COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, March 9, 2010 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO RESOLUTION 100021 - Resolution confirming the appointment of Sister Mary Scullion as a member of the Board of Ethics... RESOLUTION 100022 - Resolution confirming the appointment of Kenya Mann, Esq., as a member of the Board of Ethics... RESOLUTION 100023 - Resolution confirming the appointment of Nolan Atkinson as a member of the Board of Ethics... - - - 2
Good morning. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Resolution No. 7 100021. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 9 confirming the appointment of Sister Mary Scullion as a member of the Board of Ethics, to serve in the term ending November 16, 2010.
Sister Mary Scullion, would you please approach the witness table, identify yourself and proceed with your testimony. (Witness approached witness table.) SISTER SCULLION: Thanks, Council President Verna.
Nice having you. SISTER SCULLION: Nice to be here. Good morning, members of City 3 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 Council. My name is Sister Mary Scullion. , which was co-founded by Joe McConnon and myself in 1989, along with men and women who were homeless in the City of Philadelphia, and I thank you for this opportunity to testify as I'm being considered as a nominee for the Ethics Committee. I am very grateful for this nomination and I believe I can serve the people of Philadelphia effectively as a member of the Philadelphia Board of Ethics, and I would like to share with you some background information. I'm a native Philadelphian. I'm the daughter of two Irish immigrants, and, in fact, my father worked for City Council for many, many years. I'm a proud member of the 5th Councilmanic District. I graduated from Little Flower High School, St. Joe's University and received my Master's degree from Temple University. I entered the Sisters of 4 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 Mercy in 1972. My basic values have been formed by my family, neighborhood, education, church and civic life in the great City of Philadelphia. , which we started in 1989. In all these years, I've continually followed the conviction that real and lasting solutions are possible only when we build a community of partners, friends and allies working together with a common vision. This has included many of Philadelphia's remarkable leaders, including many members of this City Council -- in fact, probably all members of this City Council in one way or the other -- workers in the 5 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 non-profit field, the philanthropic organizations, committed local business leaders, educators, people from religious communities, medical, media, sports and entertainment, people from all walks of life, including those who themselves have been homeless. Philadelphia is widely seen as a leader in dealing with the problem of homelessness, and it's because of a really broad-based community of committed and talented people, especially the people that's members of the City Council, in the public and private sector. I also know as an Executive Director of a $12 million non-profit how utterly essential it is that we are honorable, professional, effective and strategic in the use of our resources entrusted to us, either from the private or the public sector. To do our work well, we want to act truthfully as an organization and be consistently transparent. Over the years, there have 6 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 been obstacles that we've had to overcome for our work, and towards that end, I've had a fair amount of experience with the legal, political and justice systems in Philadelphia. I believe I bring these same values, experience and convictions as my role as a member of the Philadelphia Board of Ethics. As a Philadelphian, I want to be part of this great city, and I truly believe that moral integrity of government and of all public servants is a critical component to the greatness that we're capable of. I know that this city must navigate through this period of economic uncertainty and with precious scarce resources, which is further cause for us to maintain high standards of accountability and integrity by those who manage those public resources. Ethical behavior and accountability by those in municipal government is both a moral and a practical necessity. Finally, I would say that the 7 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 critical role of the Ethics Board is to foster the common good and the integrity of good government. In part, this can happen when the Board ensures consistent integrity in City Hall's performance, which in turn can foster greater political and civic participation by more citizens in working for the development and the health of the City. When government works well, citizens work for the common good.
In closing, I'd like to thank Mayor Nutter and the City Council for considering me to serve on the Ethics Board, and I look forward to the chance to serve the people of Philadelphia and you to foster the public good and -- the public trust and common good. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to respond to any questions that any member has.
Thank you, Sister. Are there any questions from 8 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 members of the Committee? Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. Good morning, Sister. SISTER SCULLION: Good morning, Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you so much for coming before us and thank you for all the wonderful work that you do in the City of Philadelphia. I don't have a lot of questions, but I do want to just ask a couple. Are you clear on the role of the Ethics Board and what your function is as a member, your responsibilities as a member? SISTER SCULLION: To the best of my ability, over the past month I've read various information about the Ethics Committee, the work, the Charter. So I understand that this body legislates the laws and our job is to interpret some of the regulations that come down.
Do you 9 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 believe that those regulations that you interpret should be made clear to the public at large? SISTER SCULLION: Yes. I think it should be -- they should be transparent, and I think that we should work -- one of the things that I've heard is, I've listened and gone around this past week or so, is that I would say I would want to work harder for prevention so that people really do understand, so that we don't really have to deal with violations, because everybody really clearly understands what the guidelines are, what the interpretations are, so people are empowered to do what they need to do.
The other question I have is, what is the Board's oversight or the authority over the staff of the Ethics Board and how do you interact with them in terms of how they perform their duties? SISTER SCULLION: I think that 10 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 the staff -- let me be honest for a minute. I don't know every exact distinction, but I would assume -- I'm assuming that the staff and the Board work closely together to foster the spirit and the common good for which -- and the mission for which the Ethics Board was formed. I know that there were problems in the past where people felt that the staff -- that people couldn't get to the Board, that they were being stopped by the staff, and I think things have been put in place to ensure that it's a more seamless and open process and that we work more seamlessly together with members of City Council and others.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sister Scullion, a lot of times 11 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 people and their history and their resumes speak for them. In your case, it does. Your process and participation with Project H.O.M.E. I've known about, worked with in my former capacity at PCDC. I understand the good works you do. I'm going to say this about Mr. Atkinson, so this way, I won't repeat myself. His works speak for him. I remember him as a partner in a law firm when I was at MBEC. So we understand that you are good people. What we struggle with in government often -- and this is both sides of the coin -- is four legs of a table. In order to have good government and good public policy, you have to have, A, good people; B, good laws, and that's in our bailiwick to deal with, because you can only rule on the things that are on the books and the laws and codes that we put there, and the final thing is good process, fair, equitable process. And 12 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 what we're hoping for and what my colleagues have struggled with is coming to that balance of good policy, common sense and then a clear understanding of the law and the process. And what I'm encouraged by your appointment and the appointments here today, all of them, is that we're beginning to evolve to that. Through some of the confrontation that we've had with members often brings compromise and understanding. So if out of that we actually come up with a good process that for generations we can be governed by, this is a good thing, and I'm glad to have you as an addition to that body. I'm looking forward to working with you guys, and that we hope going forward we'll be a lot better and less confrontational than we have. You got to do your job. Your job is not to be our friend, buddy and pal, but to follow the law. But those four essential components we have to get right. 13 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 And I appreciate allowing the comment, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Mary, for agreeing to serve in this capacity. I want to probe a little bit your opinion relative to the confidentiality of investigations as it relates to prior to the decision of the Board. When a formal decision of the Board is made, of course, through an open and transparent process, the press is notified and what is reported is reported, but some of the concerns that I think members have is that during the course of staff work, staff investigation, that sometimes this information winds up in the public media prior to a final decision being made, which creates a lot of difficulties, 14 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 because people then start to begin -- they think they know what the end result is going to be or they think they know actually what happened. Reporters, columnists, editorial writers have their own viewpoints, and certainly they're allowed to have them and express their opinions, but often the things that the staff and you guys are going to make decisions on affect the careers of people and the livelihoods of people. What is your overall view of the confidentiality of ongoing work by staff and investigations? SISTER SCULLION: Well, I think confidentiality is a very key component of anything that we do. I'm not aware of the specifics of when things are public information, so I can't comment like specifically, but as a way that I would operate personally, I think confidentiality -- and I'm very -- I do keep confidences until all the facts are 15 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 known and when things are public information. I would probably err on the side of confidentiality other than, you know -- and I think that the mission of the Ethics Commission is that we learn, as Councilman Curtis Jones pointed out, about process. And I think that none of us are perfect, and I know for myself, I've made -- if I had a nickel for every mistake I made, I'd be a rich woman today. I think that the integrity and the process and people being able to consider the information is very, very important without having to deal with it in a public way.
I think part of the frustration in this body is that the overwhelming number of the members of this Council, when this legislation was passed, voted for it. We seemed to get very little credit for doing it. There were massive changes that were made based on what we're used to -- how we were used to conducting 16 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 business and campaigns that were changed by this body through leadership of now Mayor Nutter. Just about all of us voted for it and supported it and, in concept, did support it. Relative to issues of campaign finance and who can serve in what capacity, a lot of these things that the Board was either opining on or taking a position on was something that we were never even intent on in the legislation. So I think where Council Majority Leader was going was that the law was passed by us, certainly interpretation by the Board, but there are also times when we feel that the staff or the Board goes beyond their scope of responsibility, and I think that's where the conflict comes in. And I know the first year that I ran for reelection under the new campaign finance laws was a difficult year. There was lots of information that was requested. It was requested immediately. We have staff that were trying to scramble to get 17 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 information to comply with the requests, but there was kind of a, I don't know, like a haughty kind of attitude about the requests and how they were made and how often and quickly we needed to respond while we're doing other work throughout the course of our duties. We got through that election, and, you know, it was a learning process. I think both sides learned, and it's easier now to deal with it going forward. And I'm not suggesting we go backwards, but I think sometimes there's -- and maybe it's necessary because of the function of the Commission and the staff -- is that there seems to be this arm's length approach to us, which I don't think is really always necessary. And I think you guys can do your job and we can do our job and we can follow the rules as we're supposed to, but I do think that sometimes there's this -- I find it even -- for example, in the ongoing yearly ethics training, I mean, 18 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 it seems that sometimes we're being spoken to like we're in school. And I know that that was the first year. The second year, I think it was better, but it's those things I think that are more subjective than they are substantive that cause these conflicts. I just would have you take that into consideration as you serve. I know you for a long time. I know you're a fair-minded person, not afraid to speak their mind when they think they're right, and I expect you to continue to do that, but I would just like you to keep that in consideration as you go forward. SISTER SCULLION: Thank you. I hear you and I respect that, and I know that it's been rough getting started, and I think we all, especially the City Council who initiated this legislation, wants a more level of --
That's one of the big frustrations, is that those of us who supported it and passed it seem -- 19 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 and it's not your fault or the Board's fault, but in the media seem to get very little credit for massively changing campaign finance regulations and ethics regulations or ethics legislation in our tenure. I mean, it wasn't done by another group of people. It was done by us. SISTER SCULLION: Right. Well, thank you very much, and I would hope that I would uphold and honor that and respect it and implement it more.
Again, I always echo my confidence in you because I know you're a fair person. Thanks.
Thank you. Are there any further questions from members of the Committee of Sister Scullion? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you, Sister. SISTER SCULLION: Thank you, 20 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 Council President. Thank you.
Mr. McPherson, I would ask you to please read the title of Resolution No. 100022. MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 7 confirming the appointment of Kenya Mann, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Ethics, to serve in the term ending November 16, 2013. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. My name is Kenya Mann Faulkner. Good morning, Council President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Kenya Mann Faulkner. I would like to begin today by thanking all of 21 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 you for giving me this opportunity to speak in connection with my reconfirmation to the Philadelphia Board of Ethics, on which I am truly honored to serve as a current Board member. Currently, I am a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of the Investigations and White-Collar Litigation Group at Ballad Spahr. Prior to joining the law firm in 2007, I spent the vast majority of my career in public service. I served as a Philadelphia public defender and then as a senior deputy attorney general for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to become a federal prosecutor, working on corruption cases. In that position, I saw firsthand how important the City of Philadelphia's ethics rules truly were setting forth the boundaries of acceptable conduct in local government. I have proudly served on the 22 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 Philadelphia Board of Ethics since January 2008, and I look forward to the opportunity to continue working on the Board in the future. I would like to take this opportunity at my reconfirmation to talk a little about the outstanding accomplishments I have witnessed the Ethics Board achieve in the short period of time I've been on the Board. Since 2008, the Board has taken significant steps to increase honesty, integrity and transparency in City government and ensure that all City officials and workers are held accountable to the same high standards. I am proud that a major focus of Board activity has been to increase and improve training for City officials, employees and candidates for office in order to prevent mistakes. We conducted -- the Board conducted campaign finance training in 2009 before the 2010 election and will soon start regular 23 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 voluntary campaign finance training sessions, well in advance of the 2011 elections, so that all candidates and committees will be knowledgeable of and understand the applicable rules. One key to achieving honesty and integrity in City government is the Board's emphasis on providing advice and guidance. Regulation 4, which became effective on August 4th of 2008, established firm and clear procedures for seeking advice from the Board. It did so by clarifying permissible subjects of requests, who may request advice and the manner in which communication with the Board and staff should be made. Through Regulation 4, the Board encouraged and continues to encourage all City officers, employees, candidates, candidate political action committees and political committees to seek advice from the Board in a manner ensuring complete transparency. I am pleased to note that many 24 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 people have sought the Board's advice. Since 2008, the Board has issued a number of significant formal advisory opinions relating to very relevant issues. The most recent amendments adopted within the last few weeks to the Board, Regulation 2, are intended to clarify the steps in investigations and enforcement proceedings. Furthermore, Regulation 2 defines the rights of parties before the Board and will help promote confidence in the Board's work. I would also like to add that the Board worked with City Council on this amendment and included the suggested changes made by City Council in this particular amendment. The Board of Ethics has also adopted regulations in the areas of confidentiality of investigations and annual ethics training requirements. Each of these recent regulations is a step toward making the City's public integrity laws clear and 25 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 accessible to all. It is most rewarding and exciting to be a part of this growth by the Ethics Board.
The last thing I would like to say about regulations is that the process for publicizing new regulations or amendments to existing regulations under the Charter includes the opportunity to request a public hearing, and in most cases, the Ethics Board has taken the initiative and scheduled the hearings without anyone requesting them at all. I have been a part of the Philadelphia community for almost 16 years. I have a vested interest in the 17 City and I want it to be a model of 18 ethics for all other cities. Since I 19 have become a part of the Board, I've had 20 the chance to further this effort and play a role in furthering lucidity and integrity in City government. The Ethics Board and I encourage all employees, as well as elected officials and candidates, to participate in Board meetings and 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and voice their concerns, comments or questions. Such participation will help further promote these principles. In closing, I would like to thank Mayor Nutter and City Council for giving me the opportunity to serve as an Ethics Board member for the past two years. If reconfirmed, I pledge to work hard to fulfill the Board of Ethics' mandates in educating, rendering advice and enforcing the City's public integrity laws. Thank you.
Thank 16 you. 17 The Chair recognizes Councilman 18 Goode. 19
As the only person before us this morning that's actually being reconfirmed or up for 27 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and reconfirmation, I have a couple questions about the process. The first is, how many matters have actually been brought to the Board?
Not 9 investigative, but matters that have 10 actually been brought to the Board for 11 decisions. 12
Well, there are 16 different things. There can be 17 investigations that are brought to the 18 Board. There could be advisory opinions 19 that are requested of the Board. 20
I don't have the 23 exact numbers. There's been a lot of advisory opinions. There have been investigations that we've done. Some of 28 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and them have never been made public, but I can't give you a number.
I guess the 5 question is, how many have been brought 6 to the Board for decisions by the Board 7 that you've actually made decisions 8 about? How many matters have you made 9 decisions about during your tenure? 10
Some investigations 15 are started by someone making a 16 complaint. Some investigations are -- 17
I'm actually 18 looking for a number, whether it's a 19 broad number or not. 20
I would truly be guessing. I don't have a number. I know 29 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that matters are brought to the Board and we discuss them in executive session, but I don't know the number of that, but I can certainly get you a number.
Well, that 7 was just leading up to my second question 8 anyway. The second question is, what 9 percentage of those matters were related 10 to campaign finance? For that I think it 11 would be appropriate some guess or some 12 range. Would you say the majority? 13
No, I wouldn't say 14 the majority, but I don't have a number. 15 If I don't have the large number of the 16 investigations, it's hard for me to tell 17 you what ratio of those are campaign 18 finance. 19
I guess 20 where we're not clear on the first 21 question or second question is, I'm not 22 asking how many issues have been raised 23 with the Board. I'm asking how many decisions have been made by the Board in any context you want to put it, whether 30 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and you want to say investigations, advisory opinions. In terms of your work, because you're here asking for reconfirmation, so you can create the universe however you want in terms of matters you dealt with. I'm asking, can you define that in any way and what portion of that dealt with campaign finance?
We get many requests 11 for advisory opinions on conflict of 12 interest. We get questions on -- 13 advisory opinions on campaign finance. 14 It would be hard for me to tell you the 15 number. I can tell you there is a good 16 number of advisory opinions included with 17 investigations on campaign finance. Are 18 they the majority of them? I don't want 19 to say that here this morning because I 20 don't actually know. I know we've had 21 discussions about them where there's 22 advisory opinions as well as 23 investigations and the Board has rendered decisions on them, but I can't tell -- I apologize, because I can't tell you a 31 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and number.
Okay. In 4 general, what portion of time do you 5 believe is allocated to the issue of 6 campaign finance by the staff, not 7 necessarily by the Board? My original 8 questions were about the Board, decisions 9 made by the Board. 10
The staff deals with 11 not just campaign finance. They deal 12 with conflict of interest and ethics 13 violations. You would again be asking me 14 to guess how much time someone else 15 spends on a particular subject, which is 16 even harder for me to do. I know they 17 work. I know they work hard, but I don't 18 know how much of their time they spend 19 solely to campaign finance. 20
How many 21 campaign finance matters have come to 22 your attention? 23
And this is a guess. I'm going to guess for you. Probably since I've been on the Board, maybe 12, 32 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 15, and that's a guess.
Okay. 4 That's a fair guess. I'm not going to 5 hold you to the number. 6 Of the 12 or 15 matters of 7 campaign finance that have come to your 8 attention as a Board member, how many 9 were clear-cut decisions for you? 10
They're never 11 clear-cut decisions, at least for me. I 12 can't speak to anyone else, but what I 13 can tell you with respect to me is that I 14 take my job as an Ethics Board member 15 very, very seriously. I understand the 16 ramifications that even mere allegations 17 could have on not just City officials, on 18 anyone. 19
So they were 20 not clear-cut decisions. Without getting 21 into the particular issues, what made 22 them not clear cut? 23
Because I think when you're, not even just a lawyer, when you have a rule and you have a set of facts, 33 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and you have to put those things together and decide whether they fit within those rules. So for me, it's never just -- I think what you have with the Board members, you have people coming from very different perspectives, and I think that's a good thing. And so we have discussions from --
So do you 11 believe it has been a matter of the facts 12 not being clear or the rules not being 13 clear? 14
I don't think it's 15 either. I don't want to say the law or 16 the rule is unclear or the facts are 17 unclear. We have a set of facts. The 18 Board always asks -- 19
Well, I 20 guess the question I'm asking is, in your 21 examination of those roughly 12 to 15 22 different cases brought to your 23 attention, were you looking through the facts to see whether they applied to the rule or were you looking at the facts and 34 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and then having to interpret the rule?
I can only speak for 4 myself. I look at the -- I examine first 5 what the rule is and then I get the facts 6 and see if that fits within the set 7 there. And I'll tell you, we come 8 before -- what I wanted to say is we come 9 from very different perspectives, and 10 that doesn't mean that when we -- because 11 there are now three of us. We come in 12 and we discuss. I don't walk in thinking 13 I know what this is about and how I'm 14 going to decide. We have a very spirited 15 discussion on what happened here, what 16 does the rule say and then we come up 17 with a decision. 18
So have you 19 changed your mind about the rule during 20 your tenure, the rules? 21
Are you talking 22 about a particular rule or are you 23 talking about just --
A particular rule or any of the rules. Have you 35 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and changed your mind of any of it? In other words, is the discussion you have among the Board members again about the particular cases and actions that were taken or are those discussions about the actual rules?
I don't know if I'd 13 use the word "interpret." I look at the 14 rules and look at the facts, and those 15 things come together at some point. I 16 don't -- 17
And have you 18 changed your mind about the rules during 19 your tenure? I can understand how the 20 facts may apply differently, but have you 21 ever changed your impression of what the 22 rules actually are? 23
I don't know if I could say I changed my mind. I look at rules depending on the factual 36 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and circumstance. I think that's the best way -- I wouldn't say I changed the rules or changed my mind on the rules. I look at the rules in terms of the facts that I have.
At any point 8 do you consider what the legislative 9 intent of those rules were? 10
I look at the rule 11 and if there is some intent in there -- 12
There's 13 always legislative intent. If the ethics 14 ordinance were created by City Council 15 and passed by City Council, there is 16 definitely legislative intent. 17
Well, there 18 certainly is legislative intent. Do I 19 look at the rule and think, Well, City 20 Council didn't mean to cover this portion 21 or that portion? 22
Do you ever 23 consider legislative intent of the rules?
And how do 37 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and you consider them?
Depending on the 4 rule, I look at them and say, Well, this 5 is the set of facts, do -- you know, 6 but -- let me just say this: I don't 7 stray far down the road sort of trying to 8 change the rule. That I don't do. 9
I'm not 10 suggesting that. I'm asking to what 11 extent you consider the legislative 12 intent, how you consider the legislative 13 intent and if you or any other Board 14 members are -- 15
Well, if you 18 have ever had a conversation with any 19 member of Council about what the 20 legislative intent was. 21
My only 22 conversations with Council was going 23 around and meeting them informally last week. I can't say that anyone's told me -- I've got a sense from those 38 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and meetings what their thoughts were, but have I ever picked up the phone and called City Council to find out their intent? Absolutely not.
So could any 7 Board member, including yourself, be 8 wrong about the legislative intent of any 9 of the rules? 10
Anyone can be wrong 11 about anything, and yes, we could be 12 wrong. I should speak for myself. I 13 could be wrong. 14
So if a 15 member of Council is before the Board on 16 a particular matter and they say they 17 don't believe it's the legislative 18 intent, I'm not suggesting you should 19 take their word for it, because there's 20 the legislative intent of the primary 21 sponsor, there's the legislative intent 22 of the body as a whole. Legislative 23 intent could be interpreted different ways. But have there not been enough matters that have come before the Board 39 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and to suggest that the Board should have had a conversation with City Council about what the legislative intent was on several different matters?
Well, I don't feel 7 like it's my job to call City Council to 8 ask them their legislative intent as an 9 Ethics Board member. If you're asking 10 me -- 11
Only if 12 you're interpreting the legislative 13 intent. If you're not interpreting the 14 legislative intent, I agree with you. 15
I also feel that the 16 Ethics Board has what's called an 17 opportunity for people to come and ask 18 advisory opinions, and that gives not 19 just City Council but the person that has 20 a question or an issue to raise that 21 issue with the Board. 22
When the 23 Board of Ethics was created, did it have oversight of campaign finance laws?
I'm sorry. I 40 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and wasn't -- I'm not sure. I was on the Board -- when I came on the Board, it already had jurisdiction over campaign finance. I can't tell you what happened before I got on the Board.
So if the 8 Board of Ethics was created and did not 9 have oversight of campaign finance laws 10 and then was given oversight of campaign 11 finance laws by this Council, then the 12 purpose for the creation of the Board of 13 Ethics was not related to campaign 14 finance, and so it might follow that, but 15 to enforce those provisions within the 16 Code and within the Charter that already 17 exists, it would suggest that the purpose 18 of the Board of Ethics was not originally 19 to oversee campaign finance, that the 20 intent of those campaign finance laws as 21 they were created by Council are 22 therefore not necessarily up to 23 interpretation by the Board of Ethics.
I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. I don't -- are 41 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and you asking me whether the Board should have oversight of campaign finance?
When the 5 Board of Ethics was -- in fact, it may be 6 a more appropriate question for someone 7 who was around at the creation of the 8 Board, but the first question was simply 9 whether the Board of Ethics had oversight 10 of campaign finance when it was created, 11 and the answer to that question is no. 12
I wasn't on the 13 Board during its creation, so I can't 14 speak to that. When I got on the Board, 15 they had oversight of campaign finance. 16
19 You're welcome. 20 The Chair recognizes 21 Councilwoman Sanchez. 22
Thank 23 you, Madam President. For the purposes of the record, I'm going to ask you some questions and 42 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and put on the record we did have quite an extensive conversation, and I think it's important that my colleagues get the benefit of hearing what your responses were to some of the concerns in our discussion. But I want to start out by clarifying that I think in at least our discussion, there was a clear discussion around Council's legislative intent on the Board of Ethics, because you said that in none of your conversations with Board members there was a discussion around the intent, and we did have a discussion around the intent. I think both Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Reed Miller were very articulate in talking about the intent, which was --
You have to speak into the microphone for the 43 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and record.
We had conversations 4 about a specific code, and we talked 5 about that. I don't know whether it was 6 your staff or someone had questions about 7 whether it had an intent in the statute. 8 I didn't express any -- I said to 9 Councilman Goode that I got the 10 impression there were concerns about 11 legislative intent. That's what I said 12 to him. 13
No, but 14 he asked you -- you said you never had a 15 conversation with Council around the 16 legislative intent, and what I'm saying 17 to you, in our discussion there was a lot 18 of discussion around legislative intent. 19 So you're saying you didn't have a 20 discussion, and we were talking 21 legislative intent, which was good 22 government -- 23
I said I got, after going around and meeting with Council, I got the impression or idea that there was 44 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and concerns about legislative intent. That's what I said.
Okay. 5 Let's talk a little bit about some of 6 those concerns and your interpretation. 7 One of the issues -- and my colleague, 8 Councilman Kenney, brought it up to 9 Sister Scullion -- around the publicizing 10 of investigations, and one of the 11 discussions that we had in light of the 12 fact that all of the Board meetings are 13 open to the public, what was the intent 14 of issuing a press release when there was 15 a dispute prior to a judicial decision, 16 and what is your opinion on that? 17
Press releases are 18 issued in almost every instance by the 19 Board. The basis for that, my 20 understanding, is for transparency. The 21 press releases do not say the person 22 committed the violation. The press 23 release mirrors the petition that has been filed and says X is alleged in the petition to have violated this, that and 45 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the other. It's done in almost all circumstances. We believe the public has a right to know what the Board is doing and what's going on.
So the 7 practice is one of what you believe to be 8 educating the public further around an 9 allegation that is up for dispute? 10
It's educating the 11 public, one, on what the Board is doing 12 and promoting transparency in 13 relationship to the Ethics Board, so the 14 City knows what's going on, the people of 15 the City know what's going on. 16
So in 17 these particular cases, there's a 18 dispute. It goes in front of the judge. 19 You don't believe that allegations, 20 because you're saying in the press 21 release is allegations, is not giving 22 someone a trial in the court of public 23 opinion?
When a case is then therefore settled or a judicial decision is made, does the press release acknowledge that you guys were wrong on any of the issues or the allegations and then the end result were different?
If there is a press 10 release when a petition is filed, is 11 done, if there's later a settlement and 12 there's negotiations done and fines are 13 reduced or violations are wiped out, 14 absolutely the press release will 15 indicate that they admitted to one 16 violation as opposed to four. The press 17 release lays out what the agreement was, 18 what the settlement was. 19
Does it 20 stipulate which allegations the Board 21 made that the judge deemed wrong? 22
I don't know of any 23 specific circumstance you're talking about, so I can't --
I'm just 47 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and saying as a practice. We're talking about your practices, which has caused some of the concerns that you heard expressed, was the issue of the intent of the law and then how we operationalize that when you're making public statements as a practice. The Board is okay with certain practices, so I'm asking you your personal opinion as to why those practices are held and do you understand the implications of those. Because you take people to court. And we can talk about some of that later. There's an allegation that's made. There's a dispute. It goes before the judge. And my question is, when the judge makes a different opinion than the Board of Ethics, does the Board of Ethics in its effort for transparency acknowledge in that final press release that they were wrong?
Or that 48 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the judge determined something different than the initial allegation?
What I can tell you 5 is that if a petition goes before a judge 6 and the -- however the judge rules, 7 that's also made public, whether the 8 judge rules with the Board or against the 9 Board. In settlement agreements, as I 10 stated earlier, if we -- if the Board 11 decides that there's going to be an 12 admission only to one violation as 13 opposed to four or the fines are going to 14 be reduced, we do that. We don't -- 15 whatever the court rules, we make that 16 public, too. We don't hide the ball with 17 respect to that as well. 18
Do you 19 acknowledge that the judge ruled against 20 you in your press statement? Because 21 we're talking about open transparency and 22 putting stuff on the record. Do you 23 acknowledge that?
Are you saying that we acknowledge that the court rules 49 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and against us? If the judge has made a ruling, that too is included in whatever settlement or press release that's issued as well.
Going 7 back to legislative intent, do you 8 believe that the Board of Ethics is a 9 preventive, an education, or is it 10 punitive? 11
First of all, the 12 Board of Ethics is an administrative 13 agency. I think the perception that some 14 people have is that all the Board does is 15 enforcement, and that's not all we do. 16
Well, 17 because you're very clear in your 18 statement. I'm going back to your 19 statement, is that this is to ensure the 20 City officials and workers are held 21 accountable. Nowhere in here do you talk 22 about educating the public around good 23 behaviors. You in your statement, the terminology that you use is punitive. That's why I'm asking you, do you think 50 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and you're an agency to establish standards around good behavior or is it an enforcement agency?
And, Councilwoman 6 Quinones, what I'd like to direct your 7 attention to is that the last statement, 8 the last sentence of my statement -- and 9 I'll repeat it again -- it says, If 10 reconfirmed, I pledge to work hard to 11 fulfill the Board of Ethics' mandate in 12 educating, rendering advice and enforcing 13 the City's integrity laws. 14 I acknowledge that part of the 15 Ethics Board's duties is to enforce, but 16 it's not all we do. We render advice, we 17 do training. And I think training is 18 part of preventive, so that if people are 19 trained, they know what the rules are 20 that they're working under. It's not -- 21 enforcement is not all we do. It's not 22 all we want to do. 23
Part of what you and I had a conversation about, when you read the Board of Ethics' annual 51 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and report, one of the accomplishments that it lists is the high number of fines that it has issued. Do you think this again goes with the legislative intent and the goal to set standards when your accomplishments is around the high number of fines that you're collecting? Does that send the same message?
I think part of the 11 annual report is that we list all we do. 12 It's not -- we didn't just list the fines 13 that we imposed upon people in our work. 14 There are many other things that are in 15 our annual report. Should we list the 16 fines? Absolutely. Should we list the 17 training of the number of people we do? 18 Absolutely. 19
Should 20 that be an accomplishment, that you're 21 talking about a high level of fines? 22
I don't know if you 23 would term it an accomplishment. I think it's a right for people to know if there are -- 52 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
You list it as an accomplishment. Do you think that that is an accomplishment?
I think the citizens 6 of Philadelphia have a right to know what 7 the Board does, and if part of it is 8 imposing fines and judges finding that 9 people should be fined, I think we should 10 list that, because it's part of the work 11 we do. It's not all we do. 12
So now 13 that you've in Regulation 4 -- and I'm 14 glad that there is a clarification in 15 Regulation 4 around people's due process. 16 In light of the fact that the Board of 17 Ethics was approved by this Council and 18 the first elections that it applied to 19 were the 2007, in retrospect, would you 20 say the actions around how that 21 enforcement was carried out in 2008 and 22 2009 -- what are your lessons learned and 23 what would you do differently?
I didn't get on the Board until 2008. 53 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
No. I'd 7 like the specifics around lessons learned 8 and what you would do differently. 9
What I'd like to see 10 is more people come -- the campaign 11 finance training is not -- 12
13 Excuse me. Do you mind pulling the 14 microphone closer. 15
I'd like to see more 19 people attend more of the training. 20 Right now the ethics training is the part 21 that's mandatory. People don't have to 22 come to the other trainings, the campaign 23 finance training. I certainly am not saying it has to be mandatory, but I'd like to encourage people more -- and this 54 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and is the lesson that I've learned being on the Board. I can't speak for anyone else -- to come to the Board. If you have a problem with the Board, make it known. We have a Chair. We have public meetings every Wednesday, the third Wednesday of each month, at o'clock. The lesson I would ask people -- I don't know that the Board has -- I wouldn't say the Board has hid that fact, but what I've learned is that people don't know they can come to the Board. They can come to the Board and say, I take issue with this, I don't take issue with this. I think with respect to Regulation 2, I can speak for the Board in this. We appreciated Council's input in Regulation 2. So that's the lesson that I've learned. When Councilman Kenney talks about they feel like the Board is sort of put off, that's not the impression that we would like to have. This is -- 55 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and
But you recognize that that has been because of the actions that have played out in the press around the Board's accessibility?
I don't know whether it's because of the press. I think it's probably a number of reasons, not just the press. I would not like to blame it on the press, but I think there's some ownership that everyone could have, and I'm here to say on behalf of the Board, come to us, tell us if you think we got it wrong. Tell us if you think we got it right. We like to hear that, too. I sensed -- and this is me speaking personally -- maybe a year, a year and a half, that people didn't realize they could --
But it needs to go on the record, because I 56 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and think that there is some confusion, because you're saying on the one hand now -- and I'm glad these steps have been taken in the last Board meetings, but in the past people were told by staff that they did not have to either correspond with the Board or have a forum with the Board, which is what led to that perception. So my question to you is, because you were well aware of that, because we've told you, what is it that you're going to do different now to encourage --
I certainly am not 17 going to sit here and say that I call 18 City Council up. That's not what -- if 19 you're asking me to sort of -- 20
Let me finish saying 23 what I have to say. I recognize that there's been an impression that people can't approach 57 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the Board.
No. 4 We've been told by staff. It's real 5 important that that go on the record. 6 It's not an impression. We've been told 7 by staff. 8
That's something -- 9 like I said, I do not want to rehash it, 10 and I'm not allowed to rehash any 11 personal or specific instances. I heard 12 your statement on that. The Board 13 meetings have always been public. 14
The 18 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a 19 point of information. 20
Thank you. 21 Would you please clarify the 22 statement, I'm not allowed to rehash or 23 discuss the issue that the Councilwoman raised? Why are you not allowed? Thank you. 58 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
Because I sensed that we were going down sort of a specific matter that's already been handled and because of the confidentiality, I'm not -- I don't think this is a place to --
We're 9 talking about process and procedures. 10 We're not talking about a specific case. 11 I'm trying to get your -- you have now 12 served on the Board for a year and a 13 half. We're trying to get some 14 clarifications in light of all of the 15 scrutiny that's been done and all the 16 perceived tension that exists between 17 Council and the Board of Ethics. I'm 18 trying to get your sense about what you 19 believe are some of the lessons learned 20 and how we are going to improve the 21 relationship in light of the fact that it 22 has been very clear from my colleagues 23 that everybody here supported the creation of the Board of Ethics and there was a legislative intent, and so now we 59 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and get to how do you operationalize that. There's been so much glitches in the road. So I am asking you about process. I'm not asking you about individual cases.
Well, when you said 8 we've been told that, that's a specific 9 instance. That's what -- I didn't want 10 to go down the road of that, but let me 11 answer your question in how I expect to 12 deal with it, and I'll give you an 13 example. 14 On every Board meeting since I 15 started, Councilman Green has sent 16 someone from his staff there. That 17 person has been active. That person has 18 made suggestions. That person has given 19 us their perspective on how they can get 20 information better from the Board. 21 I'm not suggesting that every 22 Councilmember should do that, because 23 that may not be logistically available to them. What I will say is that if you have an issue, whether it's with a staff 60 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and member or an issue you think the Board is not dealing with correctly, you can come and complain to the Board. We have regulations. We always, without anyone asking, because we're suggesting some change, we offer a public hearing without waiting to hear from anyone. The only thing I can say sitting here today that I would do differently is what I've done today, is say come to the Board. We can't meet with anyone privately. I don't suggest you contact an individual Board member privately. What I suggest is that people come and make their complaints made.
I'm 18 trying to get your perspective, because 19 you're serving. You're the one up for 20 confirmation. So you keep referring me 21 back to the Board and the public Board 22 meetings. I'm trying to get an 23 understanding of what you believe is the legislative intent, what you believe your role is and if you think there are any 61 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and further clarifications and process, any improvements. What is your added value, given your experience having served on this Board, moving forward in light of all the issues that have been discussed? That's what I want to get, what your perspective is. We're here to talk about Kenya.
My perspective is, 11 I'd like to see people ask for more 12 advice so that there aren't mistakes 13 made. I'd like to see people come to 14 more training and ask questions about 15 training. 16 My job -- I don't see my job as 17 a Board member to just enforce the codes 18 or the campaign finance. I'd like to see 19 people have more of an open, approachable 20 relationship with the Board. It's hard 21 for us to go reaching out to people, but 22 if they have concerns or they have 23 issues, come to the Board. Those are the things I think would, looking back, I'd like to see the Board further growing. I 62 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and think helping the citizens of Philadelphia understand what the rules are and I think the advisory opinions help them a long way, because one advisory opinion can help a lot of people, whether it's related to campaign finance or just conflict of interest. It can help the rest of the people. So that would be my suggestion, that people come to the Board. I can't speak to any specific instances, but I'd like people to know that the Board has public meetings every Wednesday, and coming to them and voicing your concerns will help not just City Council, but it will help the citizens of Philadelphia and City employees.
What is 20 your opinion around the Evan Meyer 21 situation and the DROP? 22
When that issue was 23 proposed to the Board, we discussed it more than once in executive session. We came -- people had -- we talked about the 63 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and issue. We talked about whether it was legal, and once we got beyond the legality point -- and I'm not going to speak for the Board here.
My position on Evan 9 Meyers in DROP, Evan Meyers has over 20 10 years of experience, not just being a 11 lawyer but with the City Law Department, 12 and the quality of his advice to the 13 Board, in my opinion, is unmatchable. 14 When I got on that Board, I 15 tried to get a quick study on the ethics, 16 the campaign finance, whatever was out 17 there, and I can tell you, after having 18 been a lawyer for over 20 years, the 19 experience and the advice that Evan 20 Meyers gives to that Board, having the 21 depth of interpretation and the 22 understanding of the City Solicitor's 23 opinions that come well before I was born, I felt that his experience the Board could not afford to lose. 64 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
So let me -- I'm not 5 finished, please, because I think -- I 6 want people to understand, because I 7 understand DROP is an issue for everyone. 8 The quality of advice would 9 have gone down for the Board. The Board 10 had -- two and a half years ago, before 11 then, the Board is a different Board. 12 The Board is growing, it's learning and 13 it's working really hard, and I think the 14 Board would have been in a deficit to not 15 have Evan Meyers. 16 And the last thing I want to 17 say about Evan Meyers is that the first 18 time I ever met him, he testified 19 defending the City in state ethics. The 20 depth of his knowledge is unmatchable, 21 and the Board would have suffered 22 tremendously if we had let him go and not 23 allowed him to come back to the Board.
I'm sure that he has all that valuable experience, 65 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and but the intent of DROP was for people to plan transitions. So what you're saying to me, that in this city, with all these law firms, there's no other attorney and there was no forethought in planning for his transition? Because when you hired him, you knew he was in DROP.
Well, 12 when the Board hired him, they knew he 13 was in DROP. 14
I can't speak for 15 anyone else. When I got on the Board, I 16 was unaware he was in DROP. When they 17 proposed that he was requesting to go 18 into DROP, retire and get rehired, I 19 dealt with it with the facts that I had 20 there. 21 And to answer your question 22 whether anyone in the City could do what 23 Evan Meyers has done, I haven't met anyone. When we talk about the opinions that have come out of the City 66 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Solicitor's Office, it's not sometimes just the opinions, it's the things that are going on around the opinions I believe that Evan Meyers has a depth of knowledge and experience that I have not met, that is unmatchable in dealing with the ethics and the other issues that the Board deals with.
And I'll 11 end with this, because I want to put this 12 on the record. When the Board made a 13 decision to cite its Executive Director 14 for his behavior, why the fine of $500? 15 Give to me what your opinion was of the 16 situation and in light of the fact we've 17 been talking about these fines and the 18 fines being all over the place, why just 19 $500, and do you not think that that has 20 impacted the credibility of the Board? 21
I don't think it has 22 impacted the credibility of the Board. 23 What I will say to you, it was certainly not one of the proudest moments of the Board. We were not proud of what Shane 67 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Creamer did, but what I will say about that, and I will get to the fine issue, is that what I don't think most people realize is that Mr. Creamer came to the Board and disclosed that he had breached the confidentiality, which is something that we certainly took into consideration. He self-disclosed. The Board went into executive session. We had been in discussions about it. I can tell you that I was more than furious about it. We talked about the fine. We also issued a press release on Mr. Creamer, because we don't just think that people -- that we should do it to other people. The citizens of Philadelphia have a right to know what the Board is doing, and if its staff members are doing something, the Board had to, I think to use this word, for lack of no other word, publicly censure. We looked at what he had done, the fashion in which he had done it, and we came up with $500, which I will say 68 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 Mr. Creamer paid out of his pocket. 3 I don't think the Board lost 4 credibility for it. I think the way we 5 handled it was above board and 6 transparent. I think it was above board 7 and transparent. We issued -- once we 8 determined that he should be fined for 9 it, we issued a statement. We asked him 10 to pay the fine, and we had discussions 11 about the fine in terms of what we 12 thought was appropriate, and that's where 13 we came. I don't remember the specifics 14 of those, but I remember being, I 15 personally, being okay with the $500. 16
How did 17 you compare the establishment of that 500 18 fine with the review of the campaign 19 finance violations that came in front of 20 you in comparison? 21
You say 23 he self-disclosed. When folks are in your enforcement process, they disclose. Do you think there was malice intended by 69 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Shane?
No, I don't. I 4 don't know what -- I can tell you that 5 when he disclosed it to the Board -- and 6 I didn't -- I understand your basis for 7 asking this. I don't want to rehash it, 8 but what I will say is when he disclosed 9 it -- and I think this was also in the 10 press release -- he indicated why the 11 disclosure was made, so the Board had 12 some, for lack of a better word, 13 understanding. 14 I didn't -- if you're asking me 15 whether I sat and compared it to the 16 campaign finance laws, no, I did not. I 17 don't do that -- I didn't do that for 18 that particular incident, but that's 19 where I stand on what happened with Shane 20 Creamer. 21
Okay. 22 My colleagues are looking at me bad. 23 I'll rest. Thank you, Madam President.
70 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, 6 Madam Chair. 7 Just to stay on that, 8 Councilwoman Sanchez has raised a bunch 9 of issues that I think deserve maybe a 10 little more thought. 11 With respect to the campaign 12 finance laws or other ethics laws, 13 there's strict liability, and I think you 14 would agree that most of the things that 15 the Board of Ethics has brought 16 enforcement actions about didn't have 17 mens rea, people didn't mean to do it, 18 right? They just did it. I mean, 19 mistakes happen. 20
I can't look into 21 the intent of what the person did. If 22 you're asking me whether there's rules 23 out there and codes that don't indicate an intent to either intentionally do this or that, there certainly is that out 71 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and there.
Okay. So 4 with respect to what Mr. Creamer did, did 5 he have mens rea? 6
I don't -- I can't 7 answer that, just like I said I couldn't 8 answer whether -- 9
Well, I'm 10 sorry, but that is part of what the Board 11 of Ethics is going to have to determine 12 with respect to different matters, 13 whether or not someone had the intent 14 with respect to different ethics laws or 15 other things that don't require strict 16 liability. 17
Actually, I can tell 18 you we never looked -- I shouldn't say 19 "we." I didn't look at his intent. The 20 fact that he had made the disclosure for 21 me, just for me in that instance -- I'm 22 not talking about any other body's 23 case -- the fact that he made the disclosure and it should have been confidential for me was enough. For me 72 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and was enough. It shouldn't have been disclosed.
Right. So I 5 guess what Councilman Quinones-Sanchez 6 was suggesting and I was suggesting, that 7 we would hope you would hold yourselves 8 to as high a standard as you hold other 9 people in the City whom you have fined 10 far greater amounts where even the Board 11 in its final press release said, We know 12 they didn't mean it, and you have said 13 that in press releases. 14
Right. So 17 this clearly involved mens rea, and it 18 was a slap on the wrist, and I agree with 19 Councilwoman Sanchez that that did not 20 send the right message to the people who 21 you have oversight over. You are 22 supposed to be the ethical watchdogs and 23 have oversight, and then to just slap your own people on the wrist when you're fining other people 10 and 20 thousand 73 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 dollars, to our view, that did not send the right message.
I don't know if you want to respond to that before I ask my next question.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. We looked at the fine. We determined that was the fine. And what I'd like to also say that I don't think is brought out in this context is that as a result of that disclosure made by Shane Creamer, the Board swiftly put in some regulations for confidentiality, not just for the staff members but for the Board members.
Well, like you said, you don't know his mens rea when he made the statement. You don't know his mens rea when he made the disclosure, like, for example, he knew that it was out that he told the press and he went to the Board first before someone else did, right? I mean, you're 74 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and saying you know his mens rea when he comes in, discloses it to you, but you don't know his intent when he first made the statement?
Well, you're 9 saying that he should get credit for 10 that, implying that he intentionally did 11 a good act. 12
I didn't say the 13 word "credit." I said I took that into 14 consideration. But I also said that my 15 opinion was that I looked at it, he made 16 a disclosure, he shouldn't have made it, 17 and for me, that was the end of the 18 story. 19
I 20 understand. 21 Now, with respect to Evan 22 Meyer, have you ever heard of Gregory 23 Harvey?
He's been 75 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 practicing campaign finance laws in this city since the '60s. He's a partner at Montgomery McCracken. He has people who work for him who have worked for him for a number of years practicing campaign finance laws. How does the Board know that there is no one else who was qualified to do Evan Meyer's job?
Well, you asked me if I ever heard of him, and I never heard of him. I looked at -- my opinion of retaining Mr. Meyers is based on not just his knowledge of campaign finance law, ethics, conflicts, his career at the City Solicitor's Office is what factored in my decision.
That's right. And he signed something saying he wouldn't come back, but sort of that's 76 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and beside the point. Did the Board engage a search firm or put out a job description on their website or do any kind of outreach to see whether or not there was anybody qualified enough to replace Evan Meyer?
I know. I'm getting 13 to your question. 14 Did we in fact do that when we 15 found out he was retiring and asking him? 16 No, we did not. 17
I can only speak for 19 me. I thought his credentials and his 20 background, I thought it would be -- he 21 was irreplaceable. 22
No, I haven't heard of Gregory Harvey. 77 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
Well, I would say he knows as much or more about campaign finance laws in the City and State and federal than Mr. Meyer does, with respect to Mr. Meyer.
Well, that's 10 right, but unless you do a search for 11 somebody, how can you say that you have 12 the most qualified person? 13
What I can tell you 14 is that there was a search done when 15 Mr. Meyer was hired, and that was before 16 I got on. 17
The 22 Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a 23 point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. 78 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and I'm sorry, Councilman Green. Were you aware that the City's campaign finance reform law was challenged?
Were you 12 aware that it was challenged and went up 13 to the Supreme Court? 14
I mean, I know that 15 there's some case law. I wouldn't 16 pretend to know the name and the year or 17 anything like that. 18
Greg Harvey 19 was the one who challenged the campaign 20 finance law. 21
Okay. So with respect to Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez where she sort of asked you to use your experience on the Board to say three things or to say anything that you think either was a mistake you made or the Board made or even, to put it in softer terms, things the Board should improve on in the future based on your experience, your answer to the question always was how other people should improve. In other words, more people need to come to the Board, more people need to seek our advice and advisory opinions. You didn't actually answer the question, so I'd like you to be specific and take as much time as you need. What three things would you improve about the Board, given your experience on the Board over the last year and a half, and what do you think its biggest mistake was last year, if any?
One of the things that I would like to do again as being a 80 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Board member is, when I got on the Board, the Chair, Richard Glazer, suggested that we send a letter out to City Council and that we ask them if they wanted to meet with the Board and the staff. We couldn't all meet together because of the Sunshine Law. We sent out those letters, and some Councilpeople responded. We had discussions with them about that. I think that's one of the things we can do again to maybe foster a better relationship. I can't think of -- when you say what our biggest mistake was --
No. I asked 17 for the top three things you would 18 improve. So what you're suggesting is to 19 do something you did last year? 20
I think maybe we 21 need to reach out more, if that will make 22 the relationships better. I think we can 23 also request that people ask advice more. I think --
That's not 81 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and something the Board improves. That's --
You're suggesting 8 that my saying that is putting the onus 9 on the other person, but it's sort of a 10 gesture that I think will help not just 11 the Board but other people, because if 12 people -- 13
Okay. So 14 I'll give you that one, engage in a more 15 effective communication strategy to make 16 sure people avail themselves of the 17 opportunity to ask advice of the Board. 18 That's what you're saying? 19
That's not exactly 20 what I said, but that's close to it, 21 Councilman. 22
So the Board 23 could communicate better. Just really sort of one and two were the same thing, but I'll let it count as two. What's 82 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and your third?
Express more that -- 4 give the appearance more -- and I am not 5 sure how we do this, because appearances 6 are hard to dispel when they're out 7 there, and I don't know what the Board 8 needs to do -- 9
Let me finish. I 12 don't know what the Board needs to do to 13 say to this city that if you have a 14 problem with the way boards are doing 15 this -- doing things; for example, and 16 I'll go to Regulation 2. We had made 17 some amendments to them. We had 18 publicized them. We were working hard to 19 try to be open, and we had a court 20 reporter there to take down any public 21 questions they had. When we heard from 22 City Council that they had concerns, 23 suggestions, it was very helpful. It was very refreshing. And you know what? When City Council came to the meeting and 83 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and left, I personally felt like, you know what? This is a way for us to start working together, because your suggestions were well taken. We looked at them and said, We can live with this. This is something we all can live with, and it makes better for everyone. So I don't know -- I guess I'm putting back the question on you. I don't know how else we -- short of going out again and talking to people, I don't know how else to do that.
So really in 15 all three things you can do better are 16 communications, communications, 17 communications. 18 I think it is telling, 19 honestly, that you can't come up with 20 sort of one real substantive thing in 21 your own mind that the Board should 22 improve on other than communications. 23
It's all the 84 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and same.
I beg to differ with 4 you. Because I think most of the 5 problems that I'm hearing from 6 Councilpeople -- 7
What I hear 8 you're saying is you don't think the 9 Board has much to improve on other than 10 communications. 11
I'm not saying the 12 Board is perfect. I certainly don't sit 13 here and say that. What I'm saying is in 14 terms of the concerns that I've heard 15 from this Council -- 16
Well, this 17 is not a city -- we represent all of the 18 City workers. We're not here concerned 19 about ourselves or our own interest. 20
Thank you. Colleague, thank you for 85 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and allowing the point of information. Would not continuing education on ethics laws to staff people that have to deal with them every day be a suggestion that might be instead of having "gotcha" moments, we could "get it" moments and do those kind of things? Wouldn't that be an improvement upon waiting until someone -- we self-disclose every time we file. I mean, self-disclosure is what we do based on the law. So it just seems to me that if we were really earnestly trying to find common ground, there are so many things that we could do. My staff would know what they're doing. Your staff would know how it impacts what they do. It's just some things that are just common sense that we could do so that the public gets a fair product and we get a better understanding of how to comply.
But let me, in response to that, the training -- 86 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I have to 7 weigh in on this. It's becoming a 8 debate. 9 You keep talking about the 10 training. The training, we are all 11 required to go to training. It's 12 mandatory. 13
It isn't 16 adequate, and we said this to you 17 privately. So what we get we don't get, 18 and after talking to you the other day, I 19 think we see this thing differently. You 20 see the Board as making a decision after 21 an inquiry or charge is brought before 22 you. Those of us who are in the public 23 want to know -- and I said this to you before -- what are the rules so that we can comply to the rules. And what you're 87 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and hearing here is the frustration of many who had to participate in the "gotcha" moment because they were ditty-bopping along doing things that have been institutionalized and following the state law, and your staff -- because I told you we weren't mad at the Board. It's basically the staff. I'm just going to put it where it is -- interpreted the rule the way they wanted it and when it was challenged, we were told we couldn't get to the Board, and what you ought to be saying -- and you're saying better communication. And I have some other questions. I think that's what you're hearing.
Let me say this. If 19 you believe that the training is 20 inadequate -- 21
-- then certainly that's something that should be made known to the Board. Until I sat in your 88 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Council, I was unaware that you were unhappy with the training. So that's -- I'm not putting the onus on other people to do something. I don't know if something is wrong until -- I sensed that people felt like the Board was somewhere off somewhere else. That I did sense. I did not know you were unhappy with the training until you told me. So that's what I mean. If there's something wrong, tell us.
Our 14 impression was that we could not talk to 15 the Board, that it would be ex parte, 16 that you all were off on another island 17 and the only people we could deal with 18 were the staff people on your staff, and 19 then they determined what the law would 20 be and said this is it and you comply or 21 we're going to haul you off to court. 22
And I've explained 23 to you that that's -- you are not supposed to contact an individual Board member. What I have said is that you can 89 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and come to the Board meeting, just like you did with Regulation 2, and either compliment us or tell us we got it wrong. But with respect to the ethics training, I welcome your suggestions on how you think it can be made better. Really Councilman Green disagrees with me, but most of this is a communication issue, the fact that people feel like they can't communicate with the Board. And, two, you tell me that the ethics training is inadequate or unacceptable or not helpful, those are things that need to be communicated. If you don't get satisfaction from the staff, they need to be communicated to the Board.
I got a 23 point of information on the point of information.
Soon we'll 90 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and get back to your questioning.
Since 12 you've heard so much about the training 13 and there are problems with the training, 14 as a Board member, what can you do to 15 correct that, improve that? Have any of 16 the Board members ever been to the 17 training sessions? 18 And as I told you last week, I 19 take issue to come to a training and you 20 have a PowerPoint -- and we rely on you 21 guys to train us, okay -- and you have a 22 PowerPoint and we can't even get a copy 23 of it. And then I further questioned my staff as to why we couldn't, and they said because you didn't own the cartoons. 91 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and We're not worried about the cartoons. We want -- we don't need the cartoons. We want a copy of that PowerPoint on campaign finance training.
Let me address the 7 first issue of what I will do about the 8 ethics training. 9 Absolutely, I have sat through 10 the training. I'm required to sit 11 through it, and I do. I mean, I have to 12 sign in just like everyone else. So I 13 have sat through it. You see the 14 training as different from us. 15
Both 16 trainings or just -- because there's two 17 trainings. 18
I've sat through, I 19 believe, both of them. I believe both of 20 them. I don't know if I've done my re-up 21 for this year, but I did -- 22
I'm 23 talking about there's two different types of training. One is the ethics training and one is the campaign finance training. 92 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I'm almost sure I've been through both of them, yes. And with respect to getting a PowerPoint copy, I looked into that. The understanding I have is that the PowerPoint was not in the level of detail of -- when people do PowerPoints, the PowerPoints are just hitting some points. But what I will say to you and what I've said to the staff members is that if people want to leave with a PowerPoint, maybe we should think about putting something together so that they can take with them. The cautioned response that I got is that that PowerPoint is not going to answer all your questions. Because I did look into that when you raised that issue to me. I said, Why can't people get that? I didn't take your concern and just walk away with it. I asked. People wanted to know why they couldn't get a copy of the PowerPoint. They said it's not all inclusive of everything that's on there and that we don't want them to walk 93 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 away and think this is all I need to 3 answer all my questions. 4
But you have my 6 commitment, Councilwoman Miller, that I 7 will work to try to find a way to get 8 something for people to walk out with if 9 that's what they want. 10
Well, 11 that's absolutely what we need, because 12 right now we walk away with nothing but 13 our memory, and even a PowerPoint that 14 doesn't have every absolute detail, we do 15 have the ability to look at it when it's 16 being presented and take notes, and we 17 just aren't given that kind of an 18 opportunity. 19
What I will say to 20 you is, I will make a commitment to make 21 that recommendation to the Board. I'm 22 only one Board member, so I'm not sure I 23 can deliver on it, but I already have relayed to members of staff and one Board member and I will continue to make that 94 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and and try to accommodate Council on those issue.
Okay. I 5 have a few more questions, but I'll go 6 back to Councilman Green. 7
Thank you, 8 Madam Chair. 9 I actually raised the issue 10 about PowerPoints last year during budget 11 testimony when Shane Creamer came before, 12 and he said during that budget testimony 13 that they would make PowerPoints 14 available in the future. So I'm very 15 surprised to learn that that's happening, 16 and it seems sort of silly since, of 17 course, anybody, if they wanted to, could 18 file a Freedom of Information Act request 19 and get the PowerPoint. If somebody 20 wants to take it at their own risk, 21 that's really not something the Board 22 should be spending time on at Board 23 meetings or anything else. It seems a little bit silly to have this discussion.
You were sort of 95 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and critical of me in saying communication, but there's --
Well, let me say 7 this. Well, you raised some concerns 8 about it. Up until I sat with 9 Councilwoman Miller last week, I was 10 unaware that she had the concern about 11 the PowerPoint. 12
I believe 13 you were sitting in Council Chambers when 14 Shane Creamer and I had the discussion on 15 that point last year. 16
Mr. Glazer 23 was here, okay. Well, Board members are aware of it, because it's been --
Other Board members 96 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and may be aware of it. I was unaware.
That's fine. 4 And I want to say that I do not -- you 5 characterized me disagreeing with you 6 with respect to communications. I 7 absolutely agree that that is one area 8 for improvement of the Board. I was just 9 looking for a few more substantive areas 10 where you thought there might be room for 11 improvement. 12 You also in response to, I 13 think, Councilwoman Tasco's or Miller's 14 questioning said that it's great for 15 people to come to the Board, and my staff 16 members come to the Board and if we have 17 an issue, we can come to the Board, but 18 we shouldn't come to an individual Board 19 member. The problem with that, of 20 course, is if the issue is still 21 confidential and a City employee has a 22 problem with the way the staff is 23 handling it, they can't come to an open public Board meeting and discuss it. So perhaps there ought to be a regulation 97 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that addresses the way somebody should address that when they think there's an abuse of discretion or power at the staff level that makes it clear that contacting the Chairman or another person for purposes of addressing that one issue is appropriate.
And if the issue 10 is -- and that's why I want some 11 clarification. If the issue is your 12 problem with a staff member, not an issue 13 with -- 14
Well, no 15 matter what the issue is, there should be 16 no reason why somebody can't be contacted 17 if we have a problem, other than in a 18 public forum. 19
Here's something 20 else that has happened, Councilman Green, 21 that people have sent Board members, all 22 of the Board members, the same letter. 23 That's another way that I proposed --
Yeah. And that's a very helpful way. All the Board members are getting the same information. If you have a complaint about a staff member or a process, just like when Regulation 2, that went to all the Board members.
Could I 11 just ask a question about that? 12 Would that be considered ex 13 parte communication? 14
I don't believe it 15 would, because you're sending it to all 16 the Board members. 17
Thank you. 20 With respect to Mr. Meyer, to 21 get back on that point briefly, as a 22 Board member, will you commit to 23 undertake a search for another qualified person prior to the date he would leave to determine whether or not there's 99 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and anybody interested with relevant qualifications? I'm not asking what the rest of the Board will do. I'm asking what you will do.
What I will commit 7 to do? I have my -- you heard I feel 8 very strongly about Mr. Meyers and his 9 background. 10
If you're asking me 13 that I will reverse my vote on 14 Mr. Meyers, I won't do that. I'm not 15 going to tell you I'm going to do that. 16
That's not 17 what I asked you. If you'd like me to 18 repeat again what I asked you, I will. 19 Will you as a Board member commit to 20 urging the Board to conduct a search for 21 someone to replace Mr. Meyer to determine 22 whether or not there actually is someone 23 as qualified or nearly as qualified as Mr. Meyer such that you're not engaging in hiring Mr. Meyer? 100 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I have to think about that. I'm not going to -- I don't want to tell you something that I cannot commit to doing, and I think it's important that I keep my word. So I will not -- my inclination is no, but I have to think about that, because --
So this 10 really concerns me, because -- and I'm 11 going to tie it back to a statement you 12 made earlier in response to a question 13 from Councilman Goode, which is what you 14 do in terms of making a determination of 15 whether or not someone has violated a 16 rule or a law or a charter, et cetera, is 17 you apply the facts to the law or rule or 18 charter, and what you're saying is that 19 facts be damned, you're going to hire 20 Mr. Meyer. 21
No, that's not what 22 I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. 23
Actually, I said to you I can't commit to what I'll do. I 101 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and have not been posed with that. I know when we looked at it, we had determined that he had not -- for him for DROP would not be illegal.
Is that the 11 standard we should all hold ourselves to? 12
No, that's not the 13 standard. I mean, that's not how I live 14 my life, but in asking me whether I will 15 commit to a search and open that up, I 16 don't want to sit here and tell you that 17 if that's not something I will do. I 18 don't think it's fair for me to say that 19 just because I'm sitting here. 20
You don't 21 think it's appropriate to get all of the 22 facts about whether or not he is the only 23 person qualified to do the job before making the decision? You've already said you don't have all the facts. You didn't 102 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and know Mr. Harvey. I don't know if he's interested in the job or not. Probably not. But there are other people like him around, but you're not interested in exploring what all the facts may be before you -- how did that hiring decision get made without that fact, without getting the facts --
And I think I was 17 very clear on where I thought his 18 credentials stood. 19
I told you sitting 22 here today I cannot say that I will do 23 that. I may, but I don't know -- I have to think about it.
Well, at 103 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and this point, I can't say that I can support you.
Because you 6 don't seem very interested in getting the 7 facts. And with respect to applying the 8 facts to the law, where do you get those 9 facts? 10
No, no, no, 13 not that law. In general, back to the 14 question Councilman Goode was asking, 15 when you apply the facts to the law, 16 where do you get those facts? 17
We look at 18 investigative matters. Sometimes we look 19 at documents. 20
Sometimes we get 23 them from staff members. We ask questions for them to get us more documents to look at. They can come from 104 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and any number of places, from transcripts of depositions that are taken by people. It's a plethora of information, but let me say this to you: I do believe that my reconfirmation or votes should not be determined based solely on DROP, and if that's --
And I'm not 14 saying -- I just am undecided at this 15 point. 16 Thank you, Madam Chair. 17
19 You're welcome. 20 Councilwoman Miller, do you 21 have any further questions? 22
Yes, just 23 a couple. Thank you. What is your method of notification for your hearings? 105 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
We actually post them on the website and -- I don't want to say we publish them, but I do think we might. They're posted on the website definitely, because we used to just -- I think we do publicize them, because I remember Councilman Green's staff member asking us to post them on the website. So they may have already been published and now we put them on the website as well. And we meet every month. Depending on what happens in August, we may not meet in August, but we are open to meetings every month, and we've had them, with the exceptions of last August, we did not have a Board meeting.
How many 19 people from the public come or attend 20 generally? 21
You know, sometimes 22 there's people there I don't know who 23 they are. I mean, it's not just --
Board members. 106 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
-- Board members. There's sometimes people sitting in the back room and I never learn who they are. So I can't tell you how many outside City people that come. I know there are often people sitting in the Board meetings, but I don't know who they are.
When you 10 and Councilman Green were having a 11 discussion, it sounds like too in some of 12 the ways that you're answering the 13 questions that you really -- you as an 14 individual feel that communications need 15 to be improved. Generally, Council 16 thinks -- and this is just a general 17 feeling of many Councilmembers -- that 18 the Board operates from an "I got you" 19 attitude, and you've heard that from 20 several people here today, and that you 21 serve as the judge and the jury. 22 That has to change if you think 23 that we're going to be comfortable enough to pick up the phone or send you a letter and come over. I mean, it's almost like 107 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and it's a secret society over there, it's untouchable. So a whole lot has to change for people to feel comfortable enough to give you a call or -- well, we can always send you letters, but there is something that needs to change. It is a really, really, really serious problem between -- and that's how Council feels. I don't know how other City departments feel, but that's how we feel here.
And I've said this 17 to you. I don't sit in a Board meeting, 18 executive session or otherwise and look 19 to "I got you." After many years of 20 being in public service, I more than -- I 21 think more than many people understand 22 the public perception when allegations 23 are made. So I am very careful and methodical about my votes and what I do as a Board member. So I probably pay 108 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and particular attention to not subscribe to that "got you" moment. And with respect to your saying that you can speak for yourself, you're not comfortable calling the Board or contacting the Board, I think that was one of the things the Board was trying to do last year when we sent letters out to City Council and say, Sit down with us informally, tell us what you think, what are your thoughts, do you have any questions. I met with Councilwoman Krajewski, I met with Councilman Rizzo, and we sat down for half an hour, 45 minutes and they told us, Here's my concern, I'm not sure whether this or I'm not sure whether that, or I like what the Board is doing here, I don't like -- and I'd like to do that and see, again, Councilpersons take advantage of that, because maybe that will take away the stilt that's there in the communication. It's a start.
Maybe it 109 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and will, but it has to start somewhere, and I don't think City Council -- I think we were pretty shocked when that whole attitude that we felt communications coming out of the Board there was, I got you. And some people feel stronger about that than others, but, you know, we're not going to create anything that's going to hurt us, and I think that most people generally want to follow the law, but they have to know what the law is. Don't rely so much on just the website for posting information around changes, amendments, et cetera. I mean, it's good to have it there, but if there's -- one of the ways, you can always send an e-mail out just to say, Hey, I think this month there's something on our website you should be looking at. Because we're not sitting there -- at least I don't sit around and look at the Ethics Board website every month.
And I certainly can appreciate that, but I think one of the 110 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and ways -- and maybe the Board did take too long in amending Regulation 2. Maybe that was one of the things that we could have done better, because Regulation 2 will now give you the kind of access, I think, you're now looking for with the Board, which I think to some degree you had the access, but now you weighed in on the access and you can come to the Board. So, you know, the communication thing I can't express more, but I also actually can say take advantage, if you have an opportunity, to talk to the Board members. You'll get a sense of who they are. They're not all lawyers anymore, which I think is certainly a good thing, and I am a lawyer. But understanding the laws is something that we want people to grasp, and if the training is not good, we want to make it better.
Well, we 23 do, and even though you did say that you're only one member, the Board has to realize that that is a very important 111 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and component of the responsibilities of the Ethics Board as a whole. And whenever you're going to bring that topic up at your Board meeting on the agenda, can you let me know, so maybe some of us could come over and explain it more to the Board why we think it needs to improve?
Thank 14 you. 15 The Chair recognizes 16 Councilwoman Blackwell. 17
Thank 18 you. I have a general question, a legal 19 question. With regard to the Supreme 20 Court decision on corporate 21 contributions, and they talked about 22 advertising and we wonder how that 23 affects us, does it mean -- I'm not so sure whether it means that corporations can advertise for issues, advertise for 112 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and people or candidates and how that affects us.
I would have to look 5 a little into that issue. I don't want 6 to give you an answer, but I will -- how 7 does corporate advertising on campaigns 8 affect City Council; is that your 9 question? 10
Yeah. 11 There was a recent Supreme Court decision 12 that got a lot of press. 13
And we 15 were concerned of how it affected us. 16
I will either myself 17 or have someone else call you and get you 18 that. 19
Thank 20 you. If you let the President know, 21 she'll let us all know. 22
Thank you. 113 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and The Chair again recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, 5 Madam President. 6 Good afternoon. Related to my 7 other questions regarding legislative 8 intent, what is your opinion, your 9 personal opinion, of the purpose of a 10 campaign finance reform ordinance? Why 11 did City Council do a campaign finance 12 reform ordinance? 13
What's the 16 purpose of a campaign finance reform 17 ordinance? 18
I mean, I guess City 19 Council has to determine why they need 20 the ordinance. I can't answer that. 21
No. We did 22 a campaign finance reform ordinance, 23 which the Board of Ethics has oversight over. My question is, just very generally, what was the purpose behind 114 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and campaign finance reform?
No; the one 6 that was done in 2003 and then amended 7 several times, including an amendment in 8 2006. 9
On what the 16 purpose was. And that has never come up 17 in any decision you've made in terms of 18 what the actual purpose of that ordinance 19 was? 20
None that I can 21 think of. When we get requests for 22 opinions, advice -- 23
My question is about the law itself and what was the purpose for the law. 115 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
You don't 5 have any opinion on what the purpose of 6 the law was? 7
What was the 9 purpose of assigning campaign finance 10 oversight to the Board of Ethics? 11
As I stated to you 12 earlier, I believe when I got on the 13 Board, it was already on there. I don't 14 know the purpose behind that. 15
Why assign 16 campaign finance oversight to the Board 17 of Ethics rather than the City 18 Commissioner's Office? 19
Well, one thing -- 20 and this is my opinion. This is the 21 thing that jumps out at me -- is because 22 we cover ethics and citizens feel like 23 they have some right to know what's going on with campaigns and things of that nature. That's probably why it's part of 116 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the Ethics Board.
Well, the 4 City Commissioner's Office already covers 5 campaign finance, so why not assign 6 campaign finance oversight to the City 7 Commissioner's Office? 8
Like I said, I 9 wasn't -- when I got on the Board, it was 10 already a part of the Board. It was 11 already part of their oversight. 12
So you have 13 no opinion on, one, why there is a law 14 or, two, why oversight was assigned to 15 the Board of Ethics? You have no opinion 16 on that? 17
I have no opinion on 18 why it was assigned to the Ethics Board. 19 It was already there when I got there. I 20 think -- 21
-- campaign 23 finance -- let me try to answer some of your question. Campaign finance --
Let me be 117 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and real clear. Do you have an opinion on why there is a campaign finance law?
Because I think 8 citizens feel like they want to know what 9 candidates are doing, where -- 10
And I think it's for 17 transparency issues. There's many -- 18 there's at least some laws I can think of 19 where there are rules for candidates and 20 how they should deal with their campaign. 21 All that I think is related to 22 transparency. Perhaps that's why they 23 put it under the Ethics Board. I'm only speculating, but that's my --
Well, to end 118 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the speculation, there is a campaign finance law because I introduced a bill 4 in the fall of 2003 co-sponsored by Councilwoman Reynolds Brown. It was initiated by City Council. So the answer to your question about whether there is a campaign finance law strictly because the public wants to know and for the issue of transparency, that is not its legislative intent. The issue of why it is assigned to the Board of Ethics versus the City Commissioner's Office also is not an issue strictly of transparency or openness, because if it were assigned to the City Commissioner's Office, that would be the case, too. And that was also my bill that assigned that responsibility to the Board of Ethics. Therefore, I can speak fully about its legislative intent. So one of my last questions is --
Wait. Let me -- you 119 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and asked me the legislative -- you didn't ask me the legislative intent. You asked me what I thought why there was campaign finance laws. You didn't ask me the legislative intent.
I have a 8 better question for you. You can answer 9 it directly. 10 Do you think that -- because I 11 wanted to first establish the fact that 12 the legislative intent of the law I know 13 because I introduced it. The legislative 14 intent of the ordinance which assigned 15 oversight to the Board of Ethics I know 16 because I introduced it. 17 Lastly, in your experience, was 18 the purpose to limit people's influence 19 on elected officials or was it to limit 20 elected officials from being influenced? 21 And there's a big distinction. 22
I think there's 23 probably a little bit of both. That's my personal opinion.
But that's 120 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and not the legislative intent.
No. I didn't say -- 4 you didn't ask me the legislative intent. 5
If the 6 legislative intent -- I'm making a 7 statement. 8 If the legislative intent was 9 to limit people's influence on elected 10 officials, would that change any 11 decisions that you've made or that staff 12 has made in terms of having to pursue 13 enforcement of the law? 14
I'm not going to 15 comment on any decisions I've made or any 16 future decisions. So I can't answer 17 that. 18
Is it news 19 to you that the legislative intent of the 20 campaign finance law was to limit 21 influence on elected officials? 22
That's not news to 23 me because I just said I thought there was a little bit of both.
Is it news 121 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and to you that the purpose was not to limit elected officials from being influenced? In other words, I don't think that any member of this Council thought a need to pass a law to stop themselves from being influenced. So I think it would be obvious that that was not the legislative intent.
But if it's 12 not obvious that was the legislative 13 intent, I'm stating here for the record, 14 the purpose of the law was to limit 15 people's influence on elected officials. 16 That's a big distinction. I do not 17 believe that the way enforcement and 18 oversight of the law has been carried out 19 is consistent with the legislative 20 intent. 21
122 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and You're welcome.
Are you 8 familiar with the training given by the 9 Board of Ethics? 10
Do you think 13 it's appropriate that it's done by the 14 use of cartoons? 15
I think the cartoons 16 are part of the illustration of what the 17 laws and codes and the charters are. I 18 don't deem it inappropriate. I don't 19 think it's inappropriate. I think it's a 20 part of the training. I don't -- 21
I think it's 22 inappropriate that it's done with the use 23 of cartoons.
Well, I also think -- your point is well taken, and if 123 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that's a complaint that you have or a concern that you have with respect to the training, make it known.
Thank 11 you. 12 Councilwoman Tasco, do you have 13 any further questions? 14
First I'd 19 like to request -- and there are a number 20 of the prospective Board members in 21 here -- that the Ethics staff e-mail to 22 the Councilmembers and any other elected 23 officials, I think to the City domino staff, the notice of the meetings and the agenda. We get it from every other Board 124 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that we have oversight, and it can be easily e-mailed to us.
That would 7 be very helpful. 8 I just want to go back to a 9 couple of things. I appreciate you 10 working with us on Regulation 2. And you 11 said you took too long to do it. I think 12 that what happened, there were -- and I 13 appreciate the Board -- that there were 14 questions raised about due process and it 15 had become knowledgeable throughout 16 everywhere that people going before 17 the -- that are being called into the 18 Office of the -- or getting contacted by 19 the Ethics Board or the staff, there was 20 no due process. And so what we wanted 21 was that there be a due process, and we 22 won't -- you don't have to discuss the 23 case, but the famous case that everybody was aware of was the case of our colleague, Councilwoman Sanchez, when she 125 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and was before the Ethics -- because that's public. It's been in the paper -- asked for a hearing by the Board and was told she could not have a hearing. My question to you is, at what point does the Board -- at what point is the Board aware that there is an investigation of an individual and at what point do you review the materials, and if the materials are presented to you, at what point do you review them and if they're -- and I also understand that she sent a letter asking for a hearing, which you did not -- I'm not sure. She can speak for herself -- see. Ms. Mann, all of our concerns here emanate from past involvement with the staff of the Ethics Board. I told you the other day I didn't know you, don't know -- only know a couple of the members. So we never had any contact with you. The only contact that has been with most of the people, the contact has been with the staff, who decided how the 126 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 process would work, whether a person got 3 a public hearing or not, whether the 4 person immediately went to court. And 5 there was no due process, and that is the 6 frustration and anger that you hear from 7 us as we talk about the process. 8 We set up this Board because we 9 wanted an Ethics Board. We voted for it, 10 but we did not expect it to be -- to have 11 a staff that is totally out of control. 12 I also suggested to you that we 13 want to know what the rules are up front, 14 not an interpretation. If the Board 15 has -- you've settled several cases, and 16 if you look at the pattern of the cases 17 and the tone of the cases, can you see 18 that there's something wrong and people 19 are not really aware of what they're 20 doing is wrong? And what would the Board 21 do to make a correction to see that 22 they're informed of what the regulations 23 are? That's what I would have hoped you would have said today one of the things you would do, was to make sure that as 127 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 you -- if you're looking at cases -- I'm 3 taking this from Maria -- that there's a 4 pattern, there's something wrong, we're 5 doing something wrong, and that the 6 information is not out there so that the 7 individuals can make the correct decision 8 or know what the rules are, and are the 9 rules in conflict with state law and 10 activities that people have been engaged 11 in for years and all of the sudden, after 12 they've done it, two years later the 13 staff says you've done something wrong. 14
-- and then go from 18 there? You asked when are we made aware 19 that someone has a particular issue. 20 When we meet with the Board every 21 Wednesday, there's a public session that 22 happens at o'clock, every third 23 Wednesday of the month. We go through 24 the agenda, which is also published. And 25 then after we make sure no one has any 128 1 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, 22 and 23 questions, we go into what's called executive session. Now, I have to divide this up, because when I first got on the Board, at that point the staff would make us -- make known to us all the potential investigations out there. Since we are now moving toward administrative and because some of them may ultimately wind up to the Board, there's some investigations right now that I have no 13 idea what's going on with, because they're in that process of the amendments of Regulation 2. So prior to Regulation 2 and grinding that out, we would go in the back and they would debrief us on what's going on. We'd ask more questions, look into that, do this, do that, let's make sure we've got all the facts. That's when we would learn about it. To answer your question about the rules, my -- this is the way I would hope that it would happen, is that the 129 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and people would go to the training, they'd get the basic understanding of what the rules were. If they had particular questions specific to their personal issue, they would ask the Board for an opinion. Learning that people are not satisfied with the training, that now becomes another issue, that the training, people feel, isn't sufficient. But that's how I would answer your question, that I would expect that they would go to the training, get the bulk of what they needed from the training, and if that wasn't satisfactory, if they had a particular instance to them, they would seek advice from the Board. And I don't know if I answered Councilwoman Miller's questions on how we give notice to someone. I think I overlooked that, and that wasn't my intention. We send out -- it's the same 130 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 thing that goes to everyone -- notice 3 before we file a petition in court. We 4 don't just file a petition. We send out 5 a letter saying we believe these 6 violations have occurred. If there's 7 more than one, we list more than one, and 8 we tell you what the penalties are. We 9 also say in that statement that you can 10 settle this matter. We attach a copy of 11 the draft petition saying this is what 12 we're prepared to file. That's 13 something, I'll tell you, we don't have 14 to do, but we do it because -- and it's 15 private. We give the person the chance 16 to know the Board has actually looked 17 into this and this is what we believe is 18 out here, and they can respond to the 19 staff members based on that. 20
Looking 21 back on -- I think I forgot my question. 22 Looking back on some of the 23 issues that have been raised from the last election, can we request -- because what Councilwoman Miller says is that we 131 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and don't want to know the rule or the interpretation after we've made the mistake. Most rules are public. We all run, not just Councilpeople, all people who run for office basically run under the State Election Code, they try to follow that code, but you don't know what the Ethics Board is going to rule until after you run under the certain rules and then come back and say, Oh, well, you shouldn't have done that. One of the issues raised is the single committee rule, and we want to know what is the single committee and how will it be interpreted? What is the rule? You don't have to have 50 different opinions. It's one opinion. If you have one committee, most of us think of it as Friends of Marian Tasco, Citizens of Marian Tasco, John Brown Citizens for Tasco. What is the single rule, how does it apply, and how does it relate to -- and we'll put this in writing, but 132 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 that's an issue for us. 3
Well, actually, I 4 knew the single committee rule would be 5 an issue, so I did bring it. And it's 6 probably six lines. It says that the 7 campaign finance law provides that a 8 candidate for City elective office may 9 have no more than one political -- no 10 more than one political committee and one 11 checking account for the City office 12 being sought, into which all 13 contributions for such office shall be 14 made and out of which all expenditures 15 for that office shall be made. If a 16 candidate maintains other accounts, funds 17 collected in those accounts may not be 18 used to influence the outcome of a 19 covered election. 20 Now, I cannot get into how I 21 would rule -- and you didn't ask me that. 22 I'm not saying you asked me that, but 23 that is the rule.
Well, let me just say this: Going back to 133 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and something that's already been done, I believe -- and I may be incorrect -- instances where people were charged with having another campaign committee if their name appeared on the ballot of a ward. Because we talked about that.
That's 10 what we want to be clear. I want to be 11 clear on that. If there's a ward that's 12 circulating a ballot with 20 people on 13 it, are they all part of that campaign 14 committee? That money being spent out of 15 there to put the ballot on the street, 16 are they in violation of the single 17 committee rule? 18 See, there are practices that 19 go on and that have gone on for years. 20 You don't know them. Most of the Board 21 members don't know them, but we need to 22 know up front, then we won't be on 23 ballots. We won't be on ballots. But we don't know that until after the election and then you haul people in and say, You 134 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and broke the rule. That's after the fact. We want to know what the facts are and what the rules are before we run in 2011, before there's an election. Going back, looking at some of the cases you all have ruled on and fined people for that they disagree, some of them did not get before you to discuss it and had to settle, because the staff said they couldn't see the Board. We want to know what are the campaign rules for 2011 and moving forward. That's very important.
And we will have 16 more -- as I stated in my statement, we 17 will have campaign finance training with 18 respect to -- in anticipation of the 2011 19 election. 20
Let me ask 21 one final question. If you said that the 22 staff will bring you cases that may 23 possibly come up, do they have the authority to settle a case without bringing them to you or do you all settle 135 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the cases?
They come to us and 4 say -- sometimes they say, The person 5 wants to settle and here's what they're 6 proposing. They also always start off 7 with the facts, and we ask questions if 8 we need more facts, but they need to 9 report to us for a settlement. 10
Thank you, 15 Madam Chair. 16 Just keep in mind the point 17 Councilwoman Tasco just made and every 18 conversation we've had over the last year 19 and a half, including the first time you 20 were nominated and came to see me, and 21 our most recent conversation in the 22 office and my testimony before the Ethics 23 Board a couple of weeks ago. Is there anything else you can think of that the Ethics Board could improve on? 136 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I don't know if you heard when I said -- you weren't in your chair, because I looked over -- that perhaps we could have made the amendments to Regulation 2 a little sooner. Perhaps that would have stopped some of the concerns that are here today. So that's the other thing that I can think of.
The answer 11 that I was looking for, because every 12 time I've seen you, I have suggested that 13 there currently are no standards, that 14 the Board -- it is boring work for the 15 staff and they don't want to do it, but 16 the one way you can make sure there are 17 clear rules is to actually introduce 18 regulations that say what that 19 six-sentence single committee rule means 20 and allow a public comment period for 21 that. And with respect to every other 22 thing where you have been applying the 23 law, as Councilwoman Tasco suggested, you can introduce regulations that clarify what the rules are. That is how you can 137 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and effectively communicate, by taking the ordinance and doing what you're authorized and what was expected of you by City Council when they passed an ordinance that was only six sentences long, and, that is, promulgating regulations, what regulatory bodies do, which is essentially what you are, promulgating regulations that make the rules clear. That, in my opinion, is the number one thing that the Ethics Board can improve on, and it was surprising to me that I didn't get that answer since I've been having that conversation with you personally and with the Ethics Board and the Ethics Task Force for two years.
You have made that 19 point clear when I was in your office 20 last week, and I passed along those. 21 When you say that the staff members -- I 22 don't want to misquote you -- don't like 23 to do that kind of work or it's boring kind of work, that's not boring kind of work to them. I took your comments. I 138 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and relayed it back to them. You asked me what I thought. Those were your things that you thought. When anybody ever raises concerns to me about the Board, I always -- and the staff, I take them back. Just because I didn't raise them as one of the things that you had doesn't mean I discount them, because I took them back. Actually, that night -- that day I left your office, I took them back.
I appreciate 14 what you just said, but what you 15 essentially said was you don't agree. 16 You're on the Board. I don't 17 know whether you direct the staff or you 18 rely on the staff to tell you what to do, 19 but if you tell the staff to promulgate 20 regulations as a Board, they will. If 21 you don't, they won't. You're the boss 22 of the staff. 23
The staff is not the boss, and often times -- and I want to make this clear. The staff does not tell 139 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the Board what to do. They don't. There's often times --
I didn't 5 suggest they did. So my point is, your 6 answer to me was that you told the staff 7 that that was a concern I raised, but 8 that that was not something you thought 9 the Board needed to improve on. It 10 wasn't one of the things you considered 11 to be a problem at the Board level. 12
That's not -- and I 13 want to make this clear. That's not how 14 I meant that to come off. What I said to 15 you is that when anyone -- and I've met 16 with many of the Councilpeople here -- 17 pass along a concern, a complaint, a 18 suggestion, I pass that on to the staff 19 and the Board. 20
Let me just say 22 this: I did not imply that it wasn't a 23 concern or a priority for me, so that there's --
I appreciate 140 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that. I don't mean to characterize --
I want to say this. 4 In my opinion, when City Council makes a 5 suggestion, it's important. It's 6 important, and it doesn't go unnoticed by 7 me. So I pass that on, just like the 8 thing about the PowerPoint, you're right, 9 we're arguing about a PowerPoint, but if 10 it's an issue to you, I want to take it 11 off the table. 12 So I didn't relay it and say, 13 Oh, this is Councilman Green's thing. 14
I wasn't 15 characterizing you're relaying at all. 16 I'm just saying -- 17
That wasn't one of 18 the things that came to my mind when I'm 19 talking to you about how we can make 20 things better for the City, for Council, 21 for the Board. That wasn't one of the 22 things that I thought of sitting here. 23
It did not come to your mind as an area for improvement, that the Board should spend 141 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and more time creating regulations so that the rules are clear?
I heard your concern 8 last week Friday when I went to your 9 office, and I've relayed that to them. 10
Is that 15 something that you would do if you were 16 reappointed, make sure the Board starts 17 promulgating regulations? 18
Absolutely. If 19 that's a concern of City Council, that's 20 one of the things that -- 21
Yes. Absolutely. And, Councilman Green, I don't want to leave this subject with you even implying 142 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that your concerns for this Board or the staff has not been taken seriously, because I think I can say this: You more than anyone else in this room has been the most active in our Board. The most active in our Board. And I remember -- and when someone asked who comes to your meetings, I remembered learning who Lauren was very early, very early. I did say, Who is this woman in the back? So I don't take your suggestions willy-nilly.
I'm not 15 suggesting you do. I have made the same 16 suggestion for two years. 17
And it 19 hasn't happened, and you've been on the 20 Board during that time. 21
Well, I pass it on 22 to the Board. You asked me for my 23 suggestions here. I told you I thought lots of it was communications related.
One way to 143 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and communicate clearly is through regulation. Thank you.
Thank you, 8 Madam President. I was done, but 9 Councilwoman Tasco raised a point that 10 was key to me and Councilman Green 11 followed up on it. 12 This is not just a matter of 13 letting people know what the rules are. 14 This is not just a matter of interpreting 15 the law. It is also a matter of whether 16 the Board or its predecessors actually 17 understood the law to begin with. So I 18 ask, what was the purpose for the one 19 committee, one bank account rule? 20
In my opinion in 21 looking at this single committee rule, it 22 seems -- 23
That's not the law. That actually was created by the Board of Ethics. I'm asking you in 144 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and terms of the law, which is not six sentences. It's actually, I believe, one sentence, the actual law.
I'm looking at the 6 single committee rule. I'd like you to 7 tell me what law you're talking about. 8
The code 9 that governs campaign finance in the City 10 of Philadelphia. 11
Well, I don't have 12 that in front of me, so I'd ask you to 13 tell me what specifically you're talking 14 about, and then I'll try to answer the 15 question. 16
You can use 17 the ruling if you like, but at the end of 18 the day, I will tell you without fear of 19 contradiction that the City Code and the 20 Philadelphia Home Rule Charter will 21 always trump whatever regulation the 22 Board comes up with. But the question 23 is, even if you want to go according to your own regulation, what's the purpose for the one committee, one bank account 145 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and rule?
In looking at the 4 rule, it wants candidates to maintain one 5 account for one campaign, for one 6 campaign. Only money goes into one 7 account. Transparency. 8
Transparency. So 11 people know where the money is going and 12 to keep -- there's campaign finance 13 limits. So people know where the money 14 is going. 15
Actually, 16 what if it's not to track where the money 17 is going, but where the money is coming 18 from? 19
Do you have 22 to have one committee and one account to 23 find out where the money is coming from?
I can't answer that. I can only tell you what this says. 146 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
By way of just reminding you, that rule comes from an ordinance that I introduced. I'm extremely familiar with it. I drafted the one committee, one bank account rule. I know why I did it. So you don't have to tell me where it came from.
It says one 10 political committee and one checking 11 account. 12
You don't 13 have to tell me where it came from. I 14 understand where it came from. I also 15 understand why it was done. I also think 16 that there may be a difference of opinion 17 of why it was done, because it's not to 18 track necessarily where money went as 19 much as to track where money came from. 20 The purpose of the original ordinance, 21 period, was to establish campaign 22 contribution limits, period. 23
No; campaign contribution limits, period. And, in 147 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and fact, if we got into the whole one committee, one bank account rule or several other aspects of that original ordinance and other aspects of subsequent amendments, they might be found to be in conflict with state law, which still governs election procedure and campaign finance law. The only purpose of the original ordinance, not only as a matter of what I'm saying it is now, but as a matter of legislative record, if you go back and read the transcripts, as the primary sponsor of it, was simply to limit campaign contribution limits and say that it should not be allowed that anyone can give as much money as they want to anyone. And that's the purpose of it.
At the end of the day, the one committee, one bank account rule is not serious enough to be 148 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and pursued to the level it has been. That was not the legislative intent and it actually has been done in a ridiculous way. And if you can't tell me what your personal belief is and why there should be a one committee, one bank account rule, then maybe it shouldn't exist. I know why it exists, but that's not the reason why the Board -- that's not the reason why the Board of Ethics pursues it.
The rule says one 14 political committee and one checking 15 account. 16
Councilman Goode, 19 you have your -- you've stated your 20 interpretation of that. You said you 21 passed legislation with that. I 22 certainly take you at your word. 23
So we can just scrap that and the Board of Ethics would have to take away its rule; is that 149 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and true?
That's up to City 4 Council. I'm not here to tell City 5 Council what to do. 6
No, but I'm 7 saying it is clear that the Board does 8 not have authority over campaign finance 9 in matters that are not contained within 10 the Code. Council can amend the Code if 11 it chooses to amend the Code. We can 12 give oversight to the City Commissioners. 13 We can take out the one committee, one 14 bank account rule. What we can't do 15 without an amendment to the Home Rule 16 Charter is do away with the Board of 17 Ethics, which we would not want to do, at 18 least I would not want to do, but if the 19 Board of Ethics is going to pursue minute 20 details of the law, that is ridiculous. 21 It's going to at one point force us to go 22 back and help you focus, because the 23 focus of the original ordinance is simply to limit campaign contributions and it's to limit people's influence on elected 150 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and officials. In other words, the term "got you" has been used several times. We were not trying to say "got you" to ourselves over a bunch of petty issues like one campaign committee and one bank account.
City Council is 9 certainly free to legislate and do 10 whatever they need to do. I read to you 11 what I believe is the single committee 12 rule, and that's -- I'm not -- 13
Let me be 14 honest with you. You read to me what the 15 rule is based upon the ordinance that I 16 drafted. 17
So, in other 19 words, you didn't tell me anything, 20 because I know what the ordinance said 21 and I know what the rule is, because 22 there's not too far you can go. What's 23 surprising to me is that a Board of Ethics and its predecessors and/or its staff would assume that a campaign 151 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and contribution limit law, in addition to what already exists in terms of state law in terms of campaign finance reporting, would necessitate someone actually investigating ward committees and what happened there when at the end of the day, as my colleague here said, you let Shane Creamer off because of self-disclosure. Your issues in terms of multiple accounts or committees is done through self-disclosure.
Like I said, you're 14 certainly entitled to the opinion. I 15 disagree that the Board let Shane Creamer 16 off. I disagree with that. 17
No. I'm 18 dealing with the issue of 19 self-disclosure. 20
I'm dealing 23 with the issue of self-disclosure. The issue of self-disclosure, you wouldn't know whether there was more than one 152 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and committee or one bank account unless --
So obviously 6 that's self-disclosure. So why people 7 would pursue cases about there being more 8 than one committee or one bank account as 9 a matter of self-disclosure is ridiculous 10 to me, particularly considering the fact 11 that obviously we didn't consider ward 12 committees to be campaign committees in 13 our legislative intent in passing the 14 law. 15
It seems like your 16 question to me is because you put it in 17 your campaign finance report, that, you 18 know, the one political committee and one 19 checking account is a form of 20 self-disclosure that the Board should 21 take into consideration. Is that what 22 you're saying? 23
My issue is, why are you pursuing the issue of one committee and one bank account to the 153 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and extent you've been pursuing it when the context of that particular part of the ordinance is still campaign contribution limits. I don't know the particulars of the cases and I don't claim to know the particulars of the cases, but when I ask a Board member who is here for reconfirmation why a one committee, one bank account rule exists and you don't have any opinion other than to show me a rule that's related to an ordinance that I introduced, that's not going to tell me anything.
Councilman Goode, I 16 said to you I believe that because -- 17
Let me answer, 20 because I did answer you. I said so they 21 can keep track of the money and limits. 22 I said both of those things. 23
Excuse me. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a point of information.
Thank you, 7 Madam Chair. 8 Just related to Councilman 9 Goode's question. I think it may be the 10 first actual point of information since 11 I've been on Council. 12 The money goes from a candidate 13 committee to a ward committee for the 14 purpose of being put on that ward's 15 ballot. Is that a contribution or an 16 expense of the candidate committee? 17
I have to look into 18 that. I'm not going to answer that here 19 today. 20
And then 21 when that ward committee spends it on a 22 ballot, is that a contribution or an 23 expense for services provided?
And let me say one of the reasons why is because that issue 155 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and is -- there are cases before the Board and I --
And I am not going 7 to answer questions personally on matters 8 that may be before the Board. I don't -- 9
Cases before 14 the Board really kind of lay out what 15 your position is at this point. 16 Thank you, Madam Chair. 17
The question is still very simply -- 156 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
-- what if 4 it's a dumb idea to have a one committee, 5 one bank account rule? 6
Then Council decides 7 whether they want to change that rule. 8 All I know is that the Board has codes 9 and charters and rules. We try to follow 10 them. We look at them. We don't just 11 look at them as being black and white. 12 There's different perspectives of every 13 Board member. 14 If you say to me that City 15 Council may think about wiping that out, 16 the Board will deal with that. That's -- 17
That's 18 actually not what I'm saying to you. I'm 19 saying the purpose of the original 20 ordinance was to limit campaign 21 contributions. If the reason why you 22 know someone would have more than one 23 bank account and one committee is simply a matter of transparency and self-disclosure; in other words, people 157 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and file reports and you find out they have more than one --
-- then you 7 actually -- the purpose of the reporting 8 requirements from the State and from the 9 City, the purpose of having the Board of 10 Ethics have some enforcement and 11 oversight are all settled by the fact 12 that you have this information. To 13 pursue it as an offense goes against the 14 legislative intent of the ordinance. The 15 offense is if you are going beyond the 16 campaign contribution limit. Do you see 17 the distinction? 18
I see what you're 19 saying, and I'm not going to sit here and 20 say that I -- 21
In other 22 words, you can't violate, as the primary 23 sponsor of the original ordinance, you can't violate the ordinance unless you give above the contribution limits. 158 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and That's the only way you can violate the ordinance in terms of my legislative intent.
I hear what you're 10 saying. I'm not saying that I agree with 11 that. I hear what you're saying. 12
How can you 13 not agree with it? That's the original 14 intent of the original ordinance that I 15 drafted. 16
I don't see 19 how you can disagree with it. If the 20 purpose was to limit campaign 21 contributions and there's a law set up to 22 limit campaign contributions, why can't 23 you see that the only offense would be if somebody gave a contribution above that limit? That offense is not if you have 159 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and another committee. The offense is not if you have another committee or a bank account. That's not a serious offense.
I don't want to get 6 into what I think, what the Board thinks. 7 I said I hear what you're saying. I 8 heard the thought process you took and 9 what your intent was in passing and 10 proposing that legislation. I heard you. 11
Let me end 12 with this, and I think it's a very 13 difficult way to deal with this in the 14 end, but don't you think it's ridiculous 15 that we may actually have to go back and 16 do legislative amendments that are based 17 upon rules that you create? 18
I think that City 19 Council has to do what they think is 20 appropriate. 21
And proposing 23 legislation to deal with these issues or what they deem is appropriate, and that's -- 160 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
But don't you believe that if the Board of Ethics was created by this Council, if the campaign finance reform law was created by this Council, that City Council might want to have some policy input and might not feel it necessary to do it as a matter of law or even legislative amendment if it requires you understanding that a rule simply does not need to exist? If the purpose of the ordinance was to limit campaign contributions, you determine what within that ordinance is actually created for the purpose of limiting campaign contributions and what is simply a process to limit campaign contributions that's not the substance of the law.
In other 22 words, at some point you have to 23 differentiate between substance and process. There's a distinction between substance and process, and in many cases 161 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and what you've dealt with is process and have dealt with process as an offense, when it has nothing to do with the substance of the law. Thank you, Madam President.
8 You're welcome. 9 Are there any other questions 10 from members of the Committee? 11 (No response.) 12
At 16 this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to 17 please read the title of Resolution No. 18 100023. 19 MR. McPHERSON: Resolution 20 confirming the appointment of Nolan 21 Atkinson as a member of the Board of 22 Ethics, to serve in the term ending 23 November 16, 2014. (Witness approached witness table.) 162 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
Mr. Atkinson, I want to thank you for your patience. You've been extremely patient sitting back there.
Thank you, 7 Council President Verna. My notes say 8 good morning, but it's really good 9 afternoon. So good afternoon, Council 10 President Verna and distinguished members 11 of this City Council. I am Nolan 12 Atkinson and am currently a partner and 13 also the Chief Diversity Officer of the 14 law firm of Duane Morris. I am truly 15 honored to be a nominee for the 16 Philadelphia Board of Ethics and welcome 17 the opportunity to testify before City 18 Council in connection with my 19 qualifications to serve in this position. 20 I am providing City Council 21 with information about my background and 22 my motivation for wanting to serve on the 23 Board of Ethics. I currently have an active practice of law at Duane Morris that focuses on litigation wherein I 163 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and spend approximately 50 percent of my time. Equally important, my remaining working hours are devoted to my role as the firm's Chief Diversity Officer where I have nationwide responsibility for all of Duane Morris' diversity initiatives. I have been practicing law in Philadelphia for the past 40 years. M from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, I began practicing in a small Philadelphia firm. Throughout the '70s, I was active primarily as a volunteer in Philadelphia municipal elections and then as an early supporter of Mayor W. Wilson Goode in the '80s. It was also during this time that I was elected a Commissioner of Lower Merion Township from the Fourth Ward in 1973 wherein I was involved in every aspect of municipal government for a period of 12 years. I personally consider my time as a Commissioner, as an elected official, as some of the best 164 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 years of my life. 3 In Philadelphia, I was 4 instrumental in starting the law firm of 5 Atkinson, Myers, Archie and Wallace. Bob 6 Archie is well known to you, as he 7 currently leads the School Reform 8 Commission. John Wallace is an esteemed 9 Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. 10 And Jack Myers was a distinguished 11 criminal lawyer in Philadelphia courts 12 for many years. 13 Throughout my career, I have 14 always been involved in civic activities 15 in Philadelphia. I am a co-founder and 16 the first Chair of the Philadelphia 17 Diversity Law Group, a consortium of 18 every major law firm and corporation 19 committed to increasing ethnic and racial 20 diversity in Philadelphia's larger law 21 firms. I am currently a member of the 22 Board of Episcopal Community Services, 23 which provides a wide spectrum of social services to Philadelphia residents living at or below the limits of poverty and who 165 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 require a wide variety of social 3 services. 4 I am a former Director of First 5 Pennsylvania Bank, which became 6 CoreStates Bank, the former Chair of the 7 Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic and a 8 past trustee of the Philadelphia Bar 9 Foundation. For many years, I taught 10 trial advocacy at Temple Law School. 11 Over the years, I have served 12 as a mediator and arbitrator in many 13 disputes and feel comfortable in 14 fulfilling, if approved, the duties of a 15 member of the Board of Ethics. I also 16 have represented many clients in 17 connection with legal issues involving 18 candidates and public officials serving 19 on public or quasi-public boards. 20 In closing, I would like to 21 thank Mayor Nutter for his nomination and 22 the members of this Council for 23 considering my qualifications for service on the Ethics Board. If confirmed, I pledge to follow the law and regulations 166 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 applicable and to do all in my power to 3 make the ethics rules, which are so 4 important in government, clear and 5 understandable for every citizen -- for 6 all of the citizens of Philadelphia.
7 A final note, although my 8 entire professional career has been spent 9 working in Philadelphia, as my service as 10 a Township Commissioner reflects, for 11 many years I was a resident of Lower 12 Merion Township. I am happy to report 13 that if the weather stays warm and it 14 doesn't snow and there's no rain, I will 15 be able to move into Naval Square in 16 South Philadelphia hopefully by the first 17 of May. 18 Thank you very much. I'm here 19 to answer any questions. 20
And I 21 would like to put the banner out, Welcome 22 into the 2nd Councilmanic District. 23
Thank 167 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and you. Section 8-410 provides that with respect to opinions regarding state law, the Law Department, at the option of an employee requesting advice, shall have concurrent authority with the Board to render advisory decisions. If an employee sought the advice of the Board and the Law Department concerning the application of state ethic laws to that employee and the Board and the Law Department reached different conclusions regarding the priority of an employee's actions, in your opinion, which advice is an employee entitled to rely upon?
Well, in my 19 opinion, first, if I am confirmed to 20 serve, I would try and hope that the 21 Board would gather all of the information 22 from whatever sources, be it the state or 23 from the Board or from the City Solicitor. The employee, the City 168 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and employee, in my judgment, is bound by the rules of the Board of Ethics as they've been promulgated, so that it would seem to me, in the first instance, that they would follow the rules of the Board of Ethics as the Board interprets them. But I would reserve any final judgment, A, until I have the opportunity to serve on the Board; B, until I get a sense of how the various agencies interact; and, C, always to be sure that whatever decision is fair and provides information to the employee before the employee is subject to that rule.
Thank 17 you. 18 The Chair recognizes Councilman 19 Green. 20
Thank you, 21 Madam Chair. 22 Good afternoon, Mr. Atkinson. 23
I just have 169 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and a couple of quick questions. You heard my colloquy with Ms. Mann. With respect to focusing or focusing more of its effort on providing clear advice through regulation, is that something you think that you'd be willing to -- I'm not asking you to commit to any specific thing, but you'd be willing to look at as a new member of the Board as something that it should consider?
Absolutely. I 13 would be willing to consider whatever 14 information comes to me first from a 15 governmental entity, but from any citizen 16 and be certain that that information was 17 reviewed, considered and that I get an 18 answer that I feel I could defend in this 19 Chamber. 20
Thank you. 21 With respect to the decision to hire Evan 22 Meyer, I recognize you're not on the 23 Board, but if confirmed, you will be very shortly. Do you think the Board should put something up on its website or gather 170 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and more information about other qualified candidates before hiring Mr. Meyer back after his one day?
Councilman, I 6 think it would be inappropriate for me in 7 a confirmation hearing to second-guess 8 what Board members have or may have done 9 and without me being sensitive to all 10 that may have transpired within the 11 Board. I am fully aware of the issue of 12 DROP and the ethical implications of DROP 13 that have been fully discussed in the 14 public in this city, and I'd obviously be 15 sensitive to those issues, but I think 16 it's inappropriate for me to say that I 17 would take a particular action if I'm 18 confirmed, because I haven't been 19 confirmed yet. 20
I'm not asking what action you would take. 171 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I would, as with any question that I ever get from the public, I would try and get answers and get a full explanation of what was done and why.
I do. I do. I 10 was in one of those cases and I 11 represented another of the defendants in 12 that case, and I first met Gregory Harvey 13 when he was the Chair of American for 14 Democratic Action and I believe your 15 father was a candidate for Mayor in 1971. 16 So I've known him since 1971. 17
Do you know 18 any other lawyers in the Philadelphia Bar 19 that have been active in sort of 20 Philadelphia ethics or campaign finance 21 rules? 22
I think that 23 Gregory Harvey has been the person who's received the most public notice. I don't know or I certainly would not want to 172 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and call out other lawyers as being specialists in ethical law.
I don't want 5 to create any competition for Gregory 6 either. That's good. But suffice it to 7 say, would you imagine that there are 8 other lawyers within the Philadelphia Bar 9 who are capable enough to very quickly 10 become familiar with precedent, which 11 after all is what lawyers do, and serve 12 as the general counsel of the Ethics 13 Board? 14
Well, once 15 again, I don't want to sort of backdoor, 16 second-guess what the Ethics Board -- 17
I'm asking 18 if there are other lawyers who might be 19 as qualified. 20
Certainly there 21 may be other lawyers. Let me say that 22 since the Mayor nominated me and I got a 23 big binder of rules and regulations and add to that my service on the Task Force, which examined campaign and ethical 173 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and reform, I think it's a pretty small number of people who would have the experience to understand all of those laws coming together and could provide the kind of advice that would be needed, but I certainly can't say there aren't other people who understand that.
I can think 10 of a few, Lewis Rosman, Richie Feder, 11 other people who have provided these 12 kinds of rulings over time. 13 So at any rate, thank you very 14 much for your testimony. 15
Thank you, 19 Madam President. 20 Good afternoon, Mr. Atkinson. 21
Mr. Atkinson, I think you sell yourself short in terms I know you are extremely 174 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and familiar with campaign finance legislation. I would just say as --
I'm familiar 5 with what I used to call the Goode bill, 6 I think passed in December of 2003, if 7 I'm correct. 8
But as a 9 member of the Mayor's Task Force on 10 Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform and as 11 a member of the subcommittee that dealt 12 with campaign finance, you thought it 13 appropriate to come meet with the primary 14 sponsor of the campaign finance 15 legislation; is that correct? 16
Appropriate 19 to come meet with the original sponsor of 20 the campaign finance legislation. 21
We came and 22 visited with every Councilman that would 23 see or hear us, yes, sir.
And before that, in terms of offering advisory 175 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and opinions to the clients from your law firm in trying to understand, interpret the Goode ordinance, as you refer to it, you sought out what the opinion of Council and/or the primary sponsor might be?
So do you 11 find it strange that the Board members 12 and staff of the Board of Ethics have 13 never actually had a discussion with City 14 Council about policy matters with regard 15 to campaign finance? Not with regard to 16 cases, but with regard to policy matters. 17
I don't want to 18 make any comments about what the Board 19 has done or what the staff of the Board 20 has done, and I -- there is a body of law 21 which says that under certain 22 circumstances, you look to legislative 23 intent, and certainly that is an area. As an administrative agency, there are certain constraints on the Board as to 176 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and when they should or could seek advice or counsel. I think I respectfully, sir, want to not delve into what others have done. I'm sure at some point I'll be fair game for you to ask what I've done.
I appreciate 9 that, but without talking about the past, 10 without talking about any specific cases, 11 but in terms of the Board establishing 12 rules themselves or policy, if you had a 13 question, you would ask in terms of 14 legislative intent? 15
In terms of 16 promulgating any rules, I think you would 17 probably try and get as broad a set of 18 responses as you could to promulgate the 19 rules. I do not know what process was 20 used in the promulgation of the current 21 rules of the Ethics Board. 22
Councilwoman Brown, did you want to be 177 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and recognized?
Yes. I 4 just want to get clarity of my own facts, 5 Madam President. 6 Good afternoon. 7
And I'm 10 not sure I have all my facts, so I'll ask 11 this question with caution. Did you have 12 the opportunity to hear all of the 13 testimony regarding the circumstance 14 around my colleague, Maria 15 Quinones-Sanchez? 16
I did this 17 morning and I met in a conference room 18 with the Councilwoman and others last 19 week, and so I do have an understanding 20 of the single committee issue. 21
Okay. All 22 right. And so given that circumstance 23 and looking forward, what takeaways might there be for you as a prospective new member of this Board and how those type 178 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and of circumstances are handled going forward?
I think the 5 takeaway that I got was in any way that 6 the Board can administratively foster 7 better information and knowledge and 8 clarity as to how a particular rule is 9 going to be applied under a certain set 10 of facts, that that might be helpful. 11 The constraint would be if you're 12 adjudicating someone, then you've already 13 gone beyond the point where you can get 14 that kind of dialogue. Hopefully there 15 could be some administrative actions 16 taken to provide the kind of information 17 and direction and perhaps simplicity in 18 the rule so that everyone knows exactly 19 how it will be applied. 20
And when 21 you say everyone knows exactly how it 22 would be applied, does that equal 23 everyone interpreting it the same way?
I'm not sure I could speak for anyone other than myself. 179 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
Interpretation 4 is always -- there's always an element of 5 discretion in interpretation, and Supreme 6 Court interprets the Constitution all the 7 time and you get different answers. So I 8 don't want to include interpretation. 9
Okay. All 10 right, then. Thank you for your 11 testimony. 12
16 You're welcome. 17 Any other questions from 18 members of City Council? 19 (No response.) 20
21 Seeing none, do we have anyone else to 22 testify on these resolutions? 23 (No response.)
Seeing no one, thank you very much. 180 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
This 4 will conclude our public hearing. We 5 will now go into our public meeting. 6 The Chair recognizes 7 Councilwoman Tasco for a motion on 8 Resolution No. 100021. 9
Madam 10 President, I move that Resolution 100021 11 be reported out of Committee with a 12 favorable recommendation. 13 (Duly seconded.) 14
It 15 has been moved and seconded that 16 Resolution No. 100021 be reported out of 17 Committee with a favorable 18 recommendation. 19 All in favor will indicate by 20 saying aye. 21 (Aye.) 22
The 181 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco concerning Resolution 5 No. 100022. 6
Madam 7 President, Resolution 100022 will be 8 held. 9
Thank 10 you. We will now consider Resolution No. 11 100023. 12
Madam 13 President, I move that Resolution 100023 14 be amended. I offer an amendment. The 15 amendment has been circulated. 16 (Duly seconded.) 17
I move for 22 the adoption of the amendment. 23 (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the 182 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The 9 ayes have it and the amendment is 10 adopted. 11 The Chair recognizes 12 Councilwoman Tasco. 13
Madam 14 President, I move that Resolution 100023, 15 as amended, be reported out of Committee 16 with a favorable recommendation. 17 (Duly seconded.) 18
It 19 has been moved and seconded that 20 Resolution No. 100023 be reported out of 21 Committee with a favorable 22 recommendation, as amended. 23 All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those 183 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and opposed? (No response.)
The 5 ayes have it and the motion carries. 6 Thank you all very much. 7 (Committee of the Whole 8 concluded at 1:15 p.m.) 9 - - - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 184 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 9, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (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.)