COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 6/12/01 3:22 p.m. - - - RES. 000476 - Authorizing the Committee on Law and Government to investigate whether the City-administered health plan current and in the past has provided the most comprehensive and cost-efficient coverage to City employees for the premiums paid, and whether the City could provide more comprehensive and less costly coverage to the approximately 8,000 employees and retirees currently covered by this plan if the other operation were pursued. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/12/01 LAW AND GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE I N D E X Linda Berkowitz, Deputy Secretary . . . . . . Financial Oversight Thomas Lamb, Administrator. . . . . . . . . . Law Enforcement Health Benefits Louise Pongracz, Esquire. . . . . . . . . . . 28 Representing District Council 47 Bob McAllister, Benefits Administrator. . . . 33 AFSCME District Council 47 3 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 P R O C E E D I N G S
The Committee on Law and Government is now in session. There's a continuing quorum, since this is a recessed hearing, but the Chair notes the presence of: the President of City Council; Councilman Michael Nutter, who's a member of the committee; Councilwoman Marian Tasco; and to my left: Councilman Rizzo, a member of the committee; Councilman Ortiz, a member of the committee; and myself, David Cohen, as chairman of the committee. We're gathered today in a recessed hearing for the purpose of learning to what extent the Administration has been able to produce the documentation requested by this committee. And who is representing the Administration today? Miss Berkowitz, please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Miss Berkowitz, please proceed and inform us of what you are producing today and what you are not and when you will be producing what you have not produced.
Councilman Cohen, members of the committee, I'm here on -- I'm Linda 4 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 Berkowitz, Deputy Secretary of Financial Oversight, and I am here to discuss the additional information that the committee requested at the hearing last Thursday.
Miss Berkowitz, let me not be persnickety, but it's my understanding that you're not here to discuss that material, you are here to present the documentation.
That material, Councilman Cohen, is being duplicated as we speak. I apologize to the committee. The committee will either get a package later this afternoon or early tomorrow morning. And if I could, I would like to read the cover letter that will come to you with that package of material that is signed by Joyce Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to the Mayor.
Well, before you do that, I would ask for one other witness who's here, Mr. Thomas Lamb, who I think has additional information that may alter the request for documentation, may increase the request for material. (Witness comes forward.) 5 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
Mr. Lamb -- you may stay there, Miss Berkowitz. Mr. Lamb, please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Thomas Lamb. I administer law enforcement health benefits, which is the FOP Blue Cross plan. And, regretfully, Richard Costello could not be here today. But there is an issue that we wanted to bring to the attention of the committee which is very important to us and a very serious issue, and I would like to thank the committee, the chairman, and the committee members for holding these meetings because this is truly the only time that we feel that we get a fair shake. We go into the contract negotiations, we produce every last bit of evidence that is requested, including audited financial statements, medical professional reviews of our program. We present it, and when we ask for documentation from the City, we run into the same exact thing that your committee is running into. One of the very serious things that is affecting us, as Richard had stated before, our new Blue Cross increase is 28.56 percent at a time when 6 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 the City capped our medical plan for the next two years. One of the problems we have, we have officers that are injured in the line of duty, complete and injured on duty report, and in some cases, these are officers that were killed in the line of duty, and at the hospital, when they cut their clothes off of them, they take their Blue Cross card and bill Blue Cross, similarly to the officers injured in the line of duty. The City refused to give us injured-on-duty records monthly as we requested. The only time we received injured-on-duty records is at the time of the contract under the discovery law. We then input that into our computer. And it's fairly clever the way the City does it with their terminology. Scratches and sprains was an officer that was thrown from his horse into the wall with major facial bone breakage and major dental work. Another one was a puncture; well, it surely was a puncture -- it was a gunshot. So it's awful hard to try to interpret the City's terminology to what the officer really had, and in some cases, we physically have to call the officer to find out what the injury really was. 7 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 We then get our paid claims tape from Blue Cross every month. We then load the paid claims tape with the data services and compare it to the injured-on-duty dates. We then match them up and since 1993, when the City capped our medical plan financially, we've said to the City, There are claims that you are responsible for for officers injured in the line of duty, or even Worker's Compensation, that you should assume the financial responsibilities for. The problem for us is, you have financially capped our plan and you're dumping your financial responsibility for these officers injured and killed into the line of duty into our Blue Cross premium, 'cause the premium is governed by your usage and the claims for injured-on-duty officers are built into our usage. We have been on the City since 1993. They say they're going to agree to allow CSI Cop Services, Inc. to review all of the injured-on-duty claims with the Blue Cross personnel to identify the dollars and the injuries that they are responsible for and then we can work out a financial agreement with Blue Cross. We get to the agreement; when it comes down to sign the paper, the paper's never 8 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 signed. This has been going on for three years. So about eight months ago, our attorney, Thomas Jennings, had to file legal action against the City of Philadelphia to force them to assume responsibility for the financial claims of injured- on-duty officers. It has a severe impact on us financially when as high as 8 percent of our premium may be attributed to claims that the City Philadelphia is truly responsible for.
Miss Berkowitz, do you have any comment with respect to that?
We would like to get full information on that from the City's point of view. It seems on the surface an outrageous action by the City in imposing on the individual health plan the responsibilities for what ought to be employment claims for Workman's Compensation payments for people, police officers injured or killed in the line of duty. I can't understand that. I would hope that in the documentation that you provide that you will include information 9 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 with respect to the claim being presented to us by Mr. Lamb. That's a matter which has been brought to my attention today for the first time. And I wonder how many other areas are suddenly going to be opened up as areas hidden by the City.
Councilman Cohen, this is the first that I'm aware of the issue. And if in fact Mr. Jennings has filed legal action against the City for these claims, then I would respectfully submit, although I will go back and talk with the City's attorneys, that that's the form in which it needs to be resolved at this point. I don't know what occurred after --
Well, we like to -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Because we just know what Mr. Lamb has stated and it just seems totally wrong. 10 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 Councilman Rizzo?
Thank you. Miss Berkowitz, you just indicated that this is the first time that you're aware of an issue that's been kicking around since 1993?
Councilman Rizzo, as Joyce Wilkerson indicated last week, the issues that have been raised by Council have created the need for a special review of the City-administered health plan, and I was just very recently asked to head that review. I have not been involved with the City's health plan previously -- certainly not going back to 1993.
Who in the Administration would you think knows about Mr. Lamb's testimony? Who would you -- would the Chief of Staff know?
I don't know if the Chief of Staff would know. I would hope that our Office of Labor Relations would know. If a suit has been filed against the City, I'm assuming that the Law Department would know. But, again, this is the first I've heard of it. Had I known before this hearing, I would 11 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 have attempted to get some information in terms of the status of that issue for the hearing. But this came as a surprise to me today.
Since 1993 when we received the injured-on-duty claims every two years, you can imagine the administrative hours that have to be put in to input that into the computer. Currently, we have 7500 injured-on-duty occurrences listed in our computer, and the last information we received was November of 2000. Where it stands now is, LEHB (Law Enforcement Health Benefits), on behalf of the FOP, has signed a waiver allowing Cop Services, Inc., who represents the City on the injured-on-duty claims, allowing them to review our members' claims. The Blue Cross has signed the agreement that they would be willing to do this. I understand the holdup now in identifying the claims is the City will not allow CSI to sign the waiver to identify these claims. We have to expend our money to force the City into court to get something that they are 12 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 responsible for.
It all makes no sense whatever to me. It seems to me that government ought to meet first of all the obligations it has to its own employees who are protecting the people of the City of Philadelphia. And I just can't understand these methods of delay, these methods of avoidance of responsibility. And that's the reason in the first instance -- before we go beyond this, I would like to have a full report. Is the City informed of this? what is the City's position? and when will the City deal with both the lawsuit and with the claims? I think it makes no sense whatever to require a health and benefit plan to cover Workman's Compensation claims or death claims if they occur in the course of duty. I've never heard of any such arrangement. Any private employer would not long remain in business or possibly even remain out of jail if he did those kinds of things. So before I draw final conclusions, I would want to give the City an opportunity to give its version of the case because on the surface, it is totally almost impossible to believe that a 13 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 government would engage in such tactics. So Miss Berkowitz, we're going to ask, before we go more deeply into this, for you -- you've heard this testimony -- for you to pursue it and to give a report. In view of the urgency of the situation, I would like to ask that your report on Mr. Lamb's allegations today be made back to this committee on Thursday of this week, immediately following our Council meeting. I'd like to set the time at o'clock now for a continued hearing just 12 for the purpose of -- we're not going to recess this hearing, but I'm saying for the purpose of getting a report, I think it requires urgent action. We would at least like to know that the City knows of the claim. Now, secondly, that brings to my mind -- you mentioned hundreds of people that are involved, Mr. Lamb. Is that the case?
There's thousands of people, Mr. Chairman. There's over 7500 occurrences. Some may be the same officer five or six times on different dates of service, but there are over 7500 injured-on-duty occurrences that we have in our computer. 14 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 And if the chairman wishes, in the last contract negotiations, as part of our exhibits, we presented this issue and asked the arbitrator to force the City to assume responsibility, and we also presented an exhibit showing the confusing terminology. If the committee members on this board would like to have that, I will have it hand- delivered tomorrow, the two exhibits, so the City cannot say they were not aware of it because it was presented during the FOP-City negotiations.
I would like you to proceed in the fashion you've indicated to present it.
That brings to my mind the question of the retirees. There was testimony at the last hearing about the cutoff of retirees' benefits. Miss Berkowitz, do you know, how many retirees are there from the City?
Well, would it be possible for you to, in addition to the information requested -- we would like to have a list of them.
I believe that that 15 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 information on the numbers of retirees is in the information that you'll be getting either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Again, Councilman, if I could go through this letter and give you some indication of what information you will be getting in the packet of material, I think that might be helpful.
Thank you. Again, this is a letter to Councilman Cohen from Joyce Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to the Mayor. "In response to your request at the June 7, 2001 hearing of the Committee on Law and Government on the City-administered health plan, additional information is enclosed. Initial discussions have begun with the City Controller's Office, which is receiving the same information as well as the material provided you last week. The Controller will have access to all existing documents that he will require for his audit." (And then this is the information that 16 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 will come in the packet.) "In addition to the 1992 agreement with Mr. Stamitakis, we have requested from him a report on the compensation that he has received since 1992 from the City's health plan providers. Unfortunately, he was away from the City until today and has not yet been able to respond. "In addition to the RFPs for medical --
Won't the City records show what the City has paid to him?
The City does not pay Mr. Stamitakis. Mr. Stamitakis is compensated by the prescription, dental, and vision providers, as we indicated last week in the letter to you.
Isn't he supposed to be a consultant for the City, isn't he?
He is a consultant to the City. 17 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
He gets paid by the individuals that we're contracting with?
There is something basically wrong with that. There is something that doesn't rub me the right way there. If somebody's paying me but I'm working for Dave Cohen and Frank Rizzo's actually signing my check, I think Frank Rizzo's going to have a little bit more to say about what I do, okay?
Councilman Ortiz, one of the things that going to be looking at during the review that Miss Wilkerson talked about --
Does it give an impression, a perception of -- that it might be violating some sort of ethical question in there? I don't know. (Applause.)
I mean, if he's 18 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 working for us, let's pay him; if he's working for them, let them pay him.
As we indicated last week, that is one of the issues that we're going to be looking at.
This question never popped up to anybody saying, God, this guy's working for us but the other guy's paying him. There's something wrong here, hold it a second. Nobody ever asked that question?
Well, as a matter of fact, a couple of us did ask that question several weeks ago.
Yes, sir. Based on the issues raised by City Council, which we have been trying to respond to. We consider those issues to be very serious and we're going to be looking at the entire City-administered plan. If I can just continue to read this into the record, Councilman Cohen, I would appreciate that.
Well, I know you 19 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 would, but we have very serious questions as to how it could be that for years -- this isn't Mr. Stamitakis's fault, he's apparently a very successful salesman and he's doing what he does best on behalf of the company that pays him, but I just am floored at the concept that the City did not understand that Mr. Stamitakis was working for the company that paid him.
I think that there were those in the City who did understand that and there are those who -- because Mr. Stamitakis has been working under an agreement with the City since 1992 so there's no doubt in my mind that there were individuals in the City government who understood that.
That agreement is in writing, and we provided that to you last week, as well as information in the RFP for prescriptions for our prescription manager that stated publicly, very publicly, what his compensation was to be. That was all provided you last week.
All right, we'll go 20 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 through that. Let's let Miss Berkowitz finish her letter. Go ahead.
We'll try to restrain ourselves but it's very difficult when things like that come up.
"In addition to RFPs for medical 1995 and prescription 1999 coverage provided you last week, we are enclosing the 1995 RFP for dental coverage and the 1997 RFP for vision benefits. In addition to the current signed agreements for dental and vision coverage provided you last week, we are enclosing the signed agreements for medical coverage for both active and retired employees. The Personnel Department has provided an explanation of the methods used to calculate coverage rates." (That would be in your package.) "Additional information is provided on the costs of medical coverage for active and retired 21 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 employees for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001. We have also enclosed a summary of payments made to the various health plan vendors for FY 2000, including the number of covered subscribers. We have enclosed information regarding the survey ranking PCF highly relative to other prescription benefit managers. "We are reviewing the issue raised by a retired employee at last week's hearing concerning the process used by the City for determining the health benefits available to retirees. As well as the process used for open enrollment. We will be happy to provide you with information on our findings once Council convenience this fall, although I am enclosing an explanation from Linda Seyda, City Personnel Director, that may be helpful to you in the interim. "As I indicated last week, we intend to review fully the City-administered health plan in terms of process and benefits. The amount of funding involved and the complexity of health benefits dictate that with we conduct the review in a thorough and thoughtful manner. In doing so, we may request similar information from the unions for comparative purposes and we would welcome your 22 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 support to that end. "Sincerely, Joyce Wilkerson."
Thank you very much. All right, there are a few questions from staff.
This is Shoshana Bricklin. I work for the City Council's technical staff. Miss Berkowitz, we did have the opportunity to speak before the hearing began. You did indicate that Mr. Stamitakis was out of town so we couldn't get that information. You did state in today's letter, however, that you have a summary of payments made to the various health plan vendors for FY 2000. And given the fact that Mr. Stamitakis's payment is key to the payments that the City makes, wouldn't it be possible, and it might be preferable, for the City to provide that information, even if Mr. Stamitakis does so that we can compare the accuracy of what he provides.
We will certainly compare, but I cannot tell you when Mr. Stamitakis received compensation and whether he received all of the compensation due him. He would have to tell us 23 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 that.
But assuming that the contract provided for, what is it, 1 percent of all amounts billed to the City, you could easily provide to this committee the bills from the City for the period in question. We'd at least have a pretty good ballpark figure about what the costs were for this particular -- for the provision of our dental, optical, and vision. And that would be preferable than to waiting for weeks and weeks so at least we could get started with some of this analysis.
That 1 percent provision was in the 1999 RFP for prescription management. I cannot tell you that that was the level of compensation in prior years.
Well, what about immediately for '99, 2000, and 2001, which would correspond to the question down here where we did get for '99, 2000, and 2001?
In your material that will come to you, you will see what the various providers were paid in FY 2000. That was in answer to the specific request from this committee. You can take percent of that and assume that that is 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 what Mr. Stamitakis may have owed, but I can't sit here and tell you that that's what he was actually paid.
If the City didn't have to pay anything, I don't understand why the contract with the City would contain such a provision.
I can't tell you what the origin of that provision was, Councilman Cohen. That is one of the things that we're going to be looking at.
Do you know whether such a provision existed prior to 1999?
I am assuming that Mr. Stamitakis, pursuant to the original agreement, was compensated by the vendors. I don't know to what extent.
Well, did we undertake any responsibility to pay to the vendor what Mr. Stamitakis received under that percent 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 contract provision?
Yes. It seems to me -- I'll repeat it in another language. It seems to me that if the 1 percent provision was there, it must have meant that the City was going to make payment to the company which employed Mr. Stamitakis, in addition to all other costs they were going to add, an additional 1 percent for Mr. Stamitakis. Otherwise, the provision makes no 13 sense, isn't that right?
The health-care providers do not employ Mr. Stamitakis. It is my understanding that in this situation, he has acted as a broker.
The percent, it's my 21 understanding, was paid by the dental, optical, and 22 prescription vendors. 23
It doesn't make any sense at all for them to provide in the contract that part of the cost is going to be a 1 percent brokerage commission, or whatever the form of the language might have been, without it being the basis for requests for payment by the City.
Councilman, I can't defend or repudiate the arrangement until I have looked into it.
And that is on the list of issues that I have been charged with reviewing.
All right. Well, we also have a responsibility for reviewing, and we are very concerned, for example, in addition to all else, by what's happened to the retirees, and this committee's staff intends to communicate with each retiree, and for that, we request -- in this information, will there be a name and address, a current address, for each retiree so that if the committee decides to move in that direction, it can communicate directly with the retiree?
I would like to think that the Board of Retirement and Pensions has such a 27 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 list, but I will be more than happy to check with them.
All right. Then we're going to request that you obtain such a list and forward it to the committee.
So that we can move ahead with our job. Now, Mr. Cronin from District Council 47, I understand, that you wish to be heard. Please come forward and you may bring with you anyone. . . (Witnesses come forward.)
All right, the administrator of your fund is going to be heard. 28 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 Okay.
Good afternoon, Councilman Cohen. I'm Louise Pongracz and I'm from the firm of Willig, Williams & Davidson, and we represent both Local 22, the firefighters, and District Council 47. I just wanted to add to and echo Mr. Lamb's comments and we thank him for raising the issue of the City's continually shifting the cost of claims of individual injured on duty who would have both with Worker's Comp and IOD claims to the several health and welfare funds, and I respectfully request that you broaden the committee's request for information regarding those claims to include not only the FOP but also to Local and District 17 Council 47. And I'm sure frankly, although I don't 18 represent District Council 33, I'm sure those claims 19 as well. 20 This is an ongoing issue, 21 notwithstanding what the committee's heard today 22 from the City. Each of the health and welfare funds has, certainly during negotiations and in any number of other conversations, raised the issue of procuring accurate, auditable information regarding 29 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 IOD and Worker's Comp claims that are shifted to the health and welfare fund. So if I could ask you to expand your request to the City regarding those claims to the other three health and welfare funds as well.
Well, any requests on 15 their behalf will have to come from them. 16
May I also just note -- 19 if I might echo Mr. Cronin's request the last time, 20 his inquiry. I've been listening to 21 Miss Berkowitz's comments today. He had not heard 22 that the evidence underlying the claims regarding the multi-million dollar savings had been produced, and I was just wondering if that information was included in either of the lists. 30 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
I'm having trouble following. Would you repeat that last comment maybe? Maybe talk a little bit slower.
During the last set of hearings, we had talked about that there was or was not information regarding the alleged multi-million-dollar that would have been experienced by consolidating the health and welfare funds. And Mr. Cronin and I, in listening to Miss Berkowitz's testimony, had not heard either that the information had been produced or that it was forthcoming, and I was just wondering if we could inquire into the status of that information request made so well by Councilman Rizzo.
That seems a fair question. Questions were raised last time about the so-called plan that the City announced during its labor negotiations that it had that would demonstrate the economy and the efficiency of consolidating all of the plans into one. Is there any information or documentation on what you're producing or what you explained you will produce at a later time that would give us that information? 31 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
Councilman Cohen, we did respond to that last week when the question was raised by saying that we do not have that information available now. That is something that the City intends to pursue and we will have that information.
We are not proposing that we consolidate tomorrow. And we will have that information.
Well, are you saying -- what I'm trying to get is just what is the state of the existence of the plan? Are you saying that there is no plan? If there has been a plan and it's been discarded, we nonetheless would like to see the plan that was discarded. If there is no plan and never has been a plan, we'd like a plain statement to that effect.
I can't say that there was never a plan. I can tell that you I have never seen a plan. I know that there were some preliminary discussions during labor negotiations last summer. I have not seen a -- what I would call a full-fledged plan, and we said so last week. We 32 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 can't say it in any other way that there is no 3 comprehensive plan.
Well, while we check this, Miss Bricklin says that in a June hearing in the year 2000 that the witnesses for the City testified that there was such a plan. But in any event, I would like to ask for production of such a plan. And if following your search -- you're rather new in this. If you find no such plan, you will tell us that to the best of your knowledge, there never has been a plan or you've been unable to locate the existence of any such plan. We need to know something because a plan has been referred to. And if it exists in whatever form, partial or completed, full-scale or partially scale, we would like to see it, we would like to have it be made known to the committee so we could consider it. Councilman Rizzo.
Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is all new to you, as a professional, it must be terribly embarrassing to you to believe that a government could move forward or have such an important part of a government, you 33 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 must be terribly embarrassed to have to come here and tell us that you don't have this, you don't have that. And, again, I don't want to put you on the spot, I've done that enough, ask you to comment on that, but I'm absolutely amazed, absolutely amazed -- and I see you shaking your head -- that we could be here today. Boy it's lame, it really is. I'm not normally at a loss for words, but it's really embarrassing to me that we could be in the situation we're in. Thank you.
Well, I want to move along and I haven't heard directly from District Council 47.
My name's Bob McAllister. I'm the Benefits Administrator for AFSCME District Council 47. And, yes, there was a concept or a plan put out by the City of Philadelphia to roll these into one plan during our last negotiations. They came to us with a concept of putting this in. Our negotiating team, or members of our negotiating team, met with the two lead lawyers from the City of 34 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 Philadelphia to discuss the efficient manner in which we deliver health-care benefits to our 4400 active and retired members. We then requested information back from the City and the City's attorneys on how did they deliver and the cost associated on how they deliver their health-care benefits to the non-reps. We are all waiting to this day to get an honest answer to that question. I want to refer to the last sentence on Joyce Wilkerson's letter to you today. "In doing so, we may request similar information from the unions for comparative purposes and we would welcome your support to that end." They don't need your support; they have a City trustee that sits on our board that chairs and gets the same information with every union trustee and is involved in making the decisions. All's we need here is honesty back from the City. We're not getting that. (Applause.)
But let me ask you one question. In connection with Mr. Lamb's request on behalf of Local 22 or on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police for the particular fund that he 35 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 administers for them, he cited to us instances in which injuries on duty or deaths on duty were being pushed onto the health fund rather than treated as work injuries or work deaths. Are you saying to us that the same situation exists in District Council 47?
We are currently reviewing the reports that we are now getting from the City of Philadelphia listing injured-on-duty and Workman's Comp cases. Through our Health and Safety Director, Kathy Black, we are reviewing that information to see if in fact our fund is absorbing medical costs. I do not have a definite answer for you at this time, but we are reviewing that information.
Believe me, if we find that that same situation exists, we will pursue it by any means necessary to have that cost shifted back rightfully to the City of Philadelphia.
And we would be ready to enlarge our request. We don't want to go on a fishing expedition; we want to have a reason to 36 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 believe that certain facts exist and ought to be disclosed to us, so feel free to let us know as a result of your study whether the same request ought to be made to the City for that information. Now, Miss Berkowitz, are you going to be able to deal promptly with the question of the retirees and their addresses? We would like to have that information before we finish our business on Thursday afternoon when Council recesses so we can assign it to the staff for study.
Councilman, I can assure you that I will call the Pension Board and speak with the executive director personally. I can't tell you whether they will be able to get the list to me in order to give it to you by Thursday. That's -- but I will be -- I will make that call this afternoon.
Okay. And then you would let my office know the result?
We're going to be 37 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 meeting here right after -- we'd like you to be here Thursday approximately at noon. That's our best estimate as to when the session may end. Sometimes we're optimistic about our time expectations like today and we ask everybody to forgive us, but we can't control it.
But at the end of that session, we would like to have a brief recessed session of this committee for the purpose of getting whatever documentation you have available by that date.
Councilman, I will be there and I will let your office know tomorrow morning about the list of retirees with addresses.
Yes, Bob McAllister again. What I would like to state, I've been notified that the IOD requests that we've been receiving from the City of Philadelphia are only for the past two years, and we would like to reserve the 38 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 right to get that information going back to 1992, 1939, whatever, just as the LEHB is doing and review any costs that we may have been paid, which should have been rightfully borne by the City of Philadelphia. So we will be requesting that information from the City of Philadelphia for those IOD reports to go back to the 1992-1993 time.
And if you have any problem getting it, you will let us know.
We keep referring to Mr. Stamitakis. Mr. Stamitakis has a company's name, right?
Well, why aren't we using the company's name? Why do we have to keep throwing his name around? Can you start using the name of the company?
Well, I think that 39 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 that's appropriate. We don't refer to the head of Blue Cross Blue Shield, so let's bring it back to the name of the company, okay?
Right. The problem isn't totally that simple because his name has been raised by the Administration. When we've asked the Administration about what services are given to the people, they've told us and have referred numerous people to Mr. Stamitakis for the handling of problems. That's how his name came into the picture originally. Mr. Stamitakis was presented as a consultant to the City to represent employees if they had problems; when, in fact, apparently, he is an employee of a company and would owe his first duty to that company, which should have been obvious to everybody in the City. And, therefore, what was needed by the City was somebody who represented the City employees and it had to be somebody paid by the City to do that particular job. I don't think it was proper to put Mr. Stamitakis in that position where he had two 40 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476 bosses. In fact, we think he only had one boss and that boss, as Councilman Ortiz pointed out, was the one who writes the checks, and that was Rite Aid Corporation.
But the check was made, to the best of my knowledge, not to Mr. Stamitakis but to Capital Management. So I think in all fairness --
-- we should be referring --. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I think we should be referring, when we're discussing this transaction, that a company, Capital Management, rather than identifying --
I want to have that sealed in plastic. 41 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
City Council is about to recess. It looks like as if a lot of the material is going to be coming in following our recess. We want to be able to move ahead when we get back from the recess, and the summertime is going to be a very good time for the staff to work. Now, we've been trying to get a lot of information and we have not yet. We're hopeful that we're going to get some, but I'm going to request -- I think we've all on the committee tried to get the information, and I think we want to examine what you have produced, but in the event that the material is not produced in full or there seems to be an effort not to make available what ought to be made available, I'm going to ask this committee for the authority to issue subpoenas to obtain the material needed. (Applause.)
And I'm going to ask -- because I want this to be really finished in getting the material by the summer. So is there motion to that effect? 42 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
I move that the Committee on Law and Government authorizes the Chair, Councilman David Cohen, to issue subpoenas for the production of documents or other information that is necessary to carry out the employees's investigation pursuant to Resolution 000476. (Duly seconded.)
A motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? If not, all in favor please say aye. Any nays? The ayes have it, and the Chair of the committee is authorized to issue subpoenas. We hope it won't be necessary, Miss Berkowitz. We would hope that we can get everything by cooperative agreement. But if not, it's just urgent that we get this material so that we can draw the necessary conclusions and get a program that won't be embarrassing to you or to the City of Philadelphia and that will provide protection to the City employees and to the retirees and to all of the individual funds that currently have the responsibility. 43 6/12/01 LAW & GOV'T - RES.000476
Councilman, I can assure you that if the information is available, this committee will receive it.
Well, we thank you. Now we're going to recess this hearing until Thursday at noon and/or immediately following the Council session that day. And we expect to hear from you, Miss Berkowitz. Thank you all very much. (Adjourned 4:12 p.m.) 44 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, June 12, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT RES. NO. 000476 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter