I believe that if we look, Recreation is the bigger of the two departments, and the concern has been that the unique issues for Fairmount Park would be lost in a merger. I think what we've seen certainly as we've begun bringing parts of those two departments together is that each has a unique voice. And one of the issues for both departments is that neither one is 119 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 tremendously large, so that by bringing the two together, in fact, I think we'll probably get more attention both in the budget process and as we go through working with other agencies in government, because the overall size of the entity will be larger. There are safeguards built in in terms of rules and standards, and I believe that those will be particularly sensitive to the needs and the concerns of those who have been wonderfully strong advocates for our parks.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Councilman Green.
Thank you. I just note that under -- good afternoon, Dr. Schwarz.
I just note that under current governance, you know, each of the three branches of our local government play a role in the park. The judiciary appoints the Fairmount Park Commission, the Mayor proposes a budget, and City Council approves the budget the Mayor proposes. And I'm just wondering what the benefits are of moving away from that sort of governance and just consolidating the operations under the Recreation Department; in other words, keeping the power to sell the land, lease the land, et cetera, within the Fairmount Park Commission, which is whether we nominate it by judges or other methods of different -- you know, a different approach. Can you just talk briefly about the concerns that are raised by taking the judiciary or some other nominating panel out of the process.
I believe that 121 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the intent here has been to align authority and responsibility, so both in terms of budget and in terms of all of the other municipal functions which are required to have strongly running parks and recreation centers, the Mayor's Office is responsible. And what this does is align that authority with responsibility, and it says that the Mayor, with City Council, who are responsible for the budget for these entities and are responsible for the oversight in terms of all of the other supports, will now officially have authority over the two entities, Parks and Recreation, and the citizenry can then very clearly and transparently look to the Mayor and City Council for that responsibility and authority, which is what other cities have done and which seems to be a more representative way for the citizens of Philadelphia to both expect and to demand people who 122 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 will maintain our parks and our recreation system.
Wouldn't it have been possible to move all of the operations into one department but leave the lands in essentially a trust with a commission or other people? I mean these of lands that were -- many of which were donated to the City of Philadelphia. They're different from other public lands. In my view, they've been put in a public trust. And the intention of the legislature when they put it with the judges at the time was that it somehow removed it from the political process then so that lands would maintain or stay in a public trust. And I just wondered if you could explain the Administration's position on taking it out of that sort of public trust -- you can think of the commissioners as trustees of the land -- and putting it into the normal political process in 123 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Philadelphia.
Both in terms of acquisition and sale, there are standards which we would hope the current commission would uphold. I think we could agree that these are public lands entrusted to a commission. What the legislation asks is that a new commission be named jointly by an open process between City Council and the Mayor's Office and that that commission promulgate rules and standards and that the Mayor and Council be particularly attentive to those rules and standards. It provides public input into what those rules and standards are for sale and acquisition. And I believe it's a more open and representative process, and it's certainly one that is more transparent than the current process. I would say --
And how 124 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 would you see that working? What do you mean by "rules and standards"? If rules were not followed, Council couldn't act to sell land or...
The current piece of legislation does not restrict the ability of the Mayor and Council to do that. It strongly directs. And there are certainly rules that Council has for itself, which could include such structures as to the abeyance of those rules and standards. This piece of legislation sets out the structure and the operating principles in general. And we have both the public and the duality between the Mayor's Office and Council over the next eight years, hopefully, to assure that any rules that are developed maintain the integrity of the park and recreation system.
What is the Administration's objection, if there is one, to having a super majority of 125 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Council approve the sale of lands rather than a simple majority of Council approve the sale of these parklands?
The Administration at the moment believes that Council can look at its own rules regulations on those issues but that as with any other decision -- with most other decisions for acquisition and sale, simple majority is used. But as you mention, these may be unique lands donated to the City, and Council rules could reflect that.
Once again, they'd be governed by a simple majority of Council rules, I mean. Council rules are governed by a simple majority.
But Council can determine, as I understand it, the rules for that.
By simple majority, though. 126 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Sure, but if it's a simple -- you can always change the rules.
And all you would have to do is suspend the rules and a simple majority could do that. So I just wanted to see what the Administration's position was on the record. That is my concern about this, and I will -- that's all I have for now.
Okay, thank you, Councilman. Any other questions by members of the committee? First let me just recognize that Councilwoman Sanchez is present at the hearing. 127 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Councilman Clarke?
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm obviously not a member of the Administration, so I'm not giving a response to Councilman Green, but I just wanted to weigh in on that whole issue with respects to, one, the Council rules, and this will actually come up in testimony later on by another witness that's here. During the course of the discussion, there had been significant concerns raised about the disposition of parkland more so than the acquisition issue, and we understood that that was a concern. But I just want to say for the record, in meeting with the advocates and some of the interested parties, that disposition of parkland, to my knowledge, I can't ever remember when that was initiated from the Council of Philadelphia. 128 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 The process traditionally is that it is forwarded to the department, the department and the staff reviews the proposals -- and this is the current process -- and it is reviewed by the commission. It then comes to Council. So this whole notion that somehow City Council initiates all of these park sales is just not reality. So we have never been involved in that process, with the exception at the tail-end. Just so we can clear that up. That's not what we do. We don't initiate land sales. With respects to this issue of the two-thirds majority, understanding that it is a concern, we have had discussion with respects to that process. And as Dr. Schwarz has said, Council has the ability to alter its rulings as it relates to park disposition, acquisition, and any other issue. 129 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 While I have personally -- and I only say that because I'm only one voted -- committed to the concerned parties that I will try to initiate a process that looks at establishing a policy within the rules of Council that establishes a higher threshold as it relates to park disposition, I have made that commitment personally, and then it's my responsibility to find out where to get eight additional votes. So I couldn't commit that that definitely would happen, but that's something that I think is of significant interest to park advocates, so I think that that's something that we should probably entertain and ultimately implement as it relates to our internal process. One of the other things that came up as a result of park disposition is that it was made clear that there should be significant 130 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 standards and guidelines for everyone to operate from 'cause currently, under the current process, there are no guidelines, there are no standards, and we have had significant levels of controversy as it relates to disposition of parkland because there are no guidelines or standards, 'cause, you know, a proposal comes in, and then, at the end of the day, it's operating based on who happens to be the staff person of the day or who happens to be the commissioners on that particular committee. So we have also agreed to establish aggressive guidelines and standards. We also believe that under this proposal that the commission should weigh in on all issues as it relates to disposition and acquisition in addition to being at a public hearing and testifying either for or support. So we understand that that is 131 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 a significant concern, and we've tried to establish in the amendments that you will see at a later time in the hearing to put people at a comfort level as it related to those issues.
Thank you. Dr. Schwarz, are you aware of any other municipal park system of the scope or magnitude of our park that has it all combined like this as opposed to, you know, a separate -- in a separate trust or...
Just one second. New York City has a department of parks and recreation with more than 1700 parks and playgrounds and recreation facilities. It constitutes 28,000 acres. There are 614 ball fields, 991 playgrounds, and they manage 550 tennis courts. And I can go on.
The City of Los Angeles' department of recreation and parks maintains over 15,600 acres of parkland, 387 neighborhood and regional parks, lakes, and 176 recreation 7 centers.
Okay. And do they -- what stand -- do they have different standards or differing standards for the disposition of those kinds of lands, or is that something you looked at?
-- in terms of governance. And they, unlike Chicago, but they -- Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas and so forth -- all report to the mayor and 133 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 have a similar arrangement with the city municipal representative body.
And are the rules -- I mean, do they have an FP -- similar to what's the new FPC with rules and regulations.
Are those rules and regulations binding in those cities, or they non-binding like here in Philadelphia?
I don't know that answer. Let me see. We can find out for you. I don't know the answer to that question.
If you could provide that answer to the Chair, I think that fact is an important fact. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions of the 134 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 committee? Councilman Jones.
I would be interested in knowing, and since we're talking about a merger, are there similar policies for recreation-owned and controlled properties specifically on disposition but also when it comes to a lease? Because in effect, a lease becomes -- if it's years, in effect 16 is a form of ownership; you just can't 17 sell it. It's a definite control 18 factor. 19 And I guess what I would want 20 to know is how this policy going 21 forward would be on leases to private 22 concerns and/or nonprofits. 23
It would be the 24 expectation that the commission, which 25 would now cover both Parks and 135 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Recreation, would set out rules for lease, acquisition, disposal of property that is included in the whole system, so all Park and Recreation properties. So we'd have a uniform system.
It would be uniform, and the terms and conditions would be reviewed by the commission?
They would be reviewed by the commission. And if there were a significant transaction, as defined in the legislation, it would come before Council.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions from any -- oh, Councilman Green. Sorry.
I did want to put one thing on the record. In 1995, this Council did attempt to take Burholme Park out of the jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park 136 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Commission and put it into the jurisdiction of the Rec Department or somewhere else; I'm not sure where. So, you know, this body has in the past initiated attempts to take parklands and do something that is not under the jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park Commission. I'm not sure it would have changed the use of Burholme Park at all, but that has, in fact, happened in the City of Philadelphia, so I just wanted that on the record.
It would be useful to know what the intent had been, whether it had to do with maintenance, for instance. I don't know, but I hear the point.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank 137 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 you, Dr. Schwarz. And I don't know what your schedule is, but if you could stay around in case questions come up, I'd appreciate it. The next group that I have listed to testify are representatives of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, everyone. From the written testimony, it looks you each have a part here. Mr. Hoskins, I think you're to start. Okay, identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Yes. I'm Pete Hoskins, and I am the Chair or President of the Board of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. And I want to thank you and members of Council for allowing us to appear today. Twenty-one years ago, I appeared before City Council as 138 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Fairmount Park Director recommending a 53 percent increase of $6.3 million operating budget dollars to restore the landscape and historic assets of Fairmount Park. Nineteen days ago, over two decades later, you became the first city council and Mayor Nutter the first mayor to significantly increase park funding. You approved a 46 percent increase for parks over the next five years. That's historic, and we thank you. Today, we have another new opportunity. The Philadelphia Parks Alliance believes that the proposed legislation, with the proposed amendments, will reform the governance and management of Fairmount Park in a way that will make future investments much more possible. The bill, led by Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds-Brown, will amend the City Charter and fundamentally change the 139 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 accountability for success of the parks now under the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department. I want to give deep thanks for the leadership in City Council, particularly Councilmember Clarke and Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown and the Mayor that have combined to make possible this historic moment to our park legacy. History has clearly demonstrated that a separate parks commission and a parks director disconnected to the Mayor's chain of command is a recipe for neglect of parks. No matter how dedicated the individual commissioners of Fairmount Park Commission have been -- and many have -- no matter how hard the long-diminishing park staff have worked -- and many have -- the fatal flaw of disconnected governance has been cruel to our parks and people who 140 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 rely on them, most especially as taxpayer funding has had to compete strongly against many other vital public needs. On behalf of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and all who benefit from the reforms of this legislation and subsequent increases in parks investment, I urge full City Council support to amend the City Charter to bring the governance and management of City parks under direct accountability to the Mayor, with appropriate checks and balances of City Council and a new Commission of Parks and Recreation. I want to now turn to Lauren Bournefriend, who will speak more directly to the legislation and the amendments. Again, I thank you.
Good afternoon, Councilman Greenlee and members of City Council.
Good 141 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 afternoon.
I am Lauren Bournefriend, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. For years, the Parks Alliance has been at the forefront of an effort to revitalize our parks, to fully fund them and to reform the governance of Fairmount Park and improve the management of all parks. We are indeed making process on all fronts. Many thanks to Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds-Brown and to Mayor Nutter and senior administration staff for engaging in a thoughtful and open dialogue with the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and our stakeholders. We have come a long way together. The Philadelphia Parks Alliance supports the proposed bill 22 and amendments being submitted today and believes that this is another major step forward. Why? First, it reforms the 142 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 governance of Fairmount Park. We all agree that the parks need strong, diverse expert and entrepreneurial leadership selected in a process that is open, that is based on qualifications, and that is empowered with adequate funding. The commission should be a policy board clearly charged with its roles and responsibilities. Second, parkland and assets must be protected. We agree that the Commission on Parks and Recreation has the power and the responsibility to set forth guidelines and policies for the lease, sale, acquisition, and development of parkland and recreation land and assets. These guidelines are the standards by which the Mayor and City Council will make decisions about parkland and assets. In addition, the new Commission on Parks and Recreation will interpret the policies they 143 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 create and make recommendations to City Council concerning specific projects. Philadelphia has a long history of protecting its watersheds, open spaces, and parks. That history should be honored and expanded upon and made more efficient inclusive, and transparent. Third, the Mayor will be more directly accountable for the stewardship of the City's parks. This direct accountability is essential to improving and revitalizing our park and recreation system. They need to be led and managed with an understanding of their significance for health and recreation as well as for economic development for the City and region. I'd like to turn our testimony over to Doris Gwaltney. Thank you.
Thank you. I am Doris Gwaltney, President of the Carol Park Neighbors and a board member of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. I know from my own experience at Carol Park the positive impact a park can have on a neighborhood. Our volunteers have invested their sweat and time and thousands of dollars, and public and private funds have been spent to make Carol Park what it is today. Parks do matter. A revitalized park can heal a neighborhood and lift a community. Carol Park is one of the 76 parks currently managed by the Department of Recreation. So a few years ago, when I heard about the proposal to consolidate the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation, I opposed it. Other park volunteers from the Fairmount Park parks also opposed it. So did the 145 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Parks Alliance. At the time, we perceived the proposed change as a cost-cutting strategy. Today, I am pleased to say that the Philadelphia Parks Alliance is ready to support the merging of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation into one unified department. A lot has changed. Your recent approval of 3.5 million new dollars for parks and recreation indicates to me that the proposed merger is not about cost-cutting. In our meetings with Mayor Nutter, he has assured us that the implementation of the merger would be done thoughtfully and strategically so that the merger will result in a more effective and efficient delivery of services and programs to parks and recreation centers. Rest assured the Park Alliance has every intention of seeing that the 146 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Mayor keeps his word. We are now confident that consolidation will mean more for all and not less for both. Thank you. Now let me ask Graham Finney to make our final comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Graham Finney and I am a board member of the Parks Alliance. Yesterday, the alliance issued a groundbreaking report that for the first time estimated the benefits -- financial, economic -- received by both the City government and by residents of the City as a result of its fine parks and recreation facilities: $23 million in added City revenue because of housing located with proximity to a park; 16 million in cost savings as a result of the parks' ability to handle storm water 147 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 runoff, to plant trees that help air quality; and not to be forgotten, the volunteer effort that citizens put into park maintenance and programming at the present time. In addition property values are enhanced by being adjacent to parks. And then there is the one-and-a-half billion dollars estimated in this report that citizens save by having access to parks and recreation facilities that are publicly provided and by health benefits that derive therefrom. That's a lot of value. For the first time ever, we can now begin to quantify the importance of this precious set of assets. The report also points out, of course, that if we invest more and keep the process that's just been started going, that those benefits could easily double or triple. Now today, we're considering 148 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 changes in the governance and management of our park and recreation facilities. A hundred-and-fifty years or so ago, visionary leaders of Fairmount Park created Fairmount Park and set in motion the system that now is in use and in which we take great pride. But after long years of neglect and deterioration of those facilities, we now have an unparalleled opportunity to be strong stewards of that acreage and to get things going again. To tackle that job, it makes no sense to have a park commission entangled in the minutiae of daily operations. Therefore, if we urge to fully fund and wisely invest in our parks and the future, it makes sense to have and empower a diverse, talented body of committed citizens and charge them with formulating policies and standards that will guide, protect, and enhance all these 149 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 areas and facilities. The members of this body would be selected in an open process and carry out its responsibilities in the same transparent manner. Once implemented, this legislation will need the support not only of this Council and future city councils, this mayor and future mayors to uphold these policies to see that those steps of progress are retained and sustained over time. We will also need committed civic organizations to continue to watch over and stimulate that these developments keep going. With the legislation being presented to you today, this Council has an enormous opportunity to enable Philadelphia's loved unmatched park recreation system to reach its true potential in the years ahead, and we urge you to seize that opportunity. And we thank you very much for hearing us out this afternoon. 150 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you all for the many years you've put into advocating and improving Fairmount Park and thus, obviously, improving the City of Philadelphia. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Okay. Thank you all very much for coming. On my list, the last page I have is Judge Bonavitacola, Senator Price, and Mike McCrea of the Recreation Advisory Board. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. And thank you for all your patience. You've been here a long time. I know Mike was here before I got here this morning, so I know he's 151 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 been here a long time. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of printed statements.
Sure. Thank you. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, there are only three of you left, so there are three copies.
Okay. Your Honor, if you could just identify yourself for the record and proceed. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, good afternoon. I'm Alex Bonavitacola, retired judge and presently a Fairmount Park commissioner. I have set forth in the written statements some points that I think Council and this committee need to address and be concerned about. And I do not intend to read this off to you because you're perfectly capable of going through it yourself. Except to say that, number 152 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 one, we must remember the history of the Fairmount Park Commission, which was created in 1867, right after the conclusion of the Civil War. And the purpose was to keep Fairmount Park away from popular political whims because it was necessary for the conservation of water, because even today, we draw a great deal of our drinking water from the Schuylkill, to preserve the purity of that water by having grass and open land to filter through rain or storm runoff, and to provide the citizens of our city with open greenery. Now, there seems to be a discontent with governance, and I think that my feeling is that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The process for electing the ten commissioners in May of '07 was the most open, well-publicized process that I have ever seen concerning the election of commissioners. 153 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Most of the complaints that we hear are lack of maintenance, deterioration and, as it was said, twenty years of ever-diminishing budgets, or at least static budgets, with no increase for inflation. We know what the problems are; we did not have the money to fix it. And the last two points I want to make are: Number one, the commission has nurtured and fostered the friends groups, and there are a lot of people out there who volunteer their time, their efforts, their money to help the park system along. Secondly, the conservancy raises from the private citizenry a great deal of money which is used to help restore, maintain, or improve certain historic properties in the park such as the Water Works and places of that nature. So I don't think that it's 154 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 wise to tamper with something that's been in effect for 140 years unless there is a compelling, urgent need. And, frankly, maybe I'm too close to it; I don't see a compelling urgent need. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator? SENATOR PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of Council for the opportunity. I'm appearing here, as is Judge Bonavitacola, as an individual park commissioner and I don't pretend to speak for the Park Commission as a whole. But before going further, let me just mention that there are other park commissioners here today showing their interest obviously in commitment to this system we've enjoyed for 141 years: Commissioner Farrah Jimenez and Harris Baum. And Debra 155 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 (indiscernible), of course is the Mayor's representative on the Park Commission. And the staff, I'd like to pay tribute to the staff and ask them to rise just so you can see how many talented people there are on the senior staff of the Park Commission who -- who have helped maintain the system so well for so long.
Very good. SENATOR PRICE: What I'd like to confine my remarks to is not the administrative consolidation which is being proposed, because that's not only a matter outside my competence, but if it does produce savings in terms of cost savings to the City taxpayer, and secondly, more importantly perhaps, better services to the citizens, it should be done. And if all of you on Council and the Administration and others who 156 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 are knowledgeable about city government think that's appropriate, then it should be done. But I raise two questions about it, though. One, I think those savings and improvements in services might be quantified before you pass this bill 9 and submit it to the voters so that the general electorate can see how significant this change would be in their benefit. And secondly, when it does go through, I would suggest, in order to understand what monies are allocated to recreation and parks that there be some way of explaining a financial system that shows that difference, so that going forward, we all know how much money is being spent on parks. One of the questions earlier -- or one of the statements earlier raised was that the park system has been woefully underfunded. Of course, that was not always the 157 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 case. When the City Charter was passed in 1951, the first year after that Charter amendment, two-and-a-half percent of the City budget was spent to maintain Fairmount Park. Before the recent increase, which you should be applauded for approving, difficult with the tax proposal that you had to approve to fund it, before that, four- tenths of one percent of the City's annual operating budget was spent for Fairmount Park. So I don't think -- it's a recent phenomenon, not a historical phenomenon. But what I would like to confine my remarks to is the importance of maintaining a separate body that looks after parkland. And the Fairmount Park Commission, if you want to change how they're selected -- and I suggest that in my testimony, one option for that. To make it more, quote, accountable to city government, my proposal would outline one way of 158 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 doing that and also a selection process that would be a little bit different. But the importance of maintaining a citizen body can't be overstated. It is what has really created this park system. There's been a partnership for all these years between a citizen group called the Fairmount Park Commission and all the nonprofit organizations that have been connected to that system and City government, both the Administration and City Council. Otherwise, the Parkway would never had been developed. The acquisition of lands to complete the protection of the waterways, for example, of Pennypack and Cobbs Creek, those acquisitions took over twenty years each to acquire, and you wouldn't have had that continuity, with all due respect, in government. You had it because there was a body 159 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 with long-term stability. The members change from time to time, but long-term stability with a single purpose, a commission, a single purpose, of first creating and then preserving and protecting the park and making it as useful as possible to the citizens. And I think in this consolidation, if you eliminate that enormously beneficial system, which is -- which can be as creative in the future as it has been in the past, then I think we will all have lost a great, great deal. I'd like to suggest just from my written testimony a couple of paragraphs that I'd like to just mention orally as well. A new role for the Fairmount Park Commission.
Act as the planning and policy board for all of Fairmount Park's land and buildings, including having the power both to accept 160 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 additions to parkland, as Councilman Clarke mentioned, and approve the lease or sale of a limited number of acres for non-park uses under a public process that includes a long-range plan long-range plan and public hearings. Again, the importance of land as opposed to recreation is what makes me suggest that. Also, have the responsibility for continuing to administer the trust and custodial funds, which are now under the jurisdiction of the Park Commission. I think this independent body would serve the City well in doing that, and I can't see any reason to change that. Work collaboratively and closely, obviously, with the conservancy, which may be of a merger with the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust, and act as a single entity, if you will. Have direct connections, as 161 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Judge Bonavitacola mentioned, with all of the friends groups going forward, which has historically been a very important aspect of the commission. Recommend improvements to Fairmount Park. Again, if you have a body outside city government, in my experience, you have the ability to look at it long-term as opposed to short-term, and recommend improvements that could be made to everyone's benefit. And continue to enforce the policies that have been established over the years by the commission such as signing and naming. Those kind of things. I won't continue in my testimony, but I think those kinds of responsibilities would be extremely important to continue going forward, and I think there's a way to accomplish the administrative consolidation of the two departments without losing that special interest 162 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 of having citizens who are not beholden to any special interests, thinking about these subjects long-term and giving their best advice to it. And, finally, let me just comment on some of the questions that, Chairman Greenlee, you asked and others asked. You suggested, I think, Chairman Greenlee, that there's a question of whether the park system would be shortchanged going forward. I think perhaps by separating, at least for the public's purpose, the expenses and revenues that are supporting recreation and parks going forward would be a way to do that. You also asked, What is the experience of other cities? Well, some other cities are beginning to engage the private sector more in the management of the parks. We all know what happens in Central Park in New York. There's a Central Park 163 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 conservancy that now has full responsibility for the management of that 890-acre park, which million 5 people visit a year. And that wasn't 6 done overnight, but the point is that 7 New York recognized the importance of 8 having private citizens involved in 9 the park system. That's all I'm 10 suggesting here by saying that the 11 Park Commission should be continued in 12 that framework. 13 The question of disposition of 14 land, obviously, is enormously 15 important, but if you had a policy 16 group like I'm recommending be 17 continued, making that suggestion 18 after a long-range plan and public 19 hearings and the like, it would be a 20 lot easier for all of you in City 21 Council to make the ultimate decision. 22 So those are the kinds of 23 things that lead me to suggest that it 24 would be enormously beneficial to 25 continue the Fairmount Park Commission 164 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 with these limited responsibilities over policy and the other matters I suggested as opposed to administration. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you both for your testimony. Before Mr. McCrea testifies, maybe -- and, Senator, you kind of started to answer the question I was going to ask anyway, but to kind of reverse it from what I asked Dr. Schwarz. In his testimony, he pointed out that the ten largest cities in the country have a system like is being proposed here. Why -- and I know you both touched on it, but why do you think Philadelphia should be different from that in your opinion? SENATOR PRICE: I'm sorry. What was that?
Why should Philadelphia be different than 165 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the other large cities in the country, either -- SENATOR PRICE: Well, how it developed historically, there wasn't any recreation system in Philadelphia when this park commission was established, obviously.
Mm-hmm. SENATOR PRICE: Recreation, as a formal matter, really didn't begin until the 1920s or the 1930s, so this park system being created first in about 1855 predated that. But there was always an enormous cooperation between the two. There was a park commission president who was the recreation commissioner president named Robert Crawford back in the early '60s and early '70s, who did a lot for both systems. In fact, the first president of the park commission was a mayor, Mayor Morton McMichael in 1867. So that having them combined 166 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 isn't necessarily the only way you can gain cooperation. You gain it, as has been the case here, in other very, very significant ways.
Thank you. Judge, were you going to say something? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: No, I was just going to say that one of the dangers of consolidating the authority and the power on the political side is reminiscent of what occurred to the area known as League Island Park that's at the southern terminus of Broad Street. It originally went from the railroad tracks to 11th Street. The City Council, in 1924, cut off everything east of Broad Street, and that's because they wanted to build the then-municipal stadium and other amenities associated with the sesquicentennial, so that the park was 167 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 twice as large -- well, I don't want to say twice as large. A third again as large as it was originally intended, and a third of it was cut off and used for other municipal purposes because you have these popular ideas that arise, and everybody has a knee jerk reaction to a popular new idea, but maybe it's time to stand back a little bit and say, Wait a minute, maybe this too will pass. So that's all I wanted to add to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Senator Price. Senator, you are a former legislator; is that correct? SENATOR PRICE: I haven't been 168 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 called that for a long time, so I have to think.
But you're familiar with legislation. Is there anything in the current form, or as amended, that would suggest that this legislation does not allow for the involvement of private citizens? SENATOR PRICE: I'm sorry. I missed that. Excuse me. I --
Is there anything within this current legislation or proposed amendments that suggests that there would not be an allowance for the involvement of private citizens? SENATOR PRICE: No, not in the legislation. But what I'm saying is, I think it would be, from my perspective my thought about this, and the historical record, if you will, of the Park Commission to have an independent body selected in the way that I suggested in my testimony. 169 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
But -- SENATOR PRICE: That would think about it long-term and have responsibility for it.
But there's nothing within the legislation that precludes -- SENATOR PRICE: Well, I haven't seen the amendment. With all due respect, I haven't seen that, so I don't know what it says. And I thought the original bill made the commission advisory only and not -- not with any powers. If it's advisory, it will have virtually no effect whatsoever, in my opinion, and probably within six months would disappear as a function. That's been the traditional result of advisory commissions.
And within your testimony, you used the term "private citizens with no connection to special interests"; is that correct? 170 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 SENATOR PRICE: Well, I'm saying that everyone has a connection or an interest.
Exactly. SENATOR PRICE: I'm saying if you have citizens who are outside the political, the direct political process, involved --
But there's no such thing as private citizens with no connection to special interests. SENATOR PRICE: Well, we all -- I don't think any of us has a purity in that respect. But what I'm saying is that the involvement of those outside government -- I'm not trying to say that government is the problem. That's not the problem.
But, Senator, Senator -- SENATOR PRICE: But you gain a lot of --
Senator, 171 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 let's just -- SENATOR PRICE: -- additional thinking if you have outsiders as well.
Which this process will allow for and does allow for. And sticking with the legislation, this does allow for private citizens to be involved. Let's just get down to the real issue: Politics. SENATOR PRICE: Well, I would -- I would --
Ultimately, who should make the decision about the Fairmount Park Commission? SENATOR PRICE: Well, I'm saying that this commission, as I propose it continuing --
The question was -- SENATOR PRICE: -- was to develop policies --
The question is: Ultimately, who should make the 172 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 decision about the Fairmount Park Commission? SENATOR PRICE: Well, the government, as it does today. In other words, City Council has the power to accept and dispose of land, and it has done so obviously on the recommendation in previous years, on the recommendation of the Fairmount Park Commission. For example, in thinking about this testimony, I --
Ultimately, who should make the decision about whether Fairmount Park should be merged with Recreation or whether Parks should be merged with Recreation? Ultimately, who should make that decision? SENATOR PRICE: You -- the Administration and City Council, no 25 question about it. I'm not arguing 173 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 about it --
Actually -- SENATOR PRICE: -- or even suggesting an alternative.
Well, actually, I disagree with you. SENATOR PRICE: Pardon me?
Actually, I disagree with you. Ultimately, I believe that the citizens and the voters should make a decision. SENATOR PRICE: The elected representatives make that decision. What I'm saying is, you've got a benefit from a private group, which is what the Park Commission has been all these years. You got a benefit of a private group that thinks about these public issues about acquisition and disposition of land, the uses of buildings in the park and the like, that help you all in Council and the Administration make those decisions.
Ultimately, 174 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 if the electorate should make the decision and those people who have put in years of volunteering have years of expertise, want to offer their advice not only to the legislators, the legislative branch of government, the executive branch of government, but to that electorate, at the end of the day do you really believe that the electorate would not want more control of the parks in the hands of their duly elected representatives? SENATOR PRICE: Well, you -- you have -- you have that power today really.
My question is: At the end of the day, if it's the electorate that should make the ultimate decision, do you actually believe that the electorate would not want the power in the hands of their duly elected representatives? SENATOR PRICE: I think that's true because they have it today. What 175 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 I'm suggesting is that --
Thank you, Senator. SENATOR PRICE: -- if the process is a little more open, the decision-making might be better.
That exchange has triggered a question for me. Senator, do you believe that, given the last six years of what Councilman Clarke and I would like to think has been a very open, transparent process wherein all 176 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 stakeholders up and down, depth and wide, has had a chance to weigh in, do you believe that that has been fair and open? SENATOR PRICE: Yes, I do indeed. I commend you on doing that.
Okay. And it's understood that you have not yet had a chance to review the amendments that are coming before you. Do you believe that the intent of what we've tried to do with regards to opening up the process of the selection of commission members has been -- do you think we've achieved a goal there with regards to making the process more transparent and open? SENATOR PRICE: Well, I think that has been a very useful exchange, and all I'm suggesting is an opinion that you might take into consideration when you consider a final bill for passage to present to the electorate. I'm one opinion, along with 177 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Judge Bonavitacola and others, and all I'm asking today is that, as you've given me the opportunity to present a viewpoint to be considered when you finally craft the final bill for presentation to the electorate.
Okay. SENATOR PRICE: But I think your process has been very fair, open, and inclusive, yes, indeed.
Thank you for your testimony. SENATOR PRICE: I appreciate it.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to see you again Judge Bonavitacola and Senator Price. And I apologize if this question has been asked, but I was 178 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 just wondering if we could have insight from Judge Bonavitacola into what the traditional practice was of selecting Fairmount Park commissioners by the judiciary, if that question hasn't been asked.
Well, he kind of addressed it before, particularly the latest selection process, but --
I don't know if there's anything you quickly can add, yeah, but he did --
Okay, I'll look at the record. Thank you. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Actually, the selection process has changed tremendously.
Mm-hmm. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Judge Leon Tucker, who was formerly a member of the Fairmount Park Commission, chaired the board of judges panel and opened it 179 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 up with publicity, aided, of course, by the Daily News and the Inquirer, who made it clear to the citizenry at-large that the process was ongoing. He received, I think, 60 or 65 applications, interviewed over 50 -- he and his committee interviewed over 50 of the applicants and then made their recommendations to the full board of judges. That, indeed, is different than the way it was done before.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quickly, 'cause I know we have a number of other witnesses. First, I would just like to say -- and I know, Mike, you still have to testify, and please be as aggressive for the Recreation 180 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Department component of this bill. MR. McCREA: (Inaudible.)
'Cause I do believe that recreation in a lot of neighborhoods is as important as the park system because that's the only thing that a lot of people in these neighborhoods have. SENATOR PRICE: I didn't mean to suggest by my comments that it wasn't.
I just wanted to make it clear that, you know, we feel equally as passionate. And as a person that grew up in Strawberry Mansion and lived for tens years directly across from the park but also lived a block from the recreation center at 33rd and Diamond, I understand the nature of both of those systems, so I view them as equal as it relates to the citizens. And I want to thank you all for your testimony today and your continued support of the 181 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 parks. But I just want to say that we hear you. We understand that change is difficult, particularly in the City of Philadelphia, 'cause we have traditionally not accepted change very well. At one point, this building was the tallest building in the City of Philadelphia, and it was believed that nothing could ever be taller than it, and had we continued along that mindset, then we wouldn't have what we have on West Market Street, employing thousands and thousands of people. I had the occasion to go to the Comcast Building. A couple of members, we went to that, and it was impressive in terms of the type of building. It's LEED-certified; that's that new green term. The employment opportunities that have provided 3,000 new people working in the City of Philadelphia. So sometimes things change. 182 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 While I respect historical perspective of this, the City has changed, the diversity of the City has changed. The economics of the City has changed. So sometimes we have to be nimble enough to change as it relates to the process. This issue about the park systems not being broken, I, frankly speaking, respectfully I have to disagree. One, it's broken because there are not a enough resources in the park. Having been a member of the Fairmount Park Commission for five years and, prior to that, president of the Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council, I saw some of the shortcomings as it related to that process and those entities and tried to aggressively, when I was a member of the -- president of the commission -- council, I'm sorry, had to resign because I didn't feel that the citizens' input was adequate. 183 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 We immediately started a process where we actually had meetings out in communities, something that was never done by the Fairmount Park Commission. And the members of the council went out and we had staff to come along with us, and people really were happy about that process, but I was quickly told that I wasn't a commissioner and I needed to stop having such meetings out in the neighborhood, all right? You know what I did? See you later, right? I resigned, right? And then I came back as a commissioner, thanks to an appointment by the Council President. SENATOR PRICE: Sorry you were treated that way.
And I agree that the process and the commission has improved. The process as it relates to the board of judges selection was more open as it related to the solicitation 184 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 phase, but it did not have a public process as it relates to any of the selection phase, which was something that we think we should have. It should be extremely transparent, which we're attempting to do. I had conversations with some of the board of judges and the past president of that particular committee that received the initial nominations, and I suggested that there be some public process, but there was a lot of push-back. And the belief is, and as a 24-year ward leader, there are politics and were politics involved in that process. There may not be now, right? But everybody knows in the City of Philadelphia, you know, that politics plays a large role in the judges getting elected, to the point where they're now talking about merit selection 'cause they don't think the judges should be elected because they 185 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 think that we are -- politicians are too deeply engrossed, so there are politics in that process, and there have been, right? And I'm okay with that 'cause I'm definitely a politician, right? And I think, hopefully, you know, some people think actually a good one. But I think that if it's going to be politics involved and political people involved, it should be a open process, and we're going to do that in any way imaginable, to the point where we actually have problems deciding who's going to chair the committee that has a list of every applicant who has applied and expressed an interest 'cause we plan on having a full-blown public hearing where every person that fills out application wants to come in in a very public way and say why they should be a member of the commission; we plan on doing that. I think it's important. Or they want to support 186 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 somebody to be on this commission. So we're trying to have as transparent a process as a imaginable. I think that the operations -- and I think you probably both agree that the operations should be within -- under the jurisdiction of the City, the Mayor, 'cause operations have to be in a position to work efficiently and be cost-effective. And in all honesty, I think having Recreation as a part of this newly-formed commission is going to increase the chances of more funding, and I can say this, first time publicly, that during the deliberations as it relates to Councilmembers, there tends to be a more aggressive approach in making sure that the Department of Recreation is funded, right? more so than its parks. And I'm just being very candid, right? 'cause recreation 187 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 centers are things that people are in every neighborhood of the City of Philadelphia. And everybody loves a park, but nobody thinks that it's a part of the City as it relates to their Councilperson getting money for it. They want the grass cut, they want to be able to picnic, you know what I mean? They want to be able to have the baseball field cut, the diamonds, but they don't view it like a rec center 'cause I rarely get calls to me about making sure that there's money in the parks, but I always get calls about making sure there's money in the recreation system. So I think having the Recreation Department a part of this process is going to enhance funding opportunities. I also think that the commission should diligently be involved in external fundraising because I think there are limited 188 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 opportunities. I like to bring this up and I'll be bringing it up one last time hopefully, because hopefully, we won't have to have another public hearing on this issue. When you ask somebody anywhere in the United States where Central Park is -- new York.
If you ask somebody outside of Bucks County where Fairmount Park is, they don't have a clue, which means that we have not done the appropriate marketing job as it relates to our parks. And we need to enhance that, and I think it's an important role for the commission to play, along with the conservancy and the trust, to make sure that this park stays on the radar screen in a meaningful way, a national and an international way so we can get the appropriate external funding, 'cause government will never have enough money to fund our parks and our recreation systems the way they need 189 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 to be. So I hear you and I commend you for being as diligent on this issue 'cause it's important. As I said earlier, without the level of input from all of the interested parties, we would not have ended up with the bill that we have before you. So, you know, you have my commitment, and I can only speak for myself that this process will be as open as possible, it will be as inclusive as possible. )
-- I think was more policy as opposed to 190 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 legislatively. I would like to see some formal entity be put in place which codifies that this must be in place to help supplement the commission's work and all of the other departments' work. So we hear you. We're going to hopefully make this the best process. It's going to take some time to implement it 'cause we want to do it in an appropriate way and give the Administration the appropriate time to make sure that we get this right, 'cause I think we get one shot at this. So we hear you, we understand, and we're going to do what we think is the best thing for the citizens. And one of the things that Councilman Goode -- he was talking about earlier about who ultimately decides whether or not this is a meaningful proposal. The citizens 191 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 will, 'cause this is a Charter initiative. You know, we hopefully will pass this bill, but at the end of the day, the people will speak about whether or not this is a good proposal, and I think that's the way it should be. SENATOR PRICE: I'm all in favor of that. If it's useful, my testimony includes some suggestions on how to keep the process open.
Thank you, Senator. SENATOR PRICE: Thank you for those comments.
Thank you, Senator. SENATOR PRICE: You're welcome to everybody.
Thank you, Councilman. I think, Councilwoman 192 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Reynolds-Brown, you have your light on.
I will be brief, but I'm compelled to speak because we're hopeful that this may be the last public opportunity in this forum to have this kind of exchange. So in the spirit of Councilman Clarke's comment around issues of marketing, fundraising, and branding, be reminded that the strategic plan, which we were determined not to let sit on a shelf, Councilman Clarke brought his own experience, and I brought the experience of working with Leon Younger, who were consultants, who have done this very same thing in other cities. So together, we were able to make sure that the strategic plan does what it was intended to do, and that is to be instructive in how we go forward. So change is uncomfortable, 193 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 but know that given the input at all levels as well as a document that was extremely academic in how it gathered the information, that should give us some level of comfort that we're moving forward in a good way because we need to. SENATOR PRICE: Sure. No, I agree with that. I think that the document is very well stated. I understand that about half the recommendations for, quote, realignment of the functions between the Recreation Department and the Park Commission have already been completed, so --
(Indiscernible.) SENATOR PRICE: -- this process is going on and everyone accepts it --
Yes. SENATOR PRICE: -- and is supportive of it. As far as change is concerned, 194 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 that doesn't bother me. If you have children, you know that life changes, and so I'm not afraid of that. All I'm suggesting is that the points of view expressed today and previously about the value of having outside citizens involved in a meaningful way --
Yes. SENATOR PRICE: -- will create not only what we had before, but will, I think, solve some of the funding problems that Councilman Clarke mentioned in the future. The private sector will be very important for funding going forward, and we want to encourage that. That's all I'm suggesting.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 195 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Thank you, Senator. Mr. McCrea, it's finally your turn. (Witness comes forward.) MR. McCREA: Last but certainly not least.
Maybe last, yeah, but certainly not least, I agree. MR. McCREA: Thank you.
If you could identify yourself for the record. Do you have testimony? MR. McCREA: Here's copies, guys, if you want 'em.
Okay. MR. McCREA: Thank you. I'm Michael McCrea, President of the Philadelphia Recreation Advisory Council. First of all, I want to thank you for having the opportunity to testify. 196 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 On its face, Bill No. 080181 eliminates Fairmount Park as an individual entity, merging it with the Recreation Department and creating a new department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, it eliminates Fairmount Park Commission, replacing it with a new Commission on Parks and Recreation. While this sounds fairly simple and straightforward, the devil, as they say, is absolutely in the details, details that are not currently available, some of which will not be worked out for another 12 months or more. Seeing as the bill needs to be voted on and passed by June 19th to get it on the November ballot, it will clearly require an enormous leap of faith. Having met with Mayor Nutter within the last week, the Philadelphia Recreation Advisory Council understands his vision and what his 197 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 ultimate goals are concerning both recreation and parks. While we see the positives, it's also clearly a two-edged sword. The final product of the merger could work either to our benefit or our detriment, depending largely on the details that will not be worked out until long after the future of this bill has been determined. While our concerns are many, we will try and narrow 'em down to a manageable list. First, the existing program services need to at least retain their present level of funding, staffing, and resources. These services are vital and important to the survival of most communities across the City, and we cannot return to the dark ages of the previous eight years. 4 million, the current situation, while certainly not perfect, gives our communities a real boost. Our children have gained much momentum in the past six months, and we do not intend to let them give up without a serious fighting. Next, the existing bare- minimum level of custodial services must at least be retained with an eye towards a much needed increase in both full and part-time positions. After many years of below-minimum staffing levels, we currently have full-time custodial staff at all Class A and Class B facilities. Again, while not where it needs to be, it's a step ahead of where we've come from, and we cannot forward to again give up any momentum. One of the more important pieces for the success of the Recreation Department is its partnership with the Advisory 199 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Council's and volunteer organizations. They need to remain intact for several reasons. It allows each facility to raise funds at the local level to be utilized at each individual facility, and this would include maintaining the current financial accountability and controls, as outlined in our policies and procedures manual. Currently citywide, over 50 percent of the direct program dollars come from sources outside the Recreation Department and the City budget. The importance of this partnership cannot be understated. Next, the community programming at all facilities need to remain in charge of the Recreation Division. It's been responsible for the Recreation Department for almost 60 years. They know how to do it, they have the pulse of every community across the City, and they do it very well. It does not make sense to 200 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 change something that already works. They should also apply to permitting of all facilities in the attached fields. Currently, the Recreation Department operates several facilities within Fairmount Park, and the attached fields are permitted through Fairmount Park with little or nor consideration for the children who need to utilize the fields of various activities.
There are often conflicts between adult's and children's programs, and while we currently recognize and respect the importance of all programs, in our line of work, the children are all of first and ultimate utmost priority. It is clear that better communication would certainly help the situation, so it makes perfect sense for the facilities to be in control of the permitting responsibility and ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity 201 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 and scheduling will be controlled by one entity. When it comes to eliminating duplication of services, it certainly makes a lot of sense to combine the skilled trades to facilitate better overall level of service and preventative maintenance. While not unsalvageable, the current work-order system leaves much to be desired, and developing a more comprehensive work- order system with more individual accountability would be an area that desperately needs to be addressed On that same note, combining special events also all under one roof would also help eliminate the duplication of some services. Now, in speaking with the Mayor last week, he stated that this would be an ongoing process and that we would be a part of the conversation in developing the details over the next year or more. 202 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Now, his words carry a lot of weight. However, the leap of faith will require some action to go along with those words, and we hope to see that action sooner rather than later. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? MR. McCREA: Just a couple of points here just on some of the things that were said earlier.
Okay. MR. McCREA: Just being in the interest of opency [sic] and some transparency, I do have to kind of disagree with a couple of the comments the -- all of the stakeholders were not necessarily involved with this process, 'cause, to be honest with you, until the Mayor called me two weeks ago, and Councilwoman Sanchez was the only other one that actually even stepped up to 203 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the plate and asked us to even comment on any of this and put us in the process at all. So throughout that whole process, we were not consulted one bit, so not all of the stakeholders were at the table on that. And since I represent probably close to 200 organizations -- and each of those organizations has many stakeholders -- there were a lot of stakeholders that were not necessarily at the process in this. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. McCrea. That is all I have on my list of testifiers. Does anybody in the audience wish to testify on this bill 24 or resolution? (No response.) 204 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Seeing none, the Committee on Law and Government is in recess. We will now go into the public meeting of the committee. Just hold one second. All right. This is meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. * * *
Just for the record the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government is concluded. We're now moving into the public meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. It's been a long day; I'm using the wrong words here. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding amendment to Bill No. 080169.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 080169 be approved. (Motion duly seconded.) 205 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? The motion passes and the amendment is adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 9 089169, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 080169 as amended, be approved. And we're asking for a suspension, I assume?
And a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries, and Bill No. 24 080169, as amended, is reported out of this Committee with a favorable 206 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 8 080181, the amendment of same.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the amendment to Resolution 080181 be approved. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye Opposed? The amendment is adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 21 080181, as amended
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution 080181, as amended, be reported out of 207 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 committee with a favorable recommendation. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Hearing none, Resolution 10 080181 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. Having no other business, the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government is concluded. Thank you all very much. (Proceedings end at 1:45 p.m.) * * * 208 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Law and Government are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)