Okay. So back to the presentation that was given by Clay, the Chief of Staff. I think there was a point in the speech where it was suggested that cuts in government would irretrievably damage our economy. I don't understand that statement. Can you explain that?
I think what I was referring to, Councilman, is that if we don't get the revenues that we need from whatever sources, that we will have to make significant cuts in the delivery of services. And one of the points that I made is that among other things that people look to when they look to locate either businesses or families is the 280 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 quality of the services that a city provides, and that if we had to make those kinds of cuts, that we might be in a position where we might have a long-term effect on our ability to attract families and businesses to the City.
Okay. So can you provide the Chair with the assumptions behind that statement? In other words, cutting -- creating additional efficiencies in government will cause our economy to -- it will irretrievably damage our economy.
That's not. I didn't say "efficiencies"; I said "service reductions."
Significant service reductions. If you close pools, if you close libraries, if you close facilities at parks and not make them available, those are quality-of-life indicators that I 281 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 would think -- I think you could almost take judicial notice, if you will, that those would be factors in a decision of a resident a family to locate in a particular place and/or a business to locate in a particular place if those services were not provided. Do I have a study to say that? No, I don't.
We, in the plan, as well as in the Chief of Staff's testimony, we referenced three studies. I'd be happy to provide them. One is by a noted scholar at Harvard, Ed Glazer. Another is by a 282 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 noted scholar at NYU, Bill Easterly, who's written extensively about these kind of issues. And the third is probably a benchmark study -- and if you have Bob Inman here, you can ask him yourself -- by a fellow at the Upjohn Institute, Tim Bartok. And we'd be happy to provide you with the cites for that.
That's great, but that assumes that we're not going to provide alternative revenue sources, right?
No, the purpose of your question -- you asked me to explain the statement --
-- that I made. And I explained the statement that if there were reductions in services --
-- so I didn't make any presumptions about any other revenue sources. 283 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
-- services to the extent to which we might have to cut them if revenues were not available -- and I didn't say at this particular point in time which revenues -- that there would be a significant adverse effect on the quality of life of citizens in this city, and it would, I think, adversely affect the ability to attracts residents and businesses to the City. I think that's what I said.
Well, the corollary to what you just said is providing great city services will boost our economy.
And I think 284 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 that's a premise of the budget that we provided and one of the basis upon which we strongly, strongly argued for maintaining core services in the City.
And how you pay for them. I mean, we're going to have a -- it sounds like we're going to have a long discussion about how you pay for that, and that's what these hearings are about. So whatever the level of service we provide, we're going to have to make some determination about how we pay for them. And we made our best recommendation, and we're willing to hear, you know, what the Council has. But we've made our best recommendation to this body considering what we -- what we know --
-- and what studies have shown that we think would be the adverse effects of the some of the 285 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 revenue sources that might otherwise be contemplated.
Okay. So I asked this question at the last budget session in '09. Do you think that the Administration has made all of the tough decisions, done all of the heavy lifting it can do within our government to cut costs?
I think -- I would respond that it's a continuous process. I mean, I think we can always be more efficient. I think astounding when you think about what we've had to do in the bit -- a little over a year to take out over $2 billion of costs and/or raise revenue in this situation that we've been in. Sure, there probably are additional things that we can do, but that doesn't mean we won't stop. I mean, we believe in the continuous improvement process, we're always trying to improve 286 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 our efficiencies. And to the extent that we can find other efficiencies, we certainly would like to do that.
So do you believe that there are really only million inefficiencies in our 8 $3.8 billion budget? 9
No, I think 10 that -- that's a matter of 11 characterization. One man's efficiency 12 might be another man's service cut. 13 I think it also needs to include the 39 -- I think it was $39 million in efficiencies that we took out of the government in the November rebalancing. If you add those with the 13 that we've done, that's 42. So it's about over 200 million over the life of the plan. But that doesn't mean we won't stop looking for efficiencies. And, you know, we'll continue to look for those efficiencies.
Right, just to recharacterize it, 39 million was a 287 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 combination of efficiencies and revenue enhancements.
I believe it was. If you could provide that breakdown for us. So even in the Rendell-era Five-Year Plans...
It was 39 -- I'm, in fact, being told that it was 39 efficiencies in --
Okay. In the Rendell-era Five-Year Plan, they always used to assume about 40 million a year in efficiencies; in other words, in basically improvement in government, the way we deliver service. I don't see a kind of assumption in the Five-Year Plan that says that we're going to deliver service more 288 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 efficiently, just that we're going to deliver the same service.
You're talking about the line that used to be in the plan that said --
-- the management -- at some point, PICA actually insisted that that be taken out of the plan because they didn't think it was a real number. So that is not in the plan because it doesn't pass the PICA test.
Well, it doesn't pass the PICA test because there's nothing behind it, but what if there's something behind it?
Well, what we've done in our plan is use specific items that add up to $52 million, the 39 from the first part and this 13.
On , under "Moving Forward," the last bullet point... is it your testimony that none of these efficiencies are part of the 289 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 cost reduction -- or none of the 52 million in identified efficiencies are as a result of what is in this "Moving Forward" section, especially the last bullet point?
That's correct. We did not put the dollar value, which we estimated to be about 3 million from these various savings into reductions. What we used them for was to do reinvestments, critical reinvestments, that are needed in the basic infrastructure from servers to actual pipe to actual computers. And that's something we've had extended conversations with Allan Frank our CIO, about in order to give him some kind of seed capital to actually generate additional savings in the long term for us.
Councilman, just to be clear -- and I wanted to check with my colleague to make sure we were 290 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 correct -- it is in the plan, but as he mention, we have reinvested those savings in the plan as well. So we've taken those into account, but we've reinvested that $3 million. I just wanted to make that clear.
Okay. So this whole "Moving Forward" section is $3 million in efficiencies a year?
That's 3 million that we've plugged in for the FY '10 budget. I know that you've talked to the CIO. He has a plan and a phase-in over the next two to four years as to the kinds of savings he will generate not only in personnel but also in the contracts that we spend. We spend over $40 million in IT-related contracts. We're hoping to generate some significant savings. But over the same period of time, we're looking at sizeable increases. I think 291 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 the first tranche of expenditures he's looking at in terms of reinvestment is somewhere in the neighborhood of to 5 $17 million. We're only to get that 6 money if we generate the savings and then 7 reinvest in what we're doing. 8
Absolutely. 9 So there are $16 million of savings -- is 10 that Year 1, FY '10, you're going to 11 spend $16 million? 12
The idea was that 13 we would spend that over some period of 14 time between Years 1 through 3. And 15 Allan Frank is trying to find a way to 16 phase that in. Just keep in mind that if we don't generate savings that he can reinvest and we take in to balance the budget, we'll never get ahead of the curve and make the investments that will, in the long term, save us lots more money than --
No one -- no 25 one wants -- frankly, if we need to spend 292 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 $20 million to have the efficiencies occur sooner, then I suggest we increases taxes by $20 million on a short-term basis. We have strategically under-invested in this area for 30 years. If there are savings and efficiencies we can generate, we have to do it; and not over five years but starting next year. It's time to start getting action in these areas and not, you know, slow, plodding, methodical stuff. I mean plans are written. If you could please provide the Chair with every single external consultant study about savings that we can get in the IT space so that we can look at the same information that the Administration is looking at, I would appreciate that. What the external consultants say that will cost for to us get there, and to the extent there are any internal costs (indiscernible) that have not previously been shared by Council in this whole 293 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 "Moving Forward" section, please provide all of that data to the Chair so that we may review it in this budget process and draw our own conclusions about potentially how much savings there are in this spays. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. I just want to ask a question. I noticed in your testimony, Mr. Armbrister and others, that you constantly refer to experts from the University of Pennsylvania. Do you all get other views from Temple or St. Joe's or LaSalle? It seems that this -- and I have a great respect for Penn; I'm not being critical. I just think that we have all these wonderful universities in the City, and there -- also, there should be other 294 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 leading economists at some of these other universities that could share with us their ideas about the presentations that you make.
Since I went to Penn, I'm going to let Steve answer that question. I have a conflict. (Laughter.)
Since I went to Harvard, I try to go -- get Harvard economists to give us information. We pull from everyone. We pull from Temple, we pull from LaSalle. PICA hosts a quarterly meeting at the Federal Reserve, where we get information from the economists throughout the region, various schools, Bureau of Labor statistics, the fed itself. We pull research from around the country, from schools all over the place. We're just trying to get a very broad template. We don't try to rely just on the kinds of things we hear from one particular school or one particular 295 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 researcher.
But you haven't quoted from anybody else but Penn and one from Harvard.
Actually, in the quotes in response to the question about Mr. Armbrister's testimony, we quoted from Upjohn Institute; they're in Kalamazoo, Michigan. They are noteworthy for the labor economic studies that they do. From an NYU professor, who also was an economist at the World Bank. Also from a Hartford professor. So we do pull from lots of places.
Before I recognize our next Councilperson, I understand that glasses were found at the exit here. So if anybody wants to claim them, they'll be on the table here. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green. 296 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
Thank you, Madam Chair. Also with respect to , "Moving Forward," how much of these technology changes result in changes in workflow technology, which is -- obviously, implementation of technology can save some money. Going from 864 to 40 servers can save some money. But workflow processes, have they been calculated, changes as a result of using off-the-shelf technology; has that been calculated in this? (Witness comes forward.) MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: I'm Camille Barnett, Managing Director. In terms of changes in workflow processing, we do some of that through our analysis for IT, for information technology improvements. And we also have reform teams set up to look at more long-term improvements in each of the departments. Also, as I know you're aware of, 297 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 through Philly Stat Monthly, we gauge departments' improvements in processing times and other ways to improve performance So we're constantly monitoring it. It's hard to put a number on it because we really want it to be all over the City.
Okay. So the question really is: As a result of the contemplated moving-forward technology changes, what savings are we counting on, if any, from the changes in workflow processes that would have to result from going to commercial, off-the-shelf software -- MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Okay.
-- from using our, you know, changing our practices to conform to the private sector, which should result in significant productivity gains in every departments that, say, for example, goes paperless. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Yes. 298 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 We're expecting that those savings will be there. They're not included in this budget and Five-Year Plan because they haven't materialized yet. Until we get firm backup in terms of the number on the savings, we wouldn't include it. But you know that we're working on it constantly. So it is something that we expect; it's just not prudent to counts on it in terms of the financial projections at this point.
Well, I mean, as we just had conversations about real-estate transfer taxes and other things, there are many assumptions that are made in this budget, but it does not seem unreasonable to make assumptions about how much we can save in terms of productivity enhancements as a result of the changing of workflow processes after the implementation of some of these changes. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: We'd be happy to talk to you more about your 299 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 ideas about how you would do that.
No, it's not my idea. I'm just talking about what's in "Moving Forward" here. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: Mm-hmm.
And I think we need to make assumptions about how the implementation of this technology and of these changes are going to allow us to reduce the size of the City workforce. Working with the unions hopefully through attrition over a four- or five-year period, I believe we can reduce the City workforce by 2 to 3,000 people. And I will tell you why. In Los Angeles, the per capita employees per 1,000 people is 9.59 per 1,000 people. In Houston, it's 8.39. In San Antonio, it's 9.26. In San Diego, 5.85. Dallas, 9.59. San Jose, 6.77. In Philadelphia -- and this is only 16,600 actual municipal employees, taking out all of the county employees -- 300 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 our employee-per-1,000-people ratio is 11.4. We're very, very poor compared to all of our peer cities in the number of employees we have. And it's a result of our underinvestment in technology over time. And there needs to be assumptions in the budget about the savings that we'll be able to generate as a result of IT stuff and of making these changes. We have a great IT director. He has 30 years of experience. He's there, he's got a plan. Let's start making some assumptions about what it's going to mean for us so that we all get behind the idea of investing in technology and changing the way our government works. MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: I hear you, and I think that what we are doing --
So are -- MANAGING DIRECTOR BARNETT: You're not going to get any disagreement from us that there is more work that 301 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 needs to be done and that the savings can be significant and that we're under-invested in the important ways in technology. What we may disagree on is how soon to start budgeting those savings before we even have the plans completed on what we're going to do, but --
Well, it's time to start -- to stop planning and to start taking actions that we can take. We need -- whatever the small actions are, we need to start taking them, and we need to start realizing these changes. We've been planning for a year-and-a-half.
Well, in all fairness, Councilman, when the Administration arrived, you're right, the one thing we will agree on today is that the technology infrastructure of the City is not in very good shape. When we arrived, we made an assessment of that in the current 302 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 personnel that we had, and we went out and found Allen. Allen's been here six months, and so he has been working very hard to put together a plan. And in terms of prudent budgeting and with respect to meeting, as Rob mentioned before, the very high test that PICA puts forth, we didn't feel we were prepared in the short that he's been here, although he's done a lot of work, that we were prepared to put those in other than the modest savings that we put in and reinvested. We are very excited. I was the beneficiary of a presentation that Allen gave and many of us around the table here recently, and I think our expectations are very high for both the work that he's going to do and the efficiencies that he's going to bring to the City in terms of technology improvements.
Okay. The City of Baltimore, in its first seven years of City Stat, estimates that it 303 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 saved $350 million during that period. Other cities that have implemented these things have shown similar savings. Their systems are very different, but we -- you know, they were probably ahead of us when they started in terms of their technology infrastructures, which means that we should be able to realize far more savings, get our employee-per-thousand down to levels of our peer cities. And it's just not going to be acceptable, to me at least, to have a budget that doesn't have some assumptions about what those savings mean, about what these enhancements mean in the future. And so, you know, I can't see supporting the a Five-Year Plan that doesn't make reasonable assumptions about the good work that Allan Frank is going to do, and I'm glad to have him here as well.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. 304 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
Thank you, Madam President. I just have one short request in going back to some of the issues relative to tax policy and the Administration's budget and their philosophy relative to taxes and the increases that they're asking for. Professor Inman, of course, is a prominent Wharton professor and has been around the tax policy -- talking about tax policy far long time. And there are a couple of other experts that the Administration had mentioned that they had consulted with, or at least read some of their analysis to come up with the budget they have now. I would request, Madam President, that we or you as president write to them based on the addresses that the Administration maybe ought to provide and to set aside maybe one special day for the outside experts, without any emotion, who have studied this for years, 305 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 who have at least made comments initially about the Administration's budget plans, to bring them in. We'll put them at that table, and let's hear what they have to say relative to the tax policies being promoted by the Administration. I think it would be something we've never -- I don't remember in 10 budgets that I've -- this is my 18th -- 11 been through that before, and I would 12 really be interested in hearing what they 13 have to say about everything that's been 14 said today so far. 15 Thank you. 16
Thank you. And I want to thank Councilman Kenney for endorsing that idea. So I just want to touch on efficiencies briefly a little bit more. And that is, we have some very specific examples of what happens as a result of 306 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 the implementation of technology even within government today: The Pension Department went from people to 2 people performing a 6 function when they OCRed all of the 7 documents. The courts have been able to already move people out of the 10 Prothonotary's Office into other areas in 11 the courts as a result of electronic 12 filing. And I just don't understand why we're not moving forward with these technologies and investments, which will compound savings through the Five-Year Plan if we move quickly. What is the decision not to move and act?
Your question includes a premise that's just not true. You're assuming that we have not moved forward. We have moved forward. What we haven't done, I guess, to your satisfaction, is that we haven't included a significant amount of those 307 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 efforts in our Five-Year Plan because, at this point, they are not yet -- they're not further along than we would like them to be to meet the tests we have from PICA. So that's where we are. We are working very hard. Allen has been working very hard since he's been here for the six months that he's been here. You know, the technology infrastructure, as I said, of the City is really, really poor. And he has done a very good analysis, he's given us a very good presentation with a multi-year plan that we intend to implement. But it's going to require, as the Budget Director said, some investments, and that's what we're prepared to do.
Have you shared that plan with PICA and asked them if they would allow you to include assumptions about efficiencies?
With respect to 308 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 the technology plan? No, we haven't shared it with them.
The important thing is that all of the efficiencies, particularly the stuff you talked about -- processing, you know, business processing -- those haven't yet been developed. Those we're still working on. I mean, the development of the plan that Mr. Frank has done really deals with a lot of the basics, if you will, blocking and tackling, in the football context. I mean, without getting into a lot of detail, Allen can get into detail about it. When we have servers upon servers upon servers in locations that that they shouldn't be, I mean he's doing some of the basic, simple things like trying to get us, you know, backup, the things that we should have. And he is working on the process improvements. 309 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 They will come in time, and the time may be next year. It may be within this year, but they will come in time. But they just were not ready to be put in in Five-Year Plan other than the modest amount that we put in, that we are, in fact, reinvesting to give him some opportunity to really, as you said, exponentially increase the acceleration of those benefits.
You didn't respond when I asked you to provide all outside consultants' reports and internal reports on this whole effort. I assume you will provide that to the Chair?
So my last discussion with Rob about VOIP was that the savings from VOIPT -- that's 310 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 voice-over Internet protocol telephony -- were in the 2010 plan. Are they still there?
The answer is no. There were RFPs ready to go when the Administration took office on that, and it's significant savings. And not only is it significant savings; whoever the provider is can fix our network as part of that and essentially we'll have a fixed network as a service that we're not paying a third party to do, which we're currently doing. So that RFP needs to be issued if it's going to be a part of your FY '10 plan.
And also, we ought to look at including in that RFP fixing the network so that we're not 311 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 paying for that out of hard dollars; we're paying for it as part of a service over time, where we reduce our telephone bills from $7 to, you know, or or $4. I don't remember the exact assumption per line. (Witness comes forward.)
I'm Allan Frank, the Chief Information Officer for the City. And to answer your question, we do not have an RFP in process for voiceover IP right now. In our plan, it's much more important in this year and next year to make sure we first have a basic network, because we can't connect the dots. And so, we do have a plan, which first makes sure that we can maintain the basic bandwidth for public safety in the City's operation, which we do not have. And immediately after that, once I get the basic infrastructure and we're ripping out all the switches so that we can provide in the future voiceover IP, 312 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 my intent would be not over the next year, but probably the following year is when we would be ready in my mind for us to go over voice-over IP. And it is in my Five-Year Plan to do that.
No, I know, but it's also in the FY '10 Fiscal Year Plan. It's in the budget for FY '10, VOIPT, the savings from voice-over IP.
Yeah. So -- but the fundamental point there is: If the RFP included changing out the switches, changing out the -- everything as a part of providing it -- in other words, the RFP says, Okay, provide VOIPT that includes fixing our network, then we are basically not paying people to fix our network; we're going to be paying per phone line as a service to whoever the service provider who wins the voice-over IP contract. It doesn't seem to me -- we can 313 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 have the private sector do this for us and still have a decreased telephony cost as part of the RFP rather than sort of spending money up front to get it ready for them, which is only -- so instead of paying $2 per line, we'll pay $3 per line. I really think it's something we need to look at.
Well, first of all, I do agree that I think that there's real opportunities for us in voice-over IP across the City. I think we differ on the timing and perhaps the method, because my number-one priority -- and I mean right this second -- is to make sure I have sufficient bandwidth and a stable network to support our operations, period, end of story. That has to be done right this second.
Okay. So we -- but I do agree with you. 314 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 What we should do is, we will go out for a full RFP, which would include all of those other pieces for the next phase. To me, it's just a sequencing and timing. And, you know, perhaps we may differ on the timing and the approach, but I do agree with voice-over IP.
Okay. And I'm not -- you know, I know you've only been here six months, and I think it's great to have you here. But even though you've only been here six months, I've been talking about this for 15 months, and I just am anxious to see things moving.
Well, I hope you could appreciate, though, that there is a -- this is an engineering feat and, you know, there are a lot of moving parts. And I'm sure that you would appreciate that, you know, if you really saw it. I think we're in the same place. We need to get there as quickly as we 315 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 can.
Yeah, thank you. Back to Council President Verna's question sometime ago. She asked what health center would close or what fire engine companies would close in the contingency plan, and the Administration said -- you guys said you weren't able to identify the facilities. My question is: If the contingency plan occurs and you close capital facilities, will you come before City Council and receive our approval first, as required by Section 16.03 of the Philadelphia Code?
Councilman, we will do whatever the law requires us to do, and that's what we'll do.
Will you come -- the question is not, Will you do what the law requires? The question is: Will you come before City Council and seek our approval? 316 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
If the law requires us to do it, we will do it. If the law doesn't require us to do that --
Is it the Administration's position that the law requires you to come before us when you close capital facilities? (Mr. Armbrister confers off with Solicitor Shelly Smith.)
Again, we would certainly follow the law. I know there's been a subject of a lot of litigation particularly with respect to the library closings. And with respect to, I guess, libraries, we would certainly have to come back to you with respect to if there were any closures. As to other facilities, I think that it might still be an open question to the extent that that particular case may not have had precedential value. So we will do what the law requires us to do. The plan that we've identified, 317 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 it is conceivable that those -- the identity of those facilities will be known to the Council prior to us completing the budget process, so it's very possible that you would know that before then.
No, my question is a very simple one, and it's yes or no: Does the administration -- is the Administration -- does the Administration believe it is required to come before Council to close a City capital facility? SOLICITOR SMITH: Councilman Green, as you are aware, you are a party against the City, the Mayor, in litigation that is still pending. The parties have taken positions in that litigation with respect to this issue, and I don't think it's appropriate for us to litigate that here.
I'm asking about a health center, Solicitor. SOLICITOR SMITH: You asked 318 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 about capital facilities in general --
A capital facility that's a health center. SOLICITOR SMITH: We will do what --
If the City closes a health center -- SOLICITOR SMITH: As Mr. Armbrister said, the Administration will do what the law requires it to do.
What does the law require? You're the solicitor; tell me. SOLICITOR SMITH: I'm not going to put the Administration in a position of litigating that issue in this forum. We have briefed this issue and I'm not going to allow -- I'm not going to litigate it here.
I'm sorry, you're before -- 319 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 SOLICITOR SMITH: I'm not going to make a --
-- this body. SOLICITOR SMITH: -- a statement on the record.
You'll answer my questions before this body. SOLICITOR SMITH: We will do what --
That's why you're here. SOLICITOR SMITH: The Administration will do what the law requires.
What does the law require? What is the Administration's position with respect to -- you -- if the Administration decides to close a health center, as is part of the contingency plan, is it the Administration's position that they are required to come before City Council to seek our approval first? SOLICITOR SMITH: There's an 320 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 existing ordinance that purports to require the Administration to get Council approval to close facilities. As you are aware from the briefing that's been filed, it is our position that that ordinance is not legally valid.
I'm sorry. There is no briefing before any court to that position. The only thing -- SOLICITOR SMITH: I think that's incorrect.
You dismissed -- SOLICITOR SMITH: That was certainly our positioned in the libraries case, to which you are a party.
You dismissed your appeal on that point. The only position before any court today is whether or not that decision -- the lower-court decision is moot. SOLICITOR SMITH: There is briefing that was filed in that case.
There was, 321 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 and you dismissed it. SOLICITOR SMITH: And you disagreed with our ability to dismiss it.
No, we haven't. SOLICITOR SMITH: Okay. Well, as I said, I'm not going to litigate it here, in City Council. It's being litigated --
I'm not -- SOLICITOR SMITH: -- in the appropriate court.
I'm not asking about libraries; I'm asking about a health center that's in the contingency plan, and you're asking me to approve a budget with a contingency plan that closes a health center. And I want to know if it is the Administration's position that you can close a health center without coming before City Council to ask our approval. SOLICITOR SMITH: The question that you asked -- 322 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266
I mean, if you're going to refer to your brief, just say, "It's our position that we don't have to come to you." SOLICITOR SMITH: I've already said that. I said --
Oh, you did? Okay. SOLICITOR SMITH: What I said was, there is an ordinance that purports to require the Administration to get approval from City Council, and the Administration has set forth its position in the briefing in the litigation to which you were a party that that ordinance is not legally valid.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, this committee will stand in recess 323 3/25/09 - WHOLE - RES. 090266 until Tuesday, March the 31st, at a.m. Thank you very much. (Proceedings end at 4:07 p.m.) * * * 324 C E R T I F I C A T E WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee of the Whole are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by us on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ MICHELE MURPHY, Registered Professional Reporter __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter (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.)