►
From YouTube: Committee on Law and Government 12-2-2019
Description
The Committee on Law and Government of the Council of the City of Philadelphia held a Public Hearing on Monday, December 2, 2019, at 10:00 AM, in Room 400, City Hall, to hear testimony on the following items:
190861 An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia a proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to revise and clarify the restrictions on City officials and employees with respect to political activities.
190874 Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to revise and clarify the restrictions on City officials and employees with respect to political activities; and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
A
A
Standing
by
here,
thank
you,
miss
Marconi.
Will
you
please
read
the
title
of
the
bill
and
resolution
before
us
bill
number
one:
nine
zero,
eight
six
one
in
ordinance
providing
for
the
submission
to
the
qualified
electors
of
the
city
of
Philadelphia
proposal
set
forth
in
a
resolution,
provide
counsel
of
an
amendment
to
the
Philadelphia
Home
Rule
Charter,
to
revive
and
clarify
the
restrictions
on
three
officials
and
employees
with
respect
to
political
activities.
A
Resolution
one:
nine:
zero,
eight,
seven:
four
resolution
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
Philadelphia
Home
Rule
Charter,
to
revise
and
clarify
the
restrictions
on
city
officials
and
employees
with
respect
to
political
activities
and
providing
for
the
submission
of
the
amendments
of
the
electors
of
Philadelphia.
Oh
thank
you
before
we
have
our
witnesses,
like
the
chair,
recognizes
councilman
green.
The
sponsor
of
this
bill
and
resolution
Thank.
B
You
mr.
chair,
the
purpose
of
this
hearing-
and
this
conversation
is
something
that
was
brought
to
my
attention.
Something
I've
been
familiar
with
for
some
time,
embarrassing
employees
that
raise
a
concern
about
the
fact
of
their
inability
to
participate,
based
on
either
freedom,
Association
or
other
constitutional
rights,
and
feeling
that
our
local
prohibition
on
local
activities
is
too
restrictive.
So
this
has
been
a
conversation.
I've
been
engaging
in
the
past
number
past
few
weeks
with
both
members
of
Ethics
Board
staff
and
also
a
lot
of
Hartman
others
as
well
as
committee
standing
to
start.
B
This
conversation
I
thought.
The
conversation
was
needed
at
this
time,
based
on
some
of
the
conversations
we've
had
Starr
was
to
hold
this
bill
to
provide
various
parties
to
have
more
opportunity
to
continue
this
conversation.
My
goal
is
to
reintroduce
this
as
we
come
into
2020,
so
we
can
continue.
The
conversation
I
have
a
more
fruitful
dialogue
than
all
parties,
and
stakeholders
would
have
opportunity
for
their
voices
to
be
heard
and
to
have
a
fully
deliberative
process.
Thank
You
mr.
chair
Thank,.
D
This
one,
my
name,
is
Michael
cook
I'm,
the
general
counsel
for
the
city's
Board
of
Ethics
and
I'm
here
to
testify
today,
on
behalf
of
the
board
without
good
morning,
chair
greenly,
vice-chair
green
and
all
the
other
members
of
the
committee
and
the
council
members
who
are
here
today.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
bill
have
submitted
written
testimony,
so
I
won't
go
through
it
word
by
word,
but
will
you
yes
a
brief
summary
of
the
board's
a
point
of
view
and
thoughts
on
this
legislation?
D
What
I
would
say
is
that
the
board
notes
that
the
proposed
legislation
would
revise
the
political
activity,
restrictions
that
are
found
in
Section
10
107
of
the
Charter
in
order
to
allow
city
employees
to
participate
in
campaigns
of
candidates
for
non-local,
statewide
or
federal
office
proposal
would
also
also
includes
provisions
prohibiting
City,
appoint
officers
and
employees
from
engaging
in
political
activity
on
work
time
or
while
using
their
city
title
or
city
resources.
I
would
note,
of
course,
that
those
restrictions
are
already
the
law
as
found
in
the
board's
political
activity.
D
D
Think
gives
time
for
that
very
important
conversation
to
happen
and
recognizing
the
board
recognizes
that,
of
course,
it
has
been
60
years
since
the
Charter
was
put
into
place
and
it
makes
sense
to
assess
whether
or
not
the
restrictions
that
were
put
into
place
back
in
the
early
50s
still
match
the
needs
and
realities
of
the
city
and
that
seeing
this
legislation
as
the
beginning
of
that
conversation
to
fully
assess
what
might
be
appropriate.
What
is
happening
in
other
jurisdictions
and
so
on,
seems
like
a
very
worthy
goal
and
approached
to
these
particular
issues.
B
You
mr.
chair
I
went
back
and
forth
on
whether
they
introduced
this
legislation
this
time.
This
action
was
brought
to
me
by
ace
to
the
employee,
who
was
concerned
based
on
their
inability
to
participate
in
a
campaign,
especially
a
presidential
campaign
and
part
of
the
concern
and
I'm
going
to
get
some
of
your
perspectives
on
some
of
these
issues.
B
D
D
There
are
many
jurisdictions
that
limit
the
restrictions
to
the
political
activity
of
city
or
state
municipal
or
local
employees,
while
they're
on
duty
and
then
say
when
you're
off
duty.
You
can
mostly
do
whatever
you
want
and
then
there's
a
group
that
includes
Philadelphia
that
are
more
restrictive
and
include
prohibitions
on
certain
types
of
political
activity.
Even
when
the
government
employees
are
off
duty
and
so
on
that
spectrum
I
think
that
Philadelphia
is
certainly
on
the
stricter
and
as
compared
to
the
whole
swath
of
governments.
Government
entities
around
the
country.
D
B
D
That
depends
on
the
category
so
with
the
Hatch
Act,
it
has
two
tiers.
It
has
most
federal
employees
have
less
restrictive
rules
which
are,
for
the
most
part,
prohibit
them
from
engage
in
a
political
activity
on
the
job
or
using
governmental
resources.
I
believe
it
also
prohibits
participation
in
fundraising
activities
and
then
there's
another
category
that
are
more
strictly
restricted
and
their
rules
are
very
similar
to
what
we
have
in
the
city
and
that's
folks
who
work
on
elections
or
national
security
or
in
more
high-level
and
sensitive
positions.
D
B
Then
also
just
want
to
get
them
some
perspective,
because
I
think
there's,
unfortunately,
a
lot
of
missed
information
locally
through
them.
If
you
have
numbers
to
the
employees
who
believe
they
can't
even
sign
a
petition
for
someone
to
get
on
the
ballot,
which
is
also
not
true
great,
that
is
correct,
right
and
so
from
my
respect,
I
think
this
conversation
is
important
because
you
have
those
perspectives.
B
You
also
have
state
employees
who
don't
realize
that
they
can
actually
on
their
own
time
as
long
as
they're,
not
in
anything
that
identifies
them
as
to
the
employees
longer
than
I
staying
there's
to
the
employee
that
if
they
want
to
create
their
own
campaign
material
for
a
specific
candidate,
they
can
do
that
on
their
own
time.
If
the
key
is,
it
cannot
be
coordinated
with
an
official
campaign
that
is
correct,
right
and
I.
Think
many
people
don't
even
have
that
perspective.
B
They
take
the
perspective
of
I,
can't
participate
in
anything
I
can't
even
sign
a
petition.
The
only
thing
I
can
do
is
vote.
I.
Think
a
number
people
don't
even
realize
that
they
want
to
make
a
personal
contribution
to
a
candidate.
They
can
do
that
if
they
want
to
that
said
a
few
moments
ago,
create
their
own
campaign,
materials
and
say:
I
want
councilmember
bill
Greenlee
to
run
for
president,
but.
B
What
if
they
want
to
do
that,
they
could
do
that
on
their
own
time.
The
key
is
that
they
cannot
associate
in
an
official
capacity
with
a
local
campaign.
I
think
part
of
that
is
also
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
think
this
city
employee,
reached
out
mr.
Davis
concerns,
because
we
have
such
a
low
participation
rate.
We
just
came
out
of
a
general
election
where
our
participation
rate
was
not
nearly
where
it
should
be.
B
D
E
You
very
much
good
morning
morning,
so
I
also
want
to
thank
my
colleague
for
being
willing
to
hold
movement
on
this
bill,
because
I
think
it
is
an
important
area
for
us
to
continue
to
discuss.
I
appreciate
the
work
of
the
of
the
Ethics
Commission
to
continue
to
work
with
different
actors
and
specialists
in
the
field
to
ensure
that
we
are
continuing
to
define
and
modernize
regulations
around
around
this
original
provision.
E
But
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
tell
us
a
little
bit
and
without
with
being
delicate
about
age
and
everything
about
I,
don't
profess
the
two
words
there
at
the
time.
Obviously,
but
but
I
wanted
to
know
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
origins
of
the
original
bill.
What
was
happening
at
the
time
in
city
government
that
sort
of
inspired
some
of
the
strictness
of
this
ruling,
because
it
was
my
understanding
that
there
was
flagrant
violations
of
what
we
would
consider
to
be
appropriate
use
of
government
responsibilities.
E
D
D
Commissioner
of
the
health
department
completely
bungled
the
response
to
the
Spanish
Influenza,
which
led
to
tens
of
thousands
of
philadelphians
dying
because
they
were
herded
into
confined
spaces
where
the
disease
was
easily
communicated,
as
opposed
to
people
being
quarantined
on
through
the
30s.
Well,
in
the
20s,
you
don't
need
to
cover
every
death.
D
Issues
with
municipal
contracting,
so
contract
contracts
being
awarded
to
politically
connected
contractors
such
as
the
brother
of
the
local
political
boss,
which
resulted
in
massive
overcharging
for
the
city
for
construction.
Other
projects,
things
like
the
Arch
Street
subway,
which
is
just
a
hole
under
the
ground
and
was
never
actually
used
into
the
40s.
E
Go
straight
if
I
could
just
move
move
the
time
line
up.
I
mean
assume
that
in
the
creation
of
the
charter
in
1951
that
there
must
have
been
some
extensive
conversation
about
the
role
of
this
particular
regulation,
and
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
was
some
of
the
impetus.
What
was
what
were
the
discussions
of
the
spirits
of
this
ruling
at
that
time
and
what
was
it
meant
to
curtail?
Because
it
certainly
was
not
about
freedom
of
speech
or
about
all
these
other
things.
It
was
really
meant
as
an
anti-corruption
tools.
E
D
Certainly
many
city
employees
owed
their
City
position
to
their
participation
in
political
activity
and
were
expected
to
routinely
engage
in
political
activity
even
while
they,
after
they
had
gotten
the
jobs
twice
a
year.
People
came
by
to
collect
money
from
every
city,
employee,
to
fund
the
political
operations,
and
so
the
the
the
city
governance
became
secondary
to
the
needs
of
the
political
party,
political
or
city
government.
D
E
Actually
wasn't
even
all
that
reason.
I
know
that
one
of
the
issues
we
were
dealing
with
in
the
mid-2000s,
with
the
Bureau
of
provision
of
taxes,
for
example,
were
that
these
were
BRT
employees
who
are
put
on
the
school
district
payroll,
for
example,
so
that
they
could
hold
political
positions
within
political
parties,
because
the
restrictions
on
school
district
ethics
were
mostly
non-existent.
I
still
think
they're
very
slim
right
now
and
did
not
prohibit
political
activity.
E
So,
in
fact,
that
history
is
not
all
that
long
ago
under
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
also
want
to
ask,
then
you
know
the
the
regulations
take
a
look
at
whether
we
should
only
focus
in
on
state
and
national
I'm
curious
about
your
opinion
about
whether
state
politics
is
also
still
too
close
in
the
largest
city
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania,
and
probably
the
most
significant
city
in
the
Commonwealth
in
terms
of
voting
and
etc,
etc.
I.
D
Would
say
that
it
certainly
raises
the
concern
for
any
office
holder
who
is
elected
out
of
Philadelphia
and
serves
the
people
of
Philadelphia,
particularly
so
members
of
the
State
House
of
the
State
Assembly
or
members
of
Congress
for
the
House
of
Representatives.
Those
folks
are
very
closely
connected
to
city
life
and
they're.
In
my
experience
is
a
fair
amount
of
interchange
between
those
individuals
as
candidates
and
office
holders
and
the
life
of
the
city,
whether
the
governance
of
the
city
or
just
the
day-to-day
life
of
the
city
and
so
I.
E
You
know
there's
been
questions
about
free
speech,
obviously
like
restrictions
on
free
speech
and
I.
Think
that
one
of
the
things
that's
been
really
helpful
is
that
you've
outlined
many
different
ways
in
which
new
regulations
evolve.
The
understanding-
and
you
know
our
work,
obviously
is
to
inform
our
employees
that
they
do
have
the
right
these.
These
types
of
things,
but
I'm,
also
curious
about
where
you
think
you
would
draw
the
line
and
I
do
think.
D
And
certainly
the
rights
we
have
under
the
First
Amendment
for
free
speech
and
Association
are
what
we
all
want
to
ensure
is
protected
and
that
people
aren't
unduly
limited.
That
in
mind,
though,
the
courts
have
routinely
held
over
the
years
that
it
is
appropriate
and
permissible
for
governments
to
limit
the
exercise
of
those
First
Amendment
rights
by
governmental
employees.
D
Precisely
in
order
to
address
the
kinds
of
situations
that
you're
talking
about
so
to
ensure
that
government
services
are
free
from
corruption
that
the
citizens
feel
confident
that
their
government
decisions
are
being
made
for
the
best
public
policy
reasons,
not
because
of
political
persuasion
or
political
influence
to
give
people
the
faith
and
government
that
they
need
to
have
in
so
long
line
of
cases
that
have
permitted
municipalities
or
states
or
the
federal
government
to
limit
the
political
activity
of
government
employees.
In
order
to
avoid
just
those
kinds
of
problems.
E
So,
under
our
current
regulations,
an
individual,
a
city
employee,
is
allowed
to
donate
money
can
express
political
inclinations,
they
can
hang
signs
and
windows.
They
can
find
petitions,
they
can
distribute
it
individually,
independently
created
candidate
materials.
They
can
be
loud
cheerleaders,
but
they
can't
hold
formal
positions,
for
example.
So
what
we're
saying
no
to
is
like
the
ability
to
hold
formal
positions
within
campaigns
in
the
management
or
direction
of
affairs
they
can't,
for
example,
they
couldn't.
E
They
can't
run
the
finances
of
the
campaign
right,
so
they
can't
put
list
it
or
force
the
solicitation
of
money
and
they
can't,
for
example,
fundraise
on
behalf
other
than
your
own
donations.
That
you
personally
do
is
that
correct
that
that's
right
and
if
we
were
to
loosen
these
restrictions-
and
you
know
one
of
the
concerns
this,
for
example,
could
there
be
a
scenario
in
which
a
police
commissioner
could
become
the
chair
of
an
attorney
general's
race?
The
the
campaign
chair
of
an
attorney
general's
race
that
could
potentially
be
open
is
that
correct,
I
believe.
E
D
E
Not
the
discussion
in
play
right
now,
so
assume
resigned
to
run
this
in
place,
so
resigned
to
run,
is
in
place
and
a
former
mayor
or
a
current
mayor
who
hired
a
Parks
and
Rec
Commissioner,
for
example,
steps
down
to
run
for
governor
that
Parks
and
Rec
Commissioner
to
become
that
person's
finance
chair
or
the
managing
director
could
become
that
individuals.
Finance
chair
is
that
correct.
I
believe
that.
D
E
D
G
G
So
part
of
what
happened
as
a
result
of
the
Charter,
the
Charter
that
was
created
to
deal
with
macing
and
bullying
of
city
employees,
was,
as
I
understand
it,
a
compromise
that
they
would
try
to
do
good
government
within
the
city
government
itself,
but
leave
patronage
positions
in
the
courts
and
other
places
pretty
much
untouched.
Is
that
your
reckless?
Is
that
your
understanding
of
the
history
or
no?
No?
Okay?
What
is
your
understanding
so.
D
G
D
G
So
currently,
within
the
city,
we
have,
for
example,
a
very,
very
different
system,
for
example,
a
state
legislature
and
their
staff
and
state
employees
would
not
be
subject
to
the
city
rules,
but
city
employees
are,
and
so
the
current
system
that
we
have
really
deals
with
governmental
employees
who
work
for
the
city,
but
no
other
governmental
employees.
That's
correct
and.
B
B
Stamp
is
one
of
the
co-authors
of
our
current
system
of
campaign,
finance
laws
when
I
worked
with
Councilman
tasko
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this
legislation,
hoping
to
make
an
improvement
earlier
was
stated
that
a
number
of
issues
that
occurred,
which
led
to
our
current
system
of
campaign
finance
a
lot
of
corruption
occurred
in
the
past
and
no
disrespect
to
my
colleague
counselor,
but
that
was
during
the
leadership
of
another
party.
Then
that's
currently
involved
here.
Correct,
yes,
okay,
but
also
that
time
did
not
have
an
independent,
Ethics
Board
as
well.
B
That
is
true,
and
that's
part
of
the
reason
why
we
did
that
work
some
years
ago,
and
so
as
the
ordinance
is
drafted.
This
is
a
question
for
the
lectures
of
city
of
Adelphia
and
basically
we're
talking
about
their
ability
to
participate.
But
even
if
this
were
on
the
ballot
in
April,
there
would
be
other
legislation
and
we
need
to
be
drafted.
Just
like
our
current
as
its
laws
to
interpret
what
that
participation
would
be
so
the.
D
B
Even
even
though
they
would
need
to
interpret
the
Charter,
but
the
thumb,
our
working
relationship
over
the
years
when
there's
been
issues,
I'll
be
the
gaps
in
the
law,
that's
been
suggested
and
how
the
legislation
should
be
introduced
to
tighten
up
the
language
to
make
it
easier
and
get
more
guidelines
to
people
on
how
to
interpret
on
the
law.
I
know
in
the
regulations
we've
drafted
worked
on
different
hypotheticals
to
kind
of
give
people
perspective
what
they
can
and
cannot
do.
B
D
As
far
as
the
scope
of
legislation
that
would
be
allowed
after
approval
of
a
ballot
question,
I
would
have
to
defer
to
both
law
department.
I,
don't
know
how
strictly
the
requirements
are
to
keep
to
what
the
resolution
that
passes
at
the
same
company
with
the
what
the
bill
would
be.
Certainly
we
have,
over
the
years
from
the
perspective
of
the
board
and
from
staff,
had
very
productive
working
relationship
with
Council
as.
D
B
D
I
think
we
very
much
appreciate
the
holding
of
the
bill
to
allow
for
that
additional
study
and
conversation
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
the
desires
are
and
to
avoid
any
unintended
consequences
or
difficulties
that
that
may
arise
or
implementations.
That
would
be
beyond
what
the
council
was
looking
for
through
the
legislation
right.
B
B
Currently,
if
a
city
employee
wanted
to
volunteer
in
their
own
time,
not
wearing
any
type
of
insignia
or
information
identifying
themselves
to
the
employee
will
want
to
pass
out
literature
for
a
campaign
that
was
paid
for
by
that
campaign
on
a
Sunday
afternoon
after
church
or
on
a
Saturday
morning.
They
could
not
do
that
unless
they
made
up
their
own
materials
on
that
you're.
D
Correct
they
could
not
pass
out
anything
created
by
a
campaign.
They
couldn't
do
anything
in
coordination
with
the
campaign.
They
could
do
it
something
created
themselves
or
something
that
was
created
by
you
know
their
union
or
a
civic
group
or
even
a
partisan
political
group,
but
not
a
campaign
of
a
candidate
right.
B
So
clearly
is
a
large
perspective
from
a
city
employee,
just
deciding
that
I
would
like
to
volunteer
in
a
campaign
and
pass
that
literature
paid
for
by
the
campaign
on
their
own
time
to
the
actual
management
of
the
campaign.
So
that's
a
large
perspective
of
activity
just
like
in
number
of
different
cities.
They
have
different
types
of
restrictions.
B
What
they
can
do,
what
they
can't
do,
but
clearly,
based
on
your
earlier
testimony
that
thought
outfit
is
seen
as
more
restrictive
than
a
lot
of
other
cities
and
even
on
the
federal
level,
the
federal
government
provides
much
broader,
pretty
much
sociation
for
federal
employees
to
participate,
except
for
those
employees
in
a
very
highly
specialized
area,
which
I
think
you
referred
to
in
your
testimony.
Yes,.
A
Thank
you,
counseling
Thank,
You,
shade.
We
have
for
my
next
panel.
Our
next
panel
I
have
Tabitha
abu
el
Hadj.
Hope
I
didn't
mess
that
up
too.
That
prac
Christmas
committee
is
70.
Now
the
only
other
person
I
have
on
the
lip,
because
I
don't
see,
Shelley
yeah
is
Richard.
Levinson
is
here.
Okay,
thank
you
could
come
up
front
too.
Is
there?
Anyone
else
here
wanted
to
testify.
Okay,
good,
miss
Levinson.
Once
you
come
up
to
so
this
will
be
a
final
panel
since
there's
nobody
else
right
ready
to
testify
man.
C
Is
this
on?
Yes?
Yes,
so
my
name
is
Tabatha
Aloha
I'm,
a
associate
professor
at
the
Thomas
art
Kline
School
of
Law
at
Drexel,
University
I,
appear
here
in
my
personal
capacity
and
do
not
speak
on
behalf
of
Drexel
University
or
the
law.
School
I
hold
a
JD
PhD
from
NYU
and
have
written
extensively
on
the
First
Amendment
and
the
law
of
democracy
and
I've
published
extensively
on
the
right
of
peaceable
assembly
and
Association
as
well
as
campaign
finance
and
political
parties.
C
C
What
the
literature
around
parties
is
political
parties
today
and
the
way
they
contribute
to
the
weakness
of
American
democracy
and
to
responsiveness
and
those
are
in
my
written
testimony.
So
I
wanted
to
step
back
from
my
written
testimony
to
say
that,
especially
in
light
of
the
previous
testimony,
I
want
to
emphasize
two
aspects.
One
is
I
think
that
the
current
regulation
is
significantly.
C
My
over
my
overall
view
about
this
proposed
resolution,
which
I
have
read
carefully
as
well
as
all
of
the
regulations
that
implement
them,
although
I
would
not
say
I
was
an
expert
on
them,
is
I.
Think
this
proposal
is
a
significant
step
in
the
right
direction.
In
particular,
I
really
appreciate
that
it
preserves
the
limitations
on
campaign
serving
as
a
financial
officer
for
a
campaign,
a
political
party.
It
restricts
government
employees
from
serving
as
what
I
would
call
bundlers
sort
of
collecting
campaigns.
Money.
C
I
think
those
are
the
places
where
the
risk
of
corruption
is
highest
and,
at
the
same
time,
it
channels
city
employees
into
participating
in
ways
that
I
think
are
extremely
healthy
for
democracy,
which
are
volunteering
and
peer-to-peer,
but
that's
the
term
of
art,
organizing,
so
that
you
work
with
your
social
networks
and
one
reason
I,
think
that
this
is
a
significant
step
forward.
Is
that
city
employees
I
think
bring
a
number
of
strengths
to
politics.
C
They
are
likely
to
have
broader
social
networks
than
many
of
the
sort
of
college
educated,
wealthy
individuals
who
are
running
groups
like
indivisible
or
participating
in
super
PAC,
but
rather
representative
networks
in
terms
of
race,
socioeconomic
status
and
age.
That
I
think
actually
comes
from
the
very
fact
of
working
for
city
government,
where
you
work
with
a
range
of
people
from
different
places.
C
They
are
likely
to
understand
how
government
works
at
a
time
when
Americans
are
deeply
cynical
about
government
they're
likely
to
see
that
government
can
not
be
dysfunctional,
they
are
likely
to
be
less
hyper-partisan.
That
is
a
speculation,
but
I
suspect
that
is
probably
true
and
most
controversially
and
I
know.
This
is
the
source
of
this
original
regulation.
They
are
likely
to
have
access
to
key
policymakers,
and
that
I
would
argue
today
is
the
biggest
problem
with
American
democracy.
C
There
were
more
opportunities
for
ordinary
constituents
to
be
in
contact
with
their
representatives.
That
was
the
upside
of
the
patronage
system.
The
corruption
was
the
downside,
I.
Think
regulations
should
be
in
place
to
sort
of
prevent
a
resurgence
of
corruption,
but
the
upside
of
the
old-style
machine
was
a
grounded
elected
officials
in
their
constituencies.
The
current
system
grounds
elected
officials
and
donors
who
tend
to
be
from
a
particular
class,
and
it
is
those
donors
who
have
access
to
politicians
whose
phone
calls
are
answered,
and
even
my
presence
here
comes
through
social
networks.
C
It
was
because
of
connections
between
the
law,
school
and
the
city
government.
That
I
was
here.
That
is
how
politics
works.
I
think
that
is
an
important
part
of
being
able
to
hear
different
perspectives
is
to
be
able
to
rely
on
those
so
I
think
city
workers.
Access
to
see
makers
is
actually
a
significantly
underappreciated
asset.
All
right,
I
know
you
mostly
want
to
hear
what
I
have
to
say
about
the
First
Amendment,
so
I
will
focus
on
that.
C
So,
let's
talk
about
the
current
reform.
I
mean
the
current
regular
city
charter
and
its
interpretation
I.
Think
the
current
restrictions
on
city
workers
are
likely
unconstitutional
and,
as
I
said
already
and
I
will
repeat,
court
instigated
deregulation
will
be
far
more
blunt
and
will
undermine
any
of
the
city's
legitimate
concerns
in
this
regulation.
I
also
think
the
current
restrictions
are
extremely
problematic
from
a
democracy
perspective.
They
limit
government
workers
to
participate
politically
in
elections
in
the
least
effective
ways.
C
So,
although
we
often
talk
about
the
value
of
personal
political
expression
and
the
value
of
being
able
to
sign
a
petition
or
send
out
a
small
donation,
the
fact
is:
political
power
comes
from
organization,
and
these
regulations
limit
city
workers
ability
to
organize,
through
political
parties
and
in
campaigns
again
I'm,
not
talking
about
spending
money.
I
agree
with
the
restrictions
and
spending
money,
but
the
ability
to.
C
I
move
and
its
interpretation
of
the
Charter
and
finally,
as
I
said
earlier,
the
channel
meaningful
political
activity
outside
the
official
party
and
outside
of
campaigns
in
ways
that
likely
enhanced
partisan
polarization
and
the
dysfunction
of
city,
politics
and
national
politics
so
to
put
simply
I
think
the
risk
of
the
current
city
restraints
is
that
it
likely
violates
what
has
been
termed
the
unconstitutional
conditions
doctrine
under
this
doctrine.
Governments
are
prohibited
from
conditioning
access
to
their
largesse,
which
includes
government
employment
on
the
giving
up
of
a
constant
right.
C
In
this
case,
the
city
of
Philadelphia
essentially
forces
its
workers
to
give
up
their
constitutional
right
to
meaningfully
participate
in
political
parties
and
in
campaigns
in
order
to
remain
employed.
I
think
the
most
egregious
part
is
actually
the
one
that
the
current
resolution
does
not
go
far
enough
toward,
which
is
the
restriction
on
participating
in
political
parties.
Now
that
does
not
mean
I
think
that
one
should
abandon
all
restrictions.
I
think
the
campaign
restrictions
make
sense.
C
The
bundling
for
parties
makes
sense,
continuing
prohibitions
on
city
workers
working
as
election
officials
or
poll
workers
makes
sense,
but
I
think
the
restrictions
on
political
participation
getting
out
the
vote
for
a
political
party
or
being
part
of
the
National
Convention,
where
you
might
be
part
of
the
party
platform.
I
think
those
should
be
considered
to
be
scaled
back,
because
I
think
those
would
help
our
political
parties
now,
as
general
counsel
described.
C
Even
when
a
government
worker
speaks
as
a
citizen
on
matters
of
public
concern,
there
is
a
balancing
act
where
the
city's
interest,
in
this
case
in
an
efficient
merit-based
employment
system,
would
be
balanced
against
the
government
workers
interest
in
political
participation
and
speech.
Still
most
of
the
cases
were,
government
work
lose
because
they
have
under
this
Pickering
test,
which
is
the
balance
in
case,
are
situations
where
government
workers
have
been
caught
up
in
whistleblower
situations
or
are
aggrieved
employees.
C
In
any
event,
if
the
city
were
forced
to
defend
this
regulation,
it
would
have
to
show
that
it
is
narrowly
tailored
to
one
of
two
interests:
Matane,
maintaining
an
efficient
merit-based
as
opposed
to
patronage,
based
workforce
or
preventing
quid
pro
quo.
Corruption
and
its
appearance
and
I
believe
that
it
will
likely
fail
if
it
is
unable
to
show
a
contemporaneous
record
of
concerns.
That
is,
concerns
not
dating
back
to
the
50s
or
the
19th
century,
but
contemporary
concerns,
and
in
this
regard,
I
will
say
that
the
city
has
defended
this
regular.
C
C
The
courts
now
are
much
much
more
skeptical
about
regulation
of
free
speech
generally
I
know:
I
sound,
like
I'm
a
free
speech,
absolutist,
actually
I,
write
about
the
freedom
of
assembly
and
largely
not
an
absolutist
when
it
comes
to
free
speech,
but
the
courts
are
very
skeptical
about
efforts
to
regulate
in
the
name
of
the
quid
pro
quo,
corruption
or
the
appearance
of
corruption
and
I.
Think
that
means
that
they
will
be
very
skeptical
about
reliance
on
records
from
50
years
ago
or
longer
now,
I
will
conclude
with
a
little
bit
of
positive
news.
C
There
certainly
is
precedent
upholding
in
August
Hatch
Act.
That
precedent,
however,
is
from
1973
and
the
landscape
of
First
Amendment
doctrine
has
changed
significantly
I.
Let's
talk
about
the
First
Amendment
of
issues
with
the
proposed
regulation.
If
that's
okay,
unless
you
want
to
ask
questions
now,.
A
F
A
G
Simply
said
that
that
was
a
lot
of
legal
presentation
and
it
was,
you
know,
quite
extensive,
so
would
it
be
okay
if
we
just
kind
of
questioned
you
that's
separate
from
the
panel,
so
I
do
I
do
understand
what
you
are
saying.
I
have
just
a
couple
of
questions
based
on
the
case
law
that
you
are
opening
upon.
C
I
do
I
do
not
like
answering
questions
like
that.
Okay,
I
would
say,
I
know
on
a
spectrum
of
more
and
less
defensible.
I
would
say
that
restrictions
requiring
city
officials
to
resign
before
they
run
for
office
is
probably
safer
than
what
you
currently
have,
which
are
much
broader
restrictions
and
I.
Think
you
would
have
to
argue
it
in
terms
of
the
corruption
rationale
and
I.
C
G
Philadelphia
has
the
most
restrictive
regulations
when
it
comes
to
elected
officials,
they
must
resign
at
any
point
if
they're
going
to
run
for
another
office.
But
my
question
is
not
about
elected
officials.
My
question
is
about
your
civil
service
workers
or
non
civil
service.
Currently,
if
employee
non
elected
official
wanted
to
run
for
an
office
on
their
own
time,
not
interfering
with
their
job,
they
would
have
to
resign
their
employment
from
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
Is
that
constitutionally
permissible,
based
on
your
research
and
and
knowledge,
or
is
that
unconstitutional.
A
C
C
G
G
C
So
I
actually
was
planning
to
speak
on
that
I
think
that
the
current
bill
is
less
vulnerable
to
sorts
of
First
Amendment
challenges
described,
but
I
still
think
that,
in
order
to
survive
constitutional
muster,
this
council
City
Council
is
going
to
have
to
develop
their
record
to
show
that
they
have
a
genuine
current
need
for
this
level
of
restriction
in
order
to
protect
the
merit-based
system
that
has
been
established.
I
also
think
that
you're
going
to
have
to
show
a
record
of
quid
pro
quo,
corruption
or
the
risk
of
quid
pro
quo
corruption.
C
So
since
citizens-
united
as
I'm
sure
you
know,
the
court
has
a
very
narrow
definition
of
what
counts
as
the
appearance
of
corruption,
and
it
is
likely
I
didn't
even
get
to
this,
but
there
is
also
a
risk
that
this
ordinance
would
be
challenged
as
a
campaign.
Finance
restriction.
I
would
not
want
to
defend
the
ordinance
on
those
grounds
because
it
is
an
uphill
battle,
but
to
do
so
one
would
have
to
beef
that
up
and
one
of
the
things
to
address
the
narrowly
tailoring
is
that
you.
C
I
actually
think
that
is
the
most
defensible
line
because
they
think
a
court
might
be
persuaded,
especially
if
who
you
were
in
the
box
of
defending
this
as
a
restriction
on
government
employees
speech
as
opposed
to
a
campaign,
finance
restriction,
I
think
a
court
would
be
frustrated,
persuaded
that
participation
in
local
parties
increases
the
risk
of
a
return
to
a
patronage
based
and
corrupt
political
system.
I
think
the
decision
to
subject
a
political
appointees
and
employees
to
the
same
requirements
may
be
less
defensible.
C
I
think
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
I
I
know
less
about
city
government
workers
than
you
do,
but
I
suspect
that
the
court
would
think
that
the
risks
of
corruption
and
patronage
based
employment
for
appointees
is
higher
than
for
employees
once
the
merit-based
system
has
been
in
place
for
so
long.
I
also
think
that
that
your
earlier
colloquy
raises
another
line
of
distinctions
that
you
might
be
weren't
worried
about,
which
is
the
fact
that
the
City
School
Board
is
exempt
from
this
rule
and,
to
the
degree,
the
examples
that
counsel.
E
E
C
C
All
of
the
variation
between
workers
who
work
for
the
government,
who
are
have
different
restrictions,
and
some
of
those
who
may
have
actually
had
their
employment
subject
to
corruption,
is
going
to
make
it
harder
to
defend
the
line
just
as
a
practical
matter,
not
impossible.
I'm,
not
saying
anything's,
impossible,
harder,
I
think
the
most
to
get
to
your
big
point.
What
is
it
that
I
think
that
doesn't
go
far
enough?
I
actually
really
do
think
that
you
should
consider
making
analogous
changes
to
the
limits
on
participation
in
political
parties.
C
C
But
actually
I
worry
about
having
too
much
pressure
on
unions
to
do
the
work
for
ordinary
citizens,
because,
as
unions
are
politicized,
they
will
be
undercut
economically,
as
we
hope
for
their
economic
functions,
as
we've
already
seen.
So.
I
would
not
just
because
an
anticipation
of
some
questions
that
I
get
I
do
not
think
that
you
should
repeal
things
like
the
ability
of
city
employees
to
sit
as
like
finance
persons
for
political
parties
or
even
maybe,
to
run
for
elected
office.
Although
I'm
not
sure
what
I
think
about
that.
C
I
certainly
don't
think
they
should
be
involved
in
bundling
of
campaign
money
or
in
election
day
activities
where
the
risks
of
corruption
are
high.
But
I
do
think
that
they
should
be
permitted
to
participate
in
aspects
of
parties
where
they
could
help
shape
the
platform
and
where
they
could,
more
importantly,
organize
get
out
the
vote
and
other
kinds
of
political
engagement.
C
B
You
mr.
chair
I
would
be
remiss
in
applauding
your
years
of
service,
not
only
in
this
body
best
chair
of
the
long
government
committee.
We've
had
many
great
conversations
debating
the
legal
ramifications
of
now
our
homework
charter,
but
the
laws
and
regulations,
insidious,
Penelope
as
well,
the
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
as
well,
the
US
as
a
whole.
So
thank
you
for
your
leadership
and
chair
of
this
committee.
B
The
fact
that
you've
clerked
for
judge
Edwards
for
the
DC
Court
of
Appeals
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals,
which
is
basically
the
somewhat
stayed
in
leading
court
on
your
way
to
the
Supreme
Court.
So
you
clearly
have
a
long
history
and
knowledge
and
repping
the
First
Amendment
issues
also
knows
that
you
were
able
to
get
a
JD
and
PhD
from
a
university
from
the
northern
suburb
of
Philadelphia.
B
Background,
but
what
I
gathered
from
what
you're
saying
is
that,
because
of
a
recent
case
law
that
this
type
of
legislation
would
need
to
be
narrowly
tailored,
and
would
that
type
of
narrowly
tailoring
evidentiary
background
would
I
come
from
rulings
from
the
ethics
board?
Will
that
come
from
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
sense?
What
what
would
be
the
type
of
evidence
or
information
that
would
be
needed
from
your
perspective
to
justify
this
type
of
legislation,
regardless
of
which
way
it
goes
going
in
the
future?
B
C
I
think
there
are
two
elements,
so,
first
of
all,
I
think
that
in
regulation
eight,
it
is
eight
point.
Seven
that
I
think
raises
the
broadest
concerns.
I,
think
that
is
the
least
narrowly
tailored
of
the
interpretations
of
current
regulations
and
to
the
degree
of
those
pertain
to
political
parties.
I
think
they
remain
a
risk,
so
yeah
the
city
boy,
if
the
Ethics
Board
that
interprets
that
creates
regulation,
eight
were
to
narrow
some
of
its
interpretations
like
around
get-out-the-vote
for
political
parties
and
so
on.
C
I
think
that
it
would
be
more
narrowly
tailored
at
that
I
presume
that
the
Commission
has
hearings
or
has,
and
in
that
process,
if
it
were
to
enter
into
evidence,
sort
of
examples
of
merit
of
current
situations.
Where
there's
been
a
risk
of
party
patronage
in
these
situations,
that
would
be
helpful.
I
think
it
would
be
best
if
that
testimony
happened
before
City
Council
itself,
where
people
put
into
the
record,
where
the
places
that
they're
most
concerned
about
undermining
the
now
pretty
well-established
merit-based
employment
system,
I
do
think.
C
City
Council
could
consider
beefing
up
its
restrictions
on
the
other
end,
which
is
that
that
employees
and
those
who
exercise
City
office
should
not
abuse
their
power
to
pressure
employees
to
act
politically,
because
that's
really
what
the
concern
is
so
I
think
two
places
one
would
be
in
the
actual
interpretations.
If
the
interpretations
are
narrower
than
the
actual
charter
language,
the
court
will
interpret
will
analyze
the
interpretations
of
the
the
Charter,
not
the
Charter
itself,
and
the
record
could
be
either
before
the
board
or
before
City
Council.
B
C
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
mr.
chair
and
also
acted
the
same.
It
was
a
pleasure
to
serve
with
you.
Mr.
rector
I
really
enjoyed
it.
So
I'm
not
going
to
ask
too
many
questions,
because
I
hope
that
at
some
point
we'll
be
able
to
have
a
longer
dialogue
and
debate
a
panel,
perhaps
at
some
point
later
outside
of
the
room.
So
it
doesn't
have
to
be.
You
know
so
restrictive
in
terms
of
the
back-and-forth,
but
I
did
want
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things.
E
C
E
Can
discuss
this
a
little
bit
but
I?
Think
in
general.
I
am
also
contesting
your
use
of
the
idea
that
they
cannot
participate
in
geo
TV.
They
can
absolutely
participate
in
geo
TV.
There
is
plenty
of
non
partisan
geo,
TV
I
do
not.
You
know,
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
your
concerns
about
indivisible,
let
asides
but
I'm
fascinated
by
like
your
adherence
to
political
parties,
specifically
as
opposed
to
like
political
activities.
E
C
Manager
to
just
clarify
one
thing
again
on
the
question
of
the
Supreme
Court
and
the
perspective
you
might
have.
So
there
is
a
First
Amendment
right
of
Association.
The
Supreme
Court
is
very
interested
in
the
right
to
associate
with
political
parties
and
so
I'm
not
sure
that
a
court
ultimately
would
accept
that
the
ability
to
get
at
the
vote
for
a
nonpartisan
organization
for
your
Union
was
an
adequate
alternative
form
of
expression
and
to.
E
A
prohibition
I
mean
I'm,
saying
that
you
had
testified
earlier,
that
somehow
we
are
not
allowing
GOTV
efforts,
and
that
is
actually
not
accurate.
I
also
wanted
to
I
think
in
your
testimony.
He
said
most
egregiously.
It
bars
all
employees
from
joining
political
parties,
which
is
also
not
correct.
An
employee
can
absolutely
join
a
political
party,
it's
just
different
if
they
are
acting
as
an
actor
on
behalf
of
that
party.
E
So
I
just
think
that
that's
not
quite
phrased,
maybe
the
way
you
need
to,
but
we
can
go
through
that
I
just
wanted
to
put
some
of
these
clarifying
things
on
the
record
campaign
finance
in
terms
of
they
are
absolutely
allowed
to
donate.
They
cannot
solicit
donations
on
behalf
of
a
specific
candidate
or
a
specific
political.
Both.
Let
me
just
leave
it
that
specific
candidate
for
right
now,
but
they
cannot
do
that.
Yes,
it
is
true.
E
If
you
are
the
managing
director
and
you
hold
a
house
fundraising
party
at
your
house
and
you
ask
or
invite
other
city
employees
to
attend.
That
would
not
be
deemed
appropriate
for
many
reasons.
I
think
that
have
that
are
quite
obvious
as
well,
but
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
in
terms
of
campaign
finance,
they
are
certainly
not
restricted
in
terms
of
being
able
to
donate
as
much
as
they
want
up
to
the
legal
limit
as
possible.
E
Now
whether
we
go
into
other
aspects
that
campaign
finance,
whether
they
allowed
to
solicit
host
fundraising
parties
are
an
actual,
you
know
a
committee
for
an
elected
official
and
then
whether
they
can
be
evaluated
fairly
on
merit
based
employment,
like
I,
think
there's
a
lot
of
gray
area
in
there
and
I
think
the
courts
would
recognize
that
there's
been
a
gray
area
between
quid
pro
quo
quid
pro
quo,
which
I
should
be
able
to
pronounce.
After
all
of
this
ridiculousness
that's
been
going
on
quid
pro
quo
and
merit
based
employment.
C
I
just
want
to
clarify
I,
actually
think
that
challenging
this
statute
as
a
campaign,
finance
restriction
is
the
least
likely.
However,
campaign
finance
laws
include
this
issue
of.
Can
you
contribute
anything
of
value
and
to
to
prohibit
volunteering
for
campaign
or
to
participate
phone
banking,
or
those
are
all
things
that,
if
you
don't
get
volunteers,
you
have
to
pay
for
so
they
are
a
thing
of
value.
C
You
cannot
use
against
your
employer,
but
I
just
I
just
caution
the
council
to
consider
that
the
legal
landscape
has
changed
dramatically
since
Donald
Trump
won
the
election
and
has
stacked
the
courts
and
that
it
would
be
foolish
to
walk
in
confident
that
one
can
defend
this
statute,
because
I
do
think
that
the
underlying
principle
of
merit-based
city
employment
is
a
good
one
and
it
should
be
accepted
as
a
compelling
state
interest.
I
actually
believe
that
the
concerns
about
quid
pro
quo
corruption
and
it's
a
hereis
are
compelling.
C
I
am
trying
to
help
you
save
your
statute
and,
and
the
only
thing
I'll
say
for
the
record-
is
that
I
encourage
all
progressives
to
notice
that
one
of
the
mistakes
I
think
of
the
Progressive
Era
was
to
believe
that
ideas
were
what
motivated
politics,
people
motivate
politics
and,
to
the
degree
that
you
take
people
who
are
politically
engaged
and
knowledgeable
and
have
broad
socioeconomically,
diverse
networks,
and
you
say
they
can
only
participate
on
the
outskirts
of
politics.
I
think
you
are
undermining
government,
that's
my
personal
view
and
take
it
or
leave
it.
C
But
that's
the
source
of
my.
My
concern
is
not
a
return
to
old
style
machine
politics.
My
concern
is
that
we
have
lost
parties
and
what
we
have
are
groups
like
indivisible
that
are
great
when
they
have
one
person,
who's
motivated
to
keep
them
going,
and
it
will
fall
away
very
quickly
when
that
person
I.
E
Am
not
quite
as
sentimental
as
you
are
about
parties,
political
parties
do
rise
and
fall,
but
I
will
be
interested
if
a
Trump,
Act
federal
bench
would
be
interested
in
taking
on
a
predominantly
Democratic
City.
That
would
unleash
the
power
of
its
city,
employees,
of
which
we
are
the
largest
employer
in
a
political
process.
I
would
be
I
would
be
very
interested
about
whether
they
would
take
that
on.
On
the
other
hand,
maybe
we
don't
have
to
get
there
and,
in
the
meantime,
I
think
we
should
continue
to
discuss
this.
E
This
idea
that
the
law
has
not
changed
since
1951-
that's
not
correct
I
think
was
we
discussed,
there's
both
the
written
law
and
the
interpretation
of
the
law
and
the
interpretation
of
the
law
has
continued
to
evolve.
We
have
a
pretty
robust,
Ethics
Commission
that
we
are
dedicated
to
supporting
funding
even
when
they
are
pretty
restrictive
on
all
of
us
and
we
don't
always
agree,
but
we're
really
proud
of
it.
A
H
Good
morning
care
of
Greenlee
and
council
members,
my
name
is
dick
Levinson
and
I'm,
proud
to
be
a
librarian
with
the
Free
Library
of
Philadelphia
I
wish
to
submit
written
testimony
in
support
of
bill
number
1,
908
61,
which
creates
important
new
opportunities
for
city
employees
to
participate
in
the
political
process
when
not
on
duty.
A
quick
family
history
will
help
to
explain
why
councilman
greens
bill
is
so
important
to
me.
H
Let
me
be
clear
for
a
city
employee
to
engage
in
politics
while
on
the
job
is
not
just
illegal.
It's
immoral,
however,
for
Philadelphia
to
strip
its
employees
of
their
basic
constitutional
rights
as
a
condition
of
employment
is
to
strip
us
of
our
dignity.
Our
humanity
and
our
pride
am
I
really
less
of
the
citizen
in
your
eyes,
because
I
chose
a
career
in
public
service.
H
Councilman
Greene's
bill
isn't
perfect,
but
it
represents
a
giant
step
forward
because
it
begins
the
process
of
healing
a
grievous
injury,
one
that
should
have
been
addressed
years
ago.
Let's
be
honest,
nobody
in
this
room
is
naive.
Everyone
here
understands
that
our
democratic
republic
has
not
faced
such
an
uncertain
future.
Since
the
Civil
War
within
the
next
decade,
voters
will
definitively
decide
what
America
really
stands
for
the
question
about
whether
our
nation
can
be
a
source
of
responsible
moral
leadership
for
a
troubled
world
will
be
answered.
H
A
F
So
the
fact
that
we
are
talking
about
potentially
loosening
some
of
those
rules-
I,
don't
think,
is
necessarily
a
bad
thing.
In
fact,
I
think
there's
there's
a
case
to
be
made
here.
So
you
know
in
my
written
testimony,
we've
outlined
from
seventy's
perspective,
some
some
sort
of
questions
concerns
and
then
several
that
are
on
the
implementation
side
and
and
the
first
is
simply
this
I
mean
it.
Has
the
city
made
enough
progress
so
that
our
public
officers,
employees
on
their
own
time
and
on
their
own
dime
work.
F
For
local
campaigns
and
I
think
you
know
if,
when
it
comes
to
a
statewide
attorney,
general's
races
or
enough
distance
between
that
and
what
someone's
doing
on
a
day
to
day
basis,
you
know
in
there
and
they're
in
their
shitty
job
I.
Think
that's
I!
Think
that's
probably
the
case.
You
know.
Frankly,
if
there's
a
you
know,
you
know,
concern
I
think
would
be
lesser
around.
You
know
someone's
client-facing
interactions
with
with
a
member
the
public
it'd
be
more.
F
You
know
what
sort
of
pressures
or
incentives
might
might
come
about
and
that
when
the
work
place,
that
would
be
unhealthy
for
for
our
for
our
public
employees.
So
that's
the
first
kind
of
big
threshold
question
right,
so
the
second
one
is
and
I
think
this.
This
amendment
has
actually
been
fairly
very
cleverly
written
to
allow
a
division
between
federal
offices,
statewide
offices
left
on
a
statewide
basis,
any
non
local
offices.
You
know
folks
going
out
to
work
for
a
county
commissioner
election
and
in
the
suburbs,
is
this
line
in
the
right
place?
F
The
one
office
that
that
caught
our
attention,
particular
that
would
be
allowed
well
if
this
memo
were
to
go
through,
is
us
US,
House,
races,
right
I
mean
our
US
congressional
members
have
deep
roots
in
the
neighborhoods
and
in
their
communities
as
they
should
in
our
local
politics,
and
is
that
of
all
the
races
that
would
be
uncovered
on
this
proposed
amendment.
Should
that
should
that
be
one
of
them?
F
Another
substantive
kind
of
question
for
us
to
consider
is
whether
or
not
this
should
look
the
same
for
all
employees.
As
we
just
discussed
earlier,
the
the
federal
Hatch
Act
has
multiple
tiers.
The
most
restrictive
tier
is
for
those
federal
employees
and
officials,
for
whom
you'd
think.
Yet
they
have
pretty
strict
rules
because
their
their
duties
are
so
sensitive,
but
we
also
here
in
the
city,
filled
up
the
city
of
Philadelphia.
F
Have
higher
ranking
officials
whose
work
is
also
politically
sensitive,
I
mean
if,
if
this
amendment
would
go
through,
for
example,
the
Board
of
Ethics
members,
their
staff,
a
city
commissioners,
not
these
super
commissioners
themselves
as
elected
officials,
but
their
staff
would
also
be
able
to
engage
directly
in
political
campaigns.
Now,
I,
don't
I'm,
not
sure
if
mr.
Cook
would
be
jumping
straight
into
a
political
campaign.
If
this
amendment
were
to
go
through,
but
that's
you
know,
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
we'd
want
to
consider
and
another.
F
Is
that
whether
or
not
there's
a
distinction
between
you
know
non
excuse
me
not
partner
on
pardon
but
partisan
geo.
Tibor
GOTV
work
directly
with
a
campaign
right,
the
canvassing,
the
phone
banking,
whether
there's
a
difference
between
that
and
participating
in
a
campaign
at
a
higher
level
right
with
whether
with
is
whether
there's
some
title
attached
or
whether
we
have
city
official
who's
bringing
their
their
expert
from
their
day,
job
their
policy
expertise,
their
political
expertise
into
that
campaign
right
having,
for
example,
one
of
our
Trent
high.
F
You
know
high
reckon
transportation
officials
draft
in
a
transportation
policy
paper
for
a
campaign.
You
know
with
or
without
their
name
attached,
of
course,
their
title
would
not
be
attached,
but
is
that
the
kind
of
you
know
transference
that
that
we
think
would
be
would
be
okay,
so
you're
moving
on
quickly
to
a
a
couple
just
on
the
lore
that
the
implementation
questions
challenges,
concerns
that
I
think
again
would
have
to
be
hashed
out
before
this
would
go
to
the
ballot
and
move
along
in
this
in
this
body?
F
Is
you
know
whether
or
not
we
have
a
clear
and
forcible
boundary?
That's,
that's!
That's
you
know
an
essential
question
anytime.
You
pass
a
new
bit
of
a
regulation.
Is,
can
you
enforce
it
fairly
and
cleanly?
And
you
know
we
do
have
a
lot
of
rules
in
this
town
for
good
measure
around
campaign
finance
around
that's
you
know,
city
contracts
and
and
our
ethic
rules
are
quite
extensive,
quite
complex
and
had
that
has
created
training
and
enforcement
challenges,
I
think
for
our
ethics
officials.
Now
they
they
work
extremely
hard.
F
The
ethics
board,
our
chief
integrity
officer,
both
work
for
the
administration
for
City
Council
on
the
inspector
general's
office
I
mean
they
run
trainings
constantly.
They
make
their
there
themselves
available
by
phone
by
email
by
social
media,
but
still
we
have
twenty
five
thousand
city
employees
for
all
of
whom
these
these
rules
apply
and
as
much
as
our
ethics
official
staff
stress.
You
know
if
you're
not
sure
ask,
even
even
that
simple
message
is
difficult
to
get
through.
F
Sometimes
so
you
know
if
we
were
to
put
these
rules
in
place
again,
the
question
is:
can
can
they
be
enforceable
and
can
can
folks
keep
them
in
mind
enough
to
at
least
ask
the
question
if
or
when
they
need
to
so
and
then
this
is.
This
would
not
be
easy
right
if
you're
caught
up
in
the
middle
of
a
electoral
campaign.
F
This
is
that's
a
fast
intense
experience
and
our
folks
having
to
kind
of
bear
in
mind
the
difference
between
one
of
the
our
local
offices
that
they
would
remain
unable
to
participate
in
race.
For
you
know,
at-large
council,
for
example,
and
a
presidential
or
or
gubernatorial
you
know
race.
The
example
I
give
in
my
written
testimony
of
the
fact
that
the
Elizabeth
Warren
campaign
endorsed
Kendra
Brooks
candidate
and
now
council
at-large
elect
Kendra
Brooks.
F
For
for
office,
I'm,
not
certain
actually
at
the
time,
and
whether
or
not
those
campaigns
did
any
joint
programming
events
or
or
Jo
TV
or
anything
else,
but
you
know
we'll
our
with
our
public
employees,
be.
You
know,
ready
to
identify
that
possible
issue
and
then
and
then
and
then
navigate
it.
The
other
is
that
in
a
separate
paragraph,
not
the
one
that
proposed
to
be
amended
in
this
in
this
particular
resolution,
but
the
prior
one
there's
remains.
A
prohibition
on
fundraising
also
was
discussed
already
this
morning.
F
Seventy
believes
it
is
essential
for
that
fundraising,
prohibition,
two
main
in
place,
but
again
in
the
in
the
in
the
heat
of
a
political
campaign.
You
know,
will
our
office
employees
be
able
to
make
this?
The
distinction
between
that
phone
banking
that
that
canvassing,
whatever
else
has
happened
in
the
campaign
office
and
the
solicitation
of
campaign
funds,
which
would
be
legal
and
we'd,
would
not
want
to
set
folks
up
for
accidentally
tripping
over
these
rules.
So
you
know
in
in
some
again
I
think
I.
F
My
sense
is
that
the
the
some
of
the
same
questions
and
concerns
that
our
board
members
have
had
been
mulling
over
I
know
that
the
Board
of
Ethics
members
and
staff
have
also
been
thinking
through
you
know:
councilman,
green
and
in
his
office
I
know
hood
and
thinking
through
these
for
for
quite
some
time
and
over
opened
over
open,
overarching,
messaged
I.
Think
today,
being
the
one,
that's
already
been
noted
that
we
have
these
questions
concerns
penned
down
before
we
give
this
this
question
to
the
to
the
voters.
B
Thank
you
all
for
your
testimony
and
your
taking
time
out
to
be
here
to
talk
about
this
issue.
Thing
is
the
issue
that
will
engender
more
conversation
and
discussion
and
something
that
thing
is
need
to
occur.
Part
of
the
reason
why
I
think
this
has
not
been
challenged,
because
there
has
not
been
astute
employee
that
was
willing
to
risk
their
employment
to
challenge
this
legislation
and
this
the
the
charter
ambition.
Even
if
they
were
to
challenge
it,
would
take
some
significant
resources
and
they
probably
not
a
position
to
do
that
as
well.
B
Unless
some
individual
organization
aside,
do
it
on
their
own
merit
to
support
that
type
of
litigation.
So
that's
why
I
think
part
of
the
reason
why
that
has
not
been
challenged
in
the
years
past
I've
often
thought
it
provides
them.
I
won't
say
unconstitutionality,
but
does
bring
some
concerns
in
reference
to
frame
Association
and
First
Amendment
issues
and
I.
Think
by
having
this
conversation,
we'll
have
an
opportunity
to
continue
the
dialogue
as
we
move
into
the
new
year
to
try
to
continue
to
improve
this
legislation.