COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 2, 1997 9:45 a.m. - - - BILL 970709 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for FY 1997 from the General Fund, the Grants Revenue Fund, Director of Finance. BILL 970710 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for FY 1997 within the Aviation Fund. BILL 970711 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for FY 1998 within the General Fund. BILL 970741 - Authorizing transfers in appropriations for FY 1998 within the General Fund. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILLS 970709, 970710 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director, City of Philadelphia--------------------------------- Thomas J. Nestell, Deputy Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department--------------- 10 Thomas Costello, Commissioner, Department of Prisons, City of Philadelphia---------------- 17 BILLS 970711, 970741 Dean Kaplan, Budget Director, City of Philadelphia--------------------------------- 24 Carlton Johnson, Chief Deputy City Solicitor, Civil Rights Litigation, Law Department------ 33 Joseph DiPrimio, Esq., Court Administrator, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania------ 40 Josephine Mangano, Director, Administrative Services, Recreation Department-------------- 72 - - - Public Meeting---------------------------------- 76 - - - 3 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Good morning. Thank you for waiting. The Committee on Appropriations is now in session. Will the clerk please read the bills.
Bill No. 970709, an Ordinance authorizing transfers and appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 from the General Fund from certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions, and from the Grants Revenue Fund, Director of Finance, Provision for Other Grants, to the General Fund certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions. Bill NO. 970710, an Ordinance 16 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 within the Aviation Fund from certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions, to certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions. Bill No. 970711, an Ordinance 22 authorizing transfers in appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998 within the General Fund from certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions, to certain or all city offices, 4 BILLS 970709, 970710 departments, boards and commissions. And Bill No. 970741, an Ordinance 4 authorizing transfers of appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 within the General Fund from certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions, to certain or all city offices, departments, boards and commissions. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. We will first take testimony on Bill 11 No. 970709 and Bill 970710. These are fiscal-year-end transfers. Mr. Kaplan.
Thank you. Good morning, Councilwoman Krajewski and members of the Appropriations Committee. I am Dean Kaplan, the city's Budget Director. Bills No. 970709 and 970710 are required for the FY '97 year-end closing of the financial records of the city. As you know, once each fiscal year ends, the Finance Department's accounting bureau closes the books on the year's financial transactions and begins to compile the annual report of the city covering that fiscal year. 5 BILLS 970709, 970710 In that process the accounting bureau identifies reconciliations which need to take place between the transactions to be reported in the financial report and appropriations for each department included in the city's operating budget as adopted by Council. We then prepare the ordinances before you today, which match up those two sets of numbers. Bill No. 970709, first ordinance, is the Fiscal Year 1997 year-end transfer ordinance 13 which is for the city's General Fund. I have attached an exhibit to my formal testimony which details the 73 transfers in this ordinance. The unusually high number of transfers in this year's closing ordinance is largely the result of the implementation of the city's new labor agreements. And as you will recall, the city traditionally does not budget in advance in each department for labor agreements which will be negotiated in the following year. And that has necessitated a variety 6 BILLS 970709, 970710 of transfers between departments to reconcile those numbers at the year end. Approximately $38 million of unbudgeted labor costs were incurred in FY '97. And most of those transfers are related to covering those costs in the departments which incurred them. Again, while the Administration's target budget process anticipated all these costs, they were not necessarily in the classes or in the departments where they needed to be to fund the labor agreements. Bill No. 970710 is the Fiscal Year 1997 year-end transfer ordinance for the Aviation Fund. This bill requests a transfer of $450,000 to fund increased personnel costs associated with the Fraternal Order of Police interest arbitration award within the Aviation Fund's police department budget. In summary, I respectfully request that the committee favorably consider both of these bills. And I also request a suspension of the Rules to permit consideration of these ordinances on first reading at the next City Council session. 7 BILLS 970709, 970710 Obviously I would be happy to answer your questions. And there are numerous representatives of the Administration here to answer specific questions about departments' adjustments. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: The police department is requesting an increase of $18.6 million in Class 100. What caused the shortfall in FY '97 appropriations?
The largest reason for the police department change is involved with the arbitration award. As you will recall, the arbitration award involved about $18 million in -- to resolve a variety of grievances between the city and the FOP as a one-time payment. And that's where the majority of their budget shortfall came for the year. In addition, however, there was a separate award which reimbursed people who entered the Police Academy just before that. The FY 1992 police arbitration award would have been paid as if they would have come in under the new pay scale. 8 BILLS 970709, 970710 And eventually a grievance was resolved, costing the city about $2 million to provide back pay for those recruits. In addition, there are a variety of lump-sum payments which totaled -- regular time and overtime -- which totaled about $7.5 million. Again, as members of Council are aware, because of the structure of the city's retirement plan, frequently after a pay increase goes into effect, members of the Fraternal Order of Police will retire shortly thereafter. So we saw a very high peak in retirements in July, August, and September of last year. In addition, we have seen a steady increase in costs of overtime, regular time in the department. And we have begun to take a look at that in the current year. We are talking to the courts specifically about the costs that have risen with the opening of the new Criminal Justice Center, as uniformed officers are required to come to Center City to testify in trials; rather than the previous method, where they were out in the districts, and 9 BILLS 970709, 970710 could stay on patrol and then come in when their case was heard. The Mayor recently met with members of the Court's administrative governing board. And we are involved in beginning discussions to see where we may be able to try to keep as many officers as possible in the districts, which should reduce that overtime. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee?
Yes, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilman Nutter and then Councilman Mariano.
Thank you. Mr. Kaplan, let's go back to the police area. In the testimony that was forwarded to us the other day, there is a line in the testimony that reads, "However, they were hired at the salary rate agreed to in the July 1993 contract," these are apparently the officers who were hired in March of '93, "which was lower than 10 BILLS 970709, 970710 the current salary rate as of March of 1993." Could you explain to me how you would hire someone in March of 1993, but give them a salary as of July of '93 contract? How do you do that?
I am going to ask representatives of the police department to answer that specifically. However, I believe that Deputy Commissioner Nestell is here. Although, remember that recruits are paid at a different level than full-time officers once they leave the Academy.
I understand. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS J. NESTELL: Good morning, Councilwoman Krajewski and members of the Appropriations Committee.
Good morning. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman Nutter, in response to your question, at the time that those officers were hired, the negotiations were going on, there was a new rate being set for recruit officers. An agreement was made that they would be hired under the assumption that that new rate 11 BILLS 970709, 970710 would be won in the arbitration award.
An agreement between who, Deputy Commissioner? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: The original agreement, to my recollection, was between the city and the FOP administration at that time. Now, what happened is, the FOP administration changed. Each officer signed a statement saying they were being hired at the lower rate. However, when the FOP administration changed, the new administration filed a grievance concerning that, and the arbitrator ruled in favor of the FOP.
Well, did anyone have any concern that you were negotiating a rate for someone that had not formally been agreed to? I mean, why wouldn't you just sign them up at the rate that was in effect at that time? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: All I can say to that is that the thoughts were, at that time, that this was going to be the rate, it would be the rate in the contract, as opposed to delaying the hiring of the class until the contract was 12 BILLS 970709, 970710 awarded.
Through negotiations it was agreed that we would hire them at the new rate, but hire them sooner. The city has also traditionally taken the position that when it negotiates --
The city has also traditionally taken the position that when it negotiates an agreement with union leadership, that it is in fact binding subsequently, as well. And obviously to do otherwise would be extremely difficult. We would have to constantly speculate as to what changes might or might not occur. I think that there was no question that at the time we had to assume that an agreement which was signed by the then FOP leadership was binding. And obviously in the -- that when that administration changed and the subsequent leadership filed a grievance, you know, that obviously changed the situation. But it would be difficult for us to 13 BILLS 970709, 970710 take that position in all cases. As you know, in the case of the AFSCME agreement in 1996, we similarly had a change in leadership. And although the new union leadership talked about attempting to renegotiate that agreement, in fact the Administration took the position that the leadership in place at the time was duly authorized to make that agreement, and in fact that is the one that stood.
If you could forward to the members of the committee, through the Chair, a copy of the arbitrator's ruling, I would be interested in reading that. Secondly, in the same testimony it is stated that, "Additionally, lump sum employee separation payments of $1.7 million were higher than expected, overtime for sworn officers was $4.8 million higher than expected, and regular time for sworn officers was $947,600 higher than expected." The part that comes out at me in that statement was the regular time for sworn officers being higher than projected. That intrigued me, since we know how 14 BILLS 970709, 970710 many officers we have, we know how many hours they work, we know what their regular time is. I understand that we might not always be able to anticipate overtime and lump-sum separation payments. But how do we miscalculate the number of hours for regular sworn officers? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman, my recollection on that is, there was a 3 percent raise in that year, which we had not projected that there was going to be a raise, through the arbitration. So that accounted for a good portion of that. And some of the other money, I believe, is related to -- no, it wouldn't be related to the holiday. I believe that the majority of it is related to the raise that was awarded through the negotiations, that we had not projected that that would be in the regular salary. However, when they did get the raise, then, of course, we had to pay it. And it wasn't in our original projection.
All right. Thank you. 15 BILLS 970709, 970710 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilman Mariano.
Mr. Kaplan, you stated to Councilman Nutter 4.8 million higher than expected for police overtime. And before when you gave your statement, you talked about, now that the district courts are pretty much done away with, and everybody is down here in this Criminal Justice Center, if we do away with the preliminary hearings, how much could we save there? Do you have any ballpark figure on that? Because I don't know how much of that is actually court time. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Councilman, I believe it would run into somewhere between and million dollars if the preliminary hearings were done away with.
So we could save maybe close to 2 million without preliminary hearings? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NESTELL: Yes.
Let's do it. Thank you. 16 BILLS 970709, 970710 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Any other questions?
Mr. Kaplan, can you give us an explanation for the personnel services for the Department of Human Services and Philadelphia Prisons? It is $2,868,000, and the purchase of services is $1,495,000.
Yes, I can. Commissioner Costello is here and will respond, as well. However, let me work backwards. The Class 200 increase, as well as the Class 100 increase, are both related to the unusually high prison population we experienced in the early part of the fiscal year. Although the average for the year was only about a hundred inmates over the projected average, the budgeted average, of about 5600, there was a spike to about 5900 in the August and September period in 1996. One of the two things we did to deal with that was, continue to house inmates out of 17 BILLS 970709, 970710 county, with contracts with Luzerne and Carbon County. And that is the reason for the Class 200 variance of about one and a half million dollars. We no longer, to my knowledge -- and the Commissioner can verify this -- to my knowledge, we no longer house inmates out of county, in part because of those high costs. And we have managed since that time to manage our population to avoid doing that. The Class 100 costs are similarly related to the overtime that was necessary to handle the additional prisoners and to have them have the prison population be as high as 5900, to have additional areas of the prisons opened and to cover those costs during the spike, and then the average -- slight population over average through the year. COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: Good morning, Councilwoman Krajewski, members of the Appropriations Committee. In response to the question, Councilwoman --
State your name for the record. 18 BILLS 970709, 970710 COMMISSIONER THOMAS COSTELLO: Tom Costello, Commissioner of Prisons. That is correct, we are no longer housing inmates out of county. Those costs were incurred during that fiscal year. And basically what Mr. Kaplan says is the rationale that we used in incurring those extra costs during that year.
And can you give us an explanation about the purchase of services over a million dollars, please?
I believe the purchase of services is the out of county. We use purchase of services Class 200 to pay Carbon and Luzerne Counties for the cost of housing the out-of-county prisoners.
Yes. It is extremely expensive. COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: The cost is $60 per day, per inmate, Councilwoman. $60 per day, per inmate out of county.
But we are not 19 BILLS 970709, 970710 doing that anymore? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: No, ma'am, we are not.
Thank you. Excuse me. Would that also include medical attention that inmates have to receive? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: It would include the basic medical treatment; such as, a cold, things of that nature. Additional medical costs, any excessive medical costs, such as various tests or maybe an operation, something of that nature, would be paid for separately, in addition to the $60 per day.
Thank you. Mr. Costello, in the same area -- first, excuse my lack of familiarity with the rest of the geography of the state. How far away is either Luzerne County or Carbon County? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: Carbon County 20 BILLS 970709, 970710 is about 60 miles away and Luzerne County is about 90 miles away.
Okay. And can you tell me why we ended up having inmates in those counties, versus Bucks, Chester, Delaware, or Montgomery? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: When we polled the area, those particular counties were the only counties willing to accept Philadelphia County prisoners.
They were the only counties willing to accept them or they were the only ones that had space for them? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: Well, they were the only ones that had space available for additional housing at the time.
So it is not that the other four counties refused to take Philadelphia prisoners; it is that they did not have space for them? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: That was their explanation to me, they did not have the space.
In your testimony 21 BILLS 970709, 970710 and in Mr. Kaplan's testimony you make reference to these catastrophic medical costs. Is your testimony that the contract with Prison Health Services only covered things like a cold or something like that, and everything else we had to pay extra for? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: No. The contract with medical services covered every aspect of medical services that were required. However, certain inmates incurred excessive costs that were well over the normal medical costs incurred by an average inmate, or an average sick inmate.
Well, without talking about anyone in particular, can you give us some examples? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: Somebody who had to be on dialysis for several months, for example. Someone who needed a major operation, like a heart operation, something of that nature.
You are saying that those costs are not covered by the contract with this company? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: The costs are 22 BILLS 970709, 970710 covered up to $35,000 a year. So if those medical needs exceeded the $35,000 limit, those were costs that were categorized under the catastrophic costs.
Okay. And in your testimony you make reference to, apparently, as a result of the Jackson v. Hendrick consent decree, that there was a need to increase the daily pay rate for prisoners, for inmates; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: That's correct, sir.
Okay. Just a question in that area. Does the Philadelphia prison system require any payment by inmates for any of the things that they receive, similar to the practice in some other jurisdictions around us? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: At this time the prison system in Philadelphia does not require any fees of that nature.
Has that issue ever been explored? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: We are looking at it now, Councilman. 23 BILLS 970709, 970710
What does that mean? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: The possibility of medical fees is on the table right now, in the research stage.
When do you think you will have a plan? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: I would say we would have somewhat of a proposal some time early next year.
Some time early next year. So you are talking January, February time period? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: I would say around that time.
All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: One question, Mr. Costello. Your testimony states that the additional Class 100 funds are required to increase inmate population in arbitration with the union representing the correctional officers. 24 BILLS 970711, 970741 What is the current inmate population at the prisons now? COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: As of 5 o'clock last night, the current overall number is 6 5,743. 7 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: I beg your 8 pardon? 9 COMMISSIONER COSTELLO: 5,743. 10 Of the 5,743, 32 are in other 11 jurisdictions under the custody of the Commissioner 12 of Prisons. So we have an in-house total of 5,711 today, with 545 female inmates. That includes the female inmates, the 5,711 total. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Now we will take testimony on Bills No. 970711 and 970741. Mr. Kaplan.
Thank you again, Councilwoman. The Administration also requests this committee's favorable consideration of Bill 970711, 25 BILLS 970711, 970741 which is the first Fiscal Year 1997 omnibus transfer ordinance for the city's General Fund. Let me briefly summarize the items which are in the transfer. First, we are asking for $500,000 for the Recreation Department to fund the expansion of the after-school program from to 66 sites during 9 the year. 10 The Administration has also asked for 11 a $500,000 increase for City Commissioners, to cover 12 increased costs resulting from the impoundment of 13 voting machines during the summer, which required us 14 to repair and prepare the voting machines for the 15 November General Election in an extraordinarily 16 short time and drove up our overtime costs. 17 And an increase in the hauling costs, 18 the hauling contract for the machines. When we 19 deliver them to the polling places, the costs for 20 moving them. There was only one bidder on the contract this year, and obviously that tends to drive up the price. We are expecting that this sum of $500,000, in fact, will probably not cover all of BILLS 970711, 970741 the requirements of the Commissioners this year for two reasons. The major reason is that state legislature has recently passed legislation increasing payments to the members of the Board of Elections in each division. And that will go into effect for the primary. I believe judges will go to a maximum of $100 and other members of the Board to $95. In addition, we have not seen the final bills yet for the voting machine preparation for November, or for the hauling costs for November. So we have asked for this on an interim basis to make sure that the commissioners can pay their bills in the interim. We will be returning, once we have the final bills for those first two items, to request any additional amount for that, or reduction, if that is the case, and also the amount necessary to fund the increase for the election judges in the spring. And I suspect we will propose that as a Class 200 transfer in January. The bill also requests a $55,000 27 BILLS 970711, 970741 increase in the Public Property budget to cover the transfer of the security guard contract in the Concourse at MSB from the Revenue Department to the Public Property Department. And also a $275,000 transfer from Class 200 to Class 300 for Property because the City Hall custodial contract now does not include materials. We will be purchasing them directly and providing them to the vendor. So they will need that money in Class 200, rather than Class 300. There is a request for $85,000 for the Clerk of Quarter Sessions for two items. One is the necessary personnel to cover the three new municipal courtrooms that will be opening in January, as planned by the State Supreme Court. And the remainder of that funding is to provide a few additional personnel for the clerk. As you may recall, at the budget hearing last year they complained they did not have sufficient funding for staffing and couldn't cover their -- all of the courtrooms. 28 BILLS 970711, 970741 We sat down with them, and with Council staff as well, and went through their budget, and determined that they did need a small additional amount in order to fulfill their duties. The addition to the reduction -- the funding for these various transfers, new transfers, are, in addition to the Revenue Department piece, are from the city's indemnities budget. And we are projecting a slightly slower than an average pace of claim settlements this year. We are hoping that is a long-term trend. But we are confident that for the year there will be approximately a million dollars available to fund those transfers. There are also three transfers which are within departments.
One is the $300,000 shift within prisons, which one of the members just referred to, to cover the cost of inmate payments required by the consent decree there; a $65,000 shift in the Controller's Office to handle their data management costs; and a $55,000 shift to allow a transfer for the Health Department to pay the Delaware Valley Poison Control Center. Again, I request the Committee's 29 BILLS 970711, 970741 favorable consideration of this and a suspension of the Rules for this bill. Would you like me to continue on the other piece?
Would you like me to continue, or should we discuss this first? CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: I am sorry. You may continue. Thank you. Finally, the Administration is asking approval of Bill 970741, which would transfer $8.8 million to the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania to cover its operating costs for the month of January 1997. Undoubtedly this seems a bit strange. As you will recall, we provided funding for the courts in Philadelphia County for one half of the year this year. We were hoping that the Court would be funded by the state at this point, pursuant to the Allegheny decision in 1997 and the Court's subsequent decision in July of 1996. Obviously that has not happened. I think that all the members of this 30 BILLS 970711, 970741 Council are painfully aware of what we could do with the kind of funding that goes in Philadelphia into the courts each year. It will just be under $106,000,000. That's the full-year budgeted amount for FY '98. However, rather than having that funding available ten years after the first Supreme Court decision, and months after the Supreme 10 Court attempted to enforce that decision, we still 11 have seen absolutely no movement at the state 12 level. 13 We are requesting that we provide 14 only partial funding for the remainder of the year 15 for the First Judicial District in order to bring 16 some attention to this important issue at the state 17 level. 18 I think that all of you are also aware of the fairly narrow balance in the city's five-year plan. There is a balance of about $34 million at the end of the five years. And that's before we made the decision to not collect the personal property tax over the five years, which is worth $88 million. 31 BILLS 970711, 970741 It also includes about $70 million in future target budget reductions and assumptions about income from riverboat gambling and other sources in the out years. We obviously cannot make our long-term funding picture work unless the state steps up to its obligation. And I think that our suggestion today is that it is time to try to bring some attention to this at the state level and provide a more limited amount of funding for the courts. And in this bill, as well, I respectfully request the committee's favorable consideration and suspension of the Rules to allow first reading. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize to the Chair. She is moving much quicker than I am today. Mr. Kaplan, I need to take you back for a moment to Bill 970709. There is a $10 million transfer to Finance for what is a pretty significant amount of 32 BILLS 970711, 970741 indemnity coverage. I understand that a large chunk of that comes as a result of a Superfund case. What I would like to ask you about those, the $2.8 million balance coming from the settlement of various cases that you could not anticipate. In conjunction with that, in the Law Department's testimony, there is a need for a transfer of $500,000. The testimony reads that, "A number of cases arose against the police department and the District Attorney's Office from alleged improper arrests by police officers in the 39th Police Direct. "Potential conflicts of interest dictated that outside legal counsel be employed to defend the city against these claims." Mr. Kaplan, are you in a position, or are there people in the room in the position, to discuss why there was a need to hire outside legal counsel, and what were these potential conflicts of interest?
Yes; representatives of the Law Department are here and are available to 33 BILLS 970711, 970741 answer that question. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Is there anyone here from the Law Department? Good morning. Please state your name for the record.
Carlton Johnson, Chief Deputy City Solicitor for Civil Rights Litigation.
Shelly Smith, Divisional Deputy City Solicitor for Civil Rights Litigation.
Thank you and good morning. First, is it my understanding that in most instances the Law Department represents the police department or the District Attorney's Office if we are subject to suit?
Why in this particular instance did the city find the need to hire outside legal counsel?
With regard to the District Attorney's Office -- and just so it is clear for the record, it is not only in the case of 34 BILLS 970711, 970741 the District Attorney's Office. Sometimes the city has legal conflicts that prevent us from representing our own employees; for example, where the police department has taken disciplinary action against that employee, we have a conflict. And that case is referred out usually to FOP counsel to represent the employee. And the city provides indemnification, meaning that we pay for the counsel. With respect to the District Attorney's Office, the District Attorney's Office in some of the 39th District cases was joined as a defendant. Because we are in a conflict situation, meaning a legal conflict, where there are certain defenses that the District Attorney's Office would proffer that are not available to the City of Philadelphia, or to our individual defendants, it is necessary legally for us to obtain counsel for them. For example, they have certain defenses of immunity, defenses that are not available to us; for example, prosecutorial immunity 35 BILLS 970711, 970741 that is not available to the city. But there are also actual factual issues that arise with respect to who bears the legal obligation with respect to what happened to a particular plaintiff that may arise where the District Attorney's Office may claim that the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the individual police officers or the police department, and the police department may take a contrary position. Under those circumstances, obviously, the Law Department cannot provide representation of both parties. We would be clearly conflicted out legally.
In these particular cases, was the representation just being presented, being provided, for the Office of the District Attorney in general, or were there individuals in the office who required this outside legal counsel defense?
In some cases the District Attorney is actually named as a defendant. But also, in other situations, the specific district attorney who may have handled the 36 BILLS 970711, 970741 underlying criminal case may have been named as a defendant. So it is depending on the case, but there are mixed scenarios. Sometimes it was the District Attorney's Office itself named as a defendant. In other cases it was a combination where individuals were also named as defendants.
Lastly, are you in a position -- have these cases now been settled?
To date, 55 39th District cases have been settled. There are 49 pending cases.
Is the outside legal counsel representing the District Attorney's Office or the police department in those cases, as well?
In some of the cases. In cases where the District Attorney's Office is a defendant or a potential defendant, yes. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, I am happy to say. We are winding down. The problem, in terms of representation, is that when the District Attorney's Office null processus additional cases, those cases 37 BILLS 970711, 970741 then become ripe for potential civil rights claims. So we won't know what the total numbers of cases are probably for several years. However, we are in a wind-down phase. And I think you are going to see a dramatic reduction in the amount of assistance needed from outside counsel, particularly since most of the legal issues have been resolved or researched or work on by outside counsel in conjunction with our office.
My last question in this area. For the cases that have been settled, in the case of the outside legal counsel defense, has the city won those cases, have we lost those cases, has there been a mixture of the two?
It has been a mixture of the two. If you look at the overall cost of settlement, I believe that I can represent to members of this committee that the city has done an outstanding job in representing the taxpayers in resolutions of those suits. Most people who are familiar with the 39th District litigation outside of our jurisdiction 38 BILLS 970711, 970741 are absolutely astounded, including the federal judges who handled these cases, at the terms under which the city was able to resolve the 55 cases to date.
If you could provide to us through the Chair the disposition of the various cases and any settlements or judgments coming out of those cases, I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilwoman Verna.
Mr. Kaplan, regarding the First Judicial District, can you tell us how that will work? Will the state merely reimburse the city for the court employees, or would the 20,000-odd court employees then become state employees? 39 BILLS 970711, 970741
Well, I think that that's part of our frustration with this process, is that we just don't know. I mean, in July of 1996, when the Supreme Court issued a Writ of Mandamus compelling the state legislature to develop a valid funding plan, that's exactly the kind of issue which we would obviously all like to know the answer to, that we were hoping they would answer, that they would respond to. As you know, the Supreme Court appointed former Justice Montamuro to develop a plan to respond to that. It was originally due in January of 1997. He was given a six-month extension. And the plan which he came out with in July did not finally address all of those issues. It is our understanding that the plan is under consideration by the state legislature, but not in any active way at all. And, obviously, that's something that we would like to know; we just don't. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Excuse me. Who is here from the Court system to speak? Good morning. Please state your name 40 BILLS 970711, 970741 for the record. MR. JOSEPH DiPRIMIO: Good morning, Councilwoman Krajewski, members of the Appropriations Committee. My name is Joseph DiPrimio. I am the Administrator of the Philadelphia courts. Yesterday we learned from Mr. Kaplan's office that this current transfer ordinance was being presented. It causes the First Judicial District, the Philadelphia courts, to, frankly, be in crisis. When we were before Council last February, we submitted a 12-month budget, which was in the amount of 105 and a half million dollars. In cooperation with the city Administration, we broke it out into the first six months of the fiscal year and then, of course, the second six months because of this uncertainty of statewide funding. The Philadelphia courts and its leadership never questioned the resolve of the Supreme Court or the legislature to fund or to transfer to unified funding. 41 BILLS 970711, 970741 However, it was our observation, based on other states that have gone to state unified funding, that it was an incremental or a phased-in approach. Frankly, we were right. The report that Mr. Kaplan referenced is the interim report of the Master on the transition to state funding of the unified judicial system, and was issued in mid summer of 1997. What this report says is that the first phase of the transfer to unified state funding would not begin until Fiscal Year 1999. That means -- and for the local, in fact, it means only 12 Philadelphia court employees would be shifted to state funding. The bulk of the transfer should occur in the two subsequent fiscal years. So that by the Year 2001, the full transfer to state funding would have occurred. By coming before the Council Committee today asking for a month transfer appropriation, it causes the Philadelphia courts to be unable to plan long term for the balance of this fiscal year. And, accordingly, it just gives us 42 BILLS 970711, 970741 total uncertainty about what our future will be serving the citizens of Philadelphia during the balance of this fiscal year. We respectfully suggest to the Appropriations Committee to allow the Court to receive its funding for the second half of the fiscal year, which Council had appropriated last February. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Let me ask, what happens if the Commonwealth does not assume the responsibility? What happens? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If the Commonwealth does not assume the responsibility, I, frankly, believe that the Supreme Court will mandamus the state legislature. But I hear, Councilwoman, that there are very delicate negotiations going on with the state legislature with the Governor's office and with the Supreme Court designed to allow for the transition, the staggered transition, to statewide funding, in accordance with the suggestion made by Justice Montamuro's report. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Of course this is all based on assumptions; right? 43 BILLS 970711, 970741 MR. DiPRIMIO: Well, assumptions, but also based on what was done in other jurisdictions.
For example, the State of new Jersey, our sister state, recently completed state unification. That was over a three-year phased implementation. And the belief is that it will be mirrored, something like that will be mirrored, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilwoman.
I think there are a lot of unanswered questions here. What happens to one's pension? Is anything being discussed about that? MR. DiPRIMIO: These are questions that are currently being asked. It is my understanding that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania courts has retained services of professional consultants to look at the blending or the various possibilities that may occur, given the differences between city pensions and state pensions. Frankly, it would impact me personally, as well, and all the Philadelphia court 44 BILLS 970711, 970741 employees. And I am certain Council have the same concerns, what would be the bottom result of this. Quite honestly, these are questions that I am not in a position to answer in toto.
But I would think that if the state were to reimburse the city, then, I think, that everybody would remain within the city pension, would they not? MR. DiPRIMIO: Yes; given that scenario.
However, if the state takes over, I think we are going to have a real problem, like with many of the employees, as far as their pensions are concerned. MR. DiPRIMIO: You are correct, Councilwoman. So the uncertainty looms out there. But our immediate crisis is the fact that the Philadelphia courts -- and we still remain Philadelphia courts -- are the hostages in this time of uncertainty. Clearly Council recognized the need to fund the courts for the 12 months, but the second half of the funding has not been implemented. And I am here today to respectfully 45 BILLS 970711, 970741 request the Appropriations Committee allow the transfer of the full six months so that the Court can continue to function and serve the needs of its citizens.
How are the other cities dealing with this issue? MR. DiPRIMIO: I understand right now -- in Pennsylvania?
Yes. MR. DiPRIMIO: That's an interesting concept. Philadelphia is the only judicial district, the only county, that is on a fiscal year budget basis. All the other Courts are on an annual year. So last year, when we prepared for the budget submission, we were confronted with being staggered in the beginning. The statewide funding should have occurred January, but it didn't. The other counties merely had to budget for a full calendar year, which they did. At the conclusion of their calendar year, they will be confronted, perhaps, with the same issues. Or perhaps they won't have as big a 46 BILLS 970711, 970741 problem because the implementation of the statewide funding will begin, as it is planned, for July 1 of 1998. So they will have more information upon which to work.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First let me start by saying that it appears to me, Mr. Kaplan and Mr. DiPrimio, that you guys would like to engage us in a fairly high-stakes game of chicken, and you want us to be in the middle and be jerked around. And I don't particularly like it. MR. DiPRIMIO: Councilman Nutter --
Mr. DiPrimio, you have respectfully come and said, give us the rest of the funding. You are sitting next to Mr. Kaplan who says, give them January and let them figure out the rest. The Supreme Court says, the Courts should be funded January 1, 1998. 47 BILLS 970711, 970741 Isn't that correct? MR. DiPRIMIO: That's a correct statement.
Something called a Writ of Mandamus? MR. DiPRIMIO: That's correct.
Now, what does that mean? MR. DiPRIMIO: It is my understanding that if a mandamus action was taken, it would be a judicial order compelling the legislature to issue the funds necessary to run the Courts.
So why don't they do it? MR. DiPRIMIO: I am not in a position to answer that. I just don't know. That may happen.
Then why are you left to come here and ask us to engage in this bizarre behavior, when the Supreme Court has issued a Writ of Mandamus, legislature has its responsibility, and now you are left to come down here, hat in hand, asking for the rest of the funding, when I think we said we weren't going to do 48 BILLS 970711, 970741 it from jump street? I think we said we were doing it until the end of the year. Mr. Kaplan now comes and says, well, give them January so they can meet payroll, and then maybe we will engage in some month-to-month transfer ordinance scheme, which is just the craziest thing I have ever heard. In addition to the fact that after about February, we can't do that anyway. So what do you guys want?
I think, Councilman, somebody is trying to put somebody's feet to the fire. Mr. Kaplan, would you suggest that?
I think that would be an accurate characterization. We have no tools. The state has been sued twice. The Supreme Court has ruled in our favor twice. We have waited for ten years. Obviously, you know, Mr. DiPrimio and I have a good relationship. We get along well. And I agree with him completely. New Jersey and a number of other states have taken many years to transfer their 49 BILLS 970711, 970741 systems to state control. However, they didn't wait ten years at the beginning to do it to start. They got together, they publicly debated a plan, they implemented it. We have a situation where the Supreme Court has, to its credit, gone around the state and solicited the input of the various counties and judicial districts, and then has disappeared into the ether. We have not heard boo from them since the Justice's report in the summer. We are waiting to hear any sort of proposal which we can answer some of the questions which have been raised here about pensions and other issues. The Courts are in the dark, we are in the dark. And there is, frankly, no way to make them move. I mean, I think, my personal belief is, if we don't take this kind of action, we will never see this resolved. This is the only thing actually we have left with us. Letters, calls, it is not working. And obviously we don't mean to put Council in the middle. And I think your characterization is correct. Really the Judicial 50 BILLS 970711, 970741 District is in the middle. But we are in a position where we are spending $100 million a year while they fiddle.
Based on this display here this morning -- I will only speak for myself -- I am not particularly moved to do anything for either of you under these circumstances, until we get some better answers. Now, the Chair will certainly make a decision or make a recommendation, or we will have some discussion about it. But I think that we are at a pretty pathetic state of affairs that we have to have this kind of public display and testimony with people running back and forth to their parents seeking a quarter. That is a pretty sad situation. Mr. DiPrimio, I have some other questions for you, unless some of my colleagues want to continue to pound you into the ground about your previous testimony. Mr. DiPrimio, let me ask you, I guess, if there is a court system functioning in the next couple of months -- and I assume that there will be -- a matter has come to my attention with 51 BILLS 970711, 970741 regard to salaries and certain classifications of employees, specifically the law clerks that work for the various judges. It is my understanding that there is a classification known as a Law Clerk I, Law Clerk II, and Law Clerk III; is that correct? MR. DiPRIMIO: I believe that is correct.
And I assume that, based on the numbers that go with the Law Clerk title, that there are certain qualifications that as you go up in the ranks, either by your performance or by your tenure, that you can move up from a I to a II to a III? At least on the city side, that's normally pretty much how things operate. Is that the same in the Court system? MR. DiPRIMIO: Yes.
So is it based on your tenure or is it based on who you work for? How do you move from I to II to III? MR. DiPRIMIO: It may be a combination of both. For example, a new graduate from a 52 BILLS 970711, 970741 law school would come in as a Law Clerk I.
What's the starting salary for a Law Clerk I? MR. DiPRIMIO: I am going to say approximately $30,000. I may be wrong. However, if a new law clerk comes in with substantial years of experience as a lawyer, that person may move up quicker or may actually start at a higher rate. Alternatively, if they have, I think it is five years of service, they could move up quicker the same way. In other words, they would achieve the rank of a III, as opposed to staying at the rank of a I.
Where does the part about who you work for come into play? MR. DiPRIMIO: I believe that only factors in with President or Administrative Judges and Supervising Judges.
What do you mean by that? 53 BILLS 970711, 970741 MR. DiPRIMIO: Well, President Judge would be the judicial leader in charge of a particular court. For example, Judge Bonavitacola is the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. Within each court there are Administrative Judges. In the Court of Common Pleas there are three Administrative Judges. And they, in turn, have law clerks who, because of the additional duties associated with the HA's position, they would be entitled to a higher law clerk job.
Let me ask you this question: If you just work for a judge who is not in the administrative hierarchy -- I don't want to demean anyone's title -- but a nonsupervising judge, can you move from a I to a II to a III, or can you only move to the higher categories if you, in fact, work for a supervising judge? MR. DiPRIMIO: It is my understanding that you can -- given the years in service, it is my understanding that you can move up through the steps.
And how do you do that? 54 BILLS 970711, 970741 MR. DiPRIMIO: Based on tenure. For example, if you are here, I think it is five years, you would be able to move up through those steps.
Is that something you apply for, or does the personnel person come and give you your five-year pin and say, "Thanks for being here, and now you can be a law clerk, too"? MR. DiPRIMIO: No. The judicial staff, which would include the secretary, the tip staff, and the law clerk are appointees of the presiding judge, of that particular judge. And the progressive promotion, if you will, would occur at the recommendation of that judge.
So the judge needs to make a recommendation? MR. DiPRIMIO: That's my understanding, that's correct.
Okay. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Excuse me one moment, Councilman. Anyone who is here to testify on Bill 25 970709 or 970710, you can leave, unless you want to 55 BILLS 970711, 970741 stay. Thank you all very much. Are there any other questions? Councilwoman Verna.
Mr. Kaplan, I don't want to belabor this issue. But when we talk about the Courts, or the court system, we are not including the D.A.'s Office or the Sheriff's Office, who have been funded for the entire year; we are simply talking about the Court system itself?
Has that ever been defined, as to what the state would be taking over?
No. One of the tasks assigned to Justice Montamuro was to make a recommendation about what would be included and what would not be. Clearly the vast majority of what he would be recommending would be the Judicial District in each county or multiple counties. In some cases there are ancillary functions. For example, in most places the sheriff is essentially the jailer, unlike in 56 BILLS 970711, 970741 Philadelphia. In some cases there are other court functions which will be probably funded by the state and some which will be funded locally. And that's part of the answer we would like to have.
Is there any indication as to when this report will be completed?
I don't think so. He did issue an interim report in -- MR. DiPRIMIO: The interim report was issued in mid summer of 1997. And it does provide the schedule of the suggested implementation, which would begin with July 1 of 1998. The local impact being, 12 employees would become state employees. By the year --
But we don't know whether they would actually become state employees or whether the city would be reimbursed? We don't know what would happen to their pensions? MR. DiPRIMIO: That's correct.
We don't know 57 BILLS 970711, 970741 what happens to their accumulated sick and vacation times? MR. DiPRIMIO: You are absolutely right.
Who hires, who fires. I think there are a lot of very unanswered questions here. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Well, I think that those answers all have to come up by February. Because I know you have to come back here in February. So I hope you come back prepared to answer those questions. MR. DiPRIMIO: We will do our best to get those answers from the state and from the Supreme Court. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: I don't want to see the court employees not having any salary right now. But you do have to come back in February. And we will be here, believe me.
One last thing. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilman Nutter. 58 BILLS 970711, 970741
Lastly, Mr. DiPrimio, based on the questions that I asked you earlier, I will want to have some further discussion with you about that ranking system and how long people have to work in the system -- this is back to the law clerk issue -- their in-service time versus their previous time as a lawyer, how long they have to work for a particular judge, those kinds of issues. As you very thoughtfully responded to some questions I had asked in another Appropriations Committee, I would appreciate getting the same kind of response from you on this issue, as well as just what kind of experience a person had before they came, and where does that factor in in terms of where they start or how quickly they are able to rise up through the system. I have some concerns about some potential inequities that some of the clerks are facing in the court system. All right? MR. DiPRIMIO: I would be happy to provide a report.
Thank you. 59 BILLS 970711, 970741 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilman Mariano.
Mr. DiPrimio, this funding that we talked about from the state, we talked about it being 1.6 million possibly? MR. DiPRIMIO: That's our FY '98 operational budget.
Now, in layman's terms, not the great legal minds that deal in the courts here, if we run out of money, can we just pile everybody in a bus and take them to Harrisburg and leave them out there, instead of leaving them out here? Maybe they would get the message from that, it is time for you to fund our courts? Is that where we are going to be? MR. DiPRIMIO: Well, if Council does not authorize the second half of the fiscal year, be it on a monthly incremental basis or for the full six months, we will not be able to make payroll. We will have to shut down.
Is this like a giant game of fiscal chicken? MR. DiPRIMIO: Not from where we 60 BILLS 970711, 970741 sit.
I don't want to belittle the job that you do. I know you do a good job and I know the Courts do a good job. But fund it, will you. Not you; the state should fund it, and let's get the funding going. They should have been doing it all along, so they should have a lot of money saved up. Ten years, this decree, the Allegheny decree. It's time. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Are there any other questions? Councilman Nutter.
This is not for Mr. DiPrimio. But, Mr. Kaplan, you made reference, I believe it is in the other FY '98 transfer, 970711, and it is in your testimony, I believe, or in some off-the-cuff comments you made, you indicated that the costs for the City Commissioner's office jumped as a result of either the last election or your anticipation of upcoming election costs. 61 BILLS 970711, 970741 And in one of your pieces it says that transportation costs, I believe, went up 36 percent. Could you provide us with an explanation of why that happened all of a sudden? My understanding is that the transportation voting machines has traditionally been bid on by at least two firms, occasionally three, and that has helped to control the price. This year there was only one bidder. So that bid had to be awarded. Normally those bids are opened in the late summer, early fall. Because of the fiscal year timing for the General Election, there is not an opportunity to re-bid it. Also in this case, historically in our experience is if you re-bid an award, you re-bid a bid with only one vendor, you tend to get the same price or a higher price.
Well, Mr. Kaplan, I assume this is a fairly lucrative business. How do we find ourselves in the position that only one company bids on the transportation of voting machines?
I think that's an 62 BILLS 970711, 970741 excellent question. I can't tell you I know the answer, but I will investigate it for you.
Just a minute. He said that there were previously three companies that did the business, and apparently this time only one showed up, so we only had one company. This is considered a sole source bid, then, Mr. Kaplan?
I don't believe it is considered -- it is a competitive bid. Anyone is able to bid. And, as I mentioned, in the past -- it was not bid as a sole source.
Okay. Also in your testimony, if you could get information on, the Department of L & I, in the demolitions budget, they indicate that they did fewer demolitions in FY '97 than in FY '96, and it is primarily attributed to a larger number of commercial demolitions conducted in FY '97 versus FY '96. 63 BILLS 970711, 970741 Does that then mean that residential demolitions suffered, or took a hit as a result of increased commercial demolitions?
I don't believe so. Excuse me one second. I am trying to find my note on that.
Right. It should not have made a major impact on the number of residential demolitions. Solely because, as you will notice, overall we added about $2 million at the end of the year to cover additional imminently dangerous buildings. If you go back and break out the additional large ones, we did about a quarter of that, maybe a little bit less, maybe percent, 19 were to do these additional large buildings. So it 20 kind of depends on which way you go at it. If you say compared to the original budget, we actually did more residential demolitions then we originally planned to. Compared to the final budget, yes, obviously if we had done fewer large ones, we could 64 BILLS 970711, 970741 have done more, even more residentials. I think the fundamental issue is, we did more than we thought we were going to do to begin with.
Why don't you give me a comparative chart on commercial demolitions FY '97-'96, and residential demolitions FY '97 versus FY '96.
With regard to the transfer ordinance and the $8 million, just for the record, could you explain to me how we are in the position to transfer $4.3 million out of the Commerce Department, Economic Stimulus Fund, at the same time when I see Mr. Eisenstat behind you, and he and I are engaged in a discussion about trying to do a project out on 52nd Street, and I am told that there is no money to do the project. Can you explain that to me, please?
Yes. I think you have perfectly made my point. The city would like to have these funds available for those kinds of projects. As you know, last year when we 65 BILLS 970711, 970741 prepared the budget, we took the second half of the year funding for the First Judicial District and put it in, really, two budget lines. One was in the Finance, Director of Finance, line for, hopefully, aid to the School District and for additional tax cuts. About another half of it was in a Commerce line for economic stimulus. However, knowing that we might come to this turn of events, we did not spend that money. We did not program it for specific projects yet because we were afraid that what has happened would happen, and that we would need to come back and ask you to transfer that money to the Courts to support them because the state did not. And that's why. And that's where the money comes from.
Well, why don't you answer this question: Are you telling me that as a result of this transfer, the Commerce Department is not put in the position that prevents it from supporting various neighborhood projects?
The Commerce 66 BILLS 970711, 970741 Department's budget, which they testified on before Council, which included their standard list of capital and operating projects, neighborhoods, Center City, economic development, commercial, residential, and other, is not affected by this. These funds would have been additional funds which the Mayor suggested that he would ask Council to dedicate to those three areas, economic stimulus, tax reduction, and the School District, were the state to begin funding the Courts and we had that money available. Since that has not happened, that means there is not additional funding. I cannot speak to the specific issue that you were speaking with Mr. Eisenstat about. My assumption is that the current budget is inadequate to do everything we would like to do.
Okay. All right, Mr. Kaplan. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Are there any other questions? 67 BILLS 970711, 970741 Councilwoman Clark.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, will you help me understand the issue that you and Councilman Nutter were discussing that dealt with the let of a contract which previously had been bid on by three people, or three companies, which was successfully awarded to one company, and then that company charged an increased 35 percent? Help me understand that.
I think that I might have been misheard. What I said was that, traditionally I believe the contract was bid on by at least two companies. I don't know of a time when there was only one bidder recently. And it is my understanding that at least some time in the past there have been more than two, but there have always been at least two companies which bid on this. Obviously in the city's competitive bidding process a bid is prepared, it is noticed in the newspaper, it can be picked up by anybody. Those parties who bid, bid whatever they bid. This year there was only one bidder. 68 BILLS 970711, 970741 I believe, although I am not certain -- and that's one of the issues I will research for the committee -- that that is a vendor that we had used before, although I don't believe it was the only vendor that had bid before. Their prices were somewhat -- about somewhat significantly higher than before, but they were the only bidder.
But don't we use language like "lowest responsible bid"? And there is a 35 percent increase a responsible bid? And are we bound to accept it simply because one person puts in an inflated bid?
In this case I believe that we, unfortunately, are. And there are two reasons for that. One is that because of the timing of the general election, to go out for another bid and get a hauling contractor, and get them under contract and ready to go in time for the election, would have been particularly a close thing. The second issue, probably more important, is a practical one. And that's that our experience in the past, when this sort of thing has 69 BILLS 970711, 970741 happened -- and it does happen on occasion -- is that the second round of bidding will not produce significant savings. And, in fact, in many cases, once it is discovered that there is essentially only one bidder in the market, sometimes I think where you are heading is correct. Sometimes more bidders come in, and you get the price a bit lower. Although they tend not to go as low as the prices were before. Sometimes no one else bids. What we have seen happen in the past is, that bidder will come in with an even higher bid, in the hope that no one else bids again and they get a premium.
Mr. Kaplan, this is not a game of cat and mouse. And there can be some minor playing around of margin. Do you consider 35 percent an insignificant increase?
Are we putting in place any protections against this kind of manipulation of our process?
As I mentioned to 70 BILLS 970711, 970741 Councilman Nutter, I will talk to the Procurement Department about that and report back to the committee.
This, to me, is shocking. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Last thing. Mr. Kaplan, just for the record, we know that you were here about a week or so ago testifying that, for the most part, everything was kind of fine and dandy over in the City Commissioner's office, that the voting machines we have, you know, we can get a fair amount or more life out of them. But less than two weeks later you are here now asking for an additional half a million dollars to deal with either unanticipated costs, or we had machines impounded, we have mechanic contracts going up. And you know as well as I do that we would ultimately lower our costs and eliminate some of these costs if we moved to new voting machines. Your testimony by about two weeks is 71 BILLS 970711, 970741 now literally in conflict with itself. Do you either want to explain it? Do you want to recant your testimony from two weeks ago? Do you want to modify it? You put yourself in a very tough position.
I can't agree. I mean, I think that clearly there are going to be cases where we have extraordinary costs. This is one. In this particular case I think you are correct. This particular voting machine requires a fair amount of maintenance. That might or might not be true with other voting machines.
Mr. Kaplan, there is nothing you can put on this record to convince anyone at this table or any member of this Council or any ward leader in this city, there is nothing that you can tell us today that you could do to prevent the exact same thing from happening next May, next November, the following May, the following November, or any other election going well into the next millennium; isn't that correct?
Thank you. 72 BILLS 970711, 970741 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Councilwoman Miller.
Mr. Kaplan, I have a question about the Recreation Department and increasing after-school programs. How many children are we currently serving, and how many more additional children will be served by the increase?
Excuse me one second. Let me find that one for you. I am sorry. I thought it was in the Recreation Department's testimony. The only thing that is there is sites. I am going to ask somebody from Recreation to address that question.
Good morning. My name is Josephine Mangano. I am the Administrative Services Director of the Recreation Department. We are currently serving about 2200 children with after-school programs.
This is an increase 73 BILLS 970711, 970741 from last year, where we served, I believe it was, about 500 children.
Okay. The additional sites have already been selected?
And what type of recreation specialty instructors are you having? And are they at each center, or do they kind of rotate and move around?
The recreation specialty instructors are in all areas. Some are in performing arts, some are in visual arts, some are in gymnastics. And they go to -- they might have several centers assigned to them. So they will go one or two days a week to the same center, and then they will go to another center. So like maybe on Monday and Tuesday, they will go to one center; and Wednesday and Thursday, they will go to another center. 74 BILLS 970711, 970741
I believe for the most part they are free of charge. I will have to check into that and see if there is some nominal charge at some of the centers.
Okay. In terms of a wish list, how many centers, how many after-school programs would you like to set up? Would this mean that most of the centers now have after-school programs, or do we have more that need it?
We have 66 that have after-school programs, and we have about 150 staff centers. About three of our programs are off site. Not all of our centers are large enough or equipped for after-school centers. But that would be our goal, to increase the program as much as we could to serve the population of Philadelphia, where the need is.
Okay. 75 BILLS 970711, 970741 CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. Councilman Mariano.
One question for the lady. Can we get a list of the centers that do this after-school program? Could you get that to all of us by Council districts?
Yes. Yes. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Would you see that it is sent over to our office.
And if it is free; or if there is a charge, how much.
Okay. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Any information you have I would appreciate sent over to my office.
Okay. CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Thank you. That ends our Public Hearing on Appropriations. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 76 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS - - - Tuesday, December 2, 1997 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Appropriations, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 970709, 970710, 970711, 970741 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA - - - 77 PUBLIC MEETING CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: Now we will go into our Public Meeting. Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I would move that Council Bills 970709, 970710, 970711, and 970741 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading of all of these bills at our next session. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRWOMAN KRAJEWSKI: All those in favor. Those opposed. Thank you. Therefore, Bills No. 17 970709, 970710, 970711, and Bill 970741 will be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and with a suspension of Rules so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. Thank you all very much. (Public Meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.) - - - 78 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, December 2, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR