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.
Okay. I only have one question, and then I'll go away.
It is absolutely my last question of the District Attorney.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 --
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I would appreciate your doing that in writing.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry. I was distracted. What was the percentage?
33 percent of the 2981 Budget - 4/12/05 full-time people. 400 and....
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.
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
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
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 --