COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Thursday, 2/7/02 1:14 p.m. Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, PA - - - BILL 010529 - An ordinance amending Section 20-501 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts by revising the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts, under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 2/7/02 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE INDEX WITNESS Michael McCray, President..................... 17 Feltonville Recreation Center Advisory Council Wilfredo Rojas, Delaware Valley............... 27 Voter Registration and Education Project. Will Gonzales, Executive Director, SAVA....... 31 Robert Brown, Chief Legislative Aide.......... 38 to Councilman Clarke (Presentation) Nelson Diaz, Esquire, Acting City Solicitor... 68 3 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 010529. I would ask Mr. Mezzaroba to please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 010529, an ordinance amending Section 20-501 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts by revising the boundaries of Councilmatic Districts, under certain terms and conditions.
I was just given a copy of proposed amendments. Does everybody have a copy of them at this time? Yes, no?
About the specific amendments, the white pages, I assume, are the amendments to the pink bill. Are there any highlights as to what exactly the amendments are? You know how it's usually underlined or bracketed? Is there any specific change?
You're asking me what? 4 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Sometimes when we get amendments, they're either bracketed or underlined what information is added or deleted, and is there anything that's significantly different from the pink bill?
This is a replacement. Yeah, that's why it's amended.
And are there any -- no, I understand. Is there anything in the white pages that indicate what was changed?
It was pretty much all changed, so we submitted the amendment in this form.
The only change is now instead of nine signatures, there are ten.
For the record, Madam Chair, will the changes be read into the record so we can understand -- my only point is I'm trying to understand it better, 'cause usually if it's underlined, you know what's going in, and if it's 5 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 bracketed, you know what's coming out. And if it needs to be read into the record, I could follow it.
Madam President and my colleague, number 1 says, "Delete Section 1 of the bill in its entirety and replace it with the following." So it does indicate that it's an entire change. We can read that, but in lieu of that, everyone has it. It lists each ward in each division. It's pretty evident, it seems to me, as to what it is.
I withdraw the request; I'll figure it out myself. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? Are there witnesses here?
Yes, Councilman 6 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Cohen?
Following the question and answer between Councilwoman Blackwell and Councilman Kenny, do I understand that this amendment replaces in entirety the entire bill 7 before?
What was advertised in the -- as noticed? Did the public have notice? Did the public have notice? I'm thinking of what we call the "Max Weiner" --
The public has notice of the pink bill, No. 010529, as was introduced. We certainly did not know what the amendments were at the time that we had to publicize it.
I'm just questioning the possible legality, and I wonder if there's anyone from the City Solicitor's Office here who could tell us whether the notice requirements, as defined by the Pennsylvania courts, have been complied. I'm concerned about the fact that the amendments are apparently an entirely new bill. And did the public know that there was going to be 7 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 a new bill presented, or did they think there was going to be consideration of the original bill? And has the City Solicitor studied this, and are they prepared to give us an opinion as to whether our action today would be legal, working on an amendment as a replacement for the original bill?
Madam President, I'm glad to respond. The Law Department has reviewed the amendments, and as the President just said, the bill was advertised -- the title of the bill was advertised. Everything was done properly and in order, and it was reviewed by the Law Department.
Well, this is an amendment that replaces the whole bill.
The title was the same, I say to my colleague. Amendments are amendments. There's no change in the title of the bill, it was properly advertised, and it was reviewed by the Law Department. Everything's in order.
Well, I would ask, is there an opinion by the Law Department?
The Law 8 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Department already reviewed the bill. Everything that was done with regard to this bill --
But do we have anything in writing from the Law Department stating that an opinion of the City Solicitor, consideration of this amendment today would be legal? That's what I'm trying to --
An opinion was never requested. The Law Department reviewed it, as it does with every bill. We had no request for the Law Department to be here or for a request to -- for an amendment.
Well, there was no 20 reason to have a request from the Law Department because until a couple of hours ago -- maybe until just now -- I did not know what the bill was going to be, but I'm requesting now an opinion from the City Solicitor as to whether the procedure whereby Council considers a totally replacement bill for 9 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the bill advertised would be legal. And I think we ought to have a City Solicitor's opinion on that score.
And I'd make the request to the President to ask for just an opinion.
In order to save time, can we proceed with the hearing, and in the interim, we'll ask someone from the Law Department to come here to address your issue? (Unintelligible; Council members talking over each other.)
My understanding is that the Law Department not only reviewed the bill 18 but helped prepare it based on input that they received, and that if we need a written formal opinion from them ascertaining what we already have been told, that we have a week for that to occur before final vote, and we'll certainly have it in front of us at that time. Rather than bring them back here, try to find a lawyer today and -- well, we know they've prepared the bill; it's not like it 10 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 was prepared by two staffers and they weren't involved in it. Thank you.
It would just confirm the City Solicitor, so we do have a City Solicitor and we can have an opinion, I'm sure.
I think what Councilman O'Neill has said is that we can proceed with the hearing. Since the City Solicitor's Office was involved in this and have seen it, that we could get something in writing from them between now and the final vote.
Well, I appreciate the Councilman's statement about what the City Solicitor believes, but I think the City Solicitor is the appropriate official to state his view, and if the City Solicitor approves it, fine, let's hear it from him.
Well, would you mind if we went on with the hearing.
We will make a phone call to the City Solicitor to come over before the end of the hearing, that's fine. 11 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
But I do request that the City Solicitor be asked to come here, but we can go ahead.
No, not for every amendment, no. But this is a case in which an entire bill that was advertised to be heard is being replaced by an amendment.
The bills were advertised, but since 1968, during the years, 19 during that period during which I've been in City 20 Council, I do not recollect a single instance in 21 which a hearing took place on a bill that entirely 22 replaced the advertised bill, and that's what this 23 amendment does. Now, that's the reason I'm asking 24 for the City Solicitor's opinion.
We're making an 12 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 attempt to call the City Solicitor's Office; however, in the interim, I do think that we ought to proceed with the hearing.
Madam Chair, I disagree with the characterization that this is an entire replacement. If this were done line by line, which would probably be about a hundred pages, 70, 80, 90 percent of the bill -- of the amended bill are the same as what's in the original bill. There are districts that are exactly the same as in the original bill. To say that this is a total replacement of the original bill is just a mischaracterization. I would also, at the appropriate time, ask for a vote on whether Councilman Cohen's motion to wait for a City Solicitor's opinion, if we have to wait, on my motion to get the City Solicitor's opinion be ruled on.
Now, I'm getting very 13 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 annoyed, Madam President. I have never made a request during this hearing for the proceedings to halt while the City Solicitor comes. I've been as clear as I know how to be to say I have absolutely no objection to the hearing proceeding. What I have stated is that the appearance of this bill constitutes a replacement of the bill 9 that was advertised by an entirely new bill. The normal procedure for amendments is to have the brackets eliminate what was going out, retaining what stays in with there being in italics the new part. What appears from this bill is that the entire sections of the old bill are being eliminated and entirely new sections are being put in. One reading this bill cannot see at all what the changes are -- I cannot tell and you cannot tell, Councilman O'Neill, from this amendment what is being changed in the original bill, because the bill -- the amendments say "Delete entirely Section 1 and replace it with this language." Now, that's the reason I'm asking for a City Solicitor's opinion as to its legality. I 14 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 have no objection whatever to the hearing proceeding while the City Solicitor's Office comes to the hearing and states its opinion.
And if he is not here by the time that we end the meeting, then we'll ask for a written opinion.
I will agree with Councilman Cohen: Looking just at the amendment, I can't tell what is changed in the original bill, but I will add that looking at the original bill 12 and the amendment, I can tell everything that's changed. Can I tell in a second or a minute? It probably would take me a little longer. But taking the bill and the amendment, I can tell everything that was changed. And I think the record should be clear --
Councilman O'Neill, would you please state for the record what is it in the 1st District that constitutes the change in the 15 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 amendment.
Everything that is different in the amendment than what's in the bill 5 has been changed. Thank you. That's the end of my answer.
Thank you. There are a number of lights on. Are we going to -- do people want to be recognized now or -- I think we do have a number of witnesses here. Shall we have the presentation? I see that there's going to be a presentation made. Would you want to make the presentation first so witnesses could better understand what is being proposed? Councilman Goode.
I just wanted to make a very brief statement. I think that it's common knowledge that we are redistricting based upon new census numbers that came out of 2000. I think we are in agreement in terms of what the population of the City is according to those figures. We are clear that there are 10 districts in the City, we are clear that there are 66 wards, we are clear that there are 1,681 divisions. 16 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 And I think there's no misunderstanding about the fact that we are dividing that number in terms of population by ward and division in the most equitable way fashion. I think there's no way that we can conclude, although I won't try to make a conclusion, and we can allow the City Solicitor to make that conclusion, but there's no reason why we can't move forward in good faith, knowing that everyone knows what we're here to do today. Thank you.
Thank you. I believe we're going to have a presentation. Is it the desire that the presentation be shown first before we hear witnesses so that the witnesses would be aware more clearly about what changes are being proposed?
If that's your choice, I was willing to ask that the witnesses go first because they've been here for some time.
But if the preference is to allow -- I mean, either way is okay.
Wilfredo Rojas? (No response.) 17 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Is Michael McCray here? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. McCray. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm Michael McCray. I'm President of the Feltonville Recreation Center Advisory Council, and I have to tell you I haven't seen the latest amendments, so I'm not really sure if I support this bill or not. However, I'm kind of discouraged by the process only because in three different bills in this process, I've been in three different districts, and my neighborhood's been split up between two different districts two or three times. You know, I'm very discouraged, and you know, what is its definition of "disenfranchisement"? People talked about that in the previous bills when they got -- didn't vote fro 'em or the Mayor vetoed 'em. I mean, you know, there isn't anybody speaking for me. Am I going to 18 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 be pushed around three times? I mean, it's a very small number of groups that we're actually changing here, but, you know, it's affecting everybody. And for me personally, I like where I was but, you know, I'm not that affected by it. However, you know, my community itself, you know, what district am I going to be in? I really don't know at this point, and I don't know, I haven't seen the amendments yet. And it's kind of confusing to me the whole process that it doesn't look that difficult. I understand how hard it is, and I have worked with some of the people in your office on the second bill that got vetoed. And I was kind of happy with that bill but, you know, now it's, like, I'm here today, I'm here to testify at a 10 o'clock hearing this morning and I couldn't even get the amendments at 10 o'clock, and I'm here testifying now and I still don't have the amendments. I've been asking for 'em all day. So I don't know what this bill says.
Can someone please share the amendments with Mr. McCray?
Thank you. 19 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Well, I mean, that -- to me, it's not the bill itself, but I think it's the process, you know, and I kind of feel like there isn't anybody representing my best interests here, there really isn't. I mean, if I can be in three different districts in three different bills, I mean, you know, I get redistricted into a district, and the Councilperson comes out and in public says he's not interested in serving me. I mean, you know, how am I supposed to feel in this process. I don't know. You know, it's very disturbing to me, it really is. I mean, normally, this is something that you would think that wouldn't be that much of a problem. But to me, it's, it's ...
Mr. McCray, do you have a copy of the proposed amendments?
Yes, and it appears my that community is probably split up between the 7th and the 5th. You know, I think my only part in this process -- I was hoping that we could all be at my 20 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 old community for one time and, like, my whole community could all be in one district, but obviously, that hasn't happened here again, so I can't support this bill if it doesn't put our whole community in one district. And I'm not sure what the percent of Hispanic in our district, in the 7th district, would be, but, you know, if that doesn't reach at least the 43 percent the Mayor asked for, I couldn't support this bill anyway.
Just a moment, Mr. McCray. Councilman Goode. You wanted to be recognized?
Yes. Good afternoon, sir. I enjoyed our conversation earlier looking at the maps.
I'd like to clarify for the record, did you say that you worked on the second bill?
I did talk to some people on 21 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the second bill, Council President Verna's people had, and I had sent a letter and they had contacted me, and I just -- just on concerns that I had had, 'cause I was concerned at being redistricted --
Yes. I have a number of times on both the bills that the Mayor vetoed, on both times, and your office also.
Thank you. Just a moment, Mr. McCray. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
-- gave you the bill 24 that covers the amendments that have been proposed today. Which district did you say you were 22 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 interested in?
Well, my community looks like here between the 7th and the 5th
Can you tell by looking at the bill what the amendments to the bill are in those two districts that concern you?
At a quick glance, I can probably tell you most of it, the ones -- but I only know the wards and divisions I'm concerned with and I know the ones that are in my area, but I can't tell you beyond that, you know, like sitting here looking at this right now for the first time. And, you know, I agree -- I have to say I agree with your point. I think it's just -- it's something that's just being -- just put here in front of you, you know, and in 30 seconds, am I going to look at this and say I'm happy with this? I can't tell you for sure. But, you know, I know where it puts my division -- divisions where it puts me as far as being in one district or two districts, and it doesn't put me all in one district, and I can't support it.
All right, I 23 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 have no further questions.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
According to the documents that they just gave me, the percentage of Latinos in the district goes down to 42.7 from what I --
42.7 from what I considered the ground floor, which was 44. And this is assuming that these numbers are accurate. So it's -- because as you said, we just got these numbers given to us at the same time.
Right. Then you and I are at the same disadvantage, Councilman. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Mr. McCray, did you testify at the hearings on the first two bills, the ones that were vetoed?
No, I didn't. I wasn't able to be there in either one of those. I sent 24 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 letters.
I didn't support the first but I supported the latest one that the Mayor vetoed. I didn't support the first one, but I did support the second one.
Thank you. Any other questions of this witness? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'd just like to make a brief statement to the gentleman. I, like you, am somewhat confused throughout the process 'cause as the 5th District Councilperson under numerous proposals, I had pretty much been recommended to represent every part of the City of Philadelphia.
But understanding the process and understanding the difficulties associated with redistricting, trying to achieve various goals, political, creating a Latino district, having certain variations, you know, fall 25 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 within the guidelines is an extremely difficult process.
So it sometimes calls for us to come up with something at the last minute. I, myself, have had numerous individuals from parts of my district that have sent letters, that have sent -- that have come in and testified about their concerns about being a divided community. Unfortunately --
Unfortunately, in redistricting and under the certain guidelines that we are trying to achieve, it just happens that way, and it's important --
I mean, you know, in the best-case scenario, we would draw ten blocks in the City of Philadelphia, but it just doesn't work like that. So I, you know, I understand you. 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
I understand your concern. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
Thank you. I did want to add one last comment. I did want to say that I kind of wish -- and I was -- I didn't get a chance to be at the hearing, but I was listening to the hearing in December when you passed the second bill that the Mayor vetoed, and I don't usually like to single people out, but Councilman DiCicco said something that was really kind of very simple and very to the point: He said, Whatever I get redistricted into, I'm going to serve those people the same as I serve everybody else, and it doesn't matter. He said, If they get redistricted into my district or not, I'll serve 27 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 'em. You know, and I wish more people in this body would take that under consideration Thank you.
I appreciated the comments, Madam President, of that last witness, but he was not my witness today. Thank you.
Good afternoon, sir. Thank you for your patience in waiting to testify.
Thank you. My name is Wilfredo Rojas, and I'm appearing here before the Delaware Valley Voter Registration and Education Project. I testified here back in September, a few days before the tragic events of September 11th, and at that time I was testifying to ensure that the City of Philadelphia would have a place in 28 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Philadelphia where a Latino can run and possibly win a District Office. Today, I'm appearing to voice the support of the amendments proposed by Councilman Clarke and Councilman Mariano because we feel that it addresses, the issues that were raised by the Latino community in terms of political empowerment, and we also feel that it more closely meets the standard of the law of the one person/one vote. We think that the Latino community has been satisfied with both bills. I want to let this Council know that we appreciate the efforts that you initially put into this to ensure that our community was taken into consideration when you proposed your bill, but now we're coming back to this Council and asking you to take into consideration the one person/one vote standard as set forth by the law. We believe that in the case of Councilman Clarke and Councilman Mariano, they are being singled out as the two individual District Councilpersons where we're trying to carve out redistricting. We're doing redistricting around those two particular districts, as opposed to 29 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 equalizing the number of residents throughout Philadelphia. That is why I wholeheartedly support the amendments as proposed by Councilman Clarke, and the Delaware Valley Voter Registration Project will continue to work with this Council in getting Latinos involved in the election process. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
You understand that under this proposal, the percentage of the Latinos goes down.
Yes, I do understand that, but at the same time, I think that with those numbers, we can elect a Latino in that district, as we have proven in the legislative districts.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No more questions. 30 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say with respect -- and it will probably be more detailed in the presentation that the Latino percentage is in fact less than the Latino percentage in the last bill, but the minority population in the proposed 7th Councilmatic District is extremely higher, upwards of 65 percent. Additionally, the Latino population in this proposed bill, they are the majority of the population in that particular 7th District. So the opportunity to elect a minority representative is increased in this particular bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Any other questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, I would ask that the next witness be called, please.
Will Gonzales. 31 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Sorry I had to prepare my presentation here on the computer and I wasn't able to print it out. Let me just ... Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Will Gonzales. I'm the Executive Director of SAVA (ph). SAVA is a consortium of organizations in the Latino community. Its membership currently consists of (indiscernible), (indiscernible) Credit Union, Hunting Park CDC, (indiscernible) CDC, the Council of Spanish-Speaking Organizations, and the Norris Square Civic Association. We are grateful for the opportunity you have given us today to testify on the latest proposal to redistrict the City of Philadelphia. SAVA looks at the issue of redistricting through the prism of housing and economic development. Accordingly, we consider the preservation of neighborhood integrity the primary principle when redistricting the City. " It is more than a 32 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 cute label; many people in the City identify with their neighborhood and organize themselves accordingly. Cohesion is such within each community that people in the neighborhoods create organizations to come together to work for the benefit of their area. The work of SAVA and its member organizations covers the neighborhoods of Fair Hill, West Kensington, Hunting Park, Juniata Park, and Olney, among others. These neighborhoods share a commonality of interests, they face serious common challenges in housing and economic development, they share much commonality in their demographic data. One of the prime commonalities between them is the strong presence of Latinos. This trait also creates commonness among the seven neighborhoods in sharing Spanish as a second language and Hispanic traditions as an additional source of culture. The reality of the commonalities in geography, demographics, and cohesiveness of institutions makes it important for development purposes that the seven neighborhoods remain 33 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 together in one City Council district. Bringing together the neighborhoods under one common Councilmatic umbrella is more than a matter of keeping maps neat and keeping people with commonality of interests together. It is a tremendous step forward in efficiency, economies of scale, and coordination to meet development opportunities. City Council district persons play a significant role in matters pertaining to their districts. Issues of zoning, City funding, and development often must have the direct input of City district persons. The neighborhoods and the myriad organizations and businesses within them can be more productive if they had the ability to go to one Councilperson instead of several to address their needs or to seek support for their projects. We ask that as you carve out the City and create Council maps of Philadelphia, that you do the right thing and think first of how to best maximize the impact of your work in addressing the needs of neighborhoods residents. The upcoming work of the City in addressing issues of blight make redistricting on the basis of neighborhoods 34 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 important in its efficiency, and it becomes more important than ever. Our proposal may be politically naive, but the challenges our organizations face are tremendous, and one of the clear ways out of the problems is a cohesive and compact City Council district map. One of the best ways to find your way out of trouble is to use a good map, and we hope that City Council can at least try to do that. We also would like to comment on the redistricting process. We know that the process has not been easy for Councilpeople because you have not received a paycheck for four months. The process has been very difficult for us as well, because it's very hard to know what's going on.
Proposals fly around, they are not presented with enough time for us to digest them, and to grasp these proposals, one has to have a map to see what they mean, and those maps should be presented contemporaneously at the same time that you present the bill in its language form. We politely suggest that Council ensure that from this time on that when it considers 35 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 redistricting matters, that it make public not only the language of the bill but the map for it. We also hope that you make these measures and maps public, not only by publishing them in the major dailies, but also in the community newspapers. The Pennsylvania legislature does that for the whole state; why can't Philadelphia do it for the City? Another logistical matter that has made this process difficult for us is the way that Council has organized the public hearings. I don't want you to think that I'm being disrespectful by using the very microphone you give me now to speak to criticize when and where you let me use it. The very first time when Council organized these hearings, we were summoned to be here at 9 o'clock in the morning, and it was not until after 6 that we were able to speak. Some of us, however, had to leave to attend to other commitments. Today, we were summoned for 10 o'clock, and the hearing was postponed twice, and it started at 1. Participation by people in this redistricting process deserves better attention. To finalize, I'm going to make sure to 36 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 express our thanks to Mayor Street for his veto of the original legislation. I know that this may not sound nice to some of you, but for the Latino community, that veto meant an increase in the way that it is housed within the 7th Councilmatic District. The current measure, whatever its latest incarnation is, is not perfect, but it dilutes less the cohesive minority group, the Latino community, at a time when it can finally begin to participate in the electoral process in a meaningful manner. We urge you to continue to work to make the City's districts more compact, more cohesive, better form so as to maximize the opportunities for community development in the neighborhoods, and to ensure that the Latino community gets a chance to have a better presentation. Thank you.
Thank you The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz. Your light is on, sir.
Yeah, thank you, Will. The next chance for that is going to be, like, ten years from now, in terms of the next redistricting 37 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 process that takes place, and I agree with you that this process has been fraught with mistakes all throughout the time that we've been handling it, and that the people have really not had a clear say as to what it is that they're voting on. As you can see, the Councilmatic 7th District is not a compact district; it is anything but a compact district. And I would agree with you that we, the people, should have had a greater notice to be able to speak to these things. The latest amendments we just got we ourselves. And so that we still have not internalized what the impact is and how the demographic changes in our community, the movement of population within the Latino community, is going to be affected by these new lines. We still have to see that. I don't know yet. But I agree with you, I agree with what you are saying in terms of the process and what's lacking and how it should be and it hasn't been. So I thank you for coming forward.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the 38 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 committee of the witness? (No further questions.)
And we do apologize for the delay in the hearing. Our next witness?
I believe that Mr. Feder is supposed to be on his way over.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of Council. My name is Robert Brown, I'm the Chief Legislative Aide to Councilman Clarke. In front of you on the slide show 39 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 projection is a blown-up version of the amendments to Bill 010529. I'd like to spend a little time talking about how the bill got to this place, the way that it was amended, and some of the substantive changes in the bill. Bill 010529 was introduced in the Committee of the Whole at the same time the original bill that was vetoed -- the first bill 10 vetoed by the Mayor was introduced. It was heard in the Committee of the Whole and a hearing was held and the bill was held in that committee. Bill 010529 was originally written in the form that Councilman Cohen is familiar to, whereby all the districts are listed and then specific deletions are made. After the Law Department had made some revisions, the Council President's staff had also adopted the style in which 010529 was presented and deleted Section 1 in its entirety so as to put divisions and wards listed specifically. So what we have done in this particular amendment is the same style as was done in the first vetoed bill. The first bill started -- had a Latino percentage of 34 percent and rose later on to just 40 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 under 40 percent. 77 percent. It also is a majority-Latino district and has a greater percentage of minorities in the district as compared to either the first or the second vetoed bills. Speaking a little bit about how the substance of the bill came to be, after this bill -- the text of this bill is substantially similar to amendments proposed in Bill No. 010626. After that bill was circulated and seen by Councilmembers, Councilmembers met in the Council President's office to discuss a possible compromised plan. The text of that compromised plan, as was circulated by the Council President's Office, is substantially similar to the bill that you see in front of you now, with the exception of three changes: The first change exists in the 31st -- exists in the 23rd Ward of the City of Philadelphia. The 23rd Ward is Frankford, and I'll blow it up on the screen for you. The 23rd Ward boundaries. You'll note at 41 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the top of the screen the three intersections would be the Oxford Circle, where you see the cursor -- this is the Oxford Circle along Harbison Avenue. this is bridge and Pratt. This is the Frankford Creek. In the original provisions of Bill 010626, as circulated, Councilman DiCicco had the 23rd Ward Divisions 1 and 2, the 19th and 20th Divisions. In this particular iteration of the bill, as different from 010626, Councilman Mariano has Divisions 1, 2, 20, and 19. As a result of that change, Councilman DiCicco's population was under what we thought was an acceptable variance. The second major from 010626, which was circulated by a map seen by Councilmembers, were the five divisions that were in the 31st Ward, have been removed -- the five divisions that Councilman Clarke -- the 5th Councilmatic District had in the 31st Ward were put into Councilman DiCicco's 1st Councilmatic District. That leaves only one other change different between what was circulated in the forms of amendments to 010626, and that would be the 42 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 addition of the 21st and 25th Divisions of the 43rd Ward to Councilman Clarke, as opposed to Councilman Mariano's district. Aside from the specific substance of the bills, redistricting in this particular -- these particular iterations, it's been difficult for a couple reasons. One -- if I can zoom out. Generally speaking, districts in the Northeast of the map that you see in front of you contains dark lines, which are major streets and roads; red are interstates. And this is a map of the City of Philadelphia with the adjoining counties.
The redistricting process has been difficult because population losses occurred primarily in two districts in the City of Philadelphia: The 5th Councilmatic District losing 16,000 people, and the 1st Councilmatic losing 9,000 people, as compared to the 1991 redistricting maps. Further, population gain, so to speak. Has been in the 1st, the 7th, the 6th, and the 10th Councilmatic Districts, which are in the Northeast. As a result, districts have to shift towards the 43 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Northeast. And in this particular iteration, you'll note that Councilman Clarke's district, the 5th Councilmatic District, shifts to the Northeast. This line here which the cursor's going along is the Boulevard. Councilman Clarke's district, which previously had its northern-most boundary at Luzerne, now extends all the way above the Boulevard to Oxford Circle, and extends across what I believe to be Frankford Avenue.
Point of information, Madam President. I think he made a mistake. I think the other district that lost the population was the 2nd, not the 1st.
I apologize, I misspoke. The 2nd Councilmatic District has lost --
The 2nd Councilmatic District has lost population; the 1st Councilmatic District has gained population. The other difficulty in doing a 44 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 redistricting map is this bulk that you find in the 7th Councilmatic District here. In order to keep a Latino percentage at about 42 or 43 percent, you had to add divisions that had over 43 percent Latino population. The vast majority of these are located between 9th Street, Kensington Avenue, Frankford Creek on top, and Girard Avenue. As well, this mass could not be shared by people adjoining to it to gain population. So in order to keep a high percentage here without having too much population loss had to occur in the northern districts, which, you will note, the 14th Division of the 56th Ward is now in the 10th Councilmatic District, and Councilwoman Krajewski's district extends into the 56th Ward across the Boulevard in the form of the 26th and 39th Divisions. However, the sum and substance of my comments for today is that this bill is substantially similar to the amendments circulated in 010626, with three exception: The 31st Ward is now contained wholly by Councilman DiCicco, with the exception of the 2nd and 9th divisions; 45 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Councilman Clarke has taken two divisions in the 43rd; and Councilman Mariano retains divisions 5 in the 23rd Ward. 6 Thank you very much, Council President. 7
Thank you. 8 The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 9
Thank you, Madam 10 President. 11 Mr. Brown, I know you put a lot of work 12 into this, as have many other people did, and I do 13 appreciate it, although I may not agree with the 14 final outcome of it, and that will be noted in my 15 vote today. You keep referencing the 31st Ward as having been in Councilman Clarke's district and now it will be in my district. Just for the record, currently, I do represent those divisions; is that correct?
And those were divisions that early on, on the first bill back in September, I believe I suggested if anything needed to be taken from my district that I represent today 46 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 to move the boundaries in any way, shape, or form to come to some agreement, I said those divisions were on the table for discussion.
That is correct, Councilman. When I spoke -- on your first question, when I spoke earlier, I -- just so I'm specific, I meant that the divisions you had all -- the 1st Councilmatic District had always represented that section of the 31st Ward. The change that I speak of is in the --
Okay, and I just want to make that clear because that was part of what I offered as an opportunity to see if we could come to some sort of resolution on the issue.
And there was also some concern from my colleague Councilman Clarke about the demographics of the neighborhood and how that may not be working for him at the time.
To speak to that specifically, 47 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 the -- what is noted in the offering in front of you is the 7th Councilmatic District, as proposed by this bill.
No, I'm just laying out the lay of the land. Because we want to keep that compact, Councilman Clarke's district needs to pick up 16,000 people, so under either iteration, it either goes north over the Boulevard; or as in the previous iteration, it goes under the 31st, as you had suggested.
I understand that. I'm just trying for the record to make sure that everyone else understands that. So those divisions that I currently represent in the 31st Ward, at some point during this lengthy process, we, I thought, had an agreement that they would go to Councilman Clarke. Subsequent to that, as recent as today, it is understood by myself and Councilmember Clarke that those divisions would now be retained by me.
I -- without speaking for the 48 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Councilman, I never understood it to be our position or the Councilman's position that we wanted to have the 31st Ward as part of the 5th Councilmatic District. Our preference was to go over the Boulevard, and the difference between that is just that it's a more integrated neighborhood -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
If it sounds like I'm suggesting that that's what you wanted, I certainly would retract that. What I'm saying is that there were issues that we were talking about to try to get to some agreement that necessitated in a sense that some of those divisions in the 31st would go to Councilman Clarke, even though that was not his most desirable --
I would agree with that. My only difference would be, my recollection was that Councilman Clarke had never agreed to have as part of the 5th Councilmatic District the 31st, but I think we're saying substantially similar things.
It never was his intention to have the 31st Ward, they were never 49 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 divisions that he -- that he sought.
Point of order, please I just wanted to clarify my statements associated with the 31st Ward and one of the proposed redistricting plans. My statements were the following: That my preference was to move north and represent the divisions that were proposed in the plan that Councilman Mariano and myself presented; secondly, it was indicated to me that the demographics of the particular divisions on the southern end might not be divisions that were favorably to me politically. It was also suggested to me that the people in those divisions may not view me as a favorable Councilperson. That's what the statements were.
Well, would the Councilman care to expound on that as to why you think you would be --
I don't know, I've never represented that area before. Frankly speaking, I'm not familiar with that area. 50 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
But your testimony is now that those are divisions that -- that people indicated --
-- that you may not be more or less accepted in that community.
I didn't ask for them to clarify that, but I was familiar --
The point is, the divisions that I have been representing for six and a half years in the 31st Ward under one scenario would have been removed, would have gone to the 5th Councilmatic District, even though we understand that that's not the best situation or the ideal situation for Councilman Clarke; he would rather have gone North. Is it not also true that in the 18th Ward, there are divisions that I have also been representing for six and a half years that then became part of the 5th Councilmatic District by way of compromise? 51 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
I think the most accurate way to answer your question is, under both our proposal and the Council President's most recent proposal, that section of the 18th is in the 5th District in both proposals.
But is it not so that some of the divisions under your plan that we're being asked to vote on today in the 18th Ward are currently represented, and have been represented, by me for six and a half years?
That's correct. They were in the 5th Councilmatic west of Frankford Avenue prior.
Okay. So I'm giving up -- I was willing to give up divisions in the 31st and in the 18th as it relates to consideration for the 5th District to work with the 5th District Councilperson to come to some agreement at least at the northern end of my district or somewhere in between.
Without speaking for the 5th District Councilman, I never understood -- my only disagreement with what has been characterized is, I never understood the 18th or 31st Wards to be 52 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 quid pro quo in terms of reaching a deal. I never understood that there was an agreement either by the Councilman or by other Councilmembers on those wards in the southern end of the district.
Let's just for the moment say there was no agreement. The fact of the matter is, I did represent them for six and a half years, and I put those on the table as divisions that could be negotiable to come to an agreement. When we were dealing with what we dealt with I thought in December were three or four divisions that the Majority Leader suggested was the real reason why we couldn't pass that -- was the reason why the Mayor ultimately vetoed the first bill. So what I'm saying is that I, too, like everyone else, or most of the District Councilpeople, have been willing to give up divisions that I have been representing for six and a half years, and in some cases, folks are giving up things that they have been representing for even longer than six and a half years. And is it not so that there are three divisions in the 5th Ward that I have been representing for six and a half years that were 53 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 also part of negotiations to offer those to Councilman Clarke in the 5th District going forward?
I just would -- I would feel uncomfortable about characterizing the nature of the negotiations.
The facts are, there are divisions in the 31st, in the 18th, and the 5th Wards that I have been representing for six and a half years that wound up on one or two or three or four different maps, and they were never really concerns for anyone other than myself and Councilman Clarke, and I thought we were able to work that through. The point is, and some of the witnesses have testified today is, none of us, none of us would like to give up neighborhoods that we have been representing. But under the -- because of the nature of redistricting, we can't do it in a vacuum, and there are times when we need to give up things that we would not normally want to give up.
Yeah, I, again, wouldn't want to characterize the nature of your negotiations as a Councilmember with other Councilmembers. 54 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
Well, you've been working on the maps. Obviously, my districts have -- my boundaries have changed, as are the boundaries of Councilman Clarke and many other members who represent districts.
No, I think it is accurate that many Councilmembers, with a couple of exceptions, have had major Councilmatic Districts. I think that the biggest change, frankly speaking, has been in the 5th Councilmatic District, but that is not to say that there haven't been other major changes. I just would just feel uncomfortable in characterizing the negotiations as being a quid pro quo agreement
I would agree that the 5th Councilmatic District probably has the biggest change happening; there's no question about it.
If I may respond with respects to the proposals that was alleged that 55 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 were offered to me in the 31st. On the first redistricting plan, I was simply shown a map, without my input about changes in my Councilmatic District. On the second Council redistricting proposal, I was shown a map again that included the 31st and the 18th, without my input. So to characterize it as an offer to come to a solution, I think, is totally inaccurate, and I just want to clarify that it was not an offer --
It was not an offer; it was simply a map that was thrust before me and said this is the latest proposal. I had no 15 discussion with respects to my input into that particular proposal, so it was not an offer and not a negotiated deal.
In any event, for the record, there were a number of divisions that --
Point of information, Madam President. (Inaudible/off-mic.)
If we want to make things perfectly clear, Councilman, I had the same 56 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 offer Councilman Clarke had. I walked into the room, they gave me the district, and they said, That's it, and then we were at the table negotiating something that you agreed to, that you walked out of the room and changed your mind.
Please address the Chair, please address the Chair.
The staff recognized himself as a witness to these proceedings.
And you're asking him questions that should be addressed to his boss.
No, Rick, that's all right. 57 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529
I heard you earlier asking for leadership; have you assumed that responsibility?
No. Council President, to Councilman DiCicco, I have a voice too and I'm just letting my voice be heard.
We could sit here and I'm just clarifying Councilman Clarke's point.
I think Councilman Clarke could do a much better job of clarifying the situation than you can.
Well, Councilman, we can agree on one thing: We can agree to disagree, and what we're going to disagree on is that opinion.
Council President, we can agree to disagree, but we're going to disagree 58 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 on as that is what happened that day --
Now, we could do all of that, Council President, 'cause I'm talking to you, and if Councilman wants to listen, he can, it's up to him. That's what this is all about. Now, we'll sit here all day and listen, and he can ask Robert -- or Mr. Brown all the questions he wants, but they might be better if they went right to Darrell -- or to Councilman Clarke.
I believe Mr. Brown offered himself as a technical witness.
And I thank you, 59 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Councilman Goode, and I thought Councilman Clarke and I were doing this in a very professional way, not shouting and yelling at each other. I'm not walking out of these chambers. I just want to get to some of the issues that have been circulating in this Council for four and a half months. I will address some of issues that were raised by the Councilman from the 7th district in a very few minutes, when I get my opportunity to speak on how I'm voting or not voting for this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. Your light was on, sir.
Yes. Mr. Brown, you described yourself as working on the maps on the redistricting; is that right?
The -- to answer your question, the original bill was a modified draft of a bill that I had, Bill 010526. The white sheet 60 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 that you find in front of you, that's an amendment that was prepared by the Law Department with technical data that the computer prints out in a spreadsheet-like format.
The reason I raise this question and a few following questions is because while in the discussion here, redistricting sounds as if it is considered the property of Councilmembers; it is in fact the property of the whole citizenry, isn't it? Don't they have a legitimate right to know what's going on at all times; isn't that so?
I appreciate the question, Councilman, but I have to repeat a comment that I made to Councilman DiCicco, that I feel uncomfortable characterizing the discussion in that way or making a characterization one way or another.
Well, my questions will probably irritate people on both sides of this issue, but I think very strongly that the public has a right to know what's going on in redistricting and form its own judgment as to who is right or who is wrong and what they prefer, and 61 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 I just wanted to raise -- I think -- I feel that the various amendments that have been circulated by whoever just have failed in their duty to the public. There was absolutely no way the public would know, if they read what is being considered, what the changes were in the bill that was advertised. And in the one that you referred to in the earlier proposal, which was circulated to at least some Councilmembers -- not to all, 'cause I never got a copy of the first, though I've learned later that there was one similar to this -- there still is no way for anyone in the public to really see what was being proposed. I'm just suggesting that I think it's all of our obligations to always include the public as part of those that are concerned about legislation we pass. And I know --
-- you from my staff members and personally, I know you're a person of high integrity and of high ability. I'm just suggesting to you that keep in mind the responsibility this body has to make sure that the 62 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 public is fully aware of its rights to know what's going on in City Council by the way of legislation.
Councilman, my only response to that would be that the bill that we are currently considering, 010526, had been advertised, the title of which was in the newspaper --
529, I apologize, I misspoke. Bill 010529 had been advertised after it had been introduced, had been in a Committee of the Whole hearing, which had also been advertised. So the text of this particular amendment had been advertised and a hearing had been held on it prior to this particular Council session. And the proposed amendments, the most recent ones, are substantially similar to those that have been circulated to members of Council and discussed. As to the public, which, I think, is your specific issue, the proposed amendments that you find in front of you are substantially similar in respects to six or seven Council Districts to every redistricting proposal we've had on the subject. And I don't offer that as a rhetorical rebut but just to point out some of the steps that have been 63 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 made in terms of making the public aware. And this is no different from the last Council -- both the consideration of the first and second bills that were vetoed by Mayor Street. Amendments were made both on the floor and in committee, which had not been circulated prior for the public dissemination.
But it seems to me clearly that if there was a specific proposal in the form of an amendment to a bill that was going to be considered at this session -- and that was the whole purpose of this session of the Committee of the Whole -- there was a responsibility to make available to the public information on what this meeting was about. And I submit to you the public was misled. The public, by the advertisement, believed that we were discussing the basic bill when, in fact, what we were going to be discussing were changes to the bill that was advertised. And I think Max Weiner made the law in Pennsylvania with respect to the notice required, you know, to fulfill legal requirements by Council to act, and some people have thought I look like him, some people think I'm 64 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 a (indiscernible) like him -- they're probably both right in both areas. But I do want to suggest that despite my likeness or not likeness to Max Weiner, the issue is still important: The public has a right to know, and I urge you to give more consideration in the future to that aspect.
Councilman, Councilman Goode has a point of order.
Thank you, Madam President. Just a quick point of information. The process in terms of public input has been the same on every bill that we've heard a public. There's been a public hearing and a public meeting. Other bills have been amended. As I stated before, it's very clear as to what we're doing. Excuse me, excuse me. The population figures in Philadelphia basically on the 2000 census are 1,517,550 people. There are 66 wards, 1,681 divisions. We are -- excuse me. 65 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 We are dividing those wards and divisions into Council Districts. Everyone knows what we're here to do. It's the same process for every bill. Anyone who is familiar with the ward structure, ward and decision, and how not only the Council Districts are constructed now, are constructed in the various bills, can easily walk in here, not necessarily being able to tell the difference between the original bill and the amendments. Anyone familiar with the ward structure, as part of the same public process, the same type of public hearing and meeting, can walk in here, look in each district, and tell in terms of ward and division what the districts look like. And then it is a challenge of 17 members of Council to decide.
Thank you. (Inaudible off-mic. discussion among some Councilmembers.)
It's the same public process for all three bills: A public hearing and a public meeting. That was the point of information; did you 66 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 get it? Did you get it?
Madam President, I would ask the member to address the Chair.
Yeah, I have just a couple follow-up questions. Mr. Brown, you're familiar with the first bill, 010523, that passed this Council 15 to 2 and then was subsequently vetoed by the Mayor?
I'm not familiar enough with the text to comment without having it in front of me.
Are you familiar with the -- what that bill's representation of a Latino district meant, what the percentage of the Latino district was in that bill? Not necessarily the 67 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 makeup of the boundaries.
I remember and I -- my recollection is -- and I could be incorrect -- that the bill, as introduced, was 34 percent, and as passed, was 40 percent, but I could be wrong on --
Point of order, Madam President. I understand that the City Solicitor is here. I'm sure he has other things to do. I would request that he be recognized.
That's fine. Is the City Solicitor in the room? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming when you were called. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I'm addressing it to the City Solicitor. We have before us today for a hearing in City Council a proposed amendment to Bill No., and the number is given, and what the bill does is to 68 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 delete the entire content of the bill, which was advertised with notice, and it substitutes entirely different language. There is no pointing out from what respect the new bill changes the bill that was advertised, so the public thought they were going to have a hearing on the first bill, they come and read the bill -- an amendment, which says, Throw out everything in the bill and substitute the following. Now, in your judgment, sir, is that legal for us to proceed to enact the amendment which the people in the public had no notice of and which the entire content of the original bill advertised is deleted and there is a substitution about any indication in the proposed amendment of what the changes are?
Could I ask the City Solicitor to identify himself for the record, please, before he responds.
Thank you, Madam President. My name is Nelson Diaz. I'm the acting City Solicitor; I have not been sworn in yet. In my limited knowledge with regard to the phone call that I just received a few minutes ago, 69 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 as I indicated, I would come at your need and beck and call, and I'm willing to be here whenever and however you want me to be here. The information that the Councilman talks about in terms of a total new bill, if the facts were as he claim they are, then obviously, there would be questions with regard to the provisions not only of the Charter but the provisions of the Sunshine Act. The representations have been made to me by the members of my law office is that this is an amendment to a bill that has been presented prior to and this is the second hearing on a bill based on a bill that was introduced, which is 010529. Similar to the blight amendment and other amendments, the provisions of amendments have complied, one, with the Charter in terms of advertised the meeting and the meeting being advertised; and secondly, with regard to the Sunshine Act because the bill was initially presented in an advertisement, and then this is the continuation of that bill at its second hearing. That is the presentation and the representation that's been made to me. So it 70 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 depends on how you read the facts. The facts as the Councilman states and the facts as has been stated to me by the Law Department differ in terms of being a totally new bill. Madam President?
Councilman Ortiz, you wanted to be recognized? Your light's on.
Yes. I was to make another statement on another issue, so it's fine right now.
All right. Any other questions of the City Solicitor? (No further questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.
Thank you very much, Madam President, for the opportunity and for accommodating us. Thank you, Councilman Cohen.
Are there any 71 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 other questions of Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown? Is Mr. Brown in the room? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. Mr. Brown is sitting at the witness table.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking over there. I apologize. Thank you. I'll try to remember where we left off with the bill, the original bill, 010523, which started out as a 34 percent Latino district, moved up to 40 percent. The bill passed this Council 12 to 2. The Mayor subsequently vetoed it. 13 When you began your deliberations, your -- 14 whatever we want to refer to that, your is sit-down 15 with the Planning Commission and others to come up with an alternative plan, an alternative bill --
We never had an opportunity to sit down with the Planning Commission.
Whoever. Did you take into consideration some of the comments that were made on the original bill, 010523, and the comments that were made back on that date that that bill passed, comments that were made by Councilman Ortiz and Councilman Mariano in relationship to the percentage of Latinos that they both thought should 72 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 be represented in the district? Did you take into consideration -- and maybe I can refresh your memory. (Reading from transcript.) Councilman Ortiz was recognized by the Council President: "Madam Chair, I wanted to speak before. When the bill was being considered ten years ago, I stood up in this Council, myself and Councilwoman Tasco. At the time, the Latino community had a problem. We were divided into four different districts. The bill today" (meaning Bill 010523) "that we considered, this Council had a very good opportunity, if the Latino issue was the priority two weeks ago and a few weeks before that, to really create a Latino district, but this Council did not do that. We went, we did not do bad, we did not do good. There was a lot of dissatisfaction, so I voted no. It was 15 to 2." He goes on to talk about the Latino issue being brought up and the reason for his vote. Madam President, could I ask for them to be -- I'm -- it's very distracting.
It's very distracting to the speaker with the side 73 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 conferences.
(Continuing to read from transcript.) "The Latino issue has been brought up as a reason for this veto. I don't think so. I think the people who spoke on the bill 7 to try to delay the bill really couched it correctly. This was about Center City, some divisions, but it was not about creating a Latino district. I would hope that now that we are here, we will come up with a 45, 46, 47 percent Latino district. I would hope that the reasons given for the veto is made to stand, but I don't think that was the reason, and that's why, knowing that the Latino was being used, I was not going to go along with it." In response to that, the Councilman from the 7th district says, "Madam President, you know, I probably shouldn't say this, and that's how I get into trouble around here, but I just can't help myself. That's probably one of the biggest untruths I've ever heard in Council" (referring to Councilman Ortiz's comments). "You know, I mean, the Councilman fought all along for a district, and then when it comes up for a chance to do something 74 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 for the people he's supposed to represent here in Council, who he's been telling me he's represented for six years I've been sitting here, and then changes his vote and then cops a plea afterwards." The point I'm trying to make is, the bill, 010646, came up with a 44 percent Latino district. It addressed the concerns of Councilman Ortiz and the Councilman from the 7th Councilmatic District referencing his chastation, his criticism of the councilman, Councilman Ortiz. When you did your math, when you did your remapping and came up with Bill 010529, did you take into consideration of trying to attain -- at the very least maintain the 44 percent Latino district?
Councilman, I appreciate you refreshing my recollection about the veto message on the first time. First, just a couple of procedural questions. Bill No. 010529, I was not a sole drafter, nor did all of the input from drafting come soley from my head. It would incorrect to take both the responsibility and possibly the praise for doing so. 75 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 Secondly, Bill 010529 was introduced at the same time the Council President's bill was, so it preceded the veto, so the veto --
That was -- excuse me. When you keep referring that to my bill, I think it was a bill that --
Well, when we talk about the second bill, I'd like it to be referred to as "the bill that the leadership committee came up with."
My only -- but the bill that I was -- I wasn't referring to that bill. 76 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 There were two bills introduced in September. The first bill that was drafted without -- not the second bill that was in response to the Mayor's veto, the first redistricting bill, whose cosponsor was Council President Verna. There was another that Councilman Clarke had. That bill -- our introduction of Bill 010529 preceded the Mayor's veto. In fact, the hearing on the bill preceded the Mayor's veto. So there was no opportunity to take advantage of the Mayor's veto message in drafting that bill because the bill 13 preceded it in time.
So the amendments that you've come up with now really don't address either of those issues.
Speaking to the amendments, the Mayor's veto message, over or three or four pages, delineated a number of issues that he had problematic with the first redistricting bill as passed by Council. One of the issues was the variance. Another issue was the Latino percentage; he felt that it should be higher. Another issue was the political burden he felt was not shared 77 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 equally amongst Councilpeople, that it had been placed too heavily upon the 5th and the 7th Councilmatic Districts. Another issue that he addressed in that same veto message was percentage of African- Americans living in the 2nd Councilmatic District. So amongst issues that we had to deal with, one of the issues was a Latino issue. About the Latino issue vis-a-vis these amendments, while the second redistricting bill had 45 percent, the commission bill, if I can refer to it as that, the commission bill had a 44.5 percent Latino district. It did not have Latinos as the majority; and secondly, it fractured the Frankford community and some other communities in terms of the Latino bill. This bill is only a couple of percentage points lower, has a similar number of Latinos in the district, and is actually a more majority/ minority district than that particular bill was. So we feel comfortable with what we tried to do within the confines of what applicable case and statutory law would allow.
I don't know. Maybe I have a tendency to look at things much more 78 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 simply. I just know that 43 percent is lower than 44 percent, so how it works out to the Latino advantage with 43 --
-- as opposed to 44, I'm not even going to get into that one. I just want one other question, and I will end. When you were doing the map, you referred to the area in the 23rd Ward and you referred to it as "the Frankford neighborhood"?
If I did, I may have misspoken. Parts of the Frankford neighborhood are in the 23rd.
'Cause the Councilman from the 7th District recently suggested that Councilman DiCicco from South Philadelphia wouldn't know how to represent the people in the 23rd Ward because he wouldn't know Frankford, F-R-A-N-K-F-O-R-D, which we know is in Philadelphia, from Frankfurt, F-R-A-N-K-F-U-R-T, which is in Germany. I'd suggest to the Councilman who made that remark that maybe he should go book to the map 79 2/7/02 COMM. OF THE WHOLE - BILL 010529 and study it even more so than I. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Brown? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude the public hearing.
Madam President, I wish to speak on the bill. Do I do that in the hearing or --
This will conclude our public hearing. - - - 80 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
We will now go into our public meeting The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make sure -- there was a sheet given out a little while ago, there was another sheet given out earlier. I just want to make sure this is a -- it says "Proposed Redistricting Plan Amendments to Bill 010529," and it lays out all of the populations and the percentages. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that this is the correct breakout, and I know that the two very important things that have been discussed in the past is the Latino percentage primarily in the 7th District as well as the deviation issue. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what those two numbers are with absolute clarity.
I apologize, Madam President. I didn't hear the question. 81 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
That's okay, and you may have answered this earlier and I apologize. There was a sheet given out earlier -- I think you and I had actually had some discussion about it, and then there was an issue about maybe something was missing and that there was a recalculation. I just want to make sure that the numbers on the sheet that I think you gave out a little while ago on the Latino percentage as well as the deviation issue, that I have the right sheet and the right numbers.
Yes to answer the question. The sheet that was presented that I had given you earlier, I said that it's complete, with the exception of one figure you'll find at the bottom of it, which lists the deviation. The sheet that I've passed out to you lists the deviation. All of the numbers, to the best of my knowledge, are the same.
All right. So the Latino percentage is 42.77 on the sheet, and the 82 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 deviation is 4.28?
In both veto messages of the Mayor, one of his more salient points and one of the points that he really, I think, probably had reason was that the deviation was too high. And in both -- in fact, I think in the second one, he made a mistake because I think it's an exact duplicate of the first letter, and actually, we brought the deviation down. He says, "This deviation is significantly higher than the population spreads after any of the final redistricting ordinances of the last 30 years. In '92, the spread was only 1.4; in '81, the spread was 0.5." The deviation in Bill 010523 is more than two and a half times as large as the largest spread in the last 30 years, the 2.8 spread of 1971. The spread actually was three points, 3.0. And in the second bill, he says, "While 83 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 none of us like the deviation in Bill 010523, it still remains more than two and a half times as large as the largest spread in the last 30 years, the 2.8 spread of 1971." Actually, I think somebody made a mistake there because it's not twice as large. Actually, the brand-new, the brand-new deviation approximates the two and a half times or two times larger than the previous one. So I would hope that the Mayor keeps faith because the Mayor has vetoed bills on one issue. I mean, on this issue, in essence, it is the deviation and Mr. Clarke's brand-new number of people in his districts, but Frank DiCicco has a lot -- many -- has as many as Mr. Clarke and as Mr. Mariano, and so on down the line. So that aspect has been taken care of. And the Latino district really goes from 40 to 42. I was hoping for 45; I didn't get it. And 44 was the sort of floor. That's fine -- it's not fine with us, really, but I think that's as much as we expect to get. But the deviation really seems to be very high. I would hope the Mayor takes notice of that 84 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 when he gets this bill on his desk.
Councilman, I would only respond by saying two things. In the same comments that I had made to Councilman DiCicco, I had understood the Mayor's veto message to list several items that he had concern with, and while the variance is higher --
Councilman, I'm sorry. We're not in a public hearing at this point.
We were in a public hearing and we went into a public meeting.
So I don't think at this point, we could be asking questions. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Is there anyone else 85 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 who wishes to speak? 'cause I'll wait my turn.
Are any other speakers? Councilman DiCicco will yield to any other speaker at this time (No response.)
There are no 8 other speakers. Councilman DiCicco?
Thank you, Madam President. Yesterday, while I was at a continuing education class for real estate -- required actually -- I was sitting there, bored to death, and thinking about this whole process that we've gone through for the last four and a half months -- actually even longer than that, four and a half months since the first bill was past, and all of the rest of it is history, we all know what took place after that. I jotted down some notes. I'm using now the note writer and I'm going to try to go as quickly as I can and the best that I can. I will not be voting for this bill today. I have not and I will not be asking for anyone else 86 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 in this chamber to vote along with me. I only ask that you vote according to the way you believe is the best thing for this City Council. If you don't vote with me and you don't vote against the bill, there is no hard feelings, I understand. This has now become, in my opinion, more of a matter of economics than anything else, with the exception of kind of deja vu, Councilwoman Blackwell, three or four divisions. We're back to where we started in September. I have my opinion, the Councilman from the 7th District has his opinion as to who should give what and take what. I stand by what I believe is in the best interests not only of my district but of all the other districts, because if we had to go back to Ground Zero, we might as well rip up all of these maps and start over again. So I am not asking anyone to vote along with me. Do so because that's something that you think that you want to do. We all deserve to be paid. We've been working hard. And I know, like everyone else in this room, how hard we work, although sometimes the public may not realize that. And to go without 87 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 four and a half months of pay, even for me, who is self-sustaining these days, 'cause, thank God, I have two children that can support themselves, it's beginning to be a strain on me as well. Not counting all of the other stuff that we have to deal with -- our benefits and deferred compensation, God only knows what's going to happen with that. I want to make a couple of things clear here today. There have been rumors and allegations that have been going around this chamber since September. One of them was brought up a little while ago by the Councilman from the 7th District, suggesting that somehow when we all met in your office, Madam President, that I was in agreement with recommendations, and that when I left the office, my dear friend and colleague Councilman Kenney -- and I'm proud to call him my friend -- somehow twisted my arm, convinced me, threatened me, God only knows what else is being said, that I should not go along with the plan that was being presented to me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think what happened was, when I was 88 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 suggesting as a possible compromise to compact, as one of the witnesses here today spoke about, to make my district, the new district, more compact as it related to the northern end of that district, that I may be able to take a couple more divisions in the 23rd Ward. You all know what took place. All hell broke loose. All of us were told to basically go screw ourselves, and the Councilman from the 7th District walked out of the chambers. At that point, through all of that confusion, I said, If he is not willing to negotiate, then there is no negotiation on my part either. It is over, it is what it is, and let's vote on it. The other thing that's been circulating, Madam President -- and I want to thank you, by the way, for your leadership, although there's some people who may not think you're a leader here. You have tried, you have turned, you were like a corkscrew in this place in the last four and a half months, to try to figure out a way in which to come up with a bill that would satisfy the majority.
And in two instances, you did: 15 to 2 on one, 15 to 2 on the other. Both times you succeeded. One 89 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 of the times you succeeded was, as a result of the first veto, you put together a working committee, a bipartisan working committee, that came out with a plan, that they voted for and then decided to vote against when the Mayor sent it up for a veto. You did your job, Madam President; don't let everyone else tell you anything different. And the other rumor is that you -- and you know and I know that the Senator from South Philadelphia doesn't pull your strings. I don't even think Vernie has a shot at pulling your strings 'cause you're a determined woman and you have beliefs and things, and you go according to the way you think things should be done. I'm a little dry, I've got penicillin in me, so I apologize.
If it was up to the Senator and if it was up to me, my plan, as I suggested to Councilman Clarke in the spring or the early summer of last year, I'd like to have the 8th Ward. I went to the Councilman in good faith, we discussed it; he said he was not interested in it 90 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 and I packed my bags and I went home. Never once did I put the 8th Ward on any of the proposed changes in any of these maps that have been circulating around. I went along with everybody until it got to the point where now all of a sudden, my boundaries would go beyond the 45th Ward of where I am today and take me well into the Oxford Circle area. And then I became concerned to the logistics, to the geography of it all. And I asked if we could somehow reduce the number of divisions in the 62nd Ward and move me a little bit more into the 23rd. Then, and as recent as today, we've been told time and time again by the Councilman from the 7th District, they are non-negotiable, they're off the table. We have spent too much time in this process. The paychecks are sitting there, we have not gotten those paychecks. The public deserves better. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I had to put a lot of meetings on hold that I didn't care to do, and I'm trying to make up for them now. 91 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 Councilman Clarke, I want to apologize to you for not getting back to you the other day. I told you earlier, and I'll say it on the record, I didn't get done till 9:30 that night 'cause that was an impromptu suggestion on your part. You're a well-meaning person, and I respect that. And yesterday I was in class, so I just had no 9 opportunity to get back to you. As for the other conversations that are going around, the Mayor is saying that I don't return his calls. Councilwoman Krajewski, I think you overheard me tell the Mayor last week as he stepped off that podium that "I've been calling you back, Mayor," and his remark is, "I know. I'll call you back." So that rumor, discount it. Senator Fumo is my friend, he's my mentor, he's my colleague, he's helped me to get to where I am today. But the one thing I can tell you about the Senator for those of you who don't know, you can speak your piece and have an opinion and you try to work it out, and that's all he's about and that's all I'm about. We can't work it out. I will be voting no 25 on this bill. 92 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 And, again, I want to thank all of you. Those of you who obviously were on my side, for lack of a better way of saying it, and those of you who didn't see it my way, for going through the process. Let the process continue, let's take the vote. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Madam Chair, I wasn't going to say anything, but I'll be voting no on this. We've gone from 40 to 42. We had a committee that put forward what I believe was a plan that answered all of the questions that were put in the veto message of the Mayor, all of the questions. And, in fact, Councilwoman Blackwell can attest that that was the basis of the discussions of that committee. We went to the task of answering the questions that the Mayor proposed and put forward. I think that committee answered those questions and came up with a plan, and although the Mayor was still not satisfied with the plan that we agreed to, it's still the best plan that was better for 93 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 the Latino community and equitable for every other City Councilperson in this body. It's still a plan that does not have a cohesive, compact 7th Councilmatic District, and you can look at that map and it is not compact, it is not cohesive, even in the plan that the Mayor vetoed the second time. The numbers are not right. The new plan, which caps the 5th and brings the 5th as a sort of cap over the 7th Councilmatic, interrupts the demographic and movement of the Latino community, and it really prevents that community from growing within that district the way it normally would have done. There have been too many words in this process, too many insults put forward. The debate really got down to not factual arguments and not the basis of principle, but the basis really of raw power. And I think probably raw power will win, but that does not make it correct. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. 94 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 For someone who worked very, very hard on trying to help develop a fair -- as much as fair as can be -- because as Councilman DiCicco said, we all gave up areas that we had worked with and, in some instances, are picking up new communities, which we will work with, as we have done in the last ten years of redistricting. I will be voting no on this bill because I think the bill that was vetoed was a bill that we worked very hard to answer when the Mayor vetoed the first bill. We addressed the Latino issue, we addressed the deviation and the other issues in his message. This bill reverts back to some of those same issues that he raised. So in principle, I have to be against this bill because it does not address -- it still raises the issues that were raised in the first veto message. But I don't believe that there will be any other compromise. Maybe later on when people are paid and we're calmed down and tempers are calm, there may be some way to address some of the issues that have been raised, and maybe people can come together and amend. You can always amend a bill, 95 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 and this legislation is not set in stone. And hopefully, that will occur. But just based on principle and what we tried to do, and I was a part of the committee that promoted the second bill, I will be voting no. 7
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to be recognized? (No response.)
Councilwoman Blackwell, are you ready to be recognized?
Certainly, Madam President. Today we submit to Bill 010529 that are signed by ten members of Council, and also request a rules suspension so as to permit first reading at our reconvened session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010529 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. We have to vote for the amendments first. I'm sorry.
Yes. 96 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
All those in favor of the adoption of the amendments will vote aye.
Councilman Kenney? 97 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
No. 98 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
The votes are nays, 10 ayes. The motion carries The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 010529, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 010529 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended and also a request that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council meeting. And a roll call --
That it be read in the 99 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529 recessed Council session.
We are going to have our Council recessed immediately after this hearing.
All right, it was just recessed from last week; I just wanted to clarify that.
A roll-call vote has been requested. Mr. Mezzaroba, please call the roll.
Aye. 100 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
No. 23 The votes are 7 nos, 10 yeses. So the motion carries - - - 101 2/7/02 WHOLE - PUB. MEETING - BILL 010529
I would suggest that everyone stay in their seats so that we could go immediately into our Council session. Thank you. (Proceedings end at 2:45 p.m.) - - - 102 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole of Thursday, February 7, 2002, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Ordinance No. 010529 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)