COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 16, 2009 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY BILL 090171 - An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to how and when required notices shall be published and advertised... RESOLUTION 090179 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to how and when required notices shall be published and advertised... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everybody. This is the Committee on Law and Government. For the record, we have a quorum with Councilman Goode, Councilman Green and Councilman Kelly and myself. Mr. Boyle, would you please read the bill and resolution before us today, please.
Ordinance 090171, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing an amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to how and when required notices shall be published and advertised; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution 090179, resolution 24 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating 3 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. to how and when required notices shall be published and advertised; and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
Thank you. (Witnesses approached the witness table.)
Any questions or comments initially from the Committee? Councilman Clarke, the sponsor of the bill, would like to address first. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Mr. Chair, real briefly, I just want to explain the purpose of the bill. There apparently has been some characterizations about the purpose of the bill and the intent that had nothing to do with our intent as the prime sponsor of the bill, so I just want to 4 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. put it out there. We in the Charter currently have certain provisions as it relates to both the City Council and the City, in addition the City Commissioners' ability to advertise and requirements as it relates to advertisement for public meetings and public notices and elections. One of the most significant concerns that we have is, currently under this provision we are required to advertise in three paid daily newspapers, and as you know, at the time of this particular provision, which was in the mid '50s, my understanding, that we had upwards of six paid newspapers. So to some degree, that law is somewhat antiquated, but in spite of that, it has proven to be effective during the course of the last several decades. We are now in a process where -- and hopefully this will never happen, and I genuinely mean that -- that potentially there may be the likelihood 5 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. or the possibility that we may not have three paid -- and I say "paid" because that's a significant term -- local newspapers of the City of Philadelphia. Not simply that have papers for sale in the City of Philadelphia; they have to be of the City of Philadelphia. If in fact that happens, we will not be able to advertise a public meeting, a public hearing, any information that relates to public meetings or public hearings, the outcome of public meetings or public hearings, so effectively we will have to shut down local government. And, again, I reiterate, I hope that never happens. This particular bill simply gives the City Council, if needed, the opportunity by subsequent legislation to craft legislation that will allow us to conduct business. But under the state Sunshine provision, City Council -- and I'm assuming all other aspects of local government -- are still required, regardless of what happens in the 6 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. subsequent bill or this legislation, to advertise in one paid local newspaper, daily local newspaper, and is required to advertise in the Legal Intelligencer. Any changes from that must be done by state law. So, effectively, the only possibility of changing this particular current provision in the Charter based on the Sunshine provision would be to reduce the number of local paid advertised newspapers by one. Again, we hope that doesn't happen. We have obviously fine newspapers, but we want to be in the position in the event that something happens, we can conduct business. The concern about being very specific in this legislation that gives us the authorization, if you change something in this legislation and it's spelled out that we will only do two paid newspapers in this legislation, the only way you can change that is to change the Charter, and unfortunately -- well, not 7 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. unfortunately. Fortunately, Charter provisions can only be done twice a year. So we can't be in a position where you have to wait until November to do anything. Again, I hope we never have to use it, but if in fact we do, we need to be in a position to conduct the business of the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you for that explanation. Just so I'm clear, though, in order to change it at all, this gives us the ability to do it?
But in order to make any changes, we would have to pass another ordinance; am I correct?
I suspect -- first of all, this puts it on the ballot, and the voters have to approve this. So there's another hurdle. If the voters approve, I suspect that there will not be any changes. I mean, it's not like we're looking to do 8 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. anything.
But we need to be in a position if in fact we only have two or maybe one paid newspaper, we have to be in the position to conduct business.
And just from -- I know you and I talked about this before. As a matter of history, there was an issue back in the '80s, right?
Where some bills were invalidated because of a newspaper strike; am I right?
Yeah. We had a newspaper strike in the City of Philadelphia and I think at that time we 9 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. only had one local newspaper and Council advertised in a series of newspapers, but they were not daily paid circulation newspapers, passed a number of bills, proceeded, and I think the Mayor actually signed the bills. They were taken to court, and all of those bills were struck down in court because they did not meet the Charter provisions. So this has happened in the past and we want to make sure we're not in a position where it will happen in the future.
And if we pass it and then the question passed on the ballot, we would have the opportunity through another ordinance to possibly address that; is that what you're saying?
That's the only way we can change, with a subsequent ordinance.
Thank you. 10 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Councilman Green.
Councilman Clarke, I'm sorry. I didn't follow what you were saying about what the state law requirements are related to this.
Yeah. During the research -- and I probably should let the Solicitor -- you want me?
Let me defer to the Solicitor, because my word is not law, although I'm a legislator in this particular case. If it's okay with you, Councilman.
If you're going to address that in your testimony, then I --
I mean, I can say what I said before. Would you prefer that I respond?
He can answer if he 11 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. wants.
No. I'll just save that for her testimony. Do we know how many peer cities have these kind of different alternatives? Have we looked at, say, the top or cities in the country? 9 Do we have a sense of what their method 10 of publication is and what the 11 requirements are there in terms of best 12 practices? 13
I did not, 14 because this was based on our ability to 15 operate, so it wasn't caught -- I wasn't 16 looking for comparisons. 17
I was very 18 surprised yesterday when Bill told me 19 this bill was this morning, because it 20 just got introduced and we usually don't move that quickly, and so I was -- I'm just kind of playing a little bit of catch-up, and I apologize to you for that.
That's 12 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. okay. The purpose of moving the bill as quickly as possible is because it is a Charter provision and we do have an election. If we do not move the bill 6 currently to be available for the May Charter, the next time that this issue can be addressed would be in November. So that's the concern. So it's a -- particularly given the fact that we're in the midst of some significant budget challenges, we don't want to be in a position where we can't conduct business.
I just have the sense that we're kicking some great corporate citizens while they're down, in essence. And I know that we're giving ourselves the flexibility, but we wouldn't have had the St. Patrick's Day Parade yesterday without the help of the Inquirer and Daily News, and they help hundreds of thousands of school students in this city with their efforts to provide news into classrooms and other things, and so I'm nervous about moving 13 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. this quickly on something like this. I don't know how much it means to them, but I personally am in favor of having as many daily newspapers as we can have in the City of Philadelphia. We have citizens who bought this paper at great economic risk, and I don't -- I think like any other struggling industry in the City of Philadelphia, we ought to be doing what we can to keep it rather than to lower their -- lessen their ability to survive. So I would be in favor of this bill with one change, and, that is, just right before Council -- right before it says "Council may by ordinance," I would say "in the event there are not three daily newspapers, comma, Council may by ordinance." And if that is the goal as you stated, then I'm not sure I understand an objection to that.
Well, first, Councilman, thank you for those comments. Your statement assumes that 14 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. there will be subsequent legislation to eliminate since you referenced the Daily News and the Inquirer. I see that nowhere in the bill or in the resolution. So from my perspective, your assumption is incorrect. As it relates to the corporate citizens and the supporters of both those newspapers, I have always been as supportive as you have and maybe even more so since I've been on this earth a little longer than you have as it relates to those. So there is no intent to do harm or damage to any of those newspapers or any of the corporate citizens or any of the investors. This is simply a housekeeping measure.
And my point is, I think we solve the housekeeping measure by at the beginning of Paragraph 5 under the resolution amending it to say "in the event there are not three daily newspapers, comma," and that way it gives us the flexibility in case we don't have 15 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. the places to go, which, based on your opening statement, is the premise of the bill. So that's what I'm prepared to do. If nobody else here is prepared to do that, then I'm going to let you guys hold a hearing, but I'm not going to be here for a meeting.
First of all, I lost you on that one. I think what we probably want to do before we get in a real debate -- and I'll recognize Councilman Goode in a minute. I wanted to say we probably should have testimony before we decide what amendment, because there are going to be some amendments offered. So I don't want to get into a long debate on that.
Well, before Councilman Green leaves... 16 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc.
If you could ask Councilman Green to return, I'd like to follow up on his questions. (Pause.)
By the way, for the record, the record should also reflect Councilman Jones is here. He's not a member of the Committee, but he's, as usual, very diligent here and I'm predicting may have a question sometime. Just guessing, Councilman.
I will ask the question of Councilman Clarke, which I would prefer Councilman Green to hear the answer to. Councilman Clarke, the timeliness of this issue has nothing to do with any particular newspapers. We know that there is a newspaper crisis nationwide. We know that there is a fiscal crisis nationwide. We just happen to have some laws on the books that, 17 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. whether they are best practices or not, would be impacted anyway, and, in fact, if we were to, with amendment or without amendment, pass this legislation for it to go on the May 19th ballot and if it were to be placed on the May 19th ballot and be approved, but something happened anyway because of the economic crisis, because of the fiscal crisis and because of how impacting newspapers have their own crisis nationwide, we could literally still be shut down for business before May 19th in terms of being able to legislate, and part of that legislation process includes the budget; is that not correct?
Thank you, Councilman. And we promise we're getting to you guys. Just for the record -- and anybody can correct me if I'm wrong -- 18 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. there was a mention of another possible amendment. Those amendments have to be offered at a meeting, not at the hearing, correct? So somebody would have to be here to offer that, just for the record. Okay. Now that our preliminary stuff is done, Ms. Smith and Mr. Ortman, please identify yourselves for the record and proceed with your testimony. Sorry for the delay.
Sure. Thank you, Councilman Greenlee. Good morning, Chairperson Greenlee and members of the Committee on Law and Government. My name is Shelley Smith. As you know, I am the City Solicitor for the City of Philadelphia and I am here this morning to offer testimony relating to Resolution No. 21 090179, which was introduced by Councilman Clarke and which proposes amendments to the City Charter with respect to the methods required for publishing notices of public hearings on 19 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. bills before Council and in other official notices. Currently, the Charter in Section 2-201(5) requires Council to provide notice of public hearings on bills and notice of bills reported from committee by, quote, "advertising in the three daily newspapers of the City having the largest paid circulation," end quote. As Councilman Clarke said, the resolution, if approved by the voters, would simply allow Council some flexibility in determining, by a future ordinance, the best means of providing notice to the public of Council hearings on bills and of bills that have been reported from committee. For example, Council could provide for notice in fewer newspapers and on the City's website, or in the case of bills reported from committee, notice only online. Because of the requirements of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act -- and this was a question that Councilman Green 20 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. asked and I'm sorry he isn't here to hear the answer to it -- notice of public hearings would have to be provided in at least one newspaper, and because the state Newspaper Advertising Act requires that whenever a notice is required by law to be published in a, quote, "newspaper of general circulation" it must also be published in the local legal newspaper, we might still be required to publish hearing notices in two newspapers. State law would not place any restrictions on notices of bills reported from committee, however. In addition, the Administration, in consultation with the sponsor, would like to take this opportunity to offer an amendment to the resolution which would allow Council likewise to change the Charter requirements for the Procurement Department when providing notice of contracts available for bid and the requirements for the Records Department 21 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. to give notice of the filing of proposed regulations. Currently, the Charter in Section 8-200(2)(a) requires Procurement to advertise for sealed bids, quote, "at least once a week for two weeks in one of the three newspapers having the largest paid circulation in the City and in such other newspapers as it deems necessary," end quote. The Department of Records is required in Section 8-407(b) to provide notice of proposed regulations in, quote, "the three daily newspapers having the largest paid circulation," end quote. The amendment we are proposing follows the approach in Councilman Clarke's resolution and would allow Council the option, by a future ordinance, to provide for public notice in these instances in other ways entirely, including only on the City's website if Council so chooses. In these cases there is no state law requirement, in the Sunshine Act or otherwise, that the City advertise 22 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. specifically via newspapers. That concludes my testimony. I am joined by Hugh Ortman, the Procurement Commissioner, who will speak more directly to the reasons we are seeking amendments to these other Charter provisions pertaining to advertising requirements. I would be happy to answer any questions from members of the Committee.
Unless there's an objection, Mr. Ortman, why don't you go, and then we'll be open to questions for both of you. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Greenlee and members of the Committee on Law and Government. My name is Hugh Ortman and I am the Procurement Commissioner for the City of Philadelphia. I am here this morning to offer testimony in support of Resolution No. 090179 introduced by Councilman Clarke. This resolution 23 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. proposes amendments to the City Charter by providing that City Council may, by ordinance, provide different or additional requirements for advertising certain official notices that pertain to City Council. The Procurement Department is charged with the responsibility of placing all City-sponsored advertising, which includes the Charter-mandated advertising for City bids and regulations as City Solicitor, Shelley Smith, has detailed in her testimony. I join the Solicitor in requesting that this Committee support an amendment to extend the flexibility allowed by this resolution to these sections of the Charter. The Procurement Department feels that the use of modern technology, such as posting this information on the City's official website, will be beneficial to the City and to the citizens as well. From a Procurement 24 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. perspective, for example, all City bids currently are available for view and download on the City's website. Thus, vendors have no need, nor I would think the desire, to search through the classified ads for bid opportunities. In addition, online advertising would speed up the bid process, allowing departments and thereby the citizens of Philadelphia quicker access to needed goods and services. Besides much greater flexibility, the City could also reduce its overall costs as we continue to try to seek efficiencies and reduce the current deficit. To that end, I have compiled some financial data for the three advertising requirements appearing in the City Charter. Do you want me to read those? They're on of your testimony.
Well, I think you've provided that, so -- COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: So it's 25 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. part of the record.
Right. It's probably just -- COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: That concludes my testimony. I will happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
Thank you. Just one question, again, just to make it clear. I've asked the same question of Councilman Clarke. For the record, Councilman Kenney, Vice-Chair of the Committee, is also present. Again, I think I know the answer, but I'm just trying to make everything as clear as possible, Ms. Smith. Even these changes you're talking about that could happen, none of these happen by what we're doing today and putting this question on the ballot; am I correct?
All this does is give the possibility down the 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. road and the flexibility to Council to possibly, possibly do something? And I think Councilman Clarke explained pretty well, but I just want to try to make it as crystal clear as we can here. Am I correct in that?
You are correct. The proposed language of the referendum asks the voters whether or not the Charter should be amended to authorize Council to specify how. It doesn't authorize a specific method. It clearly contemplates that further action by Council by ordinance is required in order to make a change.
Got you. Thank you. And these amendments you propose, I see one set of amendments here. Is that what we -- Mr. Carter, maybe you can tell, or Councilman. We're looking at one set of amendments here. I know there may be two. Are the amendments we're looking at what the 27 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Solicitor just referred to or are these your amendments?
Only one of which will -- or possibly two. But the issue is -- because initially the bill 15 just dealt with the City Council issues.
And subsequent to that, the Administration had expressed an interest to be a part of this provision because of their advertisement needs. We haven't gotten confirmation from members of the Committee and all of the Councilpeople involved as to whether or not we're going to proceed with those amendments. Then 28 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. the third amendment is essentially the merged amendments. So if there's an agreement -- I know you're probably even more confused.
Yeah. You're usually real clear. Now you're confusing me.
Just for the Committee, I'm probably confusing people more, but we have one set of -- we have an amendment here.
The Administration has not offered their amendments yet.
That's where I'm going. Okay. We don't actually have them to look at yet. Okay. All right. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 29 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Good morning, Solicitor.
I'm going to repeat the question I asked to Councilman Clarke, but ask for a legal opinion. Is it true that if we do not take any legislative action in this regard, that due to the national economic crisis and the national fiscal crisis, we actually could be shut down in terms of lawmaking, including passing the budget, if something were to happen to the newspapers?
It is true that if due to economic circumstances or whatever circumstances we were not mechanically able to advertise in newspapers that which we are required to advertise in newspapers, yes, the business of Council that requires that notice could not be conducted, because notice is required.
And that includes not only other pieces of legislation but the budget as well? 30 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc.
That includes all legislation that's required to be advertised, yes.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions, comments from anybody? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. You'll be able to stay here in case anything else comes up?
And I assume we'll be getting these amendments you're talking about at some point?
I see Ms. Chapman has them. Okay. If you could distribute them, we'd appreciate it. 31 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Thank you. The only other person I have listed -- and there may be other people to testify -- I have Mr. Eric Mayberry. Am I pronouncing that right? I'm trying to read Mr. Carter's handwriting here. CEO, Metro Newspapers. Please come forward and state your name for the record and proceed, please. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to have this opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Eric Mayberry. I'm President and Publisher of Metro Philadelphia Newspaper. I'm testifying regarding Bill 20 No. 090171. The thing that stands most -- that's most obvious to me, as a former employee of Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News, is that you probably are witnessing for the very 32 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. first time in my career the press trying to suppress the press. Metro Philadelphia is Philadelphia's number one daily newspaper, and what the current Charter does prohibit the Council from using or utilizing Metro to tell the people of Philadelphia what's happening with City Council. What most people don't know is that the Inquirer says that their daily circulation is 334,000 copies per day, but what they don't say is that the large portion of that circulation is actually in the suburbs of Philadelphia. The Inquirer's actual daily circulation in the City of Philadelphia is 71,000 copies per day, which means that less people read the Philadelphia Inquirer than read Metro every day. If you turn to the Daily News, the Daily News claims a circulation of 107,000 copies per day. What most people don't know is that the paper that's called the "people paper" only 33 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. distributes 56,000 copies in the City of Philadelphia every day. Metro Philadelphia has 107,000 daily readers in the City of Philadelphia, making it the largest newspaper in the City of Philadelphia. So what we have here is the opportunity to change with the times. The world is a different place. I've been in media for years, and media is 12 very different now. And if we continue 13 to have the City ordinance that prohibits 14 the Council from at least looking at the 15 opportunity to work with organizations 16 like Metro and with the Internet, then we 17 are taking steps backwards rather than 18 taking steps forward. 19 Once thing I need to note also 20 is that 74 percent of the people that read Metro live in Philadelphia. Only 30 percent of the people that read the Philadelphia Inquirer live in the City of Philadelphia. So to continue to deny this opportunity to the Council, to me, 34 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. would be challenging, and, again, I think this is a great opportunity for us to do the right thing for the citizens of Philadelphia. Finally, we're a whole lot cheaper than the Philadelphia Inquirer. Given the budget crisis that this city faces right now, it seems like it makes business sense as well to allow this ordinance to reach the people of Philadelphia and have them choose the true number one daily newspaper in the City of Philadelphia, which is Philadelphia Metro. With respect -- one more thing. I'm sorry, Councilman Greenlee. With respect to, I guess it was, Councilman Green who talked about the Philadelphia Inquirer does great things for the students of Philadelphia, he's talking specifically about the newspapers in the education program, and I have pictures in my office at Metro that shows that those newspapers are often dropped on the back 35 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. steps of schools and they sit there, and many of those papers are thrown out at the end of the week, which means that how much is it really doing for kids and how much of it is really a shell game to inflate the Inquirer's circulation.
Okay. That might be a discussion for another time, sir, to be perfectly honest with you on the record. Again, just -- and thank you for your testimony. Just to be clear -- and I think you know this, but, again, I want to keep the record crystal clear -- if we pass this bill and resolution today, put it on the ballot and the citizens agree to it, that doesn't change anything yet. You understand that?
Okay. Good enough. Any other questions from the Committee? 36 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Councilman Clarke.
I just want to clarify one other thing with respect to -- and not getting into names, but any daily -- non-paid dailies, unpaid dailies. The state Sunshine Act, assuming that this bill passed, requires that the City of Philadelphia does still advertise because it clearly states "newspapers," and newspapers are defined as paid newspapers. So if the City of Philadelphia continues to advertise, it must advertise in a paid daily. So, therefore, it doesn't mean automatically that the Council has the ability to utilize the Metro in lieu of the Daily News or Inquirer or Legal Intelligencer; am I correct?
I just 37 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. wanted to clarify that, that this provision does not affect the Metro or any other non-paid newspaper.
Right. Exactly. Thanks for making that clear, because I think --
There are still a lot of things that people don't quite totally understand in this.
Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayberry. Any other questions from anyone? (No response.)
As I 38 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. said, that's the only people I have listed. Are there other people here who wish to testify? Please, sir, come to the microphone, identify yourself for the record and proceed, please. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. My name is Tom Biemer and I'm here representing Philadelphia Newspapers. I would like to thank the Committee and the Councilman for letting me give testimony this morning. In Philadelphia, we are blessed with many different media outlets and we're also blessed with two large papers of daily circulation. And I think it's important to recognize that while the Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer are owned by the same company, they reach very different populations in the City. While they often carry similar articles, there are different content, different 39 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. form, different scope, and I think one thing that's critical to recognize is that they reach different segments of the population in Philadelphia, and I have some statistics that I'd like to share with the Committee. In Philadelphia, the daily circulation for the Daily News is approximately 64,000 readers. For the Inquirer, it's approximately 75,000. But when you look at readers as opposed to circulation, people who actually read the paper each day, the numbers go way up. For the Daily News, it's approximately 287,000 readers every day, and for the Philadelphia Inquirer, it's approximately 244,000 readers every day. And, as I said, it's important to recognize that while there are a lot of readers, over half a million every day of both paper, they don't overlap substantially. The statistics show that approximately 29 percent of Daily News readers also read the Inquirer. That 40 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. means 71 percent don't read the Inquirer. For the Inquirer, approximately 35 percent read the Daily News. So these two newspapers are reaching very different aspects of the Philadelphia population and over half a million people every day. One last thing that I'd like to point out to the Committee is, as a practical matter, while technology is a wonderful thing, everyone here and in this Committee realizes that in Philadelphia we have something known as a digital divide. Large segments of our population do not have access to computers and the Internet, and as a practical measure, large segments of our population get information about their government solely from the newspapers, newspapers like the Inquirer, newspapers like the Daily News and newspapers like the Metro, and any proposal that limits the availability of information about the government to the Internet is going to 41 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. cut out a large segment of the population. Again, I want to thank the Committee for the chance to testify this morning, and if there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Sir, thank you for your testimony, first of all. Again, I'm probably belaboring this point, but just so we're clear here, the passage of this and the passage by the voters doesn't change anything. It just gives us the possibility of flexibility down the road. And I guess my very basic question is, why is that -- how is that really injurious to your organization or to anyone, to give the possibility down the line? Because let's face it, look, I share Councilman Clarke's. Way back when, I was a journalism major, so I'm a newspaper fan, but in the newspapers we see that some newspapers have problems. I hope that doesn't happen here. But why is passage of this injurious to your 42 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. organization?
Councilman Greenlee, I think that the critical question is, what is the intent. If the intent is really to have a fail-safe mechanism that provides for an alternative if something goes wrong, if a paper is on strike, if a paper goes out of business, and if the language that Councilman Green proposed were to be put in there, I don't think there would be a problem. That flexibility makes sense. But if it's designed to give City Council the ability to simply say for this particular item, we're only going to put notice on the Internet; for example, the Procurement resolution amendment that was suggested, and it's not going to go into the newspapers at all, obviously that would hurt my clients and I believe the citizens.
Well, I don't know if you were here. I think Councilman Clarke addressed the state 43 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. law, that there's things that we have to put in the largest circulating newspaper and the Legal Intelligencer. I don't know if you were here at the time he stated that. So we would not have the right to usurp that state law. There's other state laws we might -- no, I won't go there. But we would not and would have no intention on changing that state law. So I don't think it could be just that it would just be on the Internet. I don't think that would be the case.
My understanding for Procurement, the state law didn't deal with that. My example dealt with Procurement. And for the state law requirement under the Sunshine Act, that's only one newspaper. Right now it goes into three newspapers, and my point would be that if you decided to give it just to the Inquirer or just to the Metro, there are going to be large 44 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. segments of the population that aren't going to have access to that information, and the Internet is not a cure-all for that.
I agree, and I'm going -- I know Councilman Green would like to say something, but just one last thing. I think your arguments and anybody's argument is probably more appropriate if when -- and it very well may never happen -- if this is approved by the voters, that we come back and we do try to put in an ordinance to change something. I think there all your comments would be very appropriate then. I guess I don't understand -- and I know you're coming at it from your perspective, but I don't understand. This is a, to me, to use Councilman Clarke's words, housekeeping to really take care of this problem. I guess I don't see this bill and resolution before us today as doing what your concern might happen. If sometime down the line we try 45 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. to do that and you don't approve, you or anybody else has a right to come in and complain about it, and we have to make that decision. Thanks. Councilman Green.
Thank you. I apologize for not returning right away. I was on the phone. So I have actually some questions for Solicitor Smith and Commissioner Ortman.
If I could just ask, sir, if you could stay. I think Councilman Kenney has a question, then we'll go back.
Thank you very much. Is your client more concerned about the potential down the road that may come about as a result of the Charter change or does the Charter change itself -- what is it about the Charter change itself that gives you reason for 46 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. pause or for concern? It would seem to me that your testimony is more appropriate for a hearing on an ordinance or a proposed ordinance that was actually going to change something. What is it about the -- I mean, and could you comment also on Councilman Clarke's position that he has expressed in the past, that in the event -- and none of us want to see this happen -- they're not there, the two majors, where do we advertise then?
Well, I certainly respect the ability of Council to have to have the flexibility in the event that there aren't three major papers of daily circulation in the City, and if the intent of this proposal is just to give Council that flexibility, I don't see any problem with that. If the --
Well, I think with Councilman Green's suggestion that in the 47 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. event that, with that amendment to the proposal, I would see the intent being spelled out, but without the intent being spelled out, if the intent is really to give Council the ability to say on a case-by-case basis, regardless of whether the Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer is still in business every day, the power to say, This time we're just going to put it on the Internet for a Procurement issue or this time we're just going to comply with the Sunshine law and put it on the Inquirer, that would be a problem for my client.
It would require an additional piece of legislation to be voted on, lobbied against, lobbied for, all interested parties would be heard, and then it would 48 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. be a full Council vote.
I understand. It was our hope that we could cut that off if we could clarify the intent of this particular proposal just to be a proposal that gives Council the flexibility in the event that. And because we weren't clear as to what the intent was is one of the reasons we're here today.
I mean, certainly I don't think anyone on this panel or in Council or in this room want to see any harm come to the Philadelphia Daily News or Inquirer. A lot of my own family has great roots in working for that paper, for the Inquirer at least, and my brother and brother-in-law both are drivers today for the Daily News. So, I mean, I can assure you that there's no malice or no ill intent. We want to see these papers thrive and survive and grow, and we're very supportive of that. I didn't want the argument or the discussion relative to this Charter 49 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. change somehow be infected with this idea that Council has this kind of subplot agenda to cut revenue from PNI or from the Daily News and Inquirer.
Thank you, Councilman. We respect that. We weren't here making that allegation.
My mother is on pension and my brother and brother-in-law are driving. I wouldn't want to do anything that's going to hurt them. I certainly wouldn't do that. But, again, I listen to Councilman Clarke's argument on the flexibility, I also don't want to be caught short, God forbid, something happens that keeps us from being able to conduct our business, which I understand we would not. I don't know whether -- I missed the Law Department testimony -- we would be able to do business at all if we were stuck in that situation. So I don't know.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. 50 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Councilman Goode and then Councilman Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you just tell me what your capacity is with PNI again?
I'm an attorney at Dilworth Paxson and we're general counsel to the paper.
When did you become aware of Councilman Green's potential amendment?
Okay. What is your understanding of what the amendment is?
My understanding is that the amendment is a proposal to amend the City's Charter to give Council the flexibility to advertise in only 51 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. one -- the largest daily circulation newspaper in the City and on the Internet.
No. I'm referring to Councilman Green's amendment, potential amendment.
Oh, Councilman Green's amendment I understood from his statement earlier that he would put "if necessary" or "if required." I forget the precise language, but there was a clause that was making clear that the intent was just to provide flexibility in the event that there were not three major papers available.
And where would that go in this particular piece of legislation?
My understanding is that he proposed to put it in right in the beginning. It was a clause that was right in the front that would make clear the intent of the --
So it would 52 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. go into the resolution?
But if it does not go into the bill where the actual question is proposed for the voters, wouldn't that make it legally invalid?
Okay. You are aware that this is a Charter issue, as I said before, that can only be dealt with two times a year, and you heard my questioning of the City Solicitor about whether we could actually shut down for business. Regardless of what action we take today, just purely based upon national economic and fiscal situations, we could actually be shut down from 53 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. lawmaking, including passing the budget, based upon this problem within the Charter which needs to be changed, which has the next opportunity to be changed on May 19th. Now, are you aware of the time restrictions on when this legislation has to be passed in order to appear on the May 19th ballot?
Well, it has to be passed, I believe, it's within 30 days -- I forget -- maybe 45 days before May 19th. So if this process -- so this is a very timely process. If this process was actually tripped up in some way, we may not make the May 19th ballot, which means we would not just be shut down from doing business up until May 19th but possibility shut down until November in terms of making laws, including passing the budget. Now, do you think that should be of greater concern to the City than what you've proposed today as something 54 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. potentially may happen by legislation that has not even been proposed yet?
Obviously I think it's a concern that the Council not be shut down and prevented from acting, but this particular provision in the City Charter has been around for 40 years.
We've never had this type of economic crisis. We never had this type of fiscal crisis, and you of all people representing PNI realize we never had this type of newspaper crisis before.
I understand that. I understand that there's a concern for flexibility, but at the same time --
Because we literally could shut down City government by not being able to pass a budget, by not making the May 19th ballot.
Thank 55 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. you, Councilman. Councilman Green.
Just for the record, I would propose that we make whatever changes that are necessary to the resolution and the bill. The resolution language would be "in the event we have less than three dailies with paid circulation, Council may, by ordinance." In the proposed Charter question, I would say everything that's there and after "shall be given in the event there are less than three daily paid newspapers." So I think we can very quickly and easily get that in, and this will be within the word restriction to the questions, given the other amendments that are being proposed.
There's a word restriction to the amount of words that can actually go within the question.
Just looking 56 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. at what's already been deleted from the original bill in the amendment, there's plenty of room for those words.
And obviously any amendments can be offered once we get to the public meeting. Councilman Clarke, you had your light on earlier. Did you want to say anything as far as this?
No. It may have been asked by Councilman Goode. It was just this question about the intent. And I don't know if you were here early on in the initial stages of the hearing, that from my perspective -- and I don't know you, you don't know me, so there's no reason for you to believe me any more than there's any reason for me to believe you. But I clearly stated the intent of the bill is based on this whole issue centered around our ability to conduct business. And you referenced that in your statement, but it was brought up, so there's really no need to 57 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. have that interaction with you.
Thank you. I heard your statement, Councilman, and appreciated that. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments for this witness? (No response.)
Thank you. Is there anybody else that hasn't testified yet that wishes to testify on this bill or resolution? (No response.)
Mr. Chairman, there was a request that came from a prior witness who wanted to come back and clarify something.
All right. Well, Councilman Green also had some questions for the City Solicitor, so that came first, in fairness. Unless you want this gentleman 58 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. to go first. It doesn't matter to me.
Well, in order to keep it -- because maybe there will be more questions for Ms. Smith. Mr. Mayberry, you want to just restate your name. (Witness approached witness table.)
Eric Mayberry, President and Publisher of Metro Philadelphia. I just want to make note that by adding the word or the language "paid" to the resolution, we are again stepping backwards, because it eliminates papers like Metro Philadelphia, which has the largest circulation in the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you. I think, Ms. Smith, if you could come back to the witness table, 59 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. please, there may be some more questions for you. Thank you. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortman, while she's looking at the language I'm proposing, in your testimony you said that the City could use modern methods like the Internet for Procurement, et cetera. Can't we do that today? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: We are.
Okay. So I was confused about how that was relevant to this question. I was confused about the relevance of that testimony to this question, because we are doing that today. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Correct.
So what 60 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. you're proposing really is a cost-saving measure; is that correct? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: But we are also required to advertise in the newspaper, and if we can't advertise in the newspaper, the Internet is not going to do us any good, because the law says we must advertise in the newspaper.
Right. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: If a newspaper is, for whatever reason, not operating, we cannot do our job.
Right. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Same as Council conducting their job.
So just for your intention, is it your intention to continue to advertise in the newspaper? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Our intention is to continue to advertise in the newspaper?
That's the question. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Right. 61 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. I'm sorry. I'm a little hard of hearing, so I apologize for that. The echo in here doesn't help. Yes. Well, it's our intent to continue to advertise in the newspaper depending on whatever it is the men in this room do for the amendments and so on.
Okay. I just know because Councilman Clarke has made his intent very clear and I just wanted -- this is an Administration proposal and I wanted to know the intent of the Administration. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: I wrote my testimony from a Procurement aspect, which is, is there ways -- with what was being discussed, is there ways to save, which is what I'm supposed to do. I did put that in there with that in mind, yes, because that's what I'm supposed to do, from a Procurement perspective. I'm not supposed to be political. I'm supposed to be doing what's best for -- 62 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc.
Fair enough, but it is your intent, if Council gave you the authority, to stop advertising in newspapers? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Council give me the authority?
Under this change, we still would have to advertise in at least the largest circulated paper and the Legal Intelligencer and on the web.
Right. Okay. So let me rephrase my question. Are you going to be seeking authority from Council to take advantage of this, should it pass, and asking us to allow you to advertise in only one newspaper? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: If I as 63 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. the Procurement Commissioner had any right to do that, I certainly would. I lost six people from my staff because of the advertising budget during the recent budget cuts. I had to cut six people, because that money is in my budget.
I just wanted to get the Administration's intent down. So Solicitor Smith --
-- you may not be able to read my writing, but in the --
"In the event there are less than three daily" something "newspapers."
"In the event we have less than three daily newspapers with paid circulation" would 64 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. go basically at the end of the Charter question and at the beginning of the resolution, Paragraph 5. Is there any reason legally that we cannot do that?
Well, I mean, I certainly don't want or intend to provide an on-the-spot legal opinion about it, but my first reaction to it is that it's somewhat circular, because if we are required to have the triggering event in order to change the Charter, change the process, and there are not three newspapers, we don't have the means to advertise the change. So it's a bit of a circular -- it creates a bit of a tautology, is my first reaction to it.
I just explained that. If the triggering event to allow us to make the Charter change is that there are no longer three newspapers of paid circulation and there are no longer three newspapers of paid circulation, we 65 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. can't advertise to make the change.
But I am not going to provide you with a legal opinion here on the spot. I would have to look at it in more detail, but that's my first reaction to it.
Okay. But let's just go back to the circularity and tautology. In the Charter, the Charter question would in fact say "in the event there are not three." That would be voted on in May. So if there are ever not three, we won't ever have to go back and amend the Charter.
We're asking the question up front now so that in the event there are not three later, we won't have to advertise. What we'll be advertising in three newspapers is a change to the ordinance and a change to the Charter that would say in the event 66 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. there are not three, we have this authority by ordinance. That means the Charter would now say in the event there are not three, we have this authority. So that we would never -- the circularity that you're suggesting simply doesn't exist. In fact, I don't understand the logic.
So let's take circularity off the table, because that was specious, and let's say assuming there's no circularity, what is the answer to the question?
Hold on one second. Councilman Goode had a point of information.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 67 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Even within the bill we're considering today, which proposes authorizing us to make a change that would put us in a future position of possibly making a change, we have to follow the old process to make that change, and that's essentially what the Solicitor is saying. I mean, if you read the bill on , it talks about authorizing us to make a change, but when you turn to , it outlines in Section 4 of the bill essentially that the process that exists now still has to be followed.
So even though we want flexibility, we don't have flexibility in even passing this bill.
That's correct, but we then have the flexibility by ordinance. We don't have to go back to the voters.
But the 68 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. circular argument is actually contained within here in terms of even though we want more flexibility, the flexibility is not contained within this bill, because it can't be.
But if we advertise now, Councilman, with all due respect, if we advertise now and ask the Charter question that includes this "in the event," then we don't ever have to go back to the voters when they don't exist.
The legislative intent is flexibility. That's the legislative intent of the bill.
I completely agree, and I'm just trying to prescribe that flexibility to --
I'm trying to narrow the flexibility to the event that we have less than three daily paid.
Narrowing 69 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. the possibility in itself is circular.
If I may interject here, maybe this discussion should happen at the meeting. Do you still have questions, Councilman Green, of the Solicitor?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortman, if we were to advertise in one daily newspaper with a paid circulation, how much could we save? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: If we advertise in just one newspaper, which is what we do, on the second page of the -- of my testimony -- you're talking about for Procurement alone?
Yes. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Well, the figures on the second page indicate 70 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. anywhere from low of $94,000 a year up to $112,000 a year.
That's based on what? COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: That's just Procurement, because we're required to advertise in one newspaper two consecutive weeks.
Okay. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: There are different requirements under -- like Records has to advertise, I think it's, three newspapers of the highest paid circulation.
Suppose we substituted, for instance, the Metro as a newspaper. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Just advertise on the net?
The Metro. COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Oh, the Metro. I don't know what Metro advertising costs, sir, to be quite honest with you. 71 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc.
I guess in fairness, Councilman Kelly, obviously this would have to come up down the road --
Yes, this would have to come up down the road -- COMMISSIONER ORTMAN: Two people talking at once is going to kill me. I'm sorry.
No. This is just giving us an opportunity to in case something like this, almost like an insurance program that --
But at least it's giving us the opportunity to do it, and I have no problem with that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 72 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I know what my intent is. I can only speak for myself. And I've heard concerns raised by witnesses with respect to the aftermath, assuming that this bill passed. And I don't assume anything, because it is a Charter referendum and people have the ability to go against Charter referendums in the press. What I'd like to do to hopefully allay some fears and concerns about what we would subsequently do in any legislation is that I would like to offer at this time to the Committee requiring the highest threshold of passage of any subsequent legislation be the super majority, so that it would be similar to a Charter change or any such other initiative. So I would be prepared 73 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. to insert a two-thirds requirement of vote of subsequent legislation. So as you know, traditionally when you get two-thirds, that means everybody is on board. So I'm prepared to do that, because I know what my intent is. My intent is to do something to make sure that we can continue to conduct business. So I'd be prepared to do that.
I appreciate that, Councilman. And so just, again, just for clearness as possible, what you're saying is if the Charter change is approved, if we ever have to come back and make any changes, it would have to be done by a super majority, by 12 votes.
When we 74 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. go in the public meeting. That's when all the amendments -- because it seems like the amendments keep growing here.
I've lost track, and Councilman Green wrote all over mine, so I don't know where I am. Any other questions or comments for the witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you again, both. If you could still stay here. We're not letting you go yet. One more time: Is there anybody else that wishes to testify on this bill or resolution? (No response.)
Seeing none, the hearing of the Law and Government Committee will be recessed. We will now go into -- we're going to go into our public meeting, but I know there are some amendments here, so before we proceed, let's take a few-minute break so 75 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. we can figure all this out. Thanks. Thank you. (Short recess.)
Can I have everybody's -- hold on one more minute, please. (Pause.)
I'd like to get the public meeting started, please. This is the public meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. We're going to have some amendments to both the resolution and the bill. I'd like Councilman Clarke, the sponsor, to briefly explain the purpose of the amendments. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the members of the Committee for doing their due diligence on what we believe is hopefully unnecessary but a very important issue. 76 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. Based on the testimony today, what we've done, since there was consensus on including the Administration's request to have the Procurement Department and Records included in this provision, we have consolidated the amendments. So those amendments will be both in the resolution 10 and the amendment on the two-thirds will be in the ordinance. As a concern raised by a number of the witnesses about the possibility as it relates to the aftermath of the authorization, we have requested that the threshold be raised to super majority in order to pass any subsequent legislation. That's reflected both in the resolution 19 and the ordinance. If this bill passes first the Committee, then the Council, then signed by the Mayor, it will be a ballot initiative. The voters have to vote on this. That still will not change the current situation. The City will still 77 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. be required to advertise in three newspapers. The only change can happen by a subsequent ordinance by Council and then signed by the Mayor, and that subsequent ordinance must have a two-thirds super majority passage by City Council of Philadelphia. So I'd like to offer to the Committee -- and I know it has to be offered officially by a Committee member -- the ordinance and the resolution, the amendments, that also reflect the two-thirds majority requirement in both the ordinance and the amendment.
Okay. Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding amendments for Bill No. 21 090171.
Prior to offering the amendments for both the bill 24 and the resolution, I'd just like to state for the record that I think the 78 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. testimony or the statements from Councilman Clarke on legislative intent are very clear in this record. In the event that something out of character would happen down the road, I would suspect that the full-blown discussion of the legislative intent of this bill and resolution would be clear protection for any publication that was getting -- situation otherwise than was explained in the hearing. So in the unlikely event that this becomes any way litigious, the legislative intent and the record of this Council hearing is very clear. So prior to offering the amendments, I wanted to say that prior to offering the amendments to Bill No. 090171.
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 090171 be amended per the amendments that were circulated. 79 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
The amendments pass. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 10 090171 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 13 090171, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
The 80 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. motion carries and Bill No. 090171, as amended, has been reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Resolution 10 No. 090179, amendments to same.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendments be accepted to Resolution No. 090179. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Resolution 090179 be amended per the amendments that were circulated. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
The motion carries and Resolution 090179 is amended. 81 3/16/09 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 090171, etc. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution 6 090179, as amended, be reported favorably out of this Committee. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor please say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing none, Resolution 090179, as amended, has been reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. Thank you to the Committee. Thank you to all witnesses, and this meeting stands in recess. Thank you very much. (Committee on Law and Government concluded at 11:35 a.m.) - - - 82 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 16, 2009, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (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.)