COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, April 16, 1999 10:17 a.m. - - - BILL 990056 - Providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Educational Supplement to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the method of selection and term of office of members of the Board of Education. . . RES. 990066 - Proposing an amendment to the Educational Supplement to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the method of selection and term of office of members of the Board of Education. . . (Full text of above contained within body of transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA CLARK COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED-MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 I N D E X Honorable Edward G. Rendell, Mayor. . . . . . 5 City of Philadelphia Honorable John Perzel, State Representative 51 and PA House Majority Leader *Honorable Allyson Schwartz, State Senator. . 56 Honorable Dwight Evans, State. . . . . . . . 60 Representative and Democratic Mayoral Candidate *Mr. John F. White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Democratic Mayoral Candidate Mr. John F. Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Democratic Mayoral Candidate *Frederick L. Voigt, Executive Director . . . 180 Committee of Seventy *Reverend Robert Shine, Sr. . . . . . . . . . 198 Vice President, Black Clergy of Philadelphia Pastor, Berachah Baptist Church of West Oak Lane *Lorraine Brill, Private Citizen. . . . . . . 228 (*Written testimony also submitted and attached to back of transcript.) 3 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 (Index, cont'd.) Written Testimony attached to back of transcript by the following witnesses who did not make a live appearance at the hearing: Mr. Floyd Alston, President Philadelphia Board of Education Mr. John Claypool, Director Greater Philadelphia First Corporation Ms. Shelly Yanoff, Director Philadelphia Citizens for Children & Youth The League of Women Voters 4 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 P R O C E E D I N G S
The Committee on Law and Government of the City Council of the City of Philadelphia is now in session to hear testimony with respect to Bill No. 990056, and Resolution 7 No. 990066. Would the clerk of the committee -- Miss Chapman, would you please serve as clerk of the committee for today and read the title of both the bill and the resolution.
Bill No. 990056, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to the Educational Supplement to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the method of selection and term of office of members of the Board of Education, including provisions relating to the educational nominating panel, as approved by the resolution of the City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. 5 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 And Resolution No. 990066, proposing an amendment to the Educational Supplement to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the method of selection and term of office of members of the Board of Education, including provisions relating to the educational nominating panel, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, we're honored by having you present as the first witness. Please proceed and identify yourself for the record, even though you're known to us.
Thank you, Councilman Cohen. I'm Edward G. Rendell, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. Madam President and other members of the panel and Councilman DiCicco, it is always a pleasure to be here. And this bill and this resolution are very important to me and, I believe, very important to the people of the City of Philadelphia. And I want to be clear at you outset: I support the bill and I support the resolution, with some modifications and one 6 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 general inquiry which I think the panel should explore at length with our own great legislative leader John Perzel, who is here. But let me begin by saying that the lack of both control and accountability that exists as our current educational system is structured is something that has been of great frustration to myself, as mayor. When I became mayor, as you know, because of the current procedure, I had no appointments to the Board of Education. For my first two years as mayor, I worked with a board that I inherited from Mayor Goode. So one half of my first term expired, and I had no one on the board who represented my thinking on the educational issue. In December of my at the end of my second year as mayor, I go to appoint three board members; that is still not close to a working majority of the board. And it wasn't until December of my fourth year as mayor and the last month of my first term -- which could have been my own term as mayor -- that I got the ability to appoint another three board members and, at that point, been responsible for the appointment of six 7 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 of the nine members of the board. So it wasn't until -- literally, I was in the last 30 days of my first term -- that I had appointed a majority of the School Board. And, again, it wasn't until the last 30 days of the first 2 years of my second term that I appointed all the members of the School Board. And it was enormously frustrating. Does it matter? There are people who say, Well, the mayor has enough power and influence that even though he didn't appoint, or she didn't appoint, the School Board members, the mayor can make his or her voice heard. Not necessarily so. Because -- and let me give you the perfect example. Well before I had a majority of control on the Board of Education, Constance Clayton resigned, and we were left with the task of picking a new superintendent. The School Board, at my request, made available the final three candidates, who were interviewed by myself and by the Council President representing the Council. And I interviewed the three candidates, and they're all fine and decent people with good 8 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 educational backgrounds, but I thought -- and this is my clear and convincing judgment at the time -- that David Hornbeck stood out: One, stood out because of the things that he had accomplished in Kentucky and Maryland; and, two, most importantly, stood out because he had what I would describe as almost a fervor, a burning belief, a strongly-held belief that kids in our educational system, all kids in our educational system, could achieve far better results than they were getting. The other two candidates had been in urban systems and sort of had that beaten-down feel that, you know, Well, these are problems that the kids come into our system with all the problems of society on their back, and it's almost too much for us to deal with. So I was convinced that there was a wide gap between David Hornbeck and the other two individuals. Now, leaving aside what the panel thinks of what Superintendent Hornbeck's done for a moment. I was the mayor. I believed there was a wide gap. I knew that we had a situation that was urgent, and I wanted the best person. I could not, by picking up the phone, come up with five 9 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 votes.
And not just by picking up the phone; by calling people, by lobbying directly, indirectly, I could not come up with five votes. You may recall that I did the somewhat extraordinary step of sending a public letter to the nine members of the board urging them to appoint David Hornbeck. , but because I wanted to put pressure on the Board to pick what I thought was clearly the right choice. Now, that's a screwy system. The mayor of the city should not have to do things like that; the mayor of the city should both have control for our educational system but also should have accountability and responsibility for the product of that system. In my reelection in 1995, my reelection campaign, there was no issue raised about the caliber of the Philadelphia schools. My opponent who, you know, not a well-funded opponent but a well-known opponent, who had experience in running in elections, ran a fairly vigorous campaign, but he never raised the issue of education. 10 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 I mean, and you think about that. The issue of education wasn't a significant issue in the reelection of a mayor. And that's wrong, but the reason it wasn't is because people understood that there wasn't direct accountability. So if we are going to make the improvements that I believe are necessary, I think we need to give the mayor control; and with that control, the responsibility and accountability.
-- just to announce presence of a quorum. To my immediate left: Council President Verna, Councilman Ortiz, Councilman Rizzo. To my right: Councilman Nutter. And I'm Councilman David Cohen, Chair of the committee. And Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell is on my right as well.
Thank you. So I am a strong believe in the 11 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 resolution and a strong believer in the ordinance. Let me say two things, though, in the way of caveats. Number one, I disagree slightly with the proposal in the fact that I think this is one where the need for fixed responsibility to be squarely placed on the mayor's shoulders, that I would not submit his appointees to Council confirmation. That creates a mixed message. You know, I look at the areas that I appoint board members where there are Council confirmation and we have shared that responsibility. I would rather it be clear and unambiguous that this is the mayor's School Board. If it achieves results, it is to the mayor's credit; if it fails to make progress, it is to the mayor's detriment. I think we should -- and I say that in all respect, and you know that we have had a terrific relationship, and this is not meant to demean the current members of this Council who I think have done a great job. But I say it because I believe there is such an overwhelming and urgent need to fix responsibility squarely on the mayor's shoulders, that I would not call for Council 12 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 confirmation. And my second caveat and my reference to our great leader John Perzel, it my hope as mayor -- and I have been talking to the governor and talking to Representative Perzel. It is my hope that this year, before the calendar year ends in Harrisburg, that we will see a comprehensive public education bill come out of Harrisburg. That bill may have a lot of things in it, it may have some significant mandated educational reforms in our system, which I think are overdue. It is my fervent hope that it will have at least a formula for the Philadelphia School District to achieve significant funding. I would be more than happy to support some form of oversight out of that comprehensive legislation. And I also believe, again, from my discussions with Representative Perzel and Representative Dwight Evans, that it is the intention of that legislation to do essentially what this proposed ordinance and resolution would do by amending the City Charter. If that is the case, that may be a preferred vehicle rather than to make this a Charter issue. That may be a 13 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 preferred vehicle to achieve the same result. And it is my hope that we will get a comprehensive bill that will examine a lot of the problems facing our educational system and, hopefully, recommend solutions to those problems. And I think that that may be the vehicle for encompassing this goal. That is something I hope that you will explore with Representative Perzel because I think it is very, very important. And, lastly, I would like to submit to this Council -- and I'm sorry I only have one copy, because it's just a -- I thought of it late last night and didn't have a chance to get it copied. I was recently on a plane in about a three-and-three-quarters-hour flight, and I do a lot of my backed up reading that I don't get a chance to do on a daily basis. And I had received a letter from the Manhattan Institute, an organization that I had once spoke before, concerning an interview that the Institute had with Paul G. Vallas. And I don't know if that rings a bell with the members of Council, but Paul G. Vallas was the budget director for the city of Chicago. 14 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 When the Illinois legislature moved to change the educational structure, the laws that governed education for Chicago and basically preempted the previous school board, preempted it, a number of work rules that had been in the union contract and gave the mayor broad authority in conjunction with the governor to deal with the problems of the Chicago School District.
Paul Vallas, who had been, as I said, the budget director for Mayor Daley but had started his postgraduate career as a teacher in the Chicago-area school system, he was put in charge by Mayor Daley as the CEO of the Chicago school system. And the Chicago school system has made measurable administrative advances, but it has also made measurable advances in things like test scores. For three years running, almost similar to us in Philadelphia, they've had rising test scores. They went from having a situation where all but 15 percent of Chicago's public school students fell behind national average in standardized tests to a situation where 40 percent of the Chicago kids are competing at or above the national average, which is marked improvement in a 15 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 short time of three years. They've dropped their truancy rate; their attendance is way up. Of course, they ended social promotion, but they ended social promotion -- and I hope Representative Perzel's listening to this -- because they got additional money from the state to operate summer school programs and remedial programs and after-school programs. And he makes it clear in here that they couldn't have ended social promotion without the additional monies. But he says there are six reasons why the Chicago school system has made the progress that they've made. And I'm not, obviously, going to read all six to you, but I'm going to submit the article, Mr. Chairman, for the record. First, first of all, number one is the issue of governance. In the past, Chicago had an obscure, indirectly appointed school board really somewhat aloof from accountability. And they had a superintendent, and if special-interest groups did net like what the superintendent was doing, they would go to the board or the mayor and try to circumvent the superintendent. 16 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 In Chicago today, Mayor Daley is responsible for the schools, no debate. He appoints a five-person corporate board and a CEO. The CEO, with the consent of the board, appoints everybody else. We have a holy trinity: Daley, the board, and the management team that I had. Before we go public with things, we always reach a consensus, we speak with one voice. So if the schools go bad, there's a political price to pay. The responsibility begins and ends with the mayor. And I would submit to you that what you're about to day and what Representative Perzel wants to do and whichever vehicle we choose to get us to that end result is fine with me, and that is almost an intergovernmental situation that I hope you will work out. But we need this. The next mayor, whoever he or she may be, should begin the term in office with the right to appoint all nine school board members. They should serve -- and this is one other important point. They should serve a term consistent with the mayor's term, but they should be removed, be capable of being removed at the pleasure of the 17 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 mayor. I have made now nine school board appointments, and without getting into names or personalities, one or two maybe of my appointments, they did not share, as it turned out, as time went on, did not share my view of what our educational mission should be. If that occurs, the mayor should not have to wait four years to replace that individual. That individual should serve at the pleasure of the mayor. " If we're going to lay this responsibility at the foot of the mayor, that mayor should have the responsibility to do so and should have the power to effectuate those goals. So with the submission of this to the record, my testimony is concluded.
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Are there any questions? Councilman Nutter?
Thank you. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate you coming this morning. I think 18 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 we're going to have copies made of that so we can get that document back to you. If I can just ask you a couple questions to get further elucidation of your views on a couple issues. I understand the concern that you've expressed, and we've talked before about the Council confirmation issue. As you know, that is an issue that I raised that has not been a part of any of the various studies that have been put forward. And the primary reason I did that is, from my experience at least, as now a legislator in our day-to-day engagement and whether we are involved in public schools or not involved in public schools, ultimately we are involved in public schools. And that, at least from a theoretical perspective, that if something happens, the Council is in a situation, as you know, technically, our sole responsibility is to reauthorize taxes. And we are left in the position of saying, Well, you know, we didn't have anything to do with that board member being over there; the mayor did that. And in the current environment, 19 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 everyone can really point the finger at someone else.
So it was merely an attempt to get some engagement by the Council in the process not to be obstructionist, not to --
No, and I understand that. And, again, I don't have overwhelmingly strong feelings on that. And, you know, if the change came with Council approval required, that would still be an enormous benefit to the citizens. But I think we really ought to -- and again, I recommend that article. I've heard Mr. Vallas speak and he's a very impressive guy. I just think it just has to be laid squarely at the doorstep. You can't let the mayor make an attempt to weasel out of it by saying, Well, I have to compromise with Council on my picks and, you know, to get 'em through, I had to give them three to get six of my own. And you know --
No. And by the way, I 20 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 think it has worked, for example, with SEPTA. I think Janie Newkirk has been -- basically was the desire of the Council, and she's been a fabulous SEPTA appointee.
Let me ask you to other questions. On the issue of -- presently, a person cannot serve more than two full terms which currently are six years. This proposal has that you can't serve more than two full terms, but they would be four years because people come in concurrent to the mayor's term. What, if any, feeling do you have about this is more of a -- this is a governance issue as well -- that the mayor comes in January of 2000, boards members are supposed to be appointed by May 1st of 2000. The current history is, most mayors who run for reelection get reelected in Philadelphia, so it becomes an eight-year term. All those same people get reappointed at the start of the second term, and then the new mayor coming in eight years later, because there's a term limit on the mayor, all of those board members would literally be turned out of office. So you'd now 21 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 have a new mayor and nine new board members. What is your perspective based on that scenario of eliminating term limits for board members such that the new mayor coming in would have the option or the opportunity to reappoint people who have previous service. This is the "continuity-of-government-in-institutional-history argument." Do you have any view on that?
That's a good point. I would not want to see unlimited terms but I think you could keep the same 12-year limit, which would allow a successor mayor to keep some members of the past board to give it a level of continuity. So I would not have any objection if we made it three terms because that is the same 12-year limit that we operate under today.
Okay. There's been some discussion, limited, in the public about whether or not there should be, for lack of better phrase, designated positions on the board; for instance, a certain number of positions to be reserved for people who are parents of public-school students, or positions should be 22 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 reserved for a person that has educational background experience, or a person who has a business or financial training. Do you have any particular perspective on that?
Yeah. Again, I would not do that. I think you would have to rely on the mayor to produce the right type of board for the right time. And there are different times in an institution like the School District's history where a different approach may be needed. I have, because of our financial problems, leaned a little bit more heavily on appointing corporate people than I would have had we had a district that was fully and appropriated funded. But I thought David Levan (ph.) was very important, for example, to give insights into the question of, Were we spending our money wisely, was there waste, were there ways to put more money into the classroom? And also, David Levan had credibility with the legislature as well. I think you have to leave that up to the mayor to try to strike that balance anyway. And if you think of it without specified slots, we 23 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 have basically struck some form of balance. Clearly, should we have a spot for parents, well then, then if you have a spot for parents -- and there's nothing wrong with that -- then do you have a spot for someone or have to make it mandatory that someone be on the board who has had teaching experience in the district, and then do you make it mandatory that someone from a community group, an organization be on the board. And I think if you start defining spots, you will wind up with a board that's locked in and hampers the mayor's ability to have the full range of choice. I think we've got to rely on the fact that the mayor will do that. I do regret not having someone on the board who's directly from a parent organization. And again, if I had the power to replace at will, I would have cured that. I would have loved to put someone like a Christine Davis on the board. But on the other hand, I have tried to make sure that everyone who's on the board either themselves went through our system or has children now in our system.
Mr. Chairman, if I 24 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 can ask one last question. Mr. Mayor, you spoke -- you've mentioned twice this removal at the pleasure of the mayor, and the current proposal in front of us actually does have that provision. I would again like to get your views, though, on any feeling of whether that gives a chilling effect, from your view, to any of the board members about their ability to be independent and make decisions that they think are the right thing and possibly fearful of removal. And what do you think is the mayor's responsibility to then explain such actions?
Again, I think we should keep in mind what our goal is here. Our goal is to give control and accountability jointly to the mayor. I think having the power to remove fosters that control, and I think it is a positive step. I think mayors are going to be reluctant to remove, just as we are to any other boards. We are reluctant to remove. I have discussions with board members -- leaving aside the Board of Education -- with board members that 25 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 I appoint. And I say to them very candidly, I say to them, Look, I'm 99 percent of the decisions that are going to come before you. I am appointing you because I have confidence in your judgment, in your intelligence. You make the decision. But I am the mayor, the people elected me. And if I feel that it is important in the interest of the City and I call you, I expect you to do what I say. Now, I make it clear. And I say, Look, if you don't like that arrangement, no offense, but don't serve on the board. Give me your word. Everyone has given me their word. Not everyone has lived up that to word, and I have removed board members fairly quickly from other boards who have violated that agreement that I reach with them. And we're supposed to have an art commission that has a level of independence but that, in fact, effectuates the basic policies of the administration. And I don't think the School Board should be any different from any other board. The Parking Authority, you know, same thing. That should be the basic policy of the 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 administration. You know, if I wanted to create a friendlier Parking Authority and free parking during the holidays not only downtown but in our neighborhood shopping areas, I don't want a board to vote me down, and I don't think the board should vote me down the, and it doesn't occur in almost any of our other boards, and it certainly shouldn't be the case in the School Board.
Just before I recognize Councilman Ortiz, one question, Mr. Mayor. It's been my understanding that the purpose of term limits is to avoid the aggregation of power, and generally, it applies to chief executives. I don't see board members having that kind of power or the possibility of aggregating that kind of power so as to exclude a mayor from being able to appoint them regardless of what time they've served. Sometimes it's important, I think, to maintain expertise.
Well, I agree, but let 27 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 me say that's one of the reasons I said we should extend it to 12. But there is a burnout factor in virtually everything that we do. And, you know, people are always questioning me now about the wisdom of the two-term limit for mayor, and I say to them that I am in favor of -- certainly, I agree with you, and am in favor of term limits for executives for of a lot of reasons: not only the accumulation of power, but it is a very difficult job, and there is a burnout factor. And I'm not so sure that if I had the ability to serve another four years that I would have if the law allowed me. I'm not so sure I would have been as effective in years 11 and 12 as I think I've been in the earlier years. And I think the School Board is a very difficult board position. It's very much the same as being in Council in the sense that there's constant pressure and constant demands. And I think to get a fresh look and to get people who are just not overwhelmed and burdened by dealing with these problems for 12 years is probably a good period of time. 28 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 But when you think of it, years is a very significant time period. And I don't think you've had any board served who's served for two terms really speak out and say, Gee, you know, I wish I could have served a third six-year term and the system was hampered by not being able to do that. I mean, I think you can make your mark and contribute in a 12-year period.
For obvious reasons, 11 I would appear to have a different point of view 12 with respect to term limits, you know. (Laughter.)
It's different in a legislative area. But the board basically takes executive action. I think the board is more like an executive officeholder, cumulatively.
Mr. Mayor, one of the criticisms of the legislation, and as one of the main proponents of this ordinance, is that it really doesn't go to education with a group educators. This is just cosmetic, it is sleight of hand. You're not dealing with the issues that 29 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 we're facing here in Philadelphia in terms of public schools. Your response to that?
Well, they're correct. This is just one part of the puzzle. Look, the problems facing our educational system are enormously diverse and complex. And, as all of you know, part of that are the problems that face us as a society. If every student entering our school system had two parents who worked and were committed to them achieving in schools, obviously, our educational system would be enormously better. So this is a complex problem that has to be solved on a number of fronts. I don't think anybody in this panel -- or certainly Councilman Nutter -- intended for this legislation to be the be-all and the end-all to fix all of our educational problems. So those people are correct, but I don't think anybody is pretending that this is going to fix all of our problems. It fixes one of our problems, and it is a very important problem. And, again, I would ask those people who don't think that this is 30 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 important to look at the Chicago experience and to read that relatively short interview of Mr. Vallas. I think it can make a significant difference. Can it cure all of our problems? No, which is why I said that I have great hopes that with Representative Perzel's leadership, we are going to be able to get an omnibus educational format out of legislature that will accomplish some of the governor's goals and some of the legislature's goals and some of our goals here as well. But this is not an omnibus reform act; this is narrowly tailored to deal with one portion of a very complex problem.
Let me note presence of Councilman DiCicco who's been present here from the inception of the meeting, and we're very much pleased by that presence. Any other questions? Councilwoman Blackwell?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Mayor. 31 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
I know that we're not dealing with that knowledge of that people, but I have two questions and I know you answered one in part.
The one about the board composition. It seems to me -- and all of us are in the thinking stages obviously -- that if we change how we do the board -- and I mean, my opinion is that people think coterminous terms is fine, that's my impression -- that maybe we do get a chance to consider who's there. For example, I agree that you have to have some people who understand the financial impact on the board, but I'd always thought, for example, with the number of PHA people in the City, that they ought to have a representative. So do you think it best that we try to do some kind of match with the kind of people that we have on the board in terms of qualifications being submitted to a committee or in some other form?
No, I would hope -- and 32 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 it is my understanding that the legislation did keep the educational nominating panel?
Yeah, and I would certainly recommend that. And, Councilwoman Blackwell, you are right, it would be great to have PHA representation. But if you starting categorizing each of the nine positions, you're going to wind up putting us in a box. For example, in the Art Commission, there is a requirement by charter that not only we have an architect but that we have a landscape architect. Now, good grief, you know, we need people with common sense. And I think that's the same thing on the School Board. So I think it's a very difficult -- in theory, it's sort of appealing. But I think, in implementation, it's very difficult to start drawing lines and creating categories.
Or maybe, given nine members, we could make some part of it. I think, you know, like I said, we think about it and maybe we could do some part of it.
But, again, which 33 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 category? For example, I think it does work on the PHA Board, the requirement that at least one member be a resident, and that the other four board members elect a resident. I think that works well. But that was fairly, you know, clear. That's the one category you should have. But if you start dealing with parents, well, then what about community support groups, what about a PHA representative? I think it just opens the door that I think is impossible for you to shut.
It seems to me that if we are to be a part of some change, though, that Council would like to have more input than we do now in order for change to come about. I mean, we are a separate but equal body. You know, you have the executive and legislative and judicial; we're separate, but we are absolutely equal. And I think that we would like to see that we get something other than a bill if there is a change. It's been a fight. I had a lot of problems being Education Chair those years -- until recently, the Finance Chair -- in asking 34 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 those questions. I was viewed as an enemy because I asked the question. So I would hope that before all of this is over that we have a way to make some changes where Council feels more a part of this -- whether it be a PHA person on the board or two community -- two people who are chosen other than some other way or three people or something. But I think we -- I myself would be for some kind of change. That's my first concern. A second one is, and I know it's not you; I just wanted your opinion. This last block that's concerned me since I read it, about collective bargaining with yourself and the School District as opposed to the way collective bargaining in the traditional sense has gone between the workers and the company. How do you see that, and how will that change things? How does that play out?
I think that is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. There hasn't been a teachers contract negotiated and agreed upon in this city for decades where the mayor hasn't signed off. In fact, the PFT now 35 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 makes it a requirement of the contract that the mayor sign the contract. I sign, even though legally, I have no 5 nexus to the bargaining process, PFT is -- both contracts -- I think all three that I have been a party to -- not a party to -- that I've been mayor for I have signed. And all of them are, in fact, negotiated with the mayor's office and the administration being part and parcel of the negotiating team. So whether you want to formalize that or not, I think, really doesn't make much of a difference. The board looks to the mayor for counsel and assistance on a contract, and the mayor has provided that. I think David Cohen, who worked for the administration, really basically negotiated the three teachers contracts that I've been present for.
Mr. Mayor, what would you say to the general argument that the changes suggested in the bill and resolution tend to politicize the educational system? 36 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Because politics is how we do business; it's how we do business as a society and it's certainly how we do business as a government that responds to the needs of our people. If we were sitting back at the beginning of time in the City of Philadelphia and we were creating a system, would we have created a system where education, which is so vital to economic development, to quality of life, to everything that our citizens yearn for, where education would be divorced from the political and governance process? Of course not. We would never have done that, you and I wouldn't have done that, this Council and I, if we were deciding from scratch. If you divorce something from the political process, you are isolating it and almost can sign it to the scrap heap. What works in the political process is accountability. Accountability only comes when people have the power to control that process. And we need fixed accountability. 37 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Politics, in my judgment, shouldn't be a dirty word.
Right. It shouldn't have to be a dirty word. And politicizing the process, making it part of the overall government structure, government control, that's a step in the right direction. That's true reform, in my judgment. So I think we should be careful about labels and names. But politics, again, I mean, what you do is politics, what I do is politics. An important part of being successful at governance is politics. Representative Perzel will tell you that he couldn't achieve the things he achieves in the legislature were he not to take into political consideration what his caucus and what other members of the legislature need. So I don't think there's anything wrong with politics. I think if it leads to accountability and, as Councilman Ortiz said, responsiveness, it is a plus.
Well, I can understand that with respect to financial matters, 38 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 but how about the questions of the curriculum and other policy matters that are involved with schools?
All right, let's look at the current example. For the last four years or three years plus, I have had control, appointed control of the board, I've had more than six members. And you can ask Superintendent Hornbeck, on things like curriculum, I have never tried to intervene. I understand that that is best left to education professionals. However, on a subject of whether we should have magnet schools, whether we should have special admission programs within our schools, whether we should have the high school academies, I did intervene. And you'll remember last year, I actually appeared at a School Board meeting to make my wishes known on that because there was some sentiment among staff to change that, and I thought that system was very, very important for keeping our public education system together for serving the needs of middle class, white and black and Asian and Hispanic parents who wanted to have a system where if their kids achieved and studied 39 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 hard and behaved themselves and attended well, that they could get, you know, into a specialized program. So on that issue, I think the fact that there was a political input was good. But, you know, on curriculum or study, I don't think you'll ever find a mayor who believes in any way that he has the level of expertise to get involved with that -- unlike, for example, the drafting of football players. (Laughter.)
But suppose there were such a mayor? Because there are a lot of public disagreements by different groups in society.
I understand but the answer to that is what Councilman Ortiz suggested: vote 'em out. If we have a mayor who is making significant mistakes by meddling in basic educational doctrine, get rid of him. And that's always been the way our system's worked, and it 40 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 has worked well for this country as a whole and for this city individually.
All right, thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Nutter? Councilwoman Blackwell?
Just one reflection. And that is, compared to the Art Commission, your comment, now I had been since Joan Specter was here, trying to get students, public-school works in these displays, these display booths percent of the time on the 14 second floor and fourth floor. So it's always 15 some elusive butterfly out there that I can't 16 ground. It goes to this art place or it goes to 17 somebody else. 18
The Chair notes the presence of Councilwoman Clark. And Councilwoman Clark, the Chair recognizes you. 41 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Forgive Councilwoman Clark, she's been suffering from days from that throat.
Thank you. I'm having a brilliant thought and no 9 way to say it. I hear you say that politics belongs in education, and that without politics, you can't fund it. I couldn't agree with that more. I think the problem that I'm having is, where do you draw the line between politics and funding and advocacy for educational reform?
And officious intermeddling in the curriculum and with things that are better left to the professionals?
But it is hard and I agree with that. But if I wanted to officiously intermeddle on curriculum, I might have the power to do so even now, under the current system. And I don't think this changes that; it just, you know, speeds up when the mayor has the power to do 42 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 that. I think the best answer to that is the voters. But for example -- and I'm not going to ask you to answer this question, but I would opine that most of the Council would agree that when I appeared before the School Board last year to ask to preserve the magnet schools and the special admissions programs, that that was not officious intermeddling; that that was sound policy-making by the mayor.
But Mr. Mayor, but if you had said that you thought that you had the right to set the criteria for who could be admitted --
And I agree that there's a fine line, but there's a fine line, Councilwoman Clark, in basically literally everything we do. I mean, I should not be picking the substance that we use to repave our streets -- I mean, because I don't have the technical 43 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 background to do that. I should make the judgment about whether we can afford a specific substance, but I should not be getting into that level of detail in the Streets Department, either.
But should you make that decision, those people who have the ultimate responsibility do work for you -- unlike the School District, which has a document that separates itself from the City. It was the express intent of the framers of the Educational Supplement to keep you from having to make those fine-line distinctions. I am not as persuaded as you are that politics has served us so well that we should give carte blanche to take over a tender morsel like the school (unintelligible).
Well, again, I don't think you're doing that. What you're doing is expediting the process. Eventually, a mayor -- if he's two-term mayor, and as the Chairman pointed out, that usually happens -- eventually, a mayor gets that level of control anyway. You're just beginning it at the start of the process, and I think the value of fixing accountability and 44 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 control outweighs any downside.
Excuse me, sir. There are parts of this proposal that I do favor. I like the coterminous, okay? I don't think the superintendent ought to be a member of the mayor's cabinet.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a point of order.
Councilwoman Clark, just for the record, I think the issue with regard to the superintendent being a part of the mayor's cabinet, you have been overwhelmingly influenced by two months $2 million worth of television advertisements. (Laughter.)
There is nothing in the bill or resolution that has anything to do with the superintendent.
I recognize that. 45 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 I was making a political statement.
But that's not on the bill as well. And all of my testimony was just on this bill and this resolution and on a very narrow concept. And I would agree with you. There should be some distance. But I also believe -- and, again, I don't use -- you weren't here when I read the part of the article from the CEO of the Chicago schools. I also believe that benefits that flow from accountability and control are enormous, and I think we can temper them by not doing some of the things that would be more of a reach. And I would agree with you. But, again, in the end, in the end, the voters will temper and will decide on whether it might be officious intermeddling to some and why it's policy to others, the voters will draw that line. I mean, there are people who didn't think I should have appeared before the School Board to make a plea not to get rid of the special 46 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 admit programs, and they would have labeled that as officious intermeddling. So you're right, it's a very difficult line to draw. And having superintendent as part of the cabinet probably, you know crosses it.
May I just interrupt for a moment to welcome the attendance here of school children from the 3rd-grade class of the Calvary Temple Christian Academy in South Philadelphia, that are accompanied by Lois Mann, their teacher. Would they all stand please. (School children stand for recognition.) (Applause.)
And to the class, you're having an educational lesson in City Council. That's the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia who's testifying before a City Council committee. And we welcome you here and hope you will return. Thank you.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if there's nothing else, could I be excused? 47 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Mayor, you described your concept on how the board would be appointed and how you would remove a board member that wouldn't be consistent with your policies. What if that were the case in the private sector in the corporate world? Do you believe that that's how board members are hired and fired in the corporate world?
No, although shareholders can get rid of board members. But I don't think that that's necessarily -- and I agree with you, it's different, but I don't think that's necessarily an analogy because the people elect the mayor to be both CEO and chairman of the board. We don't elect the mayor to be just CEO, the mayor's not hired by a board; the mayor is hired by the people to be both chairman and CEO. So I think the analogy -- I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the analogy holds up.
Mayor, could you describe your involvement as the mayor when you 48 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 learned that the School District of Philadelphia wasn't providing textbooks to students? You mentioned how you distance yourself on certain issues from the day-to-day operations of the School District? How did you respond to that?
Well, I picked up the phone and I called the superintendent and I said, Look, I don't care what it costs, spend the necessary money. That's something that is, to me, non-negotiable. Just like music and art is non-negotiable. As long as I'm here, we are going to have music and art courses in the public schools. We are not going to have second-class students. And books, to me, is a non-negotiable item. And, of course, the problem that you uncovered in your latest hearings did not go to the funding issue on books; it went to sort of other administrative issues you.
Did you respond at all, or did you involve yourself on this bus 49 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 attendant issue?
I mean, again, going back to what Councilwoman Clark said, I try not to intermeddle and I try not to micro-manage the district -- anymore than I try to micro-manage the police department. But I do, on certain issues, intervene. For example, I picked up the phone and called Commissioner Timoney, and he assured me that this was being done, and I said, Look, in the March of the protesters on the death penalty of Mumia, I want those protesters to have the ability to march, I don't want them to be impeded. On the other hand, you know, we can't tie up downtown traffic for an entire day, but I do not want them not to feel intimidated or harassed, and they should be subjected to the same rules that any other organization's subjected to -- no more or no 24 less. And I also told the commissioner that I 50 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 wanted to make sure that even though the police line of police officers disagree with the marchers, that there be no expression of displeasure and no conduct that would be unbecoming a police officer. And I asked him to become personally involved. So I don't meddle day to day, but there are certain issues where I believe it's my responsibility to get involved.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And we're very pleased that you were available for these questions and answers.
The next witness will be the Honorable John Perzel, who locally is a state representative of the 172nd District but is the Pennsylvania House Majority Leader. And I would suggest that if other 51 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 members of the legislature -- State Representative Dwight Evans and Senator Schwartz want to sit at the table, I think that would be appropriate so we could have the State presence. (Members of State panel come forward.) STATE REP. PERZEL: Thank you very much for having me here this morning. First off, I have been speaking now with Representative Evans for about three years about changing the way the system of education works in the City of Philadelphia. To give accountability to --
Mr. Perzel, may I ask you, just for purposes of the record, to state your name. STATE REP. PERZEL: Sure. My name is John Perzel, P-E-R-Z-E-L. I'm the State Representative from the 172nd Legislative District. I was also elected by my colleagues to be in charge of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. So as majority leader, I am here today. I am not seeking, though, for the entire legislature until I have 102 votes. (Laughter.)
Thank you, 52 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Mr. Perzel. STATE REP. PERZEL: And I apologize because when you were introducing the mayor, I thought you were referring to Representative Evans here to my right 'cause I thought he was going to be the next mayor or Philadelphia. (Laughter.) STATE REP. PERZEL: So the school children have the opportunity to see two -- at least one of our candidates, and I think I saw John White also here as a candidate for mayor, and I still didn't change over yet, John. Marty didn't get me.
I'm working on it. STATE REP. PERZEL: I know you're working on it. I believe with all of my heart that somehow, some way, you need to be accountability into the school system of Philadelphia. You just listened to the mayor for 45 minutes while he told you that the only thing he really is basically allowed to do is sign a contract that doesn't mean anything, even with his signature on it. That's what he admittedly told you here today. 53 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So what happens now? Somebody signed a contract with the School District of Philadelphia that, last year, was $50 million short, and they went out and they borrowed the money. This year, by their own admission, they are at least $25 million short. And next year, they will be $200 million short. So unless you can put some accountability and say, This particular person or persons -- whether it be the mayor or whether it be City Council -- is responsible for what's going on there. The buck keeps passing around as about who is responsible for all of this money. The General Assembly, according to Jonathon Saidel, puts 60 percent of the money into the School District of Philadelphia. So we are more than partners with you; we are now becoming overly partners with you. So -- and I do hear constantly about the fact that we don't supply the money that's necessary to run the School District in Philadelphia. And that's nice, but we have absolutely no say whatsoever -- with the exception of hearing people say, Well, the General 54 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Assembly's not supplying enough money. And I can tell you, as the leader, that there is no additional money coming without some form of changes within the system of the way the School District operates in Philadelphia. If we can show you, through me, through Dwight, and through your elected officials in the General Assembly, unless we can show the other members and the governor that's something's changing, there's no additional funding coming. So you're going to have to live within the means that you have, or you're going to have to change things. And I think that what Councilman Nutter came up with was a very, very good first start, and I think it goes a long way. It goes not all the way, but it goes a long way in straightening out right now what is an accountability problem. Because right now, you can legitimately sit there and say to me that you're not responsible. And the mayor sat here for 45 minutes and said he's not responsible. So who's responsible? And when you have a system like that, then there's no accountability. 55 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So I agree with the contents of the two bills that are before you here today -- the Council bill and the Council resolution introduced by Councilman Nutter. And I believe that we should be striving more toward what they're doing in Chicago to make sure that every child does better in our Philadelphia public schools. Because in the end, if they can't read and write properly, we all pay. Right now, our prison budget in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is $1.1 billion. We build one new prison every year. And if a kid can't get out and get a job and read and write properly, they end up making a living somehow. So generally, that "somehow" ends of being going to crime, selling drugs, whatever it takes to feed their family something. So this is something very important for all of us. And at this point in time, I'll turn it over to my colleagues.
Representative Evans, if it's all right with the members of the committee, I think it would be a good idea if the three people go right ahead.
We don't want to 56 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 have a State legislative fight here in the City Council. We will assume that the legislators will work it out between them. And I'm not sure in this body whether a senator outranks a representative. So you'll decide amongst yourselves. Thank you. (Laughter.) SENATOR SCHWARTZ: I'm going to take senatorial privilege here if I may for just a minute. In addition to the fact that some of you know I have an event myself in a few minutes. So I'm sorry, I will have to excuse myself. I have 650 people coming for lunch. And while I'm not cooking, I am expected to be there. So I do want to make a few comments because I have been --
Please identify yourself for the record. SENATOR SCHWARTZ: I'm State Senator Allyson Schwartz. And I do want to agree with much of what has been already said. And with the orientation of the legislation this morning, I do support a change in the governance structure. I 57 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 do support a greater accountability, making sure that the mayor actually does appoint school board members, and that it is clear, both publicly and to the School District and to the City Council, who is really responsible. I think it has been said already several times that it is very important, certainly from the State legislative point of view, but I think also for the public and for parents in Philadelphia, to understand who is actually accountable for the finances and accountable for the management of the School District. Much works well in the School District now, and much needs to be improved on. And I have submitted to you my legislation at the State level, which does make some of these changes. And I do support making these changes -- those that can be made by City Council, those that can be made through the City Charter. Councilman Nutter and I have talked about this. I would be supportive of it happening at the City Council level. But you will need some State action as well. And so I do have legislation that I 58 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 introduced last session. I will be reintroducing it, and I gave you an outline of that. And I am perfectly happy to proceed with that and to work with my colleagues in the House to get this done. I do want to make just another point if I may, and that is to make it very clear that the changes in governance ought to be done in the context of understanding that it is just that -- changes in governance. It will not change funding, it will not automatically draw down additional State dollars. I do hope that it sets the frame work for greater accountability so that we will be able to get Republicans and Democrats from all over the State to be willing to recognize the degree to which Philadelphia schools are improving but need greater investment from the State level. My legislation does have a State oversight component built in as well, which does not have authority as much as oversight and the ability to communicate to the General Assembly and to the governor what progress has been made in the schools and what else needs to be done and what greater degree the State might need to weigh in on 59 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 that. It is not a State take-over; it is an oversight committee. And I'm willing to have discussion about that, if we think that that is useful, if it's useful again in assuring greater accountability and, hopefully, in drawing the State into this discussion about the degree to which the State needs to be a greater partner, I would say, not just in Philadelphia, but across this commonwealth in investing in public education for our kids. So I am happy to answer questions about that. I think that there have been some comments made this morning that might make for some adjustments in the legislation that either I've drafted or Councilman Nutter has drafted in terms of term limits and that kind of thing. My legislation does not speak to term limits but I think that I would be open to seeing some continuity. I think that was a useful comment that there be term limits, that 12 years be considered. So I would hope that Councilman Nutter would be open to that. And I'm happy to continue to work with 60 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 City Council, with the current mayor, with the future mayor, and of course, with my colleagues in the House to get this done and to make it very clear to the public that education has to be a major priority in this city in the future.
And this next mayor's going to have to attend to it, and this next City Council will have to attend to making sure that this public school system does the job it needs to do for all of the kids in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Representative Evans, please identify yourself for the record first. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dwight Evans, State Representative. I representative the 203rd Legislative District in West Oak Lane. I'd like to just certainly make some observations. Certainly probably outside of yourself, Mr. Chairman, there's probably not been anyone who's been in public office longer than anyone who's in this room. And there's something historical happening today, and I've been in 61 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 public office for years. I have not seen in 19 years where the mayor of the City of Philadelphia, a Republican leader, a Democratic leader, a state senator, and the Councilpeople are discussing in the City of Philadelphia, in an open forum, the direction of education. And, in my view, that in itself is a start. Obviously, we can have the discussion, but the reality of it is, I've said consistently, unless we kind of get into the room and have an open discussion, there's nowhere we're going to go. And we can't talk about Democrat, Republican, liberal, moderate, or conservative. We have to talk about what is in the best interests of the children. And I'd like to give you a little history and lead up to complementing Councilman Michael Nutter for taking his initiative on this level, as well as Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, when she was Chairperson on the Education Committee. She, too, took a real lead on charter schools. Representative Perzel and I formed an alliance in 1996. And when we formed the alliance 62 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 in 1996 around the issue of schools, we formed it on the basis that we were no longer concerned about what political party we're from or no matter what color we are, but that we knew that something had to happen differently. And I'd like to give you a little history 'cause I've done a lot of research on this particular issue. I've been to Chicago, Cleveland, and now in Detroit. In Chicago, the mayor has accepted, lock, stock and barrel, the political responsibility of what takes place in the schools. He has taken that responsibility and basically said that the buck stop stops with him. In Cleveland, Cleveland Mayor Mike White has also taken the responsibility for what takes place in the schools. Now, in Detroit, Mayor Archer, it was just passed by the legislature. Now there is a reform commission set up in Detroit. They are now moving in that direction. There's no question at a certain time, when our Home Rule Charter was designed and the system was constructed, it may have been appropriate at that particular time. But this is 63 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 1999 and we're going into the 21st century, and I think it is the year of responsibility and it is the year of accountability. And we all have to begin to accept responsibility. I think that the parents of this city rely on us a great deal and hope that we will work together in the interests of all of the children. I've always said that it's not an issue that all schools are bad schools in the City of Philadelphia. I think we know what the good schools are and I think we certainly know what the bad schools are. But I think the challenge has been that we have not been able to figure out a way of how we make sure that student performance happens in all 257 buildings. So the question that I really raise and the fundamental question -- and I disagree with some people who say that governance changes will not in any way affect student performance. You only have to read the Pennsylvania Economy League report that indicates the barriers and the roadblocks that stand in the way of children achieving. Now, we don't like to talk about that 64 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 but I will say this: The teachers' contract and the memorandum of understanding, in my view, is a potential problem.
Now, that's not that I blame the teachers union; I blame mayors and school boards for years that have negotiated contracts that have not been in the interests of the children in terms of how you run and manage the school. And I will consistently say that over and over again until someone really understands that you can have the best principal in the world and the best teacher in the world, but they have to be a labor lawyer to fully understand how to run and to manage what takes place in that school. When you have principals, in my view, who are not fully in charge of what takes place. I found it interesting and John Perzel said that the mayor -- and I think that this question was asked by Chairman Cohen. When Chairman Cohen asked the mayor -- or someone asked about the books, and the mayor said statement where the mayor said what he did is, he made a phone call and he called over to the School District and he said to the School District to put 65 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 some more money in it. But, you know, the money was not the issue; the lack of accountability was the issue. It is because of this Council that you have for years been pushing that the School District do something about books. You went from $9 million. You suggested that they go from $9 million to $24 million -- that's what you have suggested. However, no one put any stipulations of any type of accountability on parents, on students, on teachers, or the superintendent regarding the books. So every year, you would increase the amount of money that went for books, but the reality of it was that there was no check made in the system terms of what took place until this Council -- and I think it was Michael Nutter or Jim Kenney or Donna -- I don't know who it was, but I think it was this time that you finally, you finally said that you wanted strings attached. So my issue and what I'm pointing out to you is that what happens when you come to Harrisburg and when you say that the School District is underfunded, and someone reads in the 66 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 newspaper that you go from $9 million to $24 million on the issue of books and then you say you're underfunded, and you're not even managing what you have. So it gets back to -- the question is yes, this legislation is very appropriate about, one, the appointments. The buck should stop here and the mayor should be held accountable. Two, the fact is that if we build this kind of political consensus in this city for the first time and not have an antagonistic attitude with Harrisburg, not have an attitude that we're going to shut the schools down if Harrisburg doesn't give us more money, that's counterproductive. So in my view, the mayor should be held accountable. The mayor, on the day that the mayor is elected, sworn in, should make all the appointments. The only issue -- I'll say this to you, and this is to Council, and we are both legislators. The only issue I would have with you -- and I sort of had a conversation with Councilman Nutter a little bit about this issue, Councilman Nutter -- is your confirmation 67 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 authority. I would only raise the issue with you that unless people are serious, serious about their authority and not get into the same old political business as usual with confirmation, then it's a joke. But if you're going to play a part on confirmation, you're going to be prepared to bite the bullet, and you're going possible prepared to be at the table because the bottom line is, when you put somebody on the board, they have to have the ability to make decisions. And if it's going to become what I consider -- and I used to be a ward leader, and I know Councilman Cohen's a ward leader and I know President Verna's a ward leader and I know Councilman Nutter's a ward leader -- it cannot be that kind of approach, if cannot be that approach.
If you want to turn around and turn the confirmation into, you know, who has one and who has this and who has that because, I'm telling you, it will be the same thing you have now. So if you're going to have a confirmation process and the mayor's going to make recommendations or you going to accept the 68 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 recommendations, then there has to be a system that is put in place that the buck has to stop at somebody, that everybody takes the confirmation process serious, and it not be something where people play the same old games, and the buck is passed between the mayor and the Council. In the meantime, parents' kids are fall through the cracks while we continue to play politics as usual. So I'm saying to you that I think Councilman Nutter's on the right path. I think we can work out the differences, whatever we have. I think that's a step. The other step of it is I also have legislation along with Majority Leader Perzel that basically will go a lot further 'cause my theory is, until you put more power in the hands of principals, you put teachers on one-year performance contracts. We do deal with property tax long-term -- I want to say that publicly. We do need to change the way schools are funded long-term, move off the dependency. But the point of it is, we got to do both. We got to do academic accountability, we 69 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 got to change the way schools are funded, and we all in this room have to be held accountable -- from Council to Harrisburg. And we've got to stop, we have to stop pointing fingers at each other 'cause we're losing population in this city. So I say to you today, Mr. Chairman and the Councilmen, particularly Councilman Nutter is on the right path in what he's trying to do. I stand here with colleague, Majority Leader Perzel. He and I are 1,000 percent committed to radically -- I mean, not marginally, I want to be clear. He didn't say it, but I will say it -- radically going to change this system. I'm very much determined that we're going to change this public school system so we'd like to have your cooperation, and we can do it better with you working with us rather than us coming from Harrisburg and trying to impose it on you.
Thank you. One brief comment, and I'm always 70 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 reluctant to correct someone who has expressed support for a piece of legislation and given a tremendous amount of praise, but shortly, Representative Evans, you may go back to Harrisburg, and I have to live here. (Laughter.)
So on the book issue, let me make the record clear: I did not solve that problem by myself. I played a minor role in it, and it was the bulk of the Council and many individual members here who raised that issue. And hopefully, we've gotten some better resolution to it. I do have to live amongst my colleagues here. I do thank you for your testimony, and I know that a lot of ideas have been shared here today. Many of them are directly on point with the legislation in front of us, and many of them or prospective ideas that would have a tremendous impact on public education, but many of those items can only be addressed by Harrisburg. The reason I've proposed this matter in the manner that I have is from a basic perspective that we should only ask the State to do for us 71 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 those things that we cannot do ourselves. We do have the ability, through the Educational Home Rule Act, to make some changes. There are other changes that people may want to make that are beyond our scope and our authority. But I do think that the discussion and the raising of those issues is important. Again, part of the reason for today's hearing is, from my perspective at least, is to not only talk about the pending legislation but also to develop open lines of communication between the City and the State -- whether about governance issues or other issues that people may want to talk about. I didn't get a chance to say it when the mayor was at the table, that I was the first to say, when the legislation was introduced and in my discussions with my colleagues, I have no 19 confusion about what this is and what it is not. It will not result in children learning better in classrooms. But if they are not learning better in classrooms, it is at least clearer as to who is responsible for it. So I am not trying to oversell this piece of legislation. It is what it is. It 72 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 changes some things that need to be changed. But this is not radical reform; these are things that have been talked about for many, many years. There are other things that need to be changed, but they are not a part of this particular legislation today. And so I don't want anyone to leave the room thinking that we have solved all the problems of public education whenever this particular hearing ends. I think we have started a process. And, to my recollection -- and Councilman Cohen and certainly Councilwoman Verna and Councilwoman Clark have been here much longer than myself, and they have a greater history about what the relationship, publicly at least, has been between the City Council and the State legislature. But I think that this is a good day and a good thing to have happen, and I look forward to continued discussions about these issues.
Thank you Councilman Nutter. The Chair would like to note the presence of Councilwoman Donna Miller and Councilman James Kenney and Councilman Rick 73 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Mariano, which raises to 11. Councilman Rick Mariano's a member of the committee. It raises the number of Councilmembers concerned and managed to be here to more than two-thirds of Council in that out of the current members have been 7 present. And we're very pleased by that. 8 I'd like to ask -- President Verna had 9 one question or comment she would like to make. 10
Yes. I 11 personally this think this is a new beginning. 12 For years, I have been saying that both of our 13 legislative bodies certainly should be having a 14 great deal of dialogue -- not only about the 15 School District but about many other issues. Can you tell me -- and I think we should have this ongoing dialogue. Can you tell us when you anticipate the Reform Act to be enacted? Do you see it happening before the end of the year? Or. . STATE REP. EVANS: Well, from my perspective -- I'm not speaking for the majority leader; I'll let him speak for himself, he has control of the members. I am encouraging sooner rather than 74 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 later, in the next 30 to 60 days. We have a budget that we have to pass by June. That's why your legislation is so timely in having both of us here at this particular time. We've been having general discussions. I can't say to you at this point that 102 numbers are there. One of the problems has been -- I'm going to be blunt with you in this room. Blunt in this room, right? We need a consensus from the mayor's office. We need a consensus from -- we need to know in a very definitive way, and if we could get your help with that, we need to know if the mayor is prepared to bite the bullet with us. It's difficult as we go down this path because when we did Act 46, there were people who may not recall, who were somewhat upset with Act 46 because it seemed like "Big Brother" was trying to impose the State's effort. I want to be very clear. My general sense -- and John Perzel can speak for himself. I don't think the governor, nor anybody in the State wants to take over the School District. I want to be clear -- no one wants to take over the 75 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Philadelphia School District. But I do think that no one in Harrisburg can sit around if individuals make threats like they made last year that they're going to shut the schools down. No one can sit around and accept that. So Act 46 was put in place. No one wants to implement Act 46. What we would much prefer to do is to work with you and the mayor in terms of the changes that you want to see, the changes as what Councilman Nutter is suggesting here, the changes in terms of some things around the school code, some things that was in the Pennsylvania Economy League, some things that was in the Committee of Seventy. One thing I want to give as a little history, and I know Fred Voigt is here. I was there in 1981 when Bill Green suggested what we try to do in the legislature, and we failed. So I recall what took place during that 50-day strike, and I was one of the people who supported that effort in 1981. What I would like to see done, Madam President, is that you, as a group, step forward, 76 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 build some kind of consensus with us. But I want to say this about the consensus. I have said this and I have a comment with the Chairman of this committee. He sometimes may agree with me, but I have said to him, see, I think we have to discuss every education venue, even things like choice. I've said that. We have to discuss that. And I've said that. Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell took a real lead on charter schools, and there are now 12, charter schools and now they're going 12 to go to 25. 13 And the only problem I have when we begin to have this kind of discussion is basically, people say Well, why don't you talk about funding, then we could talk, but we don't to talk about charters and we don't want to talk about choice, we're not going to talk about those issues. Well, you have to understand the political climate that we're operating in in Harrisburg. So it cannot be, in my view, an off-limits discussion because someone doesn't agree. Then either you don't vote for that, you don't vote for that, but you can sit there -- you 77 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 can sit there and say, We're not going to discuss it.
But we're not going to be able to build kind of a resolution to this if we don't discuss it. So to your question, I think in 30, 60 days, there will be something that will happen. But the point of it is, even when that process happens, I would like to have a full discussion with each and every one of you about what's going to happen. But when people tell me up front, Well, Dwight I can't touch that because -- look, I understand about a primary between here and May 18th, I'm clear about that, I'm aware of that. But I also understand that we have a big problem next year: $200 million. The State is not going to raise taxes, the City cannot afford to raise taxes. The State's not going to raise, the City cannot afford to raise taxes. So we have a problem. And we need to understand that we've got to put everything on the table. And that's, Madam President, what I found the most difficult problem in terms of trying to deal with this issue is that people basically don't want to discuss something because they say, Politically, I got 78 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 somebody out there who may hurt me. Well, guess what, we'll have somebody that hurts us even more if we don't step up.
I totally agree with what you've said. And I just want you to know that I not only speak for myself but, as you can see, just about every member of Council is present. And I want to assure you that we are very eager to work with you. And if you want to call meetings, we'll make certain that we'll make the appropriate arrangements. But it's something that concerns all of us, and we're very eager to work with you. STATE REP. PERZEL: I'd like to just make a point that one of the things that we'd like to make sure that occurs is that the School District is held harmless no matter what we do. So the money will still come no matter what changes are made. Representative Evans is right, Councilwoman. We count the votes first. We're six away. When we have the six, we'll run it. 79 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning Representative Evans and Majority Leader Perzel. Certainly, I would like to thank you both for your commitment to public education. And I've talked with you both here and certainly privately, and I'm sure that when I say that, that I'm speaking the truth. I believe we're going through growing pains that it will be the better for all of us once we get to the other side. I think that all of us agree that we have reached a point where we need some level of accountability -- certainly more than we have. Any time we can mention it, I mentioned that I've been fighting for years, almost since before I came, when Lou was the Council President, just to try to have school -- public school children either have their essays or artwork displayed in our display cases on the second and fourth floor, and I've been fighting for that for 80 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 some years. So certainly, we agree with that. I'm going to ask you a question. I believe that issues we've dealt with here -- I've introduced resolutions dealing with certainly school violence, and Council adopted a report. We had to even introduce a resolution about starting school in September closer to on-time. We were starting them near Thanksgiving. Now I believe the superintendent lowered it to October, but we got to start to ground running. I mean, we have had hearings on so many things like Ritalin and behavior-altering drugs. As you know, we started talking about Ritalin when nobody had heard of it. So there are a lot of issues that in Council we've tried to talk about. Certainly now we're dealing with books and bus attendants. But I'm curious to know if you have any suggestions. This whole idea of certainly what school boards should look like. I wonder if either of you have any ideas. Certainly I understand that whether we deal with a committee that submits these people to the mayor or to the mayor directly, that doesn't have to mean anything. But whether or not that the people 81 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 should be a composition from different parts of the community or some part of it. For example, I think we should have, as I said, a PHA person. I mean, PHA is a city within a city. How many people do we have, some 80,000 or something? If we have that many residents, it seems to me that we can help their schools and preschools and day care if we have that person. And maybe we have two or three other members who, on some scale, we have some of those. And in another part, out of nine members, have some that represent certainly the business community or the formal banking community or some professionals in money management. Do either of you have -- have you thought about it or do you think that there is some way we ought to consider this that's maybe better than another? STATE REP. EVANS: I think, to your point, Councilwoman, and what I heard when you asked them the question, that could occur under the current system, in my view. If the mayor wanted to put someone from PHA through using the nominating panel. If that was a commitment on the 82 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 part of the mayor, the mayor could put somebody from PHA now. I mean, the way the process works, he gets a number of appointments, and he can maneuver that nominating committee when he wants to maneuver that nominating committee. And if he wanted somebody on there from PHA, the mayor could have taken care of that right now. So what I see lacking -- and I understand -- I understand the motive of your question. That's if there is a commitment. My sense is to your question is that basically, the mayor, the current mayor -- and I'm not questioning if he's committed to education or not. Obviously to the issue you raised, it could have been done, you know, you don't need a change in order to -- you could do that right now.
The mayor could have put somebody on there from PHA if he wanted to put 'em on there now, the mayor could have put that person on there. STATE REP. PERZEL: I'd like to bring something up that I know that you don't really have a lot to do with right now because you're not involved in the governance of the School 83 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 District. Just about five or six weeks ago, Enron came in to the School District of Philadelphia -- this will go back to I thought you ought to be putting more businesslike people on there, not looking at the PHA. But Enron offered the School District $25 million over the next years to pick up the 10 School District's electric contract. And along with that, they were going to put in about 30 to $40 million worth of controls to make sure the lights were all off on time, they would have been automatic lighting, to save money and to actually make money over the course of the contract. Another company, and I'm pretty sure it was PP&G -- I might not be 100 percent right, but can get the company. It was in the newspaper. That company offered them 3 million. Now, you have a chance of 25 million or 3. Now you know which one they took. 3. ) to work with Dwight and find out why they did something like that. 84 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Because maybe you do have a legitimate gripe to say we should be sending more money but when, internally -- and not you, the School Board. But when they're not looking at opportunities like that, there's something wrong with the system, and somebody ultimately -- and that's the purpose of this legislation -- has got to be held accountable for something like that.
And certainly I believe that if we are going to change the Charter on both levels, then we ought to put in something that provides for input and that certainly -- I mean, changing the term to be coterminous with the mayor's fine, but it's not enough. How often do we change the Charter if we do? If we're going to make these changes, then I think we ought to do something to have it more representative of our needs and to allow some way for input and accountability. STATE REP. EVANS: Well, Councilwoman, I --
Representative, before you answer, if I may tie this into the same question to the majority leader. Why wouldn't the 85 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 mayor have a responsibility now, even though there is nothing written in the law to that effect to inquire into the question you raise? I find it a very interesting question. The mayor indicated in matters where he was concerned, he doesn't hesitate time now to involve himself. I'm very concerned, and I would like to know the answer to that question that you raised. STATE REP. PERZEL: I suppose he could, but I didn't --
I mean, I've learned enough arithmetic to understand the difference between million and 3 million, and $22 million 16 is an awful lot of difference. 17 STATE REP. PERZEL: I saw nothing after 18 they let that contract about anybody saying 19 anything was wrong with that. 20
Well. . . 21 STATE REP. PERZEL: So I'm sure he 22 could have but he chose not to. 23
Representative 24 Evans please. 25 STATE REP. EVANS: Mr. Chairman and 86 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Councilwoman, look, to me, it's again a question of commitment. And obviously, may it be PHA or may it be a business person, Representative Kathy Manorino (ph.), who is from Councilman Nutter's Councilmatic district, some of you are aware of the Roxborough special admission issue. And I find it strange -- and I don't want to get into that whole discussion again but I find it strange when a legislator has to use threats in order to get someone to listen and understand. Because it seems like nobody's in control, it seems like nobody's in control. You vote for a certain portion of money, we vote for a certain portion of money, and yet we have people over there, and it probably looks embarrassing to the public. You vote for money, we vote for money. And yet, people look at us and they say, like, Why can't people pay attention to what we are saying? Now, this is where I do agree with why the mayor should be held accountable. I think that what has happened historically, we have allowed mayors to get away with, when it's convenient, telling us certain things; and then on 87 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the other hand, we have not forced this system to work. So we have not forced-- we have not held people feet to the fire, and we allow them to get away and then come tell us one thing and then come tell you another thing and then get away with it.
This is just on Councilwoman Blackwell's point quickly, Councilman Ortiz. I think Councilwoman Blackwell's point about whether in the immediate sense someone from PHA or a representative of the PHA organization -- I believe there's a citywide -- for instance, citywide Tenants Council. In the supplement to the Home Rule Charter, in section 12-206, there's a provision that says, "In the event, no organization, as described in one of the clauses through of subsection b. exists within the city, or in the event there's no such organization, any one of whose officers is a registered voter of the City, the mayor shall appoint the highest-ranking officer who is a registered voter of the City from 88 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 another organization or institution which qualifies under another clause of the subsection." The mayor may be able to take that action now because, as we know, unfortunately, it was announced maybe a month or so ago that the organization Citizens Committee on Public Education in Philadelphia may, in fact, have gone out of business. And I believe that they are a qualifying organization under one of the various clauses 1 through 9. There may other organizations that may be in the same situation. I think it's something that should be looked at and the mayor should explore under the current power that the mayor has. STATE REP. EVANS: You're being generous, Mr. Nutter.
I'm just a nice guy. STATE REP. PERZEL: Councilman, by their own admission, over the next year and a half, they're going to be somewhere around $300 million in the hole.
Right. 89 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 STATE REP. PERZEL: I mean, whether you appoint somebody from the Housing Authority or somebody from business or whoever it is, by their open admission, they can't meet their -- they can't pay people.
I understand. STATE REP. PERZEL: So I mean, I hear what you're saying and I don't have any objection to it, but the problems are deeper than whether or not it's somebody from the Housing Authority sitting on the board. And the can do that now; it's not --
Right, I understand. I was just trying to address the Councilwoman's issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to see the two representatives from both sides of the aisle here. I think there's nothing more important, and I think a few of us have been speaking about education and the debate on public schools and the public school 90 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 system. I believe totally and wholeheartedly in the public school system of this country. I believe everything should be discussed. I don't believe in the dismantling by piecemeal basis of the public school system. Now, things have worked in different parts of this country. Chicago, you have seen it. Tony Alvarado in New York has made -- and now he's superintendent of the San Diego school system. He has made the district of East Harlem a model. He asked for accountability from his principals and from his teachers and he got 'em. It was leadership, Dwight. Representative Evans speaks about leadership. It was leadership that was exerted. This is about governance, and I think it's about time that we began to put accountability in the right place. Representative Perzel, you said it very clearly. We have to make sure that the mayor and Council, because we have gone through debates in this Council where we never are held accountable. And we give some good speeches about public 91 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 education. But in the end, we are not the ones responsible for public policy, we're not the ones responsible for making that decision on Enron, for example. STATE REP. PERZEL: I agree.
Once we get over governance, as the mayor said, and get to the substance of public policy and funding and the substance of the educational system. And here, Harrisburg has a responsibility. And you said that we have to take some steps before Harrisburg begins to look at us differently. I don't believe in vouchers, I don't believe in charter schools spreading out all over the city and taking money away from the public school system. I believe that we have to strengthen public school system, and I believe we can do it. It's been done in other cities; I don't see why we're different. But we have here a situation in which we have $100 million right now that the mayor said if we could release that $100 million -- and this Council I think would agree with that -- that that $100 million would go to public education. And 92 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 that's the $100 million that we use for funding the court system, that the Supreme Court has said is the responsibility of the State. And we are now carrying that $100 million out of our operating budget. We need your help in releasing that amount of funding because that's money of the citizens of Philadelphia that we can apply directly to the school system. So let us begin with that one step. You take over the funding of the court system, and we begin applying that money to the deficit that we are going to be facing. My daughter goes to public school. She hasn't had an art teacher or a music teacher because those programs have been cut. She gets an art teacher once a week. We need -- we have cut academic programs out of the system. We need to begin placing back some of those academic programs into the system. I agree, we need to discuss everything on the table. We need to have a debate on public schools. But let us begin fairly. We have $100 million that is the responsibility of the State, the court system. We need that money for the 93 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 City's schools system. Let us begin with that step. ) STATE REP. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, let me say this to you. When you say that the school system is being dismantled, it's already been dismantled. You only have to look -- I listened to you, Councilman. It's already dismantled when you see loss of population. I represent West Oak Lane, East Oak Lane, and Olney, and it borders Cheltenham. And Cheltenham has detectives, Chelten has all kinds of people. And when I hear you make a statement, particularly the statement when you said you're against charter schools, then you're against the idea that Espera, who has a charter -- let me finish, I listened to you, sir. You're again the idea of Espera that has a charter school. Now, why did Espera form and design the charter school? Obviously they formed one 'cause they obviously felt that in the Latino community, that the schools were not meeting their needs. They have a waiting list to get into Espera currently first. 94 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So I want to be clear. Yes, the way we fund public schools should be a debate. But I think that you need not get away from the fact of the accountability, the way the system is operated, the way it is performed, and nobody's asking those questions -- may it be from books, may it be from teacher accountability, may it be from principal accountability, may it be from parent accountability. So to continue with that same argument, think that if the State magically drops $100 million -- and I've been in the legislature for years. Never, never, never in my 19 years 15 have I seen that type of money come to the City of 16 Philadelphia, even when there was a Democratic 17 governor. See, when there was a Democratic 18 governor for eight years no 100 million came into 19 the City of Philadelphia, and 100 million is not coming. So let's be clear, 100 million is not coming. The question is, how can we put together something -- and I think this needs to be a very honest, blunt discussion.
So when you, as you say right away, you say, "I'm against 95 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 vouchers, I'm against charters," and I hear that and I'm saying to myself, Well, I just had a discussion saying we need to put all these things on the table and you need to recognize that these things are on the table. But right away, I'm just telling you what the political reality is in dealing with Harrisburg.
You still like the bill, right? STATE REP. EVANS: Yes, Councilman.
Don't you think it's great to have this debate? We ought to have it but I'm not sure we ought to have it today on the bill which is much more narrow than the debate that's taking place. So I'd like to say it's a good first round, and I'm hoping we're going to find ways to continue that debate. But there was a specific finance question that I think there ought to be an answer to it.
Mr. Chairman, let me 96 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 just answer him. The proliferation of charters, the proliferation. If you take a charter school as a pilot model, fine, to show examples, but the proliferation, it is taking money away from the public school system. Now, you're going to have two -- and you talk about accountability. I agree, it is accountability -- accountability of the superintendent, accountability of the principals, accountability of the unions, and accountability of us as elected officials. So I supported the charter school for Espera because, obviously, we needed a model to show that kids can learn, that show that you can begin structuring a system. But we can do that, we can do that. If it is shown in other cities that we can do that within the model of public education, and we can do that -- and when I say it's $100 million, it is because right now, that is coming out of our operating budget, we fund the courts. We should not be funding the courts. That's all. STATE REP. PERZEL: Councilman, if that's what you're holding back for, don't bother 97 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 waiting. There's no $100 million that's not coming, so you can talk about it and they can clap until you're blue in the face, because it's a $600 million hole if we pick up the entire court costs. And the courts have come back to us and said that we give them the million, that they will be 8 satisfied that, and that will be the end of the 9 entire problem, and the bill is in the House right 10 now. 11 So if you're going to decide on funding 12 the schools, waiting for a $100 million that's not 13 coming, you're being very foolish and short-sighted.
We're not waiting for that. STATE REP. PERZEL: Well, it's not coming.
Thank you. On that question of charter schools, 98 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 certainly the whole issue of charter schools and vouchers -- and I'm 100 percent for charter schools, which are public schools. The whole issue came up, has arisen because public neighborhood schools are failing. If we didn't have a problem, we wouldn't be here in the beginning. Now, the mere fact that they present the most positive alternative and exciting energized programs in the city that I've seen since I can't remember in my lifetime. And certainly, I spent all last summer creating the charter newsletter because the School District saw fit not to do that since they fight charter schools. And I know this is a side issue, Mr. Chairman, but I didn't start it so I just wanted to respond. I spent my whole last summer creating a reference guide, and I will spend this summer following up on the new nine or then that are going to open so we have a complete reference guide to charter schools. Because our School District saw fit not to do that, so I took it upon myself, as Education Chair, and now certainly I 99 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 support Donna Miller's Chair, and I will do that. But I don't believe that we can sit here and talk against public schools. A charter school's a public school, whether or not we agree with that. We're past that. But maybe, Councilman Ortiz, may I'm wrong because, obviously, the superintendent doesn't think they're public schools either. But, again, I believe that all of this is good because our neighborhood schools are failing, we need a change, we need to have this discussion. And I am hopeful that out of this, and should we change the Charter, that Council gets a little more to say and the State gets a little more to say so that we do have some level of accountability so that on your level and on ours, I don't believe the school superintendent should be able to say, I don't like something and, therefore, I don't have to talk about. Or I won't make a report on it. I don't think that's right. Me, if I were not committed to public education and committed to charter schools, we wouldn't even have a reference in this city. I think that's wrong. 100 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So, again, I'll get back to the point, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity, but I had to defend these exciting innovative programs called charter schools.
Great. I'm going to try to rule -- I hope it will be effective -- that it's a great debate, but it's not related to the bill, and I think we ought to deal with the issues today on the bill. I think it was a good opening discussion, which we're going to follow up on other occasions. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the two distinguished members of the legislature from both sides of the aisle who have -- Representative Perzel, how many years have you been there? STATE REP. PERZEL: 21.
I mean, there's a wealth of institutional knowledge and experience in that body, and they have agreed and they have testified that they are, in general terms, in agreement with this particular piece of 101 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 legislation. So I guess their duty here today is somewhat ended. However, I think it's important and symbolic that the two of these individuals are sitting here at this table today in an effort to educate us -- us being the Council and us being the population of Philadelphia -- to the educational and governmental realities of where they sit. It is very difficult for -- and I have some experience there after spending years 13 working for a state senator, I don't exactly 14 understand the House as much of the Senate, but it is kind of a common thought process. It is very difficult to explain to people or to go and make an argument to people that 60 percent of your budget is provided for by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and somehow that's an unfair formula, an unfair scenario. And the other issue is that Representative Evans is dead right when he says that the reluctance and the resistance to discuss options, to discuss all the things that are out there as a possibility is so short-sighted and so 102 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 unfair to the citizens and students of this city, that we will never get to where we want to be. Councilman Ortiz said we need $100 million for the court system. Representative Perzel, who happens to be Majority Leader of the House, says, Don't hold your breath -- in other words, I'm paraphrasing you. STATE REP. PERZEL: You can.
Don't hold your breath. Dr. Hornbeck says, We need $300 million to fix the school system. I would suspect that the same response might be forthcoming in "Don't hold your breath, either." But to go to Harrisburg and to say that unless you give us the $300 million, you're unfair. Worse than that, you're racist. And worse than that, we're going to close the schools unless you give us that money. That is probably the worst lobbying effort I've ever seen in the history of the legislature. Basically what has happened, that well has been so poisoned and so angered the representatives who sit up there, and what they do is, they represent the leadership of those 103 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 caucuses. They may have different opinions than the members of their caucus but they need to articulate those beliefs and opinions of their members or they won't be in leadership. And what they're telling us is that it's a hard sell there to say that considering the funding levels and the percentage of funding that the School District's getting now and the horror stories of waste and abuse, that somehow going up there with a hand out and saying "Give us some more" is going to work. And that's what I think is the biggest failing of this particular superintendent, the lack of recognition of the realities in the arenas with which he deals to try to help the system. And I'm glad they're here today because I want to us get a primer on what it is we have to deal with when it comes to going to Harrisburg to expect and demand more money without being willing, on the other hand, to discuss all the options that are available -- be it vouchers, be it charters, or be it more money for the public schools. And I think that we've wasted probably 104 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 two, three, four years here not recognizing those realities. And that is how we have not served the children of this city the best we can. And that's the end of my speech, but I thank you very much for coming because I think it's been very -- STATE REP. PERZEL: Councilman, Act 46 is --
That doesn't excuse the two gentlemen yet. Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just glad that the two representatives came here today. And as a member of this committee, I'd like to thank them for their honesty and their intestinal fortitude to call it like they see it. And sometimes I think that we live in this little vacuum here -- in fact, I know we live in a little vacuum. So it's refreshing to know that when a superintendent comes to us with his great political naivete tat he doesn't know anything about politics, he just doesn't do it to us; it 105 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 also works up there. So, gentlemen, thank you for coming down. And maybe if we could have more frank discussions like this, we could finally get to the end of this problem before Representative Perzel's in there 40 years, and we could -- 'cause, Dwight, you're getting to years now, right? 9 STATE REP. EVANS: Almost 20 years, 10 yeah, right. 11
I'd like to 14 express my appreciation for having you come today 15 to begin this vital discussion on education. 16 When you left your home today, you knew 17 that there was more than one point of view on 18 public education. We do need to sit and talk and 19 share strongly-held positions which sometimes 20 collide with each other, but this is the forum where they should be hashed out. The only thing that we ought to have in common is a sincere interest in finding and then doing what is best for the school children of Philadelphia. We are politicians of different 106 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 stripes. I don't apologize for that, nor do I expect you to. But sometimes we run against the children instead of on their behalf, and I think we have got -- I am one who has strong feelings about charter schools, vouchers, and how public schools should be funded and supported. But I believe that we ought to have frank, open discussions on it. Maybe you will change my mind to some degree, and hopefully, I get to change yours. But between us, there's enough wisdom, I believe, to make the schools better. The strongest, most vocal advocate of public schools will not tell you that they don't need improving; they do need improving. The question is, shall we do it with a wrecking ball or shall we do it with a scalpel and the fine hand of a surgeon? I think I opt for the surgical approach; I don't think the wrecking ball does it. I would hope that from this beginning, we would have a series of meetings where we sit down, issue by issue, line up what our concerns are, line up yours, line up the resources -- always pointing toward the goal of improving public education, regardless of whose political 107 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 fortune it advances. When we do it in forums like this, sharp one-liners appear to prevail. That's not what we need to do. I'm one who likes one-liners, and you know it. Today, I'm hampered by a bad voice, but my mind is clear and I've heard good things today. I would hope that we would have a succession of these meetings so that the children benefit.
Thank you, Councilwoman. STATE REP. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, could I say something.
Representative Evans. STATE REP. EVANS: I have a lot of respect for the Councilwoman. I have known her for a long time, she's known me for a long time. And she defined it as a surgical approach or a wrecking ball. Probably throughout the decades in the early '80s, I was a more of a surgical approach. In the last five years, I've moved to the approach of a wrecking ball, and the reason I've moved to 108 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the point of a wrecking ball is because -- I'm not speaking about the elementary school level, and I've heard a lot of discussions on how there are improvements in test scores. But in our high school system, between 9th to 12th grade, we're still having a 50 percent dropout rate. I was at Olney High School last week. Fantastic principal, trying to do the best that she can do under the circumstances that she's working. I was with a minister this morning, and I won't get into his name because he moved to West Chester, Pennsylvania because his wife said, You make a choice. It's either me, and we're not going to experiment with our children anymore. And I've been around, certainly not in elected office as long as you've been around, but I think we're at the wrecking ball stage. And the reason I think we're at the wrecking ball stage is because the surgical approach, in my view, the surgical approach -- and I voted for every single increase that was humanly possible to come to this city for more money, I voted for it all. I stood up on every single issue you can imagine. 109 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 But I have a high school that's in my district called Martin Luther King, named after a person who was a very important person to this world. That school was on the verge of academically distress. You know what that does to the real estate value you know what that does to the real estate value, you know what that does to the particular community? I don't have to tell you; you know what that does. This is not anything I'm making up. And I don't want to paint a brush across every student that goes in that school 'cause I don't want to do that, I don't want to paint a brush across every student, every teacher or the principal, I don't want to do that. But I can tell you something. If people have choice in that particular community, they will not be at Martin Luther King. I hear that on a regular basis, I hear that on a regular basis. I don't make it up, I'm not trying to stand on any political grandstanding. Something radically needs to happen. I've tried the surgical approach for a decade, I've tried. I have tried the surgical approach 110 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 for a decade. It is not moving quick enough in terms of that. And when we keep telling people that you should just be patient, it will be all right, you just don't understand, you got to understand this stuff takes time, there's the social issues, there's the system, and all this stuff. I understand all of that and I've supported all of that. I've supported every health and human service program that is humanly possible. I've support all of that. But I know there's a high school in my district right now that's not even in my district and you go there, and if people got a choice, they're not going to that high school. And so I'm not talking about the elementary schools; I'm talking about the high schools. So, Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the Councilwoman, but I wanted to put my feelings on the table since you want to talk about how deep-feeling you feel about it. How deep I also feel that it's nice to talk about marginal, but I think you got to go for it.
All right, 111 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Councilwoman Clark.
There's nothing more radical you can do than operate, okay? I'm not saying to cut near a cancer; I say cut it all out. I'm for a radical approach, but I want it in the hand of a person who knows what he's doing. I don't want some guy who doesn't know what he's doing to swing a wrecking ball up against the building 'cause you're going to get the good and the bad. Take my approach, take a surgeon who knows what he's doing or what she's doing. Go to what is wrong and fix that. Your approach, the radical, kill it all is like what NATO did. They killed some people trying to help 'em. Let's don't do that, let's don't kill some people trying to help them. Let's find what's wrong with the system and fix that part of the system. I don't think there's a lot of difference in what we're saying. Our analogies may be too gross. But I tell you that public education is our last great hope. It and labor unions made the middle class in this country, and 112 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 we have an obligation to find what's wrong with them and fix them, no matter how long it takes and no matter what resources we have to go back to.
Good afternoon. I just want to state, as Chair of this Council's Education Committee, that I look forward to the continued discussions and the collaboration between the local officials and the State officials. I also have a child in public school. And prior to coming to Council, there's always been messages going around that the schools are broke, the schools are this, what's the State's responsibility, what's the City's responsibility? And I think it's time for that to -- I think it's time for people to take a serious look at whose responsibility is whose? And I also said to Dwight, similar to the statement that you made, that prior to Ridge, there were -- the Democrats were in control, and we still did not seem to get the dollars that we 113 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 needed for Philadelphia schools. So I just want to support most of the statements of my colleagues. I do agree somewhat with Councilman Ortiz. And we just need to work harder, meet, revolve -- not meet to meet, but meet towards resolutions to see what we can do to once and for all address the issue of the State's responsibility and action and the City's responsibility and action towards the funding of our public schools. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilwoman Miller. I had a very simple question that has come up a number of times in City Council, and I'm wondering if either or both of you could just give us your thinking. We hear frequently that, except for Philadelphia County, every other county in the State gets special-education funding or gets special transportation for school purposes separately from the regular education funding, that Philadelphia's the only county where that does not occur, where the transportation is considered -- where transportation costs are 114 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 considered as part of the overall education funding. Do you have any knowledge of that? Or would you care to comment in either way? STATE REP. EVANS: No, it's --
We're told because we're a county as well as a city, that there's a special rule that reacts adversely to us. STATE REP. EVANS: The answer is no to that. There's no kind of special Philadelphia rule. The transportation, like what used to be the ESBE formula, it is treated the same in terms of distribution. It is driven by the poverty rate, it is driven by the local tax effort that comes from the locals that drive how much money goes to it. Of the 62 school districts that Philadelphia is a part of in this region, Philadelphia gets 60 percent, the City of Chester gets 65 percent. So of the 62 schools in this region, Chester gets a larger State percentage, Philadelphia is second to Chester in terms of the percentage that it receives of the 62 school 115 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 districts in this region. STATE REP. PERZEL: I think it's also important to understand that that's not a State mandate. If you don't want to provide transportation, you don't have to provide transportation. So it's really up to the locals for the option.
I see. Are you saying, Majority Leader, that other counties do not get special funding for transportation?. STATE REP. PERZEL: There are school districts, not counties themselves, that do not take any transportation money whatsoever and provide no transportation. Some of them are very rural also.
And some of them do get subsidy transportation funding? STATE REP. PERZEL: No, no. Everybody gets treated fairly. It's all done by --
Could I ask you for comment on another issue that has occurred frequently during our local debates. We're told that the State adopted -- I think the legislative body a number of years ago 116 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 adopted a formula for funding education in the various counties. But that about three or four, maybe five years ago, a cap was put on, that if the cap were not applied, that if the formula were fully followed, that the City would receive more funding under that State formula than we currently get, and that the amount involves very large sums? Is there any basis for that? STATE REP. PERZEL: The formula was changed prior to the Republicans becoming in control of the General Assembly. We do have the gentleman that made the changes sitting next to me, and I'm sure that he'll be glad to answer your question.
All right. We don't excuse Democrats from responsibility. STATE REP. EVANS: But let me speak to that since you've --
I was trying to get some clarity in the discussion. STATE REP. EVANS: I know, but let me tell you why the formula was changed. The formula was changed because the 117 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 poor -- districts that was much more poorer than Philadelphia, rural districts, primarily Democratic districts that we needed to address, we changed the formula to try to address those poor school districts. Since the governor at that time was not prepared to raise taxes and we couldn't come up with tax reform, what we did is, we changed the formula to help the poorer districts. Now, what this battle has become, which is rather unfortunate, is this battle has been Philadelphia versus those other poorer school districts. And obviously, if you're in Philadelphia, you'll say that, in this case, Dwight Evans of Philadelphia, you treated us unfair. But if you say to the rest of the State where the poor districts also very poor, which have no tax base, and what we attempted to do was develop something which was called "the foundation approach." What we tried to do was guarantee that every child would receive a certain amount of money. We would have a three-tier approach. That's what tried to do. So we tried to do it with the dollars that we had available since the 118 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 governor was not going to raise taxes. And since he was not going to change in terms of tax reform, that's what we did, we changed it. Now, obviously, the way Philadelphia has always been working, if you're in Philadelphia and you operate, well, you know, Philadelphia had been kind of a benefit. We also did some other special things in Philadelphia when Philadelphia's tax effort was not what it used to be. That's part of the reason why you all did the liquor-by-the-drink tax because your tax effort was like very low. And then you hear the mayor's argument, Well, what taxes you going to suggest to raise? It's like a Catch-22 if you're from Philadelphia. It's like, no, we cannot afford to raise taxes, we cannot afford to raise taxes. But, yes, we got to deal with Harrisburg because they see the same numbers that you see. They see that our local tax effort has been declining and they see that we have not been providing as much money as we should or could to the School District. And then right away, we get accused of our local political leaders are not stepping up. 119 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So when I keep hearing this argument about it's like unfair to Philadelphia, we have people in Harrisburg say that it's unfair. So that's why I go back, Mr. Chairman, to the issue ultimately that obviously, we do need to change the way schools are funded, we need to do the way Michigan, we need to move away from property taxes and stop having this battle between urban and rural and keep pointing fingers at each other 'cause that's basically all this is about. STATE REP. PERZEL: And it's interesting to note that of the urban districts 14 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the local 15 efforts, since you've made it uncomfortable a 16 little bit for us, the lowest tax effort of the 24 17 urban directs is the City of Philadelphia, 18 although it is middle of the pack as far as income 19 and poverty are concerned. So the local effort 20 here is low compared to the others the. 21
I agree with you in 24 terms of changing the matter of funding of the public school system. What chance did that have? 120 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 I mean, what realistic -- where are we on that? Because I think we need to do that, I think that the basis of the way we fund public schools today is wrong. STATE REP. EVANS: I personally think it has zero chance unless we are prepared, in my view, to deal with academic accountability. And one of the things that Majority Leader Perzel and I came up with is the thing about academic -- we don't -- in the State, even when Chester was taken over, which was taken over under Thornburg and then under Casey, it was done on the basis of fiscal; it was not done on the basis of academic. And we don't have a law on the books that basically says if that if a school district is not functioning or a school is not functioning, basically, that school continues to get money, even if the kids cannot read or write, a district still continues to get money. So I think what you see happening in the General Assembly for the first time, at least in the last couple years, particularly when this commission was put together, I think you're now beginning to see all of us asking more questions 121 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 about every year we vote -- and the way it works in Harrisburg, and I thought Councilman Kenney put it correct. What happens is, there's a printout that comes before our caucuses. And what happens with every superintendent is, the only thing the superintendent wants to know is, do I get more money than I got last year? But generally, no accountability questions are asked. We vote on a budget, we approve more money than you got last year, and then the schools go on and people complain to us, and we just on keep voting for it. STATE REP. PERZEL: The problem that you have you -- I mean, mentioned local tax reform. The problem that we -- I live here also, don't come from far away, I came from Mayfair, seven blocks from where Councilman Mariano lives. And the problem that we have collectively is if -- there's two ways to get additional money for the School District. One would be a sales tax. The problem is, we already have that sales tax. The other is a personal income tax. 96 percent personal income tax for the residents. 122 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So no matter what we ever do with tax reform, if we get it back to the ballot again, to ask other areas what they want to do, our problem is we've already imposed those taxes. So if we allowed you guys, as Councilmembers, to go higher than you are already, instead of 150,000 people leaving over the last years, it would be 300,000 9 people leaving. So holding out hope that that's -- the best chance you have is for us to hold you harmless with anything we do, allow kids to take other alternatives for using the educational system. If they leave, you still get the same amount of money. And let's pray to God that the system gets better than it is right now because I think a lot of you missed it. When Dwight said that one half the kids that start 9th grade fail, they drop out, they don't make it, we can't accept that. You shouldn't accept it, and I don't believe that you do, and we can't accept it. So all we're trying to do is figure some way to make it better because those kids, when they graduate, will make more money over 123 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 their lifetimes and have a better shot at a better job not. We're not looking at destroying the public system. If there's no public system, we all fail. There has to be a public system. But we noticed in Cleveland and in Milwaukee, when there was a little competition, that those public schools got a whole lot better. They started thinking of ways to save money, make sure the kids could read and write, making sure the day care worked better.
Right now, you, because of the way the School District's set up day care, you have $11 million you're spending for approximately $10,000 per kid. It's not your fault, it's not something you set up. But in Milwaukee, anybody that has a child goes to this school, and that's it. So they only need two or three or four or five people to watch all the kids, as opposed to, just in Philadelphia, one at each high school. I mean, that's the way -- I mean, it's got to change, and we're way off your subject. I apologize.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney. 124 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Just one point, Mr. Chairman. Representative Perzel, I sit her sometimes over the course of the last seven years and I feel like I was talking to myself often, or that I was out in the desert like John the Baptist. And now you're bringing me in. Your comments here today about what our chances, perhaps our only chance, is something that we've been trying to talk about, a little less than half of the members of this Council, 'cause we haven't been able to get a resolution passed to talk about the options, or to put all the options on the table. I'm hoping today that your message as it's promulgated in this Council and by the media, is that this might be our only chance. And as you go through the issues of wage tax, of sales tax, and of other things that may have been brought to the table, that what is out there now in the way of the governor's plan, with whatever changes or refinements you guys make through that process, is maybe our only chance. 125 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 And we need to recognize that and accept the reality and stop tilting at windmills and hoping for $100 million of the courts or $300 million in new education money. I'm glad you're here today with Representative Evans to give us that message once and for all. STATE REP. PERZEL: Let me say this because it's important. I mean, one thing that you need to do to make a system accountable is, somebody in the system has to be accountable. When I was the manager of Pavio's Restaurant, the owner would call me from Acapulco and tell me, We didn't make any money and that if we didn't make any money by Friday, I was fired. How can you appoint people to be principals of schools and then give them no 18 authority over who's working at that school? And then based on the seniority in the school, that teacher decides to go wherever they want to go. Now, I understand it's the system you have, and I know the Teachers Union is back here, so I don't expect you to agree with me. But you cannot have a principal in charge of a school and say to that person that you better make sure those 126 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 kids read and write, when they have no authority whatsoever to make any change in that school. If you need a lock fixed in a school, you have to call the central union, and it takes four days for them to come out and fix the lock. So what you have is, your principals are paying to fix the locks themselves. In Lincoln High School, you won't fix one window 'cause you got to have ten broken windows. How many kids are going to sit in the classroom where the windows are broken until you get to the minimum number you need of ten before they send a glazer out to fix the window? You can't continue that. It can't continue.
The other issue, and this is something that gets promulgated by the School District and I think is really misleading because they keep on talking about the gap, this amazing gap between what is spent per head on a child in Philadelphia versus what's spent in the five surrounding counties. And one of the things I think that has not being talked about is that the gap is really 127 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 created through the level of real estate taxes that are paid in those communities as opposed to Philadelphia. And I'm not suggesting we raise real estate taxes in Philadelphia because we can't afford it. Again, we'll be pushing people out the door. But in those counties where they're spending 10,000, 11,000 12,000 a kid, the difference, is it not, made up with the local real estate tax? STATE REP. PERZEL: I mean, if you want to look at school districts that are spending less in the suburbs, we can look at William Penn Wallington Swathmore, we can look at Ridley, we can look at Pen Delco. And I have the test results right here. All of them between 3 and 400 points higher, and they're not all totally white schools; there are minority kids in all these schools. They're 3 to 400 points higher and they're spending less. I know you wouldn't expect me to get this out of the Philadelphia Inquirer. It's March 18, 1999. And I had our people give me the scores. So school districts, they're not all 128 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Radnor. And Radnor gets 400 bucks per student per year, and Philadelphia gets in excess of $3,000 per student per year, about to times -- and I 5 would be willing to bet my home against yours that 6 you wouldn't put the performance of the $400 7 school against the $3,000 school, because you'd 8 lose your home. So I mean, something's wrong. And something's wrong when these suburban school districts listed in the Philadelphia Inquirer -- which I don't think they meant to do because they've been pretty supportive of Mr. Hornbeck's claim that everybody spends more than we do. And then you look at the test results. There's something wrong, there's something wrong. And Dwight said it, you can't leave 50 percent of the kids behind.
Thank you very much. And I want to thank the two witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think this testimony has been really very enlightening and certainly a very 129 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 healthy discussion.
I think that we must continue dialogue. I think the legislature and this body should meet periodically, and I think we should be having dialogue about this. I think most of us, and I know all of us are very concerned about the future of the public schools and the system and the direction that we're going. Please, I am begging you, let's get together. Thank you.
Do we have an agreement? Majority Leader Perzel? (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.) STATE REP. PERZEL: I've already been down to see the Council President, and at least four members sitting up there right now.
And I think we could do this as a body. I think it would be great, I really do, if the legislature would get together with Councilmembers, and we could speak 130 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 very openly about what we see as problems and how they can be corrected. STATE REP. PERZEL: You probably have to do it in private, too.
We'll see you next Friday at a.m. Right back here in these 8 chambers. 9 (Laughter.) 10
And I thank you both very, very much. Thank you. STATE REP. EVANS: Thank you. STATE REP. PERZEL: Thank you.
I hate to interrupt the discussion taking place in the back of the room, but I'd like to ask Mr. White to come to the table. And the next person after Mr. White will be President Street.
Councilman White. I don't know whether to call you "Representative 131 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 White," "Councilman White," or "Candidate-for- Mayor White."
" Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam President and members of Council. Having been a spectator now for about two hours and fifteen minutes, please, with all due respect, that was an incredible dialogue. And I'm not really sure that the next speaker will necessarily agree that there's not been any discussions between people in Harrisburg and, shall I say, representatives of this body about the issue of public education. You're to be congratulated on the introduction of the resolution and bill with respect to the governance issue. I think that is important. But I think, as has been said earlier, it is but one step in the process. And I'm not going to take any more of a your time by trying to read my prepared text, which is being distributed. But there are a 132 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 couple of points that I would like to make. As I sat and I listened to the discussion, I was struck by the fact that there's almost a sense that there are no good things happening within our public schools within the City, and I think that gets lost in this whole debate, Mr. Chairman. I hear the discussion about accountability -- no, first I hear a discussion about we need to talk, and we really shouldn't be digging our heels in on issues of vouchers and charters. And then I hear a discussion about one-year contracts for principals and one-year contracts for teachers, as if that's going to help us come together to resolve problems in public education. And I think every one of you know that it is not. Because you're not going to resolve the issues of public education without everyone's cooperation and without everyone's input. And that includes teachers as well as parents and members of various legislative bodies, and executives from the various branches of government. 133 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 So I don't know what anybody else who is going to be coming up to testify, after sitting through two hours or more of both the mayor's discussion and then the discussion of our two legislative leaders from Philadelphia. But I will tell you that to me, it was incredible to hear that discussion. I think it's important -- back on the issue -- that the State in fact amend the Educational Supplement of the Home Rule Charter that does, in fact, give both the Council and the mayor the authority and the responsibility with respect to the School District's finances. I think in that process itself, you can begin to make clear headway with respect to academic standards and performance that all of us want to see happen. And I think there are questions about the business of the operation of the School District that also get addressed over the course of that debate as well. Having been a member of this body, I know how deep you can get into budgetary items, how detailed you can get into budget discussions. And I would trust that with 134 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the School District's budget, knowing that you have some authority and responsibility in that regard, that you will continue to delve deeply into those discussions. I don't believe that we can continue to make a credible case for any additional resources from Harrisburg unless we have the assurance -- forget about whether the legislators and the governor's office have the assurance -- unless we have the assurance that the School District is managing its resources in the most effective manner possible. And I don't think that there is consensus within the Council itself that that is, in fact, taking place. And by having the authority and then exercising the authority and the responsibility, I think we at least get to a point where we build a consensus around how those resources are being spent and develop a comfort level as to whether they're being spent in the most effective manner possible -- beginning first, with the first dollar going into the classroom.
I think it's also important, as has been talked about -- and I'm not going to belabor 135 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the point -- that we focus some attention on what I think we already know. We know that governance is one aspect of it, we know that finance is another, and then we know that academic standards is a third aspect of a formula that really addresses the needed improvements overall within our school district. And I would hope that the same energy and that the same passion that I sensed here this morning carries over, carries over into a very substantive discussion about how it is that we bring our school district up to standards that are acceptable to both parents as well as other stakeholders who are involved in this process. But I don't think, I don't think that we need to gut our system in order to get it to work, I really don't. And I don't think that we have to take a wrecking ball to the system in order to get it to work. I don't think we can afford any more casualties, and there are casualties, there are casualties. But again, I say to you, there are examples all over our school district, in many, many school buildings throughout our city of good 136 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 things that are happening. In spite of whatever challenges we might think teachers and principals and children might be facing, there are good things happening. And I would hope that you would also spend some time looking at how we replicate making those things a part of a broader system -- whether you look at William Penn High School and Penn Connections, or whether you go to the Clymer School and you look at their Saturday school that's taking place, look at some of the good things that are happening. And let's focus our attention on how we can improve those neighborhood schools that our children really want to go to and that their parents really want them to go to. Let's focus our attention there. So going forward, I would hope, with the changes that you have suggested with respect to governance -- one other thing before I attempt to answer your questions, and this may sound like heresy as well, but I was a part of the Education Nominating Panel. And having been a part of it, I can't tell that you I have the degree of 137 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 confidence in it that others do. I've seen the names and the applications of people that have been submitted to that panel for consideration to our school district's board. And I'm going to tell you without any fear of contradiction, surely, we can do better than that. Surely, we can do better than that. For the time that I served on that Educating Nominating Panel, there was little to no 12 competition for appointments. And going to say it again -- little to no competition for who ought to be serving on that school board. In most cases, it was a done deal before the Educating Nominating Panel was put together. And I know about all of the stuff that we're supposed to do to ask neighborhood organizations and civic groups to submit names. Ladies and gentlemen, it's not happening. Surely we can raise the caliber of competition that the Educating Nominating Panel itself is considering for appointments on that board. And you haven't addressed it in here, but there's got to be a way in which we can really have access to 138 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 qualified candidates as well, high-quality candidates as well for comparison purposes for appointments to that school district's board of education. Maybe that's for another discussion at another time, but I was a member of that panel, and I will tell you, it was disappointing. So I will stop there, won't be any more dilatory than I've been and will try to respond to any questions, if any, that any of you might have.
Thank you very much, Mr. White. Just before there are other questions, I just have one. You said that the discussion that took place here was incredible. I'd like to ask you why. Why do you say that and in what way was it incredible?
Well, first, I think the debate around public education is not new, it's not new. We have debated issues around schools during all of the years that I was here in Council. And yet, I got a sense sometimes, at points during the discussion, because we had two legislative leaders who are from Philadelphia, who 139 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 are in Harrisburg, sitting in front of this committee talking about education, that it was the for first time we had heard any of this stuff. It's not the first time that we have heard any of this, it's is not. It is not. But yet, that's what it sounded like. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but there was reaction from this Council when the legislature said it was going to take over our schools if the superintendent was going to shut it down. There was reaction from this Council about the lack of funding and what we needed to do in order to have a better working relationship with the legislature to get additional funds. You have debated the whole discussion around vouchers and charter schools. It wasn't new. It has been an ongoing dialogue and an ongoing discussion. But it seems to me that it stops right here. And that's what is so frustrating. That's what's frustrating to me. And you know that in order to make the changes necessary, that the discussion has to go downstairs and to the second floor and it has to enter into the hearing rooms of the General 140 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Assembly in Harrisburg. You all know that. And so do the distinguished gentlemen who were sitting here before. And so that's what was incredible. And you've got learned people who have been a part of this process for years, who are sitting here and hearing the discussion and hearing the dialogue. And I'll tell you one of two things. Either it was incredible that we've never had the discussion before, or we've all had the discussion before and we were just hearing it again.
All right, thank you very much. Any members of the committee have any questions? Councilwoman Blackwell?
And I apologize for my passion with that, Mr. Chairman, but it's --
No, the passion is very important when we talk about the public school system.
Thank you very much, "Mr. PHA Director." They've called you everything else, right? But thank you very much 141 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 for being here and for your comments. Having heard what you said, and my concern about the nominating panel and whomever pick these people, however it get to the mayor because the way it stands now, it doesn't matter whether they go to the mayor and he picks or the nominating panel gives it to him.
I don't know that it makes a difference. That's why I'm concerned about creating kind of structure, so that it doesn't just become one person's opinion. And to try to, as much as we can in this business, take some of the politics out of it for public education. Do you think it's a good idea to possibly have a representative to PHA since PHA is a city within a city? And do you think it's a good idea to maybe, out of nine members, maybe have six that could be business or whomever, and three or four to have to be maybe a PHA member, or some other formula that would include maybe parents of school children but the community in some form? Do you generally think that's a good 142 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 idea if we could find some way to make it happen? Again, I don't think it's worth having a charter change if we can't try to do improvements other than the coterminous issue.
And with me understanding, I think, where you're coming from with that. I would be careful about stipulating the specifics of the types of people, groups, or organizations to be appointed. Councilman Nutter a moment ago mentioned -- I think it was the Citizens Committee on Public Education. They are stipulated under current law. They're no longer in business. There's no longer an organization, I don't think, you know, that is functioning along those lines. Not that PHA would ever go out of business, that's to say. But I would be nervous or be cautious about stipulating those kinds of specifics for membership on the board. And it's hard for me to be objective because in my subjectivity, I know the value of having someone who is extremely sensitive to the needs of the children, who are living in public housing, particularly as they 143 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 relate to public education. But I would not urge this body to be quite that specific in stipulating various categories from which people should be selected to serve on the Board of Education.
So you think that the mayor's approach is better to leave it open?
I mean, I think, in the purest sense, what happens is that the mayor does confer with members of Council, its leadership, and other representatives about board appointments. I mean, that's what really happens in the real world. And I think that effective advocacy on the part of Councilmembers for an individual of that ilk or with that background should certainly or would certainly have some bearing on, you know, who the mayor would be appointing to the Board of Education. Again, I was on the Educating Nominating Panel, and I knew that there was a movement at one point for a former teacher, former principal, you know, to be on the Board of Education. Or a business-type person to be on the 144 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Board of Education. And it was Councilpeople who conferred with the mayor and who pressed and pushed the mayor to make that appointment, and it happened. And I think effective advocacy on the part of Councilmembers for a person who is a public housing resident or somehow otherwise affiliated with public housing, or a student voting member on the Board of Education is an effective way to go, as opposed to locking the mayor in by specifically making a stipulation.
Mr. White, let me ask you a question. You served both in the State House and in the City Council. You're the only one in that situation here today. I agree with you. I think we've discussed education in City Council ever since I've been originally in City Council back in 1968, I'm not sure there's been discussion at the General Assembly level. Is that the point you were making?
No. I was talking more about the joint discussion between the City 145 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Council, a legislative body. And if for, no other group of people, the Philadelphia delegation to the General Assembly, whether it be the House or the Senate, around this very, very important issue. Because the key players in both the House and Senate happen to be Philadelphians, just happen to be. You can't rule out the presence of Senator Vincent Fumo, Representative John Perzel, Representative Dwight Evans. They were here this morning. They are key players in helping to formulate legislative strategy that impacts on the City of Philadelphia. And to think that leading members of this City Council and leading members of the House and Senate from Philadelphia have never sat down and had substantive discussion around the issue of public education would be mind-boggling -- if it were true.
I think some of us though, mind-boggling though it may be, I think some of us feel that largely -- (Unintelligible, parties speaking over each other.) 146 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Yes, yes. Well, I think some members of Council may have felt it was time that all the members of Council heard directly about the problems on money, that you're not going to get any money from the State; therefore you better change your tune. We've heard that for a long time. But I think that this Council, as a whole, is very dedicated, all of the members, to the strengthening of the public school system. We have different ideas, and I think the discussion today did involve more members of City Council meeting with major forces at the State level. And in that sense, it was a new thing. I know that when Joe Coleman was president, he attempted meetings. I remember when John Street was president, there was a similar meeting. I'm sure that President Verna, from her comments, here is going to try to arrange them. But I think what we probably need is more continuous discussions, and maybe both sides will yield a little. Maybe we won't get the extra 147 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 $600 million that we want; maybe we'll only get 300 extra million maybe from the State. And we'll have to yield on some things. But from the point of view of having both groups present and having a lot of Councilmembers hearing this discussion, I don't remember or Councilmembers before ever 9 really being involved in a discussion with State 10 officials present, as it was today. 11 And I think that was -- that was healthy. Even though I wanted to rule any number of times that it was out of order because it was not being related to the bill. But I think it was very important that it took place, and I want to thank Councilman Nutter for his bill, which helped to bring that about. Are there any questions for Mr. White? (No questions.)
There being none, we thank you very much and thank you for your patience.
And we thank you for your excellent work in your former role as 148 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 executive director of Philadelphia Housing. (John Street comes forward.)
Mr. President, as you know, you have to identify yourself for the record first. But we're delighted that you found the time to be back here today.
I actually remembered that. Good afternoon, Council President Verna, Councilman Cohen. Is this the Rules Committee?
Law and Government? To the Chairman of the committee and the members of the committee, actually, this is my first time being back here as a member of the general public, and it's interesting. And I'm actually delighted to be here. And I haven't prepared any specific testimony, although I do have a letter that I will distribute after I make some very brief comments. It's enlightening and refreshing to know that the sponsor has made clear comments that he doesn't that believe this bill a is a panacea, because I don't think that anybody believes any 149 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 one piece of legislation is a panacea, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't take it seriously. And I do. I first want to register my -- a sympathetic note for the members of City Council, having been here for years, who routinely and 8 regularly walk among the citizens of this city and 9 get questioned about public education, the quality 10 of education in their schools. And in your heart, 11 you know you'd like to do something about it, but you really find your capacity to influence that process is limited. And as a person who was asked those questions year in and year out, I am very sympathetic, and at least -- and am driven to support this legislation, at least in part, because it does represent a constructive proposal by a legislative body that is involved in all of this, where you are trying to do something that I believe can have a good benefit -- although I think we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. There was a lot of talk about Chicago and the Chicago model. I'd like to remind people 150 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 that in Chicago, when the mayor accepted the responsibility of oversight over the schools, the mayor also, as a part of that arrangement, got money, got relief from mandates, and a bunch of other things. I think we may -- I think it would be better if we did this in the context of a broader discussion with other players in this drama so that we could say to members of the General Assembly and the governor and others, we -- this legislative body, because it isn't just the mayor taking responsibility; it's the mayor and the Council taking responsibility to do something, that we don't have direct responsibility to supervise, nor do we have the direct responsibility to fund. We fund partially, but the overall funding and the majority of the funding comes from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as it should, and the constitutional responsibility to provide a thorough and efficient education rests with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And I -- and nothing we do here is going to change any of that, as we all know. 151 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Needless to say, I support the bill. I got some clarification from the sponsor of the bill, and any questions that I had about it are resolved. I do not want anybody to think I think that approving this legislation now puts the mayor in a position to have very much more influence over contract settlements than mayors have had in the past. I have never known of any PFT contract or any other significant contract that the School District enters into with any of its unions to be done either without the approval of the mayor, and certainly not over the mayor's protest. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that over the years, there is a certain symbolism involved in it, where all the parties sort of march up to the mayor's office, and they actually consummate the agreement right in the mayor's office. So to the extent that the mayor is involved in contracts after the adoption of this proposal, I think is -- it might be a little bit more formal. But informally, mayors have been approving contracts by municipal -- by employee 152 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 unions with the School District of Philadelphia for some time. Now, I have a concern about the politicization of the School District of Philadelphia.
I think educators ought to be primarily responsible for educating and identifying educational policies and programs and implementing programs in the system to the benefit of the some 200,000 children that are involved in that system. And I would never want to see to see us make that system so political that people lose confidence that the decision-making is being made on the basis of what's in the best interests of the young people as opposed to political considerations. I raise those concerns because the more directly our involvement as elected officials, the more likely there is to be political pressure that is brought on us. I mean, most of the time when we get involved in any of these things, it's not because -- we do it because we start getting pressure to do it by people outside of these chambers who want us to use whatever influence we have in a way that helps them achieve their 153 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 aspirations. And I have some reservations because we never want the School District of Philadelphia to be akin to the Parking Authority. We fully reserve the right to maintain and to control all of the patronage at the Parking Authority. I mean, this is a time-honored tradition, and we certainly wouldn't want the School District of Philadelphia to be moving in that direction. Having said that, I support the -- I support the legislation. , approving specifically the budgets. I mean, a lot of people don't understand that in Council, we never approve School District budgets. I mean, because we approve that portion of their budget that has to do with their taxes, there are some people who erroneously believe that we are approving the budget. But to the extent that we inject 154 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 ourselves much more directly into the absolute budgeting process, then I think there will be a corresponding belief that we are required, therefore, to spend more money or to put more money into the School District of Philadelphia. I do not believe that we should have to sacrifice whatever tax reduction programs we think are appropriate to the City. We shouldn't have to forfeit them because of a School District funding crisis, nor should we have to forfeit things that we like to do in neighborhoods and in other areas, economic development, and in other areas of our city. Because if we did that, if we said that there are -- if we engaged in a debate which went along these lines, well, what's more important; fully funding the Recreation Department or more fully funding the School District of Philadelphia? Fully funding police and fire and other public safety services or funding -- and I wouldn't want anybody to think that we would put ourselves in a position where people start looking at tax revenue in this city, School District, General Fund tax revenue, and saying now, Well, 155 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 some part of it should go to the City and another part of it should go to the School District. Because I think that would create a terrible problem for particularly members of City Council, you know, who could end up being under enormous pressure to take money that otherwise would be available for much needed programs in the City, and shift it to the School District of Philadelphia, given you know this -- some new level of budgeting oversight that Council and the mayor might have through the legislative process. I am certainly willing to answer any questions that anybody has, although, unfortunately, my time here is limited, Councilman Cohen.
Let me give you both questions, you may be able to answer them together. One, I'd like to know how you suggest we avoid the politicalization 'cause I'm also concerned about that aspect. And second, in your testimony, you indicated that perhaps this kind of a bill ought to be tied in with some understanding as to broader changes perhaps at the State 156 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 legislative level. Are you suggesting that this bill ought not to be acted on? That maybe we ought to make it part of what the mayor indicated that he expected before the end of the year for legislation to be enacted at the Harrisburg level, covering all of the questions about the school system?
Not really. That's not my recommendation. I'm not coming here saying, Oh, no, you shouldn't do this today, you ought to wait until some other time. I only raise it because we keep being reminded that in Chicago, a model similar to this was imposed and that it is working. I mean, that's what we hear. And then the suggestion is, Well, if we do this here, then the likelihood is that it will result in more accountability on the part of the mayor and, therefore, that greater accountability will somehow -- you know, and I'm not trying to demean the concept because I think it could very well have that impact. You know, more involvement and then more accountability to the School District and a higher quality of 157 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 education. I only point out that at the time the governance changes in Chicago were made, there was an arrangement whereby certain other changes were made. I'll tell you what happened. I was driving west on the West River Drive in a 15-passenger van not long ago. I like to tell stories. That's how come know I'm getting old. And I get this call from Secretary Cisneros. And that was a time when they were talking about having the mayor and the Council President be the chairman and vice chairman of the board of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. And we said we'll be glad to agree to consider that. But we wanted a deal, we wanted an arrangement that if we're going to do this, then we wanted them to commit to do something. And I can remember, it was a time when I was getting ready to go out of town. And I said, I'm not going to not go out of town. And there were letters, there was a transfer, you know, of correspondence. 'Cause we said, If we agree to accept this kind of responsibility, we want certain commitments that we were going to get 158 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 help from PHA, for PHA in dealing with this and that and the other. 'Cause sometimes when you do one thing that everybody agrees is a good thing, you know, there's a give and take. And I just wanted this record to be clear that in Chicago, a lot of that give and take occurred at the time that new authority to the mayor was given. Now, some of this could be handled with an effective date. I mean, you could -- I mean, you all know what you could do. You could move forward with the legislation and you could have the ballot question, and you might be able to create some mechanism whereby you have to approve a resolution or something to trigger all of this at the appropriate time if Council should decide that it wants to do something like that. I raise it not with a specific proposal in mind but to just suggest that if this Council and this mayor are going to accept this additional responsibility, then maybe there ought to be some additional tools that get given to this Council and this mayor that might not otherwise be available under the school code or, you know, as a 159 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 result of some other legislative -- the existence of some other State law. It's just something to think about --
I think it's an interesting idea and one that we're certainly going to think about. One last comment on Chicago. I think I read within the last few days that actually, the Philadelphia school system may be ahead of Chicago. And that is this isn't a Chicago miracle which resulted from changes that took place there. And that their test scores are no better than the Philadelphia test scores.
I have been recently taking a little bit of a look at Chicago and found out that Chicago does its testing very different and publishes its scores very different than what we do here. Chicago gives a snapshot of its scores and doesn't take into account the lower 10 percent, I think it is, of students and how they scored. I also found out that in Chicago, 1,000 3rd-grade students are repeating the 3rd grade for the third time, 1,000 3rd-grade students repeating 160 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the 3rd grade for the third time. And that was stunning because, I'm telling you, we get -- I have heard about Chicago over and over and over and over again. I'm also told that Baltimore just rejected the Chicago model because it didn't believe that the Chicago model was working. Now, having said all of that frankly speaking, I think virtually any reasonable model can work if there is a commitment to excellence in public education and if there is some reasonable funding available to implement some program. I mean, I'm told, for example that reducing class size in grades K through 3, just those three -- those small part of the system, would cost roughly $108 million. And so, you know none of these governance changes -- and Council, to its credit is not suggesting that this is going to change anything. And I wouldn't want anything that I said, you know, to suggest that I didn't know that you are very realistic about all of this. But sometimes you get asked to do things and you feel like you have to really do something. 161 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 But we know that the one thing that everybody agrees works is smaller class size. And we can't have smaller under the current funding mechanism, and we can't have the after-school programs that we need, and the evening school programs that we need.
And the summer school programs. And we can't have it because we don't have enough money, and there isn't enough money in the Philadelphia County tax base for all of us to take on the responsibility of funding that. And even if we could, Councilman, even if we could, by all kinds of efficiencies and mergers and doing all kinds of stuff and minimizing the bureaucracy and shifting from clusters back to regions, I mean even if -- 'cause there is also this debate, and we've had this debate coming out of right here about which is cheaper, clusters or regions. And if you put people at the table side by side to defend clusters versus regions or 162 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 regions versus clusters, we would all leave, you know, wanting to add money to the School District's budget by way of the retail liquor sales tax because we would never get to the bottom of it. You know what I mean? So when I talk about public education, I don't like to talk a lot about governance because in the end, no matter what governance we select, we're still going to have to do something about the funding. And that's the reason why it's very easy for me to come and say, Well, maybe we should do a change in governance. It's fine, let's do a change in governance, so long as the general public understands what the members of this committee understand and the members of this Council understand, that this is one small step in the direction of trying to do something good in this city, and that there are all kinds of other things that have to happen in conjunction with it.
Let me just -- President Street, I have -- tell me if my memory is wrong. I have a clear memory of a hearing on the education budget. I think you were then 163 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 president; I'm not certainly, but I believe you were then president. It was a hearing in which you had somebody, some Councilmember -- either Councilman Nutter or Councilman Kenney -- state how big the classes were in the parochial school to indicate the --
Was it McElhatton? It might have been. Somebody stated that --
-- there were very large classes, and a class size really didn't mean anything. Do you recollect anything like that?
Let me comment on the difference in class size because class size is probably the most relevant, I think, the most relevant factor that either adds to or impedes quality learning in a classroom. 164 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 And I, unfortunately, had the experience to teach a class in the public schools in this city within probably the last 30 to 60 days, and there were only students in that 6 class. I was lost. I was so glad to get out of 7 that class. They were like all over the place, 8 and I just didn't know what to do. 9 In the parochial schools, the level of 10 commitment of the parents, and therefore the 11 children, is very different from what you have in 12 your ordinary, everyday, garden-variety public 13 school. I mean, you have parents who are paying 14 money out of their pockets. And in many 15 instances, if that child doesn't perform, that 16 teacher really does have the capacity to get the 17 parent on the phone to say, What's going on here? 18 And those parents are paying 19 hard-earned cash, and they tend to be the ones who 20 really, really pay attention to their children's 21 progress. They're up to that school day in and 22 day out, making sure that they learn. 23 The other thing that it's difficult to 24 impact is the fact that many of these schools are religious schools, and they're religiously 165 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 oriented. You know, I had an opportunity to go to the Ebenezer Seven-Day Adventist Church day school I couldn't go 'cause I just lived too far away from the school; I was living way out in the suburbs. But I know young people who went there, I remember when it had two teachers for eight grades, the whole eight grades. One teacher taught grades 1 through 4, and one teacher taught grades 5 through 8. They had two teachers. Sometimes it was 30, 35, 40 kids in the classroom. But, you know what? That teacher saw those kids in the classroom, the teacher then saw them at church, the teacher saw those children at the Saturday night social. I mean, it was a whole different thing, it was a whole different thing. And it is I think it's unfair to make those kind of comparisons when the quality of parental involvement and all of it is different, the authority that the school has over the child is different. The school can just say, One more incident like that and you're out of here. And you know what? That child knows that. One more instance, and I can be out of here and have a 166 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 whole different kind of problem. I mean, I have teachers coming up to me all the time and saying, Well, I've got discipline problems. They send 'em out, they out send 'em back, they send 'em out, they send 'em back, they send 'em out, they send 'em back. You know, and unless a kid hits somebody over the head with a baseball bat, they send them back. You know, and the likelihood of having a teacher in the public school system having a, you know, borderline discipline problems, you know, and borderline supportive parents or just non-supporting parents is so much greater in the public school than in the private school. The comparisons really to me are very unfair, particularly when you're dealing with class size.
All right, thank you very much. The Vice Chairman first, Councilman Ortiz. And then Councilwoman Blackwell.
I'd like to ask the Vice Chairman if he'd chair the meeting too for a identify minutes. 167 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
No problem. Before you got here, we had entered into a debate because we talked about governance. But without the other steps, you take Chicago, you take New York. In each of those cities, the state legislature has provided resources to the city's school system when changes were made. I made a comment to Mr. Perzel that we right now fund the Philadelphia court system, which is a State responsibility, and that the mayor actually had come forward and said, If we are able, if the State ever took away that responsibility -- because it is a State responsibility. And they said to us right here, Mr. Perzel said, You're not getting another cent from Harrisburg. And I agree with you. I have children in public school. The key issue is class size, the year K through 3rd. My son is going into kindergarten next year. Class size is one of the biggest issues, and that costs money. You just gave it the number. If we're going to do the other aspects of putting back art and music and the other 168 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 programs that we have systematically cut over the years, that takes resources. And I'm glad that you made the point that just governance is not going to change the result, without the other parts being put into place.
This is what I worry about, Councilman. I worry about change the governance and having the mayor now have whatever new responsibilities we end up giving, and I'm very flexible on that. And now you have a mayor making these appointments and Council being involved in the confirmation of the appointments. And I will tell you, and I'll speak a little bit more, but let me make a couple comments on the confirmation. First of all, you know, in my years here, everybody has been afraid of 18 Council confirmation. And I think that Council 19 confirmation is probably a good thing as opposed to a bad thing. And the reason I think it's a good thing is because, first of all, nobody is going to accept an appointment with Council confirmation if you're not really serious, because you're then going to have to come here and sit and subject 169 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 yourself to discussion of these issues with City Council. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I do believe that there should need to be a majority to confirm these people. And I think if a mayor is serious about working with a Council president and a Council, then that person shouldn't have any problem whatsoever bringing qualified members or nominees to the Board of Education and allowing them to be exposed to a public confirmation process. Because that's the only way the general public will know anything about them in any serious way. 'Cause other than that, I mean, it really is all very, very, very -- it's a very private process as opposed to a very public process. So the confirmation process, I don't have a problem with. If you were talking about having to get 12 members to confirm, I would have a problem with that. Nine problems should be no problem whatsoever. But for the Council or the mayor to bring 12 qualified -- you know, the requisite number of qualified candidates here. 'Cause I 170 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 think that's important. But I don't -- I worry just a little bit about people having accelerated expectations about what it is we can do as a local government simply as a result of the governance changes, 'cause there will be some people whose expectations, you know, are going to say, Oh, well they changed the governance and now the mayor can do this. And when I'm on the more formal campaign trail, I say things like changing the governance isn't going to enable us to reduce class size or do the after-school programs or any of the rest of that, and I certainly don't oppose, you know, reasonable governance changes.
Mr. President, that is another point of view and I think a good one. Do you have any opinion on this whole nominating panel? I think that most people -- my 171 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 guess is that most Councilpeople support a coterminous term with the mayor for these people. The question is who they are and how they get there. You know, this nominating panel that could be effective, or it seems to me that whether there's a nominating panel or not, I don't know that that matters. Do you think there is a role to play as to who those nine people are, maybe three or four community people, one PHA? Or do you think it doesn't matter? And I'm concerned about a bill that changes not only the term. The term thing, I think, is fine. I don't know that we've had enough discussion about who those people are and how they get there for the nominating panel. Do you have any other opinions on that?
Well, it's my understanding that the legislation doesn't change any of the nominating panel progress; is that correct?
That all stays the 172 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 same. And I guess the reason why I favor that is because it would just create more questions in the minds of people. Because now all of a sudden, we have to start talking about, Well, if we're not going to do the nominating panel, you know, in that way. You know, I have always been concerned that Council having this responsibility to tax 'cause that's what we really do, we have this responsibility to tax but never really had any significant input in the nominating panel process. I think the confirmation process provides just a little bit of balance as against the mayor's right, you know, to select the nominating panel and then pick from the panel and recommend to City Council. As someone who has been here for a long time and seen a lot of these panels, I mean, there have been times when these panels have been selected and I didn't know anybody on them, had no 21 idea how or why they were selected. And then in the end, didn't have anything to say about, you know, who was picked or how those decisions were made. But I think if you have a confirmation 173 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 process, as long as it's a majority confirmation process, then I think that's fine. There are so many people and there's widespread misunderstanding and, I think, apprehension about confirmation. And I guess it's natural and kind of typical of people who've never been a part of this legislative body. I'm telling you, there's nothing in my experience about the way this Council conducts itself, or is likely to conduct itself, given its current composition and its composition in the near future. There's nothing about this Council that would cause me to have any question whatsoever, that any confirmation hearings would be a fine set of hearings that were above board, and Councilmembers would ask any tough question that they are entitled to ask and would get reasonable answers. That doesn't trouble me at all. I would be reluctant to modify the nomination process because that now would open up all kinds of other problems, and people would raise so many questions about it. And, I'm telling you, what I would be concerned about is 174 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 people now saying, Oh, Council's trying to take over this whole process. There will be enough people running around questioning the motives of City Council and why you all want this confirmation authority not to go, you know, but so far. I mean, I think you protect yourselves because in the end, you may have a lot more responsible as a legislative body over expenditures if some of the budgeting stuff is ultimately included in all of this.
I am concerned that if we change the Charter that certainly, and we as a body needed to do that, that if we change this charter, that certainly we find a role for Council to play -- either that we be involved in this process, as you mentioned, confirmation, which is good. Or that we narrow it to say that the terms should be coterminous and do no more. But I believe that if we say other things, other than that the term is changed, that we got to have more discussions so that Council is protected and has as much input into all of this as we can legislatively.
Well, I will tell 175 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 you, and I haven't had a whole lot of time to think about this. One of problems that we all have as a legislative body, and I'd like to mention three, without getting into too much detail. We have a certain oversight -- we, local government, and Council have a certain oversight responsibility over PGW, but you have no 10 budgeting -- you have no way of ensuring that any budget that is approved either by the Gas Commission or by the Council in the capital program, you have no way of knowing whether or not any of those budgets are adhered to. So that you have this sort of oversight but not really an oversight 'cause you can't really control any spending. Now, if City Council is going to allow the mayor and it to enter into a process whereby you pick the board members, I guess that's every four years, you pick through this process to the extent that Council and the mayor decide. And where necessary, with the approval of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, to the extent that you get more budgeting responsibility -- i.e., 176 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 approving by lump sum by class, the right to transfer money from one class to the next. To the extent that you do that, you are going to be ask asking for a greater level of accountability for how the money is spent and, therefore, I think, a higher expectation on the part of the members of the general public that you should be able to do more about what's happening down there. So that it's a two-edged sword. Because then you're going to have people in the general public coming to you and saying, There is not enough money for personnel, there is not enough money for this and that and the other. There will be people who will be coming to you saying, Change the budget, you have a right to change the budget. I mean it's a -- it will be the same debate that we have on the City's General Fund budget. And I, you know, there is this concern that you have to have that, Well, we have this appointment power, and we have this whole process of approving taxes and approving budgets. And then there's this drive, this pressure to get us 177 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 to spend more and to make more available. But then there are always these rules and regulations and mandates and this whole set of regulation that comes out of the State Department of Education. I mean, I think we could be complicating this situation significantly. And in the end, I don't know whether -- I don't know how much more accountability you end up having, which is the reason why any time you start doing governance changes, you know, you have to be very realistic about what can result from those governance changes. And I can support these governance changes without any reservation.
Not so much a question, just a clarification for the record. President Street had asked whether there were any -- or stated that it was his understanding that there were no changes to the educational nominating process, which is, in fact, correct. But there are some necessary -- there's 178 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 some required technical changes because of some other changes made, and then there are just a couple things that were changed.
I actually had a little analysis that pretty much laid forth that you and to change some times and some stuff like that.
Right. The length of the terms were extended from two years to four years, so --
Mr. Chairman, if I could add some information to the record. 179 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
I know you're getting ready to call the next witness. But in this segment, there were a couple of other -- there was one other person who had wished to testify who could not be with us. That person is also a candidate for mayor. That person was Mr. Sam Katz. He submitted testimony, and I would ask if the Chair would allow that testimony to be entered into the record as if it had been read.
That shall be done. (Sam Katz's written testimony attached herewith.)
Secondly, while he did appear, he also left actual testimony. That was John White, Jr. If that testimony can be entered into the record as if it had been read. (John White's written testimony attached herewith.)
And lastly, the President of the Philadelphia Board of Education, Mr. Alston had a scheduling conflict, but he also submitted testimony, and I'd like to ask if that 180 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 would be entered into the record as if it had been read.
Thank you. (Floyd Alston's written testimony attached herewith.)
The next witness is Fred Voigt, please. (Fred Voigt comes forward.)
My name is Frederick L. Voigt, and I'm the Executive Director of the Committee of Seventy. I think the idea of a charter change has been very, very useful in bringing forth debate that is focused. The witnesses who testified, starting with the mayor, all acknowledged that public education is one of the, if not the most important issue facing the City of Philadelphia today. You heard the mayor say that he should be held accountable for carrying out that function, and we agree. We've heard about Chicago. Let me tell you about Philadelphia. Back in 1981, we were in 181 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the midst of a strike. The superintendent of schools at the time was not appointed by the then-mayor. You had a situation that was out of control. And as a consequence of that, we examined how the governance of the City might be changed and, in fact got, the legislation introduced on a bipartisan basis. Both the gentlemen who testified today were cosponsors of that legislation. We came within one vote of it getting passed. Now, why didn't we get that other vote? Because Steve Freund raised the wage tax issue and intermingled it with schools. And so we lost. We came that close to getting the proposal that I have given to you enacted into law. Now, what did it do and what do we recommend now? Let's take politics out of education. I'm aware of Councilman Cohen's concerns, and they're legitimate. But let me tell that you every time we try to take politics out of something, we wind up with things like the independent counsel -- things that are not accountable, not controllable, and not productive. 182 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 When, in fact, the framers of the Educational Supplement framed its rationale, they said, We're going to take politics, particularly politics that relate to City Council, out of the process. Look at the enabling legislation. It's very explicit. It's State statute, and it says that City Council shall not. . because it was as if they were saying, We don't want those political people to have anything to do with it. So this is by design. And if anybody's going to tell you or me that there isn't politics involved with the School District, I've got a bridge to sell you. The point of the matter is, it's not apparent, it's not above board, it's not out there, and it's not accountable. We heard the mayor say, we heard a number of candidates say, I approve, as mayor every single one of those contracts. Well, let me take you back down "Memory Lane," folks. Let's go back to 1992. Do you remember the first budget, the balanced budget that you adopted? Remember that budget? And there was a great human cry about, Hey, the City really got its act together, 183 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 its budget is balanced. Then suddenly we had a reporter who raised their hand and said, Yeah, but what about the School District? And it was. Well, that's not our budget -- as if they were talking about a foreign country. Now, that's the way that things have happened. Mayors, when they want to take action do. And when they don't, they disappear and they go, Wait a second, that's not my thing. What's different then from now is that Mayor Daley -- and I have a copy of his speech that he gave the to the National Press Club, because it's probably the most compelling reason and articulation of the need for change. He decided that he was going to make education a -- and the people who said -- I think it was you, Councilman Cohen -- that Chicago's no great shakes, no miracle took place. Well, you're right. When you consider that they started in worse shape, if it's possible, than we are. The effort that they have made -- I mean, they were (unintelligible) as a system. And the mayor recognized that the same kind of out-migration that we're suffering from, 184 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 he's suffering from. Why would people leave the city?
Well, they're going to leave the city because of education. So he said, The most important thing that I have to do as mayor is save this system. Nothing even close. This is the way to do it. Now, the other thing important in all of these debates is that we as a people tend to look for silver bullets. You know, we think that, you know, this is the key, this is the answer, and it's got to be fairly simple and painless. There is no simple answer, there is no answer without pain. Governance isn't the only issue. It's only an of a complex puzzle that gets solved differently in different places. I mean, we are not the only city that is grappling with this issue; they all are. And a majority of those cities are moving in the direction of making the mayor accountable for that function. Detroit just did it by referendum. You've got Chicago, you've got Cleveland. There are a whole host of places where this kind of thing is taking place. The piece that you're addressing now is 185 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 probably the least significant of all of the other pieces, over which you have no authority. One of the significant pieces, I think, is the budgetary authority. And that is, you should have budgetary authority, as you do over the regular budget. The City and the County and the District are all coterminous. The same pot, the same people. And the responsibilities ought to be the same for both the City budget and for this.
Mr. Voigt, if I could ask, just for further clarity of the record. Your last statement, I think, was something like the proposal in front of us or the changes we plan to make are the least significant. And then I think you added on something like, But you can't do anything about the other ones that are more significant. Is there, as I often say to my daughter, is there a nicer way to say that?
Is it, in fact, 186 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 true that this is virtually the only thing that we can do that is within our power, and we are taking ourselves to the line in that what we agree on are the more important things we have no power over?
That is correct. And I want to make sure that this is taken in context. This could be done legislatively as well.
But through our discussions, you pointed up to me the importance of an open and public debate here, not in Harrisburg.
And that's what I think has happened, and I think that's very productive. But what I', trying to point out is, this alone, absent those other changes.
See, I think sometimes what we're doing in listening to the debate, we're thinking that this change changes the board in terms of that appointment process. What I'm saying in the broader context is, don't about the board as it is today, don't think about the rest 187 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 of the structure as it is today. Think about the structure with this being a part of it, but if we're going to, as the mayor said, if you're going too take the mayor in charge, it takes at a whole lot of other changes. And those changes affect City Council. It brings it back to the whole question of why do we have a budgetary process like we do?
And does it work? You know, you're talking about input. Well, in all of the hearings that Council's held, we're going to in the final analysis, you say yea or nay. Well, that's not the case with the other budget. And so why should it be the case with this one? My point being that there's a whole lot more to come. And when Councilman Ortiz suggested that some of this is going to come by way of negotiation, you heard it. You heard it from all parties, all three of them are talking about, Let's make a deal. So there's going to be some deal. Hopefully, this will be a part of it.
Well, again, I 188 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 thank you for that.
I hope that the deal is a positive one for public education.
So do I. I mean, you know from our numerous conversations and, I mean, from the day this was introduced, I've said it publicly, I said it here today, and I'll say it one more time as kind of the beginning, middle and end: This legislation by itself is not the solution to many of the ills of public education. This is the start of a process that at least demonstrates the City's interest in doing all that it can legally and legislatively and through its citizen process to make a start. The fact that we did have the Majority Leader and the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee here and a State Senator, I think, is indicative of our ability to communicate with people in Harrisburg that we need other things. It is why the literature that went out showed what this legislation could and would do at the City level, but there were at least three other issues that really needed to be 189 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 addressed in Harrisburg and can only be addressed in Harrisburg. And so I've taken the position that the City should always do what it can do for itself and never ask someone else to do for us that which we are not willing to do. But then say to the State, We have done all that we can do legally by the Charter. We need you to do these other things, and we've already demonstrated an interest in doing certain things, because we have done it. And so, as I believe Representative Evans said, the timing may be coincidental, or there may be to coincidence that this legislation is now pending before us. And I think his testimony was that in another 30 to 60 days, there will be more comprehensive State legislation to make a wide variety of other changes. When you put them all together, we really could have a series of governance structure changes that make a whole lot of sense and put accountability where it needs to be. This was the start of that discussion and the taking of what I think is a necessary step in going through a process that leads to, hopefully, some reasonable 190 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 conclusions. I do want -- and, quite honestly, as a part of that, and I know that the issue that has, within the resolution, probably generated the most antennae going up and the blips on the radar screen that has people potentially, you know, shrieking in horror, is that we would have this confirmation process by City Council. Let me state publicly for the record, as I am interested in an open process -- I've not been here as long as Councilman Cohen, who's seen board members, I'm sure, come and go. And I can also state that I have been through the educational nominating process. I was nominated to be a member of the Board of Education back in the '80s. But putting that aside, that is a closed process. What you know about the people going into the process is pretty much what you know about them coming out of the process. They usually came from some particular constituency group by way of recommendation. And you will learn about their background, if the press is able to get a hold of any document or information. 191 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 That process is not a public process, and they get appointed. So the one thing we know about our process is, it may not be pretty, it may not be fun to watch at times, but it is public. I would be less interested in that if I had a reasonable assurance that we would get what I believe most of us really want, which is the involvement in the budgetary process. But we can't give ourselves the power to do that; that can only be given to us by the State legislature, so --
Let me just finish. So as a legislator, I mean, by design or by strategy, at least, I've taken the position to virtually ask for everything that we might ever want legislatively because I know we can do this, to force and create an environment in which the people who could give us that which we might really want, which is budgetary involvement and the ability to make changes and recommendations, to force that issue. So I mean, I don't think that it is 192 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 something worth dying about regarding the confirmation process. I think that it is important, I think it could be interesting, I think that the nominees should be able to get through that process, and I doubt that many mayors would send over someone who they didn't think could get confirmed in the first place. And if you want to be in a public position, I don't see where there's anything wrong with going through a public process. It's not like you get nominated to the Board of Education and then never have to deal with people in a public context. So I mean, I don't really know what the problem is there. But I'm really more interested in the budgetary and in the financial aspects of what we don't have right now.
The composition of the board and its function, as we envision it, is very, very different than it currently is. The role of City Council is very, very different than it is. And those are, to us, the most significant elements of input. Politics is a positive thing when 193 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 people approach it properly. Politics is a bad word when people approach it improperly. Now, you can't hide politics; it's present in everything that we do. And in terms of the interest that you serve as elected representatives, this is the big issue. I don't need to tell you how important it is to your constituents, how important the loss of people is, as people literally flee the City. And those are people white, black, and Hispanic -- the color doesn't have to do anything with it. It's socio-economic: if you can afford to go, you're gone. If you have a four-year-old kid, okay, you're making a decision, you're gone. And there are other alternatives. We have more private schools in Philadelphia than any city in the United States, but those are expensive propositions. But my point is that whether you have a simple majority confirmation, whether you have confirmation at all is really not all that important to us. We're not afraid of City Council exercising prerogatives -- that's the whole point on the bigger issue where City Council has not been involved because of the fear that Councilmen 194 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 and women would politicize the system.
So they're (unintelligible) from it. We're saying no, no, no, this is too critical --
Well, we recognize that some of that political activity goes on today.
Behind the scenes which -- I mean, again, the primary purpose of this particular provision, as I articulated, I think, when the mayor was here, it seems like ages ago is, that people expect us to do certain things as it relates to public education. Now, we can all take -- we can give an answer when someone calls and be technically and legally proper, correct, and right which is, Ma'am, sir, I'm sorry, the Educational Home Rule Supplement does not allow me to be involved in the matters of public education. I do my job once a year and reauthorize the taxes. I have now made my contribution to the public education of Philadelphia. 195 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 You can say that, you can mean that, and you will be right. Now, I think that that is dumb, I think that that is inappropriate but, you know, on many days, my opinion doesn't really matter to many people. At least with this provision, if someone says, What is going on over at the Board of Education? a member will not be able to say, Well, I don't really know. You know, those people got appointed by the mayor, I had nothing to do with it. I don't know who that person is, I don't know what they're about. You will not be able to say that with a straight face if there was that level of participation in a confirmation process. I mean, that's all I'm saying. And, again, it is not -- at the core of this piece of legislation, it will not cure cancer, it will not make sure that Johnny reads any better next week. I mean, I understand where this is, I keep my feet on the ground, and I'm not trying to oversell something and make it something that it's not. But we have to have this discussion in, out. I mean, we need to do so something. This 196 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 was one of, you know, a half a dozen items in this piece. Let me ask you one last question -- for you, Mr. Voigt, one last question. The issue of institutional knowledge and the scenario that I laid out to the mayor, which is quite possible the wait bill is currently written, which is, the next mayor comes in January of 2000. By May of 2000, that mayor appoints nine new board members. In January of 2008, I guess, new mayor, nine new board members. Does that, in fact, make any sense? Is there any concern about that? Or should you allow board members, as was suggested possibly earlier, we now have it at, You can't serve more than two full terms, the terms being four years. Should it, in fact, be can't serve more than three full terms. The new mayor coming in in 2008 would actually be able to appoint some of the people who had just maybe served eight years, but some of those people maybe were really good and had done a good job.
And I meant the question to also include "or no term limits at 197 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 all."
I think term limits are artificial in many respects, when applied to bodies other than to the executive. They're artificial in the sense that there is an institutional memory that you have to have. They're artificial in the sense that if you're talking about elective office, there's a check on elective office -- particularly for legislators, and that's the ballot box. Putting a constraint -- think about in this context. Fine, if you want to do three fours or whatever it is, that's fine. But does it really matter in the sense that if the mayor, who is being, with all this other legislation, if the mayor can only serve two terms and if the mayor doesn't put education at the top of his or her priorities, none of it matters. If you get a bad mayor or a person who thinks that this isn't important, none of the rest of it matters at all.
Much of this could be debated endlessly, but there are two people who have been patient: Reverend Shine, if you would come forward. And then Lorraine Brill right after that. And there's another person, I think, who wishes to be heard. (Reverend Shine and Lorraine Brill come forward.)
We're pleased that you're here today. Please, for the purpose of record, identify yourself and then proceed.
Thank you, sir. I'm Reverend Robert Shine, S-H-I-N-E, Senior. I am the Vice President of Black Clergy of Philadelphia and vicinity, and Pastor of the Berachah Baptist Church of West Oak Lane. Mr. Chairman and misters and madams who have convened this hearing on law and governance concerning the proposed legislation regarding the Charter change, the Supplementary Charter change, I have this to say. I would respectfully request an opportunity to share with you some additional concerns that is not given in this statement that is presented at this time. 199 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Reviewing this proposed amendment raises in my mind what I believe to be at least two serious questions. First, the matter of the removal of board members. The language of the charter clearly represents unbiased thought and no prejudice where the proper application of the law can be justly imposed. This, in my belief, guarantees equal justice for the parties in dispute or contention. Therefore, this point of the Charter, must not favor the political office of the mayor. Another concern I am inclined to have is to think that this proposed amendment will not accomplish its purpose of improving the quality of education nor strengthen the effectiveness and accountability of the Board of Education. It is the notion of the amendment that education is an affair essentially to be imposed upon by centralizing government in the office of the mayor. I have concern regarding the power over the School District's board to administer the affairs of the fifth largest School District in 200 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the nation. I fear that the independence necessary to govern such affairs would be severely limited and politically influenced beyond what is reasonably expected. This proposal perhaps addresses a concern for holding the board accountable to the mayor tantamount to a non-paid cabinet position subject to the will of City Council. It appears, then, that the board will be required to relinquish the autonomy invested in it by the Home Rule Charter, as it exists, which, for this very reason, was designed to have less, rather than greater, political influence on the idea and ideal of free education and the free exercise thereof. That is, education must be free from political influence and free from the interference of political pressures as much as possible. I also believe that this proposal would not serve the interests and will of the people. Therefore, it is not a good proposal. It is for this reason that I am opposed to the passage of this amendment. Its purpose is made explicit in Resolution No. 990066 and in Bill 25 No. 990056, which has been introduced by 201 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Councilman Michael, in which it is expressly stated in the introduction that basic and fundamental changes to the governance of the School District has been urged. Several other groups have proposed and advocate for governance changes, including the Citizens Committee for Public Education in Philadelphia and the Greater Philadelphia First Corporation. Not to say that the largest single grass-roots organization does not appear to have been included in that, and that would be the communities of faith. They did not share in these considerations, which I think that they serve the interest of the people greater than those at other levels of our city life. And for the sake of the good and welfare of all, then it would in the interest to have given greater consideration to those who make up the greater family of students in our system. Many of these proposed governance are endorsed by all of the declared candidates for mayor in the 1999 election, end of quote. While we believe that uniformity and quality of education is the critical issue, not 202 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 centrality, it seems to me, to accomplish these objectives, as stated by amendment to the Home Rule Charter, would be the worst fate that could fall upon the future of education in the City. It is for this purpose that I am here to oppose the amendment. What I'd like to add in addition to this statement is that all of us are greatly concerned and serious about educational reform in Philadelphia. It is my contention that reform has already begun. It was begun long ago, first of all, by the magnet school concepts, the schools that we already have that are historically significant to the education of our children -- the Centrals and the Girls High, etc.
But more recently, we had the charter school concept, which technically is a public school. That being the case, then, it would seem that given the charter school concept, given the magnet school concept, given the special education opportunity concept, all of those put together speaks to us of reform. Such reform that we must give it an opportunity to succeed. And over the next five years, we believe that there 203 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 will be significant change in the education of our children, making them societally productive and that they would not be a liability, the many that would fall through the cracks. We believe that the charter school does, in effect, has contained in it the managers that is vested in the legislation or the Academic Recovery Act that has been proposed by the governor. We believe that inherent in the charter school concept is the managers, the tools, and all that is required in order for to us move forward in educating our children. There was none, there was no Council opposition, there was no community of faith opposition, there was no union opposition, there was no School District opposition, there was no 18 community-at-large opposition to the concept of a charter school. But there has been repeated opposition to the voucher offer that is being proposed. This then suggests to me that we all stand in need to see the reform in place, that charter schools have not failed, they have moved forward along. Though, to date, the money 204 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 required, $40 million, would only, under the voucher legislation, the $40 million would only educate no greater than 15,000 of our students. What then becomes of the remaining 200,000? Are they left to fall through the cracks? When the Greater Philadelphia First and/or others met and made some decisions regarding voucher legislation, was the larger grass-roots community representation considered at the table in order for to us add our contributing factors that would advance education opportunities for all of the children? It is these with these concerns that we come today. That to invest in one office all of this control and all of this power, what if, in the event that education of our children is left in the hands of those that are not vitally concerned with the 200,000? How grievous that would be to those that are still seeking to have their children educated. Ladies and gentlemen, it is our contention and our view that this proposal must not go forward, it must not be imposed on the citizenry of our city, but I think that there are 205 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 some things that can be changed, and at some point in time, we would like to address those as well, to share with you what the clergy community thinks about some of these proposals and offer them to you as possible suggestions that could help remedy the problem that we now face. And thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Reverend Shine. Councilman Nutter?
Reverend Shine, I want to thank you also for your testimony. I took from your testimony that your concern is that this proposal will give the mayor too much power and control? I mean, is that the essence?
Yes, that's the essence of it, that if he has the power to, at his discretion, discharge and just add to the School Board at will because it may not favor his or her stated position, but it may not, as well, be in the interest of educating the children. And because the position of a given board member may be more advantageous, therefore positive, toward 206 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 the education processes of our children. Then it may go against what the incumbent mayor may desire and, therefore, would remove that person, and that would be inconsistent with educating our children.
Don't you think there's any political price for a mayor to pay for doing something like that? I mean, is there no 10 recourse that the citizens have?
Well, the citizens would not have a recourse in this matter. As a matter of fact, it's being eliminated by this proposal. It's saying that rather than the law being applicable, the mayor would have the right to dispose of the person that he does not will rather than go to the law and have the appropriate law adjudicate the situation. But it may be in the interest of the citizens and the school, so that's why I would be opposed to that. Mr. Councilman, permit me to say that I am an advocate for public education unquestionably, and I believe in equitable funding. And, therefore, I would urge the Council to consider that. In so doing, I believe that we 207 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 need appropriations in order for us to have the adequate funding that we could equalize our education in our city. If there were more of us more who were proponents of public education and equitable funding, then this issue of voucher legislation would not be an issue before us. And if, for some reason, I do not know what the reasons, but that there was some interests in imposing vouchers upon our district, and that was to fall into the fated hands of the mayor, then you would see the reality of how that would impact upon our children's opportunity to get education.
Well, in your scenario, what would be the mayor's role under those circumstances? I mean. . .
I believe the mayor should have a degree of oversight to protect the interests of public education for all of our students.
You're saying if Harrisburg said we're having a voucher program, that the mayor should somehow stop it?
I believe that the 208 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 mayor, in this instance, should be an advocate of public education for all of the children of our city.
Right, I understand that, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm trying to play out the scenario that you laid out. If Governor Ridge is successful -- I think he's tried twice and been unsuccessful. But if he's successful he's got, you know, more voucher programs than I think -- I think you know, but if you don't know, I will be glad to go on the record, you know, another time. I'm opposed to vouchers in the public education system. The governor has two proposals going on right now. I mean, you know, he's got more voucher schemes than Carter's got liver pills. But let's say that at this time he were successful and that vouchers became a reality. I think he want to do them in six counties or something like that, whatever it is that he's trying to do. And let's say the State legislature passes the bill 23 and the governor signs that bill and that there are now voucher pilot programs in those six counties. 209 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Are you saying that somehow, the mayor of the City of Philadelphia should block the implementation of that?
If the mayor could not find a way to prevent vouchers that would only benefit some 15,000 of the 215,000 students, then I think it would be incumbent upon the mayor to provide the money that the quality of education for the remaining 200,000 students would be forthcoming from some proposal that he would offer into City Council to make the provision for. If that's not done, then what we have admitted to is that there is no great concern for the 200,000 who could ill afford what it would cost to privatize and/or to parochialize and/or to privatize the education of the remaining students. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon him to seek that funding.
Right, okay. I mean, I understand that, and I mean, we may not agree on the final resolution because I think what 210 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 you heard is that the City should then put up money to match whatever the voucher thing is coming down, and I have no idea how we would do that. But I mean, I guess I'm still trying to deal with -- the legislation in front of us today has nothing to do with vouchers or what the mayor may or may not do.
Under the current system, the mayor does appoint members of the School Board, and no one has anything to say about that, zero.
Well, I would not want to be hypothetical, nor speculative in this matter Mr. Chairman, but I --
But I would, and as I address the Chair, I would, from this prophetic voice, suggest that in the event of the political climate of our city, that in the real world of 211 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 things, it does -- perhaps the potential does exist that voucher legislation could be imposed upon this city. And whomever the mayor is, if the bored was not in consistent harmony with the voucher legislation and sought other means to provide money and other things, then the mayor will have the authority to remove all of opposition to him. And, therefore, that is too great a risk, in my opinion, for us to allow for this to go forward this way.
And, Reverend, Shine, you've known me for while, and you know I meant no disrespect to you to ask questions. You know, you've illuminated and helped my understanding of what your certain is and I respect that.
Well, we're not done 212 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 yet. Please.
No. I really, like I said, you made some very -- I just turned to Chairman Cohen, and I like what you just said there at the end as to vouchers and the struggle that we as a people in this city have to begin looking at. We have to, Reverend, to begin mobilizing all of those forces that are for public education in this city, because the struggle is not in the future; the struggle is ongoing right now. As Councilman Nutter said, the governor has many proposals along these lines. As you just heard Mr. Voigt say, a deal is in the making. We have to believe to say what the parameters of the deal have to be. And I'm very glad of what you're saying along these lines because I think getting you and the clergy mobilized along these lines is an essential part of the forces of the defense of the public 213 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 education system. So I'm very glad to hear what you're saying right now.
I believe that, as I indicated earlier, the largest single grass-roots community of the City is the community of faith. And I believe that the community of faith in an ecumenical family does, in fact, have its opposition to the voucher proposals because we could see the impact, the negative impact, that it would impose. We, therefore, are moving towards a stronger unification, mobilizing the ecumenical family of opposition to be able to present a very cogent case before the State legislators for that proposal.
Reverend Shine, your statement is the first statement made today that I find myself in almost total agreement with. It expresses the kind of concerns that during the earlier questioning -- you may not have been here during the earlier questioning -- that I raised, 214 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 questions concerning the politicalization of the whole process.
Questioning whether or not the mayor is really the best person to determine the policies. Suppose we have a mayor that comes in who's basically not for public education or feels that it's a nuisance and it's taking up money that he'd like to spend for other persons? And my long experience in government is that we have such mayors, and we have --
And we have the potential for more of such mayors. Because each mayor comes from a certain background. And sometimes the backgrounds don't include support for the public schools. The fact is, as I've known it over a long period of time, is that despite the provisions of the Home Rule Supplement, the Education Home Rule Supplement, the City Council does, in fact, have power whenever it wishes to exercise that power. And the mayor has that power 215 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 whenever the mayor wishes to exercise that power. For many years, the -- maybe until very recently, education has always been on the back burner. And there was a reason why those of us in political life put it on the back burner: we didn't want to be bothered with it, we didn't want to it take money. But maybe we thought it could better be spent for other purposes. But whenever the Council chose to get involved in an issue, whether it was books, whether it was bus attendants, whether it was violence in the school, whether it dealt with the quick resort to Ritalin for children that maybe were a bit inattentive, the City Council got into that discussion. And that discussion influences policies at the School Board because we do have the budgetary power -- we just exercised it now. When the School District did not appear at a certain meeting, we just didn't about act on their budget. And by God, they appeared the next time the hearing was called. I like your statement, and let me ask you one question 'cause, as I see, it the debate today is only beginning. I'm torn by this. 216 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 Councilman Nutter, forgive me, but we're told that it's important to make this change, as proposed by the bill and the resolution; and at the same time, everybody in support of that wants to indicate this is not a cure-all, it's actually only a tiny little step. I worry about taking tiny little steps when there is a danger that by taking that tiny little step, you may be opening the door to bigger steps that may even more harmful. And if it is a tiny little step, I say, do we have to act on it immediately? Don't we have to have time to make sure the public knows about it? I can't believe, by the small number of people here present today from the general public, that the public is disinterested in the public schools, because why have all the mayoral candidates come out and said that education is a first priority? Because they're hearing out in the community that the public is very much concerned about the state of the public schools. Yet, at this hearing, we've had very little representation of the public schools. Miss Brill is here. I think there was someone from the 217 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 League of Women Voters generally, and there were a few other organizations. But it seems to me that there ought to be a lot of discussion. We ought to make education the first priority of whoever the next mayor is, or even for the remaining term of this mayor. Those mayors must understand that the people of Philadelphia strongly feel that it must be the first priority.
And only when that feeling by the public is expressed will mayors and boards of educations really be motivated to act the way we think they ought to be acting -- taking leadership and the strengthening of the field of public education. So I have no other questions, but I'm assuming from what you said that the Black Clergy are developing a program that they would like to present that you're feeling at least would be supportive of the notion of perhaps holding up on this action until we see what the proposals of the State are?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. 218 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 That's correct.
I agree that it takes just one drop of water to erode the rock, and so those little steps can, in effect, over the long haul reproduce something and give us something that we would rue the day that we took immediate action on this proposed legislation. I believe time is required and time is important to the education of our children to give to them and for their future a better quality of education opportunity. I am politically naive, and I do admit to that. But in saying so, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be on record to say that it would appear from giving the mayor, whomever it would be, this kind of power, it almost says that the board becomes a kind of cabinet position to the mayor -- non-paid, of course. Those board members don't receive pay, but it would almost be a board 219 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 position. Then that generates, Mr. Chairman, in my view, and out of my political naivete, it generates perhaps that if I were to be mayor, that could be for me a patronage opportunity to put persons in those respective seats that would favor my view. What, then, if it was a mayor that was not concerned with public education? I fear what the result could be. And, therefore, again, that's the reason for the positions that I have taken. Now, perhaps that is politically naivete to even suggest in thinking out loud that that could very well happen. But if it's under that absolute control, then in the reality of things, I can't see otherwise. And you, Mr. Chairman, would have to help me to understand how that could not possibly be before I could even consent to support this legislation at this point in time.
I would describe the position as being perhaps not politically naive, but politically sophisticated because it is very 220 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 difficult for any individual to resist using the powers that exist. The mayor took pride -- when he testified this morning, he said he wanted to have the same power with the Board of Education that he had with the other boards and commissions that he appoints. And he gave us as an example of -- I think it was the Historic Commission or it was some commission -- he referred the Art Commission. I think it may have been something that involved the property at 17th Street and the question as to whether or not a garage should be able to be built fronting the street.
That was the Historical. He didn't give that example; he gave a different one.
Oh, he gave a different example in which, apparently, he changed the members of the commission. Now, it's not that the mayor's an evil person. He felt he had the responsibility, you know, for achieving a certain decision about Historic or Art Commission problems. And he felt that his current board members were blocking him from achieving the goals 221 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 of his administration, and so he ousted them. He may have been right, he may have been wrong in the political judgment. But it's using that as an example for the School Board does, in deed, worry me. Councilman Nutter.
Thank you. Again, Reverend Shine, I very clearly understand what your fear and concern is with regard to the person who may be the next mayor or future mayors and how much power and authority do you invest in that person. But it does also occur to me that if the public cares that much about education, then it seems that they would take the time and effort, and also they have the responsibility, to elect someone to the office of mayor who shares their views and concerns. And if a person does not demonstrate a level of commitment and interest in public education, my personal opinion is, one, that person is not fit for public office and certainly not the office of the mayor. But, I mean, I think we do have some responsibility to let the public make decisions. 222 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 This is a democratic society, and I guess I wonder from time to time how much protection, if not paternalism, we're required to provide. People can read, people can write, they can understand what's going on. There are some systems in place that prevent any person from running rough shot over the system. I understand the concern about patronage. It's a concern that exists today, it's a concern that will exist tomorrow, regardless of what governance reforms are made. But the general public does have a responsibility and an obligation to participate in this process, and it is often said that, you know, you get the government that you deserve. If you come out to vote and participate in the process, you will elect a person that cares about your interests. I do want to make it, though, clear for the record that this is not something that either I or I think anyone else is trying to rush. Quite honestly, the exact opposite is true. The passage of this bill and resolution does not change anything. The voters of the City of Philadelphia 223 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 will have their voices heard on this issue. If this bill and resolution were to pass at the general election on November 2, 1999, that is a little more than six months from now. I did it this way because there are statutory requirements that if you're going to have a ballot question, all of the provisions have to be put in place by a certain date. Therefore, my thought was, introduce the bill in the winter, have a public hearing in the process in the spring, have it passed by the Council. And then the general public, leaders of faith and million and one other organizations can take the next six months and either have a parade about it down Broad Street or tearing it to smithereens so that by Election Day, people will be clear in their minds as to what it is that they want to do. So I am taking the absolute opposite approach to, quite frankly, what often happens in this place, that we are not trying to rush. We are trying to be deliberate. We are having a public hearing in April about something the voters won't take action on in November. 224 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 And it just seems to me again, with all the concern around public education, that six months is a fair amount of time to have forums, to have debate, to have discussion, to have analysis to challenge beliefs and assumptions that anybody might have. I mean, I'm certainly prepared to explain or defend my particular position on this. If someone has better argument, I think they're going to win that argument. And then again, as often said, we'll let the voters decide what it is they want and what it is that they believe because I work for them and I have to trust their judgment.
Let me just restate my firm belief. The current political climate in our city is so convoluted with a whole lot of things, to add this additional request of burden to make a decision that requires considerable thought from grass-roots people over a proposed legislation 225 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 that they have not been privy to review and to raise questions in their locale. And then to retire them to make an intelligent voting decision regarding the mayoral election, I am sure and assure you that they will not give themselves to the time or devote the time to all of these considerations. And, therefore, it would have been in the best interests to, after the election, then bring this proposed legislation in the new administration year. That way, the people's minds could have gone to, What are we going to do to come out of the dilemma of the present political morass that we're in? To add an additional requirement for them to consider just keeps them all busy mentally. And we may even lose, from my point of view, even greater. And so I would respectfully ask, then, that the time required is given to this. That after this is done, then the people can say, Well, now let's take a look at something additional regarding education, and then they can move with alacrity and dispatch and yet be a well-informed 226 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 city. So that's all I -- that still remains my concern. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nutter, I really thank you for the time that you have afforded me to at least vent some very vital concerns of mine and the community that we serve.
Reverend Shine, I think Councilman Rizzo has a question.
Thank you. Reverend Shine, I agree with you, and I hear the mayor today speak on the fact that board members would serve directly at his pleasure and he could expel them at any time, and I think I would have second thoughts about being a member of the Board of Education if I thought that the first time that I didn't agree with the mayor, that I might be tossed out.
And also the interesting point is the -- let me check my note here. A lot of destruction, the mayor indicated he could throw these board members off the minute they don't agree with his policy. And then it was said that we can just throw a mayor out that we 227 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 don't like, we can just vote him or her out. A lot of damage can occur in one year, two years, three years.
So I don't buy into this, You can just throw a mayor out if you don't like what he or she's doing. Because, again, things can deteriorate very quickly in a year or two.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
I have copies of my statement here if the sergeant-at-arms would 228 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 please distribute it.
The sergeant-at-arms will take it the copies. Thank you. We're sorry. We applaud your patience being here all through the hearing, but I think it was a very good hearing and very important to hear all of the points of view.
Yeah, please. And I am going to reiterate some of the points that Reverend Shine just made. You alluded to the fact that the League of Women Voters were here. They were only here today because I called them. They knew absolutely nothing about these hearings, and I'm referring to that in my statement, and I'd like to read it into the record. It's very brief.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Lorraine Brill, President of Upper Northwood Community Council, but I'm speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the group. This is the testimony from Barbara Dietrich, President, and Kay McKenna, First Vice 229 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 President, League of Women Voters. And they're saying the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of Philadelphia believes that the proposal to permit the mayor to appoint all members of the Board of Education at one time is such a dramatic shift in the power in an already-strong mayor's system of government, that a great deal more time and attention needs to be given this subject than is possible in a year when the voters with attention to a wide range of issues all important to the citizens of Philadelphia. And that's their statement. And I'd like to read my statement. Perfect.
I'm Lorraine Brill, speaking today as someone who attended Philadelphia public schools. My three children graduated from Philadelphia public schools, and my 230 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 grandsons are now in Philadelphia public schools. I was active on Home and School Association boards when my children were in school. And since 1973, I have been an active member of the Alumni Board at the Philadelphia High School for Girls. I also was a children's librarian for three years with the Free Library of Philadelphia prior to my retirement in 1993. As President of Upper Northwood Community Council, we continue to work with our local schools as community representatives. In 1998, I served and on a Principal Selection Committee for Cornell Elementary School. Last week, I saw a legal notice about Bill 990056 and Bill 990066 and the public hearing being held today. Everyone I have spoken to since that time, including community leaders, teachers, attorneys and average voters, knew nothing about the proposed changes to Article XII of the Public Education of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. Nor do they know about today's public hearings. And that's why people are not here today. There has been no widespread publicity, 231 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 no citywide meetings, no input from the average citizen, no testimony solicited about these proposed changes. Why? What is the big rush? These changes are much too serious to push through to a ballot question in November. If these proposals are so important, then they should wait until after we elect the next mayor and City Council, and there should be a completely open process right. Right now, all the voters should be concentrating on evaluating all the candidates for mayor and City Council, and not be distracted by issues of changes to the Charter. What are we trying to achieve by these proposed changes? Will they benefit the students in the educational system? Will they bring out about some miracle that cannot be achieved under the current Charter? Of course. You all have copies of Article XII. Please review it carefully. Many improvements to the school system have occurred since Article XII was proposed. As a young mother and a member of the J. Hampton Moore Home & School Board, I testified along with other community leaders and Home & School representatives in favor of the 232 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 proposed school supplement at public meetings. The citywide Home & school Council was one of the moving forces at that time supporting the school supplement. One of the key elements that we wanted was that of staggered terms so that the experience of current members would help to educate new board members and maintain continuity. Another important element was that members may be removed, as provided by law. In other words, they could only be removed for cause or not reappointed. We did not want board members to serve at the pleasure of the mayor. We wanted the board members to feel free to make difficult decisions benefitting the School District without fear or retribution. Over the years since Article XII has been in effect, the process for selection and terms of School Board members has worked well. Members of the board receive no salary and volunteer their own time to serve. People who have served on the School Board have worked diligently to improve and sustain our schools. It will be difficult to get qualified and dedicated volunteers to serve if there is a new board every 233 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 four years who can be tossed out at any time. Currently, Article XII allows the mayor to appoint an educational nominating panel of 5 members. Nine are designated representatives of 6 varying groups to allow for a broad-based panel. 7 Four others appointed at large.
City 8 Councilmembers could be appointed to the at-large 9 seats if the mayor so wishes, thereby giving City 10 Council a direct voice in the process. Since the 11 mayor can also reject the first set of nominees 12 and ask for new names, he really can anyone he 13 wants as a member of the School District. The mayor already has a great deal of power under the current School Charter. The changes proposed by Bill 990066 and its companion bill, 990056, will only destroy what has worked well for so many years. Therefore, we urge the Committee on Law and Government to reject these bills for all the reasons stated above. Thank you.
Miss Brill, again, I say thank you for your endurance and commitment 234 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 to stay. I did, I guess, at least want to put on the record so that you don't feel that there is some massive conspiracy of secrecy here, the bill 6 and the resolution, as you probably know, were introduced in a Council session back on February 4, 1999. It was two months ago.
The Philadelphia Daily News, on its editorial on , on February 19th, wrote an editorial about this. The Philadelphia Inquirer, on its editorial page, A-10, wrote an editorial about this issue Monday, February 22nd.
Through my office at least, I sent out press releases about this particular hearing as soon as it was scheduled to the news media. Now, as powerful as anybody thinks we might be here in City Council, we still don't control what the media covers or what they try to --
And there was nothing, 235 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 there was nothing.
And so, I mean, we are often challenged by this dilemma of how we get out as much information as possible.
But I was surprised that the League of Women Voters knew absolutely nothing about it. And as I said, I called, and you know, if Mary Jane Hazel in northeast Philadelphia doesn't know anything about it, then, you know, something's really going wrong.
So there are a lot of people that should have been notified -- and not that they could all be here, not that they could all comment, but they're concerned about the process, and it is an important process, and we feel that, just as the Reverend said, it's -- people are having a hard time right now evaluating the mayoral candidates. It's such a hodgepodge, believe me. And to throw this into the hopper. We spent, when Mayor Rendell first came in and the Charter Commission went into effect, it took three or three years out of our lives working on that and fighting it and trying to, you know, 236 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 get that voted down. We don't need to spend six months. And I'm going to tell you, I will work to get this -- if this goes through, to fight it at the ballot box. But I just -- it's not going to solve anything.
Why? Just for all the reasons I said. For the issue that you can toss out the people at any time and that you're appointing a whole new board without any continuity. There are ways --
I think you were here for some of that discussion, that's not necessarily something that anybody wants to do.
Well, Miss Brill, I mean, something has to be in the bill. That's why we have public hearings. 237 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
But I'm saying that this a major discussion point. There are other alternatives, you know. What we could do -- and this is one of the alternatives that could be discussed -- is, instead of having people appointed every two years, you could have them appointed every year. You could have people serve three-year terms so that there would still be continuity, but a mayor would maybe get control a little sooner instead of having to wait two years. There's many ways of doing things without changing the impetus of having staggered terms and of having people feel free to give their opinions on a board without retribution, 'cause people don't get paid for this job, and --
I don't know how many people apply. John White said that, apparently, they're not getting enough people. I don't know. I know someone who applied and didn't get selected. So there must have -- you know, there 238 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 must have been candidates applying somewhere along the line.
Sure. Let me ask you this question: Who do you think should ultimately be responsible for the functioning of the public education system?
Well, it is the School Board but definitely the mayor and City Council. And I don't think you need to change it. If you read the Charter, there's a lot in there that can be done if you want to work the system in conjunction with the School Board.
As Mayor Rendell said, he is constantly on the phone with the School Board people. He is getting everything he wants, and he's gotten, you know, some of the things. And there's a public hearing process through the School Board, and you can pick up the phone and you appointed people or, you know, and you say, Look, this is my opinion, I would appreciate it if you would do this, if someone has a major complaint. I've gone to many School Board meetings 239 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 where people have come and, you know, presented their positions. In some cases, they're listened to; in some cases, they're not. But at least you have that.
And with the cluster system, which is working beautifully, at least in the Northeast schools; I can't say that for the rest of the City.
But there is a legal way for parents to get involved. The principal's supposed to involve them in the budgeting process at each school and so on. If it's not happening, it's because the Home & School people don't know the power that they have.
Well, let me ask you this last question. In terms of the current governance structure -- so, I mean, your testimony is that everything is fine and everything's working well? Is that your testimony?
No, no, everything is not fine, but we need to work hard. And whether getting more money is going do solve the problems, 240 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 I don't know. Whether things can be done more efficiently, I don't know. I know the controller's office has a post-audit function; they would like a pre-audit function. The School Board could approve that. They don't need any legislative action for it; that's something they could vote and have happen. And, you know, this goes way back to when we first had the school supplement and we worked to establish the Citizens Committee on Public Education. At that time, I think it was Charles Bowser and Debra Wiener and so on. We met with the school auditors and we went over the budgets with a fine-toothed comb, and they continued to do that, you know. But we've had many years of growing pains through the Dilworth years and through all the other years, but it's an evolution. And things are getting better, but we have changes. We have cultural problems, we have social problems, we have problems that the schools are stuck with that they didn't anticipate having. And so, you know, we need to cooperate with -- City agencies have to cooperate with the 241 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 schools. I know the Health Department does. And certainly, you know, all that sort of thing can be done. But it can all be done under the existing Charter. There's a section on cooperative agreements, there's all kind of sections that can be done. Read it carefully. I asked the staff to distribute copies of the supplement, you know.
No, we have it. Okay. So would you propose any changes?
Well, that's why I asked you the question earlier. You believe that everything is working fine and we should just keep it the way it is, right?
Well, I guess I'm not qualified to answer that. In other words, I just know --
I'm just asking you for your opinion. I mean, you have a all of long history in this, and you say that everything -- 242 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 anything that needs to be done can be done through the current structure and system, and no changes need be made.
You have to work the system. We happen to have no people on the School Board, as I'm sure many of you do.
If there's a problem, we can call them. We've had principal problems over the years where we had to, you know, appeal to the School Board for different things and so on. But I've seen major changes where people come in and testify, and there's a whole -- you know, they are responded, you know, to in things like that.
I don't know if that's going to solve any major, major problems. But all I'm saying is that this particular bill isn't going to help. If anything, it's going to make it worse. But if, after the elections, there should be -- you know, we should have an open process just like it was mentioned here today. Everybody should be talking, and it's a good thing 243 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 to have that.
As strange as it may seem, we had a recent discussion in City Council. A member of City Council got up and said, We can't talk about this 'cause it's the school budget and we don't any power in the Home Rule Supplement to do that. I said I believe that's dead wrong. I believe we not only have the right to discuss but we have the responsibility to discuss, to make recommendations, to call in the school people and question them.
It's unfortunate that it had to wait till the budget. I mean, if this problem had come to people's attentions -- and it should have sooner -- we shouldn't have had to wait for the budget process. That's what I'm saying.
Well, I think the hearing today was very good. I think it's really 244 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 concentrated a lot of people's attention on this. The game may be taken away from us. There may be proposals by the State or actions by the State that may make us have to come to grips with things very quickly, whether or not we act on these bills. So I don't think that this is an issue that's going away. And I'd urge you, Mrs. Brill, to do what you can to notify the people in the communities that you're associated with. I'm going to try to do the same, and I think maybe every Councilmember might be well advised to do it with whatever contacts they have. I think this is going to be on the screen from now on. I think we have an intolerable situation in which we in the City feel that the State doesn't do its share, and the State feels that we don't do our share. And I like what President Verna said about having these discussions continue 'cause I think it's urgent that we come together. And it may be that action like the bill and the resolution here may be indicated at some time. My feeling is, it's too early to reach that 245 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 decision. And in informal discussions, I've had with each of the members of the committee here, except for the sponsor of the bill, 'cause I knew how he felt; I just wanted to know how everybody else felt. But they all indicated that they don't feel that there's any immediate urgency to take action on the bill today. But the issues are going to be on the -- you know, they're on the screen now, and I think everybody's got to be alerted particularly to the possibility of unfriendly action coming out of the State legislature.
Okay, well, I'm concerned though -- I mean, and that's something we can deal with at the State legislature too.
Well, I think we're seeking to enlist your support now.
Right. And it would depend on what the particular bills are in the State legislature. We'd have to say how it would be. But in regard to my comments, you know, 246 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 that it would be good if this could be postponed until after the election in terms of -- I mean, discussions can be ongoing, but any, you know, real major changes or considerations for any change to a charter should wait till after the November election and we have a new City Council, which will be many of you, but it will be, you know, a complete Council. And also, it won't become a political football in the mayoral campaign. I know everybody's saying something different, and every meeting they go to, we're hearing other things. And it's very confusing for those of us in the electorate who are trying to make a decision.
Well, we can't promise you or anybody that we're not going to act in such a way that this may be on the ballot in November. What we're going to do today is to recess and see what follows from the developments of this hearing. We're going to take no action today, but we are mindful of the deadlines and the dates that are required to be met, you know, to comply with the possibility of this being on the 247 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 ballot possibly in time for the November ballot, possibility not till afterwards. But we think there will be time for full discussion and debate, and we'll all be in a better position in a month or to two to make that decision.
And I hope there will be wider notification. I think every group is on the mailing list.
Well, I think you ought to be begin alerting everybody.
I would just like to get a statement on the record, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you've been most patient and generous with the hearing today, and I deeply appreciate the level of interest expressed by the many members of City Council. With regard to the testimony by the 248 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 previous witness, whether action is taken today, whether action is taken next month, whether there is a ballot question in November or not, I do think that most of us were here -- and she may have been here at the time -- when it was indicated to us that the State legislature, both the House and the Senate, are contemplating making many changes to the School Code of 1949. I think it is very clear to most of us who pay attention to what goes on in Harrisburg. Their process is one very different than ours. It takes place in Harrisburg, not in Philadelphia. Those dictates are sent down here. You will not have the opportunity to vote on them, you will not have the opportunity to have very much input. And we have seen on numerous occasions, whether it was the action that was taken against Councilman Ortiz's much fought for legislation for the assault weapons ban, which we passed here in the City Council, which was overturned by the State legislature, with no ability by Philadelphians to do or say anything about it. Or when it came to the issue of stadiums, or, for that matter, riverboat gambling, 249 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 which did fail. But again, none of those initiatives came out of Philadelphia; they were being sent down here. And so whether or not action is taken on this bill and resolution may in fact end up being a moot issue, as the two representatives indicated, that the State is anticipating taking the same kind of action and more than we are talking about in the next 30 to 60 days. I don't necessarily no that their timetable is tied to the mayor's race or not. But inaction on our part may result in serious action on the State's part, for which we will have no recourse whatsoever. So, you know, I am a very open-minded person, I'm a very flexible person. I do believe, though, that the to the extent that the City of Philadelphia can take action that it has an interest in and allow its voters to demonstrate what their will is, up or down, is always better than just leaving things to another legislative body that functions in a totally different place, in a different environment, over which we have virtually no control and no input. I believe that we should always take 250 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 action, whatever it may be, that we can take, rather that allow someone else to take action which may be to our detriment. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Let me just state for the record that the only disagreement I have with the Chairman is that I would change the word "action" to "action or inaction" because, as in the assault weapon case, the State legislature assumes the power to override us in Philadelphia, whether we act or don't act. And while I think they've been wrong, the courts don't always agree on the supremacy of the Home Rule Charter. I had occasion Thursday to announce a victory under the Home Rule Charter in a zoning matter. In the assault weapons case, the Supreme Court did not so act; they felt the State did have the power. But whether we act or don't act, I think the hearing today, the bills introduced by Councilman Nutter, the bill and the resolution, have served an extremely important purpose. They're alerting us to the fact something's going 251 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 to be happening, and it's our job to try to find that to be a positive thing rather than a negative thing that we're so often confronted with. Thank you, Councilman Nutter. Thank you to the members. Yes, Councilman Ortiz?
I think what Councilman Nutter said is very clear. We cannot just remain passive and allow the Charter change to come from Harrisburg, if there is a Charter change that is going to come about. Whether we vote it out today or next week or next month, we have to be cognizant of what the legislators here said from Harrisburg. And I would like to be an active participant, and I would like the citizens of Philadelphia to be active participants in any of the changes that happen rather than have those changes imposed on us down the road. So I understand that I think we need greater input into the process, but I would like 252 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 to see the process take place and accelerated. And before we leave here in June, that we have some action on the issue -- either pro and to move it along, or to just let it be.
President Verna, I wonder if I could suggest to you and see what members of the committee feel about it. I think there ought to be a follow-up to the offer made by the Majority Leader and Representative Evans suggesting preferably a meeting here, maybe in the Council caucus room or in your offices, with those members of Council who wish to be involved in this meeting together with the State people. I think the point's made about what may come from the legislature. However, whatever comes, it will be better if we're a part of it than if we're not a part of it. Could we impose that on --
I certainly would be more than happy to do that. I think that's --
'Cause you suggested that during the hearing, and I think it's a great idea. 253 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
In fact, I recall that I made that suggestion way back when President Coleman was here. I think that it's very important that we all know -- I'm sure in Harrisburg they do not know what we're doing, and we certainly don't know what they're doing relative to the schools. And I think -- I thought it was extremely healthy this morning to hear the dialogue. I will certainly be more than happy to follow through on that.
Okay, that's fine. What Councilman Nutter said to Mrs. Brill directly is very important. The way Harrisburg works, they don't even have to have hearings; they can work behind closed doors so that nobody knows, and then they just present the bill to two bodies, without any public hearings. So we're pleased by what President Verna just said. We're going to follow up, and this is a live matter. And we hope everybody in Philadelphia understands that.
Passivity is not an option in this is. I think that's the message I 254 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066 got this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I think my only request will be that the committee take some action prior to our legislative recess, which, I think, begins on June 24th, that we have some opportunity for a follow-up hearing and that the full Council have the opportunity with some bill -- amended, unamended -- we can have that debate. But I would like to have some bill out of this committee so that the members of this Council can take some action prior to our legislative recess.
I'm sure the President will agree to give us a committee date at whatever time it's requested, and I will be very happy to arrange that. So I just think it's important that everybody understand that this is up for action -- not only this amendment but the whole ball of wax in Harrisburg.
Exactly. Thank you. 255 4/16/99 LAW & GOV'T - Bill 990056, Res. 990066
Thank you very much. The hearing will stand in recess till the call of the Chair. (Adjourned at 2:35 p.m.) - - - 256 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Friday, April 16, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT BILL NO. 990066, RESOLUTION NO. 990056 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter