An ordinance authorizing the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development to file an application in an amount not exceed $1 million to assist in the development of Woodlands Arboretum and Botanical Gardens Revitalization Project.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Councilman DiCicco. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aye.
Aye. The ayes are 14; the nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, this bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 060692.
An ordinance authorizing and approving the execution and delivery of a Service Agreement between the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development relating to a comprehensive program to improve and enhance the City of Philadelphia's cultural and commercial corridors for the benefit of the residents of the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you, 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING Madam President. Madam President, this is a very painful day for me because for many, many years, for eight years, I worked at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and year after year, I watch the Budget Officer come to City Council to plead for operating dollars to run that institution, that grand, fine institution, and I've watched over the years how we have struggled to fight to maintain operating dollars for that institution. Two years ago, we strongly advocated that the City give them $2 million. This bill, which is designed to give capital dollars to cultural fund organizations for capital improvements and also dollars for streetscaping and small business guarantees, is a fine way to reach out and give support to the institutions that traditionally have not been funded by the City, and I support the intent to do that, but I also know 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING that a lot of cultural institutions need that support and we have a responsibility to find a way to do so. I'm not sure that financing our future at this point to do that is the best way to go, when we do know that there are other ways, such as pay as you go. We have a $240 million fund balance. There's $6 million sitting in the -- I can't think of the fund. You know what I'm talking about. We talk about the $6 million all the time. But there are other ways that we can fund it. But we also have a need for our recreation centers, our fire centers, fire buildings, libraries and all the City structures to have those dollars that are needed to keep those structures going, and we haven't been able to do that because we're in a fight here over the capital budget for 2006 and 2007, and so we haven't done that yet. And we're at a standstill, because here we're pitting the City structures against the 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING community, and we shouldn't be in this position. Particularly we are responsible for the City-owned structures, to make sure that they're operating. During the course of the testimony, I talked about the fire station at Carpenter Lane and Germantown -- which is not in my district, it's in Councilwoman Miller's district, but I stop there often. I pass it -- to show me their floor, which is coming apart. They can't get it repaired. We don't have the dollars to repair that. And so we need to resolve our capital budget program before we tend to look at other ways of giving money to other institutions. During the testimony for this ordinance, Mr. Jannetti, our Finance Director, stated we had $170 million for these structures, but I corrected him that this total represents the budget's 2006 and 2007. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING Under the capital program, the City plans to spend over the next six fiscal years just under $71 million a year. The City Planning Commission has testified that the City needs to spend on its public facilities $185 million annually. We need to stop and rethink our action and develop a pay-as-you-go plan. We could commit the $12 million that we're going to pay and have to pay $12 million in a year in debt service. That money could be better set aside to give the Art Museum $5 million a year, the Zoo whatever it needs. And I'm particularly concerned about what City structures will get, the money. During the course of the testimony, Ms. Naidoff said they were City-owned structures, but she couldn't name any, didn't give us a list, we don't know where the money is going, and they have outsiders telling them what facilities to be funded, when the District Councilmembers know in their 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING district what City structures should be funded. So I am very concerned about the process for distributing this money, because we don't know where it's going to go. So I think that if we adopt the pay-as-you-go plan by -- we have a $240 million fund balance. Certainly we could give the Art Museum $30 million. They need it. They deserve it.
Some of the other cultural funds need it. We can't even fund the cultural fund's operating program. We struggle and beg every year for a measly little million dollars so that the programs can operate. More cultural fund programs need operating dollars than the number of organizations that may have been touted as getting some of the capital dollars, which will be minuscule compared to the number of people who came in here and testified. Then you're going to pit them against each other. So you're pitting the City structures against the cultural 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING structures, and then you're going to have the cultural structures fighting over the small pit that's done rather than having a total program, a program where we could all buy into and know year after year how much would be available for these cultural funds, the City to support these structures. So that is why I'm very perturbed about it today, because I don't want the cultural community to think that I don't support their needs. I do. I think they deserve it, and the City has a responsibility to help find a way to do that. According to today's Philadelphia Inquirer, the Mayor and his allies, and I'm quoting, touted the borrowing as a key piece to the Mayor's legacy. I say that this Mayor has had seven years to develop a legacy. His legacy, whether he likes it or not, will be one of pitting one community against 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING the other. It is too late to try and create a false record. In the out years when the members of the City Council, those who will be here, wrestle with the City finances and try to answer their constituents as to why there are no funds for our structures, our rec centers, our libraries, our fire houses, the answer will be that we mortgaged our future so that John Street could have a legacy. And I will be voting no on this.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. I would just ask my colleague why she's being so kind to the Administration on this matter. Four years ago, we were sitting in a little courtroom upstairs because this room was damaged, and I remember 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING like it was yesterday that the Administration came in with a plan to sell the Central Library and then lease it back so that we could give the Central Library $30 million for its expansion. It had to be done. But you know, as I said, $60 million for $30 million worth of stated reason. And no matter how much anyone pleaded with the Administration, it wasn't just the idea of leasing the library after you've sold it, but there was $30 million in unidentified expenditures on a long-term borrowing that would just be wrong to do. Well, that didn't fly at that time. Four years ago, the first term of the Street Administration, both allies and enemies agreed that it was a bad idea, and it failed. But eventually the $30 million borrowing was done, which everyone had assured the support for, even though we had to tell a library at the time, Sorry, we're for you, but not in this context, not doing it this way. And the library 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING eventually saw the $30 million borrowing occur, passed City Council unanimously. In fact, I think only ten of that 30 million has been released because of conditions that were placed on the 30. So we're very careful when we actually did the $30 million borrowing. Now we have $150 million with virtually none of it identified. I don't know where we lost our way from $30 million not identified four years ago for the library and holding up what we all knew was a good, solid $30 million commitment to the library until we got it right and now we have unidentified 150 million. It's five times what the last unidentified money was. I mean, if we want to create a capital dollar slush fund for the Administration, we're doing it. I don't know why we want to do that, but we're doing it. I also don't know why we want to do it when our recreation centers are 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING falling apart and we can't agree on the last three years a capital budget for the rec centers, which used to be a routine matter around here. But we're doing it. It doesn't make it right. It just means it's going to be done today. I refuse to join in doing this. The Charter that was passed some 50-plus years ago had a provision in there that said two-thirds of Council is needed to strap the taxpayers with long-term debt. So it went beyond the nine votes needed for anything else. Somewhere along the way, authorities were created by the State and language was inserted which made it okay without a Charter amendment to borrow long term with only nine votes. The Charter says 12. Well, that's just general obligation bonds. Well, back then, that's what long-term debt was, general obligation bonds. There weren't any of these authorities and different mechanisms for getting around it. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING And I would ask today the Committee of Seventy and PICA, who have gotten much more aggressive lately, and I congratulate both of them for doing it, to take that to court, because I believe that the Charter trumps everything else. And for years, capital borrowings have been pretty routine around here, but when you start not identifying expenditures and you start bringing in the bait and the Art Museum and other cultural organizations -- but primarily the Art Museum is the bait here -- and they're being used and they know it, but they can't help it, because they have a fiduciary duty as Board members and as an organization. If the Art Museum needed $30 million and it was a borrowing for that amount just like the library, it would be done. It would be unanimous. We wouldn't have stories written about it, just as most borrowing in the last 50-some years under the Charter have been done, whether they were by nine votes or 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING 12.
But this is a case where you see what happens when you cavalierly go outside the Charter requirement and you ignore the 12-vote requirement because, oh, we're going to have a Service Agreement with this agency. It's the same taxpayer. It's the same debt. The debt is out of control. It's getting worse. And we are not including the pension obligation bonds. Even when PICA comes in here, they're talking about capital debt, no matter how we borrowed it. Long-term debt through a bond issue, we borrowed one and a quarter billion dollars just a few years ago. That debt is at least $50 million a year that isn't included in any of the numbers that we've been given. It's real debt. It's real long-term obligation by our taxpayers. So what are we doing? We're going to help commercial corridors and 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING small and large cultural organizations. Well, I think that's great. They all need it. There's no question. When we have $187 million a year in our own infrastructure -- everybody needs repairs on their home, some people more than others. If you had serious repairs needed on your home -- and I would say we need serious repairs needed on our City's infrastructure -- and you said, Oh, you know what, Harry or Bob down the street, they've got problems, too. I think instead of fixing my house, I'm going to take my money and my family's money and I'm going to fix theirs. No question that Harry and Bob's house needs work, but your obligation to your family is our obligation to our taxpayers. It's to fix the City's problems with its infrastructure, and if we have money left over, then we'll help the private sector. Business corridors have been helped in this City for years by State 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING grants. If it's a valid project to improve that corridor, they've been helped, and they've been helped in just about every Council District. We're all familiar with it. But all of the sudden, the City, not with a lot of borrowing capacity but absolutely strapped and overburdened with debt, is taking on a private obligation that would normally be either the business corridors' own private obligation or some combination with the State. But now we're getting generous. Oh, forget it. Forget what usually happened. We're going to ignore police stations, fire stations, Fairmount Park, Recreation, libraries, because that's what we're doing. We're ignoring them because we think the commercial corridors are more important. Well, you know what that does? That puts $90 to $150 million of political money, it's just political money, in the second floor, and that's why I hope PICA, the Committee of Seventy and anybody else 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING that wants to join them, because I'll certainly join them, tries to stop it. This is wrong. These monies should be identified. They should be voted on separately if they can't be identified. And we're falling into the trap of, oh, can't be against the Art Museum. That's the way this whole thing is structured. Can't be against the Art Museum. Nobody is against the Art Museum. If Mr. Lenfest doesn't know by now that City Council has supported this Art Museum a lot more than this Administration in the last six budgets, I think they know it, but they're caught in a bind. But we don't have to get stuck in the same bind. And I just think it's a sad situation, because we could be doing real good things for the Art Museum, but we could also be doing real good things for City buildings, City infrastructure we're not going to get another chance to do, because this Administration is committed to 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING underfunding the rec centers that we as Councilmembers are responsible for, but also underfunding the buildings that the Administration is responsible for so they can create $150 million of money to be identified later, to be identified later. Except for library borrowing, I don't think it's ever happened in the City's history.
And if somebody has some questions about whether 12 votes should be needed, I think this is the best example they'll ever have. And, yeah, there will probably be 12 votes today, but you know what? A few of them will be voting because they don't want to be against the Art Museum, and I can't blame them. That's a hell of a spot to be in, and it's unfair. But Councilwoman Tasco mentioned community against community. This kind of pits Councilmembers against what they really think is right. Because who wants to be against the Art Museum and the cultural community when everybody 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING supports them? But that's the structure here. That's the strategy. And, okay, it's working, but this is a Christmas tree that people are going to regret buying, and I hope there's some way of stopping it. If we can't, I just want to go on record that I think it's one of the worst votes I've ever been asked to make, and I'm not going to make it. Thank you. )
Thank you, Madam President. I join the many members on this legislative body who care very, very much about the arts and what it does for our City, and I recognize that when it comes to matters of this scale, even in our advocacy we have to be thoughtful and rational in approaching the public policy question, which is should we fund this 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING bond issuance. The fact is that just as we have used the bond issuance for other mechanisms here in City Council, we should also consider using that mechanism for this particular community, for this one reason: This bond issuance is an investment into the capital needs of many of our arts and cultural institutions. It is a one-time injection or infusion of dollars for the arts and cultural institutions in our City. The fact is that a $1 investment in arts and culture gives us a domino effect of $3 spent. So for those reasons, I will be in support of this one-time unprecedented opportunity that seeks to help our arts and culture institutions in a way that has never been done before. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just want some clarity on my vote. My vote will be based on what I believe to be a carefully thought-out strategy related to commercial corridors. I'm the District Councilperson that actually represents the Art Museum and have been talking to members of the Art Museum for years, both as a staff person, as a Councilperson and hearing the need for that facility. But I can sit here today and tell you honestly if this bond initiative did not include, quote/unquote, the neighborhoods in the commercial corridors, I would not be supportive of this initiative, as much as I support the Art Museum, because at the end of the day, I happen to represent -- I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure that there's a lot of similarities in other Council Districts -- some of the oldest commercial corridors in the City of 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING Philadelphia, who in fact need some infusion of cash to support the infrastructure. I have some commercial corridors in my district where you can't walk down the sidewalk because the curbs and sidewalks are broken and dangerous. And, unfortunately, I wish we could actually be talking about helping some of these residential areas that have similar problems. But at the end of the day, I think this is a reasonable approach to instilling some cash, instilling some resources to our neighborhood commercial corridors, because I do believe, and history has shown, that small businesses are the life blood of not only these neighborhoods, of these cities. So I'm going to cast my vote in support of this primarily because of that and secondarily because of some of the arts and cultural institutions. Additionally, I think the fact that we were able to extract in our 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING hearing a serious commitment for a very, very aggressive approach to including minority and female-owned businesses as it relates to any access to this money, be it City-sponsored projects or any privately owned-sponsored projects, where we got a commitment from the Administration to use 50 percent as a goal for employment opportunities and I think upwards of 40 percent for contracts. So I look at this as a golden opportunity, not only to infuse cash and resources into our communities, but also give a golden opportunity to a lot of people who are currently out of work or working at jobs that aren't paying a reasonable livable wage. So I would like to not only focus on getting this initiative in place, but I want to make sure that the commitments that were made to us to make sure that all Philadelphians have an opportunity to take advantage of this 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING fund be in place. So today I will cast my vote, not to build anyone's legacy, not to provide a fund, and I don't like to use the term "slush," but not to provide a fund that is not adequately monitored by this body and members of this government to ensure that all expenditures are done appropriately. So I will be casting my vote aye.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I, too, will be voting yes on this bill and not just specifically because of the money that would be going to the Art Museum, although I think that is a wonderful idea and I think it's a long-time coming. When these various departments, the Art Museum included, come to Council and talk about their 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING capital needs, every one of them, almost to an institution, has always pointed out that the economic benefits to the City of Philadelphia far outweigh the investment. The Art Museum has testified over the years that for every City dollar that we invest into that institution, we get a $4 return on our investment. So for me, this is not, to use the word of my colleague, a slush fund. For me, this is another economic tool that the City has at its disposal. I agree that there's a debt service that needs to be looked at and will have to be addressed in years going forward, but I personally believe that the investment will certainly pay its way and pay itself off in the long run. Politics of the second floor, the Mayor has a year and a half left. I don't think he will realize his legacy, if that's what this is all about, because by the time all this stuff begins, it will probably be a year and a half before 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING anyone sees any of the improvements that we're hoping to realize from this. It's interesting, when I hear that the politics of the second floor is just the way in which to direct money for political purposes into certain sections of the City, we're the same folks who haven't been able to pass the capital budget for two, three years. Some of that money would have gone to rec centers and fire houses and police stations and the like. I think we have to be held responsible for that. We have to take some accountability for that, since we haven't been able to pass a capital budget. The return on the investment for me is well worth this borrowing. I also would like to point out when we talk about the commercial corridors, last I looked, the majority of folks who run those shops and those stores in the neighborhoods are Philadelphians. They're taxpayers, too. When we talk about State 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING grants, I'm familiar with that as a District Councilperson. It's nice to get State grants. It's somewhat of a help, but when you look at it in the scheme of things, that money that they realize in those grants is insignificant. It's literally a drop in the bucket. Council President, I know that you're familiar with some of the corridors in South Philadelphia, as an example. Penrose Avenue in your district, 9th Street in my district, South 7th Street. I wish 20 years ago someone had thought of this idea to invest large infusions of dollars. We may have been able to save those corridors. Because what happens when we don't save the business community, you lose the residential community. It goes hand in hand. If you don't save the residential community, you will lose the retail community. We need to make this, I think, a priority. It is not because my 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING relationship with the Mayor, as everyone understands, has been on a good note as of late. I'm not here to make points with the Mayor. I'm here because I really and truly look at this as an economic tool to move this City forward, to make our neighborhoods a better place for all Philadelphians and invest their tax dollars to the best of our ability, and we will deal with the fire house situation. And I thank my colleagues for standing with me a couple of years ago when the Administration was looking to close down some of those fire stations. None of those stations have been closed. I appreciate the support, and I think it's just the beginning, and we need to go forward from this day forward to figure it all out. We will have a say in the process as to where this money goes.
Particularly for District Councilpeople, not leaving my at-large colleagues out of the process, but we know what goes on in 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING those neighborhoods and we'll share that information with you and seek your support. So I will be voting yes on this bill today. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
One final word, Madam President. I just want to talk about these capital budgets that we haven't passed. That has to also do with the politics of the second floor. In the past, the District Councilmembers were given a certain amount of money that we knew that we had in our budget that we could appropriate to a rec center to fix it up, to do something. Then all of the sudden, we were told our dollars were cut and the City was going to determine how they spent the money. Because prior to that, 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING there was enough money that the City had money to use on these structures and then the other pot that was given to the Councilmembers was left to the Councilmembers. Then, of course, the capital program began to shrink and the City could see they didn't have enough money for the things they thought they might want to do on these rec centers and these fire stations, and then they wanted to take the money that we had appropriated to the District Councilpeople for the capital programs we wanted in our district. So that's where the discussion is and that's where the fight is, because they want to take our money because they don't have enough money because they can't get enough money to fix the structures that they need. The final thing I want to say is, this is like a predatory loan. You got $240 million in the bank. That's the money you could use to fix up the house 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING that Brian was talking about. Along comes a subprime lender, say, Oh, let me give you $150 million and you only got to pay $12 million a year. But you don't look at the life of the loan of $300 million, and you could have taken some of that money of your $240 million which we have and put it aside for some of the same commercial corridors that we've been begging this Administration to fund and support through the years. He's been talking about this $150 million for the last eight years. Here we are one year out trying to struggle and be forced to vote on something and, again, like Brian said, use the Art Museum as the carrot, as the stick as to say, Look, if you don't do this, you're against the Art Museum. But we are not against the Art Museum. We're not against the cultural funds. We are against this process because it doesn't make sense. We have the money in the budget in the City we could use for the same stuff. So it's 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING not like, oh, glory God, we got this money. Well, we had the money, we have the money, and we can use the money for the same projects that's on the table in this ordinance. So we're going to buy a predatory loan, ya'll. In about ten years, you'll figure it out. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I've been pleading and encouraging this Administration over the last few years to increase the support for cultural funds in the City of Philadelphia. I think it's very, very important to do so. I've been around this City and I've visited many, many of these institutions. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING They've absolutely been underfunded for many, many years. I'm also a Trustee of the Art Museum and I know the desperate need for repairs to their infrastructure. There's many reasons, of course, that I think that I have questions about this bill, but I also know that this is an opportunity for me to put my vote where it should be at this point. I've been preaching for more and more support for these cultural institutions, and this is the opportunity that I have to do so. I know that Councilwoman Brown mentioned that this is an investment, and I think it's a good investment, because I think that we receive probably three to four times the revenue back by these institutions. Every dollar that we spend, we get three to four back. I know that Councilman O'Neill mentioned that this is just a carrot, but this is a carrot that I have to look at, 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING because I know absolutely the desperate need for these institutions. And I think that when you look at it, people don't come into the City just to see the Liberty Bell. They come in for many, many different reasons, and many of these reasons are the cultural institutions that we have in the City. And I think it's so important that we back and we financially support them, and this is the opportunity that I find today. One of the things that I mentioned before, that all of our sports teams, whether it be the Eagles, the Flyers, the Phillies or the 76ers, they bring in about a little over four million people per year. Our cultural institutions bring in at least 11 or 11.4 million people a year, and that's very, very important, to keep this up. And I think by supporting them, this is one of the things that makes Philadelphia great, and I want to continue to see it do so. So that's why I'm supporting 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING this bill today. I think it's very, very important. I'm asking my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I will be voting yes on this bill because certainly this type of funding will help benefit the arts and culture community. It will certainly benefit neighborhood commercial corridors in my district. Those corridors are always asking, seeking. I'm a very strong supporter of neighborhood commercial corridors because these are, as Councilman Darrell Clarke said earlier, they're the life blood of a neighborhood, providing many, many young people with their first opportunity for 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING employment. I am on the Board of the Zoo and I certainly know the funding that the Zoo needs, the additional funding. So I just want to very quickly say that I will be supporting this bill and voting yes. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam President. PICA is our oversight board, and while we're not bound by their recommendations certainly, they're not just any other oversight board. They're the board that kept us --
Excuse me. Councilman, do you mind pulling the microphone.
They're the board that kept us floating and continues to have the responsibility to make sure we don't go back to where we 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING were. This is not just bad public policy. I don't think PICA gets involved with that. But I believe it's such bad fiscal policy that we may be creating another hurdle that the State will put on us, because this isn't going to go away, how bad this borrowing is. We'll need PICA's approval before we incur long-term debt. And I don't think it was ever anybody's intention of doing that, but that's my prediction. Thank you.
You're welcome. Does anyone else care to be recognized? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING
No. The no's are three; the ayes are 11, and the bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 060693.
An ordinance authorizing the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development to file an application in an amount not to exceed $5,150,000 to assist in the development of Germantown YWCA. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 14; the nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING 060696.
An ordinance amending Title 22 of The Philadelphia Code to add AFSCME District Council 47 to the list of designated payees.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Is Councilwoman Miller in the room? (No response.)
Aye. The ayes are 13; the nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We will now consider Bill No. 060701.
An ordinance authorizing the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development to file an application in an amount not to exceed $7 million to assist in the development of North Philadelphia Health Systems.
This bill having been read on two different days, the question now is shall the bill pass finally. The Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 13; the nays are zero. A majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the bill passes. We will now consider Resolution No. 060638.
A resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to repeal the "resign to run" provision, so that, effective January 1, 2008, City officers and employees may become candidates for nomination or election to public office without first resigning from their City 10/26/06 - STATED - 2ND READING office or employment.
For what purpose, Madam President? Oh, I move the adoption of the resolution. For that purpose. (Duly seconded.)
Since Resolution No. 060638 is a Charter change to the Home Rule Charter, it requires two-thirds majority. At this time, the Chief Clerk will please call the roll.
Aye. The ayes are 14; the nays are zero. Two-thirds majority of all members having voted in the affirmative, the resolution is adopted. The Chief Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 060617.
An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of a proposal set forth in a resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to repeal the "resign to run" provision.