Well, I'm very17 fortunate, I attended a meeting I think18 within the last month that the Mayor19 coordinated. The Police Commissioner was20 there, Ms. Trombetta, Roberta Trombetta,21 was there on behalf of --22
No; on behalf of25 141 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Judge Kevin Dougherty. Dr. Ackerman was2 present, representatives of the3 Department of Human Services were present4 to really begin to work on a more5 concerted effort to address truancy. And6 regrettably, as with many problems in7 Philadelphia, all the different players8 are so entrenched that if you have three9 players and you ask them, Well, what's10 the problem, they'll point to the other11 two and say, Well, we would be making12 progress but for those two. And so in13 the criminal justice system, we just have14 to get rid of a lot of the problems and15 we have to stop pointing fingers at the16 other people too and just come up with17 the solutions.18 And so I'm hopeful that working19 together now with the Mayor there banging20 on the table, that we'll come up with21 better ideas and kind of get rid of some22 of the baggage of whatever happened in23 1932, why people are still mad today.24 But what we hope to assist25 142 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 with -- because unfortunately all too2 often the DA's Office is the social3 worker of last resort. What we hope is4 through Project Go, we will be able to be5 involved with the program and the6 process, so that if parents do not avail7 themselves of all of the services that8 DHS wants to provide or the court wants9 to provide or that the School District is10 trying to provide, that we'll then start11 holding some parents accountable for12 children who are in grade school who are13 chronically truant. And you can't tell14 me that the third grader who is15 chronically truant is choosing not to go16 to school.17
If we start19 holding some of those parents accountable20 and have them on the front page of the21 newspaper and being charged with22 endangering the welfare of a child, that23 hopefully that will have -- that's the24 part that we can play. But, again, it's25 143 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 much more important to prevent that and2 to get more students to go to school to3 get the benefit of the education and also4 to prevent the crime that occurs often5 when kids aren't in school, to prevent6 all of the teen pregnancies that we see7 are the result of kids not being in8 school.9
So, again, it11 has to be a holistic approach, and I12 think from what I've witnessed so far13 from the Police Commissioner and Dr.14 Ackerman and Anne Marie Ambrose, people15 who really want to work together, we're16 going to have to continue to make that a17 reality then, because there are a lot of18 roadblocks and a lot of histories amongst19 all these different players --20
-- and system24 problems that have to be changed.25 144 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Yes. So2 let me ask that as you all proceed to3 consider -- I know Councilwoman Jannie4 Blackwell cares about this deeply, as5 well as Councilman Jim Kenney. Invite6 us, if you will, because we want to be a7 part of what we ultimately -- what we get8 out of this crystal ball that we're9 trying to shape here on behalf of kids.10 So let's fast forward. We lose11 these children, and then before they drop12 out, 45 percent dropping out, where is13 the department yet with police in the14 schools? Because that too was a very15 great exchange between Councilmembers and16 the Police Commissioner.17
Well, I have18 mixed emotions about this, and my19 long-held belief is that really we need20 to empower the school teachers and the21 non-teaching assistants to be the first22 line of defense and the primary23 disciplinarians in schools. I had lunch24 with the Police Commissioner, and he25 145 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 really believes that we need to have more2 police officers in schools, and I'm going3 to defer to him on how he deploys police.4 He's a police officer. I never went to5 the Police Academy. I never had to chase6 people and get paid for it, to jump on7 them, do all those things. So I'm going8 to let him -- I defer to him on what he9 thinks is the best way to deploy his10 officers.11 It would be my hope that we12 don't then begin to like more militarize13 schools and have kids get arrested for14 things which, for the most part, might be15 better handled by the non-teaching16 assistants and the teachers disciplining17 the children in school.18 But the reality -- and19 Councilman Jones was talking about it --20 the reality is that there are a lot of21 kids, though, that only respect the22 person with the nine millimeter on their23 hip, and that's a reality in24 unfortunately too many schools. And as a25 146 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 result of that, we might have to have the2 Police Commissioner identify, with the3 help of Dr. Ackerman, those schools that4 are most chronically violent and to have5 something different going on there. But,6 again, we would hope that we have fewer7 children being suspended and staying8 home, but have more suspensions in9 schools to keep them engaged in the10 educational process.11
Okay.12 Just a couple of more questions. The13 Family Justice Center, if you would give14 us an update on where you are, what the15 short-term vision is and where you see16 yourself 24, 48 months from now.17
Certainly.18 And, Madam President, for those19 who aren't familiar, Family Justice20 Center is to deal with the phenomena that21 unfortunately far too many Philadelphians22 when they have been the victim of23 domestic violence or their child has been24 a victim of sexual assault, the young25 147 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 woman, who is already possibly in a2 dysfunctional environment, has to put the3 little child's snowsuit on, catch one or4 two means of public transportation to get5 to see their social worker, tell their6 story there, then put the kid's snowsuit7 back on and go to Children's Hospital or8 the Philadelphia Children's Alliance.9 It's just tiring thinking about it, and10 the cost of the tokens and transit, all11 these things. And so in other12 jurisdictions such as Brooklyn, in San13 Antonio, in San Diego, they have Family14 Justice Centers where under one roof --15 and I know Deputy Mayor Gillison and Anne16 Marie Ambrose from DHS are very hopeful17 of trying to create this type of a18 co-located facility where we'd have DHS19 representatives or social workers, where20 we'd have members from our Special21 Victims Unit of the Police Department,22 where we would have counselors or people23 from the Philadelphia Children's24 Alliance, Assistant District Attorneys,25 148 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 where we'd have members of the clergy,2 again, not for evangelical purposes but3 for pastoral care, counseling, to provide4 under one location a lot of these5 services that would help these victims6 heal and help them through the process7 and help -- because many of these victims8 become perpetrators of these same crimes9 unfortunately themselves.10 So the Family Justice Center,11 we were able to receive from the state a12 grant of $200,000 to apply towards if we13 were to get a lease for a facility. And14 so we have that money. What we hope to15 do in the short term is to be able to16 help more victims receive restraining17 orders in a much more effective and18 efficient way.19 The goal long term would be to20 have a facility that would be not21 perceived by any one community to be,22 Well, that's just for the people that23 live in Hunting Park or that's just for24 the people that live in North Philly, but25 149 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 something that all Philadelphians would2 know that they had equal access to and we3 could provide services to those4 communities that need those preventive5 strategies and co-located strategies.6 So hopefully within the 247 months, we would be able to have a much8 more holistic facility. I know that9 Deputy Mayor Gillison has identified a10 couple that we could possibly expand.11
Okay.12 That's very, very exciting. The13 potential of it is enormous.14 You talk about low-risk15 non-violent drug offenders will go16 through an educational course on the17 impact of drugs in the community. Who18 are the teachers? Who is handling that?19 Just a summary of what that means, what20 that looks like.21
We have several22 different diversionary programs for drug23 users, from those that are just the24 recreational kid from the suburbs or from25 150 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the City that just happened to have2 something, to those that are in need of3 real addiction abatement. So one program4 you heard is SAM. So you might have not5 walked in yet. SAM is for Small Amounts6 of Marijuana, where we divert people that7 possess less than 30 grams.8 Do you want to talk more about9 it?10 MR. McCANN: That program is11 run by the First Judicial District in12 Municipal Court.13
How old is14 it?15 MR. McCANN: It just started16 last year. It's not even a full -- a17 little over a full year old, and it's18 been about 4,500 cases have gone through19 that. The one problem that we have --20 and I don't know if the First Judicial21 District said that today -- is that we22 need to expand to have more classes,23 because we're having a little bit of a24 problem with compliance in terms of25 151 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 people going to the class. If we had2 more classes, it's our sense that more3 people will comply and go to the classes.4 The First Judicial District has5 counselors come in.6
So it's7 not a year old yet, therefore. Is this a8 practice too that's done in other9 municipalities?10 MR. McCANN: Most11 municipalities do not have defendants who12 are arrested for small amounts of13 marijuana go through the entirety of the14 criminal justice system. So when the15 District Attorney took over, he basically16 put us in line with what other17 jurisdictions have already been doing. A18 lot of jurisdictions, if someone is19 stopped on the street with a small amount20 of marijuana, all they get is a ticket21 and a court appearance. They have to22 appear in court, but they're not taken23 into the criminal justice system. Our24 cases previously to the District Attorney25 152 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 taking over in January 2010, those cases2 were actually going through arraignment3 and being listed in court on multiple4 occasions to basically get a disposition5 which, as the District Attorney said, was6 no further penalty.7
Okay. I8 presume that Councilman Goode will get9 into the issue of contracting and the10 like. I will say having done the tour a11 year ago or whatever it was and when I12 look at the composition of your13 professional team, it looks like14 Philadelphia. That's one thing that we15 are paying attention to as well. Those16 of us in leadership have a duty, I17 believe, to make sure that their18 professional team looks like the city19 they serve. So congratulations to you on20 that.21
Thank you24 very much.25 153 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Thank you, Madam Chair.2
Thank3 you.4 Are there any other questions5 from members of the Committee?6 (No response.)7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 Seeing none, thank you very much.9
Thank you. Have10 a good day.11 MR. McPHERSON: The Law12 Department is next.13 (Witnesses approached witness14 table.)15
Good afternoon.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:19 Please identify yourself for the record20 and proceed with your testimony.21
Yes, ma'am. Good22 afternoon, Madam Chair, members of City23 Council. 24 Smith. 12 Here is how our FY12 budget request13 compares to estimated FY11 obligations:14 For the General Fund, the Law Department15 requests $6,685,874 in Class 100;16 $6,174,037 in Class 200; $221,069 in17 Class 300; and $38,265 in Class 400, for18 a total of $13,119,245 in the General19 Fund, a net decrease of $4,799,616 from20 estimated obligations for FY11, of which21 $4,599,616 is attributable to the22 transfer of Law's Tax Unit to the Revenue23 Department in FY12. 23 As we say each year at this24 time, the mission of the Law Department25 156 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 is to provide high-quality and timely2 legal advice to all officials,3 departments, boards and commissions4 within the City. 13 Last year we realized that the14 Law Department's delinquent tax15 collections would be down as a result of16 the economy and of amnesty, because some17 taxpayers would have advanced payment to18 Revenue's amnesty administrator instead19 of to the Law Department during amnesty20 and because there would be some delays in21 resuming normal collections activities22 following amnesty. We estimated that we23 could collect $69 million in delinquent24 taxes for FY10. 6 Amnesty and restarted7 collections after amnesty remained a8 major focus for much of the current9 fiscal year. We successfully worked on a10 number of other initiatives with Revenue11 that I identified in last year's12 testimony. Mandatory e-filing and13 e-payment are now a reality, and we are14 working with Revenue to expand both. We15 have continued with competitive16 procurement of collection firms and are17 simplifying some of our contracts and18 procedures. Our program to write19 taxpayers before bringing large20 collection actions against them continues21 to show success. 23 As the Revenue Commissioner has24 testified, he and I have agreed to take25 158 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 further steps to enhance the cooperation2 of our departments with respect to tax3 collections. We jointly appointed a4 Chief Counsel for Revenue, Frances5 Beckley, and expect to be moving all Tax6 Unit personnel into close proximity to7 Revenue this summer. 12 The Commissioner has testified13 to details of our plans to enhance14 collections in these ways under his15 leadership. 25 159 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Reflecting reduced economic2 activity generally and, more3 particularly, in the real estate market,4 the Code Enforcement Division experienced5 a significant drop-off in the amounts it6 collected last year. A total of7 approximately $1,746,344 was collected in8 Fiscal Year '10, down from approximately9 $2,872,872 in 2009. Because much of what10 comes in occurs when property owners seek11 to sell or transfer real estate, these12 collections generally ebb and flow within13 larger economic currents. By the end of14 FY11, we expect $925,848 in code15 collections and another $250,00016 collected by our Regulatory Affairs17 attorneys. 7 million. 6 In FY11, budgeted indemnity costs reached7 a three-year high of 42 million as a8 result of both an increased number of9 cases filed against the City and of the10 cost of a very few very large litigation11 matters settled in FY10 and FY11. 5 million. 22 These additional lawsuits have resulted23 in an increase in payments and indemnity24 costs. From Fiscal Year '05 through25 161 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Fiscal Year '07, the average number of2 cases closed was 1,136. In contrast,3 from Fiscal Year '08 through Fiscal Year4 '10, the average number of closed cases5 increased to 1,323. 8 Specifically, in Fiscal Year '10, 1,2469 cases were closed, and we project that by10 the end of Fiscal Year '11, nearly 1,74211 cases will be closed. 14 As of December 31st, 2010, the15 Law Department was defending 2,316 active16 litigation cases. 1 percent of22 its risk assessment.
20 After two years of litigation, the21 Williams case resolved for just $35,000,22 with no capital expenditures or ancillary23 monitoring agreement and no future24 payments to counsel for the class. The25 163 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Claims Unit tried six cases to verdict2 during the past year and four cases3 resulted in defense verdicts. 8 Claims also won 79 percent of those cases9 resolved through arbitration. 14 This year, the Housing Division15 of the Law Department negotiated and16 prepared a Grant Agreement with the17 Pennsylvania State Treasury for Project18 Energy Smart. S. 24 With guidance from the Law25 164 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Department, the City developed a method2 of purchasing electricity on a wholesale3 basis. The method required a City4 ordinance and an Executive Order to5 facilitate long-term purchases. 9 Commercial Law Unit attorneys10 working closely with the Office of the11 Director of Finance created a new12 citywide RFP template for use by13 departments, including detailed14 instructions for developing scope of work15 documents. 20 Commercial Law Unit attorneys21 also worked with the Managing Director's22 Office and the Procurement Department to23 develop Charter amendments that will make24 the City's procurement procedures more25 165 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 efficient and cost effective. 11 For the second fiscal year, the12 Law Department continued to keep outside13 counsel expenditures down. million in Fiscal '10. percent, from 98 to 73 on staff9 in Fiscal Year '11. 13 In addition, the Law Department has14 reduced its paper costs by 37 percent,15 from an average of $75,000 in Fiscal Year16 '07 through Fiscal Year '08 to an17 estimated 47,000 in Fiscal Year '11. 5 The Law Department is committed6 to support the Administration's goal of7 25 percent minority, women and8 disabled-owned business participation in9 citywide contracting. We have worked10 closely with the OEO to set participation11 goals on all of the Department's12 contracting opportunities. In 20 percent13 of the opportunities posted, the Law14 Department selected a secondary minority15 or woman contractor with awards totalling16 $785,000. Based on the Law Department's17 available contracting opportunities for18 Fiscal Year '11, OEO set the Department's19 participation goal at 20 percent of the20 contract awards. 7423 percent of contract dollars being24 obligated to minority and women25 168 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contractors in Fiscal Year '11. 12 Thank you for the opportunity13 to testify today on the Law Department's14 Fiscal Year '12 budget request. 23
Thank24 you.25 169 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 The Chair recognizes Councilman2 Goode.3
Thank you,4 Madam President.5 Good afternoon, Solicitor.6
Last year I9 asked you to provide the legal framework10 for our business diversity policy. Thank11 you for forwarding it. I thought it was12 an excellent job. This year I'm asking13 you to provide a legal framework for our14 living wage and benefits policy. So if15 you could provide that through the Chair16 in writing. And I guess the question17 related to that is --18
Could I ask you to19 speak up a little bit louder and a little20 more slowly.21
Will all24 City contracts contain a living wage and25 170 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 benefits provision in the FY12 terms and2 conditions?3
And speaking5 of legal framework, what is the legal6 framework regarding the City's policy on7 payroll deductions for contributions to8 PACs by members of the FOP?9
The City's policy10 is that under the Charter, members of the11 Police Department are not permitted to12 make political contributions, so13 political contributions will not be14 facilitated by the City as payroll15 deductions.16
The firefighters19 won the right to make political20 contributions in litigation in 2006.21
So how might22 members of the FOP win the same right?23 They would have to sue?24
Well, if they25 171 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 follow the firefighters' path, they would2 file a lawsuit, and if they are3 successful, then they could obtain the4 same right.5
So there's6 no belief that because the firefighters7 won that lawsuit, that it would also8 apply to the FOP?9
No. Firefighters'10 lawsuit -- the rational of the11 firefighters' lawsuit was specific to the12 firefighters.13
I can explain that16 the facts that were adduced -- it17 actually was my case. The facts that the18 firefighters claimed in support of their19 argument that they should be permitted to20 make political contributions were21 specific to the firefighters, and all of22 the arguments, all of the factual23 arguments relating to history of the24 Charter prohibition against political25 172 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 contributions for police officers and2 firefighters were made specific to3 firefighters in that case. So all of the4 facts that are the basis for the decision5 are facts that specifically relate to6 firefighters. They don't relate to7 police officers.8
I'm just not9 that familiar with the difference between10 why one is allowed and one is not11 allowed. So I'm just asking you to tell12 me the facts of the case in terms of why13 specifically firefighters are allowed.14
I don't remember18 the specific language the court used, but19 I could tell you in summary that the20 court was not persuaded that the history21 as it pertained to firefighters22 political -- as it pertained to the23 prohibition against firefighter political24 contributions still had any current25 173 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 application or any current relevance.2
Because the3 Charter provision was created in the4 '50s?5
I don't know that6 it was specifically because the Charter7 prohibition was created in the '50s. I8 think that it was a fact-specific9 analysis of whether the concerns that10 were presented that led to the Charter11 provision at that time still existed12 today with respect to firefighters. And13 I can tell you that there's significant14 disagreement and -- there's significant15 disagreement among us as to whether the16 court's decision was correct, but it17 doesn't have any precedential value.18 It's specifically a District Court case19 based on the facts only applicable to20 firefighters.21
Okay. So22 you do not believe that the police would23 be similarly successful challenging a24 Charter provision that was created in the25 174 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 1950s?2
I can't speak -- I3 mean, I can't say -- I can't predict how4 a court would rule on the issue. What I5 can tell you is that factually the duties6 of firefighters are very, as you know of7 course, the duties of -- as anyone knows,8 the duties of firefighters are very9 different from the duties of police10 officers, and the history of the Charter11 and the contemporaneous discussion of the12 need to prohibit political contributions,13 I would suggest, has different currency14 with respect to police officers' duties15 and their ability to restrict people's16 liberty than it might to the17 firefighters, whose duties are simply to18 fight fires and rescue people. Very19 summarily put.20
I'm not sure21 how that relates to political22 contributions as opposed to political23 activity, because a political24 contribution is not the same as political25 175 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 activity. Someone can restrict a2 political activity to a contribution, so3 beyond a contribution it can't be assumed4 that they're involved in political5 activity.6
Well, the Charter7 prohibits it as to police. The police8 have not sued and obtained the right.9 Therefore, the City cannot facilitate10 political contributions for police. If11 the police sue and are successful, then12 that may be a different story, and we13 will cross that bridge if and when we get14 to it.15
Okay. Let16 me move to a different line of17 questioning. How much is spent on18 outside law firms on an annual basis?19
We have -- in20 Fiscal Year '11, our estimated21 obligations for outside counsel,22 including labor negotiations, are $3.323 million total. In Fiscal Year '10, our24 expenditures, our actual expenditures,25 176 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 were $3.4 million.2
And offhand3 do you know what percentage of those4 dollars or contracts go to businesses5 located inside the City versus outside6 the City?7
Could you10 forward that information through the11 Chair?12
Who monitors14 the billable hours by the outside law15 firms?16
The attorneys in17 whose discipline the matters fall. So18 with civil rights conflict matters, for19 example, our Civil Rights, the Chief of20 our Civil Rights Unit, would be21 responsible for those matters and would22 review the outside counsel billing for23 those. For labor negotiations, they're24 reviewed by a combination of our Director25 177 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 of Labor Relations and our Chief of Labor2 Relations and our Litigation Chair,3 depending.4
How many5 outside law firms are involved in the6 defense of medical claims by City7 employees?8
I'm not sure,13 because that's overseen through Risk14 Management. I think at this point the15 number is -- I'd have to get that16 information for you.17
But Risk18 Management would not see whether we have19 the internal capacity to defend?20
You might recall21 that in the early -- well, up until the22 early '90s the City had a workers'23 comp -- this is essentially a workers'24 comp area. Up until the early/mid-ish25 178 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 '90s, the City had a Workers' Comp Unit2 in the Law Department, but that unit was3 dissolved in the '90s and now the work is4 all handled by outside counsel as part of5 the contracting for the claims management6 process.7
So we don't have9 the capacity at all to handle workers'10 comp.11
What is the16 turnover and attrition rate for lawyers17 in the City Solicitor's Office?18
What is the21 turnover and attrition rate for lawyers22 in the City Solicitor's Office?23
The turnover -- the24 attrition rate this year is projected to25 179 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 be 11 percent. Last year it was six2 percent.3
And as is4 generally asked, how much does that5 contribute to the need to hire outside6 counsel?7
I would say at this8 point not so very much. We had pretty9 significant turnover -- the place, other10 than conflict civil rights counsel, the11 place where we typically hire outside12 counsel is for labor matters, because13 that's where we historically have the14 highest and most rapid turnover. This15 year we were fortunate enough to be able16 to fill the positions fairly quickly, so17 I think we were able to hold it off so18 that we didn't have to suffer a19 significant increase in outside counsel,20 and, in fact, I think you see from the21 numbers and what I said in my testimony,22 what I testified was that we've actually23 been able to maintain our reduction in24 outside counsel costs. I think so far25 180 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we've been able to hold the line even2 with an increase in attrition because of3 where we've seen the changes.4
So is most5 of that turnover and attrition still6 within the Labor and Employment Unit?7
I think it was more8 across the board. I think we had9 significant -- we had some attrition in10 Labor and Employment, but we also had11 some in Civil Rights and we had some in12 Child Welfare and we had some in Claims.13 So pretty much across the board in our14 litigation units we had attrition, we15 suffered some attrition, but --16
What17 percentage was in the Labor and18 Employment Unit; do you know?19
I don't think I20 have that number here, but I can get that21 for you.22
Just in a2 related question, how involved is your3 staff in terms of internal capacity in4 contract negotiations and how much do you5 contract out? Is it all contracted out?6
Labor negotiations?7 It's all contracted out. We oversee it.8 The Litigation Chair and I oversee it,9 but the bulk of the sort of day-to-day10 work of it is all contracted out.11
And to what12 extent might you want to build capacity13 there?14
I'd want to talk to15 you about that privately, because it's a16 strategic issue and I don't want to --17 it's a labor strategic issue and I don't18 want to disclose it here, but I'm happy19 to talk to you about that privately.20
Okay. Just,21 lastly, while you're forwarding22 information in terms of work data that is23 contracted out, because it's not just an24 issue of whether there is internal25 182 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 capacity or we're contracting out, but2 also when we're contracting out, what3 exists in terms of business diversity and4 what exists in terms of local5 participation. So if you could forward6 all that data in terms of what's7 contracted out so we can get a look at8 the business diversity and the local9 participation, that would be helpful.10
Thank you,14 Madam President.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 You're welcome.17 The Chair recognizes18 Councilwoman Brown.19
Thank you,20 Madam President.21 Point of information for my22 colleague, Councilman Goode. When you23 say "business diversity," you're24 referring to?25 183 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
The last13 page of your testimony, the last page,14 next-to-the-last paragraph, you mention15 that 42 percent plus of the contract16 dollars are obligated to minority and17 women contractors. Are these strictly18 law firms?19
No. These are --20 in fact, they're primarily collections21 firms for tax collections.22
I'm just looking25 184 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 through the list. A portion of it goes2 to two law firms that are responsible for3 tax collections and some of it goes to a4 law firm that handles code enforcement,5 zoning matters, but the bulk of it is for6 collections. We have one for civil7 rights, a law firm that handles civil8 rights conflicts, and then the bulk of it9 is tax collection work.10 COUNCILWOMAN BROWN:11 Procedurally what or how does a law firm12 move to be considered for potential13 business opportunities with the Law14 Department? What are the procedures?15
We post an16 opportunity on the website and we e-mail17 notice that that opportunity has been18 posted to everybody who has expressed an19 interest in doing business with the City.20 So any law firm, any lawyer that has21 expressed, reached out to any of us with22 an interest in doing work for the City,23 we add that name, contact information, to24 our e-mail list and they receive a notice25 185 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 of the opportunity that it's been posted,2 and then --3 COUNCILWOMAN BROWN:4 Irrespective of type of opportunity?5 They just get a notice of all of them?6
Unless they've been7 real specific about what they could or8 couldn't do. But, yes, generally9 speaking, we send them all notices of10 everything.11 And then firms respond, and12 we -- primarily my First Deputy in13 consultation with the unit that needs the14 help, that has the specialty expertise,15 reviews the proposals to determine16 whether the firm really seems to have the17 capacity to do the work, whatever it is,18 whether they have a record of having19 performed doing the kind of work that's20 needed. We look at their billing rates,21 although pretty much the billing rate is22 fairly standard. Some people come in23 lower, but we have a max. And then makes24 a decision based on all of those factors.25 186 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We try to -- we also factor in the2 diversity component, because --3
Yes. I mean, we6 look at whether the firm is diverse. For7 example, we have contracted with a firm8 Ahmad & Zaffarese, which is a diverse9 firm, minority owned, I believe, to do10 civil rights conflict. They're a small11 firm. Sometimes we have conflicts off of12 conflicts and we need a smaller -- those13 can be handled by a smaller firm. And we14 choose based on all those, a combination15 of all those factors.16
And the17 "we" are the professionals from your18 department and the head of that City19 department?20
No, no, no. My21 executive staff and the chief of22 whichever unit in the Law Department has23 the subject matter expertise to figure24 out the capacity, and then we consult25 187 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 with OEO to look at the diversity either2 contribution or potential.3
Okay. I4 was having a sidebar with my colleague5 Councilman Goode, who is my expert on6 these matters, and I want to frame it7 properly.8
A11 repeated, some might say, criticism that12 I hear is lawyers in majority firms --13 lawyers --14
Exactly.17 And how and if, A, it's appropriate; B,18 possible for those lawyers to have access19 to opportunity, because typically if the20 majority firm gets the job, the minority21 or female lawyer sees no opportunity at22 all.23
Right. I can tell24 you that is a huge problem. I can tell25 188 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 you from my own personal experience2 that's a huge problem, and we do try to3 make sure -- a lot of times the diverse4 lawyer in the large firm will be the5 lawyer that reaches out to us to explore6 the potential opportunity. I've recently7 had some contact from people who are8 about to be moving around from one firm9 to the next who have reached out and10 asked to be on our list at the new firm.11 In particular, at Ballard the lead -- the12 billing partner for our labor13 negotiations matters is Shannon Farmer.14 She's female. She understands -- she's15 worked with the City a long time. She16 understands the City's commitment to17 diversity, as does Ballard, which has18 done work for the City for a while, and19 makes an effort. Though with the20 demographics of Ballard, it's challenging21 for her even to try to diversify. There22 are a lot of women, not so many23 minorities.24 We have a contract with25 189 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Stradley Ronon to do some labor and2 employment work or conflict work where we3 need the help. Danielle Banks, who is an4 African American female, is the billing5 partner on that work.6
The7 relationship then is vital with a8 particular personnel type in those law9 firms? You just called the title of10 the --11
The way firms --12 it's a matter of internal firm credit.13 This is what you're talking about, I14 think. It's a matter of internal firm15 credit. How people in addition to just16 making their billable hours, how lawyers17 and law firms get sort of credit for18 being productive contributing members to19 the firm's bottom line, they get credit20 for being a relationship partner or a21 billing partner or whatever the case may22 be.23 At Archer & Greiner, we have24 worked with -- the relationship partner25 190 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 there is Jeff Kolansky, who is a white2 male, but we have worked with him for3 years and he has increased the number of4 minority or diverse, I'll say, lawyers5 who work on those matters, because he too6 understands the City's commitment. And7 in addition, this year with Archer we8 were able to do two things that helped us9 on a number of -- on a couple of fronts.10 One was, we negotiated a flat fee11 arrangement with them to create a ceiling12 on the amount of money that they charged13 us for handling our civil rights conflict14 matters. But equally importantly, the15 contract has a component by which Archer16 will work with Temple Law School to17 create a diverse City scholarship program18 that will -- by which they will try to19 attract more diverse lawyers to the firm20 and encourage those lawyers to split a21 summer with Archer and the City and also22 post-graduation hire those lawyers, who23 will then do significant work on City24 matters, because one of my goals has been25 191 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to try to -- you have to sort of try to2 find creative ways to attack this issue,3 and one of the things that I wanted to do4 here, because Archer is a firm that has a5 lot of former City attorneys, they have a6 unique ability to train lawyers in how7 the City -- in how to represent the City8 properly. And so it was really helpful9 for us to be able to make this -- come up10 with this plan with Archer, because11 they're sort of uniquely suited to really12 teach lawyers how to do litigation work13 for a client that is more likely to try14 cases, which means they'll get meaningful15 civil trial experience, which you don't16 necessarily get working for a private17 client in a law firm. So I think -- and18 Carlton Johnson and John Kahn from Archer19 & Greiner are actually here, if anybody20 has any more detailed questions from21 their perspective.22
How old is23 the practice? How old is that24 relationship?25 192 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
The relationship2 with Archer actually through Jeff3 Kolansky goes back 20 years, because Jeff4 Kolansky when he had his own firm was5 conflict counsel in FOP matters. So he6 was conflict counsel in civil rights7 cases. And then his firm in the early8 2000's, if I'm not mistaken, became a9 part of Archer & Greiner, in fact became10 its Philadelphia office, because it had11 been a New Jersey firm. And so our12 relationship with the people goes back13 two decades, but the addition of the City14 attorneys goes back six or seven years15 now.16
Thank you,20 Madam President.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 You're welcome.23 The Chair recognizes24 Councilwoman Blackwell.25 193 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank2 you. Thank you, Madam President.3 Good afternoon.4
I6 wanted to follow up on an issue7 Councilman Goode raised with regard to8 Bill No. 060181 that former Mayor John9 Street passed and we passed -- I10 introduced it; Council passed it; the11 former Mayor signed it -- about the12 payroll deduction. We were talking about13 then, of course -- we have the bill. We14 pulled it, from the FOP Lodge No. 5 to15 authorize payroll deductions for16 contributions to COPAC, and obviously17 there's some -- we want to know why we18 can't get you to enforce this legislation19 since it was passed.20
So23 that is why you took -- but it seems to24 me, as was already said, that -- why does25 194 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 everybody have to pay all this money?2 The firefighters took the City to court3 and won. So it would force them to do4 all of this. I don't know why we fight5 ourselves. If the firefighters took it6 to court and won, there is a precedence7 then.8
No, there is not.9 It's a District Court case that only10 applies to its own facts. It does not11 have any precedential value as to any12 other case, even as to just another judge13 on the same court. It is not14 precedential.15
Well,16 for us it's two City departments. One17 didn't get it, so they took the City to18 court and won. Now there's another City19 department. So in our eyes -- and this20 other City department will take the City21 to court and then win again. So we spend22 all of this extra time and money when it23 seems to me that once a bill is passed24 and signed, then -- obviously the former25 195 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Mayor was a lawyer. It seems to me he2 would know the law. We all know him. We3 know that he does know the law. And I4 don't understand the -- would you explain5 your criteria for non-enforcement of this6 law again?7
The Charter8 prohibits political contributions as to9 police officers. It prohibited them as10 to firefighters as well, but the11 firefighters sued successfully to get the12 right to make political contributions,13 and, therefore, the City can facilitate14 political contributions for firefighters.15 Police officers are -- in addition to the16 fact that the Charter provision remains17 in effect as to the police officers --18 and with all due respect, I have to19 differ with you about City departments20 fighting. This is unions fighting the21 City. This is not City departments22 fighting. The Police Department is not23 suing us to try to get political24 contributions for its members. The union25 196 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 is suing. And just like the firefighters2 union sued, not the Fire Department.3
But the political6 contribution prohibition remains in7 effect as to police officers, and if we8 were to facilitate political9 contributions for police officers, we10 would be in violation of the Charter.11
So12 you're saying the police have to go13 through the exact same thing the14 firefighters did with regard to political15 contributions?16
Well,19 frankly, it doesn't make sense to me. I20 don't understand why you assume that this21 lawsuit would turn out differently than22 the Fire Department, nor do I understand23 why the City should spend more money24 preventing unions, as I stand corrected,25 197 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 preventing this bill to be enforced when2 we've gone that road before. I mean, you3 were Deputy City Solicitor back then,4 but --5
No. I was actually6 the lawyer who tried the case, who7 litigated the case, and I can tell you as8 the lawyer who litigated the case, that9 the facts -- it's my legal judgment, it10 is our collective legal judgment, because11 there's been a lot of discussion about12 this case in my office over the years,13 it's our collective legal judgment both14 that the District Court's opinion is not15 necessarily legally correct and that the16 police officers are factually17 distinguishable from firefighters for18 purposes of this Charter provision. So19 we think that the City has sound20 arguments in defense of the Charter21 provision, and it is our obligation to22 defend the Charter provision.23
Well,24 I will tell you that we disagree. When25 198 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we introduce legislation, when we pass2 it, when a Mayor signs it, then to me3 when we talk about Charter and what's4 supposed to happen, once we pass a bill5 and a bill is signed, that's right at the6 very heart and the core of what7 government is and what it should be. I8 can speak to my constituents and tell9 them I don't agree with you, but I will10 abide by the will of the majority. That11 is what we have to do as a Council.12 Now, the Mayor cannot sign, let13 it become law, or the Mayor can sign it.14 The Mayor has -- every Mayor has rights,15 as does Council, but certainly we don't16 enact legislation and don't have it17 passed and not expect that to be18 enforced. So when you're talking about19 the Charter, we operate under the same20 Charter, but we expect that when we sign21 bills, I mean, it's -- I mean, this is in22 '06. Nobody came back and said, We have23 a problem, there is this legal -- there24 is something wrong.25 199 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We are serious about the2 Charter. We are sworn by it. It is our3 Bible as well. But we do not take4 lightly the fact that we sign a bill, the5 Mayor signs it and then -- not you6 individually, not you specifically7 personally, but that your department8 decides or that there's no enforcement.9 We have a real, real, real issue with10 that and we have a real problem with11 that. We don't agree. We believe that12 this bill should have been enforced, that13 it should be enforced now, and we find it14 just ridiculous that the FOP will sue the15 City and when we waste all this time and16 money and we end up where we are now.17 Thank you, Madam President.18
Thank19 you.20 Any further questions from21 members of the Committee?22
Yes.25 200 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilman Goode.2
Thank you,3 Madam President.4 Solicitor, just for my own5 edification, it's not against state or6 federal law, is it?7
Political8 contributions? I don't remember whether9 there was -- what I remember is that10 there are other local governments who11 prohibit classes of public employees from12 various components of political activity13 and those prohibitions have been upheld.14 I don't remember, though, whether or15 not -- I don't remember what the specific16 interplay is of federal or state law.17
But as far18 as we know, we are not prohibited by19 state or federal law?20
I can't tell you25 201 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 today that we are, but that's not the2 issue here. The issue here is that it3 violates the Charter.4
So separate5 from this particular case, if a state or6 federal law preempts the Charter and The7 Philadelphia Code, can we then pass a law8 that is consistent with the state law and9 federal law without amending the Charter?10
I think essentially11 what you're asking, if I'm understanding12 you correctly -- and if I'm not, let me13 know -- is if the Charter is somehow14 preempted by state or federal law, then15 could you pass a law that's consistent16 with that state or federal law and have17 it be enforceable, essentially. I think18 the answer to that is yes. If the19 Charter itself is somehow preempted by20 state or federal law, like if state or21 federal law prohibited the Charter from22 imposing certain restrictions or23 something like that, then, yeah.24
So a state25 202 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 law allows such contributions?2
No, because there6 is some latitude that local governments7 have that relates to the ability of8 public employers to regulate the conduct9 of their employees.10
Related to11 payroll deductions and related to12 political activity, but not necessarily13 related to campaign finance.14
Related to15 political contributions. It relates to16 political activity generally. Local17 governments, like other governments, have18 certain latitude to regulate the19 political activity of their employees.20
I'm actually21 making a distinction between political22 contributions and political activity, and23 believe that there is a distinction.24
Yeah, there's a25 203 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 distinction, but it's a distinction that2 derives from the fact that political3 contributions are a form of political4 activity.5
Because if6 an employee is simply giving money to a7 political action committee and that that8 political action committee is making9 decisions, that employee is not engaging10 in political activity aside from11 contributing to a political action12 committee.13
Well, I don't want14 to get into a debate with you here on the15 floor of Council.16
I don't think it's19 helpful. Again, it's our obligation to20 defend the Charter, and I believe that we21 have very sound defenses on this issue.22 I don't want to get into a debate with23 you about the various components of the24 argument or the merits of it. I'm happy,25 204 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 again, to talk to you privately about it,2 but you know I don't want to reveal legal3 strategy here at all in a public forum4 like this. I'm happy to talk to you5 about it privately, but I don't want to6 get into a debate with you about what the7 various components are of the analysis.8
It's9 actually not a debate. It's actually I'm10 asking legal counsel what applies and11 what does not apply, and the question is12 whether there's a distinction between13 political contributions and political14 activity, and then there's a question15 related to who is engaged in political16 activity and who is not, and just you17 made the distinction between whether it18 was the department or the union. Because19 it's a union, then it's not an employee20 or department that's engaged in the21 activity, and so there's a question about22 what political activity is being23 regulated.24
But we're not25 205 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 regulating the ability of the union to do2 anything. What we're regulating is the3 ability of the individual union members,4 who happen in this case to be police5 officers, from making contributions to6 the union's political activity committee.7 It's the employees' contributions that8 are at issue here. There's no -- the9 legislation doesn't address the ability10 of the union to contribute anywhere to11 anything.12
My only13 question -- and it was a question, it14 wasn't a debate. My only question at the15 end of the day was whether that falls16 under state campaign finance law or17 whether it falls under those provisions18 you think relate to how you can restrict19 political activity.20
Okay. And I'm25 206 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 happy to answer it privately.2
Okay.3 Thank you, Madam President.4 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:5 You're welcome.6 The Chair recognizes Councilman7 Rizzo.8
Could you --12 I don't have it written down, but I'm13 just doing this from memory. There was14 recently the Pipe and Drum Corps from the15 Police and Fire, there was legislation, a16 bill passed in the Council to allow for17 payroll deductions and there was18 something that developed that the19 Administration said that that can't be20 enacted. Are you familiar with that?21
No, not24 about the political contributions. I'm25 207 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 talking about the ceremonial Pipe and2 Drum Band.3
I'll get9 more information and find out what that's10 about.11
Because we14 were told that the piece of15 legislation -- and I might have it wrong.16 I'm doing it from memory, pretty good17 memory, but I was told that after this18 was signed by the Mayor, that there was19 some legal reason that that -- can you20 just give me a two-second recess here and21 I'll get the information?22 (Pause.)23
We'll have24 to get back with you. Apparently there25 208 4/26/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 was some reason that after this passed,2 that in fact couldn't be enacted for some3 reason, and I'm not familiar -- that's4 what I wanted to know, but I'll get back5 to you with better detail.6
Are13 there any further questions?14 (No response.)15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Seeing none, thank you very much.17
This19 Committee will stand in recess until20 tomorrow, Wednesday, April the 27th at21 10:00 a.m.22 Thank you.23 (Committee of the Whole24 adjourned at 3:30 p.m.)25 209 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on April 26, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 13 --------------------14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 17 18 19 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24 25