COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL BILLS 080006, 080007 and 080008 RESOLUTIONS 080039, 080040 and 080041 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Law and Government. I'm sorry for the slight delay here. Just for the record, we have a quorum consisting of Councilman Kenney, Chair of the Committee, Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Green. Also present is Councilman Jones, and Councilwoman Sanchez was here. I'm sure she'll be back. Would Mr. Boyle, the Clerk of the Committee, please read the three bills and three resolutions before us today.
Ordinance 080006, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter separating and further defining the responsibilities of the City Representative and the Commerce Department; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; 3 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special elections. Ordinance 080007, an ordinance 8 providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to provide for the creation of an Office of Inspector General, to provide for the powers and duties of, and annual appropriations to, such Office, to establish requirements for City officials and employees in connection with the work of the Inspector General, and to otherwise provide for the incorporation of the Inspector General into the City government; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make 4 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. arrangements for the special election. Ordinance 080008, an ordinance 4 providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to allow the Administrative Board to increase the number of deputies exempt from civil service in City departments; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot questions to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution 080039, resolution 18 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to provide for the creation of an Office of Inspector General and to provide for the powers and duties of, and annual appropriations to, such Office, to establish requirements for City officials and employees in connection with the work 5 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. of the Inspector General, and to otherwise provide for incorporation of the Inspector General into the City government; and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. Resolution 080040, resolution 9 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to allow the Administrative Board to increase the number of deputies exempt from civil service in City departments, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. Resolution 080041, resolution 18 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to separate and further define the responsibilities of the City Representative and the Commerce Department; and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia. 6 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Please let the record reflect Councilman Goode, also a member of the Committee, is present. Although all of these are Charter change amendments, they obviously take up some different issues, so we're going to take them up separately as far as testimony. The first bill and resolution 13 we're going to deal with are the ones dealing with the separation of the City Rep and the Commerce Department, and I think, Mr. Bumb, you want to testify on that and Ms. Johnson. So please identify yourself for the record and proceed. Let me just say for everyone, if you have written testimony and either have submitted it already or will submit it, that will be made part of the record, and if you want to just paraphrase your remarks, that would be fine too in the interest of time. 7 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. But I understand yours won't be that long anyway, Mr. Bumb, so that's okay. That's why you're going first. See, that helps. Go ahead. Please proceed.
Good morning, Councilman Greenlee and members of the Law and Government Committee. My name is Duane Bumb and I am the Acting Commerce Director. I am here today with City Representative Melanie Johnson to provide testimony regarding Bill No. 080006 and Resolution No. 080041, which propose to amend the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to separate and further define the responsibilities of the City Representative and the Department of Commerce by placing a question regarding the change on the April 22, 2008 election ballot. I am pleased to have this opportunity to review with City Council and the public the implications of the proposed Charter change. Since its 8 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. inception in 1951, the Charter has called for the City Representative to assume both the role of City Representative and Director of Commerce. While the Director of Commerce role was defined as managing commerce and industry within Philadelphia, the City Representative role was focused on ceremonial representation and publicizing the City's special events. S. city. Under the proposed Charter change, the Department of Commerce will continue to be responsible for the traditional economic development roles it 9 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. has always assumed; principally, No. 1, promotion of economic development activity; No. 2, develop opportunities for business growth; No. 3, encourage the use of ports and airports as tools for economic growth for our region; and, No. 8 4, increase opportunities for Philadelphia's workforce. In addition, the Charter mandates that the Director of Commerce serve on the City Planning Commission. The City Representative's duties will include, No. 1, serving as the ceremonial representative of the Mayor and the City, preparing and distributing proclamations and official City gifts as appropriate; No. 2, marketing and promoting Philadelphia's image; No. 3, ensuring the design integrity of Philadelphia-produced media content, including web-based content, event photographs, publications and use of the City's seal and logo; and, No. 4, managing the production of Philadelphia's 10 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. ceremonial and special events. While consistent with the historic division of responsibilities assumed by a Director of Commerce and Deputy City Representative, at least as far back as the Goode Administration, where the individual holding the cabinet-level position focused his or her attention on one half of the combined office and delegated the operational responsibilities for the other half to a deputy, the proposed Charter gives both functions full standing within the government and is currently planned to be revenue neutral. Approval of this legislation would not only formalize a division of responsibility practiced for some time, it would recognize the complexity of economic development and information exchange in the 21st century. Separation of the two positions will also help to define the considerable responsibilities of both the Director of Commerce and the 11 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. City Representative, as the need for focus on business retention and job growth as well as management of the City's image have become much more significant issues in the current environment. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on Bill 080006 and Resolution 10 080041. We respectfully request that this Charter change be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended in order to permit first reading at the next session of Council. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Bumb. Ms. Johnson, did you want to testify, too?
You're 12 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. just support staff, okay.
Okay. I think Councilman Kenney had a question. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you very much. I'd be interested in knowing both of your opinions on the use of paid consultants to promote the City in media and other advertising avenues. My issue is is that for many years, those positions have been used in a patronage type of way, whether or not we need them or not, number one. Number two, does it make sense for the City to have a coordinated bid process for that type of public relations work for all of our departments as opposed to the Commerce Director having one, the Streets Department having another, other agencies within the government, the RDA, the Housing 13 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Authority? All those agencies have and have had in the past separate media and promotional consultants, public relations consultants, at a pretty hefty price. Does it make sense to consolidate all of that work to have one solid, dependable message that the City is sending out about all the things that it does as opposed to a disparate group of people fashioning, creating a message that maybe isn't as coordinated as it should be, and is there any movement in that direction?
Let me answer the first question. Yes. During the time that I've been acclimating myself to the office, I've been looking at some of the things that we have done in the past, and, yes, we have used a lot of paid consultants for the promotion of the City. We're looking into bringing a lot of that in-house, but we're still at this point just gathering information. 14 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. A lot of money has been expanded to promote the City, and, as you say, I'm not certain whether it was patronage or what, but we are looking to --
Okay. I think RFPs are a good way to go in the future so that it's a fair process and a lot of people will have an opportunity to bid and work with the City. But I don't think that we want to use a large number of paid consultants. I think we'd rather put committees together to see what we can.
And private advertising firms that do work, I mean, they're competent firms who can give us a good message and a good image, and I'm glad that you're bringing a lot of it in-house, but in the event that we need 15 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. outside help, I would really urge a transparent bid process for the lowest price, and as much as we can coordinate together in every agency, whether it's recycling promotion, whether it's health screenings at our health centers, whether it's fire safety, whether it's fire prevention, all those things can be done within the framework of one firm that is the lowest responsible bidder, and I think we get a better, more dependable message coming out of City government. Thank you.
I just have a quick question about the interplay between information exchange, which is a large part of economic development. In other words, when we're out putting the message together for why people should move into the City, et cetera, the City Representative is going to conferences or 16 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. other things that can promote economic development. Since information exchange is a minion avenue for getting economic development, job growth, what is the real need to separate these rather than have one person in charge of economic development and the message related to economic development?
I think we both maybe want to respond to that. I would sort of say I agree with you that messaging is critically important in economic development and so we'll need to be fully coordinated with that, and there is in fact a specific sort of message that we want to have to the business community, to individuals who would want to start businesses in Philadelphia and those businesses that would be considering growing in Philadelphia, also reaching out to the workforce looking to sort of make sure that that is a workforce that is as highly skilled as it can be, attracting 17 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. sort of new members of that workforce into the City as we look for population growth. I think that that's one important sort of messaging set, but I think that the role that we're looking the City Representative to undertake here is a much broader role than that for messaging.
He's right. Economic development is a part of the message for Philadelphia to bring in more businesses and residents, but you have the overall image of the City on a local, regional and national level. You have different organizations who are promoting outside and you have the City who are supposed to be promoting inside. So you really need someone who is going to concentrate on that broad message, not only for economic development but there are other aspects to it. So I think that one person can't really be responsible for trying to 18 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. pull that together since there are so many different messages to be put forth.
And who is going to frame the economic development message for the City of Philadelphia? Will it be the Commerce Department? I mean, obviously the Mayor, but --
I think it will actually be both, the Commerce Department working with the City Representative's Office in terms of getting it out there, but I think the framing will come from the Mayor's Office, his cabinet and the Commerce Director.
Thank you, Councilman. Any questions from members of the Committee? Councilman Jones.
Good morning. 19 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
How are you? Duane, they give you the real hard job -- for an "acting" guy, you get to testify more than anyone, but you're doing a great job. I particularly have a fineness for Commerce and City Rep, is where I started, and so I have a little bit of understanding as to why you need to split the two functions, and I think that is an appropriate move, but I have a couple of questions that if they cannot be answered now, that as we progress with budget hearings, that they're jotted down and then researched for future purposes, because I know how it is to be new. Anyway, I was curious as to what the current status of the sister city relationships are and how many of them we have with the City of Philadelphia.
Actually, I think we're going to have to sort of confirm 20 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the number of -- the number of sister cities that we have here with Philadelphia has been, I think, unchanged for, I'm going to say, close to eight years, and we are right now currently evaluating the entire sister cities program, determining whether it's appropriate for us now to be adding sister cities and what the criteria for those additions might be. It's actually a good question, because we both are talking about that very program, because in fact much of sister cities is about how the City holds itself out to the international community and I think, as you know, we've also used the sister cities program very much as a way to sort of attach the business community to international marketplaces. So, in fact, it sort of crosses now both functions that we have here. To the extent that that program is fundamentally a cultural exchange as it was in setting up sort of long-term 21 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. relationships with cities around the world, it probably appropriately belonged -- that function probably appropriately belongs with the City Representative, recognizing that as we look at international trade missions, which are in fact business specific, that we will continue to manage that sort of function within the Commerce Department.
The reason I raise that is because they are a fun, wonderful way to present the City of Philadelphia to another city. I had the opportunity to be a part of the exchange between Amman, Jordan and Philadelphia, and the history there is that Philadelphas and Philadelphia are one and the same by way of their sisterly and brotherly love function. So that was some of our history as a city. But one of the things that I would encourage as you contemplate the future of this program, a great philosopher once said that if dancing 22 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. don't lead to romancing, you might as well have been born with two left feet. The point to me of being involved with sister cities is also not just the cultural stage but the business opportunity, and somehow we kind of need to reinforce that. When we went to Korea and did the 50 business meetings over a two-day, three-day period, we struck out on maybe 49 of them, but the one we hit the home run with is now at the Navy Yard building railcars. So if you look at what we put out as a city to do that trade mission and what the rate of return on our investment will be as the 200-plus jobs that are created there, that's the kind of sister city relationship I would think is more beneficial to the taxpayer. And I don't mind our Cameroon relationship where we exchange soft pretzels for their tea, but if we're not opening up tea distributorships in Philadelphia, it has 23 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. less of a value to me. So as we look forward to that, I'd like us to kind of consider that. The other thing that I'd like us to look at, is there an Office of Protocol that we have, and how does that work?
I think it's a combination of IVC, and we had an office. I'm not quite sure what you call it. It's international trade, where we have a manager who does -- she works with the Consulate core and IVC, as well as my office for ambassadors and heads of states that come in. So I've been working with her a lot, because we've gotten a lot of visits lately.
I think this Council would benefit immensely by working with you and that office. We get a lot of inquiries. There is the African 24 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Caribbean group, which has managed to do a couple of events now here in the City of Philadelphia, but when it comes to what the customs, what the proper way to greet them, I have no idea, and I'm going to rely on your office to kind of shepherd us through that. And I'm probably sure if we look at different regions of the world where that is appropriate, we would love to be able to rely on you to do that due diligence and homework for us.
Councilman, just one second. I think Councilman Kenney wanted to add something to your point.
Just one piece of information I recommend, and I'd recommend it to anybody who has got an 25 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. interest in protocol and things like that. There's a book called "Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands," which is a book about this thick with just about every cultural thing you should or should not do in contact with persons from a foreign country as opposed to how you approach all those things. It's a very interesting book and it's been very helpful, so I'll get you a copy and send it over.
I appreciate that, Councilman. I thought that was the way we dealt with the seniority question here in Council. (Laughter.)
As a freshman, I thought that was the book -- 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Just ask the Mayor. He knows. He'll tell you. (Laughter.)
Finally, my final question is that there was under the Rizzo Administration a group called the City Reps, and it wasn't related to City Representative, but what it was was a group of folk that actually were, for lack of a better word, headhunters that went after different industries in different cities and tried to woo them into the City of Philadelphia, both domestic and foreign, meaning that if there was -- what the example of the Korean experience was that we went over there, we took a group of maybe 19 businesspersons, tried to make the 20 connect. Again, realizing that you're going to strike out a lot, but you get one, it pays for the trip. But there is a corresponding relationship to domestic opportunities. North Carolina, High Point, 27 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. North Carolina, I believe, is the furniture capital of the country. There's over 40 different distributors, manufacturers of furniture made in America. It seems to me that there are fewer and fewer furniture outlets here in the City of Philadelphia for some reason. I don't know if it's the tax structure or whatever it is, they have not decided to make Philadelphia their home. But if we developed an ad hoc program that was not made up of employees per se, maybe one or two, but also volunteers that could be solicited to try to attract those businesses, I think that's a good way to encourage both domestic and foreign businesses to the City of Philadelphia. One of the criticisms that I've heard in my economic career is that we don't make as much of a fuss over businesses that might be considering Philadelphia as we should, and I want that to be a priority in this Administration. 28 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
I agree with that, and we do need to sort of prioritize. It's all part of what needs to be a well-thought-out business attraction program targeting the right sort of businesses, and then as you would note, once we sort of identify those businesses, making sure we sort of rolled out the red carpet and done all the right things. I agree with you fully.
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. I know Councilwoman Sanchez had a question, but I know the Mayor is here. My guess is his schedule is just a little tight. So if the two of you wouldn't mind -- in fact, you probably don't have a choice, you'll have to yield, but, Mr. Mayor, I assume you want to speak on all three?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. 29 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Okay. We'll make an exception in your case. You can speak on them.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much. Michael A. Nutter, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate you taking me out of the lineup, and the other Councilmembers who are here. Just a couple quick comments about the three matters that the Law and Government Committee has here today. With regard to the Charter change involving the Commerce Director and the City Rep's Office, I think this presents a tremendous opportunity for us to do formally what has, in essence, been the practice over the past number of Administrations, but also helps to elevate the prominence of what the City Representative component of what has been a dual title job but usually split by 30 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. functionality, but also represents a unique opportunity to make sure the Commerce Director is primarily doing what the Charter anticipated with regard to commerce, elevating the issue of the City Representative as the primary representative for the Mayor and the Administration, if I'm not or any Mayor is not able to attend an event, but is taken certainly with the seriousness with which I believe the Charter anticipated and maintains its cabinet-level status, which helps to address many of the issues that I know a number of the Councilmembers have raised about the Office of the Commerce Director. Second, with regard to the Charter change involving the number of exempt deputies, I wanted to ask for your kind consideration with regard to that piece of legislation. It will help us, I believe, resolve what has often been referred to in other circles as a bit of the work-around throughout the system, 31 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. but, more importantly, allows commissioners and other department heads to better manage their departments, provide, I believe, ultimately greater service to the citizens of this City by being able to put together a team within that department, of course, much like members of Council, naturally pick their staff and then provide the direction and support that is necessary. This provision would allow us to do the same in a much more transparent fashion in the Administration, and I would greatly ask for your support with regard to that matter as well. Lastly, with regard to the Charter change involving the Inspector General, I've had a number of concerns over the years. Of course, this position was initially created by then-Mayor W. Wilson Goode, Sr. The matter in front of you today comes out of a long series of various Executive Orders that have been issued by a number of Mayors since then, 32 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. but creates the level of independence that all citizens and public employees should expect from that office. It is the kind of office that should not, I think, necessarily be solely dependent upon the Mayor's Office, either for direction or from a budgetary standpoint, and I think all of us deserve to know that the Inspector General is conducting himself or herself with the highest level of integrity regardless of all other factors that may be out there. The person who is in that job today certainly has my highest confidence, having served this City and the federal government very well in the past. There's information certainly available in terms of what the duties and responsibilities are, but I think that this helps to put the final piece into place. When we've talked about the reform agenda and the change agenda for the City to restore a certain sense of 33 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. integrity and transparency and openness with regard to this particular position and creating the independence and the financial security to make sure that the Inspector General can operate properly, I would certainly ask for your continued help and support that all three of these measures today be reported out of Committee as quickly as possible.
Obviously because they're Charter changes, they need to get on the ballot and there is, naturally, a bit of a timing issue, as there always is. But I do appreciate this opportunity to be with you this morning. Certainly if there are any questions for me, I will answer them as quickly and briefly as possible.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know there were some questions that myself and some members of the Committee had on the other two, not this particular one, the other two 34 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Charter changes. I don't know. Would you be open to addressing some of them or would it be better if your --
Well, certainly the staff will come up, but if you have a question for me, I'm always pleased to respond.
Okay. I guess on the issue of the deputies, I guess the biggest question I had and has been raised in other ways and I'm sure are going to be raised in testimony here is, I guess, to call it the open-endedness of the number, that it leaves open the possibility of a large number of deputies being appointed and also being appointed not necessarily just from the department but from outside the department, outside the City, whatever. Had you thought about that? Are you open to some limitations as far as the number and the manner of the appointees?
I've certainly 35 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. thought a great deal about it and, quite frankly, the reality is is that there are a fairly large number of exempt employees today. They attain that status and then ultimately get detailed somewhere else. I'm very mindful not only of the managerial responsibility but also the fiscal responsibility that attaches to this request. Secondly, certainly after coming into office, we went through the process of dealing with additional deputies by convening the Administrative Board, had a hearing, which, of course, they're open to the public and anyone is able to come. You presently have a situation where there are any number of, quote/unquote, "deputies" in departments who technically are actually deputy managing directors or assistant managing directors, and I have to say that I've been surprised over the years at the sheer number of some of those positions. 36 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. This is an attempt, quite honestly, to bring all of this managerial activity to the forefront, seek to eliminate, to the extent that we can, the somewhat circuitous nature under the current Charter provisions with only the two deputies, that many departments clearly have needed more. I understand the concern about the number, but I would also say to you that from a pure management standpoint and for maximum flexibility, I've decided not to put forward a particular number. I think what I can say to you is that we do not expect that there would be an extraordinary number, and you might take some comfort from just the number of deputy mayors that I've put forward. They have a significant amount of responsibility. I've not looked at the deputy mayor title as a position which might be considered a bit of a dime a dozen. We have four, and I purposely planned to keep that number limited 37 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. because I wanted the importance of the position to not be de-valued by the sheer number of people who hold that particular title. So I understand the concern. We'll be judged based on what we do and you'll always know how many deputies there are.
Okay. I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. I guess the only quick addendum I have to that, that obviously if this is made part of the Charter, it goes beyond the eight years you're going to be here.
So I guess that has to be taken into some consideration, that once it's part of the Charter, unless there's another Charter change to take it out, it's there for whatever the Administration.
Right, and I understand, Mr. Chairman. Again, I can 38 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. only, again, emphasize that even with the current Charter provision, there are a lot of people who are in exempt positions in the government, end up with, in essence, dual titles for the sheer purpose of, in essence, getting around the particular restriction that we are trying to take away and do in a more up-front fashion; that if someone is going to be a deputy commissioner in a department, they should get that department's designation as a deputy commissioner. We presently have four deputy police commissioners, two of whom are the deputies out of the department and the other two are deputy managing directors, who have now been redetailed, if you will, to the Police Department, and this Police Commissioner or any other Police Commissioner -- I mean, you have to be able to manage the troops, if you will, and people should be properly titled, I think, in a direct fashion. 39 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Just offhand, because I know you're definitely a detail person, do you know how many in the previous Administration there was of deputy mayors? Do you know offhand? Or deputy managing directors. I'm sorry.
I do not know off the top of my head. I can tell you there are a fair amount.
Just one last quick question on that same note. As far as coming from outside the department, do you have any thought on should there be any limitations on that, either outside the department and/or outside the City, I guess?
I think that the reality here is that it is much more likely that any department head would have the overwhelming majority of their deputies, I would think, would come from 40 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. within the departmental ranks, with the exception of certainly a couple situations, and obviously I'm the person who has utilized this as well where we have a good combination of current employees who have either moved up or people of previous public service but were here in the City and took new positions, as well as a few people who have come from the outside. But at least for our Administration, I cannot imagine that you would see any significant number of new deputies coming from outside. I will say, though, I mean, again, in all honesty, if a person has come from another place or had some previous experience with someone else and wanted to have a person or two as a part of their team and brought them to Philadelphia, that would not necessarily be the worst thing in the world. And we've brought some pretty good people from other places to run departments here. Again, that's the kind of 41 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. managerial flexibility I think we all appreciate and need. But my perspective is, the overwhelming majority of new deputies, however many there may be, would come from City employment.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions on this particular issue of the deputies for the Mayor? Councilwoman? No. 13
I guess the only other question on the Inspector General was just the -- and I guess we can get into details in further testimony -- was sort of the duplication of some duties of the Inspector General would have that the City Controller, that the Board of Ethics, that the U.S. Attorney, whatever, may have. What thought, if any, was given in that direction? 42 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Sure. Well, again, as I know you're well aware, we've had an Inspector General since the mid '80s and somehow some way they have operated, I would hope -- but I can assure you from this point going forward that there will be a coordination between or among the Inspector General, the City Controller, the now new Board of Ethics and certainly any other agencies that may exist that might have jurisdiction. At the same time, to minimize any overlap, I think all three have their appropriate roles and responsibilities, should not spend more than a nanosecond of their time in duplication of each other's efforts, but I think all play an important and serious and appropriate role in their various capacities. They have very targeted responsibilities, and I can assure you that we will do everything possible to make sure that there is both coordination and non-duplication of effort. But I do 43 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. think that the 20-plus-year history of having an Inspector General here in Philadelphia is important to continue and, at the same time, ensure the independence of the Office to make sure that all activities are seen in the appropriate light and not seen as coming out of the Mayor's Office.
I had an issue with the Commerce and the other one. Can I ask the Mayor while I --
Since I ceded my time to him. I had a question regarding how well we are coordinating with people like Greater Philadelphia Marketing Board, Philadelphia Select, Multi-Cultural Affairs Congress, Visitor Center, International Visitor Center and how does this split help us streamline some of 44 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. that. We're looking for efficiencies in government. It just seems like there's a lot of overlay. As I met with some of these different units, I was amazed that some people don't kind of connect with each other, and some of these people we fund directly.
As you know, Councilwoman, of course, all of those entities, if I caught them all, that you mentioned are all independent non-profits. They are not under the direct jurisdiction of the City of Philadelphia. I believe that this split clearly allows for us to have more of a focus with many of those entities. As Mayor, I have actually some appointments to make to some of the Boards of those entities, and whether high-level public employees or, of course, private citizens would expect, that we would have a higher level of coordination. And, yes, you're absolutely right, we do help to fund -- 45 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. we may not be the primary funder, but we do help to fund any number of these organizations, and their coordinated efforts only serve all of us better, but having a cabinet-level person directly involved with their activities and not having so many duties and responsibilities as the one, as I referred to, dual-title person I think will help to ensure that we're getting the most for the investment of the taxpayers' dollars.
So the City Rep is going to be the person responsible for this versus Commerce, because some of this is economic.
It really depends on the nature of the organization, but I can assure you between the two individuals at the table and certainly Andy Altman, we will have a coordinated approach. The organizations will know who their primary contact is and we will have thought through why we 46 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. want one or the other to be the primary contact person. But I think there is so much more that we can do and get out of, in a collective fashion, those groups. Of course, I've had direct contact and relationship with many of them in my previous capacity as Chair of the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority. I know we can do more together.
Thank you. Any other questions for the Mayor? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for coming down.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you very much. I would greatly appreciate your help and support with these matters today. 47 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave the Chamber. In my absence, if any bills or amendments come forward through the Chair, I would like to be recorded as voting aye. I'll try to be back as soon as I can.
Thank you very much, Councilman. Are there any more questions for Mr. Bumb or Ms. Johnson? (No response.)
The next bill and resolution we're going to take up are dealing with the appointment of deputies, which is Resolution 080040 and Bill No. 080008. 48 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Identify yourself for the record and proceed, please. Thank you.
Sure. Good morning, Councilman Greenlee and members of the Committee on Law and Government and other members of Council who are in the Chamber this morning. My name is Clarence D. Armbrister, Chief of Staff to Mayor Nutter, and I'm pleased to testify this morning in support of Bill No. 18 080008 and Resolution No. 080040, which provide for an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter allowing the Administrative Board to authorize more than two exempt deputies in any City department. This proposed Charter change is an initiative of the Administration that 49 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. was transmitted to City Council on January 24, 2008, and I want to thank Councilman Greenlee for introducing this legislation and for scheduling this hearing promptly. Since Pennsylvania's primary is on April 22nd, there's a short window of time to get this measure passed and presented to the voters. Pursuant to Section 7-301 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, the, quote, "number of exempt deputies in any department other than the Law Department shall not exceed two," end quote. This is often referred to, as the Mayor said, the two-deputy limit. And for decades, the constraint imposed on department heads by the two-deputy limit has been discussed and changes have been proposed. As long ago as 1986 in a report by the Committee of Seventy entitled "Personnel Practices Governance Study," the constraint of this two-deputy limit was discussed. That report noted the following: Quote, "Additional exemptions 50 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. are needed at the highest level of government by cabinet members, department commissioners and agency heads to assist in the development and implementation of public policies," end quote. And the 1994 Charter Reform Commission recommended replacing the two-deputy limit with a sliding scale corresponding to the size of each department. Recently, this management constraint received renewed attention when the Philadelphia Inquirer printed an article on November 11, 2007, entitled, quote, "Johnson sees terrible flaw in force," end quote, which included the following comment by former Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson: Johnson called the Commissioner's limited ability to appoint his own command team a, quote, "terrible flaw," end quote, that few chief executives of other half-billion-dollar organizations would tolerate. This news story also included 51 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the following comment from John J. McNesby, President of Lodge of the 4 Fraternal Order of Police: I believe the 5 Police Commissioner in this city, especially in the climate we're in today, should be able to surround himself with the best people. He should have the ability to pick his own team and have the deputies he needs in place, however many that may be. " While there is a pressing need in the Police Department to increase the Commissioner's ability to appoint more than two deputies, the two-deputy limit is a managerial impediment that has citywide implications on performance and service delivery. The issues that City 52 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. government faces today are very different and more complex than those encountered by the framers of the 1951 Charter. Cities must now compete internationally for jobs. Video surveillance cameras are used to fight crime, and federal and state mandates impose more and more responsibilities on local government for the delivery of a wide array of social services. And homeland security was not part of our lexicon in 1951. As responsibilities increase, management and effectiveness become increasingly important. Our citizens deserve a high quality of service, and department heads need the tools to manage effectively. Removing the restriction of the two-deputy limit will provide City department heads with an important management tool.
Mayor Nutter strongly believes, as he expressed this morning, that any change to the two-deputy limit should be coupled with fiscal oversight and 53 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. transparency so that it is not perceived as an avenue for evading the civil service system or significantly expanding the number of exempt employees. The Administration believes that we have provided an appropriate balance between enhancing managerial responsibility with fiscal and public scrutiny in Resolution 10 No. 080040. The Charter change before you today would allow for additional deputies only if authorized by the Administrative Board. As you know, the Administrative Board consists of the Mayor, the Managing Director and the Finance Director. Meetings of the Ad Board are advertised and open to the public. Any request for additional deputies would need to be justified and reviewed in a public process. If approved, this Charter change would bring an end to the widely practiced work-around used by past Administrations and described by the 54 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Mayor this morning which has been used to circumvent the two-deputy limit. Under this scheme, exempt employees were created in the Managing Director's Office where the Charter restriction is not in place, and those, quote, "deputy managing directors," end quote, were then detailed to various City agencies. The proposed Charter amendment before you would end these practices and make the operations of government more transparent to taxpayers. To summarize, in order to provide for modern management practices within City government, while also providing for controls of the number of non-civil service exempt positions, it is recommended that the Charter be amended to allow the Administrative Board to authorize more than two exempt deputies on a department-by-department basis. The Nutter Administration supports this proposed Charter change for the following reasons: It enables 55 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. department heads to get approval for additional deputies, providing them with the flexibility and management tools necessary to ensure high performance and quality services. It avoids having to determine the right number of deputies for each City department at this moment in time and appropriately places managerial responsibility with each commissioner to determine if any additional deputies are needed and how many. It requires that additional deputies be approved by the Administrative Board, thereby ensuring a public process and a public justification for the additional deputies. It ends the need for the practice of work-arounds, thereby ensuring that government operates in an open, honest and transparent manner and provides a mechanism by which the taxpayers can hold their government accountable. 56 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. I would respectfully request that Council suspend the rules with respect to Bill No. 080008 so that the bill can be reported out of Committee and voted upon at the next session of Council. I'd be happy to take any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Armbrister. Before we ask any questions, I want to apologize. I know Mr. Stalberg had some testimony, I think, on the Commerce/City Rep issue too and on the other two. So maybe when I call you, Mr. Stalberg, on this one, you can add whatever you'd like on the Commerce. Sorry about that.
I'm jumping the gun here a little bit. I guess this question is a little bit redundant, Mr. Armbrister, but, again, I guess -- and we're going to 57 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. hear, I think, from union representatives on some of these issues. It still seems to me -- and I was just wondering your thoughts -- that the fact that there are no limits really raises some concerns. And whoever sets these limits can be certainly flexible, if Council sets them, whatever, but it just seems that the possibility -- and, again, as I said to the Mayor, once this is in the Charter, Councilman Goode and I were talking earlier, this is our one shot at it. Once it's before the voters and if they pass it, we don't have any other real limitations, except another Charter change amendment, I guess. Was there much discussion about that, about the number? Because I just keep going back to that because it just seems like this could be -- and I'm not saying this Administration would -- it could be abused or get carried away with. I won't even use the word "abused."
I think there 58 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. are a couple of responses. As the Mayor mentioned before, I think that there are a couple of safeguards that are in place. One is that any approval of additional deputies would have to go through a public process, which includes a meeting of the Ad Board before it could be approved. Those meetings are advertised. They're open to the public. We've had one Ad Board meeting since we've been here, and that meeting was to approve additional positions for the deputy mayors that the Mayor mentioned. I think the other reason -- and I think this is why we're talking about transparency and open government -- is the fact that this allows the transparency to government about which the Mayor has spoken so often. The biggest problem, quite frankly, right now is these work-arounds. Nobody has any idea, quite frankly, at about how many deputy managing directors or assistant to the deputy managing directors there are. 59 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. And the new Managing Director came in and recently did an inventory, if you will, of those positions and, quite frankly, I was surprised at how many there were. I asked my staff to try to get me that number, but I would tell you that it is in the dozens, probably close to a hundred probably assistant deputy managing directors and deputy managing directors that probably have been created. And one of the things that the Managing Director is trying to do is to try to make sure that those assistant deputy managing directors and managing directors are appropriately detailed to their respective units to bring a form of transparency to government, so that when you look at an organizational chart, you can see who is responsible and who is accountable. So I think that the benefits of the proposed change are certainly enhanced by making it much more transparent, and, quite frankly, I think 60 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the appropriate safeguards are in place, because it would be subject to a public disposition at an Ad Board meeting.
I certainly agree with you and I think probably most, if not all, members of Council agree that the way it is now is not good. I agree with that. We don't know exactly who they are all the time and it's kind of done sort of willy-nilly, but when you talk about the public process, you're getting into a question that another possibility of doing this is for Council -- because certainly we have a public process here in the hearings. I mean, everybody is kind of aware what we do in here -- is maybe setting or possibly getting some limits on that. Would the Administration be willing to work with Council on that in that end?
I think as the Mayor indicated, the thought given to the 61 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. proposal that we brought before you is to maintain the flexibility. I note that in 1993 there was a formula that was attempted to try to figure out by the size of budgets and things like that how many deputies a particular department should have. I think what the Administration would like to do is preserve the flexibility, because we really don't know what the future holds, quite frankly. In my testimony I mention that we didn't know about homeland security less than seven years ago. That wasn't a word that was, quite frankly, in our lexicon, and we've had to build up administrative apparatus and procedures to meet the needs of the challenges of what is going on at that time. So I think our recommendation would be, with all due respect, is that we maintain the flexibility that's included in the proposal and not limit the number of deputies for departments, 62 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. and then hold the Administration accountable through the budgetary and other public processes for maintaining an adequate number of deputies.
I have another thought on that, but I don't want to dominate here. Councilman Goode.
I think the discussion here is not about whether this needs to be done. Clearly, from every Administration that you talked to, they would talk about the need for this to be done. The question is how it should be done, and the question for us is also flexibility. We definitely need to open up the amount of deputies. We definitely want there to be as much managerial 63 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. flexibility as possible, but once you change the Charter, you change the Charter. There are other approaches that we can take that still allow some flexibility, if we believe there should be limitations in place. It would allow that to be done by ordinance, which could be done within a matter of weeks to change it one way or the other, which is a lot more flexibility than exists now but not as much flexibility as it being open-ended and not the inflexibility of a Charter change that does not allow it to be adjusted by ordinance. So I don't think the suggestion here is that Council set a number and/or that the Charter set a number, but that we definitely look at how we open this up with some limitations that can be adjusted, noting that once you change the Charter, that's it. And we absolutely salute the Administration for understanding this is something that 64 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. critically needs to be done and needs to be done at the beginning of an Administration in order to manage more effectively, but at the same time, to change the Charter at the very beginning of the Administration, we're not just changing for one Administration, we are changing it for every Administration going forward.
I understand, Councilman, and, again, with all due respect, I think the maintenance of the flexibility, quite frankly, which is currently available to the Administration, although less transparent, is really what we're trying to do. Our goal here was not to try to limit the flexibility, because, quite frankly, I think by putting a limitation on it, it would somewhat limit it. The flexibility that we currently have, although it's just not transparent, I mean, as we can under the existing rules, we can name assistant 65 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. managing directors and deputy managing directors, and I did get the list and there were probably over a hundred such positions that exist under -- when we came into the government. What we're trying to do, quite frankly, is not limit that but try to make sure it's just much more transparent, and that by doing it through the Charter change amendment, we felt that it would make it much more transparent, that you wouldn't need to do these work-arounds anymore. And so our position was that we wouldn't want to kind of limit, quite frankly, the flexibility we have now. What we're trying to do is just make it much more transparent.
And I believe everyone agrees with that and everyone salutes that. The issue is whether there needs to be not even constraints put within this but that we assure as we do it that we're not 66 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. creating some inflexibility by doing it through a Charter change, which is required, when we can within that major Charter change also at the same time create some flexibility within the Charter change.
I would certainly agree with that, and I think if we did it as Councilman Goode's suggestion, by ordinance, if those situations come up down the line where it was necessary to increase, we could do that by ordinance, right? We could add that to the -- we could put in another ordinance to amend that, right? Am I right?
My thought for that -- I've seen a proposed amendment. My thought is that we should view this with total flexibility, view this as an idea whose time has come, that we should move forward in this fully, but as we're changing the Charter, we know 67 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. we're not going to be able to go back and change the Charter any time soon if this is approved, that we provide some flexibility within that by having a mechanism that allows for an ordinance to put in needed adjustments if they are necessary.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee, or anyone else? (No response.)
I believe there's representatives from the City unions here that would like to testify: Mr. McNesby, Ms. Scott, whomever. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
It's still morning. Good morning, everyone. 68 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Nice to see you here. Ms. Scott, is this the first time you've testified as the President yet?
No. Oh, as President? Yes, as President of District Council, yes.
All these veterans here. I think, Mr. McNesby, you did testify as President one time. MR. McNESBY: Yes, once or twice.
So, please, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. MR. McNESBY: John McNesby, President of Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 in Philadelphia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 69 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Committee. I just have a few brief comments that I would like to address, and then I'll stand for any questions. We have a written overview that I will submit to Council. I heard the Chief of Staff, Mr. Armbrister's, statement regarding past Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, and one thing that I find troubling in there is that he's talking about a terrible flaw within the City where the people that he appoints are a problem. What I'd like to say is that the current deputies, the four deputies that are in place, three of the four, which are doing a tremendous job there now, Sylvester Johnson did appoint those positions. So it would have been -- as the manager of that department, if there was a problem in that department or a terrible flaw which he had seen, that he should have addressed that problem when he was Police Commissioner. As far as the comments that I 70 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. had made in the paper regarding the deputy's position, I do believe that Commissioner Ramsey should be able to surround himself with the best possible people for the Philadelphia Police Department. We do have an epidemic out there, a homicide epidemic, and we need the leadership in place to be able to move forward, to go ahead and do what he needs to do to get the job done in the City of Philadelphia. Crime is at an all-time high, and I believe that the officers on the street now are saying that it is time, they're looking for a welcome change, to go ahead and be able to get the job done. That being said, in order to do that, I believe, as Councilman Greenlee had stated, there should be some type of limitations on the number. We have a civil service position that has been laying vacant in the deputy commissioner's position for the Police 71 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Department since 2004. They have not filled that position. So that was one way that they could have done that, would be to give a test. And from our point of view at the Fraternal Order of Police, our commanders are second to none throughout the country. The City Administrations in previous years have invested in these commanders. They have given the test. They have come through the ranks of civil service, and we have 200-plus commanders on the streets of Philadelphia today. In order to be able to fill the ranks of deputies, they should be able to come from with inside the Philadelphia Police Department. As I said earlier, we have four current deputy commissioners. We have a new police commissioner that had just taken the reins last month. Now we have those four. If he's able to promote another six, seven or eight, there has to be some kind of limitations, because once Commissioner Ramsey leaves in three, 72 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. four, five, six years, those deputies are in place. Does the next deputy appoint another three, four, five deputies and thereby reining it out of control? Basically what I'm saying is, we have the ability to promote within through the civil service. We have a dormant position there now that has not been utilized. I believe they should come from within the Philadelphia Police Department. There should be some sort of limitations in place to be able to address that very issue. So with that, I'll stand for any questions.
Thank you. Did the rest of you want to testify at all? Maybe you can have it and then we can have the questions. Maybe that's the best way of doing it. Ms. Scott?
Yes. My name is Cathy Scott. I'm President of AFSCME 73 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. District Council 47. Good morning, Chairman Greenlee and members of the Committee. I did submit written testimony. However, I just want to focus on a couple of things in that written testimony. As President McNesby just said, the Charter is very clear that except for a few exemptions, civil service employees should be the employees of the City of Philadelphia. And we have heard from this Administration that the present language gives the Administration tremendous flexibility in appointing over a hundred assistant managing directors, deputy managing directors, and they certainly have made a lot of use of that, we think to abuses. But what I'd like to focus on is why does the Administration want to avoid -- and this is their language -- having to determine the right number of deputies for each City department at this moment. The public is being asked to 74 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. place its faith in the Administrative Board, thereby ensuring a public process and a public justification for the additional deputies. That's their quote. However, the meetings of the Administrative Board have not really been public. They may be published, but they are not public, and they generally have been cancelled and rescheduled very frequently. If you go to a further section 13 in the present City Charter, it quotes, "Persons temporarily appointed or designed to make or conduct a special inquiry, investigation or examination or to perform a special service where such appointment or designation is certified by the Civil Service Commission to be for appointment which, because of its unique or expert characters, could not or should not be performed by persons in the civil service." Since the Charter already provides for a public independent process 75 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. to make these exempt appointments, why does the Administration want to avoid that process? Given the existing language of the Charter, which provides for the public hearing by the Civil Service Commission to appoint exempt employees, we would ask that this Committee reject this open-ended, unregulated expansion of the number of exempt deputy commissioners. That concludes my testimony.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else of the group to testify? (No response.)
I'm sorry. I missed a little bit, Mr. McNesby, as I was talking to other people. At this point you don't really have a number, right? You're saying that we should -- MR. McNESBY: Just briefly, when the Chief of Staff, Mr. Armbrister, 76 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. had testified regarding comments made by past Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, he was talking about a serious flaw within the department regarding the deputies, but the serious flaw existed under his Administration where he appointed each and every one of those deputy commissioners.
Mr. McNesby, I think he was referring to a flaw within the City Charter. MR. McNESBY: Oh, okay.
That only allowed him to appoint two deputies. MR. McNESBY: Well, we were willing to talk -- we've addressed that problem, but the past is the past. We have a new Administration, a breath of fresh air in Commissioner Ramsey, which is a positive thing. I think that the number -- currently, there's a civil service position for deputy commissioner which has been left dormant since 2004, which they have not given a test for. 77 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. That's certainly one way of filling one deputy. My thoughts are there should be some sort of -- he needs to surround himself with definitely the necessary people to do the job. As I said, we're under an epidemic of crime and a homicide rate that's receding a little bit at a time, being able to chip away and get a handle on it, but I believe that there has to be some sort of a limit put in place, because it could just spiral out of control. The four deputies, as I said, that are in place now are doing a -- three of the four are doing a great job. They stay on board, appoint another four. If Commissioner Ramsey leaves in five, six years, that we add another four and then another four and then another four. So that's our main concern, and to utilize the civil service position.
Okay. Thank you. Councilman Green. 78 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
I think just the way I understood what the Administration was saying -- and I do think that they're making a good point -- rather than focus on the language, we don't want to determine the number of deputies at this point. I think what they're really saying is by putting a strict number limitation in the Charter of the number of deputies that might be appropriate for this time, that number of deputies in five years, eight years, ten years might not be appropriate for another time and we ought to have flexibility to have the Administration maybe working with Council, which I think is what Councilmen Greenlee and Goode were talking about, maybe the limitation should be set by ordinance so that as the different Administrations, different times call for a different number of deputies, we're not putting the limit in the Charter, but we can propose a limit by law. 79 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. I'd just like your reaction to both those points, the first point being really at this time there might be a certain number of appropriate deputies that would be different from another time and should we really put that number in the Charter, and the second point, your views on adding something to the Charter change to allow City Council to set limits by ordinance. Thank you. MR. McNESBY: The Fraternal Order of Police absolutely positively does not want to be a stumbling block in the way of getting what they need to be able to take control of the streets. I believe that working with an ordinance, if that is possible, we would be -- I would be and our membership would be in favor of that. Also, with the limitation end, I mean, there's got to be some sort of -- does it continue to grow? That's our concern, of top heavy. We have invested our futures in 80 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the commanders that are presently in the Police Department. They've done a great job. They're out there. You can appoint any one of those as a deputy if need be.
Point of information. To comment on Councilman Green's point, it's not just a matter of City Council setting limitations by ordinance, but in fact any given Administration could decide how many deputies they want and set that by ordinance, even with an expiration date, where, in effect, that Administration can determine how many deputies they want during that Administration, and then that ordinance expires, which means you can go back to -- so it's not just a matter of Council involving itself in that managerial decision, but it being 81 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. approved by ordinance, which would allow some flexibility and more flexibility than a Charter change that either confines it to two or opens it totally up. MR. McNESBY: With an expiration date, the ordinance sounds well.
Well, and the other thing that I would like to add, whether Council would consider limiting the number of -- limiting the ability of the Managing Director or the Mayor to appoint deputies to be assigned to departments, because there is nothing in this language that stops the existing practice. All it does is expands the number of deputies to an unlimited number within the operating department. So if the Administration -- and, frankly, I applaud the Administration for raising this as an issue for public discussion, because this is something that has not happened in the 82 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. past, and previous Administrations, as you heard from the number, have used it as a work-around. But there should be a companion restriction, then, that the Managing Director nor the Mayor's Office would be assigning people to work in operating departments.
That's certainly a good point. I guess we'd have to talk to the lawyers about what our limitations are in doing that, but I think that makes sense because that takes away that issue, takes it off the table, if you will. And I guess would I be right to say -- and, again, I'm not saying this Administration would do it, but as I said earlier, when we have something on the Charter, it's there. The possibility if you added particularly a number of people, number of deputies from outside the department, I would guess as union leaders, there would be possibly morale issues and issues within your membership when it comes to that. 83 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Absolutely. MR. McNESBY: Absolutely. You would have the testing process. You have the commanders who currently are out there giving their time. Most of the time they're putting in 12, 14-hour days and trying to get a handle on things, and they're some of the best in the country. Like I said, the Police Department can be political, technical and cultural. Political, if you know somebody, you can get the job. Technical, you can grab somebody from Rhode Island, Chicago, they can come in here with a cookie-cutter approach to doing police work. It's done all over the place. But if you bring in a deputy, say, from Chicago and send them to South Philly, they may see the double parking problem and it may cause an uproar in the City of Philadelphia.
We never want to touch that, do we? That could really be a problem. 84 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It doesn't exist there. (Laughter.)
Absolutely, it doesn't. That's right. Strike that from the record. It doesn't happen in Fairmount either, by the way. MR. McNESBY: So, I mean, that's some of the things you have to look at with bringing from the inside. But, no, our commanders are some of the best in the country, are the best in the country, and if you can't find your six, seven, eight appointees from within the Police Department of the City of Philadelphia, then we all have a serious problem.
I understand. But would you be open -- and this is getting into more if we do this by ordinance. Would you be open to any one or two coming from outside? MR. McNESBY: As President of the Fraternal Order of Police, I'd have 85 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. to say no. I'd have to say no. 3
I understand. I understand. Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Green.
Just a sort of related question to the point you're raising about the hundred deputy managing directors or assistant managing directors. Right now the way it's currently being done -- and I just sort of -- there is not a requirement obviously that -- these hundred people do not necessarily and probably did not come from the departments to which they have been assigned.
But there's not currently any requirement that they do. And so in changing the system, I think all the Administration is doing is trying to maintain the same flexibility that they have today in terms of choosing 86 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. who they want there and then being held accountable by Council and by the public and then in four years at the polls for the decisions they've made. It sounds like you're asking the Administration to give up flexibility that it has currently, because it can appoint people from anywhere it wants around the country, the best qualified people for these jobs. Could you just address that point?
Well, frankly, we think that this is a recent expansion in this Charter that prior to, I would say, the Rendell Administration did not exist. The Charter is very clear, that all officers and employees of the City of Philadelphia, including all officers and employees of all departments, all independent boards and commissions and all departments, boards and commissions -- that's pretty expansion -- shall be civil service employees. 87 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. What has happened is, there has been this focus on this particular provision that we're now talking about to greatly expand the number of deputies and assistant managing directors, and, frankly, we think that it's been abused by previous Administrations, and that's why I said I think it is really commendable of this Administration to bring this out and to have a public discussion about how it wants to structure government. But we think that the Charter was very clear that except for certain specific exemptions, that it should be civil service employees, and they certainly shouldn't be deployed to departments. MR. McNESBY: The history of the Philadelphia Police Department, there's never, in my recollection, been an outside deputy commissioner. They've all come from within the department, and, quite frankly, as maybe Jimmy Wheeler, my Vice-President, can elaborate on, back 88 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. 25, 30 years ago, the Police Department was made up of different ethnic organizations. So if you were a member of, say, Shamra, the Jewish organization, you got a pick for deputy. If you were a member of the Emerald Society, the Irish group, you got a pick for deputy. So it wasn't necessarily the best people. It was just what organization put up what deputy. I'm not going to say that's going to happen with this Administration, but that's the thing where we're saying we need to have some sort of limit or some sort of guidelines, and the ordinance with the expiration is a perfect fit.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) 89 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Thank you all very much. Thank you. Mr. Stalberg, sorry about that. As I said, I know you had some comments on the City Rep/Commerce issue. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to testify. I'm Zach Stalberg and I'm the head of the Committee of Seventy, a non-partisan group interested in good government. With me is Sarah Stevenson, who is the Assistant Policy Director and the lawyer who keeps me out of trouble in situations like this. We've submitted detailed comments on each of the three proposals that are being considered today and also a summary in the form of testimony. For the sake of time, I'll try to just pick out the significant points and paraphrase that testimony, but I hope you'll read it 90 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. all, because as has been pointed out here today, you're being asked to make a permanent change in the City Charter in a very short period of time. We all know that public officials can come and go, but this Charter provision on the deputies in particular will last forever. So I ask you to take a look at some of those detailed comments. Let me just take a moment to paraphrase the testimony. We essentially support the change that relates to the Inspector General and we essentially support the change that relates to the City Representative and the Director of Commerce. We are concerned about the Administration's and we oppose the Administration's suggestion that would give the Administrative Board the right to pick an unlimited number of deputies. As has been pointed out here earlier, the Admin Board is made up of 91 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the Mayor and a couple people who work for him. While its activities are theoretically open, very few people pay attention to what goes on there. So the Committee of Seventy certainly embraces the idea of adding a number of deputies, and we are particularly focused on the Police Department because of the crime emergency, but we think it should be based on some objective formula. Whether that's written into the Charter or whether you decide to find a compromise based on City ordinance, I'd urge you to look for some objective formula that controls the number of deputies. In the proposal which Mr. Armbrister referred to that was released by the Committee of Seventy in early January, we suggested tying -- well, we focused, I should say first, on the Police because of the crime emergency in Philadelphia and because of the open-mindedness of the FOP in terms of 92 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. considering additional deputies. Our preference would be to focus on the number of deputies within the Police Department first and move on from there. In that case, we favored appointing deputies according to the number of bureaus according to the organizational chart of the Police Department. Obviously you can also do it on the basis of the number of employees or the size of the budget, but fundamentally I would argue that it should be done either via Charter or via ordinance with some objective formula in mind or else, as Chairman Greenlee already suggested, the possibility of abuse is high. So that's our basic view on the deputies proposal. I'm happy to take questions on that or any of the other two issues.
I guess just for the record, so our suggestions up here about putting any limitations 93 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. established by ordinance would kind of fit in to what you're talking about, a possible way to address that. Is that basically what you're saying?
Yes, that is a possible way to address it. I think you asked the Mayor and Mr. Armbrister, and what I heard back was not much willingness to limit the number of deputies. We would favor -- the Committee of Seventy helped write the Charter, definitely believes in the need for additional deputies in most departments now, definitely believes that it's a good management practice in the 21st century for the leader of a division to have his or her own team. However, we would also be looking for some sort of middle ground that would allow some flexibility but also put some sort of a cap based on some objective criteria.
Okay. Thank you. 94 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Any other questions, comments? Councilman Green.
Sorry. Is Mr. Stalberg testifying on the next point, Inspector General, also?
No. I was going to hold up, because I wanted to have the -- if you can stay, I'd rather have the Inspector General's testimony separate so we're not doing apples and oranges here. Okay? All right. Thank you very much.
Is there anyone else here to testify on the deputy issue or on the City Rep/Commerce issue? (No response.)
Okay. Now we'll turn to the Inspector General, the bill and resolution dealing with the Inspector General, and I think, Ms. Kurland, you're first up here.
Good morning, Councilman Greenlee, members of the Law 95 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. and Government Committee and other members of City Council in the room 4 today. My name is Amy Kurland and I am the City's Inspector General. It's a privilege to appear before you today to testify in support of Bill No. 080007 and Resolution No. 080039, which provide for an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to create an independent Office of the Inspector General. While campaigning for Mayor and since assuming office, Mayor Nutter has emphasized the urgent need to restore transparency, accountability and integrity to City government in order to restore Philadelphians' trust and confidence in their government. He quickly moved to fill the open seat on the Ethics Board. He created a new post of Chief Integrity Officer and as recently as February 8th of this year, we swore in and provided training for all of the integrity officers in all of the different departments. 96 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. S. Attorney's Office to root out corruption in Philadelphia in the government and its agencies. Mayor Nutter believes that this partnership will improve City government by ensuring honest and effective delivery of City services. It will instill a sense of pride and trust on the part of all citizens and will end the corrosive corruption tax that has driven people and businesses away from the City. Today the Committee is considering a Charter amendment that will create an independent Office of the Inspector General. The Inspector General's Office has been in existence for years by Executive Order, but 23 still, despite that long-term existence, 24 the public's negative perception of Philadelphia City government persists. 97 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Recent events still leave a cloud on Philadelphia City government and make a compelling case for continued reform. S. Attorney's Office resulted in many convictions involving corruption, fraud and abuse throughout City government. Unfortunately, I saw firsthand a culture of corruption in many City departments. I prosecuted individuals from the Plumbing Inspection Department, Licenses and Inspection, Revenue Department, the Fire and Inspection Unit, the Water Department, Prison System and various other agencies, as well as a Parking Authority official who fixed tickets. I know that these cases are not a reflection on the entire City government, but really they involve the bad apples. It's also important to emphasize that while prosecuting these cases, what I did see was many, many honest and hard-working City employees 98 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. who were victimized by this perception that Philadelphia is corrupt. Most City employees want to do the right thing and they want to do a good job for the taxpayers of Philadelphia. But these events demonstrate that continued vigilance is necessary to restore integrity to City government. The Office of the Inspector General should not be dependent on the Mayor's Office for staffing, for supplies, for equipment. An independent Office of the Inspector General will also remove any perception that a Mayor might in some way control or influence investigations. A strong and independent Office of the Inspector General should also be free from political influence, and that would make a difference to ensure the public's confidence in City government. If I may, I will briefly describe the proposed Charter change that's before you today. First, the proposed Charter 99 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. change ensures the independence of the Inspector General in a number of ways. There is a five-year term limit with two terms, the IG can only be removed for cause, and there's funding of a million dollars for the first two years.
The Charter change also provides the following powers and duties: The main role of the Inspector General is to investigate fraud, corruption and misconduct within City government. The jurisdiction extends to City agencies, employees, elected and appointed City officers, contractors and businesses that do business with the City, in addition to recipients of City funding. It provides for the power to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses and documents. It calls on the IG to recommend policies and protocols to prevent fraud, corruption and misconduct, and instructs the Inspector General to coordinate with other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. 100 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. There are also reporting and cooperation requirements in the proposed Charter change. City employees, officers and officials shall report instances of fraud, corruption and misconduct. No 7 person shall retaliate against anyone for cooperation with the OIG, and no person should make a frivolous or fabricated complaint to the OIG. Also important are the political restrictions. The IG cannot make campaign contributions to City candidates or incumbents and the IG cannot seek any elective City office for two years after leaving office. This bill and resolution are modeled after comparable legislation in other large cities throughout the country and are based on recommendations from the Association of Inspectors General, which is a nationally recognized organization. Inspector Generals are active in numerous cities throughout the country. In Chicago, in Miami, in New 101 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Orleans and New York, those cities have independent Inspector Generals and have had a lot of success in restoring the public trust in city government. Those cities recognize the need to police themselves. They do not rely on federal and state law enforcement to clean their houses. An independent Office of the Inspector General in Philadelphia will complement the work of the City Controller, who conducts regular preventive audits to discover fiscal problems and efficiencies, and the Ethics Board, which provides education and enforces the City's ethics code. Together, the Office of the Inspector General, the Board of Ethics and the Controller, along with the Chief Integrity Officer, will work cooperatively to provide a three-pronged approach that combines prevention, education and investigation in order to instill honesty, transparency, 102 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. accountability and integrity throughout City government. The Nutter Administration has set a high standard. The Five-Year Plan calls for ethics and government reform to restore integrity to City Hall and to renew the public's confidence in their government. I respectfully request your support for Bill No. 080007 and Resolution No. 080039, and I urge its quick passage so that the ballot question establishing the Office of Inspector General can be presented to the voters in the April primary. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you, Ms. Kurland. I know other members have questions, but I guess just generally I wanted to ask if you heard the question I 103 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. raised with the Mayor. As far as the issue of doing the same duties that other departments are doing now, it does -- I mean, we have the Controller now. We have the Ethics Board. We have the U.S. Attorney's Office.
What additionally would the Inspector General, in your opinion, add that they're not doing already? I mean, obviously we have one by Executive Order. What would you see would be the great additions of -- or just the additions? I won't put "great" on there.
Well, there are several things, Councilman. First of all, while the Controller does broad efficiency-type audits, what the Inspector General does in the audit function is forensic-type audits that are related to investigations. For example, if there is an individual that an investigation in the IG's Office finds is 104 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. stealing from a certain department or agency, the type of audit that the IG's Office would do would be to go in there, look at the books and records and try to determine how that theft occurred and how to best prevent it in the future. That's very different from the annual performance-based audits that the Controller does.
Ms. Kurland, is the City Controller forbidden by City Charter to conduct forensic audits?
I think they are permitted, Councilman, but I don't know that that's being done at this point.
Oh, are they forbidden? I'm sorry. I thought you said permitted. No, they're not 105 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. forbidden by the Charter, as far as I know.
So what's to stop the City Controller from doing forensic audits?
There's nothing to stop them. However, when the audit is done in conjunction with an investigation, it's often times important to ensure the confidentiality of that investigation. The Controller's Office may not know that an investigation is going on and may not know to conduct that type of audit in conjunction with an investigation.
I guess the question in the end is, what's to stop the Controller, under the powers given to he or she through the City Charter, from engaging in the exact same activity you just described?
The problem with that -- they are perfectly able to do that under the Charter, but the problem, Councilman, is that often times these audits come up in conjunction with an investigation. When the IG's Office is conducting an investigation, there's a need to examine the books and records of a certain department or agency, and in examining those books and records, the IG's Office may discover problems that occurred that allowed a crime to occur. And that's a very small and narrow audit, which is different from the large annual performance audits that the Controller's Office does. But, more importantly --
But the question that you were responding to was about duplication of duties by Councilman Greenlee. I believe the question you were responding to was related to duplication of duties and responsibilities and duplication of work, and your example was the difference 107 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. between a performance audit that's usually done by the Controller's Office and a forensic audit that's done by an Inspector General. But the Charter does not limit the City Controller to perform its audits and, by my estimation, fully allows the Controller to engage in forensic audits.
That's correct, Councilman. I agree with that. However, the audit function in the Inspector General's Office has been in effect for the last years. The word "audit" is 15 there in the Executive Order established 16 by former Mayor Wilson Goode and then 17 again by former Mayor Mr. Rendell. 18 But, more importantly, I think 19 the difference between an independent 20 Office of the Inspection General now 21 would be -- Councilman Greenlee, you 22 referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office 23 being able to do these criminal 24 investigations, but I think that part of the problem over the last 24 years has 108 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. been that the U.S. Attorney's Office has come out and had press conference after press conference announcing indictment after indictment and saying that Philadelphia is corrupt. I think it would be much better for the Office of the Inspector General to work with the U.S. Attorney's Office and show the citizens of the City that we can police ourselves, we're not relying on the federal government to come in and take care of the problems that we may have in our own City government.
But in the end, wouldn't they be the prosecuting authority?
They may be, but also the District Attorney's Office, the State Attorney General --
That's 109 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. exactly my point. The local counterpoint to the U.S. Attorney's Office is the District Attorney's Office.
So even without a Charter change, it is my understanding that the Inspector General, if they find criminal wrongdoing, refers it to the District Attorney's Office or the U.S. Attorney's Office, whichever he or she feels appropriate. So the local counterpoint to the U.S. Attorney's Office is not in fact the Inspector General but the District Attorney; is that correct?
That's correct. That's correct. But the way I see citizens being more ensured of confidence in their City government is not to have the Inspector General's Office simply be a referral agency but rather to participate in the investigation of serious criminal conduct to show everybody that we as a city can police 110 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. ourselves.
I'm still not disagreeing with anything you said, aside from the fact that the original question was regarding duplication of duties and responsibilities locally.
Well, there is some overlap certainly. Again, I would point out that where I come from in federal investigations, there's a lot of overlap between the FBI, the DEA, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and those agencies all work together to ensure successful criminal prosecutions.
For instance, what was interesting about the end of your testimony, it says "together, the OIG, the Board of Ethics and the Controller, along with the Chief Integrity Officer, will work cooperatively to provide a three-pronged approach that combines prevention, education, investigation to instill honesty, transparency, accountability and 111 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. integrity throughout government," and while I ideally would hope that would happen, I don't believe that the OIG or the Chief Integrity Officer can speak for the Board of Ethics or the Controller about working cooperatively.
You spoke on behalf of two other agencies that are actually independent entities.
Yes. That's correct, and I have spoken with the Controller and with the Board of Ethics, and I believe that there would be a very good working relationship. The Board of Ethics has no 18 jurisdiction over criminal-type complaints and the Controller's Office, as I said earlier, focuses on more broad-ranging audits. The Board of Ethics is responsible for education and prevention and enforcement of the ethical code, but not of any type of criminal violations or other serious misconduct. 112 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Ms. Kurland, I am totally in favor of an independent Office of Inspector General. Once again, as with the issue that was before us before this, the issue is how we do it. And when the question is raised how do you minimize or eliminate duplication of responsibilities and duties, that's a question that still needs to be answered for us as we move forward with what becomes a permanent change to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter.
Yes. And I apologize, Councilman, if I haven't answered that correctly. I really can only emphasize that neither the Controller's Office nor the Board of Ethics deals with serious criminal-type violations, and that type of investigation is only at this point being conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. I think that there is always going to be some overlap of duties.
And the 113 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. District Attorney's Office.
But the District Attorney's Office is a separate agency, again, that is not part of the City that polices itself.
Yeah, but it's an independently elected person to do that job, and that's one of their jobs, right? Just like the City Controller is independently elected.
And, again, I would emphasize that one of the important parts of this proposed Charter change is that the Office of the Inspector General would be free from any type of political influence. With this Charter change, we would never have the possible perception that the Office of the Inspector General is using that office as some type of political platform, because there can be 114 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. no contributions and there can be no 3 running for office.
Mr. Chairman, my point, again, is not to suggest that the Office of Inspector General would do that or that it should not be independent, which I believe it should be, but that there's already an independently elected official charged with that responsibility by the voters.
Well, I wouldn't propose to take them out of the equation. What I would propose is that the Inspector General work together with them. As I said during my testimony, despite the fact that these different entities exist, we still have the perception throughout the City that there is a corruption and fraud problem within 115 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Philadelphia City government, and these entities operating by themselves up to this point have not changed that perception.
I agree with that, but you don't change the Charter simply to change perception, or a Charter change, in and of itself, will not change perception.
No, sir, but I would point to what has happened in other cities that have established an independent Office of the Inspector General.
I'm not going to go there either, but I guess -- and I know Councilman Green had a question, but you talk about other cities. I mean, every city is different. Every city is set up different. Do they 116 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. all have what we have here as far as the Ethics Board, as far as the City Controller? I mean, I don't know. So I'm not sure every city is set up the same way. And do they all have the duties that is now being given or would be given to this Inspector General?
I have looked at the law in the other cities that have established Inspector Generals that are independent. In Chicago, there is a very similar setup with a Controller and with a Board of Ethics, but yet they have an independent Inspector General. In New York, Miami and New Orleans where there are also independent Inspector Generals, the powers and duties are virtually identical to the powers and duties established or set forth in this proposed Charter change. But in those cities I don't have the answer right now about whether or not there is also a Controller and a Board of Ethics. I'd be happy to research that and get back to 117 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the Committee on that.
And in all those cities, do they have powers over all branches of government?
They do in New York, Miami and New Orleans and Chicago. Chicago does not have jurisdiction over elected officials. The other cities do.
Thanks. I'm going to echo a little bit of the point that's been made by Councilman Goode and Councilman Greenlee. Does the Administration have a chart showing sort of a job description and where there's overlap and where there's not overlap between the City Controller, the Board of Ethics and the proposed Chief Integrity Officer, which we haven't seen yet, but apparently the Administration is going to propose some permanence to that office? We don't have 118 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. that context in terms of the powers and duties that we're being asked to give you?
I do have something that's been prepared by the Administration that gives an overview of the scope, powers and duties and funding for the City Controller's Office, the Ethics Board and the proposed independent Inspector General. As far as the Chief Integrity Officer goes, that role doesn't have any investigative function. That role is to identify, prevent and educate.
Okay. So how much overlap -- I mean, if you've prepared something, is there a chart showing how much overlap there is?
I don't have a chart. I just have a summary that has been prepared by the Administration, and there is an overlap with regard to audit, as everybody has pointed out, with the Controller's Office. I don't see as much of an overlap with the Ethics Board, 119 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. except in the matters of training and education.
Right. With respect to the Ethics Board, would it be an ethics violation for someone to be engaged in criminal conduct?
I'm not certain. I would think so, but I don't have the ethics rules in front of me now.
I think the Ethics Board is supposed to refer matters that are criminal to the District Attorney.
Okay. And then presumably the Inspector General makes the decision to refer to the -- are you talking about under the proposed legislation or currently?
Well, under the 120 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. current legislation as well as the proposed legislation, what would happen if the Ethics Board was doing an investigation of ethics violations and found something that they thought might be criminal, they would refer it to the Inspector General's Office. There we would do an investigation and either work with the District Attorney or the U.S. Attorney to further the prosecution.
I find it interesting that you keep saying U.S. Attorney. We're the City and County of Philadelphia. The District Attorney is our chief sort of law enforcement officer for the County of Philadelphia. Why would you ever refer something in the first instance to the U.S. Attorney and not to our District Attorney?
Well, I can speak from the U.S. Attorney's Office, and there what we found was that there were many violations that were not criminal violations locally but were violations 121 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. federally. For example, if an individual tries to bribe a City official, there is no real local violation that that City official has committed. On the federal side, if the City official takes money, that is a federal crime. So many of those cases have been prosecuted federally rather than locally.
There's no 11 state law in Pennsylvania that prevents an elected official from taking a bribe?
No, no. I'm sorry if I misspoke. I'm speaking more of not necessarily a bribe but of doing a favor that's in relation to their duties or possibly -- not even if it's not completed, if it's just an attempt. But the other issue would be, for example, the plumbing inspection violations. There were numerous five, ten and 15 dollar bribes that were paid to these plumbing inspectors. Had they been prosecuted locally, there would have been many, many counts of five, ten, 15 122 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. dollar cases. On the federal side, there was an opportunity to prosecute that as a racketeering case where everything was grouped together and all the defendants were tried in one indictment. So there are different ways of prosecuting federally and locally, and that's part of the decision-making in deciding whether the case should be referred to the DA's Office or to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Good afternoon. You speak to other cities that have created the Office of the Inspector General. Aside from perception, is there any -- and I know it's only been a couple of years in 123 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Chicago. Is there anything that has really changed aside from perception that you can speak to in terms of had not the Inspector General been in place, certain things would have still continued to go on? I mean, is there any empirical evidence that there is something that actually happened that would not have happened had there not been an Inspector General? Do you know of any?
I don't have the specifics of cases, but when I met with the Inspector General in Chicago, they listed a significant number of cases that they have prosecuted and they believe would not have happened had they not been able to proceed independently. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why? That's what I'm trying to get. The devil is in the details. What are the details that would have not happened in terms of prosecution had not the IG been in place?
And I have to apologize because I don't have those 124 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. specific cases. Again, I'd be happy to look into that and present them to the Committee. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because it really kind of sets up a whole other level of corruption, because it suggests to me that the IG was able to do certain prosecutions or find certain things and there's some level in the middle that was either overlooking it intentionally or not, and that's -- I'm just a little confused.
Well, I don't mean overlooking it intentionally, but I think, for example, in Chicago before the independent Inspector General was established, it was a small office and didn't have the budget, the staffing and the experience to be able to look into more significant criminal violations. Now that office has a staff of approximately 70 people with a large budget and they are looking into things that previously had not been 125 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. investigated. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And what was the office that did not have enough money in staffing? Was that the District Attorney's Office?
No. That was the Inspector General in Chicago when it was not independent.
But if I could just interrupt, but I think Councilman DiCicco's question is, wasn't there another entity that was supposed to be doing this?
So are we talking about maybe they just didn't do their job well enough? Councilman, is that where you were going with this?
Well, they certainly had a District Attorney and a U.S. Attorney in Chicago that were doing criminal cases. I don't know what the involvement of the Office of the 126 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Inspector General was before and after with those entities.
Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, it's kind of like it's plugging that hole between the DA and the United States Attorney, and I'm just trying to figure out why someone at the District Attorney's Office would not have been able to do the same -- and I understand you're saying there's some laws that locally they can't be prosecuted, but I would expect that the District Attorney would then bring that to the United States Attorney General's attention if there was something that he or she couldn't prosecute at the local level.
I think the problem comes in when those things are not brought to the attention of the District Attorney. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's like another question. Why? I mean, is someone concerned about retaliation, 127 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. political retaliation, for going to the DA?
Many of these investigations are proactive. An informant may -- a City employee may walk into the Inspector General's Office and complain about something that their supervisor is doing, and that's where the investigation would get started. At the District Attorney's Office, I'm not certain how it works there, but I don't know that there's that type of proactive investigation that originates from a complaint by a City official or by a business. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're a former prosecutor. Is it fair to say that the majority of cases that are brought to a prosecutor, whether it's the local, state or federal level, are a result of people coming in to give you information?
Some of them are. In fact, the plumbing inspection case 128 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. that I spoke about earlier came from the Inspector General's Office. However, the Inspector General's Office didn't really get any credit for that, and when that case was brought, it looked to the people in the City that it was the federal government that was coming in and cleaning up the City. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But could you tell me how the IG Office got that information? Did someone walk in or someone tipped them off, I would assume?
That's right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So that same person could have gone to the DA?
That's correct, but they didn't. And part of that could have been confidence in the District Attorney's Office -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's what I'm trying to get at.
-- confidence in the U.S. Attorney's Office. But I think the ability for somebody like that to 129 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. come to an independent office that's free from any type of political influence, it's greater. I think that there will be more people coming forward. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No 7 disrespect. I've been in politics, it will be 41 years, and I don't know of anybody, whether it's even in the private sector, that there's some influence or political connection that doesn't have something to do with what we're all doing. I mean, you're going to be appointed by a mayor, whatever the case may be. There's some influence. Someone has touched that other person in some way, shape or form. So I don't know if that let's all the stuff go away. I've always been of the opinion that no matter how many laws are created, if someone wants to do something that is illegal, immoral or corrupt, they're going to do it regardless of that law. I mean, it's illegal to rob banks, but people rob banks every day. 130 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. I'm not minimizing the importance of what we're trying to do here. I'm just trying to figure out what the real necessity is when we have all these other different agencies and the duplicity and things that we talked about earlier.
My only comment on that is that for the past years, 11 we've had all of these different agencies 12 and we continue to have a problem in the 13 City. 14
But 15 doesn't that go back to what Councilman 16 DiCicco just said, that there are 17 unfortunately going to be people who are 18 going to try to do these things? I mean, 19 is there any indication that's really 20 going to solve anything? 21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What's to 22 prevent that from continuing? You get to 23 the prosecution maybe a little bit sooner 24 and then maybe do a better job at the prosecution level, but it doesn't stop 131 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the initial violation of the law or the criminal intent. It never stops that. It may be good in perception, and people out there, Oh, we got an Inspector General, the corruption is going to go away. Although, people in my neighborhood never figure it's going to go away. They just figure we're all corrupt no matter what we do, but that's -- what can I tell you? Forty-one years clean record, it still doesn't make me, in some people's eyes, as being non-corrupt. They figure I'm here because I'm corrupt or something like that.
I don't think there's any law that you can pass that's going to prevent all crime, but I think that this is an additional step that would try to prevent the crime that's part of what Mayor Nutter has tried to do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Another set of eyes watching over. 132 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Exactly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. Thank you. No further questions.
Yeah. You mention the City of Chicago Inspector General's Office has 70 employees. Once we're past the two years, a million dollars, what do you imagine the number of employees is that you will have and what could you -- is there a writ of mandamus in here?
How many employees do we need in the Inspector General's Office and how much will it cost?
That I don't know, sir. That's why I -- this two years is sort of a trial period, but I can tell you right now that in the Inspector General's Office, we have 133 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. several possible issues of misconduct to look into, but we don't have the staff to do it.
What is in the Mayor's Five-Year Plan in terms of your funding for the last three years?
You mean what has been funded in the last three years for this office?
No. The Mayor just introduced his Five-Year Budget Plan. How much is allocated for the Inspector General in the three out years in the Five-Year Plan?
I don't think there's anything specifically allocated at all, because the budget of the Inspector General's Office as it is just comes from the Mayor's Office. For example, if we order paper, we call up the Mayor's Office and they order the paper for us. So there is no specific amount of money that is earmarked for the Inspector General's Office. 134 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Clarence Armbrister, Chief of Staff. I don't know the specific number, Councilman, but there is an allocation within the Mayor's Office, as Ms. Kurland was mentioning, that is allocable for the Inspector General's Office. When Ms. Kurland came into or was appointed to the government, she immediately did an assessment of the office and has made several recommendations to the Mayor's Office about increasing the staffing, for which she just described that they are low on staffing. So we're taking a look at their request, but we have not assigned significant additional dollars. We did provide some additional support above prior year's budgets for Ms. Kurland, but probably, in her opinion, not enough.
Well, that 135 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. sort of gets to the point of the difference between Chicago when it didn't have 70 people in the Chicago Inspector General Office, when it did have 70 people, and it's a question of how we're going to allocate the City's resources, whether it would be appropriate to allocate more money to the DA's Office specifically for a public corruption unit, whether it would make sense to allocate -- because the DA never thinks they have enough money from City Council. Whether it would make more sense to allocate -- and the DA also has a writ of mandamus, I believe. No? Okay. And then also to allocate -- do we ask the City Controller, who the last time I spoke to him in the previous Administration was against this legislation because he felt it duplicated his duties, and if he had the resources, he would be conducting forensic audits and other kinds of investigations and looking into this stuff and making the 136 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. proper referrals to federal, state and local bodies. Are we hearing from the Controller, Bill?
Okay. So if it's a question of resources, how does -- as we're thinking about the Five-Year Plan and prioritizing the budget and giving the DA more money, the Controller more money, the Ethics Board more money, how do we sort of make that conclusion in terms of where these resources should go, and how much will it be?
I'm not sure what the answer is to your last question about how much it would be, but if we can imagine that the Inspector General's Office was in fact independent, it would, like other independent agencies, come to the Administration or City Council, quite frankly, and make its budget request with 137 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. respect to resources, much like the DA does, as you indicated. I think, though, to get to your other point about whether or not there are duplicative efforts, I think Ms. Kurland indicated that the importance of the proposed Charter change is reflected in the fact of its independence, that it is not an elected body in that it could take on and withstand with other political concerns. And I understand what Councilman DiCicco said, that almost everything is political, but there's a certain level of independence. By elevating this office to a Charter-constituted independent body, it would give the kind of protection for the citizens of Philadelphia and enhance the integrity of all public officials that we have been looking to ensure through this Administration.
Thank you, Councilman. 138 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finally, Ms. Kurland, I have a slight problem with your description of the need for the Office of Inspector General to be independent based upon perception of corruption. As I said before, I support the Office of Inspector General. I support it becoming independent. I support this Charter change in some form, but not to deal with the perception of corruption, but for it to be part of a team of ethics-related entities that actually roots out corruption, because as far as I know -- and you can tell me differently -- as a former U.S. Attorney, there's nothing new to the laws as they relate to bribery, extortion and theft. There are no new nuances there in terms of whether if you're caught stealing or bribing someone or extorting someone, you should go to jail and whoever catches you should make 139 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. sure you go to jail. Please explain where the whole issue of perception of corruption falls into this in reality and as separate from the actual functions of an independent IG to root out corruption.
Often times in investigations or, I would say, most times in investigations they begin with somebody coming forward, often times somebody from inside the City or inside a business. As long as there is a perception among the community that the Office of the Inspector General is part of the Mayor's Office and not independent, I think that there is some reluctance of people to come forward, and that makes it a lot more difficult to conduct investigations. If somebody is going to come forward to an entity that they believe is free from political influence and independent, I think that they will be more forthcoming, and that would further 140 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. an investigation significantly.
And why because it's associated with the Mayor's Office would someone be reluctant?
Why because it's associated with the Mayor's Office would somebody be reluctant to move forward?
Well, in the City Hall corruption case most recently, the Inspector General's Office was not really a part of that investigation or very effective in forwarding the investigation because it was part of the Mayor's Office.
I'm not following you. Without getting into the case too deeply, it could be said that someone else caught it, and that's my point in the end, is that if stealing is still against the law and bribery is still against the law, extortion is still 141 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. against the law, it doesn't make a difference to me who catches it. Yes, I want to expand our tools to catch it, but we should define how we're going to do it and whether we're actually, in the most effective way, establishing a new tool or not, because I don't think that this particular legislation -- well, I know this particular legislation does not redefine the role of the City Controller within the Charter. It does not redefine other roles. It only defines this role. And so the issue of how we define this role is still one that remains not totally resolved, because at the end of the day, we should define it and we should define it as an independent entity, but that doesn't mean that we should accept the way it's defined within this legislation. And we definitely shouldn't do it based upon the perception of corruption as opposed to creating a new tool that actually is taking a targeted approach toward absolutely 142 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. rooting out corruption.
I apologize if I left the impression that we were only concerned about the perception of rooting out corruption. I do believe that the proposed Charter change as it's written would be a very effective tool and would establish an investigative agency that would be very effective in rooting out corruption.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you both very much. Mr. Stalberg, did you want to say something on this, or anyone else? Is there anyone else that wants to testify? (No response.)
Good. Thank you. 143 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. I'm Zach Stalberg, President of the Committee of Seventy. The Committee of Seventy does support the Administration's proposed Charter change that would make the Inspector General permanent and independent and put the Inspector General beyond the reach of political influence, which has not always been the case. I do think that any changes that you make in this should be done very carefully and very precisely, and let me just make a few points. The Charter amendment should be as clear as possible on the division of responsibility between the ethics agencies, which include the Board of Ethics, the Controller's Office, the Chief Integrity Office and the Office of 144 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. the Inspector General. For example, the Special Fraud Investigations Division of the Controller's Office is charged with investigating contract fraud, which could also come under the purview of the IG. So it's that kind of potential overlap that I hope will be addressed by the Committee and the Council as it shapes this legislation. Council should amend the legislation so that appointment and removal of the Inspector General mirrors the Charter requirements of the Board of Ethics. Under the Mayor's proposal, the Inspector General is appointed by the Mayor. Members of the Board of Ethics, however, are appointed by the Mayor but must be confirmed by City Council. This is the method used for appointing Chicago's Inspector General. Also under the Mayor's amendment, the Inspector General can only be removed for cause and is given the opportunity for a hearing before the 145 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. Mayor. The Committee of Seventy favors the more stringent test for removal that applies to members of the Board of Ethics. Removal of an Ethics Board member requires concurrence of two-thirds of Councilmembers and can take place only after a public hearing in City Council. It also makes sense to appoint an Inspector General whose professional experience qualifies him or her to perform the investigative duties of the office. The proposed Charter amendment here does not specify any criteria for choosing an Inspector General. And, finally, the amendment also imbeds the Inspector General's salary in the Charter. Given the nature of salaries, Council should amend the provision to explicitly define the salary as a minimum amount as opposed to a fixed number. Thanks very much.
Thank you. 146 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. So I guess just as I'm listening to you, it seems like there's a lot of things we still need to discuss on this, in my personal opinion, and that's why I would, just speaking for myself, think that maybe taking a little more time in getting it right and vetting this a little more makes some sense.
I should say that our history with this, the Committee of Seventy's history, is that we support the idea of an independent Inspector General. When it came time for a vote, many of these issues had not been really addressed or carefully resolved and we asked for a delay. We still support the idea. However, I think back to the point we discussed when we were talking about deputies, the changes made now will likely last for a very long time, beyond the terms of the individuals involved right now, and I just hope they're done very carefully. 147 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Yeah. I'd like to hear from the City Controller and the DA and others involved in this in terms of what they think about this legislation and the sort of working -- how they see themselves working with the Inspector General, including maybe the Board of Ethics, if they'd be willing to testify. I mean, it's not clear to me, even though the Mayor has some small description, what the job description is really of these different people, and I think we're putting in place permanence in terms of all these different boards and commissions and agencies, et cetera, in the Philadelphia Charter without sort of clear job descriptions, and I'd kind of like to get a handle on that.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilman Goode. 148 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stalberg, just for the record, does the Committee of Seventy have a formal opinion on whether there should be a comprehensive overhaul of the City Charter? I know in the past year or two the Committee has suggested that a lot of this has been done piecemeal and in testimony against Charter changes has mentioned the piecemealing of it and the testimony in favor of Charter changes has not. So is there a formal opinion in terms of whether any of this should be done piecemeal?
In the abstract, we would like to see a comprehensive overhaul of the Charter and have been worried about piecemeal changes in the Charter, especially some which appear to be trivial or not related to the actual workings of City government. Offsetting that, I should say, is the 1994 experience in which there was an attempt 149 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. to make wholesale changes and we saw that contribute to the defeat of the Charter change. So certainly theoretically we would -- it's a 60-some-year-old document and it's probably time for a comprehensive look. The trick is doing it right, and I think we've had trouble imagining a way in which it could be done smartly with the right kind of outcome.
If I may just say to Councilman Green, we definitely support this change. However, we have gone through the exercise of trying to put down on a piece of paper sort of what falls where under the Controller, the DA or whatever, and it's based on what's been publicly said. It is a little 150 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. difficult to complete that chart. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you both very much. Anyone else here to testify on this or any of the other bills or resolutions? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government, and in one minute we will go into the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. (Short recess.)
Sorry for the delay. This is the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Bill No. 080006.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 23 080006 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to 151 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 080006 be approved by this Committee and that the rules of Council be suspended for first reading at the next session of Council. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 080041.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 21 080041 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Resolution 080041 152 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc. be approved by this Committee. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for an amendment to Resolution 12 080040.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An amendment to Resolution 15 No. 080040 has been circulated to the members of the Committee. I move for the adoption of the amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that the amendment to Resolution 080040 be approved. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
Opposed? (No response.) 153 2/19/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080006, etc.
The motion carries and Resolution 080040 is amended. That resolution, Resolution 6 080040, and Bill No. 080008 will be continued today until Thursday, February 28th at 8:30. Further, Bill No. 080007 and Resolution 080039 will be held to the call of the Chair. No further business before the Committee today, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Law and Government adjourned at 12:50 p.m.) - - - 154 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 19, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)