. I think they all ought to be printed up and be made available to everyone. Now, with respect to the 9-1/2 percent amendment, which I don't think ought to be voted on tonight, but I've got to present it.
Point of order. It's not been submitted, there's not been a motion made to introduce it. How can we speak about it?
For Councilman Nutter's amendments, and it was seconded.
Councilman, we're in the middle of another vote, Councilman. We had started voting. 320 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
Point of clarification, Madame Chair, I just want a clarification.
In Councilman Nutter's motion, what we're voting on is on this package, Version 2, the whole package?
With the modification just made for the survivors of those killed or who died on duty.
So once we vote on whole package, then Councilman Cohen's amendment becomes really moot because we have already approved the 10 percent.
We're only voting on 321 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting the amendment that Councilman Nutter proposed in Version 2, right? (Discussion continues off mike, not fully audible.)
You know, it gets another amendment approved over the top of the first amendment, you know, it's just kind of whatever is the last thing that gets done is what it is.
I submit that the confusion that Councilman Ortiz is referring to is in everybody's mind because we're not even sure of on a the floor on a subject brand new to all of us. If we're going to deal first with Councilman Nutter's --
There's no 20 confusion on our side of the room, there's no 21 confusion here. Madame Chair, the motion is on the floor. Unless there's any other debate, I would call a --
It has been 322 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting moved and seconded. Now, do we want a roll-call vote on this to move the adoption of Councilman Nutter's amendments?
Madame Chair, I will not be calling for a roll-call vote. If another decides, that's fine with me.
Madame Chair, I thought the sponsor agreed to separate out into a separate vote the section dealing with 10 percent.
I'm sorry. I thought you meant that there would just be separate votes on one package versus another package. You want that entire section taken out?
I mean, obviously, I'd like it taken out but I would like --
Okay, and I'm just clarifying that because I would need a roll-call 323 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting vote certainly if that's removed. I think everybody would -- I don't think there's differences around this room on the point of your entire amendment except are for the percent, so 6 why can't we discuss that separately? 7
Right, so you want 8 that part of this package removed from this 9 particular vote. 10
You want a separate vote on 10 to 15, and you want a separate vote on 9 to 15.
Does it matter to you -- I mean, how does it ultimately matter whether it's a separate vote or is a part of a package?
Okay, let me explain why it means something. I'm going to vote no, and maybe I'm the only person here that matters to. I think there's some very good things in your amendments -- for instance, starting this 324 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting year, July 1st, and many other things, I won't go into each one.
If percent is 6 in here, I'm going to vote no on it. I would like 7 to vote yes on everything except the 10 percent. 8 That's as clear as I can make it. 9
Madame Chair, I think I'm in a position where the package is a package. I'd like to keep the package together and I'd like to vote the package of amendments that I have voted as one on an up or down vote on that entire package of amendments.
Madame President, certainly, I absolutely disagree with that, but let me ask another question on the amendment made for persons killed in the line of duty. I'm not sure that the wording of that -- I ask that it be repeated -- deals with the ten-year -- deals with the time involved.
Councilman 325 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Nutter?
Councilwoman, I was distracted, I didn't hear the question.
You introduced an amendment talking about individuals killed in the line of duty, did you not?
Now, would you read me that again because I'm not sure that you deleted time served so that they are not penalized by length of service when they're killed in the line of duty. I also, just as an aside, agree with Councilman O'Neill that you should be able to vote for parts of bill that you want to but I'm also not surprised that that opportunity doesn't exist here. But, Councilman Nutter, would you clarify that, please.
Councilwoman, maybe the better way to do that is to just make it an entirely separate sentence. 326 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
As opposed to inserting it in the earlier section. For instance, I could propose to add on to the last sentence of 131.1 -- the last word being "benefits" -- just a new sentence that says: "Any beneficiary or survivor of a member who was killed or who died in the line of duty related to the work environment is eligible to receive the two lump-sum payments in 1999 and in 2000, regardless of any age requirement." Or possibly not even add that last phrase on; just put a period at the end of that.
I think that will take care of that amendment, Madame President. I certainly again agree with Councilman O'Neill about being able to try to segregate these parts of the bill that we agree or disagree with. But, again, I'll repeat that I'm not surprised that it's not possible.
I'm sorry, I'm about to recognize Councilman O'Neill.
I yield to 327 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Councilman Cohen.
I would like to suggest as a way out, or otherwise we're going to be engaged in a long debate because I think a Councilmember has a right to ask -- I think the word is (unintelligible) that provisions of a bill 8 be considered desperately. But I suggest instead of getting involved in that that we get consider my amendment first, which deals specifically and separately with the amount of money involved, and that then, based upon the --
There's already a motion and it has been seconded.
There was motion on the floor that's been moved and seconded, and you now want to insert another motion in the middle of it. I mean, we can have debate on that motion, but it's out of order to submit another motion on top of a motion that's not been voted on yet.
I'm making a suggestion as to how we can avoid a lot of parliamentary problems because I am concerned if I vote for the entire amendment of Councilman 328 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Nutter, this whole package, I will be voting in favor of percent, and I don't want to vote in 4 favor of 10 percent. 5
Now, I think I have 7 a right, and I'm requesting that the order of 8 consideration of the amendments be reversed. 9
Point of order, Madame President. You know, we've been sitting here since 10 o'clock this morning, and that's fine, all right? There is -- talk about parliamentary problems. There's a motion on the floor that has been moved and --
Will you let me finish my point of order for once. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to interrupt them, and you've been doing it all day. Now, there's a motion on the floor and it's been moved and seconded. We can debate that motion, but you cannot insert another motion on top of it. 329 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
Yes, you can. You can at any time ask the maker of the motion to withdraw the motion to permit consideration of another.
Very well. Roll call vote on the adoption of Councilman Nutter's amendments as a package.
I can't turn it on once someone else turns it off. The only section in here that I want to focus on is the 10 percent floor for the sharing. I have talked about this extensively on Monday and 330 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting today and listed a lot of questions specifically around these numbers, whether 10, -- 9-1/2 would 4 obviously be a compromise. I haven't had a chance 5 to talk to the Mayor since I got the information 6 that came out of questioning today, and it looks 7 like I won't until the bill's perched for final 8 passage. 9 But it's clear to me from what came out today that not only does going from 9 percent to 10 percent, or having 10 percent instead of 9 percent or something in between, really make this Pension Adjustment Fund pretty close to worthless. Just looking over the last ten years, I believe the facts and numbers speak for themselves. We may all disagree on what is giving the pensioners something in the way of potential increases. But I would submit that the amount that would have gone in the last ten years, given the 10 percent floor of $50 million adjusted for the pension obligation bond size of the fund, is a pittance, and isn't worth any effort on our part to be talking about and publicizing a Pension Adjustment Fund that would be approximately 331 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting $5 million a year for our pensioners; when to give a 1 percent across-the-board increase, just as an illustration, takes $34 million. That is as clear to me, and I'll debate anybody in this Council. I have yet to have a discussion about any other opinion than that and what the figures show the difference between and 10. 9 But my biggest problem came today, because there may be disagreements as to what will make for a fund that can really have the potential to do something for pensioners by way of increase, but I don't think any of us can disagree that for the last month or seven weeks, we have heard and read how fiscally irresponsible this Council was being both to the Pension Fund and to the City's General Fund. And as recently as Sunday, the Mayor said if this bill went to 9 percent, he was going to veto it, and the reason was because it would cost the Pension Fund from going from 10 to 9 percent, when the sharing starts, $100 million a year. Today we heard both from the actuary and from Mr. Herkness, who runs the Pension Fund on a day-to-day basis, that there would be no 332 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting impact, no impact at all to the Pension Fund -- not 1 million, not 100 million, no impact. That would be if we use 9 percent instead of 10 percent. Yes, I asked for a courtesy on this bill, to talk to the Mayor about that, what I consider a major discrepancy from the Administration side. These are Administration witnesses. Mr. Herkness was testifying for the Finance Director and as the Executive Director of the Pension Fund. I think that discrepancy in itself should bring into question everything we've heard about the dangers inherent in what we're doing to the Pension Fund. No impact. No impact and no courtesy. Now, that's to the Pension Fund. The General Fund will be impacted 'cause it all boils down to the General Fund having to make more payments. And just having 10 percent, if you go back over the last ten years, would have cost, with all the adjustments for the larger fund and everything, would have cost $5 million a year to the General Fund. No disagreement with that number. 333 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting There are obviously costs involved in the one-time bonus, the two one-time bonuses that are in the bill that are spread over ten years -- 88 million, 90 million, it's in that area and spread over the ten years and then it stops. 5 million a year. This argument and this issue on this Pension Adjustment Fund, I would submit, is not about money anymore. Maybe it was at one time.
5 million a year -- 'cause we were also told today that the Mayor would veto 9-1/2 percent -- means it's not about money. The City gives the Pension Fund $247 million. 5 million impact after you just agreed to 5 percent, a $5 million impact to have a 10 percent floor means it's not about money. It's not about protecting the Pension Fund and it's not about an Armageddon about to occur to the General Fund. It's about something else. I don't know what it's about. I would have loved to have the opportunity to discuss this with the Mayor 334 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting before it's ready for final passage, and I think that is a most reasonable request. But what I'd like to hear from the sponsor or someone else why it is so important to have and not either 9 or somewhere in between 9 7 and 10. I have yet to hear anything. We are 8 about to close the record on these hearings and 9 meeting with these amendments, and I have yet to 10 hear the overriding reason why this Council is split, why we've got the unions against the Administration over something that is very, very small. We're not talking about breaking the bank. There's all kinds of protections to the Pension Fund and the General Fund built into this but there is some impact. There's no question about that; there is some impact. But there was also some impact on the positive side when this Council passed the pension obligation bonds, the largest bond deal in the City's history, which saves the General Fund out of the pension bond issues an average of $30 million a year for the next thirty years. 5 million a year is a trifle compared to 247 million that was given last 335 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting year. It's a trifle to $30+ million a year over thirty, years. It's a trifle no matter how you look at it because if you're going to have a Pension Adjustment Fund and you know there's going to be some impact, I don't know if you could make it any smaller than that. What I would just like to hear is what is the problem with going below 10? Is there something I haven't heard, something I missed, that there's some protection that has some comfort level, some cushion that needs to be out there, that not even 9-1/2 would give? All I know is that 10 gives so little that I don't think it's worth doing. I'm just perplexed on that. And I'm perplexed on the courtesy 'cause that's to me -- I have colleagues that I just asked for a courtesy for a week, and it wouldn't have affected this at all. And Councilman DiCicco, some members are very honest with me, and the Mayor -- and I won't name them 'cause they were being courteous to me, telling me what their reason was. The Mayor wanted this out today. He didn't want it 336 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting out tomorrow, and he didn't want it out Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday; he wanted it out today. Now, and Marian, you might want it out today. I'm telling you, there were enough people that told me this was the Mayor's position, and they would have made a difference in that vote. That bothers me as much as not having heard one good -- one reason, good or bad, for why it has to be 10 because before I was hearing that we need these protections, we need these cushions. Well they're not needed. All the protections and cushions are there, and this is not General-Fund- threatening in its amount. Now, if anyone would like to discuss that, debate it, fine. If no one wants to, we'll just vote the bill, vote the amendments. Because I can't understand going through this. We're going to have people voting for and against a bill, debating whether it really did something to create a COLA when we could have done it and all have been walking together. Instead, we're starting off on a course on our first issue of the year under new circumstances around here, fractured, when it's absolutely not necessary, in 337 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting my opinion vote.
The first fracture I saw was the vote on the courtesy. I haven't seen anything like that -- if somebody remembers it, please tell me -- for a long time when it didn't impact anything. It's just that some people said, This is it, I don't want to talk about this anymore. Well, a lot of times, we didn't want to talk about it anymore, but we gave it courtesy, especially when it didn't cost us anything in terms of time. Does anybody specifically, between 9 and 10, whether it's Councilman Cohen's, whether it's my 9, have a response to that? What is the pressing urgency or the importance having it be 10? I didn't hear it today from the actuary or the representative of the Administration and the Finance Director.
Madame Chair, I just ask, while Brian was talking, I asked for clarification from Councilman Nutter, and he clarified it for me, so it was a point of whether we are voting and whether that 10 percent is part 338 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting of the package. But the 10 percent is not an amendment to this bill; it is a part of the bill. So the 9-1/2 amendment that Councilman Cohen has can be introduced separately. I just needed that clarification from Councilman Cohen and it's been done.
With all due respect to the Councilman, and the answer may have been somewhat short, the longer version to the answer is, it's not a part of the amendment package. There was nothing to separate out.
Well, we could wait for my answer 'cause we have to vote on the bill afterwards. I mean, basically, this is a substitute bill. We can call it whatever we want. Is there anything in the bill that's not here?
Is there anything in the bill that's not typed on Version 2?
I can wait and we can just do these amendments. 10 was a part of 339 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting the original bill. I can just vote against the bill, that's fine. I stand corrected on that from a procedure standpoint. And when we get to the bill, as amended, or Councilman Cohen's, I can have the same conversation, hopefully, about the 8 percent. 9 So I withdraw my question at this 10 time. I will bring it back though and I don't think I have to repeat it.
If this bill is voted out of committee today and receives first reading next week, does any Councilmember have the opportunity to offer amendments to that bill?
Madame Chair, that's insulting. The inference there is that I don't know and that somebody else doesn't know we 340 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting can offer amendments at final passage. We still have a week here, and that's all the courtesy's about. The courtesy isn't making me wait and then have to delay for a week from February 11th to February 18th. I understand the rules of Council and what it takes on final passage, and I think everybody else in this room does. The issue was never about that. I understand what you can do at the end. We could have done it -- we could have changed the whole bill if we want. But this is something that to me is much more important than just an amendment. It has to do with the very objections from the Administration. I think the differences within this room that may be very, very small and that they could be resolved. I submit that it will be a lot tougher if this bill gets reported out today based on my experience. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Madame President, I have business outside the Council chamber, and I 341 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting would like to leave my vote and I'd like to vote no on the amendments.
I'm going to vote no 15 if the Cohen amendment is not included in that.