COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 7, 2005, 3:30 p.m. - - - 050165 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By The Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Smoking i Public Places and in the Workplace" calling on the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that will prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose, prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 050176 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By The Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Smoking in Public Places and in the Workplace" calling on the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that will prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace. - - - 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 PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 3 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole, regarding Bill Numbers 050165, and Resolution Number 050176. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles, please. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Number 050165, an Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By The Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Smoking i Public Places and in the Workplace" calling on the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that will prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose, prescribing the form of ballot 4 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution Number 050176, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By The Voters" in Article VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Smoking in Public Places and in the Workplace" calling on the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that will prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace.
Thank you. We have quite a list of witnesses that indicated they wanted to testify. However, I know that many of them testified earlier. Is there anyone here who would like to testify on the bill and the resolution 22 just read by Mr. McPherson? (No response.)
Do we have anyone here who wants to testify? 5 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 (Hands raised.)
Okay. It's quite spooky over here. I want to thank everyone for coming. And I thank the Council President and my colleagues for their patience after a long day. This is really very simple. All this amendment does -- All this resolution 13 does is ask Council to vote this out of this committee, and then out of Council altogether when it comes in front of it, after the second reading. I just want to put it on the ballot. I think this question -- The Councilman did a lot of good work here. And it's a question that affects a lot of people in the City of Philadelphia. We get the smoking part. I do get the smoking part. My own father died of lung cancer. I understand it. I'm not pro smoking. 6 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 I'm just trying to take care of the people that can't be spoken for, the people in the hospitality industry that don't work for big chains and have nowhere else to go, and have chosen to work in an industry that there may be some exposure to secondhand smoke. It's strictly an economic issue. And I just want to try to get it on the ballot, so the people can speak and the people can vote on the first Tuesday in May. I think I have the right date. It's a non-binding resolution 14 anyhow, but it might give Council some guidance, if the good Councilman could hold up on his thing. And we could do that in May, and come back in September and address that like it should be addressed. And it may take a lot of my colleagues -- give my colleagues a chance to really decide on this because this is going to have a big effect on a lot of people. So that is it, simply stated: Nothing more; nothing less. Thank you. 7 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to testify? Please approach the witness table. Have you testified earlier?
All right. If you would simply testify on the bill and resolution before us, I would appreciate it. Are you all a panel? (No response.)
Who's going to testify first? Please identify yourself for the record. My name is Denise Kopko. And I testified this morning, but was asked to testify again because a lot of the Council 8 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 people were not available this morning.
But many of us were listening to the testimony. Your testimony will be given to the stenographer. It will be made part of the record. So, I am asking you to please testify now on the bill and the resolution 9 before us at the moment.
My testimony on the bill 11 is, this is not about -- this is not an economic issue. And what I tried to say this morning is this is about public health. This is not about economics. You can't put economics on a life of a person, on the life of my husband. This bill... I read the bill. I consider myself a pretty educated person. I've got an MBA. And I can't understand what you're asking me to vote for. And the way a lot of these things get on the ballots is so it confuses people to vote, and you're not sure which way you're really voting. And that's the big concern 9 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05
The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano. COUNCIMLAN MARIANO: Ma'am, I certainly sympathize with you in your quest here, but this is strictly a non-binding referendum. No matter what happens, the people are going to have a voice, the minority will be heard, and the majority must be served. It's very simple. I said my own father died of cancer. I do get it. We're just... This is strictly to put something on a ballot. It's not about what you testified before or what anyone else here testified about. And I'm sorry to want to say that, but someone has to say that.
I understand. And I have some amendments for this. So, for you to say you can't understand it, I have some amendments. This is what I do for a 10 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 living, and this is what the people in this chamber do for a living. And we have legislative staff that draw these bills up and do a -- spend a whole lot of time. I have some amendments. Strictly, if you're going to testify on what you testified before, your testimony... That's not what we're here for right now. We understand. I was upstairs listening to what you said. We do get it. The people in this -- The Council people in this chamber will vote, and will vote either for this to get out of committee or not. And when they do, that's what happens. I'm sorry.
And you'll delay the vote another 6 months, another 12 months.
In that time there will be 12 more people who die of lung cancer.
Ma'am, I'm not here to debate you. And I would ask the Council President to stick to her statement 11 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 that anybody that testified before shouldn't be allowed to testify again, unless they want to testify about this bill being on the ballot or not.
Precisely. They can testify on the bill on the resolution before us. So, I'm assuming that you're opposed to the bill and the resolution?
Just a point of clarification. I want to make sure that we're all understanding the matter. In the conversation just now between Councilman Mariano, the sponsor -- and he and I have talked about this -- and his response to one of the witnesses at the table, the statement was made that this was a non-binding referenda. I would have a question about that. This is a proposed change to the Home Rule Charter, preventing... the basis of which is 12 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 to prevent City Council from enacting legislation related to smoking in the workplace. That is not a non-binding referendum. That is an affirmative statement and prohibition on the passage of legislation. This is not just putting up a question on the ballot to ask the public's opinion. This is a matter that not only has a question, but also proposes to change the Home Rule Charter presently. And I know that the Councilman has circulated a proposed amendment. And I understand the language. It does not change the basis of what's proposed here, even under -- Put the proposed amended language aside. It says that we, the citizens of Philadelphia, call upon the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that would prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace. That is a restriction on the Council's legislative prerogative. 13 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 It's not a --
I appreciate you bringing that to me. That's a mistake. It wasn't supposed to be like that. I didn't read it close enough. And you're absolutely right. Nobody's trying to pull a fast one here. We can just discontinue this hearing now, if that's the case. I mean --
Along with him I'm reading it. It was my understanding that it was a non-binding resolution. That's what I wanted. There's been some miscommunication between myself and the person that drafted the legislation. That's what I told all the people on Council, and that's what I want to do.
I see the word, 14 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 and as you read it, definitely.
Councilman, I would only ask further, even with the proposed changed language, the new bold language, the result, I believe, would still be the same, in terms of the effect on our ability to legislate in this particular area. So, we would still... We would not be within the realm of a non-binding referenda. If anything, I think, you have made at least that proposed portion of the Charter change clearer, as to what is being proposed here. It is a strict prohibition from passing any legislation regarding smoking in public places or in the workplace, unless it meets a certain criteria. I do not think that that would meet the test of a non-binding referenda.
Again, Councilman, it's wrong. You're right. I'm wrong. It shouldn't be that way. It was a miscommunication by the person that drafted the legislation and myself. And this is 15 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 actually the first time I sat down to read it. So, not to waste any more time... And Council members, maybe we could recess this till Thursday morning before Council and I could possibly straighten this out. I want it to be non-binding.
The Councilwoman says I probably have to do a new bill. If that's the case, I'll do a new bill 18 this week.
Okay. Yes. I just wanted to make sure before we got too far down the path.
I just wanted -- I mean, my madness behind this is to slow this legislation down. Listen, the people on this Council 16 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 are going to vote one way or the other.
And I think everybody knows how you and I are going to vote. And like I been saying ten times a day, we cancel each other out. There's some people that haven't made up mind and don't want to make up their mind right now. You've been working on this for a long, long time, and you've put a lot of time into this, but there's many things around here that people rush into, and not because of the sponsor's fault or everyone else. Just that we're all busy people trying to multi-task. And today we had committee hearings two times going on. I know we're capable of multi-tasking, but I just don't know --
-- if that's capable, in something that may be as important as putting a whole lot of people 17 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 out of work or the other extreme.
Council President, I thank you for your time and everyone on the committee.
I believe Councilwoman Tasco had her light on. Did you want to be recognized?
I want to convene the hearing until Thursday, but I think the good Councilman told me -- or the Councilman said if I want to look into amending this bill, I think I got to do a whole new bill Thursday. I'm not sure.
I think what we would have to have, if your intent 18 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 is --
-- in May, it would have to be passed by the 13th of March.
And that would mean having something before Council on Thursday.
Thursday. And the hearing, report it out with a suspension of the rules, and then voted upon on the 13th.
I think Councilman Rizzo asked me if there's anything we can do now. I don't think so, Councilman. If Councilwoman Tasco is right, and I have no 24 reason to believe she's not, I don't know if we can amend this to change the whole scope 19 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 of a bill.
I just raised with Councilman Clarke -- I'm listening to the discussion. I mean, I think you might be in a serious title problem --
-- at this point, in terms of any kind of amendment. I'm not trying to do anything else to your --
I just want to make sure that our record is clear. I mean, you've got a tight title for a certain thing. And I know what you're trying to accomplish. I don't necessarily think that this set of bills gets you where you want to be.
And I don't know that there's any amendment that you can make, given the title that you have.
I thank you. And in the words of the famous Urkel, did I do that? I'm sorry. Sorry, Councilman. 20 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 (Laughter.)
I'll have an amendment in a couple minutes to change this. I don't know. I think the title --
We're getting Mr. Auerbach to possibly come down so we can address this issue. (Councilman Mariano speaking away from the microphone, not reportable.)
I have another opinion here from my learned legislative assistant. Now, John, if I got this wrong, tell me. The bill we wrote, that's why we have an amendment, to make sure that it's 21 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 binding -- not binding. To make sure it's binding? I'm going to have another amendment in two minutes that straightens this out, I'm told. That's why I pay these people this big money to do this. Thank you. Thank you, Council President.
If I can at least make one suggestion, the Councilman should certainly be able to preserve his opportunity, if there is a chance of making any changes or adjustments or whatever, notwithstanding my position on the bill. I don't necessarily know that there's any harm to the continuation to Thursday. On the other hand, we do have members of the public, whatever their various positions may be, who may not necessarily be 22 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 able to come back with us on Thursday. Why don't we -- I don't -- I have a sense of this panel -- There might be another panel. I believe everybody should have a chance to say their piece. So we can take all of the testimony, recess till Thursday morning. We probably won't have any more Thursday on Thursday, and then we'll figure out the legislative matters later.
Thank you. I had full intentions of doing that. However, I think that the public, as long as they're here, should also know what it is that we would be voting on.
What are we going to be asking them to testify on? I think if we have patience for about two more minutes and see what secret amendment they have there for me; if not, we'll... you know, we can recess it until Thursday and see what Rick Auerbach says. I think the people at the table 23 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 understand what Councilman Mariano's intent is. If they want to make some comments now, please feel free to do so.
Madam President, good afternoon, Council members. My name is Patrick Delaney, and I represent the American Cancer Society here in Southeastern Pennsylvania, where it's my privilege to serve as vice president in charge of our operations, as coordinated by our professional staff and thousands of volunteers in and around Philadelphia. I'm here to go on the record on behalf of the American Cancer Society that we do oppose Councilman Mariano's bill -- resolution -- excuse me -- and are in full support of Councilman Nutter's proposed bill 19 for clean indoor air in the workplace. I understand some of the debate. I've been here all day. And I fully appreciate our democratic process. But I would just like to point out that for each day that we delay approving such legislation, five Pennsylvanians will die from secondhand 24 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 smoke related illness. For each day that we delay voting on Councilman Nutter's bill and enacting such a bill, Pennsylvanians will die from lung 6 cancer. That's per day. That's today. 7 I'm not a mathematician, but in the 8 time I've spent in Council chambers, at least 9 three people have died in Pennsylvania 10 because of secondhand related smoke. That's 11 unacceptable. 12 As an employer who employs 80 people 13 here in Philadelphia, I support this 14 legislation, not just to support those who 15 work in an office setting, but for those who 16 do not have the opportunity of such 17 protection, such as those in the hospitality 18 industry. 19
Do we have 22 anyone else that would like to testify?
Madam President, my name is Nathan Mains. I'm with the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania. We did not 25 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 testify earlier, but we are here in opposition to the resolution, and in favor of Councilman Nutter's bill. I'd like to echo the comments of my colleague at the American Cancer Society. The American Lung Association would call on Council to stop any efforts to delay Councilman Nutter's bill. The Mayor and a majority of Council members have indicated their support for banning smoking in all public places. Each day of a delay is one more opportunity to save another Philadelphian, another family member, another loved one from the potentially deadly effects that we've heard about all day long of secondhand smoke. So, we would call on Council to oppose the resolution and pass Councilman Nutter's bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Can we hear from our next witness, please.
Hello, Councilmen. And Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 thank you, Madam President.
My name is Karen Siren. I'm a second-year medical student at Temple University. And I'm here representing not just myself but all of the medical students here in the City of Philadelphia. There are five medical schools in the city: Temple, Jefferson, Drexel, University of Pennsylvania, and PCOM. A majority of students at each of these schools supports Councilman Nutter's bill and opposes Resolution 05716. The reason that I am here to speak with you is that Philadelphia is regarded as a great city to get an education, but it's not always regarded as the place to stay once you have received that education. And in a few years, two years to be exact, I'll have the choice of where I'm going to do my residency and begin my career. And I would like to stay in Philadelphia, but there are other cities like New York and Boston which are, quite frankly, 27 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 a bit more appealing at this stage because they are more progressive, and they are actually up with the times, and recognize at the fact that myself and my children and my family and all the people that are employed in the city deserve the right to clean air when they are working. Councilman Nutter's bill not only makes sense, but it's way overdue. And this is an important public health matter that's near and dear to us. I mean, you've heard the statistics. But quite frankly, in nearly every patient encounter that I've had thus far, the main prescription is to stop smoking. If this ban goes into effect, it would very much help the city because people have a much better rate of quitting smoke when there is smoking bans in the city. So, I thank you very much.
Thank you. And good luck to you. MR. McGOLDRICK: Good afternoon. I'm Danny McGoldrick. I'm with the Campaign 28 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington, D.C. I testified this morning in support of Councilman Nutter's bill. I oppose this bill. You make decisions here every day that affect lots of people in Pennsylvania. I think the proposed bill on the floor now is an attempt to stop you from exercising that responsibility to protect the people from Philadelphia. This bill would do nothing to protect the citizens of Philadelphia from secondhand smoke. It will, in fact, delay your action in doing that and cost city resources while we wait and delay, as more and more people have to be exposed to the dangers of secondhand smoke. The sponsoring Council member even said he would pay no attention to the vote anyway, no matter how it came out, however the public decided. So, I encourage you to defeat this bill, and get on with protecting the people of Philadelphia. Thanks. 29 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05
Thank you. Are there are questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Sure. Thank you very much. My name is Spiros Mantzavinos. I am with the American Heart Association in Southeast Pennsylvania.
I'm with the Heart Association. The Heart Association strongly believes and respectfully submits that the appropriate legislative process to debate, discuss and vote on this important public 30 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 health initiative is in City Council rather than a referendum. For example, City Councils in New York City; Tempe, Arizona; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Decatur, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; Rockville, Maryland; Lincoln, Nebraska; Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Antonio, Texas; Burlington, Vermont, as well as many others across the country, have received input from the public, debated, and ultimately passed smoke-free laws. This issue is not any different from other public health issues. The connection between secondhand smoke and heart disease is established. Council must not remove itself from this debate. And I ask what sort of precedent this would establish if City Council did remove itself from a debate over a public health issue. There's currently another bill under consideration and moving through the legislative process --
Excuse me, 31 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 sir. One moment, please.
I apologize. This issue is not any different from any other public health issue. The connection between secondhand smoke and heart disease is established. City Council must not remove itself from this debate. What sort of precedent would this establish if City Council did remove itself from a debate over a public health issue. There's currently another bill under consideration and moving through the legislative process that would address smoking in the workplace. The American Heart Association strongly believes and respectfully asks that Council Bill 050063, rather than a referendum, reach the full City Council for a debate and vote. Thank you.
Thank you 32 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 very much. Again, I would say to the other witnesses, if you've testified earlier, I would ask you simply to give your position on the bill before us and the resolution. Thank you.
I'm currently President of the American Public Health Association, the largest public health organization in the country. In 2000, as many of you know, when the first restriction of smoking was introduced by Councilman Nutter, I served as the Health Commissioner of Philadelphia. This amendment that Councilman Mariano has proposed for changing the City Charter is a bad idea, for the various reasons that other people have spoken before. And I believe it is confusing the way it's worded. I think people have to read 33 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 it three or four times, and it's subject to actually heavy lobbying by the tobacco and beverage industry who will try to force us as Council --
Doctor, I don't know if your microphone's on, but we seem to be losing your voice. Is your microphone on?
It would force members of Council to not enact a law for smoke-free places in Philadelphia, which is something that I believe would be counterproductive. And I understand that Councilman does not intend that. I actually also believe that we, as the American Public Health Association, which hosts the largest public health convention in the country, recognizes the hypocrisy of promoting public health and not supporting smoke-free cities. Last year we passed a resolution 34 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 that APHA will in general only hold conventions in cities that are smoke free. We believe that other health-related conventions will be adopting similar resolutions in the future. So, in summary I want to simply state that I believe changing or amending the Home Rule Charter with its poorly worded amendment is a bad idea. We've delayed long enough. It's time for to us pass smoke-free legislation in Philadelphia.
Thank you, Doctor. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Dr. Vicki Lachman. I am a nurse, and I'm also an associate professor at Drexel University in the College of Nursing and Health Professions. I would like to submit written testimony in support of the Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law and against the Resolution 050716. 35 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 I have been working to create smoke-free environments since 1996, and I have helped facilitate the Chestnut Hill Community Association passing a resolution 6 which stated that the Chestnut Hill Community Association encourages all restaurants, stores, and other public places in Chestnut Hill to maintain a smoke-free environment. Last month they passed a resolution 11 in support of making all public places in Chestnut Hill smoke free. Over 100 businesses in Chestnut Hill display a decal indicating that they support a smoke-free environment. Both Fiesta Pizza and McNally's Tavern experienced an increase in business when they went smoke free. People did not go to Montgomery County or Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Why did I support Philadelphia's smoke-free initiative five years ago and now? Because secondhand smoke causes lung disease and cardiac disease and kills 400,000 people a year. 36 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 Do we want on our consciences what the Lung Association, the Cancer Association say the number of people who will die this year if in fact we wait? This is a public health issue. And workers in Philadelphia deserve a working environment that's smoke free. We do not vote on public health issues in this city. Since Philadelphia first proposed a smoke-free law in 2000, a lot has changed. There's been a ground swell of other cities going smoke free. The numbers have been named, and there's now over 90 million people who are covered by strong anti-smoking bills. The time is right for Philadelphia to join these other places. Given that Indonesia has gone smoke free, why can't Philadelphia? As numerous surveys have shown, the community overwhelmingly supports smoke-free workplaces. We do not need a referendum to show that. 37 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 The Council has had years to consider this issue, and now has a year's worth of information from smoke-free cities upon which to base a sound decision. You are well equipped, Council, to make a decision on this issue. And the voters of Philadelphia have expressed their opinion when they selected you as their representatives. Councilman's bill is nothing more than a stalling tactic, to try and confuse the critically important public health issue. This time, please, Council, stand up and be counted as representatives of the people, representatives who support the health of the citizens who have elected you.
Our next witness. I really don't know if you testified earlier. But as I said, I would really like you to focus on the bill and the resolution 25 before us now. Thank you. 38 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05
Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Thurman Brendlinger, and I'm with the Clean Air Council, a non-profit environmental health advocacy group. Been around for 30 years, over 30 years, preserving everyone's right to breathe clean air. We applaud City Council for looking at a smoking ban in the City of Philadelphia. City Council has a long and profound history of leading the nation when it comes to protecting workers' health. The Clean Air Council was proud to work with City Council when it passed the nation's first right to know law. That measure intended to protect the first responders, workers and community residents, was a model later adopted by state and Federal governments. Despite spirited gloom and doom predictions by industry, City Council passed this law because it was the right thing to do. City Council did not take the issue to the voters. 39 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 A few years later, the Clean Air Council again proudly worked with City Council to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Again, despite near hysterical opposition from the regulated industry, City Council stood up for workers and the community. Again, City Council did not propose taking the issue of whether to protect workers' health to the voters. Workers in the hospitality industry are at particular risk with secondhand smoke. In a recent study by researcher Jim Repace, it was determined that air in a smoky bar is two-and-a-half times more polluted than air on a busy highway. Can we really justify making people work in that kind of environment? There's really no good alternative to adopting smoke-free ordinances. In the past, attempts have been made to mitigate the secondhand smoke problem through the use of ventilation systems in bars and restaurants. 40 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 The Council had the pleasure of being at -- The Clean Air Council had the pleasure of being asked by the Philadelphia Health Commissioner to serve on a committee studying this issue when City Council first looked at workplace smoking regulations. The Clean Air Council concluded that ventilation technology cannot ensure the harmful components of smoke are removed from the air. In conclusion, amending the City Charter should not be used by City Council to avoid having to make tough public policy decisions. The Clean Air Council also believes it is bad public policy to ask the people -- public to vote on whether or not to protect workers' health. It is a terrible precedent. City Council should vote on the workplace smoking ordinance proposed by Councilman Nutter and supported by Mayor Street. The role of the public is to let their elected officials know how they feel 41 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 about this issue, and to hold elected officials accountable for their vote.
Thank you. I believe the gentlemen in the front row were attempting to come up to the witness table. If you have testified before, I would ask that you please be focused on the bill before us. Thank you. MR. DiPIPI: Hi. My name is Greg DiPipi. I manage a restaurant and lounge in Old City. I live and work here --
I'm sorry. Where do you manage? MR. DiPIPI: A restaurant and lounge in Old City.
Old City. MR. DiPIPI: Yes. I live and work here in Philadelphia. And I do think the opinion of the voters should be heard. It can't be harmful. 42 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 What I am concerned with... It is a health bill, and that's great. But what I'm concerned with is the actual logistics. I've been in the business for years. And I 6 deal with L & I. I deal with the 7 Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. I deal 8 with the Health Department, making sure we're 9 up to Code. 10 What I don't want to see happen is a 11 rush into a bill, that to enforce will become 12 a problem down the road. 13 They just upped on the amendment 14 from 10 feet out of the egress to 15 feet. 15 The width of the pavement on Second Street where I'm located is 12 feet. So, 12 feet... At 15, you're not allowed to walk down second Street and smoke because you're pretty much lined up with bars between Market and Chestnut. So now, that puts people out in the street. These are issues that have to be dealt with. And at some point someone's going to have to regulate how they're dealt with. 43 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 At the time we do have smokers that have a choice. Non-smokers have a choice whether to visit or not visit any particular venue. The employees also have a choice. If things are working that well in New York, it's an Amtrack train ride away to go up to New York and work. Don't want to be negative with the workers and people that spoke here before, but they're right. I don't change a lot of staff. But my staff doesn't really complain about being in a potentially smoking environment. I see no reason why we can't let it go to... It should not be a Charter Change. Councilman Mariano has not said it's supposed to be. So why can't it just go to a vote, get the opinion of the voters in Philadelphia, and then City Council can work from there? In the meantime, the actual logistics of how things are to be enforced and what's to happen can be worked out. 44 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 Thank you.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record. Make sure your microphone is on, please.
My name is John Stanton from Licensed Beverage Association of Philadelphia, and also a bar owner in the Sommerton section of Philadelphia. I did testify earlier, and I promise I will stick to the subject at hand here. I just wanted to comment on something that they had said just a few minutes ago, the people that were just up here a little while ago, about how every day five people will die in Philadelphia or the State of Pennsylvania because of smoking in bars and because of other health issues. I guess they're going to have us believe that if this committee were to not let this go to public vote, that if they were 45 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 to vote on it today and pass it, that those same people wouldn't die that are already sick. I don't understand. I just wanted to make a comment about that. I believe that their whole defense or their whole offense, I should say, on this smoking ban is the public. The public work, the public this, the public that. Public, public, public. Let the public vote. I mean, you're all about the public. You're protecting the public. Let them tell you if they feel they're in danger or they want to be regulated like this. City Council's job is to represent the people. But people have jobs. People have families and kids. They don't have time to come to these chambers on days like today and express their opinions, like I do. They do have time, however, after work to go to the polls and pull a lever. So, I'd just like to make that position, that to allow them to do that, it will be a non-binding thing. City Council can then 46 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 vote afterwards. But get the public's opinion. So, I'm very in favor of that. And one more comment I'd like to make, is that they also testified that only percent of the population smokes, so what 7 are they afraid of? What exactly -- 25 8 percent. 75 percent of the population do not 9 smoke. It sounds like a landslide to me. 10 So, let the public do that. Let it 11 go to voting, and we'll take from it there. 12 Thank you. 13
My name is 19 Christopher Sheridan. I'm the research 20 director for The Committee of 70, 21 Philadelphia's Good Government Organization 22 and Watchdog Organization for a hundred years 23 now. 24 This is a significant public health 25 matter, significant and complicated. At the 47 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 present time, there's legislation before a group of -- a body of experienced legislators, supported by professional staffs, informed by anyone who wanted to come here today and speak, and anyone who wanted to submit written commentary. I believe that this bill is in the proper place, and those of you who have been informed by all viewpoints should ultimately make this decision, and not voters who we're going to have a low turnout because this is going to be a relatively low-interest election. So, it's going to be maybe 15 percent of the electorate, who don't have the information at their disposal or have a fraction of the information that members of Council have here today, as a result of listening to every viewpoint that's been offered. 70 does not take a position on this bill for or against smoking. The issue here is that this is a proper matter for City Council, in the exercise of your professional discretion. And I encourage you to move 48 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 forward with it.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? Please approach the witness table. If you have testified earlier, I would only request that you please focus on the bill number that's before us presently in the resolution. Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Dr. Marla Gold. I serve as Dean of the Drexel University School of Public Health. We're the region's only school of public health. I'm also a physician, a former City Assistant Health Commissioner, and a member of the Philadelphia Board of Health. And I'm here also as a resident of Philadelphia, and the mother of a 13 year-old boy with asthma. I'm wearing all these hats, an expert in public health with knowledge of 49 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 the potential complexity involved with enactment of legislation, and I'm a citizen who deeply loves this city for all that it has to offer. , STDs, arguments about condoms, what we should do in the high schools. These were issues that required special hearings, prolonged task force reviews, made it into the headlines day in and day out. Throughout my work in the public health arena, I have been guided, as I hoped Council would be, by two main points. First, the mission of public health is to ensure conditions in which people, entire communities, in this case the city and all who love it as much to also come and visit. Entire communities can be healthy; and second, decisions affecting the health should be informed by solid data. In regard to both these points, 50 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 throughout the morning from the legislation that you've heard, the legislation being considered this morning is a slam dunk, and that this afternoon that we're considering, actually I believe it doesn't need to go to the people because it's a public health issue. And I'll address that in a second. You've heard many data-laden testimonies that have been provided, with countless fact sheets. I'll spare you. In approaching the question as to whether to support smoke-free legislation, the first area is a thorough review that you've done. This addresses the effects of secondhand smoke. And you've heard that. This information is readily available. I have it in my written testimony. And again, it's been presented. All available reputable data strongly indicate that exposure to secondhand smoke is a significant cause of disease and death. So that's number one. And, again, I'm going to jump through the next paragraph as being written 51 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 testimony that I leave. So, you have those facts. The bottom line is that secondhand smoke is a classified carcinogen that causes disease and death. So also do persons working or visiting places in our city have significant exposure to the smoke. And again, you've heard testimony that they do. The next area of consideration is whether requiring smoke-free environments in all places, as named in the legislation, will expert a negative impact on revenue. And I'll skip over that because we've already heard today there's no negative impact. And in fact, we've got solid data that, if anything, we see an increase in jobs, an increase in people coming in to visit the various cities where there's been enactment of such legislation. So, to what's before us currently in the afternoon, what else needs to be considered, I mentioned I am a former City Assistant Health Commissioner, and I know all too well about these issues, in terms of the 52 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 public. It's important to know if we have the support of Philadelphians, yes. But we have enough polls to indicate that such support exists. Various polls indicate that a majority of people who live here want to breathe clean air here. What about the impact on personal freedom? I've heard and read the debate concerning whether mandating a smoke-free environment is akin to taking away liberty. I actually almost take offense, as a public health official, to use of the word liberty in the afternoon proposal because it implies that we are doing such a thing. We do not ask Philadelphians to vote on whether we should make meningitis a reportable disease.
We do not ask them to talk about things just as bad as secondhand smoke, that they should have a hand in public health policy, when people can significantly die or have disease. And I do not feel we need to do it in this case. There is just way too much scientific data to support that 53 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 City Council can move on this. Healthy People 2010, as you heard, is the nation's blueprint -- I'm wrapping up. It contains an objective to establish laws on smoke-free indoor air that prohibits smoking in public places. So, here's the nation asking for the establishment also of legislation as is being considered today. Through policy, I believe that you, City Council, have the opportunity to protect the public's health and make our wonderful city a healthier city. And I thank you for joining me because your public health works as well in what you do with us in the city.
Are there any other witnesses who would like to testify? Please approach the witness table. I know that you testified earlier, so I would 54 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 ask you to please be focused on the bill and the resolution before us presently. Thank you.
My name is John Jonik, and I would like to strenuously ask for a continuation of this bill, if not a complete rewriting of it. As I explained before, the Environmental Protection Agency's secondhand smoke material was completely thrown out of federal court in 1998. It remains invalid material to use. If that's the only material that we can come up with to indict secondhand smoke, that's pretty flimsy. The National Cancer Institute also indicts secondhand smoke. I've read the material. I'm not even a scientist, but I can look through it, and I can find not one word about describing the cigarette, not one word about describing the dioxins or the radiation coming from it from industrial components. These are two parts of the bill 25 already that are completely invalidated, that 55 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 science does not support the secondhand smoke bans until it's defined. The word tobacco is not defined in here.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was distracted. Are you testifying on this bill and --
I'm testifying that there should be a continuation of this thing to study these points, such as the definitions of words, and to legitimize these studies of secondhand smoke, which are... One's questionable and the other one's already been thrown out of federal court.
I think the question here is do you believe that this issue should go on a ballot?
I'm sorry. Is your microphone on? I'm having difficulty hearing you. 56 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05
I do believe this should be brought to the public after serious public discussion. If the public knows what a cigarette is, and they know that it's not tobacco necessarily in there. That's what the public -- The public right now is told that tobacco industries make tobacco products. And there's evidence galore in the U.S. government that these things may or may not be tobacco. I showed you a pack of cigarettes here that I photographed -- and there's many of them like that -- that do not say the word tobacco anywhere on the label. There's no law requiring that it be tobacco. The public doesn't know this. And an uninformed public cannot vote properly on this, as it never can. An informed public would probably say, I feel cheated, and I've been gypped by this cigarette industry for years, and I've been gypped by anything and harmed, physically harmed, by anything that called it tobacco and made me think it was tobacco, yet 57 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 didn't do anything to compensate me. There was no... There's no work to protect these workers from these secret ingredients. There's no requirement for the cigarette industry to even reveal them. I would gladly like to see a vote based on some of those points, not just shall we do smoking or not because that word isn't defined.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill or resolution? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no 22 one, at the request of the sponsor, this bill 23 and resolution will be continued for a public hearing until Thursday, March the 10th, at 9:00 a.m. Thank you all so very much for 58 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 your patience. (Public hearing concluded at 4:20 p.m.) 59 Whole - 050165/050176 - 3/7/05 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on March 7, 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.)