Yes. I'd just like to state for the record that there is not now, nor has there ever had been, any numerical or monetary threshold regarding forged deed cases.
Thank you. And we hope to cut down whatever that number is if we did this.
All right. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Abernathy, Commissioner. Please come up. 173 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 (Witnesses approached witness table.)
And while you're getting ready, there was made reference talking to my staff a lot -- and I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize the efforts of certainly Noelle Marconi, my Legislative Director, but also Julie O'Connell, who has personally walked about 100 people through this process and I would call as much an expert on this as anybody that has any title in this whole thing. So I appreciate her reference, because she actually helped real people and tried to find solutions instead of finding problems. Thank you. Please proceed. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Good morning, Councilman Greenlee and members of the Committee of Law and Government. My name is Joan Decker and I serve as the Records Commissioner in the City of Philadelphia, and I am pleased to present testimony regarding Bill No. 100487 174 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 introduced by Councilmembers Greenlee and Sanchez. Bill No. 100487 amends the portion of The Philadelphia Code related to the recording of deeds. Specifically, the bill, if enacted, would require the Department to reject deeds presented for recording where the grantor and record owner names do not match, or where certain supporting documentation is missing. Additionally, the bill would impose a higher fee for persons seeking to record a deed without first obtaining title insurance. I understand that there may be some amendments, so I am not familiar with all of them, so I apologize if there are sections here that don't apply. The intent of this legislation is to prevent people from having their homes stolen, a worthy goal which the Administration strongly supports. This office, in conjunction with legislation previously introduced by 175 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Councilman Greenlee, has been taking a number of steps to help reduce the number of incidents of house theft. Since 2004, the Department has sent a document notice letter to property owners each time a deed or a mortgage is recorded against the property. If the recording was done without the owner's knowledge, this letter will then alert them to that fact. To date, over 900,000 letters have been sent to property owners. Since 2006, the Department of Records captures the photograph and signature for deeds presented in person. At the request of the Department, a Fraudulent Conveyance Task Force has been initiated to address this property fraud issue. This group is composed of members of the Records Department, the Philadelphia Bar Association, attorneys from various non-profits, also representatives from the District Attorney's Office and attorneys from various title insurance industry. The 176 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 primary tool in addressing fraud is really community education. The Department has created a number of informational sheets and also posted numerous information on its website where it can be conveniently accessed. The Department has implemented additional measures pursuant to legislation introduced by Councilman Greenlee and passed by Council in 2008. Pursuant to that legislation, the Department reviews a number of items upon presentation of a deed, including names of the record owner and grantor and available supporting documentation. Discrepancies are noted and forwarded to the District Attorney's Office. As you can see by the information presented, the Department views the fraudulent recording of deeds as a very serious matter and has taken significant steps to address the problem. We appreciate Council's support in these efforts and recognize that despite our 177 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 best efforts, fraud remains a problem in the City. Title insurance should either prevent or insure against most fraud, and the Department welcomes any effort along these lines to encourage its use. Unfortunately, the remaining provisions of the legislation present legal concerns.
First, the bill requires that the Department of Records refuse to record a deed where the grantor and record owner name do not match. Under current law, the Department of Records checks deeds for discrepancies between grantor and record owner and reports any discrepancies to the District Attorney's Office. We record the deed, as state law unconditionally requires us to do. The bill would also prohibit the Department of Records from recording a deed where certain supporting documentation is not present. We are concerned that if implemented, the rejection of deeds would disproportionately affect low-income 178 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 homeowners, homeowners who are less likely to use an attorney or to purchase title insurance. In effect, the very people that we are seeking to protect would be the persons most negatively affected by this legislation. Additionally, as set forth in the legal opinion that has been provided to the Committee, the state law that requires us to record deeds would supersede these new requirements. Moreover, by refusing to record a deed, the City could be found in violation of a standing order in the Pennsylvania Land Title Association versus Philadelphia, which requires the City to ensure that any new document presented to the Department is immediately recorded and indexed in the order in which it is presented. Violation of a court order, similar order by another Pennsylvania county, resulted in a contempt order for the Recorder and also substantial fines and penalties that were levied against 179 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 the county. It is important to note that this legislation, if enacted and implemented as written, will not accomplish the goal of preventing persons from having their homes stolen. At the point that the document is presented for recording, the transaction has already occurred. Any payment or documents have already been exchanged. Additionally, reviews of data collected by the Department of Records indicate that the numbers of mismatches and cases of missing documentation are actually trending downward. One explanation for this is that fraudulent filers have learned how to forge documents and signatures, and those who intend to commit fraud have learned how to play the system. And that holds true as well for the supporting documentation. It is frequently simply replicated from the record and from other similar documents. The Administration understands, 180 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 acknowledges and certainly sympathizes with the pain and trauma caused when someone has their home stolen out from under them. We are committed to working towards a solution, but the solution will not be found in Section 2-200 of The Philadelphia Code. State law binds the Department to record -- the Department of Records to record deeds immediately upon presentation, as has been stated. There is, in addition, a court order that compels this. If any meaningful reform will prevent families from losing their homes and to prevent fraud, it must come from a fresh look at state law. Officials from the Department of Records, the Law Department, the Managing Director's Office and the Mayor's Office have met numerous times over the summer to identify potential reforms to state law designed to address the many concerns for this current legislation.
Potential state legislation would include a requirement that both 181 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 buyer and seller sign the deed; a requirement that the name of the buyer of the last deed of record match the name of the seller of the current deed of record that is presented for recording, or require suitable documentation to ensure that the legitimacy of the transaction where the names do not match; a requirement that a notary captured a thumb print in the notary journal for deeds that are notarized; a requirement that companies that sell notary equipment be prevented from doing so, to sell only to those who are duly commissioned notaries; to provide for criminal penalties for notaries who commit fraud related to land records; to increase the value of the bond required for notaries; and also for additional training and requirements for individuals to become a notary. The Administration would like to invite the opportunity to form a legislative task force with state and 182 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 city officials and other stakeholders to evaluate these ideas and propose legislation for introduction on the state level. We are prepared to make this issue a part of our legislative agenda with Harrisburg, and we hope that Council will be our partner as we move forward toward a more comprehensive solution. And I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony this morning and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Abernathy, do you have anything?
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Brian Abernathy, Deputy Managing Director. I wanted to quickly touch on a few of the issues that were raised in previous testimony, specifically about Allegheny County and their certification process. 183 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 While some have pointed to this certification as a solution, Allegheny County's process is, as you indicated earlier, to ensure the accurate property records, not to deal specifically with fraudulent conveyance. Further, if pressed, the deed can and will be recorded without certification. It is a --
Essentially if someone walked in and said, No, I want my deed recorded, they would record the deed and stamp it not certified for tax purposes. That's indicated in their letter as well. And that's the important part of that certification process, is it was intended to deal with tax collection, with property tax collection, not with fraudulent deeds. Similarly, other counties have done a similar cross-check, which your staff have raised, but, again, those are all revenue generated and there 184 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 is no rejection of deeds at the time of recording.
Finally, we wanted to touch base on the proposed amendment that eliminates the additional recording fee for those deeds without title insurance. We believe that title insurance resolves many problems related to fraudulent conveyance. A fee that incentivizes title insurance could be helpful in this process, and we would ask for those provisions to be retained.
We'd ask that the amendment eliminating the fee to record without title insurance be retained, because we do believe that fee would provide an appropriate incentive to obtain title insurance, and that title insurance really is part of the solution here. 185 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
Look, one thing we definitely agree on, Mr. Abernathy -- and I think there's a little disagreement with some of the advocates of this bill -- I do agree with you in the ultimate, if everybody had title insurance, we can deal with a lot of these problems. I guess I just defer to the people who represent these folks who are concerned that that fee would be injurious to them. So that's why we're taking the fee out. I understand both sides in that, to be perfectly honest with you, but I just -- we're going to suggest that the fee be taken out because of the added cost to people. But I understand that argument. Was there something else? I'm sorry.
To the Commissioner -- and I was given a long list of potential questions, and I'm not 186 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 going to go through the whole ones with you, Commissioner. And, again, I want to agree with you on a couple things. I know you've done a lot of things to try to help in this matter. I also agree with you that in the perfect world, the state would take care of all this. I guess where we disagree is what and how aggressive we can be in trying to take care of the problem here in Philadelphia. And one of the questions here -- and I think this really gets to the crux of the thing, and I don't mean this personal, but I'm just trying to get the point. As Records Commissioner, isn't there sort of implicit in that, just the name, that you want to have accurate records? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Definitely we want to have accurate records, but we also are compelled to follow the law, and that's the crux of the matter basically, that this area is really governed by state law. The 187 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Department doesn't have any flexibility. We have to follow the law. And I did mention in my testimony that not only are these abstract evaluations, but there has in fact been a case in another Pennsylvania county where a court order was issued and the department is under a permanent mandamus order from the court and that a recorder did not follow the court order and she was held in contempt of court and also the county incurred substantial fines and penalties. So I think from that perspective -- we all understand how significant and serious an issue this is, but we do understand that we are compelled to follow state law and that the consequences of not following state law can result in greater and more serious issues for the City to contend with.
Who do you think would really -- who would go to court against this bill, would you see? 188 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Who would be -- since we take out title insurance companies and all that, who would you see would go against this bill? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, I think you heard from the representative for the Pennsylvania Land Title Association, who was the plaintiff in a case, and I think Mr. Hayes explained what the position of the Association would be and the consequences, negative consequences, that would impact --
Do you agree with that, that there would be negative consequences? COMMISSIONER DECKER: The law does require us to record and index immediately upon presentation of the deed and also to record the documents in the order in which they are presented, and in the --
No matter what -- excuse me. No matter what junk is presented to you? You're saying that a court is going to tell you you have to 189 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 take that stuff; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER DECKER: A court is going to require, as it does already under the mandamus order, that we comply with all the state laws.
Well, I know in the mandamus order. Other lawyers have told me that it really dealt with the backlog, and as long you don't have a backlog, you're really not in problem with the mandamus order. I don't know. I'm not going to argue the law.
Understand, Councilman. I would like to briefly just quote from that. It is, "Once the backlogs are eliminated, the defendants shall take all action necessary to avoid the creation of any new backlog in their recording and/or indexing of documents. The defendants are directed to fully comply with all statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania relating to the recording and indexing of documents." 190 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
As far as creating the backlog, we're saying that this won't create a backlog. We're saying it won't. I don't see why it should. We're not talking about a lot of deeds, but we're talking about some that are clearly bad that should not be recorded and save the people all this trauma, all this time. And, Brian, I don't think we could just keep sitting back and saying, Well, the law doesn't allow us. Let somebody sue. If somebody from the Title Insurance Association for whatever principle reason they might think want to sue, I guess they can sue and we'll see what the court says. But I keep going back to the gun case, and, again, I'm not saying it's the same thing as people getting killed, but we finally said, Look, we're going to try it and see what the court says, and we're going to fight this thing. We're not just going to keep saying, Oh, sorry, we can't do it. That's the difference I 191 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 think we got here. What I think we're trying to say -- and I know I'm belaboring the record and people are probably tired of hearing this, but what we're trying to say is, We're going to try to stop this or cut down on this problem. What I keep hearing from the Administration is, Yeah, you're right, it is a problem, but the state law says... When it came to the guns, we finally said, Well, damn it, we have a problem here, we're going to try to deal with it. Again, I'm no lawyer and I'm not going to compare the two, but in general, we try to address an issue, and here we're going around it. All those checks are great the Commissioner does, but all that to me does is make more of a case why this bill is needed, because there are things that come through that should not come through. That stuff she forwards to the DA's Office, it shouldn't go through. That's the whole point. Steven Grosik's deed should not have gone 192 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 through, because it was clearly deficient. And maybe a court will say that you have to take that stuff, and if the court says it, then I guess we're stuck, but at least let's try. Let's try it. That is all I'm saying, let's try, instead of just throwing up our hands and saying, Tough. Because I can't tell Steven Grosik, You know what, sorry about that, I'm a City official and, yeah, that deed is ridiculous, but it went through and sorry, go talk to your state rep.
Councilman, we actually understand that, and I understand your frustration. We have been slow in responding to this issue, and your frustration is well deserved. We've started to put in place the mechanisms to actually address this issue on the state level.
Well, in the meantime, let's try to deal with it here. You know, Brian, how long it takes. I don't have to tell you all the 193 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 things --
Absolutely. And I've been sitting on the other side of this issue. I've been sitting in a position where the Law Department has told us we can't do something and I've expressed some concerns about that. At the same time, what's different in this case, what is different between the gun case and the gun legislation and this legislation is the mandamus order. And I can't be in a position working for the Managing Director's Office to let my Commissioner be held in contempt of court, and I'm not going to be put in that position.
All right. Well, I don't -- all right. We're getting into legal arguments. Councilman Kelly. I have a few more questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, since we're 194 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 concerned about state law, have you ever had the opportunity to speak to any of our state legislators regarding this? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Yes.
I know you mentioned in your testimony that you have met with the department of -- of course your department, the Law Department, the Managing Director's Office and the Mayor's Office numerous times over the summer to identify these potential reforms, but have you ever had the opportunity to speak to our state legislators about making reforms to the state law, the current state law? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Yes. We met several times with Representative Manderino. She participated in some of the meetings I had mentioned in my testimony, the establishment of a Fraudulent Conveyance Task Force, and members of that Task Force from different walks of life, so to speak, did sit in a room with Representative Manderino. We 195 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 also prepared draft testimony to be submitted and introduced into the General Assembly.
They haven't prepared a bill yet? There's not a current bill to make reforms or to change the state law in any way?
No, sir. As I indicated earlier, our efforts in putting this Task Force together have been slow, and certainly the Councilman's frustration is understandable.
Councilman Kelly, just for your information, you were not here, State Representative Kenyatta Johnson had indicated his desire to try to sort of take the lead in this. So we're hoping that -- and they didn't see possibilities of getting this through in this session. So he's hoping to pick it up in the next session. But we know about the state legislation, how the process runs. Councilman Green. 196 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
Thank you. The first question I was going to ask before I heard your testimony -- obviously I didn't read it in advance -- was, what have you done at the state level. If you're saying we can't do anything -- and since I've been on Council for almost three years now, Councilman Greenlee has been pushing this issue, and I was glad to hear your acknowledgment that it sort of hasn't been a priority and now the Administration is going to make it a priority and take it to Harrisburg. I'm disappointed to hear that you haven't engaged with any person who will actually be a state representative in the next session, although I'm sure it was useful background. Were people from Councilman Greenlee's office or Sanchez's office involved in your meetings about what to do at the state level?
Through the 197 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 summer, Councilman?
That's fine. Look, I commend you for doing that. I'm glad we're going to push this at the state level, but I think what Councilman Greenlee would like -- and I certainly would -- I'll speak for myself. What I would like in the short term is to know what creative problem-solving can we do at the local level that does not require state action. And that means working with the Law Department to come up with things that we think are defensible, and at least as far as I'm concerned, we've never had that kind of dialogue with the Administration on this issue, and that's what we would really like. We would really like to hear, We're not sure this will work, just like we're not sure the gun stuff -- we're not sure this will work, but let's try this, this is our 198 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 best argument. That's what we'd like to hear on this issue that's very important to people in Council. Is that --
I appreciate that, Councilman, and I think that's the case. And it just seems like I've heard so many times we just can't do it, and that's the frustrating thing. Commissioner, if I can add, do you have any discretion, as you see, on this whole mandamus order as far as anything you can do? I mean, do you see -- you must be able to implement some things in your department, right? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, we do implement the requirements of the 2008 legislation where we are checking. We do note where there are discrepancies, and we track that. That is what we are able to do. The other efforts that we mentioned were consumer education. We have always mentioned that that is really a very significant, very important -- has 199 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 a very important role in addressing this issue, because we do find that the incidence of fraud occur where individuals are not at all familiar with the importance of what this transaction means, that transactions shouldn't be entered into on the street without knowledge of who they're purchasing the property from, without knowledge of who they're making payments to, that can't be traced in any way. So we believe that consumer education is really key into this whole effort. We do work -- as I mentioned in my testimony, we have informational sheets prepared. We have a lot of information posted on our website. That information has been noted, I mentioned, at our budget hearing, that Mayor Bloomberg's office has contacted me several times. I participate in conference calls for the structure of what we've done. We have been working with the 200 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Fraudulent Task Force Conveyance Committee. I think we have the best minds of individuals in the City, who many are lawyers. They represent the title insurance companies. The District Attorney's Office participates in that, as well as many of the lawyers from the non-profit organizations. We do work very closely with many of the non-profit organizations. We perform research that they need as they move forward with some of these cases and their clients. We provide information free of charge. We record free of charge. We notarize the documents for them in conjunction with the Law Department. I think guidance is provided on actually how to prepare documents on behalf of their clients and how to sort of ambulate through the court system the action to quiet title. So I think that there is substantial effort that is made on all of those levels, but, again, I think we've done as much as we're able to do within 201 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 the confines of the law.
I guess that's where we -- I still think there needs to be more done, and I've made my statements. I'm not saying you haven't made an effort. I think you truly believe you can't do anymore, but I just personally can't accept that. I just can't accept that when I see the examples that I see. And I think that checklist that you do -- and I appreciate that, you paid attention to that part of the law -- I think shows that there are problems, and we have to kind of figure out a way to deal with those problems and not just say, Okay, we have a checklist of it and we'll forward it over to the DA, and, again, folks run around for a year trying to figure out where to live. That's just crazy.
Councilman, there's no doubt that something needs to be done and we need to address this issue. It's a serious issue. We don't 202 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 believe this is the right tool. We believe the solution is found in state legislation, in speedy prosecution and in education. And I think it's telling that no county in the State of Pennsylvania rejects deeds for this type of discrepancy.
I don't know if they all have the problem we have or whatever, but I don't mind trying to be the first one on this.
We oftentimes follow other people. And as far as that rejecting of deeds, I think there's some questions about do they really reject them or not, some of these other counties, but I'm not going to get into a big thing on that. Commissioner, just one or two other things. As far as how long -- like you said should be immediately filed, I think, or words to that effect. I thought the state law said something or 203 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 the court order said something about 90 days. Isn't there something about 90 days in there somewhere? COMMISSIONER DECKER: I believe you might be referring to the plan. As a result of the court order, the City had to prepare a plan that was to be presented before the court, Judge Cohen, and also agreed to by the Pennsylvania Land Title Association and the other plaintiffs in the case, and that plan was due to address the backlog situation within 90 days. That's where the 90 days came from.
So how do you read "immediate" when you see "immediate"? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, immediately --
I'm not trying to get nitpicky here, but what do you mean? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Immediately is immediately as the 204 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 document comes in, without delay, in the order in which it is presented.
Councilman, certainly I see your frustration. Part of the state law is antiquated. It's very old. It was done --
Understood. The identification was to be notarized. The notary was to hold responsibility about verifying people's identities. When you have a stolen ID or an identification that's fraudulently obtained or if you have a notary who is, one, sloppy or, two, being complicit in the fraud, that ID goes out the window. The Records Department is a depository of what should have been verified by another duly sworn officer.
Maybe we should start working on who that person 205 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 is and how to do it.
But, again, I'm repeating myself. I don't think we can just sit back and just not do anything.
It is my intention, if the Committee sees fit, to move this bill, and then we'll figure something out.
One last thing, Commissioner. You said this would hurt particularly low-income residents. Explain how. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, the fee issue, but I understand that that's amended. But the supporting documentation, I think you heard from one of the attorneys who testified today that a lot of times the properties are really owned by deceased individuals, maybe the 206 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 property has not been properly probated, the paperwork is not available. The chain of events that have happened that might influence title to the property are not available, and those individuals have a very hard time being able to provide that required documentation. I'm specifically mentioning a copy of the will, testamentary letters, letters of administration, but, more importantly, that the property was never properly probated or issues with relatives, other relatives. And so that puts a burden upon them. If that is a requirement, the supporting documentation, that does impose a little bit of an impediment for some of these individuals in order to furnish that and make it available for presentation when the deed is recorded.
But you did hear that both the representative from VIP, the representative from CLS, Ms. Schlossberg, who represent these people you're talking about, all support 207 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 that bill. They all support this bill. So they apparently think it balances out in the person's favor, so... COMMISSIONER DECKER: I can't speak for them. The information that --
Well, you mentioned their testimony. COMMISSIONER DECKER: The information I have is that this would present a problem.
Okay. All right. Well, there's obviously a lot of problems, but I guess we can go on forever. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
Councilman, I want to close with one other comment, is while we may disagree and certainly the Committee is going to move forward, you have the Administration's commitment that we will be moving forward on state legislation and bringing both your office 208 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 and Councilwoman Sanchez's office into an active dialogue to address this issue.
Well, one thing we all agree, if the state does their thing -- but we can say that on a lot issues --
-- we would have saved a lot of time, I agree. Councilwoman, did you have anything else to say?
You're waiting for your own hearing. Thank you. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank you very much.
And I know I get angry at this stuff. I'm sorry. I know you guys are doing what you can do.
It's passion. It's called passion. 209 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
Thank you. Sorry for the delay. That concludes the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government. We will now go into our meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly on Bill No. 100360.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 13 100360 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and also move for the suspension of the rules in order that this bill may be read at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing 210 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 none, Bill No. 100360 is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding amendments for Bill No. 9 100487.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the proposed amendment to Bill No. 100487 as circulated to the Committee members be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, the amendments are approved. Again, Councilman Goode.
Thank you, 211 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 3 100487, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, Bill No. 100487, as amended, is reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, the rules of Council being suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. Being no further business before the Committee on Law and Government, I appreciate the extended 212 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 time everybody took here. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. (Committee on Law and Government concluded at 1:20 p.m.) - - - 213 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on September 22, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. -------------------- MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-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.)