COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 8, 1998 10:05 a.m. - - - BILL 970713 - Amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by adding a new chapter entitled "Agents". . . BILL 979714 - Amending Section 12-2900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contractor Parking" by amending provisions relating to contractor parking. . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN ANNA CIBOTTA VERNA - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Bill No. 970713 Commissioner Frances Egan. . . . . . . . . . . 4 Department of Licenses and Inspections John P. Campbell, Legislative Director . . . . 5 Department of Licenses and Inspections Patricia Perlstein, Expediter. . . . . . . . . 15 Rick Auerbach, Senior Attorney . . . . . . . . 35 Law Department Sandy Gars, Executive Director, Philadelphia 39 Chapter, American Institute of Architects Ivor Moore, Expediter. . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Bill No. 980714 John O'Connor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Legislative Aid to Councilman James Kenney 3 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a continued recessed hearing of the Council Committee on Rules, recessed from June 4, 1998, to today, this date, this time, and this room, continue discussion of Bill No. -- first No. 970713, which is an ordinance amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by adding a new chapter entitled "Agents," requiring any person who represents or acts on behalf of another person in any matter before the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Board of Building Standards, the Board of License and Inspection Review, the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Board of Safety and Fire Prevention, or the Accessibility Advisory Board, to obtain a license, and setting forth standards for the issuance of such licenses; requiring such person to see complete entry of appearance forms prior to any act of representation; prohibiting certain conduct by such agents; and providing penalties for violations; all under certain terms and 4 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 conditions. (L&I panel comes forward.)
Good morning, Commissioner and Mr. Campbell. Could you please identify yourselves for the record. And what I'd like to ask you to do is to go through the amendments and describe the need and the purpose of the amendments. Good morning. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yes, good morning, Councilmembers. My name is Fran Egan. I am the Commissioner of the Department of Licenses & Inspections. With me today is John Campbell, who's the Legislative Director for the Department. The reason we asked for a continuance from this past Friday was because the Expediters Association had expressed an interest in working with us to come up with some compromised amendments whereby they would then be able to support the bill. We have those amendments to present to you today, and I'll have Mr. Campbell go over them with you. 5 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
Okay. As the Commissioner stated, we met with both the expediter organization and the AIA, and I presented two documents to the committee. The first document is a copy of Bill 970713 and how it would read if the amendments are adopted. The second document are the proposed amendments to the bill. And I'm going to go through the amendments. What we have done, number one, is because, at the expediters' request, they have a unique title that refers to the function that they do. They're "expediters." And if a duck is a duck, you call it "a duck," so throughout the bill, we changed the name from "licensed agent" to "expediter." The second amendment was an amendment from the Law Department. There was a drafting error and we just changed the wording "for taking an action on behalf of" and just replaced it with the word "to represent." The next section, we just completely 6 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 rewrote it, and that was to deal with the exceptions and --
Would you do me a favor. Just for the ability to follow your testimony --
-- could you just give us the quick section of the portion of the bill that's being amended so we can go right to it and just check the difference.
Okay. Well, throughout the bill, the word "expediters" was replaced with the word --
Okay, and you've had a change in definition for "expediter"?
And the new definition is 1901(1). And, again, we changed the word from "licensed agent" to "expediter." 7 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 The next amendment is in section 3 19-1901(1). And, again, we changed the words for "taking action on behalf of" to the word "represent." The next section is 19-1902, and that's license required, and we -- (Brief interruption.)
The issue has been raised relative to the change or the alleged change to the title of the bill.
Okay. We did not change the title. We left the word "licensed agent" in the title. This was at the -- Mr. Auerbach, senior attorney from the Law Division, was with us, and he saw no problem with the word "licensed agent" and the title and substituting the word "expediter" in the bill.
But now it seems to be a difficult a difficult thing to do because you're adding a definition that's not mentioned in the title.
Yeah. What I had proposed at the meeting was to -- and he said it wasn't needed. I said that, you know, I would 8 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 have like "licensed agent" with the word "expediter" in parentheses.
But you're still changing the title. Is there something we can -- can we get someone from the Law Department to give us some guidance? We're going to need guidance on this issue from the Law Department. COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah. Unfortunately, Rick Auerbach is one of the people stuck at home because of the inability to get in by train lines. Now, he did assure us that there was no need -- legally, there would be no problem with not changing the title.
Is there something we can get from the Law Department, either by fax or if you could get us at least something that we could put into the record that would indicate that they have reviewed this and are -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: We'll get that to you as quickly as possible because we have been assured verbally that there's no problem, but we'll get it to you in writing.
It's not that I 9 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 don't trust your word or your analysis of the conversation with Mr. Auerbach, but I think members of the committee would be more comfortable if -- COMMISSIONER EGAN: Yeah, I understand.
Do you want to -- do you have anybody here who can try to get that accomplished? COMMISSIONER EGAN: Why don't I do that while John continues.
Okay. We completely rewrote the section 19 -- or, I'm sorry, 9-1902, "Licensed Required," because of -- we changed and wrote the exceptions to the bill to make it clear as to who we were exempting and some omissions that we had made when we did the bill that we had left people out who are, in fact, not licensed expediters. 10 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 And the four provisions are the licensed professionals which include attorneys, architects, and engineers currently licensed to practice, licensed contractors who we will be licensing later in the year when we -- with the ordinance that you have introduced, Councilman. And exempting public officials, Councilpeople representatives and their staffer who it's part of their administerial duties to take permits and licenses out with the Department. And also, number four, real estate brokers who are coming in for certification statements, and they're only coming in for that. And, technically, they would have had to take out an expediter's license to do certification. And we recognized the whole issue with certifications. We reduced the license fee from $200 to 100. And, again, that's not a major issue. I mean, we're not talking about mega bucks or anything that would seriously affect the Department's revenue. And we thought that, you know, on our part, it's a concession to show that we were willing to negotiate, that we would just cut that. 11 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
It's an annual fee. Okay, the other thing, although -- and in 19-1904, we added an amendment to establish the requirement to do regulations for license suspension and revocation procedures. The one thing that we're concerned about is that this is a livelihood, this is somebody's property, and we don't want to -- and then it being to take some kind of haphazard action that would not protect somebody's rights. You know, we sort of feel strong about closing a place without due process. And this is really a process thing that we put in. And then we redid -- the final amendment is -- 19
John, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think you keep saying "19." It's 9.
Right. And I want to make sure the record reflects that it's Chapter 12 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 9, not 19.
It's Chapter 9, right. The final change is the construction -- engaging in the practice of licensed professions. And what we did was, we rewrote this section to --
1907. To include architects and engineers licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And what we are saying in this section 13 is that there are certain things that we cannot do in the City of Philadelphia, and the practice of law being one we cannot regulate. That's handled by the State Supreme Court. And what we are saying in this section is that we are not giving people rights that we couldn't give anyway. But we expanded that because the architects and engineer law and the landscape architects also have that same provision. They're regulated, I believe, by either the Department of State in Pennsylvania or the Attorney General, one or the other. And they are the amendments. And the 13 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 Commissioner is on the phone right now.
Okay. What I want to do is to open up the floor to the committee questions of you. Councilmember Cohen.
Just one question on Section 1902 was amended, paragraph (2)(c), second line. I would suggest eliminating the words after "actions as an expediter." Public officials who are employees will never be acting as an expediter. So the sentence would read: "The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to City or other public officials or employees whose actions are in the course of or incident to their official duties." That's okay, but we'd be eliminating "as an expediter."
When a Councilmember goes before City Council, he's representing his constituents. He's not employed or compensated to represent them; he's doing it as part of his official duties. And the same thing holds true for our staff members who appear on our behalf. 14 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
That's good. I think that's a very good suggestion. It does clean that language up and take the --
Just take out "as an expediter." I have no further questions at this time.
There are no other questions for this witness. We're attempting to facilitate some indication from the Law Department in writing that -- as it relates to the issue of the title of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I also have -- with us today are representatives of the Expediters Association.
Would someone like to come and testify on at least the amendments that were read today?
And I also have Sandy Gars (ph.), Executive Director of the AIA, also. 15 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
Good morning, my name is Patty Perlstein. Do you want my address?
No, you just have to say your name again so she could --
Please proceed, and please pull the microphone closer to you.
Sure, okay. Excuse me. I was in a hurry to get here, and we had the problem of trying to get through town.
It took me 45 minutes to get through town in order to -- and I forgot this, it was sitting on the floor of my bedroom. I can only speak for myself, I guess, even though there's a little organization of expediters. I had a couple things that John and a few of us had discussed; am I correct?
One of the things on the license suspension, what kind of length of 16 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 time are we looking at if we do all the bad things?
Well, that's what we would do by developing the regulations that would for the hearing, for the hearing process, and for the length of time.
Generally, traditionally, the first-time action is usual a warning. And the second-time action would be like a 30-day suspension. The third time would be like a 90-day. And then the third strike, then we would go to a more serious -- after, you know, the proverbial "three-strike rule," we would go for a year. But that will be done by regulation. And as we develop these regulations, we will be doing this like we did with the amendments to the ordinance. It will be a collegial process where we bring you in at the beginning of the process as we develop these regulations.
Okay. Number two, on the insurance, the City had indicated there was a 17 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 possible umbrella policy that we may fall under, under the City's insurance. And the cost of that is of concern.
When we first talked about, you know, the errors and omission insurance as a result of the last hearing, because of the concern about the cost, I met with the City's risk manager to get a handle as to what we could do. The City contacted their insurance agents, their people. And we will -- "we" being the City of Philadelphia -- like we do with bonds, we will provide a blanket coverage. The benefits of the blanket coverage are -- it's a group coverage instead of individuals actually going out into the market. You also come in under the City's shield. We do not have a cost right now and we. . .
Okay. We do not have a 18 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 cost right now because we're looking for experience -- I'm going to say "Patty," but it's Ms. --
Okay. Patty and I are going to meet with Debbie Lawton from Risk Management and then provide them with the information. We feel that this will be significantly cheaper than having to go out yourself and into the market.
Is that a common practice for Risk Management to provide opportunities for outside professionals or other individuals who come under the City's policy?
Not on a usual basis. They do provide bonding. I believe there's some MBEC and, yeah, minority business and women's business, I know they do provide assistance in that. I'm not that familiar with that. This was a proposal that had been put forward by Joe Perrello, who's the City's risk manager.
So the City, in some way, would be -- the Risk Management Division 19 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 would be acting in some way as an insurance broker?
They have done that. They originally started by doing the performance bonds, the small bonds, because there is just a dearth of people, or a shortage of people who did the small bonding. I think at one point they were down to one. So rather than going on into a noncompetitive market, the City actually went out and underwrote that itself.
Okay. So the cost of that is of extreme importance because while we -- I don't make a tremendous amount of money as an expediter.
Well, but I would suspect that the cost, whatever it's going to be, is going to be significantly less than you going into the private market by yourself.
And since we're -- and since this legislation would be requiring you to have errors and omissions insurance, the ability to buy it at a group rate with the City's ability to broker it for you should be a substantial cost savings if you had to go on your own to obtain similar insurance.
Okay. Number two, what are we ensuring? The term "expediter," to the best of my understanding, is a messenger since we're just like ferrying documents. Say, if Councilman Cohen said, Here's this application, and we go and we drop off, it's not a high-risk job.
And if I may say that -- in that situation, that would be taken into consideration, the whole process that we were going to be doing with the City's risk manager and then through to the insurance. There is certain because there are a number of expediters who, of course, do complete the documents for people so that --
Well, the definition, as it is suggested it be here, is: 21 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 "Any person employed or compensated to represent any other person in any matter before the Department or the Review Boards or before any of their offices or employees." I mean, I would suspect that the function of an expediter, as we have come to know it, is more than simply carrying documents. You can get a guy on a bike to go do that. We may have to wind up licensing them eventually. But that there are other things involved that are more technical in nature than simply delivering documents from one office to another.
Okay. Also, when this insurance comes, I think I have a pretty clean record as an expediter. I've been doing it for ten years. I have very, very satisfied clients who have used me over and over and referred me over and over. Can this possibly lead to frivolous lawsuits, things which have no basis? 'Cause once you have insurance, you know, if "Susie Q. Public" wasn't happy, not that I would represent Susie Q. Public. But, say, "Tommy Boy" wasn't happy and he decided that, hm, I couldn't get her on the phone 22 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 for two days because she was sick in bed or took off, so I'll sue her.
There are probably an indefinite number of scenarios where someone could find a way to sue somebody about something. I mean, in fairness, and not to offend -- and I know Councilman Cohen is -- there are probably too many lawyers in this world, and that's why we wind up in the litigious things that we wind up in, because everybody scrambling to make a living. I mean, I couldn't tell you for sure that someone wouldn't sue you down the road based on some frivolous claim. However, if it's frivolous, it won't amount to anything. I mean, I'm -- just anecdotally, I was successful in raising private dollars to install two alley gates at the ends of a street in South Philadelphia over the weekend. And I got my first call on my machine this morning, and it was the lady who lives on the corner house claiming that I put these gates in and cracked her foundation. I mean, it's just -- you're going to find people who are looking to make money out of someone else's hide, but I don't know how you can 23 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 avoid that. And, again, so the record's clear, we are going through this process because of a small, as in every circumstance --
-- there's always a small group people who find it necessary not to do the right thing when it comes to a particular profession or service that people are performing. The vast majority of trades people, the vast majority of lawyers, the vast majority of everyone else follows the rules and does what they're supposed to do. So because of a small group of people, a small number of people, who do things either illegally or questionably, we need to make these efforts to make sure everybody's protected. And I think that the people who have been sitting in this room, going through this are probably the people who do the right thing all the time.
Yeah. I mean, and that's -- it's sad to say, but that's the way it is. I mean, our insurance rates are high in the 24 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 city because we have 50 or 60,000 people driving around without insurance. Your highest insurance cost is the uninsured motorist provision. I mean, I wish they would all not drive either, but what are you going to do. Councilmember Cohen.
I leave to the Bar Association the appropriate response to Councilman Kenney's remarks about the numbers of lawyers. I think -- I think the idea that the City's risk manager is being involved is a good thing. I think Miss Perlstein raises a good question. In the law practice, we refer to people with deep pockets, and that always includes anybody that has insurance, and they all can become the target simply because there is an insurance policy. But I'm sure the risk manager is aware of those circumstances and will be able to take the appropriate action to limit the scope of your concern. If not, you can always raise the question with one of the committee members. We will be sensitive to that. This bill is not aimed at eliminating 25 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 expediters; it's aimed at regulating them and letting the Department know what's going on and ensuring the public that employs expediters, to whatever extent they employ them, that there's some standards of performance that are going to be expected of them. And that's the insurance to the public. But if things don't work out the way we're indicating -- we think they will -- you can always come back, and the Expediters Association ought to raise that problem with us. This seems to make sense, and I'm comforted by the concept that someone with experience will be setting the insurance standards.
Okay. I know a few others of us want to talk, but I had one additional thing.
Under the criminal activities Mr. Campbell had indicated to me that we would write into it relating specifically to our duties in relation to City permits, etc. Am I correct about that?
We're just going to be COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 doing clarifying regulation. We're not --
Well, I think, you know, from my personal perspective, if you are corrupt, you're corrupt. And, I mean, it's not just a matter -- for me, I would -- I don't necessarily want people that are dealing with the citizens of this city in a professional capacity that have criminal convictions for anything. And not just when it comes to fraud as it relates to permits and other types of things. I mean, if you have been involved in, engaged in criminal activity in other areas, I don't want you doing business in the City either. I mean, I don't know how Mr. Campbell or the Department feels, but from my perspective, a felon's a felon. And if you, you know, make that choice, I don't see how we can eliminate history. Now, I understand there's a time limit involved so that people have a right to and an ability to rehabilitate themselves. But I don't think it should be limited, in my view, just to -- I mean, if you're an armed -- if you robbed a bank 27 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 by pointing a gun, I don't want you doing expediting work either. But that has nothing to do with city permits. I mean, that has nothing to do with defrauding people as it relates to your duties.
Okay, 'cause I did want clarification on that, not that I'm a felon or in the post office this week.
Are you referring to the section that deals with license issuance and which includes a general request of a report of a criminal history?
Well, there's nothing that I read in this which says that the applicant will be denied a license because of a past criminal record. I assume that it means that the Department will examine it. And if it's an instance like the kind referred to or cited by Councilman Kenney, I assume they'll deny the license. 28 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 But if it's something else that doesn't impinge, even though it's a felony, say, but doesn't seem to impinge on the person's integrity with respect to the kind of dealings they would have as an expediter, then I assume that the Department, at the exercise of its discretion, would grant approval.
And there's also, I understand, appeal rights. There's an appellate process that you would enter into if you were denied. I guess that's the L&I Review Board?
The L&I Review Board. And action, of course, taken by the Department is appealable to the L&I Review Board, which is the oversight board for the Department.
It's a basic minimal requirement. Almost everything, even including the permit for a gun weapon today, there are probably no limitations except checking for a criminal record and then making a decision based on what that record is. It's nothing automatic. It doesn't mean that if you have a criminal record that you're going to be denied, 29 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 but it means it's something that the Board has to consider, including whether there been rehabilitation and whether the person's the kind of person that we can tell people --
I remember when I was a young girl and I applied for a job, you got, you know, letters of recommendation from your neighbors and your minister or rabbi. . . But I guess those days are over, right?
Well, they'll still want those, but they'll also want to check on your criminal record. I think we'd be derelict if we didn't find it out and granted a license without making that kind of a check.
Okay. I know that other members of my association wanted to speak, if that's okay.
Well, I want to get the Law Department on record relative to the issue on title. And, Mr. Campbell, we -- this is a 30 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 deal? We have an arrangement here that people from the association are happy with? Because I'm sensing that there's maybe another whole slew of questions that have not been resolved as a result of -- I mean, I understood when we came in here today, that's why we continued this because we were in agreement.
We basically do but, you know, there's a few people who have additional questions that would appreciate it. And, again, the cost of this insurance is, you know, I've talked to attorneys, and if it's to 35,000, even as an umbrella, I'm out of 15 business. 16
A little bit I could 19 understand. If it goes into excess of what I make 20 a year, I might as well pencils on Walnut Street, if I can get that license.
You might not without a criminal check and insurance. (Laughter.)
Well, one of the 31 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 cornerstones of this bill, from the Department's standpoint, is one of insurance, so I think what we're going to do is the best we can to keep the costs as low as possible and to allow you to buy under a group, allow you to buy under the City's umbrella. But I think you're exposed right now individually by not having any insurance. If you find that John Q. Public that's litigious in nature and sits home during the day and watches all those legal ads on the Jerry Springer Show, you may find a guy who's going to want to sue you, and you're going to be exposed with property, your home, car, and bank accounts, without any protection at all. So, in some ways, even though there will be a cost incurred, it's certainly more protection for you that you have in your current situation.
Correct. But, again, it's -- my question -- I know we had gone over this. As an expediter, and I know you -- there's more things to some expediting. It's what are we ensuring? I mean, I understand there's a few bad 32 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 apples. From the last head count I have, there's expediters in the city. I'm sure that 5 more will surface, but there are 25 people who are 6 concerned. 7
And I could tell 8 you, I would expect that with bad publicity will 9 come people looking to perhaps challenge what you 10 may have done for them in the past. 11
And that 13 protection, I think, is really important for you 14 to have. 15
Okay. Also, we are in 16 the process of forming the Philadelphia Expediters 17 Association, and we'd like to be a self-policing 18 type of organization, with some nice bylaws to 19 help prevent things like the bad apples. 20 And if the insurance is exorbitant and 21 we could work with the City within that realm as 22 our association, I mean, I know personally -- I 23 don't think that there's any poison pen letters to 24 the City regarding me and most of us. Perhaps, as 25 the association and the people that belong to it, 33 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 we can do our own little self-policing if the insurance is too exorbitant. I'm sorry to say I don't make a lot of money. I don't think any of us makes a lot of money, and if it's if 6,000 a year, I'm out.
Insurance is a very difficult situation. I mean, at my wife's insistence, I just went out and got some personal insurance, which is basically the insanity of betting that I'm going to drop dead before I'm 60. And I'm paying monthly -- paying quarterly for the privilege of betting that I'm going to drop dead before I'm 60. Although, again, it was my wife's insistence that I went and got it. So, insurance is a very difficult -- and I recognize -- and as Councilman Cohen said, you know, if we get to the point where we come back and this insurance is exorbitant and so out of whack, we'll come back and we'll work on this again legislatively.
But I think, in the interim, you're much better protected by being insured than not being insured. 34 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
'Cause our clients have the ability to take us to Small Claims Court. I feel sometimes, if the person complains to a Councilmember, that it would be nice if the Councilmember would call both parties in, you know, 'cause -- and have a little -- 'cause most of us, I think, are reasonable people. I know I am. I'm willing, if a refund is due, to work that out.
That's right. It's like being the judge of the baby parade. (Laughter.)
Like being the judge of the baby contest. 35 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
And there's no 3 guarantee that the complainant had even voted for you.
So I'm going to give the floor to some other of my associates after you finish with. . . (Rick Auerbach comes forward.)
Mr. Auerbach, would you please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. I'm Rick Auerbach, Senior Attorney for the Law Department.
And could you -- well, you can start whereever you'd like, but the issue at hand is the title.
The issue's been raised as to changing term the "agent" to "expediter," given the title of the bill?
Yeah, the issue is that the word "agent" appears in the title, and the word "expediter" doesn't, and we're defining the word "expediter."
Yeah, okay. I see no 25 legal problem at all in changing that term. The 36 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 Charter requires that the subject of a bill be adequately expressed in the title. And I think the title of this bill more than adequately expresses its purpose. If you look at the title, it says it's an ordinance basically requiring any person who represents or acts on behalf of another person in any matter before the Department and various boards to obtain a license. That's the purpose of the bill. The word "agent" -- neither the word "agent" or "expediter" appears in that phrase. That's the subject of the bill. What you call person who represents another, whether you call him "an expediter" or "an agent," I really don't see that that's material to the subject of the bill. Also, the standard for amending the bill in the Charter is that you may not amend a bill so as to change its purpose. And certainly changing the nomenclature, the terminology, does not in any way change the purpose of the bill.
I know Councilman Cohen has a question. 37 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
Well, no. What I'm going to suggest is that I appreciate that whenever the Administration supports a change, it's always legal; whenever they don't like a change, it's always not legal. I would just like to suggest -- I think there's an interest in the Department in having the bill passed, that we pass this bill, but I would say that it might be wise to introduce another ordinance later, with the correct title and the correct name, and just go through the routine process of passing a bill with the appropriate title.
For the record, Councilman Cohen, I would assure you, if this were your bill and the Administration opposed it and you wanted to amend it in your way, I guarantee you, you will get the same --
But I can personally assure of that just for what it's worth. Thank you.
Say, over a long 38 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 history, the conclusion I've arrived at is what I stated earlier, but we don't have to dispute it. We can pass the bill, get it in action in the fall session. If there seems any need to do so, we can just introduce another bill with the title "Expediters" and reestablish it and eliminate any possible questions.
No, I would change it now. I would accept Mr. Auerbach's statement temporarily. And then in the fall, we could introduce a bill with the correct title. It's unlikely that any challenge would be asserted in the next three or four months. I think basically he's right. I was just hoping that he would assume the same common-sense application that he's doing in this case in other cases.
But the subject matter is the same, and we are merely changing a title here.
Okay, thank you. 39 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 Thank you for your testimony and it's on the record. The AIA, please. (AIA representative comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'll just take a moment of your time. I'm Sandy Gars (ph.), the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Good morning.
And thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a statement. Basically, let me just say that the American Institute of Architects, in Philadelphia, represents about 1300 members, of which 1,000 are licensed architects in the four-county area, including Philadelphia, Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Chester County. We also represent 300 member firms, both large, medium, and small. We represent minority business enterprises as well as WBE firms. Basically, we are here to support legislation with the amendments. We would not be 40 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 here supporting it if the amendments were not included. Very often, when legislation is drafted, attorneys are given special recognition for the role that they play because they are obviously licensed by the State. And they were -- originally in the original bill, attorneys were excluded from the provisions of the legislation. I'm here to make sure that architects are also excluded from the provisions of the legislation, and the amendments reflect that. Architects are licensed by the state of Pennsylvania, by the Commonwealth. There's an architectural licensure board that regulates them. They have extensive education, they have an extensive licensing procedure that they need to pass within the Commonwealth. So we just want you to keep in mind that architects, as well as landscape architects, as well as engineers, as well as, hopefully in the future, there will be licensed contractors as well engaged in obtaining permits as part of their normal course of doing business. And, again, I would just like to bring that to your attention. 41 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 We're supporting the legislation. I'd like to thank Commissioner Egan and John Campbell for working with our association so that, in fact, we believe that we have a better bill here that we can support and that it reflects good government in process. And we stand ready to work in conjunction with City Council and with our City officials so that the legislation that is produced now and in the future is the best legislation possible. Again, our architect members obtain errors and omission insurance. That's part of their -- that's part of what they need in order to practice. And we'd like to see that our members are given the respect and acknowledgment of how they, in fact, protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. So, again, I thank you. And if we can be of further service, please let us know.
Thank you. Thank you for your involvement in this process. Councilmember Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just mention that architects can read 42 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 plans and designs much better than lawyers can. And I say that as a lawyer. (Laughter.)
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Sir, come forward, please. (Ivor Moore comes forward.)
My name is Ivor Moore, I-V-O-R, M-O-O-R-E. And I do expediting in the city. I've done it for about years. 14 I just have a couple of questions. One 15 is the cost for the insurance. As expediters, we are in, essence, errand boys. The documents that are produced by the architects, they carry their own errors and omission insurance. So if there are any errors on those documents, that is the responsibility of the maker of those documents, whether it be an architect engineer or a contractor. So what I would like to know is what the insurance coverage is for the expediter? It is not errors and omission insurance because we 43 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 are not the makers of the document. That is my question.
Well, my statement to you, before I ask Mr. Campbell to respond, is that I don't think I've been, in this experience with you, but there's some people in this room 8 that I have been on the other side of the table with at the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Board of Building Standards and some other places. And they have done substantially more than simply errand documents from one place to another. I mean, we've been in pitched battles over projects in the community that expediters, some of people in this room, have supported and have done a very good job in representing their clients' interests, as almost a lawyer would. So I mean, to minimize it -- I think that the delivery and processing of documents is a major part of what an expediter does. But to minimize -- if that's all you did, you wouldn't need to be hired.
Well, this is very true, but the makers of the documents -- the expediters do not do the drawings or make these documents. 44 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 The expediter is really the errand boy. The coverage for the errors and omissions on these documents is in the province of the architect or the engineer or the contractor, whoever produces them. So, as I said, my question is: Under what title does the insurance for the expediters come? In my mind, it does not cover -- it does not come under errors and omissions. I can see insurance but I don't see how it goes to errors and omissions. Now, it's very true that some expediters do other work besides expediting. They do plot plans, they do surveys, but that is not under this bill. This bill is strictly the expediters. Many of these members wear more than one hat wear. They wear a hat as an expediter. Some of them are architects, some of them are engineers, some of them do kitchen designs, but this is the second or third or fourth hat that they wear. So we're just talking at this point about expediters, so I still would like to know 45 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 what form this insurance is going to take. I mean, what is its title?
The expediter is any person employed or compensated to represent any other person in any matter before the Department or the review boards or before any other officers or employees. So that means an expediter is more, in this particular definition, is more than expansive than your description of what an expediter does. Now, if Mr. Campbell wants to talk to specific -- and, again, so the record -- the record has been -- on the record already is discussions with the Department, that this is a fluid -- this insurance issue is a fluid situation right now. Until we get the numbers, until we get the actual parameters of what the insurance is going to cover through the Risk Management Division of the City of Philadelphia we really don't have those answers yet. 46 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 So, Mr. Campbell, if you want to. . .
Again, Councilman Kenney, and members of the Rules Committee, this is part of this discussion that we will be having with the risk manager, and it will be his determination. And, again, we are working with the expediters. We are bringing in Miss Perlstein, who will sit down with Debra Lawton and myself, and outline the parameter for the insurance so that we're quite specific. Errors and omissions insurance by an architect or an engineer cover their misdeeds or their potential misdeeds. It would not impinge on the expediter, we recognize that, but there are transactions that the expediters complete that would make them subject to possibly other than somebody who made a mistake, an egregious or serious mistake on an application, but they prepare it as part of their expediting function. But, again, this is what we would be doing with the risk manager.
That's my answer, sir. 47 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
Okay, thank you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. (Dave Terrell comes forward.)
Yeah, I'm Dave Terrell. I'm an expediter for about eight years and missed about seventeen days of coming to the Department every day of week. I'm concerned with the word "department" being in unison and in the same sentence with the boards. I understand this bill 13 was originally instigated, shall we say, to do away with expediters going to the boards. They thought that the boards should be represented by lawyers. I'm still -- it's still vague to me how that reads, where it says "practicing law." Does this bill keep expediters from going to the boards? And if it does, since "department" is in the exact same sentence, it might also eliminate us from going to the department or the counter where we deal every day.
Have you seen a copy of the amendment, sir? 48 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713
First of all, this is a bill that is regulated under Title 9. And when you read Title 9-100, the administrative provisions, it specifically says under definition, unless the department is the Department of Licenses and Inspections, unless otherwise specified. So that because Title 9 is rules of business that -- instead of saying "the Department of L&I" each and every time, the framers of the -- when they consolidated the code, I guess, back in the fifties, they just made an intelligent decision to say, Well, Title 9 is L&I. So then they did that in the definition, as they did with Title 11, when you look at the department under the streets code. It says, unless otherwise specified, it is the Department of Streets. And 49 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 that's where the department. . . The other thing, this does not prevent people from going to review boards as witnesses, as expert witnesses. It does not say that they cannot go. What we say and, I guess, this whole issue of the practice of law comes up. All we're saying in this bill is that we cannot confer rights that we have no legal power to confer. We're not saying that they can or cannot go, whether they have to be lawyers. That again, we have no control or say over that. That's the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the chief justice make that decision. Whether this bill passed or not, that whole issue of the practice of law, I mean, it has nothing to do with this.
It still hasn't really answered my question. Can expediters go to the Review Board?
I mean, as far as the definition of an expediter, it clearly says 50 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 that you can. Again, if the Bar Association is interested in pursuing this issue, they can litigate it to keep you from going there if that's their desire. We couldn't stop that. We're not encouraging that, but we couldn't stop it anyway. And, again, what Mr. Campbell is saying is that because of our inability -- we can't confer on you a power that we have no power to confer. So we can't ordain you with the ability to practice law before but we will recognize your ability to go before these boards because we're licensing you to do so. We wouldn't be licensing you for something that's illegal for you to do.
So I think this issue has come from the total elimination, total nuclear destruction to a reasonable, hopefully workable circumstance, which, again, can be changed if the need be.
There's been many 51 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 versions, and I just--
I remember at least three years' or four years' worth of discussion on this bill.
And you are correct in that expediters often do more than carry the -- if an expediter took, as is, an application from most of his clients, it would not be accepted.
Okay. But we've been up against each other once or twice, I think on some stuff.
And you're a very worthy opponent. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill?
Yes, go ahead, Mr. 52 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970713 Campbell.
We request a favorable recommendation and suspension of rules.
Thank you very much. I don't believe I need anyone else from Licenses and Inspections at this point. Thank you very much for your work and your patience, and the Law Department also thanks you.
Thank you, appreciate you being here. - - - 53 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714
We are now going to deal with some proposed amendments to Bill No. 4 970714. The Chair recognizes John O'Connor, from Councilman Kenney's office, to walk through and explain the amendments to this particular bill. So that the public knows, at this point, we are not going to report Bill No. 970714 out of committee today. It will be held to the call of the Chair, but we're going to ask the committee to approve the amendments offered today. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning. John O'Connor, Legislative Aid to Councilman James Kenney. Our first amendment appears on of the legislation, under Section 3, entitled "Real Estate Agent." The proposed amendments will read as follows: Real Estate Vehicle. A vehicle registered to a real estate licensee or real estate brokerage company to whom a business 54 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714 privilege license has been issued by the City of Philadelphia.
So the words "licensed" and "agent" are being removed.
Additional language: Said real estate licensee must be a bona fide resident of the City of Philadelphia.
That follows the proceeding language in. . . It's actually 12-2901, Section 3, Real Estate Agent Vehicle.
All right. Continuing in the section which will now be 4, the new 4. We are taking out -- on line number 4, we are deleting the word "selling."
What's the purpose of that? What is the purpose of that amendment?
The purpose of that is to make the term "real estate service" more 55 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714 inclusive. Rather than just including selling, it also includes brokerage or appraisal services.
Fine. And in the next, 12-209, we're just removing the word "selling" again?
We're removing the word "selling" in the third line. Also, in paragraph 1 of 12-2902, we're deleting the following language, beginning on line 6 -- pardon me, beginning with the word "contractor." "Contractor vehicle may be parked without limitation as to time. Real estate agent vehicle may be parked for no more than two hours unless is parking otherwise permitted in such parking space for a longer period. The Authority may the location where temporary business parking permits will be honored." That' entire -- that language is being deleted.
Is that the loading 56 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714 zone issue?
Yes, it does. We're also including language to determine what areas will be covered by the real estate license.
And the following language is being inserted: "When a vehicle displaying a current and valid temporary business parking permit is being asked for real estate" --
". . . service, the driver may park up to two hours, and without payment of any parking meter fees on streets where parking is limited as to time but not prohibited unless parking is otherwise permitted in such parking space for a longer period. Temporary parking permits used for real estate service are valid only in the area bounded by Spring Garden 57 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714 Street on the north, Bainbridge Street on the south, the Delaware River on the east, and the Schuylkill River on the west. The Authority may limit the locations where temporary business parking permits will be honored."
The end of this -- this in fact is under 12-2902, Section 3. In the second to last line, we are deleting the words "$50" and replacing that language, excuse me, with "$300."
Continuing to the bottom of the page, under 12-2904, Prohibited Conduct, Section 1, the last line would be line 6, and we are deleting again the word "selling." 58 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714 On , under Section 12-2904, Section 2, fourth line, we're also deleting the word "selling." That would complete the amendments offered for Bill No. 970714.
Thank you very much. That will conclude, I think the business on this bill. We are going to hold this bill to the call of the Chair and deal with it in September when we come back. We're going to attempt, when I get members of the committee back in, to approve the amendments so that the bill 15 that will be discussed back in September will be this amended bill. And we'll have an opportunity over the -- the parties interested in this bill will have an opportunity over the summer to do whatever, contact with Councilmembers that are necessary to garner significant support for it to pass. And what we will do is, we will have the new bill printed as amended and then provide that to you so that you can do what you need to do to contact your appropriate Councilmembers at 59 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - BILL NO. 970714 district and at large. That will conclude the business of the public hearing on the Rules Committee. Bill No. 5 970714 held to the call of the chair, and I would request that the members of the Rules Committee return to vote on Bill No. 970713 and the amendments to 970714, Councilmember Verna, I think, and Councilmember Cohen. Thank you. - - - 60 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We have now concluded the business of the Rules Committee public hearing; we will now convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna to approve the amendments to Bill No. 8 970713.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments, as submitted by the Department of Licenses and Inspections, be approved. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 18 970713 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on the amended bill.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 970713 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our 61 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 8 970713, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion to approve the amendments offered to Bill No. 970714.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments offered to Bill No. 970714 be approved.
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 22 970714 will be amended accordingly, and that bill 23 will be held to the call of the Chair. And that will conclude the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your 62 COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING attendance. (Adjourned at 11:27 a.m.) - - - 63 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 8, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 970713, 970714 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter