An you had a series of discussions with the Budget Office?
And can you give us 1868 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE any explanation by the City for its position?
I'm not sure that I can represent the City's position for them. The only thing that I can say is that the $600,000 in capital funds would have been a one-time offer to the college and, therefore, wouldn't accelerate our budget over the next five years, which is the standard budget cycle.
But it doesn't help you at all with the operating fund.
No. The dollars that we've gotten -- the City, by the way, paid for the building, paid $2.5 million for the optometry building. We got the 1.25 -- the second half of that 1.25 this year, and the City graciously added another $600,000 so that we can outfit that building. But we were told that they were unable 1869 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE to provide operating funds for us this year.
Well, generally, one-time expenditures on capital funds are easier on any institution.
And that's including the City, and that's the reason it's frequently easier to get that capital one-shot fund than to get something that's going to be required year after year.
It just seems to me an urgent necessity if we're talking about the need for a workforce that's going to be used as an asset to bring employers to come in, that the City support to Community College has to be increased. I gather you're already working on helping to training folks for the Kvaerner Shipyard?
That's correct. We, about five years ago, put together a consortium of colleges, of which we were the lead institution, including Drexel University and Camden County College across the river, as well as Delaware 1870 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Community College. The idea there was that we create a regional consortium colleges in order to be able to respond to regional needs. This was originally done to respond to the issue of the shipyard being closed. But once that project was finished -- and by the way, we did retrain about 2500 of the 6,000 people in the shipyard. Once that project was over, we decided the asset was probably too good just to leave, and we funded it basically out of (unintelligible) the four colleges until the Kvaerner project came along. We started negotiating secretly actually with Kvaerner as soon as that project was in the works, and we are now the sole provider of training to the Kvaerner Shipyard.
Well, it just seems like such a short-sighted opinion. On the one hand, we have all kinds of campaigns aimed at trying to bring businesses in. We grant all kinds of tax benefits, TIFs, abatements, all kinds of things, and any other funding sources we can use to help bring people in. We know that one of the needs that they have desperately is a workforce, and a local workforce is a major asset in bringing 1871 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE new employers in and in retaining other employees. I don't understand. And maybe that's why we're not able to get a reason from the City why we're so short-sighted and don't recognize the wonderful asset that Community College is -- not just as a school of education, say, or as a training ground, but for the very economic development purpose that you're proving is so important in the Kvaerner operation. And you have graduates everywhere. Madam President, I'd like to suggest that before we finish the budget process, that as you've indicated in other areas, that there ought to be an effort to see what could be done to readjust the budget. One thing, tell us, where does this reserve come from?
The reserve essentially is and -- Tom can probably answer that question better than I can.
'Cause over the years, it seems to used against Community College.
But the reserve essentially -- what happens is, we sometimes 1872 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE create efficiencies in the budget and try to create a surplus at the end of the year so that we could put aside some dollars. Essentially, that's how we build the reserves. It's really taking our budget and really using some of the efficiencies that we can. Some of them are beyond our control. For example, if we don't replace a position for a whole year, there's some dollars left over in the budget, and that goes into the reserve. So that's essentially how it's built.
Well, universities that are located in the city often receive large sums from the State government on an annual basis. I've never heard of the existence of endowment funds 'cause I think, Mr. Schreger, the University of Pennsylvania's Endowment Fund is around the $1 billion mark. And that's always viewed as a sign of strength of the institution and a reason for giving it more support. Yet frequently, I think here in Philadelphia, we've regarded the reserve fund as a vehicle through which you will be able to take care of the deficits created by our failure to 1873 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE sufficiently fund your operation. And I'm hoping we're going to be able to correct that 'cause I think you need more not less support. And I think it's got to be recognized the role that you play in the City of in economic development and in the retention of people in Philadelphia and in the retention of businesses. So I would just like to see a reconsideration, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It does seem really pound-foolish. And, you know, there is such a little amount of money within the overall budget that we have. A million dollars -- and it concerns me that in your statement, you say that if the funding remains the 1874 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE same, that the tuition may have to be increased, and that that will have an impact on how many people will be able to really attend, especially since we have the welfare reform package taking place during the next several months. And I was hoping that Community College would play a significant role in the transition of people coming off welfare from welfare-to-work. And I don't know what, if any, plans are involved in -- if Community College is involved in any of those plans.
We are very significantly involved in both welfare-to-work as well as the Workforce Investment Act. We currently have over 100 teen parents on campus as part of that process. We're working very closely with PIC to provide education. It's very likely that we will also be a one-stop center for -- have one of them on our campus and. . We certainly will have a presence within their one-stop centers in order to be able to direct people towards education. We expect that a number of these recipients who will be coming off welfare will 1875 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE also have a profound need for literacy education and that sort of thing. So we are the organization and the City that's best situated to respond to that.
And so we are on the front lines with that particular issue, Councilman Ortiz.
I visited the on-site day-care center that is right on 16th Street that students avail themselves of those facilities. And I'm afraid that with the impact of welfare reform, that those young women who have their kids there while they go to school may not be able to attend any longer; that's part of the reality that we are facing.
I think you're absolutely right. We have -- and this is not necessarily precisely researched, but we've got some information from which we can deduce the fact; and that is, at a time when enrollment was going up at the college last fall and this spring, one site of ours, which we know is occupied almost exclusively by women on welfare, has been going 1876 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE down. And we figure that the reform can have that potential impact on the college as well in the broader sense.
So if we add to the operating budget the 1.5 million that seems such, you say, a small quantity, too tiny to not be able actually put in, and I think Mr. Schreger, who's been the strongest advocate for the years that 10 I've been here for Community College, and Manny 11 Ortiz who's the current Chair, I think we have to 12 really -- 13 Madam Chair, we have to really look at 14 how we can begin looking at the budget and see 15 where and from we can add some operating monies because we need Community College to have full capacity -- and not increase tuition because all that will do is that it will exacerbate and make much worse the problem of welfare-to-work in the City, and I don't think we can afford to do that. So you have -- you have a lot of good support in this Council. And if we can make it happen, Mr. Schreger, we will.
Thank you, Councilman Ortiz. 1877 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing support for an increased support for Community College. It is an institution that has already proved its worth by sending forth a steady stream of leadership and redirecting people's lives. I'm particularly concerned that the amount of your request is de minimus when compared to the kinds of benefits that your existence gives to Philadelphia. You are a regional asset. I'd like to speak a little bit about the training that you are doing for Kvaerner. Is it 2500, is that what you said? How many people and what kind of skills? And is it a one-time contract, or will you continue to provide training for the various needs as that shipyard gets up and running and needs new skills?
Before I start, let me correct the numbers. The 2500 referred to the numbers we trained in the old shipyard as they 1878 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE came out. The expected number for Kvaerner is about 1500 people that we'll be training. And they'll be trained in a variety of skills involved in shipbuilding, ranging from welding to steel bending, sheet-metal work, that sort of thing. We will also be doing the recruitment and, in a sense, be finding the subcontractors to us where we don't have the skills to provide the training that will be necessary to keep that operation going. I'm not sure if I got to your question -- if I answered your question.
Are you under contract to Kvaerner to do this training?
We don't have a contract. What we have is a letter of agreement with Kvaerner to --
You have something like this, right? (Holding up a piece of paper.) (Laughter.)
We have a letter of agreement with them to be the sole supplier of training. We don't have a formal contract. I believe when we approached that issue -- it must 1879 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE have been six months ago -- their legal counsel indicated they didn't want to go in that particular direction. So we got -- instead of the contract, we got a letter of agreement. However, up to this point, we have been providing the training so far.
Well, if you don't have a contract, if what you have is a letter of agreement, what's it worth to you? If they agree to contract with somebody else, what does that mean to you?
I think in the circumstances in the worst case, it probably leaves us on the outside. Up to this point, though, we've been working with them for close to a year now and negotiating with them probably for the last two. They have not, up to this point, proven to be a problem in that regard with us, anyway. But you're right, we do not have the certainty of a contract.
Let me speak to your curriculum on hospitality because, in the long run, hospitality is likely to provide more 1880 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE jobs in the Philadelphia area than Kvaerner. Tell me about that curriculum and how many people you place and. . .
We've got a program -- I don't know if it's called exactly "hospitality," but we've got a restaurant program and a culinary arts program. (Addressing someone off mike) do you know the population of that program? We have about 400 students in that program. There is no difficulty at all in placing them. They're very highly regarded by the market so that when they come out, they're finding jobs. In fact, I think one of the difficulties we're finding is that we can't retain people to graduation because people are snapping them up before they've graduated, and then they're working and finishing the degree at the same time. So that program is strong and very highly regarded.
Now, you requested 1.5 million additional dollars, which, to this point, has not been granted or promised to you. 1881 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
But what would you have done if you had gotten it? Did you have programs planned that were conditioned and contingent on getting those dollars?
Sure. One of the major problems that we have as an institution right now is providing a sufficient amount of technology to the faculty and staff in order to be able to train students well for this marketplace. I don't have to tell you that every job that we now in the newspaper demands at least some minimal understanding of computers and some familiarity with the use of electronic technology. Essentially, the major weakness in, I think, our institution is our inability to do. That has been a major initiative over the last five years. We've invested probably over $5 million in that regard. When we started the initiative, we had our student-to-computer ratio on campus of about 49 to 1. That's now 69 to now. So we've done a reasonably good job there. However, if you come to a campus on a Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock and you go outside one of 1882 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE the labs, you will still see a line around the corner of students trying to get the technology. So a major issue that we face is putting more technology in the hands of our student.
And is that what you were planning to do with the $1.5 million?
It's one of the things that we were planning to do. A major initiative within the budget would be, in fact, to provide greater technology to people. The other issue, though, is that in opening the new center, as a larger center, it's also created some demand for staffing. That's part of the package of dollars with we need to support that as well. And, thirdly, we negotiated an increase last year of about 3 percent for the staff, which is not out of line with what people were settling last year, and that's worth about 1.6 million. Now, moving our dollars around in the budget, we felt that 1.5 would cover our costs. That's not a quality initiative, by the way; simply semi covering our basic increases over the 1883 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE last year. We're still going to have to figure out ways to keep moving the institution forward to create what I call the "quality edge," which we never seem to get to be able to get to because we're always struggling so hard to do the basic things in the institution.
Okay, I'll give you a clue. The next time I give you a softball like that, I need a shorter, tighter answer. Something is not going to get done because you're not going to get 1.5 million. Okay, if you could spread it out like that, then that would help me with the urgency that I need to get it for you, all right? I did get your answer, I heard it. I think a tighter answer might have made it easier for me to help. Please do enlist me as one who knows what you're trying to do who approves of what you are doing and who will help to close that $1.5 million gap.
Councilwoman Clark, just so you understand, one of the things that our Board 1884 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE looked at five years ago was, you know, we were carrying deficits for a long time, and so we took a very strict and hard position as a board that we would, one, reduce the deficit and henceforth, carry balanced budgets, and so that's something that our administration has to deal with in relation to that. The other thing is, you know, as Dr. Williams explained, with the State and City funding, the only other recourse that we have is tuition increases, and so that's something we're trying to avoid this year, but we may be faced with it if we don't receive further support.
To my mind as ugly as deficits are, they are to be preferred over drastic student tuition increases, because you can pay off a deficit with money. But if students do not get an education, then you change their life chances, and some people will be turned away simply because they cannot afford the increases. I have heard you and you have heard me, and we will work together.
Thank you. 1885 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Williams, Mr. Ortiz, and my good friend, Mr. Schreger. Mr. Williams, I missed the beginning of your testimony, and I apologize for that, but I've picked up that you have a $1.5 million additional request that you are trying to make; is that my understanding?
Okay. And in the materials provided to us in your testimony, is that particular point listed anywhere? I've been looking for the 1.5 million additional request. Is that mentioned in your testimony at all?
Okay. Now, your testimony does indicate, you say, "This year, our total allocation was $19.268 million." Are you talking about the current fiscal year that we're in?
That's correct. 1886 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
All right. And your '99-2000 or FY 2000 allocation, or I assume what was approved by the Budget Office is the $20.167 million; is that right?
Okay. To follow up somewhat on the line of questioning that Councilwoman Clark was pursuing, could you forward to us in a more formal fashion through the Chair a listing of what you would do with the additional $1.5 million?
And in conjunction with that, could you provide us with a listing of the things that you will not be able to do if you don't have those additional dollars.
Tell us how you will have to shift your budget around or make cuts or your end result may be, as the Councilwoman articulated, you might just have to make tuition hikes.
And if you could 1887 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE provide us with what the size of that hike would be both in a percentage value and in a dollar value and how it will affect the students, and any anticipation of the number of students who would not be able maybe to attend the college as a result of the tuition hike going from X-dollars to X-dollars. Could you provide us with that?
Okay, all right. Madam Chair, if it is okay with you, I would like to ask, as it relates to Community College, maybe our Budget Director to try to get a little better understanding as we do from time to time of what the thinking was in making the determination of what the figure would be for Community College. Could we have him up please.
Is Mr. Kaplan here? Mr. Kaplan, you're being asked to come up to the witness table. (Dean Kaplan comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Kaplan. As you've been listening earlier, the discussion is around the proposed Communal College 1888 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE budget versus an additional request. And I'm simply trying to understand how we arrived at the $20.167 million figure versus there's an additional request on the table for 1.5. Before you respond to that, through, Mr. Williams, can I ask you, through the budget call process, did you have a discussion with the Budget Office about this additional request?
And did you detail to them what it was that you were trying to do.
With that in mind, Mr. Kaplan, can you give us some information?
Certainly. I should say by way of disclaimer that both of my parents taught at the community college level and, obviously, I have a relative on the Board. Nonetheless -- (Laughter.)
But what are your parents' phone numbers, Mr. Kaplan? (Laughter.) 1889 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Obviously, this was -- as always with the college -- a fairly complex decision. Over the past several years, and particularly over the last five years, as you know, we have increased the Community College budget by percent on the operating side in 11 addition to the fairly substantial commitment to 12 the new facility. 13 On top of that, the -- rather, as part 14 of that, over very the last year, as you know, we 15 have just increased Community College by 16 $1 million this year, and that followed the 17 $500,000 increase the prior year. 18 So we're looking at a very substantial 19 series of increases compare compared to what we 20 had done for other agencies. Notwithstanding that we --
-- agree with the work they do. On top of that, we looked at, as the 1890 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Council President pointed out, an agency that had a fund balance of essentially $11 million, which, on a percentage basis, if that was the City's fund balance, it would be about twice as large as ours. And we're not recommending that they spend their reserve down to zero, but they do have perhaps a somewhat greater ability to accommodate that pressure than some other agencies who have asked for funding. The $1.5 million increase, of course, would require us to come up with $7.5 million in the five-year plan, and that again would be one of the single largest increases in the budget, as you know from the prior testimony here.
Mr. Kaplan, you know I love engaging in the "whatever-the-figure- is-times-5" discussion with you. No matter what the number is, the Administration or the Budget Office love to automatically multiply it by 5. But the for the moment, the request is 1.5, right?
I really can't concede that point. I know PICA watches these proceedings, and I would be remiss if I did not 1891 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE invite you to one of our many meetings with PICA in which -- I can't have it both ways; I have to be able to give you the same number that I have to defend to them.
I understand, and it's duly noted for all the PICA watchers out there that you've maintained your credibility with them. Now, for this discussion, though, let me -- if you could refresh my memory. Is it -- do I recall that with regard to Community College, there is a general funding formula that essentially talks about 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3. Is that my recollection on Community College? Is that true?
The formula as generated by Act 35 originally talked about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. 1892 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Right, okay. And according to your document, Mr. Williams, you're showing in the year '99-2000 or FY 2000, the bar graph on the total, which I assume is your total budget, is that what that means? And it's $77.62 million; is that right?
Okay. And the City's share of that you're showing at $20.167 million.
Okay. Now, Mr. Kaplan is familiar with this little device that I use from time to time -- I got a PECO Energy dual-power calculator. And 77.62 divided by 3, according to the handy-dandy calculator, is 25.66. Would you agree to that figure?
Very good. So is it my understanding that according to the State formula, the funding formula, that the City should be supporting Community College at the $25 million level for 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3? 1893 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
That's my understanding of the way the State formula is proposed.
And so if there's a shortfall on the City level, and if the State -- for the moment, we'll assume they're doing their share -- then Community College is left to pick up the shortfall, and the only way that they can make up the shortfall is by an tuition increase, right?
I think that's one of two ways. The other is to increase the amount of State subsidy.
The State has provided substantial support. Our position has been -- as well as that, I believe of the State Association of the Community Colleges -- that the State participation should be much greater.
Greater than a third? Okay, but for the moment, that is the formula?
Okay, all right. 1894 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE So based on the formula, would you at least agree or concede that with a budget of $77 million, 1/3 of which is 25.66 million, the City's proposed allocation this year is million, that there is 6 a legitimate shortfall just on the City side 7 between what you're proposing and what it should 8 be by way of the State formula. 9
Well, I understand 16 that. That's an answer to a different question. 17 But there is a gap, correct? 18
There is a gap between 19 what that formula -- between what a third of their 20 expenditures is and what the City is providing, yes.
Okay, all right. And I mean, there are essentially two ways that we could try to attack this particular problem: we could either try to amend the budget at this 1895 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE moment as a part of these budget hearings; or pursuant to subsequent discussions -- and we know, for instance, that there are ongoing discussions between the Budget Office and the Defender Association or the Budget Office and the District Attorney's Office, and there could be subsequent discussions between Community College and the Budget Office. And even if we did not solve this problem today or by sometime in March when we pass the budget, subsequent discussions could lead to increased funding through a midyear transfer ordinance. Is that possible?
Okay. Will you engage in the subsequent discussion process and procedure that we've alluded to with regard to a couple of other agencies as it relates to Community College?
We would certainly be willing to engage in that. And, obviously, we do talk with Community College during the year. The one caveat I'd have is that none of those agencies have the size 6 of reserve that the Community 1896 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE College does, and that is a fact during and how we approach their budget compared so some others.
All right, I might agree to that point. But I think, as Councilman Cohen may have articulated, Community College is a little different than most of our other agencies who really don't necessarily need a reserve and operate in a totally different function and capacity. And as a result of that, at least there is some need to treat them slightly differently.
I would agree. And I think the way we've historically approached that is, as in the case of the new campus, we have not asked them to dip into their reserve to do that from at least our portion of the contribution but, rather, have come to the table and said, you know, we'll give you $3 million for that.
So that, you know, we have handled it differently on the other side as well.
Okay, all right. Mr. Williams, you'll get to the Chair the information that was requested by way of charts or documents? And we'd like to continue to 1897 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE try to help you through this process.
Thank you. And Mr. Kaplan, when you have your meeting with the members of the Community College, I would like Mr. McPherson to be included, please.
Thank you, Madam President. As a recent college graduate in the last two years, I know how important Community College is, and I just want to touch on something that Councilwoman Clark spoke about. She said that we can always work on surpluses, and we understand the importance of a surplus. But if there's a point -- and I have an 18-year-old son that's looking I at colleges now, so I'm going through that whole deal. I could have never gotten through college if it wasn't for 1898 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Community College. I mean, even when I went to college and had to come back and get credits in order to graduate, I could get cheap credits at Community College. Okay, I mean, that was important. I took television courses, I took all kinds of courses. And when you're in your 30s and 40s and you're looking to go to college and you're working on a construction site or your working at City Council or in an office somewhere, Community makes it easier. So I don't think there's any way we can even think about raising tuition 'cause there's probably an 18-year-old boy or a woman out there going, I really can't afford to go to college, and there's no way I could go to college and I know I have to go to college. And these private schools, even the State schools, and I don't know if my SATs are high enough, but if I go down to Spring Garden Street and take a test and I pass certain qualifications, I can be on the road. And I know you and your predecessor, who I've spent a lot of time with, he used to tell me like amazing stories of people who probably 1899 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE would have never gotten to college and went on from Community and graduated from Villanova, Temple, St. Joe's, Harvard, you know. I mean, there's all kinds of success stories. State Representative Dwight Evans is another success story that -- whom attended Community College. So we let the number crunchers like Councilman Nutter and Mr. Kaplan worry about surpluses and deficits, but Councilwoman Clark and people like her and myself, we're concerned about those people that may never get to college. And now a college degree is as important as a high school degree was when I got out of high school. So I'm sure there's reasons for you to have a $25 million surplus, just as there's reasons why the University of Pennsylvania has 200 million. I mean, that's an ivy league school and this is a community college. But we do things at this college that Penn couldn't do. We have people at this college that could never go to Penn unless they go to Community first, okay? So we need to sit down and think about -- and I understand what the Budget Director is trying to do. He's thinking, like Councilman 1900 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Nutter and his PECO solar calculator said -- it's times whatever with everything. 4 We can always come and do transfer 5 ordinances if that's what we see fit with the number crunchers, but we got to think about the human part of this, and that's that kid sitting somewhere, getting his last couple of months of high school right now, thinking about, It's either the U.S. military, Community College or Burger King. So I would like to see more people be able to go to Community College. So everything you do there is great, and if there's anything I can do, anything we can do, we would like to be there. But, again, you got to sit back and think of what the Budget Director's trying to do and what he's trying to -- he has other departments -- he needs police cars. I saw Rollie walking there, and he needs new motorcycles for highway patrol. I mean, that might not be important as a kid going to college, but it's important to other people that live in this city. So we have to work all that out, but 1901 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE this is really important.
Yeah, Councilman, thank you very much for those words. We fully appreciate that we're a part of a community and the City of Philadelphia, and all the work that we do in the City is designed to make that community better. We realize that the other agencies are there to do exactly that as well. So I appreciate the kind of concern. And I'd like to point out that Mr. Kaplan's absolutely right. Over the last 5 years, even though Councilman Nutter pointed out that we were at 25 percent, I think that's moved from 17 percent to 25 percent as well over the last 5 years. So there has been some aggressive movement on the Administration's part to help the college over the last 5 years as well.
Let me just add, Councilman Mariano, that I'm also a product benefit of the Community College of Philadelphia, so I clearly understand the benefits of a community college education.
Then we should be 1902 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE friends, we should hang out together, all right? You would be supporting me in my reelection bid, probably. You could make that statement here now, Mr. Ortiz. It would be, you know. . .
Look, you know I'm not allowed to do that. Mr. Schreger has some comments, also.
I don't think the stenographer could hear what was said.
It probably wasn't important after all -- what I said. I can't say that for Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. Thank you for that. No further questions, Madam President.
Thank you. Mr. Schreger, do you care to be recognized?
I'm sorry, just identify yourself for the record so that the stenographer will have it.
I'm a member of the Board. My name's Isadore Schreger. 1903 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE As I had started to say, approximately 80 percent of persons who live in the Philadelphia area and have a college education is because Community College gave them that opportunity. And, also, you have to realize that the admission, all you need is a high school education. It's not the same as going to Penn or Temple and you have to have so many other attributes. But at the same time, those who graduate from Community College, after the two-year program, they do just as well when they go into the third year at a four-year institution as those who started the four-year institution as a freshman, which says a lot for Community College. And also, when you take a look at -- I mentioned this before, but I think it's important to realize that the Community College student, after being there two years, does very well when they go to a four-year college, which indicates the kind of tutelage that they got when they were at Community College. Also, I think it's important to realize that when a person has an opportunity to have a 1904 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE college education, obviously, his chances of getting a job are much greater than those who don't have that opportunity. And it's vital to see to it that Community College is given every opportunity to educate as many Philadelphians as is possible. And also, we don't look at Community College students who graduate hanging around corners and getting into trouble; it's just the very opposite. So it's a real plus for the city. I know the time is limited and I could go on for a long time, but it would be unfair to everybody here.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
The City Commissioners are next to testify. (City Commissioners come forward.) 1905 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thank you for your patience. I know we're running a little late this morning. Please identify yourself for the record and continue with your testimony. I don't think you have to read your entire testimony. We will give a copy of it to the stenographer. So if you want to abbreviate it, that would be fine.
Madam President and members of City Council, good afternoon. I am Margaret M. Tartaglione, chairwoman of the City Commissioners Office. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present our Fiscal Year 2000 Operating Budget. The City Commissioners' approved spending level of $8,271,684 for FY 2000 is allocated as follows: Class 100, Personnel Service, $4,226,655; Class 2000, Purchase of Service, $3,111,035; Class 300, Materials and Supplies, $640,657; Class 400, Equipment, $12,255; Class 800, Payments to Productivity 1906 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Bank, $281,082. This represents an additional $105,220 in Class 100 over FY '99 estimated obligations to provide funds for wage increases. Candidates for 1999 general election will be running for the office of Mayor, City Council members, City Commissioner, Clerk of Quarter Sessions, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Appellate Justice, Superior Court, Trial Judges, Court of Common Pleas, Municipal Court, Traffic Court, and Judicial Retentions. The 2000 primary election will concern the nomination of candidate for President, Vice President, U.S. Representative, State Attorney General, State Audit General, State Treasurer, State Representative, State Senators in the odd-numbered districts, State Committee Members, Delegates, Alternate Delegates to the National Convention. The priority of this department is to ensure the citizens of Philadelphia their constitutional rights to vote. We have made every effort to reduce our expenditures whenever possible, and we will 1907 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE continue to carry out cost-saving by striving to provide the level of services to the citizens of Philadelphia.
Thank you. When are we anticipated to get new voting machines?
That has not been done at all, no. 11 There will be meetings with the Procurement Department, members of the Law Department, and one or two representatives of the City Commissioners Offices to go through the various technology that's available and then to set some chronic criteria for putting out either a bid or a request for proposal. That goes -- for request for proposal, you would have to go through a qualification process first. It could be a long-term situation and again in the year 2000. We'll be conducting some high-activity elections in '99 and again in the year 2000. It may be that this procurement process would mesh to the point where citywide, the best time to operate or install and run those 1908 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE for the first time might be the elections of 2001, when you have a lower turnout, where the boards get used to them with the everyday voters and acclimate themselves before they get into a situation where you have a high turnout. Again, though, the entire process is predicated on going through the procurement steps, which have not been done yet and will be done in the near future.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In that same area and good afternoon, Commissioner Tartaglione and Bob Lee. Is it also my understanding, though, that there are some restrictions placed on the companies that you can even get these particular machines from. On the one hand, there are only so many -- there are only, I think, three companies that even produce these machines. And secondly and probably more importantly, any company that we get a machine from, don't they first have had to be on a State-certified or -approved less? 1909 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Yeah, that's correct. Currently, if you're talking about direct-recording electronic machines, there are four machines on that list in Pennsylvania -- three of which are, I believe, full-face ballots, one of which is a small compact unit. There are currently four units, all of which are small compact units that are being examined by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office --
-- or four more producers who are going through that examination stage right now with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Those reports should be issued shortly.
So they produced a prototype where they've actually created a new machine. Are these the same companies producing a new product, or are these four new companies with four new products? 1910 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
I believe they're additional companies producing additional products.
No, those are all the small compact version where you have a touch-sensitive screen; they're not full-face ballots.
Just for terminology sake, I mean, I think all know what a full-face machine is. Is the alternative to a full face either something that you would call either a scrolling -- I mean, don't know if this terminology is used. But in any event, if it's not full faced, the voter has to either press a button or do something to make the rest of whoever it is they want to vote for or whoever is running that year, they have to take an additional step to see who the rest of those people are. Is that fair?
That's correct. On some of these small compact units, you may be limited to having one office per page; or maybe, depending on the number of candidates for a particular office, you may have numerous pages for the same office 1911 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE where you have to push a button or activate the screen so that you can scroll to or advance to the next page containing the candidates.
Has the City Commissioner -- as "The Commissioners," have the City Commissioners, I guess, taken a position operationally on the question of full-face versus whatever else we want to call the alternative? I mean 'cause won't that -- I mean, if you made a decision about that issue, wouldn't that then drive a part of the process as to what you will even consider?
It would but that has to also be put into the procurement process itself specked out that way when you do that.
And that hasn't even been done, it hasn't been specked out to that point. When we consider putting any new equipment out on the street, whether it would be the poll books that we just finished with or the machines that we've been mandated to do, we'd like to do it in a manner so that the change is very minor to the voting public. 1912 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
The voting public in Philadelphia is used to a full-face ballot --
-- where you can walk in see everybody on the machine, you pull a lever.
Right. Well, that would lead to my next question. I mean, if minimizing disruption to the voters is one of the goals -- and I agree that that is a major goal, I mean it's got to be one of the top three in this whole process -- the first minimalization of disruption, would you agree, would be if people are used to a full face, the bill hulking machine, but a full-face ballot nonetheless, would you at least agree with the statement that it would minimally disrupt the voters and change their voting process if the new electronic machines were full face also?
The full-face DREs would represent the least amount of change to those voters, yes.
And the least amount of 1913 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE disruption.
Okay. And if you have an opinion, you can say so. If not. . . Would it also make it easier for people to utilize that particular type of machine and go through that voting process versus one where you have to either continually push a button, touch a screen, or something like that?
I think it's pretty readily apparent that it's a lot easier to vote when you can walk into a voting booth and look at every particular office or candidate on the ballot and find him by looking, without having to scroll through numerous pages or scroll back to make sure you voted for somebody before you execute that ballot, sure.
There's a potentiality that if you have a scrollable machine, that those offices which are closest to the people, as far as size, being District Council or a State rep and none closer than committeeman would be on the last page.
They may be forgotten, they might get lost. A person votes and then realizes, Oh, I had, you know, three other offices that I wanted to vote for but now, you know, I don't know how this thing is going to work. But in the current machine, you know, you push the red button back, and you're finished.
If it was on the scroll page, like we had, there was 125 candidates that filed for Council-at-large --
And by the time you went through the pages of District Council and Committee person or whoever is beyond that wouldn't even be considered in some instances.
Well, in the municipal election, as we all know, the last position is the District Council race.
So we'd like to not be forgotten. Some would like to forget us but 1915 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE we'd like to at least create a situation where we're not going to automatically be forgotten. (Laughter.)
Another issue is basically that in any given election, what is the hot race in one area of the City may not be the hot race in another area of the City.
So at least you have all of the offices basically all the candidates in front of you, you can view them all at one time. And then once you do select your candidates, prior to executing that ballot or casting it, you can stand there and review them by just looking. If you're dealing with a scrollable page, to review it, you'd have to go scroll back through the pages.
So it's readily apparent which is the type of which is device which is least disruptive, would cause the least amount of delay in people voting.
My last comment on 1916 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE that is, I mean, it is a statistical fact -- and I think we all agree as just participants in the political process -- that there is a term presently with a full-faced machine called "drop-off."
I mean rarely is it disputed. Unless, again, in the example that you point out, Mr. Lee, where you have a hotly contested race, it is rare that the number of votes, that whatever the race is, that top-of-the-ticket candidate -- and it could be, you know, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is generally always going to be at the top, there's always a tremendous drop-off between the top-of-the-ticket candidate and the bottom-of-the ticket candidate.
And we know how many people walked into the booth because we know what the vote count is on the machine, and we know that there's a big difference between the total votes for the higher office versus the total votes for the lower office you're into scrolling. 1917 PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE