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