COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LAW and GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 12, 2006, 12:47 p.m. - - - Bill 060287 - Amend Charter to allow voters to urge withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Bill 060433 - Require District Councilmembers to reside in district at least one year prior to election. Bill 060507 - Amend Charter relating to preference in civil service regs for children of police officers or firefighters killed in line of duty. Res. 060295 - Companion legislation to Bill 060287. Res. 060448 - Companion legislation to Bill 060433. Res. 060518 - Companion legislation to Bill 060507 Councilmembers Present: Anna C. Verna, Chair Jack Kelly James F. Kenney, Co-Chair Joan Krajewski Blondell Reynolds Brown Donna Reed-Miller Darrell L. Clarke Michael A. Nutter Frank DiCicco Frank Rizzo W. Wilson Goode, Jr. Marian B. Tasco - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 - - - 2 6/12/06 - COMMITTEE ON LAW and GOVERNMENT WITNESS INDEX RES. 060518, BILL 060507 Bobby Eddis, FOP President, Lodge No. 5...... Captain Timothy Tie, Firefighter, Engine 55 5 John A. Riley, retired firefighter........... 13 Linda Orfanelli, Personnel Director.......... 15 Christopher Sheridan, Committee of Seventy... 27 RES. 060295, BILL 060287 Christopher Sheridan, Committee of Seventy... 35 Phyllis Gilbert, Peace Action................ 51 Lance Haver, Director of Consumer Affairs.... 55 RES. 060448, BILL 060433 Christopher Sheridan, Committee of Seventy... 58 3 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507
As vice chairman and acting chairman of the Law and Government Committee, which was scheduled to start at the same time as Labor and Civil Service, I would like to establish a quorum for the record with members -- myself, Councilmember Goode, Councilmember Kelly, Councilmember Rizzo, and, I believe, Councilman -- and I believe Councilman Nutter is also in the room. So I would like to establish a quorum for the Law and Government Committee and then recess briefly until the conclusion of the Labor and Civil Service Committee. Thank you. (Recess.) (Proceedings resume.)
Good morning. The Council Committee on Law and Government is now in session, and the first bill on our agenda today Resolution 24 No. 060518 and Bill No. 060507. Resolution 060518 is a 4 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to provide for preference in civil service regulations for children of firefighters and police officers who are killed or who died in the line of duty and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. Bill No. 060507 is a companion bill that's required with an amendment to the Home Rule Charter, and it's the exact language. And we'll call Mr. Eddis and Mr. McBride, or someone who is representing him, to please approach the table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Bobby Eddis, President of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5.
Please proceed. 5 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507
Thank you. This bill, we feel as if it pays great respect to our members as a result of those who gave their life in the line of duty. And I think I'd be better served if I defer to Tim Tie, who's actually the architect of the bill.
My name is Timothy Tie. I'm a captain in the Philadelphia Fire Department, assigned to Engine 55, at Front and Luzerne. I've been a firefighter for 28 years. I'm a second-generation firefighter, the son of a firefighter killed in the line of duty. On October 27, 1954, ten firefighters reported for duty at their various stations and never returned home again. In the early hours of October 28, 1956, an alarm was sounded for Box 2825, Germantown Avenue and Montgomery Avenue. The address of the fire was 1827 6 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 North Fifth Street, the Berg Laboratories better known to us firefighters as "the Berg explosion. After companies arrived on location to investigate, a tank containing thousands of gallons phosgene gas exploded, killing ten firefighters and injuring scores of firefighters and police officers. My father, Gene Francis Tie, Engine 29 (indiscernible), was one of those killed in the line of duty. On that day, October 28, 1954, my mother was widowed, with three young children, and she was nine months' pregnant. Nine other families lost their husbands and fathers that day. This tragedy was the start of the Hero Scholarship Fund and, of course, the City's beloved Thrill Show. I have no clear memory of my father; I was two-and-a-half years at the time. Just a few pictures and stories my aunts and uncles have told me -- or told us kids about growing up together with my 7 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 father in their neighborhood of Ninth and Susquehannah and his love of the Fire Department. Years later, in the late '60s and '70s, my three brothers took advantage of the Hero Scholarship Fund, but I took a different calling. That was to follow in my father's footsteps to become a firefighter. In the early '70s, the only way to assure this was to enlist in the military to receive ten points veteran's preference towards a civil service test. When you enlist in the military, you automatically forfeit any benefits to the Hero Scholarship Fund. In November 1970, I enlisted in the Navy. I was discharged in November 1974. And after I left the service, I immediately began pursuing a career in the Fire Department but was basically told to wait your turn. So that's what I did for almost three-and-a-half years. Finally, on 8 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 March 6, 1978, I became a Philadelphia firefighter. It was one of the proudest days of my life. The day I took the oath of office as a firefighter, my mother cried for different reasons. She knew that was what I wanted. The memory of a lost husband and father to her children and the fear that someday she could lose a son in the line of duty; that was my case. On June 17, 1984, Firefighter Joseph Conrad, Engine 25, Platoon A, left his family to work night work, never to return home again. That night, Engine 17 responded to Box 769, Frankford Avenue 18 and Norris Street, address of fire, 2002 19 Tulip. 20 When they arrived on location, 21 they encountered a dwelling well involved 22 in fire. They were given a report of 23 someone trapped inside. Firefighter 24 Conrad, while searching the dwelling for 25 a trapped victim, perished when that 9 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 dwelling collapsed. He left a widow and five children, three of whom are now Philadelphia firefighters: Mike, assigned to Engine 25; Joe, assigned to Engine 2; and Jim,y, assigned to Engine 16. They had had the calling to follow in their father's footsteps. To ensure this, they also forfeited their Hero Scholarship to enlist in the military for the ten points to better their chance of becoming a firefighter. These are only two cases in the Fire Department. There are many others in the past, present; and, unfortunately, there will be more in the future. And I'm sure this is the same with the Police Department.
A few months ago, I was bragging to a friend, a firefighter from another municipality, that I have two sons who want to become Philadelphia firefighters also. 10 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 Knowing that my father died in the line of duty, he said they should get in with the line-of-duty death preference. I told him I never heard of this, and that the City of Philadelphia does not have it. I began to research it with the help of Firefighters Local and the 10 International Association of Firefighters 11 and found that, indeed, other cities -- 12 and, in some cases, in entire states -- 13 provide line-of-duty death preference to 14 family members. 15 I gathered as much information 16 as I could, informed Fire Commissioner 17 Ayers of my intentions, and approached 18 Councilman Nutter -- who, by the way, 19 helped the police and firefighters at my 20 request in the late '90s with a pension 21 program, and we thank him for that. He 22 took this new request to help the police and firefighters head-on, and that's what brings us here today. Although this bill will not 11 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 help my two boys, being second generation following my father's death, it will help others now and in the future. I personally think we're 50 years late with this issue and am frankly surprised that no one else in all these years has thought of this, including myself. I think it's time and I think we should do it now. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony and for your service. Is it safe to say that if this bill were to pass that no other child of a fallen firefighter or police officer would have to forego their Hero Scholarship benefits in order to get the preference they need to be hired, which you had to do through the military service?
I'm not sure how the bill would be written, but I believe if the bill is passed, it should be one or 12 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 the other.
But my point is that you had to forego your benefits in order to get the preference to be hired.
This -- this situation would give the preference because of the death of the mom or dad.
And you could proceed with your normal life without going into the military if you choose not to.
That was -- that's the whole point of this. Children of firefighters or police officers who are killed in the line of duty, if they really want to follow in their father's footsteps or mother's footsteps, the best way to do that -- or the best way to ensure that is 13 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 the go into the military to get the ten points preference.
And, by the way, I was privileged to attend a ceremony honoring you, where you honored your stepfather.
And it was a very moving and wonderful tribute to him and your mom.
My name is John A. Riley. I'm a retired firefighter and I sit on the Board of Pensions and Retirement for the City of Philadelphia. And President McBride of Local is in 20 back of this legislation. 21 Thank you. 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 I just want to thank the captain, Captain Tie, for his suggestion and recommendation, the information that he has supplied and the history of not only the Berg explosion, but all of the other tragedies that have taken place with regard to firefighters and police officers. And I appreciate your raising this issue and giving us an opportunity to do something to respect the work of all of those departments.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone else to testify on this bill or resolution, please come forward. By the way, I'm making an announcement on behalf of the Council 15 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 President that the Committee of the Whole, which was scheduled for 1 o'clock today will be be recessed to the call of the chair. So anyone that has business, we will be recessing that hearing and rescheduling it another day. Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Linda Orfanelli, Personnel Director. This is a very difficult bill 16 for me to testify on because I'm really torn in two directions. On the one hand, I sympathize fully with the families of police officers and firefighters who every day go out and put their life on the line. And I can't even imagine, you know, how it would feel if you lost your parent this way. I mean, it's -- it's just, you know, unbelievable. On the other hand, I'm the 16 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 keeper of the civil service system. And the way the Home Rule Charter is written, it speaks about merit, equal testing, and all of those aspects of people being qualified and tested in an equal way. Now, I understand that we have preference for veterans, and they are mostly for veterans or the wives of veterans who serve, you know, for the country. So that there already is one avenue that has -- that doesn't actually comply with the idea of strictly merit strictly qualified and so on and so forth. On the other hand, that is my job that is my job, so I do have to speak about that fact that everybody -- that all qualified citizens should be considered equally, which is what the Charter says. But I also have -- I -- but all that aside, I have a little -- a few concerns about the bill as it's written in another aspect. 17 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 There are Other City employees who lose their lives in the line of duty. There are Streets Department people, there are L and I inspectors who have lost their lives as well. So I guess the question is: How do we look at that? That being said, in terms of actually applying this legislation, we have some questions about evidence and documentation that would be required by the firefighters and police officers' children to demonstrate this relationship. What documentation is available to verify that an officer or a firefighter has fallen in the line the duty. In other words, how do we authenticate it? We're not clear on that. The other thing is that, would this apply to police officers and firefighters who fell in the line of duty from jurisdictions other than Philadelphia? Is this limited to 18 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 Philadelphia, or is this anyone? And that authentication would be even more difficult. I think Philadelphia would be easier. So I am concerned that enacting this provision without addressing the above concerns may create problems in implementing it. And I'm willing to answer any questions if you have them.
Thank you very much for your testimony. And I know that you -- it's difficult sometimes to give the opposing point of view, especially in such circumstances that are sad and emotional like this.
But I'm confident that your department could solve any problems that result as a result of the enaction of this bill, and I'm confident that you guys have great capacity over there to work and to 19 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 improvise and to do what needs to be done. But -- so thank you.
Well, we've actually done some preliminary looking into it; it's not going to be that easy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Miss Orfanelli. Did -- I'm assuming you handed out testimony. Do you have testimony?
Okay, I'll deal with it. As I best heard the concerns, first, I guess, going in reverse order, you're concerned about authentication? You're worried that you won't be able to determine --
Well, for 20 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 example, the death certificate doesn't say that you fell in the line of duty. So the person can't bring a death certificate. That won't work. I mean, it doesn't -- that won't handle it.
Doesn't either Civil Service or the pension system make some determination as to whether or not a person has died in the line of duty or was killed in the line of duty?
Our system doesn't show that. I spoke with the Police Department. Now, they have a list of everybody who's fallen in the line of duty.
So that if the child goes to the Police Department, the Police Department could give them a letter saying that, in fact, it's true.
Let me ask this question, and it's -- it's, quite 21 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 honestly, very sensitive just because of its recent nature.
Are you telling me that nowhere in the system will it show that Officer Gary Skersky was killed in the line of duty? We have no record anywhere of that?
I have pension -- that -- Pension is not my department. I have access to the personnel records.
Now, how it's 22 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 marked on a separation page -- it's -- it would indicate that the person died.
All right. Madam Director, I mean, isn't this really more about our own internal --
All right, all right. So we'll take that issue off the table. Now, there's an issue about officers somewhere else?
Other jurisdictions would be more difficult to authenticate. 23 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507
Well, the way the legislation is written, it doesn't limit it to Philadelphia.
Well, they don't let me legislate in Montgomery County.
No, but it -- let's say someone applied for a civil service job that we had a waiver in, a college student, and they found out that there was a line-of-duty waiver or a preference, and they told us that, Well, my father was a police officer in California, or whatever. So then the authenticity -- the way to authenticate it will -- will be be difficult.
Well, let me suggest this. I think, as you would know, this is a Charter change and a Charter question.
All right? There would need to be a bill which will go through all of these fine points.
Okay? So -- but on veteran's preference, what do you take as the authentication for having been a veteran?
Okay. All right. So you're concerned that the child of a Lower Merion Township police officer who was working for Lower Merion Township, or a firefighter in Lower Merion Township, dies in the line of duty. And their child, who is a Philadelphian, applies for a position in Philadelphia and somehow would use this to get whatever the point preference is. 25 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507
The other one was the fact that we have other employees of the City who die as well in the line of duty. There are Street Department employees that were shot and killed at a management meeting. I mean, it happens.
Well, I -- I -- I don't know. I mean, they're on the 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 job, they're at a management meeting, someone comes in with a gun and shoots them. I guess I would think so.
Well, you know, are we going to take them into consideration, or is this strictly going to be for uniformed? Just a question. That's all I'm asking.
I understand that. Well, at the moment, as this issue was raised, the consideration was with regard to police officers and firefighters, one, due to the nature of their work no disrespect; no disrespect to anyone else in public service, but generally, those are the positions where people find themselves most at risk.
So, okay. But I understand the other two issues, 27 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 and we can subsequently address them.
Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill and resolution? (Witness comes forward.)
Hello, Councilman. Chris Sheridan for the Committee of Seventy. We just have a brief statement in support. First of all, I'd like to thank the Law and Government Committee for this opportunity to speak. Giving preference to the children of firefighters and police officers who were killed or died in the 28 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 line of duty is consistent with current civil service hiring practices. It is sound public policy to grant preference to these individuals because, among other reasons, an income- provider for the family is no longer living, and The City should consider the child's desire to continue to serve the public. Furthermore, the deceased sacrificed his or her live, serving the greater good of this community, and it is in the best interests of the City to honor those who want to continue that tradition. For example, other jurisdictions also grant this preference; Nassau County, New York, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are but two examples. In sum, this preference is not out of step with current civil service law.
Thank you 29 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060518, BILL 060507 very much for your testimony again. Any other questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Hold on one second. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill or resolution?
All right. 16 What I'll do is, let me do the 17 resolution on the war 'cause you're 18 testifying on that? 19
Yeah, I am 20 testifying on that. So let me just give 21 that testimony. 22
Okay, fine. This is Resolution No. 060295, proposing an amendment to Article 8, Chapter 5 of the Home Rule Charter, 30 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 entitled "Referenda Approved by the Voters," by adding a new section 4 providing that citizens of Philadelphia urge the United States to begin an immediate withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, beginning this the National Guard and Reserve and ending with a total withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of the year 2006. There's an accompanying bill, Bill No. 060287, which is a companion bill to this, of the resolution, to effect it on the ballot for the next November election. Please identify yourself for the record.
Oh, sorry. Hold on. Sorry. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Blackwell for remarks.
Thank 31 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 060287 and the accompanying resolution for a ballot question of whether or not the citizens of Philadelphia should urge the United States government to withdraw -- begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. As an initial matter, I'd like to explain my position for having a referendum in the first place. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter requires a Charter amendment to have this question placed on the ballot for consideration by the voters of Philadelphia. Bill 060287 and Resolution 19 060295 are obviously our vehicle for effecting Charter change and having this question placed on the November 7 ballot for general election. After more than three years in Iraq, it has become apparent that our forces have accomplished their 32 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 militarily. The troops have performed successfully and with honor. It is now time for our sons and daughters to come home. Bill 060287 and Resolution 7 060295 will permit Philadelphia voters to have their voices heard in Washington by allowing them to vote yes or no on the following ballot question, quote: Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to state that the citizens urge the United States to begin an immediate withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserve and ending with a total withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of the year 2006? While this question obviously has no binding effect on policy matters in Washington, we are hopeful that it will influence opinion there. As John Baer wrote in his Daily News column on April 24th, quote: I don't buy arguments that local should say 33 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 local. Each public voice helps raise awareness, and every public action underscores the principle of citizens having their say in government. End of quote. And Philadelphia would also not be the only or even the first municipality to call for troop withdrawal from Iraq, but it would be the largest. According to the same column I quoted, officials in 76 municipalities, including Lansdowne, have raised resolutions calling for the U.S. to end its presence in Iraq. In addition, on April 4, 2006, out of 32 towns in Wisconsin with 18 referendums on the ballot, including 19 Madison, Milwaukee, a suburb of Sherwood, 20 voted to bring home the troops. In fact, 21 twelve towns voting in favor of the 22 referendum voted for our president in the 23 2004 election. 24 In March 2005, Birmingham voted 2 to in favor if a bring-home-the- 34 1 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 troops referenda, winning all seven of their wards, including two that are historically conservative. And in November 2004, San Francisco passed a bring-home-the-troops referenda by a margin of 64 to 36 percent. More than a hundred U.S. troops from Pennsylvania have died in this conflict. And as a cradle of great democracy, it is a appropriate and timely that the citizens of Philadelphia be heard in Washington on this question. I, therefore, ask this committee to consider this legislation, this bill and resolution, so that the citizens of Philadelphia may voice their opinion on this question concerning this war. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Identify yourself for the 35 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 record and proceed.
Sure. Christopher Sheridan on behalf of the Committee of Seventy. Thank you again to Chairman Kenney and this committee for the opportunity to speak here today. The Committee of Seventy does not support Ordinance No. 060287 and Resolution No. 060295, which would amend the Home Rule Charter to address the Iraq War. Seventy believes this is an inappropriate use of the Home Rule Charter amendment systems. Amendments to the Home Rule Charter should be reserved for changes in City government structures or powers or principles for good governance, not federal or political questions such as this. Seventy also believes this question can be perceived as more political than substantive, as empirical research has shown that ballot initiatives can affect voter turnout. 36 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 Other towns and cities have placed, or will be placing, Iraq War referenda on their ballots. However, to our knowledge, none has resulted in a change in municipal-organizing documents. As noted by the Inquirer in April, this current initiative is modeled after similar efforts in Wisconsin, where voters in of 32 municipalities passed 11 similar referenda. There is no 12 indication, however, that these other 13 referenda authorized an amendment to a 14 municipality's organizing document. 15 Regardless of whether this 16 referendum is politically motivated, the 17 question it presents in inappropriate at 18 the local level. 19 While Councilwoman Blackwell 20 has indicated a resolution would send a 21 message to the federal government that 22 it's time to bring our kids home, there 23 are more appropriate and direct measures 24 Philadelphians can take to send the same message. 37 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 Regardless of whether troop reduction is in the best interests of the American military or the stability of Iraq, concerned Philadelphia voters should directly contact their federal representatives and not rely on a nonbinding legally powerless referendum if they feel our national military policy has become, or is, unhealthy. A review of the amendments to the Home Rule Charter over the past decade shows that a ballot question addressing national foreign policy is too broad in scope. The most recent Home Rule Charter changes came this past May, when voters expressed their overwhelming support of the creation of an independent ethics board and for the use of surveillance cameras to reduce crime. In the fall of 2005, Philadelphians voted to limit the award of no-bid contractors to political donors. 38 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 In 2003, voters approved seven amendments to the Home Rule Charter, ranging from the creation of a public advocate for insurance consumers to a declaration that health care is a fundamental right -- that's actually incorrect. Calling for a study of universal health care is what actually happened. Each of the 2003 amendments, however, were focused on matters of local concern. In 2002, voters approved the creation of the Tax Reform Commission and an advisory board charged with the formulation of tax policy. In 1999, the Home Rule Charter was amended, giving the Mayor the power to appoint all School Board members at one time and the power to remove members for wrongdoing. In sum, a referendum on the Iraq War is out of step with The City's past Charter amendments. Political effects. Scholars 39 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 note the ballot questions tend to produce a spill-over effect, resulting in higher voter turnout than if there were just candidates on the ballot -- not that this is a bad thing in and of itself. Obviously, turnout is good. Indeed, one of Seventy's goals is to increase and sustain voter turnout across the board. Amendments to the Home Rule Charter should not be used for political purposes regardless of what side such a move advantages.
The Inquirer has also noted that elsewhere, referendums on banning gay marriage provided a boost to Republican candidates. While it is not our place to issue support for one side of the Iraq debate or the other, Seventy is committed to fair elections and nonpartisanship on these issues as well as maintaining the integrity of the Charter. In sum, Seventy does not support this ballot question to amend the Home Rule Charter. A municipality's 40 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 organizing document should not be altered to address questions of national military policy. Furthermore, the timing of this question could be perceived as politically motivated, especially in a state where major senatorial and gubernatorial elections will take place this fall. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I understand your testimony relative to the lack of options that we have in City government for this type of discussion. Sadly, all we have is a Charter change amendment, and I recognize it's not changing the structure or the operation of government. But it is an issue that affects, even though it's a national issue, affects every citizen in the United States, including the citizens of Philadelphia. We have a large number of 41 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 people in our own police and fire departments that are serving there now, and we have a large number of citizens who are serving there now. So I think, on balance, it would be appropriate for people to have an ability to express their opinion in a very clear way. I mean, it is a democratic vote; whether or not it has an effect in Washington or not is another story. But when they started with anti-apartheid legislation, nobody thought that was going to have any effect either, and it turned out to be the local-level legislation across the country that turned the tide on the apartheid movement, and it basically helped bring it down. So I guess, on balance, while I wish we had a different vehicle, I think increased voter turnout and getting a clear perception of what Philadelphia voters think -- or Philadelphia citizens 42 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 think, I think, on balance, it probably falls that we should pass it. But that -- I -- I do understand for the record your concern about the vehicle. Councilman Goode.
And thank you for your testimony. Three different points in your testimony. You called this bill and resolution "political." You first start out by saying that it is political or more political than substantive. You then go on to say that amendments to the Home Rule Charter should not be used for political purposes, regardless of which side such a move advantages. Then you end by saying, "Furthermore, the timing of this question 43 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 could be perceived as politically motivated, especially in a state where major senatorial and gubernatorial elections will take place this fall." Why do you term it "political," and are there now policy implications related to this --
Well, I mean, I think no one is going to debate that this is a very important public matter -- matter of public concern. I think that a ballot question in Philadelphia isn't the appropriate place for this. I know there was a reference earlier to ending apartheid and, although it was before my time, I don't recall that there was any Charter amendment, although I do recall that -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that this council took steps against businesses that were doing -- that were conducting business in South Africa. I'm not sure if that's the case, but that's my recollection of it. So through the normal channels, 44 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 this Council did try to effect the outcome of what was a very -- you know, a very important issue at that time. As far as the issue of political motivation, I think that's how this and can and probably will be perceived. You know, on the other side, there have been questions about flag-burning amendments and -- you know, as well as issues of gay marriage. This seems in line with the technique that's been used in recent years, you know, more by the Republicans than the Democrats, to try and increase voter turnout in an important election. So I think that's the way the public will perceive this.
Did the primary sponsors at any point say it was being used for that purpose?
Well, I don't think that anybody ever says that these questions are being used for those purposes. 45 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287
Why did you determine that this piece of legislation, unlike any other piece of legislation, has a political motivation? I'm assuming that all pieces of legislation have some political motivation, are a part of someone's political philosophy. So why do you term this political or any more political than any other piece of legislation?
I think that as far as policy implications, I mean, this is a city that voted 4-to-1 against President Bush. I think he knows where we stand on this and a number of other issues. So I don't know that there's any policy implication there. I think that it's important for Philadelphians to write to -- we have four Congress members representing Philadelphia and two U.S. senators. I 46 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 think it's very important for us to speak to those people about this.
Are there any policy implications specifically relevant to Philadelphia?
I don't -- I don't believe so. I think passing this question isn't going to impact how we conduct business in Philadelphia.
So you don't see any connection between gun violence in this city and war?
You don't see any connection between gun violence in Philadelphia and war in Iraq?
I don't believe so. I mean, I'm not a psychologist, but I don't believe there's any -- now, I think, as far as violence in the media 47 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 and gun violence in Philadelphia, there probably is a connection.
So what is the reason for gun violence in Philadelphia?
I mean, that's an open question. I think poverty is a big part of it, lack of opportunity.
So how do you know there's no connection if it's an open question?
I don't think that -- that the fact that we have a war going on overseas affects what happens in Philadelphia neighborhoods; no, I don't.
Do you think that telling people that killing people is wrong doesn't send mixed messages of war overseas?
I don't know that this bill specifically tells people that killing is wrong.
You don't see a connection between war and gun 48 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 violence?
I don't see a connection between an overseas war and gun violence in Philadelphia.
Councilman Kelly, who did you vote for in 2004? (Laughter.)
I'm an endangered species in Philadelphia; I'm a Republican. I'm one of the few. I just want to say, first of all, I have the utmost respect for the sponsors of this resolution, especially Councilwoman Blackwell, and the other Councilmembers who signed on this. I think it's important that they feel that their opinion should be expressed, and I agree with that. I think everyone has an opinion on this war. I don't think it's as political 49 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 as you may think because there are some -- many Republicans who probably are opposed just as well as Democrats, so I don't think that's an issue. But I do agree with you that it would be better -- that our time would be better spent on going after our elected representatives to do something about the war, whether you're against the direction of the war, where it's going, or if you want immediate withdrawal, or whether it's a time limit on there. Whatever it is, I think it would be better if we put some pressure on our elected representatives who can -- who can act and probably put more pressure on the Administration if that's needed. At least they would come back with some answers about where we are and where we're headed for in this war. I just want to say that I do agree that this is no more than an opinion poll, and I think we had enough polls on this subject already. 50 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 So I think it would be better spent if we went after our representatives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would ask that the statement from Veterans for Peace be made a part of the record in its entirety. And also, we'd like to note that we called Congressman Murtha after he made a three-month engagement in Pittsburgh or he would have been here to testify in support of this legislation. And we certainly hope the committee will consider these things. And thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Haver and Miss Gilbert, please, if you have something to add. 51 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287
Yes. My name is Phyllis Gilbert. I'm the director of Peace Action in Pennsylvania, and we're the largest peace group in the country. And I'm here, of course, to testify for our almost 1,000 members in Philadelphia on behalf of the 060287 bill, which is being submitted to the City's voters as a referenda urging the U.S. to begin an immediate withdrawal of its troops and forces from Iraq and ending with a total withdrawal by the end of 2006. Peace Action Delaware Valley's mission is to educate and advocate for peace and justice by negotiating conflicts that arise globally and locally in order to build safe communities. We believe that the U.S. democracy depends 52 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 on that process. The proposed referenda will provide a needed and substantial opportunity for qualified Philadelphia residents to express their views on the serious downturn of the Iraq War and occupation and its consequences. Those consequences have harmed the U.S standing among nations abroad, has critically strained our nation's economy, cost thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives -- the ultimate sacrifice -- and undermined democracy and is continuing to fuel fear of terrorist attacks on the general public. Let me first explain that Peace Action Delaware Valley asserts that bringing the troops home be laid out in a -- in the bill -- or as laid out in the bill is the best way to support the troops, affording a safe departure from a highly dangerous insurgency, which is growing more dangerous every day. And note that 75 percent of the Iraqis, when 53 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 polled, wanted the U.S. troops out of Iraq. Secondly, efforts by elected officials who already agree with this process, as in the 79 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, have been denied the ability to debate this issue on the floor, which may, you know, answer some of the questions raised a little earlier. Not only have the Iraqi residents turned against the U.S. occupation, but the U.S. public is leaning more and more towards withdrawing our troops. Disclosure that the government lied to the people to justify going to war on the basis of unfound weapons of mass destruction, and then after the U.N. inspectors found no such weapons, the government switched its stated goal to establishing democracy in Iraq. It's sort of ironic: We do not accept such a big lie, nor must we accept such hypocrisy, but the government is 54 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 purporting to establish a free and open democracy abroad yet lying to its constituents at home and shutting off debate of so important an issue. The sacrifice of many lives. Finally and seriously harmful to the whole nation and each of our communities in maintaining U.S. troops presence in Iraq allows the government a high profile, which, again allows the government -- can't read my own writing -- to keep the fear from attack from terrorists in Iraq. The claim that terrorists had anything to do with the fall of the World Trade Center 9/11 attacks was false, but nonetheless, periodically, the government uses that fear or that situation to keep fear alive. So our organization again applauds Councilwoman Blackwell's leadership in introducing Bill No. 24 060287, and our Philadelphia members will urge their representatives to vote for 55 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 the bill's passage. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record.
I fully support this. This is the basis of American democracy. It is a tremendous opportunity. And, of course, it would be better if there was another way of doing it other than using the Charter change. But rules are there to serve the public; they're not there to deny the public the right to a voice. And if this 56 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060295, BILL 060287 is the best way to give the public a voice, I commend Council for being creative and finding a way to do it. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Lance. Any questions? (No questions.)
Anyone else to testify on the bill or resolution? (No response.)
Thank you. That will conclude the testimony on this particular bill and resolution. The final bill is Resolution 18 No. 060448, which is proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter requiring District Council members to be residents of the districts from which they were elected for at least one year prior to their election, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of 57 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 Philadelphia. The companion bill, No. 060433, is also reflected with the same sentiments, and we would ask that Mr. Sheridan from the Committee of Seventy, if he is here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left.
Councilman Kenney, I would like to add one thing. I just want to say that I will give this testimony in written form to the --
Thank you very much. We'll just wait a few seconds. I want to acknowledge our visitors here. This is the Committee on Law and Government, which is discussing an issue today relative to a requirement 58 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 that District Council members live in the district that they want to represent a year prior to their election. So that's some of the -- I wanted to give you an idea of what -- some of the things we're dealing with here. But welcome to Philadelphia and welcome to our chambers. (Witness comes forward.)
It's always a pleasure to be here. Thank you again, chairman Kenny and the Committee on Law and Government. This testimony is in reference to Resolution 060433. The Committee of Seventy supports Bill No. 060433 as consistent with current practices and the 59 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 fair expectation that one should reside in the community he or she seeks to represent. A number of other jurisdictions require a candidate to reside in his or her respective district for a period of time prior to election. It is consistent with representative democracy to require a candidate to reside in his or her respective district before becoming elected because the representative is more likely to be in touch with the needs of constituents, among other reasons. Legal support for the one-year residency rule. Courts have noted a number of practical reasons for pre-election legislative residency requirements. A federal court in Florida noted: A residency requirement serves reasonably to assure that the candidate will be a bona fide of the city he or she seeks to represent, will have been there long enough to know the issues 60 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 confronting the city and will be known by the voters A candidate's long-term presence in the district will also enable voters to develop a more complete and accurate perception of the candidate. A Washington State court interpreted that state's one-year residency rule as having the purpose of exposing the candidate to, in quotes, the needs and problems of the people of a particular city, end quotes. Furthermore, required residency in a candidate's district will enable him or her to better interact with and get to know his or her constituents. A residency requirement for a City Council candidate is also consistent with Pennsylvania State constitutional law, which mandates a candidate for State Senate or State House reside in his or her respective district for one year prior to election. The outcome of challenges to the one-year residency rule. Early 61 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 challenges to candidate residency programs fell primarily under equal protection violations or infringement on an individual's right to travel. More recent challenges to residency requirements have failed, however, because the government has been unable to show residency requirements are reasonably related to the legitimate interests discussed above. Conclusion. In the interest of making qualifications for Council district representatives consistent with qualifications for holding state legislative office and ensuring candidates are fully committed to the district they seek to serve, Seventy supports passage of this bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions? Councilmember Goode.
Thank you, 62 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sheridan, I actually support this bill. I think that my position is fairly consistent in terms of why I support this bill as related to other matters considered today. You seem to be in favor of residency requirements under this bill 10 but not residency requirements under a previous bill. Do you see at all any philosophical or policy contradiction there?
Well, I don't. I don't think that there should be any barriers to someone coming to our city and getting a municipal job. Whereas, if you're actually going to be the chosen representative of the people, you really do need -- you need to have a -- you know, to be an elected representative, you really do need a more intimate knowledge of the community. So I think that that's the distinction. 63 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 In one case, you know, I think we need to open doors to people from around the country to come here and get a city job, you know, where they're qualified. And I think, in the other case, you know, the representative should be of the people.
I agree, which is why I support this bill. But do you see any contradiction with your previous testimony related to the other bill? And I'm not saying that you can't be for one and for against the other, but particularly within your testimony, you talked about even the unfairness between civil servants and non-civil servants. And in this case, you seem to be making a distinction between elected, appointed civil service.
Well, I think that the rules for civil service and appointment, I mean, that -- it makes 64 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 sense to have those consistent, and I think it makes sense to have those rules not exclude people who haven't lived here for a year. Whereas to serve on this body, I think you need to -- and, I mean, I think one year -- obviously, I think you need to have several years to be a really good representative, which I think all of you have. But I think a one-year requirement -- and also it clarifies law so it's consistent with the General Assembly, 'cause a lot of people looking to serve, in my experience. Are looking at one body or the other. So --
But you are making a distinction between government employees.
And making a distinction between government employees does not contradict your previous 65 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 testimony?
No. I think my previous testimony was that, you know, anyone who's qualified, regardless of where they live in this country or if they're serving on a military base, should be able to apply for City jobs and meet the residency requirement within six months of hire. I mean, I think that was my prior testimony.
Thank you very much. No one else to testify on this bill or resolution? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly. I apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I just want to say that I agree with the principle of this bill, but I just have some problems with the 66 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 timing of it. I would prefer to have more time to look at this bill. But at this time, I'm not prepared to vote for it. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a comment on that briefly. My understanding -- it's come to my attention that there were a couple people who had concerns about a potential special election in November of '06, whether or not they would be available for the 7th District, you know, if the Council President sees fit to schedule a special election. And because they're on the ballot at the same time, I don't see any issue whatsoever as far as qualifications, 'cause you're going to 67 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 qualify and be elected by the people before the short amendment can take effect. So I think to the extent anybody has concerns about that, I don't think it's a problem, and I think we have sufficient time for this to become law by '07. Is that not correct? Or sufficient notice?
I didn't necessarily want to jump on this; my light is on for a different purpose. But I didn't understand the last thing you said.
The point was that if this is on the '06 ballot, it should not affect the '07, you know, election at all, the one-year residency requirement 'cause that's -- it's a year out when it becomes law. In the case of '06, in the event that there was a special election 68 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 held for the 7th District in November, that wouldn't affect anyone's eligibility under current law because this amendment would not take effect until probably late November of December. Whereas that person would have qualified to hold office, you know, I guess when the party chose them back in September or October, and they would have been elected by the voters in the same election where there is on the ballot. So, I don't know. I think that we're -- you know, at least through back channels, I've heard about some concerns about how this might affect that race.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Kelly. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 69 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 I do not wish to raise any issue with regard to the last bill. I do want to put something on the record with regard to the bill and resolution that I have on the ballot question related to the preference for children of police officers and firefighters: One, Miss Orfanelli raised a couple issues. I wanted to put one legislative intent issue on the record, which, of course, will be further resolved through a piece of legislation. But for this record, the issue of the children of Philadelphia firefighters and police officers who are affected by this, in the public meeting, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to propose inserting the word "Philadelphia" in the appropriate place. And secondly, with regard to what positions those children might apply for, the legislative intent here is that this preference would only apply to those 70 6/12/06 LAW and GOV'T - RES. 060448, BILL 060433 children of the killed or to the officer who was killed or dies in the line of duty. It relates to their application to either the Police or Fire Department. Not any of the other departments in the government. That also, of course, will be addressed in the subsequent legislation. But I wanted to make it clear for the record as to what the intention was of this matter as it moves through the process.
Do you intend to both amend the resolution and the bill?
Okay. Great. Thank you. If there is no other business for the hearing, that will conclude the Law and Government public hearing. * * *
We will now 71 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 8 060448 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? One opposed?
One opposed. Councilman Kelly is opposed. The resolution is put forth from committee. Resolution 060448 will be heard at our next Council session.
The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode on a motion on Bill No. 060433. 72 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 060433 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Motion seconded.)
There is one opposed. Councilman Kelly is opposed. Bill No. 060433 will be reported out of this committee favorably. A request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter on a motion to amend Resolution 060518.
Thank you, 73 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Chairman. In section D of the Resolution, on , it presently reads: The new language is... and to the children of... And I would ask to insert the word "Philadelphia" in front of "firefighters" so as to make the intention clear.
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? Resolution 060518 is amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter on the amended resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 74 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING I move that Resolution No. 3 060518, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Resolution No. 060518, as amended, will be reported out of this committee and be heard at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter on a motion to amend Bill No. 060507.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that on the question in Section 2 of Bill 060507, that where it reads "for the children of," insert the word "Philadelphia" in front of the word "firefighters." And I move the adoption of that 75 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING amendment. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 060507 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter on the amended bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 060507, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 060507 will be 76 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING reported -- as amended will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode on Resolution No. 9 060295.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 13 060295 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
I have a one opposed; Councilman Kelly is opposed. Resolution No. 060295 will be reported out of this committee with a 77 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING favorable recommendation and be heard at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode on a motion on Bill No. 060287.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 060287 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Motion seconded.)
Councilman Kelly is opposed. Bill No. 060287 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next 78 6/12/06 - LAW and GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING Council session. That concludes the business of Law and Government Committee. Thank you for your time. 79 C E R T I F I C A T E 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 Monday, June 12, 2006, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO 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.)