-- 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