I understand the request. I just need to confirm the timing, whether or not we can get all the addresses by the end of the day.
I understand. But the second part of that is, you wanted to know whether there are dual residences. And I don't know if we would have a way of knowing that. We have a requirement to ask for validation every two years.
If you don't have that, then I wish for you to tell us in this correspondence how long and when it will take you to 95 RESOLUTION 970687 find that out.
I owe Councilman DiCicco. Councilwoman, did you have a point on this?
I just needed a clarification as to exemptions from the policy. Because let's assume that Mr. Collins has a discussion with his family, and the discussion is, yes, we will move into the city. It would be unreasonable for us to expect him to do it in a day or a week or a month. He has a house to sell. So we would need some reasonable amount of time to permit him or any other employee who seeks to comply with turning over that house and engaging and occupying an in-Philadelphia residence. How many exemptions to the policy of residency have you granted? And is it open-ended or is it for a term of weeks, months, or years? Please talk to me about that.
Councilwoman, you 96 RESOLUTION 970687 are going a little bit afar here. I would like to recognize Councilman DiCicco. It seems like you are now trying to not just ask a followup.
It is a clarification of the exemption, but I will wait my turn.
The residency requirement hopefully will be in writing, and we will be able to see what, if any, exemptions or anything that's in it. But I would like to get to Councilman DiCicco, then we can get to Councilwoman Clark. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Two questions. In the list that you just requested, I believe one of your questions was the requirements for residency. And I would like that to be extremely specific as to what proof is required on the residency. Is it a copy of a deed to home ownership, a copy of a lease agreement? And is there any followup to that? Is there any internal followup? 97 RESOLUTION 970687
That's the reason why I say, explain in writing what you say to new employees about its meaning and implementation. Because they ought to be told, this is what it means and this is how we go about implementing the residency requirement; i.e., we do random checks, we don't do any checks, we do whatever it is. This is what we need to know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Traditionally there are people that use their mother-in-law, their cousin's or aunt's properties as a place of residence, and there is no followup investigation. It does require a lot of work, and I think it is something that is really important. And the other question -- I don't know if this was already asked; I was doing a sidebar with Councilwoman Clark -- does Mr. Collins have use of a PGW car?
Yes, I do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And is that the car you take home to North Whales at night?
Yes, it is. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I assume it is the gas, if it is natural gas or regular gas, 98 RESOLUTION 970687 that is gas that's supplied by way of PGW, and the insurance to the car, also?
The gas is paid for by myself through the commuting mileage. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Through the what mileage?
Commuting mileage. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that an expense account that is provided to you by PGW?
No. My commuting mileage is identified separately, and then it is paid on --
I pay for the commuting mileage myself. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the vehicle, obviously, is insured by PGW; am I correct in that?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. President.
At this time the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark. She is not here. 99 RESOLUTION 970687 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez, who has been uncharacteristically silent in these hearings today. Just today.
Yes. Mr. President, on this issue of residency and domicile, I think Councilwoman Tasco noted it in the record last week, but I think it is important for people to know PGW used to have a domicile ruling. There was the controversy over this rejection of a candidate to head PGW as the CEO because the person did not have domicile in the city, and was not willing to take up domicile in the city. And then, after that time, the PFMC Board did change the policy from domicile to residency. And I think it is important to note that. And it is my understanding the residency requirement is not from City Council, but it was a decision made by the PFMC Board. I think some of us think it might have been wiser to leave it as domicile, because then there is absolutely no question. Thank you. 100 RESOLUTION 970687
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Collins, this apartment that you have, and you believe that you are --
I need you to speak much more directly into the microphone.
Okay. We will move it up a little bit. Mr. Collins, the apartment that you presently rent and is vacant, is it vacant or do you receive any income? Is it subletted to anyone?
Councilman DiCicco asked one of the questions, so I will get right to my next one. Do you believe you are the only 101 RESOLUTION 970687 employee of PGW who has this type of arrangement? Do you think you are the only one in this entire company that has the arrangement that you have?
So obviously the gas company, the HR people -- I am asking you this question -- do you know of any other employees that have this type of arrangement?
Deborah Estrin, Senior Vice-President of Human Resources for PGW. I do not have direct knowledge of any other employees who are similarly situated. However, if you ask if I believe there are others who have dual residences, yes, I believe there are others.
Well, what have you done? If you believe this, what have you done to ferret these situations out?
We haven't gone into investigation beyond asking for people to provide us with documents to substantiate their residence in compliance with the current policy.
I am Jim Hawes, President and CEO of Philadelphia Gas Works. I believe that we have a two-year compliance audit coming up at some point later this year. I don't know what month it is. But there is a compliance audit due, I think, in November, where everybody has to revalidate.
But, Mr. Hawes, from what I am hearing here, that is just a --
And, again, I think Councilman DiCicco said, what do you do to substantiate this audit? If I should just bring in a receipt from the dry cleaners, and that works --
Well, having been through this discussion, I can assure you that we will come up with a procedure that will be much, much more than just that. I have not done it before, but I 103 RESOLUTION 970687 understand the expectations. And having been an auditor, I can assure you I know how to design it.
Could you just take a moment to explain, the employees that do not live in the city, what year did that change? There are some people that are grandfathered presently that live outside of the city. They take PGW vehicles home, both in this state and in New Jersey. Because occasionally on weekends I see PGW cars in the State of New Jersey. So we have people living in New Jersey that take company vehicles home. And do they also pay this mileage for commute?
I am Deborah Estrin. Councilman Rizzo, I can answer part of that question. I don't have the information to answer all of the question. As a condition of employment with PGW, all employees hired after January 1, 1983, were required to establish residency. So there are a group of employees who are grandfathered, who were hired prior to January 1, 1983, and who have been allowed to continue living at the residence or domicile that they had 104 RESOLUTION 970687 established prior to that.
I believe in 1983, when the issue came up, we did some research on this issue, since it was an issue we had to address when we were considering a candidate for --
That was '93. In 1983 the policy was a domicile policy. In 1993 the policy was changed from a domicile policy to a residency policy.
I just want to give you a little history. Before 1983 it was a residence. And then because of the sentiment of some members on this Council who were on the Gas Commission at the time, it was changed to domicile. And then in 1993, it was changed back to residence. I would suggest that, knowing the 105 RESOLUTION 970687 sentiment, and so it doesn't get lost on the next group of people who come in, that you go back and recommend to the Board that they change it back to domicile and leave it that way, and there is no 6 misunderstanding about what the rules are. Because we can find ourselves again, 20 years later, having this discussion again. And if you leave it at domicile, then there is no 10 question about what the rules require, and not up to interpretation.
Thank you, Mr. President. To follow on Councilwoman Tasco's point, I guess I am left to ask the question, notwithstanding whatever PFMC does, isn't it possible, through the fairly lengthy agreement between the city and PFMC, that we could insert in that agreement the domicile, and then we don't have to worry about what PFMC does? I mean, it is just the policy. And the only change to be made would come as a result of subsequent amendment by 106 RESOLUTION 970687 ordinance by City Council. Doesn't that resolve this entire matter?
Probably. Spoken like a well-intentioned lawyer. Probably.
I would have gotten that answer from the solicitor, if she was at the table. My question is, Mr. Collins, if I understand your response to a question by the Council President with regard to who approved the arrangement, did I hear you say that you had told someone, Human Resources person or someone else, I guess, what you were going to do or how you were going to respond to the residency requirement? I could have misheard.
Yes. What happened was, in the process of the hiring, the hiring process, one of the things I needed to do was, investigate the residency policy and what was required and how compliance would take place. And I met with the HR VP at that time, before I was hired, and discussed in detail what the policy was, what the requirements were, and 107 RESOLUTION 970687 how I could achieve a compliance. And based on that discussion, I was able then to make a judgment that I could accept the job and meet the requirements to the residency policy. So that was the basis for the decision.
And do you have any recollection as to what the HR VP said when you shared -- I assume you told them what you were going to do, or how you were going to do this?
We had a discussion. And the discussion was, "Describe the policy. What is the policy?" And we looked at the policy and we --
I understand that. Did you tell the person what you were going to do?
I told him that I was not able for personal reasons to move my family into the city, and that understanding how to comply with residency would be an extremely important part of the decision to accept the job, and that this is how I would intend to do it. And it was acceptable in that discussion to proceed that way. 108 RESOLUTION 970687
That that was an acceptable practice from the standpoint of achieving compliance with residency.
I assume, based on that statement, that means that person is no 13 longer with the company?
Given all of this testimony -- and Mr. Hawes indicated that there is an audit coming up -- what system exists today, that short of this hearing and under these circumstances and based on the information, or the statement, that was made by the Council President last week -- and we certainly knew coming into this hearing that this issue was going to arise at some point in time -- what comfort do we have that absent this hearing, this issue would have ever been addressed by whatever mechanisms exist within PGW to deal with 109 RESOLUTION 970687 this kind of situation? And who, if anyone, was aware of this previous agreement/arrangement with regard to Mr. Collins?
The answer to the first question -- my name is Jim Hawes, President and CEO of Philadelphia Gas Works. The answer to the first question is -- and I would like to have Deborah respond, also -- is that I have believed, and I still believe, that it is clear when we interview employees what we expect. I don't believe that there is much confusion over that. So I guess for people that we have hired since I have been here, I don't know that we have done -- I don't know what we have done, if anything, to ensure -- and we are a pretty small company, so in a lot of cases you just know. I mean, I know where the people who I deal with most frequently live, because we ride to work together, we visit, we talk about problems we have had in closing houses, we talk about yard work, and those kinds of things. But I don't know beyond that about every employee. 110 RESOLUTION 970687 I think the short answer, though, is that I don't think there is much confusion, if any, around expectations. I think we have got to make sure, and I will make sure, that we don't have problems that have been there for a while that may need to be corrected.
Excuse me. I am Deborah Estrin, Senior Vice-President Human Resources.
E-S-T-R-I-N. We give people who are not already residents of the city a copy of our residency policy. We routinely advertise in the newspaper that Philadelphia residency is required as a condition of employment. Because of that -- 111 RESOLUTION 970687
Can you speak a little closer to the microphone. I am sorry. We have a state-of-the-art system here.
Normally I talk too loudly, so I am trying to modulate a little bit and not run everybody out of here. We do give all new hires who are not already residents of the City of Philadelphia a copy of the residency policy. I think we have made it clear in the Human Resources process that there is an expectation that people live within the city. We do conform with the policy in requesting the verification of residency in the format that we currently use, in part because of some -- as I understand it, because of some arbitration decisions that were rendered at the time of the policy change. There was an exception made to an invasion of privacy when people were checked up on at their residence. There was also an accommodation made when objections were raised by employees about their 112 RESOLUTION 970687 documentation being included in their personnel files.
Let me better understand a part of your statement. Are you saying that it was or is believed that, in a job, one of whose requirements is that you live in the City of Philadelphia, that the checking of that information is believed or perceived to be an invasion of privacy?
Some people used to believe the world was flat. What people are we talking about?
In the files that I have around residency, there are some documents involving grievance proceedings and arbitrations. And the outcome of those labor relations issues resulted in the company's not being allowed to be as directly involved in verifying 113 RESOLUTION 970687 addresses of bargaining unit members as they might have been in the past.
So, I mean, you shared with me some information, which I guess is generally good for the record, not necessarily relevant to the case in hand, or in a post-1983 world, or, you know, post '83 or '93 world, I mean, doesn't really kind of matter, does it?
Well, post 1993, when the policy was changed from residency to domicile, it is my -- I'm sorry, from domicile to residency, it is my understanding that employees at all levels were advised in a number of venues, not by company officials, but by outside counsel and private counsel, perhaps, that one is expected to maintain a single domicile, but there is no prohibition against maintaining several residences. And that as long as one of those residences was within the City of Philadelphia, the policy intent was met.
Let's go back to 114 RESOLUTION 970687 your earlier statement. Somewhere in all of that you infused the notion that there was an expectation of privacy, or potential violation of privacy, in your attempt to check or verify the information. So I'm still trying to understand how, if that is the requirement, it is clear. There is no, as Mr. Hawes says, no confusion about it. We as city employees labor under the same provision. Then what is the expectation of privacy or what is the violation if that is a condition of employment?
The condition of employment is the establishment of a residency. The policy states that you document that you have established a residency through the provision of two of a list of documents. Once an employee has presented those documents as proof of their residence, it is my understanding that exception was taken at the company wanting to go beyond that.
Well, it sounds to me like, you know, one, your own counsel needs to get it squared away. Two, you need to talk to our law 115 RESOLUTION 970687 department. And, three, based on what I put forward earlier -- and I know Councilwoman Clark wants to speak on the same point -- it sounds to me like it really needs to be resolved at the ordinance 7 level, and then there is no confusion for anybody, there is no expectation of any particular privacy, because the policy is what it is. It is the same policy that we operate under in the City Charter. There could be no 12 expectation of any kind of privacy or violation of privacy. And the company in your case, or the city in our case, has to be able to verify the information. There shouldn't be any big issue about that. Councilwoman Clark. And I still have two last questions.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Clark. Are you yielding to Councilwoman Clark?
Thank you. 116 RESOLUTION 970687 I am sorry you injected privacy. Because that just gets us too legalistic on an issue that is clear. Mr. Collins played out a little game that he was barely complying. He clearly understood that the legislative intent was that people who accept a public salary can be required to live in Philadelphia. Now, if you wish to see this, get legalistic, we will then call the City Solicitor to the table, and she will say how many times this concept has been tested legally, that a municipality can condition employment by requiring domicile. That's gone to the Supreme Court and back down. So what somebody thinks of the policy, as to whether it is an invasion of a privacy that they presume they have, is not relevant to this discussion. Yes, you are free to live everywhere, including on the moon. But you can't live outside the city boundaries of Philadelphia and accept a public payroll. How hard is that? Because that is the simple, narrow issue before us. Can we condition employment by 117 RESOLUTION 970687 requiring domicile? And that has been a settled law. Now, is it convenient? Maybe not. Would you rather live somewhere else? Maybe so. Not relevant to the discussion of, do we have a public purpose in requiring domicile in exchange for accepting a paycheck. That is the narrow issue, and all else is a red herring. Mr. Collins has positioned himself, I think, correctly, if you accept his premise that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. And I will not on this record express any opinion about that. But I will say to you that his principal position of discussing with his family the two choices, which is the entire universe of choices open, you may stay and move in, you may stay where you live and leave your employment, and there are no 20 more choices. There are no more choices. But if you raise the legal question of whether his privacy is invaded because we asked him to show proof that he stays where he says he stays, then you take us down a path that burdens this record, confuses the issue, and doesn't help 118 RESOLUTION 970687 his situation.
This is Deborah Estrin. With all due respect, Councilwoman Clark, that was not what I intended. First of all, I am not an attorney. What I was trying to do was merely to enter into the understanding of the people of this body that this was not a clear domicile policy; it was anything but. And I believe that Mr. Collins, along with other PGW employees, had relied upon activities and definitions of the difference between residency and domicile that have occurred in the past in a number of venues, not questioning whether this body has the right to now say domicile is a requirement.
But, you see, you say, "to now say." We are Johnny One Note here. We have not said anything other than that. And I hadn't planned to do this, but it seems to me that your Human Resources Vice-President entered into a conspiracy to evade and elude, and, therefore, not comply with this regulation. Now, I don't want to do that. But it 119 RESOLUTION 970687 seems to me that he was led down a garden path if someone has said to him, to Mr. Collins, "It is required of you that you establish your domicile in Philadelphia" -- don't play those legal games about what is residence, what is domicile, where do you live? -- whatever that means, "We want you to live in Philadelphia." I don't mean to say that you can't have ten homes all over the country, all over the world. But where you live and where you visit, there is no confusion about that, is there, Mr. Collins? There is no confusion. There are no children in this game. All of these are adults. And we all know when we are complying and when we are appearing to comply. And I know that when Mr. Collins engaged that apartment, and every month when he writes out all those checks, he writes those checks as a fee without living in Philadelphia. Now, let's not kid each other. And now the game is up. He is either going to live in Philadelphia or he is going to live where he lives, and we are going to come out of this. And that is my last word on that for the moment. 120 RESOLUTION 970687 (Councilwoman Verna assumes the Chair.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of all that's been put on the record -- and I realize that this must be a pretty difficult situation -- I have a short-term and a longer-term question. In the venture, as a part of the Venture Agreement, there is an Exhibit C. And it lists the six Management Committee members. For PGW those members are listed as Mr. Hawes, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Collins. Under the present circumstances, one, what, if anything, will PGW do as relates to Mr. Collins' status as a member of the Management Committee? That's the short-term question. And then the longer-term question is, again, given all that has been put on the record and the explanations that have gone with it, what is Mr. Collins' status as it relates to his employment with PGW? 121 RESOLUTION 970687
I think my answer to that would be the same as Mr. Collins. He has to decide whether or not he wants to move into the city, in a residence as defined by this body, or whether he wants to stay in his current location and seek employment somewhere else. And, just for the record, I hope he will not choose to seek employment somewhere else.
Well, I appreciate the answer, Mr. Hawes. I guess we also have a short- and longer-term decision to make ourselves. Exhibit C is a part of a Venture Agreement which is in front of this body. And based on the discussion from the President earlier today, more than likely there will not be action on the Venture Agreement and the Resolution to which it is attached today, but more than likely we will take action on the Venture Agreement tomorrow for the resolution and then the bill. In view of everything that is now on this record, it creates a difficulty to consider, in addition to 25 other issues that are pertinent to 122 RESOLUTION 970687 the Venture Agreement, but on this particular issue, it makes it that much more difficult to deal with the Venture Agreement, which is obviously a significant part of your ability to go forward with the bill and with the agreement, if there is not some resolution to the Management Committee composition, given Mr. Collins' situation. And I don't know how long you will give him to make the decision as you laid out he must make. But I am, under the circumstances, uncomfortable dealing with Exhibit C as it is presently written, given what has been shared with us today. Before you respond, do I understand in the Venture Agreement, in the decision-making process for who sits on the Management Committee, either party has what I think was almost an automatic right of substitution of individuals? And it seems to me in the short term, you may make one decision as it relates to Mr. Collins, Mr. Collins may make another decision for himself that could find him in compliance, and you could then make a substitution decision as it 123 RESOLUTION 970687 relates to Mr. Collins. Isn't that correct?
Well, I think the basis on that decision is the same basis of the other two discussions. I think until Mr. Collins reaches a decision -- and I don't expect it to be by tomorrow -- we will take him off of that committee until such time he reaches a decision. So, in other words, that seat spot will have somebody else in it or it will be vacant.
Instead of a mouthful of words, in light of this discussion I would like to make a suggestion. And that is that, I did check with the City Solicitor. And we in the city have a residency requirement, not a domicile requirement. Yet I heard some requests that perhaps the PFMC 124 RESOLUTION 970687 Board, or even the management agreement between the city and PGW, be altered to require a domicile requirement. We also had these kinds of discussions with the school district, where a compromise was reached, even though, again, the policy wasn't clear. I am troubled to have this City Council request that some other body, like the school district or PGW, have a clear domicile requirement, when we only have a residency requirement. I always figure you have to clean up your own house first. So if there is confusion around what residency means, perhaps we need to first start with ourselves and establish a domicile requirement. Because I think, for me, at least, that does clarify and make absolutely crystal clear in a legal way what is meant. And it is my understanding the intention behind a residency or a domicile requirement is so that people who are being paid with public funds and taxpayer dollars from the City of Philadelphia, that people who work directly for 125 RESOLUTION 970687 the government, or a clear government agency, have not only a financial stake in the city, but essentially this is where their heart, their family, their neighborhood, their community investment is. And, in my sense, that's what's behind either a residency or a domicile requirement. But whatever the intent is, it is that people are really here and engaged and involved and clearly invested in the city. So I would like to propose that we look first at ourselves in the city. And if this City Council Administration feels that's what we really want, is domicile, let's start with ourselves, and then later deal with PGW. But I essentially hear the leadership of PGW saying you fully intend to have your employees actually live in the city with their families and be fully invested here, and that you no 20 longer have any mistaken understanding of what residency may mean.
I am Jim Hawes, President/CEO of the Philadelphia Gas Works. In my mind, Councilwoman, that has never been an issue. I think the question that I 126 RESOLUTION 970687 now realize is a real issue is, how do you define residence. I defined it closer to what you call domicile than what I am hearing as residency today, but I guess I did it unconsciously. Because I believe that, to the extent that we can, our employees ought to live where our customers lives.
I believe the City Solicitor would like to clarify this for us.
Thank you. Yes, I did want to clarify one comment for Councilwoman Fernandez that I made previously. Through the combination of the Charter and the Code, we have a two-tier system. For exempt city employees, it is a residency requirement which must be established within six months. For nonexempt employees, it is a domicile requirement, without the six-month transition period. We would be happy to try to look into some of these issues, though, in more detail, if it would assist Council. 127 RESOLUTION 970687
I would like that. I don't understand why you would have the difference, particularly if people can get confused.
Madam City Solicitor, under any circumstance, domicile or residence, does the arrangement that Mr. Collins has meet either one of those?
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is directed to Mr. Hawes. I am starting to get a little confused now about exactly what Mr. Collins did. My question: Do you believe that when Mr. Collins met with the HR Vice-President at 128 RESOLUTION 970687 the time, and was explained the situation, and was told that if he established, rented an apartment, ghost apartment, that that qualified him for employment with PGW? And, if Mr. Collins believed that that satisfied the requirement, should Mr. Collins be exempt from this domicile requirement, since he satisfied something that -- I don't know if there is any documentation in writing, if this is just a verbal conversation between two people. Mr. Collins appears to be in a position where he was told something from an authority, complied with it, and now he is in this position here today. You have already stated that you believe that he should correct this situation. Do you think you want to look at that again?
Let me tell you what I said. What I said was -- my name is Jim Hawes, President and CEO of the Philadelphia Gas Works. I think what Mr. Collins said was, that he was told in 1995, prior to when I was 129 RESOLUTION 970687 here -- I cannot and do not know the circumstances under which he came in, other than what he told me. And I believe him. I think what we are talking about today is, what do we do going forward.
But, Mr. Hawes, you are talking about removing him from a committee, the executive committee?
No. I think all we are talking about now is the committee that has to be voted on tomorrow.
The Management Committee. Until at such time he makes a decision about ultimately where he will live and work.
But where I am coming from is that it appears that, Mr. Hawes, I think we are fooling with interpretations here. I think, from what I am starting to hear, is that Mr. Collins was basically told, do it this way, and it is okay with us, and now the rules are changing. And you are about to remove him from a -- it doesn't sound like he really has his day in 130 RESOLUTION 970687 court to deal with this issue. I think we are reacting to something that sounds improper. But, in his particular case, he might be a learning experience for us that you may want to look at a little more carefully before we start making decisions.
I was responding to the fairly clear message that I thought I was getting from this Council, as to the fact that he had two choices.
I don't think it is really the Council's position -- you are the President and CEO of the gas company -- to make that decision.
Well, I will tell you what I was responding to. It has always been our assumption that we -- and I just said a little while ago -- that we have taken as a condition of employment that we would like for our employees to live in the 131 RESOLUTION 970687 city. And the only thing I am saying to you is that, if the rule -- and I was responding, because I thought that what I was hearing was that it is clear now and has always been the position of this Council that there is a domicile requirement. That is what I just heard.
But does PGW today have a domicile requirement or a residency requirement?
I think it depends on how you define it. He has a residence that he doesn't live in. So I would refer you to the City Solicitor.
Point of order, Madam Chair. The Solicitor has answered that question. The answer was the clearest, shortest answer she has given in the last two weeks. The answer was no. 132 RESOLUTION 970687 The City Solicitor of the city answered the question from Councilwoman Clark as to whether or not Mr. Collins met either a residency or a domicile criteria. The City Solicitor said no. 6 Mr. Hawes responded to my question and statement that was, the Venture Agreement, and Exhibit C, lists a Management Committee, which is solely at the option of PGW and QST, to name each of their three members that they are allowed. All I suggested to Mr. Hawes was that, as a member of this body, I am uncomfortable. This is not personally directed at Mr. Collins. But that given the information on this record, I am personally uncomfortable in voting on the Venture Agreement, which is the resolution in front of us, that lists in Exhibit C a person who has this situation. Mr. Hawes has the option to structure his three-member team any way he wants. And if Mr. Hawes has figured out that it is in his best interests, for the moment, to restructure the team in such a way as to get this resolution and this bill in and out of this body, I will leave it to Mr. Hawes' best judgment to figure out who he wants 133 RESOLUTION 970687 on his team under the circumstances. That was the question that he was responding to. Mr. Collins will have his day wherever he has his day, probably not in this -- this is not a court. He has to deal with an employer/employee problem over at PGW, and they will decide how they deal with Mr. Collins under the circumstances.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hawes, to finish my question, you are the President and the CEO of PGW. So I believe that the interpretation of domicile, residency, if Mr. Collins was employed based on the fact that he established a residency, and even though the City Solicitor said that he meets neither of those two, I'm still not clear whether he does or he doesn't. And I don't know if a decision or response made like that is what we need here on such a serious subject.
But I think the question that we are talking about, the short-term question 134 RESOLUTION 970687 that Councilman Nutter raised, is not a question of employment or not employment. That's a separate question.
I am interested in him going on a committee which Mr. Collins could have been on or not have been on. And if he wasn't on it, then I wouldn't have had to ask the question. But that is a decision to be made by Mr. Hawes.
But two hours ago Mr. Collins was on that committee. Thank you.
I have no desire to continue this, but it seems that the throw-away comments are lengthening the hearing. I don't know that I agree with Jim Hawes' decision that Mr. Collins shouldn't stay on the committee. I think he has information and experience that would be useful. I would not like to see the PGW team weakened. You are going to continue to pay him, aren't you? As long as you pay him, use what he has 135 RESOLUTION 970687 got. We gave him a time to tell us what he is going to do, but let's not put him in a Catch 22. And don't make a decision publicly. I think we need to look at what is in our best interest and work from there. So, Mr. Hawes, if I could get Mr. Nutter to take the question back, we would not be dealing with whether Collins is or is not on the management team. As long as Collins is senior management and has experience that will help us make an experiment, a pilot project, work, why would we bind ourselves wrist to ankle and guarantee that we take away one of the pegs of a three-legged stool? Don't do that. So while I don't agree with Mr. Rizzo's reason, because I don't think you meet residency, I do think you have experience and information that is essential to this experiment being successful. And I don't think you, Mr. Hawes, have to answer right now whether he is or is not on 136 RESOLUTION 970687 the management team. But I would not like to see you make your decisions on faulty grounds. Mr. Collins, you don't meet residency. You don't meet domicile. But you do have experience that is important to this experiment, this one-year pilot project. And I don't see any reason why we shouldn't maximize our use of you and the experience you have gained which helps our team put the A team on the floor.
I hadn't made a motion previously, Madam Chair, with all respect to all of my colleagues. I never asked Mr. Hawes to take Mr. Collins off the team. I merely suggested that he needed to take a look at that. I will leave it to Mr. Hawes' best policy, political, and business judgment to decide who he wants on his team, off the team. Because Mr. Hawes did not ask me who he was going to place on the team. I learned of this this morning when I read Exhibit C. I have no 137 RESOLUTION 970687 vote in the matter.
Madam President, may I clarify something? Mr. Collins' role in the organization is not the issue around the three-member Management Committee. His role, as long as he works at PGW, is absolutely the same. We have not removed him from PGW. His role in the organization and his role in terms of managing the project is not contingent on whether or not he is on the Management Committee.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or statements from members of the Committee? Thank you. The Committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock. (Public Hearing adjourned at 2:30 p.m.) - - - 138 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, October 29, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON THE WHOLE _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR