And let me add something that's not in the printed testimony, and that's to say that I think that a measure of this nature could and should be considered by the Tax Reform Commission as they look at the various issues relating to future taxation in Philadelphia. They could take a look at what's happening elsewhere, what's been successful, what hasn't been, as they do their reviews of tax rates and appropriate areas for taxation. And so I would suggest that this matter be deferred at this time to have some additional input from the Commission as they go about their deliberations. This completes my testimony, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Commissioner. 82 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 We're told that the system proposed is built on the structure of the one in Allegheny County. Does the City have any experience with that?
The Board of Revision may, but from Revenue, we have not had any direct experience with that.
Just a couple things, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Kammerdeiner, thank you very much for your testimony. I do hear your concerns, and I know you to be an experienced and nowhere-near-naive person. Your testimony on talks about the people making initial assessments and the people hearing appeals from those assessments would be directly beholden to future Mayors or Members of Council for their jobs. Who are the people accountable to at the moment? I mean, they are on our payroll and the Board of Revision of Taxes comes here for budget hearings every year. How would their status change as a result of this?
As I said further on 83 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 in the testimony, I see a potentially -- particularly in that Office of Property Assessment, for an increased number of exempt employees where they would serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
And I knew you would say that, so hold it right there. One, we don't appoint anybody on the executive branch of the government, so you can take us out of that part of the process. Two, are you saying that whoever is the Managing Director at the time at the direction of the Mayor is going to hire a whole bunch of people in that office; is that what your concern is?
The reason I included Council in it as well, the Boards would be approved -- I'm trying to think of which Board it is by name. The Appeals Board would be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Council. And in the case of the Oversight Board, one would be appointed by the Mayor, one by the President of City Council, and the 84 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 third with the approval of City Council -- by the Mayor with the approval of City Council. So there would be some direct role and relationship there between the appointment and the approval of Council.
Are you aware of any department, board, or commission in the City of Philadelphia that this City Council, the last City Council, inappropriately influenced in the function of their business, forced the Administration to hire people, ran roughshod over what that organization was legislatively or statutorily composed for?
And on , again, you say you're deeply concern that the public will lose any remaining faith they have in the assessment process once it is clear that the people who do the assessments report to the Mayor and the people who review the appeals have their assessments have their positions thanks to the Mayor and Members of City Council. Commissioner, are you aware of any person over at the Board of Revision of Taxes who has received their job as a result of input, influence, or request by me? 85 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
Lastly, this is from your testimony, "No part of the government can and should be completely isolated from politics, but the current system under which BRT members are appointed by the Board of Judges creates a degree of separation from executive and legislative politics that is desirable and has proven to be effective." Again, I certainly believe in a level of independence which is one why -- I mean, the Mayor would nominate, the Council would advise and consent, and then we provide for terms of office and removal only for cause. I mean, that's a fairly high standard in the government. And I think you really have to screw up badly -- which is in an appropriate term for this record -- or do something illegal to get removed.
I don't think you enjoy the same level of either independence or protection yourself, do you?
No, I serve at the 86 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 pleasure of my appointing authority.
And you've done an excellent job and you actually survived transition from one Administration to the next without, to my knowledge, any complaint from anybody, right?
I think a couple of the things that I've mentioned in here you are dealing with in your amendments.
Let me ask you one last question. Councilman DiCicco and I were talking about this. Ultimately, though, in terms of independence, accountability, who's doing what with whom, how the system is functioning and operating, I mean, isn't this the kind of decision that the taxpayers should have an opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of system they want and how they want things to operate and function? I mean, it's a question on the ballot. Aren't our citizens smart enough to figure out all the vagaries here?
It's difficult to answer that simply because they get such a very 87 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 short question on the ballot, and I'm not sure that most voters when they actually go to the polls know enough about the background and the issues relating to any of the questions. I'm not just commenting on this one when I say that. And so it can be difficult for individual citizens to become well enough informed to make a very good judgement about an issue like that.
Well, we all have our duties and responsibilities. We're having a duly advertised public hearing. The bills were introduced early this year. The voters knew enough to send a Charter Commission that had extensive hearings and 64 different items. They figured that one out pretty quickly and sent it down in flames, I think, 4 to 1. I mean, I think sometimes all of us find ourselves in a situation where we can possibly underestimate where the voters are and what they're thinking about and what's important to them. This is a serious pocketbook issue here.
The measure went down to defeat 6 to 1. It showed how much the people --
A few more people figured it out than I had thought. 88 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
I'm not saying it's impossible. We just need to be sure they have enough information about the measure to be sure that they can make the kind of informed judgment you are referencing.
I understand. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I do appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your comment that we had sought to address some of the concerns you had even by the amendments. Thank you.
Any other questions by Members of the Committee? (No response.)
I had one question. I note that no where in your statement did you state that this would be more expensive to the taxpayer.
It's very difficult to tell whether there would be more employees required under this structure than the existing number of employees. If that would be the case, then it could be more expensive. It's difficult for me to tell from what is here. It appears that the 89 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 existing employees would transfer and that additional staff wouldn't be required, but we didn't comment on it because we weren't certain.
I'm sorry, Commissioner, I didn't hear the first part. You think that there would be a need for more staff?
It was a question. I said we really couldn't tell from what was here whether there would be need for more staff than just transferring the existing staff, and we hadn't commented on any additional cost because we couldn't tell if there would be any.
Well, I appreciate your response, but the Bill is not a budget Bill. The Bill is an organization Bill, and all staffing decisions are made as a function of the budget process and putting in the necessary requests.
Okay. I mean, no 22 one's getting anything more or less generally than what they have today. If any of these entities believe that they need more money, then God bless them when they have a conversation with Rob Dubow 90 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 and Ms. Davis about trying to get an increase to their staff. I wish them well.
We really weren't treating it as a budget Bill and that's why it wasn't addressed in the testimony.
Commissioner, I've never had more criticism as a Member of City Council with respect with the way the City operated than I had this past season with respect to the property tax increases proposed. When I explain that the Board members were named by the judges, people looked astounded, what the judges have to do with naming members of a board. People wanted to know how this could happen without Council being fully involved. I know efforts by Councilmembers, including myself, to try to get information met with no success. I think it was very clear that the people of Philadelphia were very unhappy with the action taken and with response to questions raised by citizens. They were very unhappy with the responses they were getting. It seems to me that this seems to be an effort to move in the direction of objectivity of putting responsibility where it 91 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 belongs. I don't shy from responsibility where I have a responsibility, but to be held responsible by citizens and taxpayers for something that nobody even knows about the process, such as the current method, seems to me to be not a very responsible way of having government operate. So it seems to me that this system which, as far as I know, has been criticized for many years has suddenly found new support by the Administration and you believe that this is the best of all methods, the one that we now have?
I'm not saying it's necessarily the best of all methods, but I would question whether the one that's been proposed would really in the long run provide a better product.
Well, we may not know that finally until we get a number of years of experience, of course. But on the surface, it would certainly seem to give the appearance of forms of objectivity. Mayors and Councilmembers are elected by the public. If we do a bad job, the public has a quick answer; every four years they go to the polls and vote on us. They don't know how to do it to the judges. I can be hardly accused of wanting to be 92 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 unfair to the judges since I have a son who is one of them. I'm not trying to hurt the group of which he's a part. But it just seems to me that political responsibility has to lie with those of us who are politicians in the sense that we get elected by the people and are expected to carry out sometimes duties that are not only onerous but maybe unpleasant, such as raising taxes. I don't sense in your statements anything of solid substance and objection to this proposal to assist and which badly seems to need change. I do agree with you, present members of the Board have tried to use their system in as fair a way as they could, but I think the difficulty has been that they don't have what's necessary to work with. And I believe that this amendment gives a structure where people fit in well, where the public can be assured that if the assessor was originally misguided for some reason or unfair to them, they have another objective group unconnected with the first group that is reviewing it. And finally, there's still the third group which is going to act as judges. I think that's a pretty fair system, as we view political systems in the United States. 93 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621 Don't you think that's fair to have different independent groups considering whether an assessment is appropriate?
In many instances, that is the most appropriate way to go. At the Board of Revision of Taxes, they have actually divided their duties into two different segments and two different portions of the office actually perform those functions. One feeds into the another. So I think even within the same organization you have much of the same kind of separation, even though the final authority, the top person, the Chairman of the Board, is responsible for both. So you have some degree of separation even within the current system.
I think it's good to have this kind of exchange. But I do feel that the voters are going to have to be the ones that make the ultimate decision. Is there any other question by any Member of the Committee. (No response.)
If not, is there any additional witness on the subject? 94 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020621
No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you might want to have the Law Department back up to talk about --
Would you please go to the speakers' panel? Would you both introduce yourself and spell your last names for the reporter.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Feder, F-E-D-E-R. I'm the Chief Deputy City Solicitor for Legislation and Appeals. And with me on my left is Craig Gottlieb, G-O-T-T-L-I-E-B. He's a Deputy City Solicitor, and he's worked with me on the particular ordinance that you're interesting in.
Mr. Feder, I asked that someone from Law Department, I'm pleased it's you, were here to explain a Bill and Resolution 22 proposing a Home Rule Charter change that we had completed testimony on. I'm going to open the record for purpose of including this testimony. Would you state the Bill and Resolution, 95 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 Mr. Shapiro?
Bills No. 030097 and 030098 and Resolution 030106 dealing with local preferences for bidders and contractors.
They are bills relating to the City of Philadelphia awarding of contracts giving some form of a preference to Philadelphia businesses to make up basically for the disadvantage of additional costs that may be involved in doing business in the City of Philadelphia. I raise the question as to its applicability to the agencies that do business on behalf of the City of Philadelphia. Although, they may be operating under laws that were passed by the Commonwealth, and wanted to know whether the law could be applicable to them. I was told that probably not, that this would only cover the direct City of Philadelphia agencies. I then raised the question of whether or not these agencies who are organized under state laws entered into contracts with the City of Philadelphia and whether such contracts could contain contractual provisions requiring those agencies as a condition of the contract with the 96 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 City of Philadelphia to obey specifically the provisions, say, if this Home Rule Charter amendment were adopted. I was told that the Director of Commerce, that he personally would support such an action but did not know whether or not it would be effective. And so I wanted to get the view of the Law Department on that. Do you have an opinion as to that? Has anybody raised that issue with the Law Department before?
I don't believe I've looked into that issue specifically. I can definitively answer some of your questions, and let me discuss the other part. As written, this Ordinance and Charter change would not cover those agencies. As written, this Ordinance and Charter change would only provide for a local preference on City contracts, competitively bid contracts which are directly let by the City; it would not cover any of the agencies that you're talking about. Could we amend the Charter or could we provide for that? I think the answer to that would largely depend on each individual authority's 97 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 enabling legislation. For example, there may be out there some supervening state law which requires, say, the RDA -- and I'm just using that as an example -- which may require that the RDA competitively bid all its contracts. If there is a state law out there that says the RDA must competitively bid its contracts, then nothing that we could do could override that state law. If, however, there is no preexisting state law that imposing that requirement, then I would think that the City could in a voluntary contractual arrangement, the way you've described, Mr. Chairman, could insist upon that as part of a condition of doing business with the City.
Well, what brought this matter directly to my attention was that a number of years ago the City imposed an ethics requirement upon those of us who hold City offices. Then a number of the authorities hired, I believe, some of the most expensive and, therefore, in the opinion of most people, the best lawyers in town. And although they spend all their time on City business, they were not City employees, were not bound by the City ethics decision. Do you recollect 98 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 that, Mr. Feder? I think you were probably working for the City at time.
I actually do not recollect it, but that may be because I am not one of the more expensive lawyers that you're referring to. My services are much cheaper than that. I don't recall it, Mr. Chairman.
Well, how would we get an opinion from the City Solicitor with respect to all of the authorities whose business solely deals with work involving the City of Philadelphia, like PHA, like PAID, like PCDC, like all the agencies that the Mayor usually controls through the power of appointment to the Boards, sometimes with City Council approval of nominees, sometimes without that? Could we get the Law Department to issue an opinion and indicate where that might be possible.
We could certainly look into that. Yes, we could look into that and we will get you an opinion on that.
I would very much 99 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILLS 030097, 030098, RES. 030106 appreciate it if it were preferable you could consider this as a request by me for such an opinion. Secondly, with respect to the current Bill and Resolution before us introduced by Councilman Nutter relating to the revisions in what now constitutes the Board of Revision of Taxes. It's been explained to us that what we're doing is consolidating something which we have the power to consolidate. Would that be the opinion of the City Solicitor's Office? Is this action legally permissible for us to take?
Yes, Councilman. I think you could make an argument that there might be a way to do it by Charter change, but we think there's also a good argument that you could do it the way that Councilman Nutter's proposal would do it, by City-County Consolidation amendment.
I have no other questions. Any Member of the committee here? (No response.)
All right. Thank you very much for your courtesy and attending so 100 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 promptly.
Is any other witness to be heard on the Board of Revision of Taxes proposal for change? (No response.)
If not, that concludes testimony on that Bill. Is there anything else before this committee this afternoon? Councilman Nutter, you have a Bill on redistricting?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my name is Michael A. Nutter, N-U-T-T-E-R. I'm here to testify with regard to Resolution 020084 and the companion Bill 22 whose number I don't know or remember.
020076. Mr. Chairman, this is a proposed changed to the method 101 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 of redistricting and actually, I believe, Mr. Chairman, creates for the first time an actual process and procedure that Council would follow in conducting the redistricting process. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the City Charter is silent on the issue of how Council should conduct redistricting. And the Charter simply says that it shall be the mandatory duty of the Council to redistrict the City within six months after the publication by United States Census Bureau of the population at each decennial census. It further tells us that it must consist of a ward or contiguous wards or divisions of wards containing as nearly as possible the population factor obtained by dividing the City's population at the proceeding decennial census by 10. There's also a provision that says that at the expiration of the six-month period, if Council shall have failed to redistrict the City as herein required, the Councilmen shall not receive any further salaries until the Council shall have passed and the Mayor shall have approved a redistricting ordinance as herein required or until such ordinance shall have become law without the 102 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 Mayor's approval. Mr. Chairman, your experience is longer than mine, but in my relatively short time, I have experienced two redistricting processes. One when a class of seven new Councilmembers came in in 1972 and now most recently in 2002. In both of those instances, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this City Council had not conducted the redistricting process within the six-month period. And when I arrived in City Council in 1992, Council was presently not being paid, having not redistricted from the 1990 census within the required time period. And then after the most recent census, this Council went without pay for four and a half months as a result of a protracted multi-Bill process, resulting in acrimony and contention for the balance of 2001 and virtually all of 2002, and we actually did not finish the redistricting process until a final Bill was introduced in December 2002, which was actually signed by the Mayor on February 12, 2003, six days before petitions began to circulate for the 2003 election. This Bill, Mr. Chairman and Members of 103 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 the Committee, does at least three things: One, it removes the no-pay provision from the City Charter. And so Councilmembers in the future -- and none of this will affect of the current Mayor to the best of my knowledge and ability because there should be a different person in office by the time the next redistricting process takes place. So from my perspective, at least, this Bill has nothing to do with current Mayor Street. It removes the withholding of the salary provision from the Bill. It also ensures, in accordance with what I believe the Charter was designed to do when it says, "It shall mandatory duty of the Council," this Bill 15 ensures that the redistricting process is within the Council's purview and authority and removes the Mayor from direct involvement in the redistricting process because the redistricting would be accomplished by a plan through a Resolution as opposed to an Ordinance. My office has conducted a survey, Mr. Chairman, of the 10 largest cities in the United States of America and their redistricting processes. I believe the chart has been distributed. And what you will find on the two points that I raised, Mr. 104 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 Chairman, or at least the three points that I raised, both a process, the issue of the Mayor's role, and the impact of what happens if you don't pass a redistricting Bill within a required time period.
First, in most other cities in the United States of America, these top cities, they 9 accomplish redistricting either through a commission 10 or an ordinance of the Council but over which, with the exception of one city, the Mayor has no veto. And so when you look at New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas, and Detroit, almost all of those cities have a commission made up of a variety of people normally appointed by the Council, either a majority of them or a significant number. In only one other City does the Mayor have veto power, that is in Los Angeles. Our research indicates that that veto has never been exercised in modern times. There is only one city in the United States, one city of the top 10 cities in the United States of America that has a penalty directly to the Members of Council for not passing a redistricting Bill within a set time period. That would be the City of Philadelphia. No 105 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 other City in the top in the country has such a provision, with the exception of us. Let me do an overview of the Bill and then walk through it and be prepared to answer any questions. Under this proposed Charter change, there would be a Council Redistricting Committee and the development of a Redistricting Plan actually modeled after a process that our Council President Verna sought to establish in the last redistricting endeavor. Within 30 days after publication of the decennial census by the Census Bureau, the Council President must convene a Council Redistricting Committee. This committee consists of the Council President, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and one At-Large Member appointed by the Council President. Of course, there is no prohibition if any of the members of the four leadership posts happen to be a member At-Large. That does not affect the requirement to have at least one member At-Large appointed by the Council President. The Redistricting Committee is charged with developing a proposed Redistricting Plan. In 106 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 performing this task, the Committee shall seek suggestions from all Members of Council and make all technical assistance and computer services available to any Member of Council. Also, at least one public hearing is required to solicit comments from the public. After that, the Committee prepares a proposed Redistricting Plan in the form of a written report which must include a proposed Redistricting Resolution with a listing of the wards and divisions for each proposed new district, a map depicting the proposed new districts, and any other data or material that will assist Council in reviewing and evaluating the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan is transmitted to each Member of Council and filed with the Chief Clerk. Upon its filing with the Chief Clerk, the proposed Redistricting Resolution will be deemed as having been introduced and referred automatically to the Committee of the Whole. Then there is a separate process for the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole process involves an approval or disapproval of the redistricting Resolution. After introduction and referral, the Committee of the Whole must hold a 107 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 public hearing on the proposed redistricting Resolution for which a 15-day notice is required. The Committee reports the Resolution out of Committee with a recommendation to either adopt or reject the plan. No amendments can be made in Committee. The Committee report is read at a Council meeting and a Resolution must lay over for at least five days. The full Council then votes to approve or disapprove the Resolution. No floor amendments can be made. If approved by two-thirds vote of the full Council, the Redistricting Plan automatically becomes law.
If disapproved, the Redistricting Committee reconvenes and prepares a revised Redistricting Plan and Resolution similar to the process that was already laid out. Councilmembers may make recommendations which must be considered by the Redistricting Committee in the form of a Resolution. Such Resolution requires a two-thirds vote of Council and must contain the same information that is required for the Redistricting Plan and report. That naturally goes back to the Redistricting Plan Committee. The Redistricting Plan Committee in sending out its report must be 108 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 signed by at least three members of the Redistricting Committee as a recommendation to the full Council. That in shorter version, Mr. Chairman, are the provisions of the proposed Charter change creating a new process which has a start and an end to the redistricting process, but becomes a Council process because, at least from my perspective, redistricting is a legislative matter as it is conducted by, again, at least all of the rest of the top 10 cities in the country, as it is conducted by the General Assembly and as it is conducted on behalf of the Congress. In normal circumstances, the Executive is not involved in the redistricting process because generally the Executive is not affected by a redistricting process. It is a legislative process and purview, at least by my belief. Mr. Chairman, I'd be certainly prepared to respond to any questions that members may have.
Thank you. First, I just have a few comments. When the Home Rule Charter was created late in the '40s and put into effect in the early 109 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 '50s, it was a document aimed at correcting what appeared to be excesses by former Councilmembers or Council bodies. So that Council was a villain and that's the reason we went in the direction of having a working government controlled largely by the Mayor. That's the foundation of a strong Mayor form of government. And as so often happens, it seems to me happened in this case, the over-correction was made because it was assumed the Mayor would always be a non-political soul while the Councilmembers were just going to be political beings who could not be trusted, even in your own sight of the electorate, you still couldn't be trusted. Therefore, this very arbitrary provision was inserted which punished Councilmembers, even though it could be the Mayor who would be the main source of the problem in redistricting. So the Mayor free, under our Home Rule Charter, to have the penalty of non-payment of salary, creating all kinds of problems for Councilmembers, not limited to their lack of funds in the current period when they were not paid, but which could extend to their tax liability into the future. The Mayor was free to continue to veto until finally Council was forced to 110 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 capitulate or otherwise found a way of agreement. I think any change would be better than the current change because, in my opinion, the main difficulty in this situation occurred in this recent period of time was that of the Mayor as use of the veto to create a situation in which he maintained his salary. At least fairness would have required the Mayor to have voluntarily abstained from accepting his salary during the same period he was opposing it upon the Councilmembers. But that did not happen. Therefore, I think the recommendations you're making are aimed at, at least, correcting that unfairness. It also sets forth a procedure. I have one question about the procedure. Does successful redistricting require at some point the approval two-thirds of Members of City Council?
What happens if Council is so split that it's just impossible to get two-thirds over a continuing period of time? Is there a safety clause which says that after the third or fourth or fifth time or whatever time chosen, if Council is still split that there may be 111 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 some other method other than the two-thirds requirement? Or does the old redistricting just continue in effect?
Redistricting would continue, but we are also faced, of course, Mr. Chairman, with the prospect of if we don't conduct the redistricting certainly by the election, there are remedies provided at law to ensure that the redistricting is conducted properly under various State statutes. Certainly, anyone could take this matter to court. The ultimate result there would actually be the courts would determine what the redistricting boundaries would be, and would seem to me, unless Council had completely lost its collective mind, we would certainly not want the courts -- no disrespect to the courts. Since we've demonstrated the ability to go without pay for four and a half months, I think the jury is come in on that one.
Right. Well, at least they'd actually do something. So the ultimate remedy in this particular situation is that there is 112 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020076, RES. 020084 a requirement under the Charter to conduct the redistricting by a certain date. The taxpayers would have the same remedy as they have for any other violation of the City Charter. In this particular provision, Mr. Chairman, the section 7 reads, "It shall be the manditory duty of the Council to redistrict the City in accordance with the procedure set forth in this section within the calendar year that follows the calendar year of publication of the United States Census." At that point, if we have violated that particular provision of the Charter, any taxpayer or Councilmembers could seek redress in the courts because you then have a violation of the Home Rule Charter.
Very good. If there are no questions by Members of the Committee, is there any other witness who wishes to be heard on the subject? Any questions? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 113 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817
That concludes the public testimony on the Bill and Resolution. Are any other matters before the committee?
The Committee will stand in recess for two minutes so a determination is made on the best method of handling the proposal by Councilman Kenney. (Brief recess.)
The Law and Government Committee now is now in Session again for the purpose of hearing Bill No. --
They both cover the same matter because it's a Home Rule Charter amendment?
Councilman Kenney, would you be good enough to give us an explanation of the Bill and Resolution?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Bill is an ordinance providing for 114 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia an amendment to Section 6-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to authorized audits by the Auditing Department, which is the City Controller, of certain agencies performing services or receiving funding from the City as approved by Resolution of the City Council, and it also fixes the date of the special election for such purpose proscribing the form of ballot question to be voted on and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for this special election. We had previously had scheduled a hearing for this. It was, I think, the day of or the day after one of our many snowstorms this winter; and for that reason, the Controller was not able to appear. The Controller is not here today, but has sent a letter which we will give to the stenographer for the record which indicates his support for the measure. And let me read one pertinent paragraph from the Controller's response which I think is one of the reasons -- I know it's one of the reasons why I've decided this ballot question or this Charter change to be considered by 115 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 the voters. It says, "The framers of our Charter could not have imagined the degree to which ordinary municipal functions had been shifted over time from government to quasi-government. The proposed legislation seeks to bring needed scrutiny to this reality." As a mater of fact, as many of us know, over time we've had many quasi-governmental agencies throughout the City performing functions that were formerly formed by City departments. And because of the lack of approval or the lack of authority for the Controller to audit certain quasi-governmental agencies like PIDC, PHA, and other organizations that had been set up through the course of time to facilitate government or to move the functions of government from a department to a quasi-government agency, the Controller has been rebuffed in his attempts at trying to audit those agencies. We felt that it would be appropriate since tax dollars are being used and being transferred on a regular basis to these quasi-governmental agencies that the Controller have the ability to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent in appropriate fashion. It just allows the Controller to shed some 116 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 light and to do some auditing for these agencies so that we could make sure the taxpayer is being treated fairly and these agencies are performing the functions that they say they're performing for the dollars that are being sent over there. So there are a number of minor amendments which were worked on by Mr. Shapiro and tech staff, also with the City Solicitor's Office. And those amendments have been circulated to the Members of the Committee. Basically, the amendments tighten up some of the language, make it clear which specific quasi-governmental agencies are intended to be -- have the potential of being audited by the City Controller. So that's basically all I have to say. I'm hoping that the Committee -- I'm not a Member of the Committee -- that the Committee will support this attempt to bring more scrutiny and more accountability to these agencies on the part of the taxpayers.
Thank you, Councilman Kenney. Are there any questions? (No response.)
Seems like an idea 117 LAW & GOVERNMENT - BILL 020810, RES. 020817 that should have been done many years ago.
I think it's a very good idea and that's why I would sponsor the Bill.
Any questions from any Members of the Committee of Councilman Kenney or any comments? (No response.)
If not, the hearing will be closed on that Bill and accompanying Resolution. Does that complete the business of the Committee today of the public hearing part of the Committee?
Then I will adjourn the public hearing. - - - 118 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Law and Government, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020076, 020621, 030016, 030097, 030098, 020810; RESOLUTIONS 020084, 030034, 030106, 020817. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY - - - 119 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
And we will go into public meeting session of the Law and Government Committee to consider the various bills. This would be the time for the various amendments that have been announced as being ready for proposal to be given at the time the Bill and Resolution is called up, or the Bill, whichever may pertain.
The Committee has a quorum, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Clarke, Councilman Ortiz, Councilman Goode, Councilman Nutter. We will now consider the bills.
Mr. Chairman, there's a proposed amendment to Bill 020076. It is a technical amendment that requires the dates to be changed in the Bill which contains the ballot question. This is regarding the redistricting Bill. This Bill had dates in it that were incorrect. So in Section 1, it actually reads November 5, 2002. That needs to be changed to November 4, 2003.
That proves the deliberative process works in this Council; it took us year. 120 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
But with no penalty, Councilman. In Section 2 the sentence after the question, the proposed amendment is contained in Resolution 020084 approved by Council on -- we don't have that date yet, but the 2002 should be stricken, replaced by 2003. And in Section 4, the date presently reads November 5, 2002. That should be replaced by November 4, 2003. I move the adoption of that amendment.
If not, all in favor of proposed amendment will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The amendment is ordered. The Chair entertain a motion with respect to Bill No. 020076, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. 121 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING Chairman. I move that Bill 020076, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
The Bill, as amended, has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.)
The ayes have it, and Bill No. 020076, as amended is adopted together with the recommendation for suspension of the Rules to permit first reading at the next Session of City Council. Is there an accompanying Resolution on that Bill?
Yes, there is, Mr. Chairman. It's 020084, and I would move that this Resolution be reported out of the Committee with a 122 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING favorable recommendation.
Moved and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
Next Bill to be considered is 030115, which relates to contracts and concessions.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's an amendment being offered. This Bill had the primary date of 2003 in it, and we need to in Section 1 of this Bill delete May 20, 2003, replace it with November 4, 2003. And in Section 4, delete May 20, 2003 and replace it with November 4, 2003. I move the adoption of these two amendments. (Duly seconded.)
Is there any 123 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING discussion? (No response.)
Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030115, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
A motion has been made to adopt a Bill, as amended, and it's seconded. All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill, as amended, will be reported out with a 124 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING request suspension of Rules for first reading next meeting.
The Resolution has been moved and adopted. All in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Resolution will reported out with a favorable recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, amendments were put forward and circulated during the public hearing and they are now available in the 125 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING public meeting. I move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 020621. (Duly seconded.)
The amendments have been moved and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move Bill 020621, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all in favor, please say aye. 126 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the Bill is reported, as amended, as approved, together with the request for suspension of the rules for first reading at the next Session of City Council.
Mr. Chairman, there were amendments proposed during the public hearing and they've been circulated during the hearing and the public meeting to Bill 030016. I move the adoption of the amendments, as circulated, to Bill 15 030016. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill is so amended. 127 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030016, as amended, be reported out of this recommendation with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
The Bill, as amended, will be reported out favorable together with a request for suspension of the Rules. All those in favor of the Bill, as amended, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Bill, as amended, is report out together with the suspension of Rules for first reading at the next Session of City Council.
Mr. Chairman, there was amendment offered in the public hearing and it has been circulated in our public meeting to Resolution No. 030034. I move the adoption of the amendment to Resolution 030034. 128 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
The amendment has been seconded following being made. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 030034, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
The Resolution, as amended, has moved and seconded. Those in favor, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the Resolution, as amended, has been adopted 129 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING together with the request for suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next Council Session.
Mr. Chairman, there are no amendments to this particular Bill which is a part of the bid preference package. I move that Bill 030097 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all those in favor of the Bill please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the Bill is reported out Committee with a favorable recommendation, together with the request for suspension of Rules.
Mr. Chairman, there were amendments circulated for Bill 030098, and I 130 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 030098, as circulated. (Duly seconded.)
The motion has been made to adopt amendments to the Bill. The motion has been seconded. Any discussion? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that 030098, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
If not, all those in 131 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING favor of the Bill, please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and Bill, as amended, is reported out favorable together with the request for suspension of the Rules to permit first reading at the next Session of Council.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution 030106 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation.
The motion has been made to report out the Resolution. Has it be seconded. (Duly seconded.)
The ayes have it, and the Resolution is adopted. 132 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING
Councilman Nutter will offer the amendment on behalf of Councilman Kenney.
Mr. Chairman, there were amendments circulated on Bill 020810 during the public hearing. I move the adoption of the amendments to Bill 020810.
If not, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 020810, as amended, be reported out of this Committee be reported out of this Committee 133 04/23/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - PUBLIC MEETING with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session.