COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 2, 2008 9:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER, CHAIR COUNCILMAN BILL GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL BILL 080795 - An ordinance amending Section 14 10-819 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "State of Emergency," to expand upon the measures that the Mayor may take in an emergency... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. My name is Donna Reed Miller and I am the Chair of the Public Safety Committee. The Committee on Public Safety is now in session. Would the Clerk please read the title of the bill.
Bill 080795, an ordinance amending Section 10-819 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "State of Emergency," to expand upon the measures that the Mayor may take in an emergency, prohibit the violation of orders issued in connection with the declaration of emergency, revise the penalties for violations, provide definitions, and make technical and other changes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Let the record reflect that this Public Safety Committee does have a quorum. In attendance to my left is Councilman Frank Rizzo, Councilman Bill 3 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 Greenlee, and to my right, Councilman Curtis Jones. I'd like to begin by thanking all in attendance. With all the emergencies that we are seeing, both nationally and abroad, it is no doubt that Philadelphia must be prepared. Emergencies can come in all forms. They may be natural such as Hurricane Katrina, manmade such as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center or anything in between. For that reason, it is important for Philadelphia to be prepared. This bill expands on current legislation enacted in 1967 that has never been amended. The bill prohibits public gathering, restricts the movement of people and transportation in and out of the City, prohibits the sale and/or service of alcohol and gasoline, prohibits the sale or illegal carrying of firearms, and it establishes a curfew. The Mayor shall be authorized 4 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 to declare a state of emergency subject to ratification by City Council, and unless otherwise authorized by this ordinance, the state of emergency shall last no longer than two weeks. With that in mind, would any Councilmember like to make an opening statement?
No, no 13 questions yet. Okay. We'll have our first witness. MaryAnn, I think you are the first -- well, both of you actually can come up to the table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Please state your name and any other identifying information for the record.
My name is MaryAnn Tierney. I'm the Deputy Managing 5 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 Director for Emergency Management. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Good morning. My name is Lieutenant Francis Healy on behalf of Police Commissioner Ramsey.
Thank you. I want to thank Chairwoman Miller and the members of the Committee on Public Safety for holding a hearing on Bill No. " Today I will be discussing with you the reasons the existing Code is insufficient to support the City's response and recovery needs following a large-scale energy, share with you examples of gaps contained within the existing Code, discuss the importance of filling those gaps, and provide you with information on the proposed changes to the current Code. In the increasingly complex and 6 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 continually changing world to public safety and disaster response and as highlighted, as you said, Councilwoman, during recent disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the attacks on the World Trade Center, in order to effectively support the response to and recovery from a large-scale emergency, a jurisdiction like Philadelphia must have the capability and flexibility to make the many and often unanticipated demands placed upon it. Over the past two years, the City has made great strides in enhancing its ability to prepare for or respond to and recover from large-scale emergencies and is continually adjusting to meet the new and complicated challenges we face today. To further enhance this ability, the Managing Director's Office of Emergency Management, in conjunction with Police and Fire Departments, reviewed the existing Philadelphia Code, entitled "State of Emergency," to ensure that it 7 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 afforded the City sufficient authority and flexibility to preserve and protect public safety following a large-scale disaster. What was immediately revealed upon this review was that unlike the City's public safety agencies' strategy to work to improve over time to meet operational needs, the "State of Emergency" Code section provision has been unchanged since the day it was enacted in 1967. Much has changed in the emergency response and public safety arenas over the past 40 years, and the section of the Code that ultimately defines how the City may respond to a large emergency should arguably change as well. Section 10-819 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "State of Emergency," as originally enacted, provides the Mayor the authority to declare an emergency and provides for the power to prohibit public gatherings, 8 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 restrict the movement of people and transportation into and out of the City, prohibit the sale and/or service of alcohol and gasoline, prohibit the sale or carrying of firearms, and establish a curfew. It is my view that while several sections of the existing Code are still very much applicable and equally as effective today as they were originally enacted in 1967, there are numerous sections which need to be enhanced and expanded upon in order to meet the new public safety challenges. For example, while the current Code provides for the power of the Mayor to declare an emergency, it does so in an incomplete way and conflicts with State law. b of the State law states, "A local disaster emergency may be declared by the governing body of a political subdivision upon finding a disaster has occurred or is imminent. " So one of the changes is to bring this in line, this language in line. Additionally, the Code does not explicitly state that the local governing body must ratify the declaration, while the State law stipulates this ratification is necessary. And I'll be offering an amendment today to deal with that language change. The current Code provides for declaring an emergency when the City is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance, disorder, riot or other occurrence, but does not provide for declaring a state of 10 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 emergency during a major emergency.
Utilizing a more general term allows for declaring an emergency for a wide range of natural and human-caused disasters, thus providing our government the ability to act appropriately regardless of the situation at hand. The current Code does not empower the Mayor to issue a shelter-in-place or evacuation order for all or any part of the City. This is an essential element of any emergency granted to the chief elected official, as seen during every major hurricane since Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and especially highlighted during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While the current Code addresses restricting the movement of transportation such as vehicles, trains and boats, it does so in a fragmented way. Streamlining this language allows any person to quickly assess the Mayor's powers as it relates to restricting 11 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 movement. The current Code empowers the Mayor to establish a curfew, but does not adequately describe the parameters of the curfew order, nor provide any exemptions to the curfew such as for medical professionals who may need to travel to work. The current Code restricts the sale and service of alcoholic beverages, but does not prevent it from being transported or given away. The current Code empowers the Mayor to restrict the sale of gasoline or other flammable materials, but does not prevent it from being transported or given away as well. The current Code does not restrict the sale, giving away or carrying or possession of ammunition. The current Code does not address the closure of other types of businesses. The current Code does not 12 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 define public space in a consistent manner across subsections. So, for example, in some sections it talks about public parks, in other sections it talks about streets, but it's very scattered amongst the Code sections. The current Code does not empower the Mayor to prevent price gouging. The current Code does not provide a catchall to provide for additional unanticipated action by the Mayor, such as to temporarily waive routine administrative and budgetary requirements that may impede the effective delivery of essential public services. Additionally, I think there's a typo in the Code. In letter (g), it says "prohibit or restrict the sale of gasoline or other inflammable liquids," and I think that that should be flammable liquids. So we want to correct that as well. 13 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 It is with all of the above in mind that the need to drastically alter the current Code section dealing with an emergency is clear. The amendments that are proposed are based on a review of the current Code section, current State law, which I referenced before, a review of other cities' emergency powers code sections, such as New York City; Kansas City, Missouri; New Orleans and several cities in Florida, and an analysis by the Law Department. The suggested amendments will expand upon the measures that the Mayor may take in an emergency, prohibit the violation of orders issued in connection with the declaration of an emergency, revise the penalties for violations, provide definitions, and make technical and other changes, all under certain terms and conditions. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I 14 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 respectfully request that Bill No. 080795 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules be suspended so as to allow for the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. I'd also like to offer an amendment to the bill dealing with the ratification of a declaration of emergency by City Council. You should have a copy of that amendment in front of you. I welcome any questions you might have on this important topic at this time.
Thank you. Officer Healy. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Yes. Good morning again, Chairwoman Miller and other members of the Committee of Public Safety. As I mentioned, my name is Lieutenant Francis Healy and I'm an attorney and special advisor to 15 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 Commissioner Ramsey, and I'm here to testify on his behalf regarding this bill. First, the Commissioner asks that I extend his gratitude for allowing the Department to voice its opinion on this actually very important piece of legislation. As I think we can all agree, in a post 9/11 world, it is clear that government's overall response to an emergency must both be efficient and effective to save lives and protect property. Across this country since 9/11 emphasis has been placed, and rightly so, upon the first responders. This includes police, fire and all other emergency type and medical personnel. There has been a tremendous amount of work done to ensure the coordination and effectiveness of these responders from the federal government on down to the local level. The current National Incident Management System, or NIMS as it is better known, is a classic example of federal, state and 16 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 local first responders that are trained in a unified approach to deal with any emergency. Along these lines, the Office of Emergency Management under Deputy Managing Director MaryAnn -- I'm sorry, your new name?
That is my last name. I just got married last week. LIEUTENANT HEALY: She's recently married. MaryAnn has made great strides. MaryAnn has made actually very great strides in the City's overall coordination of operational emergency services, not just police and fire, but actually attacking the overall picture, and she's done a great deal of work on that.
Can you pull the mike closer. Push the mike 17 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 closer. LIEUTENANT HEALY: However, Philadelphia, like many other jurisdictions across the country, has neglected to legislatively update the emergency powers of their mayors or chief executive officers to reflect the new threats facing our cities. In times of crisis, there can be no doubt in the powers and duties of government. Equally important, the citizens must be aware of their responsibilities. The issues must be addressed and resolved long before an emergency strikes. This is critical, because the effectiveness of first responders is predicated upon the very power of government to take certain actions during an emergency so there can be no doubt or confusion. The current Code was last amended at a time when the biggest threat to Philadelphia was riots and civil disorder in the 1960s. As we all know, times have changed and so have the 18 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 threats that Philadelphia may face. However, The Philadelphia Code has not changed to reflect this fact. During a true emergency, in its current form, The Philadelphia Code could lead to confusion and doubt in governmental powers. This is unacceptable, because it contradicts the essence of all the coordinating efforts that have been done by the operational emergency services. So the goal of this amendment is very simple. It removes any doubt in the power of the Mayor to respond to any emergency Philadelphia may encounter. Specifically, it expands and clarifies the power of the Mayor to address any emergency that Philadelphia may face today and, equally important, in the future. This is currently lacking in the City Code. However, these amendments also clarify the duties and responsibilities of the citizens during emergencies and expressly prohibits certain actions. It is clear, concise 19 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 and places all citizens on notice of what is expected during a true emergency. The Code, in its current form, lists what the powers of the Mayor are, but they actually don't list any specific prohibited activities. That's actually very important for citizens to know what they're expected to do. So for these reasons, the Philadelphia Police Department fully supports these amendments, and this would conclude my testimony on behalf of the Police Commissioner. Thank you.
I have a couple questions. It seems as though "require the closing of all business establishments in the City" is a very broad statement. What about our electric utilities? What about the refineries? What about the other companies that we 20 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 depend on? Don't you think we should be more specific rather than just say all businesses? Because all businesses are all businesses. And let's say our refinery here in Philadelphia, would that apply there? We certainly wouldn't want to shut a refinery down.
That's a very good question. The idea of the Code is to be broad in nature, and then actually how the Code is implemented is, the Mayor must issue an emergency order. And so in that order, it would detail specifically what would be closed, and utilities like the refinery, like electrical systems are critical infrastructure and I can't imagine a situation where we would close them. I don't even think it would be physically possible to close them. So I think what we're talking about here are retail establishments.
That's fair, but I think there was some concern of some of those agencies, because I was 21 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 asked the question.
I think it's a valid point. I think the importance here is that we want to strategically position the government to respond to any emergency that may occur, and in doing that, the goal was to provide flexibility, and then the order itself would provide the detail.
Okay. Also, I have a question about suspend operations at municipal airports. I don't think a Mayor can -- from what I understand, can the Mayor shut down Philadelphia International Airport without -- don't you think the feds have something to say about that, the FAA, et cetera?
To be honest with you, that was in the -- that's in the existing Code language. So the Code, that section as it exists today includes that provision. I believe that there is 22 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 coordination that occurs between the Airport and the FAA on closures of the Airport, and I imagine that would occur.
What about sports stadiums? What about the Linc and et cetera?
I think those were the things that would have to be detailed in the order, and so the Mayor is afforded broad power to close and to prohibit public gatherings as needed. That power exists today in the Code. The language is just clearer now and more streamlined.
And my last comment, is the word "taproom," is that still a current word?
She's never even heard of it. 23 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
That got my attention. I remember that word. Maybe that should be refreshed.
We probably need to do another amendment later to this bill, go over each point, each detail and get clarity. That's what I would think. Update the language. Okay.
Not at all. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have many questions about this bill, many, but I'll only mention 24 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 two or three. On at the bottom, when you talk about a curfew, you have constitutional rights, the right to assemble in a free country. This says a curfew can prohibit assembly, gatherings, loitering. You got constitutional rights in here that are certainly larger than our local law. And I don't understand this other -- I don't understand these issues on where we added or the Administration added the distribution or transport of -- they have gasoline or they put in here free, the transport or free provision of alcoholic beverages. Why do they put in free stuff? So they prohibit you from transporting or giving away free alcoholic beverages. What's the point of whether it's free or whether it's not? I don't understand all of these issues and I don't understand how we locally have the right to deal with these 25 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 as opposed to state and federal law. And certainly I would hope, Madam Chair, that we can slow this down. This is a very far-reaching -- it's dangerous, frighteningly so, because it deals with so many rights. Doesn't even deal with Council being included in emergency provisions. I mean, we are an equal branch of government. In this country we have executive, legislative and judicial rights, and all of these rights are coming into play in this bill. This is a very dangerous bill, and I would hope that we can slow down and learn more about all of these points and why they are here before this Committee would move forward. Certainly I respect the Committee's right -- I'm not on this Committee -- to do whatever you think you should do, but I would hope that this Committee would not move forward on this bill without a whole lot of discussion that's not happening here today. 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 Thank you.
Thank you for your comments, and I did mean to acknowledge your attendance here today. This bill was actually enacted in 1967.
The one change that -- no. These were original -- excuse me. Councilwoman, these were original items that were included in the original bill in 1967. One of the things that we are -- the amendment that we're doing today actually talks about -- and I don't know that you have a copy of the amendment.
Will last for two weeks. 27 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
No. 3 Actually, I'll read every word of it. "The Declaration: A declaration of local disaster emergency, as that term is used in State law, shall require the ratification of City Council."
What about all the italicized parts of this bill? Are they not new in the pink copy? All of that is old, too?
Some of them are new, I guess. We're trying to update, yes.
All that is old? It's a dangerous bill. All of that is old, Madam Chair?
We'll let MaryAnn answer your question. She works for the --
The curfew provision exists today in the current Code. A lot of the italicized language was consolidating different sections of the existing Code to make it clearer and 28 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 also to -- basically, the Code was kind of disorganized, and so part of this effort was to reorganize the Code and streamline the language so it was clearer what the powers were. The curfew provision exists today, though. That is not a new addition.
So you're saying the italicized portions of the pink copy are already law?
Yes. That language exists in the Code today. It may have been moved and the section 16 numbers changed and that's why it's italicized.
Like, for example, it might have been labeled number one in the Code today and because of all of the changes we're making, now it's number three, and so that's a new 29 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 number three and so now it's italicized.
So why don't we have an updated, accurate copy of what the Committee is asked to vote on?
Well, I don't understand what's italicized and why -- then I don't understand.
Can I interrupt for one second. I think what the Councilwoman is asking, usually when we have a bill, it says right on the back "italics indicate new matter added." Now, are you saying -- like, for example, she gave two examples. And I'm sorry. I know you changed your name, so I'm just going to call you MaryAnn for a second.
At the bottom of in the pink copy -- you have the pink copy? 30 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
Could somebody -- (Councilman Rizzo handed Ms. Tierney the document.)
Thank you, Councilman. So we can make it clear here what's going on.
The bottom of , the Councilwoman raised some concerns about some of that. You see a lot of that is italicized. Now, it seemed like in your answer you were saying some of that was shifted somewhere else. Is that totally new wording? Maybe, Lieutenant, do you know? Or is that something that was changed from another section; do you know?
Okay. So you see where it says -- I'll read it to you. 31 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 "Establish a curfew." That exists today. That's not an italicized. "Throughout the City or in any part thereof." Now, previously -- that's what's italicized, that's the addition. Now, previously the Code said something like that, but it was very confusing, and so I just made it clearer. And then there, it says "persons may go or travel on public streets" -- that part is existing today -- comma, "or travel through or occupy parks, parking areas, public accommodations or other locations commonly open to public use." Now, this is when I was talking before about how it said the same thing, the Code says the same thing in different ways, this type of restriction about movement of people on streets or in parks, it was said throughout the whole Code section, but it was said in different ways. So I said it the same way in every Code section. I took the way it was written, I made it a little clearer, and then I repeated that 32 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 throughout the Code section.
We're checking the Code by the italicized language. It's not the same.
I think what was testified -- and, again, I want to make this clear so everybody understands -- was that there was wording similar to that.
But that you changed the wording, in your opinion, to make it clearer?
Yes. There is wording that is similar. 33 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
Now, I don't know what else is in there. I think usually, though -- again, I'm not trying to be too technical here, but if something was taken out, shouldn't it have been put in the brackets to show what was taken out? You know what I'm saying?
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The Law Department prepared the legislation itself, and this is an addition.
Well, it's an addition, but then see -- again, I'm not trying to be technical here, but just so we're all covering -- forgetting our philosophy on this, just legally if we're doing it right. If you're taking something out, like that wording you said that was confusing, shouldn't there be some place in here where it's bracketed out?
Is it? I 34 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 mean, I don't know. You know what I'm saying? I think there should be -- if you're taking something out to make it clearer, I would think you would bracket it out, like you did in that little piece where you said inflammable versus flammable. You bracketed out "inflammable."
But for the curfew section, the problem was that it wasn't -- this is additional language. So while it said establish a curfew, that's pretty much all it said, and so we had -- well, what does it mean to establish a curfew? Where can the curfew be established? What areas can the curfew be in effect? And so this is to provide clarity around what it means to establish a curfew.
Was there something taken out, though? Because I thought you said earlier you put these other words in to make it clearer, that the other stuff was confusing. 35 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
I understand what you're saying. I think in the curfew section -- I don't have the original Code in front of me. Maybe I do. The curfew section didn't have any language, I believe, in it like this, and that's why this is in addition.
Of the curfew section, no. We're adding in. But the fact that the Mayor could establish a curfew exists in the Code today. The problem --
I understand that, and that's in there and that says that.
The problem with that section is that it did not provide detail and guidance on what it means for the Mayor to establish a curfew. 36 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
Okay. I understand that. So just to be clear, you're not taking anything out, these words that are in italics are additions to, in your opinion, make it clearer; is that right?
Yes. That's correct. Yes. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Councilman, if I could address --
Yes. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The core concern that I heard from you is constitutional issues. They were very important to me as well from the Police Department's perspective and as an attorney. When I looked at this, that was the first thing that smacked me in the face, quite frankly, as well, that where is the balance of powers. And when I read this originally, what was lacking -- what I saw lacking was the ratification issue, and I brought that up to the Law Department, and they realized 37 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 that it needed to be tweaked, and that's what the minor little amendment today is, a checks and balance that gives this body the authority to actually either revoke the Mayor's earlier proclamation or to continue it, because it is such an important power and a very big power. The ability to restrict one's rights can be done by government if it's done so in a compelling basis. Now, the compelling basis here is the state of emergency. I mean, we're not looking to limit anyone's right to protest or anything like that in any way whatsoever.
Thank you. Madam Chairman, for example, I have before me The Philadelphia Code. On , Section (e) -- and you have on the bill Section (e). Section (e) in the Code states, quote, "Establish a curfew limiting the hours when persons may go upon or travel the public streets;" end of quote. That's all. Do you see this 38 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 whole long paragraph? I mean, you have lawyers who argue about interpretation. I mean, and that is a whole lot different than having one sentence and having this long paragraph. We could disagree even on interpretation even if we agree with what's been said. But I would recommend that the Committee look at this. You can't pass stuff out that's not in order, and obviously this is not in order. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. We also have -- I just want to make an announcement. We have one other witness. I'll call on Councilman Jones, and will the witness Ed Hazzouri from Sun Oil come up to the table also. Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know next time to yield to my colleague, Councilwoman Blackwell. She added a lot of good points to this 39 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 and helped me to codify my thoughts on this, and so thank you. I have a couple of -- let's put a pin in whether or not this is structurally correct as an ordinance and whether or not we follow the proper procedure with brackets, but I just want to take a step back and go over to the overall context of why we are looking at these provisions. In light of the events since 9/11, if I were a Councilman before 9/11 and you asked to change this, I would be very skeptical. I would be hard-pressed to even consider how close this could be to stomping on constitutional rights. I probably wouldn't. In a post 9/11 environment and post India event that we recently undertook, I am at least open to looking at and evaluating existing laws on the books to make sure that we in Philadelphia prepare in advance and be proactive to these kinds of realities today. 40 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 I have a couple of questions that do not need to be answered now because of time, but need to be answered either in a briefing or in a continuation of this hearing. And if they can be answered now, fine.
One, when is the last time this municipality, this City, this Mayor or any Mayor took into their own accord invoking these rights? When was the last time we used these powers as a city? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Never that I'm aware of.
I think it's been a significant amount of time. Not in recent memory has the Mayor declared a state of emergency.
I think the last time we may have used these -- and I'm not sure -- may have been the riots on Cecil B. Moore Avenue, and those were the circumstances in which a Mayor chose 41 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 to invoke these powers. So that's number one. And I want you to research the circumstances around that, because at that point in time in the consciousness of this City, it was a civil rights issue involved, and that's why some members of Council may be a little more sensitive to these rights and how far we go. The second thing is, what do other cities do, comparable cities, New York and Chicago, big cities like this? What is the current state of mind, current state of resolutions or ordinances that they have passed, and give us a sense of what other cities are doing. So I'd like to do that.
That I can answer for you now. In developing this change, these amendments, I reviewed the codes for over large cities, including New 23 York City; Boston; several cities in 24 Florida; several cities in California; 25 New Orleans; Kansas City, Missouri. I 42 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 looked at a lot of code sections to develop this language. We are doing now nothing no different than what those other cities are doing today. And, in fact, our Code I think, if it's passed as is, our Code will position us better than those other cities, because I was able to take the best language from all of those codes and move that language into our Code.
Just so you know, "best" is relative. Best for who and best for what? So "best" is a eristic concept and I would be careful with "best." I'd like to do the comparisons in an objective evaluation that this body may do. So "best" kind of depends on where you stand on the issues.
Okay. Well, to be especially clear, the sections that we talked about today, curfew, price gouging, restricting movement, all of those Code sections, whether or not you want to say the language is the best, 43 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 exists in all of the other cities that I reviewed, including the ten -- I looked at code sections from 25 cities. 5 Cities like New York, Boston, Chicago 6 have language that is similar and address 7 the same issues as this. 8 Now, I can understand, "best" 9 is a relative term. I think what I tried 10 to do was to provide clarity around 11 language that was really unclear and 12 inconsistently spoken throughout the 13 Code. It's not good to say the same 14 thing three different ways in 15 legislation. You guys know this. And so 16 I tried to make it very clear to people 17 what is and is not allowed and what the 18 Mayor can and cannot do. 19
Okay. I'm 20 going to move quickly here. We need to 21 evaluate which parts, if we give the law 22 life, what parts of this by way of 23 discretion -- is there a way to say under 24 this level of circumstances, we will 25 impose the following measures, and then 44 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 in a heightened state of emergency -- I don't know how they do it on the federal level, from orange to yellow -- that these things could be graduated as opposed to a blank slate, you know, to be able to impose all of them at once? So that's the other question. And then -- hold it. And then in total context of what we do in the case of an emergency, I know you have drills, I know you have a command structure, I know you have protocols and procedures, but as a new Councilperson, I don't know them. So I don't know how in a case of an emergency in the Fourth District where we would report, what we would do, how would we react. When asked how we would govern, I don't know. So in total context of what the Mayor's powers are, it would be interesting and informative both to me and the people I represent to be able to instruct them on what to do, other than stay in the house and shut your doors. 45 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
Okay. I'll take your first question first. I'm sorry. Can you repeat your first question?
Yes. Okay. I would advise against creating specific tiers inside the Code. Remember, this is a set of tools. If you think about this as like Batman, Batman has tools on his tool belt and he doesn't use every tool in every emergency. He takes the tools he needs off of his belt and he uses them as they're needed. This Code -- all of our tools in emergency response are like that. The Mayor in his emergency declaration may use some or all of these sections. I imagine that for most emergencies, you would only see some of the sections used. The idea is to give the Mayor and the chief elected official the 46 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 ability to have these options available regardless of the emergency so that based on the event, which you would never really be able to pre-define every single thing that may or may not happen inside the Code -- that would be a very messy thing to try to disentangle in an emergency -- you're giving the Mayor a set of tools that can then be used in the emergency based on the circumstances. As far as briefing the Fourth District, I would be happy to come out personally and talk to any number of your constituents about what they should do in an evacuation, in a shelter-in-place, the kinds of materials they should have on hand. Any time you want to do that, I'm happy to come.
I appreciate that offer, and I will take you up on it, but I think what I was -- I know what I was trying to convey to you was, we need to be briefed as a body as to what to do when we hear on CNN -- 47 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795
I would be happy to brief the Council. I have wanted to do that for some time, and I would be happy to come and -- actually, there's a course. It's a very short course. I know you're all very busy. It's a very short course that kind of walks you through -- it's a cent tour of 10 emergency response. 11
I would be happy 14 to do that. It's about two hours, and if 15 you wanted to work with me to get that 16 arranged, I would love to do that. 17
Then finally 18 for the record, the last time we imposed 19 a curfew as a municipality was in 1968 at 20 the occasion of the shooting death of 21 Dr. Martin Luther King, and I think 22 that's important to note and underscore. 23
And if I could 24 add on to that, I think it's also very 25 important to remember the context -- and 48 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 I think that you're highlighting it -- that this is not something that is used every day. This is a set of tools that you hope never have to be used, but when they have to be used, you want them to be there and you want them to be operationally correct and clear so that there is no confusion, because the last thing you need in an emergency is more confusion. I think that that's a really good point. We're not going to use this next week, hopefully. This is not something that we're going to turn around and say, Okay, let's declare an emergency. This is something it will take a significant event to invoke, and I think that that's a very important point.
Thank 49 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 you. Councilman Jones mentioned one of the things that -- I keep seeing my Rosa Parks photo in my office that talks about these rights of assembling, gathering. It's a major part of civil rights history and the history of this country, and to just say it can be explained or it can be briefed away undermines all that this country is and all the progress we've made to get this far. It is absolutely frightening for anybody to say that a person can just -- and two weeks later, we have a right to kick in that assembling, gathering, congregating can just abridge those rights upon which our country and all civil rights legislation is founded is very, very frightening. And for us to sit here and not realize the impact and the importance of what is being said is just amazing. This can't be -- there's no way you can just tell me that that's okay. 50 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 You can't tell me about civil rights laws, civil rights legislation that we fought for, that King, that Rosa Parks, we went through all this, in the bus boycotts. We went through this. Rights to assemble? Rights to gather? All of this can be taken away? Oh, I don't think so.
You're welcome. Your point is well taken. I want to hear from officer -- I'm sorry; from a representative from Sun Oil, Ed Hazzouri. Please come up to the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. I'm Ed Hazzouri, H-A-Z-Z-O-U-R-I, from Sunoco, and I'll limit myself to really 51 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 the business closing and transportation issues, although -- and not the very serious civil and constitutional rights issues that are being discussed. On the closing of a business, the one point that we just wanted folks to think about was just to be sure that when you give the authority to close businesses and especially non-retail businesses, but manufacturing businesses, the fact that you could have an impact well beyond Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley. For example, if you close one of the refineries in South Philadelphia, within a very short period of time you could end up having shortages of jet fuel outside of the Philadelphia Airport, in New York, in New England, home heating oil, diesel fuel, and, in fact, we had an experience with this right after 9/11. In fact, on 9/12, that Wednesday, the United States Coast Guard had contacted us to say that they were considering closing down the Delaware River to 52 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 commerce, and we had asked them to hold off, and then we sat down with the Coast Guard and the other refiners on the river to explain the impact that -- folks don't always realize how important the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers are to the northeast United States, that with just a week's shutdown, that you could end up having impacts at JFK Airport, at Laguardia Airport, all up and down the East Coast. And granted, at that time, you had lost pipeline connection to the Gulf Coast of the United States, but just so that folks -- that this sort of thing needs to be considered when making these sorts of decisions on closing businesses. The second piece dealing with transport of fuel or flammable or inflammable liquids -- or, actually, I'll be even more general, any hydrocarbons, because not all hydrocarbons are necessarily flammable. They're not just transported in traditional ways. You've got barges, you've got pipelines taking 53 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 materials all over the country, and we just need to be sure are these sorts of things -- are we talking about shutting those down so that then there's an impact well beyond the border of Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley.
Thank you. Are there any questions? Councilman Greenlee.
Just a quick question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to the witness, you did hear the testimony, though, that the idea of this is to put out the broad ideas. It doesn't mean that if the state of emergency is set, that all those things would happen.
That's why I was saying -- that's why I said just some notion that these things need to be considered, as you talked about, as you 54 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 pick from the menu, just that it's not in a vacuum, because --
And it is, as the Chair said, this would be subject to ratification by Council as per amendment we're going to put in. So it wouldn't just be one person making that decision.
Thank you. I want to thank you for your testimony. Again, these are -- a state of emergency is a situation we hope would never happen, and when the bill was created back in '67, it was created because it took a look at civil disorder, 55 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 not the 9/11 World Trade or disasters like Katrina. But I do believe that there's lots of questions about this bill 5 and about the particulars of the bill and we really need to have a meeting, and we're going to try to arrange to have a meeting next week, and it is my recommendation that this Committee will be recessed to the call of the Chair, and once those questions are answered and Councilmembers understand this bill 13 better, then we will reconvene a hearing and vote this bill out of Committee. You have a question, MaryAnn?
No, I don't have any question. I'd be happy to set up a briefing.
Okay. And the other thing before we recess is that I've been trying to get some type of information just even about the evacuation of City Hall in the case of an emergency, and we have not been -- we have never had that, and I've been here 56 12/2/08 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 080795 years. Curtis is saying he's new. I've been here 13 years. I don't know how long Bill has been here.
Too long 7 in the building. And there's never been 8 enough information about an emergency, no 9 more than the "stay in place" that comes 10 on the City channel from Comcast. 11 So we do need to have that type 12 of education. And I think that there 13 will be a number of people interested in the course that you talked about.
I think that would be really good for Council. I'd be happy to do that.
Thank you. All right. This Committee is now in recess. Thank you. (Committee on Public Safety recessed at 10:10 a.m.) - - - 57 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 2, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)