- - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE on LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, February 28, 2005, 2:25 p.m. - - - 040769 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the creation, appointment, powers, duties and funding of an independent Board of Ethics, as approved by Resolution of the City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and, authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 040770 - An Ordinance repealing Chapter 20-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Standards of Conduct and Ethics," and enacting a new Chapter 20-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Standards of Conduct and Ethics," providing for the powers and duites of the Board of Ethics and the imposition of civil penalties, and providing for the compensation of the members of the Board of Ethics, all under certain terms and conditions. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 040771 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to City leases, contracts, concessions and the provision of financial assistance; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 040772 - An Ordinance amending Title of The 10 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contracts and Procurement," by adding provisions 11 regulating the process by which the City awards professional services contracts 12 and other non-competitively bid contracts, and prohibiting persons from 13 entering into such contracts or from receiving City financial assistance if 14 they or certain related parties have made certain contributions to elected 15 City officers or candidates for City officers, all under certain terms and 16 conditions. 17 040818 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule charter relating to City leases, contracts, concessions and the provision of financial assistance, and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia. 3 040819 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the date by which the Mayor must submit to Council his operating budget message, proposed operating budget ordinance, and proposed capital budget and capital program, and the date by which the Planning Commission must prepare and submit to the Mayor its recommended capital budget and capital program, and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS 4 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
The Committee on Law and Government will now be in session for the purpose of considering testimony on one bill, I understand, although all were advertised. Is that right, Chairman Nutter?
Bill Number... the one that ends on 772. Would the clerk of the committee read the title of that bill. CLERK: Bill Number 040772, an Ordinance amending Title 17 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contracts and Procurement," by adding provisions regulating the process by which the City awards professional services contracts and other non-competitively bid contracts, and prohibiting persons from entering into such contracts or from receiving City financial assistance if they or certain related parties 5 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 have made certain contributions to elected City officers or candidates for City officers, all under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Chairman, just for the record, that particular bill has two other companion pieces of legislation that are required. One is the actual amendment to the Home Rule Charter, and the other is the ordinance requiring the ballot question. So, I would only ask --
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CLERK: Bill Number 040771, An 6 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to City leases, contracts, concessions and the provision of financial assistance; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election.
Yes, first one on the second page. CLERK: Bill Number 040818. Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule charter relating to City leases, contracts, concessions and the provision of financial assistance, and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia.
And that would be the package that would be necessary? 7 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
Yes, Mr. Chairman. And those at the moment, and for this hearing, at least, those are the only measures that I expect to propose amendments with regard to those, any one of those three bills or the resolution.
Do you need those three bills to put 727 on the Home Rule Charter?
And those are the measures that we're looking at at the moment.
All right. Councilman Nutter, could you tell the committee why you choose the Home Rule Charter amendment process rather than the more laid back bill and ordinance method? Why is it necessary to consider the subject matter in the form of a Home Rule Charter amendment? 8 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
Sure. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, although for some matters I don't know that anyone would consider our ordinance process to be a laid back -- laid back method, but I understand your -- I understand your question. The heart of this matter really goes, Mr. Chairman, to, if you go to bill -- I'm sorry. If you go to Resolution Number 040818 and take in the context of what Bill 12 Number 040772 seeks to accomplish, we know from the Home Rule Charter, for instance, that in Section 8-200 contracts, the only contracts that require competitive bidding under the Home Rule Charter are those that involve the purchase of services or other contracts that are not professional services. And so presently there is no 20 authority for this Council, under the Home Rule Charter, to establish a process to govern how professional services or also known as no bid contracts are awarded or the process is conducted because the Council doesn't have the authority under the Home 9 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 Rule Charter. Therefore, one of the amendments that's involved in Resolution 040818 gives the Council by ordinance the authority, as the legislature says, to regulate the process by which purchases and contracts not subject to the lowest responsible bidder requirement of this paragraph are awarded.
Oh, so this would establish power in the City Council to set these procedures.
Otherwise, it might be ruled by the City Solicitor or by the Law Department generally that Council lacks the authorization to do so.
I think it's extremely likely that the Law Department would make that ruling.
All right. 10 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
Well, with regard to the concessions, the issue is the same. Council has no jurisdiction with regard to concession agreements presently under the Charter because that is not a contract that involves the expenditure of funds, but it's a contract that involves the city receiving funds. And so, in Section 8-201, concessions, under the Home Rule Charter, we would be giving the Council the authority to approve concession contracts that are of the term of one year or more or the contracts -- or the concessions, rather, awarded by the Department of Commerce under Section 4-500-B or C of the Home Rule Charter. Again, that is a part of the reason why we have to seek the Charter change route 11 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 requiring --
Would the airport concessions fall under this provision?
And without such a change in the Home Rule Charter, then the Mayor would have strong ground for asserting that only the administration could adopt rules regarding concessions.
Yes. And the last issue goes to the one year or more contracts. We... Again, the Charter requires Council approval of contracts that are of a term of more than one year. We are quite aware, though, that in some instances, contracts are signed for one year, with clauses that allow for multiple year renewals, and in essence, for all intents and purposes, seem to act like a multi-year contract. Part of Resolution 040818 establishes a series of provisions that 12 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 relate to one-year contracts that have multiple renewals. And while Council will not -- would not have to approve all of those contracts, it lays out the guidelines for the ones that we would have to approve, as well as establishes reporting and advertising requirements for those that are multi-year in nature, again, a requirement to change the Charter to allow Council to have authority in this particular area.
Could you also state the time elements that apply to the Home Rule Charter, to consider an amendment that would be for when do you have in mind?
The proposed time frame would be that there would be a question on the ballot at the upcoming election, which is May 17, 2005. There are certain... under, I believe, state statute, certain advertising requirements that you must meet certain time frames. And as we have best been able to determine, in order for a question to be on 13 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 the ballot, an ordinance would have to be approved or made law no later than March 31, 2005. That's either by a vote of the Council and subsequent signing of any measure by the Mayor or any other procedure that is available to us through the Home Rule Charter. But in any event, final action and approval would have to be taken no later than March 31, 2005.
Why would that be in connection with the May 17th primary?
It's my understanding, I believe, that there's about a 45-day...
Would March 30th allow time in the likely or unlikely event of 14 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 a Mayoral veto, for the Council to overcome such a veto, if Council so desired?
Well, in that particular -- In order to prepare for that kind of scenario, Mr. Chairman, what you would need to do is to add or back that process up of two weeks, at least, from the time that's required for final passage. So, for instance, while March 31st is the date by which any final action would need to be taken, if there was a possibility of a veto, the bills would need to be passed by March 17, 2005. The measures, if they were vetoed, would then come back to us on March 31st coincident -- by coincidence, and we would then need to take action on that particular date. So, as you start to look at the calendar and take into consideration our timetable, if we were going to pass a bill by March 17th, we would need to take action on it either that date or on March 10th, which then incorporates the minimum 10-day 15 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 requirement for the Mayor to take action. Additionally, Councilman -- Mr. Chairman, rather -- if you look at the March 10th date, that would still provide... if there were amendments from the floor on that date, you could still take action on March 17th. If we end up in a situation where we're seeking final passage solely on the 17th, then there is -- there is no time, then, to accommodate potential amendments because as you well know, amendments have to sit over for a week.
So we're still within the time range for Home Rule Charter. But you're saying that if by March 24th... if an amendment were offered on March 24th, say...
Well, the problem there is that we don't have a session on March 24th.
There's no 25 advertised session that date because of the 16 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 Holy Thursday holiday. And I believe, at least during my time, Council has never had a session on Holy Thursday. And I don't think there's going to be one this year either. So, there is a loss of a week. But even at that point Mr. Chairman, the problem -- even if, in a hypothetical discussion, even if we were meeting on the 24th, I --
Well, they say Wednesday, the 23rd. The Council President has the authority to call a meeting upon two days' notice.
That is true. The problem with that scenario, Mr. Chairman, is, even if the Council took action on Wednesday, March 23rd, the Mayor -- and if the Mayor were to exercise a veto, the bill 20 would not come back to us until the following Thursday, which is probably about April 6th or so, in which case you would not meet the advertising requirement in order to have... It's April 7th, which is the next Thursday. You would not be able to have a ballot 17 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 question on May 17th.
I'm raising the question because the Mayor's Office says that it is working on a series of amendments to this bill, that it has no objection to the main purpose of the bill, but it thinks there's certain ways the bill can be improved. And that they believe that agreement could be arrived at with Council if they could have another week, March 9th or maybe a few days before. And I'm wondering, could that be accommodated or is that still on the basis of lack of time? What is the most time, if Council were of a mind to permit a few more days for study? And I don't need an answer now but I'd like you to give me an answer later on. I've arranged for three possible dates, today, tomorrow and March the 7th. They are three dates in which the Law and Government Committee has hearings scheduled.
But if during the 18 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 hearing you could work that out, I'd be appreciative to know whether it's possible.
The concern would be, Mr. Chairman, if we went to March 9th, we would get a first reading on the 10th.
My concern there is if, and who knows, you know, what would happen between now and then. But if there were a situation where some other amendment were to come -- And it's certainly impossible 19 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 for me to either predict what that might be or seek to restrain amendments from the floor. If an amendment were made at that point on the 17th, the bill then could not be voted on until the 31st.
Unless another meeting were set up by the President for, say, March 23rd.
Well, that's true. But, again, that takes us back to the other scenario which is, if there were a Mayoral veto, you would not get the veto back until April 7th. If an amendment were made on the 17th --
Why would it be different if the meeting were on Wednesday, the 23rd instead of Thursday, March 24th? Why does that change the scenario? 20 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
Because we don't meet again -- It's the same scenario. If an amendment were made on the 17th, which actually... I don't know... This is probably a legal issue. I don't know that...
Well, if we meet on the day of final passage, if instead of final passage there were an amendment.
There were an amendment. And if the President scheduled a session on the 23rd...
...actually, I'm not even sure that we could consider it that day because of the seven-day requirement. But putting that aside, at that point if we were to vote it on the 23rd, if there were a veto scenario, the bill would not come back to us until April 7th.
All right. If 21 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 there are any Mayoral representatives here, be mindful that if such a request is made, before it could be considered you'd have to show that Council would have the same rights as if action were taken under the current timetable available.
I understand that you prefer to have Mr. McElhatten as the first witness?
That's certainly fine with me. I didn't -- I didn't know Mr. McElhatten was coming until you told me, but that's fine. But whatever witnesses, we have they should come.
Mr. McElhatten, are you the chairman? No, it's really Councilman McElhatten because once you have this title you never lose it. Councilman McElhatten was a very respected member of the 22 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 Council.
Councilman Clarke, before Mr. McElhatten makes his statement, you had your hand raised?
Mr. Chairman, there were several questions that I had, and I think those questions will probably be of the bill sponsoring --
The weather's bad, and we're required to be here by virtue of our employment obligations. Mr. McElhatten is our guest, so I didn't want to precede him. But I just wanted to know at the appropriate time, there are a number of questions I'd be interested in. And he's 23 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 also a constituent of mine.
This matter is of importance, and I think it very urgent that everybody have a chance to know every facet of the bill because whatever leaves here, if it's passed, is going to influence perhaps the way that we do business for the rest of our lives. Now, in my case it may not be too many years. But in your case Darrell, it may be a long time.
Go ahead. It's certainly relevant. Do you want to hold your question till later?
I just wanted to let you know, since I'm not a member of the committee --
Because Mr. McElhatten, I asked him how long he would be. He says, it might be as short as two hours. MR McELHATTEN: No, Councilman. I said it wouldn't be any greater than two years. 24 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
Okay. You'll be held at least to the two-hour limit. It's good to see you back here in Chambers, and we welcome you. MR. McELHATTEN: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Please identify yourself by name and by position held. MR. McELHATTEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Daniel McElhatten, and I appear here today as the vice chair of the City's Board of Ethics. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee on Law and Government, Council members-at-large, and District Councilman Clarke, my Councilman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. And I know that the committee has, by public notice, had a number of bills before it. And it's my understanding that certain of the bills will only be called for a vote. However, the Board of Ethics met 25 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 this morning. I appear today at their behalf and on my own behalf. I appeared before this committee in the fall of this year. At that time I prepared a statement which was incorporated into the record. And at that time we were requesting that the Council act on one of a series of bills. And some of the bills were, in fact, a bill by Councilman Nutter and a bill by the administration, with regard to the creation and the implementation of certain rights and responsibilities of a board of ethics. I think that Council knows that the City of Philadelphia is one of the few cities and one of the only major cities in the United States that does not have a separately functioning independent board of ethics. And our recommendation in the fall was that the Council use its power to incorporate whatever the Council felt was appropriate, using as a guideline that which appears in other jurisdictions. Among the things that we felt were appropriate were investigatory power, Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 independence from an appointing authority or appointing authorities, and the type of resources that are needed to enforce and educate on the area of ethics. My final comment to the Committee of Law and Government in the fall was that everyone must recognize that we cannot establish in 30 days or even 6 months what has taken years to formulate in other cities. Philadelphia cannot wait to begin this process. Rest assured, however, that the Board of Ethics expects that there will be a collaborative effort among Council, the administration and the board that will result in an entity of which we can all be proud. And our employees in our city deserve nothing less. It is my understanding, from the actions of the board -- of the committee and the other media reports, that actually no 23 board of ethics legislation will be voted on by Council. If that's the case, as a member of 27 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 the Board of Ethics and as a member of the 21st Century Review Forum, I am very disappointed, not because of any particular aspect of the legislation, whether it was nepotism or whether it was employment, outside employment. Those are issues, I think, could be dealt with either by amendment... But the heart and the soul of an independent board of ethics needs the resources, both investigatory, educational and independence and the appearance of independence. If the Council chooses not to go forward with a board of ethics, then the board that is constituted by executive order has taken and is sworn to uphold the obligations that are set forth in that executive order. We took an oath that we would well and duly administer the executive order and the ethics laws of the City of Philadelphia in whatever way we could. We hoped, and I still hope, that 28 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 Council will, by way legislation that it is ultimately approved by the Mayor, establish another board, an independent board, superseding what we've done, and maybe building on what we've done, but at least give us the same kinds -- us as a city now, generically -- the kinds of resources that other cities have to do these jobs. If it doesn't, that's a legislative decision that Council makes. But then it's -- then the responsibility is thrust back to the existing board.
And if we have to jury rig some apparatus by using the Inspector General's Office, the inherent powers of the executive branch, and other powers that are inherent in the Charter, to fulfill those obligations and working with the state ethics board, then that's what we see as our responsibility. It's a challenge to all of us to be able to do with the resources that are currently available what other cities have done with significantly greater, not financial resources, but in terms of the 29 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 structural resources. And that's what I come before this Council for today. The specific legislation that may be voted on is a policy decision. That's a policy issue. Whether the right of Council to review contracts should rest with Council or with the Mayor, Board of Ethics takes no 10 position on that. That's why you're elected officials. But part of our obligation is that at every opportunity where the ethics legislation is on the agenda, is to come before you and to implore you -- yes, to implore you -- that we need to have as a city the resources that are necessary to have a first class board of ethics. Under the current structure we cannot because the enforcement powers that we would have would not be sufficient to have us be comparable to any other major jurisdiction. So Mr. Chairman, members of the Law and Government Committee, and members of 30 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 Council, I would implore you, whether it's the deadline of April 1st as the drop-dead date for reporting out of committee or whatever that deadline might be, I would seriously ask you to reconsider and look at the ethics bills and look at the impact the lack of action will have on the reputation of the City of Philadelphia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. McElhatten. Any questions from any members of the board, from the Council committee? (No response.)
Thank you. MR. McELHATTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CLERK: Raymond Wood.
Mr. Wood and his wife was present, we were informed by a phone call at the last hearing, but the Chair 31 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 inadvertently was not informed and didn't call them. And so, we've made arrangements for them to be here today. We've had a number of phone calls. But is Mr. or Mrs. Wood? Because we made arrangements for them both to testify. (No response.)
Well, let's wait until later on. Neither are here. Maybe it's the weather. Is there anybody else? CLERK: I have none on my list, no. 15
Are there any other witnesses to be heard? Any Council members who wish to be heard? Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I was late. Is there a schedule for today? Do we have a timetable of what we're doing?
Well, we finished the scheduled witnesses. 32 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
You can stay in your present seat. Would you rather be targeted? This will be our chance.
The question I have is, I'm just trying to figure out from a scheduling standpoint for my own schedule, whether we'll be voting today.
I don't know. We've been asked by the Mayor for an extension of approximately a week.
He said -- He said -- Is there anybody here authorized to speak for the Mayor?
Mr. Grace, would you take the witness stand for a minute. 33 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05
And tell us what the request is. And the reason for it, as far as you're authorized to say so.
Certainly. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I spoke to the Chair of the committee earlier today, and I also spoke to the sponsor of the bills that are before the committee today. The administration is working on an amendment to Bill 040772 that deals with some of the contract issues, some of the substantive provisions of the contract part of the bill, the process by which contracts will be awarded, determined, meted out, advertised and awarded in the city, under this new process. The administration is supportive of the idea of more disclosure and more transparency in the contracting process. But it has a number of concerns with the actual 34 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 substantive provisions with how contracts will be determined and awarded and distributed in the city. The amendment is not yet prepared to be offered today, as I told the chairman of the committee a short time ago. It will be shortly. And as we talk through the time schedule, the time clock, for when this bill, if it was going to go on the spring ballot, would need to go through Council, it's the time process -- some of the time process that I heard earlier in this discussion. But it's our understanding that if the Law and Government Committee dealt with the bill and any amendments to the bill, and concluded that process by March 9th, that there still would be time to move it through for first reading, second reading, final passage, and any final determination of the bill by March 31st, which would still be time to put such a bill on the spring ballot. So, that was the basis of my request when I came to you a little earlier today to 35 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 talk to you about this amendment and whether or not there would be a way to have a little more time to make this bill the best bill 5 possible. We've come a long way and done a lot of work with members of Council, with bills that have been transmitted up. On this bill in particular, we think we could reach agreement with Council to make the bill a little less burdensome in how contracts are awarded in the city and make it a better bill.
You say you can reach agreement with Council. Do you mean this committee or do you mean the full Council?
Ultimately we would hope it would be a bill that would have a majority 36 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 consensus of the full Council.
Is there any preference whatsoever, any need for a preference of amending the bill in committee rather than in full Council?
I guess just... The notion was to try to reach agreement with this committee, with the members of this committee before the bill moved.
This committee is just a number of seven people. Council is one of 17. We've had a hard time getting anything out of this committee related to this legislation. If you believe that the full Council is going to be very agreeable to your amendments, there's no reason why we couldn't amend it on the floor. Do you agree with that?
Councilman, I'm not 37 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 certain to the time process on how that would work, if the bill was amended on the floor.
It would be the same time process. If the bill were reported out of committee today, with a suspension of the rules, essentially that bill could be on second reading and final passage on the 10th. The bill could be amended on the floor on the 10th. It could then be passed on the 17th which gives it two weeks for the Mayor's potential veto; and we reached the March 31st deadline that Councilman Nutter talked about. It works either way. So, I was asking whether the administration has a preference or there's any purpose for having a preference or we're amending it in committee, as opposed to amending it on the floor.
Councilman, I don't know that we have a preference. Certainly my goal today in talking to the Chairman of the committee and the sponsor of the bill was just to see if there's a way to work together 38 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 to amend the bill, to seek consensus on the Council, to get the best bill possible.
But either route gets us to where we need to be on March 31st, you would agree.
Yes. I'm sorry, Councilman. Councilman, if that gets us there and gets it done in time, then certainly I think that would still be our goal. I'm not a master of that level of the process. I listened to you carefully in terms of whether we amend it on the floor if we'd still get there in time.
Essentially it is very clear that we report out of committee today with suspension of the rules. We have a first reading on the 3rd. 39 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 We have second reading and final passage on the 10th. We amend it on the 10th. We then have a final passage as amended on the 17th. The Mayor then has two weeks to take action, 31st.
Assuming that you're correct in that -- And I trust your process, Councilman.
Assuming that you're correct in that, our goal is to amend this bill in the best way possible, to reach the best reform that we can, in terms of how contracts are awarded.
On this issue of whether or not a bill to reform the contracting process goes on a spring ballot, we certainly did not come to the Chairman of the committee today seeking delay. That wasn't -- That wasn't the purpose.
The issue is whether you committed to the March 31 40 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 deadline, as outlined by the bill's sponsor, in order to meet the May 17th ballot.
Councilman, I don't want to say ultimately how the Mayor would make a decision on the bill. Obviously, that's ultimately a decision that's up to the Mayor.
No. Actually, we're assuming that there's agreement between the Mayor --
You're also assuming there was going to be agreement between the Mayor and Council. That was one of the assumptions of asking us to hold it up today, because you were assuming that there was going to be agreement.
We have been working on that process for many months now with members of Council, and that's still our goal and agenda.
Because if there's any extension -- If there's any reason to believe there's not going to be an 41 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 agreement between the Mayor and Council on this bill, it would make more sense to try to amend on the floor so that we can meet the March 31th deadline in any case.
In other words, it would move out of committee. It would still on a track to meet the March 31st deadline. It could be amended on the floor on March 10th. And if you did not reach agreement with the full Council, the amendments would just go down or the bill 15 could move forward.
I have great difficulty understanding how Councilman Goode could possibly come to the conclusion that it's easier to amend on the floor in Council than it is to amend on the floor of the committee. I have to assume he's desirous of 42 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 avoiding discussion because discussion at a Council meeting is bound to be much shorter in its breakdown and analysis of any amendment.
I would just say that that thought process is the same reason for why many members want to discharge this legislation from the committee. It's consistent with that thought process.
Well, when did Council discharge or take an action to discharge this committee from consideration?
It is a matter of formal record that it was discussed on the floor. Councilman Nutter, at some point I believe in December, said he actually had an agreement among a majority of the members of Council to discharge legislation from this committee. It was not moved out the following week. It was not moved out the following week. It was my hope that Councilman Nutter move forward with discharging from the bills 43 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 from the committee. It did not happen. But I'm just saying, if we are in belief that which we're both trying to meet a March 31st deadline, we are not yet in agreement to amendments that we have not seen nor do we know the context of, then we can do something by March 31st to move forward. And if Mr. Grace, who's representing the administration, is so sure that we're going to come to agreement on something, then it doesn't make a difference which route we go.
You had -- From the last hearing to this time, several months, you had plenty of time to seek to discharge this committee from consideration. You didn't move because you only had two votes for it.
And you needed seven votes. That's why no discharge took place.
Mr. Chairman, I'm 44 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 pleased to vote today.
And the effort to discharge is aimed at getting Council a vote at a time before Council members are fully acquainted with the subject.
That is our decision, whether we are fully acquainted with the subject or not.
Councilman Nutter indicated that when he talked about the bill 12 management. Bill management means getting a Council committee to do it, and then talk to other Council members who haven't studied an issue and tell them they're off the hot seat; all they have to do now is to approve what a Council committee considered. And I presented that on behalf of every member of Council who cares about being a Councilman and serving the public.
because an issue like this ought to be thoroughly debated and discussed. And it ought not to be... I'm 45 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 not recognizing you. I will when I finish.
-- your annoying tactics of trying to interfere and stop me.
And the subject as important as this subject, it's very important that Council members know about the subject, that they know it, all the details; they know, for example, here there's so many questions. Why is every department given the separate right to regulate the form that's going to be used? So that each contractor or each contributor is going to have to continually follow new forms every time he wants to make a contribution. Now, don't we need explanation? I don't want to be met a year from now with questions from Council members: How come 46 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 this is required? Why wasn't it discussed? On something as important as this issue. It's very important not that we move quickly but we move correctly, and we protect people's rights. And don't try to deny them by fooling them into saying, oh, it's already been discussed by Council committee. And that's the reason why we have committee hearings. And it's the responsibility of the Chairman. Perhaps you don't accept your responsibility in that regard, Councilman. But I think most Council members do accept their responsibility as Chairman. And I think you have in the legislation you sponsored: You've accepted your responsibility to make sure that the issues are clear to all the Council members before you ask them for a vote. And that's what my responsibility is here. Councilman Goode, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit confused by your 47 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 comments of whether you think that this matter should be dealt with in committee or by the full Council.
What I want to do is to have the committee do its job. The committee's job is to examine important bills and give help to Council members to understand what the issues are. Now, I agree that most of the bills that come before Council are routine. And something called bill management may be appropriate to them, but --
-- when a bill 17 comes of this significance, it's important to give everybody a full opportunity to understand every facet.
Mr. Chairman, my was whether you actually believe this bill 22 should be dealt with first in committee or by the full Council.
Well, when the committee has fully apprised its membership 48 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 and given those Council members who wish to attend, even if they're not on the committee, a full opportunity to benefit from the hearings. And at that point, I believe committee action is always better if it could be taken first.
So, if a majority of the committee wants to move forward today, we disallow that.
No, it doesn't mean it has to move forward. Why does it have to move forward today?
Mr. Chairman, I asked a question. I said, if the majority of the members of this committee are ready to move forward today, are you going to disallow that action?
The Chairman has an individual responsibility to determine 49 Law/Gov't - Bills 771, 772, 818 - 2/28/05 whether a matter before the committee is of such importance --
What was the question? Well, you can't get a short answer to some questions, Councilman Goode.
You can answer as long as you want but answer the question.
The question is, if a majority of the members of this committee want to move forward today, are you going to allow it?