Thank you, Madam President. I make a motion to amend Bill No. 040133 and would like to briefly speak on it. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you, Madam President. I have circulated amendments to Bill No. 040133, which I ask my colleagues to support. These amendments clarify the timing of when disclosure is to occur. The Administration indicated to me that the 90-day window, and I agree, would be problematic as 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING far as letting out a contract and then waiting for the information after the City has engaged in the contract. So instead, the amendment request will happen at the time of the signing of the contract. We are, in fact, shortening the time from 90 days to the exact date of the signing of the contract. And I respectfully request an aye from my colleagues on this amendment.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the amendment is passed. The Chief Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 040818. THE
A resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING Home Rule Charter relating to city leases, contracts, concessions and the provisions of financial assistance and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I have circulated an amendment to Resolution No. 040818. It is a technical amendment suggested by the Law Department. And in essence, it changes the word "approved" to "authorization" in a couple of places that it is listed.
Madam President, I have circulated a highly technical amendment that has been recommended by the Law Department to Resolution No. 040818 which, in essence, for Law Department purposes, changes the word "approval" to "authorization" in a couple different places throughout the resolution. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING
Okay. Are there any questions from Members? The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Councilman, much more brilliant minds than myself with legal training from the Law Department have determined that the word "authorization" is the appropriate term that is consistent with other provisions either in the Home Rule Charter or in the Philadelphia Code. And it was at their suggestion that this change is being made. It does not make a material difference in the substance of the proposed Charter change, but there is a consistency issue that they felt important.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you, Madam President. I move the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
Is this the resolution that accompanies the bill for next week?
I asked him if this is the resolution that accompanies the bill for next week, Bill 772?
Yes, Councilwoman Tasco. This is the actual proposed amendment to the Home Rule Charter which grants authorization to then have the Bill 772 or any other legislation related to contracts. So, yes, the two do go together. But I need the amendment on the one to accommodate the interest of the Law Department.
You're welcome. It has been moved and seconded that the amendments proposed by Councilman Nutter regarding Resolution 040818 be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Well, while you're thinking, we'll continue on with the roll call. THE
Aye. Councilman Cohen, have you made up your mind?
The nays are 5, the ayes are 11. The amendment has been adopted. The Chief Clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 040772. THE
An ordinance amending Title 17 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Contracts and Procurement," by adding provisions regulating the process by 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING which the City awards professional service contracts and other noncompetitively bid contracts and prohibiting persons from entering into such contracts or from receiving city financial assistance if they are or certain related parties have made certain contributions to elected city officers or candidates for city offices, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, amendments to Bill 040772 have been circulated. This has also been a topic of great discussion. I just briefly want to add to the record that the purpose of these amendments is to provide clarification to a variety of places in the legislation as well as ensure that there are no unintended consequences in an effort to move forward this particular issue or provide for a legitimate process for the award of no-bid contracts. I appreciate the many conversations 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING that I've had with my colleagues in expressing concern about our social service network which is critical to the City's operation. Those issues, I believe, have been addressed and resolved. As well as, certainly, no intention to impact our many good non-profit organizations that contract with the City or have high profile, very actively involved board members and that the activities, political or otherwise, of those board members would have no affect on the operations of the non-profit organizations. Those are the major proposed amendments. And I would at least again ask for passage of these amendments to put the bill in what I believe, and many others, will be its best form. We can obviously have a debate about the particulars of that, but so that there's no confusion in lack of clarity on what the bill does and what the bill doesn't do, I would at least ask for consideration for the approval of the amendments, recognizing that that does not necessarily indicate how Members would vote. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING In the earlier session today, notwithstanding good conversation between myself and Councilman Mariano in the Committee of the Whole, he certainly knows how I feel about his particular measure, but we conducted ourselves in a very civil fashion. I did support his amendments, because I think he has a right to have his legislation in the form that he would like, and still reserve the right as a Member of Council to take subsequent action on the amended bill or resolution. So I would only ask for the same consideration in this particular matter. So I move the adoption of these amendments to Bill 040772. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. I want the record to be very clear why I will be voting no on these amendments. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING I do think my colleague has done a great job in trying to address the whole issue of pay-to-play, and I agree wholeheartedly that we need to address this issue. However, I have some serious concerns about the way that we have proceeded in this fashion to address those issues. Yes, he did respond to some of the concerns I raised, and there were additional concerns that were raised. I think we need to curb the pay-to-play culture in this City. I don't believe elected officials get up in the morning and decide they're coming downtown to defraud the public. Most of us get elected because we want to do something good for the community. And I wholeheartedly support, I want the record to show, that we as a City Council have to do something about pay-to-play. I believe if I support the amendments, it sends a mixed signal how I feel about the legislation, so that's why I will be voting no on the amendment and will have further comment about legislation at the appropriate time. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING
Thank you. It has been moved seconded that the amendments proposed by Councilman Nutter -
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I also, like my colleague Councilwoman Tasco, would like to go on the record indicating my non-support for this particular amendment in this particular bill. I also would like to commend Councilman Nutter who has been working on this for some time. He and I have had substantial conversations over the last couple of weeks. I am concerned about the number of amendments on this particular issue, the number of different positions on this particular issue, the misunderstanding by a number of people, individuals and organizations about this particular issue. Because of that, I cannot 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING support these amendments of this bill at this time. But I, on the record, clearly want people to understand that I am for substantive ethics reform. I don't think, frankly speaking, this bill goes far enough in some issues or even reference some issues that I think should be on the table. While I can't vote for this particular amendment and this particular bill, I want for the record to understand that I will, in fact, look to support something that addresses the problem that we have in the City of Philadelphia. And the first thing we need to do is identify the problem and then respond to the problem. So I just want to make that on the record, that while I am for ethics reform, this particular bill at this particular time is just not something that I can be supportive of.
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING Madam President. These proceedings today clearly remind me of the discussion and the debate we had during tax reform. All of us were at a place where we all agreed that our City should engage in tax reform. The prevailing question was, how deep should be the tax cuts. Most of us in this legislative body clearly believe there's a need for ethics reform. The question is how far or overreaching should we move to crafting ethics legislation. So I will accept the work of Councilman Michael Nutter and honor his request to move these amendments forward since they, as he has said, move us in the direction of a better bill. My support of the amendments today should not reflect or infer that I will be supporting the bill next week. If these amendments move us to a better bill, I support that. Should we discover over the next seven days that there are still concerns and issues raised in the bill that have not adequately been satisfied, then next week there may be indeed a different decision. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Just from my perspective, I would like the record to reflect I don't believe we're voting on ethics reform in Bill 772. This is a bill to reform the way in which the City of Philadelphia awards no-bid contracts. The ethics legislation is still in Committee, will be discussed and determined at a future date. But in some ways this ethics reform and contract reform has gotten tangled up together, and that should not be the case. Our problem -- and I think Councilman Nutter has worked hard to address the problem -- is there was no transparent process for the award of professional services and no-bid contracts. This Bill 772, as amended, does not take the power away from any Mayor. The Mayor still has the ability to award the contract. But the disclosure of 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING campaign contributions and consultant hirings and other things are necessary for people to believe that this is a fair process. And that's all it is. It doesn't change anything. When it comes down to the three most competent bidders for bond counsel, the Mayor still has the ability, any mayor, has the ability to select that individual. But the public will have the information disclosed to them. This is not ethics reform. This is contract award reform, and I think it's sorely needed. So I want the record to reflect that from my perspective. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the last statement that my good friend and colleague Councilman Kenney brings my point to light. People think we're doing ethics reform. And I'm not clear that this is truly ethics reform. So that's one of the reasons why I'm extremely concerned about voting for this when 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING the impression is that we're doing one thing, and in some folks estimation, as Councilman Kenney just indicated, that's not what we're doing. So I just want to again say that we need to look at this, have a broad base of people looking at this, particularly involving all of the various agencies that will be affected and sit down and craft something that truly gets us to where we need to get. So I just wanted to respond to that.
Thank you. The Chair recognize Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I will be supporting this amendment as well as the legislation next week and actually salute Councilman Nutter for being willing to amend his legislation again to address a number of concerns that were out there. I believe, as many people have said, that this process is a long time in coming, and people are further delaying it. It's my belief that there will never be perfect legislation because if there was 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING perfect legislation on the books, there would be no need for us to be here. We constantly amend the Code and add things to the Code, and that can be done in a process that should only take a month or two or a few months or as long as it needs to take. But we can even amend this legislation moving forward. My problem with some of the comments that are made, one, if we were going to vote on a full package of ethics reform proposals, we would still be voting bill by bill. We would never be taking a vote on all the bills at one time. And that's all we're doing right now is voting on it bill by bill, and this is the only bill to be considered right now to be amended and the only bill to be considered on final consideration next week. As to confusion out there by certain organizations, I don't believe it's that much confusion or that much complication in seeing why they take the positions they take. And this is not meant to be overly negative, but the Chamber of Commerce takes a position against this bill before it was amended 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING because they are a non-profit organization that receives money from the City in a no-bid fashion for Select Greater Philadelphia. They, of course, have board members that give campaign contributions. They would have to take a position against this bill before it was amended because essentially it was taking a million dollars away from them in terms of Select Greater Philadelphia. And there are other organizations like that, some of whom I happen to be very friendly with, community development organizations, other social services organizations, that receive the same type of no-bid contracts that also are not fair. It's not just a matter of whether someone receiving a for-profit contract or a not-for-profit contract, the way no-bid contracts are done has to change. So I suggest that we move forward, that people realize that there is always going to be things to nitpick in these amendments and things to nitpick in terms of final version of this bill when it is actually voted on. But as legislators, what we do is change 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING the Code every week, every time we have an opportunity to do it, and we can make this a better bill by amending that legislation. I happen to have offered campaign finance reform legislation well over a year ago. People have nitpicked that bill. There are currently three bills in Council to amend that legislation, which I welcome. I won't be supporting all of them, but I welcome most of them. We can always go back and do it better, but the issue is whether we're going to do something now or whether we're not. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I would like to hear Councilman Nutter on the question as to whether he agrees with Councilman Kenney's interpretation.
Thank you, Councilman. Is this the issue of whether it's contract reform or ethics reform? Is that the issue? 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING
That's the question that Councilman Kenney referred to.
I appreciate that, Councilman. And I will make comments with regard to both Councilman Kenney's remarks and Councilman Goode, both of which I appreciate. What often happens here is when a package of bills are introduced -- and I think Councilwoman Reynolds Brown may have referenced tax reform. I introduced 13 bills that came from the Tax Reform Commission. Only a few were passed. But they are individual bills, as Councilman Goode points out. They have to be taken on their own merits or demerits. They will rise or fall and stand alone if they make it through the process. I think what happens is, whether by conversation or media commentary, how these packages are characterized often shape the discussion. You will not find anything in Bill 040772 about ethics. Bill 040772 comes as a part of the series of recommendations by the 21st Century Review Forum, which was 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING created by Mayor Street. And they recommended that we do something in the contracting area, they recommended that we create a new board of ethics, and they recommended that we make adjustments to our Code so that you could read it all in one place and not have to search over four different pieces of documents or information. Bill 040772, I believe, does seek to address professional services and no-bid contracts and how they are awarded. The Ethics Board -- and we have a temporary one now and, if we create one under the Charter we'll have a permanent one -- will deal with the issue of ethics. All of this has been discussed in a larger context of ethics. This is reforming our contracting process which will shed more light, as Councilman Kenney said, on the process and make those opportunities more available to people on a broader fashion. And if we can help to remove the belief that somehow there is a connection between contribution and the award of contracts, that improves the process 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING and it also improves the belief of citizens with regard to the integrity of this process. So there is certainly some connection, but it is not direct. This bill can stand on its on, notwithstanding other bills that are still in Committee. It reforms the contract process. It is not pure ethics reform because we don't have any ethics bills in front of us. You will not find that word in this bill. I'm sorry, Councilman, for the long answer, but I think, hopefully, it's responsive.
Madam President, I've often found that at the beginning of a difficult debate that things become clear, then they get confused again, gets clear and so forth until there's full understanding. My problem with these bills is that as we increasingly discuss them, we're at the stage where we're learning new questions that come up and raise all kinds of problems. I'm prepared to support the amendment today, but, again, with the same noncommittal with respect 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING to next week because if something develops over the next week that has not been discussed and it seems important, like the impact on non-profits, I want to be in the position to consider it. I must say I reject absolutely, totally and completely and would use every other adjective I know of to address Councilman Goode's question that the only issue before us is whether we're going to act or not. That seems to me to make zero out of legislators' serious efforts to find out what they're voting for and the full impact and effect of legislation we pass. I don't think it's accurate to say we can always amend. We can always do anything we want to do, but the impact is not always clear. And once legislation gets enacted in the field of ethics, particularly, it may get very difficult because we don't know what forces are going to rise in support or in opposition to suggested later reforms. Therefore, I've always favored making sure that everybody is fully informed on a subject of this 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING importance. So I'm going to vote to move the process forward, but, again, with the same kind of commitment that one or more of my colleagues have expressed this morning with respect to the vote next week. But I find that the more discussion there is at this stage often turns a clear subject into a confusing one, just the reverse of what more conversation is supposed to do. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if these amendments or the bill is contract reform. I don't know if it's ethics reform. But I do know it is reform. I think it's going to address a problem that we've had in this City for years. And I think that anything that's going to reduce the amount of no-bid contracts in this City and also make the no-bid contracts more 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING transparent by putting everything out on the line, I think is going to be helpful. I want to commend Councilman Nutter for doing a good job on this. Now, as I said before, this is only one bill. We have many, many more to go. And I think this is a first start. I think this is something we have to do. We have to address this problem because I think it's the biggest problem that the City faces today. I think this is where the pay-to-play is really prevalent. And I think anything that's going to make these bids more transparent is going to be the best interest of the City. I think it's for good government. Therefore, I will be supporting these amendments and the bill today. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I will be brief to respond to Councilman Cohen's remarks and for clarity of the record. 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING I'm not trying to rush anything. This bill happens to be on second reading and final passage, and that's the point at which the sponsor can amend it. The bill will be on final passage next week whether the amendments are approved or not. This is our schedule. This is how legislation proceeds. Needless to say, I'm very happy that the bill is out of the Law and Government Committee, but I am not suggesting that we have to vote on anything before the schedule automatically take place.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. I first want to commend Councilman Nutter for taking the time. And I know he spent lots of hours. I left here the other night at 9:00, and he was here working on amendments to this bill. This bill makes me feel very uncomfortable. I know absolutely he's 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING entitled to the amendments. Normally, I vote yes for amendments because I believe it should be there and we have a need to actually discuss them and adjust certain things in the bill. This bill, last week, when I first read it concerned me because it had a terrible impact on the non-profit world and the social service and human service world that I came from. And it kind of makes me feel -- and I'll be voting no today on these amendments because I don't want to give the illusion that I will be supporting this bill next week. It kind the makes me feel, someone that came from the non-profit world as volunteer -- I volunteered many hours on many boards -- that my contributions that I have a right, first of all, to contribute to whomever it is that I want to contribute to, but I don't want to do it in an air of and in an environment of feeling like I'm participating in wrongdoing. I have never contributed to anyone with the idea that I'm going to get something. It's just all about good government and support for 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING that person. So I will be voting no today on these amendments.
Thank you. Does anyone else want to be recognized? The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Madam President, I think we would be criticized, in fact, if we didn't try to fix first the problem the pay-to-play is all about. So I plan to vote for amendment. You must fix the problem. This is part of ethics. The people that don't want to abide, maybe we have to force them to abide and by making these changes to the way we do business will maybe force and make people be honest until we get the rest of this done. Again, Councilman Nutter, I appreciate your hard work on this. Thanks.
Thank you. Does anyone else want to be recognized? (No response.) 03/10/05 - STATED - 2ND READING
Seeing no one, Councilman Nutter made a motion. It was seconded that amendments to Bill No. 040772 be adopted. I would ask that the Chief Clerk call the roll. THE
The amendment are adopted. The ayes are 11, the nays are 5. That concludes our Calendar for today. Are there any speeches on the part of the Minority? (No response.)
Are there speeches on the part of the Majority. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Yes, Madam President. I want to commend Councilman Nutter on the issue of Lower Merion School District making the decision to park their buses in the 38th Ward. And I commend him for aggressively addressing the issues that were raised by the residents in both his district and the district of Donna Reed Miller. And I would like to ask him at this hour to provide us a factual update of the status of that particular circumstance. The Lower Merion bus County, if you could just provide us with an update at this hour.
Thank you, Councilwoman, for the question. On Monday night, there was a rescheduled meeting of the Lower Merion School District Board to talk about a variety of things, but the bus issue was one of the topics of conversation. A number of residents from East Falls, Allegheny West, and North Philadelphia, along with our ward leader from the 38th Ward, Ralph Winder, and I were there. There was an opportunity to speak. I expressed civilly but strongly my opposition to the proposal to relocate or locate a bus depot at the site. The Board gave us a presentation as to what their challenges and difficulties are. And I'm certainly very sensitive to that and will work with another municipality, but that proposal is unacceptable. We've also communicated that to the owner of the site, Preferred Properties, and have also had conversation with various elected officials on Board of Supervisors. This is a very serious issue. Very significant opposition. And as much as I always want to be in a cooperative relationship with other political jurisdictions, there is a disagreement here, but also a commitment by the School District Board Members as well as the Township Commissioner to work in cooperation with Philadelphia to see if alternatives can be explored. This is a very tough issue for the School District as well as the parents and kids over there, but it is unacceptable at that particular site. It's a bad use of the site. It will lead to excessive traffic and congestion problems, and invariably it will be impossible for 100-plus buses four times a day to guarantee their presence solely on the Roosevelt extension of the expressway because it's already congested. The alternative routes are places like Henry Avenue, Midvale Avenue. And the drivers, in order to get the time, may be creative on their on own in terms of where those buses go. So for all of those reasons, there is opposition, but we want to try, as best we can, to amicably resolve this matter between the two political jurisdictions. That's the latest information.
Thank you, Madam President. As I said in the beginning, I commend my colleague and my District Councilperson for his aggressive attention to this issue. And I thank you, Councilman Nutter, for the update. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President and colleagues, Tuesday, through the local newspaper, I was pleased to learn that the Mayor signed a new Minority Business Enterprise Council last Friday. In reading the Executive Order, MBEC has been reauthorized with a broader scope to address the issue that disadvantaged businesses, as indicated in the 2000 D.J. Miller & Associates study, are significantly underrepresented as vendors in City contracts. However, in reading the Executive Order, I am greatly concerned regarding a key issue. The new Executive Order does not call for an annual disparity study, as required by Bill 030125 that was approved by the Mayor in 2003. One of the strongest points of the bill is that it calls for the City to have a disparity study conducted on an annual basis. Through an annual disparity study, the City will be able to appropriately defend itself against legal challenges to participation goals for disadvantaged businesses because these goals that are remedies for past discrimination are narrowly tailored on an annual basis. In well-established federal case law, it is clear that the City's remedies for past discrimination must be narrowly tailored to address this discrimination. In this regard, we are still moving forward with litigation approved by Council to enforce Bill 030125. Over a month ago, City Council President Ann Verna sent a letter to the City Solicitor asking him to prepare a legal service contract for this matter. Further, the Council President called the City Solicitor approximately 10 days ago regarding this matter, and the call has not been returned. Accordingly, we are calling on the City Solicitor to respond to the letter and call from the Council President so that Bill 030125 will be enforced to support disadvantaged businesses in our City. Thank you very much.
You're welcome. Are there any other speeches on the part of the Majority? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco for a motion to adjourn.
Madam President, I move that Council stand adjourned until Thursday, March 17th at 10:00 a.m. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Council stand adjourned until Thursday, March 17th. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. (Council adjourned at 12:02 p.m.) 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 Thursday, March 10, 2005, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: STATED MEETING _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR