COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY BILL 100063 - An ordinance amending Chapter 15 21-1700 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Publication of Notices by City," by revising provisions concerning how and when required notices shall be published and advertised... - - - 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Law and Government. For the record, we have a quorum with myself, Councilman Goode, Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Kelly. Mr. Boyle, will you please read the title of the bill we have before us today.
An ordinance 12 amending Chapter 21-1700 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Publication of Notices by City," by revising provisions concerning how and when required notices shall be published and advertised; all under certain terms and conditions.
For the record, that's Bill No. 100063. Councilman Clarke, did you want to say something on this bill?
I knew you couldn't pass up this opportunity. 3 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 Councilman Clarke.
You know I love to testify in front of this august body. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee. Real briefly, this is essentially an extension of the advertisement provision, the current provision which is in place that allows Council in the event that there are not three daily newspapers. As stated earlier in the -- both the Charter and the state provision expires at the end of February, and this will essentially extend that opportunity in the event that there are no longer three newspapers for Council to advertise and less than three, so we can continue to conduct our business.
And this bill doesn't change anything; it just deals with the time issue?
Any 4 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, Ms. Johnston from the Law Department, did you just want to submit your -- or did you want to say something? We have your testimony here.
Why don't you just say that on the microphone. Identify yourself. We have to be all official here. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Chairperson Greenlee, members of the Committee on Law and Government. My name is Martha Johnston and I'm a Senior Attorney in the Appeals and Legislation Unit of the City Solicitor's Office. I'm here to offer testimony on behalf of the Administration in support of Bill 100063. You have my proposed testimony 5 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 and you've heard it before, so unless the Committee has any questions, I'll just submit the testimony.
Good morning. If you can just identify yourself for the record and proceed. We have what you submitted to us.
Yes, just if I can review it with you briefly. I appreciate the opportunity --
I appreciate the opportunity to testify. You may recall that I frequently have the honor of appearing before you on behalf of HAPCO, the Homeowners Association of Philadelphia. This bill regarding notice is very important to us, and while it may --
Sir, excuse me. Just for the record, you have to identify yourself. Just state your name.
I'm so sorry, Mr. Chairman. Darrell M. Zaslow, Z, as in zebra, A-S-L-O-W. I'm an attorney here in Philadelphia. The bill as is proposed certainly is just reinstituting the status quo, which is very good and to some extent is better than what my perception of the law requires. However, I would suggest -- and I've laid it out for you in this brief testimony -- that 7 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 the ordinance should comply with the Sunshine Act and it doesn't, and the reason it doesn't, I've laid it out in three areas. I've taken the liberty of attaching for you copies of my testimony, which is the single page on top. Below that is a printout from that very famous legal treatise, Pennsylvania Municipal Law Source, which I had the honor of writing. It doesn't mean that it's correct necessarily, but it's in print. I've attached for you the Sunshine Law requirement for notice of a meeting, and the notice of a meeting requires three things. Number one, it says that notice of hearings should be containing the place, date and the time of the meeting. And the law as it's written says the place and the time. Obviously you're not going to publish a notice which does not include the date of a meeting, but the law requires that you do that, and it would make sense if the law before you enacted would say not just 8 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 advertising the place and time of a meeting, but the date of a meeting also even though, of course, you would do it. The second requirement of the Sunshine Act, which is also contained in Section 703 of the Sunshine Act under the definition of Public Notice, requires -- and you do this also, I'm sure, and you do it perhaps even better than the law requires, but the law requires that the notice be posted somewhere in the main office of the agency, which in your case would be, I'm sure, the City Council Clerk's Office or the building where you're holding a hearing. So, again, you may do that, and certainly you do a very good job here in the City of providing notice, making it available, giving out copies, but as a technical matter, just to be in compliance, I believe the law should be -- the ordinance should be amended to require and mimic the language of the Sunshine Act, which requires posting. 9 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 And the third requirement of the Sunshine Act is that notice be provided to anyone who has requested notice. Now, again, Philadelphia does that very well. I'm most appreciative of it personally. I get e-mails, I receive copies of it in the mail if I request it, but I believe that the law should also -- the ordinance should also require that anyone who has complied with the Sunshine Act, which is actually contained in Section 709(c) of the Sunshine Act, that any newspaper or radio station or any party, meaning any taxpayer or citizen, who provides a request for notice of a hearing has to be sent notice of the hearing. So, therefore, my purpose for appearing this morning would be to suggest to you that this law be amended to provide the language as mandated by the Sunshine Act. I understand that this ordinance is mimicking precisely the language of the City Charter, which 10 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 states it in these terms, but the City Charter is not right either. Just because it's in the City Charter doesn't make it right, and the City Charter itself should probably be corrected to provide for that. But here with this ordinance, you have the opportunity to do that. I would also request of you, although it's clearly not a requirement, although I think it should be, that the old-fashioned way of mailing out a notice of a hearing is okay for the last century, but in this century, of course, everything is e-mail. And, again, your staffers do a very good job of supplying e-mail notice of everything that you do, and the public appreciates it. I would like to see the law that you mandate that that be done in this ordinance, that No.
22 4 of my testimony, that notice also be provided by e-mail to all parties that provide an e-mail address upon such terms as the Clerk of Council may prescribe in 11 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 whatever format the Clerk of Council or Council itself would prescribe. So that would be a suggestion I would have, which would be very helpful to have as part of the law if you would voluntarily go beyond the Sunshine Act and mandate that notice be provided by e-mail. I know you do it anyway. I would comment, lastly -- I didn't make a note of this -- the five-day notice, I acknowledge, is more than law requires, but it's such a short period of time to react to important things that you do, to get a notice five days before and begin to put together testimony and be available to come here is sometimes difficult. So in summary, I would request that the ordinance be amended for compliance with the Sunshine Act to provide the technical word that the date should be provided, to provide technically that posting of notice should be required, and that notice is to be 12 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 provided to all parties who have requested it, together with a voluntary action on your part to mandate the e-mail notice be provided. I appreciate your time very much this morning, Mr. Chairman, to be able to testify on this ordinance.
Thank you, Mr. Zaslow. Please note for the record the presence of Councilman Green also. Any questions or comments? (No response.)
Is there -- I'm sorry. Please approach the witness table, sir. You know how this works. Your name and whatever statement. Thank you. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, 13 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Jihad Ali and I'm a citizen who regularly attends some of the meetings of City Council, as well as some of the Board meetings at some of the various quasi agencies. I wanted to come down here today to give testimony on this bill and then share with you some of my experiences as a citizen in dealing with this issue of public notice. And I think that's important, because as a citizen, you know, I'm here today because you are my elected officials, you and Councilman and all the members of Council. The citizens voted for you. And a lot of times when these issues come up that affect citizens, it's really the citizens that are being overlooked or their rights aren't being enforced. So this is a great opportunity to address the whole issue of citizen participation. I'd like to read my statement. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Councilman Greenlee and members of the 14 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 Committee on Law and Government, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on this ordinance 100063, requirement to provide notice of its public meetings. I am particularly grateful for your role in providing Philadelphia citizens with the necessary oversight of such powerful authorities and your dedication to Philadelphia citizens to have transparency and accountability at all levels of City government. I am here today to give you insight and to share my experiences with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, PAID, and Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, PIDC. Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development has during its long history, along with Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, PIDC, has effectively implemented the City's economic development policies in accordance with the realities of the 15 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 marketplace. 5 billion of financing; 2,000 acres of land sales, including parcels at the Navy Yard. Five million square feet of lease space have leveraged over $16 billion of total investment and have assisted in retaining and creating 450,000 jobs in Philadelphia. As a citizen, I am also tremendously impressed by their track record. However, I am deeply concerned about transparency, integrity and accountability. For the past three years, I have attempted to attend both PIDC and PAID public meetings as required by the Sunshine Laws of Pennsylvania. In addition, I have sought to review documents held by each of these organizations. I had been permitted to attend PAID meetings and denied admittance to PIDC meetings on the 16 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 grounds that it was a private non-profit organization. Initially I was partially denied access to some documents held by PAID, and the documents I wanted to review were not one of the exempted categories under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law. I subsequently appealed the denial and partial denial of documents by both PAID and PIDC on an individual case and was successful in overturning the partial and had success in the appeal of the full denial by PIDC. On March 17th, 2009, I attended a Board meeting at PAID and there were several items on the agenda, but the one that stood out to me was the selling of a four-acre parcel of land located at 2021-71 Woodhaven Road to Philadelphia Union of Insulators and Allied Workers Local 14, or its nominee, for a reduced price of $157,468. Also on the agenda was an authorization to submit a Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program 17 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 grant, RCAP, application on behalf of several organizations to the Commonwealth Office of the Budget and tax-exempt bond financing on behalf of Chemical Heritage Foundation. At the hearing I attempted to ask questions on each of the proposed resolutions: economic impact statement, project description and statement of community participation.
I also submitted an objection letter to the Chairman opposing two of the resolutions, specifically the resolution dealing with the discounted land price on the following grounds: The resolution indicated that it was authorized by the Director of Commerce in agreement with Bill No. 1048, Section 3, and this citation of the bill number was incorrect and had been rescinded by Bill 22 No. 040034, Section 3. The land was being sold at a reduced price without justification to a union, in my opinion, that discriminates against African 18 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 American males and other minorities. I sent a letter to the Commerce Director, who is also a Board member of the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, who during his tenure had not attended any meeting held by the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. I also sent a letter to Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia about this issue. The Board meeting was subsequently voided because it had not complied with the Sunshine requirements for the advertised public meeting. By way of explanation, all the public hearing dates for the year 2009 for PAID were advertised in the Philadelphia Daily News on December 23, 2008, two days before Christmas. The date above was not on the announced dates. The new date was set for March 24th. This meeting was held in the same agenda from March 17th, and I presented my objections again and sent new letters 19 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 to both Commerce and the Mayor. On April 21st at the PAID Board meeting, the Board set forth and adopted a new resolution amending the Sunshine Laws by setting reasonable rules and regulations for conduct at its public meetings. The Board chose to amend the Sunshine Laws in three areas: The subject matter limited to current business; the second area was time limit of three to five minutes for residents at the discretion of the Chairman; and a public comment period scheduled at the discretion of the Chairman only for the residents of the City of Philadelphia who pay taxes and non-residents who pay taxes. The Board adopted and approved the resolution and now conducts all of its public meetings in accordance with the above-amended Sunshine Laws. I filed a lawsuit to oppose this, in my opinion, blatant abuse of authority and disregard of citizens' rights, which is in 20 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 contradiction of the Sunshine Laws of the State of Pennsylvania. It is also my opinion that it is in direct opposition to the Home Rule Charter, Section 8-407. It was my duty as a citizen to present my experiences to the leadership of this City Council, which you are aware, Mr. Chairman, I did at the close of the last session. It was my testimony at City Council where both you and President Verna took to listen to my concerns, and I thank you both for that. One of the things that's striking about this ordinance that you have now is the part that talks about the requirement that the notice be filed in the City records room, Department of Records, and it be 30 days before the resolution was adopted. In my case, that didn't even happen. And, you know, the Law Department -- what's striking like as a former Philadelphia police officer, one of the things that really turns somebody's stomach that works in the 21 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 capacity for the citizens is when somebody turns a blind eye. You know, the Law Department regularly, you know, they -- and the issue that I had, I filed a suit in the case with PIDC. The City Solicitor sits on the Board, and the result of that suit was we went to trial. The case was dismissed because they hadn't really done anything else to me, because I immediately filed suit at the start of it. The judge ruled, in her opinion, that should they continue to do that, then I would come back down there. They denied their claim to have my case dismissed with prejudice.
The judge saw through the arguments, and she gave me the opportunity to present that case again. The problem that I had with PIDC and all these other quasi agencies, like the other speaker that came up here, when it comes to City Council and it comes to public notice, nobody does better than City Council. The Chief 22 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 Clerk's Office over there, I get a ton of e-mails on every bill that comes before this Council. They absolutely do their job. All your Council offices, you all do your jobs. It's just these quasi agencies where the problem becomes. And it's really important, because on the quasi agencies, it's like a public-private partnership, and the problem becomes when you have businessmen who say, We're going to get this deal done, but that issue about citizen participation, we're going to roll over that. Maybe we'll just put -- maybe we'll put a newspaper advertisement in where somebody talked about this project and we'll submit these applications up.
Mr. Ali, I understand what you're saying, but in all fairness, this bill just deals with City Council notices. So I appreciate what you're saying, that we do it right, and I appreciate your raising that issue. I know you raised it before, and I think 23 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 you have valid points. Councilman Clarke told me he's working with you on some things. I don't want to cut you off, but we certainly understand what you're saying and, again, we appreciate your saying that Council knows how to do it.
And this bill just deals with City Council. So we can't really directly affect what you're talking about.
Well, the problem is with other departments, not the City Council. The City Council does a great job.
I understand, and I think that has to be addressed. I understand.
Thank you, sir. Anyone else here to testify on 24 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, for you people already in the audience who are waiting for the Health and Human Services, it should start in just a few minutes. That concludes the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government. We'll now go into the public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 15 100063 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Opposed? 25 2/24/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 100063 (No response.)
Hearing none, the motion carries and Bill No. 5 100063 has been reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and with a rules suspension for first reading at our next session of Council. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned. (Committee on Law and Government concluded at 10:30 a.m.) - - - CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 24, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)