COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, February 9, 2006 1:20 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, CHAIR COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN RESOLUTION 050871 - Resolution calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development, and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies. - - - 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
Hello, everyone. Sorry to hold you. We had an emergency meeting with the Managing Director and the head of Capital Projects, Public Property and L&I. Having said that, this is a continued hearing dealing with housing reorganization, Resolution No. 050871. We'll have the Clerk to read that just so that everyone is clear as to what our discussion is.
Resolution 050871, calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development, and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies.
Thank you very much. I understand our Chief of Staff, Joyce Wilkerson, is here. We know that Kevin Hanna is head of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, but he is out of town. He has been subpoenaed to 3 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 court. The Chair notes Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown is here. We thank her for her attendance. We also note that as this is a continued hearing, we are legally able to proceed. We also thank Cathy Califano for being here and Madam Chief of Staff. We're happy to have you make a statement, if you would like.
I really don't have any prepared statement. The only remarks I can offer are pretty much an update on where we are with the process --
-- as a backdrop, just put information out about what's going on with the federal budget. I think it, in a lot of ways, has become an overshadowing issue and I think that it's something that's important to everybody in this room, but also to the 4 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Councilmembers. As you know, over the last two years, the CDBG budget has experienced a percent reduction. Back in the 6 good-old days, I remember when I first 7 came to the City, we were probably 8 getting around $93 million a year from 9 the federal government. This year we're 10 down to about $60-some-odd million. 11 We're experiencing a ten percent cut that 12 will take us down to about $53 million. 13 And earlier this week, the President 14 announced his intention to further slash 15 CDBG funding by 20 percent. 16 So we're looking at something 17 that affects not only jobs, but will 18 affect, in a very substantial way, the 19 community development activities that the 20 City is able to undertake within 21 communities. So I think we all need to 22 be very involved in the coming years to 23 try to preserve what remains of our 24 Community Development Block Grant 25 Program. 5 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 As you know, one of the tenants of the Mayor's NTI proposal was taking a look at housing reorganization, and people in housing have been working for over a year now looking at the various aspects of that. We've looked at technology, and out of NTI bond proceeds, we've supported over $5 million in IT changes, and those will be rolling out this winter. We've looked at the processes with the support of employees across the housing organizations. We've looked at how it is that we do business. And the third piece of it we've looked at is how we've structured ourself to do business. We have some ideas about the kinds of reform we think are appropriate. We're currently briefing Councilmembers on our ideas about this and hope to take that feedback back to the Mayor so that decisions can be made about what it is that we'll propose finally for reorganizing the City's housing agencies. 6 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Thank you. We are likewise concerned about the cuts that this President outlined, and we believe that in the future, that we are going to have to then go to the General Fund to use more in the housing area, if we have it. We have no choice, because those who are at the bottom rung of a ladder and those who are homeless and those who need housing and those who need housing improvement dollars have to know that irrespective of what's happening in the White House, I mean, if they steal the election again, what can we do. We have to make sure that our people are protected. We're concerned about many things. Obviously one of them is that if there is an Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, and we know that Kevin Hanna is Secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, then under him would be created a whole new structure. We're concerned about that. 7 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Our opinion is that if we're not sure that it improves matters, if it's not broken, as they say, don't fix it. So we're concerned that a new system may cause people to be not only moved around -- and I have our transcript from our last hearing where Kevin Hanna said, quote, "People may be given different jobs. People may have different responsibilities, but reorganization, in and of itself, won't displace people from their jobs." My question is, and I quote, "The question becomes, if people are transferred or given different jobs, will these people maintain their same salary and level of benefits?" And Kevin Hanna stated, "Now you're getting to a level of detail to which I'm really uncomfortable talking." So it seems to me that part of the reorganization, that question still remains. I haven't talked to anybody in the union. I thank people who are here 8 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 who work for the City. I thank our housing heads whom we've asked to be here. I thank them for being here. That's Anthony McIntosh, PHDC. We thank him for the fine job he does. We thank Herb Wetzel, head of Redevelopment Authority, for the fine job he does. We thank John Coates of Vacant Property Review Committee for the fine job he does, and Deborah McCulloch, Office of Housing and Community Development. Having said that, we are concerned about how a proposed reorganization, how it is better, why it is better and what happens to folks with jobs. Before you respond, let me note that Councilman Juan Ramos is here, a member of this Committee. Thank you.
Well, I guess I would take issue with the assumption that it's not broken. I think that I have worked with a lot of the people in this room in these housing organizations and 9 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 can tell you that a lot of times the structure that we have is one of the big impediments we face. These programs have delivered for the City of Philadelphia because of individuals, not because we've created an efficient system to support these individuals. We have a lot of redundancy in these organizations. We've allowed organizations to grow up that are recently developing technology capability. They don't interface like they ought to interface. So there are a lot of things that we've allowed. We've managed to pull off programs that are, to a large extent, effective, but it's been despite the organization that's been created. It's not because of the organization that's been created. So I don't agree with the initial proposition. I have a lot of respect, as I said, for the individuals in these organizations. I think they have a 10 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 wealth of knowledge. As this Administration has challenged everybody to take a new look at neighborhoods through the NTI program, one of the reasons why we've been able to do that is because we can draw on individuals in these organizations who are enormously talented. The Weatherization Program probably works more effectively than it has in a long time, and you have experts and professionals like Tony McIntosh. One of the reasons the Redevelopment Authority Relocation Program has been as effective and humane as it's been is because you have experts like Herb Wetzel and the relocation staff, Melvis, people like that. One of the reasons we don't run a file of the CDBG regulations is, we try to do new and creative things with our housing monies, because you have people like Deborah McCulloch who brought expertise from HUD into the City. So we have a lot of respect for 11 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 those people, and in this reorganization, we're not going to cut off our nose in all of this, but change is going to come whether we approach it in a strategic way or not. You can't support the kind of cuts we've had in our funding, the kind of cuts we're looking at moving forward without having some fairly dramatic changes. The challenge is going to be to keep as much money on the street and to try to align the people resources in a way that makes sense. But we'd be foolhardy to jettison some of our -- our major investment is really in the people that run these programs, and you change all that very reluctantly.
And we're glad that Vacant Property Review Committee -- and John Coates does an excellent job there, that committee that was created by Council back in, I suppose, 1976, we're glad that department won't be affected as much, but we believe 12 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 that -- in fact, what we're looking for is a commitment that the people who work in these departments, if they're transferred, that their salary and benefits won't be reduced.
The Mayor has said all along he's not looking to put anybody out on the street. We cannot guarantee that everybody will end up with the same position at the same salary in the same organization. The City recently, the General Fund side of the City, has recently been through some contraction. We've managed to rehire most all of the people who were laid off for some period of time. The City always has attrition. The people don't necessarily get the same job back, because the City doesn't have the same needs. As we incorporate technology, as we devote more resources to our neighborhoods and fewer resources to some of the City's other lines of business, we put the people where the 13 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 need is. And so people are -- not everybody is going to have the same job. Our goal, though, is, to the extent possible, is not to put anybody out of a job.
That's very important to us. People who have City jobs, people who are part of the civil service area, people know they have City jobs and their benefits and their longevity and their pension and everything, that's one thing, but when you talk about going from maybe 36 agencies to 23, it concerns us, because it is our responsibility to be concerned about the public, but we have to concern ourselves with the workforce as well.
I agree with that. I think that it's the same tension we face when we talk about the General Fund. One of your premises with the cutbacks in the federal government, the General Fund is going to have to put more money out on the street. You can't do 14 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 everything, and so we will -- the Personnel Department takes its charge seriously, and any time we downsize, as we did about a year and a half ago through the rest of the City, whenever we propose reorganizing, as we've done with the City's cluster, administrative cluster initiative, we put a lot of time and energy into the individuals that will be affected to make sure that whatever dislocation they suffer is minimized.
I think that people don't trust it. I mean, for example, we asked them to not charge people a $35 application fee. Sometimes people find out about jobs right at the deadline, and then when they go to apply, if I don't pay it -- I pay some. I do what I can. I can't pay everybody's application fee, nor do I always know when people go there. People can't afford to pay it. The City said, Okay, we'll hold up. Well, they went back to charging a $35 application fee 15 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 again. They didn't tell me we're going to do it. They just did it. And it's that kind of thing -- that's a small example of what happens and why people don't trust what they don't know for a fact, even that way. So if somebody applies on the last day for a job and the job is closing at 5:00 and they come to me at 4 o'clock and they say, I don't have $35, what if I'm at a meeting? If I'm there, I've given it to them, but if I'm not there, then they lose the opportunity to apply. And it is that spirit where things happen without people knowing it's going to happen or we loosely get, I'll try. People just don't trust it. One of the concerns, I'll say major concern, is that we want to do this -- reorg has been a rumor and started forever, for many years, but here we are talking about starting housing reorganization in '07. So how do you work out kinks? The end of this term is 16 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 '07.
We have a quarter of our tenure left, and this is a project that has been in the works. We have done our homework. We've developed IT systems. I think we've had people looking at process changes. I think we have the capacity to do this. Change is going to happen one way or the other simply because of the budget cuts. I don't want to hide behind that, but that's just the reality, and we can either do this in a way that allows us to move forward effectively or we can just go in departments and say, 17 percent off the top, you get cut by 20 18 percent, and continue to operate in a way 19 that's inefficient and not take advantage 20 of the efficiencies that ought to happen. We don't need three Personnel Departments. We don't need three Law Departments. We don't need three Procurement Departments in these organizations. Throughout the rest of 17 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the City, we've begun tackling these things and said, look, these back-room operations don't have to be duplicative. Across the country, best practice indicates that you begin to streamline these things. These are changes that we need to make. We need to stay focused on keeping these dollars out on the street. We have enormous challenges rebuilding our neighborhoods. The Mayor has made a commitment, with your support, to end homelessness in ten years. At some point, we've got to squeeze as much inefficiency as we can so that we can keep as many dollars on the street to tackle the very real challenges. We have vacancies opening up in the rest of the City all the time, if for no other reason because of attrition. That's an opportunity to help assure that, to the extent possible, we can minimize the individual pain, because it's hard. 18 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 I remember when I was at the RDA, I know that people came out of high school and went to the RDA to work. People have committed their lifetimes to these jobs, to these organizations. I appreciate that, but I think we also have a responsibility to look at what's going on in these neighborhoods, commit as much of the resources we can to making sure that these dollars go for their intended purpose, which is to rebuild our neighborhoods.
I believe that we have to at some point from the General Fund, we have to have a cushion to protect people in need. That's our responsibility as a moral nation and a nation who cares about those in need, at the bottom rung of the ladder, as well as seniors who may not have it. So President Bush can't totally control what we do, because we know, my God, he cut Medicaid, Medicare, AIDS 19 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 education. He cuts everything. We have our sons and neighbors dying overseas and he just says he's going to do it, but it doesn't absolve us from our responsibility to make sure people are protected. (Applause.)
I believe, and I said this to the Mayor, we know that we're in a technological age. We support that. All of us want to move forward. I believe that we support the opportunity to Land Bank so we have area ready for development, but I don't know that we support anything else. I really do believe that as long as RDA has one appraiser, we know we're not doing the job. I believe that we can make our systems better so that the process doesn't have to go through Finance three times, or whatever the number is. We can always streamline our process, but in terms of actually dealing with the issues, that we really, really 20 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 aren't able to do all of that. As you know, I've seen the film, the housing reorg film, and I would venture to say for my colleagues who have not seen it, it is very detailed, very long. People know that for technology changes, that's the time we live in, that's fine. Land Banking may be a good idea, but all the other stuff, taking the departments from 36 to maybe 23, let me ask you -- let me just phrase my question. If our federal cut is 7.6 million -- is that correct? Is it 7.6?
7.8. If this housing reorganization saves us 1.2 -- is that correct?
All right. Then we still have some $6 million in the middle that we're not dealing with in spite of all this housing 21 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 reorganization. Are we to turn our City upside down for a million dollars?
Yeah, I think that this is a challenge the City needs to take on. I think that you cannot minimize the significance of even $1.8 million. I think there's probably substantially more than that in this housing reorganization. The other thing is, we have an obligation to deliver service more efficiently, and IT is going to help with some of that, but I think that we need to take a look at our processes. We need to take a look at how we use and align our resources. The Mayor is committed to putting as much money out on the street as possible. That's our commitment, to rebuilding the neighborhoods, and we intend to support people in these departments, to the extent possible, with other jobs in the City. But our primary commitment is to use these dollars to 22 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 benefit the taxpayers and the residents in our neighborhoods.
I will say that as Chair of the Housing, Neighborhood Development and Homeless Committee, we do not support this level of housing reorganization. We do not support City employees being laid off without assurances that every one of them are replaced. (Applause.)
And we do not understand even this level of detail that's on paper that starts in year '07 when our terms are up. We all run next year. We all run in '07. I don't know how -- and we don't know who will be sitting in the Mayor's chair or anybody's chair, for that matter, in '08. (Applause.)
And I do not believe that -- and I've said this to the Mayor. I do not believe that the Mayor's supporters, the Mayor's friends, 23 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 foes, the housing community, housing organizations, people who work inside, nobody supports this reorganization plan. And I think given that, sometimes -- maybe it was like that dawn of prohibition when the law changed and people wouldn't abide by it. Sometimes when we know that it is not an idea whose time has come, that people do not -- I don't know anybody who supports this plan. I mean, nobody talks about it, and I wouldn't put anybody on the spot if they wanted to. None of us support it. I don't support it, and I'm a supporter of the Mayor. (Applause.)
And I dare say this is not the way to go. I've seen the film. After you visit all my colleagues in Council, they'll listen. They will maybe agree to part of it, like I do. I agree to the technological changes and I'm fine with Land Banking, but all that other stuff, where you move 24 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 people around, for what reason. And if you show us a chart and you show 36 departments, then you show a chart and you show 23, that doesn't make it better. That just makes it different. And I don't know that we've been convinced that it's better.
I think that we're going to continue working on this. We're gathering information. We'll take it back to the Mayor. I think at the end of the day, the question is still a question of how are you going to operate with limited resources. There are going to be major changes, and what our challenge is is to try to put together a housing delivery system within the resources that we have, keeping as much money as possible on the street. So there are going to be changes, and we can talk about fine-tuning the changes, but there are going to be substantial changes. We don't support lobbing 20 percent out of 25 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the housing programs in the City, the money on the street. We're not for that. We prefer to take advantage of all the efficiencies that the City has talked about, acknowledged for over a decade, and we've always failed to step up to the plate on these things. We're not prepared to -- it's the same thing that we've been through on the City side. On the City side, tackling things differently. It's what has enabled us to propose things like the commercial corridor initiative and support for the arts, because we've been willing to undertake some change. We haven't made the same demand of our housing delivery agencies, and the time has come.
But if we have $162 million surplus, I think we can absorb $6 million. The issue is priority. (Applause.)
The issue is, and it has always been, one of 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 priority. In leadership roles, we have to decide what's most important and what matters most. We have to decide what our City needs. We have to decide how our workforce feels about it, their morale, and we have to decide how to help our seniors, how to help our homeless, how we help first-time home buyers, how we help people to stay inside. Obviously I support the Mayor's recent initiative to help with mortgage payments. I support putting a half million dollars more into utility funding for people who can't pay their utilities. I support all of that. It's where my heart is and where my commitment is. And I say again, it's a matter -- sure, we want the money on the street, but if we have a surplus, then we can certainly find $6 million so we don't have to do this. There's no guarantee -- you can't show us a chart and -- well, you can maybe some people, but I've been in 27 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 this a long time, and I just don't see that if you show me a chart and say these people should be here, these people should be here, those people should be someplace else, I just don't see where it makes it so better. Duplication is one thing, but if we duplicate, fine, we straighten that out, but then you have to commit to, given retirement, given all of those things, you still have to protect people. It all comes down to people. They're our residents, too. (Applause.)
Do my colleagues have any questions? (No response.)
We're absolutely concerned that you representing the Administration, Mr. Hanna and you, know we do not support an Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. I've seen the reports. We do not support these changes. We do not support -- let me say this: I think that 28 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 I would be more comfortable if you asked the department heads to decide where cuts would be than to just reorganize them and say this is what they have to do. Why can't they make these decisions on some level of cuts and then we can go from there?
We don't allow the departments to organize themselves. We're trying to take a perspective on the whole City. It's not a question of what PHDC wants, what RDA wants, what OHCD wants. This is one city. The Mayor is the executive in charge of the City. It's his responsibility to organize these agencies. We look to do it in a way that makes sense, that serves the goals of the City, the Administration and ultimately also the goals of the various agencies.
We look for input, have solicited input, but at the end of the day, it's the call of the 29 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Mayor.
Of course it's the call of the Mayor, but we have responsible leadership and experienced leadership. They've been around as long as I have, and we've all been here. We've almost grown up here. And they know what they're doing, they know what works, and they know where they can tighten up. They have done it in the past. I would feel more comfortable letting them tighten up where they need to than outside saying, This is how you're going to work, this is what the new world will be like. It's just fundamentally not fair. It's not the thing to do. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Madam 30 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Chairwoman raises, I believe, a legitimate question. Given the environment as you, I believe, fairly portrayed it in that government has to work smarter, government has to be more responsible in getting the dollars in the neighborhoods where they belong, I am curious to know now what the process was if there was not an opportunity presented to the leadership of the departments so that they could indeed take the environment as you've just described it and provided a picture of a recommendation of the way government should move to work smarter.
There's been a lot of process that I guess has been described in the earlier hearings. We've had committees of anybody in the organization taking a look at the processes. We've had meetings with directors. We've been through a process. It probably took --
We went through 31 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 an extensive process --
I'm sorry. I'm Catherine Califano, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Housing. The process started out early on with interviews of senior management, both executive -- senior management throughout all three organizations, interviews with external stakeholders, community development corporations and developers that do work with the City, other City agencies that have a central role and interaction, like License and Inspection. We then went through a process of establishing five process teams, themes of the major functions of the organization: Housing development; housing preservation; best practices, to look at not only how we did it here, but how it was done nationally; administrative services; and real estate 32 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 activities, and those included over 50 employees. It was almost a six-month period of time where they met regularly with consultants to come up with specific recommendations on how to make improvements on both the delivery of service and the coordination between agencies. Those recommendations were compiled. It was over 100 recommendations, and are part of the roll-out strategy.
So to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying, you actually posed the challenge to the leadership of those departments, presenting what the new environment is, and asked them to present to you recommendations on how the departments could work smarter?
We talked about the functions of the agencies, and those included line staff as well as management in the organizations. That information was compiled and those recommendations. 33 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Then the consultants looked at three structural ways to organize the housing agencies. That decision has been presented to the Mayor to select how to structure those organizations. And that has been a process of the consultants with the Secretary of Housing and the Mayor's office, that component.
Did I hear in the testimony that in an effort to be very circumspect about this process, there's been a look at best practices in other major metropolitan cities that have gone through this similar type of evolution?
There was a team of employees led by consultants that, yes, looked at the best practices, the type of programs both here and nationally, and the way to deliver those services most effectively.
Knowing that it's been a while since you probably 34 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 looked at that material, can you cite any one, two or three cities that have made this type of transition and ended up at a different place in providing the similar services?
One of the components that we looked at is Cleveland's Land Bank Program, which does reflect in the new organization. It's a way of being more proactive to determine what the appropriate reuse is for land, tagging it and then marketing or promoting it for that reuse.
Can you share with us any areas where there was common ground across the board with the new proposed changes?
The Basic Systems Repair Program run by PHDC is actually a model that other cities are looking at replicating because it is such a good homeless prevention program.
Was there common ground amongst the departments 35 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 that are slated to be affected by this, common ground in terms of -- did the leadership of any of those departments that are being affected find a common denominator where it made good sense to move to this particular place?
The structure has been presented to the Administration. It has not yet been formally presented to each of the three agencies.
I see. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. We would like more information about when these negotiations -- 36 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 Ms. Califano, you said that you've been dealing with this or negotiating for reorganization for six months? We would like to know when these meetings took place, who was included. Not in general. We want to know with whom you met.
We will pull together a document that itemizes all the meetings, the committee structure, who participated, and we'll provide you with the document.
From the outside with selecting the consultants? I'm sorry. Just for clarity, when you're saying request for proposals --
We've been asking for a document for three hearings. We have no document. We don't know what housing reorganization is. (Applause.)
The Mayor always thanks me for our work on 37 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 NTI. I love my City. I love my Mayor. I love my folks with whom we work, and I love the people in neighborhoods. If everything is fine, why do I have to call this third hearing and still say -- why can't I have a copy of -- if it's so great, what's the big secret? (Applause.)
When the Administration has a final proposal, we will make that available.
We've been working with TRF and PFM, and we solicited publicly for that.
When did this begin and where are you now in the process? So I assume all of this is over and you've presented to the Mayor then and he's agreed to all of this?
Is this what you're telling us? 38 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
No. We have reviewed along the way some of the information with the Mayor. We have made a preliminary proposal to the Mayor. He's asked us to solicit additional input. We're going through that process. And then he will review that with additional parties and then a decision will be made about what's to be proposed.
We are talking with the Councilmembers. We will talk again with the directors of the organizations. We'll talk with the union representatives.
RDA, 39 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 OHCD and --
-- PHDC. So how long have you been meeting on this?
The solicitation of proposals would have been in January of '04. The consultants were engaged in September of '04.
And do you have any idea how insulted we feel or even understand why?
I think I understand how much is at risk, particularly for District Councilmembers. What happens out of these housing organizations goes to why a lot of people have chosen to be in City Council, because they want to see changes. I think that folk over the years have learned how to make these systems function. I've watched people in City Council identify who it is in these 40 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 organizations that can get the work done, and when you come to the table and propose fairly substantial changes, the question is, will it make it any better. We believe that it can be better, that we can do a better job for the citizens of Philadelphia, that we can deliver services better, that we can, in times of shrinking resources, put more money out on the street. I think that with all the other dollars shrinking, we do have to do more out of the resources that we have, and we think we've come up with a proposal to do that, but I think there is -- we are asking for a lot of change, and that always involves risk. I think that we've been working hard. We talk housing reorganization. What we've been doing with technology over the years with the NTI dollars is going to make a huge change. It's going to be a radical change. It's going to be very, very different, but I think at the end of the day, we're going to have a 41 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 housing -- a land acquisition/disposition process that is much, much, much better than what it is that we have now. It's a key part of housing reorganization. We've been working on it for years. We're about to roll that out. I think it's going to make a big difference. I think some of the other changes are going to present challenges, but I think at the end of the day, we're going to end up with a system that's more efficient, we'll be able to put more dollars into programs and --
Were contributions made by any elected officials or were they included in anything on either end of this process?
In addition to the briefings that we're going through now early in the process --
Well, 42 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 the briefings we're going through now are still without any document. They're a film saying this is what we're going to do. There's no way that anybody who has seen it knows why, what's at the core of it. It's very detailed and there are no 8 main -- there are a million details, not a lot of main points, and nobody really knows, other than the fact that you go from 36 to organizations, that you say 12 it's better, that you create a new Office 13 of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation 14 and move everybody else around. Why do 15 we have to have -- we know that Kevin 16 Hanna is head of the Office of Housing 17 and Neighborhood Preservation. I don't 18 mean to mention him in his absence, but 19 we continued this last time for him, so 20 we're having our hearing. 21 But why does everything have to 22 go under an Office of Housing and 23 Neighborhood Preservation when we already have four departments? I mean, I don't know that Kevin Hanna is going to be here 43 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 under a new administration. (Applause.)
So I don't understand. You say no elected officials are included in the plan. You say you've had proposals out since January '04. This is '06. You say that you can't have one document, one piece of paper. You say that you can move people around, take their jobs and maybe you'll try to bring them back, or they may have lesser jobs, lesser benefits, and we're just supposed to say, thank you, we're glad. I mean, what do you -- (Applause.)
And we'll also ask Ms. Pankey -- Ms. Pankey, are you here? I'm curious to know who these people were who you say you met with in these various departments who gave you input. I mean, you can do a question box, a suggestion box, and people put in, let us stagger our time or whatever, but, 44 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 I mean, really. I mean, do you really expect that I think that people in this room had any major input in this plan? (Applause.)
We will develop a document for you that, as I said, identifies what the process was, who was involved in the process, the briefings that we've had for parties along the way. We will also tie it back into what it was that -- if you'll recall back when the NTI legislation was introduced initially, one of the things that Council wanted to see was what the Administration intended for housing reorganization, and we've identified these challenges all along as being challenges. We've talked about the inefficiencies. We've been doing homework since then that flushes it out, and we'll get to you by the first of next week a document that identifies exactly who was involved, what the timing was, what briefings have happened.
We'll 45 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 look forward to receiving that report. It seems to me that you learn in church you spread the good news, and I don't understand why if this news is so great, why we can't be included and why other organizations and interested people have not been included. We'll ask you to stay, if we could. I would like to call Ms. Pankey and ask her to come forward. And if you two would stay, then we'll ask you to respond to any concerns that arise out of this. Thank you very much. Veronica Pankey, we thank you for coming. Veronica M. Pankey, President of Local 1971 AFSCME. We thank you. You have been here. We thank your people for being here, and we're going to do all we can to be supportive.
We certainly appreciate that, Madam Chairwoman. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee and 46 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 all in attendance. My name is Veronica Pankey. I am President of AFSCME Local 1971, and this is our newly elected Vice-President, Joseph Wills, employed at the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. We did not have prepared testimony today because I believe that it would be redundant. We have delivered to you who we are, the employers for whom we work, the functions performed at those agencies. We have demonstrated to you our ability to meet any and all productivity limits to our lines or levels that have been set. We have passed any audit that has been performed, either externally or internally, in terms of quality of work and productivity, performance, quality. We have demonstrated all of that in previous testimony, and today we were here to see what the Administration had to say as it pertained to this housing reorganization and the impact it has still had on our 47 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 labor negotiations, which we still do not have a contract. And, again, we listened to the comments that are stated here today, and much of it is not of any surprise to me or to any of our Executive Board, because they clearly talked about what I stated they were going to hide behind, and that's the impending budget cut. It has absolutely nothing to do with the reorganization, as far as we're concerned. Reorganization, as you know and everyone else knows, has been out there on the table for a number of years. We have layoff language that covers budget cuts. We have layoff language that covers reorganization. Not to mention that they want to gut it, but they do have language that's in place at this time. 6 million surplus that the City has, none of which is incorporated to cover the 48 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 deficit which the City is getting from the federal government for housing, which is supposed to be one of the Mayor's pet peeves. But I haven't seen anything in his presentation that talks about issuing any of that surplus into the deficit for his pet peeve. You talk about trust here today. You talk about risk. You talk about, Joyce Wilkerson and Cathy Califano, they talk about these issues that are all of importance to us. They talk about how they had discussion with Labor or we were part of a group. That was a year ago. It's been one year ago when they last met with Labor to talk about reorganization and entering the second phase. We have no knowledge as to what took place during that second phase. We don't know what happened in the third phase, and still today we do not have anything, anything to look at to say this is the result of our $500,000 contract 49 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 that we gave to the consultants. But what we have been able to obtain is to find out exactly what -- to get proof of exactly what we knew they were doing, and that's to meet with their attorneys and other individuals on abolishing our jobs. We have obtained documents to show that there have been meetings on -- preparing for meetings to eliminate our jobs, where they have met with the Mayor on housing reorganization. This is a $6,500 bill they paid their attorney to meet on our jobs, but yet they have yet to come to us and sit down and meet with us. We have from the very beginning expressed an interest to be involved in this. We have never ever portrayed any level of resistance, although they will come to the Administration and to Council and say that Labor is hindering this. We're not hindering this. We clearly want to know where we stand. If you're only going to take five of us, tell us 50 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 it's five of us. They have yet to tell us anything, but they can go and pay their attorneys $6,500 to talk about our jobs and how they want to revise our classifications and how they want to abolish our positions, but they can't come and talk to us.
And this is the very same language, the very same language, that they have entered into their bogus contracts that they want, for us to work across agencies, and they want to meet and discuss the revision of our job classifications. They don't want to agree, as our current language says, but they want to meet and discuss and say, okay, this is how it's going to be, and they want us to sign on the dotted line and say this is your contract. For what? We have no guarantee from them. We have nothing in writing. We have no 22 explanation, and the fact of the matter is, they're not even truthful with us. They sit down at the table and they claim to have no knowledge about 51 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 reorganization, but yet we get documentation to show that there have been meetings, meetings that they've paid their attorneys to partake in to talk about reorganization, job abolishment and job reclassifications. And along all of that, we still do not have a contract. Yes, we've had talks since our last session. We've had talks. Nothing came out of them. Absolutely nothing. We've had five sessions with OHCD, we've had two sessions with PHDC, and we've had one session with the Redevelopment Authority. We still don't have a contract, and they can't give us a legitimate reason why, other than the fact that they want us to agree to work across agencies and agree to meet and discuss on issues that has always been agreed upon since the existing of this union. That is what the union is built on, agreeing, negotiating. This has nothing to do with meet and discuss. There's no need for a union if we're 52 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 going to meet and discuss on items. Again, we're here. We're asking for your assistance to help us obtain information on this reorganization, help us obtain a fair and equitable contract. That's something that they're not willing to agree on at all. They don't want to do retroactive. They don't want to give us any salary increases. They want to continue to request gutting our language. And then they're upset because we don't want to accept it. For what? For what in exchange? To not know whether we have a job? You look across the country. Ford, one of the companies that have been around for years, 30,000 people, they're cutting based on job security, health insurance, issues that are important to us, issues that we're fighting for, but yet they're not willing to give us any of that. I will say here today on behalf 53 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 of the membership of Local 1971 we're going to continue in our plight, because we know we're fighting for the right reason. We will not give up. We will not, absolutely, positively not, give in to this reorganization with our hands folded and not know what's going on. We deserve and we demand an explanation as to where we stand in this process. We have also obtained information as late as yesterday where they have already put into place moving individuals from two of the agencies into this OHNP. One is one of Council's pet peeves, and that's VPRC, and the other is dealing with our development. That's information that we've got. No, we don't have proof like we do the meetings on reclassification and job abolishment, but we're working on obtaining that. But they're working right underneath of us and have total disregard for Labor, the union, these employees, us 54 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 on our backs, that make these agencies be exactly what they are. We make their goals every year, every single year. We meet their goals. And still looking for more money, these department heads, and can't get it. So we can justify our existence. They will want to cut us, but the job level is not decreasing. Production is still there. It's increasing. )
How do they even begin to sit here and say to you or to Council or to anyone that we are going to increase the level of production with less people? How? It's unheard of. We, again, are requesting your assistance in obtaining information that we believe we are rightfully entitled to, and we also are looking for assistance in having and obtaining a fair and equitable contract.
Thank you, Ms. Pankey. 55 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 (Applause.)
Thank you. We'd like to ask the Chief of Staff, Ms. Wilkerson, and Cathy Califano to come back to the witness table, please.
Madam Chair, Council lady, I do have a question, please.
Good afternoon. Thank you for your testimony. Did either of you participate in the series of preliminary prep meetings that led to the ultimate preparation for a report? 56 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
No one, to my knowledge, of the union at all participated. Yes, there was some truth in the testimony that was given by Cathy Califano and Joyce Wilkerson when they stated that they formed these committees. Yes, that came about in February of 2005. When they last met with us, they said they were going to form these committees.
2005. That's the last time they met with us. It's been one year. The last time they met with us, we were here in City Hall. They talked about entering the Phase 2 and that they were going to be developing committees. They stated that it was on a voluntary basis, and they had handed out -- gave out handouts and asked for individuals to participate. When it came down to it, there were certain individuals that they were really looking for, and some of the 57 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 members of Local 1971 were solicited. It wasn't all voluntary. There were a handful of members of Local 1971 who did join, but later dropped out because they realized what it was about. It wasn't about their input and making this a smooth transition. It was about taking their knowledge, finding out what we do to incorporate it in what they want to do and not include us. (Applause.)
And when our members found that out, some of them, when they found that out, they got off the committee. They got off the committee. So they're not really looking for our input. They're looking for our knowledge, how we make it happen for the RDA, for OHCD and for PHDC. They're not interested in us. They're not interested in our ability. They're interested in our knowledge.
Hindsight 58 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 is always 20/20. In your perspective, what would have been a better, smarter, more appropriate way to approach this?
It is an opinion to me, first of all, honesty and straightforwardness. Come forward and tell us -- the same thing you're trying to obtain here. Tell us what you're about and where you want to go and how your intentions are of getting there. Again, we've never ever, ever -- they can never demonstrate where we have ever stated that we were against this process. We have always wanted to be a part of and be included in this process. They have always kept us -- been evasive with us with this process. And in doing that, we had nothing else to be speculatory about what's going on and be standoffish and not want to participate. What I'm stating to you here is, and in answering your question is, come to us and tell us what your 59 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 intentions are. Show us what you have come about is going to be the better way of serving the City. Tell us where you want to go, and let us help and assist in getting there. We understand technology change. We understand all of that. We understand all of that. But this is going about not including us, and we're not in agreement with that and we're not in acceptance of that. And to this day, they still haven't come to us, even when you asked them what is going to be the next step in dealing with rolling this out. Where we we? At the bottom. At the bottom. At the very bottom. We're going to talk to this person, we're going to talk to that person, we're going to talk to that person, then we'll talk to Labor.
Have any interim reports been shared with you or the heads of departments, written reports, based on the committee hearings and the like? 60 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
Any reports that we have gotten is because we have come upon them ourself. They have never addressed anything to me. Never anything to me and never anything to the prior leadership, to my knowledge. We have obtained it not because they've given it to us. The last thing that they shared with us in open session was when they had the town meeting back in February 2005. That was here in City Hall. We have not gotten anything in writing, absolutely nothing in writing.
When you say "we," that is all of the housing agencies?
They have not addressed anything to Labor as it pertains to where we stand. What they've given to the housing heads, I don't know. 61 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 If they've given them anything, they certainly haven't shared it with us. They certainly have not shared it with us.
And just for my own understanding, the component of AFSCME you represent is the...? Finish that sentence for me.
We represent AFSCME District Council 33, Local 1971, which represents the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia and the Office of Housing and Community Development, which is approximately 204 members today.
Very well. Thank you very, very much for your testimony. It's quite informative.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
Ms. Wilkerson. Ms. Wilkerson, it was stated by yourself or Kevin Hanna at our first meeting that no housing reorganization would take place without full notification, full inclusion by this Housing Committee. It was stated in a public meeting. I won't forget it because it's very, very important. You heard the President say that they've already moved members of VPRC. I will not call Mr. Coates to the stand. I wouldn't do that. But we were promised, it was stated on the record -- I have my records. I will produce it if you'd like. We were told nobody would be moved until all of this process was completed. So we're asking you, have there been any changes? Have people been moved? Has anything happened other than whatever discussions you have privately had with whomever you've had them and 63 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 whatever paperwork trail you have? Have people been physically moved or changed?
As far as I know, not -- I'll talk with Mr. Hanna. I have not asked him that and would want to talk with him before representing definitively, but not as far as I know. But I will check on that and get back to you.
Both of the agency heads, Robert Hess and Carl Greene, were interviewed as part of the process and gave their feedback.
Did they know that they were being questioned for housing reorganization or was it under some other guise?
It was a meeting -- it was a confidential meeting with each of those individuals and representatives of our consulting team, so that they could speak freely on their 64 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 thoughts.
I'll have to go back and look at the date of those interviews. Last year sometime.
And I still don't understand. If you assume it was such a great reorganization effort -- as you know, Lucien Blackwell started the homeless program in our City. I don't understand why if this is so great, that you would decide to only talk to people off the record or privately and not include people who have considered themselves your partners and who have tried to do everything they can in this Administration to move a positive housing agenda forward. Let me ask you about this new 65 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 IT system, your new technology system. What do you perceive that overall including? Just give us an overview of what that will be.
With the NTI bond proceeds, the City has supported two major initiatives. One is the Uniform Land Records Information System. The City -- because of the way IT grew up in the City, there were no standard procedures, no standard architecture. There were no consistent standards across the various City organizations. And so, for example, in BRT, they identified properties in one way. They had a GIS system. There were altogether probably five different GIS systems, land-based mapping systems, across the City. And the way you entered "street," the way you designated "avenue" were all different. That's got like a 9,000-foot look at it. So one of the things we've done with the NTI dollars is clean that up so that across the City, we have information 66 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 about property that can be shared across departments, so that when you go online and you ask for 100 South Broad Street, S-T-R-E-E-T, you'll automatically pull up information about 100 South Broad S-T period. So that was a very tedious process that was funded out of NTI that really gives us the ability to draw information together across the City. The second project that we're working on is what we call the Bill 13 Project, and what that does is attempt to take the land acquisition/disposition process that is currently supported formally with notecards and apply technology to that, and also draw upon the work that we did with the Uniform Land Record System, so that now we'll be rolling it out within the government within the next month or two. People will be able to go online, put in an address on a property and draw up all the relevant information held across the City about that property. So you'll be able 67 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 to know about L&I code violations. You'll be able to know whether there are tax delinquencies outstanding, be able to pull up property descriptions. We've digitized a lot of the information that the Department of Records has. That information will be available. So it's the kind of things that, as recently probably as last year or last month, that you would have to send somebody over to the Department of Records or have somebody fax you a document. It would automatically be populated within the IT that we've developed. The project workflow at the RDA will also be supported by the technology. The long-term plan is to support the process of both VPRC and the other organizations, the acquisition/disposition, with the same workflow system that we've created.
What will be the central point of entry for 68 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 property information as well as development ideas for Council offices?
There will be a lot of different points at which information can be entered. Department of Records, for example, is always entering information about land transactions. The BRT is entering information about value of property and assessment information. So there will be a lot of different places where information will be entered into the data warehouse. The proposal is to have the CIO for this, the Chief Information Officer for this system, in the Office of Housing. There would be a reporting relationship out to MOIS. So the business side, the business issues, what can the system do, what kind of tracking, how is the acquisition/disposition process, what's it going to look like, all those would be handled through the CIO at the Office of Housing. The more technical issues would 69 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 be managed out of MOIS. And then Council offices -- the proposal is that Council offices would have access to all the information they're entitled to. You can't get some of the tax information because the law prohibits that, but in terms of being able to go online, pull up, for example, everything that's in the City inventory, everything that's owned by any particular individual, whether there are outstanding L&I violations, all of that information would be available to Councilmembers.
You mentioned that you would submit information to us with regard to who was involved in this pre-selection process and who is on this team?
So at this point, can you give us the status of where all of that is, where it is with your negotiations with the Mayor and what the next steps are? 70 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871
We are briefing individual Councilmembers. We will take that feedback back to the Mayor. We expect to finish the conversations with Councilmembers the first part of next week. We'll take that back to the Mayor. He'll decide whether or not -- where he is with the proposal, and then we would take it around and talk with others about it.
So are you saying that all of those with whom you feel you need to negotiate has happened and now you're with Councilmembers and we're the last step in the process?
No. No. We have solicited input from a lot of people, as Cathy talked about. We have generated a model, and the Mayor has asked us to solicit input from Councilmembers about the model, and then we will take that back to him. We'll again talk with the housing agencies. We 71 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 have not had the conversations with Labor that we're required to have before this could be implemented. So there will be additional conversations with the unions before anything is final. The other piece that -- at some point, we will come to the City Council with a budget, with a CDBG budget, and I think we'll have an opportunity to talk about the reorganization yet again in the funding context, and we'll be forced to make decisions about what is it we're prepared to fund, how much administration of housing agencies we're prepared to fund, what housing programs we'll cut, if we choose to support a less efficient housing organization.
I will tell you that as one who chairs that hearing, that I don't see anything but a rocky road. All of us live in an environment where we deal with cuts. We all have to live within our homes. We have to live with a stable income but of 72 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 rising costs for your gas bill, for your -- even though we haven't raised taxes, they always go up. Water goes up. And we live with those things and somehow try to survive. So we understand that those things happen, but people have a right to feel confident that we are working in their best interest, and nobody feels comfortable that you're working in their best interest when they're not included in the conversation, and that has consistently been our concern. That's consistently how we feel about it. It's not fair that the unions have not been able to get a contract. I still have Ms. Pankey's testimony with me from our last meeting. I refer to it so I'm clear on their roles and the employee roles for the various housing organizations and their request. They're talking about 2.2 percent and $750, et cetera. I keep that handy so that we're ready to enter into a 73 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 discussion whenever it is required or helpful. But we really, really feel it's just unfair. I don't like to fight with the Administration. I don't like to fight, period. I do it if I have to, but it's not our goal to fight, but it is our goal to try to do, to the best of our ability, the job that people have entrusted to us. And I believe in God. I have to try to do the right thing by people, and I feel even after all of these meetings, I feel this is not the way we should go. As I told the Mayor, the housing agencies, the employees of our City, the Mayor's friends, as well as his foes, do not agree with this reorganization plan. And so what we're going to do is ask again, Ms. Wilkerson, that you intercede to make sure the unions are met with. The unions have a right to expect a contract. They shouldn't feel so frustrated, as we do, that people are talking around them and organizing around 74 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 them and that they're victims of the very City for whom they work and struggle and strive every day. It's not fair. It's not fair and it's not right. (Applause.)
So having said that, I know that the people who were here left because there's another union briefing across the hall on this LNG plant and what we should do and all of that, but let me say that we are requesting and we're again asking the Administration to meet with the union. We'll ask the union to come again to give us an update as to where you are on the union contracts, and we will recess this hearing until March 2nd, Thursday, March 2nd at 1 o'clock when we will raise the same questions again. Thank you all very much, and God bless you. (Applause.) (Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless 75 2/9/06 - HOUSING - RES. 050871 adjourned at 2:35 p.m.) - - - 76 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 9, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)