COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:15 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILL 100360 - An ordinance amending Title 2 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions... BILL 100487 - An ordinance amending Chapter 18 2-200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Recording of Deeds," by modifying the requirements for the recording of deeds... - - - 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Law and Government. We're going to get started because we got a pretty full agenda here. Just for the record, we have a quorum with myself and Councilman Kenney, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Councilman Goode and Councilman Kelly. Ms. Marconi, would you please read the title of the first bill before us today, please.
100360, an ordinance amending Title 2 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and reassigning its powers, functions and duties; amending Title of The 21 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Public 22 Employees Retirement Code," by providing for pension and retirement rights for certain employees of the Office; and making conforming, technical changes to 3 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 The Philadelphia Code; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. First, I would assume it might be advisable for all to come up together, Deputy Mayor Gillison, Judge Dembe and Mr. Evers. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
And for the record, Councilman Jones, who is not a member of the Committee, is also present. Good morning, sir. Whoever would like to start, identify yourself for the record. I would urge Judge Dembe go first, Mr. Gillison. DEPUTY
And actually there's a better reason. In her earlier day, she was a committee person 4 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 in the 15th Ward. That's an even bigger deal. JUDGE DEMBE: See, I had an important job once.
Good morning, Judge. JUDGE DEMBE: I am Pamela Dembe, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Chair of the AGB of the First Judicial District.
Please proceed. Are you giving individual testimony? DEPUTY
You want me to give the testimony? JUDGE DEMBE: Let me ask Mr. Gillison to give an overview first, and there are a few specifics I would like to do.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Councilman 5 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Greenlee, members of the Law and Government Committee. My name is Everett Gillison and I'm the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Nutter Administration to testify on Bill No. 100360. This bill 9 abolishes the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and provides, upon agreement with or order of the courts, for the performance of the powers, functions and duties of the Office by the First Judicial District. This bill also amends the Public Employees Retirement Code by providing for pension and retirement rights for certain employees of the Clerk's Office. The Nutter Administration supports adoption of this bill and requests that it be favorably voted out of Committee. This bill will officially codify the changes that have taken place within the Clerk's Office over the past several months and ensure that the 6 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 employees of the Clerk's Office who are now employed by the First Judicial District do not suffer adverse pension consequences. On March 3rd this year, Ronald D. Castille, Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, issued an order that all duties and functions of the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia shall be absorbed and assumed by the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. This order took effect March 4th, 2010. Immediately upon the effective date of the Chief Judge's order, this Administration worked closely with the President Judge of the First Judicial District and the Court's administrative staff to ensure a smooth and seamless transition. We had numerous meetings with Bobby Davis, President of DC 33, Local 696, and the employees of the Clerk's Office. We listened to their concerns and tried to be responsive to 7 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 their needs, while working to implement the mandate of the Supreme Court. Our objective was to ensure that those Clerk of Quarter Sessions employees who desired to continue working in their capacity were transferred to the FJD with no adverse employment consequences. Additionally, we sought to assist those Clerk of Quarter Session employees who chose not to transfer to the FJD find similar civil service positions within the government. I am pleased to say that we were able to achieve our objectives. Of the 106 employees of the Clerk's Office, 93 transferred to the First Judicial District to continue their work, albeit now under the supervision of Joseph Evers, the Prothonotary. Of the 13 Clerk employees who chose not to transfer to the FJD, two retired and 11 filled vacant positions in various other City departments. These objectives were not easily obtained, and many people worked 8 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 hard and developed creative solutions to the many challenges that arose. I want to publicly thank Judge Dembe, the Court administrators, our Law Department and the Office of Human Resources for their assistance. The changes that have taken place were made to streamline the operations of the courts and to promote greater efficiencies. This was accomplished by utilizing the resources of the Prothonotary's Office and taking advantage of their economies of scale. The Prothonotary's Office has done a tremendous job of modernizing the record-keeping function of the Court's civil side. Now, with the infusion of resources from the Clerk's Office, the Court's criminal side will experience the same transformation and modernization. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
I know 9 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Councilman Kenney had some questions, and there probably are others, but, Judge, did you want to add something before we continue with the questions? JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. If I may, there are three specific areas that I will touch on briefly, and those may or may not address the questions that you have. First of all, the money. 5 million to the City. That's 27 percent more than was distributed to the City in all of Fiscal Year '09. We have been distributing on average a little more than a million dollars a month out of bail forfeitures and the billion-dollar baby. We have, with the assistance of the City, hired part-time workers to do the necessary clerical work so that we could start sending out dunning notices to people with very old bail issues, and 10 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 we're actually seeing some response from this. Just yesterday, I was in court, because I hear cases where people ask to have a bail judgment lifted, if it was issued in error or something like that, and I was literally seeing cases that are 40, 30, 35 years old. So we will actually get some of that money back. Unfortunately, not as much as any of us would like, but we are also looking into other avenues going forward, property that was confiscated or forfeited at the time of arrest that was never really dealt with later. But we are -- we're really, I think, in a position to offer the City some substantial help, and that's terrific. The next thing is something that you may know about. I'm sure that Councilman Jones does, because it's an area of interest to him. On the criminal side, we are moving to what is called a zone court. And the idea is that for most cases, both Municipal Court and 11 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Common Pleas Court, all the cases out of one detective division will be heard on one floor of the Criminal Justice Center. So that way, the lawyers get to know literally the territory that their cases come out of. The police in the police districts within each of those detective divisions who have several subpoenas are going to be running among courtrooms on a single floor rather than trying to bounce up and down all through the building. It will make it easier, we believe, to deal with witnesses. And everybody involved in the justice system has been involved in this very elaborate planning. The District Attorney's Office is working with our criminal court administrators to work on a program so that police officers will be given very early, and there will be rooms where they handle nothing but police, all in an attempt to reduce the need for people to reappear at court, reduce the number of continuances, and we think it will make it easier for people 12 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 to participate in the justice system. As a result of that, we will be needing clerks for 67 operating courtrooms. Many of those rooms -- the majority of them, of course, only need one clerk to record everything that's happening, but there are some very busy rooms where we need two. For instance, we have one judge, bless her heart, who hears almost 5,000 probation violation cases every year, and just the amount of computer work and paperwork that that generates is significant. So we will need -- and we have developed a structure where there are supervisors and trainers. We've already begun active training of the clerks, and very soon we're going to have AOPC, the state court people, come in to do a formal training regimen. So we're looking forward to giving the clerks literally the tools they need to do the job properly, and as they do that, not only will we be keeping better records and getting people moved in or 13 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 out of the county jail and prison faster and more accurately, it's going to aid us in the collection of money. So it's a win-win all around.
Additionally, I think the third issue that's of concern to some members is the issue of unionization of the Clerk employees. We don't care if they join a union or not. That is entirely up to the workers. I have certainly no objection. But what has happened is, number one, we have at this point new employees, and 14 so I don't even know those people well 15 enough to be able to give you a flavor as 16 to whether or not they are pro union or 17 not likely to join a union. 18 Number two, we have been told that there is an intra-union dispute. Apparently, Local 1510 of DC 33 has a charter which gives it the right to organize within the courts and I believe Commerce. The reason that the former union, Mr. Davis' group, was representing the clerks goes way back in the day when 14 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 the Traffic Court was part of the Finance Department and apparently that local has the jurisdiction of the Finance Department and, of course, then the Traffic Court was transferred into the courts and at that time, that local just came along with it. So the issue of which local properly represents -- would have the right to represent the workers, if indeed they want to be represented, is certainly not in my bailiwick and not in yours. I guess that's the union hierarchy that decides that. And then if there are sufficient members who are interested, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board presumably will do what they do and supervise elections and the like. And if it comes to that, as is always the case, we cooperate and follow the law. So at this point, we don't know if there is a desire by a majority of the people to join a union. We don't know which union is the proper unit to 15 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 represent them. So we're just going to wait and try not to get in anybody's way.
And just to summarize it, you have no certainly opposition to the workers if they choose to unionize and where they unionize, right? JUDGE DEMBE: Correct.
Judge, I just want to know about the employees. 16 Are they in the union now? 17 JUDGE DEMBE: We don't -- 18
Are they compelled or mandated to join the union within a certain amount of time? JUDGE DEMBE: No. 22
So it's up to the employee then to join the union or 16 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 not? JUDGE DEMBE: I believe that's so.
Okay. Thank you. JUDGE DEMBE: I am not an expert in labor law. I will tell you that I took the mandatory one semester course in law school and forgot it the day after I graduated.
And just to let you know, for the record, there's some union representatives here and they'll be testifying next. JUDGE DEMBE: Okay.
So there may be some information given there. I just have one other question, and I know Councilman Kenney and I see Councilman Jones' light on. I know you put out -- there's some issues with the folks that are in DROP. I see that there are 13 in DROP. And is there some kind of date requirement here? Is there some 17 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 kind of time issue? Mr. Gillison, maybe you can address that. I just want to be clear. I've heard the date of October 1st thrown around out there and I'm not really clear on that. Could you -- DEPUTY
Basically the way that we -- Everett Gillison, Deputy Mayor for Public Safety. The way that we drafted this is that we had hoped that Council's action would actually go back to -- so that there would be no separation in service. That's the important thing. And this pension bill that you're referring to that's attached to this provides, if Council goes along with it, it allows them to maintain exactly what they have, but we needed action by a certain date. I've heard October 1st, but from what I understood from the Law Department, if Council approves the bill and goes on, then they will be protected.
If 18 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Council approves the bill by that date? DEPUTY
It's not a "by." If Council approves the bill 5 the way that it has been submitted, then they will be protected, because they will not be forced to separate from the City in order to join the FJD.
So that's my understanding, and that's why we are, again, supporting this action of Council and hope that Council will support it.
Thank you very much. Just out of curiosity, the employees that decided not to go to the Judicial District and did not retire, what were the reasons? Was there any reason given why they would rather go into another unit of the government 19 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 rather than go into the court? JUDGE DEMBE: President Judge Dembe. Some of them were very fearful of losing the civil service status. I think that initially they thought that they would be able to look around City government and kind of cherry pick the job they wanted. I think what they learned later on is that in civil service, you go on a list, and I think it's fairly complicated what your status is on that list. So I don't know if it has worked out to their satisfaction, but people fear change.
The other issue on the billion-dollar baby, as you mentioned it -- and we have the same problem with our real estate tax issues -- once a number gets out there, the media just kind of latches onto it, and then all the people who listen to the media latch onto that number. So the 5, 6, 7 hundred million dollars in real 20 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 estate taxes that don't exist, the billion dollars really doesn't exist. I mean, it exists on paper. At some point in time, do we -- I've asked this question before of the Administration when it comes to our finances. At some point in time, don't we write that off? Every bank writes off bad debt at some point, because once people get it in their head that this money is somehow floating out there and accessible, we're supposed to go get it, and it's never going to be gotten. JUDGE DEMBE: That's correct.
I mean, what percentage, if you had to guess, would be available? JUDGE DEMBE: If we got ten percent, we'd be doing cartwheels. I think it will be under that.
But I think it's important that we dispel the notion that somehow the government is so inefficient that we can't collect money 21 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 that's 50, 60 years old, where in the real estate side we have a vacant lot that was owned by some estate that the kids are either dead or scattered around the country. I mean, it's just not possible. JUDGE DEMBE: That's right.
But, again, when you read -- and I should stay off the blogosphere, because it's really annoying. When you read those, those folks are convinced that somehow the government, the court is just inefficient and can't get the money. It's just not there. JUDGE DEMBE: You are correct, but we're not prepared to do that until we've at least made the effort to make a collection attempt on these, which is what we're doing now, but then I think it is time to formally get rid of that. And other than that, what we can do and what we are doing is the minute that bail becomes subject to forfeiture, we are on 22 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 it.
Going forward. JUDGE DEMBE: And we are moving -- we're grabbing the money and we're grabbing it from bail deposits. We're looking to see when people come to collect their bail what other fines and costs and restitution they owe. So we are taking that seriously, and I think that going forward, nothing like this will happen again.
That also includes the child support? JUDGE DEMBE: I don't know if we're doing that, but let me look into that.
I would urge you to try to find a way to do that. JUDGE DEMBE: Great idea.
You bring them into the world, you should pay for them. Thank you. 23 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 JUDGE DEMBE: Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. I agree with your comments on the blogosphere, by the way. Any other questions from the Committee? (No response.)
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the Committee, for staying on top of this issue. It was one of great debate, great agitation, consternation by members of Council and participants in that body, Clerk of Quarter Sessions, but through that confrontation, we've kind of managed our way to at least a comfort level, and I'll wait to hear from the union members before I totally put a period at the end of the sentence. But I do have a couple of issues. One, this body did do hearings 24 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 about bail and the billion-dollar mythical number that is out there, but if I heard you correctly, you said that ten percent of that one billion dollar receivable is real money? JUDGE DEMBE: Maybe.
Which is a hundred million dollars, which just to put into context, our last fiscal deficit was, what, 80 million arguably? And let's say if 50 percent of that hundred million is within the realm of collectible, I mean, that is real money. JUDGE DEMBE: It is.
That's a lot of recreation centers, that's a lot of firehouses, that's a lot of resources to the City of Philadelphia. So I don't want to minimize that out of a billion, we're only talking about ten percent, because that's a hundred million of real money. JUDGE DEMBE: That's a big number. 25 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
That's big money. I am encouraged by the fact that you are aggressively going after that. Now, I, during those hearings, did not want Ms. Johnson, who was the aunt of an accused person that put up her house in good faith, to become homeless because of the misdeed of the nephew or son. But what it will force the public to do is, if I put my house up, I better have faith in this young person they're going to go and do the right thing and go to court. JUDGE DEMBE: Yes.
So it's a part of a bigger justice issue that we're all facing. So that's number one. So I'd love to know when you say "we're on it," what that actually translates to that we're doing differently to aggressively collect that money, number one. 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Number two, you mentioned 8.5 million that is coming to the City. I'd like to know specifically what those dollars represent. JUDGE DEMBE: Okay.
And then what is the savings from this transition from the elected official realm to now being administered by the court system. What savings administratively have we actually realized since that transition or are projected to realize? JUDGE DEMBE: Okay. For a couple of your questions, I would like to call on my team. In terms of -- let me start from the back end of projected savings. We're generating a lot more revenue. We are able to use the FJD's accounting expertise and staff for part of the accounting end of that. We are moving -- we're in the process of developing in-house an electronic document management process so that the 27 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 paper costs are going to go down significantly. We have learned that there are in a warehouse out in West Philadelphia 25,000 of those banker boxes of old Quarter Sessions records. Every night I say a little prayer for the one guy out there who knows how to find things in those boxes. But we have to have a document management system and go out there. We have some big scanning machines that we bought in the court when we went paperless on the civil side, get those out there, get those documents in. Within the next, say, year or so, we're hoping to get rid of -- it may take us a little longer -- to get rid of all the paper files so that never again will cases not be able to go forward because somebody can't find the official file, or never again will a case go forward when they can't find the file, so somebody makes up what we call a dummy file, but the information that goes in that dummy 28 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 file somehow never gets collated with what's in the rest of the file, which leads to all kinds of problems. So I think that on a number of fronts, it's going to take us a while. It's going to take us a year or two, but you will see significant savings. One thing it's not going to do is result in a smaller cadre of personnel. You have, in any organization at any given time, a certain number of people who are out because they're sick or they're on vacation or maternity leave or whatever, and because we're in this evolving computer age, regular training is going to be taking people out of the room. A computer system is no good to us if people aren't being updated and upgraded on what the systems can do now and about the upgrades in the system. So that will pull people out. And because we're moving to this new system of organizing the cases in the courthouse, we will need the clerks in the room, as 29 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 well as obviously supervisors and trainers. So it won't be a lower -- it won't be a personnel savings, but it will be savings in terms of the work that they generate. You wanted to know about the --
Aggressive nature of collecting on bail. JUDGE DEMBE: The what?
Aggressive new bail collection better than before, get that money. JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. For the old money, we hired a number of part-time workers, who have gone through and, file 18 by file, pulled the information. We've hired collection attorneys to go after it. And that's just very time consuming, going through these one by one by one, and then of course trying to track down somebody who from 40 years ago or whatever. So we're doing that. Number two, there was an 30 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 enormous amount of money, about $55, $56 million, just sitting in a checking account, and, again, we've had to go file 5 by file and figure that out. We have released some of that money to the City. That's the $1.1 million a month. The other thing we're doing is that when somebody brings in bail money, rather than just having, number one, cash in a drawer, which was a procedure for a while, or just chucking it in a checking account, we're making sure that the proper file gets tagged, so we know whose bail money that is, how much Joe Smith has posted in the way of bail. And we're telling people at the front end that when you post bail for your nephew, your grandson or whatever, this is serious. This isn't a get-out-of-the-jail-free card. This is if he doesn't show up, you're looking at losing the money. And we're working on making sure that we get some data about the person who posts the bail. There were an awful lot of cases 31 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 where a 19-year-old would come in and go, I'm posting this for -- this is his grandmother's money. You know, when you go to collect later on, you've got a handful of sand. So we're trying to find out who it is. And in addition to that, we are hoping -- and, again, it may take us a year or two --
I don't mean to interrupt and take your time up, but I think that also, when we start thinking about criminal enterprises, that data right there can connect the dots on a number of different kinds of conspiracy, organization, criminal enterprises that might be out there that will give law enforcement better insight to how this thing works. JUDGE DEMBE: I think you're absolutely right. We are monitoring each case so that -- when the trial ends, number one, so that we know that they're then entitled to get their bail back, or if 32 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 they don't show up, you have to go through some formal procedures to declare that bail forfeit and you have to give the surety a certain amount of time to bring them in, and we're making sure that those kinds of notices go out, and then if they don't come in, we're then sending them out to collection. And the big difference is, you're doing it while it's fresh, while you've got a chance of finding people. There's a good deal of luck involved in trying to find somebody that's been floating around out there for 40 years. The other thing we're doing is if -- let me try to do this in a coherent sense. There are a lot of people who post their own bail. Well, before we give them their bail money back, we're now looking to see do they owe fines, costs, restitution not only in this case, because if you owe that money, why should we string it out, just take it right out of the bail money, but also do you owe 33 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 from other cases, which a lot of people do. So we've got the money, bird in hand much better than two in the bushes. So we've been doing that.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, I just want to follow up what Councilman Jones just questioned you about. The bail money that you receive, does that go into an interest-bearing account or does it just go back into a checking account? JUDGE DEMBE: Well, it goes into -- I'm not sure. I think it goes into a checking account. There is a small interest on it, but there's no big interest on much of anything right now.
Because some of that bail money, I'm sure, is going to 34 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 be laying around for a considerable amount of time before they get it back. JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. As soon as I'm really convinced that we've got a handle on what money we have and how long it's going to be with them, we're going to be having a conversation with our bankers.
I just thought maybe you could put it where the DROP money is to get four and a half percent. I just couldn't help it.
Geez. Why not open another problem? Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you all very much. JUDGE DEMBE: Thank you. 35 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
Can you stay in case other issues come up, please? JUDGE DEMBE: Absolutely.
Thank you. Next witnesses, Mr. Davis and members of District Council 33. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Whoever would like, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Bobby Davis, Vice-President of District Council 33, President of Local 696.
Go ahead, Mr. Davis. 36 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
First of all, I want to thank the Committee for allowing us to testify today. Thank you, Councilman Greenlee and members of the Law and Government Committee. The first thing I want to do is thank the FJD for the respect that they gave the organization during the time that they were preparing for this. Sometime in January of 2010, I received a call from Dave Lawrence's office to meet with President Judge Dembe and himself to start outlining the changes that were going to take place in this -- from the civil service base to the FJD. Throughout that process, they have kept the local representing these members totally informed of what the changes was going to be. There seemed to have been some questions as to whether members of Local 696 can obtain their civil service status. Once it's been decided that that was not something that was going to be able to be done, they continued to keep 37 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 us informed of the things that were going on to make sure that they pensions and things of that nature was covered, and I think they did a very good job with that and I just want to commend them and thank them for that. The issue seems to be the last part of union representation. Somehow that somehow got confused, and some people said that District Council 33 said that they could not represent those members, and that wasn't true. We had met several times with Deputy Mayor Gillison to try to outline exactly what can be done to make sure that they still obtained their union representation. At that time, the last meeting I believe was sometime late in June, I was told that we would have a memorandum of understanding, and basically that's all we were looking for, and I think that would have pretty much closed the door on the last issue that the members had. They did not want to be over there as free-will employees. 38 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 So I thank the Judge today, and I heard her say that she still does not have a problem with those members becoming union people. So if that's the case, then let's get it done. And I think what the best way we can do that is just ask the members. We are and still believe that those jobs belong to District Council 33. There's no dispute about that part. And so if the Judge is -- certainly we heard her today that she still does not have a problem with that. Then it's just basically a matter of talking to the members. We already know that they still would remain District Council 33 representative, and whatever it takes to get that done, let's get it done before this thing get out of Committee, and then that will conclude our business on this part of this issue.
Let me just say, Mr. Davis, I appreciate your testimony. When you say "let's get it 39 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 done," in all due respect, I don't think that's the FJD or the Council's role to get it done. I guess that's the workers, right?
So, I mean, holding up the bill for that reason, I guess I'm not real -- and just for the record, as I think you know, one of the reasons this hearing was not held in June was at your request.
We wanted to give time to work out, to answer questions, all that kind of thing. And for the record, I got a lot of heat on that.
But I also want to be fair to everybody, and that's why I made clear on the Judge's statement today, there's no opposition from the courts to unionize. Obviously 40 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 there's no opposition from the Council to unionize. But I think that's the workers' decision, right?
Well, not exactly, because they already unionized. We already have organized them some years ago. And part of this process was that because it was part of the discussion in terms of this bill going through, then that's why we're here today, because throughout the whole process -- and if it wasn't part of getting this bill passed, then we wouldn't be here talking about it.
When you say they're members of the union, are they now presently paying union dues?
Well, the reason why I say that is because some years ago, we had already organized them, and when we went to them throughout all of the process of this bill being formulated, every conversation was that, You will remain union members. And so that's why 41 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 we're here. And you might be right, this is not your problem, but because it was part of the process of this bill, then I think that all of the promises that were made should be carried out before this bill is passed. So this is the last piece of it. So we shouldn't have to go through trying to organize people that we had already organized and we should not have to go through that long process. This was a promise that was made as a piece of the conversation that led to this discussion, and all we're saying is, you heard it here today, that they have no problem with that occurring. The only thing we need from the department is a memorandum of understanding that says that these members are still members of District Council 33.
When you say "department," what department are you referring to? Who? JUDGE DEMBE: FJD. 42 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
All right. I'm looking -- and, again, I just want to try to be fair to everybody here.
I'm looking at a letter dated June 18th to one of the employees -- I'm not going to mention her name -- from Judge Dembe, and this is June 18th. After you left yesterday with our meeting, I found this letter, so I should have brought it up to you at that time, but I know we talked by phone. It says -- and this is from Judge Dembe -- "We have been informed by a representative of DC 33, Local 696 that if that you accept the FJD's offer of employment, their union will no longer be recognized by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board as your union representative and that a new petition may need to be filed to seek to be appointed as your union representative after you have become employed by the 43 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 FJD." Now, in all fairness, I thought that was always the case, that I thought we were arguing that certainly the workers have the right if they choose to be represented by a union. And I could be wrong on this, and if somebody else wants to correct me, they can. I never thought it was an automatic thing, and I think that's where there may be the disconnect, that automatically they would be in DC 33 and your local. I thought that the whole idea was to give them the ability if they chose to be union members. Am I right?
Throughout this whole process, there's been many questions that has arised about whether they would still be union representatives or not. In a statement from Dominic Rossi that gave a draft of the ordinance -- may I?
Yeah. If you have a copy, you can bring it. 44 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Do we have a Sergeant-At-Arms here?
So no one is disputing this. I mean, the department said it today and they continue to say it, that they will remain union employees.
Just for the record, what Mr. Davis is referring to, I'm looking at the end of a letter from Dominic J. Rossi, Esquire, Deputy Court Administrator, Legal Services. "Finally, as Court Administrator" -- I'm quoting here. "Finally, as Court Administrator David Lawrence had represented to you last year, and as we have represented several times this year, including on April 15th when we met, the FJD will agree to your union remaining as the official Union representative for the CQS employees who are current members of your Union - and we look forward to entering into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (similar to the Traffic Court 45 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 CBA)."
And also when members asked that question, Judge Dembe's response was that you will no 6 longer be civil service employees, but you will continue to have -- no benefits will be lost and no loss of union representation. So we never questioned about whether we were going to continue to be -- you might as well take this one, too, and this is from Joe Evers letting them know that they will be -- so people kept bringing this up in different areas of conversation, and throughout all of the conversation, there was never any question about whether they were going to be union members or not.
I'm looking at also, just for the record, from the Prothonotary. It has Mr. Evers at the bottom. I'm not sure it's actually his thing, but it's titled "Impact of Changes on the Clerk of 46 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Quarter Sessions." "Your union will continue to represent you," and I don't see a date on this. Again, in continued fairness, there does seem to be some questions here. Mr. Evers, Judge Dembe, without taking -- I don't want to take this forever and I don't want to be fighting a battle, maybe it's not our place, but there does seem to be a little bit of a difference. Maybe you could -- because, quite frankly, I didn't see these things before I had seen the letter I read that you had wrote back in June, but there does seem to be a little bit of a difference here. JUDGE DEMBE: Again, we have no 20 objection to unionization. Number two, we have no idea what the desires are of the current contingent of employees. Number three, we thought initially that we would be able to just move DC 33 right along over with the transfer. It became 47 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 our understanding that, not anything that we did nor anything that Council did or could do, that the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board decertifies the union as -- because there's been a change of employer. If someone has got a labor lawyer who can tell me differently, I would certainly listen, but it's my understanding that there's nothing really that you can do, there's nothing that we can do, except not obstruct. It's a matter of filing a new petition, and if there's the consent of the members, enough votes, then presumably one or the other unit of DC 33 would represent them. We certainly haven't heard of any union other than DC 33 being involved here.
I understand, and what you just said is the way I understood it too, that it would have to be certified. You would have to go through a little separate process. In fairness, though, to the union -- and I know you didn't write this. Mr. Rossi, I 48 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 don't know if he's here or not, wrote it. It does -- I don't know if you saw what was being referred to here. It does look -- I mean, it does say the FJD will agree to your union remaining as the official union representing for the CQS employees. JUDGE DEMBE: Well, that's because we were told by the union in the initial discussions that there would be no problem with their moving. We only discovered later on that the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board views it differently. And if they would have --
And was that transmitted to the union when you found out that there was a difference? JUDGE DEMBE: Yes. I mean, I can't think that it's that difficult to get the process going.
No. I understand. I just -- and I'm not trying to throw this at you at the last minute. I had not seen this before until 49 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Mr. Davis had brought it in. So it does -- and in fairness, it is two months, almost two months, prior to the letter you wrote. And I know what I think you said when we've met personally, it would be up to the members to decide, and that's the way I always thought it was. It is a little bit different. Mr. Rossi's statement here is a little bit different, in all fairness to the union people. JUDGE DEMBE: I don't doubt it, because, again, at the beginning of the process, we did indeed think that we'd be -- well, we thought we'd be able to -- at the very beginning, we thought we'd be able to maintain civil service status, and it took a while to figure out that that wasn't so, and then it took a while to learn that the Labor Relations Board has its own way of going about things.
And to the best of your knowledge, the union was notified of this, they knew, in your 50 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 opinion, that that was a difference? JUDGE DEMBE: Yes.
Any other questions on this particular issue with Judge Dembe while she's still here, members of the Committee? (No response.)
All right. Mr. Davis, did you want to say something else? I don't want to get into a big back and forth, but do you have anything else?
When all of this was brought up, as I stated earlier, we thought all of this was worked out and all of the sides had agreed that there would be a memorandum of understanding drafted up to protect these workers. One of the things that I brought up is that 51 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 my concern was the gap that may take place between when this bill goes through and members of our organization not being protected. So in a way of making that happen, Deputy Mayor Gillison and myself said that a memorandum of understanding can be drafted. And throughout this whole process, that had never changed, and I can say as late as June, he said I would have a memorandum of understanding on my desk before the end of business. We also had spoke with Mr. Rossi and also Mr. Flood, who also didn't have a problem with us drafting up something that would be similar to what the Traffic Court thing was. So all we requesting at this particular time, if the Judge has no 20 problem with us maintaining union representation for these people, we would like to just have a meeting as soon as possible to draft up a memorandum of understanding to protect these members and to give them what they want. And we 52 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 have no problem in maybe scheduling -- I know they had a mass meeting also late June. That same kind of meeting can take place and let's hear from the members.
I mean, Councilman, that's as simple as it gets. If we both are sitting here today before you and both of us are saying that we have no 12 problem in giving the members what they want, then all I'm saying is let's get it done.
I guess the difference, Mr. Davis, is I think still the difference between what the Judge said and what you're saying now is, the Judge is saying, if I'm right, that, in her opinion, the workers have to go through the procedure of deciding. It's not automatically that you are representing them.
We already got around that. Getting around that is 53 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 nothing more than, like I said earlier, coming up with a memorandum of understanding that we will be recognized by FJD.
But I think what they're saying is, they, in their opinion, they can't do that.
I know, but they can. They can. All I'm saying is that we've had no problems in working with Dave Lawrence for a number of years now, and if we come up with a memorandum of understanding that both of us can live with, I see no reason why he will not honor it. It's just a matter of us putting some language together saying that we recognize the District Council 33 being the bargaining unit for these members, and it's done. It's done.
Just one other thing, is there a -- I guess the reverse question is, is there a problem with the workers going through that procedure to say they want to be in the 54 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 union? I'm not saying they don't want to. I have no reason to think --
Meet with them. We said that. We said meet with them. I mean, we're just saying that if you're talking about going through the whole process of notifying the Labor Board and all that, that's a process. Meanwhile, we got unprotected members out there. And these members have already been organized and they were recognized by FJD as District Council 33 being they bargaining unit representation. And I stated earlier that was one of the reasons why Judge Dembe called us out of respect, to let us know that these changes was going to occur and also to assure us that they will still remain District Council 33 bargaining unit members, and she stated here today she has no problem with that happening. So I think all of us are already on the same page. All we need is that memorandum of understanding that says what we all are 55 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 saying.
And I guess this is a legal question. Do you, as the Judge said in June 18th and I think she said again today, does there have to be some action through the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board or not? And I think -- and I don't know. To be honest with you, I'm not an attorney at all, thank goodness. So I think --
-- what we maybe need to do is get some opinion from somewhere saying whether that has to happen or not.
We've already met with their attorneys and our attorneys, and we understand the latter part of where this discussion is, but it doesn't have to be -- we're looking at something that doesn't have to take place right now. Right now the only thing that have to take place is that some language be 56 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 drafted up through a memorandum of understanding. From all of the people that I've talked with, no one seemed to have a problem with that early on. I don't know when it changed, but I do know this: If we're all saying that we recognize District Council 33 as the bargaining unit and if we hear the Judge saying she has no problem with it, then all we need to do is put the DC 33 and the FJD attorneys in a room, this thing -- I'm going to quote Marc Flood. He said, It can be done in a day.
Any questions? Judge -- Councilman Jones. I haven't gotten through one hearing yet and I'm calling you --
Wait a minute. We have elected officials, unions and lawyers all in the same -- 57 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 lions and tigers and bears, oh, my. But as a point of clarity for me, the Labor Relations Board notified you, Judge Dembe, as to a process. How were you notified and what did they say?
Judge, I think you have to come to the microphone so they can hear you. JUDGE DEMBE: We were notified on June 15th, which was after Mr. Rossi's letter, by the union's lawyer that we couldn't do this by way of a memorandum. So we're going to get on the phone to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, find out what the process is, and whatever they tell us, it's fine by us. I'm not sure what the -- if Mr. Davis believes that the former members and the new employees are still in favor of a union, I'm not sure what the reluctance is about just doing a quickie election and getting it done, but we will find out from the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, because they're the ones who certify 58 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 unions, not me, not you.
So you can get a -- that's what I was going to say, maybe we can get an opinion from the Labor Relations Board. JUDGE DEMBE: Which I will convey to you.
Pardon me? JUDGE DEMBE: Which I will convey what I learn.
If you will forward it to me, I would appreciate it. Now, it's going to be up to the Committee. I mean, I'm thinking it still would have to be approved -- this bill 19 would have to be approved by the full Council. We'll see what the Committee says. I don't know if holding it up today serves any real purpose. I mean, my inclination -- again, it will be up to the Committee whether we want to move this, and then in the interim, if we can 59 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 get that opinion, and then the full Council can have a decision in this whole thing. JUDGE DEMBE: Let me just say that I am hoping that we can move on this fairly quickly. From the perspective of those individuals who are in DROP, who are still on the old Clerk payroll, these are very nervous people. They really are terrified that they might --
I've heard from some of them. JUDGE DEMBE: -- lose their money. And, boy, if I were one of those people, I would feel that way, and if they see this extending and extending, I think --
No. I hear you, but in fairness, I think we do need a definitive answer, because there's clearly a difference of opinion here. JUDGE DEMBE: Yeah.
Maybe in the end everybody wants to get to the 60 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 same end, but there's a little difference in what route we're taking. Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, is there anything illegal about drafting a memorandum of understanding? JUDGE DEMBE: It would be -- it's my understanding that it would be in effective. It has no -- it's no legal --
But there's nothing illegal about it? JUDGE DEMBE: Yes, it would be illegal for me to make a promise to do something that I cannot do.
We haven't said or you haven't said what would be in the memorandum of understanding anyway. So I'm saying, in general is it illegal to do a memorandum of understanding? JUDGE DEMBE: Oh, no. We do those all the time, but I can only promise to do what I'm capable of doing. 61 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
So you could put something in writing as part of a memorandum of understanding? JUDGE DEMBE: Depends what the something is.
Okay. I mean, will you commit to put something in writing in terms of a memorandum of understanding? JUDGE DEMBE: Depends what it is. I mean, Mr. Davis --
It depends on what you're willing to sign, of course, but are you willing to sign something? JUDGE DEMBE: Sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, it seems to me that 62 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 everyone is on the same page. You have the union, you have the courts, you have the employees. So I think it's just a matter of finding out what the procedure is to get this thing done, and I think it's up to the union to really take the responsible action here and get those employees on board. It doesn't seem to me the right thing to do is to hold this bill up just for that, since everyone is on the same page and they all agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions, comments? (No response.)
Seeing none, you have anything else? I really need to keep moving, Mr. Davis, because we do have a lot. I don't know how much more we can say on this.
I had one comment that I did want to make. I did speak with our attorney, and our attorney told 63 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 us that there is nothing illegal about entering --
Just identify yourself. I know you did earlier. Just say it again.
Irene Snyder, President of Local 1510. Our attorney, Sam Spear, he made it very clear there is nothing illegal about entering into this agreement. And they're talking about it being very quick. The problem is that you would have to do the entire court system. It's not a matter of just these individuals that we are talking about. And these individuals were told that they were going to maintain their union representation with District Council 33. JUDGE DEMBE: There was never any understanding that the whole court system would be unionized. That was not ever anything we --
We're talking about the 93 employees. 64 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
No. We're not either. I want to make that clear. But to go to and try to get them organized, it's not just a matter of these particular individuals. So that's what the issue is.
All right. But, Judge, you'll get that, whatever, from the NLRB, or wherever it comes from, PALRB? JUDGE DEMBE: Right.
If you could get that to me as soon as possible. JUDGE DEMBE: Will do.
But, again, it will depend on the Committee. I think the majority here feel that at least we need to move this bill today. JUDGE DEMBE: Excellent.
Any other -- Mr. Davis, please, quickly, if you could.
I know. I know. I just want to add this, because Councilman 65 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 Goode brought it up. I just want to bring this up only because Councilman Goode brought it up. But this is a memorandum of understanding that was going to go to the Mayor and First Judicial, and if you look on it, on No. 5 we're included in this memorandum of understanding.
We'll make this part of the record, No. 5. Okay. Now, was this ever executed? Was this ever --
I'm not sure if it was executed, but it continues to show that everybody will recognize a memorandum of understanding, including District Council 33, and --
Just, again, for the record, I'm going to make this real quick. Just what Mr. Davis is referring to I want to read into the record. "The FJD and the City of Philadelphia shall meet with 66 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 representatives of AFSCME District Council 33 and AFSCME District 47 with the intent of exploring the feasibility of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement facilitating the representation for collective bargaining purposes by DC 33 and 47 of the former Clerk of Quarter Sessions employees." I'll get copies of all this and we'll make it part of the record.
Thank you. On behalf of District Council 33, thank you for the hearings.
Thank you all for coming. I got one other witness on the record for this one. That's the Committee of Seventy. And, Ms. Kaplan, if I can say while you're coming up, we have your testimony already. I would respectfully -- because, again, I don't want to get off on the other issues here today. We got other bills. We have 67 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 people waiting a long time. You mention some other issues that, quite frankly, are not directly with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. I'd appreciate it if we could just talk about the Quarter Sessions court. If there's issues that come up later, we'll talk about that if and when a bill is before us. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. I will do that. I will just simply say that the Committee of Seventy supports the bill to abolish an independently elected Clerk of Quarter Sessions.
Good morning, Ms. Kaplan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your written testimony -- 68 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
I'd like to just say for the record that Councilman Goode is saying this, not me.
"Our larger, and far more significant, objective was to use the elimination of these offices as a springboard for taking a hard look at their various functions with an eye toward adopting efficiencies and lowering costs." It says "take a hard look with an eye toward." Was that due diligence done already or not through the reports that were issued by the Committee of Seventy and by PICA?
Was that due diligence done already? I mean, in your written testimony, it says that this was supposed to be a springboard for taking a hard look at their various functions with 69 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 an eye toward adopting efficiencies and lowering costs. Had the due diligence been done already with respect to the reports issued by the Committee of Seventy and by PICA?
I think what we're talking about here, Councilman, is the fact that if, as in this case, we have a transfer that is about to take place, our concern is that it's not just a matter of transferring employees, that it's a good opportunity to take a look at the kind of cost savings that can happen, and, of course, this is true with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. I heard some of it today, but I have not seen an audit --
My question is, even before we get to what audit was done by FJD, is in calling for the elimination of this particular office, what due diligence was done that shows exactly what efficiencies and cost savings could be achieved?
Well, the actual 70 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 cost savings as far as all of the offices that were mentioned in the Committee of Seventy's "Needless Jobs" report from March 2009, the financial component of that I think was addressed very clearly in PICA's report that came out in November of 2009, but, again, those were just as to those positions.
No. I'm talking about related to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions.
Councilman, I do not recall the exact figure that was in PICA's report.
So you don't know how much money was supposed to be 71 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 saved by eliminating the Clerk of Quarter Sessions?
I know that in our report, Councilman, we talked about the money that would be saved by eliminating --
That's a direct question. Do you know how much money was supposed to be saved by the elimination of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions?
It was the Clerk of the Quarter Sessions' salary and benefits.
But that was just 72 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 from eliminating the position. Our point had to do with other efficiencies that could happen by taking a look at those functions and see if there are other efficiencies.
My question is, what other efficiencies and cost savings were identified? It's a simple question.
The cost savings from eliminating the one position was the salaries and the benefits of that one position.
You're asking me the direct question having to do with that position, and that is my answer for that position. But I think, as I said --
No. My question is, you're here testifying saying that the Clerk of Quarter Sessions office should go, with an eye toward taking a hard look -- a springboard for 73 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 taking a hard look at various functions with an eye toward adopting efficiencies and lowering costs. And the question was, if there were two reports issued by PICA and the Committee of Seventy, was there any real due diligence done that really identified cost efficiencies and savings, and what were they? It's a fair question.
Yes, it is a fair question, and I don't have the exact figures in front of me. I will certainly send them to this Committee from PICA's report, but there is a difference --
I'm not trying to be smart, but what exactly were you going to offer as testimony, then?
If it was not really about what cost savings and efficiencies were going to be achieved, then why should it be eliminated?
The office should be eliminated because -- number one, the 74 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 office is in fact eliminated, because all the functions have already been transferred.
But the reason that it should be eliminated was because we did not feel in the case of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions that there was a need to have an elected Clerk of Quarter Sessions, that that position could be part of the First Judicial District, which in fact it has become, and the functions absorbed into the court system, that it did not -- that position did not need to be an independently elected position. So that was -- that was what we were talking about in the report, but as I said in my testimony, what we said has ramifications far beyond eliminating just the six positions we talked about in the report.
So with 75 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 regard to Clerk of Quarter Sessions, it is simply a matter of it not needing to be an elected position, it is really not a matter of significant cost savings and efficiencies?
I think it does go to cost savings, with all due respect, because it does --
The cost savings? I think Judge Dembe has already talked about some of the cost savings that have happened from absorbing those offices within the court system.
I'm simply talking about Seventy's position on what cost savings and efficiencies were supposed to be achieved. So far you've said the salary and benefits of one elected position.
Well, that's from -- with all due respect, it's a matter -- yes, there are cost savings 76 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487 having to do with the salary and the benefits, but there are other future cost savings from absorbing the office into the court system, and those are things that could not be identified until they happen. But if you look at Allegheny County, where a number of elected positions have been eliminated and consolidated, there have been cost savings, and I would suggest that Philadelphia take a look at those examples to see what the cost savings have been.
Well, are you suggesting that we take a look at it or are you suggesting that we eliminate the offices? That's the question I'm asking.
Are you suggesting that we take a hard look at it or are you suggesting that we eliminate those offices? 77 9/22/10 - LAW & GOV'T - BILLS 100360 & 100487
The Committee of Seventy would like to see those elected positions eliminated because we don't think they need to be, as I said, elected positions. The functions --
But you cannot identify any specific cost savings and efficiencies beyond the elected officials' salaries and benefits?
That's what happens when the positions are eliminated, the salary and the benefits --
I understand that, but you cannot identify any cost savings and efficiencies beyond the salaries and benefits of those elected officials?