Committee Hearing, April 12, 2005

2806 - - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 10:20 a.m. - - - Bill Numbers 050001, 050002, 050003, 040789, 040767, 050007, 050008. Resolution Number 050022. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2807 Budget - 4/12/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -

Good morning, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill Numbers 050001, 050002, 050003, 040789, 040767, 050007, 050008, and resolution Number 050022. We will now hear from the District Attorney. Please approach the witness table. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Good morning, Madam President and members of City Council. My name is Lynne Abraham, L-y-n-n-e, A-b-r-a-h-a-m, District attorney of Philadelphia. And I'm pleased to appear once more before the Council considering the 2006 budget for the District Attorney's Office. If you wish, Madam President, I would move that the amended statement of the District Attorney regarding her budget be admitted into the record in whole. And I will just briefly outline, if you wish, the 2808 Budget - 4/12/05 few salient points that I think...

That would be fine. We'll make certain that the stenographer has a copy of your testimony. It will be transcribed in full. And you can simply summarize, if you will. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: First I want to thank City Council, its President and staff for being so helpful last year when, after my presentation to City Council, we were facing an enormous budget cut which would have decimated many of our services, as I testified last year. Council was extraordinarily helpful in restoring a good deal of the budget cuts, probably about half, for which I am thankful. I want to talk specifically about the Blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia. The blueprint arose out of the culmination of a variety of shootings in Philadelphia which was, I think I can say with accuracy, the Fahim Thomas Child's killing in North Philadelphia outside the Pierce Elementary School. 2809 Budget - 4/12/05 As a result of that shooting, and a history of other shootings and killings in the City of Philadelphia, Dwight Evans, Jewel Williams and, a host of other legislators from both sides of the aisle contacted us. And in meeting with Representative Evans, he suggested that the District Attorney's Office come up with a plan of strategies that we would want the legislature to consider to implement. And so, we gathered a host of participants and partners and drew up what we called the Blueprint for Safer Philadelphia, a ten-point program that would help to fight crime, reduce the gun violence and give people in Philadelphia and those who visit here a better and safer self awareness and at least a modicum of safety and security. As a result of a tremendous amount of effort and work from our office and from all of our partners, this blueprint was submitted to representative Evans, Representative Perzel -- I should say Speaker Perzel, Senator Fumo and other senators. 2810 Budget - 4/12/05 And the legislature has been extraordinarily helpful in rescuing what for us would be the end of several important programs. And I'll speak at length later, if you ask me, on the blueprint. But I do want to point out that the blueprint, I believe, is one of the key features of a better, safer Philadelphia. And if it is fully funded and implemented and brought to scale, I believe that we can seriously impact violent crime and homicides in the City of Philadelphia, especially gun-related homicides and shootings. With regard to the other issues that I brought up in my budget request is another request, actually another plea for witness relocation funding. As you know, we have not received sufficient funds to get us through the myriad of requests that we get for witness relocation. We are holding our own, I am happy to say. However, we are facing a severe 2811 Budget - 4/12/05 crisis, if in fact the end of funding from the Attorney General's Office is upon us. S. Government to his office. And we get about 50 percent of that money. We get about $250,000 a year. The previous Attorney General, Jerry Pappert, advised us that that money had run out, and that we would be at the end of our ability to provide witness relocation for our victims and witnesses who were frightened about coming to court and had been either threatened, coerced or actually hurt or threatened to be hurt or killed if they came to court. We have had a recent meeting with the present Attorney General, and Attorney General Corbett has advised us that he will do what he can. However, he advised us that the Federal Government had cut his allocation; and therefore, he wasn't sure but he would use his absolute best efforts to try to find us sufficient money to match the amount he 2812 Budget - 4/12/05 had previously given us. However, this does not answer all of our questions. As you no doubt know, there are many people who either believe or feel or know that if they come to court, there are real threats to their lives and safety. And we need to be able to meet the challenge of getting our cases tried.

And we can only get our cases tried if real live witnesses come to court, come on the witness stand, and testify truthfully and not out of fear or threats or any kind of coercion from anybody. So, obviously witness relocation is a big, big issue for us and for the safety and the security of the City of Philadelphia. We also brought up a few other issues, although it doesn't cover every issue. One of our major issues is economic crime/cyber crime. We see a trend, a growing trend every year, of increased complexity from computer-related and cyber crime. There isn't a day that goes by that some newspaper, 2813 Budget - 4/12/05 some story or some innovation in technology isn't put to work against the interests of citizens in general, and not limited to but senior citizens in particular. The Cyber Crime Unit, as you may recall, was funded by a special allocation of City Council several years ago. And we are trying to keep that up and going. But it's expanding, as more and more people call us and tell us that their identity has been stolen, that their computer has asked them for information, that somebody is putting dangerous spam on their computer, that they are subject to phishing, p-h-i-s-h-i-n-g, on their computers and they have had their identity theft compromised or stolen. So we need to be able to do that, as well as combat all the technological marvels that are coming to our courtrooms. I. effect. Television is ahead of technology but jurors and witnesses expect gee whiz 2814 Budget - 4/12/05 stuff, as I call it. And while technology isn't the way television depicts it, we know that we have to keep abreast of cyber technology. That means in our courtroom presentations, in our ability to get and analyze information, and track information, and catalog it and present it in a scientifically compelling way. And that all requires funding and great expertise. And the expert pool is relatively small, given the size of the problem. So, we are looking to Council for assistance in that. And essentially, what we are asking this Council to do this year, recognizing the considerable budget crisis that the Mayor has depicted Philadelphia as presently going through, that we are asking Council to keep our budget at last year's level plus the cost of living increase. And that will at least keep our present system going and allow us to carry on the programs that we have -- that we have 2815 Budget - 4/12/05 implemented and give high quality direct service to the citizens of Philadelphia. So, I thank Council for its indulgence. And I'll be happy, along with my staff, to answer as many questions as we possibly can. And I appreciate your cooperation and consideration.

Thank you very much. Would you mind elaborating on the Blueprint for -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes.

-- a Safer Philadelphia? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I certainly will. We call this an agenda to implement a Blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia. It's a ten-point program and there are several initiatives. Would you like me to go down the initiatives?

Do you mind? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, not at 2816 Budget - 4/12/05 all. I also didn't want to fail to mention that I have brochures for Council which I will give you in the next moment or two, and I'll talk about that.

Regarding the blueprint? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 10 Regarding child support. But I'll talk about -- I didn't want to forget that, Madam President. P. In 1998, my deputy John Delaney and I, as well as the Police Commissioner, several City officials, court officials, probation officers, journeyed to Boston to review their ten-point program. It was instituted by clergy, police, interested citizens, youth workers and others, to stem violence in a part of Boston. As a result of that two-day sojourn in Boston, the partners, as we call them, got together and formulated a program tailor made 2817 Budget - 4/12/05 to Philadelphia's youth violence problem. And what we did at that time is, we reviewed the whole City and said, with a small Federal grant that we obtained, what area of the City are youths the most likely to kill or be killed? We had our choice of several police districts. At that time, as you may recall, there was an area of Philadelphia which got a very bad name, and the people bitterly resented it. So, I mean no disrespect but it was called the badlands. It was the 24th and the 25th District, where a lot of killing was going on. And so what we did was, we started the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership there. This is a broad-based multi-disciplinary approach to preventing people between the ages of 17 and 24 from either killing or being killed. This is only one of ten points. I don't know how much detail, frankly, you want me to get into, but I'm prepared to fully delve into it. P. program has several components: Identification, positive support, surveillance, graduated sanctions and gun suppressions. What we did was, we went around the community and asked everybody in the community: The police, probation, teachers, parents, social workers, psychiatrists, mental health workers, judges, pick out the 125 young people in your district or division that you believe are the most likely to kill or to be killed. It wasn't scientific, but it was sort of a group think effort to attempt to identify those people most at risk of either one of those consequences. As a result of that, we put together a program which targets the City's most dangerous and potentially the most violent youths. Because if you look at the homicide figures, the people who are most likely to kill or be killed range anywhere from 17 to 24 years of age. 2819 Budget - 4/12/05 And as a result of that enterprise, to cut it to its quick, we began our Youth Violence Reduction Partnership. It was extraordinarily successful. But you can't measure success just in one or two districts, since homicide is spread out over the whole City. P. program. And they have agreed to do so, which will keep it up and running only at its present level which is really insufficient, in our view, to be a real measure of success. It is in the 24th, the 25th and a small part of the 26th, as well as the 12th Police District. But as you know, homicide is spread about the City. And while this program will keep it going, the money will keep it going, it's far from optimum. We need to bring this program to scale. The public/private ventures has put out a booklet that's called Alive at 25. , 2820 Budget - 4/12/05 keeping kids between and alive long enough to live to their 25th birthday. The second part of the program, number two on our ten-point program, is the Safe Neighborhood Initiative. This would allow the hiring of special officers, along with the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, as well as local and Federal prosecutors and probation and parole officers, to intensively supervise young adults in high crime police areas. This is the next cohort of the highest number of people to kill or be killed. That's to 32. We were able to 16 get a grant to do that. So, that was done as 17 well. 18 The third component was a juvenile 19 justice curriculum in the School District of 20 Philadelphia.

This is a year-long curriculum 21 for middle school students on the dangers of 22 violence, its criminal justice consequences, 23 and how to make responsible and informed and 24 intelligent choices in how they behave themselves. 2821 Budget - 4/12/05 This is an unfunded program. But the new curriculum has already begun. O. Vallas and his staff innumerable times. George Mosee, Deputy of our Juvenile Division, has trained all middle school teachers on the curriculum. And it is part of the social studies curriculum, and will be enhanced and expanded, assuming funding is available to us, to not only the middle school children but younger children. Because we see younger children obviously making not well-informed, intelligent decisions, which get them into trouble at a much earlier age than middle school, which is roughly as you know, 13, 14, 15, 16 years of age, somewhere in that age group. And this is a City-wide effort. O. Vallas very much wants and says he needs. And we're anxious to help him accomplish that because this will have a 2822 Budget - 4/12/05 better outcome for juvenile and adult criminal consequences, meaning a lower crime rate, safer neighborhoods, less criminal involvement by juveniles. A community educational involvement is an initiative to reach the at-risk populations of our City, through personal and community involvement and faith-based organizations. We have been able to get some funding through that, not for us but through those people who will do that. And we have engaged clergy of all denominations to help us in that regard. The fifth part, in no particular order, is zone courts. This is the ability of the court system to adjust itself to the realities of modern crime fighting. As you may know, from my various appearances before Council, I have been attempting to get the court system in tune with modern realities, because what happens is that court cases are assigned at random, not with regard to what district they 2823 Budget - 4/12/05 originated in, resulting in a police officer or police officers being sent on any given day to five, six, seven or eight or nine courtrooms, depending on the roulette of when each case comes up, meaning that police officers are trying to get to various courtrooms, with judges calling the calendar, officers not there. If the judge doesn't want to wait, the judge does one of several things, dismisses the case outright which forces us to rearrest and to implement the program all over again which is wasteful and time consuming and not efficient or the judge grants a continuance which counts against the Commonwealth in our time to bring a person to trial. And that results in time constraints and pressures put on us which we shouldn't have to have, and which we wouldn't have if we have zone courts. Here's the bottom line. The District Attorney cannot tell judges how to sit and where to sit. So, I have an appointment with the 2824 Budget - 4/12/05 Supreme Court later this month to ask the court to direct the local courts, in its wisdom, and if it decides to do so, to align our courts on zone or geographic bases so that officers who make an arrest in the 24th District, let's say, will be in front of the same judge for all cases arising out of the 24th District, eliminating some but not all of the backing and forthing. We still have to address the issue of juvenile courts and of course our divisional courts. But we're optimistic that the Supreme Court will consider this because the Supreme Court did accede to our request to give us a gun court. And we're very pleased that Justice Sandra Shultz Newman as part of our blueprint, met with the various partners and agreed that we should have a gun court which is the sixth part of our ten-point program. The Supreme Court agreed to dedicate a courtroom and a judge to hearing priority cases having to deal with people who are in illegal possession of firearms. 2825 Budget - 4/12/05 This is not just sort of a make weight.

This is a very substantive program, which addresses people who do not yet use guns but who are in danger of using them in the absence of direct intervention. It's a multifaceted program that addresses itself to... For example, if I'm arrested for position of a firearm that's illegal, the first thing that I am given is an assignment. My record is reviewed, and assuming I am not a violent, dangerous offender by my criminal record -- Maybe my first arrest or even my second arrest. Maybe I have a theft, a retail theft case, nothing very substantive. If I am suitable for the gun court program, I am immediately assigned a case manager. This case manager requires that I come to his or her office. And there are especially dedicated case managers who will interview me in depth. This is not for use at court, so their 5th Amendment implication, obviously, 2826 Budget - 4/12/05 is still in effect. I'm not required to give any information about myself that will incriminate me and nothing will be. But they ask me questions about my background. They do an intensive background survey of me. And they ascertain do I need services right then and there. Do I need mental health treatment? Do I need interventions? Does my family, any support systems that the court has to offer, can they put them in place? The benefit is that if I am a person either in crisis or I'm impulsive or I am angry or if I have anger management problems, the manager can go to the court and ask the court to implement corrective programs pre-trial, which do not impact on my guilt or non-guilt of the underlying case but which seek to get me services so that I won't feel the need to "A", carry the gun, and "B", that I will be less likely to use it. So, this is a pre-trial intervention program much like our other corrective court programs. 2827 Budget - 4/12/05 When my case comes to court -- The gun court so far has handled about 220 cases with a very high -- This is only in the first two months. So, it's a very, very expedited program. In the first two months we've handled over 215 or 220 cases, a very high percentage of guilty pleas, a very high percentage of non-jury trials, and a very high percentage of other consequences flowing from guilty pleas, guilty verdicts, and the like. I might also add parenthetically that Judge Jeffrey Minehart, the judge whom the Supreme Court assigned to this court, is just dandy. He's the dream of a judge that every person wants: Right down the middle, calls it as he sees it, keeps himself to the facts and the law. And if every judge does that, we would be just in a super peachy situation. So, we've done a tremendous amount with that. And after the conviction, if there is one, then there's after care, 2828 Budget - 4/12/05 intensive intervention. If the judge believes that there are guns in my house that I shouldn't have, the judge may sign an order giving authority of police or the probation department to search my house and take all my guns away, give me intensive supervision. And the interesting part is that, unlike the situation with the probation department, which is overloaded with cases -- Now, 200, 300 cases on a probation officer. They're especially assigned and paid for probation officers to this court who will handle nothing but these gun court cases. So it's a better result all around. It is still too early, of course, after just two months, to see what overall impact it will have, but we are hopeful within the year we will be able to do this. The seventh part is the five-year mandatory sentences for armed drug traffickers. And we have accomplished that, and... Let's see. There is a... I'll give you the poster in a minute. Here it is. 2829 Budget - 4/12/05 We have distributed this handout to every Police District in Philadelphia. We just reordered 30,000 of these.

This puts people on notice, through the Police Department, through various citizens groups, legislators, City Council people, if you like, in your offices, both here and any place else you'd care to, the notion that you're on notice. If you are... If you are in possession of a gun when you deal drugs for -- Let's use Mr. Taslowski as an example. I have a gun, Mr. Taslowski has the drugs or he has the gun and I have the drugs. So, if we're out there on the corner dealing drugs and either one of us is armed, each of us will be arrested and each of us will face a mandatory five-year sentence; no 20 plea bargains, no nothing. This mirrors the Federal statute and this is on both sides. There's information available to our citizens. The eighth and ninth part of our blueprint are other statutory enactments 2830 Budget - 4/12/05 which are presently being considered by our legislature. That's amending firearms possession, to increase the penalty for an illegal firearm from a first degree misdemeanor to a third degree felony. It also would disable or prohibit a person convicted of this offense from being able to get a permit to carry a firearm. And that's presently under consideration. This is Jewel Williams' Bill, House Bill 2799, and House Bill 2800 which was introduced this past July and is presently under consideration. The ninth part of our ten-point program is the Armed Violent Career Criminal Statute which creates, again, another mandatory sentence for violent criminals who possess firearms, a minimum of which is five years who have two prior convictions, ten years if three or more prior convictions. This is Dwight Evans' Bill, House Bill 1795, which was also introduced the same day as Jewel Williams' Bill, July 3, 2004. That is also presently under consideration. 2831 Budget - 4/12/05 And the last thing on our program was the Federal Project Safe Neighborhoods and the State Alternative Program. , tracing all firearms, targeted approach to violent hot spots in Philadelphia. And that is part of a budget appropriation of 2004. Now, those are the ten points. We're well on our way, but I have to sound a note of caution, that all of these programs are funded only in part and only for a brief amount of time. I've already spoken to Representative Evans and other legislators about permanent funding. And obviously, the state is going to consider our joint request from all of the partners involved: The Police Commissioner, the School District, the legislature, community groups, the District Attorney's Office, the State Attorney 2832 Budget - 4/12/05 General's Office, and other of our partners. But I don't know what the future will be for these programs. Every crime-fighting program depends on funding. And if the funding goes, all these programs which we believe have a high potential for success will be gone as well. And that is the only note of caution that I sound. It's not a full funding. It's not a dedicated source of funding. We're sort of lurching from year to year hoping that funding will continue. And that's the ten-point program.

Thank you. I certainly appreciate your taking the time to go over the blueprint of the ten points for a safer Philadelphia. And I'm delighted to hear that at long last somebody's talking about zone courts. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, indeed.

I guess I'm dating myself, but way back when, many 2833 Budget - 4/12/05 moons ago when I worked in the District Attorney's Office and I was in charge of listing cases, we did it manually. If Officers Goode and Verna were partners, I listed or of their cases in 7 one courtroom. 8 With all the modern technology that 9 we have today, I don't know why we would have 10 to have officers running to seven different 11 courtrooms in one day. 12 Don't they put the names of the arresting officers on the bills of indictment? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Of course.

And are they not placed into a computer, where you could just push a button and Officer Goode and Verna's arrest come out? It just seems so ridiculous to me that with all of the modern technology that we have today that we can't do something like that. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilwoman, we have been asking the courts 2834 Budget - 4/12/05 which as you know are responsible for the listing of cases. We don't list cases; the court does. We have been asking the court to do this for years, for at least seven, eight, nine years.

I'll tell you. I think... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And they have refused to do so.

And I think that every budget hearing that I've attended I've asked the same question. And at one time the court said, oh, it would be unconstitutional to do that. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, it wouldn't.

Why? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It wouldn't be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, it would be efficient and effective. I think that the way that we best serve the public is by giving them the fastest, most efficient way to dispose of cases, without it at all infringing on the 2835 Budget - 4/12/05 defendants' constitutional rights. But judges are reluctant, extraordinarily reluctant. And the court administration, the President Judge, the former President Judge, Labrum Davis turned us down cold. We have been asking and asking and asking.

May I ask why anybody would turn that down? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Do you want my honest opinion?

Yes. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I think that judges are afraid that they might have their names well known in the community. And they are concerned that they might be somehow associated with any or all of their decisions. Here's my point. Here's what victims and witnesses and defendants want and are entitled to: A fast, expeditious, correct way of determining: Are the police right? Did they get the right guy for the right reasons or are they wrong? 2836 Budget - 4/12/05 We certainly don't want cases disposed of because the officer was in another courtroom and the judge dismisses the case. That is not justice for the victim, and it isn't justice for the City of Philadelphia, and it isn't justice for the defendant either. But what it's become is a series of games that are played in the courts. And we want the Supreme Court to even consider doing it on a pilot project basis, to see whether or not it works. Now, we know, for example, that Judge Minehart is in court every single day on gun court. We know that Judge Presenza has been in drug court every year for what, five years? Doing drug court. Judge Presenza, doing the same kind of prosecutions that we're talking about, and Judge Minehart in the first few months of the drug court, have done simply a sensational job. They get through their case load. 2837 Budget - 4/12/05 They're not breaking, you know, land speed records. They're doing it quietly and efficiently. I believe the entire court system will work the same efficient way by doing things the way you and I both agree they ought to be done, in zones.

And you wouldn't have to have seven district attorneys -- assistant district attorneys working on this. If a case is continued, it would go before the same judge and the same assistant district attorney would be assigned to it. I think, as I said, with all of the modern technology that we have today, I just don't know why we are not taking full advantage of it. I found your testimony quite interesting. However, I think we better get back to the issue at hand, your budget. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mm-hmm.

I see that it is being proposed that your budget be... 2838 Budget - 4/12/05 I believe, it's $918,999 less than what you had in '05. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That is correct.

Now, you are stating that you're requesting that your budget remain the same as last year, with only the increase being for cost of living. However, we don't have a dollar amount for that. Can you tell us how much money you're asking to be... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: $30,472,788, plus a COLA of $473,000, give or take. It's $472,649. The $30,472,788 includes the COLA of the $473,000, give or take.

So that's what you're actually asking for. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, ma'am.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly for a point of information.

Point of information. Thank you, Madam Chair. 2839 Budget - 4/12/05 I just want to ask why the First Judicial District will not list multiple cases for the same officer for the same courtroom. Is there any... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: They just refuse to do it, Councilman. And for the life of me, I do not understand this. My whole point --

In other words, the police officer would go from court to court to courtroom.

And a police officer in a busy district -- and there's scarcely a district that isn't busy, I might add -- could find himself assigned on the same day to eight or ten courtrooms, sometimes in the same building. But when he's on the stand testifying in, let's say, the eighth floor or the ninth floor, and somebody wants him on the fifth or sixth or seventh floor, he can't be there. When the case is called, we say to the judge, judge, officer "X" is testifying 2840 Budget - 4/12/05 in front of judge "Y". Well, sorry. Case isn't ready. Either dismissed or continued. We say, well, you know, he's testifying in front of another judge. Can you wait? They say, nope. Can't wait. So, you're going to have to ask the First Judicial District that question. I refuse to answer for them. I don't see the reason or the point of it. But I've been arguing with them over this question for seven or eight years. They still haven't given me a satisfactory answer.

Okay. Madam Chair, I believe that this is something that we should address the First Judicial District for this. I think it makes sense.

Very well. Thank you. I just have another question or two. I notice that just about every Council member here wants to be recognized. You mention the issue of your office 2841 Budget - 4/12/05 not being able to retain experienced prosecutors. What is the average stay of a prosecutor? And can you tell us what the average pay is at that time? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It's hard to figure out an average, but here's the way it usually works, Madam Chair. The starting salary is what... 46... I'm going to give you... $46,000. Now, the average starting salary in our largest law firms is $115,000 to $125,000. So, if you really want to get technical, although I said less than half, I was hoping that you would ask me the median. The median in Philadelphia is about $70,000, $80,000 for medium sized law firms. But I hasten to add that these great men and women could go to the largest law firms and get the $125,000. So, they come to us burdened with a tremendous amount of student loan debt. And we've been championing student loan forgiveness for public service but we haven't 2842 Budget - 4/12/05 been able to get that. So we have a group of people who stay just for the three-year commitment. They give us a three-year commitment. Many of the people stay for three years, and then they move to the larger law firms because then they have litigation skills. Then there's another group that stays from between three and maybe five or six years. A smaller group than stays from five to maybe ten years. And some stay for even longer than ten years. Now, the difficult question to answer is, many of those people don't really come intending to spend either more than three years or maybe more than five years. But I must confess that the job is so interesting, that even though it's a great personal sacrifice, they stay longer. But the history of the District Attorney's office has been that we can't keep the most attractive people because the lure of big salaries outside is tremendous. 2843 Budget - 4/12/05 And when they marry which they do and have children which they do, their expenses go up far more than we can adequately compensate them. Even though they deserve much more, we can't keep them. So, if you want an average, it's about... The average is somewhere between four to six years, and the average salary between four and six years is around $60,000 which at the smaller firms would be their starting salary six years previous. So, they're working really for essentially nothing.

Having to do public service. That's what it is. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, public service is; but, you know, you have to pay the rent and you have to pay your student loans.

Of course. Of course. And was this ever attempted to be addressed, as to how we can keep well-qualified prosecutors in the D.A.'s 2844 Budget - 4/12/05 office and pay them a -- certainly a much more reasonable salary? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, Councilwoman, as you know, our budget, our Class 100 funds only allows us as much leeway as the amount in Class 100 allows us. You may remember a few years ago our starting salary was about $37,000. And we came to Council and said to you -- I think it was two years ago -- we can't even attract and keep people for their three-year commitment at $36,000. We just had to raise it because the prices of the marketplace were just too spectacular. And we told you what we wanted to do. And that's what we did. But we just can't go any further on the present budget, Councilwoman. And if we suffer this $1 million cut, there are going to be substantial and dire consequences for the citizens of Philadelphia.

The Clerk of Quarter Sessions testified last week on her budget. And she indicated that there 2845 Budget - 4/12/05 would be five new courtrooms that would be coming into existence. If in fact that were to happen, would your budget be able to cover it? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 7

Do you know of five new courtrooms coming into being? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I don't know, but if you'll -- I think if you hearken back to my testimony last year, when I advised the Council that if the court system was going to add courtrooms, we don't have the manpower to cover them. We can't sacrifice. We can't sacrifice quality legal representation to victims of crime and to the ultimate safety of the community by just putting a warm body in a room. It's not going to work. We need D.A.'s. And we have D.A.'s who are diligent and hard working and dedicated, but they also need time to prepare. And time to prepare means they can't 2846 Budget - 4/12/05 be, you know, hitched up to a courtroom where they have no time off, they have no time to call witnesses, they have no time to go to the scene, they have no time to interview and do all the things that they need to see and do, and be in courtroom five days a week, ten hours a day, and then start up the next day and the next -- you just can't do it. You do need prep time. You do need down time. You need time to collect yourself. And even if they work weekends, which many of them do, how long can you beat these people into submission? You just can't do it. So, I can tell you as a statement of fact, we're not going to staff those courtrooms. So, the court can do anything it wants. There won't be any D.A. in there without adequate funding, preparation, and the proper way to represent victims of crime and our neighbors. These are all our neighbors, these victims.

Thank you. I think because of my questioning 2847 Budget - 4/12/05 about an explanation of blueprint it really did take quite a bit of time, and I know I certainly went over my five minutes. However, there are a number of Council members that would like to be recognized. For the first go-around we will accommodate everyone with five minutes. The first one to be recognized is Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Madam District Attorney. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Good morning.

Let me start by saying, I take no issue with the level of your budget request. Public safety is a serious priority of mine. I want to talk a little bit about the fact that you amended your testimony, your written testimony, and also in your oral presentation, I think, reflected the changes in your written testimony. Can you tell me 2848 Budget - 4/12/05 why there was a change in your written testimony and how and why and when you made that decision? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes. The gentleman to my right, Mr. Taslowski -- As you may know, I do not write my own testimony throughout. Mr. Taslowski does the first testimony for me, and submitted it to Council before I had a chance to thoroughly read it and review it. And he went away on military leave. And when I reviewed it thoroughly, I contacted the Council President's Office and said that with her indulgence I'd like to amend our testimony so that it more nearly reflected my views of it. And the Council President gave me leave to do so. I did so and I submitted a letter to her with, I believe, sufficient copies to go around to all of you, to indicate that with no disrespect meant to my very noble and worthy deputy, that I really wanted to put a 2849 Budget - 4/12/05 different spin, if you will, to my testimony. I am realistic and I'm not a Pollyanna person. I understand, you know, realities of the situation. But I didn't want to -- I didn't want to sound the same tone as the original budget message. I wanted to be more in tune with my own personal thoughts on these issues, and being mindful of Council's assistance in the past.

My question, though -- My line of questioning next really relates to sort of a disconnect between that written and oral testimony and the actual budget reality. So, I ask you a series of questions about your written and oral testimony. Does it actually reflect a change in your budget? And to what extent does it? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I don't believe it changes our budget at all, no. 23

Okay. Does it reflect a change in your programs and initiatives? 2850 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 3

Does it have any dollars for witness protection and relocation? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, it does not.

Does it actually provide new dollars -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I'm asking Council for money. I've been asking Council for money for witness relocation, Councilman. We have never received any money from City Council specifically earmarked for witness relocation.

So, you would like to us do that on top of your budget allocation? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, obviously, Councilman, we obviously need as many dollars as we can because Federal money is drying up and state money is drying up. And so, I'm presenting our budget to you with the realities that whatever you give us we will try to do our best with it. 2851 Budget - 4/12/05 However, the best is not good enough when victims' lives are at stake. So, because I've gone to --

So, your budget does not currently reflect -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It doesn't currently, but I'll be happy to receive any additional assistance that Council wishes to give us for any and all of our victim assistance programs.

Okay. Your budget does not also have any money for increasing the salaries of District Attorneys -- Assistant District Attorneys, other than the cost of living increases? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That's correct.

So, what new dollars are there to improve public safety? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Say that again. I'm sorry.

What new dollars are there to improve public safety? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, 2852 Budget - 4/12/05 Councilman, you know, in light of the fact that the Mayor proposed cutting our budget $1 million, it's $1 million to improve our public safety capabilities.

It's $1 million over what the Mayor suggested. But my question is, what new dollars are there for public safety in your current budget? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The dollars that we have will allow us to -- If Council agrees with our suggestion, we will be able to keep our public safety dollars at the same level as last year. Being realistic about what I can ask for and what I can get are two different things. I could come in here and ask for $10 million more in my budget. I don't want to be unrealistic. I want to try to help the Mayor and Council and the City, given the budget realities. And I believe that given the programs that we have, plus the funding, the new dollars we got from the state legislature, with the programs that they have 2853 Budget - 4/12/05 initiated, we will be able to keep the same high level of programs.

Madam District Attorney -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So the new dollars are -- the new dollars are the Youth Violence Reduction Partnership, $2 million. Not for us. Not for us but --

I'm asking, what dollars in the City budget that you're requesting are new dollars for public safety? It's a simple question. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The only new dollars are the same dollars that I had last year.

Okay. Thank you. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No 19 additional funding.

I'd like to move on. I have no problem talking about challenging your level of budget request at all. And my next question will get to where I'm really going. How do we actually 2854 Budget - 4/12/05 buy more public safety? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: How do we actually what?

Buy more public safety. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I think we have --

If we wanted to invest more money, how do we actually buy more public safety? How do we actually buy a reduction in crime and violence? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I think, Councilman, that there are so many programs out there that have not really been fully tested at any great length. I find myself testifying in front of the legislature and Council bodies on programs that we have been proposing for years which have never been implemented. So, I believe that we can take the programs, for example, implicated in the ten-point program and direct all of our or most of our dollars to that. Rethinking, using the same... 2855 Budget - 4/12/05 (Timer buzzes.)

That's for me. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ...using the same dollars that we have but in a different way. In other words, I think that full planning, a full planning document which implements the programs on the ten-point program, plus some of our other programs, will redirect the same dollars in a more effective way. So, I don't believe it's always and only dollars. But I do believe it's a different way of thinking about prosecuting criminal cases. For example, if we do zone courts, we'll actually be saving the City, I believe, millions of dollars in police overtime, millions. So, by asking for no more money doing zone courts... It doesn't cost us any money to do zone courts. We just put district attorney "X" into a courtroom. And those five or ten police 2856 Budget - 4/12/05 officers who aren't working double overtime shifts and day off shifts by making sure the calendar is attuned as much as possible to the officer's regular work shift or limiting the number of regular days off will save millions and millions of dollars. So...

So, we need a better strategy. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It's rethinking the way we do it. And this is more efficient, more effective. Its dollar cost average is better.

Thank you, Madam District Attorney. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam District Attorney, good morning. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Good 2857 Budget - 4/12/05 morning.

I did -- I took down a couple notes from your comments. So, first, I'd like to get a law enforcement definition of a super peachy situation. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I beg your pardon?

A super peachy situation; is there a law enforcement definition? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, there is. There is. I'll tell you what I meant by that. There are people who think that the prosecution wants judges who are just prosecution minded. There are other people who want judges who are just defense minded. My definition of a super peachy situation is, if we get every judge in criminal court who is 100 percent right down the middle. If a person who sits as a judge delivers a verdict in accordance with the law and the evidence, not shading it to one side or the other, that is the optimum that people 2858 Budget - 4/12/05 in a free state can hope for, and that's my desired outcome.

Only in a way that you could deliver it. I would strongly encourage that after some of the activities of the spring, you might want to -- you might just want to relax. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I am relaxed.

It was a totally whimsical question, but I knew you'd have a definition for it because you're right down the line. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you, sir.

Let's go into your testimony a little bit. You talked about the Youth Violence Reduction Program. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes.

And I may have missed, popping in and out of the room. I know you were talking about possible state support maybe, if I heard you correctly. But when you talk about taking the 2859 Budget - 4/12/05 program to scale, presently it is operating in three police districts? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Essentially 24th, 25th, a little bit of the 26th, and part of the 12th.

Okay. So, maybe three-and-a-half or so. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Give or take, yes.

What is your estimate of what it would cost to take the program city-wide. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We asked the legislature, sir, for about $13 million for the program. And that's not city-wide, if I could just make a bit of a correction. What we do, when we look at the Y.V.R.P. as presently contemplated is, we look at the districts that have the most homicides, and they are not the whole city. It doesn't mean that we're not mindful of a district that has one or two. But when we look at the City as a whole, we look at the districts that have the most 2860 Budget - 4/12/05 violence prone component of people from to 24. And so, we're looking at our youth violence reduction --

Right. 6 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: -- 7 partnership to expand to all those districts. 8

And what do you 9 think? That's about another six or seven or 10 eight or ten? 11 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. We got 12 $2 million. So, we believe that we needed 13 probably another $10 million, $11 million 14 from the state. 15

No. No. No. 16 The number I gave was not in millions of 17 dollars. I was asking how many additional police districts do you think that is? Is that about a half a dozen, maybe seven or eight? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, it's the... Let's see. It's the 22nd. I'm just going to do this off the top of my head, so please forgive me.

It's all right. 2861 Budget - 4/12/05 Go through -- Sure. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It's the 22nd, 23rd, the 18th, the 19th, the 16th, the 17th.

Amen. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes.

Boy, do we need it there. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The 39th, parts of the 14th, parts of the 35th. So -- and there's -- I'm sure there's another one off the top of my head that I've forgotten.

It's all right. So, maybe about nine or ten. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: About nine or ten altogether.

Okay. And $13 million covers the nine or ten additional districts? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We believe that if we get that kind of money we'll be able to bring to it scale, to see how the program's working, and so we can really get some true sense of a different approach to 2862 Budget - 4/12/05 fighting homicide.

Right. And what's your best sense of the prospects of the $13 million from the state? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I've spoken to House Appropriations Chair Evans. And he says he's going to try. But I have to be honest with you. The budget realities in Harrisburg, I don't know how much the Governor and the legislature is going to be willing or able to give to Philadelphia, given the other monies that we've asked them for on top of the Y.V.R.P.

Right. Okay. So... And in this budget is part of the strategy here you are anticipating trying to get Y.V.R.P. money primarily from the state. So, there's no -- is there any request in this budget for additional funding for the Youth Violence Reduction Program? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, there isn't.

Okay. Because 2863 Budget - 4/12/05 you were going on the state rep. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We have money from the state.

I understand. Okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: But I want to be cautious in my statement about that. The District Attorney's Office per se gets virtually nothing from that money. I want you to know that. We're not getting any additional --

I understand. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: -- funding. The money that is gotten from the state pays the probation officers.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Parole officers.

Mostly for salaries. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And PAM and those other groups that go out, the street workers, and so forth. They're paid. We are not getting any money from that. 2864 Budget - 4/12/05

No; I understand. I didn't think you were trying to load up the budget or something. No. I know where the money is going. Let's go... The next to last on your testimony you talked about minority prosecutor's reception and the recruitment committee. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

Could you... Maybe a two-part question, the second of which is a data request. So, could you give us a sense of what the results were from the last go-around? And then my data request is, if you could provide an analysis of your office, from a demographic standpoint, year by year over the past five years with a gender and race breakdown. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We will get that to you. Sure.

For the attorneys. 2865 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Sure. We'll get that to you.

What was the most recent situation? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Insofar as success is concerned?

Yeah. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Highly successful. Our incoming class of hires, 11 this incoming class coming in in August, 50 12 percent are minority. 13 With regard to our -- 14

These are 15 attorneys. 16 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes. 17

Mm-hmm. Sure. 18 I have their names and their schools, if you 19 want them. 20

No. 21 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: With regard to minority attorneys, do you want office wide or attorneys?

On the data request, you can break it out. 2866 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Okay. Thank you.

Keep the attorneys in one group and the office -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Sounds good.

Why don't we do attorneys and non-attorneys. Is that a relatively high number, as compared to the past few years? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, it's -- We... I don't know. I think it's -- Let me just think if I can... I just don't remember from last year's testimony, but we endeavor to mirror in our employee base the people whom we serve. So, we always have minority receptions. We have a brochure. We do special minority recruitment.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I'll provide you with a copy of our brochure, if you'd like to. We send people from our office throughout the eastern part of the United States at minority fairs. We're hosting, by the way, 2867 Budget - 4/12/05 Councilman, the National Black Prosecutors' Association this summer in Philadelphia. And we'd be delighted if you'd like to come because we would attempt to try to lure some prosecutors from other cities and states to Philadelphia.

You're not going to lure them at $46,000 a year. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I'm sorry. It is what it is.

I understand. I'll come back. Because we have had some discussion about this over the years. And I certainly applaud the efforts. But for whatever reason my recollection is, is that maybe in the past things were a little tougher, and that the numbers have moved up in recent times. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It's always tough, Councilman, when you're trying to attract people with a lot of debt, $100,000 worth of debt or more, when the marketplace is so alluring. And it's difficult to retain, as I 2868 Budget - 4/12/05 indicated to the Council President, because our salary scale is so low.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, it is always a constant battle to attract and keep talent. Now, these people want to come. They really want to come. But we can't keep them. I might also add that if you look at the city's law firms, they have a dismal, a dismal record of minority attraction and payment. Their figures are embarrassingly small, sometimes in the lower one -- single digit. And the Legal Intelligencer did a big story about that, which I'd be happy to send to you when I send our figures to show that.

Okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are far and away the best and even striving to be even better than any law firm in Philadelphia, small, medium or large.

Okay. I'll look forward to the data. I know my time is up. 2869 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you. We'll be happy to provide it.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Good morning.

There's an issue that is causing a lot of disruption in our City that I'm going to ask where you think maybe your office could help. I've had conversations with the Police Department. And it pertains to what you've talked about a little bit ago as to technology and some of our capabilities. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mm-hmm.

Bomb threats have become a real, real problem for the police department, dozens of officers responding. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mm-hmm.

And doing some 2870 Budget - 4/12/05 research, that the Patriot Act has allowed under exigent circumstances for police agencies to almost immediately, without search warrants or any document, to get telephone information where the bomb threat came from. Our resources are limited at the police headquarters when a person calls 9-1-1. But also now they're calling the schools and there's technologies available in the schools. Unfortunately, not a lot of the principals knew that the technology even existed, to be able to determine the source of the call. The Police Department seems as though they're just so overwhelmed with this because there's just dozens and dozens of these types of calls, clearing airports and hospitals and transportation hubs. Is there something that your office can do? I think if something happens, and people realize that this is bad and that this is going to put people in jail that make 2871 Budget - 4/12/05 these kinds of calls, that cause evacuations of 30th Street Station and other transportation facilities, what can the Police Department do? What can the School District do? What can the District Attorney's Office do to really focus on this problem? Because if we added up the money that we spend every time there's a suspicious -- there's a call made... I'm just appealing to you for some help. And again, I know your resources are limited. But something has to happen here because the Police Department's really not doing much about it. The School District's not really doing much about it. And it just continues, dozens and dozens of calls every week, that are very disruptive and costly to our City. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilman, the Patriot Act and the incidence of 9-1-1 and all the other terrorist incidents have put a tremendous strain on every police department in the country. 2872 Budget - 4/12/05 And while we are part of the task force on anti-terrorism, the anti-terrorism task force, there is no money in the Patriot Act or any place else to any prosecutor's office to do anything. In addition to that there... I'm talking about local prosecutors. Federal prosecutors, perhaps, but not local prosecutors. I can tell you, no place in the country is any local prosecutor getting any money from the Patriot Act to do anti-terrorism efforts. So, to answer your question, if I'm not getting any money, I don't know what I can do. The Federal Government, if you've been reading the papers about our anti-terrorism capabilities, it's an extraordinary strain on the Police Department. And you're right. When people call in a suspicious package or a briefcase that some innocent person left on the subway platform or the el platform, there's 2873 Budget - 4/12/05 tremendous deployment of police personnel and the bomb squad. That's all very expensive. I don't know what I can do to try to help the police, except what we've always been doing, meeting with the U.S. Attorney, as we do every month, on an anti-terrorism task force; have some of our officers working on the joint terrorism task force; and trying to funnel information and deploy as best we can to anticipate everything we can while, we're not receiving any money for it. So, the answer to your question is, I'm not included in the budget pie, so I don't know what I can offer you or the Police Department.

District Attorney Abraham, I understand the responses when there's a suspicious package. We have an obligation. And the money is spent. I'm talking more so these unfounded threats that now, because we met with all of the cell phone provides and we met with all of the land line providers. We have now a process in place to find out where these 2874 Budget - 4/12/05 calls -- if someone calls a particular school and threatens that school, they now have the capability of tracking the call and making an arrest. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Absolutely. Of course. Absolutely. If they make an arrest for a bomb threat that is unfounded or even if it's real -- Obviously, if it's real the Federal government may take the case. But if a person calls in a false police report about a threat of a bomb that is absolutely without foundation, then the police should make the arrest, and we will prosecute, of course. And we would also not only prosecute locally but we would coordinate our efforts with the U.S. Attorney's Office to make sure that if this person was a threat to the security and the integrity of the United States of America, and that this person posed a real and present danger to the safety and security of the citizens of Philadelphia, we would respectfully ask that the Federal 2875 Budget - 4/12/05 government take that case and prosecute it because there is immediate pre-trial detention. There is trial within 60 to 90 days. There are very substantial Federal penalties for this kind of activity, and very substantial sentences without good time, earned time or parole. So, we would do whatever we could locally after consulting with the Philadelphia Police Department and our Federal counterparts to see which jurisdiction is better able to handle the false, threatening phone call. And all we need is whatever the police want us to do. We're full partners in anything they want us to do, as well as with the Federal Government.

I think the concern, and I know it's my... I have, like, 30 seconds.

30 seconds.

I think the 2876 Budget - 4/12/05 problem is that the Police Department is under the impression that if they would bring one of these nuisance calls to the District Attorney, it would probably not be dealt with. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: They can't be under that impression, Councilman, because they have never yet called us for a case that we would decline.

And I straightened that out. I said, well, tell me the last time that you brought one there. And that was the answer. And I think that that may change because really the resources are being spread so thin, that they need to make sure that the word gets out there -- and that's part of my rationale speaking about it today -- because it is getting out of hand in this city. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I can't imagine a situation where somebody called in a bomb threat. There are specific Pennsylvania statutes that would cover 2877 Budget - 4/12/05 exactly that. There's risking a catastrophe, there's threats and other statutes which we would take in a heartbeat as long as we are sure that the person whose cell phone it is is the person that made the phone call. For example -- And I want to be clear on this. If you have a cell phone. And you give to it me and I make the phone call. And by the time the police get to you it's two days later and you have your cell phone back and it's not you who made the phone call, we have to be sure that the person in possession of the cell phone was the one who made the call.

Okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, we don't have a problem about prosecuting anybody who is shown to us by evidence, we can walk into a courtroom and prosecute, is the person who made the call. That's not the problem for us. You can assure the Police Department, as I certainly will, and by this 2878 Budget - 4/12/05 testimony am, we'll take any bomb threat. I can't imagine anybody getting away with that.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Good morning, Councilwoman.

Great. I just -- In reading your testimony I have a couple questions. Is the blueprint that you're describing, is that the same blueprint that Representative Evans and Dr. Stick and those people have put together? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This is our blueprint. That's right. We worked -- 2879 Budget - 4/12/05

So, it's the same blueprint. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We worked on it together. This is our blueprint. Sure.

I understand. I just didn't know whether it was another -- two blueprints or one blueprint. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Oh, no. No. 10 No. No. There's only one blueprint, and this is it, ma'am.

Okay. All right. Great. I want to get more information about the juvenile justice curriculum that is being taught in schools. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes. May I call up George Mosee to do that for you, ma'am, since he is the deputy in charge of that curriculum for the school system and he's the one who taught the teachers, so to speak?

Okay. Good.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the 2880 Budget - 4/12/05 record.

Good morning. I'm George Mosee, M-o-s-e-e, Deputy for the Juvenile Division in the D.A.'s office.

Okay. Good morning. Just wondering. What exactly does the curriculum entail? And how many weeks.

Well, it's a 30-week curriculum. It was developed to teach young people the ramifications of criminal and delinquent conduct. It also exposes them to American jurisprudence, and we hope that it whets their appetite for careers in law enforcement. The 30 weeks will include lectures by teachers, but will also include a video series that we're currently developing. And that series will include subject matter that relates to what it means to be a victim of crime, what it means to be somebody who abuses drugs and tries to get off drugs. It will also address some of the subject matter 2881 Budget - 4/12/05 related to what it is that we do in juvenile justice and criminal justice, some of those things that we just can't expect the teachers to be able to convey with the same expertise as the people who actually work in the system.

And will this be -- I know in your testimony you said it will be taught in middle school. And will it be for all students in a particular school?

Every 6th, 7th and 8th grade class will have the juvenile justice curriculum -- will be exposed to the juvenile justice curriculum as part of their social studies curriculum.

And you did say that a part of the curriculum includes consequences.

That's right. Consequences for juvenile -- for delinquent conduct, for criminal conduct and for violations of the school code.

Okay. And what about values, values clarification, 2882 Budget - 4/12/05 those kinds of things?

I'm sorry?

What about values clarifications? I think a lot of what people think that, you know, many, many young people just don't have a particular set of values, and that's what causes them to participate in behavior that leads them to a negative behavior.

And I agree. And what I think was necessary was for the school to have a formal curriculum that would at least allow them the opportunity to discuss everything related to violence, related to crime. And certainly values is a major part of that. And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that part of our hope is that we'll hear from young people vis-a-vis this curriculum, that we'll get feedback from them about what they think needs to be done in order to make our community safer.

So, that's 2883 Budget - 4/12/05 good. And when is it due to start?

We've already started in some schools. But we hope to have it fully implemented in every school next year.

Very good. Okay. And I'd like to know... Actually, I know it takes a while to access and evaluate. But I'd like to -- I'm sure Council would like to receive information on the progress. Okay.

Certainly.

Okay. Thank you. I have another question regarding ex-offenders or the reentry issues. Is the District Attorney's Office involved with the issue of offender or ex-offender reentry? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, we are interested in it in several ways. The first is that we're attempting to -- We went to a seminar in England about juvenile reentry programs in England to see whether that would be something that we would want to consider. 2884 Budget - 4/12/05 The issue became, what was the effectiveness of their reentry program? And it was not promising. So, therefore, to date there has not been a juvenile reentry program available. We do work with the ex-offenders program. As a matter of fact, Councilwoman, people who are working for the Y.V.R.P., the Youth Violence Partnership, are ex-offenders. And they go out and talk to men and women on the street who are the subject or object of these partnership programs and try to reach them. Many of these, in fact, most of these kids, if not all of them, are already in the system. In other words, they are parolees, probationers. So, they already are in the system. And part of that reentry program is encouraging ex-offenders not to re-offend. That's the whole object of the Y.V.R.P. and the Safe Neighborhood Initiative. Between 17 and 32, we're trying to keep those people whom we have identified, as 2885 Budget - 4/12/05 best we could, with not re-offending. How we will eventually result in the successful outcome of this case is too soon to tell because of lack of funding, and lack of bringing the whole project to scale. There are so many more people we could reach if we had the funding. You can't judge any program as, quote, successful, unless we can show how this program works here as compared to either no program or a different program there. So, by bringing it all to scale, we hope to effect the reentry process. Now, here's the bottom line with reentry. It's not only ex-offenders talking to young men and young women about not re-offending and the problems of re-offending. It's the economy and jobs. And the availability of jobs, I think, is an essential component of any reentry. And that's going to be a central issue that has to be addressed.

I know. And 2886 Budget - 4/12/05 that is an issue that we're actually trying to work on. I want to ask you a question. I hope it's not out of line. But does the D.A.'s office hire ex-offenders or would the D.A.'s office hire an ex-offender. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No and no. 9

Okay. We'll talk later. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

I would actually like to follow up on that question, but it's going to take some of my time. I know you'll come back on that. You do believe in people getting a second chance. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It depends on what the second chance is. I'm not sure.

Okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You have to give me an example, and I can answer that specifically. 2887 Budget - 4/12/05 In other words, if you kill somebody I'm not so sure that I would want you to get out of jail to have a second chance.

Okay. All right. I'm not going to... That wasn't... Madam President, could you stop my clock, please?

Stop the clock, please. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller for a point of information.

All right. Thank you. What about the non-violent offenses? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, non-violent offenders we do believe in second chances. For example, we have youth aid panels which take young people who have offended, and we try to make sure that they don't offend again by putting them out in the community with community-based programs. We also have gun programs for first-time defendants, youth offenders who carry guns but don't use them. 2888 Budget - 4/12/05 We have a program called Don't Fall Down in the Hood, which is sponsored by the Institute for the Development of African American youth, a long-term program of about weeks, where we have these young people, 7 mostly young boys, not over the age of the 8 juvenile court jurisdiction, go into a 9 program which is part of their sentence, that 10 they have to go to this program. They have 11 to go to school. They have to meet victims 12 of violent crime and gunshot injuries. 13 And by working with these young men 14 and young women, we hope that they won't 15 re-offend. There are a variety of offenders: 16 Prostitutes, non-violent criminals who 17 deserve another chance. 18 But for rapists, no. For multiple 19 serial robbers, no. For violent repeat 20 offenders, no. And for murderers, no. They 21 can get their second chance. I'm in favor of 22 that. 23 But I think we have to direct our 24 resources to the people whom I believe we can save from re-offending. And I believe we 2889 Budget - 4/12/05 have a good track record on saving people from re-offending.

Well, that's good. I just wanted to know if you have ever hired someone that's a non-violent offender. There are many people -- and I'm sure you know better than I do -- that have not committed violent crimes that are just having a terrible, terrible time finding employment. And I can't remember... Excuse me, Council President. Have we had the Personnel Department here yet.

Yes.

Oh, okay. That's something I'd like to know about... I believe the City of Philadelphia does hire ex-offenders. I don't think a criminal record keeps someone from becoming employed with the City of Philadelphia. And when they come back, I think I'm going to ask that question. Because we can do everything; we want to help people, we have to be involved, too. 2890 Budget - 4/12/05 All right. Thank you.

Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Good morning.

I'd like to ask you a question, one, first about your testimony when you talked about new initiatives. And I'd actually like to get a copy of the ten-point program. I wasn't here for the entire testimony as it relates to that. So, I'm not sure about some of the -- particularly legislative initiatives. (The District Attorney hands Councilman Clarke a copy of the program.)

Thank you. You talk about, you know, the unfortunate death of Fahim Thomas Childs. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mm-hmm.

And it stimulated the legislature to fund gun court. 2891 Budget - 4/12/05 Prior to that incident, had your office formally requested funding for that? Program in the preceding years. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We had been asking for the Supreme Court to grant us the right to have a gun court. And there was a bill introduced, but it was attached as a rider to another bill by then House Representative... Wait a minute. Connie... What's her name... Connie...

Connie Williams. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Connie Williams. Thank you. I got a voice from the back. Thank you very much. Connie Williams. Which would have proved unworkable in a disaster, and that we wouldn't have been able to work that. So, we couldn't get it then, but we have it now. So we had asked for funding for a variety of initiatives, not maybe specifically a gun court. But not having the funding to it, and the important piece was not the funding because we didn't get any real money from the initiative from the 2892 Budget - 4/12/05 legislature except for a clerk. But what we did get was the Supreme Court's intersession to give us the right to assign a judge specifically to gun court. And the beauty of the gun court, with the Supreme Court's final intersession in this process, was that we'd be able to track the effectiveness of the program. And we also wanted additional components of the program. In other words, this was not just a situation, Councilman, where we would take anybody who didn't have a record and just throw them into gun court and just process the case. We wanted specific preventative measures pre-trial, and post trial preventative measures which only the Supreme Court could grant us. And so, we went to the court. It took a long time in granting us this request. But I'm pleased to say that they saw the wisdom of at least trying it. And when the supreme court said, we 2893 Budget - 4/12/05 will assign a specific judge, and we'll allow you to assign case managers pre-trial, probation officers post trial, we can at least see in the relatively near term, are we making a significant impact on people who carry illegal guns.

So, the answer to the question is, yes, your office had formally requested of the Supreme Court -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

-- the ability to authorize such a court or -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

-- authorize your department's involvement. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Asked the court to implement the program so we could have a gun court judge.

Was there a request for funding from the legislature -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 23

-- prior to... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 25

Never. Okay. 2894 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: There was no 3 request for funding because essentially we didn't need the funding for us.

Until you got... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We needed funding for the probation, the service, the... What do you call them? The pre-trial case managers. And we needed money for the post-trial probation officers specifically assigned for that purpose. And we needed a clerk or two clerks, if you want to call them that or research assistants, I think, is the proper term, to monitor the effectiveness pre-trial and post-trial of the program to see essentially does it work. Because there's no use in having a program if it doesn't work. And this is the best way to find it out.

Okay. So, no 23 pun intended, but the jury is still out, would you say, on this? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes. It's 2895 Budget - 4/12/05 only been open, what, three months? January, February and March. Actually, yeah. The beginning of or maybe the middle of January. So, essentially two months and two weeks.

All right. So, we can't really determine how effective -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, I can give you figures, if you want, and tell you what we've done.

I think you referenced some numbers earlier. 200 and something individuals. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Just give me one minute.

You can give me that a little later because we're on the clock.

My memory also is it was over 200. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I'm sorry. As of March the 30th we had disposed of 203 cases, with the greatest number of them guilty pleas.

Okay. All 2896 Budget - 4/12/05 right. Getting to my issue: Guns. In prior testimony, not necessarily in budget testimony, but from time to time you've had occasion to come here and talk about some initiatives that we, although not legally authorized to do so at this point, as it relates to guns. In my estimation, you indicated some level of support but it was rather pessimistic, in terms of you acknowledging that we would ultimately get something done. The last time we had this discussion it was essentially a situation where Councilwoman Miller and myself co-sponsored a series of gun bills that would require state authorization. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mm-hmm.

We did not have that at this time. We are now, unfortunately, due to the levels of violence in the City of Philadelphia have a bill introduced, particularly one gun a month. And a number 2897 Budget - 4/12/05 of other initiatives that the state is seeking as it relates to gun violence. I would like to ask you, given the fact that now we at least have on the record a bill, we at least have a number of legislators willing to support that bill, and we at least have a Governor who prior to him becoming Governor, as the Mayor indicated, he was willing to support one gun a month. What will you, as the District Attorney, beyond saying that you support the initiative, plan on doing? What will you do, in a tangible sense. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Two things. First of all, I didn't express pessimism as to any gun bill. What I think I said, Councilman, just to correct the record...

You said here -- I mean, you -- not to paraphrase, but you basically said, good luck. It ain't going to ever happen. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, no. 24 What I said was, I wrote you a letter and I said that I doubted that Council has the 2898 Budget - 4/12/05 authority to pass gun legislation.

We knew that. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: All right. Well. Okay.

That wasn't what we were seeking. We were asking the Pennsylvania legislature -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That's right. I did.

-- to give us the authority. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That's right.

And you basically said, it's never going to happen. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We'll, I'd be interested to see if it does happen, frankly. But I'll tell you what I have done, and I'm prepared to make a copy available. In 1999, I testified on House Bill then 46 and 402, which was, by the way, Dwight Evans' Bill. It was called the Firearms Trafficking Prevention Act. It was the straw purchaser 2899 Budget - 4/12/05 and one handgun a month bill, for want of a better term. I brought my testimony. I testified in full support of the straw purchaser prohibition and the One Handgun a Month Act that was in those two bills. And essentially, as I mentioned the in my testimony to you previously, I think it was Blondell Reynolds Brown. Maybe it was yours, but I thought it was her public health.

We had a number of them. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Whatever. I was here whatever time you asked me. And I said that the people up in the legislature told me that it had no chance of passing. I am willing, happy... In fact, I've already written and spoke to Dwight Evans and Jewel Williams and Representative Myers, and said, I will come up and testify again to my desire to have one handgun a month, plus a straw purchaser ban passed by 2900 Budget - 4/12/05 the legislature. I still don't know if Council -- If the legislature, Councilman, is going to pass those acts. I think they will pass the armed career criminal bill. And I do believe they'll pass the other bill which I referred to is the raising the level of crime from a first degree misdemeanor to a third degree felony for carrying an unlicensed gun in Philadelphia. And that would also be added as a prohibition against anybody getting a firearm. It would be --

This is my problem. And I know the bell rang. This is my problem. With all of the legislation that is being discussed, it costs money. You earlier made a statement that all -- essentially, all crime fighting initiatives cost money. But we have before us a bill that, frankly speaking, doesn't cost us any money. If you limit the number of weapons that will be available, you know, it's not a real cost 2901 Budget - 4/12/05 to that. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I agree with you.

For some reason, you know, people don't feel the need to push that at the level. And I'm glad to hear you say that you are willing to go and testify at the state hearing -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I'll be happy to go back.

-- as to this particular bill. Can I ask you today -- And I understand if you don't want do give a public commitment at this point. Can you also initiate discussion with other District Attorneys throughout the Commonwealth because this is -- although the City of Philadelphia is getting the headlines as it relates to the level of violence. There are also both second and third class municipalities in the state that have similar violent crimes. 2902 Budget - 4/12/05 And we believe that if the -- if everybody takes the responsibility from their perspective peers -- We plan on interacting with Council members throughout the municipality -- I'm sorry, throughout the Commonwealth. I understand that there are a number of advocates who are working with advocates across the state, legislators working with legislators. I would like to ask, would you be willing to interact with District Attorneys across the state to lobby and get support for this legislation. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Sure.

At a minimum, to get the ability for Philadelphia to have it, and hopefully somewhere down the line, maybe the state. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Be happy to do that. I've done it before. I'll be happy to do it again.

Okay. Thank you. 2903 Budget - 4/12/05

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam District Attorney, I hope to make your day today because first of all I want to commend you and your staff, I think, and especially your Nuisance Task Force in closing down one of the notorious bars in Burholme. I know that your man Scott Sigmund has been working with the Burholme Civic Association to make sure that that facility doesn't ever reopen. And I just want to pass it on to you that I think that Nuisance Task Force is doing a very, very good job. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. I'll tell Mr. Sigmund of your kind remarks. I'm sure... Is Michael here? Where's Michael? Oh, there he is in the front row. Mike Erdos is right behind you, 2904 Budget - 4/12/05 sitting next to Joe Whitehead in the red and blue tie. He's the chief of that unit. I'm sure he'll go back and tell Mr. Sigmund. I'll tell you something. I wouldn't wanted to be on the other side of Mr. Sigmund on anything.

That's true. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He is phenomenal. But I have to say, he's also typical of all the men and women in the office and all the men and women in that unit in particular. It's a great unit.

I also want to follow up on Councilman Clarke about guns. I want to again commend you for your efforts working with the Police Commissioner, and my good friend Joe Mamanna, in trying to get guns off the streets of Philadelphia. I think every gun that we take off the street of Philadelphia is going to make us a much safer City. And I hope that maybe that program can continue. I know it's -- I think there's a time limit on it. 2905 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, there isn't, as a matter of fact. No. Mr. Mamanna and his -- the gentleman who owns City Blue whose name just went out of my head, they have agreed that, unlike the previous program which was funded by a cash gift for "X" amount of time and it ran out of money and the program ended. And I just want to say, just so that Councilman Clarke understands, that I contributed $1,000 to that gun buy-back program myself. So, the money ran out --

Well, I know Councilman -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying that.

I know Councilman Clarke -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, no, no, no. 23

I know Councilman Clarke will probably -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, no, no, 2906 Budget - 4/12/05 no. 3

-- try to outdo you on that one. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No, no, no. 6 No, no. No. 7

There's no doubt. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I have a foundation, so I could do that. But I just want you to know that Mr. Mamanna and the gentleman who owns City Blue... I apologize. I just can't dredge up his name. They have said to us that they're willing to let this go a substantial period of time to see if they can effectuate a positive change. And that's why they instituted a sliding scale of reward, depending on the caliber...

And type of gun. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: As an example, Councilman, the last time we had the money the Commissioner noted that people would go to gun stores and buy a $30 gun and turn it in for $100 cash. They weren't doing 2907 Budget - 4/12/05 that any more. So now they have a sliding scale, depending on the type, the caliber of gun, they'll give you a sliding scale of reward based on how powerful, how modern and how lethal, if you'll excuse the expression, that weapon is.

Okay. I have a question on child support unit. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.

You mentioned you collected $191 million last year. How does that compare to previous years? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I'll give these out to you. Councilman, I don't know how it compares with other years. I'm not prepared to do that today, but I'll get you the information. The important thing is, Councilman, that we have about 125,000 open cases in the court system of Philadelphia of child support. And we collect it in a variety of ways. First of all, we have people... For 2908 Budget - 4/12/05 example, looking at... Okay. Let's say, a Sam Smith. We have a person who owes child support. We will comb all the court records to see if there's any case that Sam Smith has filed against anybody. And if Sam Smith has filed a case against anybody: An accident case, a worker's compensation case, somebody dies and leaves Sam Smith money, we file an order against that person's name, so that -- It's a non-distribution order. So that whenever that money comes forth, we get the money that is owed to the child first to give to the children before he gets whatever...

Before he gets... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yeah. And we also get -- We also collect it in a variety of other ways. But it's a very effective unit. And I think you'll be pleased, when we give you the numbers, to see how diligent the unit and the court system is working with our assistance in collecting child support payments. 2909 Budget - 4/12/05 Many of our clients are welfare recipients, and they have no effective way of collecting child support were it not for us.

Yeah. What cost is involved in providing the service? In other words, does Sam Smith -- Do you have to go after him? And does he provide -- at least, to reimburse you for your -- for the cost involved in collecting money from him? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: There's a $10 10 cost for filing a complaint for child support. That's it.

That's it? Compare it to the cost of running it. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The $10 is just for filing the complaint. Our costs are reimbursed in part by a Federal grant.

But my point is, Sam Smith, does he -- do you tack on anything to charge him? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 24

Nothing? Okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We are just 2910 Budget - 4/12/05 interested in him paying to support his children. That's all we care about, support your children.

But he doesn't pick up any of the costs that you have to incur -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. The Federal Government --

-- in providing the service. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. The Federal government pays two-thirds of our costs to do that.

Oh, okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, we don't pass it on to the... We're just happy if the man supports his children.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: That's all we care about. And it's mostly men. That's why I'm saying man.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam District Attorney. 2911 Budget - 4/12/05 Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam District Attorney, in a similar way that Councilman Kelly did... This was on my second go-around list... I also have had just in my office staff a wonderful experience with... As wonderful experience as you can have, given the nature of the work, the Nuisance Task Force, and Mike Erdos who has been very, very helpful in any number of situations. And I just wanted to -- similarly to Councilman Kelly, recognize him for his work, and the work of the office that I do have a fair amount of contact with. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you, sir.

Sure. There's been a lot of discussion with regard to the recent surge in violence 2912 Budget - 4/12/05 and certainly gun violence with... And we are presently seemingly on a path of almost a homicide a day. I don't know if you've articulated directly on this issue, but I'd certainly like to get your perspective on this recent violence wave. And you've talked about your ten-point plan, of course. But beyond a plan, I'd just like to know your thoughts about what's going on. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes. My thoughts are that gun-related violence in the City of Philadelphia and elsewhere around the country is the greatest public health menace that we face, absent the overthrow of the government or a terrorist attack. As a matter of fact, it has been likened, and I would agree with this, to urban terrorism. And this country is awash with guns. We're a gun-loving country. It may be because of our history. But if you look at our homicide figures compared to the rest of the civilized world, 2913 Budget - 4/12/05 and this is excluding wars, you know, and rivalries that go back centuries and things of that sort. Our homicide rate is higher than any civilized country in the world. I believe that it comes from a variety of consequences. I've traveled to Harvard. The author of a book called Private Guns, Public Health. David Hemminway works for a friend of mine who's the Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, as does Dr. Deborah Prothrostith, with whom I've also met, and Dr. Alvin Pusant, who's featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning, talking about gun violence. Violent offenders don't care about the laws. They don't care about City Councils. They don't care about D.A.s. They don't care about anything. They're angry and hostile, and they act out angrily and hostilely and at random. It's not really predictable. And I believe that I've said on many occasions, and I repeat today that because I go into so many schools and so many 2914 Budget - 4/12/05 communities, as you undoubtedly know, I see that the precursors to violence are evident to us. You show me a child, a baby who is exposed in utero to alcoholism, abuse, a physical and psychological abuse, drug abuse, and then is brought up born into a family which is awash in family violence, sexual assault, television violence, violence outside his or her window, abusive, unloving, uncaring, unnurturing parents, who neither read nor hold, nor cuddle, nor love, nor nurture their children. Those kids will start off in school developmentally delayed and emotionally scarred. And they carry out that emotional scar and that anger and hatred and resentment, and they demonstrate it in schools. So, you can see markers. It's not a predictor. COUNCILAN NUTTER: Right.

But markers in some kids' lives. 2915 Budget - 4/12/05 You show me a kid who is a troubled kid, and I'll show you a kid who most often, but not always, has a very troubled youth.

But now that that person has come of, you know, some age, at least chronologically, possibly not developmentally... But they're now in their early or late teens, twenties, thirties. I mean they're now out here, you know, from under whatever notion of a protective wing of a parent or grandparent or other person, how are we supposed to deal with that person? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: These are the most difficult people that one ever could see. This past weekend, for example, I watched a program on CNN called the Gangs of Hollenbeck, in L.A. And these people who were featured were -- the talkers, the people who were speaking to the camera, were grown men. There were many gang members. That was the featured story. They don't care about anything except, you mess with me, I'm 2916 Budget - 4/12/05 going to kill you. You come into my neighborhood, I will kill you.

I understand. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So, I mean, if you ask me, how are we going to reach the unreachable? The answer is, we are going to pay as a society a terrible price. I am not aware right now of anything that can dissuade a person who is a gun-toting gang member who doesn't care about law, who doesn't care about the rule of law or courts or punitive sanctions. You show me that kind of person. I'm going to show you a person who will come in and out of jail all of his life and reassert his anger and hostility and resentment against anybody who crosses, them without fear of consequence.

In response to a question that was raised by Councilwoman Miller, you made a statement. I wrote it down, I think, accurately. But I needed to come back to it and I needed to get a better understanding. This was a colloquy regarding 2917 Budget - 4/12/05 offenders, whether possibly violent, non-violent. And you responded in one of the exchanges that if the person killed someone, that you were not sure that they should get a second chance. Now... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: If they get a life sentence, Councilman, they won't have a second chance.

I understand that. Suppose they served whatever their term is or they get out under some legal means. I'm not talking about a jail break or something. I mean, if you're years old, you 18 end up in some kind of fight, you go through 19 the process, you get convicted. I don't know 20 what kind of sentence you get or whether it's, you know, second degree, third degree, involuntary manslaughter, any number of things, which of course you'll know better than myself. But I mean, let's say you get, you 2918 Budget - 4/12/05 know, to something and you serve the 20. I mean, now you're 40-some years old. You've got, you know, I don't know... 20, 30, maybe 40 years ahead of you. I mean, what are you supposed to do? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, there are many offenders who get out of prison and are totally reformed. As I mentioned in my testimony, we work with ex-offenders and we have a great success with ex-offenders. And we're trying to prevent other people from becoming offenders. I believe I said that was in the context of hiring people. Obviously, there are people that I would not and could not hire as a law enforcement officer. But there are many people -- And I'll give you an example, even a better example. The great middleweight fighter Bernard Hopkins is working with me right now on an anti-crime program.

Mm-hmm. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: There is no 25 better example of a person who not only 2919 Budget - 4/12/05 deserved a second chance but got a second chance and made good on it. He is a shining example of a person who can and does get a second chance.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And becomes successful at it.

Well, that is one of the premier -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It's that kind of person that I'm in favor of.

I understand that. But If that is one of the premier examples, again, that's why I didn't understand the statement in its totality that if you had killed someone, that you weren't sure that the person should get a second chance. I mean, what does that mean? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Practically speaking... Practically speaking, in our Commonwealth at least, many people who are convicted of first degree murder and who get life imprisonment do at some time in the 2920 Budget - 4/12/05 future come out. Not everybody, but some. And those people who come out and --

Everyone who kills someone, even if they're convicted... I mean, is it always first degree? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. Of course not.

All right. So, I mean, some people do get out, right? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Everybody eventually gets out one way or the other.

Okay. So, you've got to give me a little better understanding of -- I mean, what does that statement mean? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: What does what statement mean?

When you say, if you killed someone you're not sure if the person should get a second chance. What does that mean? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: They get a second chance, but it's demonstrable. It's up to them. They have to go out into society 2921 Budget - 4/12/05 and prove that they are exemplars of good conduct. For example, there are people -- And I can tell you this, Councilman. There are people who come out of prison and say, I'm never going back to prison again and never go back. They lead otherwise productive lives. And that is certainly good, and we make use of those people any way we can, especially as exemplars to kids what not to do. On the other hand, there are other offenders who are not deserving of a second chance, serious violent offenders, sexual predators and others who, I'm sorry that if they came up for parole or probation or release or early release or commutation, we would oppose because we don't believe they should get a second chance. And unfortunately today, there was a man who was arrested for killing or is being sought for two killings who just got out of prison last year and said -- He even wrote a book about it. He said, I'm never going back 2922 Budget - 4/12/05 to prison. Now he's wanted for two homicide. So, you know, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I'm going to err on the cautious side. If you get a second chance I'm going to be cheering for you, but I'm going to be cautious.

Did I get the bell?

You did.

Okay. I only have one question, and then I'll go away.

If you promise it's your last question.

It is absolutely my last question of the District Attorney.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam District Attorney, we received from Personnel a list of a variety of employees by department. I don't know how -- I don't know what the circumstance was that generated this particular list. Maybe it was 2923 Budget - 4/12/05 brought over by the Personnel Director. I just needed to understand. There's one person listed for the District Attorney's Office. This is a list of City of Philadelphia permanent employees not residents of the city. It's dated April 5, 2005. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

There's one person here listed a Garold Tennis. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Gary Tennis.

Okay. Garold, G-a-r-o-l-d. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Sorry.

Who it would appear from this form, if I'm reading it correctly, was hired back in October of 1980. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct, sir.

Has an indefinite specific waiver. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

What is the nature of that? 2924 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: As I understand this, Councilman -- I'm sorry. I call him Gary. I don't know anybody calls him Garold. Ed Rendell hired Mr. --

Well, I don't know him that well. I'm just reading the name from the thing. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: When you said Garold, I couldn't tell who you were talking about.

We're not personal friends. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Gary Tennis was hired by Ed Rendell. And Gary Tennis is a Swedenborgian. He lives in Bryn Athen which is a community -- a religious community.

He's a what? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Swedenborgian. I think it's S-w -- Church of the New Christ, it's called. They're called Swedenborgians.

Okay. 2925 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And they live in a community, an enclave if you will, in Bryn Athen. And Gary appealed to Ed Rendell to grant him an exemption from living in the City for religious reasons because he lives in a religious community, and Ed Rendell granted it. And he's been working in the office ever since. I think Mr. McPherson is trying to whisper something.

You said a religious waiver? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: My First Assistant came over to me to tell me that the Civil Service Commission granted him an exemption for religious reasons.

What's the reason? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Hold on. Just give me a moment, sir. (Pause.) THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: As I mentioned previously, Councilman, the Church 2926 Budget - 4/12/05 of the New Christ requires people who are in that church to live within an enclave, if you will, a certain area closest to the church. And when Governor Rendell hired him, it was with the proviso, if possible, that he get a waiver from the City of Philadelphia. And he did get that waiver.

What is his -- What is his job? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He's the head of our legislative unit. He writes and lobbies for all these bills, including the bills that Councilman Clarke and I talk about extensively.

And it's never been revisited?

I mean, you became District Attorney in '91 in the special -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

Okay. Have you ever had any conversation with the gentleman about the nature of this situation? I mean, I understand you didn't hire 2927 Budget - 4/12/05 him, but you are the District Attorney. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes.

And you're in control of people in the office. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilman, I had a conversation one time with Gary because somebody else several years back brought up -- and I can't remember in what context -- that he didn't live in the City of Philadelphia. And I asked him what was the reason why he was living in Bryn Athen but working in the D.A.'s Office? And he said that he had a religious waiver granted to him by the Civil Service Commission. So, I mean, we don't inquire of people's religion, but...

No; I understand. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: But -- And frankly, when I first came here --

I never heard of this. 2928 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I don't go down the list -- Well, there's only one person. So, I didn't -- I didn't look at my employee list and check addresses. So, he was already on staff when I came. And he's a wonderful employee. He's marvelously talented. Probably has assisted you in a million different ways that you may or may not even be aware of. And I saw no reason to countermand what the Civil Service Commission had given him which was a religious waiver. I'm not looking for a lawsuit.

Well, I understand that. On a more lighthearted way, you know, I have innumerable people trying to help me in many ways that I have no idea from time to time. But just... I guess my last question is, are you aware of any other public employee having a religious waiver on residency? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilman, I have no way of knowing who gets religious 2929 Budget - 4/12/05 exemptions. You'll have to check with the Civil Service Commission. I know nothing about that.

I just wondered. I had never heard of, I mean, of specific, you know, training in background and language and any number of... Okay. I did not -- I did not know that. This is definitely my last question. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. At this time the chair recognizes and welcomes home Councilman Ramos.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam District Attorney, I want to thank you. I want to start off like my other colleagues. Thank you for a job well done. A couple months ago I called your office -- Though it was not one of the things that you do, but I was reporting that a Councilman on the other side of the river in Camden had called that his niece had been raped, and that they had an idea where this 2930 Budget - 4/12/05 rapist was in the City of Philadelphia. And your office responded. The Police Department responded. And a couple days afterwards, the rapist was apprehended. And I just want -- And the Councilman, he didn't want me to state his name, but he wanted me to thank you whenever I got a chance, whenever I remembered. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Please convey my --

I want to take this in a very public way to thank you for a job well done. And I will be asking your office for many of these pamphlets on child support because if you turn it upside down, it's in Spanish. And the Spanish is very good. A lot of times when we translate -- and that includes me -- the Spanish is not very good. And when you get it from the printer sometimes it reads atrociously. But it's a very nice job that you've done here. And I'll make sure that these pamphlets get 2931 Budget - 4/12/05 to the people who need to read it in another language. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you, Councilman.

In your prepared text you mentioned that you met with the Attorney General, Mr. Tom Corbett, and that he pledged to work with the Office on issues of coordinating information, sharing in order to prosecute violence, street gangs, et cetera. But did he commit to funding any of this for you? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Not yet. But here's what he told me, Councilman, as I mentioned previously -- I don't remember whether you were here because I was looking at the Chair. He said that the budget from the Federal Government through which he is funded, through this witness protection program, via... I think it's P.C.C.D, The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency... had their cut in budget from, I think, $600,000 to $400,000. 2932 Budget - 4/12/05 We got $250,000 of whatever monies he got last year. So, he's going to have to go back and see what the needs are of the rest of the Commonwealth. We have always gotten the lion's portion of that money. But he couldn't promise right then and there on the moment when we had our meeting that he would, "A", fund me or fund me to the extent that he had in the past. But he pledged that not only would we continue our good working relationship on gangs and guns and other violent conduct in the City, but he would go back and check with his people to see to what extent he could fund our witness protection program. I do want to add that... I want to make this as clear and as stark as I can because it's clear and stark to me. If we he do not have a witness relocation program, our ability to prosecute violent criminals in this City will fall precipitously, and the people out on the street who are wielding the guns will have even more influence than they 2933 Budget - 4/12/05 do already. Already the impact of threats, intimidation, violence is great. And we have people who come to us and ask us to relocate them. We are able to do that but only just barely. This program is critical for the safety and security of Philadelphia. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that. If he can't give us money, we're not going to be able to relocate people. And people will just say, well, sorry. I didn't see anything; I don't know anything; and I'm not identifying anybody. And our homicide clearance rate will drop even worse and lower than it is right now.

So, what happens if we don't get -- if you don't get the funding from the order -- you've distinguished -- You've had a distinguished career. And to put it in, you know, to put it in very simple terms, you think out of the box. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes, sir. 2934 Budget - 4/12/05

Have you gone there -- Now, because it looks like, given budget constraints in this era that we're living, a limited amount of financial resources. I think we're going to have to go back to thinking outside of the box. And the more -- Not in the particular vein with you're -- this particular issue that I'm addressing with you. But in a general sense, I just came back from Rome, and I was very impressed by their equivalent of town watch. You know, town watch is a very big program. And people are proud to be -- And we have a difficult time getting people into town watch nowadays. But they seem to have more obligations, more authority, and not get paid. And they're yet very proud of it. So, they get summoned to be civil patrol for these millions of people gone to Rome to pay their respects to the Holy Father. Are we going -- I think we're going to have to go into an era -- go into this era 2935 Budget - 4/12/05 and think, you know, out of the box, in the event that we don't get funded for all these other things that are so essential to the quality of life of people. Have you had any thoughts of where you would go or is there anything else that we can do? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilman, first of all, I've been to Rome many times, been to the Vatican as you have. Saw you on television. I was very impressed by your remarks. But let me just point out the difference between Rome and us. Nowhere in the world, including in all of urban Rome, is there anywhere near the thought of anybody carrying a gun. Gun violence in Rome is virtually non-existent. Does that comport with your...

That's correct. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: All right. Nobody carries a gun, except a few police officers, the Carbionetti (phonetic) and the civil authorities, the police officers who 2936 Budget - 4/12/05 are not the Carbionetti. Nobody else has a handgun. You might get mugged or robbed or beaten, but you don't get shot and -- shot up by a nine millimeter semi-automatic pistol. That is not the case in Philadelphia. So, being proud to be a civil guard in Rome is not the same as being a town watch person in the City of Philadelphia. That's the first observation. The second is this. Last year I went to see Arlen Specter when he came here to Philadelphia to ask him for funds. And while he was able to give $1 million to the violent crime impact team, which would -- through the A.T.F. and Federal authorities -- try to make a dent on gun crime, with a liaison from my office. He didn't give us any money to do that. It was all to the Federal authorities. And here's what the disconnect is. I am meeting again, by the way, just so you know, with Arlen specter again. It was supposed to be on the 15th of this month, 2937 Budget - 4/12/05 I think, but he cancelled it for other reasons. So, I'm not quite sure what the reasons are, not health-related. I will speak to Senator Specter again. I will ask him for funding. But here are the sources of funding for local prosecutors: Your own City government or local government, the state government or the Federal government. The problem with looking for grants -- and we are always looking for grants -- is that -- and we will continue to try to get grant funding -- is that the President of the United States has cut a tremendous amount of programs that local prosecutors could tap into, including the juvenile justice intensive block grants, the local law enforcement block grants, the Burn Memorial fund and others. So, with an increase in gun violence across the country with prosecutors, thousands of us trying to get some money to do programs, and all City governments being like Philadelphia, up against budget 2938 Budget - 4/12/05 realities, I can think out of the box all I want. The question is, where does the money come from? When it's all said and done, the rubber meets the road at the dollar. And that's what we need to find. We need to find sources of funding which we can plow into witness relocation programs. And that's the reality. I'm trying to be as innovative and as creative as I can. But when the President says he's cutting money to victims' assistance groups, which he's planning, and which I'll talk about to a victim assistance group, victim witness group, this Friday. This Friday? Yes, this Friday. It's a real... It's a real wakeup call that the pipeline is drying up. And we... That means our citizens. This City will continue to suffer a tremendously high price if we don't get sufficient funding for crime. I mean, it's our number one priority, period. Before anything else safety is the number one priority of any government. 2939 Budget - 4/12/05

Are you working with our City administration in pushing and kind of like demanding that we get funded for these type of programs because it's our only alternative as you have, you know, expressed now, that unless we get the funding there's no way that we can address -- there's no 9 other ideas outside of the box or any form of volunteerism that can remedy any of these problems. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Moving companies do not want to volunteer. They want to get paid. I've spoken to the Mayor on innumerable occasions about this issue and related issues. And he's not unsympathetic to my plea, but he tells me about budget realities. And I understand that. But you can't solve crime unless you have victim relocation. I mean, it is the... Look: People not only experience it in their own lives. They see it on television. They see it across the country. 2940 Budget - 4/12/05 And they want to be assured that when they come to court and testify and do their duty -- and they want to because it's their own safety and security, in their own neighborhood from criminals that they're worried about. They want to know, am I going to live through this? And that's -- you have to be able to answer unqualifiedly that we in law enforcement have the money to take you and move you and keep you as safe as we can possibly keep you, if you follow the rules of our witness relocation program.

How much does this program cost? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: It depends on the length of the delay between the person coming forward. For example, if a crime happened tonight -- And I'll use you as an example. You're a witness and, you come to the police and say, I'll tell you what happened but I'm frightened. From tonight you would be moved 2941 Budget - 4/12/05 someplace else. Tomorrow or the next day, as soon as we could get a moving company, we'd pack up your belongings and store them someplace until you were prepared to come and testify and then move someplace else. Or if you had made arrangements, we'd move you to wherever you were going to move. A lot of the cost depends on the number of days between the time you come forward and the day your case is tried and how many days you have to come back. So, it could be -- It's exponentially a day rate multiplied by the number of days we keep you housed in a paid facility versus how quickly we can seek to make arrangements. If you have a relative someplace that we can move you to, so that instead of paying for a place in a hotel or motel, someplace, you can go to your relative's place and stay there inside or outside the City. That obviously cuts down the cost of the program. It just depends on a variety of situations. 2942 Budget - 4/12/05

With how much money are you working with now? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We're working with about $250,000, but it's not a lot of money. It sounds like a lot, but it's very, very minor.

I agree with you. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And also, if we move you... Let's say if you have a relative in Oklahoma -- I'll just pick a state. Remember, every time you come back to Philadelphia to testify, we have to fly you out and fly you back or drive you out and drive you back. Either way it costs money.

Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Real brief. To follow up on Councilman Nutter's question. With respects 2943 Budget - 4/12/05 to the gentleman, Gerald -- Gary... whatever his name is. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Gary Tennis.

Gary. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Like the game. Tennis.

Tennis. You said that he is the head of the legislative unit? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

You indicated that he is one of your chief lobbyists? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Correct.

Does he personally lobby for gun bills or does he have people in his unit that do? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilman, he writes most of the gun legislation that we advocate for, as well as all the other legislative changes.

But is he a lobbyist in the true sense of the way? He has -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He's a 2944 Budget - 4/12/05 registered lobbyist. Yes, he is. He's a registered lobbyist. He doesn't get paid to lobby. You know, he gets paid a salary to be an Assistant District Attorney who writes and lobbies for legislation in the House and Senate of the United States and also in the United States Government. He lobbies for laws in front of the United States Congress as well.

Okay. Sticking to the issue that I'm interested in, gun violence, I'm -- And I don't know this location. Where is it that he lives again? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Bryn Athen. It's right outside the City of Philadelphia.

It's a religious community? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Yes.

And I'm assuming that the level of violence is nowhere near... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Non-existent.

So... And I'm not questioning this gentleman's 2945 Budget - 4/12/05 capabilities. But I'm a little concerned when you have your chief lobbyist not living in the City of Philadelphia, not having what I consider a true understanding of the level of violence in the City unless you actually live and breathe it. I'm a little concerned about his compassion. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, Councilman, I want to be absolutely honest and fair with you, as I think I always try to be. I'm not firing him. He's got a Civil Service exemption. I'll tell you what I think you ought to do. If you've never met him, I think you ought to sit down and talk with him. I believe in my heart you will be so overwhelmingly favorably impressed with this guy, you won't be able to see why we should let him go just because he lives someplace else.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm just concerned about -- You know, I'm very narrowly focused on gun violence. 2946 Budget - 4/12/05 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He's your man.

I want to see -- I will feel comfortable if I knew that, you know, he was as passionate about the issue, given the fact that he's the lobbyist for your -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Wait until you meet with him. I think you'll be so overwhelmingly impressed, you'll say, gee, how come I didn't have this guy do some stuff for me? You talk to him.

All right. I would like to -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: He's helped City Council. I don't want do use Michael Nutter's joke about there's so many people who are helping me in ways that I don't know.

Right. Okay. I would like to meet him. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: But he will help you.

One last question. Just for the record, what's your 2947 Budget - 4/12/05 position on video surveillance in high traffic drug areas? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I testified previously on this, and I will say so again. I believe that we must use every available advantage that we can possibly muster to take the sting and the bite out of criminal conduct. And I absolutely believe that we need video surveillance cameras. And I likened this to several cities that already have it. New Orleans has it. Of course, London has them by the millions.

Baltimore. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Baltimore has it. Chicago has it.

Chicago. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And I believe -- In fact, I've spoken to the Police Commissioner about this. And he may be there right now, for all I know. He told me that he had been invited out or invited himself to Chicago to see how they are doing it.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: To see 2948 Budget - 4/12/05 whether and to what extent. The Mayor of Chicago, of course, has put millions of dollars in this video camera surveillance. So, I think this is critical that we do this. Even if there are violations of the law, these cameras swivel. They have an ear component.

Right. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Which if you fire a gun, the camera turns sort of directionally towards the sound of the gunfire and focuses in on whatever the ear and the technology and the chips tell it to focus in on, so the police know where the gunfire came from and where to go.

Do you have any concerns about certain civil liberties... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. 20

...as it relates to... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No. And I'll tell you why. We as citizens only have expectations of privacy in our zones of privacy, in other words, in our houses, in 2949 Budget - 4/12/05 our bedrooms, private places. But we have no reasonable expectation of privacy, according to the Supreme Court of the United States and other courts all around the country, on the public street. So that if a camera is taken -- Well, look at it this way, Councilman: You know as well as I know that there are cameras taking our picture every place we go. In the supermarkets there are cameras. In the airports there are cameras. At the ATM there are cameras. When we go through the EZ-pass there are pictures being taken of us. Up on Roosevelt Boulevard when we go through Grant Avenue there are people -- there are cameras taking our pictures. So, cameras are an integral part of safety and security, both homeland and local. There is absolutely, positively, without a hesitation of a doubt that cameras on a public street where nobody has an expectation of privacy, violates no privacy right 2950 Budget - 4/12/05 established under our Constitution or our laws.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you, Madam President. I also want to thank you and your office for working with my office around a lot of the community's safety issues and all those kinds of things. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Thank you.

You're welcome. I do want to ask you one question. More and more of our constituents are asking us questions around identity theft. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Mm-hmm.

And I know a number of people that have been a victim of identity theft. And right now I really don't know what to tell them to do, who to refer 2951 Budget - 4/12/05 them to. Could you talk a little bit about maybe ways people can prevent or are there any booklets available and whatnot? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, Councilwoman, I or members of my staff would be happy to come out to your constituents and speak to them about identity theft. As I mentioned in my earlier testimony -- And I can't remember whether you were here or not. But I mentioned that identity theft is a growing problem. And it's getting harder and harder for people to protect their privacy because, while we tell people about their Social Security, their mother's maiden name, their birth date and any other personal information, we know that there are companies which collect information about ourselves which have been raided by computer hackers and get that information that we don't want them to have anyway. If we go to a doctor or a hospital 2952 Budget - 4/12/05 and give our information, somebody behind the desk taking that information can sell it. The American Red Cross blood bank up on Spring Garden Street had an employee who was selling the Social Security cards, the birth dates, mothers' maiden names, and all the other information about people who were giving blood to give Sunami relief victims blood. So, I can honestly say that although we try to impress upon us to... When I say "us" I mean us as civilians... how to be careful about your identity, and to make sure you're protecting certain personal information. It's getting harder and harder to do, but we'd be more than happy to tell people how to protect themselves. The first thing they should do is call the Federal Trade Commission. The second thing -- and report it. Report it to the Philadelphia Police Department. You should also call and put a fraud alert on all of your credit cards and your bank account. They should also call the three 2953 Budget - 4/12/05 credit agencies: Experian, TransAmerica, and there's one other... Equifax, that these are companies who will give you a credit report who will monitor your credit, every transaction that you make, so that if something unusual pops up -- Let's say you're 89 and you're buying $10,000 worth of computer equipment, something that happened to a lady who spoke to me yesterday -- it will jump up. So, there's lots of things to talk about.

Okay. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Including cyber crime on computers. If you'll just call us, we'll be happy to come out and address your community on those and related issues.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 2954 Budget - 4/12/05 Rizzo.

Madam President, I'd appreciate it if this information we have learned today about an employee that has worked in the District Attorney's Office since 1980, years, that... You know, I'm 8 pleased with the fact that the District 9 Attorney has gotten a waiver that's in her 10 file and that that satisfies her. 11 But it doesn't satisfy me. What I'd 12 like to do is have the Personnel Department 13 to come back and walk us through for 25 years 14 what they have done to make sure -- And that 15 may all be -- The file may be absolutely 16 correct that every year the person had to 17 come back in and justify the waiver. 18 But the document that I saw appears 19 that doesn't happen any longer. So, I would 20 appreciate it if you could arrange for the 21 Personnel Department to come back and focus 22 on this particular individual, to find out 23 how a person could have a waiver for 25 24 years. 25 And again, it may have been handled 2955 Budget - 4/12/05 correctly where every year, every two years, every other year. But I think I'm more concerned about the process here. I'm more concerned -- Not about this individual. Might be the greatest guy in the world. But now we've identified the fact that there's the potential that since 1980 nothing has been done. I hope that's not the case.

I think someone -- THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Councilman, could I just add something. I don't want to burden the record with this because in the scheme of things -- This is of concern to, obviously, some of you. But here's the bottom line. Just chatting with Ron Eisenberg, my Deputy for Law, Mr. Tennis got a lawyer. His name is David Rudovsky. I think you all know about him. He threatened to sue the City if he weren't granted an exemption because of religious grounds. And the City of Philadelphia -- 2956 Budget - 4/12/05 Because he was initially denied his right to serve the City because of his religious beliefs, under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Ed Rendell, for whatever reason Ed Rendell chose -- And you'll have to ask Ed Rendell -- the City agreed, the City of Philadelphia government agreed to put him on and not penalize him because of his religious beliefs. I have not revisited that question, and I'm not going to revisit it.

Well, I'm not asking you to. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I don't think he has to go back either.

I asked the Chair, in all fairness -- and I think you heard me. I said, you had in your file what you needed to conduct your business. But I'm asking about process. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Okay.

And I don't think the Governor... The Governor won't answer me 2957 Budget - 4/12/05 about where my $6 million is for the state police, so I doubt if he'll answer that question. So...

That's the Civil Service Commission.

But I'm more concerned about the process. So, maybe what you just said, District Attorney, is the answer to the question, that someone was intimidated into putting this waiver in effect in... THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Oh, no, no. 14 No. No. Please don't... No; please. I don't mean... Nobody was intimidated.

It was a court ruling, and apparently the Civil Service Commission --

Okay. If that's the case, I want to...

-- gave a lifetime waiver.

Okay.

That is what I'm assuming. 2958 Budget - 4/12/05

That's not what was said earlier. This is all new, Madam President, what's going on here right now, that a person has a lifetime waiver. And that's fine. That's fine. Just -- I just don't like people -- And I'm not suggesting -- I don't like to be scammed. And this may not be that. It's probably not that, but I think it's worth hearing it from the Personnel Department.

Understood.

Whether privately or publicly.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, I thank you very much. And thank you for all the wonderful work you do. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I thank the Chair. 2959 Budget - 4/12/05

Thank you. We will now hear from the Defenders Association.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for your patience. May I ask that you please identify yourself for the record. And before you start with your testimony, I will simply say that we do have a copy of your testimony. It will be given to the stenographer. It will be transcribed in full. So, if you would be kind enough to summarize your testimony we would really appreciate it.

I will, Madam President.

Thank you.

Let me introduce -- I'm Ellen Greenlee, the Chief Defender, Defender Association of Philadelphia. On my left is First Assistant Defender Charles A. Cunningham. And on my right is my faithful Controller, Selim Tawadros. 2960 Budget - 4/12/05 Do you want their names spelled?

I don't think that -- I think the stenographer probably has it.

Selim Tawadros S-e-l-i-m. T-a-w-a-d-r-o-s. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Madam President and members of City Council for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss with you the work in the Defender Association and to thank you for your continuing support and ask for your support as we present our appropriation request for fiscal year 2006. I will briefly -- As you've mentioned, you have a copy of our testimony -- give you a snapshot of our work as the premier and only Public Defender in Philadelphia, is that we provide legal and social service and investigative services, in representing about 70 percent of the adults and juveniles in Philadelphia who are charged with criminal matters from the trial level 2961 Budget - 4/12/05 through appeal. We also represent percent of 4 court appointments in homicide cases. We 5 represent, through our Child Advocate Unit, 6 now about 6300 dependent children. 7 And we represent in civil mental 8 health hearings more than 4200 respondents. 9 In calendar year 2004, just to get the 10 numbers straight, we received 68,000 new case 11 appointments. 12 We attended 350,000 court hearings 13 representing clients. And we provided in 14 excess of 73,000 ancillary services, such as 15 investigations, social service interventions 16 and interviews. 17 There has been no reduction in our 18 services, certainly not in the number of 19 courtrooms in which we staff or in the 20 caseloads or in the struggle that our staff has to meet the needs of all our clients. We are justifiably proud of the work of the association. And I think it's fair to say that it is -- it should be a matter of pride to the City of Philadelphia and to 2962 Budget - 4/12/05 members of City Council the quality of work that the Defender Association does for the poor citizens of Philadelphia. A brief look at the work of just several units. Especially in the area of juvenile representation, we have been striving over the last several years to provide a more individualized representation of our young clients because certainly it's at that stage, with young people, that we can make a difference in which direction they go. In our juvenile unit which handles those charged with criminal matters, in the last calendar year we had 15,000 hearings, which represented a percent increase since 17 2002 which is a great deal of work. 18 We have expanded our team approach 19 to all five courtrooms in the juvenile system 20 which means that we have a senior attorney 21 who supervises the work of the younger 22 members of our staff who are representing. 23 And trying to provide that each 24 client in the juvenile setting is -- talks to 25 an individual attorney who will represent 2963 Budget - 4/12/05 that person at a hearing. This is a big change, as I'm sure you're aware, in terms of the horizontal nature of our practice, to try to make it more individualized and to have a greater effect on the outcome. We also in our juvenile area are involved in teleconferencing in which last year we made 36 trips -- the trip, including an attorney and a social worker, to 12 placements for review hearings. 13 This means that the City is not put to the expense of having to bring in the youngsters to Philadelphia for hearings. And this also allows us, obviously, to get a look at the placements which in many instances have turned up some serious problems that we are attempting to be -- to have addressed. We also in the juvenile unit have participated in the last year in two statewide trainings. We are attempting to try to upgrade the level of practice in the juvenile defender offices throughout the State of Pennsylvania. 2964 Budget - 4/12/05 In addition to that juvenile unit, we have a juvenile special defense unit which handles those youngsters who are charged as adults in more serious cases. Last year we saw a very significant rise in the numbers of juveniles being charged as adults: From 298 in '03, to 420 in '04 which is a very significant increase.

We're happy to say that this specialized unit of four attorneys and three social workers and two investigators. After preliminary hearings have been held, we have had 68 percent of those youngsters returned to juvenile court. We also are busy right now in working on the conditions of confinement. We have approximately 42 youngsters who are being held at the House of Correction in what can only be described as some kind of middle-aged sort of confinement. And we are working with the prison administration and the City to try to alleviate the dreadful conditions in which these youngsters are being held. 2965 Budget - 4/12/05 The third of our juvenile units that deals with children is our dependency unit, the Child Advocate Unit which represents approximately 6300 dependent children. There also over the last several years we have worked on a team approach which provides much more individualized service to our children. And we are also begun focusing over the last year on those children who are aging out of the system, who are reaching the age of 14, 15, 16, to better prepare them, in terms of education, housing, and jobs to -- to age out of the system and to get off the dependency roles. A part of the child advocate work also has been to expedite the adoption process, to get more children moving more quickly into adoption. A lot of these initiatives have been the work of Judge Myrna Field, who's the Administrative Judge of Family Court; has been very innovative and very assertive, in terms of these improvements in Family Court. That's pretty much the focus of what 2966 Budget - 4/12/05 we do with our juvenile clients. We also have -- Obviously, all the departments are busy. Probation, parole and alternative sentencing unit works very closely with our adult social service. They handled 57,000 probation violation hearings last year which is only important because it represents, like, a 57 percent increase since the year 2000. So, probation violations are soaring. They also are involved in early parole. And of the 2700 petitions that were granted last year, we have an 81 percent success rate in getting people paroled early. That units handles -- handled last year 40,000 phone calls from clients and families and everyone involved in cases and letters. So, that's a tremendously busy department. Also busy in getting clients into alternatives from jail through our intermediate punishment programs, we've got 607 people into programs last year. And also through our forensic 2967 Budget - 4/12/05 intensive recovery program, we work with 65 different drug and alcohol and mental health programs to get proper placements for clients. The last unit I would mention is our homicide special defense unit. As you're aware, our homicide unit began work in 1993. We do percent of court appointments only, 10 and since that time we've had 1,068 11 appointments in homicide matters. 12 And I think that you're well aware 13 that in that time frame, those 12 years that 14 we've been doing this, we have fortunately 15 had no client receive a death penalty. 16 I think that's a credit to the type 17 of representation that people get, where they 18 are assigned two attorneys, an investigator, 19 and a mitigation specialist to handle their 20 cases. Our homicide unit also works with the private bar in conducting continuing legal education programs and consulting on matters where they can be of assistance to the private bar. 2968 Budget - 4/12/05 A small part of that homicide unit is our special defense unit which is really only two people. They're kind of surprising how much they're able to do. Of course they do call on some of the members of the homicide unit. But they handle the high profile cases, complex cases, all involuntary manslaughter, all rape preliminary hearings. So they are a tremendously, tremendously busy small unit. Last year they handled 276 new cases and 594 rape preliminary hearings which is just incredible.

And I didn't even count the number of probation violations that they handle. That's just a kind of a snapshot of the work that we do. The nitty-gritty is our financial situation which I will broach to you at this point in time. For fiscal year '05, which is ending shortly, we've had a very challenging year. We had no increases in our budget, other than a small amount of roughly $123,000 for the administrative pay plan that the City agreed 2969 Budget - 4/12/05 to. We've had -- We had no money for salary increases. And still we are -- have been able in this fiscal year to stay within budget, due to very close monitoring of expenses, holding the line on salaries, postponing purchases, and significant changes to our benefit plans. One thing that differentiates us from other departments that come here is, obviously, we are not a City department. We do not have the advantage of having benefits and personnel and a number of things that are taken care of by centralized agencies. We operate like a private law firm. From the appropriation that we receive, we must pay all our expenses, including salaries, benefits, insurance, rent, utilities, professional services, supplies, and anything else that we need to run our business. This differentiates us greatly, I think, from City departments, so that for fiscal year '06, when in our discussions with 2970 Budget - 4/12/05 Budget Director Reed and her staff, the City again proposed no increase. This will be the third year where we would be at the same level. With all the savings that we have made, as we conclude fiscal year '05, we cannot -- we cannot sustain that level of funding without a significant increase, in order not only that there be fundamental fairness, in terms of how we as the lawyers for the poor are treated in terms of the City, but also because we are lagging behind both the City law office and the District Attorney's Office, since this would be, as it presently stands, the third year where we would have no 17 increase in our appropriation. What we are requesting -- And I should point out that we have been told by Budget Director Reed's Office that since we are not being asked to take a five percent cut, that we will not get the two percent that is included for salary increases. But there is no way in the world that we can take a five percent cut, since 2971 Budget - 4/12/05 there's been absolutely no reduction in the level of services that we are asked to provide and must provide on a daily basis to the City. And we are not a City department. We do not have the benefit of being part of any City pension plan or having centralized administration, in terms of personnel and benefits. 6 million. Exactly it's $1,646,450, and I will break that down for you. We first are asking for that two percent wage increase. Customarily, when the City negotiates with unions and comes up with a formula, as they have this year of two percent this year for '06, and then three percent, and I think then four percent. Customarily the Defender Association has benefited from that amount to give some kind of salary increases. P. Program, obviously, since we are not part of the City. We do not have people who are in a financial position to retire. So, we must request that two percent wage increase be reinstated. We are asking that attorney's salaries which have been at a starting salary of $42,000 for three years now, since the pay priority plan that Mayor Street and before him Governor Rendell endorsed has run out, that we move -- we intend to move the salary to $45,000. And I think you know that that's clearly at least where the District Attorney is. And there can't be any question in anyone's mind that Defenders work at least as hard as District Attorneys do. And I'm not saying anything negative about the District Attorney, but you all realize that the job of Public Defender is not an easy job, with long case lists and other things that have to be done for our clients.

We proposed in September to move our 2973 Budget - 4/12/05 starting salary to $45,000. As I mentioned, it's been three years at $42,000. And that implicates a bump to the newer attorneys who are already at $42,000. So, we have to keep a space between the younger attorneys. So, that move will cost us approximately $326,000. S. but what our social workers can go out and earn in any private agency probably about $30,000. For the last five years or more our starting salary with a bachelor's degree has been $23,500. With a master's degree it's been $25,500.

That's absurd.

We spend a great deal of our time interviewing, hiring and then losing people because we are not competitive. I mean, we are not even close, in terms of salaries. 2974 Budget - 4/12/05 What we are doing is, we are moving to the level of D.H.S. because our social workers, especially the child advocate unit which has half of our social workers, about 35 social workers, work on a daily basis with the social workers at D.H.S. D.H.S. starts its social workers at $28,700, and $30,600 for comparable experience. We have had to do this in the interests of stemming the attrition which is really debilitating because we spend so much time having to interview and find people who will come and enjoy the experience but leave after about a year because they can't afford to live on our salary. In addition to those salary issues, we have -- we will have an increase in our medical insurance. We project at about 15 percent come December when we renew. We have over the last two years -- And I think it's clear since we were able to hold expenses during fiscal year '05, that we have put in place a number of items to save 2975 Budget - 4/12/05 money on our health plans. We have done away with the Blue Cross/Blue Shield entirely. We have a $500 co-pay for hospitalization. We have payroll deduction for those employees still on Personal Choice. We have changed our prescription plans to a three tier formulary plan. And we have provided mail order prescriptions for those who are on maintenance medicines. This has made significant savings. At this point in time we don't see that there probably are anything like the savings to be made this year. And we expect that we will probably have a 15 percent increase which will be roughly $341,000. The last two items are the benefits linked to the increase in the salary and increases in life insurance, Workers' Comp and disability, since we have to pay all of our insurance, which amounts to about $163,700. And finally, we have to add to our technology staff. We have a very lean, lean 2976 Budget - 4/12/05 technology staff. We have an I.T. manager and a staff of four who do the programming. One does programming. One does hardware. One does software. One does teaching. And that's it for a staff, including interns and students, of about 500 people. So, they are -- we are stretched kind of thin. What we are facing in the next year is the implementation of a statewide system, court history system, which we are not in a position to handle at this point in time because we do not have a case management system. As I've outlined in our testimony, we have been begging over the last 15 years from the state and especially the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, to fund us so that we might develop a case management system. At this point in point there is no 22 choice about it. Something will have to be done. We have alerted the City and M.O.I.S. about the needs that we will have in the next year. 2977 Budget - 4/12/05 And obviously, we need to get moving right away because we're either going to have to develop our own case management system or we're going to have to adapt one that's off the shelf. In any event, we will not have a choice about that because the system -- criminal justice system will grind to a halt in the fall of 2006 if the Defender is not on line. To that end, at this point in time we are hiring a support specialist and a data base application specialist. And that's the last item on our budget list -- our appropriation list -- our increase list at this time, which takes us to an unhappy $1.6 million plus change, in order for us to be able to continue to provide the services we have, in order for us to insure that our staff receives the same kind of compensation that comparable positions in the City receive. And with that, Council President, I thank you for your time. I hope that -- I 2978 Budget - 4/12/05 trust that was not too long.

No. You were fine.

Or too much of what's in our testimony. We will... obviously would very much like your support for this request when you have a chance to look at it and determine the validity of it, and also certainly will appreciate the opportunity to work further with City administration, with the Budget Director.

I know that you have indicated that you're requesting an additional $1.6 million above the Mayor's recommended budget request.

That's correct.

And you also indicated that you expressed your needs to the administration. Can you tell us what kind of a response that you received?

Well, in all candor, we actually only sent this request last week 2979 Budget - 4/12/05 to the Budget Director. So, we haven't had an opportunity to discuss the specifics of the request.

So we don't know what direction we're going either. So, you're going to have to get back to us, please.

Yes.

And I would appreciate your doing that in writing.

Certainly.

You know, there was a question... The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.

Good afternoon. Let me see. Yep. Good afternoon. Talk a little bit about the organization. You said that there's 500 people plus in terms...

Yes, including interns and student. We're roughly at about 480.

Full-time? 2980 Budget - 4/12/05

About 215 full-time attorneys.

This residency thing is always very controversial around here. Could you tell us how many of your employees live outside the City? THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Well, the percentage, Councilman, is 33 percent live outside the City.

33?

Yes.

So, since you're not a City agency... But you described the fact that, you know, there are certain things that you don't get as not being a City employee. But obviously you're not bound to any City residency in your organization.

That's correct.

33 percent. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry. I was distracted. What was the percentage?

33 percent of the 2981 Budget - 4/12/05 full-time people. 400 and....

About 480.

480 people. 33 percent of those folks live outside the City of Philadelphia.

And they are permitted to do that because you're under contract.

Yes. That's correct.

Mm-hmm. Very well. I would appreciate it if you would notify us of the outcome of your meeting with the administration and what they propose to do regarding the $1.6 million

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

We certainly will do that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time. 2982 Budget - 4/12/05

You're welcome. This committee will stand in recess until 1:45 p.m. (A luncheon recess was taken from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.)

Good afternoon. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. We will now hear from the Law Department. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. We do have a copy of your testimony which will be given to the stenographer. It will be transcribed in full, so I would appreciate it if you would simply summarize your testimony. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Good afternoon. Thank you, Council President Verna and members of City Council. I am Romulo L. Diaz, Jr., acting City Solicitor. Thank you for the 2983 Budget - 4/12/05 opportunity to testify today in support of the Law Department's budget request for fiscal year 2006. And I will summarize my prepared statement, as you requested, in the interest of time. I am accompanied today by the Law Department's Executive Committee, Donna Mouzayck, First Deputy City Solicitor; Don Marino, Chair of Litigation; and Barbara Ash, Chair of Social Services; as well as Chris Lane, Director of Administration and Management. Under the City Charter, the Law Department exists to provide quality legal services --

Excuse me just a minute, please. I've been asked if you would please pull your microphone closer. They're having difficulty hearing you. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Under the City Charter, the Law Department exists to provide quality legal services to the City of Philadelphia. In sum, we fulfill that mission by 2984 Budget - 4/12/05 supporting the administration's vision for Philadelphia, meeting our responsibilities to City Council, and managing our resources to the City's budget goals for fiscal year 2006. In FY 2006 we will continue many of the efforts discussed previously with Council. For example, we intend to emphasize the collection of delinquent revenues owed to the City and contain legal costs, institutionalize court and administrative reforms designed to achieve timely placement permanently of children currently in the child welfare system, and meet our commitments to provide for equal opportunity and diversity both for Law Department contracting efforts and in the employment of a qualified diverse work force. Let me now summarize the Law Department's FY 2006 budget request. Overall we request $13.8 mill for FY 2006 in the General Fund. This represents a decrease of $1.4 million or nearly 10 percent from estimated obligations for FY 2005. We will also reduce 2985 Budget - 4/12/05 our General Fund budgeted staffing levels from 198 to 185. I would refer Council members to of my written testimony for our request in connection with other City funding sources. As acting City Solicitor for just over a week now, it is fitting that I recognize the leadership of former City Solicitor Pedro Ramos. During his tenure we had many accomplishments to celebrate. And I'd like to recite just a few of them. We restructured our tax unit and implemented a City-wide campaign aimed at delinquent taxpayers to increase collections in FY 2005 and beyond. We are on target to increase our annual collections by more than the $10 million promised to Council last year. We partnered with D.H.S. and Family Court to reform D.H.S.'s case management system which now provides continuity of representation and secures the best outcomes for the children in the system. 2986 Budget - 4/12/05 As a result of our negotiations and agreement with the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, the second stage of auto insurance rate reductions has begun. Reductions totaling approximately $18 million in Philadelphia went into effect between September 2004 and April 2005. We were successful in persuading the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn a Commonwealth Court decision and reinstate the City's Life Partner Benefits Ordinance. Our litigation against S.E.P.T.A. avoided catastrophic rate hikes and service cuts which could have led to the dismantling of our public transit system. Our action provided an opportunity for the Governor to explore and secure alternative funding to keep the system running through the end of FY 2005. In short, the City of Philadelphia has been well served by a dedicated Law Department staff that is capable and ready to meet its Charter responsibilities to all of its clients, as well as to meet the 2987 Budget - 4/12/05 expectations of Philadelphia residents. I am honored and humbled to have been given the opportunity by Mayor John F. Street to lead the City Law Department. Madam President and Council members, that concludes my oral summary. And I request that my formal written statement be entered into the record. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

Thank you very much. The chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam President. As you know, the City Solicitor represents both the administration and City Council. And the City Solicitor will often be faced with situations in which the interests of those two clients conflict. I would like to explore with you today how you would resolve such conflicts, in the context of ordinances which were duly 2988 Budget - 4/12/05 passed into law, even over the Mayor's objections. And let me give you an example. This past February Council enacted over the Mayor's veto Bill Number 040326. That bill 7 amended the City's pension code to eliminate the income offset provisions for disabled City pensioners. The Mayor in his veto message stated that the City Solicitor had advised him -- and I guess that was Pedro at the time -- that Council did not have the power to make such amendments -- make such amendments, quote, apply during the life of current collective bargaining agreements, end quote. My question is, suppose the Pension Board asked for your advice as to whether it should follow the provisions of this bill. Suppose further that as City Solicitor you agreed with your predecessor's conclusion that Council did not have the power to make changes to the Pension Code that apply during the term of current labor contracts. 2989 Budget - 4/12/05 Would your advice to the Pension Board be to follow your legal advice and to ignore an ordinance which was duly enacted by Council? Do you have an opinion? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Let me give a short context for the answer, if I may, and then respond directly to your question, Councilman. First of all, the City Solicitor, as you suggest, under the Charter, represents not only the administration but all 13 members of Council. 14 We have a responsibility and prefer 15 to offer written opinions as to the legality 16 of proposed legislation to all of our clients 17 so that there is consistency and transparency in that advice. There are opportunities, there are times when it appears that some of our clients prefer to have confidential advice, and we adhere to that request. But I have a responsibility to state what I believe to be the law, at least with respect to my responsibilities under the 2990 Budget - 4/12/05 Charter and that of the Law Department. In a particular matter where there is a potential conflict between clients, we not only have a longstanding policy as to how we deal with those potential conflicts, but we also have a Code of Professional Conduct that we as lawyers adhere to under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules. So, that's the context. And if I may respond to your particular question, I don't know this particular provision that you're referring to. But if it were a question put to me as to what my belief was as to the legality of a particular ordinance, I would be duty bound to give my best legal judgment. If the issue were -- And I think this perhaps may be part of your question, although not articulated as such. If the question were whether in fact, I should be providing legal representation, shall we say, if there is a difference of opinion as to the legality of a particular ordinance, we have honored those requests by City Council, and I 2991 Budget - 4/12/05 would intend to do that in the future as well.

I guess this is a somewhat hypothetical question because you have not yet made a decision on this but your predecessor has. If you believed that a bill that was duly enacted by Council was not legal, would you advise the City agency involved or the Mayor not to enforce the provisions of the bill, prior to any court making a decision on its legality? Certainly your opinion's a legal one. You're a learned lawyer. It has validity. But no court would have yet made a decision on the validity or legality of the law. Would you then advise your client on the administration side to ignore Council's legislative prerogative in passing legislation? And why wouldn't the administration just go to court and have a court determine the validity of this particular ordinance or 2992 Budget - 4/12/05 any other ordinance that there's a disagreement on. THE CITY SOLICITOR: There are a lot of questions in that one question. So, if I can just sort of separate them, if I may. It seems to me that if I've come to the conclusion, which is part of your question, that it is duly enacted, I might have a different result. I think that's really the heart of the question, is whether a particular ordinance is duly enacted. And then in addition to that, is there... Even for those that are duly enacted, is there a responsibility of the administration to follow it. There are clear decisions in the past by courts. There are also long-standing policies about the limits of what City Council is authorized to enact and what the administration is obligated to follow. But I go back to my earlier response, Councilman, that I have to call them as I see them. That is my duty to the Charter, under the Charter, to the 2993 Budget - 4/12/05 administration and to Council. And without knowing the particularities of this legislation, I can't tell you how I would find as to its duly having been enacted, whether it essentially goes beyond the scope of Council authority, as to the prerogatives of administration. So, I don't want to go too far out on this hypothetical limb, but I just want to seriously philosophically --

It's not as hypothetical as -- as it could be because we have a duly enacted ordinance which was ultimately enacted by overriding the Mayor's veto. And the Charter makes it clear that we have the ability as a legislative body to the process. We pass a piece of legislation; the Mayor doesn't like it; he or she vetoes it; council then has a process to override that veto. And at that point in my opinion, that would be a duly enacted law. What we had is a situation or have 2994 Budget - 4/12/05 as a situation is that your predecessor determined in his opinion that the law was not valid, and therefore advised the administration not to enforce it. That, to me, gets really clearly close to just dismissing the actions of Council and, you know, having your lawyer tell you that you shouldn't follow what Council has passed. And I think -- I mean, this Council's role has been diminished dramatically in the last five years to begin with. To diminish it even further by saying that even though we go through the process provided for in the Charter that the Mayor vetoes it and we 17 of us, 16 of us override that veto. And then the City Solicitor says, oh, by the way, I don't think it's legal, so you really shouldn't enforce it. I mean, where's the Charter powers granted to us by the framers of the Charter as a legislative body? 2995 Budget - 4/12/05 THE CITY SOLICITOR: I am aware, Councilman, that there are situations, particularly relating to administrative functions of the Mayor, relating to contracting, for example, where there are disputes as to the limits. It has been, I think, the long-standing policy of the Law Department and prior serving Solicitors that in areas where we can give deference to City Council at all, we will. In areas where there is a discretion of the Mayor, with regard to his powers, we certainly want to make sure that those powers and authorities are supported in terms of our interpretation. That's a long-standing policy and interpretation of the Law Department. In terms of whether in certain respects -- and McBride Principles is one that comes to mind -- whether that is one that as a matter of policy should be followed versus whether as a matter of law it is required to be followed. 2996 Budget - 4/12/05 You know, I think the long-standing policy is that we try to -- we try to at least carry out the desires of Council where possible. But -- And with regard to -- If I may finish.

The where possible gets me -- has me more concerned, that the wishes of Council, where possible. I mean, the qualifier there does leave me some serious issues. I mean, where possible in your opinion. That's what is concerning me. And would it not be better advice to the administration and to the government to pass -- to follow the law duly enacted by Council? Allow the administration to challenge that in a court where a judge, whose job it is to make decisions on whether legislation is valid or not, would then make a decision and we'd go from there. As opposed to, you know, a civilian -- albeit an attorney, but a civilian employee of the government who is 2997 Budget - 4/12/05 not elected saying that the Council, who is elected, don't follow what they pass because, you know, you don't have to. Don't you find that somewhat concerning? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I can understand from your perspective your concern. But again, I go back to the point -- and I'd like to just reiterate -- that I have to -- and my predecessors have spoken and delivered opinions as to what they believe the law requires. With regard to the Charter and the law of Philadelphia, there are clearly powers which are reserved to the Mayor and to his administration. And with respect to those powers reserved to the Mayor and his administration, I would have to deliver an opinion in my best judgment as to whether I believe that Council enactments, if you will, cross over the line into those prerogatives and those powers of the Mayor. I think that is a responsibility that any City Solicitor has under the 2998 Budget - 4/12/05 Charter.

I don't think I disagree with you on that point. I think you are required and responsible to give your learned researched opinion on what the law -- what you think the law is. But as not -- as not a member of the judiciary, and as not a member of the legislative body, why should the -- why should the view or the opinion of one City Solicitor supersede in some way the elected legislative body and/or a court of law which is empowered to make those decisions on whether or not a law is legal or binding? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I think the most direct answer that I can give you, Councilman, is that that is what I understand the Charter to authorize and expect and, indeed, perhaps, require the City Solicitor to do. Where there are potential conflicts of interest, as I had indicated earlier, with respect to the interests of our clients, the Mayor or City Council, as it may be, on the 2999 Budget - 4/12/05 same issue, the same Code of Conduct indicates that we should screen ourselves from those conflicts. We should make sure that we are providing fair and objective counsel and advice to all of our clients. And where it is necessary and appropriate, I am fully prepared to authorize outside counsel to protect the prerogatives of Council wherever appropriate.

Wouldn't you think that in this particular case that we've talked about for a little while now would be one of the clearly conflicted situations, where the very powers of the branches of government are in conflict with each other, wouldn't it be appropriate to then step back and say, you know, I can't -- I am in conflict with both my clients? And I mean, based on the very -- on the very basis of what their power is. This is not just, you know, whether or not a contract is legal. This is about the role of the two branches of government. And once 3000 Budget - 4/12/05 you're in the middle of that conflict, it would seem that the City Solicitor should say, I can't make a decision between those two clients. We should get outside counsel. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Well, I go back, if I may, to my earlier answer. And that was that we prefer to provide transparent and clear advice. And we prefer to provide that advice early in the process so that we can advise both our Council member clients as well as the administration of how we see particular legislation and as to its legal efficacy. If there comes a point in time where there is a significant disagreement, with respect to the administration and Council's views, of the legal responsibilities under an ordinance, as you suggest, duly enacted by Council, then at that point if Council says, we want to have outside representation to protect our interests, City Solicitors in the past and this acting City Solicitor commits to you today, that you will have outside representation to protect your interests. 3001 Budget - 4/12/05

Again, I don't want to beat this horse to death further, but... And I will contemplate -- most likely put together a letter asking for you to revisit this issue. But I agree with you in total up until the point where your advice -- potential advice to the administration or to the executive is not to follow the law duly enacted by Council unanimously. That, to me, I think is where you and I may depart on this particular issue. But I will look to prepare something for your... Take a look at it again. Perhaps you'll be authorizing outside counsel. THE CITY SOLICITOR: And Councilman, if I may very briefly just respond. I don't want my testimony to be mischaracterized, and I don't mean it in any kind of a... I just don't want my testimony to be mischaracterized as somehow saying that I would advise a client not to follow duly enacted law. What I really intend to suggest is 3002 Budget - 4/12/05 that I am trying to, in these instances, determine what I believe the law to be. I would welcome a letter from you. I would welcome the opportunity to respond, particularly after I've taken a look at the particular facts of this matter. And should it come to a point where Council believes that outside representation of its interests are needed, I would be prepared to take that action.

Thank you. And again I apologize, because this was not your decision. You are defending a decision that was made by a previous City Solicitor. But I think in the end, the ultimate decision or advice from that lawyer to his client, the Mayor, was don't follow the law we passed. And I think that's -- And I don't need you to comment on it. That's my opinion. And I'll be contacting you shortly by mail. Thank you. 3003 Budget - 4/12/05 THE CITY SOLICITOR: Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.

Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Solicitor. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Good afternoon, Councilman.

Congratulations on your appointment. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Thank you.

I have two areas of interest this afternoon, first starting with -- THE CITY SOLICITOR: Thank you, sir.

-- the City's lease with S.E.P.T.A. which was executed on September 27, 1968, and expires at the end of this year. Could you please update me on the status of negotiation of that lease. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I think we responded, Councilman, within the last week to that matter, but let me just articulate 3004 Budget - 4/12/05 today where we are. We have undertaken a very serious analysis of the lease, leaseback agreement. We know that, at least according to our interpretation, meaning the City Law Department's interpretation, it would appear that the termination date is at the end of 2005, December 31, 2005. There is at least another school of thought, if you will, that's been expressed to me informally on behalf of S.E.P.T.A. What we want to do within the Law Department is to be able to advise the administration with respect to our conclusions, so that we can develop a negotiation strategy going forward. We have not yet formally commenced that negotiation, but I would hope to be doing that in the not too distant future and would be pleased to keep Council informed as to that.

And that information has already been forwarded to Council in writing? 3005 Budget - 4/12/05 THE CITY SOLICITOR: That is correct. And I think, Councilman, the letter may have been dated April 5th, if I recall correctly. April 4th, I'm told.

Thank you. As a follow up to that question, aside from looking at the legal ramifications of renegotiating that lease, is there someone looking at the economics of that lease and how it might benefit the City, in terms of privatizing certain services or other options? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I can't speak for the administration, but it would seem to me prudent to look at all reasonable options and look at all of the costs and benefits associated with those options, in order to make a determination as to a going forward strategy for a lease, leaseback negotiation, yes, sir.

Okay. I'll look forward to talking to you about that further. My second area of interest is the 3006 Budget - 4/12/05 executive order for minority participation that was prepared by the Law Department. Can you tell me why it has an 18-month expiration date. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I can't tell you as to the 18-month period, but I understand that we are currently in discussion with Council staff and the Law Department staff, in connection with eliminating what otherwise would seem to be a lack of synchronisity in the termination date of the executive order and the expected review of the disparity study and any updates that may be required. I believe that is about ready to be concluded successfully, in terms of that informal discussion, so that it would terminate at the later of the report that is required currently by the executive order or the updated disparity study, so that we don't have the disconnect that currently would appear on the surface to be there.

Thank you. THE CITY SOLICITOR: You're welcome. 3007 Budget - 4/12/05

Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. Mr. Solicitor, on of your testimony, you indicate that the Neighborhood Transformation and Regulatory Affairs Unit will collect in FY 05 $3.4 million in increased fines. How does this compare to the original Mayor's revenue projection for FY 05? THE CITY SOLICITOR: There are -- There are two components of the revenue projection, insofar as the Law Department is concerned. There is first the tax collections. And let me just briefly summarize that, if I may, before I get to the Neighborhood Transformation unit number. But in connection with the tax collection projection, we had... I should say former City Solicitor Pedro Ramos had committed to City Council last year that the Law Department would increase its tax 3008 Budget - 4/12/05 collections by $10 million over the base of $90 million the prior year. And we are on target to exceed that by a significant amount, we believe now approximately $105 million. So, we will meet that commitment to City Council last year. With regard to the non-tax collections --

Can you tell us where that would appear in the revenue estimates? We're looking at... THE CITY SOLICITOR: In terms of the Law Department?

Yes. THE CITY SOLICITOR: For the Law Department, you're going to see that reflected in the revenue grants numbers, where you will see contingency fees to outside counsel reflected in the numbers. You won't see the exact. We don't account for these numbers in the City Law Department income, if you will. What you will see in our Law Department budget will be the numbers that we 3009 Budget - 4/12/05 pay out to collection firms, outside collection firms.

Where would revenues be reflected in the budget? THE CITY SOLICITOR: To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen those revenue numbers reflected in the Law Department budget. They are reflected in the overall City budget revenue numbers. And the only way... And I will just ask my colleagues for confirmation. They're nodding their heads yes. The only way you would see our collection numbers reflected would be the extent to which we use outside counsel. And therefore, commissions or contingency fees paid to outside counsel would be reflected in the revenue grants numbers which are in the Law Department budget.

I'm sorry. I was distracted. I'm talking about revenues. I'm not talking about fees. I'm talking about revenues. THE CITY SOLICITOR: And I guess... 3010 Budget - 4/12/05 I understand your difficulty. This is not a -- This is not a total budget reflective of both the income from the Law Department to the City General Fund or the other funds in total. These are the budget numbers that reflect before you the expenditures that we're requesting authority for in FY '06. And to the extent that part of our appropriation request would authorize to us pay outside collection firms for their success in helping us with both tax collection and non-tax collections, you will see those appropriations requests reflected in the revenue grants numbers. And I'm sorry if I'm not being clearer than that.

Well, maybe Diane Reed could explain. Where would the revenues appear? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Madam President, the Budget Director advises me that she doesn't have that information at hand. Could we provide that to you, for the record? I understand that this is of 3011 Budget - 4/12/05 concern to you. We want to be forthcoming, but it's not going to be reflected in the Law Department budget.

As I said, we don't know how to compare the original Mayor's revenue projection for FY 05. The revenues to us would appear to be much less than originally projected. But I'd like you to get back to us on that, please. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I'd be happy to, Madam President.

On 23-4 of your detail, you have listed a general budget reduction of $1.1 million in Class 200. Can you explain this reduction, please? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Just one moment, Madam President.

Sure. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Sorry, Madam President. I was confusing the section 23 number with the page number. The number that you're referring to which appears in Section 23 on , the 3012 Budget - 4/12/05 $1.1 million, the majority of that, about $680,000, reflects the technology investment, if you will, in some of the enhanced collection activities by the Law Department that we discussed before, which is going to allow us to back out of some of the commissions that we were otherwise paying to the outside collection firms. So, this was an investment in internal capacity in the Law Department to do the collection work, which means that we then did not have to pay the commissions to outside collection firms. About $500,000 reflects a reduction in our budget request for Class 200 dollars which is consistent with what other agencies and departments have had to deal with.

We would certainly appreciate a breakdown. THE CITY SOLICITOR: We'll be happy to provide that to you, Madam President.

Thank you. On -17 of your detail, you show $10,000 bankruptcy, TWA, US Air, Metal 3013 Budget - 4/12/05 Bank. Why isn't this being charged to the Aviation Fund? You are also asking for $40,000 P.G.W. multi-site agreement. What is it? And why isn't P.G.W. paying for it? 23-17. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Okay. Let me just refer to the contract that's related to the P.G.W. with multi-site agreement. These are environmental clean-up issues where we have both on behalf of P.G.W. and on the City, engaged in contract work with this particular firm, when it's done on behalf of P.G.W., even though it has been reflected on the City Law Department budget. Those numbers are reimbursed by P.G.W. to the City Law Department, where we have other environmental work where we use this firm. And then those numbers are paid for out of our budget without reimbursement. In connection with the --

Excuse me. I just don't understand why they would even be in your budget. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I'm sorry, 3014 Budget - 4/12/05 Madam President?

I don't quite understand why this would be in your budget. THE CITY SOLICITOR: It is an anomaly, if you will, of a past practice. It is one that we are changing. In fact, this year, this fiscal year, I've spoken to the P.G.W. general counsel. And going forward our intention is to have P.G.W. contract directly on behalf of these services needed for P.G.W. and not City-wide. But we're looking at a three-year snapshot in connection with our budget request. So, you're seeing the year before the current year and the year to come. And so, you'll see some of these transactions which may no longer reflect where we're headed, but they remain for this three-year snapshot on our budget tables.

Did you respond to the $10,000 bankruptcy T.W.A., U.S. Air, Metal Bank? My question is, why 3015 Budget - 4/12/05 isn't this being charged to the Aviation Fund? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Well, we have used this particular firm on bankruptcy matters unrelated to the Aviation Fund. I don't know why in this particular matter we have listed T.W.A. and U.S. Air as well. But the Metal Bank matter is one that is related to a super fund cleanup issue for the City. And in that particular context, we've been quite successful in -- through the bankruptcy procedure which took place in Missouri, is my recollection, over the last year. We wanted to make sure that in protecting the City interests. We were being, I think, quite aggressive. And as a consequence of the work that we did, both in connection with the super fund litigation and in the bankruptcy proceeding in Missouri, we were able to eliminate the potential outside liability to the City of something on the order of $20 million to $25 million. 3016 Budget - 4/12/05 So a $10,000 investment for bankruptcy, even though it may be mislabeled, with regard to T.W.A. and U.S. Air for this reason that I mentioned before, that we're looking at a three-year snapshot, but for that confusion. This is unrelated to the Aviation Fund. And I'm also reminded that if you look, Madam President, on of this particular budget submission, where we have the Aviation Fund legal services mentioned, you'll also see the remainder the bulk of that same contract for the same firm reflected in the Aviation Fund category. We have many situations like this where we have a contract with a particular firm. And depending upon the nature of the work that's being done, bankruptcy could be handled for any number of the funds. We allocate the dollars to where we believe the work is being done. And in this particular instance, it would appear that the firm did some General Fund work at about a $10,000 level. 3017 Budget - 4/12/05 And you can see that over some $54,000 is allocated to the Aviation Fund for the same firm.

Thank you. On -16 of your detail, you show $20,000 for Keel Communications media context, $120,000 for Wojack and Associates, lobbying services, and $50,000 HIPAA Compliance, City and P.G.W. Can you explain these three contracts and the services we receive and why the General Fund is paying for P.G.W. and HIPAA Compliance? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Let me start with -- Let me start with the Keel Communications contract.

Mm-hmm. THE CITY SOLICITOR: In fact, this is an area where I, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't used that contract opportunity. But going forward it seems to me that as part of our tax collection efforts, one of the improvements that I'd like is to 3018 Budget - 4/12/05 see us having greater visibility and publicity given to the City's efforts to collect from delinquent taxpayers. And I would think that we'd want to be using a firm that has this kind of communications capability. We haven't been spending, but I'm now of a mind that we should be looking to publicize our efforts to enhance our collections. With respect to what is listed here for Wojack, I personally would have probably characterized it as legislative services. It has been important, in connection with the work done on behalf of the City and the General Fund, for us to have a presence in Harrisburg, to keep abreast of what is going on with regard to the General Assembly and related offices in Harrisburg. One of the successes that I mentioned in my formal written testimony, Madam President, was in connection with the success that we had in increasing the ability of the City to impose fines and to collect additional fees which would benefit the 3019 Budget - 4/12/05 General Fund. For many years -- I'm told for well over a decade -- the City has been trying to increase the $300 fee limit and fine limit which is currently imposed. The General Assembly this past year did authorize the City to do that, up to $2,000, subject to an annual increased cap of $400. That's the value of these kinds of services which are performed on behalf of the City and on behalf of the General Fund. With respect to the P.G.W. matter, again, any work that we do on behalf of P.G.W. is subject to reimbursement. And so, therefore, the General Fund is not ultimately responsible for those expenses.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Diaz. First... Which I'm sure these 3020 Budget - 4/12/05 issues will come up at a different hearing, but since I think this is your first appearance since being nominated, what is -- what will you -- what will your policy be with regard to requests specifically by members of Council? And if you've answered this question already, you'll just tell me, regarding legal opinions on any number of matters. Are they -- When -- When they are completed, does it solely come to the member? Is it a public document? Is there discussion as to whether or not the member wants it kept public or private? What do you anticipate your policy to be on that in that regard? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I did respond, but I'd be happy to summarize very quickly for you, Council member. We have, I think consistently, and my policy and approach on this would not be any different from former Solicitors. We recognize that we represent the Mayor and all 17 members of City Council. We prefer to offer written advice 3021 Budget - 4/12/05 that can be shared so that all of our clients can be comfortable that they are getting consistent and uniform advice in a transparent way. But where we get a request from a Council office to keep the advice confidential, our policy is and will remain to honor all such requests.

Okay. And how does it work with regard to a legislative matter? And again, if you went over this, don't go over it again. A bill gets introduced. It's going through the process. At some point in time a document will appear. Is that just a general service? Is it for the purpose of trying to assist a member in, you know, making the -- putting the legislation in its best form or advising of potential legal issues? What is the -- What's the policy and what's the purpose? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I think you summarized the purpose. We want to be helpful, in terms of our advice, and timely, 3022 Budget - 4/12/05 and to assist in the development of legislation that is going to be effective legally. In terms of our policy, we want to make sure that we are providing consistent, uniform, transparent advice. And I think you can summarize why.

Well, I'd only -- Making no comment whatsoever because you have highly competent people over in the unit, but I would only suggest to you as a legislator that there are times when that advice, possibly... We introduce a lot of things around here, and sometimes you don't know when something's going to move or not. But the timeliness of the advice can often be helpful or can be -- That's okay. I know where you are -- or it can be a hindrance to the process, depending on when it arrives. And so, I would only suggest to you that sometimes, rather than just receiving the document possibly a day or so before either a hearing or even in some instances 3023 Budget - 4/12/05 maybe before action to be taken by the body, some amount of dialogue could be helpful to the process, so that it's not viewed in some instances as more of a game of gotcha. And, you know, I just want to point out to you that other than maybe the words being spelled correctly, the bill might possibly violate either the Home Rule Charter or the state constitution or, you know, treaties with three small countries in other parts of the world. It creates at times an environment that is not necessarily conducive to getting things done, as opposed to a fight. And, I would much rather always get along than have a fight. So, we can have further discussion about it, but there might be a timing issue here that could cut down on some of the swordsmanship. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I think it's a very helpful reminder that legislators act in a realtime way. And our advice, if it is to be useful, has got to also be in realtime. I 3024 Budget - 4/12/05 will certainly keep that comment in mind, as we try to meet your needs going forward.

I appreciate that. And I know, again, we put a lot of things in the -- We put a lot of things in the mix. And it's very difficult to keep track and also know what is going on in our various minds about the timing of what we're going to do and how we're going to do it. Having said that, the advice is always appreciated. The work product has been excellent. Even at times when I completely disagreed with the analysis, I appreciate the -- I appreciate the effort. Let's talk about -- THE CITY SOLICITOR: I wish you had been here when Councilman Kenney was putting me through my paces. Thank you. And I will share your comments with your colleagues.

Thank you. I'll read the transcript. Let's go to Section 23-16 of the 3025 Budget - 4/12/05 budget book. First, can you explain to me... There's an item that seems to have a variety of abbreviations. Can you explain what the -- When you go into minor object code 253, there's a whole series of firms' names, with no dollar amount for FY 05. And then there is a large item on under various legal services as required. First, what is this line item? The first one is across from... Is that Christie Parabu. THE CITY SOLICITOR: The first one I have on my list, Council member, is Ballard Spahr.

Okay. Right. I guess you're right. That one actually does have a dollar amount next to it. We've got labor. I figured that out. What is this next category which seems to be repeated on any number of occasions? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Well, I think 3026 Budget - 4/12/05 it will come as no surprise, Councilman Nutter, that what we have tried to do in the budget presentation is to honor both our responsibility as lawyers, which I did discuss earlier, in not providing detailed information about representation of clients or the amounts being spent on their behalf related to the Federal investigation. And what we have done is to list for your information the firms with which we have contracts. In some cases they cover more than just the Federal investigation and the client representation. So we're talking about investigation, cooperation and client representation.

That's what that line is, that I.M.V.S.T. So this is investigation, cooperation/client representation. Is that what that is? THE CITY SOLICITOR: That is correct.

Okay. THE CITY SOLICITOR: And then what 3027 Budget - 4/12/05 we have done at the bottom on Section 23, now how I realize the Council President was numbering these, Section 23-17. The number that shows for the General Fund in FY '05 as $863,192, there is not only in that amount in cooperation activities of the City with the Federal investigation and client representation, but we have other miscellaneous outside counsel. That essentially is a grouping that allows us to cover costs as they occur that may not be entirely foreseeable. Right now we're using, with respect to this category, some additional monies for the labor negotiation re-openers. We're anticipating that we'll have some expenses --

Those dollars are contained within the $863,192? THE CITY SOLICITOR: That's correct, with regard to the General Fund. You will see in the Aviation Fund $109,000 which is comparable to the eight sixty-three number on Section 23-17. So, if you were to look at -- 3028 Budget - 4/12/05

You've got legal fees in the Aviation Fund related to the Federal probe? THE CITY SOLICITOR: That is correct. And that appears on -35.

You're able to charge those costs to the Aviation Fund? THE CITY SOLICITOR: See, $109,000 in FY '05.

Yeah. I see it. THE CITY SOLICITOR: Let me just -- Let me just comment that one of the things that we have been doing through outside counsel representation -- And I'm not sure that it's fully understood. We have made sure that we have been responsive and timely in our cooperation with the U.S. Attorney's Office. That has entailed a great amount of work, to be responsive to requests for documents subpoenas, things of that like. In fact, what we have seen to date is that we responded to more than 60 document subpoenas. 325 document pages have been 3029 Budget - 4/12/05 reviewed, 200,000 e-mail messages reviewed. 30,000 gigabytes of computer data --

Are you reading from a document that we have or are these your own notes? THE CITY SOLICITOR: These are my own summary notes.

Okay. THE CITY SOLICITOR: So, when we talk about the investigation/cooperation line and client representation, we're talking about a great deal of activity that allows the City to be responsive to the U.S. Attorney's Office in its request for information.

Let me ask this question: Solely for the Federal corruption investigation up through and, I guess, including today... So, I only want to talk about matters that have been in court as of today. What were the FY '04 costs related to the Federal corruption probe? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I cannot give you that number. And the reason why, 3030 Budget - 4/12/05 Councilman, is because we don't distinguish between whether it's a matter in court or not. If it's related to the investigation and to the representation of clients --

Well, when you say the investigation -- THE CITY SOLICITOR: -- we could give you that number.

When you say the investigation, what investigation are you talking about? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I'm talking about the information requests and other investigative matters, some of which we do not know any details at all about, that --

Fine. Let me rephrase -- THE CITY SOLICITOR: -- that have been initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office or the F.B.I.

Fine. I understand. Then let me rephrase the question. Up through today, what were the costs 3031 Budget - 4/12/05 associated with the corruption probe for FY '04? THE CITY SOLICITOR: In terms of the Federal investigation, the number that we have for FY '04 is $2,036,217, which includes all City-related expenditures for FY '04.

Okay. And up through what is now, I guess, the third quarter of FY '05, what have the costs been so far, either expended or anticipated? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I can give you a number as of April 6th, which is the latest calculation that we have concluded.

Right. THE CITY SOLICITOR: And for FY '05, the number that we have calculated is $944,260. That's as of April 6, 2005.

Gotcha. And what at the moment are you estimating... I'll hold that part of the question. What did you estimate them to be for FY '05? THE CITY SOLICITOR: We estimated in 3032 Budget - 4/12/05 the budget category, that included some additional matters. Not exclusively for the Federal investigation for '05, we had estimated $972,000, is my recollection.

Okay. Do you think that -- But we still -- I mean, we still have, in essence, about a quarter to go. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I'm sorry?

We still have, in essence, about one quarter of the fiscal year left: April, May, June. THE CITY SOLICITOR: That's correct.

You estimated $972,000. You're presently at $944,000. Do you believe that you'll stay within your estimate or will it exceed the estimate, fiscal year '05? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Our current best estimate is that not only for the Federal investigation, cooperation and client representation, but also the labor negotiation reopeners and some of the things I mentioned earlier, that we are going to 3033 Budget - 4/12/05 require just under an additional $300,000 in FY '05. And I have communicated that information to the Budget Director.

So you think in FY '05 you'll need an additional $300,000 for probe-related and non-probe-related matters. THE CITY SOLICITOR: For contract requirements in '05. That's with, to be very honest, a very aggressive management of our contracts in all areas. But in terms of the Class 200 dollars that will be required, over and above what we have previously projected. We're going to need just under $300,000.

And within the $300,000 how would you break out the labor-related matters versus the probe-related matters? THE CITY SOLICITOR: I can calculate in a minute or two, if you will give me that time.

Sure. THE CITY SOLICITOR: If you want to go on to the next question, I will come back 3034 Budget - 4/12/05 to that number.

Well, the next question is, what do you anticipate the FY '06 probe-related costs to be? THE CITY SOLICITOR: Of the number, I actually have it now. I can go back to that, Councilman.

All right. THE CITY SOLICITOR: I had said that just under $300,000 in additional authority would be required for our Class 200 funding, inclusive of the Federal investigation. That number was actually $286,580.

Two eighty-six five... THE CITY SOLICITOR: $286,500, Councilman.

So, that's the real number. THE CITY SOLICITOR: That is the number that we are projecting now in additional funding that will be required. I've backed out the numbers that we have for the labor negotiation reopener work. 3035 Budget - 4/12/05 And so, the remainder, backing out that labor negotiation work, it looks like for the Federal investigation itself that we'll need $166,580 in addition to what we have projected.

So, the labor work is $120,000? THE CITY SOLICITOR: That's correct.