I have a question about the comment you just made. How do we actually change the Charter without the public?
No, that is the event. The public gets a chance to vote. That is the event.
The public has the right to assume that if it's on the voting 117 list that Council has given it thorough consideration and taken into account every point of view. We haven't heard from the public.
But we can't, in fact, change the Charter without the public; is that true?
Either we're dealing with the wrong issue here or the public just believes it's fruitless to try to deal with City Council.
Mr. Chairman, unlike any other legislative action this Council takes, Charter change legislation definitely requires the public's vote. We can pass anything in the Council can be decided by 18 people, 17 Members of Council and the Mayor, but on Charter change legislation it absolutely requires the public. Is that is not true?
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that there are members of the public. 118
I'm convinced by Councilman Nutter's statement is what we're doing is deciding a new way of life for many years ago.
Mr. Chairman, it's a way of life that has been in place for some time and it hasn't been enforced. I don't know why a lot of members of the public are not here. You've indicated that there have been newspaper stories. There were a lot of people here yesterday. The public cares about what it cares about but then it also expects us to take certain action whether they show up or not. That's what we get paid for, is to take action whether there is a throng of people or whether there are two people. It's the same responsibility. We all took the same oath. We've read through the material. Everybody knows what the story is on these issues. And as I said, whether two people show up or 200 people show up, that does not take away or obviate our responsibility to take action. Sometimes the public is looking for leadership. That's what they expect. 119 They have a right to expect that that's what they pay us for. And we don't always have to take action when the Chamber is full. This is not the circus; who gets to perform depends on who gets the most applause. This is not this kind of environment. We received a report from credible people outside of us. They've made some recommendations. We're following those recommendations. To the extent that there may be any difference of policy opinion on no more than, I would estimate, five areas either of which would take us light years beyond where we are today, I don't know what it is that we're waiting for or who else we need to hear from.
Yes, and they will vote at an election. But they elected us last year to take action on matters that are important to the City. And if any one of us doesn't know by now that the public is tired of the system that's in place, then that's that person's business. But they are tired of 120 it. You hear about it, I hear about it, all the Members hear about it. That's our job, that's our responsibility whether two people show up or 200 people show up. We have many hearings when there aren't a lot of people here. There were a lot of people here yesterday because they cared about that issue. So it's not just about how many people show up. We have an obligation. We took an oath. We have information from experts in this area --
We are not under an obligation to act when the information is incomplete.
My questions are simply centered around your entering testimony on behalf of Senator Hughes. Can you tell me why you did so?
The Senator wanted to submit written testimony. He was unable to be here today so he submitted the written testimony to the Administration and simply asked us to hand it up into record.
Mayor Street stood next to Senator Hughes when he introduced this legislation that's the subject of the written statement last week and supported the legislation.
I want to direct your attention to the second page of the testimony.
The second page, second paragraph, the first sentence, it says, "Mayor Street has been a regular and very generous big ticket supporter of both the House and Senate Democratic Campaign Committees." Can you explain that comment, whether the Administration is in agreement with it?
Senator Hughes and -- more Senator Hughes than the Mayor spoke about that at the press conference last week when Senator Hughes introduced or announced the introduction of his legislation. And he indicated that the Mayor has been a regular supporter of the House and Senate Democratic Campaign Committees. I think the reasoning for the remark -- and this comes from the press conference, Councilman, not so much from this prepared statement, was that Senator Hughes --
I'm asking about the testimony that you had entered. I'm asking whether the Administration is in 123 agreement with the second page, second paragraph, first sentence.
If it's a factual statement, I would agree with it from what I heard at press conference last week.
Can you tell my how it relates to any of legislation before us?
That's what I was trying to get to, Councilman. What the Senator was trying to say is that Mayor Street has been a supporter of state-wide candidates to maintain Philadelphia's influence on a state-wide basis. That's what he was trying to get at when he made that --
Which bill or resolution before us today does that statement relate to?
I'm asking about the testimony that you just had entered into the record. I'm asking specifically right now about the first sentence in the second 124 paragraph on the second page of testimony you had entered into the record.
What it goes to is our support for state-wide campaign finance reform and pay-to-play reform as opposed to at this point in time local only pay-to-play reform. That's why I was referring back to my testimony.
Let me move to the second sentence. "This allows for legislators from across Pennsylvania to pay attention to the needs of Philadelphia whether they like it or not." Can you explain to me what that means, and why those legislators wouldn't automatically have to pay attention to the needs of Philadelphia anyway?
Councilman, I'm just reviewing it. As I said, I didn't write this statement and it's not my testimony.
As I said, Senator Hughes asked us to entered it into the record. 125 I think it relates back to the first sentence, again, that Mayor Street not only is supporting the concept of the state-wide legislation but actually has supported candidates across the state to make sure that they pay attention to the needs of Philadelphia.
And so he pays legislators to have them pay attention to the needs of Philadelphia?
What did you just say? Can you just recount what statement you made?
As I understand what I'm reading here in this paragraph, and again I'm referring back to what I heard in the press conference last week, is that --
I'm asking you to refer to the testimony you had entered into the record.
That Mayor Street supports state-wide candidates for office 126 which helps him make his case for lawmakers to be paying attention to the needs of Philadelphia.
Let's move to the third sentence. "If the city passes laws that limit our political big guns from raising and spending money, if he has a smaller account to draw from, it limits his ability to get our city's point across when it comes to necessary legislation and budget requests." What does that mean?
Councilman, and I say this respectfully, it's hard for me defend each point in this testimony that the Administration did not draft.
So you entered the testimony just as a matter of courtesy?
Absolutely as a matter courtesy. The Senator asked that it be introduced into the record. 127
But I asked you questions related to three sentences, only three sentences within a two-page testimony.
What does it mean that we should not pass laws that limit our guns from getting our point across? Political big guns. I'm sorry. Big guns.
I think, again, overall it's the point that the Mayor would prefer and believes that campaign finance reform should be done on state-wide basis and not just locally.
Aside from being on a state-wide basis where everyone falls under the same rules, we would still have political big guns even though everyone falls under the same rules.
And why are we protecting the power of the political big guns?
I'm referring to the third sentence in the second paragraph of the second page of the testimony you just had entered into the record. I'm asking about the political big guns. You said the purpose of state-wide reform is to level the playing field, but after leveling the playing field, we still have to protect the political big guns.
I'm not sure where it says anything about protecting political big guns.
It says, "The city passes laws that limit our political big guns from raising and spending money. If he has a smaller account draw from, it limits his ability to get our city's point across when it comes to necessary legislation budget requests." 129 So did you just entered testimony as a courtesy, or does the Administration stand behind the testimony?
We entered this testimony as a courtesy to Senator Hughes. And on an overall point, the Mayor stood up --
Do you agree with those three sentences we just reviewed several times?
The overall point of the testimony we agree with. The overall --
You put a lot of work into this, Joe. I mean, you were part of the 21st Century Review Forum, you've been involved in legislation. I consider you to be almost an expert on these things. I mean, you can't comment on three sentences in a testimony you just had entered into the record?
I'm doing my very best 130 to comment on it even though we did not prepare it. We support overall the concept that campaign finance reform be best done on a comprehensive state-wide basis as opposed to locally.
Isn't campaign finance reform about getting rid of the political big guns?
Isn't campaign finance reform, in general, about getting rid of the political big guns? Isn't it about one person, one vote rather than big money.
I would agree that it is to lessen the influence of money on the political process.
So do you still stand behind this testimony that says that we need to support the political big guns.
I think perhaps the best thing we should do is say that we introduce this testimony as a legislative courtesy or a political curtesy to Senator Hughes and we 131 support the concept of state-wide campaign finance reform.
I don't want to belabor this political issue, but I want to raise something and you can comment or not. That colloquy you had with Councilman Goode about Senator Hughes' legislation, I understand it's difficult because Senator Hughes' comments is not your comments or the Mayor's. But I want to throw something out there because during the discussion it occurred to me that the paragraph, "Mayor Street has been a regular very generous big ticket supporter of both the House and Senate Democratic Campaign Committees and this allows for legislators from across Pennsylvania to pay attention to the needs of Philadelphia whether they like it or not." The converse of that, what affect do you think it has on the City's ability to get 132 the resources it needs when the Speaker of the House is a Republican from Philadelphia and the Senate President is a Republican when both Houses are controlled by the Republican party when we have Republican -- I'm a democrat and I'm not defaming the Republicans, but when we have Republican State House members like John Taylor and others who really go to bat for the City on a regular basis to tout the fact that this money is being used to defeat them certainly wouldn't put us in their corner or them in our corner. Don't you think it's problematic that part of the problem we have with our relationship with the Legislature is, in fact, that whole issue? I mean, the Speaker of the House is probably one of most powerful people in Pennsylvania is from Philadelphia and we're talking about raising big ticket money for big guns to take them out. How does that help us?
Again, I appreciate, Councilman, recognizing that it's difficult to go through every line of testimony that we did not prepare. The overall remark last week -- 133 I do keep going back the press conference because I heard the Senator and the Mayor discuss it. And the Mayor in response to reporters' questions was letting the media know he has supported state-wide candidates and he has supported state-wide campaigns. He wasn't just saying that he wanted state-wide reform because he thought that would strengthen Philadelphia's influence.
See, I think part of the problem with the whole premise of the argument is one -- and I think is where Councilman Goode was at -- is one of insider political argument as opposed to what's good public policy, what's good for the city, what's good for the state, and what's good for the city's relationship with the state government. This insider rationale for not doing either local campaign finance reform or local pay-to-play, fixing that problem, I think is fraught with peril in that we wind up in an insider political argument which we get the short end of stick on. I mean, we have a 134 Governor from Philadelphia who's doing his best to help our schools and to help our taxes and other things. He has to work with, and so the Mayor, whoever the Mayor is, has to work with the power structure in Harrisburg on the other side of the aisle. I can't see justifying not doing something here in Philadelphia because it's going to mess up our political strategy. I think the political strategy is somewhat flawed in the fact that we don't have great working relationships with the people who run both Houses of the Legislature. I think that's worse political peril than getting rid of our ability to continue to fund Democratic candidates. I think it's important that both sides in a partisan way fund their candidates and fund their party. But to make a policy decision or to recommend a policy decision based on our ability to fight with the Republicans, I don't think we should necessarily be fighting with the Republicans all the time. Perhaps a little more cooperation would have kept us from losing the Parking Authority, would get 135 us more money for the schools, would help in some other areas. And I think that it's one of the problems that we have in getting what we need out of Harrisburg is that we're making a contentious argument as opposed to trying to figure out a way to work with the other side of the aisle. It's just a comment.
And I appreciate that, Councilman. The only think I would add in closing is that I don't think it's part of our -- I respect your remarks. I don't think it's part of our policy position to fight the Republicans as part of this overall --
But, Joe, with all due respect, part of the Administration's position on why we should not be ding Councilman Nutter's bills is the argument that somehow we're going to lose inside political clout. And my argument is I think that's a wrong way of looking at it because that inside political clout of raising big money from big ticket supporters and big guns and all the big stuff is putting us at odds with the very people we need to help us. 136 We just had a recent cooperative effort with George Kenney and Speaker Perzel on school safety zones, raising the speed limits and raising the points. That's a bipartisan cooperative effort. They pushed that bill through the House to get us the help we need. Why do we want to make an argument that we need to raise money to get rid of them? Every six months there's an election and the Democrats fight the Republicans and it's fair game, we all understand and we're all big guys and big girls in this business. But to make an argument of not doing a public policy recommendation of Councilman Nutter based on the fact that we need to raise big money to take them out, I don't think puts us in great position to get cooperative effort.
I just have a comment to make on that. It couldn't have been better said, Councilman Kenney. I think that absolutely is true. I think I have a problem with this, and I'm sure my colleague Councilman Rizzo also has a problem with it 137 because I think, as Councilman Kenney has said, despite being called a measly Republican by some of my colleagues in here, we do try to help the City in a bipartisan way. I just don't like the way this letter is written and I would have a problem of passing any legislation which would accept this as part of the package. I just want to get my two cents in if I could. But I know it's not you, Joe, and this isn't coming from you. But I think I have real strong reservations about the wordage used in this letter.
Councilman, the phrase may have been unartfully written, and I just want to conclude by saying that the reason we're up here is that we believe that ethics reform is bipartisan good government reform, and that includes working with every member of this body. And I neglected to do what other witnesses had done, which is to respectfully ask this body to report Bills 040761 and 762 and Resolution 040792 favorably out of Committee at the appropriate time. 138
The fact that there's this dispute raging is self-indicative of the fact that much more discussion is needed. When the Speaker of the House issues a letter and apparently directs the Chief Executive of the school system to direct that all the children in a certain legislative district take home a letter from the Chief executive of the school system three days before an election stating how wonderful the Speaker of the House is who is in a contested race, I don't like that. And I don't consider that an advance for the school system, and I was stunned to learn that the director of the school system permitted himself to be used in that ugly fashion which the Daily News calls sleazy, I think, in yesterday's Daily News item. But one thing is clear. When there are these kinds debates going on, more time is needed. And I think that what we have to do is have much more discussion. For the first time, we are having serious discussion on ethics, and I don't think it ought to be 139 rushed. I view it as my duty to see that when a matter is presented to this Committee it is fully researched and fully discussed and every effort made to achieve consensus to the degree possible. And that's the reason why I think this would be premature at this time to bring the question to a vote. I don't think it's ready to for the vote. I think there are too many questions that yet have to be answered.
About what? The question is, in my mind, this issue has too many unanswered questions. I want to know why it is the Mayor does not issue a clear statement following Carl Singley's statement yesterday or two days ago or last week with respect to a $10,000 item.
That has nothing to do with the legislative matter, Mr. 140 Chairman. You're not going to get a response from legislation on that.
Why don't you call the Mayor up and ask him the question?
I don't want to. You care what the answer is. You care about it.
I understand that, and you have your right to that. It has nothing to do with a piece of legislation.
We have differences of opinion. And it happens, Councilman Nutter, that because you believe something doesn't make it the only way to do 141 something.
And the converse is true, with every respect to Chair. You want to know what the Mayor is doing or what he's not doing or what's on his mind. You have a number of methods to get an answer to that question. That has nothing to do with the matters in front of us. I don't care what his answer is.
I believe it has a lot to do with the matters in front of us. I believe I've got to find out why it is the public chooses to participate by a total policy of non-participation. And I find that the wrong way to legislation --
The wrong way to legislation is to take advantage of the public's ignorance about a subject and not find a way to interest the public so we can learn about the public.
I don't believe 142 in doing legislation apart from the public.
Councilman, now wait a minute. That statement would suggest that we didn't go through a normal process that we do on every bill and every resolution. It was duly advertised, it went through the normal process, and people show up for what they care about it. Now, you know it and I know it
Well, that's your interpretation. I say it shows that --
Did it go through the normal, Councilman? Did it go through the normal process of the Home Rule Charter and our Rules?
Of course did it did. It proves that the process that you describe as normal was not successful and, therefore, we've got to find out why.
That's your 143 opinion as to whether or not it was successful. There were witnesses here. There was a Committee put together by the Mayor.
There wasn't anybody in significant number from the public at all here.
They issued a report back on March 18th. Have you gotten many calls about?
No. No, I haven't gotten any calls about it. That's what troubles.
Right. You haven't gotten calls about it because people expect us to do something about it.
No, that's not why; it's because they don't understand the importance of it and they believe maybe that we're not going to really do anything and maybe they believe that we're so crooked that they can't rely on us. I don't know what it is.
That's just a burning question in the hearts and minds of 144 people today as they sit at they jobs, they're wondering what's going on with the ethics code in Philadelphia.
All right, Mr. grace, you are excused unless you wish to say anything.
No, Mr. Chairman, other than that there are two members of the public who have patiently waited and at your discretion would like to testify.
Well, here they are. They're at-large members of the public. They represent the rest of the citizens of this city.
Will the first named speaker identify himself for the record and then proceed?
Again, my name is Joe 145 Quinones. Unlike many of the people here today, I did not come with a written statement. I come to you simply as a small businessman and concerned member of the community to basically say that I am not here for Mayor Street, I am not here for Councilwoman Blackwell or Councilman Nutter. I am here for the Philadelphia community. And I support any legislation that could possibly level the playing field when it comes to the issues that I think that the code of ethics and the proposed ethics board could address. If Councilman Nutter's bill can level the level the playing field relative to contracts and how contracts are awarded in this City, then I think that that's something good for the community. If Councilwoman Blackwell's bill can facilitate the creation of a code of ethics and an ethics board that will, again, ensure that government functions well and in the best interest of the community, then that's something that I support. Councilman Cohen, we first met 14 146 years ago when I was a concerned student at Temple University seeking justice because some students were brutally beat by police officers in unjust way. You were one of only two Councilpersons that felt that that issue was worth listening to. I hope today that you will also listen to me years later as I've 9 grown and matured from being a freshman at 10 Temple University to a small real estate 11 developer and help enable us to get past the 12 politics that divide these two bills from 13 being blended together and reach a compromise 14 that will get this bill out of Committee and before the floor. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Any questions of the witness? (No response.)
If not, thank you very much for coming today and serving as a reminder of good old days.
J. Thompson and I'm an attorney and I guess I'm a 147 community activities and I'm an Idealist at heart. I believe what we're doing today is putting this to you. I sat in the Chambers today and, Councilman Cohen, you've raised the issue as to why the public doesn't participate and I submit to you your last exchange with Councilman Nutter would be a good example of why no one shows up, because rather than really get to what we're thinking, you're bickering about something that I think is in the only province of Council and you guys here today. But I liken your experience here and what's going on here to what, as a Phillies fan, I have frustration with, because I know that the people who make the decisions for the Phillies are a small group of people. And everybody knows that Phillies need a center fielder and a left fielder. And everybody who sits in the stands and buys the season ticket knows that we need these things. We all know it. God knows, Marlon Byrd hit 220 last year and we couldn't find a guy to play in the 148 middle, you couldn't have a pitcher that did well. But it's only up to you to do it. It's up to you to put this us. If it were put up to a vote, I'm sure the City of Philadelphia and all the Phillies fans would vote for somebody to spend money to get the best center fielder we could get and the best left-handed starter, the right-handed starter. But we can't get in that room. You have the power to put this to a vote. And regardless of what bill we support -- and I think, judging what I've read and what I've seen, I believe Councilwoman Blackwell's bills are I guess a little bit better, but they're not any different what Councilman Nutter and Kenney and Goode and DiCicco put forth. But I think what your concern is that there hasn't been enough public voice today. And what I think is there has been enough public voice, and there's been public voice since this building was built. Since Philadelphia was founded, we've had to deal with -- I wasn't when it was, but we've 149 had to deal with sweetheart deals and it's just a part of the way things are. And today you want to extend what I believe is a chance to vote this out of Committee, put in front of the City, put in from of the City Council, and then put it in front of people like me. We're going to go to the polls and say, you know what, we do want common sense reform in the City. And I think what Councilwoman Blackwell and Mayor and even Councilman DiCicco and Kenney and Goode and Nutter have come up with are the starting points for something. And to allow this to drag on and on and pray that somebody comes in here, a member of the public and cheers and screams about ethic reform, I don't think that's going to happen. I think if you look at the situation, like I said, you're a small group here who are going to make a decision that's going to affect the next hundred years. And I just had a baby on Saturday. My little daughter is going to grow up in Philadelphia which today maybe the day -- she was born on Saturday -- has a chance to have education reform but also ethics reform; 150 something it's never had, something that we in the public have to deal with sort of every day at the jobs. We have to abide by ethic reform. We have to do that. " We all do. It's a situation just like I said with the Phillies. We all want these things, but the people who are going to make the decision are just a few people and we can't influence them because it's their team. Well, it's your team now. If you put this to a vote, I'm sure hopefully it will get voted out of Council today and it will get voted at some point and when it gets put on the ballot, it will happen. It will be a first step. That's all I have to add.
Thank you for your statement and your patience. Councilman Nutter.
I just want to say thank you for your comment and statement. I appreciate. Thank you.
I would like to point out Councilman DiCicco's questioning of hiring of certain firms to represent people who were involved in Grand Jury indictment. I think this is a point of clarification. I think that those firms were appointed based on the fact -- and I think that everybody would agree in America, everybody's deemed innocent prior to being found guilty. And with the wide scope of the net that was thrown around not only the Administration but people involved in it, those City officials who may have been tangentially involved in these deals, for th City to provide representation to those people when their guilt or innocence was certainly in question and their innocence was assumed under our Rules, I think that choosing the firms 152 that did it -- and I looked at the list -- believe me, if anybody on the speaker there were in any of the same kind of trouble would want people like that Ballard Spahr and Wolf Block and Dan McElhatton representing them regardless of whether they donated to the campaign. That's all I have to say.
Thank you. The Committee will stand in recess until Tuesday, November 30th at 11:00 a.m..
Councilman, we had a conversation. I mentioned to you that I had amendments that I wish to put forward.
We'll undo the recess for the purpose of hearing amendments. There will be no action taken today. There will be no meeting. Anybody who has an amendment to offer may do so now to give information to the Members for consideration.
No, we're at a hearing. The amendments will only be announced at the hearing. No action will be 153 taken on the amendments.
Councilman, I'd like to have my bills amended. I'd like to have them amended in a form that they are ready.
Right now we're at hearing, and no action will be taken during a hearing. If not, I recess the hearing until November 30th at o'clock. 11
Councilman, I'm asking you, can I have my bills in a form that is proper and amended so that they can be fully discussed?
The Chair has ruled. You're either going to put the amendment in for informational purpose at a hearing or the Committee will stand in recess.
Because the Chair believes time is needed to consider the bills.
Well, the bills will not be in condition to be voted on unless they're allowed to be amended.
The Chair doesn't have to explain its position. I've explained it many times. You accept it or not. The hearing is in recess until Tuesday, November 30th.
Mr. Chair, you can choose not to answer this question, but I still have a question for you.
The meeting over. (Council adjourned at 2:25 p.m.) - - - -
I will reopen this hearing today on November the 16th for the sole purpose of hearing the amendments to be offered by Councilman Nutter or any other 155 member to enter the amendments he or she chooses for hearing purposes and informational purposes. Go ahead, you're free now to put them in.
Well, if you're going to keep your word, it's okay, sure.
Well, I don't appreciate you questioning whether I'm going to keep my word, but I won't argue that point since I've said it now four times that I was in agreement with what you said. In Bill No. 040770 on under Letter C, Advisory Opinions -- and some of these, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, apparently didn't make it into the record at the last hearing so some of these will be redundant.
No. 4, the Board shall develop procedures for all city officers and employees to obtain informal guidance and assistance in understanding and maintaining 156 compliance with the provision of this chapter. On Page No. 7, letter J, under 20-603, title, Ethics Training and Education for businesses. The Board shall develop in conjunction with the Procurement Commissioner a code of business ethics manual and conduct educational and training programs for use by all businesses who may conduct business with the city. 20-6707, Penalties. The provision currently reads, "No. " Strike the period, insert a comma, or if so authorized by the General assembly a fine of up to $25,000 for each violation. There are amendments to Bill 040772, which is the contracts and procurement bill. There are number of technical amendments. In Chapter 17-1202 under No. " New word, the. Strike the A. " Strike that language. A search on the city's office Web site a notice of -- continue the sentence. " All of this language is dealing with the advertising concerns that were raised in the hearing the other day. , add to small letter iii, add to the end of the sentence, on file with the Department of Records and the Procurement Department small letter C, after the agency have selected the applicant with which it intends to contract, the city agency shall publish a notice of the city's official Web site. Further in that paragraph, striking the advertising requirement, replacing it with appear on the Web site for at least one week 158 contract is executed no later than the date, strike "of publication," the notice first appears on the city's Web site. On , every noncompetitive bid contract shall be approved in writing by the, insert "the Procurement Commissioner" continue the Finance Director, the City Solicitor and the Mayor prior to execution. New letter H, no noncompetitively bid contract shall be amended to increase the amount to be paid under the contract by more than twenty percent (20 percent) unless such amendment is approved in writing by the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director, the City Solicitor, the Mayor prior to execution. The City agency seeking to amend the contract shall publish it on the city's official Web site a notice of identifying the contract and explaining the need for the amendment. Such a notice shall appear on the City's web site for at least one week prior to execution of the amendment and no later than the day the notice first appears on the city's Web site. The city agency shall 159 send a copy of the notice to the President and Chief Clerk of Council and to the Department of Records. On , 17-1203, No. 2, on the first working day of each month, strike "the Mayor shall" a report, signed by the Procurement Commissioner, the Finance Director and the Mayor shall be filed by the Mayor, continue with the sentence. On , new No. 3, by August 1 of each year, the Mayor shall file with the President and Chief Clerk of Council with a copy to the Department of Records an annual report summarizing the award of noncompetitively bid contracts during the fiscal year. Such report signed be signed by the Procurement Commission, the Finance Director and Mayor and shall list for each city agency the number of contracts awarded by type of contracts, the dollar amount of such contract and the total payments made up under such contract. The report shall also include the Procurement Commissioner's analysis of the city's experience with the requirements of 160 this chapter during previous fiscal year and the Procurement Commissioner's recommendations, if any, to amend the requirements of this chapter or otherwise to improve the procurement process to ensure efficiency, economy and productivity, including the use of innovative means of procurement will be competitive and in the best interest of the city. Strike No. 3, make it No. 4. Those are all the amendments to Bill 13 No. 040772. There are amendments to Bill No. 15 040818. They are brief.
under No. 2, strike the entire paragraph. Note that begins with no 18 leases or contract or other agreement of any kind. Renumber letter 3 to be No. 2. " Those are all the amendments to Resolution 040818. And there is one last amendment to Resolution No. 040817, which is increasing the number of members of the Board of Ethics from five to seven. In Section 3-806, that would also require an increase in the number of people with terms. " That should be changed to two. And it also reads, "One member shall serve for a term of two years," that should be changed to two as well. These amendments were made the other day. It's my understanding they were not included as a part of the amendments that had already been approved by this Committee. " 162 The new proposed amendments for today go to Letter G because of the change in the composition of number of members, the quorum numbers must be changed. In Letter G you have three members of the board required to vote. Those numbers should both be changed to four. In the meeting section under I where it reads "Three members of the board shall constitute a quorum," that must be changed to four. In letter G, "Provided that neither the Executive Director, the Council," insert the executive director. " Those are all the amendments, Mr. Chairman, some of which were approved in last Wednesday's session but they somehow did not make it over to the Chief Clerk's Office. Those are all the amendments.
Thank you. 163 Councilwoman Blackwell, are there any amendments you wish to offer on your bills?
The Committee will stand in recess until Tuesday, November 30tj at 11:00 a.m. thank you. (Council adjourned at 2:37 p.m.) - - - - 164 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 Tuesday, November 16, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR