COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE ON LAW and GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 1, 2005, 2:08 p.m. - - - 041043 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to rights over or in real estate by providing that Council may direct the City to replace any City-owned building closed because of condemnation by a government entity; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 041052 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to rights over or in real estate by providing that Council may direct the City to replace any City-owned building closed because of condemnation by a government entity. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 - - - P R O C E E D N G S - - -
The Committee on Law and Government will reconvene at 2:30 this afternoon. Thank you. (Hearing concluded at 2:08 p.m.) 3 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on March 1, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (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.) 4 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE ON LAW and GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 1, 2005, 2:40 p.m. - - - 041043 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to rights over or in real estate by providing that Council may direct the City to replace any City-owned building closed because of condemnation by a government entity; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 041052 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to rights over or in real estate by providing that Council may direct the City to replace any City-owned building closed because of condemnation by a government entity. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 5 PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS 6 Law & Government - 3/1/05 - - - P R O C E E D N G S - - -
The Committee on Law and Government is now in session, and that was the bill introduced by Councilwoman Krajewski.
Bill 041043, an Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to rights over or in real estate by providing that Council may direct the City to replace any City-owned building closed because of condemnation by a government entity; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election.
Is there an 7 Law & Government - 3/1/05 announcement you wish to make for me with respect to that bill? Is there an announcement the clerk is going to make, with respect to that bill?
We're hopeful that that's going to be satisfactorily resolved by agreement between the Councilwoman and the Mayor. It deals with the replacement of a firehouse that apparently has to be removed in order to permit certain traffic work. Thank you. The next item on the matter before the committee will be consideration of the bill that was before this committee yesterday. And that is bill number?
040771, an Ordinance 21 providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to 8 Law & Government - 3/1/05 City leases, contracts, concessions and the provision of financial assistance; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Ordinance Number 040772, an Ordinance amending Title of The 11 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Contracts and 12 Procurement," by adding provisions regulating 13 the process by which the City awards 14 professional services contracts and other 15 non-competitively bid contracts, and 16 prohibiting persons from entering into such 17 contracts or from receiving City financial assistance if they or certain related parties have made certain contributions to elected City officers or candidates for City offices, all under certain terms and conditions. And Resolution 040818, a Resolution 23 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to City leases, contracts, concessions and the provision of 9 Law & Government - 3/1/05 financial assistance, and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia
Let the Chair note the presence of a quorum, although a standing quorum rule permits the Council committee to proceed on the basis of a standing quorum. However, a full quorum is here, consisting of Councilman Mariano, Councilman Nutter, myself as Chairman, Councilman Kenney. We expect to be joined shortly by Councilman Kelly. And there's Councilman Goode. Councilman Nutter, may I ask, are you prepared to state your assessment of the material received from the Mayor's Office this morning? Have you had time to check it out and to reach some decisions, as to the amendments offered by the... Now, these are not technically amendments because only a member can, during a meeting process -- and this is still at the hearing process -- can introduce the 10 Law & Government - 3/1/05 amendment. But have you read the material given to us by the Mayor?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have had a chance to read through the two sets of amendments. One is to the Resolution 040818, and the other more extensive amendments are to the Bill 040772. Just a couple observations. I do appreciate the administration quickly working to get these materials to us, given yesterday's hearing. With regard to Resolution Number 040818, it has been difficult, Mr. Chairman, to completely understand or ascertain what exactly the proposed amendment which is a series of items. One is striking a sentence that would be added by the measure that I introduced, as well as some additional language, the primary purpose of which it would seem to be to rather restrict the Council's work in this particular area regarding concessions. 11 Law & Government - 3/1/05 And there has not been any kind of explanation that is clear as to the meaning or purpose or impact of this particular proposed amendment. I could not... I could not support it, one, because I think it is counter to the purpose of the original proposal put forward; and second, I cannot... I cannot really understand its purpose, and no one's been able to explain it thus far.
Well, let me say this: Following up what I said before, only a member of the committee will be able to offer an amendment. I don't know whether anyone who is a member of this committee is going to be introducing anything on behalf of the Mayor. I've been informed that it is the Mayor's belief that the amendments offered by him will improve the efficiency of the bill, but I have not been informed as to the Mayor's position on the bill, even if we adopt all the amendments.
I was told that the Mayor is still unresolved as to what his approach will be on the bill. So, we don't have any position from the Mayor with respect to his support of the bill, even were we to adopt all of his amendments. But he does believe, we're told, that the amendments suggested will improve the bill's effectiveness but that he has not yet made any decision as to whether he will sign the bill, permit it to become law without a signature, or veto the bill. So, this is just a question of the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, if I may ask Councilman Nutter, if he has any idea as to an example of what a concession or other lease or license or other contract of the sale of products, whether in addition of services for consideration on City property. Did you ask them or did you have a conversation with them or did they give you an idea what that -- what an example of that would be? 13 Law & Government - 3/1/05
Councilman, I did -- I asked what the purpose of the amendment, both the deletion of the proposed new sentence, as well as in the bold, the new language. At the time I asked the question, the individual was not in a position to give a specific example of what this would accomplish. What I know is... I mean, a concession is a contract for some service or goods where the lowest responsible bidder requirements are not the case. It's actually the highest responsible bidder. It's not money that the City is expending. It's money that the City is receiving from a party. Presently we have no 19 jurisdiction over those concession agreements. And this amendment -- The purpose of the amendment, as I put it in would be if there were a concession which had a term of a year or more, it would be required to be approved by this Council. 14 Law & Government - 3/1/05
I mean, there's nothing in planning now; but what jumps to my mind is in the event the City does something with the lower level of City Hall which would open it up for restaurant or retail, would that be an example of the award of a concession that would be generally sought after as a result of the highest responsible bidder, getting the most money for the City?
And what you understand this amendment to be is that that would not fall under the auspices of this legislation.
I would take that to be the case, by the striking of the first sentence -- of the new sentence, it would seem that that -- the Council would not have jurisdiction.
And you as the sponsor of the resolution are not supportive of that amendment.
I would not be 15 Law & Government - 3/1/05 supportive of that, no. 3
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have one other question about an amendment.
To 772. On page... Pages, I don't think, are numbered.
Contracts for legal service work applied to the City with this chapter would either breach a legally recognized privilege or otherwise material damage to legal or financial interest to the 16 Law & Government - 3/1/05 City. Could you give, I guess, their example of what that would be?
I mean, is there any -- Mr. Grace, could you -- could you -- I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, may I request that Mr. Grace approach the table? Rather than ask Councilman Nutter what the administration means, I'd rather ask somebody from the administration.
Mr. Grace, if you're in a position to do so, please approach, take the witness stand, and introduce yourself to the committee for record purposes.
Joe Grace from the Mayor's Office, Deputy Secretary for External Affairs.
Let me repeat the question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Grace, on Section 17-1206, 17 Law & Government - 3/1/05 triple i, contracts for legal services in compliance with this chapter would either breach a legally recognized privilege or otherwise materially damage the legal or financial interests of the City. Could you give me an explanation and/or an example of what that is?
Councilman, I don't have a specific example as to triple i. I think I could speak generally as to this proposed part of the amendment. So, in some ways, Councilman, both double i and triple i, four and five --
Well, let me save you some time. Double i I understand. I mean, to me that's pretty clear.
I think four is pretty clear. Disclosure, you know, information that would jeopardize the interests of the City.
Yeah. And six, with respect to the potential loss of 18 Law & Government - 3/1/05 federal, state or similar grant funds.
I understand the need or at least the principle behind them. I don't understand what triple i is. So, if you could just confine your comments to that.
The best I can do is, rather than tell you something that I can't give you a very long explanation of triple i, I can certainly consult with the Law Department, and give you an answer by the end of the day, if not even sooner. Perhaps during this hearing if I step out of the room.
Councilman Nutter, I understand the procedure you and I worked out was that I suggested that where you agreed with a proposed amendment you 19 Law & Government - 3/1/05 incorporated with the amendments that you're otherwise going to present to us.
And that if you disagreed, that you just state your disagreement. So that at some point in the proceedings this afternoon, you will be introducing the amendments you had spoken of yesterday.
And incorporate within them notifying wherever that's happened that you're including the Mayor's amendment, but also stating wherever you object to the Mayor's amendment.
And I'd be prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman. I believe the copies of the documents are available. Based on our conversation, what I sought to do, as you indicated, there were already some amendments that were going to be proposed for Bill 772 yesterday. We just never got to that part of the hearing. Now, seeing the amendments having 20 Law & Government - 3/1/05 come up from the administration, what I've tried to do is encapsulate in one proposed set of amendments both the amendments that I had already planned to put forward, as well as, at least from my perspective, those amendments sent up by the administration that do in some instances provide clarity or enhance parts of the bill, possibly reduce confusion. And then there are some other components which, again, personally speaking, I would not find acceptable. And I can point out what those -- what those items are as we go through the documents. So maybe the best thing at this point is to continue talking because the copies are not -- are not ready, but there --
-- through your excellent services this morning, when the administration amendments came in, you went 21 Law & Government - 3/1/05 to work immediately to examine them.
Because I think we all have to recognize that although maybe legally or from a lawyer's point of view the jury, you were not representing Council --
-- in your negotiations with the Mayor. Since you were the only one really engaged in such discussions --
-- you were what lawyers would call a de facto representative, acting in fact for all Council members. So that I think it's quite fitting that you make this analysis.
You are tremendously generous with your characterization. But I think, as is the normal process, Mr. Chairman, if a member has a bill, they try to talk to as many people or entities as possible. 22 Law & Government - 3/1/05 And I've tried to do that in this particular matter, but have never represented that the work was speaking on behalf of the members, although I've talked to the members about these matters, and as well talked to the administration as much as possible, trying to seek consensus or compromise. There are some differences of opinion on a couple of these matters which, you know, sometimes reasonable people can disagree. I think they may be walking in now.
Yes. Councilman Mariano, did you have a specific question?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, from what we've been speaking about here for the last couple minutes, the amendments that we're calling the administration's amendments...
The proposed administration amendments. I'd be willing to 23 Law & Government - 3/1/05 introduce them, if that makes this a stronger bill. And I want to answer a question possibly that Mr. Grace wasn't willing to answer or couldn't answer. And I don't pretend to be a legal expert on anything. But what I read out of the question that Councilman Kenney asked about 17.1206 triple a, and I think Councilman Clarke, who's not a committee member but was here yesterday, and I who am a committee member was here yesterday, we made it pretty clear that we didn't -- just our two personal opinions, we didn't want to be involved in contracts, with giving contracts, bids, no 17 bids. It's not what we came to City Council for. And I think this amendment that triple a... 1712-06 triple a that Councilman Kenney questioned Mr. Grace on, that would take us out of the process of bidding on -- being involved with contracts. And again, I want to take the point, I'd be happy to submit these amendments as my 24 Law & Government - 3/1/05 amendments, if it keeps us out of the contract process. Mr. Chairman, when we started this whole process -- And, you know, Councilman Nutter has surely worked and put many hours on this -- this was supposed to be about ethics reform. And ethics reform is why we have all the well learned people from the editorial boards sitting here, figuring out that this is something that they think the City needs to go on into the next... whatever we're supposed to go onto, because of obviously what's happened with the federal corruption trial. And I for one don't see this as ethics reform. And I... You know, this is a shot. What happens, there comes a time in your life, a time in your political life and in your legislative life, when you have to go against people that you think are doing a decent job in other things. I think Councilman Nutter started out well with ethics reforms. I think we had 25 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Councilman -- former Councilman McElhatten here talking about what him and Judge Chen did about an ethics board. I don't know how we can have ethics reform and not have an ethics board. I mean, we talked about things that we didn't like as Council people, nepotism, that some Council people obviously have a problem with giving out contracts. Some people want to do it; some people don't want to do it. I mean, this is not ethics reform. I mean, how can we have ethics reform and not have an ethics bill? I've been a Councilman for two terms and half of a third term. A new freshman Council person doesn't know where to turn. As a Councilman for two terms and half of a third term, I don't know where to turn. Do you talk to the Inspector General? Do you talk to the District Attorney? Who do you talk to? The City Solicitor? You may get three different pretty learned opinions on those three for the same subject. Law & Government - 3/1/05 Again, if we're here for ethics reform -- and I know the Councilman is trying to get to a place where he can get something passed here -- well, let's not just pass something that a lot of us don't want. It may get out of this committee, but it may not get out of Council as a whole, and it may not be ethics reform when we're done doing it. If these amendments that the administration brought up, it's obvious to me they're to keep us out of the contract process. That's what that sounds like to me.
Mr. Chairman, I'm curious. I just would like to know if Councilman Mariano could explain how we're in the contract process.
No. I don't think this bill does that at all. 27 Law & Government - 3/1/05
This bill, as I understand it -- and Councilman Nutter can speak for himself -- is to create a transparent process that the public can understand, as when it comes to the awarding of no bid professional service contracts. We are not in the process of awarding professional service contracts now, nor the passage of this legislation will we be. It will be a transparent process that people can view, understand who represents who, who's in the mix, who the consultants they are hiring, how much money they have given to campaign candidates or to elected officials. It really has nothing to do with us getting involved in the awarding of any contracts.
I don't read it 28 Law & Government - 3/1/05 anywhere like that.
-- the way I read it is... We yesterday sat here and said we didn't want to be involved in contracts, period. Maybe I misspoke and said we're going to award -- I don't think we're going to award contracts. I don't want to be involved at all.
I don't want to have nothing to do with it, and I don't want to be able to have a transparent process. That process is there right now. There may be a couple no bid contracts that commissioners came up here and said that they need -- For instance, L & I needs some kind of leeway. And I think I heard Councilman Nutter saying he understands no bid contracts. I mean, If I'm wrong here, I'd be willing to admit it. Maybe you could explain it to me. I just don't see this. 29 Law & Government - 3/1/05
I just don't understand how you think the process is transparent.
Existing... The way we award no bid contracts, now how is it transparent?
The way we award no bid processes is on the administration sitting on the second floor. I don't have anything to do with that.
And neither do 30 Law & Government - 3/1/05 you, right?
No. If we pass this bill with Councilman Nutter's amendments we won't --
Well, then explain to me what the difference will be between now and then.
Sure. Let me go back to the first issue that Councilman Mariano raised. In Section 17-1206, it does not put the City Council into the contracting process. This is a specific provision regarding a type of contract called sole source.
Sole source contracts. That's a contract from which you can pretty much find only one person or entity to --
For instance, that could be someone who, like, washes the trucks of the City, a Fleet service guy that had won a contract, and probably does it. And then next year no one applies for that contract, and they award that to him or her anyhow? Would that be a sole source contract?
Councilman -- 32 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Well, you're looking at 17-1206. No --
No. It's a contract for purchase of unique article or articles which for any other reason cannot be obtained in the open market.
You're usually talking about something like a malarial serum or some other product that is so unique there's virtually nowhere else to find it. There are probably a fair number of people who might want to wash trucks. So, that more than likely wouldn't qualify as a sole source contract. This issue with regard to transparency, again, the Council, in most instances, is not involved directly. And Councilman, you and I had some conversation yesterday on the record about this. 33 Law & Government - 3/1/05 But the issue of transparency is really more about that there would be an actual process of how the no bid contracts are awarded. And so, under this proposal, you would be able to either go in the City's web site or go to the offices of either the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director, or the Commerce Department, and see what professional services contracts are available for bid or go on the City's web site. You would then have to fill out an application that you wanted to apply for such. You would know what all of the criteria are for the award of that contract. And list who your subcontractors are gets into the whole area of disclosure of certain information regarding campaign contributions, as well as consultants, if you've hired someone to help you... assist you in the process of securing the contract. You know what the criteria are for the award of the contract. It anticipates 34 Law & Government - 3/1/05 that the City would still be able to award the contract to whoever they thought was the best. And so, it doesn't restrict you to the lowest responsible bidder. After the award is made, that information would be shared publicly, again, on the same web site and in those same offices, as to who won, who the other bidders were, and if we did not take the lowest responsible bidder, why. And then there are a series of additional disclosure requirements, as well as reporting requirements on no bid contracts, how many we've let, what the amounts are, how much has been paid, and that kind of information. That's the process that would be established --
The disclosure processes a little deeper, as far as campaign contributions go?
And that's your amendment, but their amendment here that Councilman spoke about, what would that do if this happened, that we couldn't get any answer from Joe Grace.
Triple i is a very narrow issue about legal services, I believe.
This is under a sole source contract. And what you're talking about here is... 36 Law & Government - 3/1/05
That's what we're talking about, sole source contracts, right?
Well, can we get into this sole source contract here just a little bit?
Can I ask you to pause for a moment? Mr. Grace, would you sit again in the witness chair. And do you have -- Since this is your amendment, do you have any explanation for it? I mean, it's the administration amendment.
Triple i is meant to cover situations in which the Law Department might feel it needs to hire outside counsel, 37 Law & Government - 3/1/05 whether it would be to investigate or review a civil matter, a potential lawsuit, perhaps, against someone with whom the City does business.
So, Mr. Grace, we're not buying malaria serum from these people? I'm getting a little confused. The Councilman was talking about malaria serum.
But to each of the Councilmen who had this inquiry. What it's meant to protect is the Law Department not exposing a privilege if they hire or actually to disclose that the Law Department is looking into something, be it... Again, a civil dispute is the best example. Perhaps a contractor is doing work with the City and has done unqualified or shoddy work. And the Law Department retains outside counsel to look into that matter to prepare for a potential lawsuit. 38 Law & Government - 3/1/05 They -- The Law Department's position is they, wouldn't want to expose that information before the lawsuit was prepared and filed, in the best interests of the City. So that really -- That goes to the heart of what triple i --
No. 24 Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that it's clear. Would the 39 Law & Government - 3/1/05 administration be favorably -- would look favorably upon the disclosure of all the information after the issue at hand was over? For example, if you were hiring a law firm to conduct an investigation about a possible fraud, once that contract was awarded, once the information in the report was completed, would they be opposed to releasing the same disclosure information for that hired firm after the secrecy is -- need for secrecy is left?
Councilman, I'll certainly check with the Law Department. I understand your question completely. It does seem to be after the time which we would be most concerned about disclosing that information. I'll check with the Law Department, and I'll get back to you.
Does that resolve 40 Law & Government - 3/1/05 the issue?
No. I mean, the Councilman was explaining to me -- And I think we had a process here.
Yeah. Councilman, so, tell me exactly -- Your question is around sole source contracts? What's the question?
My first question -- Besides its not really being ethics reform, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's a start towards ethics reform. Now, Councilman Kenney just asked Mr. Grace a question which he didn't have an answer for, but I suppose we'll have an answer. So, are we going to wait until he comes back with an answer or are we going to push this stuff through? What's going to happen? We still have to go to a public hearing.
My question 41 Law & Government - 3/1/05 about sole source contracts is, why is that transparency necessary? And better question than that is, he explained to me why he thought it wasn't. The way Councilman Kenney framed it, it makes sense. Why would transparency --
Point of information. I asked Mr. Grace a specific question, which he's given me an 85 percent answer to which has nothing to do with the question that you're asking --
-- Councilman Nutter. The two of them are just totally different. 42 Law & Government - 3/1/05
The reason that I asked Mr. Grace about triple i was because I wanted to know the reason for the lack of transparency in that particular contracting hire. He explained to me that you don't want to show your cards when you're investigating something quietly. I asked him then, would they be willing to disclose the necessary information post the issue being over. And he said he would get me an answer. But the question -- The colloquy you've had with Councilman Nutter has nothing to do --
Well, triple i was the thing that brought my attention to it. I figured, if they're sending something up here... If the City solicitor or the Chief of Staff is sending something up, we should look at it. Even if it doesn't make it out of this committee, I needed to know what that was. And I may have been a little confused. And I think you just straightened it out by what you said.
I don't -- Personally, speaking for myself, I don't -- After Mr. Grace's explanation, I don't necessarily disagree with their proposal. I just wanted a little clarification on whether or not the disclosure would be okay after the secrecy -- the need for secrecy was over.
So, when I started out my comments, I said I would be willing to introduce these amendments, if the 44 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Chairman didn't deem for himself to do it, just to make this ethics reform thing last -- I mean, actually be better. If the amendment doesn't help it be better, then we won't do it. But I think necessarily just because it was sent up -- And I'm not saying anybody here is doing that or would do that, but just because it comes up via Joe Grace and the second floor, it's automatically bad.
Just because I'm speaking on it, and I'm supposed to be in the Street column, it's automatically bad.
I mean, we are elected independently, and we are elected to service our constituency in the City as a whole, and we all seen different ways to do that. 45 Law & Government - 3/1/05 But I mean, if we're going to have real, true ethics reform, we should be talking about this and many other things.
This is our one big chance to do it. I won't do anything here -- And I'm not saying anybody else does; I'm being guarded in what I say -- to make any editorial boards happy because I frankly don't care what they think. If you read my letter to the Inquirer board Monday, you'll understand that. They don't vote for me. They don't live in my District. And I'll bet you half of them don't live in the City. And I said that time and time again. I care more what the people in my District speak. I just want to say, if we're going to do ethics reform -- And we may not be all thinking about this hours a day, 7 days a 23 week. 24 You know, we have meetings. We have hearings. We speak to Councilman Nutter in 46 Law & Government - 3/1/05 his office. He's always there when you call him; I'll give him that. He'll take all the time. But you go away. You do things with your family. You come back. And things have automatically changed. I was out a week with a sore back. Things have changed. All of a sudden, the ethics board's off the table. Now we're talking about transparency in contracts, and that makes sense. That makes sense. But I want to make sure if we do this, let's do it right and let's listen to everybody. And I understand there's a time thing here to try to get it so it can get on the ballot in the May primary for the things that are important. I for one am not trying to stop anything. I just want to make sure, when I talk to the people in my District that are concerned about this... When I talk to -- Well, I don't talk to the editorial board, but when I talk to one of the reporters or columnists I know what I'm talking about. 47 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Now, we all have different skills and different levels of intelligence, but I would surely say the average person reading one of these papers or listening to this news station tonight, they don't know what ethics reform means. They just want to see somebody on the second floor go to jail or not go to jail. That's what it's about. We're playing a dangerous game here. Are we going to do something that handicaps future mayors? Are we going to do something that handicaps -- I don't know those answers, but those are the questions that I think have to be answered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
May I just respond to one item that the Councilman raised? Councilman Mariano, I want to assure you that I took very seriously the materials 48 Law & Government - 3/1/05 that were sent up earlier today. There's been no opinion made with regard to where the work product came from. The opinion has been solely in the realm of, at least, again, from my perspective, what works and what seeks to accomplish the goal. You will find, when we get to the amendments, there are any number of recommendations in the amendments that were sent up by the administration that I will seek to incorporate in the larger set of amendments. Those, for whatever reason that I might not agree with, have nothing to do with where they came from and are solely to do with what they're about. And so, I just want to assure you of that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I firmly believe that. And I'd just like to respond to that. I do believe that. And I do think we have a working relationship. And I think we need to have a working relationship. 49 Law & Government - 3/1/05 I just want to make sure -- and I'm not saying you're doing it -- You're up there, and please don't take it personal, but I have to be able to live with myself. And in the vernacular that I'm used to, I just want to make sure we're not giving anything the bum rush. Call me paranoid. I'm not saying you're doing it. I'm not saying Councilman Kenney is doing it. We're just under the gun here now. We were under the gun for the last couple times we were in this committee to get to a point that the Chairman who has the authority to let this committee be where it is, gets to. Now, this is where we're at now. Now we're sort of under the gun. And I don't believe that we have total ethics reform. We're looking at something. We're talking about contracts, and that's something that has to be done because I understand the angst that a lot of us have with that. I think that's the right word. There's a certain amount of discomfort with what's 50 Law & Government - 3/1/05 going on all over the press day to day here. But if we are going to do something here, let me be the voice of reason. Not that you're not. Let's do it totally and completely. That's all. I mean, we can go back and forward all day with this. Believe me, I love you all. But let's do this right. And not that we're not doing it right. But let's take our time and listen to the Committee Chairman, and get to a point where we're comfortable with amendments or not. That's all.
I wanted to clarify and perhaps have a hundred percent answer for Councilman Kenney on this question on triple i of section 1206. We would be... The Law Department would be okay with disclosure after the fact, as long as it would not detail any disclosure, Councilman, of any privileged information, illegally privileged information. 51 Law & Government - 3/1/05
Just anecdotally, one of the good example -- well, a bad example, I guess, of a sole source contract in recent memory was the turf at the Vet. That was a sole source contract that didn't work out too well. And maybe a little bit of transparency and competition in that selection process may have paved -- may have been better off for the taxpayer than it seemed to be today. So... I mean, even though the Vet's demolished.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Grace a question, please?