Okay. Who's 10 the gentleman to your left? I apologize. 11 INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Oh, 12 I'm sorry, sir. I introduced him when I 13 first sat down. 14 This is William Brown, who is 15 our Budget Officer and Financial Investigator.
Budget Officer and Financial Investigator? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Yes. He does two jobs.
So could you describe your position? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: He is responsible for putting together the budget, working with the budget 131 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 department to do that. He also conducts financial investigations. Mr. Brown is the individual who did the investigation that resulted in finding the checks of $3.4 million.
So how much of your time is spent as a budget officer versus investigating? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: (Addressing Mr. Brown.) I'll let you answer.
It's 30 to 40 percent, 30 to 40 percent. It depends, 'cause I prioritize what needs to be done.
That's confusing to me, 'cause the Mayor's Office, which has a budget of, you know, $3.5 million or something like that, doesn't have a budget officer. Does your department need a separate Budget Officer rather than relying on the resources of -- INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: No, 132 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 we don't need a separate officer; that's why Mr. Brown has -- also does financial investigation.
Well, that's my -- do you need a budget officer at all? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: We need somebody to put these numbers together because I can't do it.
Okay. It's not a very -- there's positions, you 13 know. 14 INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: 15 Yeah, and one of those positions is not a budget officer.
It is, yeah. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: But -- I'm sorry, it is, but it's -- he does that in addition to his other job.
Okay. So -- 133 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 and there's nobody from the Budget Office that can help you do that that would free up 40 percent of Mr. Brown's time to make it possible to spend his time investigating? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: I don't believe that it's 40 percent.
He said 30 or 40 percent. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Well, I think right now, getting ready for these hearings, it took a lot of his time. But, as I said, he has just been working almost full-time on an investigation where he recovered the $3.4 million in checks.
Okay. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: It was full-time for a while doing financial investigations; now, as we approach budget hearings, he's spending more time on that. But this is -- the budget -- 134 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 being a budget officer is certainly not a big part of his job.
Can I ask how the investigation into checks not being cashed came up? As you know, I guess about a year-and-a-half going, a group of City Councilmen got together and pointed out state checks that had not been cashed by the City and other checks that had not been cashed by the City. Is that what led to us looking for this type of money, or how did we discover that? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: The way we discovered this was, Mr. Brown was doing an investigation of a former City employee who, we believe, may have embezzled a substantial amount of money from the department where he worked. That investigation is still ongoing. So I can't really speak about that.
Fair enough. 135 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 I'll stop right there. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: But out of that, he discovered these checks.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I appreciate you giving out this agency overview, and I don't want to belabor this overlap issue, but when you have the focus here, that sounds, in all due respect, a lot like what the City Controller does. I know you said he does broad audits, but I think that's part. And not just this controller, but other controllers. You know, they do the individual investigations and that kind of thing. And I guess we're just trying to get clear in our minds how -- what you 136 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 do is that different in some aspects. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Mm-hmm.
Obviously, there are somet things that are definitely different, but in some aspects -- and, as Councilwoman Blackwell said, when you're trying to save money here, you know, how that's different from what an elective office already does? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Okay. And I don't want to speak for the Controller.
Right. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: This is my understanding of what the different departments do.
Right. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: But my understanding is that the Inspector General's Office focuses on individual misconduct among City employees and those who do business with the City. The example that I give is when 137 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 we find somebody who has stolen money from a department, that's one individual person doing something wrong, and we try to figure out how that person was able to steal the money. My understanding is, the Controller's Office is bound by accounting standards and performance measures and is looking at how the department -- you know, do the books balance. And I think in a situation like that, the Controller's Office may say to a department, Your books don't balance, you don't have backup documentation for such-and-such an expenditure. We would come in and say, Well, the reason the books don't balance is because this person was stealing money, and this is how they were able to do it, because of a flaw in the system.
And, again, I'm not the City Controller, so I don't want to speak for him. But it seems like in those 138 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 individual cases, they do deal with and have dealt with it. I mean, we get those reports all the time where they give that information.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a point of information.
Thank you. Miss Kurland, I would suggest that you take a look at the Charter itself with respect to duties of the Controller. It specifically authorizes forensic audits, the kinds of things that you're talking about in order to drill down. They have specific subpoena power in the City Charter, et cetera, with respect to that. And so, like, with respect to say, an administrative matter where you determine essentially that, you know, it's one person doing something wrong or it's a broader sort of just misuse of 139 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 funds in a department, what is your policy at which point you will stop using resources from the Inspector General's Office and turn that investigation over to, say, the Controller's Office to follow up on because you've concluded there's no sort of criminal misconduct or anything else? Like, do you have a policy of, Okay, let's stop using our resources on this one, turn it over to the Controller with a $40 million budget, and then move further down our list? It doesn't sound like there's a policy position at which point you'll go, All right, this is not criminal; this is clearly administrative. It involves, you know, a misuse of funds or maybe even a small misappropriation of funds, something, but we don't need to take it further. At this exact point, it's our policy to turn it over to the Controller so that they can do it, and then go in with that knowledge and maybe do a broader performance-based audit of 140 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 similar positions like that in the department or other departments. Do you -- I -- INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Okay. As I said, we don't have a written policy, but the way it works is, when we discover that somebody has done something wrong, we'll write up a report and recommend that the person be terminated. That's all that we can do. When --
So what about when you don't want to -- you're not at the point where you'd write a report for somebody to get terminated. You've done a preliminary look. Why write the report? is my point. Why use your resources writing a report rather than, early on, you make a determination that it's not something that's a real big deal and you turn it over the Controller. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: I think the report is essential because it 141 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 outlines what the person did wrong, what rules and regulations were violated. And then when the person is terminated, should that person appeal --
You're focusing -- you've never conducted an investigation where a person isn't terminated? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: No. 11 We have conducted investigations where the claims were unfounded; we have done that. But my point, sir, is that in order for the person's termination to withstand scrutiny by the Civil Service Commission or an arbitration panel, there has to be a full and complete report.
And what you're saying is, the Controller's Office is unwilling or unable to work with you to provide their resources to be a part of this investigation -- INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Well -- 142 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
-- the way that the D.A.'s Office does with you now? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: It had never happened in the past. Before I came into this job, people who were fired more often than not got their jobs back with back pay; that has not happened once since I started, and it's because we have full and complete reports.
Were those issues -- yeah, but you're starting with the premise that every investigation is going to result in a termination. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Well, we have to --
Which creates a lot of process and paperwork that doesn't necessarily need to exist in every single case. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: That's correct, but we start from the premise -- we get an allegation, we try to corroborate that allegation, and then it leads where it leads. Sometimes it's 143 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 a criminal case, sometimes it's administrative, and sometimes it's unfounded --
And -- and -- INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: -- but we don't know that when it walks in the door.
No, no. But when you conclude not a criminal case and it's administrative and it has to do with money, spending money, appropriating money, whatever, but it has to do with money, why not work with the Controller, even if you want to control the report, so that you can make sure if it leads to a termination, that it's done. Why not work with the Controller's Office and let their people help you in the process so that you don't have to use your resources? He's got a $40 million budget; you have a $1.3 million budget. Is there a way you could build 144 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 a process in place that would allow you to refer more to the Controller's Office or work with the Controller's Office in a different way than you are today? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: As I said, there may be ways that we could work with the Controller's Office, and I would welcome having a conversation with Mr. Butkovitz to do that.
Have you asked to sit down with Mr. Butkovitz to date to discuss exactly what division of responsibility is when you feel comfortable referring stuff to him, when he thinks that the appropriate time is? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: I have attempted to do that, and I'll continue work on that.
You've attempted to sit down with the Controller? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Yes. We --
But he's 145 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 refusing to meet with you? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: We have a disagreement about who is responsible for what, but it's something that we're in the process of trying to work out.
So as a consequence of that, you're spending resources in your department that he really could -- why not allow him to conduct the investigations he wants to -- INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: He --
-- based on a referral from you and not have to spend the money out of your department? INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: I think that the investigation -- he can conduct whatever investigations he wants.
Not if he doesn't know about it. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Well, I don't think it's the role of the Inspector General to simply be a referral 146 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 agency --
Well, I'm not suggesting it is. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: -- for the same reason that we don't simply refer cases to the D.A. or the U.S. Attorney. We have gotten methods in place where we work together with those agencies, and I would --
Except for the Controller. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: And I -- as I said, you know, the way I see it, when they do a performance audit and find out that their books don't balance and there may be a problem in a department, they would refer that to us for investigation, and vice --
Their job is not just performance audit, once again I say. So please review the Charter and sit down with the Controller -- INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: I -- 147 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
-- and let's get some efficiencies here. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Okay. I have, sir. I don't believe there's anything in the Charter that authorizes the Controller to conduct investigations. I think the Charter says that investigations should be conducted by an investigative arm of the Mayor's Office. I don't have it. I think it's 1. -- I don't have the Charter provision here; I can certainly get that.
Just look at the duties of the Controller. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Excuse me?
It's in the duties of the Controller section. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Yeah.
Councilman Greenlee, some time ago, I think you were asking a question. 148 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Councilman Green should have amended it and said "points of information," but --
Well, I won't belabor the point. I'm still not convinced -- I'll just leave a statement -- that there isn't a lot of overlap here, and I'm not pointing at one or the other, but it does seem like there's two agencies here doing some of the same things. And whether it's a lack of communication or cooperation, I don't know, but it does raise some concerns, I think, as we sit here looking at a budget. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 149 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Thank you, Madam President. I note again that in '08, five felony cases are listed; and in '09, 6 are. So you're talking some 500 percent 7 increase. And we note that you're also 8 requesting two more employees. 9 Can we ask, if you're not 10 specific, where are all these people? A 11 500 increase in a year? Where are they? 12 Do they generally work one place or 13 another and -- we're just curious. 14 INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: I 15 missed the beginning of your question, 16 Councilwoman. Are you talking about the 17 number of terminations? 18
I'm 19 talking about, yes, the increase of some 20 500 percent. 21 INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: 22 Okay. And I think that the reason for 23 that is because of the way that we've 24 restructured the Inspector General's Office and the focus that we have on more 150 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 significant cases. The primary complaints that we get come from -- there's a chart in our annual report. Most of our -- the department with the highest number of complaints is the Human Services Department. We also receive many complaints from -- about L&I, the Health Department, Revenue, Streets, and the Water Department.
It's becoming obvious to me that since we have an Inspector General that's proven that they're doing a good job, that when there's a discrepancy, I think that the operating departments would prefer to go to the Inspector General, which is part of the Mayor's Office -- maybe that's not the right way to say that, but you know 151 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 what I'm getting at, that there's a more logical route in going to the City Controller to investigate something. So I think I understand the way it should work, and I think it's because of the fact that many of these investigations are generated by the departments themselves to you and feel more comfortable going to you than to another elected official. It makes -- I hope that -- that's my feeling. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Thank you.
You're welcome. Councilwoman Blackwell, are you finished?
Thank you. 152 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 Anyone else want to be recognized? (No response.)
Seeing no one, thank you very much. We appreciate your patience. INSPECTOR GENERAL KURLAND: Thank you, Councilwoman.
Council will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. Thank you. (Lunch break taken.) (Proceedings resume at 2:15 p.m.)
Good afternoon. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 100117. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is the Mayor's Labor Relations 153 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 Office. (Witness Joseph Tolan comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, President and members of City Council. My name is Joseph Tolan, and I am the Director of the Office of Labor Relations I'm here to present testimony in support of our Fiscal 2011 budget request.
The mission of the Office of Labor Relation is to coordinate labor-relations activities between the government and between the unions, which represent our workforce. We strive to create more effective partnership by assisting departments and by working with the unions through contract negotiation, dispute resolution, contract interpretation, and administration and 154 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 training. Among our collective bargaining -- among our performance measures, we include collective bargaining. As you are no doubt aware, all of our contracts expired on June 30th of 2009. We recently completed the interest arbitration process with the Fraternal Order of Police. We have hearing dates scheduled with the International Association of Firefighters through the end of April. We have had a number of discussions with both AFSCME District Council 33 and 47, and we continue to try to reach out to them to try to find a common ground. As I said, among our functions, we expect that the majority of our resources for the remainder of this fiscal year and at least half of the next fiscal year will be devoted to contract negotiation and interest arbitration proceedings. We're committed to ensuring 155 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 that the City conducts collective bargaining with the municipal unions in good faith. Our activities, as I said, include training, where we train managers on a regular basis and new supervisors in the contracts and then relationships with the union at the shop steward level. We also assist departments by giving them advice and guidance when they are involved in different types of initiatives. One recent one was involved with the Health Department where District Council 47 has worked with the Health Department and with the Office of Labor Relations to provide a certain level of representations for employees hired under grant programs so that it can improve our opportunity to recruit qualified and to retain them after the grants have run their course. We are involved in dispute resolution. We serve as the grievance step for all civilian grievances that 156 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 have left departments before they would go to arbitration. We received 87 grievances in calendar 2009, we disposed of 59, because most of our resources that year were devoted to collective bargaining. The Office of Labor Relations is requesting $523,350 in the FY '11 Budget, which represents a decrease of $16,000 from our FY '10 estimated obligations. This decrease is accomplished by transferring funds from Classes 200 and 400 to the Division of Technology for BlackBerries, software, desktop support services, and computer equipment. Our FY '11 Operating Budget request breaks down as follows: $511,436 in Class 100 to support seven filled positions for the entire fiscal year; $3,314 in Class 200 for the purchase of services; and $8,500 in Classes 300 and 400 157 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 for materials, supplies, and equipment. The Mayor's Office of Labor relations is committed to supporting the Administration's goal of percent 6 minority-, women-, and disabled-owned 7 business participation in City 8 contracting. 9 The office's budget is too 10 small to allow us to enter into any 11 contracts ourselves; however, my staff 12 has assisted OEO management by providing 13 labor relations support for their 14 different efforts. 15 We would like to thank Council 16 for the opportunity to present our budget 17 request and are available to answer any 18 questions. Should any Councilmember wish 19 to engage in any further discussion on 20 any of these matters, my staff and I are 21 happy to meet with any Councilmembers at 22 their convenience. 23
Thank 24 you, Mr. Tolan. 25 On of your testimony, 158 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 you mention the Grant-Funded Positions Pilot Program.
There was a dispute, which went back into the '90s, with District Council 47 about the Health Department using grant dollars to hire exempt employees -- or to hire contract employees instead of hiring civil service employees. The problem was that because of the limited term for these grants monies and the need to get up and running quickly, they really weren't suited to our transitional civil service hiring. We worked out a compromise with District Council 47 so that they'd have an opportunity to represent these employees to provide them benefits for 159 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 District Council 48's health and welfare plan, for example, and to provide limited representation to them if they needed union representation on the job. At the same time, there would be an opportunity that if they took a civil service exam and eventually became civil service, that they would receive some credit for the time that they worked in an exempt capacity. So it's designed to respect the union's ability to represent the work but to assist the department in being able to recruit and retain valued staff members.
Thank you. On average, how many grievances are filed?
It varies greatly, but we receive typically at least 100 in each year.
Yes. There's always sort of a rolling backlog as grievances come in, as we schedule them and hear them. I don't know the exact number today because what happens is, if the union is -- if any union is particularly interested in moving something forward out of a backlog, they always have an opportunity, one, to ask us to expedite the hearing of it; or, secondly, if it's a contract that permits filing for a grievance arbitration, they can file it for arbitration. So we have a backlog, but there are ways in which it is dealt with both with the unions in terms of scheduling and in terms of them being able to take it further along on the path.
I would really have 161 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 to go and check. I would assume we're probably somewhere around 50 grievances, 40 to 50 grievances, in our backlog.
What are the consequences of this backlog on the various City departments?
Well, if a grievance, for example, is taken to arbitration without having a grievance meeting to discuss it, there's a possibility that it won't be addressed, that the grievance won't be scheduled for hearing at arbitration till some point down the road. If the meter is running, if it's something where a liability continues to accrue, then certainly, you can begin to build up a little bit of obligation on that should you lose it at arbitration. But most of these grievances are areas where departments have taken an action, the unions challenge the action, they've discussed it at the department 162 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 level, they can't agree, work is going on, the dispute is in a way set off to the side. So it typically doesn't have an effect on the operations of a department, although it may ultimately have an economic impact if the union prevails and it's down the road.
We are led to believe that the First Judicial District will be assuming some of the functions of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. What will happen to the civil service status of the employees?
There are a number of possible ways that could happen, and I have not been involved in the latest discussions to determine that. I mean, ultimately, at some far distant point in the future, all of the employees may be exempt employees of the court system, but I believe that there have been discussions about transitioning it in different ways. 163 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 And so, I really couldn't respond to that. I think Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison would have to say what the latest status is on that.
The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Jones.
Are you free to tell us where we are with the labor negotiations with the City unions?
Well, I think that we -- you know, one, we don't talk about the specifics of the negotiation process. But we've -- number one, we have completed with the FOP. Secondly, with the unions that have access to interest arbitration, we have scheduled 164 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 those dates. We have a good bit of work ahead of us. It's going to take several months to complete with the scheduling. For the unions that negotiate, we continue to have high-level discussions. We exchange information, and we are under the supervision of the mediator from the State Bureau of Mediation. More than that, I really couldn't say, because it's a difficult set of circumstances where we're trying to deal with both our immediate economic problems as well as trying to tackle long-range problems such as restructuring pension and health care.
We have had discussions; we have not had large-table meetings. But information is exchanged through the mediator; there are discussions back and forth.
Do you have 165 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 any anticipated time that we might -- and I say this not because this is some type of a reality TV show, but this is our reality of not being able to forecast a five-year budget that is accurately reflective of our labor costs. So as this goes on, there is a certain degree of uncertainty that we have because of it. So, I mean, if you could give us any hope that at some point this year, it will be resolved. Are you optimistic?
I think that the parties have the will to come to a resolution; I just think we have very, very difficult problems. And I -- it would be impossible to predict that somebody will actually say yes. I'm sure that we'll pick up the pace in terms of our discussion. But to predict the outcome of when it's going to happen, I couldn't do that.
As we start to look at some of the stimulus dollars 166 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 coming down the pike that will create jobs both full-time, hopefully, and at least temporarily, how will that be a part of any -- are you negotiating with the respective unions on how we might place them and if it would violate any collective bargaining agreements? There are so many possibilities, but we don't want to impede upon any existing contractual agreement. Is this a topic of discussion impact at this point?
It has not been. Until someone comes up with a plan that says, In this department, this is what we'd like to do, when that happens, then we'll sit down with the local officials in that department and try to work through any issues or problems that they may have with it. But until we have a plan, it's -- there's just nothing to really talk about. 167 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Well, one of things that we're finding out with stimulus money is that you don't have a lot of time for planning. And if you don't do things on simultaneous tracks all at the same time, converging at the same point, then you'll get something that forestalls the process. So my suggestion is that we might start to take a hard look at how we're going to utilize these funds by way of workforce and come up with at least some type of understanding, memorandum of agreement between the respective unions that will allow us to not impede upon their collective-bargaining agreement but also see it in their best interests that some of these people, just like the old SETA program that was produced in the last century eventually matriculated people into both 33 and into 47. Temporary workers wind up taking tests and wind up in their own union ranks. And if we set up a process like 168 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 that, it will give them a greater comfort level that we're not trying to circumvent the collective bargaining agreement. So those kinds of things could be exchanged and ideas exchanged, and it will stop us present being derailed when we're trying to do a good thing.
Well, I certainly support the idea of full communication with the unions; it's just that someone has to tell us how they expect to spend the money, and we'd have something to talk to them about.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Is your department responsible for when arbitration, say, when a police officer gets suspended or terminated or 169 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 et cetera or any other -- is that what your office does?
We have involvement in the process, but the -- their collective-bargaining agreement, the grievance process, doesn't include the Office of Labor Relations. In a disciplinary matter, if the department imposes discipline, if it's challenged through the grievance procedure, it typically goes from the department to arbitration. We may support -- depending on the subject matter or the case, we may support the attorneys from the Law Department in presenting a case, but it would be a case-by-case basis.
Do you have any view on the recent comment in the paper by the arbitrator for -- or the lawyer for the police side and those kind of arbitrations that one of the main impediments to success for the City is the fact that we've had, like, 13 or 14 170 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 different lawyers during the period, where they've had the same team working on this?
Well, I don't -- I mean, I think that if you -- you know, one of the things we do is, we study the discipline patterns in the department as long as -- as part of the process of negotiation with the union and presenting information at the Act 111 panel. I think that if you take a look overall at the disciplinary program in the Police Department, I mean, I've looked at some of the statistics, and we did some of this in last year's interest arbitration proceeding, there were about -- an average of about 310, 320 discipline actions imposed by the department each year. In the end, if you follow that all the way through the process, only about 6 percent of those is ever overturned either in whole or in part by an arbitrator. 171 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 So we think, number one, that it is a fairly strong process. We think that the department's discipline for the most part ultimately is unchallenged or stays in place. I think that when you start to look at the cases we lose, I don't know that it is often so much a question of the representation. I think that we have some natural problems that arise from the employment that we're talking about. I mean, we've looked at the cases, and we look at every case, but we look at every case that we lose as well, and we review the arbitration rulings, and we try to come to a conclusion about why it's happened. And, I mean, not surprisingly, in about half of the cases, the arbitrators decide that we haven't proved our case; and we haven't proved it because witnesses don't come forward; they recant; things change. So I don't think it's just a 172 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 question of representation; I think that there's some natural problems in that kind of work that, ultimately, if you have to discipline someone for misconduct on the job or serious misconduct, you're going to have some problems with producing evidence and witnesses when you need them.
Okay. Last year, you testified at OLR's FY '10 budget of 485 that the request was close to 60K lower than FY '09 due to eliminating midyear one of our seven filled positions. OLR's requested FY '11 budget indicates that you've been back at seven filled positions since at least November?
That's correct. We never did reduce during the midyear transfer ordinance. Those monies were restored to our budget.
Yeah. So last month, you actually requested a transfer of an additional $53,000 in 173 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 Class 100 to restore the eliminated position.
Yes. That potion never went vacant; it has been filled for the entire time by one of my deputy directors, Delia Gorman.
So you requested less money, you did not eliminate the position. And then you came back to City Council, after having spent more than appropriated, and had us restore your funds.
Yes. We had anticipated, when we prepared last year's budget, that we would be in a position that we would have concluded most of the collective-bargaining obligations that we had, and that by restructuring and moving some of our responsibilities around, we'd be able to handle the work that comes in. 174 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 We found out, one, that we did not complete the collective bargaining; and that, secondly, that in this kind of environment, where there's so much change taking place, there is a very high demand for our help and that we really weren't in a position to eliminate one of our jobs.
Fair enough. The failure to reach agreement on union contracts has many ripple effects throughout government. As for the past two years, your testimony indicates a majority of resources in the current fiscal year and the first half of the next one will be devoted to contract negotiation arbitrations. To get a sense of the total cost of labor negotiations during class year's budget hearing, I asked for a list of outside contractors involved in labor negotiations, including contractor name, scope of work, term of contract, when it 175 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 was last renewed, and contract cost. The response I received included contractor names in FY '09 cost but not information about the scope of work, term of contract, and most recent contract renewal. Could you please provide that information updated to include work for FY '10?
Thank you. During OLR's budget hearing last year, I asked for the number of employees OLR trained in FY '09 and its goal for number of employees to be trained in FY '10. I don't think I received a response to that question. Do you have --
I'd like to know the actual number for FY '10 and the goal and then the same information for 176 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 FY '11.
Thank you. Do you know how many employees you trained in FY '09?
If you could provide that, also. OLR's testimony last year reported that DC 33 and 47 submitted 103 grievances in FY '08, and the office disposed of 65. The testimony noted this was fewer than average because OLR staff members who dispose of grievances also serve on the City's negotiating contract. I think we got into this a little bit. In last year's testimony, the office stated the goal was to dispose of 75 grievances per year in FY '09 and '10. This year's testimony indicates the union submitted 87 grievances and you disposed of 59. The stated grievance 177 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 disposition goals for FY '10 and '11 are 60. What's the current backlog, and why does the goal number keep moving?
Well, one is that, again, with the whole interest arbitration process, we've found that, for example, in this coming month of April, I think there is something like 11 possible work days. I think we have 17 12 of them locked up for interest 13 arbitration hearings between the 14 Firefighters and Court Local 810. 15 What happens is, when we're in 16 those proceedings, people just aren't 17 freed up to be able to go and conduct 18 grievance meetings. And a lot of that -- 19 it's just been a very unusual contract 20 cycle in terms of the demand for these 21 kinds of hearings dates. We've had extensive testimony from experts and panels on issues like pension and health care and these different things that just absorb a lot 178 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 of our time and energy. So our goals change because we didn't anticipate having to be that locked into the process. At the same time, we're always sort of at the mercy of what have the unions decide to file, and it does change from year-to-year. And, typically, when there's some intense negotiations going on, we also see that the unions file 12 fewer. So that's why both parameters change.
I would have to go check, but I would think that we are somewhere in the neighborhoods of 60. That's around where we usually hover, is about 60.
Okay. Are there any consequences under the collective-bargaining agreements for taking longer than a certain period of time to resolve a grievance? 179 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
The only consequence under the contract is that once the time period at a step has lapsed, if there is no answer to the union, then it's presumed that management has said no. The union then has the option to move it to the next step, which could be grievance arbitration.
So the failure -- the inability to respond timely may increase the number of grievance arbitrations that you have to prepare for.
Could you let us know how many have sort of passed their time limit over the pass couple of years?
Thank 180 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is the Mayor's Office of Community Services. (MOCS witnesses Mary Mariner and Otis Bullock come forward.)
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of City Council. I am Mary Mariner, Acting Executive Director of the Mayor's Office of Community Services, or MOCS. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 a brief description of the work that this agency does and present the proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The Mayor's Office of Community Services requests a Fiscal Year 2011 appropriation of $9,921,185, all from Grants Revenue Fund. The Mayor's Office of Community Services is a community action agency for the City and County of Philadelphia. We are one hundred percent grant-funded; none of our dollars comes from the General Fund. Our major grant is the Community Service Block Grant, which requires for us to provide services to individuals and families that live at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level; an applicant's income may not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. In 2009, MOCS provided services to 38,469 unduplicated clients. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 provide these services and oversee subcontracts, MOCS has a staff of 72, 4 of which are bilingual. 5 The following are the programs 6 and services that MOCS provides directly 7 or supports with grants. I'm just going 8 to read the programs and not in the 9 description, if that's okay. 10 Community Engagement Unit. And that union provides -- is deployed to targeted high-crime, low-income neighborhoods to facilitate and support a wide range of activities related to mayoral initiatives, which are designed to reduce devastation that has plagued those neighborhoods in recent times. Fatherhood Employment Program. A project within MOCS, the Fatherhood Program will work with low-income, non-custodial fathers in order to, one, support their work participation; two, increase their compliance with child support payments; and, three, encourage positive involvement with their children. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 Foster Grant Parent Program, a grant-funded program administered by MOCS, charged with meeting critical community needs, the FGP is strengthening communities by utilizing an untapped resource of older adults, mobilizing them to serve in local schools and community- based organizations. Over 130 Foster Grant parents volunteer, representing the diversity of Philadelphia neighborhoods. Workwise, a grant-funded program administered by MOCS, provides some job-readiness classes and job placement for TANF recipients of the Ridge District. Workwise implements two efforts to work with TANF clients, the Supported Work Program and the Work-Ready Program. The Work-Ready Program targets TANF recipients in danger of losing their benefits. Each recipient is contacted first by telephone and then by a home visit. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 support services as they reset their TANF benefits. Subcontracted programs and services. MOCS subcontracts with GPUAC, or Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition for the North Philadelphia Human Services Development Corporation, who provide limited case-management linkages and emergency services to residents of North Philadelphia. The Office of Supportive Housing. Through this partnership, MOCS supports the services offered at three shelters. The Department of Health Lead Abatement Program. Department of Recreation. MOCS provides support for six senior seniors located throughout Philadelphia. ARRA subcontracted services with Philadelphia Housing Authority through their pre-apprenticeship program. Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 growing neighborhood jobs, we provide contextualized literacy. Philadelphia Prison System. Through the Mayor's Office of Reintegration Services for ex-offenders, MOCS supports the case management and reintegration of 260 ex-offenders. The Free Library Foundation of Philadelphia. Through the Mayor's Commission On literacy, we will be providing education skills to adults.
Community Legal Services will provide legal assistance to low-income residents of Philadelphia in civil matters related to their family, home, employment, and income. And the Office of Supportive Housing. Through a network of providers, the Office of Supportive Housing will provide housing assistance, case management, adult education, vocational skills training, and job placement to low-income and homeless family. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 variety of special programs, which included: A back-to-school campaign that distributed more than 6500 backpacks to low-income children; a holiday party for more than 150 low-income families, with over 400 children; a coat distribution for more than 800 children and young adults; a turkey drive for 100 low-income families; and 100 families received gift certificates for Butterball Turkeys, and well over 600 individuals enjoyed nutritious Thanksgiving dinners. In September of 2009, MOCS hosted the 45th Annual Community Partnership Conference. 10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 convenience. Thank you.
Thank you very much. You state that your office does not receive any funding from the General Fund, correct?
Can you tell us what fringe benefits your employees receive, and where are they charged?
Thank you. (Comptroller Gary DeShields comes forward.) MR. DeSHIELDS: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. MR. DeSHIELDS: Gary DeShields, Comptroller. Roughly, The Mayor's Office of 188 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 Community Services receives about 35 percent of the fringe costs for the agency. The other 65 percent is being asked to contribute from the City of Philadelphia.
So you are getting General Fund money. MR. DeSHIELDS: Through the fringe benefits, yes.
What does that amount to? MR. DeSHIELDS: Excuse me?
How much does that amount to? MR. DeSHIELDS: Roughly about 830,000.
Can you explain why the fringes for MOCS employees are approximately 18 percent of the payroll, which is significantly higher than other City agencies? 189 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 MR. DeSHIELDS: So what you are you saying? Could you rephrase that again, please? You said percent. 5
I 6 think you already may have answered that 7 question with the percentage that you 8 said that is being paid for the fringes. 9 MR. DeSHIELDS: 35 percent. 10
From 11 the General Fund. 12 MR. DeSHIELDS: 35 percent from 13 the grants, 65 percent -- 14
65 15 percent is the City. 16 MR. McPHERSON: Yes. 17
On 18 of your testimony, you state that through a memorandum of understanding, you support lead-abatement services for at-risk families. Can you tell us what services you provide?
Case management. We fund the Health Department; they provide the services through an MOU with 190 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 the Department of Public Health. And they provide case management, lead removal, and lead abatement.
What do these services cost MOCS, and can they be expanded?
Can you tell us the amount of funding that your office provides to the Community Legal Services?
Is the Fatherhood Employment Program a new program?
No, it is not. 191 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 The Fatherhood Initiative is a program that we've had for a number of years. It's being retooled, so to speak, where it -- we've never had an employment component in that, and we're looking to add an employment component and subcontract the employment services out. So we're going to issue an RFP for the employment services.
Very well. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
I believe you received a copy of my questions on Friday.
So I was hoping that there would be some possibility of getting them answered. So, basically, my questions are pretty much exactly the same as they were last year. They were -- and I'll -- your testimony notes that MOCS Community Engagement Unit helps citizens prepare federal and state tax returns and apply for LIHEAP and Crisis Utility Grants and helps senior citizens apply for programs such as PACE, property taxes, rebates, and water discounts. How many clients did the CEU assist last year in applying for these programs by program?
Okay. What 193 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 is the dollar value of the benefits secured with the help of the CEU?
So explain your process for when, like, you're helping people, how are we supposed to measure the effectiveness of these allocated dollars to your office versus deciding to just give most of this grant money that's not required by federal law to be within City government to agencies that already do all of the things that you are duplicating?
I mean, for 194 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117 example, the community organizations that do this sort of work, there are many of them that help people with LIHEAP, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And if they were sitting here today and I said, How many people did you serve and what's the dollar value of benefits? they would know the answer to that question. And this is the same exact line of questioning I had last year. In other words, how do we judge whether, through MOCS, this is an appropriate use of these grant dollars versus giving them to people who -- giving these resources to other community groups that do this very well and efficiently? How am I supposed to determine whether or not this is a good use of dollars? Why should you get it versus, you know, pick one of ten community groups that does LIHEAP assistance. 195 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
Well, I think we do a good job, but I don't think that we have --
I don't have a data-tracking system, as we've said, and we are the process of purchasing one. And I think that once we have the data- tracking system in place, we'll be able to track that data and determine what we are doing well and what we are not doing so well.
We have a report, a required report, it's called the Facts Report, that we're required by our funder to complete. We count all of -- we have everybody who gets CSBG dollars, or Community Service Block Grant dollars, report in to us, and we compile all of that data manually. 196 3.22.10 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - BILL 100117
And you don't do it by program, LIHEAP assistance or --