And where are those 11 branches? 75 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
Those are the branches -- I can get the list for that. I don't have it off the top of my head, but those are the branches that were open and have been open all this year. We were trying to get back to January --
What are they? It's only of them. Which ones are 10 they? 11
I don't have that. We can get that for you shortly. I did not know that we were going in-depth on this testimony. I brought material here related to the Central Library. I didn't --
No. I'm not playing either. The only reason I don't have it with me is because I did not --
You sent this document somewhere in the last hours 23 from a hearing on April 6th. Now, you sent it 24 over here because you knew that these issues would come up today. Do not play with me. 76 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole You knew these issues would come up today. That's why the memo came over today and has the details in it. So you did not think that somehow some way that a bill that is about repealing the money for the expansion of Central inextricably tied to money for branches, that somehow a branch discussion was not going to come up and that if you put in the document that 11 branches are going to be open for six days a week, that somebody in this chamber is not going to ask you which 11 they are? Did you really think that?
I want an answer from Mr. Shelkrot. Did you really think that?
We have it. My staff brought the information and they're digging it up.
I'm glad you came here today. Mr. Shelkrot, will you answer my 77 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole question, please?
Your question was put in a negative, so I'm trying to figure whether I say yes or no. 6
I framed the question the way I wanted to frame it. Did you think that someone wasn't going to ask you what branches were going to be open 10 based on your document? 11
It's awful hard for me to say why, why I didn't think it. If I had thought of why I didn't think it, I would have thought of it. I don't know how to answer that. It was not something I did deliberately.
You can answer it any way you want, but you've been around for a little while. You didn't just get this gig. You've been in many City Council public hearings. This is an issue of great concern to members. 78 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Somehow some way, whether yourself or somebody in the operation had to think if we tell them branches are going to be open, 5 the next natural question is which ones are 6 they. So whether you have them or the 7 Managing Director has them. We can move on. 8 I don't know why you thought what 9 you thought or didn't think or how you thought 10 it, or whatever the case may be, but you 11 didn't think about it, which may be indicative of why we are where we are in the first place. What are the 11 branches?
Councilman Nutter, if you indulge us a few more minutes, we'll pull the list and we'll share it with you as it's produced, in a matter of minutes.
All right. So then if we go to No. 3, the real number for No. 3 is 3.5 plus 625. Is that the answer to that one?
Okay. So at the end of the road, the number is 79 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole 4,125,000?
4.1 million with all 49 branches open at least four hours on Saturdays compared to the option above it, which is the --
I do have a list here of the branches that are open on Saturdays as of January 11th.
The Andorra branch, the Bustleton branch, the Drexel branch, the Overbrook branch, South Philadelphia branch, Walnut West branch, Welsh Road branch, West Oak Lane branch, the newest branch, the Widener branch, and the Chestnut Hill branch.
Please submit that in writing to the Chair. 80 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
It had -- well, Kevin, would you like to... How were the 11 branches determined for being open on Saturday?
Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Vaughan. I'm the Associate Director of the Free Library of Philadelphia. The Director of Public Services has responsibility for assigning Saturday service to branches, and the Director of Public Services for the Free Library of Philadelphia looked at all of the City and tried to spread out across the City a variety of afternoon branches so that in each area of the City people had the chance to get afternoon service in addition to getting it at the regional 81 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole libraries and at Central. So how they selected them were for geographic diversity and making sure that everyone had the opportunity to get to an afternoon branch, Saturday afternoon branch.
-- showing those branches, I would appreciate it. My last question is, given the financial situation both for your budget as well as it relates to fringe benefits for the City, what efforts were made prior to the implementation or the proposed implementation of the savaging of the branches to four 18 hours a day, what efforts were made with 19 regard to volunteer or community recruitment 20 to supplement efforts at those libraries in an effort to not require such a drastic negative effect on services?
We have a very, very extensive volunteer program throughout the library, and one of our concerns is to 82 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole make sure that that volunteer effort does not go down. There are 92,000 hours a year of volunteer effort. To have volunteers open libraries, to have keys distributed among volunteers, to --
So we looked at that. We did not make an effort to recruit more volunteers, but we looked closely at what we could do with staff that would not affect the payroll, as well as with existing staff to see how that could be done.
Did you look at any opportunities to reach out to the Friends groups or the volunteer network about reallocation of what in some instances I'm sure is an abundance of volunteer activity in some places and possibly a shortage in others? Did you look at how you might try to encourage some redistribution of volunteers across the City to help prevent going to four hours a day? Did you do any of that before you put together the 20-hour plan? 83 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
We considered that, and we decided that that was not the wise thing to do. It was not good for the branch --
It was wiser to just cut the hours to four hours a day? That was wiser?
Because of the kind of training, the kind of experience, the kind of --
You think that denying people in Philadelphia, whether they are young or slightly older or somewhere in between, you think that denying them access to a library in the morning or in the late afternoon or early evening is better than to try to figure out some way through citizen effort, volunteer effort, Friends groups and 84 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole the like to extend those hours as much as possible?
I understand you considered it, and then you decided it was wiser to do what you've now proposed to do.
Yes. Based on the judgment of the senior staff and working closely with the Administration, that was not a feasible thing to do.
The Administration, but not the people who work in the libraries?
The Administration, but not the people who actually work in the libraries? Because you've already testified a couple weeks ago that you didn't work with them, right? I want an answer.
Did we work with 85 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole them? No, we did not work with the members of the unions who would be affected by it.
You thought that was a part of the wise plan? That was wiser?
We were under the very strict advice, if not orders, from the City's Labor Relations department to not discuss the possibility or not discuss the number of layoffs and the impact that it would have with --
Well, maybe your initial conversation would not have been about layoffs. Maybe your initial conversations would have been, We have a situation, we're trying to figure it out, we need your best ideas and suggestions and proposals in order to avoid layoffs and cutbacks in services and the disruption to the network throughout the City and the denial of library services from real librarians in these places, we need a partnership here that says this is where we are, this is where we're trying to stay. 86 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole (Applause.)
That would have been wiser. That would have been wiser, not what you did. Do you have anything else you want to tell me?
Councilman, in regards to volunteers, we do use 92,000 volunteer hours a year and we have talked to our Volunteer Services office about increasing the use of volunteers to assist the staff, but volunteers -- and I think the staff would agree with me -- volunteers are no replacement for professional staff, be they library assistants or librarians, in terms of trying to provide services for the public. There are public safety issues that would be involved. There are training issues that would be involved.
Mr. Vaughan, I appreciate that, and you'd probably 87 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole agree that with every respect to our library assistants and other public employees, they're not necessarily a replacement for a full, certified librarian, right?
Okay. Managing Director, do you have anything you want to tell me?
Only, Councilman, that as we have this discussion, we keep one thing in mind, too, which is that the current -- that before this plan, this reorganization of the library and the library hours, you do currently have a system that needs some reallocation of resources regardless of -- as you were pointing out before. You have three additional libraries to put back on line.
You have a number of -- I believe only 11 libraries are currently open six days a week. 88 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
And the plan tries to move it to 49. So I think to give credit, I mean, just to somebody new coming in, to give credit to -- I think the library has come up with a very sophisticated and equitable plan for using the resources available to try to maximize the resources that they have --
I got you. Two last things to say and then I'm going leave. One, I think, with every respect to you, I think that what they propose is rudimentary and is an insult to the citizens of this City. That's first. Second, if this -- (Applause.)
Now I'm asking you in your capacity as Managing Director. If the City Council through the 89 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole rest of this process, because obviously we're not done the budget process, if through the rest of this process the Council restores any of the proposed cuts to the library system, is the City Administration going to spend the money?
We have a system now where because of staff vacancies and the current allocation of resources, we've had 180 days of emergency closings. The Administration, as you know --
We got a plan here. We got a 1.9, a 3.5 and a 4.1. My question is, whatever gets put back, is it going to be spent? Yes or no?
As you know and as indicated by the discussion on the benefits, you can't talk about the City budget in isolation. We'd like to talk about pieces of the City budget in isolation, but you can't talk about expenses without revenues, you 90 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole can't talk about adding to one department without considering taking away from another department. And the Administration, through the Mayor, is charged at any given time with making spending decisions. I believe that --
-- the question you're asking, the type of commitment that you're looking for isn't one within our purview as people running the government. That's a political discussion between this legislative body and the Mayor.
Well, I'm sure it's an interesting political discussion. It's also a legal discussion, because at whatever level we've been relegated to in the minds of the rest of the Administration, we are the legislative body and we will make some decisions about the City budget. Again, the question is --
-- if we 91 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole put forward a plan that is balanced -- I didn't hear what you said because you wanted to talk over me. If we put forward a plan -- libraries are among the highest concerns, but it is not the sole concern. If we put forward a plan that is balanced and shows how it is paid for, again, based on our most recent experience with the library, if dollars are put back, will they be spent? That's the question.
Assume the library will operate according to its budget and the financial constraints upon it and upon the City at any given time. Certainly we want --
Unlike the system we have now, which advertises some hours and can't deliver on those hours, I think our responsibility is to put forth a plan as -- you don't like the plan that was put forth, but it's a plan that the library was prepared to commit to with the resources represented. And, similarly, as long -- if they have a plan, I'm confident that they'll live to that plan. What they can't do is live to an unreasonable plan, just as the City can't continue to experience revenue reductions and demands for status quo as the needs of the City change.
So what you're saying at the moment is, you're not prepared to say yes or no, right?
Excuse me a minute, please. I believe Councilman Kenney has a point of information.
What revenue reductions? What revenue reductions 93 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole have we experienced? What revenue reductions have we experienced? I thought our tax collections were up.
We're going probably on our tenth year of continued -- of, I should have said, tax reductions.
Collections are up. We were budgeting on a five-year timetable. At the federal level, money is being cut.
No. We're just saying that this is all one organism. You can't say if you fix -- if you fix the arm but 94 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole aren't taking care of the lungs, you promise that the arm will work.
And when you factor these elements in, when you talk about what the feds do or don't do and what the state does or doesn't do, it's intriguing that you don't mention what the City does. The City unilaterally decided to give up $18 million from PGW, correct? Correct?
I'm not having an asset discussion. The City unilaterally decided to forego an $18 million payment from PGW; yes or no?
I didn't 95 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole ask the purpose.
Did you forego $18 million from PGW and made that decision on your own; yes or no?
What was the impact on the City budget by foregoing $18 million?
What would be the impact on the City and the ratepayers if the City hadn't done that, on PGW and the ratepayers if we hadn't done that?
Don't confuse the question. What was the effect on the City budget? What was the impact --
-- on the City budget by deciding to forego $18 million? There was a fiscal impact to the City, wasn't there?
It was needed by PGW, as you know, and it was going to come one way or the other. Just as if you put it here, you got to take it there. You can't take all of these things --
Just be honest in your response. If you want to complain about --
I have responded, but you just don't want to hear the explanation.
If you want to complain about what the state does, then at least acknowledge your own actions; that's all.
And the actions, which I did acknowledge and which I described as fiscally prudent, but every time I say that, you talk over me.
And then 97 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole try to confuse the public that somehow a tax reduction program has led to a decrease in revenues, which you know not to be true.
I said you can't -- PGW was in a position where it required 7 million -- it required us, the City, to forego 8 that payment and, in fact, in subsequent 9 years, starting with '05, has forgiven the 10 payment through the City budget and ordinance 11 process and the City submitted -- the 12 Administration submitted and went against the 13 Council to forgive that. 14
If you want 15 to complain about what the feds do, 16 acknowledge -- 17
-- because some folks have responsibility for running the government as a whole on a day-to-day basis and you can't -- if you wanted -- and the way one would obfuscate that issue is to pick it 98 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole apart single issue by single issue, but it's not a single issue. Taxes are connected to spending. There's a limited pot. You can't put it --
We should probably talk about spending. Are you sure you want to get into a spending conversation with me?
Are you sure you want to get into a spending conversation with me? You think about that.
-- about whether to spend $30 million in borrowed money, the first ten -- actually, we're talking about whether to go back on a commitment to do that, leveraged by $90 million of private money, and we're pulling that at a time that this entire City, this entire government -- 99 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
Mr. Managing Director, have I asked you one question about the funding of the expansion of the Free Library?
Okay. So then we don't need to have that conversation. I've asked about the branch libraries.
I think we were told earlier this year that there was no 23 connection between the expansion of the Central Library and the impact on the branches. 100 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole (Applause.)
I think that's what we were told. I think I can go down to the Chief Clerk's office and pull out a transcript when this City Council was told there was no connection between those two.
-- it's easy to mischaracterize conversations, answers, if you want to pick, interrupt, speak over and then not -- and refuse to acknowledge the context of the answer. My answer -- I've attempted to answer in a single answer and you've tried to pull me into different directions. We're talking about the City's overall budget.
That's what all my questions have been about. 101 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
We're at a hearing on the repeal of the authorization of a financing for the Central Library.
About which you have not asked me any questions. You have asked about the question in the context of -- that's been stated earlier, that how do we have --
No. I asked you a question about a document that I got based on a question that I asked two weeks ago. That's what I asked about.
-- I'm going to try not to interrupt you, but I'm also going to try to answer your questions.
The more you pile on the questions, the more likely I am to fail at that, because I'm not going to keep track of all the questions. 102 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole
No. You're much better than that. That's okay. Fortunately for you, I have to go.
When I said it's all connected -- and I think I understand your response, but if I could explain it, because --
-- sometimes it takes me a while to get to my point, as you 103 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole know.
I'm a recovering lawyer. The discussion today about the repeal of the authorization has been put in the context of the unfortunate coincidence in timing that this is coming up at the same time that in the budget we're on the operating budget having to grapple with these different choices, and the length is not a length that we've been made -- that the Administration has made --
-- by the proposed ordinance. And so you can't talk about what happens in this unless you're also prepared to talk about what happens some place else, and I know that you appreciate that. That's the only point I've been trying to make.
I got it. We're good. Thank you. 104 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilman Kenney, I apologize.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not surprised at the discussion between Councilman Nutter and now Managing Director, because not too long ago we passed a bill unanimously in this Council, to 14 nothing, the Mayor vetoed it, we overrode the 15 veto 16 to nothing, and with all due respect 16 to the Managing Director, who was City Solicitor then, advised a City agency to basically ignore a duly enacted ordinance. I mean, we've gotten to the point in this government where Council is not only irrelevant, it's just ignored. And we will fight that fight as we've done with condo trash, as we will do with this issue on disability offsets, but I find it strange that an appointed official of the government could 105 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole tell a City agency that you should ignore an ordinance which was passed and a veto overridden and still advise them and never send the opinion to the sponsor of the bill or any other member of this Council, and when the Pension Board met last time, they had in their hands a copy of an opinion that we're not even privy to. And I think that is another issue for another day, but that's basically disgraceful, as far as I'm concerned, that this legislative body would basically be -- that an appointed official would tell a City agency to ignore the legislative body and what they've done. I mean, that's the road we're going down. It's really a terrible road. So my question for the library is, how big is the library going to be after it's expanded? How much bigger?
Have you estimated your staffing requirements for such a largely expanded building?
Have we 106 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole estimated what?
We have estimated, and I've presented to Council before, the estimate of the maintenance staff. We're in the process of a specific thing on design, so that in terms of the other staff, we don't have that until we have --
Are we going to need more people or less people? The building is getting 160,000 square foot bigger. Are we going to need more people or less people?
We will be able to run this library with eight more people in the maintenance area.
With librarians, we are looking at that. We have not -- we are in the process of defining the spaces and what goes where.
What's your 107 4/27/05 - Bill No. 050235 - Whole guess? More or less?
If the circulation of library and use of the library remains the same, if the use of the library remains the same --
How could it remain the same if we're expanding -- the whole purpose of this is to not only upgrade the current library but to expand it to the point where we'll have many more people utilizing the Central Library. I understood that to be the testimony. Will we need more librarians or less?