COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 14, 1999 12:20 p.m. - - - BILL 990056 RESOLUTION NOS. 990066 AND 990388 PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chairman COUNCILWOMAN MICHAEL NUTTER, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 RESOLUTION NO. 990388
The Committee on Law and Government of the City Council of the City of Philadelphia is now in session for the purpose of conducting hearings and public meetings with respect to two items. One involves the Gas Works, and that's Resolution No. 990388. The others relate to school governance and involves both Bill No. 990056 and Resolution No. 990066. The Chair is going to call up first a public meeting because I don't believe we had a public hearing set, a public meeting on the Gas Works to consider action to be taken on the report that I submitted to the Committee on Thursday. I just want to report I was in Harrisburg on Friday and Saturday to attend the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee meeting and further the State AFL/CIO had a conference on working women and I made six appearances in connection with the bill to four different bodies of Democratic State Committee, a Regional Chairs Meeting, a County Chairs Meeting, the Philadelphia Caucus and then the State Committee Meeting itself on Saturday. And in addition, I participated in a press conference, which I noted on my way back 3 RESOLUTION NO. 990388 Philadelphia Daily News, but the Inquirer has never dared to deal in any significant way with the Gas Works issue. In each case I reported what had occurred at the hearings that we had here and made recommendations with respect to urging everybody to get their state representatives to defeat any proposal to transfer the Gas Works away from the control of the City of Philadelphia and turn it over to the State Public Utility Commission. I can tell you that the report was met with strong support at every level of both the Democratic State Committee and of the State AFL/CIO. And I'm very hopeful that when the action comes up -- nobody knows for sure. It's supposed to come up Tuesday or Wednesday of this week in some form. Nobody knows what the precise form will be, but it's supposed to be some kind of an amendment to be presented by Representative Perzel. Incidentally, 28 percent of his constituency consists of senior citizens. And if they ever knew it, I'm sure there would be overwhelming opposition because if you know, not only will that amendment be destructive of the Home Rule Charter, but it will threaten an increase in 4 RESOLUTION NO. 990388 gas rates for everybody, with particular harm to the senior citizens and to the low-income customers and it will remove the only form of governance we have over the Gas Works because the Public Utility Commission does not oversee any utilities; they merely set rates. And their whole experience is related to private companies, not municipal ownership. So for all those reasons I just touched on briefly which are all mentioned in this report, I now would request a motion with respect to the report I submitted. And what I'm asking for is a motion that the report submitted to the Committee on June 10, 1999, by the Chairman be adopted as the findings of the Committee on Resolution 990388. Do I hear motion with respect to that.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution 990388 be moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation to the City Council that it should be approved and sent on to our state delegation in Harrisburg. And I also request that there be a change in the rules so that it can be considered at the next session of City Council.
Is there a second to that 5 RESOLUTION NO. 990388 motion? (Duly seconded.)
Just a quick question on the motion. Mr. Chairman, is the proposal here that the Committee on Law and Government would make a report, I assume, on this Thursday, the 17th, to the full body of Council and that a resolution approving this report would be the subject of a vote by the full body on Thursday, the 17th; is that the intention?
That's the intention, that the bill will be reported out favorably but then be submitted to the --
That the report be submitted to the body of City Council and then sent on to the delegation in Harrisburg as the report of the whole Council.
Yes. To have it be adopted, if it's to be adopted, by the full body, but with a recommendation from this committee that it so adopt.
Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 990388 Any opposed? The ayes have it and it's so ordered and the draft report on Resolution No. 990388 will be submitted to the full Council meeting on Thursday morning for approval. The next item before the law and government committee is the bill and resolution, the numbers of which I read before with respect to the school governance issue. And at this stage, because there are three witnesses, I'm going say that we're going recess the law committee meeting and go into a public hearing on these 2 matters. - - - 7 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 14, 1999 12:20 p.m. - - - BILL NO. 990056 - an Ordinance providing for the submission tot he qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to the method of selection and term of office of members of the Board of Education, including provisions relating the Educational Nominating Panel, as approved by Resolution of the City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 990066 - A Resolution proposing an amendment to the Educational supplement to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the method of selection and term f office of members of the Board of Education, including provisions relating the Educational Nominating Panel, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chairman COUNCILWOMAN MICHAEL NUTTER, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 8 I N D E X BILL NOS. 990056 and 990066: KAY MC KENNA, League of Women Voters -------- 5 LORRAINE BRILL ------------------------------ 17 6 LEON WILLIAMS, VOTE ------------------------- 35 7 PHYLLIS FORD -------------------------------- 38 8 9 - - - 9 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066
Well, that's what I thought we'd do. Do you have any other suggestion?
Mr. Chairman, would not that be, Mr. Chairman, while we have the public hearing?
Yes. We're in the public hearing now. We were in a public meeting for the purpose of just dealing with the report on the Gas Works.
The first witness is Ms. McKenna of the League of Women Voters. Would you be kind enough to step forward. Please speak directly in the microphone, keeping it as close as possible to you and identify yourself for record.
Thank you for inviting us to testify. I'm Kay McKenna, first vice president of the League of Women Voters of Philadelphia.
We're very pleased that 10 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 you're here to present your views.
The League of Women Voters of Philadelphia believe that the proposal to permit the Mayor to appoint all the members of the Board at one time is a dramatic shift in the power in an already strong Mayor system of government. A great deal more time and attention needs to be given to discussion by the proponents of this plan as to how these changes will improve teacher-to-student ratio or produce adequate and equitable funding for the District from the State. We don't mean to imply that the Board of Education has a perfectly satisfactory oversight arrangement with the School District. However, we do believe that both the system of an appointed board and the staggering of appointments were designed to enable the Board to be independently dedicated to the Administration of the District, and that independence shouldn't be given up lightly. Thank you very much. This testimony was prepared with the acceptance of Barbara Dietrich, President, and written by myself.
Thank you. Are there any questions? Councilman Nutter. 11 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 I'd ask you to resume your seat so that questions can be directed toward you and feel free to answer them. Councilman Nutter. And the statement that you have, you can give it to the Sergeant-at-arms. He will see that we all get it.
Ms. McKenna, thank you for coming in. I know you've been following this issue. What you raise in your testimony that I heard, and I don't have your testimony in front of me, but I made two quick notes. You said that there needed to be more discussion to see how this particular proposal would affect teacher/student ratio or adequate funding issues? Is that what you said in your testimony?
Yes, adequate and equitable funding for the District. I use these two items as examples of widely agreed upon problems that the School District has had for a long time. And I do feel that the proponents of the plan need to demonstrate how this difference in the appointment process will change things.
Well, let me ask you 12 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 this question: Do you think that the current process does anything with regard to teacher/student ratio or adequate funding?
I think currently the District has not taken all the steps it might take to achieve that end. For instance, joining with the other districts in the State that are inadequately and inequitably funded. Perhaps over 200 --
I know you joined the lawsuit. But to lobby for more funding in concert with the other districts instead of alone might make a difference. I just offer that as an example; I don't offer myself as an expert.
I understand. The reason I ask the question is because primarily this particular proposal on its face really does not have anything to do with teacher/student ratios, adequate funding, or anything else. It merely has to do with the governance structure of how people get on and when they get on the Board of Education and who they are responsible to.
I understand that. 13 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066
I said that at the first hearing, and I want the record to be crystal clear about what it is and what it is not.
I understand, Councilman. I just want to know how this change will help improve the school.
Let me respond to that. I think what the change does is that it immediately and squarely places the responsibility on the Mayor. The Mayor presently has to appoint people to the School Board, but it removes the excuse that some mayors have used in the past that Board members who are on the Board when that particular mayor came into office were not Board members that that individual mayor had appointed. That they were appointed by a previous mayor, they were not accountable to the current mayor, and they had staggered and fixed terms such that you have to get reelected as Mayor somewhere in your sixth or seventh year is a time at which you have a majority of Board members that you as Mayor have appointed to the Board to be able to carry forward your particular plan. Now, as you know, the mayors have a 14 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 two-term limit. So generally, you're not embarking on many new, bold, and exciting initiatives in about year six or seven with regard to public education. So what this proposal does is establish on Day One that not only do you have the power and authority to appoint Board members, but you no longer have the opportunity to blame somebody else's Board members for standing in the way of your proposals or your ideas on what public education is because you appointed them shortly after you came into office. As the case happens in most places, and it's certainly the case even for the Councilmembers, when we come into office we generally appoint our own staffs. We want them to be accountable to us, loyal to us, and responsible to us. There's little of the notion of holding over someone else's people who were loyal to someone else and appointed by someone else. So this is purely governance and management issues.
What new initiatives, Councilman, will such Board be able to embark on?
I think the Board, again, carrying out the Board's responsibility from 15 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 a public policy stand point or an education policy stand point will seek certainly additional advice and direction from the Mayor that supported them to get on the Board. And the Mayor should immediately take greater responsibility for what goes on in public education. All of the people who go to public school are also citizens of Philadelphia, more often times than not they are voters in Philadelphia but for many years have felt mayors have been allowed to escape general responsibility for what goes on in public education versus making sure that the trash gets picked up, the libraries are open, or that the rec centers are functioning in a proper fashion. There's lack of straight accountability of the current system that has the Mayor appointing board members and leaving that system to its own designs, the Council only voting for tax re-atherization and the Board being left to try to figure out how to run the place with no additional dollars certainly coming from the City and as we all point to Harrisburg. This will not -- I try not to over-sell anything that I put forward. This will not cure 16 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 cancer. It will not make sure that everyone scores a 1400 on their SATs. But if students are not performing well, I believe as a result of this particular proposal, and most people who have studied this issue even longer than I have generally agree, that if someone can be held accountable directly for what goes on in public education, and in this particular case the proposal has the Mayor as the primary person responsible for what goes on in public education. If students aren't performing at the level we would like them to, you at least know who to go to. Presently, you can be sent to at least easily one of three places. You can either go to the 2nd floor, the 4th floor, or 21st and the Parkway. Everyone has some level of responsibility, but no one is ultimately held accountable for what goes on in public education. That's my view. So I don't want to over-sell what this is about. It is a change in the structure of how people get on the Board, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, I understand your explanation. I'm still having trouble connecting the capacity of the Mayor to change with his own Board to change these long identified problems of 17 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 teacher/student ratio and funding. I don't see how he's going to have a better capacity then he has right now in informal cooperation with the School Board. I look forward to following the issue and I hope those answers are revealed. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other members of the Committee? Lorraine Brill.
I am Lorraine Brill. I have copies of my statement, if the Sergeant-at-arms would distribute it, please. I testified on April 16, 1999, at the first public hearing on bills 990056 and 990066. I have attached a copy of my original testimony to today's statement and refer you to my April 16, 1999 testimony for more background information. I was opposed to both bills at that time I and continue to oppose the recommended changes to Article XII, Public Education of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter as delineated in Bills 990056 and 990066. These proposed changes will not benefit the students and the educational system and could destroy what has worked well under the current system. We continue to be concerned about the lack 18 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 of publicity prior to these hearings and stress the need for a more open process such as it city-wide meetings. Let me restate several important points made in my earlier statement. One of the key elements under the current charter is that of staggered terms. This is necessary so that the experience of current School Board members would help to educate new Board members and maintain continuity. Another important element is that members may be removed as provided by law. In other words, they can only be removed for cause or not reappointed. We do not want Board members to serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. We want the Board members to feel free to make difficult decisions benefiting the School District without fear of political interference or retribution. Over the years since Article XII has been in effect, the process for selection and terms of School Board members has worked well. Members of the Board receive no salary and volunteer their own time to serve. People who have served on the School Board have worked diligently to improve and sustain 19 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 our schools. It will be difficult to get qualified and dedicated volunteers to serve if there is a new Board every four years who could be tossed out at any time. Currently, Article XII allows the Mayor to appoint an Educational Nominating Panel of 8 members; 9 are designated representatives of varying 9 groups to allow for a broad-based panel, and 4 10 others are appointed at-large. City Councilmembers 11 could be appointed to the at-large seats if the 12 Mayor so wishes, thereby, giving City Council a 13 direct voice in the process. Since the Mayor can also reject the first set of nominees and ask for new names, he really can get anyone he wants as a member of the School Board. The Mayor already has a great deal of power under the current school charter. We are concerned that the proposed changes in Bill 990066 and its companion Bill 990056 will cause many unanticipated problems and certainly will not improve the educational system. Therefore, we urge the Committee on Law Government to reject both bills. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any 20 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 questions of the witness?
Ms. Brill, thank you, again, for your testimony. I believe that subsequent to the testimony, there will be a fair amount of discussion about the issue of whether Board members serve at the pleasure of the Mayor or, as you articulate, the current provision allows removal only as provided by law. A number of Councilmembers are concerned about that particular issue and we'll have some discussion about that. Hopefully, we'll be able to address that concern that you've raised. Beyond that, though, I mean, basically your testimony both in April and in June is that the system is fine the way it is and that we should just continue with it; is that what you're saying?
The system is workable. I have a lot of concerns, as you just spoke about, in that you want the Mayor to have a lot of power, like people would call him up and say "do this" or "do that." Suppose you get a Mayor that's not as interested in the school system or really doesn't 21 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 care? And if that happens, we're stuck with a Mayor for four years, and he can do a lot of damage in four years. So, you know, we won't always get the perfect person. Whereas with the School Board, as I said, my experience has been I've gone to School Board meetings, we've testified, we've worked on a cluster system. I've served on principal selection committees. The system is workable. If you have a problem, it's much better now than it used to be years ago. People do respond. And if Council people have a problem, they can an always call the Superintendent or someone on the School Board. They do respond. There were hearings just recently on the School Board budget. No one testified. I mean, nobody from City Council or the Mayor's Office. Maybe they were satisfied with it. But if you were so concerned about the School Board budget, there should have been someone reviewing it. There should have been people out there testifying. So it shows me that you want power, but you don't follow through on what you're saying.
Well, Mrs. Brill, I do have to disagree slightly with you. I'm so much 22 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 interested in -- certainly not particularly interested in power, either for myself -- my colleagues certainly can speak for themselves. But generally I think what we're interested in is accountability. And I think as you well know, before the School Board has their budget hearing, we spend a fair amount of time with the School Board over here. So I think for the most part whatever it is that they said at their own budget hearing, more than likely we heard it here, if not more, in our setting because as you know the board is here usually, I believe, sometime in either March or April for extensive hearings around their budget, over which we have no control, as you know.
Well, as I said in my testimony, it's an idea but I think it will do more harm than good and that's why we continue to oppose it.
Ms. Brill, on the question of the budget, I suppose the reason Councilmembers don't go to the Board to testify when the Board holds its hearing is that under the Home 23 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 Rule Charter in the Educational Supplement the Board has to come here to get its approval. And we're in a better position, we feel, to get the answers we want when we're here meeting as a Council and the Board has to justify its budget to us. We're more effective, we believe, in asking questions here because we can't control what the Board does except that when the budget comes to us we do not have to approve the budget in the form the Board gives us. That's the reason I think that Councilmembers, it wouldn't occur to us to go to the Board on the budget because the Board's going to come to us. But there are other areas that you raised that are indeed troublesome. The point the witness from the League of Women Voters made about there being a strong Mayor form of government, I believe concerns on that issue are well-grounded. I'm not sure that I'm prepared to support more power to the Mayor's Office. Second, if I ever were so inclined, I have a lot of other concerns. First, currently, I do not believe that Council generally exercises the power and authority it has now. From time to time Councilmembers make statements that, to me, borders 24 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 on foolish to say that we have no right to raise any questions about the Board's action and cite the Educational Supplement to the Home Rule Charter as basis. I've read and reread many, many times, and I find nothing in the Educational Supplement to the Home Rule Charter that supports that notion. If we have a responsibility to pass on a budget, seems to me we have the responsibility to go into every phase of that budget. Otherwise, I don't know why we have the power to pass on the budget. And when you go into budget matters, you inevitably get involved in policy matters. To say that you can't discuss policy, I just can't even begin to understand what people mean. How do you decide whether you're going to approve an item in the budget if you don't get involved in what the policy is that supports whatever activity you're asked to fund? So I think we have lots of authority now. I feel that the introduction of this bill and the resolution by Councilman Nutter has raised visibility of the issue. Ever since I first entered Council over 30 years ago it always seemed to me that the school system was at the bottom of Council's concerns and the bottom of the Mayor's 25 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 concerns. And I think I understood why. The Mayor, particularly, since we're in the strong Mayor form of government, the Mayor always had other uses for the money. And if he got too deeply into the School District, he might conclude as almost everybody has that's ever studied subject, that the appropriation both at the state and at the city levels have been inadequate to permit the school system to function at the level it ought to function. It's not that money is the only thing needed; there are lots of other things needed, but money is a very important component because it pays the salaries of people who ought to be doing other things. So that it seems to me that the argument that we don't have the power doesn't exist. And second, whatever we did with the appointing power to the School Board or the removal power would, in my judgement, not absolve this City Council of full responsibility what happens in the school system. If we say that the most important thing before us is the question of the education of our children in the City and the development from an economic point of view of a work force, from a humanitarian point of view the development of one's abilities to the highest level possible, then we've BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 got to be involved.
And everything else that we do in this City ought to be subordinate to the major goal of the school system. Now, I have the same question you have. And then I have something else that I've been discussing privately with the author of the sponsor of the bill and the resolution. Government is a matter of compromise between a whole lot of different groupings, citizens, the legislative body, and the Mayor. Every Mayor wants full power for everything. Every Mayor if he or she were in office and had their way would choose to do things by executive order, because by executive order you close the door nobody's in the room with you except those you choose to have, if you choose to have anybody. You don't have to consult the public. There's no requirement of a public notice or a public hearing before the Mayor acts. The Mayor acts completely on his or her own. When something comes before Council, it makes it a public matter because Council does not have the power particularly with respect to a bill, an ordinance, to hold private meetings. We have to advertise whatever it is we do. For example, we 27 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 could not adopt this bill and resolution quietly like a Mayor could appoint somebody quietly. We can't do that; we have to advertise it, notify the citizens of Philadelphia and be open to a public hearing. Now, we often have disagreements with the Mayor. It's natural. People see things from a different viewpoint, and legislators see differently than an executive does, I believe, because we're open to the public much more than a mayor is. Mayors are always busy cutting ribbons, going around to business affairs, while Councilmembers, because maybe they're not considered so important, spend their time out in the community with people learning what's going on in this City. And I believe that Council is much more responsive than the Mayor to the needs of folks in a community. And so we may have different views as to what the City budget ought to contain. Every Mayor is going to want to have the power that this bill suggests and authorizes. It seems to me that when a new mayor comes in, we don't know who it will be for sure. Many people -- as a democrat, I feel very confident 28 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 it will be John street. But I'm sure that many republicans and maybe many democrats, too, may feel confident that it's Sam Katz. But without getting involved in politics, I'm very disturbed by one of the points you made: Suppose we get a mayor who is not interested in the public school system. I think it is possible in this election that by the standards I use in determining interest in school system that it is possible that we may have a Mayor who is not interested in the public school system because one of the candidates speaks strongly and openly about vouchers and wanting to expand the voucher system. And if that takes place, then I think that is, to me at least, destructive of the public school system. I would not want that Mayor to have that authority because I would like to slow down that Mayor until the public polls, as I understand it to be has its impact on the Mayor. And secondly, I think in government there's give and take. If the Mayor is to get increased power, then I think it's important that Council find a way to get increased responsibility with respect to the schools and other areas. And I 29 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 think we ought to sit down with whoever the next Mayor is and decide how we're going to share that responsibility for the school system and for other parts of the government. But maybe the school system ought to be the number one. So just stating the issues that you and the representative of the League of Women Voters have I think raise very important issues. And I respectfully -- I'm delighted that Councilman Nutter has brought this to the floor, but I don't think it's a routine question of shouldn't we make the Mayor more responsible.
I think it's a question of how we do it and how do we make sure that the Council is also responsible. It isn't that the Mayor alone should of the responsibility, I think the whole Council must have it. So I just mention that, if you wanted to have any comment.
Yes. I believe there are some other people waiting to testify, too. Ms. McKenna and I are not the only two people here. But as I have said, I don't think we should be rushing these bills through. I don't think it should go on the ballot in November. As you said, this requires 30 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 a great deal of discussion and thought and input from people all over the City. We would hope that if you're going to continue to discuss it, wait until the new Administration comes in, the new Council comes in, and then have maybe city-wide meetings for input on this issue and see what people think and how they feel. But I don't think we should be rushing it to a ballot question in November.
Thank you, Ms. Brill. I feel it important, though, to state for the record on that narrow point about rushing, Mr. Chairman, the bill and the resolution were introduced on February 4, 1999. The co-sponsors are myself, Council President, Councilman Mariano, Ortiz, Kenney, DiCicco, and O'Neill. There was a public hearing as required by our rules and the City Charter two months later in April. The witnesses at that particular hearing were Mayor Rendell, mayoral candidates Mr. Street, Mr. White, Mr. Evans, two Mayoral candidates sent in letters, Mr. Katz, and Ms. Fernandez. Also in person to testify was 31 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 Representative Perzel, State Senator Schwartz, the representative from the Chamber of Commerce, the representative from the Greater Philadelphia First, the Representative from the Committee of 70, the Board President sent a letter, representatives from PCCY, and Parents United for Better Schools. We're now having a hearing on June 14th. I believe that is 4 months after the introduction. And the proposal is to have a ballot question in November of 1999. I believe that that is nine months after introduction. I think, Mr. Chairman, the record should at least be clear that unlike some other legislation, albeit of lesser importance that may be before this Committee or any other committee, the charge that this is rushing a piece of legislation, given what I've laid out, is not particularly correct. It normally does not take nine months from start to finish to get a bill passed through City Council. And full opportunity for public hearings, public meetings, and public discussion certainly between now and November is available to all citizens. But I think, Mr. Chairman, we do believe at some point in time the people should have an 32 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 opportunity to speak and to express their views as they are guaranteed, in this particular case, by a ballot question. I don't think that there will be a person in Philadelphia who will not be aware of this particular question as people are also looking at mayoral candidates, judicial candidates, councilmen-at-large, and City Council candidates. There certainly will be a fewer names on the November ballot than there were in the primary. So I at least want to make it clear that there is no 12 effort here whatsoever to rush something. This is an issue that has been discussed and actively before the public at some level, I believe, since 1981 when the State Legislature attempted to make some of the very same changes that are proposed here today. My recommendation is that that effort failed, I believe, by one vote. This is not a new issue, Mr. Chairman, it is a new effort to raise an old issue, if anything. Thank you very much.
I agree with the Councilman that there's no element of rushing, but I think that it's difficult to confine to specific time limit what's necessary to have public discussion. I think there has been some form of 33 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 public discussion by leadership elements, but I would like to see this subject become something that the communities as a whole discuss, not just leadership elements. Leadership elements sometimes represent -- more often not they do represent the views of the community, but frequently they don't. And on a subject as important as this, my feeling is that while I have to agree there's no rushing here, I still believe there isn't enough time. I would like to see this become the subject matter, not with a vote impending that gives you a automatic date when discussion ends and a vote takes place. It's my feeling this matter is not yet ready to be presented to the voters for a vote because if it is presented early, then those of us who are not sure have to make a quick decision. And my quick decision would be to oppose this bill and the resolution, to oppose the Charter amendment because I'm not convinced as of now that it's the right direction to go. And that's the reason I've been having discussions with the Chairman urging that there been more time. People in Philadelphia have a real sensitivity to Charter changes. They've 34 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 demonstrated it many times. In 1994, the Council with two exceptions, maybe three exceptions, and the Mayor and a Charter Commission and every big business community I know of supported Charter change, a whole series of them. And their recommendation at the height of the Rendell popularity were rejected by the people of Philadelphia by a 7 to 1 vote. It's something that appeared. It was announced the next day and then disappeared from the newspapers and from the media because nobody could figure out how come this proposal was rejected by that vote. And I can tell you why, because the people of Philadelphia treasure their are Charter. If there are responsible people saying that it's a wrong thing to do, people seem especially attuned to that message. I would love to see this matter discussed fully until most people feel that they have arrived at a decision, and that's the point at which I'd like to see a decision. But we're not through the hearing yet and maybe views will change as we go through. May I call the next witness I have as Leon Williams. 35 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 As far as I know, Mr. Williams is the last witness. Is there anybody else who is be heard? Yes, there's another witness. Okay, thank you. You will be heard. Mr. Williams, welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Leon A. Williams. I'm the Chairperson of Voters Organized Toward Education. " We are in favor of using our political power at the polls to force the kind of changes in the public education system that we want, and that means going after people who represent us that don't represent our children in the public schools. And I took a look at your bill 17 and resolution, and I have really no real problems -- we don't support an appointed School Board whatsoever. There are 501 school districts in Pennsylvania, and as you know, Philadelphia is the only one that doesn't elect the School Board. We want an elected School Board. And I know that that's really a matter for the State Legislature, I know that. But I believe that if the City Council has been hearing the voices of the people, then the 36 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 City Council should know that there's a lot of people out there in the community who agree with me, especially the African-American community which represent 64 percent of the student body, they want an elected School Board. I think the City Council can do the right amount of negotiations or whatever with the State Legislature to bring about whatever enabling legislation so we can elect our School Board. " Now, even under this bill, we have to depend the Mayor and the City Council to give us a School Board member. As long as I've been in Philadelphia, about 50 years, I've never once seen a School Board member come out to the community, except for Floyd Austin, to talk to the people about what's going in the schools, and I don't think that will change under this bill. Even though apparently it calls for the appointments to be ratified by the 37 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 City Council, I still don't think it goes far enough to include the people. Now, as I look at the history of the supplement to the Charter in 1965, I believe it was, there was a sort of dispute as to whether or not to give the Mayor all this authority or to give it to the people in terms of allowing them to elect the board. And I think they reached a compromise which placed in this current City Charter. It calls for the election of School Board members if the enabling legislation comes from Harrisburg. I think that whatever you do, I think it should still concern people wanting to have their School Board members elected. In other words, since that was the issue in 1965, if you want to change it now, I think it should be the issue again now. So the question would be should we go with this bill or should we look towards moving towards an elected School Board. Again, even though you can't do anything yourself, I think you all have friends in Harrisburg, you all have friends in the democratic party and even the republican party. Frank Rizzo, I'm pretty sure that we could depend on you. Go up to Harrisburg, lobby for us to give us the same 38 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 right as every other school district in Pennsylvania has. And 90 percent of the school districts in the country are elected. And I've heard all the arguments: We shouldn't elect a school board because it would be too politicized. Well, I say we shouldn't elect the City Council for the same reason. We shouldn't elect the School Board because that would give the School Board to power to raise taxes. Well, the City Council has the power raise taxes. Any elected body has the authority with proper legislation to raise taxes. I don't see that those two arguments as being convincing arguments. I think this is a democracy, and I think that it's really undemocratic to have a system where we have to wait for the Mayor or City Council, while every other school district in the State and most in the country elect their board. So we are going to be pushing for an elected School Board in Harrisburg and we hope we can get the help of the City Council. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Williams. Any questions? Thank you very much. The person in the rear.
Good afternoon. My name is 39 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 Phyllis Ford. I served on the Education Nominating Committee a few years ago. I have been a home and school president and co-chair of Parents Union and I was a teacher, but I'm here as a private citizen. I am opposed to the passage of these two bills 990556 and 990066. I think it would set a dangerous precedent. And the sticking point is the Mayor. I have no problems with the publicity about the bill. I think a new Board each time would reflect completely the interest or lack of interest or change of focus in of the new Mayor, subjecting the children and staff of the schools too radically to every whiff of change with every new wave of interest of the Mayor or lack of interest. Our children, my grandchildren who are in the schools deserve better than that. The current Mayor should, of course, have some say, and he does, about the School Board. And I actually favor the staggered term. I feel that the interest of the Mayor and of the Administration could best be served by making all Board members renewable on the present staggered term on a rotating basis, the way the Senate operates. That would provide the continuity that I 40 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 feel the school system, the School District children, I mean, deserve. My focus is always them since it's my children and grandchildren who go through the schools. I don't think the Mayor needs additional power in that sense to radically change the School Board instantly as soon as he comes in. Thank you. I think that's -- I'm summarizing pretty much what has been said, so I think that's it.
Thank you. Are there any questions? If not, thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses to be heard? If not, I will at this point ask that we have a brief caucus. (Committee in caucus.)
The Committee on Law and Government will resume. The hearing will continue for the purpose of having amendments offered by the Councilman Nutter. He is the chief sponsor of the bill and if --
Well, the Committee can 41 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 decide. There may be amendments that everybody's in agreement on and then would be voted on. If it's not going to be voted on today, the Committee decided that it will recess until Wednesday at 3 o'clock. The purpose of that recess is that if a decision is made by the Committee to recommend to the Council adoption of the bill in its present form or as amended, it will be an opportunity for it to be taken up on Thursday with the rules suspension so it can be acted on finally on the 24th of June. There are just two more sessions of City Council; one is the 17th, and the bill to be acted on before Council recesses to be at least be on First Reading Calendar by this Thursday. We don't know whether any of the amendments, whether the Committee will be ready to act on the amendments today or not. If there any amendments that are prepared to act on, they will act on it. The fact that they act favorable on an amendment should be not construed as a vote on the bill. A member of a committee can feel that an amendment is desirable amendment and still feel Friday to vote against the bill as a whole. I just want to make that clear. There's no decision being 42 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 made today by the Committee on the bill in either its present form or in any amended form that may be adopted. If there's anyone who has testified who will have thoughts that they want to express about any of these amendments, they will have opportunity before there's any vote by the Committee on any of the amendments. Since you're hearing it for the first time, we want you to have the opportunity to be heard if you desire to be heard on any of the amendments. And so when we call up each amendment, I'm going to ask is there anyone audience wants to be heard in any of the amendments. Do we have copies? Could they be given to the people who testified?
I think we have a few, Councilman Cohen. I have certainly at least a couple of them and we can additionals made.
Could they, so they can be followed by the people who took the trouble to be here. Some are here, I think, for at least the second time.
In accordance with 43 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 the Chair's direction, I'm going to read these all as proposed amendments. They are numbered so that we can keep track of them. Is that okay?
Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Resolution 990066, parenthetically, this is clarifying that a public hearing shall be a part of Council's advice and consent process. The amendment would be following the phrase "with the advice and consent of a majority of members of the Council," the new language would be "following a public hearing on each proposed appointee." So in evidence this amendment would leave this particular section, Section 12-201 to read: "Members of the Board; Method of Selection. There shall be nine members of the Board of Education who shall be appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of a majority of members of the Council following a public hearing on each proposed appointee, from lists of names submitted to him by the Educational Nominating Panel, or, if enabling legislation is enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth, elected on a non-partisan basis by the qualified voters of the 44 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 city, all as more fully set forth in later sections of this Chapter."
Proposed amendment No. 1(A) to Resolution No. 990066, which is striking the "advice and consent" of Council for Board Members. This is an alternative to the amendment that I read earlier which is Amendment No. 1. This amendment would strike the comma after the word "Mayor" in the second line and the words "with the advice and consent of a majority of members of the council." Therefore, this proposed amendment would leave this section to read: "Section 12-201. Members of the Board; Method of Selection. There shall be nine members of the Board of Education who shall be appointed by the Mayor from lists of names submitted to him by the Educational Nominating Panel, or, if enabling legislation is enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth, elected on a non-partisan basis by the qualified voters of the city, all as more fully set forth in later sections of this Chapter." 45 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066
The question I have is, this is different from which exists now?
Actually, what I was getting ready to add, Mr. Chairman, by the striking of the language that I mentioned, this would leave Section 12-201 as it currently reads in the Educational Supplement to the Home Rule Charter. Striking of that language would leave that section 10 as the status quo as it exists today.
Again, this is a question. If the committee chose this alternative, we would just eliminate Amendment No. 1 because you're saying the language currently exists in the Educational Supplement; is that right?
If the Committee adopted this particular amendment, proposed Amendment 1(A), the Committee, in essence, would be leaving the section as it is in the Educational Supplement the way it is today.
That the Mayor would make appointments without any role played by City Council?
This would not deal with 46 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 when he makes them; it just deals with whenever he makes them, he alone would accept responsibility for the appointment and the appointment would be completed upon the nomination by the Mayor.
I think I understand that. I will ask later if there are any questions from people who have testified. We will hear them.
Proposed Amendment No. 2 to Resolution No. 990066. This deals with the issues of members serving at the pleasure of the mayor. It adds a new provision requiring written notice prior to removal of board members. The proposed amendment would amend Section 12-204 and it would read in its entirety with the amendment: "Section 12-204. Removal of Members of the Board. " The new language of the proposed amendment would read: "Before removing any appointed member from the Board, the Mayor shall, at least ten (10) days before the date of removal, 47 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 provide written notice to the Board member, with copies to the President of City Council and the Chief Clerk of city Council, that the Mayor intends to remove the member from the Board. " Proposed Amendment No. 2(A) to Resolution 990066. This will provide that members may be removed only for cause. The proposed amendments would be to Section 12-204, and with the amendments, the section 17 would read: Section 12-204. Removal of Members of the Board. " So this amendment provides for 48 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 circumstance only of cause that the Mayor would be able to remove board members, would have to provide notice to the member, and an opportunity for that person to be heard prior to removal. Proposed Amendment No. 3 to Resolution 7 990066. This amendment provides that Board members may serve a maximum of 12 years. "Section 12-202. Eligibility for Board Membership: Members of the Board of Education shall be registered voters of the City. " This proposed amendment would deal with the issue of presently the bill calls for people being able to serve two full four-year terms which only allows their total service to be eight years. Presently Board members can serve two full terms, but the length of their terms are six years which allows for a total of 12 years of opportunity to serve on the Board of Education. This proposed amendment would expand the amount of time that a person would be able to serve from two terms to three terms, but the total amount of service would 49 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 be equal to the amount of service allowed presently. The other issue dealing with this amendment is that it allows for some level of continuity because Board members would not have to automatically rotate off at the eight-year mark when the Mayor that appointed them left, but that the new Mayor would have an opportunity to capture some of the previous talent that had served on the Board at least for one term of that mayor's term of office. Proposed Amendment No. 4 relates to additional qualifications for board members. Proposed Amendment No. 4 to resolution NO. 990066. It would amend section 12-202 and would read as follows: Section 12-202. Eligibility for Board Membership. Members of the Board of Education shall be registered voters of the City. No person shall be eligible to be appointed or elected to more than two full six-year terms. Persons who are nominated or appointed to the Board of Education should reflect the diversity of backgrounds, experience and training that is representative of the City, including but not limited to: Being the parent(s) of a current or former public school student(s); or, having training or experience in the areas of 50 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. " Proposed Amendment No. 5 to Resolution 7 No. 990066. Current members of the board may be reappointed under any changes as set forward by the proposed resolution except for those who have served 10 years or more. " And there is one proposed amendment to the Bill, Bill No. 990056. As Committee Members know, the purpose of the bill is to set a date for the ballot question and also to determine what the 51 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 actual question is.
This proposed amendment would clarify in the question that there is also proposal in the resolution to extend the length of terms of the Educational Nomination Panel members from two years to four years, to make sure that the question is as clear as possible. The proposed amendment to Bill No. " In the original question in the bill it just read, "including changes related to the Educational Nominating Panel," but at least in my opinion and possibly some others it was not clear what those direct changes would be to the Educational Nominating Panel. The only change is that the length of their terms would change from two years to four years, but I didn't feel that the 52 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 language explicitly stated what the change would be to the Educational Nominating Panel. Mr. Chairman, those represent a series of proposed amendments to at least try to deal with or respond to many of the issues that have been raised certainly by members of the public, some of whom are here today, as well as many members of the Committee. I think the Chairman laid out earlier there might be some discussion on some of these amendments. Some are obviously less either controversial or of concern than some others. Therefore, there might be an opportunity to take some action on some and hold the others until the Committee reconvenes, I think, as proposed by the Chairman on Wednesday.
Councilman Nutter, I apparently did not fully appreciate the nature of these amendments, but there are two pairs of contradictory amendments and I don't think it is the function of the Committee to pick which amendment it prefers. I think the sponsor of the bill, and that's you, ought to decide either now or Wednesday which amendments you wish to introduce. And at that point, the Committee will have an opportunity to 53 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 accept an amendment or reject it or modify the amendment in any way. I don't think the procedure would be appropriate at this time to have the Committee vote on any of these amendments. And so I'm going to suggest that you can either offer, if you feel ready to, those amendments you wish to and I would intend not to take any action on the amendments, but I would like to open the floor to any of the previous witnesses if they wish to be heard on any of these amendments. I would also state that since these amendments are just being presented, I would understand if the witnesses felt that they needed more time to express an opinion, and therefore would suggest the following procedure: When we convene Wednesday at 3 o'clock we reconvene in hearing so people can be heard on any part of the bill and the amendments and then proceed to a public meeting.
Councilman DiCicco has a hearing that has been scheduled and it's like 24 bills. We have run into a lot of his time right 54 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 now, and he just called like a half hour ago.
So you are suggesting it would be in everybody's interest to recess until --
I think if we we're going to get testimony that it will prolong it. And I don't know any how many witnesses Councilman DiCicco has called.
Would that agreeable to the witnesses to give you an opportunity to think about the amendments as well as the main subject and then to come back here Wednesday at 3 o'clock at which time we will convene in hearing format so you will be able to heard. Yes, would you come forward. To be part of the record you have to come forward and speak right into the microphone. Just announce your name again.
Kay McKenna from the League of Women Voters of Philadelphia. I'm just wanting to know if Councilman Nutter is able to make his choices immediately, not that we need to speak to those choices right now, but can he make those choices immediately ?
That seems like a fair 55 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 request. Would you be able to?
What I would say to both Ms. McKenna and the other people in the audience and to my colleagues, for the moment I'm prepared to put forward proposed amendment 2(A) that has to do with members being removed only for cause,.
Proposed amendment 3 which allows the length of service that a person could serve on the Board of Education to remain the same number of years, 12 years.
Does No. 3 maintain the language that currently exists? What's the need of an amendment if the same language would continue to exist?
The problem, Councilman, is that in another section of the bill 25 the length of the terms have been changed from six 56 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 years to four years, so two full times would only get you eight years as opposed to three full terms getting you 12.
Proposed amendment No. 4, to be honest with you, that is an amendment that came out of a series of discussions between and amongst Councilmembers about this particular issue and this was a response to some of my colleagues. As compared to some of the other amendments --
This is the point of decision. Are you going to offer it or not?
I would put it forward. I don't think it does any harm or violates any of our particular sensitivities. It can go forward. Proposed Amendment No. 5 and the proposed amendment to the actual bill which has to do with clarifying, or at least I'm using the language clarifying the question because we did change the length of the terms of the Educational 57 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 Nominating Panel members from two years to four years, but I don't believe that the first question as put forward in the bill makes it clear what the change actually is. I just think that the question on the ballot should be clear for the voters as to what is being looked at or what is being changed.
Councilman, I understand that everything in your packet beginning with 2(A) will be offered as amendments from 2(A) through 5 and you're not going to offer one 1(A) or 2.
No, I would not say that, Councilman. I would say the question I was asked in terms of immediate decision was what am I prepared to try to --
Well, we don't wish to delay you from your Council procedures. We just wanted to know what you chose to address on Wednesday so that we could be prepared to address it also. You have made that choice now and I thank you.
Why don't we hold action 58 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 until Wednesday then on your you're offering them.
They're in the record. I can't actually try to move them until we're public hearing, but I want to make sure based on the question you asked me I've not walked away from the issue that is essentially raised in 1 or 1(A), but it's also clear to me that there needs to be further discussion between and amongst Councilmembers. But all of the amendments have at least been put forward on the record. I understood your question to be which ones am I prepared immediately to say this is what I would like. The issue of No. 1 is -- I mean, they are completely at odds. One provides for Council confirmation; 1(A) provides for no council confirmation. That's an issue that is still a fluid discussion for the Councilmembers.
What I'm going to be asking you on Wednesday is for your amendments. This is the bill that you've introduced, and as in other cases, I've taken the position that whoever introduces the bill has the right to request the amendment and it's routinely approved so that the bill that's going to be considered by the Committee 59 BILL NO. 990056 and RESOLUTION NO. 990066 will be the bill as Councilman Nutter wishes to have it presented to the Committee. So the first thing I'm going to ask him on Wednesday is to make his final recommendation as of that time for the amendments so that everybody will know what we're considering at the Committee and the witnesses will know what to address.
I see. Then what you have recommended at this moment may change between Wednesday afternoon at 3:00; is that right.
Yes, Councilman Nutter would have an opportunity -- he would have that in any event. But what he has done is told us what he thinks as of now what his thinking is.
Thank you very much for doing that. We don't wish to delay you any further.
Then the Law and Government Committee will stand in recess until Wednesday, June 16th at 3 o'clock for the purpose continuing the hearing and thereafter having a public meeting. Thank you all for your patience. (Council adjourned at 2:00 p.m.) - - - 60 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 14, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public