I want to eliminate that word minority out of the language.
But by assisting them, you assist them in the following: You assist them by doing wrap-around insurance so that they don't have to go out and shop around to get the insurance, which is sometimes cost prohibitive. You do it by setting up a process so that the contractors can get their compensation in a timely manner, because many companies, 00185 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole particularly new companies, minority and women-owned businesses that are fledgling businesses that have the ability to get the job done, they don't have the capital, they don't have the capital resources. They can't afford to wait 180 days to get paid. Okay. And the third thing that you do is you -- The third thing that you do on the compensation side is, sometimes you can work with financial institutions to provide them with some assistance on big projects or you can put contractors together on specific projects. So those are things that I feel that we have done before, and we know how to do it, and we are going to do here. Now, when you set goals -- When you set goals -- When you set targets or goals for minority and women-owned business opportunities, you also give the school -- give the providers goals when it comes to the hiring, so that they do have a diversified work force. And if you set the goals, and if people know that their ability to get additional contracts --
What happens if 00186 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole they don't meet it?
All the contracts have provisions in them, basically penalty provisions, where you can take action or you can fine or you can basically punish a company or take the contract away or fine that company or for that matter bar that company from bidding on future contracts. And you've got have a monitoring device. Just this last board meeting we introduced -- we introduced a proposal to set up a monitoring mechanism to monitor our MBE-WBE programs. And the individuals or the groups that are participating in this monitoring program are going to be prominent assist agencies that you're familiar with.
I'd like to speak to you about that monitoring, because the monitoring processes that we've had so far --
-- have failed. And we've had that testimony here. So what I would like -- and I see Bill is here, Bill Miller. And what I would like is, I will contact -- I would like to set up a meeting with the African-American round table contractors.
I would like to bring in the Latino contractors and females and have a very serious conversation along these lines, because Blondell Reynolds and I have -- and other folks, Michael Nutter, and other folks in this Council, I think we have reached the threshold in which we are on the way of making a reality, I think the will to make this happen. It's taken 40 years, taken 40 years to get this done. I think we are at the point, and I believe that you and you, Mr. Nevels, are two individuals that are serious about this. Because of your track record in Chicago I have a certain level of trust because my friends -- my friends have said that. Okay. I would like to set up 00188 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole this meeting.
I would like to get into a real discussion before this $1.5 billion is spent, contracted out, and done; and before the huge companies, the huge developers, the huge contractors can come in and say: We got this contract, and then let them dictate how it is going to be -- how it's going to happen.
I will set that up. Tim Spritzer in my office, and I will make sure we have our capital people there. And we'll be more than happy to have a dialogue on just how we can make this work.
This is the beginning of making that work. If we can -- if we can get Philadelphians to build the Philadelphia schools, I think you would have done more than you would ever believe. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I'm through with my five minutes.
And thank you again for 00189 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole your support.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vallas, let me finish up one area that I was talking about earlier, and then I'd like to go into a new area with Mr. Harris. It will be difficult to keep track on this record, but we talked a little while ago about the Board of Revision of Taxes issue and the staff. Let me first, before my time runs out, say that based on the information I have and my understanding, at least, of how the Board of Revision of Taxes functions and operates, that without additional information, but also respecting your budgetary process and the need to look for savings everywhere you can, that is not a particular action that I could support at this time, given the fact that we are, one, finishing up the appeals process at the BRT; two, before you know it we will be back in the assessment process over there; three, I have no idea at the moment -- and maybe you can share with us -- how you would 00190 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole propose that the funding be made available to support these positions and the potentially devastating impact that the deletion of funding for those individuals would have on the Board of Revision of Taxes entity in itself; and secondly, quite honestly, the impact that it would potentially have on the School District and the City of Philadelphia. Again, it is certainly my understanding -- and I've been over to the BRT a fair number of times to know and understand -- that the end result of the work of these individuals is the assessment of properties, evaluation of those properties, and after you go through all the mathematical gymnastics, results in the numbers that you have in your book and the numbers that are in the City's book. And so, I don't know who you think is going to do this work. And we can certainly have a philosophical debate about whose payroll they should be on. But if the end result is... I think in your big book is the anticipated receipt of $447 million in real estate tax for the School 00191 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole District's Budget, I think somebody needs to perform this particular function. And if there are questions about what the people do or how they do it, those issues need to be addressed. And in subsequent discussions, maybe we can figure out a better way to do this or a different formula or something like that. But I'm going to strongly encourage you at the moment here not to lock yourself into that kind of position, because at the moment, again, just speaking for myself, and understanding the nature of their operation and the importance to the School District and the City, I don't think that it's a particularly viable solution at the moment. Now, I do need to ask you a couple questions about that. Have you had an opportunity to talk with the Chair of the Board of Revision of Taxes, Mr. Glancey, about its operations or the function of the 85 employees?
Okay. Have you had an opportunity to talk to any of the workers over there about what they do and how they do it? 00192 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole
I've talked to individuals who are involved at the institution.
Is there a functioning either memorandum of understanding or a cooperation agreement between the School District and the BRT about what those individuals do and how they do it? You raised some concerns about the nature of their work, or whether they work hard, or whether they come to work, or how they do what they do. I mean, how does this all function?
Well, let me respond to that. I've been reluctant to characterize their work in any form at this point. I've just pointed out that it is a function that the School District does not perform. It's a function that another institution performs --
I'm sorry. Can you pull that microphone either a little closer -- 00193 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole
Or can we get a little more volume on that? I'm having trouble hearing you.
I've been reluctant to really generalize about anyone's performance, other than to say that if we're downsizing our budget and we're eliminating things that don't impact the classroom, these positions, the need to be included among other positions that we're going to be eliminating. Now, that said and done --
Well, I think if you don't have any money, it's probably going impact the classroom.
Well, you know, we could debate whether or not the assistant assessors in their elimination or the elimination of some of them would in any way impact the property tax collections. But, you know, we're not closed-minded on any proposal that is before us. And one of the reasons that we come to the Council is not with the finished budget, with the state -- with the gauntlet, in throwing that gauntlet down, 00194 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole and saying: This is our budget; take it or leave it. We'll certainly take suggestions or recommendations from the Council and touch base with Council Members before any final budget proposals move forward. But again, we're -- You know, we're laying out a proposal, as we see it, that I think is responsible within the parameters of what I've established, which is to eliminate things that don't impact on the classroom. I could -- We could probably engage in a long debate on what these individuals do. But I certainly wouldn't want to have that discussion, at least publicly, at least not initially. But we'll be more than happy -- We'll be more than happy to have -- We're not locked on anything here. We haven't finalized this budget. It's more or less of a -- This is our proposed budget, and we'll be making -- we'll be making -- I'm sure we'll be making some changes as we go along.
Okay. Well, I'm 00195 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole glad to hear that.
Councilman, if I might be responsive to an observation made earlier, this is a budget that was prepared against a backdrop. And that backdrop, again, is the fiscal and financial realities that we confront, a Harrisburg situation, and so on; and an economic, I dare say a war-time recession that we are in. We would be remiss as budgeteers and as reformers to not put on the table the tightest budget that we possibly could. And being a great respecter, as I know you are, and I am, of a solid budgetary process that is iterative, and I underline that again, it is iterative, that we would look at every... every line item. A year ago you said to me, in order to get $45 million you're going to have to do some things that are responsible. And we did those. We cannot come to you in the second year not having looked at that. Now, you know and I know that there are different ways in which to perform a given function and to vest the responsibility for that function in wherever the supervisory role should 00196 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole be. If you would like us to supervise those individuals, that's something that we can do. And we're willing to be open to that. But with that comes the ability to establish the accountability measures. Part of those accountability measures could also include, perhaps, even outsourcing, that if the School District is responsible for it. Otherwise, there is also the possibility of moving the responsibility and the fiscal responsibility for that group of individuals to another place. We're willing to discuss that. But again, we cannot be remiss and bring you a budget that is not responsible. And that's what this reform is about, in part, fiscal responsibility, which ultimately redounds to the benefit of the children.
Thank you. And I do appreciate that. And I would only encourage you to have continued discussions with Chairman Glancey and the people over there, and just get a better understanding of what's going on.
I do want to ask in that same area -- And this is from . While I did notice the elimination of the 85 positions from the Board of Revision of Taxes, I notice that you have maintained funding support for the ten positions over at the City Controller's Office. Can you explain to us the difference?
Yes. Right now they do provide us with auditing services. And our feeling was, it was cheaper to have those auditors there providing us with services directly, rather than providing the services -- rather than outsourcing those services. So in looking at those positions, those positions do have a direct impact. There are a number of auditing functions that we're required to perform. And since we have ten working auditors who at least have some familiarity with the system available to us, that we would put together an auditing schedule that would help accommodate our needs.
Councilman, I would also add that under the Home Rule Charter, it's 00198 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole our understanding, obviously, that the City Controller has the responsibility and the duty to be our auditor. So to that degree that they have that official role, we felt that --
I understand. I'm clear on the Controller's role. Mr. Vallas and Mr. Harris, unfortunately for you, the Chair is going to allow me a fair amount of leeway for a few other questions that I have. Fortunately for you, after I ask those questions, I'm going to leave. I will come back, and if you're, unfortunately, still here, I'll ask you some more questions. Mr. Harris, let me ask you in the big book on Page VI-2.
Yeah, or I guess in the front. I guess technically that's Roman Numeral VI-2. You have in the first line item there estimated 2002, 2003 for real estate tax current, $447.9 million; is that correct?
Okay. And is that what you're still anticipating receiving in the current fiscal year?
That is our current -- Yes, that is the most updated understanding we have that we will get both -- It's consistent with what we -- the information we have from the City who we rely on for these estimates.
Okay. Do you know what the impact of this year's round of appeals from the real estate assessments will have on that particular figure?
Okay. You're anticipating a $12.7 million increase in revenue from the real estate tax --
Okay. And that represents a 2.8 percent increase over the current fiscal year. 00200 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole
That's correct. And again, Councilman, that's -- the information is garnered from and consistent with what the City has provided us.
Okay. Well, the reason I wanted to ask you about that is that on the City's budget and brief book on , the City is estimating that real estate revenues or revenues from the real estate tax will grow by 2.4 percent. Can you tell me why you're estimating at 2.8 and the City is estimating at 2.4?
Oh, this is -- contains -- This is off of current and delinquent.
Councilman, I'm being informed that this reflects the actual receipts that we have in hand. And we will go back and look at the five-year plan. But my understanding is that this is consistent with what the City has put forth. 00201 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole And that was the information when we put it in the book. But I will go back and over the evening we'll look at it.
Okay. Well, when you say consistent with what the City has put forward, from what document are we talking about?
We were talking from the City's budget document, but also I think it's informed by conversations that my staff has on an ongoing basis with members of the City's Revenue Department and Budget Office. And I will confirm that for you as soon as I can.
Okay. Well, again, I would... At least from the document that I'm reading, which is the City's operating budget and brief, if you go to , you're going to find the City operating those revenues at 2.4 percent growth. So I'm just trying to understand the difference between.
I will find that for you. But I assure you we're not intentionally inflating, because we don't have the -- we're not privy to the information of what has gone on in the real estate tax. 00202 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole I mean, we have to rely and historically rely on what's happening at the City and the Revenue Department.
Also, when we make our estimates, they're not finite estimates. We have conversations with finance people. We have conversations with the revenue collecting agencies. So we are going to make adjustments. A 2.8 versus 2.4 discrepancy is -- Well, it's not -- You know, it's not that significant a discrepancy. But a lot of times what we will do is, we are updating our five-year numbers consistently, based on new information we get on Federal grants, new information we may get on actual property tax revenues, new information we get about perhaps lawsuits or litigation that is being brought against the City. So a lot of times while we will base our estimates on a specific document, those estimates may be fine-tuned and modified along the way. In the event that revenues increased at 2.4 percent, as opposed to -- as compared to 00203 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole 2.8 percent, the minimal impact on their budget obviously would be absorbed, because it just means you would take a slightly, slightly larger amount from the deficit financing bond reserves. So obviously, it wouldn't have any significant -- any major -- any significant impact on this year's budget. But obviously the way it plays out three or four years down the road is obviously of concern. That's why we budget in five-year cycles, as opposed to just simply coming out with a single-year budget document.
I understand. I just want to make sure that we're accurate on our numbers. They become important as, you know, we enter into discussions about tax rates, tax revenues, and tax receipts, and tax caps, and a whole host of other things. And so, I also want to make sure that the number in the book -- And we can clear up the 2.4 versus the 2.8 percent discrepancy. But you're building a budget around the expected receipt of presently $460,724,000, is that correct, from real estate taxes?
And that's what you're expecting in the next fiscal year; is that correct?
That is what we currently have as projections at the time this book was printed.
And that is notwithstanding appeals and a whole host of other issues. That's what you would like to receive, and that's what you've built a budget around; is that correct?
Okay. And do you have any expectation to receive more than that in real estate taxes?
Again, I think we need to go back and look at the information and make sure that we have the most accurate information. And certainly the proposed budget -- And by the time, as Paul said, by the time we have a final budget approved, this number may change, so I cannot say today that I know exactly the 00205 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole $460,724,000 will be the number that will be in the final budget that gets presented to the SRC. We will continue to refine the numbers, both on the expenditure side and the revenue side, over the next seven weeks.
Well, the reason I ask is... I mean, obviously, as you can imagine, it is important for us to know what the actual number either is or ultimately will be, as the City has multiple responsibilities, as it relates to taxes, and the impact of tax rates, and tax assessments, and any ability that we might have to maintain the population we have and not drive people out of the City because of excessive, exorbitant, outrageous assessment increases. Now, the School District and the City, to some extent, have been the beneficiaries of the fact that the City of Philadelphia has not changed its tax rates in the last eleven years. And so, you give us a budget which we don't approve, we reauthorize the taxes, you pass your budget, the assessments get done in the summer. Actually, some of that work is done by the assistant assessors that you're now proposing 00206 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole to eliminate. The numbers come back, and you actually get more than you budgeted. And then, at least in our most recent experience, we then have to fight about: You're trying to get the extra that comes as a result of an assessment process that you have nothing to do with; and the citizens end up paying more because we don't change the tax rates. And we have in the most recent situation a fight about what most of us would refer to as a windfall that the School District and the City enjoy the benefit of, while the taxpayers have no one to turn to because we never changed their tax rates. So now I want to ask you: We have a certain tax rate, City and School District. And let's say that next summer the assessments come in at whatever they come in. And if the rates are adjusted to reflect the assessment amount times the rate, and that generates $460,724,000, are you going to be satisfied to get what you put in the book?
Well, let me respond by saying that obviously when you're facing a $65 00207 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole million reduction based on anticipated budget receipts, and while it's uncertain just what course Harrisburg is going to pursue, you're always reluctant to -- You know, you try to budget conservatively. But obviously, if there's more revenue available, that will certainly give you additional options on perhaps restoring some of the things that you've identified as perhaps being controversial. The bottom line here is, we think that we've, you know, estimated conservatively what our revenues are going to be. And we think that we're certainly cutting -- You know, this is a School District that from now until since last year has eliminated over 1,000 positions. And by this time next year we'll be 1400 positions down from where we were two years ago. So we certainly think that we're budgeting conservatively. And we certainly think that we're doing all that we can to downsize the District --
I understand that. 00208 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole
I understand that. I'm not questioning that. What we're talking about --
-- is the nature of the relationship between the taxing entity, which is us.
And the people who have to pay the tab. Now, if you need additional funding, the question is, are you asking us for an increase in tax rates? Because that's the way that you provide additional funding, not by way of a back-door tax increase by never touching the rates and taking advantage of increasing assessments that people can't necessarily pay just because the value of their home went up. So are you asking us to change the tax rates upward to generate more revenue?
Not by taking advantage of a system that is broken and never changing the tax rates. So you're saying that you have a deficit, but you're not asking us to increase the tax rates; is that correct?
No, we're not asking that the tax rates be increased. We need to live with what the assessment base generates in additional income.
Okay. If the assessment base is reflective of the budget that you put forward.
Yes. And if it's not and if it generates less money, then we will make the appropriate additional adjustments that need to be made.
All right. I understand that. And we would have some responsibility to deal with that ourselves. But what you've said to us is, what, four sixty-seven 00210 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole twenty-four is the number, or it might be some other number, based on what happens in Harrisburg. You understand that I am now on a mission to eliminate the back-door tax increase, that you get what you ask for, and not then seek to get extra that no one planned for. You pass a budget, we pass rates, the whole assessment process takes place after the fact, and then there's this scramble --
-- to get the extra that no one budgeted for that, that no one approved, that no one voted for. Now, that's wrong. And it's not a true representation to the taxpayers of this City, that when we approved the budget for a certain amount, the assessments went up, which they had noting to do with, which you had nothing to do with, none of the numbers changed, and everyone gets to be the beneficiary, while the rest of us sit around and say: Well, it wasn't us; it was somebody else that did it. If you need more revenue, come and 00211 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole ask us for more revenue, but don't get it in the back door. That's not personally directed at you. It's a system issue. It's been here for a long time. Some of us believe that it is wrong. I just want to make sure that we give you what you ask for but no one is getting over on the taxpayers to get a little more because of quirks in the system or refusal to step up to the plate and say: They need more; let's give them more; and do it up front. That's the issue.
So whatever the number is, I want to make sure that that's the number. I don't want to hear another number later on. I don't want to have this fight again during either the fall or next spring about what the true needs are, and that -- and you to say, we'll we have had this conversation -- that, you know, pencils are going to be taken out of our kids' hands; and lunch is going to be cancelled; and no more recess; and, you know, books, you know, won't be able to go home because: Oh, my 00212 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole God, they're actually trying to exercise budget restraint and not tax people out of their houses.
All right. And let me point out that I have never said that, nor will I ever say that.
My one reservation about -- or my two reservations about these type of initiatives -- And I'll be honest: We've been very low key in laying out our position on these issues. But I've had two reservations. And that is, first of all, I feel that the whole issue of property tax reform is a comprehensive issue that hopefully the Rendell Administration will begin to address, because it when it comes to education, it is a -- you know, it is a product of, you know, our tax funding formula that is far too dependent on local property taxes. So we want to be in a position to help move Governor Rendell's initiatives along. But I also have a concern, and I -- And I need to point this out. Our concern is always when we go to rating agencies, for a School District that has 00213 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole no bond rating, but -- from one agency and doesn't have an investment grade bond by another, and we lay out our plan to issue school construction bonds and to restore credibility to the system, believe me when I tell you -- And once again, you know as well as I do that these rated agencies always look at issues: Property tax caps, proposals to limit property tax growth, proposals to freeze property taxes. It is a constant issue. So for us to take a position of support on an issue like this, at the same time that we're trying to restore public confidence or I should say financial institution confidence in the credibility of this system's financial plan, puts us at a disadvantage.
Look, I'm not expecting you to host a parade or declare a holiday about it. I think it's a partnership issue. I mean, I want the School District to be as fully funded as the next person.
I want it to function and operate. You know I have a child in 00214 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole the system. I'm not doing anything that negatively impacts what goes on in the School District.
All we're asking or some of us, at least, are asking is there are multiple constituents.
As we care about the children in these schools, we also have to respond to their parents, and many other people who for whatever reason, either their kids are grown or whatever their status in life is, who don't have kids in the system, but who are paying the tab, are trying to figure out: How do I do this. I want to support public education as well. I'd still like to live in my house. So therein lies the balancing act. And I think through true partnership and the spirit of cooperation that you have demonstrated, we'd like to come to some rational conclusion about this. And as far as the Governor's plan is concerned, which I support, I think the property 00215 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole tax issue at the moment will not necessarily touch Philadelphia. We have an even worse circumstance in tax, which is the Wage Tax...
Which is far more onerous in Philadelphia than the property tax is, especially compared to the other 66 counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Because they have been doing what we refused to do, which is they actually have changed their tax rates upward, and they're driving their constituents out of their minds. They don't have a wage tax or anywhere near the kind of tax that we have here. And so I believe the Governor's plan is the right plan. We should be taking those additional dollars and reducing the Wage Tax. But that doesn't help us on the property tax side, which is a local issue, which I believe we have local solutions to that particular problem. But we don't want to do it in a vacuum against the interests of the School District.
I want you to be able to float as many bonds as you want. I want you to be able to convince Fitch and S & P, and whoever else you have to talk to, this is what we have; it's secure; we know what we're doing; it's not, you know, the wild west down here and that everybody's running around doing whatever they want to do. But that comes from the partnership and the conversations --
-- and the kinds of things that Mr. Nevels was talking about that we did last year. We were very surprised that we were able to do what we did last year on the deficit financing and get it done in a way that, in essence, one question was asked. It saved the School District $248 million in debt service payments, because the original deal was $300 million for 30 years, $750 million total cost. We asked one question: Can't you cut the length of time for the payback? And Mr. Nevels and the attorneys and 00217 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole other people worked on that total cost I believe is $502 million. That was one question, $248 million. That ain't bad for a day's work. I think if we work on these kinds of things together, we'd actually be able to get some stuff done to not only help the kids, but not drive either their parents or other taxpayers out of the City. Two last questions. If you can get to us a complete list of the details on either capital improvements, new construction, and rehabilitation for all of the buildings, and for most of us I think it will be helpful if it's done in a district...
District by district, so we can understand it, and naturally the entire list is made available for all of our colleagues who are Members-at-Large.
That list will be specific for really the first two years, but more generally --
I understand. Last question: Act 46, and I believe it's either 00218 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole a cousin or a nearby relative, I believe is, was that Act 87?
88. Okay. I was close. I'm not sure what 88 was. In the current environment, and I think most of us are now willing to acknowledge that actually Act 46 resulted from some decisions that were made a number of years ago about how the District was going to function and operate and basically run it, until it ran out of the money. And the legislature responded to that, and Governor Ridge at the time, as a result of which is Act 46, subsequently Act 88 which --
-- the result of which, I think, is many of you sitting at the table today, passed in an environment where people were not really talking at all, seemingly, with each other, but at each other. There were questions about the fiscal sanity of the Philadelphia environment and how all of this was functioning and operating, but also placed significant restraints, I believe, in 00219 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole our ability, as one of the taxing authorities responsible for the School District, to do some things similar to what we talked about with regard to property taxes or other taxes because of Act 46 constraints. Do you have any opinion at the moment, given the changed political environment and a little bit of the changed fiscal environment, especially with Governor Rendell's proposals, about the need for Act 46 or some of its constraints in the current environment?
Well, let me respond by saying, when we've made our quiet case for our reasons why we're concerned about, obviously, legislation, particularly with the tax base, we've really never evoked or used a reference to Act 46. I certainly think, given the environment that -- you know, I -- you know, I would -- you know, I would not see Act 46 as an obstacle. Maybe other people would. But I would not see that as an obstacle. The only time I've -- The only time I've cautioned restraint is because, obviously, of some of the larger capital and bond rating, you 00220 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole know, issues more than anything else; but, no, it's never been a big issue for us. You know, we've always felt that there's a way to get around Act 46 if a -- you know, if a compromise is reached with all parties on some sort of property tax limitation. Because again, you know, Act 46 focuses on the base number, not the initial -- The proposals that have been put out have been proposals that have talked about increases and extensions. So I don't see where Act 46 would have any applicability to any of the proposals that you've been putting forward. I certainly don't see Act 46 as an obstacle to any of your initiatives, Councilman.
Mr. Vallas, it may come up as a part of the conversation with regard to the Governor's proposal on property tax revenues or property tax relief from the legislature, winding its way through the system and somehow coming over to us. I don't think we know all the details of that yet.
But if the issue of millage rates becomes a subject of discussion, in terms of transferring property tax relief dollars back over to the City for Wage Tax reduction, we may potentially run into an Act 46 issue.
I'd just like to put that on the radar screen for the moment. Again --
-- I would say in the current environment there's probably not necessarily a need for Act 46, given the fact that I think we have resumed, from a public policy standpoint and a fiscal standpoint, some enhanced level of sanity about how the system is going run and what --
-- and whose going to fund what, and who's going to do what, and who's not going to do what. But on that particular issue I am concerned about Act 46.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vallas, I'd like to go back to the Zero Tolerance Policy. So I understand, a student is a discipline problem in a particular high school. In your testimony it says, to date the District has placed more than 850 students in alternative schools -- in alternative school placements as a result of discipline re-assignments. And I mentioned to you that I've gotten calls and also from teachers that are telling me that kids are winding up leaving one school and not going to an alternative environment, but going to another high school. And they find out when this student arrives at this other high school that this particular 00223 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole student had a very serious problem at another building.
My question is -- And you indicated that parents go to another school and get them enrolled without the knowledge of the principal. How could that be? I mean, don't you have communications within your organization --
-- that when a student goes to another school, that before that child is admitted, you know that's -- that's -- that's the red flag that I heard in your testimony. But why would they even be going? Why would they be placed in another school, rather than -- you mentioned bursting at the seams of the alternative environment.
-- are being moved from one high school to another and not to an --
Well, I think my response -- Again, let me restate the point -- is that we've expelled more kids than any other School District in the country.
But let me also respond by saying, these are the exceptions, not the rule. In a system this large a system that is just getting used to a tough discipline policy, sometimes certain kids are going to fall through 00225 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole the cracks. And as I mentioned the first time -- the first time you -- you asked me these same questions, what we -- what we -- As a matter of policy, we do not want intra-school district transfers. And when they occur and when parents bring them to our attention or when principals bring them to our attention, we take the appropriate action. Now, let me tell you: Just the other day it was about -- actually about two weeks ago, I got a call from a reporter who said that kids are being transferred from one school to another, and they cited four cases. Okay? So I had all four cases investigated. In at least three of the four cases there was a rational explanation. In one case, the student who returned to her school had been adjudicated as -- by the hearing officer as basically not committing an offense that could justify the expulsion. In the second case the student was, in fact, the victim 00226 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole In the third case it involved a student who had actually -- who had gotten in a fight with students, who had been disruptive, because the student in effect was -- was -- had certain problems. He was -- Believe it or not, the student was a bed-wetter, and kids are harassing him and hassling him. But in the fourth case, there was a gray area. This involved a student who was expelled because through the Zero Tolerance Policy it was discovered that the student had a nail filing object, a sharp object. And the student made the case -- had made the case to the principal that -- that -- and the parent had made the case that -- In this case the student -- This was the sister's backpack or whatever. And the student had decided that to readmit the student. So a lot of times when we get these cases, usually in the majority of cases there's a rational explanation. Now, that doesn't mean that things don't fall through the cracks. That doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to the rules. 00227 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole I've asked Gwen Morris, who monitors our programs and responds to these issues and initiatives, to articulate what the process is. But generally, what we tell principals is if there are concerns about students who are showing up at their doorstep asking to be transferred and they communicate it to the regions or through us, we will take appropriate action; and that when in doubt, don't allow the student to transfer. And I've been more forceful in that the last five or six weeks, because -- because this has been a concern that perhaps some of the intra-district transferring is still going on. But what we also do is, obviously, working through the Safe Schools Advocate, who sends me e-mails constantly, and working through our own Bully Hot Line, you know, we get calls with regularity about parents who are concerned about disruptive kids. And what those calls -- Those calls are processed. And we respond to every single one of these calls. I'm going to ask staff to provide you and the Committee tomorrow with a breakdown in 00228 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole detail of all the disciplinary actions, and just with kind of a standard procedure; just, for example, what we did last month, in terms of expulsions and responding to calls that we received, such as the calls that -- that -- that you've raised about parents who have concerns. But I would say one thing, and it's really important to say, too, is: In this environment of much tougher discipline policy, look. I mean, I met with... You know, Arnold Schwartzenegger came to our schools the other day. And they were referring to us as the two kindergarten cops. Okay? So it's not like -- It's not like -- We've gotten hit on both sides for being too aggressive and not being aggressive enough.
But in this day and age, in a lot of circles, the assumption here is that we're going to have automatic expulsion. Automatic expulsion. A kid's a problem, let's -- The kid's got to get out of school. Find another school for that student to attend. Part of this problem is going to be addressed by us making sure that we have tougher 00229 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole in-school discipline policies, and that schools are dealing with the students at hand. Because one of the things that's emerging very clear in many of the high schools is, number one, the old district never wanted to expel anybody; but also, number two, there was always this eagerness to simply transfer the problem somewhere else. So we're going to have to cope more effectively with the students in the schools, too, because we simply can't transfer everybody. But let me ask Gwen to take you through the process.
Gwendolyn Morris, Executive Director of Alternative Education. The one thing I do need to clarify. We have expelled over 800 youngsters, not the Act 88 youngsters this year. And quite often some of those cases that are referred from high schools are cases that do not rise to the level of what we consider Level 2 or an Act 26 offense. So, upon review and by our Office of General Counsel, we sometimes do return some of those to the same school because it is an incident 00230 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole that does not rise to the level of dangerous. Sometimes youngsters misbehave. Sometimes youngsters may commit infractions. But remember, Act speaks specifically to dangerous 6 behavior, weapons, drug possession, and so forth, 7 and so on. 8 And as Mr. Vallas said, we do 9 respond immediately to occasions where youngsters 10 have been moved. 11 When Mr. Vallas came, he said: No 12 lateral transfers. And to my knowledge -- to my 13 knowledge, those have not occurred. 14 However, we do have some individuals 15 who, within their own schools, move kids from 16 school to school. And when we discover that, we 17 typically respond to that appropriately. 18 The system does allow youngsters to 19 move from school to school outside of the regular 20 transfer process, youngsters may have created a 21 problem in a previous school. 22 When the receiving teacher 23 recognizes that this youngster has been moved for 24 disciplinary reasons, they typically will put us 25 on notice, either through a letter to Mr. Vallas, 00231 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole quite often, or to myself, or to Dexter Green, our Chief Safety Officer. We try to respond immediately to those particular issues. We did have a number of requests From high schools that, upon review by Office of General Counsel, those youngsters offenses did not rise to that level. And those youngsters were assigned to the Saturday Detention Program. So in that case that youngster will remain in that particular school and will be assigned to the eight-week Saturday Detention Program, along with their parents' involvement. So there are a number of ways youngsters are moved. But typically in terms of the expulsions, those serious offenses, serious assaults, guns, knives, those kind of things, those youngsters are moved.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Vallas, Just one other observation. The Truancy Program...
Your Chief, Dexter Green, does a great job and... But I would 00232 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole like to understand better the role of the School District Police. I've had the -- I've had the Police District Commanders tell me that on occasion they've seen kids congregating in a particular area. School District car go by. Just keep going.
Are we making these observations -- Are the School District Police that are mobile making these observations? And if they're not, they should be, and taking an action when they see kids on the street that should be in school.
And another issue, Mr. Vallas, and it's just a housekeeping issue --
-- and I'll say it all in one breath. There's a lot of confusion about the school safety signs, the yellow flashing lights, whose responsibility. I've recently called a particular school, and the principal's 00233 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole office, assistant principal, weren't aware of who is responsible for the maintenance of those lights, especially if there's a power interruption and the timers need to be reset. Couldn't the School District Police -- Couldn't the School District Police also be responsible if they see these things malfunctioning, not to have the parents of the students have to call a Council Office to say that lights are on at 10 o'clock in the morning instead of 8 o'clock in the morning? Couldn't some of these observations of deficiencies be noted by the School District Police and dealt with? And I think you need to communicate to the principals who's responsible for what. I mean, if they believe that PECO Energy is the responsible party to get a timer changed at a school area -- at a school, obviously they don't know, especially when it's at the principal's -- that's the response from the principal's office.
So I'd appreciate 00234 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole maybe communicating --
-- that information and having the School District Police, when they see these lights not functioning properly...
The City spent, School District spent, Archdiocese spent a lot of money in installing these lights. And if they're not performing at the appropriate time, we might as well -- we shouldn't have even put them up.
Well, let me respond by -- All good points. Let me point out that the security personnel are supposed to, any time they identify kids congregating, they're supposed to take the appropriate action or make the appropriate notification. Any time signs are out or is there is a safety issue, they're supposed to report that. Some are more aggressive than others at doing that. So, the Safety and Security as a rule are supposed to report those things. 00235 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole That doesn't mean that we get everybody reporting in an aggressive way. We'll make sure that we remind Safety and Security what their functions are, what their responsibilities are. But once again, as always, we get -- For example, we get inquiries about Crossing Guards on a daily basis. Even though we're not responsible for the Crossing Guards, we will contact the Police Department and try to get Crossing Guards shifted around. We get inquiries about the absence of stop signs at certain corners. What we'll do is, we just won't say that's not our responsibility. We'll contact the appropriate Street Department, and sometimes we'll try to negotiate or get a stop sign installed. It's the same thing with these signs. Even though the signs are on school or around school grounds, and even though I think Streets and Sanitation has the responsibility to maintain them, it's still incumbent upon us. (Inaudible voice from the audience.)
They're not? We are. 00236 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole Okay. So you do it. Then how many requests do you get a day to do or a week? (Inaudible voice from the audience.)
Okay. All right. Well, I've just been corrected. Basically, it is our responsibility. And what I'm being told by our operations people is, we get inquiries regularly from priests -- from priests -- from Council people and principals. But we'll make sure -- We'll get a directive out to all of our Safety and Security personnel as well as the principals just reminding them what the process is for funneling those complaints, so that there's no confusion over who has responsibility.
Well, that's great to hear. And thank you, because you are, and I describe you as, a very -- You're a nuts and bolts guy. And I like the fact that you --
Yes. And like Daylight Savings Time, I guess, is a few weeks 00237 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole away?
Well, a lot of the principals say that the schools' closed by the time they get the lights adjusted to compensate for the hour of change.
It would be a tragedy to see -- It would be a tragedy to see an accident occur.
There's power interruptions that throw these timers off. So my point being, that when you call a principal's office --
-- and they don't know what they're supposed to do, that's kind of discouraging.
The same thing on the discipline policy. I will once again reiterate, through the schools and regions, about what the intra-school transfer policy is, so that there's no confusion. I did it earlier. I think it was about a month and a half ago, when I had concerns that there were still -- Well, after the -- after the inquiry by a number of people in the media about intra-school transfers, even though most of the complaints were not validated, I said we need to remind the regions and the principals that if a student is just jumping into their school, they need to have -- and they feel that that student is being transferred for disciplinary reasons, we need to take the appropriate action. It's in our interests to limit the 00239 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole number of intra-school transfers anyway. The bottom line is, we want to slow down and reduce this mobility rate, and -- But we'll make sure that we send another directive out, clearly stating about the prohibition of transferring students for disciplinary reasons.
My last comment, question, is the parent truant officers. Do they report to the principal or do they have any interaction with the school police?
They have interaction with the school police and the principals, although they are assigned by region. Now, some of the regions have elected to designate certain parent truant officers to work with individual schools. Now, the reason that they're working at a regional level is, there aren't a lot of them. I mean, 250 parent truant officers, but 264 schools. We're hoping to double the size of the program next year, and then we will begin assigning them to individual schools. Let me make one more point. In 00240 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole hiring the parent truant officers, we elected not hire them directly ourselves, but to go through community based organizations. The reason being was, many community based organizations, like PAN? PAN and others were already in this business and doing these things. But those community based organizations work out of the regions. But in some cases, like with espirit, for example, their parent truant officers are almost assigned to individual schools. So we're refining the program. And we hope that as we expand the number of parent truant officers through -- and we're looking at expanding the number of community based organizations who do it, the parent truant officers will spend more time working with individual schools, as we move forward.
I'd just like to follow up for 30 more seconds, Madam President. I'd like to ask Dexter Green... We on occasion -- I on occasion get complaints about vehicles speeding through the school zone when the 00241 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole lights are flashing. Are the School District Police, the Police Districts are spread pretty thin right now with Operation Safe Streets and other commitments. Are your police allowed to enforce speeding through the school zones, like perfect example: Saul School on Henry Avenue. There's signs there, miles an 10 hour. Well, to many of the motorists, that means 11 35, instead of 55. And it's a posted 35 area. 12 Could the School District Police go 13 out there and at least make a presence? Just show 14 your car or show the police, to maybe slow these 15 folks down?
We can make a presence. Currently, we're not able to write the tickets. But that's something that --
We're not allowed to write the tickets, but that's something that could change. I mean, we have -- My folks have police powers, but that's not one of the powers that we went after. 00242 03/24/03 - Committee of the Whole
I think even your -- If I requested a presence to have a car during the school --