Since you don't scan, you have to have a person enter all that stuff --
You don't enter any of the information? You just told me you entered the information on them.
But you still do labor to process them into the system, correct?
Councilman Nutter, I interrupted you to give Councilman Rizzo his 30 seconds that he requested. I think it was more than 30 minutes almost. 51 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Councilman Nutter, is there anything else?
I think the Director of Personnel can see there are problems. I'd like to make this suggestion. I don't see any way the Committee can avoid acting on this bill today, unless you can reach us -- we have one other matter to consider briefly. If you get us an answer before we vote on this as to the City's willingness to forego the increase until we get together and arrive at a plan, we'll consider delay of the bill. Otherwise, I think we have no choice except to go ahead and move.
I will discuss it with the Administration. If they are willing to suspend it, I'll get back to you, Councilman.
Good. Are any of the other two witnesses going to testify or has their material been 52 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 covered?
Yes. We talked about this as well, and that is the issue, as I said before, about the youngster who lives at home with his or her parents. And they say, you're getting up to go apply for a job. Those, they don't have any card indicating that they're on welfare or that they're not on SSI, Social Security. You have some people who have zero income because they live in a home where they're being provided for. They can't prove to you they have an income because they don't. Nor do they know what their parents or their care providers earn. They can't provide that information. So what happens in that situation? 53 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
I guess I don't really have an answer for you, other than my parents paid for my application to take the SATs and my parents, when I was dependent on my parents, they paid for me.
My point is, Ms. Orfanelli -- it's not personal and not personally directed at you, but we talked about this. As many of the problems with this legislation that were not worked out before they're still not worked out. As it was said by the Chairman, we're happy to hold up to work out a system and get all these questions answered and decide there is some way something is possible, at least after people are hired, or some fair system. But this penalizes even more the person who has no income, than a person who has income because there's no 21 system that allows people without any income at all to say that. And so again, we agree with the Chair. If the City is willing to suspend charging people and we have an opportunity to 54 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 work together on a system, that's fine. But where there are so many problems, so many unanswered questions -- and even at the hearing we expected this time to have these issues addressed and they still haven't been. We just don't know how we hold up on the legislation when the Administration has not been forthcoming with solutions to solve all the questions or to answer all the questions that are raised by this kind of legislation. Again, we hope that the Committee will consider to move forward because, I don't know, there's no commitment as to when we get answers, when things are solved. Life just doesn't change. Councilman Nutter's line of questioning indicated that the City earns more than it needs to process job applications. So based on your figures, maybe the City earns, Madam Personnel Director, about $1.25 million. If it costs $600,000 to process job applications, then they're earning more than they need. We know we're broke. We don't even 55 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 mind that. But somebody has to be clear and direct on what's happening in charging a fee, what happens to the money, what is required, what happens with people who apply who have no 6 income or low income. Where we want to go from here. What happens with the application numbers per jobs that we're going to hire for. Who's affected. All of those questions need to be answered before we could consider, in my opinion, holding up this legislation. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
We want to express our thanks to the panel and hopefully we will hear. If we don't hear by the time it's time to act on the bill, we will proceed.
Thank you very much. Will the Clerk call the folks from the Unemployment Project?
Peter Specos from the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, and other witnesses. 56 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
You may come up with any of your co-participants. The Committee welcomes you here. I want you to know we always like to hear from the people affected by the problem or the people who represent those who are affected. So we're delighted you're here and can speak directly. Mr. Coras, do you want to speak for the group, initially at least? Do I have the name right?
Thank you, sir. In our recent years of coming to Council, it's always good to see you here, knowing that Council has a great model to follow through with your appearance. We're here today because we're part of the Philadelphia Unemployment Project. We help people find jobs. We provide computer services for those looking for work on-line. We have various organizations who do contact 57 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 us with jobs openings. I am here as a substitute today. Our job director, Ms. Anita Cooper, unfortunately, she's in the hospital right now. She took ill. So I'm filling in for her.
Thank you. So I'm not too much up on the program. My colleagues here, Larry Swan and Faith Whitehead is here with me, and our other members from our organization. We had a large contingency to come here this morning, but we try to keep it down to a minimum. This bill was announced to us back in October when one of our people, one of our members, did come to the City to put an application in. And in the process she came back us and told us that the City was charging a $35 fee. It was kind of a shock to us. When we looked into it we found that this was going on. We had met with the people from -- I'm sorry, I am not familiar with names -- but 58 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 the gentleman in the group that was just here from the City about this and we were told in certain ways of the proposal. One of the factors is, I understand this was supposed to go through Council before this even happened. And every time we question it they would give us a story. We would never get a definite answer. We're here today to say that, as Mrs. Blackwell said, a lot of families are individuals needing work and want to get work with the City, but because of their financial difficulties they can't apply to the City because they don't have $35. I don't think they should be penalized because they don't have a financial fund. Maybe the next guy is working and he just wants to better himself or get out of the job that's he in. So he can afford to put up $35. But the people who can't afford it who are unemployed and so forth, they're looking for a chance to get a job. The City is offering jobs. It just seems kind of strange that if you're only 59 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 looking for, say, 100 street workers, that you know you're only going to hire 100, why take 45,000 applications and only hire 100 and charge everybody this fee? We don't feel that an individual should be charged a fee because he's trying to get a job and better himself and help his family, like you said and the others have said. It isn't right that they should be penalized. Some of the requirements for the waivers are kind of off too. You can be waived if you're on SSI. If you are on SSI you're on some kind of disability. You can't get a job with the City anyway. If you're on certain other programs, health programs, the City is not going to hire you anyway. As far as some of their questions of being on-line, right here in the City of Philadelphia we have SEPTA, who I guess is the next biggest supporter of employment. You do not go to their office anymore for applications. It's done on-line. Our office provides that. You don't have to be a genius on a computer. You sit down. It walks you 60 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 through step by step. Our people in our office will help you along. It takes about an hour or two if you're not really -- I'm not that great on the computer either. Their questions are very easy. It's step-by-step through and it walks you through very easily. And it goes directly into SEPTA's files and so forth. They don't want the paperwork. It's easier on computer. They can store it better, and they can go back at any time and review the thing. A lot of other companies also do the same thing. They're on-line. Like Mr. Rizzo said also, that they can't seem to come up with a definite plan. I think it's to the City's benefit and Council and all that this proposal be canceled or the fee be canceled until a better program or process can be done and give the person a chance to get a job in the City. So many people are leaving the City for jobs and so forth. Let's keep them home where they belong. I'm going to turn it to my colleague now. He's a little more up on this program 61 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 than I am.
Hello. Good afternoon. My name its Lawrence Swan. Thank you for letting us come and speak to you today. When Pete was talking about our general services, the help with interviews, the help with resumes and things that we provide to people looking for jobs, all that can be boiled down to, we are trying to eliminate barriers to people getting back into the economic mainstream. A $35 fee is another barrier, another impediment that comes up. We know that some levels of waiver have been granted, but it's the initial news report of the $35 fee that made the public impression. It's a discouraging effect. You have to then go back out and tell people, even if this fee is rolled back, we have to reeducate our community to let them know that the bad news they heard is no longer true. It's another step back from getting people out looking for jobs that they can qualify for 62 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 here in the City. I want to thank you all again for taking the time to pay attention to this issue.
Good afternoon. My name is Faith Whitehead. When they were talking about waiving the fees, not everyone has an Access card. There are some people that are currently unemployed. I don't think everybody would want to walk around with their unemployment papers to apply for a City job. I think that's very unfair to anyone that's looking for employment.
I was going to say, but what do you expect from the Republican government, and then I had to remind myself the Mayor is a Democrat. So there's plenty of blame to go around. It seems that maybe Democrats once elected act like Republicans. Or maybe I'm unfair to Republicans, and Republicans act like Democrats. Both political parties seem to have 63 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 special promises to make during election campaigns. But once selected, the movement seems to go directly against the working groups and the poor people of the City. Can you imagine a developer being charged a fee for the right to give us a development proposal? I've never heard of that happening and I don't think it does. But when it comes to low income people, they seem to become the target of every problem the City has. I think it's a shame and I think Democrats when elected to office ought to act like Democrats and then I hope we can convert the Republicans to act the right way too. Thank you. We appreciate very much your coming. We think this panel represents the real feeling of Philadelphians. We thank you for being so available to us. Thank you very much. Are there any further witnesses? There's one other person, I think, here.
We hope the labor 64 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 stoppage is all over now and that you've got a good contract.
Okay. We'll try to do our share to make sure you have a good contract.
First of all, greetings to City Council. It was not my intentions to come speak today, so I just jotted some things down and I thought that as I heard some of the things that were said, I felt it necessary to step in and make some comments on it. The Director of Personnel stated that they look to earn about $600,000 from the backs of the poor people. These are people in the City of Philadelphia who are applying for entry level positions. Once again, we look to the lower level income people to try to bail out the Department for probably what sometimes amounts to mismanagement. I say that because I heard some of the comments and not having answers for them. We have been talking about this issue for 65 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 quite some time now, and I'm urging City Council to move forward with the vote on this issue because the Department has not demonstrated that they're going to act in good faith. If they were, some of the questions that you guys have asked of them today would have been answered. They would have came to the table prepared to answer those questions. Some of them were the same questions that were asked of them at the last hearing. We continue to play this roller coaster game with them and we are not going to be treated fairly. Until something is done to stop this travesty, the lower income people of the City of Philadelphia will continue to suffer. These are people who are trying to get entry positions into the City of Philadelphia. As stated earlier, some of them are not going to have the proper documentation that they're asking for. You know, there's frustration on both sides. I just heard the people just talk about removing some of the these barriers. 66 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Some of these people are coming from high school. This is going to be the first time they're going to apply for City positions. And so to be met with the challenges of asking for $35, asking to bring certain documentation to justify that they are low income people -- and I've never had a job before so I'm not going to have any of that paperwork. If you look at the civil service regulation that they presented, nothing in there protects those people from being able to come and apply for an application. The other thing that concerns me about this is that we keep on hearing about these positions, but we just came off of a very heated contract negotiation where the City insisted that there were going to be layoffs. So if they're telling us -- and we are the ones representing this lower classification of people -- if you're telling us that there are going to be layoffs in the City of Philadelphia, then I don't understand why we have this $35 application fee because apparently if you're laying people off, you 67 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 certainly can't be hiring people, not from this classification anyway. Then we talk about the exempt employees. The exempt employees, whether they come through the Department or whether they come through any other part of government, the same kind of entry to the computer system is what has to be done. But yet they sit here and they tell us that they don't want to charge exempt employees. These are the people that are making the money. When Michael McAnally talks about a sliding scale, notice what they all say. They talk about $50,000 or above because they try to make like it looks like $35 doesn't mean anything. Well, why are we not charging the Director of Personnel $35 when she got promoted a couple years ago? Why are we not charging people who are using the system to promote themselves through the civil service regulation? How come we're letting them be upgraded to these higher level of classifications and there's no fee on them? I'd like to see them use that sliding scale 68 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 and use it for them higher positions and then talk about the lower classification of people in the City of Philadelphia who don't have a job.
There's something seriously wrong with this system. And I urge you, I urge you, vote on it. Show them that it's time for this kind of stuff to be stopped. $600,000 is not enough money for us to create the kind of discrimination that you're going to get from the City of Philadelphia. And I urge you, please, if they don't come back within the next hour, vote this thing down and protect the citizens of Philadelphia who are the less have.
Thank you. Thank you very much for a very clear statement. Give our best to the embattled District Council 33.
Is there any other witness who wishes to be heard on the matter of this Home Rule amendment? Please 69 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 come forward. You have to come forward so your statement can be recorded, please. Give your name again.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Pete Specos again from Philadelphia Unemployment. We're going to make a suggestion. Whatever money they collected so far, could the Council make a suggestion that they take that money and go out and by a scanner? I'm sure it would save a lot of time in their office right now that they're wasting just doing things that could be done with a scanner. Then they wouldn't have to charge the $35 for the people.
We'll see that your suggestion gets to their ears. Whether they do anything with it, we'll have to wait and see. Any other witness who wishes to be heard on this matter? (No response.)
Any Member of the 70 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Committee with any questions or comments. Seeing none -- Stand up and come to the front of the desk. Would you state your name?
Hello. My name is Ernesta Peterson. I'm a retired District Council 33 correction officer. I would like to say that this could be helped for a reason that I know, that several people have went on-line and got positions that they never dreamed of. It's easy if you implement that into the system. I have seven people that I know that were hired yesterday -- two were hired last week, the other five yesterday. They put their resume on-line. They just put it out there and companies called them, you know, gave them a reply on-line. It's so simple. Most people have computers, and if they don't they can go to the library and put it on. So that's my point of saying that it could be helped. By not paying the $35, get a system that put things on-line. That's all I have to say. 71 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Thank you.
The Administration is well known for that. They usually tell the story and then leave so they can say they never heard what people had to say. The real fact seems to be that they're not interested. This proposal shows how anyone with the sense of feeling for responsibility of the government to its citizens could possibly come up with this crazy proposal, I don't know. I'm relying on City Council to do what's necessary. Any further comments from anybody? (No response.)
If not, the hearing on this proposed Home Rule Charter amendment and resolution is terminated. Council will recess for a few minutes to permit bathroom facility time for everybody and then we'll proceed to the final matter on the agenda. Five minute recess. 72 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 (Brief recess.)
The Committee on Law and Government is now in session again for the purpose of considering amendments to introduced bills and resolutions introduced by Councilman Nutter. He wishes to amend the bills before the Committee. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Have the proposed amendments been circulated to Members of the Committee?
Yes, they have, to the Members of the Committee and any other Councilmembers present. Mr. Chairman, first let me say thank you very much for this opportunity. By our previous discussion, the only action to be taken today is the reading into the record of these amendments. I guess technically we're still in the public hearing, and then at some point we'll move into the public meeting 73 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 solely for the purpose of taking action on the amendments.
Well, maybe we ought to move right directly into the public meeting. The hearing on the bill that was listed for today's hearing is adjourned and the Law and Government Committee is now in public session. We're going to delay action on the bill and resolution temporarily while we consider the amendments offered by Councilman Nutter to his own bills before the Committee. Councilman Nutter, the Chair recognizes you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for this opportunity to put forward these proposed amendments, some of which are technical in nature; others I believe reflect some of the ongoing concerns that many Members and others have had on the bills. It is clear to me that there will be in the future other amendments at a time when 74 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 we have other hearings, but the Chair very graciously agreed that the bills should at least be in their most current form, which is why we're having this particular hearing today, and I deeply appreciate the Chair's assistance with that. Mr. Chairman, there are four amendments which are amending four different either bills or resolutions related to either the Board of Ethics, the Code of Ethics or contracts and procurement. If it's okay with the Chair, what I will do is make reference to the page and where there are proposed changes which are underlined, materials underlined and in italics, and then I'll be prepared to respond to any questions that may be raised at that point.
Having said that, on , Mr. Chairman, under Section 22 3-806, under the Rules for Composition of the Board, a phrase was added that the members shall either be residents of the City or have their primary place of business in the City of 75 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Philadelphia.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. That will be Resolution No. 040817, and I was just in Section 3-806. If you go to the next page, we cleaned up the provision or made a change to the staggering of the terms of the Board members under this proposal. Of course there would be five Board members. What we've done is each member would have a set term upon appointment and then subsequently all members would serve for five years. But now we have one member at one year, one member at two, one member at three, one member at four and one member at five, which gives you a consistent staggering of the terms for the Board members. In E, prohibited activities of the members of the Board, clarification with regard to a Board member having service on any other board or commission. In the Section F, removal for cause, further clarification that one of the 76 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 provisions regarding removal of a Board member could be for violation of ordinances or laws related to the Ethics Code. On the next page under G, executive director, further clarification regarding the authority of the executive director or other staff; and then a striking of some language, and then it's restated with regard to the Board using the services of the Law Department under certain circumstances. But for interpretation of the Code or the activities of the Board, they would utilize their own counsel for enforcement activities, advisory opinions and other advice for matters solely related to the Board or the Board of Ethics and the Code of Ethics. Under meetings, I, we changed that from a requirement for a monthly meeting to at least a quarterly, and then of course at any other times that the Chair may deem necessary. Last page, under powers and duties, Section 4-1000, the section, was expanded, has essentially been restated, but also some additional clarifications. So you'd have the 77 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 striking of the original section and a restating of that same section regarding the powers and duties of the Board and what actions they're supposed to take, including enforcement and the ability to go to Common Pleas Court for adjudication of matters, the creation of a Code of Ethics manual to be used by all City officers and employees. And lastly, the Board is empowered to do other things as approved by ordinance. Those are all the proposed amendments to Resolution No. 040817.
May I ask a question? Has there been any changes in the appointing authority of the members selected?
No. The members are proposed to be nominated by the Mayor and they would require the advice and consent of a majority of Members of City Council. So they would have to be confirmed by City Council. There was no change in that area.
But all the appointments will be made in the first place by the Mayor? 78 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
Yes. He would nominate the individuals and they would all have to come to Council for a confirmation hearing.
Okay. There is a single sheet of proposed amendment to Bill No. 040770. This is the standards of conduct and ethics, Section 12 20-600. We would add to Section 20-6031 a provision for ethics training and education for businesses, people who conduct business with the City, and that the Board, similar to developing a Code of Ethics manual for public employees, would develop a somewhat similar manual for businesses who have business conduct with the City. Secondly, the second amendment provides for the Board to develop procedures for City officers and employees to obtain informal advice and assistance in understanding and maintaining compliance with 79 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 the standard of conduct and ethics. The earlier section in that same area has a more formalized process where you would write to the Board for formal advice, but of course we know that from time to time public employees may have questions that they just need answered, which they could obviously get either over the phone or by coming into an office, so it's a somewhat less formal process. On , Section 4 presently is entitled, "Nepotism." The proposal is to delete that as a title of that particular section and replace it with the language, "personnel action involving a relative." On -- this was read into the record at the last hearing, but we did not take any action on this. Section 20-607 (1) is the fines or civil penalty provision for violations of the Code of Ethics. Additional language is added, that if authorized by the General Assembly, a fine or a civil penalty could be levied up to $25,000 for each violation. That kind of provision is 80 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 reflective of the significance that violating the Code of Ethics would engender. Lastly, a new Section 20-608 in the next set of bills, what's often referred to as the pay to play bill involving no bid or professional services contracts, we realized that we needed to have a cross reference between a violation for those provisions in that bill and also make them a violation of the Code of Ethics, which would then also get a higher civil penalty or fine for violations of basically giving misleading information on your disclosure forms or otherwise engaging in any kind of fraudulent activity with regard to a contract. So this is a companion to the other bill and makes the fine provisions consistent. Those are all the proposed amendments to Bill No. 040770.
Remember, these bills are on a motion to permit Councilman 81 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Nutter to amend his bill. The action taken by the Committee is not a Committee action of approval or disapproval of anything other than Councilman Nutter's right to present his bill 6 in the fashion he chooses. Generally speaking, I've never known of an occasion when the sponsor has not been permitted to change his bill and to have it presented in the fashion he believes best represents his views. Is that clear to everybody? You're not voting today as a Member of the Committee on an approval or a rejection of this. We're merely voting on whether Councilman Nutter should be permitted to amend the bill and present it to Council at a later meeting, first through this Committee and ultimately if the Committee approves it, to the Council itself.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for that clarification. I think that's helpful in this discussion. You've been consistent in your view that Members should at least be able to have a bill in the 82 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 form that they would like. Whether the matter is subsequently successful or not is a whole different other story.
Mr. Chairman, now moving on to the bill that allows for Council involvement in creating a process to deal with the no bid contracts and professional services, there are proposed amendments to Resolution No. 040818. And going to of the proposed amendments, this amendment was offered at the last hearing, but we did not take any action on it. There is a deletion of Section 2 that would have required Council approval of any no 17 bid contract in excess of $50,000. That provision, I would now propose to delete. On there was a requirement also for all contracts and license agreements regarding wharfs, docks and harbor facilities as well as the airport facilities. Those provisions are being deleted as well in an effort to streamline the process. When you go to , language has 83 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 been added such that Council's role in approving any number of different types of contracts would in essence be the same as our approval is required now by other provisions of the Charter, but would not require any other contracts to be approved by ordinance. The earlier provision, of course, allows for Council to create a process by which purchases not subject to lowest responsible bidder requirements, we would give ourselves that particular power, which then results in the ordinance to follow. Lastly, in concessions, Section 15 8-201, any concession which has a term of more than one year as defined by Charter Section 17 2-3091 would require approval by Council as well as any of the Department of Commerce contracts which are concessions under Section 20 4-500B or C. All of those types of concessions of more than one year would require approval by City Council. Presently we have no involvement in the concessions contracts at all. Those are all of the proposed 84 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 amendments, Mr. Chairman, to Resolution No. 3 040818. Lastly, there are proposed amendments to the bill that goes with the previous resolution. That's Bill No. 040772. If you turn to , at the earlier hearing there was concern expressed about the sheer volume of contracts that might have to come to City Council for approval as well as an extensive advertising process in the normal newspapers. What I've sought to do here, Mr. Chairman, is -- obviously I have no interest in driving up our costs -- lessen the cost of advertising by, rather than requiring advertising in the newspaper, that they would be advertised on the City's web site for a period of 30 days before the time that the application form would have to be filed. I think it's been made pretty clear that there is virtually no cost to advertising on the City's own web site.
Would the advertising under your proposal only be on the 85 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 web site? How would people get notice who don't have computers?
I understand. It would at least be on the web site. The Department advertising or trying to put forward a bid certainly would not be precluded from advertising it somewhere else. But some of the testimony was purely about the cost of the advertising in the newspapers. Presently, I believe, many of these contracts are not necessarily advertised at all. But I'm certainly open to additional ideas. I was primarily trying to respond to the cost issue that was raised earlier. The original version of the bill required advertising in the newspapers. We were told that that cost would be excessive. And I'll be glad to come back to the advertising issue. Additionally, we would through this amendment for the first time require the 86 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Procurement Department to be actively involved in every no bid or professional services contract that gets let. Presently the Procurement Department is not involved in most of that process. The agencies or Departments conduct that work on their own under whatever their guidelines are, but the Procurement Commissioner has virtually no involvement in that part of the process at all. And as I said, if there are other suggestions or ideas about how to better advertise these professional services and no 14 bid contracts, I am absolutely open to exploring those other avenues.
That would come at a later time, though. That would come at a time when the Council Committee was concerned with substance.
I understand. , there's a requirement for disclosure of certain campaign contributions during the term of a contract and as well for one year after. The words, "and after," did not make it into the first version, so we're 87 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 cleaning that up. On is a series of additions involving adding the Procurement Department to the contracting process, as well as notification of forms and contracts to the Board of Ethics, and as well as additional advertising requirements on the City's web site. That's pretty much what all of the provisions on do. is pretty much more of the same regarding either notices or documents going to the Procurement Department and the Board of Ethics. , originally there was a requirement that if the amount of a contract was amended by more than 15 percent, the amendment would have to be approved by ordinance of Council. Proposed here to change that, requiring that if the contract is increased by more than 20 percent the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director the City Solicitor and the Mayor would have to sign off on it before adding money to a contract, as well as if a contract amount is 88 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 amended, that information would have to be advertised and noticed on the City web site as well. Go to . There's a requirement for at least 30 days before the start of a fiscal year, a report would have to be sent to the President and the Chief Clerk of Council signed by the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director and the Mayor, giving us information with regard to upcoming professional services or no bid contracts for the upcoming fiscal year to the extent that all of that information is known at that time. It would tell us the subject matter, the term of the contract and the total dollar amount of the contract. Additionally, on a monthly basis there's a reporting requirement with regard to contracts in effect at that time with the same information required. And then lastly on , by August 1st of each year we would get an annual report of all of the previous year's contracts that were let, summarizing how many by 89 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Department as well as by type and the total dollar amount. Additionally, we would ask the Procurement Commissioner to give us advice on a yearly basis as to how to improve the contracting process in the City looking for innovative ways to make it more efficient, economical and productive in the best interests of the City. There's another requirement that all the documents under this provision that have to be filed with the Department of Records or the Board of Ethics are available during regular office hours and available for public inspection by any of the agencies involved. On it's an adding of the Finance Director and the Board of Ethics be recipients of all disclosure forms. On is the issue that I raised earlier about violations of this particular section would also become a violation of the Code of Ethics that was discussed earlier in making the connection between all of those provisions. And that's 90 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 it. Those are all of the proposed amendments to Bill No. 040772, Mr. Chairman.
Is that in the form of a motion to amend your bill and resolutions? Does that complete the presentation of the motion?
Those are all of the amendments to the various measures that were laid out. I don't know if there were any final questions about any of these.
Are there any questions or is there a second to the motion?
I'll go back through the same order. Mr. Chairman, I would move that the amendments read into the record and circulated to Resolution No. 040817 be adopted by the Committee. (Duly seconded.)
No. I think your motion means that you would be permitted to amend your bill or resolution to read as follows. This will not be an action of 91 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 approval by the Committee of the language, except to permit you to change your own item of business. That will apply to all four. Is that clear to everybody? This is not an action by the Committee on the substance. It's an action to permit, as Council always does a sponsor, to permit his bill or resolution to be presented in the fashion he deems most accurate. All that's going to happen today is the question of the approval of amendment by Councilman Nutter to amend his own bills so that when it's presented to City Council or to this Committee in the substantive form it will reflect his current thinking. (Duly seconded.)
The motion has been moved and seconded. I just want to make clear that everybody knows this is not an action of the Committee or approval of the content. This is an action to approve Councilman Nutter changing his bill so he doesn't have to go through the repetitive process of 92 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 reintroducing the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that we will allow your clarification of Councilman Nutter's motion. I second it.
Well, I did allow it and I second it. And I resent what you said because it's already been allowed, Councilman Goode. I don't know why you're raising this issue at this time.
We will allow you to clarify Councilman Nutter's motion, and it is seconded.
No, I don't think you need to clarify it. That's the role of the Chairman.
I said we will allow you to clarify his motion. If you listen to what I said you would understand what I said.
There's the question of your allowing me to do anything, Councilman Goode. I'm trying to get clear before the Committee my understanding of the proposal. 93 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
Would you like Councilman Nutter to make a motion again?
The ayes have it and Councilman Nutter will be permitted to amend his bill in accordance with his motion.
Councilman Nutter, would you restate for the interest of 94 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Councilman Goode your motion?
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have the same motion that you made earlier with regard to my being allowed to amend the bills in the way I'd like to have them read. I'd like to make that motion to Bill No. 040770.
The motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion. (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion is amended to permit Councilman Nutter to amend his bill to read as he's indicated.
Mr. Chairman, I 95 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 would move for Resolution No. 040818 to be amended in the way the amendments were read into the record and circulated (Duly seconded.)
The motion has been made and seconded for the action Councilman Nutter requested. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I would ask approval of my request to have Bill 20 No. 040772 amended in the fashion as the amendments were read into the record earlier. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all those 96 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion is amended. Councilman Nutter's proposals now stand amended and will be printed in the form as amended by this meeting today. Councilman Nutter, your bills now stand in the form you desire them for presentation at the appropriate time.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration has asked us to give them a month. They will suspend collecting fees and try to come up with some resolution. We would ask if you would suspend only for a month and that you would reconvene after that time to ensure that something is worked out, if you would. 97 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
You're suggesting that the Chair table the item and not bring it to a vote?
For one month. Is there a motion to that effect by a Member of the Committee.
The ayes have it 98 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 and the motion will be tabled for a period of one month -- (Applause.)
-- with the understanding that the City will discontinue its charge during this period to permit negotiations on the matter.
Mr. Chairman, this doesn't affect the people who have already paid?
Any other business to come before this meeting? (No response.)
If not, the meeting will stand in recess until the call of the Chair. (Council adjourned at 1:12 p.m.) 99 C E R T I F I C A T I O N. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, December 14, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR