COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:40 a.m. - - - - BILL 050165 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5... RESOLUTION 050176 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5... PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 03/10/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050165
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum. Present is Councilmembers Miller, Clarke, Nutter, Rizzo, Mariano, DiCicco, Goode, Blackwell and, of course, myself. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Ordinance No. 050165 and Resolution No. 050176.
Bill No. 050165, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By The Voters" in Article 18 VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Smoking in Public Places and in the Workplace" calling on the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that will prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot 3 03/10/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050165 questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution No. 050176, proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter creating a new Chapter 5 entitled "Referenda Approved By The Voters" in Article 9 VIII, Provisions of General Application, and creating a new Section 8-500 entitled "Smoking in Public Places and in the Workplace" calling on the Council of the City of Philadelphia to pass no legislation that will prohibit smoking in public places and in the workplace.
Thank you. I do not have a list of witnesses that would like to testify. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify? (No response.)
I believe we are just receiving an amendment to the resolution and to the bill. So I would like to give everyone an opportunity to read it. This will conclude our public hearing. 4 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - - Thursday, March 10, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee of the Whole, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 050165. RESOLUTION 050176. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY 5 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano for an explanation of the amendment of the Resolution 050176.
Thank you, Madam President. I circulated a set of amendments to Ordinance No. 050165 and A confidential memo from the City Solicitor. It pretty much explains everything. But in a nutshell, there was concern, and it was legitimate concern from my colleagues the other day concerning the title may basically confuse people and think that if they're voting this amendment to put the smoking ban on the bill, the actual bill, the ordinance 18 and the resolution, that if it does get to that part, if it does get on a ballot in May that City Council -- that we would have to do whatever came out of the actual vote by the public; and that's not the case. It's going a non-binding. That's how I wanted it, to be non-binding. The other day I said I wasn't sure that was my intent. So we asked your 6 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING attorney who agreed with us, but the City Solicitor gave us a written opinion saying that it's non-binding, Council still gets to do what it wants on this issue regardless of what electoral says. I think it just gives us a view of what people want to see here. It could go either way. I'll gladly answer any questions.
How about the amendment to the ordinance? I believe it's Section 2.
Section 2, correct, shall be placed on the ballot the following question to be answered yes or no by the qualified electors participating in this election. Shall the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter be amended to call upon the Council of the City of Philadelphia, and we changed it to in considering any proposed legislation presented to the Council to be contingent of the desire of the citizenry that the Council enact no law and take away the liberty of individuals of Philadelphia by prohibiting smoking in public places and in the workplace. 7 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, if I could have permission to ask our colleague a couple questions. Councilman, I just need to at least get a little better sense and understanding of the goal with regard to both the question and the proposed change to the Charter. I have read both, but I just want to get some clarity on what is it that we're seeking to accomplish by going this particular route.
I'm sorry, Councilman. I was getting whispered in the ear.
You were being tremendously distracted by the young John Lisko.
I'm getting that multi-tasking thing down, but -- 8 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
I understand that you were distracted. I'll repeat it. Councilman, I've read both the proposed Charter change na the question. And I'd just like to have a clear understanding of what the goal is with regard to this method of passing a piece of legislation and amending the Home Rule Charter. What are we trying to accomplish here?
Councilman, in a nutshell without going into the long explanation is I'm trying to let the citizens of the City of Philadelphia see how they feel, not to take our job away as legislators. The problem with this legislation and your legislation, as I see it, with all well intentions from both of us is cigarettes are not illegal in the United States. The reality is the tobacco industry is a driver of our national and state economy. And then there's a lot things that we don't understand -- I mean, we understand, but we really haven't gotten into the economics. As usual with legislation in this Chamber, we try 9 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING to do the best job we can with what's giving to us. So you come with an idea. My idea was simple, so simple it goes without saying. I was just trying to get the people to see what they want. But I don't want to hinder this body, handcuff us by doing any legislation. There's a 50/50 chance that people in City are going to say, "We like to smoking ban. We think it's a good idea." And they're going to be Americans and go to the ballot in May and vote if this happens. But again, they voted for us to be City Councilpeople. I don't think we're taking our job and giving it to the people, we're just asking for a survey. It's basically a survey being put on the ballot in May, and we'll see how people feel. I firmly still believe there's a lot of people here that are non-smokers that are just concerned with government being involved in the rights of individuals how to make livings as far as these taverns and clubs and everything goes. I mean, this thing has been drawn out. There's nothing that archaic or nothing that hidden here. That's simple. 10 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING My problem was, as I asked people to write this thing, they wrote it how I thought it should be. And when I got it, we had some questions the other day and we asked for an opinion from Pedro and we have one. He's the top guy, I think.
Your basic position here is this amounts to a public opinion poll?
Pretty much, a survey. But that's the only way we could do it. I just think if we hold off on your legislation to see what happens here in May -- that's totally up to you and this body, but if we get this on the ballot we may find out that the people do want a smoking ban or they don't. There's a lot of things going on here. I think that the tavern owners came here the other day and had a terrible presentation. I think there was a lot of working people that didn't get here. I got bashed by one of the union leaders because of smoking, secondhand smoke. There's a lot of 11 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING people here that need to be spoken for. There's a lot of people here, there's a lot of women, there's a lot of minorities, and a lot people in the majority in this City who are smokers and are non-smokers that work in these bars and clubs. I firmly believe no matter what they tell us from New York City or anywhere else that smoking is an evil, it is definitely an evil. But I don't think it's my job as a City Councilman or yours to tell people that they shouldn't be able to smoke in their establish. Its strictly an economics decision for the people that own them particular establishments and it's a decision for the people that are going out for entertainment where they want to go. If the United States Congress and the Senate want to pass a bill banning cigarettes in public places in this country, I think it would be a great thing. But so far, Senator Santorum or Specter haven't called me to ask for my input. My phone number is 686-3448 if they would like to.
I got you. Just 12 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING a couple other quick questions.
Councilman, are you aware of any other legislative efforts over the past 53 years or so involving the Home Rule Charter that the purpose of which was to conduct a citizen survey.
I think by maybe using the word "citizen survey," I may have sent you down a different road. I think we just did something -- I'm looking at the learned Mr. Lisko. Didn't we do something with a gun ban?
Councilman Clarke's gun ban. I don't know. I really don't know that. I didn't research it. It is quite possible, but it's quite possible the other way.
With regard to the question itself, it is written in such a way that I would at least have a concern as to 13 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING what the meaning of a vote either way would be. If this were to be on the ballot and as you read this question, it starts out with the usual language of "Shall the Home Rule Charter be amended," which is what all the ballot questions related to Charter change says, but then it seems to take a turn by saying there needs to be consideration of the desires of the citizens, but then it takes a turn and says that we enact no law to take away the liberty. So what does a yes vote mean to this question and what does a no vote mean to this question?
Councilman, a yes vote would mean they don't want us to legislate smoking in public places. A no vote would mean that they do want to legislate smoking in public places.
Yes means no 22 and no means yes, Councilman. It's not the best way to do it. And in hindsight -- Politics 101 they tell us never say anything that yes means no and no means yes. 14 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
So if you are in favor of a smoke-free environment you would have to vote no. 5
And if you're against a smoke-free environment, you'd have to vote yes.
Which I think, as we both know, is somewhat counterintuitive.
And could be very confusing. And there is another measure that will more than likely be on the ballot involving Councilman Clarke's legislation, which at least has some interplay between the City and the State and first class cities and state jurisdiction and the like. So I would tangentially also be concerned with regard to if we have a ballot question that is, at least for our discussion here I think you at least acknowledge is potentially somewhat confusing 15 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING to the voters, what impact that might possibly have on another ballot question.
I think the people in the City of Philadelphia are as intelligent as you, and I think they can figure it out.
They're more intelligent than me. If I was really intelligent, I'd probably be doing something else. So it is clearly establishing my low level of intelligence.
Councilman, I think if we were both intelligent, we would probably own a gas station together and we'd be making good money. Except your side wouldn't sell cigarettes and mine would probably.
Well, as the gentleman in the natural, I should have been in a farmer. Okay, I think basically understand.
I appreciate it. 16 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. I have very similar concerns that my colleague Councilman Nutter has. And at the end of their conversation between Mariano and Nutter, traditionally in the 37 or 38 years that I've been involved in politics I know there's a specific percentage of people who when they go in to vote on questions automatically vote no. They don't even bother to look at it. I have my own theory as to why that happens, but that's generally what occurs. There's a high percentage of people who would traditionally vote no. So the confusion part to the voters, I think, is something we really need to take into consideration as we're contemplating our vote on this resolution. The other concern for me is if 17 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING hypothetically the resolution is on the ballot and the resolution succeeds, assuming that Bill No. 63, Councilman Nutter's bill, the smoking ban does not pass, does not come out of Committee, we're going to find ourselves back in this same situation next year as a body to debate the issue of a smoking ban. Because if is the resolution is voted up, we're going to assume that the majority of the voters in the City of Philadelphia want a ban on smoking. I don't know if we want to go through this exercise again. Now, if polling is to be looked at scientifically, as of today, and I don't have an accurate count and I'm sorry I didn't keep all the e-mails, but I'm still getting e-mails. And I said this last week. Conservatively, I thought 80 percent of the people I've been receiving e-mails from -- and I think everyone in Council is getting the same e-mails, it's kind of a generic -- probably more in the 90 percentile of the folks who have taken time to express their opinion on Bill 63 are non-Philadelphia 18 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING residents. Non-Philadelphia residents. So one could conclude that Philadelphia people either don't want the ban or they don't care enough about it. I don't think that's accurate either. I don't know if anything we can do will give us an accurate accountability. There's people on both sides. In this Council, we're pretty much divided right down the middle in this Council on the issue of the smoking ban. So I have a concern, like I said, that we may not get an accurate accountability from the citizens, not because they're not intelligent enough, but I just don't know if it's going to be of that much interest to them based, again, on the lack of response I received from the citizens of Philadelphia. And this year in particular in the DA and Controller election that's coming up is probably one of the lowest turnouts in any municipal election in this City's history. So we're going to have the fewest number of people coming out. We may get a little tick up because of this, but I don't see an 19 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING overwhelming number of people coming out. I mean, we had a hard time getting 45 percent of the people out to vote for a Mayor. So no disrespect to you, Councilman Mariano, I'm just not sure the goal that I think that you're aiming for we're going to be able to achieve by way of this resolution. I think we're going to have to bite the bullet, each and every one of us, and make a decision on what we believe is the bright thing to do on this ban. And some of us will suffer the consequences for whatever way we vote, but that's what we get paid to do. So I don't want to be against the resolution in a hostile way, I just do have a concern that we're not going to, at the end of the day, be any further down the road than we are today. In fact, it may even lead to more confusion, in my opinion.
Thank you, Councilman. Actually, I agree with 90 percent of what you said. Let me just say again that it's a non-binding resolution. And you know what? I get your point. People 45 percent 20 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING want to vote Mayor and then the other 55 percent complain about the person that we elect. But I do believe -- and this might sound strange coming from me -- if this happens and it turns out people do want a smoking ban, again, it's not binding, but I do think, as you said, half of the Council may think that a ban is in order. Maybe it is an issue we should address. It might not be a total smoking ban, but there may be something we can do here with grandfathering people and filtration systems. I hear the guy from Prime Rib keeps echoing in my head, you know, "I put the system in because I thought something was going to happen from last time." So personally, I take the challenge. Whatever happens to this ban, again, it's not binding. I'm not saying if people wanted a smoking ban, I'd be for it. But I could guarantee is I would work with Councilman Nutter or anyone else that wanted to do an objective smoking ban that took into consideration everything, the people who have to work in this industry and people that have 21 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING businesses for 5, 10, 15, 20 years. I personally don't see any problem with any new establishment opening up that would be smoke free from a certain point in time forward. And I know you and I talked a little bit about that. But I get your point and I understand your reluctance to vote for this.
And I will tell you that as recent as last evening -- I stayed in all night last night. I was watching a lot of television, and ironically a couple of shows that I was switching on, CN8 or NBC, whatever that is, the network channels, there were a number of discussions going on about smoking and the effects of secondhand smoke. I wish everybody would quit smoking. There's no question about it. And I don't want to get into the debate on Bill 63. I just think that people do have choices to make. And the irony of the e-mail from suburban folks and me and everything else is they come to the City of Philadelphia and spend some money and they like to come spend more. Well, they're coming from townships and counties that do not have a 22 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING smoking ban, but yet they still choose to come to Philadelphia occasionally. And there are a number of restaurants, and they're all listed, if you look in any directory, it will tell you whether there is smoking permitted or not. For me, I wish everyone would stop smoking. I don't like to be sitting across from a table or someone who is smoking while I'm eating dinner, but there are choices. And I'm probably leaning to the other side on this, on not doing the ban because of the choices that people do have to make. I just think, again, if we do this, we're going to wind up right where we are next year discussing this whole issue again, in my opinion. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple of questions for Councilman Mariano as well. Let me first state my position on a 23 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING number of these different issues. One, I am for the smoking ban and I am for the smoking ban because I believe that secondhand smoke kills, and that's a simple enough issue for. It's not an issue that I understood before Councilman Nutter proposed legislation in the last term, but sitting through a number of different hearings, it has become abundantly clear to me, while it's debatable, that secondhand smoke kills according to the facts and research I've reviewed. I'm also for a non-binding referendum asking people on major issues like this, what they think, as long as it is non-binding. I cannot be for this legislation, though, because I don't believe it asks the question that I can support, which would be a simple question "Do you support a ban on smoking in public places and workplaces?" And I would listen to a non-binding referendum, not follow it, but listen to it in terms of knowing what the will of the people is. But still if the majority of people in a 24 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING non-binding referendum were not for a smoking ban and I believe that secondhand smoke killed, I would still vote for a smoking ban. So that's my position. My question is, while you're doing an amendment today clarifies the legislation that allows it to supposedly still be non-binding, do you believe that your ballot question actually asks the question that you want it to?
Yes, Councilman, it does. It's probably not the way I would have crafted it if I crafted it myself. I get your question and I think I get the underlying meaning. If I could do it again, I probably wouldn't have did it this way. I did it in a hurry. I did it out of an idea I had a couple weeks ago. And maybe it's my lack of understanding of the process. I get people to write these. I talk to my legislative aid, he talks to the Law Department. You would figure if the Law Department wrote something, it would be legal and fine and then I could go back to the City 25 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING Solicitor and ask for an opinion, which I did. But I hear you and I would support the resolution you talked about too. It probably should have been simpler.
What I'm saying is -- and Councilman Nutter alluded to it, Councilman DiCicco alluded to it. This question actually ask whether we should change the Home Rule Charter to have Council consider what the public says. It does not ask the public for its opinion.
I think it's my understanding that that's what the Law Department told me it had to be.
But it does not ask the public for its opinion. It asks whether the Home Rule Charter should be changed for Council to consider its opinion, but it does not ask the public specifically for its opinion.
Councilman, again, that was what I thought I was getting out of them. It wasn't what I really wanted, but in this life and especially in this 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING legislative life, you get what you can get and you put it up and we vote for it or we vote against it.
But do you agree I could be for the things that I have mentioned, for the ban, for a referendum and actually for this question and still be for a ban?
Councilman, what I can say -- and please don't take this wrong. If you have an amendment, I'd be glad to see it. We took this language from the Constitution, believe it or not. That's what I was just told. The writer is sitting behind me.
I know Lisko just gave you a statement, but he wasn't listening to my question. He was talking to you rather listening to my question.
I'll tell you what, if we want to prolong this, we can put Mr. Lisko on the stand.
I'm just going to ask the question again. You can answer it or 27 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING he can answer.
Let him answer the question. He works for me. I gave authority to write this.
We're actually in the public meeting now. The question is: I'm for a ban, I'm for a referendum, could I, in fact, vote for this question and still be for a ban?
I think you could be, yes. I think the people figured it out.
I could be for a ban, I could be for a referendum, answer this question affirmatively but still be for a ban.
The question is why? By me voting yes on this question, how does that mean I'm not for a referendum and for a ban? 28 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
Voting yes, like I told Councilman Nutter, means no. 4
I'm not clear it does. All this says is I want to change the Home Rule Charter to call upon Council to consider any proposed legislation not to enact any law taken away liberty, and it doesn't mean that I don't want a referendum. It doesn't mean I won't listen to a referendum. It means that this in itself is not a referendum. It's asking whether we should change the Home Rule Charter to have Council consider a referendum, but this is not a referendum in and of itself. So I could be for a ban, I could be for a referendum, vote for this at the polls, and this still would not be a referendum whether there should be a ban or not. I could still be for a ban. That's the problem.
All right. I understand. I'm not going to give you the answer you want, so we can do this all day. You're right; you are right.
I'm still floating it and you can vote against it, that's the beauty of this thing.
Councilman, the editorial boards and the people who don't like it are going to call me stupid anyhow; it don't matter. It's what I had to do to get to this point. It wasn't what I would have wanted to do, but it's what I had to do because we were in a rush. I mean, if I could do legislation perfect every time, I'd be the Daily News Editorial Board. I'm not, I don't want to be. I'm concerned about the people that work in those taverns and those bar maids and bartenders. And I'm sure you are too. I get that from your point.
I'm not against the referendum, but this is not a referendum.
You're 30 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say that I'm not too crazy over this amendment for the simple reason I don't like to push off all of our legislative responsibilities onto the public. But having said that, I think that there is some support I know that I'm going to be giving this amendment for the simple reason that we have to do something to keep businesses in Philadelphia and to also bring additional businesses into Philadelphia. I would probably be in favor of a smoking ban if -- and I think Councilman DiCicco alluded to this -- that if the State of New Jersey, if our surrounding counties of Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester, if they all had a ban, then I think I could support it. But I don't want to see us targeting our businesses in Philadelphia. That's the problem that I have. 31 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING I know the intent of the sponsor is well deserved. I think it's a good intention to keep everyone healthy in Philadelphia, but I don't think it should be done at the expense of our tavern owners and the people in the restaurants, the people that put a lot of energy, they put their financial resources, some of them their life savings into their businesses, only to have us dictate who their customers are going to be. I don't think it's fair. I would like to see everyone on a level playing field. And that's why I positively think there should be some support for these owners. After all, it was only just a few years ago we targeted them for additional per drink tax. Some of them still haven't recovered from that. They are being probably legislated by many, many different departments. They have regulations that they had to adhere to from L&I. They have the State Police. They have the Liquor Control Board. They have the Health Department. They have all these department on their back and 32 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING they're constantly being harassed, I think. But there again, I think they need some support and I think they need some support in this Council. And that's why I think that this amendment is going to be a non-binding amendment. I don't think there's any reason that I can think of that we shouldn't support this amendment because it's only a poll to see which way that the public thinks about this smoking ban. Therefore, I would like to go on record as saying that I am going to support this amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
Does anyone else want to be recognized? (No response.)
I would ask Members that were in the Chamber to please return. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. I want to offer this amendment to ordinance 050165. 33 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments provided by Councilman Mariano be approved. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
We are now considering the amendments to Resolution NO. 17 050176. (Pause.)
Councilman, I believe you made a motion to approve amendments offered for Resolution 22 050176, did you not?
Yes, I did. I already did the amendment to the ordinance. Now I'm doing the amendment to the 34 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING resolution.
I thought I just did. Well, let's do it again. I'll do them both again so we know. I move for the adoption of the proposed amendments for Resolution 050176.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be approved to Resolution No. 050176. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the amendments have been adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Mariano regarding Bill No. 050165. 35 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
I want to introduce amendments to Ordinance No. 050165. I make a motion to amend Ordinance No. 050165.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments to Bill No. 050165 be approved. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
I want to be clear on why I'm voting against these amendments. I don't have any problems with the public letting us how they feel. What I do have a problem with is the decision by the Law Department. I'm not sure what this all means. And as I understand it, we're amending the Charter, and I'm not really comfortable so 36 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING that's why I'm not voting for it.
Has it has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the bill is amended. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano again regarding the resolution.
I want to pass with a favorable recommendation Resolution No. 17 050176, as amended.
And also I want 37 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING a suspension of the Rules.
Councilwoman Miller. 38 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
Councilman O'Neill is not here. Councilman Ramos is not here. Councilwoman Brown.
Councilwoman Verna, no. 19 The ayes are 6, the nays are 7. The motion fails. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano regarding Bill 050165 -- it's no sense voting it. You have to have the resolution.
I give up. I did my best. 39 03/10/05 - WHOLE - PUBLIC MEETING
At the request of the sponsor, Bill No. 010165 is withdrawn. (Council adjourned at 10:19 a.m.) - - - - 40 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, March 10, 2005, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR