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.