I'll identify myself. For the record, my name is Joseph Beller, B-E-L-L-E-R. I'm a practicing attorney in the City of Philadelphia and have been so since 1960 and had the privilege to serve as an assistant in this very Council chamber for two and a half years, in the early sixties. I got my break in on legislation. And so today's melee is not a surprise to me. I sat as a secretary to the Law and Government Committee. And I must tell you that I honor all of the questions coming from the panel, but I think we're getting far afield. As a practicing lawyer who specializes in zoning cases, I am very happy to tell this 151 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 panel that I do use expediters and will continue to use expediters but I don't use them to replace me in the areas where I should be involved. And you've had heard a lot of testimony. I have used architects, and will continue to use architects. I have used engineers, and I will continue to use engineers. Because I'm not going to build a house and I'm not going to design a house. And I hope to God that Mr. Schlosser doesn't take my appeal to the Supreme Court when I get in trouble, 'cause although he seems like a very intelligent man, he appeared for the School Board. If the issues before the Zoning Board were strictly questions of architecture, God bless him, there is no question he's a better witness than I could ever be -- I have trouble drawing straight lines. But the problem that you have, and let's start and face it now, the Zoning Board of Adjustment and many of the other boards are boards of record. And Councilman Cohen, I've seen you, Councilman Kenney, Councilwoman Verna, and I 152 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 appreciate your input on behalf of citizens, and you come in. And you know quite well, Councilman Cohen, because this very Council passed legislation that gave civic groups, civic associations particular privileges before the board, including free copies of notes of testimony. I don't always love civic groups when I'm there for the applicant, but God knows, they get to testify. Now, let's come back to where we have to be. The Zoning Board of Adjustment in particular and the L&I Review Board are boards of record. And as an attorney for those in the audience who don't know this, if you lose before the Zoning Board, you appeal to the Common Pleas Court. The Common Pleas Court does not take additional testimony. So if somebody who presented the case, including a lawyer who may have forgotten, if he didn't present an issue of vested rights, if he didn't distinguish between the need for a certificate or a need for a variance, that judge could be the most sympathetic, wonderful person in the world. And I dare say, if you, ladies and 153 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 gentlemen, appeared in support of that poor person who lost, he still couldn't overturn the Zoning Board. And you have to wait a year to go back. Now, I am not -- I am telling you, I use expediters. The process is complicated, the wait is complicated. My hourly rate is too much for me to sit downstairs in the Municipal Services Building and wait two or three hours or an hour, or whatever the wait is, to obtain a permit or to even file an application which is going to subsequently be refused and then addressed to the Zoning Board. And my expediters do the following for me: They check the record, and they're competent to do that, the ones I use. They bring me back the information that's the history of the zoning. They check such things such as what this very body does. You have zoning legislation in which the Italian Market -- and you're all familiar with that -- in which every corner in South Philadelphia, just about was C2 when I was first practicing law. Today, because of Council, it's now C1. 154 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 C1 and C2 are very different, and you can't put a restaurant in a C1, but you can in C2.
Now, my expediters, who are efficient and competent and bright and honorable bring me that information. And they save four or five hours of time for my client. And I pay them their hourly or whatever bill they charge me. Now, I don't want to see expediters done away with, but I don't want to see non-lawyers practice law. And the reason is the same thing you're worried about, Councilman Cohen, protection of the public. If somebody presents a case who is not familiar with the law and the requirements of the Zoning Board, and that when you say to them 14-1605 and they don't know what you're talking about -- and well they shouldn't. Or if they think they know it and they don't know the distinction between a certificate and a zoning, a refusal or a referral, that case is not in a posture, and that poor person will have to go to the court and back to the Zoning Board a second time. And I don't care how cheaply somebody works, it's double or triple. 155 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 Now, what you have to keep in mind what Councilman Kenney said. It is absolutely true that the average citizen can bring someone in to advise him, to help him to write notes for him, to help him prepare his case, and I have no 7 objection. And my expediters often, the ones that I am privileged to use, and I use that word sincerely, 'cause I have worked with some very nice people, some of whom are in this room today. And they come with me very often to the Zoning Board and they help me get petitions and they help me set up meetings with the Councilperson who then sets up civic meetings. There is an absolute need for that. And the dollars that they charge generally are less than what a lawyer and what an architect charges and what an engineer charges. But let's focus on this bill the way it should be. L&I wants people who appear before them to be regulated. As a citizen, I think that's wonderful idea. I don't think that it should be onerous. I'm with you, Councilman Cohen. A 156 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 person shouldn't spend 50 percent of his income to be insured, but I'll bet you that the City division that looks into that can come up with either private insurance or bonding, the way you do now, for various things like newsstands and so forth. I like the competent people that work with me, and I want them to continue to work with me. And I hope I don't offend them today, but I don't want them standing up before the Board and arguing legal issues. They can testify as my witness to some area of the plumbing code which, to me, is arcane but, to them, is understandable, and they can be my witness. And I can win the case, I can win the case with their help. But if I have an expediter who doesn't know the law -- and I'm not saying some do or don't. But if I have an expediter who does not know the law and does not build that record, that citizen loses. And that's where the problem is. I'm not going to perform an operation and I'm not going to build a building. I'm licensed to practice law, and I hope, please God, 157 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 that I'll be able to do it for many more years. I'm not going to become an expediter tomorrow and I'm not going to become an architect tomorrow. Each of us has our own place. " You had some testimony. I'm sorry he walked out 'cause I don't like to call names when they're not here, but Councilman Tayoun -- former Councilman Tayoun sat here and said he's a courier, and then he said he goes to the Zoning Board. And he talked about a case, Well, we would have lost the case anyway because the City Councilman was there against us and the neighborhood was against us. Well, I'd like to think --'cause I've won some of those cases and, by the way, with the help by very nice expediters back there. I have lost cases before the Zoning Board where the Right Honorables have been there, and we took it to court and we won. And we won because the legal basis for that grant was there.
And the fact that the Zoning Board was swayed by 40 people and 2 to the 158 RULES COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 970713 contrary, respectfully notwithstanding, we won in the courts. And the reason we won in the courts is because I had a damn good expediter who got me my petitions and who got me the background and who got the parking problems fixed up that I couldn't have done myself. And two or three of them are sitting back there now. So let's narrow that issue down. Let there be expediters. Let them be properly regulated. Let them continue to do their jobs and do their jobs well and assist me, an I hope that I can assist them sometime. But let me practice before the Board. Don't have a record before the Board that can't be appealed.
Thank you. I just want to divert for one moment. We have some business to do. We're going to recess the public hearing of the Rules Committee, we're going to convene our public meeting. - - - (Public meeting convenes.) 159 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING
And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill 4 No. 970092.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970092 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rule of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970092 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Just so you know what we're doing, we are voting out of committee the non-controversial bills that we discussed in the earlier part of the hearing, and then we'll come back to the public hearing. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna 160 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING for a motion on Bill 970395.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 970395 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970395 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 970778.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 970778 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. Also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our 161 RULES COMMITTEE - PUBLIC MEETING next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Bill No. 970778 will be reported out of this committee with favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion to approve Resolution No. 980251.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 980251 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. There are none opposed. Resolution No. 980251 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. We will now recess the public meeting and reconvene the public hearing. 162 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 - - - (Public hearing reconvened.)
Mr. Beller, I think -- Councilmember Cohen -- Councilman Cohen.
The way it works now, are there activities engaged in by expediters that you think are wrongful?
Appearing before boards of record and acting as legal counsel to people who - when they are, in fact, not lawyers and not trained in the law -- irrespective of knowledge that they may have since some of them may have superior knowledge to many lawyers who don't do this kind of work, there's no question. But the point is that a lawyer who is a lawyer who is a good lawyer is trained to be able to learn those issues and to argue the cases. The Zoning Board has very, very precise requirements for the approving of a variance, for instance. And that's a legal matter. The factual 163 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 situation, it can be done by the expediter. So that's the problem I have. I have no problem with expediters in general. And, as I say, they perform a fine function.
But your position is that an expediter ought not to have the right to present the whole case to the Zoning Board or to any board of record.
Now, what is your position with respect to the professional engineer and/or the professional architect?
It is exactly the same. Unless the engineer is trained in the law, unless the architect is trained in the law, they should not conduct the hearing. They should be given the 100 percent credit that they deserve if they're good architects and good engineers, and the attorney ought to question them. Or, as Councilman Kenney said, the homeowner says, Listen, members of the board, I brought with me my architect, I brought with me my engineer, I brought with me my sprinkler guy. I 164 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 don't know how the hell you put on a sprinkler -- pardon my French. So I'm going to let her tell you exactly how this is designed. And she has a right to do that. What she doesn't have a right to do and probably -- and I say this respectfully -- isn't trained to do is to cross-examine the protestant who may be very well talking about issues of hardship, saying, Listen, we don't care how well you designed that wonderful sprinkler system, I don't want a warehouse there. I think that should be a candy store, I think that should be a residence, and you haven't proved hardship. Now, hardship, as far as I know, is a very technical zoning legal term. It is not an engineering term. And that's -- And so, I don't see why you, Mr. Cohen, would question whether an architect or an engineer should expose themselves to violating the criminal law of practicing law without a license anymore than you would want me to practice architecture, which would be in violation of the law and I could go to jail for.
Well, for one thing, 165 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 the courts have recognized that zoning is a very special function, that the Municipal Authority, meaning the government of the City of Philadelphia, has a right to regulate, even to the extent of setting forth the rules for appeal from the Zoning Board to the courts. There's a court decision making that very, very clear.
If you'll please permit me to finish. Secondly, we're in a situation where there are many, many cases where many people have simple matters to present in which they cannot afford attorneys or believe they cannot afford attorneys, and the expediter has served the useful role in the past. I think in those cases what may be important is not preparing the record for appeal because most zoning cases never get appealed; most zoning cases are decided right at the board level. So secondly. I think the professions of architecture and engineering are not qualified cases in general before a court. In the cases where there are special areas of architectural law 166 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 or engineering law, I think they're very well qualified to present their cases. Now is that the reason you asked why I do that?
I'm going to answer you, Councilman Cohen. We've worked on cases where you've been helpful and other cases where you came in and protested.
Let me say this, Councilman. I have persuaded you -- well, maybe I'll put it the other way. You've persuaded me that in those cases, I thought to do things like put a fence and some trees and a different exit and entrance, and then you've changed your opinion, and I thank you for that, thank you for working with me. 167 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 But you're making a grave error, sir, and I say this with all due respect, because I know you care about people. What makes you think that the architect or the engineer is in there for free? 'Cause you talked about money, number one. And, number two, I represent many, what you and I would call, "average citizens," the neighborhood beauty parlor, the neighborhood candy store, the neighborhood restaurant. I don't represent the Pyramid Club every day. And I want to tell you something, that the truth of the matter is that an architect or an engineer who knows the architecture and engineering requirements still is not trained in the issue or variance certificate, vested rights. Now, they may have picked it up along the way, but how do you suppose they're in there for free? The last time --
-- I paid an architecture bill, it was pretty heavy. Suppose you hire a lawyer just for the 168 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 hearing and that lawyer presents the case properly, using the architect and the engineer as his witness or her witness. And then on the legal issues, convinces the Board that it is a proper place for variance. That's his proper function. I don't want to usurp the function of the engineer or the architect, but they have no 9 right to usurp mine. And, with due respect, this Council doesn't have the right to give them right to practice law. You can't give me right to right to practice engineering, and you can't give them the right to practice law. And I'm being as respectful as I can. You're mixing the issue. Engineers and architects belong there, but when it comes to the law -- and I'm just going to say one instance. I appeared before L&I Review on a case, and I don't want to tell war stories, but I'm going to tell you this -- that that case turned not on the code, not on the City Solicitor's interpretation of the code, but it turned on a little piece of paper called the Constitution of the United States. That was the issue, due process. And 169 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 you tell me how many architects and engineers are trained to argue a due process case. And that case was won on that basis and that basis alone. And sometimes, although very rarely, even Council can make a mistake and pass an unconstitutional act.
That can happen. And there are also gradations of lawyers, and people have to who lawyers based upon their economic ability to pay. So that just having a lawyer doesn't mean you're going to get full protection.
There are levels of quality of. What I'm saying is we're dealing service with a board that, together with the Traffic Court, probably is one of those most used by ordinary people on a day-to-day basis, and we're trying to make those services available to people. Now if they can afford lawyers, wonderful. We're talking about groups that may not be able to afford lawyers or may not have had 170 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 enough experience with lawyers to believe that they can find a lawyer that's both competent and affordable.
Okay. And Councilman Kenney, a half hour ago, answered that question beautifully. If a man named Kenny wants to build third floor, he can hire this lady or he can hire Mr. Schlosser, and he takes them into the Board, and he says, Members of the board, I really want to put a third floor in. My family is growing, I need the extra space, and now I'm going to have my architect, Mr. Schlosser, explain to you why it's good, why it doesn't hurt anybody else, why there's enough air and light, why I don't block the next door neighborhood, why I won't block fire engines from getting in. Mr. Schlosser, go get 'em.
But it might be a citizen who's not prepared to just go through what you've just said. It might be a citizen who, when he or enters the room, or she enters the room, 171 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 becomes intimidated just by the solemnity. They're not used to it in their life, and they need somebody with them that they feel knows something about the process. And it's in that kind of situation that I'm raising the issue. I haven't finally resolved in my own mind, you know, the specific items.
But you're raising it the wrong way. What you're saying is they don't have -- why should they pay for attorney when they can pay for an architect. So how have you solved the average citizen's problem?
No, they may hire an expediter who's neither an engineer, nor an --
And the expediter -- and the expediter can get them ready for the hearing and he could tell him everything he has to tell him and he could sit by their side.
But he can't get up there and argue the case. And he shouldn't be allowed to. And now let's talk about the 172 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 (unintelligible).
I mean, we don't need to repeat those. We understand your position.
Let me make a suggestion as Chairman of the committee. It is now 5 after 4.
Councilman Cohen has to leave. We're obviously not going to move this bill out of committee today. I have a suggested date to reconvene the hearing on this bill, which is Thursday, at 1 o'clock, June 4th. And if that's okay, we'll have a couple weeks to talk about. We don't have the members here to vote it out anyway. And the amendments have been offered, we can continue to discuss this. I'm sure we'll have contact from various sources discussing this. And then we can come back on the 4th and finish up testimony and go one way or the other. 173 RULES COMMITTEE - BILL NO. 970713 Is that okay?
Is that all right with everybody? Thank you very much for your attendance. It's been very interesting, and we will recess. So it's clear for the record, I'm going to recess this hearing to a date certain of June 4th, Thursday, at 1 o'clock.
Thank you. (Adjourned at 4:02 p.m.) - - - 174 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, May 14, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 970092, 970395, 970778, 970713 RESOLUTION NO. 980251 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR