Madame Chair, we did not hear what Councilman Rizzo said first, and then I'll ask.
Councilman Rizzo said that he had to leave, that he was 342 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting voting in the affirmative for Councilman Cohen's amendment. And if the amendment did not pass, he would be voting no against the bill.
What did he say? Didn't he say that? Councilman Rizzo, would you repeat your request, please.
I will vote yes on the bill if the Cohen amendment passes.
Wait a minute. How are you voting on Councilman Nutter's amendments?
I will vote yes on the amendments on Nutter's amendments if Councilman Cohen's amendment passes.
Brian, could we go over this again? We'll do this one more time.
I'm going to yes on the Nutter amendments. I'm going to vote yes on the Cohen amendments, yes on the bill, if the 343 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Cohen amendment passes.
Yes, on Nutter -- yes, on Councilman Nutter's amendments?
And yes on Councilman Cohen's amendments? And no on the bill 16 if Councilman Cohen's amendments are not adopted?
To Councilman Rizzo, may I suggest to Councilman Rizzo that he might want to reconsider. The bill, if my amendment goes down, which it appears likely, there nonetheless is a bill which provides for two annual cost-of-living payments. Your position, to be consistent would 344 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting be, though we would regret the no vote on my amendment, the final bill that would remain is the bill that the retirees want desperately, and I would just suggest that you consider that.
And the member can then vote how ever the member wants to while the member's here.
While the member is here, we will -- if you'll just bear with us for five minutes. There is a motion on the floor to adopt the amendments as submitted in the package by Councilman Nutter. That motion has been seconded. All those in favor of the adoption of the amendments, Councilman Nutter's amendments will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, there are none opposed, and Councilman Nutter's amendments have been adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Cohen.
My amendment proposes to change the 10 percent level to 9-1/2 345 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting percent.
Madame Chair, point of order. On Councilman Nutter's amendments, I had asked for a roll call vote.
I think I've seen some people not say anything either way. Okay, I'll let it go, all right.
It's coming from Councilman Ortiz. Everybody agrees it was unanimous. Anybody that disagrees, please say something. Councilman Cohen, please.
All right. I think Councilman Nutter should be congratulated. I think he went through a tortuous path ever since these bills came before us, and I think he ultimately did resolve in a sense of unity all of the important questions. I wish, however, he had been ready to extend his abilities to cover the issues of the 346 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting amount of money because I think we're faced with the fact that we're passing a fraud, we're passing something which is going to be said to the retirees, We have set you up with a COLA, and we are not setting them up with a COLA. I don't know whether 9-1/2 percent will create a COLA, but there's a much greater likelihood, if the standard set at 9-1/2 percent based upon the history that we've had in the last ten years, there's a much greater opportunity at 9-1/2 percent than there is at 10 percent, that there could be the beginning, a small beginning but some kind of beginning. It would appear if the standard kept at 10 percent, we have gone through the motion putting words into saying there's a cost-of-living increase, but we've created conditions which will prevent a cost-of-living increase at any time in the foreseeable future. That's why my amendment calls for setting it at 9-1/2 percent so that we can begin on maybe a little tiny piece of a COLA. So therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is totally in line with what has been stated to be the purposes of 347 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting bill.
Is there a second to Councilman Cohen's motion? (Duly seconded.)
It's properly been moved and seconded. All of those in favor of the adoption of Councilman Cohen's amendment will say aye.
Councilman Cohen, I just want to make sure I understand the proposed amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to change section 131.3 and 120.3 such that the rate of gain-sharing for the Pension Adjustment Fund would be adjusted from 10 to 15 percent down to 9.5 to 15 percent; is that correct?
I cannot answer your question except to say that wherever 10 percent appears, my motion and an amendment is aimed at changing that figure of 10 percent to 9-1/2 percent wherever, and it appears in a number of sections, including the one that you have referred to, but it also appears in other sections. It 348 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting makes 9-1/2 percent the standard.
Yes, Madame Chair. I can wait till we vote on the bill as amended, but I think a more appropriate time may be right now. If I could ask the sponsor or anyone else supporting the 10 percent if they could give me their reason because I remain open that if I'm missing the mark here as to what is the compelling reason for 10 percent. And I'll be honest with you, the only compelling reason I've heard up till now, other than things that were refuted today, was that the Mayor wouldn't sign anything under 10 percent. If that's the reason, that's fine. We're realistic too. That's why I asked for the courtesy, to talk to him.
Probably one of the 349 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting briefest responses I'm ever going to make on the floor, is I think this is just an area of reasonable disagreement between reasonable people. My purpose is that I have a very conservative nature personally as it relates to Pension Funds and Pension Fund assets, and so I can only speak for myself to say that at this point in time, I would rather have the comfort level of the 10 percent, with a 1 percent -- we can call it a "cushion," you may not like the term.
But that's how it's been referred to. And so as a legislator and a person with some limited experience in the area, for the moment, that's all I'm comfortable with doing. The other considerations are just that; they are other considerations. This is a personal financial view and belief of my own, and it is why I'm supporting it. That may be completely irrelevant.
Councilman, do you disagree with the witnesses that today that there 350 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting would be no impact on the Pension Fund whether -- 'cause you said your concern was about the Pension Fund because of your expertise in Pension Funds.
Do you agree that there is no risk added to the Pension Fund if we go from 10 to 9.5 or to 9? Or do you disagree with that?
Councilman, I think, Councilman, all I can say to you is that I am not thoroughly convinced enough to vote on the matter at this point in time at a rate of less than 10 percent. That's the only response that I can really give you.
You have confusion or you don't understand? If you do not believe what they said today, Mr. Herkness and the actuary, that there is no impact on the Pension Fund -- and I thought they explained it very well 351 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting -- is that statement you could agree with? And is all this move over to the General Fund for purposes of judgment calls?
I think again -- I mean, Councilman, you know I'm going to be respectful to you, and I think all I'm going to be able to say at this moment of time in this discussion is the same statement that I made a few minutes ago. Now, I don't want to be disrespectful to you --
Right, so you don't want to hear the same answer, I know that.
That's right. Twice is enough for me to ask the same question.
I'll just leave it open if there's anybody else that has anything to add to this 10 percent versus 9-1/2 or 9.
I'm happy to share 352 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting my reason and it is that I am persuaded that Michael Nutter has done the kind of work that warrants my blind, slavish following of his leadership. (Laughter.)
I request that the notes of testimony from this hearing be made available immediately. I would like to keep them in my house. (Laughter.)
Since Councilman Clark did not vote to not extend me the courtesy today, I will certain accept that answer. She may have if she were here, but she didn't.
Thank you, Madame President. I think that the last time we considered this bill and the veto of mine, that I guess I said everything we need to. I certainly think my colleagues have said it best, and 353 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Councilman O'Neill has been saying it in caucus, I've been saying it for a week. And I think it is absolutely -- it is absolutely a bad day when we become pawns of some kind of political maneuver to not give pensioners any money. And it comes down that, we've heard it over and over. We've heard about in history, if we if look historically back ten years at 10 percent, they may get something once. At 9 percent, they may get something twice. So we can pass the bill and we'll pass a bill where pensioners know they get two lump-sum payments, period. And it is the will of this body, and I agree and I will go along with the majority of the vote because I believe in democracy. I absolutely believe in that, and I believe as long as we do that there is at least some hope, but I think it is absolutely -- I think it's absolutely -- I don't want to say "sad" because I said "sad" last week. But for all the people who were called politically irresponsible, and we talked about the press using the word "courageous" to those who voted on the other side and all the of those things to try to dupe the 354 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting public into thinking that people who wanted to vote to make sure the retirees would get something were anything other, I just think it's a shame that as a body, that we don't have the collective will to do better and to do what we can to make a change. And I'm finished.
Thank you, Madame President. It's not often in this chamber that Brian O'Neill and I agree on an analysis of an issue. But on this one, I think he's right on point. And as David Kendall said the other day, the City did not make their case for the 10 percent. The actuarial representative with Joe Herkness made those statements, they are on the record. I think at this point, the only reason we're not going through with this is because we have a mayoral veto as a threat. I hope -- and I understand Michael's conservative nature in terms 355 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting of his finance background, but I do hope that the promise that is being made to the retirees here will survive, and I will hope that we can keep our word next time around and revisit this, revisit this when it is shown by empirical fact that the percent does not create the fund, that it only 8 creates the illusion of it because the retirees 9 will sit and wait another 18 years if we leave it 10 at that level. So I do hope that the promises being made are revisiting, coming back, and I know that Michael is an honorable guy, and I know that my colleagues here are honorable people. I know that we will revisit this. Thank you very much.
Okay, I would like to try this again. I would like to vote yes on -- I want to vote yes on Councilman Cohen's amendment. If it passes, I'm going to vote yes on the bill. If it fails, I'm voting no. Got it?
Okay. Thank you. 356 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Madame President, I know people are tired, Madame President, but I'd just like to say that I don't think it's doom and gloom. I believe that we've come a long way. We have come up with the retirees will get their lump-sum payments, the two lump-sum payments, and we have done something historical by putting a process in place whereby the pensioners, the retirees can look forward to a review and possibly some increase over the years without having to wait years. 15 And I do believe, because I had an 16 extensive discussion with Councilman O'Neill on 17 his argument, and I sat with Michael Nutter a long 18 time yesterday to discuss Councilman O'Neill's point of view, and I think he listened to that point of view and put into this bill an amendment and a process whereby we can revisit it, and as a Council body, we always have the right to come back and revisit an issue. So I don't believe that it's a sad day, I think it's a wonderful day, that these retirees 357 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting will get their lump-sum payments and that we have a process in place for the Board of Pensions to take care of the survivors and the pensioners. And if that is going to be problematic, there is a process to deal with that.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Just to say I've always felt that the provision in the bill for 10 percent was totally inadequate as a basis for a cost-of-living increase. I never saw that it would produce anything, and if did, it would be very minuscule. I hope that in the next few weeks the labor organizations working with members of City Council will produce a bill which will provide for a genuine cost-of-living increase. And I'm announcing to them, and I think there will be many other union members that will want to join in some gets away from an illusion but gives a guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase to all of the retirees. Thank you. 358 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
The question now is, shall Councilman Cohen's amendments be adopted. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Roll call. Councilwoman Blackwell?
Councilman 359 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Longstreth is not voting. He was voting no, he only voted in favor or Councilman Nutter's. Councilman Mariano?
Councilman Rizzo is voting aye. Councilwoman Tasco?
Madame President I just have a question now. 360 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
If I understood Councilman Rizzo correctly, now that the amendment offered by Councilman Cohen has been defeated, his vote on the Nutter amendments is now no. 8
On the bill, okay. I want to make sure. All right, thank you.
The motion fails. The ayes are 5, the nays are 9. We will now consider --
Madame President -- Madame President, actually under these circumstances --
Two very brief statements. One, if the scenario that Councilman O'Neill has talked about on a number of occasions and also my colleague Councilman Ortiz in his comments, I guess I'd just like to put on the record that I too want the Pension Adjustment Fund 361 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting to work and to be able to make distributions. If I am wrong, I am fully prepared to respond to any errors, any deficiencies or anything else as a legislator, admit any errors, and get to work on correcting them and making sure that the goal, which is to get people regular cost-of-living adjustments, is achieved. And that is a commitment that I'm certainly prepared to make, and it's one of the provisions in the bill. Secondly, Madame Chair, you will recall at the public hearing back in December, and you also will recall, I believe, on the day of the Mayor's veto message, we have heard impassioned statements by Councilmembers, there have been letters read into the record about the need for people to get funds as soon as possible. As a result, Madame Chair, I would propose one last amendment to the bill which changes the date by which people would get the first bonus payment of 1999. It is my understanding that the Pension Board would need about two months to put the operation in place for people to get their first lump-sum payment. And, therefore, as a result of that and after 362 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting discussions with yourself and Councilman DiCicco and other Councilmembers, I would propose that we amend in Section 131.1 and in 120.1 the language that presently has the first bonus payment shall be made on July 15, 1999, that that language be stricken. And I propose to amend it that the Pension Board ensure that those payments are made no later than April 30, 1999. And I move the adoption of that amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded. Councilman O'Neill, did you want to speak on this?
All those in favor of the adoption of the amendment will say aye. Those opposed? There are none opposed, the ayes have it. The motion carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madame Chair, I 363 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting think at this point I would like to move the bill 3 as amended out of committee. (Duly seconded.)
I'm voting yes in part because it has percent. And while I agree 10 with both Councilman Tasco and Councilman Nutter's statements that corrections can be made later, when they're as foreseeable as I believe they are now, you can't go back to two years. And if someone in the next two weeks can show me how the scenario of the last ten years repeats itself, and in two years, when we realize it's repeated itself, we can make up for those two years, I'm open to that. I haven't even thought of a way of doing it, but I'd be open to that suggestion. There could be a fail-safe that I haven't considered. But I'm voting no today because I want the record to reflect that I asked for and I'll forget the four unions and I'll Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman Cohen, they could deal 364 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting with the lack of courtesy to them themselves, but I asked for a one-week continuance with no Council meeting in between. And I have never seen in almost twenty years that denied to any member or any image major group of supporters or objectors or interested parties that would appear unless there a compelling reason. And the only compelling reason I heard was, Let's get this over with, and the Mayor wanted it out today. They were the only two reasons I heard. And I'm voting no as much because of that as because the 10 percent, I believe, is totally inadequate to set up a pension adjustment fund. Thank you.
I will be voting for the bill because I think it awards these two bonuses because of the two single payments that are made. But I share totally the sentiments of Councilman O'Neill. I think today the procedures adopted by this Council were a disgrace 365 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting legislatively. The one thing we've always prided ourselves on is our collegiality, that anybody who sought more time would be given generally a week when there was a Council meeting every week, and we haven't had a Council meeting except basically for the purpose of listening to the Mayor, and there's nothing coming for the next week. I think Councilman O'Neill is absolutely right. I think today, despite the fact that this bill will offer some relief, today procedurally was a bad day for Philadelphia because I think what we did today has never been done not only in the twenty years, Councilman O'Neill, since you've been here, I never knew it back in my original term in 1968 or '71 such a lack of display of consideration by the legislative body to a reasonable request made by other legislators.
Thank you, Madame President. I'd like to say to my colleague and certainly to this body, when one is disrespected, 366 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting it does not mean that one does not know it. Certainly, I know that this bill was tried to be amended to be the exact same bill that I introduced and for which we had nine votes. Certainly, we know that this bill was amended but destroyed in the smoothing process so that the retirees would get nothing which was the initial intent of this legislation. I only vote for this legislation because I absolutely when I understand when I've won, and I understand when I have lost, and I accept it. But does not mean that I agree with it, that I do not feel regret that we have decided to function as an appendage of the Administration. And not to disrespect and violate not only our Home Rule Charter but the very Constitution that calls for the separation of powers, that calls for executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. So I say to my colleagues, certainly I appreciate all that you have done. I consider it an absolute affront to this body and to each of us individually and personally as legislators that the Administration would not even respond, that 367 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting certain deputies would be here, and all through this the Administration, has been here, they have had their people here, they have seen fit to not even pretend that it was not their bill, and even went so far as during the Chamber of Commerce luncheon, to certainly even speak and talk about the Nutter bill on record. Certainly, it's been obvious from the very beginning that it was an intent that these retirees get nothing. I said when I first spoke that it is a question of the rich getting more and the poor getting nothing. When we first spoke in cabinet room and we had a meeting before the vote, the Mayor said no, this would do nothing, this bill would do nothing but reduce the cushion when unions negotiated. All of a sudden, the business community said they didn't want it and then there was this threat of layoffs after the Mayor himself told us there would be no layoffs. I was not in this cabinet meeting alone. All my colleagues were invited, and the majority of you were there. So I say again, it is not that I do not know when I am not disrespected and when I'm not insulted. But certainly again, I understand when 368 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting I win and when I lose. I only regret that this body does not have the political will to certainly fulfill its mission and do what it can to help the least of those in our city who have spent their lives and deserve some kind of relief and some kind of COLA in their lifetime. Thank you.
Thank you. It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990001 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended. All in favor will signify by saying aye. A roll call is requested. Councilwoman Blackwell?
Councilman Cohen? 369 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
Councilman Longstreth is voting aye. Councilman Mariano?
Councilman 370 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting Ortiz?
Councilman Rizzo is voting no. 6 Councilwoman Tasco?
Councilwoman Verna, aye. The ayes are 13, the nays are 2. This concludes or public meeting. Thank you all very much for your patience.
I'd like to thank everyone for working so hard on this issue of importance to us and our extended families.
I would like to make one comment. It's been long process, it was never meant to be a splintering, and I have nothing but respect for the people in this chamber for the time that you spent with us. And I think we're all here for the same good.
And I think you realize that we were all trying to be of help.
Thank you. 371 1/27/99 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting
Thank you. (Adjourned at 6:15 p.m.) - - - 372 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, January 27, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO. 990001 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter