2118 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OPERATING BUDGET HEARINGS - CONTINUED - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, February 28, 2000 9:30 a.m. - - - BILL 05 - An ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2119 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 I N D E X First Judicial District Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator . . . 2120 The Honorable Robert S. Blasi . . . . . . . . 2126 Joseph A. Cairone, Dept. Court Administrator 2133 Sheriff's Office Sheriff John Green. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2149 Register of Deeds Ronald R. Donatucci . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2150 Law Department Kenneth Trujillo, City Solicitor. . . . . . . 2155 William Martin, Corporate Chair . . . . . . . 2167 Donna Mouzayck, First Deputy City Solicitor 2181 Office of Labor Relations Delia Gorman, Deputy Director . . . . . . . . 2191 Joseph Tolan, Deputy Director . . . . . . . . 2203 District Attorney's Office Lynne Abraham, D.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2210 Defender Association Ellen Greenlee, Chief Defender. . . . . . . . 2233 City Commissioners Margaret Tartaglione, Chairwoman. . . . . . . 2245 Robert Lee, Voter Registration Administrator 2248 City Controller's Office David Volpe, First Deputy City Controller . . 2260 SEPTA Jack Leary, General Manager . . . . . . . . . 2275 Jettie Newkirk, Board Member, City Rep. . . . 2295 Bernard Cohen, Assistant General Manager. . . 2320 Frances Jones, Assistant General Manager. . . 2309 Frances Egan, Assistant General Manager . . . 2313 2120 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding our Operating Budget, Bill No. 005. The first department to be called this morning is the First Judicial District. (First Judicial District witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Council President and members of City Council. I am Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services of First Judicial District. With me today is the Honorable Robert Blasi, Administrative Judge. Also with me is Joseph A. Cairone, Deputy Court Administrator for the Court of Common Pleas Criminal Trial Division. Absent from today's hearing is the Honorable Alex Bonavitacola, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the Administrative Governing Board, and Joseph DiPrimio, First Judicial District Court Administrator. Both had unexpected personal commitments that precluded them from being here, 2121 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 and they express their sincere apologies for their absence today. We are here to summarize our written testimony and answer any questions you may have. If I may begin?
The Fiscal Year 2000 marks the tenth year that the FJD and the City have entered into a no-growth budget, and the FY '01 appropriation is consistent with that agreement, while seeking $1.2 million in additional funds. The amount of the overall increase is $1 million less than the funding needed to annualize the 4 percent wage increase effective in March of 2000. The reductions in FY '01 include $526,000 for the transfer of 14 FJD court administrative positions from City funding to State funding under the unified judicial systems.
Thank you. 2122 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
Okay. These positions were transferred to State funding on January 1, 2000 as part of Phase I of the shift in funding from court operations to the State. The savings to the City for these positions is $1 million annually. The other major reduction is $574,000 for juvenile grant officers, whose funding is structured under the Grants Revenue Fund. This reduction properly aligns the funding and the current staffing level. The final Class 100 reduction is the elimination of $169,000 for one-time funding for the processing of municipal tax liens. The increases for FY '01 are $393,000 to annualize the funding for pretrial service positions to enhance active electronic monitoring efforts that were requested by the City to reduce prison crowding. There is also an increase of $230,000 for pretrial services in the Municipal Court for the Community Court Initiative from the Center City District that was approved and funded by City Council in FY 2000. The adjustments in Classes 200, 300, and 400 are two reductions. One is the 2123 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 elimination of $150,000 from lease funding for the relocation from leased-based to City-owned space in City Hall, and the elimination of $218,000 for the one-time purchase of active electronic monitoring equipment requested by the City also to ease prison crowding. Also included in our written testimony is a summary of case statistics and achievements that have occurred over the last four years. I won't address those, but they are in our testimony for your review. Therefore, I conclude my summary of our written testimony and welcome any questions that you may have.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I don't know whether anybody present at the witness table will be in a position to deal with this question, but there is this lingering problem about fees for defense attorneys in criminal cases and I believe also in 2124 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 children's cases, and I'm wondering if that's going to be resolved in any reasonable manner. I'm just stunned by the fact that this is a year ago that I raised this issue at the budget hearing. I was told that it was on its road to being resolved. I understand that, if anything, the situation has worsened. From what I understand, the court system seems to be denying the most basic due-process rights to attorneys who represent indigent defendants, that there are arbitrary awards of fees and fees are sharply reduced. There is no process open to anybody to find out why they're reduced. Checks are just sent out, and in some cases, it's just a portion of the fee, and they're just told that's what the payment is. It reminds me of what we face in other fields where prime contractors on huge commercial projects just summarily reduce the amounts of money they pay to subcontractors. But I just don't understand why that exists, and I'll tell you why it's so important. We're very concerned about the level of attorney services that are rendered to indigent 2125 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 defendants. It's a national problem and everybody's worried about it, because if you just have inexperienced and young attorneys who take cases, defendants' rights are very severely impeded. And the one thing we want to make sure of is that, you know, there is due process according to the criminal defendants. Yet, I understand the very experienced attorneys in Philadelphia are now refusing to take cases because of the arbitrary way in which the fee situation is handled. I also understand that there may be a threat of court action by the attorneys, and I think all of it makes Philadelphia look bad and denies basic rights to defendants. Now, if none of you are in a position to deal with that, I can understand that, 'cause I understand it's a matter of the top-level courts, but I think the situation's developing to the point where individual judges are not going to be able to merely say that it's up to the president judge or the administrative judge, whatever the titles are. I think the board of judges is going to have to act because there are many people who 2126 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 feel that all of the judges are involved. So my question is, what is the status and what does it appear to be for the future? JUDGE BLASI: Councilman, let me try to touch on some of those problems. Before I became the administrative judge, I know that there was a realignment of the fees, and I think that was due to the fact that it seems like every defendant that goes through the system is now represented as an indigent, believe it or not. Everybody has either court-appointed counsel or the Public Defender. And I believe that they suffered an increase of fees, a dramatic increase of fees and that they had to realign the fees, and that was done. Maybe in certain areas, maybe they were drastically cut back too much. But I know that we have a difficult time of -- how do we say -- assessing people as to whether they work or whether they can afford an attorney. They come in and they say, We can't afford an attorney, and they don't have a bank account and they don't have a car and they don't own a house, so we have to give them a court-appointed attorney. It seems like that's 2127 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 95 percent of everybody going through the system today. Am I correct, Mr. Cairone? And that's what happened. JUDGE BLASI: I think the board -- as the administrative governing board, I'm on that. We did discuss the possibility of revisiting that, Councilman, to re-look at the fees to see if they're fair. I mean, that's the only thing I could promise you.
I will bring it up before the board and hope that that matter would be revisited to see if an alignment has to be made one way or the other or in one area or the other. We'll attempt to do that.
Councilman, excuse me. Your Honor, the stenographer did not get your name. JUDGE BLASI: I'm sorry.
And anybody else answering questions, kindly identify yourself for the record. 2128 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 JUDGE BLASI: I apologize. I'm Robert S. Blasi, B-L-A-S-I. And I'm the Administrative Judge of Municipal Court of Philadelphia. I apologize for that.
Judge Blasi, yesterday's Inquirer carried a long story. In the last ten years, the prison population has escalated from one million to more than two million, doubling it. JUDGE BLASI: Yes.
Obviously, if -- and there's no indication that that escalation is going to be slowing down at all. Obviously, if there are twice as many cases roughly, there are going to be more fees. There's a big private defense bar. It is not starving to death the experienced attorneys. They seem to be doing quite well, so there is a lot of private defense work. But the truth is that if you're going to have a large increase, most defendants tend to be indigent and cannot afford legal fees so that you can't expect the private bar to cut their rates in half to represent indigent defendants. 2129 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Many attorneys do it at a cost, you know, financially, at the present rates. But it certainly seems the most basic thing that if an attorney following the procedures of the court files a fee petition, or whatever the form may be called, it seems to me clearly wrong to merely cut that fee, refuse to give any answers as to why, and then to have no procedure open so that the attorney can contest it and show why he or she is entitled to that fee. JUDGE BLASI: I was of the understanding, Councilman Cohen, that there's always an appeal to the administrative judge, that when that judge cuts the fee, they can then appeal to the administrative judge, the president judge, and they will then review that and see if more should be given. The judge is limited in his discretion, and that's why we keep it simply as an appeal to the administrative judge, but there is an appeal process, and I approved some petitions for more money because I felt it was justly deserved. But I'd like to just touch on a point that you said. The cases we've -- our numbers 2130 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 have dramatically increased. Yes, there are more incarcerations. I guess as you put more people through the system, you could expect it, and the more you process, the more fees there are. But yet, Municipal Court has been operating at a zero growth, and we have not asked for more money. We've been working within our budget, we want to cooperate with the City. I know other agencies have obtained increases, but we haven't. And, again, I promise you we will check over that fee structure.
One last question on that. When you consider, Judge, the present judge of the Common Pleas Court testified last year that $10 million in the budget was set aside for attorneys' fees. I am told that that kind of money has never been spent, that the figure of actual expenditure for fees has been closer to 6, maybe $7 million a year. The attorneys have proposed some form of segregating the money for attorneys' fees so that at least that which has been budgeted for attorneys' fees is used. And that's one half of their question. The other half is, if there's a greater 2131 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 need for appropriations, I think you have to ask for it because you can't -- you just can't put the burden on the private bar, because the ones that suffer are the defendants. If we lose all of the experienced members of the bar, the ones that are suffering are going to be defendants, who don't get the benefit of experienced lawyers. JUDGE BLASI: Right.
So I'm urging that the board consider this because I understand that when individual judges have been asked about it, their response generally is that they can do nothing. JUDGE BLASI: Exactly, exactly. But that attorney can then petition the administrative judge of that division, and generally, an administrative judge will take a review. Now, I'm not saying that I --
Well, you're speaking for the Municipal Court. JUDGE BLASI: I'm talking for the Municipal Court only.
The questions that I know -- I don't know what the situation is in 2132 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Municipal Court 'cause all the complaints seem to come from the trial -- from the Common Pleas level. JUDGE BLASI: I will say that you talk about the quality, that the courts are committed, in cooperation with the bar association, to train these attorneys. These attorneys go through a training program, and they sit as second chair in many cases. Before they're qualified, they review tapes, they have to go to seminars and get a certain amount of credits before they're qualified to represent people, and I hope that they are delivering a high level of services. They may not be able to get the most experienced attorney in town, you know. But, again, I wish you would just look at it in the fact that everybody has either has a court-appointed attorney or a public defender. And I think, in many cases, they don't really deserve it, but it's hard to ascertain, because we're trying to move the cases through the system.
Is there anyone among the four men at the table who could speak for the Common Pleas Court? 2133 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
Good morning, Councilman. My name is Joseph Cairone. It's C-A-I-R-O-N-E. I'm the Deputy Court Administrator for the Criminal Trial Division. I know that Administrative Judge Herron reviews appeal petitions from counsel involving trial division matters, so that what Judge Blasi has explained for the Municipal Court holds true for the Common Pleas Court. Judge Bonavitacola is the reviewing party for homicide matters, and he conducts those reviews when necessary.
Well, I'm just told that there's absolutely no way of any attorney getting a reason for a reduction, that arbitrarily, a check is sent out for whatever amount is finally determined by the administrative judge or the president judge.
Although I haven't participated personally in meetings with the Criminal Justice Section and Judge Bonavitacola, I know that there have been numerous meetings between the two parties to discuss counsel fees. The appeals -- and I'm not sure, because I do not review the petitions, but there 2134 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 is a modified fixed fee that's associated with cases. And we do have a tracking mechanism of identifying how many days are spent in court on a specific case, and there are set fees for those matters. I would assume that many of the appeals involve cases where counsel opt for the hourly fee as opposed to the modified fixed fee.
I don't understand that to be the case. But, Madam Chair, I would like to ask that Judges Bonavitacola and Herron be asked to appear here 'cause I don't think it's fair to ask the four gentlemen here to be responsible for the action, but --
I think it's very important that we get answers, because the rights of criminal defendants are being very seriously interfered with. It's one thing to have convictions when, you know, all the parties have a fair opportunity to present their cases, but it's not fair to punish defendants by denying them the services of able lawyers, who have to get paid, 2135 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 because they too have economic problems like anybody else in the private sector. So may I make that request and ask that the --
That's H-E-R-R-O-N. He's the administrative judge for -- they're both -- Bonavitacola is the President Judge of the Common Pleas Court, and Judge Herron is the Administrative Judge for the Trial Division. I think they're the two people most directly involved at the Common Pleas level. And we'd like to get a date certain for it.
And ask that you take that back, and then we'll set it up.
Thank you very 2136 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 much. Councilwoman Miller?
Good morning. I have just a couple questions. Can you hear me? Good morning again. I have just a couple questions. What qualifies a defendant for electronic monitoring?
We use electronic monitoring, Councilwoman, in two different situations, pre- and post-trial. When a defendant is adjudicated guilty in a matter, it is the determination of the sentencing judge to impose electronic monitoring. On the front end, or the pretrial stage, we conduct conditional release hearings of defendants who are currently incarcerated. Pretrial presents a list to the conditional release hearing judge, and there's a determination made at that point that the defendant can be released to electronic monitoring in lieu of 2137 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 incarceration. Now, it's not used at the front end during preliminary arraignment but used, rather, as the matter progresses through the trial process.
What is the cost per person versus the cost for incarceration?
It's drastically less than it is for incarceration. It runs approximately to $15 a person. 12
There are times that we do have a waiting list. Currently, we have 700 people on electronic monitoring, which maxes out the capacity that we have, but there are constantly people coming off and going on. We also utilize what we refer to as "a passive monitoring system," which is a voice monitoring system that enables us to take a voice template of the defendant with 22 specific words, and then we are able to monitor his presence in the home by using and verifying it with this voice template. 2138 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Now, obviously, that's a less restrictive method than the constant electronic monitoring device placed on the ankle, but what we can do in certain circumstances is step a defendant down from the active system to the passive system if they've cooperated and have met all of the conditions of their release. We currently have 135 defendants on passive electronic monitoring. Now, starting April 1st of this year, and as part of this adjustment to the budget that Mr. Cross identified, we will be adding an additional 100 defendants to electronic monitoring. Our total capacity will be 800 defendants on that system.
So that we are committed, with the executive branch, to addressing the crowding situation, but doing it in an environment that provides the best protection to the citizens of Philadelphia.
Okay, that's what I -- that's where I wanted to go because I know that people have waited a while to get on it, and 2139 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 most of them were already incarcerated and they couldn't be released until they were able to, you know, access the electronic monitoring system.
Some of the delays that we face are, once a defendant is assigned to electronic monitoring in court, we must then do an investigation. We must make sure that the address is a good address that they give us, we must make sure that the family is willing to have the defendant back in the home, and that they are willing to limit their phone to a straight phone set without call-waiting and any other amenities that can be purchased. Once we can verify all of those items, then the defendant is picked up at the county institution and delivered to the home and hooked up.
Okay. I have another question that deals with troubled properties out in neighborhoods -- apartment buildings, houses, whatever. We know that L&I will come out and cite a property -- and cite a property, and then it ends up at 34 South 11th for code enforcement and 2140 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 then goes through MC court and probably has a lien attached to it. Now, I know for most of the properties, I believe -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that's where it ends, that there's a lien if the property's ever sold. But then there are some properties that go on to Equity Court. Can you explain what Equity Court is? Because what happens is, these properties have liens on them, they've been cited. What is it that we need to do? What department? There needs to be a process in place to deal with these. Maybe it's not your department, but it does. . . JUDGE BLASI: I can try to address that. 34 South 11th Street on the Municipal Court side comes within my jurisdiction. What happens when L&I files a compliant against the owners of these properties is, there's someone to come into court, Courtroom 4-G, on 34 South 11th Street. If they fail to appear, the City usually takes a default judgment because of the failure to respond, and that's in an effort to jog them to make 'em become responsive, to make 'em come to court, and enter into an agreement either to fix their property or demolish their property 2141 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 or correct the repairs, whatever they're cited for. If they fail to do that, if it's usually, Councilwoman, like a fire system which affects life and limb, an imminent danger, they will go on to Equity Court. Municipal Court has just the three judges, I have three judges. I sit in Equity Court, now in Room 275, City Hall, as a CP judge, even though I am a Municipal Court judge. I have made an arrangement with Judge Herron that we would take over those services so we could let him have the use of another judge or two that he needs for his Commerce Court, but we assume those responsibilities. And, yes, when we sit there, we have different power. We have a different power as a CP judge than we do, which is limited as an MC judge. As the other day I told the fellow that I was going to close down his buildings, I have equity power. I can't do that when I sit as an MC judge. It's a difference in power structure, limited power. But if you have a situation that's imminently dangerous, I think you should call the 2142 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 City Solicitor. They should work with you and it's their responsibility to put it on a list for the Equity Court, so to speak.
Thank you. To follow up on an issue that Councilwoman Miller raised about the electronic monitoring or home monitoring, is it -- is there a maximum of time? I've heard some people say it's six months on the end of the time, I've heard other people say it's a year on the end of the time. How is that determined? Is it determined by the judge who assigns, or is it determined by behavior while incarcerated, or what's the time and how is that determined?
We currently do not have a time limit placed on the sentencing for electronic monitoring, although we believe there should be one. We do monitor closely the number of defendants with extended sentences that are placed on electronic monitoring because, obviously, they're using equipment that could be 2143 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 used for other individuals. We try to keep to a minimum six-month to year type sentence if we can.
But, again, it is the sentencing judge's decision that is controlling. Or on the front end, it's a matter of when the case is adjudicated and/or disposed, when it's in pretrial status. So we do try to expedite those matters when they're placed on pretrial electronic monitoring.
Good morning, gentlemen. I have a question with respect to space. I notice here in your testimony, you talk about expansion of the courts, and this kind of goes back actually to the building of the Criminal Justice Center at the time it is essentially 2144 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 vacated and deserted. Can you hear me? Is that better?
You kind of deserted us over here in City Hall and actually left all of the corridors empty and took all the police with you and everything, you know. I felt a little unsafe there for a while. And I notice in the recent year or so that a lot of the judges have been moving back to City Hall and there's been movement throughout the municipally-owned facilities. Can you give me a sense of what's going on with that?
Yes. All of our civil have chambers and courtrooms in City Hall, and we have moved out of other leased space and into City Hall. We've moved our human resources, our fiscal operations, our procurement into City Hall. And so we are filling space in City Hall that we had as leased space before, so we're reducing our lease costs and increasing our presence in City Hall.
Also, in other words, some of the criminal judges moved out of 2145 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 City Hall and you're now bringing back the civil judges to replace those --
All right. I was just wondering. All right, thank you.
Thank you. The President had a question, which is, what is the status of the State takeover of the courts?
As I mentioned in my testimony -- I'm Kevin Cross again -- thirteen deputy court administrators and the FJD court administrator did transition over into State funding. We have separated from City service and are State employees. I wish I could say more as to what's going to happen with the next phase. We really don't know at this point, we're just going through all of our paperwork and our transition into State funding. We have no further information as to 2146 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 when the next phase is, and Phase II would be for the majority of administrative staff and judicial staff going over into State funding. We're bound by what the Governor and the State legislature present and we really have no influence in that area.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a point of information, back to 34 South 11th Street. Is there any major repairs going on in the courts in the facility now, any construction work or anything? JUDGE BLASI: You mean at 34 South 11th?
34 South 11th. JUDGE BLASI: On the municipal court side, we just signed a lease with the Girard Estates for the fourth and fifth floor again. And on the fifth floor, there will be some renovations.
At their expense or the court's expense or the -- 2147 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 JUDGE BLASI: No, no, Girard Estates. There will be no expense at all to the City or to the First Judicial District.
Okay. The reason I raise this is that there is a strong possibility that a major retail department store may be built on that site, and I've already talked to the developer, the proposed developer, and they would take everything from Market, all the way back, maybe up to close to Chestnut Street. So just in the interest of being cost-effective or efficient, I'd say be careful what you spend because we may be out of there before you know it. JUDGE BLASI: I think that's a good point, and I was wondering 'cause I heard the same rumors, and I thought they were pretty firm, and yet, they were anxious to sign a lease with us and conduct -- go ahead with the renovations. They're starting on the --
I had spoken with the developer about a month ago. He was under the impression that he may have had a decision probably about a week ago, but I haven't heard 2148 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 from him since, but I'll reach out to talk to him and see where they are with that, because before you start doing all that work -- JUDGE BLASI: Well, they're doing the work at their expense. And, of course, the City needs a lot of lead time in order to move our operation, and that's all covered in the lease.
I just was wondering. So we're not spending the money. JUDGE BLASI: We're not spending City money, not a dollar of City money.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Certainly. 2149 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 The Sheriff is next, Mr. John Green. (Sheriff's Office witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, welcome. SHERIFF GREEN: Good morning, Madam Chair.
Please identify yourself for the record. SHERIFF GREEN: John Green, Sheriff for the City. And with me today is Paris Frazier, the Sheriff's Office Budget Officer and Finance Director, and Yama Waritary. The Sheriff's Office agrees with the Administration's suggested budget appropriation for the Sheriff's Office for the Fiscal Year 2001, which is $11,222,658. That concludes our testimony we're ready for questions.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.) 2150 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
Thank you. That makes it short and sweet. We're glad to have you. SHERIFF GREEN: Thank you very much.
Certainly. Register of Wills is next. (Register of Wills witnesses come forward.)
Good morning and welcome. Would you identify yourself for the record and begin.
Ronald R. Donatucci, the Register of Wills and Clerk of the Orphan's Court. To my left is Anthony DeRose, our Financial Officer. To my right is my First Deputy, Ralph Wiener and Jim Taggart, Chief Administrative Officer.
As required, we submitted a two-page letter with the analysis. I don't know if you want me to really read it. I'll just go over some of the highlights. 2151 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Once again, if our numbers hold up, we'll be operating in the surplus for a number of years. We're always getting creative, and due to the kindness of the Administration and City Council, you've given us money in the past to help computerize our operation to different degrees. In the past seven months, at the beginning of our new fiscal year, our revenues have been increased by over $204,000 and at the end of the fiscal year, we'll probably show $18,000 in surplus over what our operating budget is. With all of this, we are still providing additional services. We still have our offices in the Northeast with Councilman Krajewski, who was very instrumental, and Councilman O'Brian (sic), in opening the office up there. She came to me a number of years ago to see if we could have this facility to help service the citizens up in the Northeast. Also we still have an office up in North Philly, and we are the only Register of Wills which is still open one night a week to provide marriage licenses, a service that we provide for the working families or future working families so that they don't have 2152 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 the take off any time from work. We still have our traveling probate clerks where we go out to homes to provide a service, for which we charge a minimal fee, which brings additional revenue into the City, but it also provides a service for people that cannot come into the City. I believe the record speaks for itself. And, again, I'd like to thank City Council for all its kindness in the past. And we're not looking for any additional funding for new positions, we'll just keep our same level and continue to provide the service to the citizens.
Thank you very much. I will say you have continued to do an excellent job. All of us have experiences where we send our constituents there. And as always, they're treated in a very courteous manner. You do the City proud.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 2153 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Madam Chair, I can only echo your comments to Mr. Donatucci. It's also good to see your first deputy next to you, Mr. Wiener here this morning. My office has received excellent service from the Register of Wills. Your office on the forth floor is perfectly situated, right around the corner from mine, and that may also account for an even special level of service right here on the fourth floor. But my constituents have benefitted tremendously from the service, and I just want to publicly thank you and all of the staff, your senior people, for the service we've received. Thank you.
Thank you. My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, and I thank you.
I want to also go on the record, Madam Chairwoman, because the 2154 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 service that the Register of Wills has given me and my constituents is always excellent so I would just like to go on the record as well to express my appreciation.
Thank you again publicly, and I'd like to thank Councilman Ortiz and Councilman Cohen for the help last year on the pay raise for my employees.
Great. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
All righty, the Law Department and the Office of Labor Relations are on their way. Is the D.A.'s Office here? See folks, you never know when we're ready for you, you never know. So we've got the Law Department, the Public 2155 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Defender's Office, the City Commissioner, the City Controller and SEPTA. Members of the committee, we might as well take a break until someone before us. What we will do is try to call the others and try to let them know that we're ahead of schedule. So we'll take a break for a few minutes until another department shows. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
The Law Department and the Office of Labor Relations.
Okay. We will hear from the Law Department. (Law Department witnesses come forward.)
Thank you very much. Would you identify yourself for the record and then begin your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Kenneth Trujillo. Seated next to me is Mr. William Martin. Next to Bill is Donna 2156 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Mouzayck, and on my right side is Chris Lane.
Councilman, as I mentioned, my name is Kenneth Trujillo, and seated with me are several members of the Law Department I've had the pleasure in the past of working with several members of this Council and, as you know, Mayor Street has asked me to serve the City as the City Solicitor in the very near future. I hope to meet with each of you and am hopeful that you will have the confidence in me to serve you, the Mayor, and the City as City Solicitor. We have prepared our testimony and I know it has been distributed to you, but with your indulgence, I would like to take a couple of minutes to tell you a little bit about myself since this is the first time that I've appeared before you. I am a 1986 graduate of the Pennsylvania Law School. I'm not a Philadelphian by birth, but I am an adopted Philadelphian -- after becoming addicted to cheese steaks and 2157 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 occasionally a losing team, but I'm a hopeless optimist so I decided to stay in Philadelphia and make it my home after graduating from law school. I went to work for the law firm Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis. During my experience at the Schnader firm, they and a number of the large law firms were asked to loan lawyers to the City's Law Department. Happily, I was the lawyer that the Schnader firm loaned to the Law Department back in 1988. During that time, I spent six months at the Law Department. And, in fact, Donna Mouzayck, seated right next to me, was my boss and taught me. And in fact, I tried my very first jury trials under Donna's supervision. S. Attorney's Office here in Philadelphia where I prosecuted a number of complex criminal cases. Since 1993, I've been back in the private practice of law, and over the last three years, I have been running my own firm, Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards. My practice has consisted largely of complex civil litigation. I have represented the handgun litigation against handgun 2158 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 manufacturers, I have represented American Indian tribes for years, and I have also represented the Mexican national railway system on the community side, and have been involved with Congreso Latinos Unidos where I had the privilege of working with Alba Martinez, who is now the Commissioner of the Department of Human Service. I've also served as past president of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania. In fact, I spent much of the last few months working on bringing the National Bar Convention into Philadelphia and am happy to report that in 2001, Philadelphia will serve as the site of the National Convention for the Hispanic Bar Association. I will ask your indulgence because I must confess that this is my first day on the job. When Bill Martin told me that the testimony was scheduled for today, I was originally scheduled to start work next week, but given that the testimony was scheduled for today, I made a special effort to be here today. And rather than reiterate my written testimony -- I'm certain you don't want me to go through each of the pages of 2159 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 the prepared testimony, so rather than reiterate that which is in front of you, I thought it would be helpful if I just mentioned to you a few of the high points, as I see them, and a number of the issues that we would like to concentrate on going into the future in this new administration. The Law Department over the past years has had a number of success stories, and those success stories include a continuation of some of the efforts of the prior City Solicitors. As has been reported both in the Five-Year Plan and as mentioned in our testimony to you, the prepared testimony, since 1992, the Law Department has continued to establish case analyses and procedures which have allowed the Law Department to, on an annual basis, continue to decrease the number of open cases in the Claims and Civil Rights Unit against the City of Philadelphia.
The reduction of the backlog has resulted in a decrease in the number of open cases from 1992 up until Fiscal Year 1999 to the point that at the end of 1999, there were 1,284 open cases against the City of Philadelphia in the Civil Rights Unit and Claims Division. This is a 2160 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 dramatic decrease from the inventory of Fiscal Year 1992, when we had 4,384 cases. In addition, there's been a substantial reduction since 1992 in the amount that it costs to close any particular case. The cost of closing a file has been reduced, since Fiscal Year 1992, from approximately $34,000 per case and is now down to ranging between to $19,000 per case. 10 While we're very happy with that reduction, both 11 in the caseload and also in the cost of closing 12 the cases, we must also tell you that this 13 continuing decrease cannot continue forever, and 14 we indeed expect that to go back up over the next 15 couple of years. One of the challenges for the Law Department and one of the success stories is also the Law Department's use of telecommunications in the last several years, but over the next few years, the growth in technology is going to be both an opportunity for the Law Department and it's also going to be a challenge. In response to Congress's passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a team of lawyers in the corporate group of the Law Department was formed in 1996 and has 2161 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 worked with the Department of Public Property and the Managing District Attorney's Office to address communications technology issues that are resulting from the changes in the 1996 Act. During Fiscal Year 1999 and 2000, these lawyers worked in order to develop ordinances to manage the entry and use of rights of way by telecommunications providers and others. Also in Fiscal Year 1999 and Fiscal Year 2000, the City successfully concluded negotiations for renewals of cable television franchises. This team also concluded an agreement with Comcast Cablevision, which takes effect in September of this year, under which Comcast has agreed to build a low-cost data and video network that will connect Police, Fire, and Prison facilities in Comcast's service area. During Fiscal Year 1999, the Health and Human Services Unit developed a plan for complying with the requirement of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act. That Act required that by two points in time in 1999, termination of parental-rights petitions were be filed for two-thirds of all children committed to the 2162 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Department of Human Services. I'm pleased to report that the Law Department filed 2,466 petitions between May 1 of 1999 and December 31 of 1999. The unit further expects to file 6 approximately 2500 more petitions during the calendar year 2000. It will perhaps come as no surprise to you that Alba Martinez and I are working already very closely together. We hope to continue the success certainly of this unit, but we understand there's significant challenges in that area, and she and I are deeply committed -- and I repeat, very deeply committed -- to ensuring that that department and that unit is active, responsive and is a leader in meeting the needs of the City. In this next fiscal year, we will have some additional, again, challenges and opportunities. The Environmental Unit, in the last fiscal year, settled several environmental matters against the City on a number of favorable terms. In this next fiscal year, the Environmental Law Unit plans to implement an initiative to seek insurance proceeds for the City to help fund the Brownfields redevelopment and 2163 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 other blight removal and other redevelopment efforts. Private industry has recovered billions of dollars in environmental liability from general liability carriers, and the City would like to do the same.
Again, in my background, I have done a considerable amount of complex contingent litigation and it's quite likely that that's the form that this would take, and it's likely that we would need to seek outside counsel on a contingent basis to do some of this litigation. The City has also continued to benefit from some of the tax enforcement initiatives. The Law Department, together with the Revenue Department and private co-counsel, has moved aggressively to step up and improve the effectiveness in its efforts to collect delinquent taxes,, and as a result, in-house collections have increased since Fiscal Year 1991 from $44 million to a projection of $75 million for Fiscal Year 2001. Outside counsel also collected an additional $14 million, and similar amounts are expected for Fiscal Year 2001. Despite what I've just described as some of our successes, there are also some 2164 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 significant challenges in the future. Anyone who has read -- any lawyers, in particular, who have read the newspapers over the last few years are aware -- over the last few months especially, are aware that the ability of a law department like ours to continue to attract and retain good lawyers, to continue to recruit and retain some of the best lawyers in the city is becoming increasingly challenging. As mentioned in our prepared testimony, our attrition level has been relatively stable. However, in the last year, it grew to percent. 14 One of things that has happened over January and 15 February of this year -- if we don't do something 16 relatively soon, our attrition level for the first 17 two months of this year is not 19 percent but it's 18 on a level to be 30 and 40 percent. This law 19 department obviously cannot lose qualified and excellent lawyers and experienced lawyers. And so we need to do something in the future. One of the things that has certainly happened is that private law firms are paying astronomically higher salaries over the last two months, so we need to address over this next year 2165 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 the compensation system, which has not been fully addressed since the first year of the Rendell Administration. We will in the next few months. I would like to tell you that some of my priorities include one of, obviously, Mayor Street's priorities. For the last few years, I've been investigating the handgun liability lawsuits against handgun manufacturers. I intend to present to the Mayor our findings on that very shortly, and we expect to have some report to Council on that issue as well very promptly. Obviously, the issue of the abandoned cars and blight are something that also are starting to take considerable time on behalf of the Law Department. It is something that I know is of importance to this Council and to this mayor, and we intend to do everything we can to be responsive and proactive on that front. So with that, I will be happy to -- frankly, I'll probably be hiding behind my colleagues here -- take any questions from you.
Thank you very much. 2166 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to take my first shot at this publicly, Mr. Trujillo?
I know that you'll be back to us at some point in time probably after budget hearings, but I wanted to get a sense from you with regard to Law Department opinions. No 15 matter what they happen to be and whether I like the opinion that I may get or not on some particular issue, what will be the policy and procedure of the Law Department as it relates to requests for opinions, their subsequent drafting and sharing with the particular Councilmembers, or anyone for that matter, who has made the request? And when is that opinion public or when is it kept confidential?
Councilman, I'm going to respond to this in two ways. I guess the first 2167 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 way will be, I'm going to ask Bill Martin, who's been acting City Solicitor, in terms what the practice has been. And I will confess to you again that right now, I can only give you general responses as to what I believe we should be doing and tend to do. But in terms of our current policy and procedure, I'm going to ask Bill Martin to respond to that first and then I will follow up on that.
My name is William Martin. I am currently the Corporate Chair of the Law Department and have served as acting City Solicitor since January 3, up until Ken's arrival this morning. Councilman, I think that your question is probably in terms of what your experience may have been or what other Councilmembers' experience may have been. During the two months that I served as acting solicitor, I'm not aware of any requests having been submitted by Members of Council for opinions. In terms of prior procedure in terms of timeliness, obviously it would be our objective, 2168 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 in most instances, to answer requests one to two weeks to try to be as timely as possible. In terms of the issue of confidentiality and when opinions might be made available to Members of Council, I would like to allow the new solicitor to review the circumstance and to reach his own conclusion regarding what the law requires, what issues of confidentiality require in terms of opinions as affect individuals. The prior solicitor had an approach which she followed during her tenure, and I think whether the Department will continue to follow that approach or take a slightly different approach, I think it would be inappropriate for me to foreshadow that until Mr. Trujillo has had a chance to review things.
I understand. And as you can, I think, well understand from my side, I understand that we have a new solicitor and that solicitors have a right to generally run their shop the way they want. On the other hand, when a member of Council asks for legal advice, for a legal opinion, as required by the City Charter, it requires both City Council and executive branch of 2169 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 the government. If I make a request, one, I certainly expect that the topic or the subject matter and everything related to it is privileged information and is between the client -- myself -- and the lawyer. Second, whenever that opinion is done, I would continue to expect that that's a communication between myself and whoever is working on that, and that at that moment, it's not being shared with the universe. Is that extreme or outside the bounds of normal lawyer-client relationship?
No, I don't believe it's extreme. I believe an appropriate request -- in fact, the members of the Department are sensitive and speak to one another regularly about their concerns of maintaining the confidentiality from Councilmembers. I know recently, I think about two weeks ago, there was some legislation introduced by Members of Council on an issue of interest, and I think that some assistance was received from a member of the Department, and the member of the Department came in, I think, to advise me of it, 2170 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 in essence, five minutes after the ordinance had been introduced into Council, so this is now public record. We have an independent obligation under the Charter to provide Councilmembers with legal advice, and that the requirements of the profession regarding confidentiality and privilege certainly apply to that representation.
Councilman, if I might follow up on that. First of all, the rules of professional conduct regarding my conduct and those of the Law Department, all lawyers in Pennsylvania require that the confidence of a client be maintained scrupulously. And, obviously, there are some circumstances where we have communications which are not necessarily confidential, but I think that a clear communication about something being a confidential of a client, if it is clear to us and clear that this is a confidential communication, we absolutely intend to maintain confidential communications with our client.
All right, I appreciate it. I'm sure we'll have further discussion about this particular issue. 2171 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 I welcome you on your first day. And generally, for the solicitors, the first day is the best day. (Laughter.)
I look forward to continued discussions with you. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortiz, are you ready? Are you ready?
I imagine that we will have other Latino names being hired and put into the offices, 'cause I always ask this question and I haven't had a lot of successes in increasing the number of Latino lawyers, but I would hope that this means that we're going to see an increase in the numbers.
We will obviously have an increase, with my starting today, of the number 2172 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 of lawyers.
Well, I don't think we had any before, so it's more than double.
Obviously, as you know, the hiring and retention of qualified Latino African-Americans, or any other minorities, is a goal that I have worked on in the past, and I intend for that to be one of our goals that we will meet.
I would hope that if you go back on the record and see the questions that we've asked over the years, that has probably been the first question I always ask the City Solicitor. How many attorneys are there currently in the Solicitor's Office?
I absolutely do, sir. 2173 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
That you work for two bosses. It's supposedly -- and we really fool ourselves here -- that the City Solicitor usually responds entirely to City Council's wishes more so than the Mayor's, but there is always that tension there of to whom do you respond to, the Mayor or the Council? When Councilman Cohen comes in, he's going to ask you even further about this, so I'd like you to begin used to answering along lines.
A clearing of my throat on that issue. First, the Charter, in my view and as I read it as I was considering this opportunity, I think it is very clear in creating not a legal conflict, but as you described it correctly, it's more of a tension. I think that that tension is incidental. But I think that as early as the 100-and-so pages of the blue book of the Charter, which is now bound for public distribution, as early as , the Charter makes provisions for this Council to seek its own counsel in the event that the City Solicitor feels it's not able to provide proper counsel to the 2174 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 City Council. My view of it, obviously, is consistent with the Charter. I view my job as counsel for the City Council, counsel for the Mayor, and counsel for all the departments and agencies and commissions of this City. I view my ultimate client as being the City of Philadelphia and the citizens of Philadelphia. There will be times -- there will times where there will be conflicts which maybe are not legal conflicts in nature but in which there will be either policy conflicts between the Mayor's Office and this Council. And what I can tell you from the outset is that I intend to keep -- I think you know me well enough to know this, that I will have not only an open mind, but I will try to seek whatever creative solutions I can for my client, be they Council or be they the Mayor. If Council sees fit ultimately to approve my nomination, I intend to be very creative in finding ways so ensure that you have the representation that not only is adequate but that you are extremely comfortable with and that you will be very pleased with. 2175 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
It is personally my pleasure having him as City Solicitor. I think we are going to enjoy the tenure that we have, and since this is his first day, I think that's the only question I will ask of my friend.
Taking into consideration the fact that we all recognize that in urban areas in this country today, gun violence and the result of gun violence have been a traumatic problem and an obstacle for cities to remain stable and viable and also to progress and. The cost associated with all of the violence -- medical needs, prisons, drug problems, all of that stuff -- is all intertwined and related. Taking that as a given, something that we all agree upon, what effect do you think that 2176 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 the State legislature recently prohibiting of -- in their minds, prohibiting Philadelphia or any other city in the Commonwealth from making an attempt to recoup the cost of their product? What effect do you think that that has on your ability to successfully proceed in suing gun manufactures on behalf of the City?
Thank you, sir. The legislation passed by the Pennsylvania legislature, which was signed by Governor Ridge last year, is not in my view a broad attack against litigation against handgun manufacturers by cities and municipalities. In fact, it is, in many respects, a relatively narrow piece of legislation focussing on the illegal marketing of guns, and I put those two words in quotes. So it is my view that the City of Philadelphia, like any other city in this Commonwealth, can pursue appropriate cases against handgun manufacturers. I do not view the legislation passed in December as a bar. And in fact, it is something that we've already been researching since the time that it was introduced 2177 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 in December of last year.
Could you expound a little bit on your view of the action taken by the legislature and what, in fact, you believe the legislation does.
Again, my preference, Councilman, at this stage would be not to simply -- because we're in the midst of doing that right now, I'd be happy to talk to you immediately after this, but my preference right now would be to not talk about it at this stage until we've prepared the complaint.
Fine. On another matter, I've had this discussion with a couple of other departments that have come before us, primarily the Police Department. And one of the frustrations that I know I have and I think the average citizen has is our settling of cases that people bring for various reasons where there's alleged police abuse, whether the issue is relative to high-speed car chases where someone kill themselves and the people in the car, but where we wind up in some way paying for those misdeeds. Or something as 2178 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 simple as fraudulent slip-and-falls and other types of what I believe to be sometimes frivolous lawsuits. I understand sometimes it's more prudent to pay to settle those cases than to litigate them, but what's the standards? How do you determine whether or not it makes sense to just set a tone that we're simply not going to send you a check just because you've found a lawyer that's going to sue the City. How do you determine which ones to make a case about and move forward with?
Obviously, in my view, there's not a hard and fast rule. If there was, somebody would have implemented it a long time ago. I think it's a very difficult question because you don't want to create a situation where -- I'll give you an example. Some of the practices of insurance companies is that they will absolutely not pay a penny for even a very small case. But it ends up costing them, in some instances, taking that hard a line. Sometimes it costs you more money in terms of a bad-faith claim than in terms of the 2179 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 litigation costs of a case that maybe you could have settled for $5,000 or $10,000. I'll go back to a little bit of my experience. Back in 1988, when we had a lot of cases against the City, if you take the amount of money that's being paid out, I think I mentioned the statistic earlier going down from 34,000 down to $19,000 per open claim. First I don't think we're paying an extraordinary amount of money out. In fact, I think what the Law Department has done has in fact been very successful in reducing the amount of money going out. First you look at the merits of a case. If somebody is legitimately injured and the City is responsible for that injury, we're responsible. And so first you look at the merits of the case. If the case has merit and the City has liability, my view of it is that we should look at settling it early. And that's consistent with what most large companies' internal law departments are doing these days, which is an aggressive early review of the liability and potential damages in any particular case. So in many instances, you're able to, 2180 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 because a lawyer's handling it on a contingency basis, if they can get the case resolved early, then there is -- there's not an incentive to continue litigation for a long protracted period of time. So the view is that if there's liability damages, that you get it settled early at a modest amount. I believe that's what you want to do I believe. What you're talking about is, in many instances, there are the frivolous cases. In my view, we should not be in the business of no 13 liability or zero liability perhaps and we are not in the business of settling cases just because they happen to be there. So those are the kinds of cases where you do need to take a fairly hard stand. Now, sometimes you might have a case that's very thin on liability but the potential damages may be such that, you know, for instance, if somebody's got a percent chance of winning it, you might take a $30 million hit. You've got to be careful with that kind of a case. Even though the liability is potentially very --
Do you think that because of the size of our law department, the 2181 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 view among the populace and some lawyers is that, in fact, the City is an easy hit?
I have an additional question. Has an analysis been done as to what particular lawyers bring more cases than others against the City? Do we have plaintiffs that bring more cases? Do we do kind of an analysis of names that keep popping up in an attempt to make an example of one of those attorneys, law firms, and/or plaintiffs?
Excuse me. I'm Donna Mouzayck, and I've had the pleasure of supervising the Claims Division for quite a number of years. I think that the attorney handling a particular case is really only one factor in determining, you know, what the quality of that case is. Certainly people in the business know those people who will push for higher demands and ask for more money. But regardless of what reputation an attorney might have, we're still going to need to look to the actual evidence in the case to determine whether or not it will be a 2182 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 successful case or whether we can formulate and successfully develop a response to that. I would say that always, it's the facts of the case that have to control, no matter who the plaintiff's attorney may be. Second, I guess it was about five years ago when we had tried to put together an informal sort of suspects unit. I think to call many of the cases fraudulent would be going too far. You don't have that kind of proof. Certainly there are scenarios where people ask for a large amount of money that we feel is inflated, and there are things that you can do in the defense of a claim to prove that that sum is inaccurate. For example, you want to go ahead and hire your own experts -- we do that routinely. You might want to include some sort of an engineer to comment on the quality of the accident -- like was this low-speed accident really one that would cause such a significant jolt to the person inside the car? Again, that goes after the facts of the case, and I think we've been doing that certainly the last five or six years. I think that we have we have a tracking system in place which 2183 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 specifically focuses on those kinds of cases that you are talking about, but now we have the resources -- doctors, engineers, and so forth -- to help flesh them out. And I'm confident that this is happening, and the average cost of settlements bears that out. The final comment I might make is that we went through an audit where the Law Department Claims Division was compared with the handling of claims at other law firms, and I don't know if you can remember that study, but basically we received very, very high remarks and were commended for the fact that we began to focus on investigating the exact claims that you just mentioned. So I feel pretty confident that those kind of frivolous claims are being handled properly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 2184 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Again, welcome to City government.
Coming from your own business and working for law firms for many years, you mentioned that the salary structure hasn't been addressed from back in the early '90s for the attorneys. We read in the media how New York is making so many opportunities available to attorneys today. With that in mind, looking into the office that you now run with some other fine people, do you see -- in your mind, do you have any ideas about restructuring and doing business more like a major law firm would conduct business? Or is the City Solicitor's Office a different animal altogether? And can you use some of the techniques with maybe not everyone needing to be a lawyer or a paralegal or other positions? I assume we have already some things and that you coming into this job are willing to take on some of these challenges. Do you see any major changes other than just reevaluating the need for higher lawyers' salaries, etc.? 2185 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
Thank you, Councilman. Good to see you. First, my view of how the Law Department should operate is probably a little different than a private law firm. Our law department is not comparable to me to a private law firm but is more like an in-house law department of a major corporation. Going back to Councilman Kenney's question, part of the reason, for instance, that we're targeted for so many lawsuits is that, frankly, the City of Philadelphia is involved in and has a lot of real estate -- you know, Police, Fire Department, everybody whom we defend. But at its core, the Law Department is more like, in my view, more like an in-house law department. One of the things that I've discussed already with our executive committee is doing a review for our benefit -- not only for our benefit but for Council's benefit, doing a review of how we operate as we go forward. For example, you mention the issue of paralegals preparing for testimony. One of the things we've done is relatively held the line on 2186 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 the number of lawyers. Since 1992 the increase in the number of lawyers in the Law Department is really only about seven or eight, since 1992. The use of paralegals has virtually gone from approximately 30 to, I believe, 68. So many of the functions of the Law Department -- for instance, in tax collection efforts -- can be done by paraprofessionals. The Law Department, I believe, is doing that, and that is an issue that we will continue to look at, having paraprofessionals take on certain duties so that we don't have to pay the higher salaries. The salary issue that you mention is particularly important in my view and one -- and I'm not here to say that the only thing that I want to do is recognize lawyers' salaries and that's the extent of what I want to do with the Law Department. To the contrary. What I want to do is make sure we're running the Law Department like duPont or like a Campbell's. I want to make the Law Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide full clerkships as one of the first options for law students graduating from law school. I want them to realize what I realized 2187 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 when I went there two years after graduating from law school, that they can come here and try cases early in their career and can impact important policy decisions of the City. And so what I want to do is attract great lawyers, and I think we're doing a fairly good job of it already, but we want to do a better job. Now, the fact of the matter is that our salary structure has remained almost completely stable for eight years. The percentage increase if you read last Friday's Legal News, you know there's a law firm in Philadelphia that is starting to pay first-year associates $115,000 a year. So we're never going to be able to -- the City is obviously never going to be able to compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis, nor can I suggest that that's ever going to happen. But the bigger the spread, the bigger the differential, the harder it's going to be to recruit new lawyers out of law school who will be willing to work representing your interests, the City's interests. It's becoming increasingly more attractive to go straight into private practice. So that's a long-winded way of saying 2188 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 to you that my intention in the first three months, and I don't have a set-out 100-day plan, but I do have a number of goals and objectives. But one of the top priorities for me is first, to review our effectiveness for our clients; two, review the internal organization and whether all of that makes sense; and three, whether there is anything that we can do, with the help of Council, in order to provide you with the best legal representation that you deserve.
Could you -- just briefly, could you describe your philosophy? How do you plan to use outside law firms? What will your decision be on using outside counsel rather than your in-house attorneys? How do you decide that?
First, there are some things that the Law Department does much better than anybody else. So to the extent that we have the expertise in the Law Department to take on a particular project, I would rather keep it in-house. I have day-to-day supervision and review of the Department, so it's easier for me to keep it in-house. If a particular expertise is 2189 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 needed that we don't have in-house and it's not going to be a recurring kind of an issue, then very often, it makes sense to go to outside counsel, because to get somebody up to speed to an experienced level that we need would be difficult to do internally. Secondly, some of the things that I think I'm going to be fairly aggressive about is, I'm going to try to be using creative means. For instance, I mentioned earlier, on the environmental side, we will be utilizing some sort of a contingent mechanism to use outside counsel, much like was done in the tax issues. Sometimes you can get outside counsel to take a risk because they may get a reasonable reward at the end of the table, and at the same time, you can bring in revenues to the City that we otherwise wouldn't see. But in short, to the extent that we have in-house expertise, I intend to utilize that to the extent there's going to be expertise needed. Let me give you an example -- intellectual property. Ten years ago, there was no such thing as intellectual property lawyers in Law Department. We now have five of them and we 2190 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 are going to increase them. Because of the use of technology, we expect that's going to increase in the next few years, so there's an area where it makes sense for us to grow that area because that's going to be a recurring long-term need, and we want to have a first-rate intellectual property section of our Law Department. But if you were to bring in, for instance, handgun litigation, as close as that is to my heart, I don't imagine a lawsuit that we're going to do every year for the next five or ten years on that, so in my view, that's the kind of a lawsuit where it makes eminently more sense, on a contingency basis, to take that to outside counsel.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you 2191 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 again welcome.
Next is the Office of Labor Relations. (Office of Labor Relations witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Will you identify yourselves for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Delia Gorman, and I'm Deputy Director of the Mayor's Office of Labor Relations. With me is Joe Tolan, Deputy Director of the Office of Labor Relations.
Good morning. I know that you have copies of our written testimony that were submitted. I'd only like to briefly summarize. First of all I wanted to mention that we're here on behalf of Bill Grab, who's the Director of Labor Relations, who was unable to be here today. And this is, I believe, our first time in testifying as a separate office before Council, and I appreciate the opportunity. 2192 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 Our Fiscal 2000 budget request represents an increase of $121,989 over Fiscal 2000's estimated obligations. Most of this increase is to fund two RGI staff positions, which is Redesigning Government Initiative staff, which were previously funded by a nonrenewable federal grant during fiscal 2000. Our office is responsible for, among other things, coordinating the Redesigning Government Initiative and also for supporting Labor Relations in activities such as collective bargaining, contract administration, and dispute resolution. Right now, given the timetable we're facing in the collective bargaining part of our process, we're involved fairly intensely in collective bargaining agreements for all four of the major bargaining units, whose agreements expire at the end of this fiscal year, June 30th. We are in compliance with Act 111 and Act 195 in our processes with the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Firefighters, and with District Councils 43 and 47. In terms of our service-level measures, we are responsible for handling AFSCME grievances 2193 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 as the last step prior to arbitration. From 1997 through 1999, AFSCME filed an average of 235 grievances each year. In terms of resolving them, in Fiscal 1999, 337 grievances were resolved. In addition, the grievance backlog that had been as high as 454 in 1996 is now down to 223 as of the close of calendar 1999. We also conduct training throughout the City for supervisors, managers, and in conjunction with the RGI, for some union representatives. During fiscal 1999, we trained 277 such employees. We have so far as of the end of January trained another 181 and we're on track to train 260 people this year. We have a established a goal of 280 for Fiscal 2001. Redesigning Government Initiative was begun in 1996, and we have made strides towards increasing the involvement of various departments in this labor management cooperation effort. The Redesigning Government Initiative was designed to improve services to the citizens, cut costs of providing those services, and basically improve government through labor management cooperation. It was originally conceived as a 2194 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 two-year pilot program between the City and AFSCME, and it has extended through the end of this collective bargaining agreement. The Recreation Department was chosen as the first site for a pilot RGI effort, and since last year, when we received a federal grant conciliation service of $100,000, we've been able to hire two staff and to expand the program to five other departments. In addition to the Recreation Department, we have an RGI program for the Revenue Department, Licenses and Inspections, the Health Department, the Police Evidence Laboratory, and the Philadelphia International Airport. Some of the accomplishments that RGI is accredited with are: The Recreation Department's expansion of its Summer Food Program, from under 200,000 meals served in 1996 to over 500,000 in 1999; The Revenue Department's reengineering of its audit process for businesses located outside of the City resulting in audits identifying over $1 million in additional assessments in business privilege taxes due from those companies; and with Licenses and Inspections, their license issuance 2195 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05 process is looking to increase departmental RGI committees to in fiscal 2001 additional 4 appropriations request.
5 Thank you very much for this 6 opportunity to present our testimony, and we'd be 7 happy to answer any questions that you may have. 8
In terms of the Redesigning Government Initiative, would you consider it a success?
In terms of money spent and money saved and money earned, do we have figures in terms of that? Your testimony mentions something in terms of the Recreation Department going from 200,000 kids to 500,000 kids.
Meals served? 2196 2/28/00 - OPERATING BUDGET CONT'D - BILL 05
But what about in terms of the monies that we've spent in order to be able to achieve that increase in service?
The Summer Food Program in the recreation centers is a part of a much larger program that is citywide. I believe it's fully funded through the State and that the Recreation Department is able to apply for reimbursement for not only the cost of the food but also for some administrative costs and the cost of implementing the program. I don't know that it recovers all of the costs, but what allows that expansion to happen is that by serving more kids more meals, we can also cover the cost of some of the salaries of the Recreation Department.