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?
Mr. Grace, this 17-1206, the amendments that you brought up from the administration, do you believe that that would good give us -- would give us as a Council in this City, if this all happens, more flexibility? And if you do, why? And if you don't, why? I am intrigued by this. 52 Law & Government - 3/1/05 I really am.
The purpose of that section in the amendment, Councilman, is to do exactly that, to create some flexibility for the administration, whatever administration is operating the City, to be able to... whether it's for a contract concerning the health and welfare of the citizenry or a legal investigation or a legally proprietary matter, such as under triple i which Councilman Kenney inquired about. It's simply to create some flexibility so that professional service contracts in those type of settings could be moved forward with expeditiously, as opposed to following all of the process contained in this new bill 040772. Flexibility is exactly the reason for that section of the amendment.
Thank you. I'm done with him. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Councilman Mariano, let me try an explanation. As I 53 Law & Government - 3/1/05 understand it, this charter bill that we're presenting in resolution deals with putting constraints basically on the City administration, not the City Council, since it's the City administration that awards the contract. There is a general feeling that Council members, although they may not have direct influence in the award of contract, are in a position to influence the award. Now, I've heard people refer to situations such as Council members, particularly District Council members, work with developers. They're supposed to know the needs of their District. And that because they work with developers or urge certain developers to show them interest in their District, that they will have some influence with respect to the award of the contract. At the same time, all the District Council members I talked to tell me they have nothing whatever to do with the awarding of contracts. 54 Law & Government - 3/1/05 And I know when I was a District Councilman in the 8th District for three years, no one in the then administration ever consulted me about any contract. They were interested maybe in my views maybe as to the desirability of a development. But as soon as I said yes, that was the last I heard. Then the administration, if it were also interested, would take over. Now... But since the City administration goes through the process with the developer, and works out and makes the final decision, and since the federal charges that are going on seem to have caused a lot of concern of people as to how that process works, we're trying in this bill to establish a process that governs that award of contracts. In the award of contracts, there are two kinds of contracts, those that can be bid where the lowest responsible bidder under current law gets the contract. And that's easy to deal with because it's easy to check. 55 Law & Government - 3/1/05 You check the amount of money that they're going to ask for doing certain amount of work, and you check it as against other bids. And that's it. But then there's this other area of work where there is no such -- where there's these special needs businesses where there are other criteria other than the cost of the project. And it's that area that most of the problems result in. What is that process? This bill 13 will attempt to make clear what Council believes is the best road that we now know, to guarantee as much knowledge on the part -- much knowledge and openness on the part of both City administration and knowledge available to the people as to the process. And the sole source contracts are even a subdivision of that area, where the claim is that there's only one bidder -- only one person offering the service. What's the process to be used then? Because that's the --
-- particular niche where most of the problems can develop. Since the administration would have the clear answer, well, we gave it to so and so because he was the only bidder or she was the only bidder, the only one offering that service. Now, that's all we're dealing with. But we're trying in this bill -- And Councilman Nutter, I'd like you to correct me if you read it differently -- we're trying -- We in City Council here are acting on this resolution and bill because we agree that the public is entitled to know more about how contracts are awarded, and to make it clear that in Philadelphia, to the extent this legislative body can control it, the process is going to be open to the public. And we are no longer content with letting strange things occur or permitting suspicion among our residents as to how this contract was awarded. We want as much openness as possible. And what we're struggling to do is to find a way to that openness of process. 57 Law & Government - 3/1/05
I understand that, Councilman. And on that point, I just want to make it clear, I agree with you. And I think I agree with Councilman Nutter and Councilman Kenney, and everyone else here. I just want to make sure... I don't want to be involved in giving any contracts. I want to make sure there's nothing here that's going to have me or anybody else here involved with that. And I don't think that's the point, from what you're saying, and from what I'm getting from Councilman Nutter and Kenney.
This one here -- But on that point, what the administration sends up here, I'm going to ask both of yous, would that weaken what we're trying to do, at first glance at this? I mean, you had a little more time at this, Councilman Nutter, to see this, about an hour more than we did. Would those amendments that Mr. Grace brought up weaken us from doing what Councilman Cohen just 58 Law & Government - 3/1/05 explained to us, explained that we're trying to do?
It really depends on which section of the proposed amendments you're talking about. Clearly, some of the amendments the administration have sent up make material improvements, provide clarity, take out words that should not be in certain places, and have done a couple other things that are, you know, more than fine or they are logical.
But in some 59 Law & Government - 3/1/05 places I would suggest that there is a direct weakening or broadening of loopholes, that allow for either less transparency or more activity that, quite frankly, the original purpose of which was to restrict. So, you know, as I said, I'd be prepared to go through the items that I think are, you know, good or acceptable or, you know, create additional problems or weaken the original purpose.
The Committee's very pleased by the attendance of non-members of the committee of this hearing because this subject affects everybody. And we hope every Council member is busily studying this issue and participating. 60 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are really concerned that the... about legislation that is supposed to provide for disclosure and to make life simpler, only to make it more complicated. For example, we know that the Mayor at the Chamber of Commerce this past week talked about increasing minority and women business participation to percent before he leaves office. And all of us who are very busy, especially doing housing in our neighborhoods, have minority contractors knocking at our door all the time about any project. Any time they see a shovel put in the ground, they call us or come and visit our offices about trying to get work. So, you know, this section four that says a contractor has to disclose the name and title of each office --
Now, you know, this legislation says, in dealing with participation of disadvantaged business enterprises, that a City officer or employee who directly or indirectly advises a contractor, dealing with any of the goals, has to disclose the date, the advice was provided, the name of the person, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I have three people in my office who deal with minority participation. I have two people who go to a Penn meeting every month 62 Law & Government - 3/1/05 who talk about minority participation. You know, I don't -- you know, and who can be viewed as employees. They're employees of the City. So, it seems to me that this legislation could further complicate the process, not make it simpler, and not even end up with anybody getting any work to boot. Any time we were down to two percent, it means that we have some issues in this City. But I frankly don't see how this disclosure information... doesn't do anything but further complicate and exacerbate the process.
Okay. I guess I would say two things. One, first, it would seem to me that the advertising or the keeping of, essentially, a list or a log in the three agencies mentioned, as well as a listing on the City's web site of these opportunities for no bid contracts might, if 63 Law & Government - 3/1/05 not should, increase participation opportunities for all types of business people, but certainly and specifically disadvantaged business enterprises which is what's being referenced in the section, because more people will know about the opportunities that are available by accessing the City's web site. Second, if the case should arise that a firm is recommended, all the section 12 is requesting is that as a part of your application process, as you seek to do this work, that if a firm has been recommended by someone from the City, that you would just disclose it on your form. I don't see how that complicates anything. You're just providing an additional piece of information.
At this point, if I have ten people waiting outside my office, if I have three contractors who -- let's say three minority contractors, who are interested in work, you know, you talk to them. They talk about a project going on in 64 Law & Government - 3/1/05 your District. They say they want information about it. And you can refer them to a developer or to the City Procurement Department or MBEC or somebody. But now you're saying that... And those who are interested in projects already know how to access -- those contractors who are involved already, know where to go and where to apply. And the others you refer to the people doing the work in your District. How does this make life simpler?
The issue is, this calls for disclosure by my employee. It says the City employee. This says the City officer because somebody comes in and ask about a contract.
Councilwoman, the only person that has to provide any disclosure is the applicant, the person is actually seeking the contract. They're the only ones who have to provide any 65 Law & Government - 3/1/05 information.
So they have to -- Say they came to my office on "X" date at "X" time. So if there's ever any legal question... I have no intention on trying to remember -- I don't even require that my staff keep a list indefinitely of my appointments. There are too many people we see and meet with. I think this exacerbates the process.
Councilwoman, you're not being asked for any information. The applicant on their form, all they have to do is list, did anyone give you a recommended firm to meet a disadvantaged business goal or requirement for a particular contract that that applicant is seeking. The applicant has the responsibility to provide the disclosed information, only the applicant.
You're not being asked for anything, your staff doesn't have 66 Law & Government - 3/1/05 to do anything. The applicant has to provide the information.
What, for example -- Because we've already had hearings, it's an easy question. We had these gentlemen who have come who haven't gotten paid at the airport. We had those hearings.
At the stadium, I mean, right. So we have had -- We had hearings on that. What about those gentlemen coming to see us who want to visit us, and it ends up in some court litigation. So then they say, well, I came to Councilman Nutter's office on December 3rd at 10:00 a.m.
So what? That has nothing to do with this. 67 Law & Government - 3/1/05 If you're applying for a no bid contract, all this provision says is, as a part of your application, if a firm was recommended to you by someone from the City, you just need to disclose it on your form.
So we're not considered someone from the City then.
You are someone from the City. You don't have to provide the information.
So I don't understand how you say we're not involved then.
Because you're not the one required to provide the information. The applicant is required to provide the information. You're not applying for the contract.
But if it ends up in a legal matter and someone says, I visited Councilman Darrell Clarke's office on November 2nd, 1990...
...then he 68 Law & Government - 3/1/05 can get pulled into court about an issue over which he had no real input. He can only advise. He can only say, try this or go here or talk to that person.
So it seems to me that we're adding other bureaucratic levels.
I think it makes the system more complicated than less, and gives us more bureaucracy than that which we already have.
Well, if the person's going to try to draw you into something, whether they had to put it into a form or not, that's what they're going to do. This is a disclosure requirement for the applicant. It has nothing to do with the City person. You don't have to provide any information to anybody about anything. It's on the applicant. They're trying to get the work. 69 Law & Government - 3/1/05
But I think Councilwoman Blackwell raises a question that I've been raising in a different form for a long time. The City has stated policies that seem to favor award of contracts to minority vendors, whether they're women or minority, on the basis of color or race or whatever, but the City does absolutely zero in helping these minority firms to deal with problems. And the minority vendor maybe a first-time new one and may have just started a year or two ago; doesn't know where to go or doesn't -- has trouble even sometimes reading or understanding the nature of a question. If the City were serious about seeking increases in the award of contracts to minority vendors, the City would have some kind of office operating that would be fully available to every minority contractor to go to for advice: What does this question mean did I talk to anybody? Because the minority vendor may have had no experience in dealing 70 Law & Government - 3/1/05 with those kinds of questions or in how to answer them. So, if there is -- But I'm not sure that this -- this resolution or amendment to the Home Rule Charter that we're discussing, whether the question should be dealt with now or at a later time. But it seems to me if the City is serious then with the minority mayor, it's very hard to understand how it is that there are fewer minority contracts being awarded now than before there was a minority mayor in the City. And I attribute that solely to the fact that the City seems to take the position that if you seek to be a minority vendor, you're on your own. You've got to find out the rules. And that, to me, is not a helpful gesture. Councilman Mariano.
Councilman, on that point, your point -- and to Councilwoman Blackwell's point, I have a constituent who will remain nameless, who's a minority, an 71 Law & Government - 3/1/05 African American gentleman who's a construction contractor. He comes to me about six months ago, and he's having problems with the MBEC team. And he's to a point where he can't understand what's going on. Now, if I'm a little sheepish on this issue, I say, pal, I can't help you. Because I don't want to get involved in this crap. Now, there's ways to do things. I talk to him. I call Michael Williams. I call his people. It takes two or three months, but we eventually straighten it out, and we get this to the point where this guy gets to be a minority contractor. Besides being African American -- He's obviously a minority; but, you know, he had some partners that may or may not have been, and there was some things he didn't understand. We got him to the point. Now, I don't think Councilman Nutter or anybody in this Council wants to stop that. Very many times if Councilwoman 72 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Blackwell is thinking of this or Councilman Clarke or you or I, is my friend... We'll call him Paul. If he becomes sheepish and he's afraid to talk to me or I'm the one that's being sheepish, and I don't want to try to help him, for all the wrong reasons -- That may not be the intent of this legislation. And I'm sure it's not. But if that is being perceived by the Majority Leader of Council and by other people, where do we go? Do we just do this thing or do we step back and try to figure out... I mean, I'm reading through this paper here, and there's a... This is just...
I think we do both, Councilman. I think we pass legislation aimed at rooting out those things which cause people outside the government to lose confidence in government and at the same time adopt steps to avoid the bad effects of helping people.
Councilman, in here, in section... This is 8-200, . 73 Law & Government - 3/1/05 It's bill...
Under Section 9 8-200... Can you read that or I can read that? And you can see where my spider sense goes up, to use that word. And I like to use that word, so everybody knows that I still read comic books.
Except in persons of [sic] unique articles or articles which for any other reason cannot be obtained in the open market, competitive bids shall be secured before any purchase by contract or otherwise. If made is made or before [sic] any contract is awarded for construction, alteration, repairs or maintenance, as per 74 Law & Government - 3/1/05 renting any service in the City, other than professional service, and the person shall be made from or the contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder [sic]. Now, that's what Councilman Cohen was saying. Provided, however, that City Council -- Now my spider senses are tingling -- City Council, may be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. We're involved in bidding. My spider senses are really... I don't want to be involved in that.
Is that what that says or do I just read something wrong --
No. It says, provided, however, that City Council may, by ordinance, prescribe bid preferences for businesses located in or doing business in Philadelphia. That's presently in the Home Rule Charter today.
So if someone from my District makes widgets, and the City's buying the widgets from Camden, a company in Camden, I can do something to get them to at least put that guy in my District or Councilman Clarke's District or your district on the table? Is that what this is about?
Yeah. That's a previous matter that we dealt with two years ago. There is a bid preference program in Philadelphia presently. It was designed to help companies located in Philadelphia to 76 Law & Government - 3/1/05 give them a five percent bid preference on bidding on contracts with the City, on the theory that many outside the City companies don't have the same operating costs as companies in Philadelphia.
All of the language in the standard type is already in there.
Now, if I can read the italics, by which purchases or contracts not subject to the lowest responsible bidder requirement this paragraph [sic], are awarded, except that such regulations may not require Council approval by ordinance of a contract, unless Council approval is required by some of the other provisions of this Charter. 77 Law & Government - 3/1/05
Should I not trust my spider sense or what is this, if you could help me.
Well, I don't know what your spider sense is telling you, but --
It's something to be aware of. You're talking about City Council on bills.
Right. What it's saying is that Council, under the Charter, presently has no authority to regulate or create a process for how no bid contracts are awarded.
This new language is giving Council the authority by ordinance to determine a process, which is what we're discussing in the Bill 772.
Right. But I thought we weren't going to get into the process of doing contracts.
We will not be 78 Law & Government - 3/1/05 involved in the contracting process. We're establishing by ordinance a process, a series of procedures by which contracts will be awarded, of which we are not directly involved.
I don't want to be involved in contracts as a Councilman.
Point of information. How will we be involved in the process of awarding contracts?
We're not. I 79 Law & Government - 3/1/05 don't think we are, by reading this legislation.
The only thing we do is approve more than one year contracts. We approve multi year contracts. What this legislation as it exists will give us and give the public is a lot more information and a lot more disclosure about who the applicants are, who their consultants and law firms are, how much money they've given to all of us, and limit the ability for them to give money in the future if they're awarded the contract. It does not put us in the process of the contract. It doesn't make us make a decision on the contract. The people who still make the decision on the contract by Charter will still make the decision. It will be the Procurement Commissioner, the Mayor, the combination of a bunch of people, whoever it is. 80 Law & Government - 3/1/05 We won't be part of that. The only -- What will be the benefit of this legislation is that all information that is now unknown about the activities of these contractors, vendors that are trying to get work with the City, all that will be public record. It will be on the web site. It will be in a bid package.
But Councilman, that will happen because we will do this legislation.
Now, let me jump forward, if I can run for one minute because I want to have this debate here.
Councilman Nutter, if I'm saying anything wrong, just jump in.
No; that's fine. Now, we do this. Are we opening a Pandora's box here? Now, in five years, he's 81 Law & Government - 3/1/05 on another floor. You and I are somewhere else. There's a whole new Council, and they want to start dealing. There's another mayor, and everybody wants to start dealing with contracts.
What this really does -- What this really does is just give people information. It gives the public and us information which is not a bad thing.
Because I have concerns. 82 Law & Government - 3/1/05
I make a motion we suspend the rules to allow Councilman Clarke his point of information.
The process of establishing a system of -- Question is, I thought that in this bill was also a function that would now be taking by Council members, that we authorize contacts on the -- on the subsequent year, whereas now the administration has the ability or committee or whatever -- or whatever --
Councilman, are 83 Law & Government - 3/1/05 you talking about multi year contracts?
Yeah. Yeah. Right now it's my understanding that the administration on the award of a contract has the ability to extend that contract. Right. It's my understanding -- maybe I'm wrong -- that now Council will have to approve the additional years. Is that my understanding? Or am I incorrect?
Councilman, you're concerned about the multi year contracts?
I'm not necessarily concerned. I just want -- The statement was made about -- Councilman Mariano is asking information on Council's contracts -- projects. My question is, it was my understanding -- if I'm wrong, please correct me -- that the current -- the current situation is, whereas the administration has the jurisdiction to add additional years to the contract --
You're talking 84 Law & Government - 3/1/05 about a one-year contract with three one-year renewals.
And under this particular proposal, Council would now be required to authorize the additional years.
Councilman, let me answer your question this way: For the moment you are correct. By the end of this hearing, that will not be the case, because there's a proposed amendment to remove that requirement. The only multi year contracts that Council would, under this proposal have to approve, are true multi year contracts. And there are some contracts that come to us that are multi year, but not the contracts that have historically been characterized essentially as the one-year contract with three one-year renewals. That's been the subject of a lot of conversation between myself and the City 85 Law & Government - 3/1/05 administration. And at least on that point we've reached agreement about what would come and what would not come to -- to the City Council. As a matter of fact, all that would be required, essentially, for the additional years is that the department head, rather than just automatically allowing the renewal, without taking any action, which is presently what's allowed, the department head would have to affirmatively certify that renewing the contract is in the best interests of the City. So, under that circumstance that contract would not come over to City Council.
I just wanted to clarify that -- 86 Law & Government - 3/1/05
-- I'm hearing that Council is not involved. And I know under the proposal --
Exactly. Well, you know, it's had many iterations along the way.
-- the main issue raised by Councilman Mariano, the concern about what we would do, what we would not do. I think if we go to Section 12-... I'm sorry. 17-1202, which under the proposed amendment that was handed out, it would be . If you go to 17-1202, number one, this is the process, Councilman, that we talked about... 87 Law & Government - 3/1/05
...that, while we would establish it by ordinance, I think as you read through it, you will find that we are nowhere near involved. A non-competitively bid contract shall be awarded in compliance with the following: First, a City agency that seeks to enter into a non-competitively bid contract shall so notify the Procurement Department and shall coordinate with the Procurement Department in carrying out the requirements of this chapter. The Procurement Commissioner shall develop procedures, to ensure that such contracts are advertised and approved in a timely, efficient and coordinated manner in the best interests of the City. The City agency that seeks to enter into a non-competitively bid contract shall publish on the City's official web site and file with the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director and the Commerce Director a notice of availability of such contracting 88 Law & Government - 3/1/05 opportunity. And then it goes on and on. The proposal, for instance, from the administration, they didn't like 30 days. I'm agreeing that days should be enough 6 time. 7 You go further. Procurement 8 Commissioner, Finance Director, Commerce 9 Director have to keep copies of the printed 10 notices in a registry organized in their 11 offices. There may be some people who don't 12 have access, for whatever reason, to the web. 13 You go through all that. You've got 14 notices. It tells you what has to be in the notice. You go through all that. Mandatory disclosures. You read through all that. And more disclosure information. If you go to , no 20 non-competitively bid contract shall be awarded unless all required disclosure forms are completed, signed and attached to the application for such contract and on file 24 with the Finance Director, Procurement Department, and the Department of Records. 89 Law & Government - 3/1/05 After the City agency has selected the applicant with which it intends to contract, the City agency shall publish a notice on the City's official web site, setting forth the names of all applicants. And then you go into all of the those further requirements. In all of that process, City Council has no involvement whatsoever. As you well know, under the Home Rule Charter, in Section 12 2-309, or other provisions of the Charter, there are some contracts that come to this Council for our approval by ordinance. Other than those, we have no 16 involvement in this process, and this bill 17 doesn't do anything to change the dynamics there. All it does -- we go back to that word -- of creating the openness and the transparency and a process which can only be created by ordinance, but does not then insert us in the process of awarding contracts. That's, I mean, the sum and substance. 90 Law & Government - 3/1/05
The amendments that you have on the referendum gives us the power to do that, is what you're saying.
What Councilman Kenney and I just spoke about, basically, in the little back thing there is --
-- those one-year contracts that they give out for three years that were one year no bids, then they give out for three years, that would be eliminated. They could still give out one-year contracts, but without coming to Council, they wouldn't be able to give them a three-year thing.
You would still be able to award the one-year contract with 91 Law & Government - 3/1/05 multiple renewals, but it can -- the renewal can only be at the City's option. If it is not at the City's option, that would be considered a multi year contract and would have to come to this Council. In the case of where it is the City's option, rather than allowing that contract to automatically renew, sometimes you have to -- Say you want it to renew or by your inaction it would automatically renew, rather than allow that, the department head would have to take a look at the contract, and they might want to rebid it. They might want to negotiate, but has to take an action, an affirmative step to say, yes, we want to renew this contract, sign a form saying we want to renew it. And we're renewing it because it's in the best interests of the City, as opposed to, you know, well, it just renewed and that's the way it goes.
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a few comments, if I may. Number one, we can be sitting here debating, and we can be proposing amendment after amendment. This can go on for days, weeks, months or possibly even years. I would like to see us do something out of this committee. I would like to see us do something out of this session to get something -- Has to do and we should do it, in my opinion, to cut down on the amount of no bid contracts. This is where pay to play is just prevalent, and this is one of the things that we have to do, is to cut down, number one, on the amount of no bid contracts. The other issue is going -- Even when contracts are awarded, I think having them transparent is the way to go. I think there's -- I agree with Councilman Kenney and a lot of other Council people on here, that the more information is given out, I think 93 Law & Government - 3/1/05 the better. I think when people look at these contracts to see how they are awarded, I think that's what they're going to look at. And there's -- In my opinion, I don't have any problem with seeing all the information put out there. It -- It will probably address a lot of problems that we currently have. And I would like to see -- And I agree with Councilman Mariano that we should -- the Council should never be in the process of directly getting involved with any of these contracts. I certainly wouldn't want to see that. And I don't think this legislation here has anything to do with it, really. But again, I want to know from Councilman Nutter, if I may, the differences between the administration amendments and his amendment -- his amendments. Because I think that's all we have to discuss in this thing, is how these amendments differ, and where we -- where 94 Law & Government - 3/1/05 we -- where we agree on either or the amendments. That's what I would like to see.
Possibly the best way to do this is, or maybe the more painful, if you have the amendment, the proposed amendments that I handed out which will say proposed amendments to Bill Number 040772, as amended 12/14/04, which is all on one line across the top. And then if you sought to compare that to the administration's proposed amendments, which have a date and a time stamp up in the top right-hand -- top left-hand corner, what you will find is I propose to strike, out of yesterday's conversation, City-related agency which is a section in the back of this, but the definition is being stricken, and all references to those are being stricken. If you go to , definition Number 12, the word City is being stricken 95 Law & Government - 3/1/05 from the term non-competitively bid contract. The administration proposed that we make it clear that these contracts are subject -- are not subject either to the lowest responsible bidder requirements of Section 8-200 or the highest responsible bidder requirements of Section 8-201. That is a good recommendation from the administration, and it's been incorporated. The City administration did not like the 30-day web site notice; felt that that was too long. Presently competitive bid contracts are only required to be advertised for two weeks. And so, I've agreed that we could have that at 14 days. There is a provision in the administration proposal that even with the 14-day notice, that upon a certification from the Finance Director, they might be able to have a shorter period of time. I did not incorporate that in the provisions because the administration already has the power to award emergency contracts, and there would be, at least from my part, a 96 Law & Government - 3/1/05 concern as to what criteria the Finance Director would use to certify that a shorter period of time is necessary. If it's an emergency, it's an emergency.
And they will continue to have that right, in other words.
Okay. I think you have to go to... The administration package is not numbered, but if you go to... There's a letter g. There's been a lot of back and forth about the issue of who has to approve the contracts. The administration proposed to basically utilize the system that currently exists which is just the head of the contracting department or agency, as well as 97 Law & Government - 3/1/05 the Solicitor's Office only as to form and legality. I've just had a difference of opinion about that, and I think we need the higher level officers, Procurement, Finance, the Solicitor and the Mayor for these approvals.
Well, in other words, you're going -- Okay. You're not only going to a higher office, but you're going into more departments.
A higher level of approval on the no bid contracts. There was a concern about the number of reports. You'll see in 17-1203 presently there is a monthly reporting requirement. I would propose to change that to quarterly.
Instead of monthly, to cut down on the number of reports.
Is that a 98 Law & Government - 3/1/05 recommendation of the City?
Yeah, that's my own. They changed the date from the first of the month to the 15th of the month, although they did not want to have cumulative information. They only wanted to look back a month, solely for the contracts that had been awarded in that month. Cumulative information is helpful, but I changed the monthly or would propose to change the monthly to quarterly.
There's still an annual report required. And I think we changed the date from August 1st to two months -- three months after the start of the fiscal year. The administration recommended, similar to having... Well, even though they disagree that the mayor should sign the 99 Law & Government - 3/1/05 reports, they suggested that the Council President would file reports with regard to non-competitively bid contracts awarded by the Council. I think that's a fairness issue. And if we're asking the administration to file certain reports, we should hold ourselves to the same standard. And probably the last big area is back where we were earlier which is Section 12 12-... I'm sorry. 17-1206. The start of this hearing generated a lot of concern in this area. The administration has six... or five new items which have been the subject of some conversation between the members and Mr. Grace. My recommendation is that we maintain what would be their small letter i which is contracts; the Finance Director certifies in writing or for the purchase of unique articles or articles which for any other reason cannot be on the -- in the open market, provided that this exception shall 100 Law & Government - 3/1/05 not apply to professional services contracts. Second, contracts with respect to which delay an award would cause a material threat to public health or safety, if so certified by the Finance Director. City contracts for legal services that the City Solicitor certifies in writing must be awarded immediately to avoid material damage to legal interests of the City, which I would agree is a very serious issue. Contracts with respect to which application of this chapter may lead to the loss of federal, state or similar grant funds, if so certified by the Finance Director in writing. That's an issue that we dealt with in a couple other areas, and there are some funding sources that require us to adhere to their process and no other process or you can lose funding. With regard to the disclosure requirements which I think was the topic of conversation between Councilman Kenney and Mr. Grace, for some of these contracts which 101 Law & Government - 3/1/05 we're concerned about, prior advertising may adversely affect the City's interests or legal position, the disclosure requirement would need to be met no later than days 6 after the contract is executed. 7 So you don't have the disclosure 8 information up front in those contracts, but 9 it's subsequent, to protect the City's 10 interests. 11 The administration recommended that 12 with regard to prohibited conduct, rather 13 than any automatic penalty or debarment, the 14 City administration recommended that the new standard would be -- that the contractor is subject to prohibition for a period of up to three years. The problem with that is that you could virtually have no prohibition if it's only subject to. My recommendation is that it's shall be prohibited for a period of from one to three years. The fine section has been updated or proposed to be updated to comply with the most recent change in state law so the fines 102 Law & Government - 3/1/05 would be in compliance with what we're allowed to do under the new statute approved by the General Assembly. There needs to be some period of time between approval and effective date, and so it's also proposed that the effective date would be September 1, 2005. If the Home Rule Charter Resolution 10 is approved, as well as the reporting period for future contributions would be September 1, 2005. Those are, Councilman, the basic, I guess, either differences or comparison. As I indicated, I think it's fair to say most of the proposals submitted by the City administration have been incorporated into Bill 040772. There are some differences, and some things were not -- were not included at all. There is... And there's also an amendment to clear up. I'm sorry.
What I didn't also mention is, under this proposal, Section 25 17-1208, City-related agencies would be 103 Law & Government - 3/1/05 deleted completely, based on discussions yesterday.
Yeah. Section 7 17-1208 was a section that essentially said that the provisions of this Bill 040772 would also pertain to any City-related agency if they had a contract with the City. This issue came up yesterday. There was a fair amount offer discussion about it. It's a very complicated area, and also raises some legal issues as to whether or not what our ability is to legislatively direct quasi public agencies in this particular area. My recommendation is to strike it from this particular provision and stay focused on the direct City contracts.
Does that leave open wide area, whereby if there were a City administration that wished to avoid the 104 Law & Government - 3/1/05 effects of this action. Would it enable them to contract with an authority to do work and thereby exclude the requirements of the ordinance of the Home Rule Charter change?
Well, Councilman, as they say, you know, just about anything is possible. But I think the reality is is that for the proper operation of the government, it certainly would not be efficient or productive to try to ship a fair amount of regular activity and business of the City over to authorities. But I think, as you have well pointed out, should we find that to be the case, then maybe this is an area that will need to be revisited. I'm not under the impression at the moment that it leaves tremendous vulnerability.
Well, I would worry a great deal about that last point because City administrations, at least during the last 38 years that I've been involved in, 105 Law & Government - 3/1/05 are expert at using the authorities whenever it's to their advantage. A lot of patronage is done through authorities that might not be able to be done through the City rules. If we could find some language between now and final passage of the bill to make it less likely to call it to everybody's attention. To use the principles of transparency, it would be very helpful. Now, Councilman Clarke, I think, has some questions.
Mr. Chairman, I'll see if I can recall. It's been a while. I kind of lost my place.
Probably have questions over this next week or so. Briefly, during the course of the discussion -- I'm not sure who referenced it -- I think I heard... Did City Council, in terms of its ability to issue no bid contracts on professional services, will not be covered by this bill? I don't know who I'm asking that question. I guess... Councilman Nutter. City Council... We're not covered under this particular bill?
No bid contracts. I thought I heard somebody say that this has nothing to do with City Council. It's only the administration.
No, that's not the case, Councilman. City Council would be subject to the same provisions. We just don't have to get the administration's approval.
Well, maybe I 107 Law & Government - 3/1/05 shouldn't be airing our business in public. I would like to ask that because I know we've done a number of professional services over the last year. Recently one was referenced, in terms of the amount of money that contractor's costing us. And I'm not sure how that...
I think it was the condo trash. I think it was upwards of close to quarter million dollars. And it's not clear to me...
...what process we have internally, but we'll talk about that at a later date.
I think we passed a resolution authorizing us to sue. I 108 Law & Government - 3/1/05 don't know how --
We're referencing a process. It's not clear to me what our process is.
All right. One of the issues with respects to disclosure by applicants on contributions... And I'm asking these questions more for clarity's sake. My understanding is that applicant has to disclose his contributions to current elected officials, i.e., incumbents but has to make no disclosure about contributions to any other potential 109 Law & Government - 3/1/05 candidate or PAC or state or Congressional elected official, just solely to members of Council and the Mayor or any other City officers.
Councilman, if I could... If I could take you to... probably take you to . I'm sorry. Probably best to go to first, under mandatory disclosures? They have to disclose, both the applicant and the consultant, contributions they've made in the previous four years, to the date of the application to any candidate for election to any public office in Pennsylvania, anyone who holds such an office, to any political committee or state party in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That's on the initial application.
During the term of the contract and for a year thereafter, they have to provide the same information on a disclosure form within five business days of when they make the contribution. 110 Law & Government - 3/1/05 If you go, then, to the... I think probably 17-1205...
Deals with all the political committees. And a political committee is as defined under the Pennsylvania Election Code, which basically covers anyone who has raised more than $250 has to create a political committee. So whoever you give it to, whoever they may be, under this provision you've got to disclose it.
Thank you. I have more, but I'll -- Not today. Some other...
I'm saying I have more questions and concerns about it, 111 Law & Government - 3/1/05 but I don't want to hold up the committee's work, you flow.
Well, I'm wondering, Councilman Nutter, if you could briefly tell us whether or not if the proposals of this bill were in existence, say, in the last five years, would the City be involved in this grand jury investigation currently, if its provision were complied with? Or what are the chances? Nothing is perfect and nothing works automatically. And if anything can go wrong, it probably will. But within that general framework that we learned about in the City and during our lives on this earth, would this bill have prevented at least some of the contemptive [sic] and corrupt image that Philadelphia has seemed to develop?
Well, Councilman, let me first say -- and you know my... you know I have at times a somewhat 112 Law & Government - 3/1/05 peculiar sense of humor. But there are many provisions at least in my -- in my faith in the Bible, and it has not completely prevented people from doing any number of things. Having said that, I think these types of provisions, if implemented, or if they have been implemented, I cannot predict what some of the individuals who are alleged to have done whatever they are alleged to have done, whether they would do them or not. But I think we would know and would have known at a much earlier stage what was going on in the government and any one of us or all of us probably would have been more compelled to take some kind of action, based on the information that would have been available. You would know, for instance, unless someone just was determined not to fill out the forms correctly or ignore the disclosure requirements, you would know what contributions were being made. You would know who was applying for 113 Law & Government - 3/1/05 what. You would know who the various consultants were. You would have a wealth of information and data available to the public, and the elected leaders and appointed leaders of this government, to then make evaluations as to whether or not we believe the system is working the way any of us believe it should. People will ultimately do whatever they're going to do, but I think our responsibility is to try to create a system that has transparency, that has openness, and that has a level of information that is available for all of us with our eyes open, to see and evaluate. That, I think, is the essence of this. So, I can not sit here and tell you that if this had been passed five years ago, that someone would not try to do something. But I think you would have significantly cut down on the chances and the possibilities of many of the things that are subject of newspaper stories and hearings today. Many of them possibly would not be going on.
Well, with 114 Law & Government - 3/1/05 respect to a question raised by Councilwoman Blackwell before, supported by Councilman Mariano's question, and I think I had a question, too, on it, would it be possible in any of these areas to add a requirement that the City be compelled to establish an Office for Minority Development, whose duty is to constantly be available to minority vendors for dealing with their special problems? Just that general because until the City does it, I'm very much concerned that Councilwoman Blackwell's question that anything opposing further requirements of minority vendors is going to be interpreted by the City in a way which is going to be harmful to the advancement --
And might I have a point of information on that issue, Councilman? Mr. Chairman? And that is, also you have a lot of minorities who are just beginning in business. They are not here today. They did not know, obviously that this whole ethics bill would be a discussion and a large part 115 Law & Government - 3/1/05 about their involvement in the system. But certainly they are not -- especially those just starting out, many are not sophisticated enough to know what they're supposed to do. And all of this disclosure stuff about what office you go to, what time of day and all of that, I really think this could create problems. I regret that we didn't have -- Because they thought it was an overall ethics discussion -- an opportunity to have minority vendors and minority companies at this hearing today. And I absolutely feel that -- We have a law that now requires if one gives or receives $250, you disclose it. I think we have laws, notwithstanding this federal probe. Obviously, there's some law somewhere that one considers are violated. And so, obviously this legislation didn't create it and won't prevent it. I just believe that we in government 116 Law & Government - 3/1/05 have to be mindful of who's affected by everything we do, and that we have to -- In America people want the freedom to operate at work freely and not have continued more legislation, more bills, more laws of infringement, so that it makes it very, very difficult to know when they're, certainly, breaking the law. I hope that this committee will consider these things because I really, really feel that... that we have laws that give people what they need. I think this will hurt minorities and other businesses. I think it will create additional bureaucracy. And I only ask the committee to consider that as they vote.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I tend to agree with Councilwoman Blackwell's concerns, relative to the bureaucracy, relative to people not being informed. 117 Law & Government - 3/1/05 But where I disagree is, I think this legislation will do exactly that. It will give minority firms, other firms in the City, in the region, information that they don't have now about no bid contracts. I mean, in order to get a no bid contract now, this administration, the last administration, the administration before it, you had to be an insider, an insider majority firm or an insider minority firm. And I think in many ways this legislation has been carefully crafted to expose the information of what's available in the public on the web site, through MBEC -- And I think one of the things that Councilwoman Blackwell is concerned about is the sophistication of some firms not being able to fill out the forms or know what to fill out. I think that exactly what MBEC's role should be in advising and promoting minority business in the City, to allow MBEC to guide minority firms through the process. This, if nothing else, gives more 118 Law & Government - 3/1/05 information to small and medium-sized firms in our City, both majority and minority, so that they know that there's City business out there they can go and pursue. As we exist now, unless you're on the inside track, or you're in the know, you don't even know that these contracts are available to bid on or to respond to. And I honestly believe that if we impose -- if we employ these -- this effort, that we're going to allow minority firms in the City and the region to have more information, so that they have more access to compete for jobs and contracts than they do now. So I agree with Councilwoman Blackwell's concern about shutting people out, but I think they've been shut out already. And I think that this legislation opens up the door for people to know what's going on in City government and to go and compete fairly for work, without having to be concerned about how much money they contribute to me or anybody or the mayor or 119 Law & Government - 3/1/05 anybody else.
Did we ask them about this legislation? I dare say we probably did not. Okay.
All minority aspects of this. Did we confer with people who are involved in this issue when we wrote this legislation?
Well, Councilwoman, I did not talk to any specific minority group or majority group or any set of business people. This is not targeted at any group of people. It's about our contracting process. I do believe -- And I would only echo some of the comments made by Councilman Kenney. I mean, I thought it was the job of the MBEC to help minority, female or disadvantaged --
That's not the way the City interprets the current laws. The same argument that Councilman Kenney made. 120 Law & Government - 3/1/05
I understand. But at a minimum, I would have to believe that the Procurement Commissioner -- and certainly we've incorporated Procurement, Finance and Commerce in this process -- that between -- among those three entities, that just doing their jobs, that they would work with those firms, whether minority, female disadvantaged or other firms, that will need information. And I certainly agree that the need for information will be important so that people can be in compliance. But again, the openness and the opportunity is right there for people. And I think, you know, certainly I'd be glad to work on efforts targeted in that direction. I don't necessarily believe that it would be incorporated in this particular piece of legislation, given what its purpose is and what its title is.
But I agree that it's something that needs to be looked at. 121 Law & Government - 3/1/05
Mr. Chairman, if I may add, I mean if you look at the list over the past years or years of 5 professional no bid contracts, both majority 6 and minority, it's a pretty small and pretty 7 well-heeled list. 8 And I would suspect that there are 9 minority law firms, minority accounting 10 firms, other firms within the City, both 11 majority and minority, that have never even 12 thought about wanting to go after a no bid 13 professional service contract because they 14 didn't understand the process because there 15 really wasn't any, other than being on 16 somebody's team or being in the know. 17 I think that the ability through 18 this legislation to partner a medium-sized 19 minority law firm with a Wolf Block or with a 20 Dilworth or, you know, one of those large firms, and allow them to learn the process of doing a bond deal, I think, is a double benefit, in addition to the transparency and tax savings to the citizen. I think it's even a double benefit 122 Law & Government - 3/1/05 to have a firm get in the loop and to learn that business and to learn the opportunities and how to compete for that business. I can't -- I know they can't do it when the shop is closed, and there's no 7 information to even know when the bond deal is coming or when the accounting contract is coming. So, I think it's a real benefit to all business and professional services in the City.
Well, I have to state my total disagreement because the City -- because that's one area the City's taken a firm position. They said in discussions with me concerning minority business ventures that have not succeeded, that nobody ought to go in expecting any other help. If they're ready to seek to be declared a minority vendor, it's their responsibility to find out what's available. We've made a lot of information available. And it is true what you said. 123 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Much more information has been made available. But what's needed is understanding that life is very rough if you haven't done it before, if you have limited resources, and unless the City takes a strong position to help people climb their way through the intricate developments that the City requires, and to find their way through, very little is going to happen. And I think the statistics speak for themselves that I referred to earlier, that actually minority businesses have gotten less share of City contracts than they used to get.
Well, at least with this legislation, they will at least know what's available. And they will also know that they won't have to contribute a certain amount of money to get the job because they'll be limited in their ability --
I have no 5 objection. I'm saying this legislation doesn't do that. I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying this legislation doesn't accomplish that. Perhaps, you know, the recontinued revamping of MBEC will. But I do believe that if you can limit the amount of contributions that a potential contractor, potential --
-- firm, it will be helpful. And also giving them more information to the web site and other disclosures, that I think they'll have a better chance to compete.
Have better chances, but in my judgment to no avail unless the City adopts a strong affirmative position of feeling it's in the City's interests to see that the minority businesses 125 Law & Government - 3/1/05 thrive and develop.
Mr. Chairman, a point of information that can probably be answered by Councilman Nutter, if Councilman Clarke will let me and you. We're doing a lot of talking here about the City computer system and being online. And I'm not saying good things or bad things about it. I mean, it certainly has gotten a lot better. And I just want to add a personal -- I feel like Councilman Rizzo doing this, but I want to add a personal touch to it. I paid my property taxes Friday. And you can see Friday -- yesterday was the last day to pay it to get the discount. I did it online. Well, at the end of the process -- And I did it because I wanted to see how it worked. And my question is to, you have we talked to these people? Because what I want 126 Law & Government - 3/1/05 to tell you is, it cost me $18 to do that. Now... And I'm okay to pay that $18. And I wasn't aware when I started that process, when I added the stuff and it says, now to do this is $18. And I'm sure, if they have to charge a contractor, but is the City's computer system up to doing all these things? We're going to give it -- I know we're doing a lot of things on there. Have we checked with MO -- you know, with Neff and those people over there about that?
Haven't had a conversation with Director Neff. I have had ongoing conversations with the Procurement Commissioner. And there are some contract opportunities already on the City's web site. For many of those conversations I was not left with the impression that this was not any significant burden on the system.
This also... I 127 Law & Government - 3/1/05 mean, this... That proposal came as a result of previous testimony, actually by the administration because the original idea was to advertise these contracts similar to the way competitive bid contracts are advertised in the newspaper.
Right. Well, that's required. The concern about doing this was that it was a cost factor involved in putting it in the newspaper. And that's why it went to the web site situation, but --
Using the web site is probably capable of handling this new work.
And again, to the part that Councilman Clarke and Councilman Blackwell --
-- and I'm sure 128 Law & Government - 3/1/05 that everyone's interested in, especially in the minority business community which we're trying to help get a foot here, is it going to be some -- Like, the whole thing started with this mini City Hall. And I don't believe that's totally out of the question. And what I'm getting, there's too many City Halls, and they want to close both of them. And it's a nominal thing, maybe $60,000 each, West Philly, Northeast. The people in the Northeast feel like they're being shut out. I'm sure the people in West Philly think the Northeast gets everything and vice versa, but we'll try to work that out in the budget process. And I feel good about that. But a lot of the people that use the mini City Hall, and maybe some of these contractors, especially people starting out, there's something to be said with people don't want to come downtown, and they want to go somewhere. And it's not good enough to do it online. They want to see somebody, especially a lot of senior citizens. 129 Law & Government - 3/1/05 And that doesn't go for the contractors, but they want to give you something, and they want a receipt in hand. A cancelled check's not good enough. They want a stamped receipt by somebody. They can say, you know that nice man up there, Mr. Kelly? He gave me that receipt. And that's my whole thing. I mean, I'm all in favor of using the internet and web sites and all. And if you say you talked to Neff, that's good enough for me. A City of this size, we should be up and running. I'm just curious that maybe in the minority business community -- And I'm going to be calling the people that I know in that community and see is there some reluctance to -- when you're starting out, to do that kind of thing. But if they can't use a computer and if they can't find that stuff, if what you read to me, and what I read, that's go to be somewhere where they can go still and visibly touch something and look at it.
Yeah. I would just like to follow up on Councilman Mariano, if I may. That was an issue which I was going to bring up later. It's an entirely different issue, and that's the closing of mini City Hall. The problem that I see is the alternative that the City administration was using was, they were going to put computers into libraries and whatnot. Now, this is the same time they're cutting the hours of libraries. But they were going to have people into these libraries to instruct the elderly or the people that use the services of the mini City Halls to be computer savvy, and to be able to pay their bills online. 131 Law & Government - 3/1/05 However, most of the people in the Northeast, and I'm sure in North Philadelphia, they go in, as Councilman Mariano did, to pay his -- to pay his real estate taxes, to be able to get the one percent discount. Now, the problem was that if you go online, you're paying them 1.9 percent for that -- for that service. So, you get nothing out of it. In fact, it costs you more money by using that service. And that's one of the things I was going to bring out in a different setting, when we were addressing the mini City Hall in budget hearings. But that's very, very true. That's a point where the poor person not only has to go to another location and get no service or if they get service, there's another thing the administration is going to have to provide, people to be able to at least educate them enough so that they can use that service. And that's... Well, I find it very questionable, to say the least. But I just 132 Law & Government - 3/1/05 wanted to touch up on, since Councilman Mariano --
Well, I think the point was to add to your suggestion, that every agency be required to have at least one or two numbers available, with live answers to questions, so the people don't get this constant run-around when they call up or have to follow a long list of options that they can't understand.
Even with college degrees and law degrees. All right. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sounds like we're starting the budget process a little early this week. Get a couple of more Council people in here and we'll have a quorum. I wanted to just clarify a statement earlier. Actually, Councilman Nutter, I think you made it, that when Councilman 133 Law & Government - 3/1/05 Mariano raised concerns about us being involved in the contracts process, that under this provision, under this particular proposal...
...the City Council will not be involved in contracts.
I'll need that for my follow-up during the course of the week. That's pretty much it for me.
And Councilman, 134 Law & Government - 3/1/05 I would only mention to you one of the reasons for that. And I think one of the protections that we've tried to create is the last sentence in the proposed amendment to Section 7 8-200 in a Resolution Number 040818, which I think specifically addresses that particular issue. Anyway... Yes, councilman.
Are there any other amendments that you want to put in at this time?
Yes, Councilman. There is an amendment to the Resolution --
We're still in the hearing, for purpose of having the discussion, if any.
There's a proposed amendment to Resolution 040818 which addresses the issue that was raised by Councilman Clarke earlier with regard to the multi- -- what's been considered the multi year contracts, the one-year contract with multiple one-year renewals.
The concern... As the legislation came in, Council would have pretty much been required to approve all of the extensions or renewals. What I'm proposing is an amendment, such that Council would not have to approve all of the extensions or renewals in the case where the City is the only party that has the option to renew. And in that particular situation, rather than automatic renewal, the contracting department or agency would have to file a written certification that the renewal or the extension is in the best interests of the City. And then there would be the renewal. It would not have to come back to Council. Other than that, any true multi-year contract would still be required to come to City Council. That's the amendment in the Resolution of 040818, which I would put forward.
Does that complete the matters? 136 Law & Government - 3/1/05
If not, the hearing on the bills suggested, the two bills and a resolution, is terminated. (Hearing concluded at 4:35 p.m.) 137 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.) 138 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING - COMMITTEE ON LAW and GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 1, 2005, 4:35 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 139 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 140 Law & Government - 3/1/05 - - - P R O C E E D N G S - - -
The public meeting is now called. The Law and Government public meeting is now in order. And the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for purposes of introducing before the committee the amendments he's been referring to during the hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there was handed out a little while ago a document. It reads across the top on one line, proposed amendments to Bill Number 040772, as amended 12/14/04. That's the document that I'm working from, Mr. Chairman. I would put forward all of the amendments in that document, but I need to draw your attention to two places where there is a slight technical error. And then based on the conversation that we just had, with regard to whether it's 141 Law & Government - 3/1/05 minority firms or applicants, I've written something on the back here that might seek to address that particular issue as well. Mr. Chairman, if you go to , at the bottom, number four presently reads, by August 1st of each year. That August 1st should say September 30. And if you go to the top of , it reads on the third line, such reports shall be signed by the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director and the Mayor. In accordance with a proposal by the City administration, I would strike the Procurement Commissioner, comma, the Finance Director and the word "and" and just leave the Mayor. With regard to the issues that were raised earlier, involving assisting companies to be in compliance, whether they're minority firms or other applicants or contractors, I would direct your attention and propose additional language. On , 17-1202, 1, a. At the 142 Law & Government - 3/1/05 end of the sentence that reads the Procurement Commissioner shall develop procedures to ensure that such contracts are advertised and approved in a timely, efficient and coordinated manner, in the best interests of the City, I would propose to add the following sentence: The Procurement Commissioner shall develop procedures and guidelines to assist applicants, comma, contractors and disadvantaged business... I believe it's enterprises. I'm sorry. Yes, enterprises, in complying with the provisions of this chapter, period. And then the sentence -- the paragraph would continue with the City agency that seeks to enter into. Those are the proposed amendments, Mr. Chairman, to Bill Number 040772, as they're either in print or as I read them into the record. And with your approval, I would move the adoption of those amendments.
If not, those in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Let the record show Councilman Mariano opposed the passage of the amendments.
Don't we have to have another motion. Adopted the amendments.
We adopted the amendments. Do you want me to amend the other Resolution? And then we'll vote them all at the same time.
Mr. Chairman, there are -- I don't think you got one of these. There are -- There's the proposed amendment to Resolution 040818. If I direct your attention to what would be -- And these amendments... This particular amendment did come as a result of coordination and conversation with the City administration. And I appreciate their work in this area. There's an amendment to small letter b, inserting the phrase, other than the City; small letter c, the same phrase, other than the City; small letter d, inserting the language, including the City; and then, what I've talked about earlier which is item number two, which reads as it reads; and then there's a technical amendment to number three. Those are the only amendments.
Would you explain briefly the amendment, other than the City?
Sure. The primary purpose of the amendments that I've mentioned is to first remove the requirement 145 Law & Government - 3/1/05 for Council approval of all contracts that may have an extended term or renewal period if the option is solely at the City's discretion. With that in mind, in that particular situation we would still seek to have, even under that set of circumstances, the contract would not automatically renew but would only renew if affirmatively exercised by the City, upon the certification of the department head of the contracting agency, that the renewal or the extension of that contract is in the best interests of the City. Subsequently, that certification will be available for public inspection, with copies sent to the Mayor, the President of City Council, the Chief Clerk, and the Department of Records, and available for public inspection. A renewal or extension of a contract or lease, without compliance with this section, is not binding on the City. Lastly, a technical amendment 146 Law & Government - 3/1/05 involving the issue of campaign contributions regarding people who have solicited or otherwise been involved in raising certain campaign contributions, in accordance with the other provisions in Bill 772. Those are all the amendments to the Resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the amendments to Resolution Number 040818 be approved by this committee.
Any discussion? If not all, in favor, please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Okay. Mr. Chairman, there are no other -- I have no other amendments. And at this time 147 Law & Government - 3/1/05 I would ask if we could take the necessary action to move the two bills and the Resolution out of committee.
Yes. Mr. Chairman, first I'd move Bill 040771, which is the ordinance that actually places the question on the ballot, for which there are no amendments.
Yes. I move that Bill 040771 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.
If not, all in favor please see aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Can I do 148 Law & Government - 3/1/05 discussion? I didn't speak quick enough. I'm going to vote no for this. And let me just explain. The reason that I want to vote no is I really don't think this is true ethics reform. I think it's almost a start, but there's no ethics board, and I'll leave it at that. Okay.
All right. The motion is carried. Let the record show Councilman Mariano's vote of no, and all other ayes. Next motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Number 040772 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.
I'll be voting no. Same argument as last one. Thank you.
All right. All those in favor, please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution Number 040818 as amended be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation.
Hearing none, all those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
He voted in favor. The motion is carried unanimously by the committee.
I just want to make take a moment, if I can, a very quick moment, to thank Councilman Nutter for all his hard work in this area. I know that he struggled with these bills for a long period of time. He's been very open minded and understanding to people's issues and needs; has been very forthright in his opinions and positions; and has done all the hard, diligent work to get this thing where it is today. I think he deserves the lion's share of the credit for having us at the point we are here in our history. And I would make one caveat, though, that I don't think this fight is over yet. And I would suspect that the media and the public need to continue to be vigilant as to what's going to go on in the next couple of 151 Law & Government - 3/1/05 weeks, to make sure that we get this bill in its form right now passed by this Council and signed by the Mayor. But I'd like to thank the Councilman for all his continued due diligence and effort. He's always thorough and always to the point. So I want to thank him personally.
I think those words are fully merited to Council Nutter. As I stated earlier today, although he may not have been the de jure representative of City Council in negotiations, he was clearly the de facto representative of City Council because he, more than anyone else in the Council, but more than all other members of the Council combined, spent time doing the hard work of working the details and carrying the vision of a City that's no longer corrupt nor contented.
Is there any further business to come before the committee today? If not, the committee will stand in recess until Monday, March 7, when the committee will be meeting again on other matters. COUNCILAN NUTTER: With regard to the other bills, Mr. Chairman, while they were advertised, they are on hold in this committee. There are any number of conversations that are still taking place. And to be honest with you, my focus at the moment is on the three bills or the two bills and the Resolution that came out of committee today. And I'm going to leave it at that for the moment. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Thank you. (Meeting concluded at 4:45 p.m.) 153 Law & Government - 3/1/05 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public meeting 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.)