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.