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?