Good afternoon, Mr. Pelham. Your counterpart in New York talked about promoting both the perception and reality of integrity, and said that often politicians just talk about promoting the perception and don't deal with the reality. Can you speak to what you view as a reality of integrity, if there is such a thing? I hear you when you talk about pay-to-play. You used the term, so-called pay-to-play. I hear you talk about other possible infractions, talk about real or perceived. So describe the reality of the 134 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT situation to me and whether what each jurisdiction actually is dealing with is the perception of corruption in their own locality.
Well, I think this speaks to a question or comment you made earlier, is pay-to-play currently prohibited by criminal law. I would answer that bribery is currently a problem under criminal statutes. Extortion is a violation of the law. What's different in this realm is a system that people who participate in that system believe requires them to make contributions in order to be heard, or requires them to give gifts in order to have access. When there is a belief that operates in the system -- and this speaks to the perception question -- if people have a collective belief for whatever reason, whether it's because bribery actually happens and extortion actually happens, or just that there's some sense that maybe I don't get the 135 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT phone call returned as quickly until and unless I give the good gift or contribution --
I'm actually not asking you to speak for what happens in terms of perception. But this notion of reality, in terms of integrity. Your counterpart in New York, Mr. Davies, says that their ethics code is set up to promote both the perception and reality of integrity. But throughout your testimony, you've used the term, real or perceived as opposed to, and. And I want you to just talk to, what is reality in terms of integrity, if such a thing exists.
I think ethics codes are not about creating moral standards. I agree with Mark's comments on that. It's not about making people better people with any more integrity because of their parents or their rabbis or priests or ministers. It's about creating standards that everybody in that city or state agrees, these are the standards that we believe are important to make sure that in fact our process is fair and 136 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT that decisions are made only on their merits. We don't want people making decisions based on some financial gain that they might get from that, if they've got a financial interest in that type of enterprise. So having those kinds of laws in place in fact create systems that themselves have integrity because it ensures the people do not make decisions based on their financial interests or based on a contribution, for example.
And to pose Councilman Cohen's question a different way, should ethics laws be crafted to deal with specific perceived problems within a jurisdiction? Is that what happened in Los Angeles and is that what should happen in Philadelphia? Should we be drafting laws to deal with the perception of what has happened here?
I think it's both that. I think it's both recognition if there is a perception that government is for sale -- I'm not suggesting that is the case in Philadelphia or any other city or jurisdiction 137 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT -- but I think when there is repeated attention to a concern that expresses a lack of trust that the process is open for everybody and that it's fair for everybody, then that's the time for people to say, it's time to create some changes because we need to do everything we can to stop and to stem that kind of perception. The issue about when things are in fact happening, when there's corruption, when there are violations of the law, that speaks to having a body around who has the resources to ferret those out, to respond to allegations of violations, as well as to initiate investigations when the facts warrant that. So I think it's important to deal both with the perception as well as to deal with the real problems that have been identified when there are actual violations that have occurred. I'm not sure that the two are inseparable. I think they work closely together.
Any other 138 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT questions from Members of the Committee? (No response.)
If not, thank you very much. If you could stay a while longer, it will be helpful.
She's a captive of the City for the next day or so. Thank you, Ms. Pelham. Mr. Carl Singley.
Good afternoon. As I was listening to the testimony of my distinguished colleagues, it became apparent to me that my purpose in this hearing was perhaps to be a fact witness, as opposed to a process witness. And by that I mean that as a lawyer, you generally get people in the courtroom, Councilman Cohen, as you know, who can talk about process and who can be an expert witness on how process and procedures operate. And then sometimes you have a witness who can actually talk about the particulars of the facts in the case. 139 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT So I think my role today is probably going to be a little bit of both of those. That is to say, I heard a question relating to a $10,000 check that I'm sure was coincidental, but I happen to know something about that check. I don't have any documents to hand out. I did spend some time looking at the Ethics Commission's laws in about a dozen cities, including New York, as well as Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and several other places, and I can assure you that the two witnesses that have testified previously, the agencies and the cities that they represent clearly represent the best practices that I've been able to see as far as these ethics acts are concerned. You have in Mr. Davies as well as in Ms. Pelham probably two of the best people in the business. And so to the extent that you're trying to get it right from a technical and from a state-of-the-art perspective in terms of what's out there and what progressive cities are doing in terms of grappling with 140 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT this problem, clearly what they have proposed to you folks is a superior product. I thought what I'd do, though, is dwell a little bit on why I think you ought to listen to me or try to understand why Councilman Nutter invited me to come here and testify. Let me tell you a little bit about some of my qualifications that you may not know about. I was former First Deputy City Solicitor during the Green Administration. I've been a law professor for 30 years. During the course of that time, I've taught courses in criminal law, legal process, state and local government law, public finance, public administration and, last but not least, in legal ethics. I guess my real qualification is that as a practicing lawyer and a political fundraiser. I had been both a beneficiary of and a participant in the process in the system that you're seeking to reform by this legislation. I guess you might describe me as a reformed pay-to-player. So in that regard, 141 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT I know firsthand the potential that the system that is currently in place has to corrupt. Lord Acton said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So that I sort of come here then as an observer in the events over the last years, but also 8 as a participant, and I do underscore as a 9 beneficiary. " In that respect I think the game 12 determines who the players are. So it's not a 13 choice about hating the players. The decision 14 is to reform the game and reform the players. 15 The type of game, the process, whether you 16 call it "Play Ball With City Hall" or 17 "pay-to-play," it's clear that it is up to you 18 folks, the Members of the Council, to change 19 this system. The expectation is that you will 20 change it. Councilman Goode, I heard your question about this notion of pay-to-play. I don't think it's a legal concept. What it is is a continuum. What it means is that on one extreme you have people who are actually 142 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT paying money in order to get contracts and get business and get access. That is clearly criminal conduct. There is no doubt about it. And I think there are, in the District Attorney's Office and certainly the US Attorney's Office, institutions in government that have as their responsibility ferreting out and prosecuting criminal conduct.
What is also included in this concept of pay-to-play is the idea that in order to do something or to have access or to get your phone calls returned, you have to have juice, you have to have access, and normally that comes by way of political contributions. So that is the gray area that you folks have to try to regulate. I have some thoughts on how you address that. More specifically, let me just tell you that I appreciate this opportunity to talk. You should not underestimate as a Council the sort of contemporary and historical importance of the difficult task that you folks have in front of you right now. Politics and personalities aside, this is 143 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT vitally important and very difficult work. Abe Lincoln said that politicians think of the next election, but statesmen think of the next generation. The next generation, future generations in this town will judge you folks. They will judge how at this moment and at this time of crisis -- and it is that, Councilman Cohen. It is a crisis in public confidence and it is a crisis in public trust, and it is up to you folks to do something about it. History and future generations will judge you folks based on whether or not you had the heart and determination and the will to do something about it. There is one of these little success quotations that I like. " Now, that could be an argument for the status quo or it could be an argument for change. " With regard to the notion of ethics in Philadelphia, if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten. It's been said that we sort of deserve the political leadership that we get, and I continue to believe that that's true. The flip side of that quote, that if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten, can be sort of an argument for change. That if you want to change things and get something different, you have to do something differently. I don't think maintaining the status quo is an option for you folks at this point in time. " And it also tries the souls of women as well. I'm not going to make an effort to do the very detailed and thorough analysis. I looked at the work that Mr. Davies and Ms. Pelham did. I commend you. I mean, there's 145 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT nothing left to be said. They've said it all. It is as detailed, as thorough, as critical, as superb an analysis of the legislation pending before you that I can obviously imagine. But I do want to underscore a couple of points. The first point that I want to underscore is this idea of independence. I do like the Los Angeles model in which you combine several of the functions, Councilman Nutter, that we now have two or three bills pending to cover. I do like very much the idea that in Los Angeles the issue of disclosure, the issue of ethics, conflicts of interests, campaign contributions are all the responsibility of a single body. I would just emphasize that I think we need to have that responsibility concentrated in a single body that is clearly independent. I like the idea that this body would be nominated and appointed by the Mayor, but with the advice and consent of Council. That underscores this sort of historical checks and balances that the framers of this 146 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT Charter had in mind, and it also gives both of you all, both the legislative as well as the executive branch of government, a role and a responsibility to play in this process. I think the Charter amendment proposal to get it done so that you get the independence is really important because it does something else. It gives the people, the voters, the taxpayers an opportunity to be heard on this issue. The only time that they normally get to be heard is when they get to vote in elections every four years. But there is a ground swell of public concern and outrage over this so-called public pay-to-play.
What the Charter amendment does, is it gives them an opportunity to speak in very clear tones about the notion that they, the people, have the right to be fully informed about the affairs of their government. Because after all, it is their money. So I like the idea of the Charter provision. The second general observation that I would make is on the question of full public 147 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT disclosure. And you know, as simple an idea as it is, that's exactly what the goal ought to be, full and complete public disclosure. Sort of as a participant and a reformed pay-to-player, let me tell you a story that is personal to me. Two, in fact. You know, when I used to make money off of bond deals, which I used to do until a few years ago, the newspapers would report how much I made. " And I meant it. That is to say, if you choose to do business with the government, which is to say, get paid taxpayers' dollars, then you have no 19 expectation of privacy with regard to your financial dealings with the City of Philadelphia or any government. It's real simple. If you make money off of the government, then the public ought to know what you're making and the circumstances under which you make the money. 148 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT So the option, if I didn't want my business reported in the papers, I could choose not to do business with the government. And I believe that to my soul and to the bottom of my heart. I think that is one of the cores of the problems. The notion that there is somehow some right of privacy with regard to the affairs of government. The same is true of City officials. At every level in government, if you're making your living doing the public's business, being paid, then nothing you do that bears on your responsibility as a public employee ought to be private. You ought to fully disclose everything. My second story has to do with campaign contributions at a time when you represent a company -- and I've represented many, many companies that wanted to offer goods and services to the City of Philadelphia. Very often when people come into a town like this and a climate that is known to exist as is in the case of Philadelphia, they think that it's not enough 149 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT that the service that you offer may be the best service that the company offers, or that the price that they offer is a competitive price. They think that they need to do something else to get what it is to give them an edge. So it's not unusual for them to say, "I want to make a campaign contribution to somebody" while they have a matter pending. I've had them to say, "What kind of contribution would I need to make? " My point is, what kind of statement are you trying to make? If your product is good, if your service is superb, and if your price is competitive, that statement ought to speak for itself. " Now, the clear implication of that statement was that a part of that goes to my fee and the other part goes to whoever I need to pay off in order to make this happen 150 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT in the government. I suspect that what has happened over the last couple of decades in this City is that there is a widespread expectation that in order to be competitive in this town, you must find a certain person who has a certain relationship who can get things done and have access. That is to say, who can make a statement. So in my mind, I think what it is that you folks are doing at this point in time, in this moment in our history, is critically important. I firmly believe in full public disclosure. Without getting into the complicated details of the contracting provision for non-competitive contracts -- and I must concede, Councilman Nutter, that it was rather complicated. I think we can probably simplify it so it is accessible and understandable to everybody to whom it ought to apply, but I think the spirit of it is clearly right on the mark.
Just to repeat, full and complete 151 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT disclosure available to any member of the public about people who do business, seek to do business with government, what are your financial and business relationships, how much money did you give to whom and when. And if you're unwilling to make all of that information available, maybe you ought to do business strictly in the private sector. I think there's an expectation on the part of the public as a whole that you folks are going to give us what we need, that we just can't continue to do what we've always done. Just briefly on the membership of the Commission or the Board of Ethics, there is no specification of qualifications. There's no residency requirement. Some cities have a residency requirement for board members. I'm not recommending that.
We do. You have to be a resident in Philadelphia and a registered voter.
Okay. Well, that resolves one of the questions. I believe it 152 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT was Ms. Pelham's testimony -- or maybe it was Mr. Davies testimony -- Atlanta has a system in which a dozen different entities in the government have an opportunity to appoint a member to the commission. I don't think that's a good idea. I think probably the model that's used in Los Angeles or in New York is probably a preferable idea. I like the restrictions on political and financial activities of members of the Board of Ethics. They absolutely have to be politically independent and they have to be financially independent and have no stake whatsoever. Now, that necessarily limits the universe of people that you're going to choose from, but I think at this point in time you need to pay that price, if it is a price that you have to pay. I like the idea of staggered terms so that you get an opportunity to bring in a new infusion of ideas and approaches. I like the notion that you can't remove these members except for cause. All of these things, I think, are really critical to the notion of 153 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT independence. The powers that you are proposing for the commission are, again, best practices, state-of-the-art. All the way from the education component and training to the regulation, to the investigations, all of those things I think are essential to the success. I would just add that I think you might want to give the commission, if you haven't thought about or it didn't do it, subpoena powers to compel people to come in and cooperate. This is very important. Last, but not least, I agree with Mr. Davies. He described the $300 fine as laughable. I wouldn't go that far. Those were his words, not mine. I believe he said in his testimony, that New York's fine could be as much as $10,000, because you want that fine, like the question to me from my corporate clients, you want to make a statement. And I think the fine makes a statement. You ought to also consider, as some cities have done, making that conduct a 154 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT criminal act as well. If it is willful, you make it a criminal act, perhaps a misdemeanor. That sends the message to folks that business will not continue as usual. Those are my comments. I'd be willing to talk about any questions that you might have.
Let me just respond very quickly, just on two items that you mentioned. With regard to subpoenas, the Board of Ethics will have or would have subpoena power. That's laid out in Section 4-1000. I absolutely agree with you. With regard to the fine issue, as you know, state statute that was passed, possibly when many of us were in grade school or beyond, has limited Philadelphia for all fines to $300. I am in absolute agreement and have had some conversations with members of the General Assembly that specifically for a Board of Ethics or code of conduct violations, the fine should be a minimum of $10,000. I believe New York is at 10 and is seeking to go 155 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT to 25. I believe the City should always do everything that it can do within its power first. If there are things we cannot do because of state statute, then we go to the state. And this is clearly a matter that we would need state relief to accomplish. But I'm in absolute agreement with that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Singley, for your testimony. One of the important issues for me relative to the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of corruption is the issue of no-bid contracts. There seems to really be the large area of subjectivity that elected officials and people in power can apply when it comes to the award of those contracts. And you hear from the Administration and from past Administrations that professional services are not the type of services that we would what to bid out because it somehow hamstrings the 156 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT government. I can run down a list of the major law firms in this City, whether it's Wolf Block or Dilworth or Ballard. You know the list. Of all of those firms that do bond work, for example, or do legal work in the City, even though each of them have their own little specialties within their office, they're pretty much all the same high caliber firm, wouldn't you agree? As far as the output of work and the quality of work, despite your personal preferences, perhaps that work is all the same high level quality; is that a fair statement?
In general we have pretty good law firms that do pretty good work and they're all at a pretty level playing field, I would think for the most part, with the exception of certain specialties.
If you want to stay with that profession, let me finish my question. The Administration argues that we can't hamstring the government because we can't pick these people based on a bid process. See, I feel the opposite. I feel considering the high caliber of all these firms, that the real benefit to the taxpayer is, in fact, competitive pricing. And that whoever we select based on a competitive bid will still put out the same high-quality work if it was given in a no-bid fashion. Could you comment?
I think that's right. In fact, I'm fairly convinced that that's correct. In fact, the State of New Jersey on bond deals has gone to that process and went 158 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT there several years ago as a result of some corruption in the state at the state level with regard to that issue. I mean, certainly those of us at these major law firms or smaller law firms that get to do this work and compete for it would prefer that it not be that way. We would make the argument that it somehow does, in fact, denigrate the sort of quality of the special judgments we make. I just think given where we are at this point in time -- and this is a statement against my financial interests in terms of the firm -- that I think we need to take those measures that we included that are critical to restoring the public's confidence in terms of how decisions like that get made. If it turns out to not work, the worst that happens is you could go back to the old system. I think we've got to try something.
It may not be in the best financial interest of a particular firm, but you would agree it's probably in the best financial interest of the taxpayer? 159 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
I would suspect that that same theory would apply to professional services like accounting or like banking or the other areas that we sometimes fall into problems of perception or perhaps actual corruption when it comes to the ability to award a no-bid contract. We don't have this kind of problem in city government when it comes to the lowest responsible bidder to sell us cars or to sell us furniture or to sell us paper. We don't hear of the stories of large campaign contributions and other things in that arena because it's the lowest responsible price and the lowest responsible bidder. I just wanted to say for the record that that's, I think, an area that if we eliminate it, at least attempted to eliminate it, we could go a long way in changing the attitude of the citizenry towards the way in which we contract with vendors.
Let me just say that while I'm not convinced that the actual total 160 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT elimination is advisable, certainly that is an area that bears the type of examination that you're talking about. I wanted to make reference to a practice that I believe former Mayor Goode on the issue of bond deals attempted to implement, and I can assure you that law firms and others screamed to high heaven about it. It was a system in which firms were, in effect, pre-qualified to do the business, which is what you have to do anyway. Essentially, there was a rotation system that when the deals came up, all of the law firms that were pre-qualified were on a list in particular skills area. And as deals came up, they rotated. Well, needless to say, the law firms that had raised more money than other law firms weren't too happy about the idea that somebody had a place on the list that was in front of them or that in a sense leveled the playing field. But that was an effort fairly recently in the City's history to deal with that issue. 161 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
There's also the waiver procedure that I think Mr. Davies referred to. If there were very special circumstances in which, say, the Administration felt a particular firm had particular capabilities, it could seek a waiver. The determination of a waiver ought to be very limited.
As long as it's done by entities or there's oversight to ensure that the ultimate judgment was made clearly on the merits.
Thank you for being here today. There's something that we do in the City of Philadelphia that, in my opinion, is questionable. Well, I think it's more than questionable. It's where we do put something out to bid, and there's an award, and then 162 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT there's some fine print that says that, well, we can extend that for the second year, we can extend it a third year. I know that there is a lot of effort by these companies that have that first year deal to stay in favor to automatically get the second and third year extension. I know cases where the deal for the first year was a very expensive deal. The price of this particular product came down in the second and the third year, but it was extended at the high price without it ever going back out to bid. In my opinion, that could lead to a problem based on that vendor working the people, the users, to make sure that they extend that without it going out for rebid. Could you comment on that?
Yes. I do understand in one of the pieces of legislation that is pending, an effort is being made to address that issue of contracts with several option years to extend. As I understand the legislation, that would give to this body an opportunity as you normally would do with 163 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT contracts in excess of one year to in effect approve that. I think some approach like that on those contracts with options to renew could have the effect of making sure that the kind of public scrutiny -- and I think that's what you're talking about -- that these low visibility decisions of that sort that have financial implications that could very well have been motivated by political considerations, essentially escape public scrutiny. So I do understand that one of the bills pending attempts to address that, and I think that does needs to be addressed.
Mr. Singley, I think you anticipated the question I was going to ask you, your familiarity with bond rotations, the bond work rotation system during the Goode Administration. You gave your memory of what other law firms or other people may have thought about that rotation system. Can you give me your personal evaluation on that rotation system, whether 164 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT that's something that should be revisited?
In the context of why we're here today, in the context of legislation and in the context of what we need to reform, what do you think about pre-qualifying bond counsel and going back to a rotation system?
Well, I think the rotation system, as I understood it then, was a reaction to the previous Administration, in which a single law firm --
-- a single law firm was bond counsel in virtually all of the bond deals that the City of Philadelphia did during this Mayor's tenure as Mayor. So that sort of represented one extreme. I haven't really thought about and do not know how effective the sort of rotation system was, and I'm not here to advocate it. But rather than simply having no controls on how that's done -- and I think that was essentially the issue that was raised -- we 165 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT ought to examine different ways of making sure that people have an equal opportunity to participate in City contracting opportunities at a price that's competitive. So whatever it takes at this point in the City's history to kind of help to restore the public's confidence that what business you get and how often is a function of campaign contributions, rather than qualifications is a measure that the Council ought to take.
But isn't a rotation system as transparent as you can get?
It could be. I'm not saying it's not a good system. I use it as an example of a way to experiment with some other ways of awarding the contracts. I think the New Jersey system has its strengths and weaknesses as well, in which they do it the way they do all other competitively bidded contracts. That probably merits some examination as well.
Mr. Singley, when you started you said you were going to be a 166 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT fact witness. Have you completed your intent to be that kind of witness?
Well, I'm more than happy to, because as it turns out, I can speak specifically about the $10,000 check because I arranged that check. I personally arranged the legal fee, and I can assure you that that's exactly what the check was for, notwithstanding what you might have read in newspapers or that anybody else might have had to say. I would add that one of the reasons -- and that relates directly to why we're here today. One of the reasons that we identified that company that at the time was located in Boston, was specifically with the expectation that they did not expect to do business with the City of Philadelphia. And there was not at the time, and nor do I believe is there now, a prohibition on Councilmembers having outside business interests of one kind or 167 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT another, so long as those businesses didn't involve their representing people before City agencies, boards and commissions. In fact, in that particular $10,000 check situation, there was a retainer letter written, and the retainer letter on its face explicitly excluded any representation by the Mayor, who was then the Council President, of that agency with regard to any activities having to do with the City of Philadelphia. I can tell you that I did that, not because I thought it was legally required, but that I was concerned, as Councilman Goode spoke about, not only about the reality of impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety. As Councilman Nutter pointed out, it's clear it was never intended to be an honorarium. That was never discussed. It was perfectly legal under the law as it existed at the time, and designed to exclude any expectation on the behalf of that company that that check would curry any favor with City of Philadelphia officials or in any way 168 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT compromise the Mayor or the Council President in the performance of his public duties.
Councilman Cohen, it's been a while since I've been privy to his thoughts.
I've always felt that there had to be an explanation, and I couldn't understand why he was just saying he's not going to explain. If it was a legal retainer, a legal retainer doesn't even mean that you've done anything. It means you've been available to do something.
All right. Well, maybe that will dispose of that question. Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Singley. I appreciate your coming in here and I appreciate your testimony and your honesty. I want to go back to the rotation 169 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT system. How long was that in effect, do you remember?
I was going to say too long. For those of us who -- what I call us bottom feeders -- who make our living in the light and shadow of government, I'm not certain. Maybe Councilman Goode remembers. I do know that law firms squawked and complained about that to high heaven. I don't know whether or not it existed in the second term or not.
They were all pre-qualified as far as doing the job that they were supposed to do?
I just want to go back and ask you, what are your recommendations? Did that system work, as far as benefiting the taxpayers of Philadelphia and the citizens of Philadelphia? 170 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
I think so. What was missing, perhaps, was when it was your turn to come around and do a bond deal, it doesn't follow that because you were in the right rotation, that the price that you were offering for the service was necessarily competitive. Which is really what you want to do. You want to get the best service for the least amount of money. I'm not sure that just a simple rotation in and of itself handled the issue of whether or not you were getting the best price.
That's my point. Just being on the rotation system just means that you're the next law firm to get the contract. But there again, is that open to competitive bids or is it just to get it at your price?
I don't believe that it was the case. I don't want to suggest that law firms charge whatever they wanted to charge when it was their turn, because there really is sort of a going rate now. Increasingly, people who hire lawyers and 171 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT other professionals to do things have a sense of how complicated and how involved the task is and the level of professional expertise that is required. Increasingly, I know in the City of Philadelphia through each of the generations you've normally had a Finance Director who was pretty good, he or she, at driving a pretty hard deal in negotiating what the fees were. But it was pretty much often up to the discretion of who happened to be in that office at a given point in time. So I don't want to suggest, Councilman Kelly, that lawyers charge whatever they wanted to charge and get paid. But by the same token, the fee was not competitive, other than in comparative terms to what other lawyers had paid for the same work previously.
Didn't the City usually establish going rates? Like currently, the fee is the same pay to any firm, with the top limit? Maybe some firms get less if they have less experience, but the City now has established top rates, I 172 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT understand, for representation.
Generally, the bond deals, Councilman Cohen, are based on a flat fee for the particular role that a lawyer plays in those deals. I wasn't aware that the City had gone to an hourly rate basis.
They capped the criminal investigation, the legal fees for that.
I'm not certain. But you've helped in understanding it. Thank you. Did that complete your factual presentation?
Mr. Singley, thank you for coming. It was interesting. Let me ask you something that I'm sure you know a lot more about than I do. By 173 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT putting our professional service contracts to bid -- which I think is a great idea -- would it somehow keep young upstart firms like minority firms, women-owned firms from getting into that network, or do you think in your opinion it would help them get a leg up and get in there?
I think the City has had and hopefully will continue to have a commitment to the utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. And I think that process, like any other process, you've really got to work with it to make sure that it doesn't have a disparate effect on groups like that that the City seeks to utilize. There have been and will continue to be fine, small and minority and women-owned firms that can be fairly competitive. There are ways to partner firms with the larger firms to make sure that you don't have the undesired effect of excluding those firms.
Some may choose not to be with Ballard or your firm. Three young guys and a lady may want to be out on 174 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT their own.
Absolutely. And it should probably help them. The pre-qualification could help, yes.
Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Singley. Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not a Member of this Committee, but I'm a co-sponsor on a number of these bills. Thank you, Mr. Singley, for your testimony, and as Councilman Kelly said, for your honesty. There's a whole host of things when we talk about ethics and we talk about contracts being awarded to companies, corporations, law firms, what have you, in return for political contributions. But in my opinion, it all comes under the same title of campaign contributions. Campaign finance reform, I think, is just as important and it should be linked to this somehow, because I 175 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT don't think you can separate the two. I'll use myself as an example. I represent a district which has a huge amount of development that's been going on for a decade or so and continues to go. It's a good thing. I'm one who is very uncomfortable -- and I mean this sincerely -- in having to go raise money to run a political campaign, but it is a necessary evil at this particular time. As one who has signed on Councilman Kenney's campaign finance reform bill and others, I don't get a contract where I'm not helping a company, corporation or law firm to secure a contract, but often times I am approached by a developer or developers who come to me with a plan to develop either a housing or an industrial or commercial property within my district. Much of what they need to do, they really don't even need me for. But there are times when there may be a zoning matter. There may be issues that need to be dealt with in a community with the community 176 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT organizations, which I have a pretty good relationship in most cases. And at the end of the day, the deal gets done. The deal meaning the developer is able to move on, zoning is in place if zoning was required. Street closures or directional street issues that come through me as the District Councilperson, I would then introduce that legislation on their behalf. And I do it because I think it's the right thing to do, I think that development is a good thing for the community, a good thing for the City. Most of those people, without any solicitation in many cases, decide to send me a check to my campaign account. And one could perceive that -- you know, the perception is reality -- that the reality is the only reason that that development moved forward and the zoning was passed or introduced and the community was wooed into accepting that development is because of the influence of the Councilperson. I'm putting myself in that position because I've been in that position. I'm for this, obviously. I'm a 177 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT co-sponsor. But I'd just like your thoughts on what you think the role of campaign finance reform should be, could be? Is there some linkage here? Because you never get away from that. It is impossible, especially as a District Councilperson who has a district which probably has the most amount of economic development going on and has had for a number years even before I came here and since I've came here, and it's going to continue. Again, it's a good thing. I don't think anyone would take exception to the fact that we're going to build a high-rise residential unit at Eighth and Walnut or we're going to do something along Penns Landing. " I would wish I could do it another way, but without those contributions, I have a 178 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT very difficult time, as the rest of us do, in running a campaign, unless my name is either Goode or Rizzo, then I wouldn't have to raise any money. But my dad was a number writer and those things are gone, so... I don't how I can raise money. Not making light of it, but it is a serious thing for me and has been. I had a fundraiser a couple of weeks ago that some people put together, and a large part of that group were people who do business in my district, who are either business owners or developers.
They've come to me in the past and I know they're going to come to me in the future. Again, it's for a good cause. I'd just like your thoughts as someone who -- and I will end with this -- who at the onset spoke about, you were part of the process. You had been benefited by the process, and you were honest about that and I appreciate it. What are your thoughts?
I absolutely think you need a limit on campaign contributions. There's just no question in my mind. Because 179 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT at the local government level, most folks are not going to give a candidate for City Council or to Mayor or to any other local government position a check for $25,000 unless they expect something. It's just that simple. I don't want to be completely cynical. There are people who contribute to candidates because they believe in them. But for the most part --
Or they're not people who have done business in Philadelphia.
I think the corrupting influence of huge amounts of money -- it is very difficult to believe somebody who raises a contribution of 10, 15, $20,000 to a candidate that they don't expect some favor, they don't expect a phone call, they don't expect to set up meetings and have access. I can't believe it. They want an outcome. They want an end result. All of us who raise money over the years had somebody contribute to a candidate 180 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT and subsequently didn't get that elected official or didn't get a contract they thought they should have gotten. It's not unusual for someone to call you up and say, "I gave all that money to that guy and I didn't get that contract." I think the limit has to be -- I don't know what the magic number is.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Nutter, do you want to call anyone else?
Mr. Chairman, I believe we have testimony from Mr. Ray Zies, the acting Finance Director, who indicated an interest in testifying. Mr. Zies, please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Ray Zies, and I'm the acting Director of Finance for the City of Philadelphia. I'm here to testify on Bill Nos. 040771, 040772, and 040818. 181 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
Thank you. The testimony, I believe, has been circulated. Mr. Zies, do you have some highlights or low-lights?
I think all of us up here have been duly qualified as being able to read. No, not necessarily.
Very well. Mr. Goldsmith, we're delighted to have you here. Would you introduce yourself for the record, Mr. Goldsmith?
Phil Goldsmith, 182 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT Managing Director, City of Philadelphia.
Let me just, if I may, say a few preliminary remarks and then Mr. Zies will testify to the particular legislation. I might like the opportunity to talk to you about what I think some of the pragmatic concerns are from what I see from the Managing Director's position.
Mr. Managing Director, let me just make sure that we're clear on the record. It's clear from the cover page of the testimony, are your comments concerning Bills 040771, 040772 and 040818; would that be correct?
For the most part, yes. I'd just like to, if I may, just say that I appreciate the opportunity to be here and be reminded of the work that this Committee is doing, this Council is doing, along with the Administration, the Mayor, in terms of ethics. 183 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT I have a quote that Oliver Windell Holmes said many years ago. He said, "Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law." I think the work that this Council and this Administration want to do is great work, because I think that there's no question about it, that the body politic out there is looking for an ethical environment within our halls of government. It's also hard work -- not to quote our President, but it's hard work because there's no simple issues. I think as you probably recognize from your own practical experiences and some of the give-and-take that we just had here between Councilman DiCicco and Mr. Singley, that there's so many gray areas. I just hope that in the course of laying out the legislation, Councilman, that you have sponsored and the legislation that the Administration proffered, that we see that there's far more similarities than differences and that we can really end up with a great piece of work and avoid what I'll call bad law happening. And also to avoid that great 184 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT school that we all live with, which is the school of unintended consequences. It's really the unintended consequences that I'm particularly concerned about in the legislation now that we're going to testify because I do believe that it will have a practical impact and perhaps a negative impact on the wheels of government and how quickly we can do certain things. Having said that, I'll give you Mr. Zies to offer the technical discussion.
Good afternoon. The Administration opposes these bills due to the potentially paralyzing impact they would have on how the City contracts for goods and services that are integral to the operation of our government and critical to the human service needs of our citizens. The Home Rule Charter was adopted in 1951 following a comprehensive and thorough study of a reform-minded Charter Commission that removed line item budget authority from the City Council and specified a division of powers between the executive and legislative 185 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT branches that was intended to promote efficient and fair government. The voters amended but once in a span of two years. But in recent years it has been increasingly amended by piecemeal initiatives, not through comprehensive and thorough study. The proposed Charter amendment and the supporting bills would alter the division of authority between the executive and legislative branches and materially harm the efficiency of city government while providing no clear benefit. The bills would usurp the right and responsibility of the executive branch to provide services in a timely, efficient and effective manner by giving the legislative branch the authority to delay or disapprove the majority of over 2,200 City contracts that are awarded each year. These bills would collectively require that City Council consider and pass an additional 1,600 ordinances each year, where presently City Council only enacts roughly 250 ordinances per year. This works out to roughly 43 additional ordinances enacted per 186 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT week that Council is in session. These bills would extend the time toward each of these 1,600 contracts through ordinance by at least days in the best case, when the departments 6 and vendors alike already consider the 7 existing time for award to be too long. 8 The bills would also impose an 9 intractable problem for our Department in that 10 the award of contracts and encumbrances for 11 those contracts concentrated at the turn of 12 the fiscal year in June, July and August, when 13 City Council is out of session for a 14 significant period. 15 City Council was recessed for the first 77 days of this fiscal year. That recess, plus the 28 days that it would take for a contract bill to pass City Council, creates a period of 105 days at the beginning of the fiscal year, one-third of the entire year that no contracts could be approved, while over one-fifth of the supply services and equipment contracts are awarded in July and August in a typical year, while 28 percent of professional services contracts reach the 187 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT encumbrance verification stage in July and August. This would create an unacceptable and unreasonable delay in awarding contracts and providing services at the very time the City has the highest demand to process contracts. Although there are peak periods, such as the beginning of the fiscal year, the many departments involved in City contracts, including Procurement, Finance Law and the Controller's Office and for professional services with all departments in the City are organized to process a regular flow of contracts. There would also be obvious ramifications for emergency services contracts in cases where the City needs unplanned immediate service through contracts. The City would have no option but to hope that City Council is in session and then wait over 21 days for contract approval. One recent example of emergency services contract is boiler and HVAC repairs at City buildings. Our union work rules entitle workers to leave their workstations if 188 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT conditions deviate from certain defined temperatures and standards. Under these bills, if the boiler at One Parkway broke down and the temperature dropped to unacceptable levels, the City would have no choice but to evacuate the building until receiving Council approval for a repair contract.
Mr. Zies. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. But what happened in that particular situation? I mean, other than what happened, the boiler went out?
It was probably Public Property. 189 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
I'm not sure. I don't know the details. I have to get you the details.
Would they just call one company or would they have an emergency bid?
It depends. I don't know. It depends on the circumstances. Is someone here from Procurement.
Mr. Gamble. Mr. Gamble, identify yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: Good afternoon. My name is William Gamble, the Procurement Commissioner.
Are you familiar with the situation? COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: Well, I'm not familiar with this situation in particular. But what happens in an emergency situation, we'll give them the permission to solicit from vendors who have done this work in the past 190 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT and to give us three quotes. In this particular case, probably what we did is that we have a vendor that's working for the building. They would actually give us the quote and do the work itself.
They're already under contract? COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: Already under contract, yes.
So it would seem that the example as laid out may not lead to the cataclysmic consequences that were just relayed to us since you already have someone under contract? COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: Well, if we have someone under contract, yes. But if we don't have one under contract, we would have to go through a different process.
You'd go through a bid process, right? COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: We'd go through a bid, but what we do is that we suspend the vendor or suspend quite a few things. What we do is that we receive quotes 191 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT from them immediately, and then they immediately actually begin work once we receive the quotes.
That would be competitive bid, right? COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: Yes, it's a competitive bid.
That's not covered by this legislation. It's a competitive bid. COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: I don't know.
I'm telling you. A competitive bid is not covered by this.
Yes. That's what happens in the emergencies. You get quotes. It's called a bid. And once it goes to competitive bidding, it's not covered by this legislation. So you can have all the emergency contracts you want. COMMISSIONER GAMBLE: Thank you.
You're welcome. 192 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT Good to see you, Mr. Gamble.
My recollection on that particular incident, I think it was determined that the boiler couldn't be repaired and the sensible thing to do is to let people go, knowing that the boiler is not going to repaired. I don't think it was a lack of having a vendor available to make the repair, because if we don't have a vendor in line ready to respond if a boiler goes out, somebody is mismanaging. I can't imagine being without somebody poised to respond to a repair of a boiler that would break down. It doesn't sound like a person's managing the shop very well if that weren't in place. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No. That was a quite an important factor. Mr. Zies was dead in the middle of the testimony. I deeply 193 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT apologize for cutting across you. Please continue.
Implementation of these bills will not require additional staff time for the reporting requirements and the additional administrative step of routing all contracts and approvals through City Council, but the new advertising requirements of Bill 11 No. 040722 are projected to cost the City over $430,000 per year. This projected cost is based on our current advertising costs per bid for Procurement contracts, multiplied by the 1,500 professional service contracts per year that would have to be advertised twice; one to solicit responses and once more to report on the results of the contracts selection process. In 2001 the Street Administration examined the contracting process and made a policy decision to add additional programmatic and budgetary oversight. The first step in adding additional layers of review was the development of an oversight committee, the 194 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT Contract Review Committee, charged with reviewing all Procurement and professional service contracts. The CRC consists of the Finance Director, Budget Director, Procurement Commissioner, City Solicitor, the Mayor's Deputy Chief of Staff, the director of MBEC and the Managing Director. The CRC reviews most RFPs and contracts City-wide, with the exception of elected and independent officials. Additional review steps include the Information Technology Governing Board, the ITGB, which reviews all IT contracts over $100,000. The ITGB consists of the Mayor's Chief of Staff, the CIO of MOIS, the Finance Director and the Managing Director. All contracts processed through the City's automated contract information system must follow each system workflow step, including department head Commissioner approval, the Office of Budget and Program Evaluation Budget Analysis approval, law draft review, internal negotiations, external negotiations, encumbrance verification from the accounting 195 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT bureau and then approval as to form, initial certification, the department's sign off and conformance. The Administration agrees that the City's process for awarding professional service contracts can be improved. In fact, the Finance Department has been working with the Law Department to develop an executive order to accomplish a more consistent and systematic approach to this process, one that would build in further safeguards and the encouragement of minority participation. My office will continue to work with the Law Department to revise and issue this process administratively. Finally, it is my understanding that the ballot question may not be legally correct because it has too many separate issues and amendments in one question. This concludes my testimony. We will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you, Mr. 196 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT Chairman. And having said that, you'd also like to comment on my hairstyle too. First of all, I really do respect you a great deal and admire your work and your service. And you get the continued benefit of the good blessings of the Janice Davis treatment. But don't wear it out.
I just have two things. On you talk about the awarding of professional services contracts can be improved. I'm not going to ask you to answer that question, but I would like you to forward an answer to the Chair or a response to the Chair from your perspective of how the awarding of professional contracts can be improved based on your statement and the testimony. Second, I've noticed -- and maybe some of my colleagues have as well -- there seems to be a particular flurry here recently of executive orders being issued for a variety of issues. Now you're working with the Law Department to develop a new executive order to 197 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT accomplish a more consistent and systemic approach to this process, one that would build in further safeguards and encouragement of minority participation. Why don't you send us a bill? Why are you doing another executive order?
Because we wanted to do it administratively through the executive branch.
That is an example of, I assume, the Mayor's cooperation with the City Council.
That would be correct, Councilman Cohen. Lastly, Mr. Zies, I know that I could ask you at a moment's notice for the debt service on any amount of money over any period of time, and in about two minutes you could give me an answer. But your last comment -- I'm not aware -- but you can share with us on the record that you have not only an excellent financial background and expertise, but you've also been moonlighting on the side in the law? 198 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
That was a comment that was forwarded to me by the Law Department.
What I took from your testimony -- you don't even really have to respond because the other Michael Nutter showed up today for this part of the hearing. What I took out of the 10 pages of the testimony is, the bottom line is, this measure would take too much time to actually do contracts, there's too much advertising, there's too much work for City Council and there's too much involvement by City Council; does that fairly well sum up?
Lastly, I was struck by through 10 pages of testimony, there 199 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT was no comment whatsoever on the other provision in the bill regarding the campaign contribution limits on no-bid contracts. Why do you have no comment on that?
I'll have some other questions for you subsequent to this hearing based on the testimony, but we don't have to torture each other. At the moment I'm just not up for it today.
Councilman, if I can, a couple points. Campaign contribution is an important issue, and I think the Mayor's position has been well known. He thinks it should be done statewide, and I think Senator Hughes, today as a matter of fact, with some other sponsors is introducing legislation in Harrisburg. 200 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
I understand that, Mr. Goldsmith. But this is not about the regulation of across the board campaign contributions. This is about regulations related to a process that this City is in complete total control of, which is our no-bid contracting process or the issuing of professional services contracts. With every respect to the legislature or the Governor, I would suggest that we don't need Harrisburg to do anything about this particular issue. You can pursue statewide campaign finance reform all day long and all night long, but that has nothing to do with this particular issue. It's governed by the City. It's controlled by the City. I do find it slightly interesting that in an environment where from time to time there are great howls in these halls about the interference by the Commonwealth in the City's business, why we would not take all the steps that we can to control our affairs at the level that we can. If we want to pursue other loftier goals, that's certainly fine, but we 201 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT should always do for ourselves what we can and only ask the other bodies to do for us those things we cannot do for ourselves.
I understand that. A couple points I'd like to make, if I may. Some of the executive orders that I'm familiar with, one was creating a codifying behavioral health services, which we think is an important step for the City and we brought in a national person to run that. We are also -- I think it's been announced, but we haven't finished it yet -- a drug and alcohol policy for those employees that under the executive branch we would obviously be delighted if Council would pass one that included all non-unionized employees. We're negotiating. We got that with 47. We're doing that with 33 hopefully. We think what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Nothing would makes us happier than to have that will all employees, not just executive employees. I want to go back to the emergency provisions here because the tenure of my 202 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT comments is that we be careful what we do. I always get nervous. While I'm a lawyer, I don't practice because I don't have malpractice insurance. But I get nervous when we try to do too much in the City Charter, because the City Charter can be rigid over time. While we think it's a good document, when something is first done, it doesn't give us flexibility. I think the challenge with your Committee is to allow us to get at the issues you're striving to get at while giving us the flexibility to run government in an effective manner and make it more effective.
I understand that. Let me try to address that point. The provisions that you're talking about and that I'm sure you're mostly concerned with come from Bill No. 040772. That's an ordinance. The Charter change merely allows us to have the authority to then proscribe in these areas. So I would suggest to you that you're not locked into whatever you might perceive to be onerous or the potential consequences of mass destruction or 203 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT unintended consequences.
I was a Charter member of that institution. So I think that you've got Charter changes that allow us to legislate in a particular area. And then you have a bill 10 that over time, if we find that we have problems or issues that arise, i think this legislative body, notwithstanding the concern that we are barely around or can't respond to issues as they arise, you know, we're here on a pretty regular basis.
Again, I just caution that whatever we do recognizes what we as a City have to deal with from time to time. I'm looking at Councilman Cohen and I remember Ogontz and Olney. We had to do some emergency work there. I can't tell you whether we got bids on that or so forth. We can find that out. But I know that wasn't something we were going to sit back and wait on. 204 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT There's frequent times where we have to get cots for the homeless because we have cold spell and we don't have cots. Last year we had to get a specialized part fleet management on some of our snow plow equipment. We could not go with our existing contract. Last year we had an issue with one of our salt vendors who went out of business. And we had a pretty tough year. We had to get an emergency contract out of New York. So these are just the day-to-day things, including the abatement of dangerous properties. We've done emergency repairs. All I'm saying is that we be cautious about what we craft, how we craft it and make sure that we don't get into the unintended consequences. I might say that the private sector is going sort of the opposite of what we are, which is just in time inventory and things like that. I think that in some cases, even though we have an existing contract, if we go above a certain amount, we would have to come 205 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT back to Council. That vitiates some of the competitive bidding process. Again, I just would be cautious of what we're doing.
I appreciate your concern and I want to assure you that I took this matter very seriously. It's my understanding the Law Department has issued guidelines to our departments, specifically dealing with emergency contract situations. There are a variety of steps that can be waived under emergency circumstances. More directly, I have no interest at all affirmatively or by mistake in interfering with the government's ability to respond to emergency situations. On the other hand, as the testimony lays out, whether it's 2,200 total contracts or 1,600 ordinances that might have to come to this body, I would have to believe that the overwhelming majority of those contracts are probably not in an emergency category. Children will not go without services or food or other disastrous situations that would arise as a result of any these contracts being 206 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT looked at or examined by the legislative body of this City that has a budgetary responsibility, that has an obligation to the taxpayers to see what's going on. Quite honestly, I don't see anything wrong with advertising these contracts. I understand there might be a view that doesn't bring you additional people. But it opens the process. People know what's going on. And in this environment, as we've discussed earlier, I think that's what needed under these circumstances and gets to the heart of many of the issues that my colleague and the Chair of this Committee has expressed a great deal of concern about.
I understand that. And as I said when I began, I hope that we can come up with a package that makes sense.
How can we when the Mayor explicitly excludes City Council? He says plainly in the letter that he's going to pay attention only to his views and the Law Department's views. He's going to craft them together. 207 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
Councilman, I think that we have submitted our own legislation. I think one of the concerns I had was that they're being dealt with separately because it creates an us versus them. Looking at Councilman Kenney, we had a great hearing the other day on public safety. We came and said what we're doing is a major issue. Ethics in this City is a major issue. These things should be looked at and how we weave them together that make the best sense as opposed to one that's --
Then why doesn't he put in his letter, of course we will be willing to work with City Council and we're arranging a meeting between the three departments? Why does he make it clear that he wants us to butt out of the case?
Well, it has nothing to do with me and that Mayor. Please read that statement, about how he's going to continue to craft. Would you read that, sir? 208 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT The part of your letter which stated the Mayor's intention as to how he's going to deal with it. He said he will continue to work with a department.
"The Administration agrees that the City's process for awarding professional services contracts can be improved. In fact, the Finance Department has been working with the Law Department to develop an executive order to accomplish a more consistent and systematic approach to this process."
"One that will build in further safeguards and encouragement of minority participation. My office will continue to work with the Law Department to revise this process administratively."
Not a word about working with City Council. Completely excluding City Council. There's no merit to any of the Mayor's suggestions.
I just think these issues are so important that they shouldn't -- 209 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
I think ethics in the City of Philadelphia is an important issue. I commend the Committee for doing it. I just don't think it should be done in a, you know, we got this set over here and this set over here. I think we're so close it would be a shame.
Mr. Goldsmith, I do have to speak up on that particular issue. I introduced two bills which are now not before us because I revised them on March 18, 2004. It was a board of ethics and a code of ethics. From that day to September 23, 2004, when I introduced two new bills on a board of ethics and a code of ethics, and then another bill on contracts on which you're speaking and a couple of other bills, from March 18th to September 23rd to now, November 9th, there has been not one word of conversation, discussion, collaboration, working together or anything from the Administration. What I've received is reports 210 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT of every possible effort up to and including through today to undermine, be deceptive, turn things around, pit people against each other and engage in a game. This is not game. It's very serious business. I take this very seriously. I try not to take myself to seriously, but I take the work seriously. Ethics are very important. We've had a good hearing here. We've had good witnesses here. A lot of people have done a lot of research and taken a lot of time. So I appreciate your views about collaboration. It takes two. I'm here every day, ready to work, ready to talk under any set of circumstances. That has not happened.
I just want to make sure that both sides of that discussion are clear.
The Committee will stand in recess until Tuesday morning --
Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman, respectfully. 211 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT
It's the last witness. I've got some amendments. We're in the middle a discussion.
I don't think there's any point in continuing this. I can't call it a conversation because it isn't one.
Well, I understand that. I'm not interested in a back and forth with Mr. Goldsmith. I'm finished with that, but I want to complete the process that got started this morning. I do have some amendments to a variety of these bills based on the testimony and suggestions that were made by a number of individuals. That's one. Two, other than Councilman Mariano, who I think his jacket is still here, Members have sat, they've asked questions. They've been fully participatory in this process. Now, you and I have had some discussion about this, and I don't know all of the details, but I'm trying to understand why we can't complete our business on these particular bills today 212 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT as I had asked. Members on the Committee, I believe, many, some, are prepared to take some form of action.
Because I pledge not to take action today because the opposition also has a right to be heard and to have their bills considered before there's a vote.
There's a hearing on Tuesday, Councilman, in front of the same Committee and in front of the same Members.
The Chairman of the Committee determines when a Committee is ready to meet and vote on an issue. In my judgment we're not ready to meet until we listen to the Mayor's proposals. He's introduced contrary proposals. After the two proposals before us, there will be an opportunity to discuss those things.
I understand that, and I appreciate that. And I know there's a hearing on Tuesday. But I would only respectfully suggest, Councilman, that, 213 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT putting myself aside -- obviously I have a vested interest -- but I would at least ask if the Chair would give some amount of consideration -- and I don't want to say respect, so I'll leave it at consideration -- to any of the other Members on the Committee who have listened to all of the same testimony, who on their own are able to read any other piece of legislation that may be pending before this Committee.
All right. Then are you going to introduce the bills or am I going to recess the Committee? Do you want to introduce your amendments?
I do want to introduce my amendments and I'd like to get them voted on.
Well, then introduce them. This is the time, or the hearing will be recessed.
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that in order to deal with the amendments we would need to go into the public meeting portion. There are 214 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT four amendments, four different amendments. Mr. Chairman, I was only suggesting that we are in the public hearing. I'd like to move into the public meeting in order to more formally put forward these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, there is one page that's being circulated with regard to Resolution No. 040817. There was, unfortunately, a typo upon its introduction. It's on , letter E. The sentence presently reads, "an amount at least equal to 1 percent." The sentence should read, "an amount at least equal to one-tenth of 1 percent," in that section. And based on the testimony earlier, Mr. Chairman, I made a note to myself. Unfortunately it is not in a written form, but I can read it to you. It is from , Letter E. "Prohibited activities in the same bill." The end of that paragraph that starts, "where no person while serving as a member of 215 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT the board of ethics," at the end it should say, "or participate in any election for City office or make financial contributions to any candidate for any City office or to any incumbent City official." In Paragraph G, "Executive Director, Council, and staff." The sentence that reads, "the authority of the Council shall be defined in writing by the Board provided that neither," insert, "the Executive Director," and continue with, "The Council." Last amendment is continuing in that same sentence, where it reads, "shall be authorized the issue advisory opinions, promulgate rules, issue subpoenas, issue final determinations of ethics violations or make binding recommendations of or impose civil penalties." Insert, comma, "unless specifically authorized by the Board." Those are the three amendments, Mr. Chairman, for Resolution No. 040817.
No, Mr. 216 11/10/04 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT Chairman. That is just for that particular resolution.