COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO BILLS 060001, 060002, 060003, 060004, 060006, 060007, 060008, 060014, 060089 and 060090. RESOLUTIONS 060019, 060099, 060100 and 060119. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning. We will begin our recessed hearing this morning, our hearing on the budget. We'll begin with testimony from the District Attorney. Good morning, Madam DA.
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Lynne, L-Y-N-N-E, Abraham, A-B-R-A-H-A-M. I'm the District Attorney of Philadelphia. I have previously submitted to Council my remarks for today's hearing, plus the attachments, and I would move that the remarks and the attachments be delineated or marked as an Exhibit A and entered into the record of City Council. May that be done?
Yes, it can, and we will include it in detail as if you had read it into the record.
Thank you very much. That will dispense with my having to read it.
I'm pleased to be before the Council once again, Councilwoman Blackwell, to speak about some important issues that I have outlined in my remarks, and essentially they are interconnected and in many respects mutually interdependent. First we want to speak about witness relocation. My remarks indicate that as far back as 1994, 12 years ago, I brought to Council my deep concerns about witness -- we called it witness protection at that time. I think the more apt phrase is "witness relocation" and the need as an essential part of our crime-fighting program to have people removed or put in a safe place or put at ease, to the maximum extent that we could make them feel at ease, when they testify in difficult and frequently emotionally 4 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. charged cases, such as homicides and major felonies. Unfortunately, for the past years, we have not received any 5 positive response from City Council. 6 I pointed out in my earlier 7 remarks that back in the '60s very few, 8 if any, cases were unsolved. Today we 9 have about 178 cases from last year's 10 homicides alone that are unsolved. The 11 year before we have about 130 cases of 12 that 2004's homicide total that are unsolved. So over the years, the number of unsolved cases has grown, not because people don't know what happened, not because there aren't witnesses out there who saw and heard and know who the perpetrators are, but over the years, there's been a steady erosion of people's confidence in law enforcement to protect them if they come forward, and we have seen this played out to its horrible extent in the few-week-ago trial of Faheem Thomas Childs where two people who 5 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. were arrested, Johnson and Spady, were not arrested because of any cooperation by local citizenry. Even in the face of marches by thousands, prayer meetings, vigils, corner rallies that you and I and others in Council attended, every one of them, but because the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms division of the federal government developed a tip from a source. Absent that, that case would still be unsolved, and it really is partially unsolved to this day because the other side of the shooting parties has not been identified and/or arrested and prosecuted. In the Faheem Thomas Childs case, in the initial investigative stages, at least a half dozen people gave testimony to the police about what they saw and who they saw and who did what to whom. By the time the trial came on, as you saw in the press and we saw in the courtroom, every one of those witnesses denied making any of the statements to 6 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the police, claimed that they didn't remember anything, and that if they did say anything, they only said it because they were allegedly coerced by the police. In today's Daily News, there is another story of a case on trial before the Honorable Sheila Woods-Skipper where the witnesses are similarly disremembering what they told the police in their statements after the crimes were perpetrated. This City can't really tolerate the kind of activities that we've seen of recent date where it is a badge of pride and honor for young people to walk around with T-shirts that say "stop snitchin" and that the culture of the street is that snitching is bad or telling -- I like to say telling the truth is bad and being a good sport and keeping your mouth shut on pain of something terrible happening to you is the way to go. Morally it's indefensible. And as a city 7 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and as a country, we can't tolerate witness intimidation and witness fright to this level. Make no mistake about it. It is real. It is palpable. People feel it. They are terribly concerned that they're going to be killed, that their house will be burned down, that their children will be harmed, and that's why we have been championing a Witness Relocation Program for these 12 years.
Fortunately, we were able to get some money from the Attorney General's funds funded by the state, of course, which has been $1 million that has been transferred from the state budget into the Attorney General's fund, which has been shared by counties, including Philadelphia. And 20 that money has helped us dramatically in the way we can relocate a person in an instant, literally take a whole family out of a house overnight and move them someplace else. In addition to that, we have 8 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. really no funds at all, because the small federal grant that we had has run out. It was just a small amount of money for a few years. This year, we're faced with an additional dilemma, that the Governor has threatened to zero out of the Attorney General's money the million dollars that the state traditionally puts in his budget, and we have been holding news conferences and importuning the legislature not to allow the Governor to do this and not to put money in the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, which would require cities like us to lay money out first and then make an application for a grant every time we need something to the state. Not only will it be difficult and dangerous to our victims and witnesses, because we have no money at all to put anybody any place, but we also have to reveal to a non-law enforcement agency information which we cannot reveal, and that is 9 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. secret information that only one law enforcement agency can share with another. And we are moving in the legislature to try to get that back in the Attorney General's budget, but the future is, as of today, uncertain. That makes it all the more imperative that Council step up to the plate and the Mayor step up to the plate and take ownership of this problem. It is just a terrible fear that people live under when they know that they don't have City dollars and the City's pledge to help them if they are in difficulty becoming a witness. The other thing I wanted to talk about briefly, but importantly, is, with regard to witness relocation, it is not necessary that this Council put money in the District Attorney's budget for this purpose. Councilman Kenney has suggested in his letter establishing a fund, and that would be, of course, satisfactory so long as the fund -- we 10 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. have no objection to telling Council what we're going to use the money for, but this has to be confidential information kept within law enforcement, which we cannot share with the City. In other words, we can't say, We moved Jannie Blackwell from this address to that address. We did this and we put her there and we're moving her here or her children are being taken there or so forth. So it has to be crafted in such a way that law enforcement-sensitive information is kept within our office. And this takes some leap of faith, but I can guarantee to the Council that if Councilman Kenney's proposal is talked about and made real by July the 1st, I believe that Council will be well satisfied with our explanations, and we will use the money wisely and strictly in accordance with what the proposals are for witness relocation. The other thing I want to speak 11 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. about briefly is the Blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia. Out of the same tragedy of Faheem Thomas Childs came not only the crystallization of witness relocation issues, but also a program, a 10-point 10-year program, which my office crafted as a result of input from a variety of agencies. I'm not asking for specific money in my budget for these programs. However, this 10-point program does take funding. State Representative Dwight Evans has really led the charge over this past months to put money in 15 the budget, including money for a gun 16 court, which my office does receive 17 something of.
However, all the other 18 monies have been given by the state to the other facets of the program, so we're not receiving any of that. It is, I think, important for the City, since this is a 10-point Blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia, not a safer Allentown or a safer Allegheny County, but a safer Philadelphia, that 12 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. City Council, the Mayor, Representative Evans, a representative of my office talk with you about funding of the programs covered by the Blueprint. I put that in my message because I think the fact of witness relocation and the Blueprint cannot go unmentioned. In addition to that, the need for additional funding for the prosecutor's office has become really critical. The Mayor has put in a zero-based budget for this year. 2 million last year and about a million the year before. So we're down about two and a half million dollars over the past two years at a time when while some crime is declining, other crime is increasing, particularly, but not limited to, crimes such as public nuisance bars and stop-and-go's, with which I know you're intimately familiar, homicides and a burgeoning economic crime problem, which 13 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. has suffered greatly. Our Public Nuisance Task Force has lost three people, economic Crimes has lost three people, and the Homicide Division has lost people, and it is absolutely at the stretched-out point. Our homicide attorneys are working just to the bone. These homicide trials are stressful, they're difficult, they're long term, and we frequently have to try a defendant's case three or four different times because of multiple defendants in the court has elected to separate all of them. And so, therefore, we are asking for $300,000 for four homicide prosecutors, which will enable us to move prosecutors up from our other divisions into the homicide program and make the needed adjustments to our homicide program that are essential by the number of homicides. This year we're only slightly behind last year at this time. In January, we're a little bit ahead of 14 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. where we were in 2004. We had 29 homicides as opposed to 27 in 2004. We've tailed off a little bit, but there's nothing to be comfortable about, since last weekend we had six homicides. We had three homicides during the week and we've had two more or three more over the weekend, and last night a body was found. Over the weekend at least one young man of was found dead in a 12 school yard, and another man was found 13 dead in an arson fire, which was 14 apparently a covered-up homicide. 15 So we are really entreating 16 Council to recognize that we just can't do this on the budget that we have and that we do need these four new homicide prosecutors in our Homicide Division. Finally, the money that we have asked for are two other categories. A half million dollars for salary parity. We have attached to our remarks and our statement charts showing that if you have before you, for example, Attachment 2A, 15 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. in 1996, the difference between major law firms and our office was roughly half. In other words, if you started off at roughly 30,000 in our office, in major law firms it was roughly 60,000. If you look at the chart over the course from 1996 to 2006, you can see that the difference between salaries of law firms and salaries in the DA's office have dramatically widened in the gap between the two. There's virtually no movement in the District Attorney's office between 1996 and 2006. Not none, just not a lot. So essentially, we've gone to maybe from 35,000, we've gone up in ten years $15,000. That's hardly an appropriate figure. At the same time, college tuition and law school tuitions have dramatically escalated. Our DAs come frequently married with family members, and the law school and the undergraduate school loans are dramatic.
At the same time, the major law firms in Philadelphia, and there are several 16 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. articles attached, their salaries have grown from roughly 60,000 to between 125,000 and 135,000, meaning that the gap between what we're getting and the gap they're getting for talent in our office that is no less good than talent at the law firms; in other words, any of our lawyers can go to any of these law firms -- and frequently after they stay with us for a brief period of time, that's exactly where they go, but the spread between our salary at start and theirs has shifted from roughly 50/50 to now our salary is one-third the salary of law firms. In addition to that, our lawyers, our young lawyers, are leaving after about three years. It used to be that the young classes stayed in for a much more lengthy period of service. But the lure of high salaries, the ability to pay your bills, the ability to raise your children, put them through school and do all the things that you want to do, when 17 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. measured by the outside world, is too great for them to resist the tug. And so, therefore, just when they're beginning to start to learn what it's like to be an attorney trying difficult and complicated cases, they generally leave. Now, this is not to say that the people remaining are not wonderful and they're not working hard and it's not to say that we don't have seasoned prosecutors. Mr. Toczydlowski has been in the office for 30 years. But it's not about him. It's about the new crop that's coming in to replace the crop that is getting to the point where they're looking to retiring, phasing down, doing something else. So the half million dollars for salary parity will not only try to edge up our starting salary, not nearly to the level of what law firms get, because that wouldn't be possible in public service, but it does mean that we should raise our 18 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. starting salary to, for example, the City Solicitors' starting salary, and they have a much greater salary leeway than we do. So the City Solicitors just got a salary raise. And when our DAs look at the raises the Administration got, that they look at the raises that the City Solicitor has gotten and the fact that the City Solicitor's office doesn't keep in-house all of its business -- for millions of dollars, the City contracts out to law firms, major law firms, a lot of work of the City Solicitors. And I'm not saying that's good, bad or indifferent. It is what it is. What it means is that our DAs are starting below the City Solicitors, and the people who need merit raises aren't getting them. So that's, of course, important, salary parity at least with the City Solicitor's office. So it will enable us to give merit raises. It will enable us to start our starting salary a little bit higher. 19 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. And, finally, we've asked for $405,000 for our Economic Crime Unit for prosecutors, detectives and a paralegal. Our Economic Crimes Unit handles a variety of cases, and as I mentioned before, they are down three attorneys. We have had to raise, as I said we would last year when I came before Council, our threshold amount from initially it was $10,000. Any economic crime case such as economic crimes, embezzlements; counterfeit check schemes; identity theft; home improvement schemes; scans against the elderly; abuse of powers of attorney; forgery of official documents; forged deeds cases, some called house dealing cases; mortgage fraud and a whole budget of other economic crimes. We've had to raise that threshold amount from $10,000 to $25,000. And if things don't improve this year, we're going to raise it to $50,000. In other words, we won't even look at a case that doesn't have a cash value of $50,000 in losses. To me, 20 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
it's the worst dream imaginable as a District Attorney and it's even worse from a victim's point of view to do what we've been doing. We've been telling forged deed cases, Go to the police and report your case to the police. We don't have the manpower or the money to investigate. And the police tell the victims, It's not a crime, go file a civil lawsuit. And it's not the Police Department's fault. It's the victims who get to suffer. So the 405,000 that we have asked Council to supplement our zero budget this year will help us with three detectives, three district attorneys and one paralegal. These are deeply investigated, very complex cases. This involves, for example, stealing a bank's computer with your information on it and identity theft of all kinds, scams and frauds of all kinds, lawyer abuse and so forth. These are difficult cases. And when it becomes 21 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. a case involving elderly, it's more difficult, because frequently we're dealing with infirm, put upon and in difficult mental situations, many of our elder victims who come to us looking for help. We want to be able to help them. We want to at least be able to initiate investigations to tell them whether a crime has been committed or not. And if it is a crime, we want to vigorously prosecute. So the total figures we have asked City Council for are about a million 200,000. It's a million 205,000 to be exact: 500,000 for salary adjustments, 300,000 for four homicide prosecutors, 405,000 for our Economic Crime Unit. And I thank the Chair.
Thank you very much. You mentioned the Protection Pilot Program, Witness Protection Program, and Jim Kenney's proposal. What 22 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. would your office like to see included in the budget for this?
Well, I think initially the Councilman asked for like $5 million in a revolving account. I think that's a little bit on the heavy side. I don't believe that kind of money will be needed, but I'm not prepared to say at this moment how much will. I think the first way to look at it is to -- I think that at least a million dollars should be put in that fund, that that fund should be used as needed, and that fund, I also should mention, would be to supplant, not to replace, state funding. The state funding only enables us to do so much. A half million dollars doesn't really go all that far. I know it sounds like a lot, and I'm not denigrating a half million dollars, but, first of all, we have no guarantee that's what we're going to get, and we don't even know what we're going to get this year. We're hopeful 23 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. we'll get the half million dollars we got last year from the state. So I think a million dollars to start off with in that fund. And then we'll use it to supplement really what we're getting from the state, and we'll see how it goes after the first year or so of the program, whether we're optimistic or pessimistic about witness relocation.
Do other cities have dollars coming in that we don't in this area, for example?
Well, other cities have the same thing that we have. In other words, the million dollars, we are the lucky ones in that because our homicide and serious caseload is so dramatic, we get half of the $1 million that has traditionally been set aside for witness relocation. Nineteen other counties get money for witness relocation, but there's no more federal money, if that's what you're asking. The 24 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. federal government has zeroed out almost all programs. As you well know, the Bush Administration has really cut all kinds of helpful programs to communities and children and law enforcement down to almost nothing. So we're not getting any federal money. So the answer is, as far as I'm aware, there's no money coming in for witness relocation.
Have you made this request of the Administration for this 1.2 or are they aware of it?
Well, as I do every year before I come to Council, I always speak with the Mayor and tell the Mayor what our needs are, where we are and what our absolute essential requests are. So I did that this year as well.
Thank you very much. You know I'm always concerned about this issue, although it's 25 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. technically not your arena, where we have witnesses in front of, especially in CJC where we have both folks in court together. Is that any better or are we still having those same problems?
Where the perpetrators and the potential victims are in court together.
Well, we've only been able to do one thing regarding that, and that was, we authored a constitutional amendment for children of tender years. So if a little child sees his mother, father or somebody close to them, even somebody out in the street, not close emotionally but close physically, murdered or seriously injured and the judge makes a finding that the child of tender years would be so traumatized if confronted with the person, the perpetrator, the child is permitted -- and it has to be a child of 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. tender years and it has to be a finding by a Court after a hearing and findings of fact -- the child can do his or her testimony on closed-circuit TV with the defendant in another room and the defendant's lawyer in with the child and the prosecutor and the judge. Aside from that, there is no 10 way that our Constitution in Pennsylvania or our Constitution in the United States allows people to testify when the defendant is someplace else or the witness is someplace else. As a matter of fact, our Supreme Court has made the determination that confrontation and cross-examination in Pennsylvania means eyeball to eyeball. And so that's why we were able to get, with much difficulty, and it took us almost ten years to do it, the small child, the child of tender years, exception to the confrontation clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. But, similarly, Madam Chair, you have to understand that most victims 27 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and witnesses come from the same neighborhood. It's not like some stranger sees something, although many times it is a total stranger, but frequently when you get these feelings of threat and intimidation, it comes from people who know each other. I am not suggesting that people who don't know each other aren't threatened. A man approached me at the Reading Terminal last weekend and said, I was hit by a drunken driver and somehow his lawyer got my name and address, and I've been getting phone calls about coming to court. They want to talk to me. And I'm worried I'm going to be intimidated, so don't expect me to show up. I mean, it was a drunk driving case. It's gone down to drunk driving cases where witnesses are fearful of coming to court. So I think there's nothing you can do to avoid being in the same room. 28 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. We do have witness rooms. We do have rooms adjacent to court where witnesses may wait so they don't have this business. And I don't mean to suggest that thousands of witnesses don't come into court every week and testify, because they do. I'm just saying there's this undercurrent, this immediacy of witness relocation money that needs to be given to us so that we can take care of the worst of the worst cases and find out how deep and how serious this problem is.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam District Attorney.
Madam Chair, I actually do not have so much a question for our District Attorney. I want to raise the issue with regard to 29 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. the additional budget request that has been laid out. I've had an extensive conversation with District Attorney Abraham on these topics and some other matters, and so what I'd like to do in the appropriate forum -- and I know that there are a couple different ways to do this, but for the moment, we're in this particular forum. I don't know if it's been circulated. I know that there is in the document, the testimony, that lays out the three items there is a document on my desk, although I'm not exactly sure where it came from, that lays out the $500,000 for salary parity, $300,000 for four homicide prosecutors and $405,000 for Economic Crime, which is three prosecutors, three detectives, one paralegal. It's been mentioned a couple times. Councilman Kenney has already introduced a proposed amendment to the FY07 budget dealing with the issue of witness protection or witness relocation. 30 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. So this would not interfere with that particular matter at all, but what I'd like to do, Madam Chair, but with your guidance, is either put forward a proposed amendment that is in concert with what the District Attorney has laid out either in the public hearing or in a more formal fashion. If we could go into a public meeting, I could offer it and then it becomes a part of this particular process, and then we'll just deal with it with all the other amendments as a part of the budget process. So I'd rely on your judgment and ruling with regard to that, but I'd like to address this particular matter.
Absolutely. It seems to me, Councilman, that you can put that in at any time and then we can consider it at the appropriate time, but any time you come in and you submit it, circulate it and submit it, then it's on our agenda to be considered and voted on. 31 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Then what I'd like to do is, if I could have access to one of our Sergeant-At-Arms, is at least put this forward, just hand it up. We'll make sure that copies are made available and placed on all the members' desks, as well as a copy to the stenographer, but I'd at least like to get it in this process to ensure that it's considered at the same time as all the other measures.
I'd offer this amendment to the proposed FY07 budget related to the District Attorney's office.
The Sergeant-At-Arms will make copies and distribute it and then we'll call on you again to present it.
That's 32 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. fine. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. District Attorney Abraham, how are you today?
Good. Maybe you can explain. A police officer that works in your office could be a police officer that's referred to as a county detective or -- it's a different category.
It's a different category, but, yes, they're all considered county detectives.
They're compensated at a higher rate than a police officer?
Let Mr. Toczydlowski tell you about the 33 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. compensation package for police officers.
Good morning. My name is Albert Toczydlowski, T-O-C-Z-Y-D-L-O-W-S-K-I, Deputy District Attorney. Councilman, at one point in time, we had all county detectives assigned to the District Attorney's office. Several years ago when the DA was elected, she came to an agreement with the Police Commissioner. In lieu of hiring county detectives, officers or detectives will be detailed from the Police Department. In the beginning, they were all detectives, so they were all paid the same as county detectives. We then had some police officers detailed. We just recently had, frankly, a labor arbitration concerning this very issue about what county detectives and police officers would make, and that's been resolved, as far as I know. So that we have county detectives and 2. Now 34 1 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. all we have left are county detective 2's. The detectives that come from the Police Department are paid the same as our county detectives. The police officers that come over are paid as police officers, because they're detailed from the Police Department.
This is where I'm heading with the question: As you know, the Mayor has authorized $10 million in overtime. There's just one more part of my question. The police officers that are detailed out -- and I won't ask you a number, but I assume there's a few -- are they paid for by the Police Department or does that compensation come from the DA back to the Police Department?
It comes from the DA back to the Police Department. We pay for those officers.
So you're not going to get a little slice of the 10 million? 35 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Trust me, if we 7 were getting any of the 10 million, I 8 would have told you, that that would not 9 be a secret. 10 Also, you should know that police officers can come and go as they pretty much choose. In other words, when they're detailed, they have the right to go back to the Police Department. They can take promotional exams and go back to the Police Department. The point of it, frankly, is to better train police officers and detectives in the realities of trying a case. Making an arrest on the street is one thing. That's just the beginning. But getting a case ready to go to trial is something else. So when we have police officers and detectives investigating and getting cases ready for 36 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. trial, it's a much different and much more intense police level that we're approaching. So when these officers know what it's like not only to just put your hand on somebody and say, You're arrested, but from the arrest to the successful prosecution, that's a training mechanism that we use. It enhances the ability of officers to make intelligent judgments when they're back on the street. It also gives our district attorneys assistance, the needed investigative and follow-up help that they need, and it's better for law enforcement in general when police and prosecutors work in tandem.
Thank you for that. The other question I have, when you hire, and we'll use the expression, a young assistant district attorney, does your office incur expenses associated with the training of that individual?
Well, we have a 37 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. training program, so we do have assistant DAs who are in our training program. So there is always an expense for that. For example, the person who is in charge of training is an assistant district attorney, former homicide prosecutor. So there's time, expense, money, of course, and there's also on-the-job training, learning as you go. So there's always an expense. You never just sort of come out fully formed. You have to learn.
The point of the question is, in conversation with Chief Burrelli of the Delaware River Port Authority, he pointed out something that was very interesting to me. Many young officers would come to his department and use it as a stepping stone, because they didn't particularly like the environment of patrolling the bridges. They wanted to get involved in different type of policing, and they were using the training that they received at the 38 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Delaware River Port Authority to move on after a short period of time, after a significant amount of money for the academy, et cetera, was spent. He's implemented something that I think is very unique, is a commitment. You have to work there X number of years before -- I guess like the West Point, I guess. You go to West Point or Annapolis, you have to stay in the military. But if they decide to leave before, they have to reimburse the Delaware River Port Authority for their training that they utilized as a stepping stone.
Well, Councilman, that sounds very intriguing. However, these are lawyers, and we ask for a three-year commitment, because, as I mentioned to the Chair, when you're taking a raw lawyer out of school and you're training him or her to be a litigator, it takes time, it takes expense, it takes a tremendous amount of 39 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. effort. We not only have full-time trainers, but the chiefs of the units, the Juvenile Unit, the Municipal Court Unit, the Waivers Unit, all of our units are trainers as well. So you're getting on-the-job trainers training you from the moment you walk into the office all the way through. The problem is that after the three years -- they give us a three-year commitment. They're just about getting to the point where they're really starting to show a return on our initial investment and they say, Well, gotta go, I've been offered a job at twice or three times the salary, and they go. Frankly, most people keep their commitments, but legally there's nothing we can do to an attorney who says we --
You answered my question. You do have a commitment. At least you get them for three years and not a year.
Well, but some 40 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. leave before, but most of them, I have to say, are honest and honorable and they keep their commitment. But after the three years, they say, I did my three years, good-bye. And that's not good for the people of Philadelphia. It's not good for us either, because we have to start the whole process all over again. We would like to encourage our lawyers, and we can do this with more money, to stay a year, two or three or more longer.
There's nothing like experience, I'm sure. Well, thank you and I appreciate all of your good work and the people that work with you.
Thank you. Before I call on Councilwoman Brown, Councilman Nutter, you referred to 41 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. an FY07 budget request. Has this now been circulated?
All right. And would you read the additional request you're making?
Absolutely. Madam Chair, I think in light of the testimony and, even more specifically, given what has been going on in Philadelphia in recent times, I know you're aware I put forward a proposed amendment to the budget with regard to the Police Department as well, but I think the District Attorney's testimony, both written and oral, lays out a compelling case for consideration of this kind of request, especially at this time. Having said that, the proposed amendment is an additional funding to the FY07 budget of $500,000 for salary parity, $300,000 for four homicide prosecutors, $405,000 for Economic Crime, 42 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. which involves three prosecutors, three detectives and one paralegal. The total, Madam Chair, is $1,205,000 in total, and I would ask that this amendment be offered at this time for consideration during the rest of our budget process.
Thank you very much. It is so noted. It has been distributed and it will be considered at the appropriate time. Thank you, Councilman.
A few 43 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. questions. Let me start with the Community Education Involvement Program that --
If you would, just elaborate, if you would, on the advertising. Also, has the Community Education Involvement Program been extended to include after-school programming? Give us a sense of the scope of it and its locations.
Well, the importance of the Blueprint, it was felt by the core group and by Representative Evans, that we educate the community on the need to be participant in crime-fighting efforts. And so the money was put aside. It was about a half million dollars to go to Men United for a Safer Philadelphia, Mothers in Charge and 44 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. other similar groups. It did not come to me. I didn't get any of it. It's for those groups who advocate at those vigils and at speeches and at community events, and this cuts across all the activities that groups like Men United and Mothers in charge engage in as part of their activities. It also includes billboard campaigns and the anti-stop snitching programs and --
Correct. And advocating for passage of gun legislation in Harrisburg that is more attune to Philadelphia's needs and so forth. So it's for them. That's where this money goes.
Just as a follow-up to your answer, give me your gut take, reality take on how successful we may or may not be with regards to the measures that have been put forth by 45 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. members of the Philadelphia delegation around additional gun restriction measures.
Well, you know Councilman Clarke and I have been going around this path for a long time. I want to be optimistic, but I'm always cautious, and I'm going to give you a reason for my caution. At the very same time that the legislature is considering bills put forth by Dwight Evans at the behest of either Councilman Clarke and/or others, including me, I signed onto all of them, is the "shoot first" bill that's pending now in our legislature. There's a bill 18 actually introduced that will change the laws of self-defense in this Commonwealth for all times. Ever since ancient English common law, which we adopted, a person had to respond to force with force of about equal level. So if I punch you in the nose, you can't go out and get a machine gun and kill me. However, today 46 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. if this bill is passed as it's presently constituted, if you feel as an individual that I'm going to hurt you, you can pull out your gun and shoot me and ask questions later. It's the "shoot first and ask questions later" bill that's pending in our legislature. So I want to be careful when I say that while I do want Philadelphia to have the gun laws which we used to have in 1995 and '96 where we regulate gun licensure, where we say what's legal in Philadelphia, a City of the first class or not, and I want that to happen, I'm worried when the NRA is targeting Pennsylvania as one of the states to put in this, I call it, "shoot first and ask questions later" bill, because that will mean that anybody with a gun, even an illegal gun, can say, Well, I thought he or she was going to hit me with his car, so I had to kill him to prevent that from happening, or I had to shoot this person because I was somehow in my mind fearful. 47 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. So there's no more -- there's not going to be any more retreat. In other words, if I was coming at you and I threatened to punch you, you might think better of it. Instead of standing up to me toe to toe, you'd say, Well, I don't think it's worth it, I'll back off, I don't want a punch in the nose, I don't want to have a fight with Lynne Abraham. Now you can pull out your gun and shoot me, if this bill passes, and say, Well, she was going to hurt me, so I had to protect myself against who knows what she was capable of doing. That is really, really worrisome. So I think we have to not keep our eye on this ball. We have to keep our eye on all the balls that are up in the air in Harrisburg vis-a-vis gun laws, and "we," that means the Philadelphia delegation.
Sure. So are there organized efforts with members of the Philadelphia delegation and/or 48 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. others who are doing as you just suggested, keeping an eye on the ball and looking for ways to --
Well, I know that, for example, the Brady -- oh, what's it called? The Brady group, the Jim Brady group.
I can't remember the name of the organization. It slipped my mind for the moment. But they're on top of this, and all of the good government groups who are interested in gun safety are on this. But the NRA is a powerful force, as you know, and we're a rural state, which doesn't have the problems that Philadelphia has, and those gun owners think that we in Philadelphia, we have a problem, they don't. So I'm not sure what's going to happen with any of these bills. I want to be optimistic. Senator Fumo now says he's in favor of changing laws back to 49 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. where they were before the committee he chaired took them all away from us in 1996, and he's a lifetime member of the NRA, but I don't know what their fate will be in the legislature. I want to be optimistic, but I'm cautious.
Okay. Could you please talk a little bit more about this revolving fund and to a more specific question --
It's really not a revolving fund, but a specified set amount of money that's set aside. And what happens is, it will be used as needed and replenished so that the money never falls below, let's say, the figure I picked, a million dollars.
Okay. Another question. The Witness Protection Program, somewhere in the testimony there's a discussion of $250,000.
Yes. That was my quoted remarks in 1996, Councilwoman. I think if you'll find the page -- and I 50 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. have a different version, a wider-spaced version than you do and mine is single paged, not double paged. If you will look at that quote, it's to point out that around 1994 I started talking about witness relocation, and in 1996, I asked Council for $250,000 to start a Witness Relocation Program. That was merely to highlight the fact that I've been asking for this program for years and it has 12 yet been funded -- it is yet to be funded by Council.
I see. So what criteria do you use when making determinations about how those dollars would be spent? Is it the level of the crime or the amount of people involved in testifying?
Well, it can probably be a combination of both things, but usually the people have the most of fear and express their fear most in the most serious kinds of cases, the assaults with intent to kill, aggravated assault 51 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. and especially homicide. When they go to the police station and give information to the Police Department, they say right now, You know, I know this guy, and if he knows I'm going to testify against him, which is going to be within about five or six or ten working days, he's going to kill me or kill my family or so forth, or it's out on the street that anybody who testifies against this group will be killed. So the Police Department at that very moment, the detective at that very moment will say, We'll make arrangements for you to be moved. They and we together coordinate our efforts and get that person out of his house, if necessary, that very night.
So they're put up at a hotel. Now, again, that takes money. We don't have any money for that. So since we have this Attorney General 52 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. money, we can put that person -- you can't move a person at o'clock in the 4 morning. They have to have all their kids and everybody in their household. And it depends on what the nature of the threat is. So if it's just personal to you or to a person, then it's that person. If it's the whole family that the person is worried about, we have to move the whole family, and that includes several generations and lots of people. It could be eight, ten, 12 people living in a household.
Is it fair to say it's too early yet to tell if having these additional dollars in place which assist in witness protection, that that is indeed having an impact in terms of the level of convictions? Is it too early to tell?
Well, let me say it this way: The best measure I can say is that in our Witness Relocation Program -- we don't call it witness 53 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. protection, because I think that conjures up a bad image. It conjures up sitting around a pool with drinks and fancy hotels in Florida and having a good old time and a changed identity. This program is not for that purpose. It's merely to remove you from harm's way for a finite period of time and to make sure that you come back to Philadelphia. In other words, if we ship you to another state, which we sometimes do, we have to fly you in or have you take a train in or whatever mode of transportation. We have to put you up at a hotel. That will be covered by witness relocation. Nobody in our program who has been in witness relocation and who has come and testified has ever, cross our fingers, to date ever been harmed. So that means -- and this is over about four or five years. That shows that the program does work.
It speaks 54 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. to the value, indeed.
It does have value if you follow the rules of the program and abide by the requirements of the program.
There are people who don't want to be protected. They just want to challenge -- they say, Well, I don't care, I'm fine, he knows I'm going to testify against him. And that happened a few weeks ago where a person testified against another person whom he knew and he knew that he was in danger, and he was murdered, but he didn't want our help.
Okay. My final question, I want to hear your philosophical perspective on this. First tell me how many young people last year, or as last you can recall, under the age of 17 have committed heinous crimes and have been tried as adults.
I don't have that 55 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. figure for you, but I can get it. It's relatively small. Excuse me. Let me just consult with my Deputy for the Juvenile Division. I was just checking with George Mosee, the Deputy for our Juvenile Division. We don't have that number available to us, but we'll get it to you.
So as you move to secure that information for the Chair --
Most importantly, murders, if you will, for young people under the age of 17 and then, further, for young people under the age of 12. And then give me your perspective on decisions and judgments that are reached to try young people as adults. Often times high school 56 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. drop-outs can't read, come from disturbing backgrounds, et cetera, et cetera, that leads them down the road of crime. What is your philosophical perspective?
Oh, sure. Well, first of all, it's not a matter of philosophy. It's a matter of state law, and state law mandates that all juveniles who commit murder are initially to be tried as adults. And that means that at the defendant's lawyer's request, the lawyer for the defense can request that the case be sent back to Juvenile Court and there has been a hearing, where evidence is put forth why the defense lawyer wants the child sent back to Juvenile Court and why we may either agree with the defense attorney, in which case there's not a whole lot to argue about, or we believe that the person is 57 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. best tried as an adult because the person is incapable of being habilitated or rehabilitated in the brief time that he or she may be in juvenile custody. They may have mental or emotional disorders that can't be addressed on a short-term basis. And, of course, it depends on the juvenile's record, his background. I'm saying his. It's usually his, but it's sometimes her. His prior criminal record, his previous incarcerations, what kind of weapon, how many were there and so forth.
And we can put forth some of those factors in our letter to you so that you'll know.
I'd appreciate that. Finally, the truancy court, the 58 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. status of that, where it is and --
We don't have truancy. Remember, Councilwoman, we started a truancy program, but when Council and the Mayor cut our budget, we said that we'd have to cut truancy. We had several people working on truancy, which I believe is one of the major markers. It's not a predictor.
But it's a marker, as you know. You were a teacher. It's a major marker in predicting the possibility of future delinquency. And when we lost our money, we lost our truancy effort. That doesn't mean we don't have in Juvenile Court -- really, it's dependency court. When kids are not attending school, the state does have the authority and the judges do have the authority to declare that person a dependent child and take them out of the home. It doesn't necessarily answer the question, because many of our kids live 59 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. in their homes, their parents walk them up to the school yard, the kid goes in the door and out the back door. And you may have read the other day that one of the offenders in an almost homicide had failed to attend school almost every day this year and a huge number of days last year. They don't call that -- they call that person a non-attender. We call it a truant. It's not a drop-out, but for all intents and purposes, he is not there.
So now when young people land at a place where they have X number of truants, there is no, for lack of a better word, hammer in place?
Well, the police pick them up. They take them to their police station. They call their parents and say, Come down and pick up your kid. They do arrange with the schools to take them to the nearest school to the police station, so they're not sitting in police custody. But it's a major problem. 60 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Our truancy program, we had one full-time assistant DA, with the help of others in the office, and that was Lynne Nichols, who went around. And it was only, you remember, in a cluster. It was in one of the, I think, clusters of 11 Philadelphia. And I thought she was 12 making great progress, because what she 13 was doing is, she was having face-to-face meetings with parents and really using the carrot and stick approach. You must get your kids to school. Where was your child last Wednesday? If you do not bring your child to school, we will go to the Department of Human Services and see the possibility of maybe taking your child from you. We'd rather not do that. And more often than not, after she got their attention, they really --
They got it, yes. 61 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. The light went on and they got it. Who wants to have their kid taken away from them? So they really got it. We thought we were making great strides, but then our funding went and that was the end of that.
This past fiscal year was the first time that those dollars stopped, correct?
Oh, no. No. 12 That stopped three or four years ago. We haven't been doing that.
Madam Chair, one follow-up. Could you please forward to the Chair what that bottom-line cost was and what that paid for?
Sure. We can also put down what's happening in truancy matters now for you. 62 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Yes. Mr. Mosee will handle that for you as well in his letter --
You're welcome. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions for the DA? (No response.)
I thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next department is the Defender's Association.
Good morning. Feel free to identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony. 63 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
I'm Ellen Greenlee, Chief Defender of the Defender Association. On my left is the First Assistant Defender, Charles Cunningham, and on my right is the Controller, Selim Tawadros.
Thank you. Would you pull your microphone up closer.
I have a little less voice than usual. I've been ill for a few days.
Thank you. We welcome you, and feel free to begin your testimony.
Thank you, Councilwoman, for the opportunity to 64 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. appear before Council today to present our appropriation request on behalf of the Defender Association and also to thank you and the other members of City Council and the Administration for the continuing support of the work of the Defender Association. For almost four decades, we've provided legal representation to Philadelphia's poorest citizens who are charged with crimes, to those who are mentally ill, and children who are dependent and/or neglected, among others. It has been a successful collaboration, I think, and we have continuously striven to provide effective representation not based on one's ability to pay for counsel. There are myriad ways in which our work saves the City millions of dollars annually. For instance, our work in homicide representation over the past 13 years where we have represented close to 1,200 clients, with no client having 65 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. received the death penalty, has received national recognition and has resulted in huge savings in perfunctory death penalty appeals and post conviction costs. Also, our Probation, Parole and Alternative Sentencing Unit, working with Adult Social Services, have placed thousands of those incarcerated into community placements and therapeutic environments in lieu of remaining in prison. Also, our specialists in the Juvenile Unit and Juvenile Special Defense Unit have kept countless young people from becoming embroiled in a system of placements outside Philadelphia and away from their homes. But none of this is really free, as you know only so well. We are experiencing increasing demands for services in the Adult Trial Units, in our Appeals Unit, in Juvenile and in Major Trials with the opening of a number of new courtrooms in the past two years. We 66 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. have a very substantial additional appropriation request first to avoid a deficit position as we conclude Fiscal Year '06 and, secondly, to put us in solid financial shape for Fiscal Year '07. The particulars of our requests are as follows: In terms of attorney salaries -- and I join with the District Attorney in asking for a comprehensive study of the salaries, especially among the three largest public interest law firms or public service law firms, the District Attorney, the City Solicitor and the Defender Association, to reach an equitable level in terms of salaries. We have been playing catch-up for a number of years. We have never caught up. We remain hopeful that at some point in the not too distant future we will catch up with the salaries of our peers in the public interest section. In 2002, Mayor Street's plan to increase our starting salaries and to make them a little better resulted in a 67 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. salary at that point in time of $42,000. We lost momentum after that, with no 4 funding in 2004 or 2005 for salaries. However, in September 2005, we did raise our starting salary to $45,000, though still below the District Attorneys' salaries and now considerably below the salary of Assistant City Solicitors. In Fiscal Year '07, we must add three percent to that, and the City has offered three percent in salary increases so that we can raise our starting salary to $46,350, which is still below our peers and still, as you know, so far below what is almost a living wage in terms of one who is an attorney. We also have, in terms of increases in level of services and demands for our services, we have an authorized number for several years of 216 attorneys, but we have received funding for only 209, with the City allowing for attrition. With the increase in our starting salary to 42,000 68 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. in 2002, our levels of attrition have dropped, so that we really need to be funded at the 216 level for the entire year and not 209.
What that means right now is that we have seven basically unfunded positions in terms of salary and benefits. So we're asking that these seven positions, additional positions, need to be funded to bring us at that point to where we should be at 216. However, due to our increased workload and the opening of new courtrooms in Municipal Court, Family Court and Major Trials and more required appeals for our Appeals Unit, we need to add 13 attorney positions in addition to bringing up the 209 to 216. That's our request in terms of attorney staffing. One of the continuing problems we have had and one of our most troublesome areas in terms of funding is that over the past three years, we have received no funding for benefits, despite the fact that we are not part of the 69 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. City's plans, obviously, since we are a private association and we must pay fully for all benefits. We have done an excellent job through the good efforts of our Controller, Assistant Controllers and Business Manager to contain our costs and to share the burden with our staff, but we must have funding to meet these constantly increasing costs. It goes without saying that we cannot have anything in the way of salary increases if we do not have a concurrent increase in the benefits costs, which continue to rise each year. The only other additional staffing that we need to request of the Administration is that we need to add in our IT Department two positions. We need a support technician to help service the almost 500 employees, all of whom have computers at their disposal, and we need to add a programmer as we try to meet the demands created by the expansion of technology and the new statewide Common 70 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. Pleas Case Management System, which we finally know as CPCMS, which is to go into existence shortly, we understand. We have one other significant financial problem that has arisen, and, that is, a very large threefold increase in our malpractice insurance. As you're probably aware, our present carrier, CNA, has decided not to renew our coverage following settlement in a child advocate case, the first sizeable settlement in the history of the Defender Association. Two additional complaints have been filed in the child advocate area, so our insurer has bailed out, and we are presently looking for an insurance carrier. It appears that our costs will triple to $300,000 for the year. We have, of course, discussed this situation with the Administration's Risk Management people, and we are, as we are in all of this, on our own to try to find appropriate insurance. I would be much happier today 71 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. to be able to simply regale you with success stories and some of the accomplishments mentioned in our written testimony, but our financial situation remains perilous unless we are able to reach an agreement on these articulated financial needs of the Association. I thank you for your time and attention. We are justifiably proud of our staff and the service they provide to Philadelphia citizens. I'll certainly be happy to answer any questions or any concerns that you may have or any of the members of City Council. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Have you made the Administration aware of the $475,000 deficit you have and requested that you get the dollars you need?
We have done that in writing only about ten days ago and have not had any opportunity to meet with the Budget Director around that 72 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. issue or these other issues mentioned here today.
So you've made them aware. Have they had any response as of this date?
Not yet, no. 8 We're hopeful. We remain ever hopeful of a response.
All right. Is our Finance Department here and are they in sync with the Defender Association needing these dollars? Can you let us know what the Administration's position is and especially with regard to the Common Pleas Management System?
Dianne Reed, Budget Director. We received this request yesterday in our office, and we held the Defender's Association harmless last year. They did not get the cut; they did not get the raise. They are scheduled for the three percent and the four percent raise. 73 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. The CPCMS study is not completed, and the Administration is recommending holding off on all requests relating to that until the GAAP analysis remediation part of this is completed. We would have to look at the insurance issue.
When will that be, this analysis you just referred to?
Hopefully very soon, because the system is supposed to go live at the end of May.
Well, we need you to let us know about that. Certainly we don't have that information.
Right. The person in MOIS who is the Project Manager for this thinks that all justice partners should be in pretty good shape, except for the fact that when other counties have gone live with this in the state, the AOPC, which is the state organization that has requested this change, has 74 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. really not given them any data to test in advance, and so it's kind of been a last-minute, seat-of-the-pants type of deal. However, Philadelphia is 40 percent of the caseload and there is a fervent plea in to try to get some of that, some testing material up front, and that's kind of where the gap in information lies.
Well, certainly we would need this information before we complete our budget process.
Well, that's going to be important, because our colleagues are going to be concerned about passing a budget with the pending information, and we would like to get this done in the Administration's interest, but when you're waiting for information, my colleagues are really -- the Council will have issues if we don't have that information prior to the 75 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. expected passage.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. A couple questions. The Mobile Outreach Program that is an extension of the Child Advocacy Unit, first, congratulations on that innovation, if you will. How successful has it been? How many young people are in the program? And what's the process used to recruit or enroll young people with the Mobile Outreach?
I can get you the specific numbers, Councilwoman, but the program has been quite successful. It's actually been operating just over the last year, and we've had teams of attorneys and social workers who have visited the youngsters for the most part in their placements. I don't know -- 76 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
In their placements, where they're, say, at Northern Homes or in some type of placement like that.
I can get you the specific information as to numbers. I know that they have seen hundreds of children. They have prepared a wonderful booklet that they give to them about their rights, and they are working individually with the young people to try to get them ready for the transition into adulthood. I'll get you some more information about that. I'd be happy to send that along.
Please. I'd be curious to know as well, is there any tie-in, connect, linkage with the Managing Director's office of Juvenile -- it's a recent initiative that targets 77 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. certain police districts where there's high juvenile delinquent activity. I cannot recall the name of that program, launched by the Mayor and the Managing Director about two months ago.
I'm just curious to know if there's any linkage with this. I cannot remember what it is.
I don't think there's any specific linkage to that, that I'm aware of.
So this is principally for young people who are currently housed in group facilities?
For the most part, and for other individual clients that we have who are at that 15, 16 age who need this kind of assistance. But I think the bulk of the people and the reason that it's called Mobile is that we're sending teams out to visit them in placements. But we're also providing the 78 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. same kind of effort for clients who are in their home but are clients of ours.
Okay. So there would be good sense in having a tie-in with this initiative that is designed to capture young people who appear to be on the brink of headed down the wrong path and juveniles between the age of and 16. And it's run out of 11 the Managing Director's office. I'm 12 going to get the name of it for you.
But I think they're older. I think they're young adults pretty much who are the target of that program. Aren't they, Charlie?
Young adults. They're like between 18 and 22, are more the focus of that program. We're looking at the youngsters who before they're 18. 79 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. 15, and maybe 17. 3
So we're a step 5 before that so they don't get to that 6 point. 7
Exactly. 8 You talk on of your 9 testimony about activities to improve 10 relations between minority youth and law 11 enforcement. The District Attorney has 12 just spoken to innovative ways they have 13 of bringing to young people what they 14 need to know about law enforcement. Is 15 your department doing anything along 16 those lines, just the education, helping young people understand the consequence of conduct, that kind of thing?
Well, I think through the disproportionate minority group, the Chief of our unit, Bob Listenbee, has been very actively involved in several forums that they have had here in Philadelphia where they bring representatives of law enforcement, 80 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. school police, sheriffs, police officers, and they have panel meetings with young people. And I was at the first one that they had, and it's a very fascinating, honest kind of dialogue that they have about respect and how one's comments are perceived. It seems to be having a very positive effect in terms of the youngsters. The last forum was very well attended. It was at one of the -- no. 12 It was down at 6th and Walnut Streets, I believe.
So is that an ongoing prescribed program that happens X number of weeks at designated sites around the City?
No, I don't think so. I don't think it's really something that's funded from Philadelphia and has any -- it's a statewide program, the one that I'm talking about where we've had the youth forums here. It's been run through the state. It's not Philadelphia based. 81 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.
Okay. I just have one final question. I just want to be clear in my context here. It's what one would call a detail. Culturally speaking, there really is a difference between African and African-American. So in your Exhibit-B at the top, most of us might know that that means African-American, but some of us might not. So just for clarity purposes, I would like to suggest that you may want to change that to African-American. I mean, there may come a time when you then have to draw a distinction between African immigrants and African-Americans.
I think this is supposed to be African-American as I look 82 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC. at it.
I think that's a typo, Councilwoman. That's intended to be African-American.
I would have to thank Joe Meade. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Defender and Mr. Cunningham and --
Yes. Good morning to you, too. 83 3/28/06 - WHOLE - BILL 060001, ETC.