Committee Hearing, April 8, 2008

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BUDGET - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 8, 2008 10:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL BILLS 080022, 080154, 080155, 080156, 080157, 080160, 080161 and 080168 RESOLUTION 080173 - - - 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, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Nos. 080022, 080154, 080155, 080156, 080157, 080160, 080161, 080168 and Resolution No. 080173. The first department to testify this morning? MR. McPHERSON: Is the First Judicial District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning, Your Honor. JUDGE JONES: Good morning, Madam President and Councilmembers. How are you this morning?

Fine. Thank you.

Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Committee of the Whole. I'm David Lawrence. I'm the Court Administrator of the First Judicial District. With me 3 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. today is President Judge Darnell Jones, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the Administrative Governing Board for the First Judicial District, and Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services. We're here to submit testimony in support of the District's Fiscal Year 2009 General Fund and Grants Revenue budget request. In addition, this testimony will highlight our position reductions, our need for increases, outstanding issues and concerns, revenue enhancement, and partnerships. The FJD acknowledges and appreciates the Administration's regard for the judiciary as exhibited by not seeking to reduce our General Fund budget. We also recognize that the Administration and City Council value the judiciary as capable, independent partners in government. With these pursuits in mind, the District has implemented initiatives to reduce costs, 4 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. increase efficiencies and strengthen partnerships. Unfortunately, the FJD must seek additional funding for Grant Revenue shortfalls, operating expense increases, technology advances and facilities management, as the savings the judiciary generates is no longer sufficient to support these ongoing, escalating and unavoidable increases in shortfalls. 0 million to increase our Juvenile Probation complement and for increased operating expenses. To offset this increase, the FJD details its position reductions as set forth in Section B of our testimony. Through the combination of position reductions and self-funded initiatives, the FJD has generated a savings to the General Fund that exceeds the cost of the budget increase sought in this request. Since November 2004, our General Fund position level declined from 5 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. 2,038 to 1,863 in November 2007, which represents approximately ten percent of our workforce. Overall, there is a net reduction of 800 positions from FY90 to FY08. The FJD has used dedicated revenue for self-funded programs in Juvenile and Adult Probation, Community Court and Traffic Court as a means to adjust to changing conditions and to offset other shortfalls and cost increases. These partnerships have been effective in the Youth Violence Reduction Program and the Truancy Reduction Program, yet we are challenged to continue these partnerships as uncertainty and delay in reimbursement continues to exist. Since July 1994, the FJD's Class 200, 300 and 400 appropriations have remained unchanged while operating costs have increased. In the last six years, the District experienced a 30 percent increase in its operating 6 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. expenses. Chart 2 shows examples of increases in specific Class 200 line items. These expenses are uncontrollable and unavoidable. We must provide these services and have a limited ability to curtail this increase. Security, drug testing and contract interpreter expenses have doubled since FY01, and increases in mental health evaluations and leases threaten our ability to self-fund these expenses. Additionally, while computer hardware costs have declined, software licensing and maintenance are sharply higher. 7 million. I am pleased to report to this Council that largely due to the efforts of the leadership of Family Court and the cooperation of state officials, this deficit has been resolved. 4 million liability exists from prior 7 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. year's expenses that we are currently reviewing with the Administration and we're hopeful it will be resolved shortly. In FY08, the Truancy Program was expanded at the request of the City and the number of school clusters increased. In FY07, the program handled 6,700 cases involving truant children.

In FY08, the program has handled 16,423 hearings between September and February. This program is funded through DHS, and the FJD would like an assurance of reimbursement and future funding or a shift to the FJD budget to sustain the program. 5 million for salary and operating costs and approximately $500,000 for fringe benefits. The Adult and Juvenile Departments are active participants in YVRP, which is the Youth Violence Reduction Program. Approximately 40 probation officers are assigned to the 8 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. 2 million mandate. Included in our base budget is an increased number of juvenile probation officers, which is a requirement of the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission. To maintain grant funding for probation 11 officers assigned to specialized units, 12 the FJD must increase its complement to 13 210 or an increase of 34 probation 14 officers. The funding for this increase 15 is mostly contained in the base budget, 16 but will require an additional $500,000 17 in FY09. 18 The judiciary recognizes it 19 loses senior and experienced probation 20 officers to other social service agencies 21 due to salary inequities. We will 22 support any agreement between District 23 Council 47 and the City to adjust 24 probation officer salaries upward. 25 Included in the FY09 budget is 9 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. $250,000 for funding probation officers assigned to the Strategic Anti-Violence Unit in Adult Probation. Additionally, the University of Pennsylvania is seeking to transfer ownership of its statistical modeling application to the Adult Probation Department at a cost of $250,000. If the City wants to continue the use of this promising statistical modeling tool, additional one-time funding will be needed. The Court will support any initiative by Public Property to begin a long-term, multi-year refurbishment of the Criminal Justice Center, which is frequented by two million people a year. 5 million is the revenue the FJD generates to offset its operating expenses. 4 million in revenue and reimbursement, and offsets 46 percent to its General Fund budget and 61 10 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. percent of its total budget. Revenue increases have resulted from the passage of a new civil fee bill, and new Traffic Court rules have generated an additional $500,000 in FY07. The judiciary partners with the City for YVRP and Truancy and through grant funding provides drug and DUI Treatment Court and with the University of Pennsylvania for the SAV-U Program. The Philadelphia judiciary appreciates this opportunity to present to you some of its accomplishments, concern and realities it faces and has overcome. We have demonstrated our ability to do more with less, thereby providing honest value on investment, and we are a cooperative justice partner. We are also hopeful you will allow the judiciary to remain a strong and committed partner by approving our budget request as outlined. On behalf of the Philadelphia judiciary, the Administrative Governing 11 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Board and the employees of the First Judicial District, we respectfully seek City Council's consideration and approval of our FY09 General Fund budget request of $117,552,000 and Grants Revenue budget request of $45,624,000 and seek this request consistent with past City of Philadelphia and FJD budget agreements, which allow retention of any and all savings generated by the District. Thank you for your consideration, and we'll be happy to entertain any questions that Council might have.

Thank you so much. Can you update us on the status of the state takeover of the unified judicial system?

To be quite honest, Madam President, I don't see it going anywhere. There's no action in the Legislature that I'm aware of to fund such an action, and it seems like year 12 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. after year the inquiry is placed and I have to sit here and say nothing is really happening in that area.

Since the early '80s when the Supreme Court rendered their decision, how many of the staff members have been transferred from the court to the state?

Thirteen.

I thought it was more than that. JUDGE JONES: Madam President, if I may, I might add that every year there is a conference known as the PACM conference. It's president judges and county commissioners from across the Commonwealth. Every year in June we meet at State College -- court administrators. Excuse me. It is on the agenda every year. It is the topic of discussion every year statewide, and all of us constantly are concerned about this and want some change, but, unfortunately, it has not yet been addressed and it does 13 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. not look, as our state court administrator has indicated --

It's not very likely. JUDGE JONES: -- not very likely.

You state in your testimony that the courts require an additional $3 million in Fiscal '09. Have you requested this funding from the state?

No. 14

Are you going to?

I'm not quite sure to whom I would address that request.

Well, it just annoys me that they mandate, but don't pay.

Well, we're both painfully aware of unfunded mandates.

And I think it's time that something be done 14 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. about it. We just can't continue traveling the road that we're on.

And I don't disagree with you, Madam President. It's frustrating for those of us within the judiciary. It's a little embarrassing to sit before a body such as this and have to report the same thing year in and year out. Unfortunately, those discussions are held in different venues than this, and the local court systems generally aren't involved in those discussions at all. I don't know whether an organization such as the County Commissioners Association has the same interest that you -- I would think they would, but I'm not aware of any movement, as I indicated.

I know that in our prior year's testimony we were asked to support a request of $2 million for the Child Support Program.

Yes, ma'am.

That 15 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. has been apparently or you're working to resolve that?

What happened was, it turned out we didn't need the entire $6.7 million because we haven't been hiring people. The state did come through with $3.3 million to get us through this fiscal year. So the City -- we didn't have to ask the City to make any contribution to cover that shortfall. There's a current --

2.4?

Yeah. It's actually a bill. We owe the City after we do a reconciliation, and we're discussing it with the Budget Bureau to see how we might just come to some amicable resolution of that issue.

I know that many people were very concerned about that last year, because it's such an important program.

Next year that funding could be as -- funding gap could 16 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. be as much as $7 million, but we're hopeful that the state is going to do next year what it did this year.

Great. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you will bear with me for one second while I, just for people who are not aware of the history that the President was talking about, I make them aware of the history of the Supreme Court decision to which she was referring. In 1987, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's statutory scheme for county funding of the judicial system was in conflict with the intent expressed in the PA Constitution, and that the judicial system be unified. The Court held that the present statutory funding for the judicial system is now void as offending 17 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the constitutional mandate for a unified system, but stayed its judgement to give the General Assembly time to enact appropriate funding legislation. Over the next nine years, the General Assembly took no action to enact funding legislation. In 1996, ruling in a mandamus action brought by county commissioners to compel the state to establish a state funding scheme for the courts, the PA Supreme Court ordered the General Assembly to, quote, "enact a funding scheme for the court system on or before January 1st, 1998," end quote. The Court also appointed a Master to make recommendations about how to implement the decision. More than ten years have elapsed since the state funding deadline set by the PA Supreme Court and the General Assembly has yet to comply with its constitutionally mandated and court-ordered responsibility to fund the courts of the Commonwealth, including the 18 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. First Judicial District. Since January 1st, 1998, the deadline set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for the state to begin funding the courts, Philadelphia has spent over $1.1 billion to fund the First Judicial District, including over $115 million in Fiscal Year '08. Given the order of the Supreme Court and the mandamus action that they have brought against the General Assembly, I don't understand why you're sitting here asking us for funding. In other words, we've all taken an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. This body, this City is not responsible for funding you under the rulings of the highest court in the land. So my question is, does the First Judicial District see it as part of its duty to comply with the orders of the highest court in the Commonwealth of the State of Pennsylvania? 19 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. JUDGE JONES: Mr. Councilman, if I may, first of all, I tried to do my part in that regard by -- pardon me. President Judge C. Darnell Jones. I tried to do my part in that regard by running for Supreme Court last spring, but was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, first of all, it is the responsibility, the onus is placed on the state Legislature. It was not placed upon the court system. This court system, the First Judicial District, as other court systems around the Commonwealth, wholly support the Supreme Court's ruling, but we cannot individually do anything to enforce it. It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court if they want to go further in that endeavor, not the individual court systems.

If City Council pursuant to the clear holding from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court zeroes out the First Judicial District's funding in Fiscal Year '09, what would 20 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the court do? JUDGE JONES: I think the question is, what would the citizenry do, not so much what would the court do.

I mean, under the clear ruling of the Supreme Court, no mandamus can be brought against us because we're not responsible. There would have to be a mandamus action brought against the General Assembly or the state to compel funding. (Witness approached witness table.) JUDGE JONES: I think you're correct theoretically and, frankly, legally, but as I said before, the problem is would the citizens of Philadelphia suffer because of that action, which the Philadelphia Court system could not do anything about.

Well, that's true, but it's not our responsibility under law. We have great need for that $115 million elsewhere. Our 21 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. infrastructure is crumbling. We have many priorities that aren't being met. And so I guess somebody will have to blink. It will be us or the Legislature.

Madam President, Councilmember, Steve Agostini, Budget Director. I believe that the City at one point in the early '90s actually did zero out funding for the courts and was left with a situation where it then had to come back through an expenditure transfer process to put that money back.

That is prior to the Supreme Court ordering of the General Assembly in 1998 and prior to that mandamus decision that I referenced earlier, but thank you for the history lesson. If the First Judicial District -- so essentially what can we do? JUDGE JONES: I don't believe that's rhetorical, so I will try to 22 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. answer it. I think what we would want you to do would be to fund us now and work with the state Legislature and/or the court system to address it for the next fiscal year.

If we fund you, what are the chances we're going to get the Legislature to replace it versus if we don't fund you, we're creating essentially a crisis that the state is going to have to deal with? JUDGE JONES: I could only venture to suggest to you, Mr. Councilman, that you speak with the county commissioners statewide and do it collectively as opposed to just Philadelphia County.

I have, in fact, spoken to many county commissioners across the state, and many of them are looking into zeroing out the budget for Fiscal Year '09. JUDGE JONES: I believe your chances of success would be much greater 23 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. if you do it as a collective as opposed to just Philadelphia County alone.

Okay. So it's your testimony today that we are not responsible for funding you? JUDGE JONES: It is my testimony today that --

Under the law and the Supreme Court's -- JUDGE JONES: The practical reality is that, yes, you are responsible for funding the First Judicial District, as other jurisdictions around the Commonwealth are being funded by their local municipalities. However, based upon the decision that was rendered, which you alluded to earlier, there is no 19 question but that decision was imposed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court at that time. But, again, the individual judicial districts have no ability whatsoever to do anything about it other than to, as a practical reality, come before their municipalities asking for 24 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. the monies as we're requesting this date.

Sure, but there's no legal obligation on the part of the County and City of Philadelphia to fund the First Judicial District; is that correct? JUDGE JONES: If one reads that opinion strictly, I agree with you.

Thank you. I have no further questions on that topic. You mentioned in your testimony that while computer hardware costs have declined, software licensing and maintenance are sharply higher. To what extent do you work with other instrumentalities of the County and City of Philadelphia in terms of centralized procurement and strategic sourcing of software licenses?

We work fairly closely with MOIS on these issues. We do do our own procurement, as you probably know, as they do their own procurements 25 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. as well. Our pricing is remarkably similar or somewhat less, I believe, than what the City is paying, and most notably, it's Microsoft. Microsoft is just hammering everybody. We'll have increased costs this year of $600,000 just for Microsoft products.

Have you looked at going to a Linux-based system or other --

We talk around it. We explore it. We haven't taken any definitive steps in that area, because it would be a huge change to the infrastructure and require a plan of several years, I think, to get there.

Certainly you could require everybody who files briefs with you to file them electronically in any format you wish. So that I just suggest that you have the ability to say, File in a Linux-based Red Hat software system, and then that's how they'll file. 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

That's true.

So I do think that we should perhaps look at savings there. Could you talk about the new electronic filing system that you're putting in place that sounds like a great opportunity for cost savings?

We hope it is, Councilman. We hope that by the end of the first half of this year, that we will institute an electronic filing system for all actions in the Court of Common Pleas in the civil arena. This would impact very heavily on the Prothonotary's Office, which is currently charged with the intake of all the pleadings, as well as our Civil Administration Office, which handles over 40,000 motions a year. (Bell rung.)

Basically, it makes the paper go away and it allows for access of a document by multiple parties at the same time. You can view documents 27 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. 24/7. It provides for the electronic service of documents under certain conditions, and we think it's just a much more efficient way to do business rather than the same way we did business 30 years ago. The Bar seems very excited about this. We think it will make their life easier. It will make our life easier. But it will also involve an adjustment. I know me personally, I'd love to have a piece of paper that somebody sends me. So the downside initially, my paper costs are going to go up, because the judges like to take that with them and walk around. They're going to print out a motion. They'll get away from that over a period of time. But we're very excited about it. We've done it solely in-house. We haven't paid a vendor a dime to do anything. So I'll take this opportunity for kudos to our staff, who have been working diligently on this, and we're 28 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. quite excited about it.

I agree. It looks like a great program and I commend you for it. And also, we're on the same side. We both want the state Legislature to do its job, and I'm sorry that they have put us in the position that we're in today. So thank you for all the work you do for the citizens of the County and City of Philadelphia. JUDGE JONES: Thank you.

And thank you for your testimony today. I appreciate it. JUDGE JONES: Thank you, Councilman.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you, Madam President. We certainly understand and have had this debate over what other branches of government pay. We agree 29 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. with our colleague in that regard, that they're supposed to carry their end. Having said that, this battle ensues. But we certainly wanted to thank the President Judge for his leadership and his willingness to take on some of these hard issues that we talk to him about all the time dealing with our people, dealing with property sales and predatory lending and many other issues that affect our citizens. And we know that one could get in an ivory tower and look out, but we thank him for keeping his feet on the ground and his head in the clouds up to our Father. Thank you, Your Honor. JUDGE JONES: My pleasure. Thank you, Councilwoman.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, everyone. (Good morning.) 30 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

Just a quick question. I apologize ahead if this was already addressed, because I had to step out for a minute. On this whole funding issue, where do we compare with the other cities, counties in the state? I mean, do others experience some of the same problem?

Absolutely.

Are they picking on us?

No. No. I have this conversation frequently with my colleagues across the state, and the one overriding issue that comes up in our discussions isn't caseflow management, it's not what computer program are you using, it's how are the county commissioners treating you guys, and it's a constant source of friction across the state. And I think there may be a little natural friction built into the system to begin with between the two branches of 31 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. government, which I think is good. It makes us both more creative, but the issue of local funding of the court systems is the common theme through every court administrator in Pennsylvania.

As I said, it's not good news we have the problem, but at least it's good news that we're not the only one.

Not by a long shot, Councilman.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Thank you. Good morning. I have a couple of questions, and you know the one question I'm going to ask you about, about Council passed a resolution 25 regarding the current mortgage 32 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. foreclosure crisis, and in response, Sheriff John Green instituted a stay of the April foreclosure sale. In this regard, can you provide us with your perspective on this issue and what actions that you are willing to take to address it? JUDGE JONES: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity, and I say thank you for the opportunity to specific members of Council who introduced that resolution and the Council of the Whole for unanimously passing it. It is a problem that absolutely must be addressed by all of the components of this system, and as recently, ironically, as yesterday evening, I received a call from the Wall Street Journal asking about the proposal that we're trying to put into place here in the First Judicial District, because it is evidently one of a kind nationwide. Specifically, I have to just go back historically for a moment, because I 33 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. know that there were some things that were stated both in the media and I think as a result of some of the wording in the resolution regarding what the prior President Judge did, specifically Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson. I think it made reference to her having imposed a formal order staying. I spoke with her directly, and she informed me that she did not impose a moratorium as a matter of law, but rather there was a temporary stay to allow time to address the issue. What grew out of that ultimately was litigation that appeared before the Honorable Annette Rizzo, who is my point person in this entire process. And where we are at this point in time is, by reason of the resolution 20 that you entered, courageously and admirably entered as a part of the City Council hearing, the court system has brought together who we identify as the stakeholders. They would be counsel for the lenders and counsel for those 34 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. homeowners, as well as a myriad of persons who are going to come forth as pro bono counsel to help in this process. We are devising a program at this time whereby we can divert foreclosure filings into a track system consistent with the case management program that currently exists in the civil division of our court. Specifically, we would call out, if you will, those commercial properties that are up for foreclosure. Those cases go forward as they would normally go forward. We are targeting owner-occupied residential properties for counseling upon the filing of a foreclosure petition. We're going to set up a system whereby persons will be represented by counsel if they can afford it. If they cannot, we're trying to set up a system whereby counsel pro bono will volunteer their time to assist those homeowners in counseling and any legal filings that 35 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. need to be filed to respond to the petitions for foreclosure and, during that time, make available to them any other venues by reason of the federal government's now new attention brought to this situation, as well as anyone on the state level and private funders as well. It will not -- and I really emphasize this -- it will not create a moratorium on foreclosure. And I say that because we, as the court system, have to also take into consideration that what is fundamental in this process is homeownership and also what derives from that, and that's the economy of the City of Philadelphia. There are properties which are owner-occupied from which persons have just simply walked away, and we cannot expect the lenders to say we're going to add on time after time after time a listing after listing knowing that the inevitable is going to happen, and that would be foreclosure. But for those 36 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

persons that we can identify, we will in the process of our track program give them that kind of opportunity to have counsel and representation without unduly delaying the process. It's just diversion of the case temporarily, and as a result, we temporarily halt the impending foreclosure to give those persons an opportunity for modification of the contract or modification of the repayment schedule or anything else that is available to them to allow them to keep that home. That's first and foremost. And in the end, it is important to note that if those things are not the solution, that the legal process still goes to its completion, and that would be ultimately foreclosure if that has to happen. We would not be an impediment to that, because we recognize that as a matter of law, it is a contract in the end and so, therefore, we cannot as the court system be an impediment to that 37 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. judicial process, but nevertheless, we are creating an avenue to give all of the residential property owners an opportunity to reclaim and save their houses.

Well, thank you very much, and we appreciate that effort to find a resolution to help out --

Excuse me, Councilwoman. I believe Councilman Goode has a point of order.

Point of information. I'll wait for Councilwoman Tasco.

Oh.

Because it is a real crisis. There was a Senate hearing here in Philadelphia yesterday with Senator Casey and Senator Dodd to discuss this issue in terms of what they're doing on the federal level. Now, is the -- 38 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. (Bell rung.)

I guess I'll ask the Sheriff what the process will be. If as a homeowner I'm about to lose my house, I get a notice to foreclosure, who do I contact? Do I contact the Sheriff? How will the process work? JUDGE JONES: The process is going to work, first of all, normally, in that the lenders would have the right to file a petition for foreclosure. Once that's filed -- and we're working on the details as we speak, but once that's filed, the way we plan this working is that those properties, by reason of the lender's paperwork, will be identified as owner-occupied residential properties. Those are the ones which will be diverted into this track program, and immediately upon the filing, they will either have counsel to respond to the petition or we will seek to have counsel appointed for them or to facilitate the obtaining of 39 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. counsel to answer the petition and to also make sure that we have available this pool of counselors to see what they can do to facilitate retaining that homeownership. In the process, it would only set back the case perhaps no more than a month in terms of giving the people the opportunity to develop that relationship with the counselors and to also allow for the production of all of the necessary paperwork that is involved whenever there is a foreclosure sale, including the revelation of income, changed circumstances and things like that of the homeowner. So that all of those things can be considered when we sit down at the table and try to facilitate a resolution 20 with the lender by what we hope is going to be a modification of the lending document itself. Again, the Sheriff -- and this is underscored by an opinion that was issued by the City Solicitor, I think, 40 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. perhaps a couple years ago, and, that is, the Sheriff being an arm of the court system does not have the legal authority to impose a moratorium. And there is no 6 formal document before me as the President Judge seeking that, and even if there was one, we believe that what we're coming up with as an alternative is the much wiser way to pursue this, because if we don't satisfy the law, all counsel would need to do would be to step in and file an action, either in our court or the federal court, and take it away from us all together. So right now that's why we think it's very important and appreciate immensely the fact that the lenders' attorneys came forward. We had a meeting yesterday afternoon and there must have been about, oh, I'd say, 30 or 40 representatives at that meeting, half of whom were from the offices of attorneys representing the lenders, who have come forward to say, Yes, we're willing to 41 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. work with you to try to work this out and work a solution. It is unprecedented. And, again, I want to give credit to Judge Rizzo, Annette Rizzo, for having brought those people together as a steering committee a couple of years ago and maintained that committee.

What was the reaction of the advocates? JUDGE JONES: Enthusiasm and appreciation. So much so that they're meeting, I believe, either this morning or tomorrow morning to continue to work on a schematic for us to get this implemented. And once it's done -- and we hope that will be done by the end of this week. If not, at the latest on Monday morning, and I will certainly apprise all of the Councilmembers by direct contact, as well as issuing a press release to inform everyone exactly what we're going to do. But we're cautiously optimistic that it's going to work. 42 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

Let me just say one more. One of the areas of concern is the area where the lenders -- there is an effort on the part of some of the federal Congressmen to see if -- and by a number of people -- that there is a renegotiation of the deal, because a lot of the problems associated with foreclosure is the deal that the homeowner entered into. So if that deal -- if there's no room there -- because the guys that come to the table say, Okay, yeah, we'll agree, knowing that in a month's time they can still go on with the foreclosure. We wanted to use this as leverage to get them to renegotiate the loan or the deal to make it more palatable or easier for the homeowner to pay rather than eventually end up in the street, we end up with a vacant property and then all that that goes with that. So that is the underlying 43 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. reason, I think, to ask for a moratorium, because it shuts down the process. And I know you can't do it, but this is what we wanted to do. The end game is to see if we can in some instances, not all instances, can you renegotiate the deal, since some of these -- a number of these sales and negotiations were just fraudulent to begin with. JUDGE JONES: And that was made patently clear by me, by Judge Rizzo and by the advocates for those homeowners in that meeting yesterday, and I'm happy to say that the counsel representing the lenders were very, very sensitive to that and certainly are willing to come to the table and discuss that by identifying those mortgages which are amenable to renegotiation and modification, because we recognize that not all would be subject to that, but certainly a lot of people who were affected need that. They absolutely need that. And I really am a firm believer 44 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. in this process, because I do believe that it's going to result in the lenders' counsel and the lenders themselves being amenable to that modification on these documents.

My time is up. I yield to the Councilman. We may come back. I have some more questions too when he's finished.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, President Judge. JUDGE JONES: Good morning, Councilman Goode.

I listened to everything you just said and actually heard a lot more than I think I wanted to. First being that there's going to be no moratorium; is that correct? JUDGE JONES: That's correct. If I might say this in the sense that --

President 45 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Judge? JUDGE JONES: Yes, sir.

I really wanted to clarify the record. There's going to be no moratorium? JUDGE JONES: There is no 8 official moratorium in the sense that there is no permanent stay on the foreclosure process because --

I understand what a moratorium is. JUDGE JONES: All right.

There's going to be no moratorium. JUDGE JONES: That's correct.

There's going to be no moratorium for legal reasons? JUDGE JONES: There is no 21 moratorium for several reasons, the most important one of which is that there are a number of properties that don't qualify or would not be targeted even by concession of the counsel for the 46 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. homeowners, as we evidenced in the meeting yesterday. We simply recognized that a lot of properties could be in the situation. However, what we're targeting here are owner-occupied residential properties.

So what would qualify for a moratorium legally? JUDGE JONES: I'm sorry?

What would qualify for a moratorium legally? JUDGE JONES: Well, I can't give an advisory opinion on that. I would have to have something formally filed and the evidence would be presented from all parties concerned, and then ultimately a resolution or decision would be made based upon the evidence that would be submitted in that process.

So you're saying that off the top of your head, you currently don't see any case for a moratorium? JUDGE JONES: Based upon what I 47 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. have received to date, I've not had sufficient evidence that a moratorium would either be required or legal, quite frankly, because it would not identify the targeted group of people that really need to be addressed here.

What are the targeted group of people that need to be addressed here? JUDGE JONES: Owner-occupied residential properties. And if I can just give you an example that was given by counsel for the homeowners yesterday. They --

Counsel for the homeowners, which was who? JUDGE JONES: One of the counsel from, I think it was, the CLS organization.

Okay. JUDGE JONES: That they conceded, if you will, that there was an individual who, I believe, was an investor who owned approximately 14 48 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. properties, had essentially just walked away from those properties. That's not a situation where anyone --

So that's one example. JUDGE JONES: Yes, sir.

The major example we're dealing with here is predatory, subprime loans that were targeted toward African-Americans and Latinos, and that is provable, documentable, and all the data suggests that it's true nationally, here locally, and the most recent local data here suggests that there has been a major increase in that, the targeting of African-Americans and Latinos in terms of predatory, subprime loans. JUDGE JONES: Surely.

So that does not make the case for carving out those loans for a moratorium? JUDGE JONES: Well, let me put it this way: Clearly, that's the 49 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. targeted group, and the process that we have, we think, is better than a moratorium, because if we simply impose a moratorium, we are putting off the inevitable. If we have this as a result of a suit file and they are tracked and those first persons are identified with the ability to have help --

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I supported the resolution in Council calling for a moratorium, but a letter I sent to the Sheriff actually asked for a moratorium on those properties that had predatory, subprime loans. JUDGE JONES: And --

So my question to you is, if we can prove, which we can, which is that there was a racial targeting of African-Americans and Latinos with predatory, subprime loans and that has created a crisis within Philadelphia that needs to be addressed, doesn't that type of targeting create a 50 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. necessity for some sort of moratorium? JUDGE JONES: I don't want to be confused or confuse this by words, because a rose by any other name, as the saying goes. When we implement a program for diversion, it is tantamount to stopping the process. Now, you could call that a moratorium. We don't want to use the "moratorium" word because we know it can get into legal complications. But if these cases are by reason of your definition -- and HUD has identified them as well, and that was discussed in our meeting yesterday. And a lot of people in that meeting, both pro and con, at least acknowledged that that exists and, therefore, those persons need to be assisted. Our program will in fact do that.

So let me jump to the next step there. You keep referring to the term "counselors." In my mind, you're referring to legal counselors; is that correct? 51 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. JUDGE JONES: No. It's not only legal counselors. It is also homeowner counseling services. There are entities that exist that will facilitate and assist persons who find themselves in this situation to explore and be made aware of other avenues for financing, refinancing and things of that nature.

Avenues that can be pursued within the legal time frame that you're presenting? JUDGE JONES: Absolutely, and that was one of the things that we discussed yesterday.

And the legal time frame you're presenting is what in terms of diversion? JUDGE JONES: I'd like to say as long as it takes, quite frankly, because we are the ones who would control the case management process. Everybody knows that if we don't address the problem effectively, it's going to mean total oblivion for the 52 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. economic stability of not only the residents themselves, but, frankly, for the City of Philadelphia. (Bell rung.)

So you have the ability to create a diversion for those properties that have predatory, subprime loans? JUDGE JONES: Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you. JUDGE JONES: Yes, sir.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Thank you very much. I want to go to something else here, and certainly thank you. I trust that your efforts will help those people who are in a dire strait right now. I will say that a number, particularly in my district, what we find relative to the foreclosures is basically refinancing and the predatory financing deals that were 53 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. made with the neighbors, particularly in Mount Airy and West Oak Lane, I'm sure in other parts of the City, where the homeowners have been in their homes for a long time and have equity. JUDGE JONES: Yes.

And it's devastating. I wanted to ask a question about -- to the gentleman here. On of your testimony, you talk about a Strategic Anti-Violence Unit, SAV-U. What kind of program is that?

This is somewhat of a variation on a theme. For several years, both in Juvenile and Adult Probation, we've had the Youth Violence Reduction Project, and what that does is, it targets individuals who are likely either to kill or to be killed, and heretofore, it was a purely subjective assessment by looking at their past records, their home situation, and we would be looking at this, making it kind 54 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. of a personally subjective assessment as to somebody qualified for this or they did not. The University of Pennsylvania School of Criminology has developed a statistical modeling program, and we have given them, being the University of Pennsylvania, like 1.6 million records going back years and years and years of probationers, and what they have done is developed this model that will empirically show who those people are who are most likely to be killed or to kill someone. And we've only just started it. Our sample data that we're looking at now would suggest this thing works, because as we're going through the process of testing the program and whatnot, 70 percent of the people who their program said are going to have trouble down the road are in jail right now. The probation officers would have very low caseloads, perhaps as low 55 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. as clients each, which is extraordinarily low in the world of Adult Probation. And if we can identify them and get them the level of supervision and services that they need, we hope it will have an impact across the board on violence in the City.

Now, how 10 does that work with people who are 11 entering into the criminal justice 12 system? Does that program provide the 13 profile based on -- 14

Well, the 15 profile is based on people who have in the past entered the system. The goal of this program is you don't come into the system. So it won't affect people who are currently in the system, except that when they come out of the system, if they get put into a SAV-U caseload, then to be one of these very small caseload populations that the officers would have.

But the information, the data, from the program 56 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. helps you develop the profile --

Yes.

-- of the person coming out?

Yes.

And you would put them into the program that they meet those --

Yeah, and the idea is that they don't come back.

Okay. One other question. I'm trying to get my questions in so I can be finished. During the course of -- we are trying to curb some of the takeouts in the neighborhoods that are nuisances, and we spent a lot of time -- the Council had tried its efforts and then it was taken out of our jurisdiction and given to, I think, L&I or Zoning Board, whatever. Anyway, we had a lot of cases that were appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and at the end of the day, they threw them all out. 57 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. What can we do, those of us who -- neighbors who live in neighborhoods with these takeouts that are a nuisance and we provide documentation to the effect that they really need to be closed or their license should not be granted? What can we do with our neighbors to help prevent just wholesale dismissal of these cases? JUDGE JONES: Well, first of all, I'm not familiar with the basis for the dismissal of a particular action. (Bell rung.) JUDGE JONES: But I will say this to you, Councilwoman, as I say to people all the time: The good thing about being a judge in the City of Philadelphia or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is that we are obliged, required to live in the City of Philadelphia. We're required to live in the jurisdiction in which we sit as judges. We all have a vested interest. And I know that you know personally, 58 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. being my Councilwoman that you are and my wife being as active as she is in the neighborhood association, that they have on many occasions tried to do that very thing, to shut a lot of those places down. Certainly I've excused myself from participating in those things. However, I think that the City Council has to push L&I to enforce the regulations and stay on top of them about this, as well as the Police Department to stay on top of those people who would even congregate outside, to make it difficult for people to be able to violate those rules and regulations. And I think that once those records are established and documented, when people come to court to do that, any tribunal would have sufficient evidence before it to make the kind of decision I think that would inure to the benefit of the whole community, and that would be to stop this kind of behavior, this kind of conduct and this kind of violation of the rules. 59 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

Well, I thought we had done that. I guess we have to try a little harder. Thank you very much. JUDGE JONES: Thank you.

I'm done. I'm sorry.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. JUDGE JONES: Good morning.

Actually, I wanted to also know about the SAV-U Program at University of Penn. You said this program just got started?

Yes. It's about a year old in terms of developing the statistical model, perhaps a year and a half old. It's being run through Professor Larry Sherman at the University of Pennsylvania and his group, and it's an exciting use of technology to try and 60 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. address some of the problems the City faces.

What age do they actually start to begin to profile or look at the young people?

I believe it's -- one of the parameters is the age at which the client first came in contact with the justice system, and I think they're going back to or in looking 12 at these young people. 13

So this 14 program actually -- is this the program or this will be one of the programs as to how children get referred to the YVRP Program?

Actually, it will do the same thing as YVRP, except in a much smaller caseload. One of our challenges is to structure our workforce in such a way that the people who don't need a lot of supervision, which quite honestly is most of them, don't get a lot of supervision and we can redeploy our 61 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. officers to focus on the people who really need our services.

Under the YVRP Program you said that you have a current 2.0 million in benefits and salary that is currently unfunded. What exactly does that mean in terms of the future of that program?

What it means is -- and I hope this is a very temporary situation. Federal grants have not yet been received by the City to support this program. Until that happens, we're paying for this out of our General Fund, and it's going to really start to hurt pretty soon if those federal monies don't come through.

When do they normally come through? Like what time of year?

The federal fiscal year begins in '07, so we would have liked to have had it in November or December. We don't have it yet. And it 62 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. does support other agencies other than the court.

Well, I hope it's temporary, very temporary, because I believe that the YVRP Program is an important component of tackling the violence issues that we currently have in the City.

I couldn't agree with you more, Councilwoman.

And I have one other question. Does anyone have any results as it relates to the Truancy Program or Truancy Court? I know that Truancy Court has been in place now for long enough actually that there should be some outcomes.

Yeah. The Truancy Program this year was expanded substantially. Since September, they've held over 16,000 hearings. In terms of results, let me turn to Judge Dougherty. (Witness approached witness table.) 63 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Good morning, Madam President and Councilwoman. For the record, Kevin Dougherty, Administrative Judge of Philadelphia's Family Court. With the expansion of Truancy, we've moved from four cluster courts to eight. A cluster court is a courtroom in the geographical neighborhoods. We have one in Northeast, Kensington, William Penn, West Philadelphia, South Philadelphia, Overbrook, Germantown and Gratz. Currently, we have seen approximately 16,423 families in Truancy. We anticipate by the end of June that 25,000 families will have gone through the court. We have restructured the Truancy Program. Historically, the child would come into a cluster court after being referred by the Philadelphia School District and would immediately meet a court representative. Since that did not 64 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. seem to work -- that just put the family on a fast track to dependency, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid -- we've sat down and worked well with the Department of Human Services and Commissioner Evans. We've restructured it so that the first contact when the child is referred from the Philadelphia School District is that they will meet a DHS representative called a Facilitator, at which time all the necessary social history will be acquired so that the family can be referred for some community-based services, such that the need to come into court is not met or that any issues prohibiting the family from making sure that child sees the doors of school are corrected. The child will then come back, at which time the child will meet a Family Court individual called a Master, who is an attorney, who will increase or at least add some bite to whatever services need to be applied and/or 65 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. structure the family needs. In those few cases in which there seems to be an overwhelming need for court intervention or just the male content of a child, the child will then come through the doors of 18th and Vine and we will give the child a last chance prior to that child becoming a dependent, which means the court then has the authority and ability to remove the child and place the child into a structured setting. So it seems that with this increased expansion, we are serving our population well. I can share with you that so far just this academic year, 1,914 cases were discharged as a result of compliance, and as a result of our intervention, 2,269 families were discharged as no longer being truant based upon the prevention services received. So overall, it's doing well. We're doing the right thing for our kids. 66 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

Great. That's good to hear. I know we have -- I forgot where it is. We had one in Germantown, but they had to move to a different school, so I don't really know where the one in Germantown is located. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I'd have to tell you, off the top of my head, I don't know, but depending upon the high school, sometimes with the increase in population, we need to get a bigger school.

It might be at Germantown High. It used to be Pickett Middle, but that school is being renovated. I just wanted to make sure that I just wanted to know that the Truancy Court was actually meeting its goals and objectives, the mission. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I think we're doing better than expected.

Great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. 67 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any more.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.

Good morning. JUDGE JONES: Good morning.

How are you? JUDGE JONES: Fine, Councilman.

First let me say thank you for opening your office up to enlighten us as to the sheriff's sale process and what steps we have to go to to get a diversion, and a rose by any other name is a rose as long as at the end of the day we benefit from it being there. I want to thank you also for your work with the legislation on community courts and demonstration project that we'd like to do, and I want to ask you a couple of questions in 68 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. regard to that, but on to the truancy piece, there is a direct correlation between truancy, curfew and some of the violence that we find not only in our subways but after hours on our street corners. And is anybody working with that data to correlate those kind of activities? It seems to me the same kid that's hookeying school is probably the same kid that is violating curfew, which is probably the same youth that often gets in trouble. Is there anyone working with that data to find out and target those individuals as in need of some type of intervention? JUDGE JONES: I would actually call up Judge Dougherty again if he wants to respond to that, but I would also say while he's coming up that one of the things that Court Administrator Lawrence alluded to regarding the University of Pennsylvania program, that entity has the 69 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. wherewithal to develop that kind of statistical information and data, and that's one of the things that they do by identifying those persons at that early age. Judge Dougherty? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: With regard to your question, yes, Juvenile Probation has been restructured where we're now calling ourselves Community-Based Probation, in which our probation officers are working hand in hand with our Children and Youth Division. Let me share with you what that means. In Philadelphia Family Court we have a delinquent division and we have a dependent division. Delinquent would be considered criminal. Dependent is DHS involved. Prior to my administration, the two sides never spoke. There happened to be an visible wall. We've worked aggressively to break that wall down, because when you scratch the back of a 70 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. delinquent child, you're really finding a dependent child in need of services. With regard to truancy, truancy is one factor and it's one of the springs in the springboard into the adult side. What we've done through the expansion of the Truancy Program is to make sure that we're working with our stakeholder partners. That's the Philadelphia School District, Behavioral Health, as well as the Department of Human Services, the Philadelphia Recreation Center. In our probation reorganization, we now have probation officers going out into the community, getting into the schools. Historically, we used to have School-Based Probation, which meant only 15 high schools permitted our probation officers to come through the door. We worked well with former Mayor Street, as well as former CEO Paul Vallas and subsequent with the new Administration and the new leadership in the School District, in which we are now reaching 71 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. into every school, middle school or high school, in which a child on probation -- and we have approximately 7,000 kids on probation. So what we're doing is, we're getting into the school areas and we're finding what the issues are and if we can resolve those issues through intervention from DHS. Because let's not forget the City allocates millions of dollars, as well as the state, to DHS so that community-based services are permissible for our kids. We're now hooking them up, linking them to these services such that if we find out the root cause of the dependent issue or the truant issue, we really are curtailing that child from being a delinquent.

We also have to take into consideration that the truant child who ultimately enters the delinquent system can make life-altering decisions, in the sense that if you're 14 years or older now and you're a judge delinquent of a 72 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. criminal offense, of a felony, you're a convicted felon the rest of your life. Our prisons are so overcrowded with young Philadelphians that we give out prior record scores. The most points you could get are six. For example, a child who may be riding in a stolen car when he or she should be in school, that's one point. The most points you could get are six. Without our cooperation with the DHS and the School District and the City, what we will be doing is directing our children to State Road instead of State College. So, yes, we are working. We're working with all the necessary partners in whatever capacity we can to make sure that our children are directed and those families that may be overwhelmed or in need of additional services which are causing the truant issues, that their issues are addressed as well. Does that answer your question? 73 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

More than answers it. It gives me encouragement about the future of crime and punishment, weed versus seed and kinds of concepts like that. I believe the truant kid, the curfew violator are connected to the juvenile delinquent often, and if we know that, then we can reverse engineer solutions that I'm hearing you talk about that include DHS, that include intervention, that include, in my opinion, recreation. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Absolutely.

Because a lot of times it's just that a kid goes either way because he has nothing positive to do. So -- JUDGE DOUGHERTY: We're also -- I apologize. We're also concentrating on educating parents and assisting parents, because a lot of the times it's not the child, it's a lack of proper parental guidance or control. And it may be because of a single parent is overwhelmed 74 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. and just needs some assistance. So we're also working on those programs to reach out to the family as a whole, but ultimately the decision becomes when that child comes in, we have to assume that the majority of our children are good children who got caught up in a bad way. However, there are those bad children who need to be put away, and we will do that for community safety and protection, make no mistake about that, and that's something we don't apologize for, but we don't want to incarcerate our kids.

As we look at what's going on in SEPTA, I'm sure that there's a segment of our population that's encouraged by that as well, that we know the difference between the two categories, and that's important. Let me go on to say, I had a ride-around with the Police Captain, Captain Singleton, of the 19th Police District. We went on some corners -- and 75 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. we're talking about the same client population, often some of these young, dangerous and in my community we call them thunder cats, that stand on these corners that have certain issues that we need to attend to. One of the questions I have is, to what degree do you work with the Police Department to do sweeps for parole violators and probation violators? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I can only speak for Juvenile Court since that is my jurisdiction. What we've done is, we've created and partnered. In the 17th Police District, we've organized what's called the Juvenile Enforcement Team Unit of Probation. We're working well with Captain Bethel of the 17th, fantastic man, as well as Inspector Johnson. What we're doing is, we're concentrating on the high-crime area. Apparently in South Philadelphia we have organized gang activity, we have drug activity and we 76 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. have gun violence. We're sharing intelligence and we're working aggressively with the various law enforcement agencies targeting our children, those children coming out of placement. We're calling it "on deck." For example, if we had to place a problematic child because we knew he or she was a habitual drug dealer, historically the child would be placed by the juvenile system, ultimately be discharged, reintegrated into society without contacting the neighborhood. We're now reaching out to the various police departments where the child will reside to say, Hey, be on guard, Kevin Dougherty is back in town. And as a result, I would be so bold as to say that our mutual cooperation has resulted in a significant decrease in homicides and criminal activity, at least in the 17th. It's a pilot program for which Commissioner Ramsey has been a willing and a wonderful participant, and ideally, 77 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. we're hoping that this may be able to transcend into all of our police districts. But from our perspective, we are working aggressively to make sure that probation violation will become -- they'll come back into court and have a graduated sanction. The reality is, if the kid is out on probation and violates because he or she has gotten high, that's really not a basis to take the child and place the child, because we have intensive drug treatment programs that the child needs to attend. And it's the least resistant, the least restrictive setting is paramount in Family Court, because we got to treat our children differently than our adults.

We agree. One last question. There was a recent article about the lack of collection of fines that were administered as a result of court action, and I wanted to know, those numbers are 78 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. so astronomical, I can only think that we could use those fine dollars to defray costs for the courts, but also create programs for treatment for young people and adults that might be helpful, whether it's job training, GED education, drug counseling, things like that that we could make mandated in the sentence if we could just collect those fines, and I wanted to know what efforts we're undertaking to collect. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I could just, again, speak about my jurisdiction in Family Court. What we've done, what I've imposed was, those individuals that are on juvenile probation -- you should understand that our jurisdiction extends to the age 17. Once you're 18, you could be arrested as an adult. However, our jurisdiction is four years or until you're 21, whichever comes first, which means if you're 17, I can keep you for four years. If you're 18, I can keep you for three. 79 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. For those individuals who have acquired a bench warrant by avoiding our system and then as a result of clean sweeps, as a result of working with probation violations, if they come into our system, they're being housed at our Youth Study Center, despite the fact that they may be and years old. Now 10 they're subject to adult contempt, in 11 which I can incarcerate a 19-year-old and 12 place him or her five months and 29 days 13 on State Road. 14 In lieu of that incarceration, 15 unless it's necessary, we're making sure 16 that restitution is paid within a timely 17 framework so that the victim is made 18 whole and we're collecting court costs. 19 Can I give you the actual number? No, 20 but I can share with you that people are more inclined to pay restitution and court costs than they are to have their hands cuffed and go up to State Road. So anecdotally, we are in Family Court bringing in more money. The 80 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. amounts I can't give you at this point in time, because I just don't have that information with me. I could acquire that with a phone call.

Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say it was great to hear the passion that Judge Dougherty expressed in terms of the efforts of Family Court to save our kids. It was very nice to hear that. It's clear that it's very important to the court system to save our children, and I just wanted to express that. I just want to follow up on the sort of last line of questioning, and I apologize for this, but if you don't have the information today, could you please 81 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. provide to the Chair all of the costs of the court system? In other words, in lieu of services that MOIS may provide, space paid for by Public Property and cleaning contracts paid for by Public Property, debt service on buildings occupied by you, rent free space provided in City buildings, pension costs, the healthcare costs that are in the Finance Director's budget rather than in the court system's budget, Fleet costs, et cetera. Do you have any ball park of what all those add up to?

I don't, Councilman. It's substantial. We can certainly work with the respective City departments such as Public Property, MOIS, Fleet Management and others that may be out there to try and identify as best we can what those costs are and certainly get them to the President's office. (Witness approached witness 82 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. table.)

When you submit a budget for 117 million, it's more like 150 or 200 million in terms of what it actually costs us to support the First Judicial District?

Recognizing that most of our costs are payroll costs.

Right.

Our $117 million budget does not include fringe benefits, pension contributions and the like. So you're correct, it's more than that

Or rent?

Or rent.

Councilmember, we are working up that number now. We just started working on it this morning.

Great.

Sort of anticipated you would get there.

Thank you very much. Those are all my questions, 83 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Madam Chair. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A few follow-ups for Judge Dougherty. Good morning. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Yes, sir. Thank you.

I was actually excited by your testimony. You're one of the few people who actually came to that table who actually get it. I wanted to check a couple of figures you gave. You said there's 700 juveniles on probation or 700 juveniles on probation in the school system? I wasn't sure what the figure was. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I'm sorry, Councilman. I was trying to grab my files, because I figured you might ask some questions about probation.

You said 84 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. there were 700 juveniles on probation? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Seven thousand.

Seven thousand juveniles on probation. And you talked about your work with the previous Administration and beginning to work with this Administration. What was interesting about your testimony was at no point did I hear you mention the Youth Violence Reduction Program, and that wasn't necessarily a bad thing for me, because while I believe it's been an effective tool, I have one pet peeve with it, and the one pet peeve is that I don't think they always, as they say they do, target the most at risk. So I was wondering what separate work you do independently, although you're also collaborating with what used to be Director of Social Services and now the Department of Human Services. How have you been involved at all in targeting which young people are 85 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. most at risk in terms of intervention? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Let me see if I can answer that question for you. We work well -- Juvenile Probation is at the table of the YVRP. YVRP is the 100 most likely to kill or be killed. It's in selected areas, as you know. We now have the Adolescent Violence Reduction Program. We also are a participant in that. The truth be told is that we are just one of many. In Philadelphia Family Court, Juvenile Probation, which falls under my administration, I have a better control of that. While we work with YVRP and AVRP in every step of the way, I believe we're best able to go after the family that's most at risk by integrating my CYD, Children and Youth Division in Family Court, with my Juvenile Justice wing. I think by integrating our programs, developing internal policies, procedures and working with the various stakeholders -- it's a 86 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. case-by-case basis. I don't think we just can whitewash and say, Hey, because you live in the 12th and you meet A, B and C, that you are more at risk than a child that lives in South Philadelphia.

You get exactly where I'm going, and this is the point I wanted to make. Not just simply make the point, but do you believe that YVRP and AVRP are actually targeting the most likely to kill or be killed? Because I don't believe they are. I believe that, as I think I heard implicit in your testimony, is that we have a DHS system with millions of dollars of resources and services that go toward some of these young people, and sometimes they may look at it as layering their services or in terms of their client base as opposed to in times at which we really need to focus on reaching those people that can save them from simply killing or being killed. And in order to reach them, you have to actually identify them. 87 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Do you believe that the process is in place right now? It's just a direct question. Since you were so great in your testimony, I'm going to ask the question outright. Do you believe we actually have identified the most likely to kill or be killed? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I think every system is capable of being improved.

To what extent do you believe you can offer more leadership in terms of identifying who is most likely to kill or be killed? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Well, you need to take a social history. You have to look at the child. You have to look at the family. You have to look at the family as a whole. It's just not the singular individual, because a 13-year-old who may be carrying a gun may be construed as an individual who is most likely to kill or be killed, yet we may be finding that that's not really a gun, 88 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. it's a beebee gun, and the reason he's carrying that beebee gun is because he's continually beaten up as he's waiting for the bus to get to school. So do I believe that that child necessarily will kill or be killed? No. 8 I think that child needs some safety. I think the School District and the courts have to work together to assure and ensure that a child receives a free, appropriate and safe education. However, if the child has come through our system and lives in a designated area and he started out with status offenses, criminal mischief, truancy, and he's worked his way up to a car theft and now he's selling drugs and carrying a gun, yes, that child is more at risk than the other kid who is carrying the beebee gun. So it's really a case-by-case basis. How we go about it, we're a big city. As I said, we're a willing and eager participant at the YVRP, but we're 89 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. one of many. In Juvenile Probation, we're one of one. So obviously speaking as Administrative Judge, I believe that I will work with and continue to work with YVRP, and it's a worthy cause, worthy of funding. I think they have great leadership and great intent and purpose. Sometimes I disagree or differ in the approach.

And so is there a separate listing that you have that would help Council or other stakeholders identify at-risk youth for different purposes separate from YVRP or AVRP? Do you have within your data within the work that you do -- JUDGE DOUGHERTY: I really can't answer that question, because I don't know. I'd have to speak with my Probation to determine what information we are providing. I don't have absolute hands-on control of my Juvenile Probation of YVRP considering the position I'm in 90 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. as AJ, but that's information I could acquire and share with you.

Okay. Thank you. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones. Is he in the room? (No response.)

Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you very much. I would like to thank you and the courts, as always, and I always cite a young man in my neighborhood who was wreaking havoc on his family. His mother was a drug addict and his father wanted to compensate with the stepmother, and so he just terrorized everybody. And you all stayed with us for over a year to get that young man placed, and he's doing well, and we say thank you. And I know I 91 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. asked this last year, but my question is, are the schools working with us to make sure we have -- is it parole or probation? JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Probation. Parole is for people coming out of custody or jail. We don't consider sending kids to jail. We place them.

All right. So do we have them in most of our schools at risk so that kids don't have to leave to go to report to their probation officer? I know that's a big issue. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Yes. As I shared previously, we've reorganized Probation. Historically, Juvenile Probation had 15 schools that participated in what we called School-Based Probation. I didn't believe it worked. Certain schools would permit our probation officers to come in; other schools made too many requirements. And I don't think 15 schools is significant 92 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. considering the amount of public schools and the amount of our kids on probation. So what we've done is, we've met with City officials and school officials and we've worked it where every child that's on probation will have -- I should say every child on probation that has a probation officer will have access to that child's academic, attendance records and behavioral records in the school. We've worked that through Paul Vallas. Myself and my Chief Probation Officer at one time almost a year ago met with all of the high school principals, and we were speaking there and I asked their support and I've asked their participation. Far too often our kids are being thrown out of Philadelphia public schools and placed in alternative schools, and I've never been a big fan of alternative schools. I believe that there's necessary services and treatments that we have and that the School District 93 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. has that we might be able to work with the child to keep the child in his local public school getting an education as well as treatment. They're working with us. It seems that this reorganized Probation has gotten off the grounds in the last, I'd say, about almost a year now. I think we're doing well. Again, I don't have the numbers, statistical data. I can tell you anecdotally. I see what comes through my courtroom and I meet monthly with my judges. I think it's working. And we are working with the School District. They had been a willing participant. I just recently met with Judge Dumas and Dr. Jones from the School District to discuss how we can better assist our kids with an education or what services can Probation offer. The School District is working with the child that's on probation while attending a public school. So, yes, they're amenable and 94 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. they're open, and we're always eager to work with anybody that's willing to work with us.

Thank you. We thank you. You and Judge Dumas both were involved in this case, and so we thank you both. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Our pleasure.

And certainly worked with Dr. Jones, and we extend, as Chair of the Council Committee on Education, extend our hand and partnership to do whatever we can to help enhance such a great program. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: May I be excused?

You're welcome. I would just like to ask a question or two. Your Honor, what is the present backlog of criminal cases? 95 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. JUDGE JONES: While we're getting those numbers, we have at this juncture in the criminal side on Municipal Court, in 2007, we recorded 56,000 dispositions. In the Common Pleas Court we recorded 13,741 dispositions. Now, we have the numbers, I believe, for the pending cases by chart here, if you just give me a moment.

Madam President, we finished 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas with a total of 13,767 cases. They were divided up as follows --

That are pending?

I'm sorry. The pending inventory is 8,286. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

The pending inventory in the Court of Common Pleas was 8,286. And they were composed of 356 homicide cases, 4,500 --

I'm 96 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. sorry. These are all pending?

Yes. This was our inventory as of January 1st this year.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Four thousand five hundred seventy-two major cases and 3,358 what we call list room cases. We are not quite as current as I would like to be. Things are taking a bit longer to dispose of because the cases are becoming more and more complicated, more involved. Years ago most of our inventory was in what I referred to as the list program, car thefts, simple drug cases, cases that we wouldn't consider real serious. Things have changed and the majority of our cases now are classified as major cases. These are multi-defendant cases, serious charges, jury trials, and it tends to take a little longer to dispose of these cases. 97 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

Thank you very much. I would like someone to tell me what we're doing to alleviate the overcrowding of detentioners in our prisons. Are we trying to expedite those cases so that we don't have the problem of overcrowding? JUDGE JONES: Certainly. It's a multi-faceted approach, Madam President. We are working currently with the City Administration, specifically with Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison, to address those problems. We recognize on the criminal side of the court, both with the Municipal Court and the Common Pleas Court, that there are things we can do systemically to expedite the cases, perhaps one of the most important of which is to really strictly enforce the continuances that are requested by both the Commonwealth and the defense. As you know, I'm a faculty 98 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. member for the National Judicial College. We teach judges from all over the country, and in my course of dealings with them, one of the things that I found in terms of case management is that the discovery process in many other jurisdictions, if not most other jurisdictions around the country, is different from the discovery process that we have here in Philadelphia County. Specifically, if the police paperwork is turned over to defense counsel representing defendants at an earlier point in the process, we found that more likely than not given the vast amount of evidence against an individual, that case is going to inevitably end up in a conviction anyway. If we can expedite that process well forward, turn over that discovery as early as the preliminary hearing or immediately thereafter, those cases can come out of the system and consistent with, frankly, the law that's being promulgated at this 99 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. point in time to remove those individuals from the county prisons into the state prisons, that could be done much, much more efficiently and expeditiously. Secondly, there is the problem with counsel. When we talk about this issue with homeownership and foreclosures, the same kinds of people are people who are required to obtain or pay for counsel by their own funds, and if they're indigent, then that further impacts upon the ability of the Defender Association, the District Attorney's Office to make sure that counsel -- and the court system, to make sure that counsel is in the case. Invariably those cases, because of the lack of counsel or because of the lack of paperwork, get continued. Unfortunately, there is the inability -- and I say "unfortunately" in the generic sense, that people can't pay bail, but if they can't pay bail, they're going to be incarcerated and they're 100 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. waiting trial. So when you add the numbers of people who are waiting trial, to me that really exacerbates and skews the number of people in the system. We need to address that number primarily with a variety of venues to do so, and I think that we can do that, and we're all working at this point in time toward that end.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you, Madam President. Just two very short questions or comments. I do want to commend the courts and particularly Kevin. I really also heard the passion, Judge Dougherty, in dealing with our youth, because it is more than just putting them on probation. We do have to deal with the entire family. I saw a young man in my 101 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. neighborhood that was just recently arrested for narcotics sales, marijuana. And he's young, and I saw him right back out there the other day doing the same thing. I said, Boy, other than his mother, who should I tell? Who can I call? Because we could save him, I think, you know. I don't know what to do. JUDGE DOUGHERTY: We could speak after the hearings, Councilwoman.

All right. And the other thing I just want to mention, Judge Jones, can we figure out a way to say to judges that they should take serious the cases that come before them that relates to people getting a violation or a citation for dumping, for doing illegal dumping? Because I've heard from several of -- that police unit that sits around and monitors dump sites, they said when they catch violators and they go to court, the 102 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. judges don't really take it serious, I guess because our crime rate, our numbers are so high, they're so busy. But the dumping and the trash is an important issue in neighborhoods. So can you send a little memo out or something out asking them to please take this serious? JUDGE JONES: Councilwoman, I could not agree with you more. It is also a bane of mine. I despise it. I despise, frankly, seeing people put posters on poles up and down the streets of Philadelphia advertising anything from collecting cars to music, sales of CDs. And I just think that, quite frankly, if there is a unified movement between Council, L&I, the Police Department, the courts will respond. We respond certainly in an appropriate and fair manner. We recognize that there are a lot of forces pulling on the resources that we have in terms of fines, incarceration and the 103 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. like, but I think in this venue, that we're talking about imposing some very, very stiff financial penalties against those persons who do that and/or in the alternative, community service because of the community courts and the responsibilities that we have and the other venues that we have to address those things. But I could not agree with you more. I will certainly pass the word along.

All right. Thank you. Because we constantly ask people to report them, to get their tag number, or the police catch them. If nothing happens to them, they'll just keep doing it, and our neighborhoods just need to try and work hard on keeping it clean. JUDGE JONES: I would suggest to you that as I made reference earlier in my district, we have had a number of commercial drivers of trucks park their 104 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. commercial vehicle on our residential streets, and our neighborhood association decided that we would just simply put notices on these cars that the neighborhood association is going to file 7 a lawsuit against the individual, as well as the company. Well, we found that they are moving those vehicles like crazy to keep them off the streets. But the neighborhoods and the citizens have to get together to do that.

That's true. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. No 16 more questions.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.

My questions were answered by the previous questioning. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. 105 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? JUDGE JONES: Madam President, can I just go back just very, very briefly to Councilman Goode's inquiry regarding the foreclosure issue?

Certainly. JUDGE JONES: I wanted to make sure that it is clear that we recognize, both on the judicial side of this as well as the lenders as well as the advocates for the homeowners, everybody agrees that when you take out the subcategory of predatory lenders and the subprime issues involved in that, that they are definitely within the categories that we're targeting here to set aside, to put on the special track. And the difference between what we're trying to do and what's been done before is, in terms of the moratorium, it puts off the inevitable without anything. What we're trying to do is to make sure that we 106 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. categorize those cases and, during the interim, provide them with every avenue possible to keep those homes. It's really, really something that we really firmly believe in. As I said, we even have people from the churches who are trying to get involved in this to see if they can even raise monies to help people or even buy the properties and then sell them back. So it is a concerted effort and it is one that we truly, truly believe in and are determined to address and address appropriately.

Again, thank you very much. JUDGE JONES: Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for the wonderful work you do. Our next office will be the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. (Witnesses approached witness table.) 107 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, Council President Verna and other distinguished members of the City Council. My name is Vivian T. Miller and I am the current elected Clerk of Quarter Sessions. And I would also like to welcome all our new Councilmembers. Please forgive my voice. I know it's kind of raspy. It's already raspy, but I have a very bad head cold. During the past year, the Clerk of Quarter Sessions has assumed a series of increasingly complex operations as a direct --

The noise level is much too high. We're still trying to conduct business. Thank you. Please proceed.

-- as a direct 108 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. result of the implementation of a new statewide computer system mandated by the Administrative Offices of the Pennsylvania Courts. According to our Fiscal '09 budget request is the following: Class 100, $5,640,078; Class 200, $38,734; Class 300, $62,709; and Class 400, $39,633. I am also here today to report on the current workforce situation within my office. If I might direct your attention to the third page of our PowerPoint -- I hope everyone has the PowerPoint -- you will note that our first four proposals directly generate net revenue or are revenue neutral. I would like to direct your attention immediately to the last one, as I consider this is the one that will interest you the most. In order to increase our efficiency, we need additional staff. The next slide, Slide 4, details a request for additional court 109 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. clerks. Along with the new employees, I am pleading for significant non-financial support from your offices. Specifically, we are in desperate need of a waiver from Central Personnel in order to establish two lists, one for court clerks and one for court service managers. The list for the court clerks is needed, as it can take upwards of four months of interviews and/or processing before a court clerk trainee can even fill out a W-2 form. As positions are approved, we need the ability to act quickly and decisively to fill them. The court service manager list is needed to complete a comprehensive back-up system. There is no direct cost to the City. Slide 5 of our PowerPoint details the financial resources my office is seeking. The largest increase is in Class 400 funds and is considered a one-time expense to provide computers and related equipment for personnel. During the past year, crime has 110 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. risen, and it goes without saying as the crime rate increases and the arrest rate increases, the number of court cases increases. Even if the City of Philadelphia experienced a drastic decrease in crime over night, there would still be a need for these employees, as there are still literally tens of thousands of active cases in the pipeline. In conclusion, I am seeking your full support and approval of my budget so that the Clerk of Quarter Sessions can properly sustain our operation. Please accept my commitment that nothing short of my best efforts will always be given to achieving the goals of our City. As always, I thank you for your patience and understanding in addressing and hearing our most important concerns. And I apologize. I forgot to introduce, on my right is my Second Deputy, Marc Gaillard, and on my left is 111 4/8/08 - WHOLE - BILL 080022, etc. my Budget Director, Tom Christmann, and, of course, my First Deputy is sitting behind me to pick up. Thank you. I apologize.

Thank you, Ms. Miller. Have you presented the Fiscal 2009 budget proposal as outlined in your PowerPoint presentation to the Administration?

Yes.

Can you tell us what was their reaction?