Again, not being in the mind of the legislators who voted for Act 46, but I do think we could conclude that that was a result or a consequence of the situation here in Philadelphia, as well as other factors probably.
I understand. Your testimony also talks about, Nor does the City/State school partnership agreement -- that word again -- authorize the, quote, private administration, management, or operation of any school, as stated in the bill. We've had the discussion about how we arrived at the declaration of distress, the 173 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 creation of the School Reform Commission, and we don't need to go back over that territory. But isn't it, in fact, true that as a result of Act 46, Act 83, or the declaration of distress, the creation of the School Reform Commission and all of its new powers will be able to (inaudible). Isn't that true?
As a result of Act 83, they can. There's nothing in the agreement that says there will be -- that the Mayor would not have the ability to commit the School Reform Commission to that action anyway.
Okay, all right. I mean, you're going to stand on the very close side of the line in your argument that because the Mayor did not have explicit authority to agree or not agree to certain things, and notwithstanding the fact that the Mayor and the Governor can reach whatever agreement they want to, which then leads to a declaration of distress being declared, which then leads to the imposition of Act 46 and Act 83, which leads to the creation of the School Reform Commission, which then has the power to contract with education management organizations, providers, 174 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 lead providers, education consultants, issue RFGs, and the like, you want to stand on the side of the line that says that the Mayor actually had nothing to do with that because he didn't have the power to do any of those things. Is that your argument?
Well, I think it goes beyond that. The fact of the matter is that the Mayor --
The answer is no, because the argument -- the Mayor did not write Act 46, and he, in fact, even is on record as having opposed and advised that Act 83 not take place.
We did not do this. What has brought us to this situation is the horrible financial situation of the School District, the chronic underfunding, and the fact that the City cannot alone afford to keep the School District afloat. That's what's brought us to this situation.
Right, I understand. Okay, thank you. 175 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 My last question is, you indicated that you think that the agreement will be ready soon. Do you have a date?
Can you give me an estimate -- a week, a month, somewhere in between?
I will not be the final say on that, but I think somewhere in that time frame.
You just said a week or a month, and it's probably somewhere in between there.
Okay. What are some of the details still to be worked out?
I mean, how do you have an agreement and then you can't have it in five weeks?
Point of order, 176 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Councilman. Councilman Cohen.
I was just trying to understand how you have an agreement but then you can't put it in writing; I'm just intrigued by that.
Well, I'm obviously not going to go into the details because then I would have had the agreement here with me to share. Certain things like -- and this already had been reported when we had talked about the fact that the super majority, that four votes would be required for certain important actions that the School District -- that the School Reform Commission would be taking. We also had agreed in principle that some type of impasse language could accompany those so that we could prevent impasse and real stalemate. 177 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 We're just looking at some of the different ways in which that might be accomplished so that those could be shared with members of the School Reform Commission.
All right, I think that really is all that I might have for you. I was intrigued about the -- you made reference to the super majority issue. I thought the various acts that you made reference to actually talked about that decisions would be made by a majority. You're saying the agreement might be able to supersede some of the provisions of either Act 46 or Act 83? I was left with the impression that one or both of those acts, as they were constructed, talked about decisions by the SRC being by a majority vote.
What -- as I believe has been previously reported, we did say that certain actions could be done by a super majority in certain, you know, in critical areas. But we were also very sensitive to the fact that we did not quote parties in the discussions, did not want to create a stalemate situation, so that after certain 178 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 periods of reasonable time and effort, that the votes could instead be taken by a majority.
I understand. I guess what I'm trying to understand is, in Section 6 6-696, it looks like b.7(b)(1), the statute reads: "Actions of the School Reform Commission shall be by a majority vote." You're saying that the agreement may be able to supersede the --
The agreement already says, as you know, that -- I'm sorry, the statute already says that four of the appointees shall be the Governor's and one shall be the Mayor's, and of course, the agreement was that the Mayor could have two appointees.
So it may be that certain things can be done by agreement that way. That's another area that we're looking into, and it might be that certain things might have to be changed legislatively. So we are also looking into those 179 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 issues.
Okay. So my last question is, where is the super majority issue; is there one or is there not one?
As I thought I had explained, there is an agreement on certain actions. We have agreed in principle that in certain actions, a super majority would prevail, but we have also agreed that it should be accompanied by a procedure by which the impasse could be broken.
That's one of the few things that you're still trying to work through?
At the request of Councilman Cohen to yield, I'm going to recognize Councilmember Ortiz first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Kahn, this hearing is about things that -- and trying to give the people of Philadelphia a say in what is going to happen in the public school system. Is the Mayor or you aware of all of the discussions that are happening? 180 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 And in fact, actually, that decisions have been made about -- or let me rephrase that. How many districts or systems are we going to have in Philadelphia; one, three, four, five? Are we going to have one in North Philly and one in West Philadelphia and one in Northwest and one Southwest Philly to be run by different organizations?
There are -- there were not, when the Governor originally presented his plan, and as far as I am aware, not now any absolute --
I said that there were not, when the Governor originally presented his plan to the Mayor back in October, and nor are there now that I'm aware of, any detailed plans that would lay out how any of these -- and I believe what you were referring to are any of these partnership schools or anything of that nature. But as far as I'm aware, I have also never heard of any discussions that would actually change what is the legal structure of the School District of Philadelphia. So that it would actually be -- and I'm, 181 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 you know, just completely making this up -- the School District of Philadelphia, East School District of Philadelphia, West, you know, as separate legal entities.
I said I have not heard, you know, any discussions remotely like that.
Well, I think some people out in the community and organizations are already either hiring people and making plans and really in in-depth discussions, it seems, with some of the individuals in the Governor's Commission.
There are. I mean, I can't tell you that I'm aware of every discussion, you know, that's occurred and that's underway. And I do think that people are generating ideas and plans, some of which is probably healthy because it's good for people to be thinking about how it is that we can do a better job in public education. But there are not, from everything that I have been told, any commitments to anyone or any agreements, and I certainly know that our representatives on the School Reform Commission, 182 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 when the time comes for them to deliberate and take a very hard look at any of these proposals, whether they're for management functions or school operations, they will be very thorough, it will be responsive to public concerns, and they will make their decisions accordingly.
But the only people that are not within these discussions are the parents of kids that go to those schools. I mean, there are discussions about creating 30, 40 or 35 up in the North Philadelphia, the Latino area. I have not heard of any parent or any school association that has been brought into the discussion with the Commission on any of these issues.
And that's not right. And as far as I know, those discussions are not Commission-generated. I mean, I think that the Commission will need to, you know, speak for itself on these very important issues.
Well, what is the role of your office and the Mayor on this? I mean, you gave this and negotiated this structure in which you almost are saying in essence, like Pontius 183 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Pilot, you're washing your hands of the system, and the responsibility lies somewhere else. I think the responsibility lies in your office.
I don't know how that conclusion can be drawn when throughout this entire testimony, I've referred to this as a partnership. What I am saying is that I'm aware of many discussions and many conversations, as you point out, going on throughout the City about different ideas and different ways to operate schools. I am not aware that any of those are Commission-sanctioned. In fact, just recently, the School Reform Commission issued an RFQ looking for information and qualifications, and I think today's the date by which interested parties need to make their expressions of interest known about entities that think that they want to operate schools. So, so far, that's been generated, there's been a whole lot of discussion, a whole lot of assumptions, but I don't know that there's a whole lot of authorized action.
I'm going to 184 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 recognize Councilman Cohen in a second. The problem we have, obviously, is one of time. We have a very lengthy hearing that ws supposed to start at 1 o'clock, and it's now a quarter of 2. And with that in mind, I now recognize Councilmember Cohen.
Thank you. Those warnings usually work in the opposite direction. Those warning usually result in opposite results. Did you state a view with the Mayor with respect to these two bills, Miss Kahn? In your testimony, have you given us the Mayor's opinion as to whether he will approve these bills or whether he's opposed to them?
I have not had a direct conversation with him as to whether -- what action he might take if they end up being approved by Council. But what I did do was point out some of our concerns and questions, frankly, from a legal standpoint.
So that it would be fair to say that as of this time, the Mayor has no 25 position on these bills? 185 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
If the position is a pure "Would he uphold them or veto them?" I have not had that direct conversation with him, but I certainly think that he would support the comments that I made today.
I missed the part where you said you certainly think he would... and then I didn't get the rest of it.
That he would support the comments that you made today?
And then what are your comments with respect to the bill? Do you favor the passage of the bill or do you oppose the passage of these two bills?
Depending on what the full intent of these bills is. In the first instance, if it's about affirming that Council has the right, and the only right, to appropriate funds, we agree with that. We think that right already exists in the law and there's no reason for additional legislation. 186 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Other than that, if in fact these ordinances are intending to be binding on the School Reform Commission, for example, or any State officials, then we just don't think -- the legal advice that I have is that Council cannot do that. So they would not result in having the impact that I think everyone else who's testified here today believes that they would.
How would I classify that as an answer to the question of whether you or the Mayor support the bills?
He was here yesterday. In his speech, he voiced agreement with every complaint that those of us have who are opposed to the State takeover. He said it wasn't a solution, he said he was opposed to so many aspects of it; I think he outnumbered the aspects that he was opposed to as against those that I have listed in my general opposition. Is it difficult for him to state that he would be in support of the proposals of this bill? He said he wanted the people of Philadelphia to 187 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 have a greater voice than they ever had before and he believed they would have that greater voice. I don't know how he came to that conclusion, but that's what he said
What he said was that the people of Philadelphia would continue to have a strong voice, that his preference is absolutely, continues to be, exclusive local control of public schools, local schools, but because of the financial situation that we are in, that preference -- it just simply isn't possible to have that preferred situation.
Why not? He has a lawsuit in the federal courts in Philadelphia which would call upon the State to give the appropriate amount of financing so that we could maintain both local control and adequate funding for the schools. Yet it's the Mayor who requested the court to hold up action on that suit. So it just isn't a fact to say that the City had no ability to deal with the situation.
The fact is that that lawsuit, even though -- and lawyers can speak to it, but as I understand it, certain decisions have come down 188 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 that have, you know, made that suit more questionable about its ability to go forward. But beyond that, there's no question that we could not have gotten a result from that lawsuit in a quick enough time to keep schools open, to keep the cash coming that would enable all of our children, our hundreds of thousands of children, to attend school uninterrupted.
Well, I don't understand what result it is the Mayor thinks he's gotten. What I understand from what little has been publicized about the agreements is that Philadelphia for the next 30 years is going to throw down the drain some $25 million of tax money each year to pay the interest on bonds that would pay off only the current debt and would not relate at all to these basic structural needs of the School District. That to me seems like a terrible waste of Philadelphia school -- of Philadelphia tax dollars. It also -- isn't it a fact that it was the Mayor who demanded that the State take over the schools at the beginning of the negotiations some months ago when he said that unless we arrive at an 189 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 agreement that's satisfactory to both the State and the Mayor, that he will insist that the State take over the schools?
Again, I repeat that this take-over was coming. It was inevitable because of the legislation that was already on the books and because of the financial situation of the School District. We did not last year --
Well, why was it inevitable? It wasn't the Mayor's decision; it would be the State's decision under Act 46.
And the School District would have been out of cash, our schools would have closed, and part of what --
No, not if the Mayor had been willing to go through with the lawsuit that had pressure on the State. The State was terribly afraid of what the result would be and it was the State that initiated the requests for the case not to be heard, and the Mayor quickly joined in. It was the Mayor who demanded that the State take over the schools from the beginning. Is it your opinion that the Mayor had the legal authority to say that he has taken away 190 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 control of the schools from Philadelphians and turning it over to the State? Are you saying that the Mayor had that power?
How could he do that when we have a supplement to the Home Rule Charter relating to the schools? Can you cite any provision which says that the Mayor has the authority whenever in his judgment he wishes to turn over control to somebody else?
The responsibility that the Mayor has from the Home Rule Charter is to exercise to the best of his judgment --
Two years ago, the people of Philadelphia voted to give the Mayor total control and responsibility for the conduct of the schools; they didn't vote to permit the Mayor to divorce himself from that responsibility by turning it over to the State or to some private school systems, private profit corporation. The Mayor had no authority to do that.
We think that a partnership is not about abdicating responsibility. We will be in 191 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 the School District by virtue of the governing body having dual appointments by the Governor and the Mayor, that we will be in partnership making the hard decisions, attempting to get the financing that's needed to be able to keep our schools open and to be able to make the educational improvements that --
Wouldn't it be a fair conclusion, Miss Kahn, that since the negotiations were considered secret between Governor Schweiker and the Mayor and the next thing that happened was that the one-person School Reform Commission issued these $675,000 worth of contracts? (Applause.)
Would it be a fair to say that that was the subject of the negotiations between Governor Schweiker and Mayor Street?
It would be completely unfair and untrue. We had no knowledge of those actions. That provision in the law that gives the interim chair full authority was the change that was made. And, again, I go on record as saying that we advised against making those changes in Act 46 in the fall. 192 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666
You mean it was the chairman and the sole member of that commission that had all the information about the political interconnections of the people chosen for those contracts and Mayor Street?
No one, no one from the City Administration was involved in any of those discussions.
Well, we'll have to let the public make judgment on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're welcome. Thank you very much. There's no further questions for this witness and there's no one else to testify on these bills. We have two quick zoning bills to take care of: Bill No. 010560, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Poplar Street, Ninth Street, Percy Street, Brown Street, Tenth Street, Fairmount Avenue, and 12th Street. Would you please come forward and 193 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 identify yourself for the record and proceed. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Cardell Blue. I represent the Philadelphia Housing Authority and I'm here to testify in favor of Bill 7 No. 010560. This bill will enable 178 units of public housing to be built at the Richard Allen Housing Development. We respectfully urge that the committee support the bill and also that the rules be suspended.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of Development Planning for the City Planning Commission, here today to testify on Bill No. 21 010560. This bill amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of the area bounded by Poplar Street, Percy Street, Brown Street, Tenth Street, Fairmount Avenue, and 12th 194 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 Street. This rezoning will facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the site of the Richard Allen Homes. The existing pattern of the zoning designations is mixed and is not consistent with the plan of proposed development. These changes will allow for the construction of the 178 new homes in this area. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 18, 2001, considered this bill and recommended that it be approved. Thank you.
I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. Would you commit yourself, if we approved this legislation to a zoning change, to give to this committee the percentages of Philadelphia residents who will be involved in the building of these structures -- the percentage of black, Latino, and women that will be involved in the building of these structures; the percentage of Philadelphia residents and minorities that are from here in the skill areas of construction; and the 195 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 hours that each have worked on these projects. I want to be able to have in this committee a summary of that and maybe even a census of that, because it's a lot of money in the neighborhood construction and I'd like to see where the Philadelphia residents and the Philadelphia minorities are going to be involved in it -- not just in the rhetorical aspect but in the overall.
Councilman, may I understand your request? Are you asking for employees who have already worked on this project, or are you asking percentages of people who, in fact, will be working when the construction starts?
I want, when the construction starts, the number of Philadelphia -- percentage, a number, a number and what percentage they make up that are Philadelphia residents, the number that are minorities, the number that are actually working, and the hours by census, the hours that they actually work in the overall process.
All right. To the extent that that information is available, I --
Why wouldn't it be 196 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 available? Why would it not be available?
Well, what I'm saying is that I don't know that it is available, nor do I know about the apparatus to actually gather it. I can say that all --
You would not know how many people are working on your project?
At this time, the information in terms of how many people will be working will certainly be known, but when you ask the question about the census tracts --
Zip codes is usually -- that's usually done through the Greater Urban Affairs Coalition that monitors projects and provides zip codes.
I want to know the percentage of Philadelphia minorities that are not just laborers working in the construction. Laborers, skill trades by hours, Philadelphia residents, and by ethnic composition. I want a 197 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 commitment.
Hold it, there's a point of information. Councilman DiCicco.
Have the contracts been yet let? Has there been an RFP?
No, the contracts have not been let as of yet, but we are required to comply with all requirements of regulations, laws, affirmative action, and so forth. And that information --
Let me rephrase it. Has the general contractor or contractors been selected yet?
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill?
Is this bill covered by any federal, state, or local law with respect to the labor costs, prevailing wage? Is that a factor 198 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 in this construction or not?
Yes. The construction funds which are used are federal funds, and to that extent, federal law (inaudible).
Would there be any way at some point in time for you to have a chart indicating what the labor costs are for this development being built in Philadelphia as against what the labor costs would be if the same construction took place in the suburbs?
We certainly will have information about what the costs are of labor here in Philadelphia. With respect to what the costs are in the suburbs, of course that information would have to be made available in order for us to make that kind of comparison, but certainly we can give the information as it relates to the workers on this job and their wages and the labor and so forth.
Under the prevailing-wage requirements, would you be able to furnish us with the Philadelphia --
Well, we could get the 199 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 others from the Labor Department. We're concerned about the fact that we're constantly met with the fact that there's so much more residential construction outside the City than within the City. We in Council are blamed, the people in Philadelphia are blamed, everybody has a sort of blame. We're told that when a building is constructed, say, of residential housing that would go normally at the market place for $100,000, as soon as it's built in Philadelphia, it's only worth 50,000; therefore, that's why private developers can't do it, but that in the suburbs, it might only cost them 50 or $75,000, and that they could get it built for the market rate. And we're just interested in finding out, is there a discrepancy between the costs between Philadelphia and the suburbs? If so, what are the causes -- labor, material, a combination of regulations? What is it that puts Philadelphia at such a disadvantage? And so you will be giving us a very important piece, Mr. Blue, if you give us the Philadelphia costs.
Thank you very much are there any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if this question was asked. Mr. Blue, good afternoon.
Mr. Blue, can you talk to me briefly about the neighborhood participation program from an employment and additionally from the contracting aspect? I know in some of the prior development sites that you did, you actually created companies as a result of large-scale initiatives, one in Raymond Rosen and I think there was a company formed that ended up being a drywall construction company. Is that in place in this particular development?
Yes. We -- as a matter of policy at PHA what we try to do with all of our developments is, in fact, to hire as many residents of public housing as well as residents of the 201 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 surrounding neighborhoods where the development is taking place. We also encourage the residents to participate in partnerships where possible and they demonstrate the capacity to do so that.
What's the process? I'm a guy at 12th and Girard, I see trailers moving up on the site, I have a little bit of construction knowledge and I want to get a job over there; what do I do?
Well, at this point, the contact would be made with the contractor who is working on the particular job, and that information would be given at that time -- it's normally given to surrounding organizations who are involved with PHA as well as the resident Council at the particular development or in the scattered sites, as the case may be.
In the solicitation for general contractor, is that language in the solicitation whereas they understand that if they bid on this project, they know that they're going to have to have reasonable neighborhood participation both on the contracting side and on 202 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010560 the employment side?
That is correct because they are responsible to adhere to Section 3 requirements, they are responsible to hire public housing residents where possible, and they are responsible to do an outreach and a plan prior to each job that we do is in fact approved by the Philadelphia Housing Authority, where it is demonstrated how they will do the outreach in order to attract these people.
All right, last question on the issue. Is there a mechanism or is there a department in place where there's an individual who's responsible for monitoring that activity?
'Cause I don't want to simply leave that to the contractor.
Right, we do have a department at PHA who is responsible for administering that outreach and also responsible for reviewing the plans that are submitted by the contractor.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 203 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010632
Thank you very much. Any more questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
We thank you very much for your testimony. The next bill is Bill No. 010632, which is an ordinance to amend Philadelphia Zoning Maps of by changing the zoning designations of certain areas located within an area generally bounded by Redwing Place, Meadowlark Place, Lapwing Place, and Longspur Place, and in the general vicinity of the northeast corner of Island Avenue and Lindbergh Boulevard. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Tom Chapman here to testify on Bill No. 010632. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell and amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of a 7.74-acre parcel of land from the existing R9-A residential to class recreational. A previous bill, Bill No. 204 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010743 010631, authorized the City to acquire the subject property from the Redevelopment Authority. This rezoning and acquisition would facilitate the use of this property as a passive parkland for this residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 15, 2001, considered Bill No. 010632 and recommended that it be approved.
Thank you very much Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. The last bill to be considered today is Bill No. 010743, which is an ordinance amending Chapter 2600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Standards of Conduct and Ethics," by adding anti-nepotism provisions prohibiting City officers or employees from taking or recommending certain personnel actions affecting family members, all under certain terms and conditions. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the discussion that took place at 205 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010743 the last meeting and further discussions that I've had with Councilman Nutter, I am respectfully requesting that Councilman Nutter agree to hold no 5 hearing today on this matter and to have it just recessed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I think Councilman Clarke also wants to be recognized.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Cohen, I'd just like to add to that also. I've had some discussions with Councilman Nutter with respect to this bill. We've come a long way as it relates to some of our concerns so we've actually come to some agreement, and the Councilman has indicated that he will share some of the concerns with some of the other members of this Council. And I assume that we're going do hold that today and I would respectfully ask the Councilman to hold that so that we can continue the fruitful discussion that we've been having.
Thank you, Councilman 206 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010743 Clarke. I appreciate the use of the term "fruitful." Both to Councilman Cohen and Councilman Clarke, based on the discussion and the request, I will hold this bill in committee pending further discussion.
Thank you very much. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee public hearing. - - - 207 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We are now in a Rules Committee public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill No. 010125.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendments that have been read into the record by the Planning Commission as it relates to Bill No. 010215 be approved (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. The amendments to Bill No. 010125 have been approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for a motion on the amended bill.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 010125, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. 208 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010125, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember for a motion on Bill No. 010126.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010126 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010126 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 209 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Bill No. 010305 will be held. Bill No. 010392 has received a request for withdrawal. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 010617 to amend.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are some amendments to this bill 10 based on both the testimony today as well as earlier discussions. There were both technical issues with this bill, as well as this -- bill was introduced back on October 25, 2001; since that time, additional information has been made available with regard to the agreement that's been reached between the City and the State and the creation of the School Reform Commission and other entities that have been the subject of discussion as well as requests for qualifications. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I wish to put forward amendments to Bill 010617 as well as 010666 to make those bills more up-to-date and direct as to their actions. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quickly read the amendments into the record, and I'll naturally 210 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING answer any questions. With regard to Bill 010617... (Councilman Nutter reads proposed amendment to Bill No. 6 010617, full text of which is attached hereto.)
The proposed amendment to Bill No. 010666... (Councilman Nutter reads proposed amendment to Bill No. 12 010666, full text of which is attached hereto.)
... and those are the amendments to the two bills, Mr. Chairman.
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. The amendments to Bill No.'s 010617 and 010666 are approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended bills 010617 and 010666. 211 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 010617, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and to the sponsor, I just want to speak to Bill No. 617 and 666, and I've actually had earlier discussions with the sponsor of the bill. I have some, as I said earlier in that discussion, have some reservations about both of these bills, centering around the legality of those bills and the ultimate State support as it relates to the funding of those particular schools, and as a result of that, I have some concerns. But in spite of that, I'm prepared to offer my support in committee today 'cause I think it could potentially be a catalyst to have the 212 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING appropriate discussion with the SRC Committee and the State and actually expedite the SRC's charts to get the appropriate agreement together so we can have a sense of what our involvement and the citizens' involvement will be. And I truly agree with the intent of the bill, that I think that it, particularly in City Council, if we're going to be asked to it support to the tune of $45 million annually, I think that we should have a true participatory role in this process. So I would just like to say I offer my support, but I do have some reservations, and hopefully, we will be able to resolve those issues as we move ahead.
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 010617, as amended, be reported out of this with a favorable recommendation and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Moved and seconded. 213 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010617, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember for a Nutter motion on the amended Bill No. 010666.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010660 , as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in fair favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010666, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 214 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Bill No. 010660 will be held The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 010745.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010745 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010745 will be reported out of this committee, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 010560.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010560 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and a request for suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. 215 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010560 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 010632.
I move that Bill No. 11 010632 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010632 will be reported out of this committee favorable, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a recommendation on Bill No. 010718.
Mr. Chairman, I move 216 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING that Bill No. 010718, the amendments be adopted as presented by the Planning Commission and the map. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. The amendment to Bill No. 010718 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended Bill No. 010718.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 010718, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010718, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. 217 1/30/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your patience The Committee of the Whole will start immediately. (Proceedings end at 2:20 p.m.) - - - 218 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Rules Committee of Wednesday, January 30, 2002, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Bill No.'s: 010125, 010126, 010560, 010617 010632, 010666, 010718, 010745 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and 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.)