The Governor has committed to raise $75 million a year in support of the schools. We believe that he will attempt that and believe that he will be successful in doing that.
So it's all a hope? 46 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) There's no basis now for concluding that that amount of money will arrive in the coffers of the City.
At the end of the day, you know you have the money when the state budget is passed. We believe that the Governor is working to try to fulfill the commitment to provide additional funding to the schools of Philadelphia.
Is it the view of the Mayor's Office that the State has the Constitutional right to compel Philadelphia to tax its citizens for the schools without Council action?
I don't want to speak on that issue. You're asking about compel the taxation.
I don't know that it's an ability to compel taxation as opposed to provide funding. But rather than speak extemporaneously and be misquoted, I'd rather provide something in writing back to you on that simply because it will be read in a lot of different forum.
I just think it's very important to keep the facts clear on the record. And I see nothing in the nature of a 47 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) partnership as I understand a partnership, both legally and in common verbiage. I don't see any partnership that exists where one party has total control and the other party merely has the right to express its views and its hopes, because we always have that right under the First Amendment. We can always express our views and our hopes. But we have no ability to effectuate a result. And there's nothing in which you've said which indicates any power by the City of Philadelphia to compel a result that would maintain public education in Philadelphia. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Ms. Wilkerson. Ms. Wilkerson, early on in the Administration, I guess in the first year there was a discussion about streamlining and there was what I believe -- and maybe the term is incorrect -- a productivity initiative that would support hopefully additional 48 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) tax decreases and an accelerated decrease. And I maybe mischaracterizing. This is kind of my language. Has there been an ongoing analysis of that initiative to determine if it's working and can we look at a document that talks about -- Mr. Dubow, you don't recall that either?
The Administration is working on an ongoing basis to try to deliver services more efficiently. When you say a productivity initiative, I'm not clear --
That's the term I use. But early on in the process there was discussion about having a streamlined government more efficient. And I took that to mean translation less costly government. And I guess I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not there was an ongoing analysis? Was it just a statement at the original budget message, or can we look at some document that shows based on this initiative or whatever you want to call it that in fact we have reduced the cost of government, reduced the cost of providing service but yet maintain the level of service that we're used to?
I don't know 49 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) specifically what you're referring to. I would have to go back to previous to your statement to try to identify a specific initiative. There are a number of things going across government that reflect the Administration's commitment to deliver services more efficiently. For example, when the social service people get here, they can talk to you about better coordination and the ability to deliver programs using fewer staff people. MOIS has initiatives that are going on that would allow the City to support various activity with technology as a way of being more efficient. The City is looking at -- will be living with the outcome of the Drop program in 2003 in October 2003 and have committed to not filling, I think, approximately 30 percent of the slots because we do believe that it's possible to deliver government, quality government with fewer resources out there. But I'd have to go back in order to -- I'm not sure what you're talking about when you talk about a specific productivity initiative.
Okay, I'll cut to the chase. What has been done as a result of streamlining, more efficiency in service delivery? Can you translate that directly into a less costly 50 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) government, a reduction in cost of delivering services? Is there a document? That's what I want to see. I mean, it's one thing to say something, but I need to be able to look at a document that shows that there was an action taken in MOIS or there was an action taken in Department of License and Inspection and the correlation between that and reduced cost of delivering services is clearly documented, that's what I am asking. Has that analysis been done? Is it ongoing? Can you do it? Will you do it?
I don't know if it has been done. We can do that and we'll provide that before the conclusion of the budget process.
The other issue, and you mentioned social services. I had some concern about our social service delivery for a while, in particular when we talk about this NTI initiative we talk about a consolidation of services because after a close analysis of all of the housing industry, we find out that there was a lot of duplication of services. In my humble opinion, I think that we probably had that through our government. Will there be -- and I know we're restricted somewhat as 51 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) it relates to the bargaining agreement with the unions and Civil Service. But will there been or has there been any thought in government we can possibly consolidate some of our City departments? Because as an example, I know right now we have four departments of government whose primary responsibility it is to organize block captains, but yet half the blocks in City of Philadelphia don't have block captains. I mean, there's small things like that. Are we going to look at the departments beyond the housing agencies to talk about consolidating and talk about streamlining government and get rid of these duplication of services?.
The consolidation of departments would require a Charter change, and we are not currently actively looking at Charter changes. We have tried to have departments coordinate their activities more closely and have responsibilities taken by the most appropriate department, but we are not looking at consolidating departments.
No. We have not put 52 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) Charter reform at the top of the agenda. I think that it's a discussion that's worth having although it's not ongoing right now. I personally believe that the Charter is very inefficient and that there are a lot of challenges facing the City that are made very complicated because of some of the Charter constraints. I think that to the extent we pull people together and have them in a room really talking about how services are delivered, we've been able to develop strategies for being more cost effective and efficient, you know, just having the social service people sit down in a room with the housing authority people and say: Do we have need to fund all these shelter beds? What are the vacancies in public housing? Perhaps we can get people out of shelters into public housing. We have those kinds of initiatives going on on a daily basis and there are enormous savings that come out of that. It doesn't require any kind of reshuffling of the departments. A lot of times it simply requires putting folk in a room talking about what it is that they do and figuring out whether they can do it more effectively and more efficiency. So, that, we're doing on an ongoing 53 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) basis. But we do not have current plans to propose Charter revisions.
Do you think that there are any similarities in the housing agencies and the departments in terms of staffing that if we had the flexibility that we have in the housing agencies because they're not Charter mandated that if we made the decision to do what we're talking about doing with the housing agencies that we can get the efficiencies that we hope to get as a result of the housing reorganization in the departments?
I think there probably efficiencies. Diana Neff who is sitting behind be will be up later and she can talk about some of the things they're we're looking at on the work order system so that when somebody from the public calls wanting service from the City, the City can present a single face and then deploy the request back to the departments. It doesn't have to be each department in the City with its own receptionist saying, "May I help you?" And then referring you to another -- you know, we can do activity like that in a much more effective way. And the Administration is working on developing some of those systems that 54 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) don't require merging departments. It simply requires doing what we do more strategically, using the technology that's available that wasn't available even five years ago. I think it would be clearest in some questions to Diana Neff when you look at things like systems, IT systems that we can install across government. It's those kinds of systems that we think will result in productivity and in the long run some cost savings for the City. It's initiatives like that we're exploring very aggressively. The merger of departments is something that we're not looking at right now.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to go back to the School District since the School District seems to be all about money. Could you describe since the State 55 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) takeover where we're starting to save some money over there? From what I understand, we still have a Board of Education in place over there. We still have many of the administrative pieces in place that support a City-run system. What kind of money are we starting to save over there as a result of the State takeover?
Councilman, I don't have that answer. I do not know that there are savings, in what areas they might be if they are. The SRC and the school people will be here, I guess, later or toward the middle of next month and they would be in a position to respond to that.
Does the Mayor's Office in the negotiations, which were so intense, hasn't there been some projections that the Mayor's Office has on what the savings should be, could be, are?
I believe that the Administration has some of thoughts on some savings that are possible. Throughout the course of the negotiations, there was disagreement on a number of areas where the State was projecting savings substantially larger than the Administration thought 56 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) was going to be possible. A line item like health and welfare benefits, the Administration felt the State was being overly aggressive in what projected savings might be in that line item. So there are any number of areas where there was disagreement. I think that -- I can provide you with more detailed information on areas where the Administration thought savings were possible and then the District though would have to respond on what savings its identified and what savings it has in fact been able to realize.
I'll take your suggestion because you've got a big list of things that you need to get back to the Chair with so I won't add that to the list; I'll wait. But I thought there might be something that you could share with us that's very obvious as a result of the State takeover what significant area that we could be realizing some savings. But I'll ask that question again. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode. 57 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Ms. Wilkerson. The earlier discussion of how bureaucratic government is or isn't, there was a discussion of what's now called the citizens service departments and there was a question about direct reporting relationships and whether the commissioners report to the deputy managing directors or to the managing directors or both. Could you just answer that question for the record in terms of what's the direct reporting relationship?
Under the Charter, they report to the Managing Director. The Managing Director has individuals within her office that have the day-to-day relationship with the departments. And I think that when the Managing Director comes, she can explain how she's organized her office. One of the things that I have seen over the years is just how enormous that span of responsibility is. Everything from the kind of mental health provided to a child in a distressed family to laying pavement on streets, it really is an extraordinarily broad scope of responsibility. And so there are -- while 58 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) everybody continues to be responsible to the Managing Director, I think that all managing directors have found it important to put individuals in the mix that ride herd on issues on a day-to-day basis.
I understand that, and I have an appreciation for what type of policy coordination was sought and achieved. But beyond policy coordination, administratively is government mor or less bureaucratic in terms of whether those commissioners report directly to the Deputy Managing Director or whether they report to the Managing Director?
No, I don't believe it makes it more bureaucratic simply because they're reporting to a Deputy Managing Director.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Ms. Wilkerson, in the five-year plan, 59 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) the Administration claims that it will eliminate 330 positions as part of the Drop program. Yet the end of FY '07, there are 465 more positions called for or the employee count will be 465 persons more than currently projected at the end of Fiscal Year '02, which is a net increase of 775 people. Unless I'm reading the five-year plan wrong, it doesn't seem that this administration long term is interested in cutting positions if you're going to at the end of the next five years add 775 more.
Good morning. Rob Dubow, City Budget Director. There are a couple of departments where we will have the increase in staffing over time. One is the Department of Human Services where there are mandated coverage ratios based on number of cases. And the other is in prisons because we're opening up a new facility. If you eliminated those areas, you'd see that there's actually a reduction other than that of a couple hundred positions.
But am I incorrect in that the net increase in FY '07 is 775 people, 60 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) 465 more, counting 330 we're going to lose in the Drop than we have now? Whatever they're doing, there's going to be a net increase of almost a thousand positions more than we have now in a City that hopefully will turn around its population loss, but seems no trend in doing so. Whatever they're doing, I'm not saying that they're not doing something that's worthwhile. I guess the overall question is, what is the philosophy of the Administration if on the one hand testimony is given that we are attempting to consolidate, to reduce, streamline, when we keep on adding people?
It's the philosophy is that where there are places where we don't have control because there are mandated ratios or because we have to prison guards because there are an increase in the number prisoners in facilities, that there will be increases there. But in places where we can control the number positions, they're going to go down.
Well, isn't it prudent, considering the City's fiscal condition and considering the projection and the need to reduce the size of the government, to try to offset that 61 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) net increase with more reductions so at least it's zero and not increasing them? I mean, despite what they're doing and who's mandating the ratio, we're paying for it. I mean, is there going to be anybody left to pay for them in FY '07?
The short answer is yes, it does make sense to reduce positions as much as possible, and we are committed to doing that. We've also said that while we set this target of replacing only two out of three people leaving Drop that we will look for more. We'd like to exceed that goal, but we wanted to include numbers that we thought were achievable in the plan. And if we go beyond that, which we hope to, that would be a benefit.
But wouldn't the plan give us a better picture of what's going to happen over the five years if those reductions were included? A layperson reading the plan -- I mean, even a professional like myself in this business for 10 years, reads the plan and says there's 775 more people at the end of five years. It is what it is.
What we've committed to do 62 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) in the plan is to work with departments, bring in a consultant to do this, to look at ways they can be run better, that they can be run more efficiently. We don't know the details of what that will find. So to put in numbers based on conjecture wouldn't have been responsible. But we hope to achieve more than what's in the plan.
We hope to, but the plan says otherwise; is that a fair statement?
Well, that's right, because we want the plan to be reasonable. We don't want to put conjecture in there.
How many people have we added to Human Services -- and I'm not even talking about the Mayor's personal office -- but to the Human Service Department in the past two years?
What did I read in the paper that reported that there's approximately 6 or 700 more people than there was two years ago, 43 or 44 of them in the Mayor's Office? 63 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET)
I can give get you the exact numbers. There are approximately maybe about 240 additional positions in the General Fund compared to when this Administration started. About 60 of those are from independently elected officials so they're not under the Mayor's control.
Like the First Judicial District, like the Registrar of wills.
We vote on those budgets. It's part of the budget process. I understand the First Judicial District has mandamus powers and can basically hire and pay for who they want. But in other independently officials, even though they're independent elected, they do come through this room.
The point I was trying to make is they don't report to the Mayor.
But they depend on the Mayor's budget process and the Council's approval.
That's correct. But I think it's fair to make a distinction between those positions and positions in agencies that report to 64 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) the Mayor.
Are there discussions with those officials and their budget people when it comes to preparing the budget?
And there's give and take and they say what they need and you say what you can afford?
So it's not just they give you a number and you have to take it?
No, but we have much more control over our departments. Last year we went through a process where we had numbers in the budget that was submitted and Council asked us to put in additional funding for those agencies, and then we did.
I just want to make it clear that hoping to reduce the size of the government and actually doing it are two different things.
Well, we also laid out the process that we're going using to do that to reduce 65 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) the size --
Move to the NTI issue relative to the collapse and combination of various housing agencies --
Can I just go back? I actually didn't really finish my response on positions.
If you further breakdown that 180, the largest increases were in Human Services, which you pointed out, and in police. And I think a lot of police had to do with timing of classes. If you took those two out, there's actually been decrease since the Administration started.
Relative to the planned collapse of the housing agencies under NTI, what are we looking for in savings and personnel in that process?
I don't remember the number off the top. We passed out a proposed reorganization that identified how many positions we anticipated eliminating. Some of them were positions that would go elsewhere in government. 66 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) For example, the PHDC has a work force development operation. That would not be a part of housing any longer to the extent the programs would continue, they would become affiliated with the work force development.
Would those jobs be eliminated or they would just moved to another agency?
We would take a look at that, take a look at what exactly what's being provided, whether it's being provided elsewhere in government. If you look at the proposed reorganization that was distributed, you'll also see that, I believe, there were about 45 positions that were purely administrative positions. We would plan on configuring a new housing organization that had substantially fewer housing administrative positions involved in it. But what we're going to be doing over the course of the next year is creating an organization with real job classifications and figuring out exactly what the demand will be for the various kinds of activities, but our expectation is that it will be substantially smaller and I believe we actually have a number in that. We will be doing 67 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) things that we haven't done before. We've never had, for example, a market rate housing division. And so we'll be taking on responsibilities that have never been done by the City before. But we do believe there will be a net decrease.
What are the agencies involved in the housing agency consolidation?
PHDC, the Redevelopment Authority, office of Housing and Community Development are the major organizations involved.
How many positions are represented by those agencies that are in consideration of being collapsed into one?
I don't know. I will recirculate the information we passed. In that information, we identified how many people were with each organization, how many individuals were involved in each function within those organizations. And the final chart in that document, we show how many would, if we simply moved everybody over, how many there would be available to carry out the various functions in the new organization. 68 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET)
What I'd like to do, if possible, is to get a total number of people involved in those agencies and what the Administration projects in the raw number of reductions. Not moving people from one agency to another, the total number of proposed eliminated positions in those agencies.
To the extent that we have that at this point, I'll make that available. I think that as we work over the next several months trying to flush out the details of new organization, we'll have a refine number.
Well, we know that FY '07 we're going to have 775 more people net, so I think that since NTI is apparently a lot closer than FY '07, we would be further along in that number by now.
Just one question. What is the total of City personnel today, the number? 69 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET)
In the General Fund it's about -- I think the last year it was 24,613. 4
Could you tell me 9 what was the number of City in the General Fund in 10 1985? 11
I think we're actually 16 putting that together. There was a question last 17 week -- 18
I think it was around 19 25 or 24,000-something at that point also. I just 20 want to know -- we lost half a million in terms of 21 population during that period of time and government 22 has remained more or less static in terms of 23 employees. What I would like you to do is give me a 24 comparison as to how we have maintained, because where has the growth been during those years to 70 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) maintain the level of City employees of the General Fund at 24.5 and at the same sort of static level that we have seen and no movement down, given the loss of population that we have suffered.
We can give you that. I can tell you before I send it over that the growth has been in functions that are traditionally county functions, places like Human Services, places like prisons. And then when you look at things that are traditionally city functions, the number of employees in those areas has gone down. But we'll give you the full comparison.
You're welcome. Are there any further questions? All right the next group will be Mayor's Office Labor Relations. I'm sorry, Councilwoman Tasco has questions.
Thank you. I'm looking at the Mayor's Office for the dues and I see that years 2002 and 2003 there's no membership for National Association of Counties. 71 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET)
I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if we pay it elsewhere, but I'll check on that.
Thank you. Any further questions? Mayor's Office Labor Relations. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
Good morning, Members of Council. My name is Bill Graub. I'm the Director of Labor Relations. I'm here with Joseph Tolin and Delia Gorman, Deputy Directors of Labor Relations to present the Office of Labor Relation for Fiscal Year 2003 Operating Budget. The Office of Labor Relations works with city managers, union representatives and their 72 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) members in collective bargaining, labor contract administration, dispute resolution, and labor management cooperation. Our budget request is for $589,694 in Fiscal Year 2003 General Fund Budget which represents an increase $7,512 over our Fiscal 2002 estimated obligations. $515,892 is to continue to support positions. That's an increase of the 9 $7,512. $41,302 is for purchase of service. 10 $32,500 is for materials, supplies, and equipment. Currently, we are engaged in contract negotiations for successor agreements with the FOP and the IAFF. Both unions have requested interest arbitration, and selection of the arbitrators is under way. The Office of Labor Relations is also responsible for handling District Council 33 and District Council 47 grievances prior to arbitration. In calendar year 2001, a total of 183 grievances were filed at the fourth step. Through the staff's very hard work, we disposed 203 grievances. Another Office of Labor Relations service level was training. We train managers and supervisors in labor relations. To date this Fiscal Year we have trained over 250 supervisors and 73 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) managers. Our goal is 320 managers and supervisors by the end of the Fiscal Year. By redesigning government initiatives, a joint labor management cooperation program designed to improve services to the citizens and to reduce the cost of City government. To date, successful RGI programs include the Recreation Department Summer Meals Program, a police department's forensic laboratory, and the L & I license issuance. The Office of Labor Relations is working with District Councils 33 and 47 and the departments to increase number of departmental of RGI programs. Thank you for this opportunity to present our budget request. We will answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you very much. Councilwoman Blondel Reynolds-Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. On of your testimony, you speak to examples of how the department has revised and enhanced the license issuance processes and you mention seven. Are any 74 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) of them in the area of child care?
Would you identify yourself for our record, please? My.
My name is Delia Gorman, I'm Deputy Director of Labor Relations. The RGI Project Committee that has tackled license issuance had identified -- I believe it was up to 10 of the most common licenses and engaged in redesigning the process to try to cut the amount of time that it took to issue the license. They have not tackled child care licensing yet that I know of. Licenses they focused on were those where they had the highest volume at first. Parking lot license, newsstand, sidewalk cafe, and there were -- those were the major ones that they've done. They are still working and they will continue to tackle the different licenses and we go forward.
So you're tackling them on a priority need basis, based on volume?
That's the way they started, yes. And primarily what they were focusing on is mapping the process of issuance of licenses 75 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) and trying to cut the ones that were the most time consuming down to a reasonable amount of time.
For the record, those who opt to go into family child care and or day care centers, the issuance of license, the entire process is a barrier and a barrier that many family child care providers find it difficult to overcome. So I would be interested at a later hour to know where that falls on the list, where that is in the lineup of being tackled.
My second and final question speaks to, again, of your testimony next to the last paragraph. Briefly you speak about the partnership with DC 33 and DC 47 and how you're going to use RGI improve services and costs. Can you give us some detail about some of the initiatives on-line or in progress specifically with regards to those partnerships?
We have recently completed a first project with the Police Department's forensic sciences division, and the focus there was on trying to improve the process for DNA testing. 76 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) And as a result of that cooperative process, they were able to reduce the amount of time it took to retrieve samples from storage and they improved the record-keeping so that they actually are able to conduct three tests in the time it took them to do one before. And it's allowed them to keep up with the burgeoning demand for DNA testing. We are entering into a second RGI project with that group, that is both District Council 47, District 33, and Police Department management that is focused on their new facility that will be on-line next year in order to help maximize the efficiency of their processes once they move into that facility that will help them get certified by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors.
The Wister School is being renovated to accommodate the forensic sciences division and put all of their crime lab offices together, the criminalistics chemistry, firearms. Right now, they're kind of spread out throughout the Police Administration Building and their evidence 77 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) storage is off-site.
Thank you, Madam president. Mr. Graub, the 589,000 budget request, is any of that money inclusive of the hiring of outside legal counsel to negotiate these or arbitrate these union contracts with 33, 47, the fire fighters and police.
The money for outside legal counsel goes through the Law Department.
Do you know how much money the City is spending or has spent, say, in the last two years with outside legal counsel relative 78 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) to the labor issues, both negotiation and arbitration of contracts, appeals of arbitration awards, or any other labor-related activity? Could I find the number that was spent on outside legal counsel and which firms received those contracts?
I believe that's in the detailed budget in the Law Department. I do not know that total amount.
Do you have any involvement with that? Are you aware when outside legal counsel is hired to take on labor-related duties?
Well, as the head of this particular office, don't you think it should be all the times yes? I mean, certainly -- I mean, I don't want to put in an awkward position, but this is what this office does. And if a law firm is hired to deal with labor, I would think that this office would know about it.
Whether or not to 79 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) hire them is not necessarily --
Sometimes departments don't go along with our recommendations.
Councilmember Brown would piggyback on that ans ask what is the procedure for the hiring of outside legal counsel? How does it happen?
Basically, we look at the case, case loads, what cases we have for the grievance arbitrations that come in, when they're scheduled, and we see what we can do in-house, what we can't do in-house. We look at the cost of loss if we lost, what would this cost, so that might be a reason to send out.
So 590,000 is not inclusive at all of any outside hiring?
In the second of your testimony, it says, "The arbitration process with both the Act 111 unions, fire fighters and police are underway and we and we anticipate issuance of new awards before the end of the current Fiscal Year. Typically, once such awards are issued, the office of labor relations will work 80 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) closely with the unions, the Law Department, Finance Department, Managing Director's Office, Fire Department and Police department on an implementation for the new awards." Could tell me the status of the implementation plan for the last award for fire fighters Local 22?
My name is Joe Tolan, and I'm Deputy Director of the Office of Labor Relations. We have developed and implemented what we believe is the appropriate interpretation of all the contract language. There has been several disputes. And as is the process provided for under the collective bargaining agreement, those disputes are being taken to grievance arbitration at this time. There were four grievances filed.
Could you delineate the areas of contention that still exists as related to the last arbitration award for the fire fighters?
The three grievance arbitrations which are currently open include one concerning the development of sick leave bank and rules for its administration. There's one over 81 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) salary progression issues.
There's one over salary progression issues. And the third involves the administration of a reimbursement program for employees who take certain educational courses.
Those are the only three that are currently at grievance arbitration.
There as an additional one concerning extended health care benefits at retirement where an arbitration award has been issued at the end of January.
How long have you been handling this particular area of the implementation of arbitration awards? Have you been with the City long?
Yes. I've been in the Labor Relation function since 1980. And for most of that time, I've been focused on the fire fighters and District Council 47.
Are you aware of 82 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) other instances in the past and other administrations where Act 111 arbitrations which are, I believe, supposed to be binding were appealed in this fashion?
Well, I think that it's not uncommon to have grievances filed over contract interpretation issues and, certainly, with all four unions, whether they're issued by a binding arbitration or they're negotiated, there can be disagreements over what language means and how it should be interpreted and applied, and it's not uncommon.
How often has it happened in the past? Just from your anecdotal experience.
From my anecdotal experience, I would say we probably have at least three or four issues from each contract that arise.
And, again, outside legal counsel, I guess, are handling that particular legal process?
Well, in this 83 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) particular three or four, one resolved and now three pending, who's the legal people handling it.
Well, the one which was recently issued was handled by outside counsel, the extended health care benefits. I'm not certain that we have assigned an attorney yet to the other cases. They're in the process, and I don't believe we've actually assigned anyone yet.
I don't want to hold you here long ,but can you give me a little thumbnail sketch on what the sick leave bank issue is? What was awarded and what does the City contend was misinterpreted.
There are two points. One concerns whether or not someone who can make -- the way the sick leave bank works is during a certain period of time each year that's specified in the contract, you donate time to the bank. The union has asked that people who are separating from City service but not during that donation period of time 84 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) they're not an active employee, can they donate there time.
So this is someone who retires or leaves the position and has accumulated sick leave that they want donate to the bank?
I assume that this issue is more critical and I guess more attention focussed on it relative to the recent revelations of hepatitis C and the numbers of people that have it and some of the debilitating affects of that disease and treatment that required more time than is given under a normal contract for a particular employee and also the desire for other employees who are healthy at the time to contribute to their brothers and sisters that time that they've accumulated.
Could you give me or if you know what the economic -- what's the economic argument? I mean, obviously 22 has one view of what the arbitrator said, what the award says, and the 85 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) City has another view. Can you tell me from the City side what the economic hardship is or problem is for the City in this regard.
I think that having been a member of the committee of the leave bank, so far there have only been two individuals in the year who have asked for a grant of leave. And we have thousands upon thousands of hours in that bank. And so given the fact that the rules were arrived and set forth, there doesn't seem to be any need to deviate from them now. I mean, our experience is that we have an extraordinary number of hours available to cover anything, and we have not experienced any shortfall or any problem yet.
So no one's actually making withdrawals from the bank?
So having the other hours sitting in there, isn't a hardship or problem for the City?
Well, we have, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 hours sitting there available without doing this.
If they sat there or 86 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) 40,000 more sat there, what would be the issue? Do we have a pay a person for any of the accumulated sick leave time when they separate?
An normal individual who separates, if you retire into a City pension plan there is a payment, a percentage payment.
These people are people who are not going into a pension plan, they're just leaving the City. And so they would get no payment for the sick leave.
So the people who are actually separated -- separating, retiring, going into a City pension plan, they're allowed to make that donation to the sick bank?
Well, they get paid for sick leave, so they're not looking to do this. The only 87 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) request and the request that's in dispute is for somebody who is City to take a job with someone else.
Let me turn a minute -- and this may be your area or maybe it's the Law Department; I'm not sure. What's the status of the City's position on the acknowledgment of Hepatitis C as a work-related disease vis-a-vis the State's recent passage of a state statute that presumes those types of jobs along with nurses? I think they extended the number of professions to fire-related paramedic-related positions. Could you give me an update on what that is.
We've been meeting with the State. The risk management Office of Labor Relations and the Law Department have been meeting with the State and have been working with them on implementation.
What's the status what's the city's Position on what the law says?
We have asked for some legal advice on what the law means. Because it is so new, we've asked for outside experts to take a look at that. 88 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET)
Do we have an idea -- is there a parameter set for the amount of money that could paid for this?
Can you give me what the Mayor's Office of Labor Relations' position is on what the law says? What is your opinion on what the State says the presumed -- when an individual in that position is found to have Hepatitis C and the State now believes, according to what law was passed, that 89 2/20/02 - WHOLE - BILL 020001 (FY '03 BUDGET) the presumption of that person's injury or disease is a result of their employment.
I think that because, A, the law is new; and B, when we attended an information session from the State, there was contradictory information and interpretation given by the State Department of Labor and Industry. I don't know that we have a position right now until we get some additional advice.
Would it make any sense in consideration of those particular individuals and their dedication and service to the City that we would take the more liberal view that this is in fact a work-related injury so they can receive the disability benefits that many people believe is due and owing to them, or we're going to wait until we get the lawyers to tell us it's okay?
Because the law is new, we want to have some advise on how to interpret it.