----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:17 PM Subject: [UC] 7 questions on the ballot November 4th
> > > > 1. The first question grants the authority to the city controller's office > to audit all contracts with agencies that receive city funds. Public > agencies and authorities such as the Redevelopment Authority or the > Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation are now not subject > to audits, although contracts with these entities often involve many > public dollars. This is aimed specifically at the Parking Authority. When the Republicans took over, they promised to improve collections on tickets and contribute the extra proceeds to the School District. So far, they have hired a lot of patronage employees and sent nothing to the School District. > 4. This question would raise the ceiling from $10,000 to $25,000 on > city contract amounts that require formal bids. There are concerns that > this also lowers the gates on pay-to-play. This initiative would also > give smaller companies a better chance to go after city contracts, and > avoid the cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming bid process. This would make a long overdue adjustment for inflation. > 6. Question #6 is to create an insurance public advocate who would > represent the interests of city consumers with the goal of lowering > insurance rates. Since this role would be folded into the office of > Consumer Affairs, launched since this ballot question arose, and not > siphon off resources from its efforts. > According to the Inky's Voters' Guide, "this question concerns the creation of an office to deal solely with car-insurance rates. . . One of the question's sponsors, Frank DiCicco, said it would cost several hundred thousand dollars annually. . . Mayor Street has already created an Office of Consumer Affairs which focuses on lowering homeowners insurance, eliminating predatory lending practices , and tackling high utility rates" Wouldn't it make more sense to add car-insurance rates to the existing agency rather than creating another one? > Just my 2 cents worth, Marianne Das [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
