COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:05 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY BILL 080542 - An ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter set forth in a Council Resolution prohibiting the Civil Service Commission from imposing any fee to apply for employment with the City... RESOLUTION 080550 - Resolution proposing an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to the preparation of Civil Service Regulations... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good afternoon, everybody. This is the Committee on Law and Government. Mr. Boyle, would you please read the bill and resolution before us today.
Ordinance No. 9 080542, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter set forth in a Council Resolution prohibiting the Civil Service Commission from imposing any fee to apply for employment with the City; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution 080550, resolution 24 proposing an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, 3 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 relating to the preparation of Civil Service Regulations, by prohibiting the Civil Service Commission from imposing any fee to apply for employment with the City.
Thank you. For the record, we have a quorum with myself, Bill Greenlee, Councilman Kenney, the Vice-Chair of the Committee, Councilman Goode and Councilman DiCicco. Also present is Councilwoman Blackwell, who is the sponsor of this bill and resolution. Councilwoman, I believe you wanted to say something to start off?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to you and all members of the Committee, and we thank all who are here as we consider legislation eliminating the job application fee or job tax, as we call it, that the City presently charges to apply for employment with the City. 4 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 I sponsored this legislation because of my firm belief that citizens of this City should be able to apply for a City job without, in effect, paying a job tax. Historically, the City has not charged a fee to apply for employment with the City. It has been since October 2004 under the Street Administration that the City began charging a job tax. This fee was imposed by civil service regulation, with approval by the Administrative Board, consisting of the Mayor, Finance Director and Managing Director. There has been no legislation nor any Mayor's Executive Order authorizing the imposition of a job application fee. Neither has there been any Law Department opinion letter or other communication from the Law Department to this Council supporting the imposition of a job application fee by civil service regulation alone. And while the Charter carefully 5 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 articulates areas with respect to which the Civil Service Commission may create regulations, nowhere in the Charter is the Civil Service Commission specifically authorized to impose a job application fee. This notwithstanding, the Law Department has advised my office that the extraordinary legislative step of a Charter change is necessary to eliminate the fee. This is despite the fact that City Council has on more than one occasion passed legislation pertaining to the Civil Service Commission, including requiring its deliberations to be public under Section 21-1500 of the Code and setting the salaries for Civil Service Commissioner under Section 20-304 of the Code. I have nevertheless taken the Law Department's advice. A fee waiver for those receiving public assistance does not justify imposition of the fee. Presently, the Personnel Department 6 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 waives the fee for those who qualify under TANF, that's Pennsylvania Temporary Assistant for Needy Families; the Pennsylvania General Assistance, or GA; Pennsylvania State Blind Pension; Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation; and Federal Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. However, many job applicants lack the financial documentation required to prove entitlement to these programs. Requiring such documentation creates needless barriers and bureaucracy merely to apply for a City job. And at its worst, it constitutes invasion of privacy, again, for persons seeking only to submit a job application. Some argue that the fees reduce the number of unwanted applications by weeding out those who are not serious about seeking employment with the City or those who aren't qualified, but these arguments fail to take into account how the number of exams announced, the type 7 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 of exam given and the number of positions available affect the number of people applying. They further fail to take into account the City's recent hiring freezes and general economic conditions that impact on the number of applicants and their qualifications. In recent years, this Council has rightfully taken steps to make Philadelphia more welcoming for workers and businesses. We have lowered the wage and business taxes by more than $1 billion since the year 2000 and have attempted in many other ways to reduce the cost of doing business in the City. We followed the example of other large cities seeking to attract businesses and workers by lowering the cost of doing business in the City. That same thinking should guide us in eliminating the fees charged to apply for a City job. Philadelphia and New York are the only cities among the 20 largest in 8 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 the United States to charge an across-the-board job application fee.
I have no doubt that if the question of whether the City should charge a job application fee appears on the ballot, as required for a Charter change, the voters would respond with a resounding no. I ask that this Committee give them that opportunity. Thank you very much. We have also submitted to you a list of those cities, not those little small towns listed in the Administration's testimony. We've given you a list of the largest cities so that you may see what the real deal is when it comes to a comparative look at what cities charge across the country. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee and hope that we may have a positive, open dialogue about this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ) 9 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
Thank you, Councilwoman. The record will also reflect that Councilman Jones is present. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Let's go into our witness list. The first witness, Albert D'Attilio, Director of Human Resources. And I guess I should say the first Director of Human Resources in Philadelphia since it was always called the Personnel Director, right? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Chairman Greenlee and members of the Committee on Law and Government. My name --
Before 10 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 you start, also I'd like the record to reflect Councilman Kelly, a member of the Committee, is also here. Thank you. Excuse me. Go ahead.
My name is Albert D'Attilio and I am the newly appointed Director of Human Resources for the City of Philadelphia. I am here to testify on the proposed Charter change introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell, which, if approved, would prohibit the Civil Service Commission from approving any regulation imposing an application fee for the civil service jobs. I thank you for affording me this opportunity to address the City of Philadelphia's application fee and to answer any questions you may have concerning this fee. The City of Philadelphia implemented the application fee for civil service examinations in October of 2004. The application fee was implemented to 11 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 control costs, increase efficiency and to match the supply of candidates with the number of available jobs. It is designed to partially offset the cost of processing applicants and to discourage those individuals who have no intention of actually taking the examination from applying. The Office of Human Resources processes every application received for civil service examinations, entering personal data for each applicant into our applicant tracking system, reviewing each application to determine if the applicants are qualified to test, sending written notifications to each applicant informing them of their status in the examination process. All eligible applicants for civil service positions other than laborer are invited to take a civil service examination. 5 percent, for civil service positions either did not qualify for the positions that they applied for or did not report to the scheduled civil service examination. Processing applications of ineligible or disinterested individuals slows the hiring process, adds unnecessary taxpayer expense and diverts limited resources to activities that add little or no value. Since the application fee was implemented, 221 examinations have been administered between October 2004 and June 2007 with an application fee. 5 percent to 20 percent. We are now testing on average 21 74 percent of our applicants since the 22 fee was implemented. Clearly, the 23 application fee introduced needed 24 efficiencies into the City's hiring 25 process. 13 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 Not only has the application fee contributed to a significant increase in the percentage of applicants tested, it has also contributed to a significantly greater percentage of applicants passing the civil service examinations. For the three-year fiscal period 2001 through 2003, slightly less than percent of all applicants passed 11 the examinations that were administered. 12 The passing rate for candidates who 13 appeared to take the test were slightly 14 less than 48 percent. 15 Since the fee was implemented, 16 the passing rate for all applicants 17 increased from 25 percent to almost 60 18 percent. The passing rate for the 19 applicants who took the test also 20 increased from 48 percent to 81 percent. 21 Perhaps the most dramatic 22 example of the impact of the application 23 fee is with the police officer recruit 24 examination. The last time this 25 examination was announced without an 14 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 application fee was in September of 2004. For that examination, we received and processed 12,385 applications. Only 2,862 applicants, or percent of the 6 applicants, appeared to take the 7 examination and only 2,229, or 18 percent 8 of the initial applicant pool, passed the 9 written examination. 10 The police officer recruit 11 examination was announced with an 12 application fee for first the time in May 13 of 2006. We received and processed 3,032 14 applications, or 76 percent fewer 15 applicants, than in 2004. However, 16 2,298, or 76 percent of those 2006 17 applicants, appeared to take the 18 examination. Moreover, the passing rate 19 for all applicants increased from 18 20 percent to 68 percent.
21 The added efficiencies in the 22 administration of the police officer 23 recruit hiring process are obvious. With the implementation of the application fees, the number of police officer 15 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 recruit applications received was reduced by 9,353 applicants, while the number of applicants who ultimately were placed on the eligible list were reduced by a mere 145 candidates. The City of Philadelphia waives the application fee for those applicants that cannot afford to pay the nominal fee. 3 percent of the applicants. The fees are waived for applicants who receive public assistance or unemployment compensation. Applicants must show proof of public assistance, such as the TANF card and a photo ID, for a fee waiver, which is granted at the point of application by my office staff. There are three levels of fees ranging from $10 to $35 per candidate. For most examinations, the application fee is $35. Applicants for half-time positions, such as school crossing guard, assistant recreation leader and library 16 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 assistant 1, are assessed a $17 fee, and applicants for the laborer position, which does not involve testing, the fee is $10. The City of Philadelphia is not unique in charging application fees. Application fees are especially common in the northeastern states. Several cities throughout Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Reading and Lancaster, charge fees for police officer examination. The fees for these jurisdictions are usually about $25. Application fees are used at every level of government in New York State. New York City has been using application fees for approximately 19 years, ranging from $30 to $60 based on 20 salary of the job. For open competitive examinations for New York State jobs, the application fee of $35 to $40 is charged. And in Nassau County, fees range from $30 to $100, while in Suffolk County, the fees range from $15 to $100. The City of 17 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 Buffalo charges fees ranging from $15 to $25. In Connecticut, the decision to use application fees is made on a local basis. Hartford charges $25 for firefighter and police officer examinations, while New Britain charges $15 to $30 for uniformed exams. Massachusetts charges fees ranging from $60 to $125. Fees are charged for most open competitive examinations and for all police and fire examinations, including promotional examinations. Police and fire examinations are administered by the state government for all cities and towns throughout that state. While application fees are not as common in other areas of the country, they do exist. Chicago charges a $20 fee for police officer and firefighter examinations. Several jurisdictions in Ohio and Iowa charge fees. Fees are used for police and fire exams in Washington 18 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 state. In LA, firefighter applicants must pay $150 to take a physical ability test. The Office of Human Resources believes that an application fee is fairer to our taxpayers because it allows the City to charge back a portion of our costs of those services to those relatively few individuals actually using the services we provide. Banning the application fee will result in an influx of applications submitted by individuals who are not eligible or are not seriously seeking employment with the City. The impact on the Office of Human Resources will be added delays in hiring and/or an increase in staff costs required to process those applications. The impact on the hiring process would be a significant increase in the number of applications and, at best, a minimal increase in the number of candidates eligible to be hired. In summary, the City's 19 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 application fee, which took effect in October of 2004, has proven to be a useful tool in significantly increasing the appearance rate for exams and dramatically increasing the passing rate.
Our fee is similar to the fees charged by other local and state jurisdictions, and the waiver process ensures that those unable to pay are not denied an opportunity to apply for a civil service position. I respectfully urge the Committee to not take action on the proposed Charter change embodied in Resolution 080550 and Bill No. 080542. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. D'Attilio. I know Councilman Goode has some questions, but I know you probably can't answer this. I don't know if there's anybody here from the Administration that can or not, but Councilwoman Blackwell touched on this in her remarks. I guess I still don't 20 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 understand why a Charter change is necessary. Is there anybody here in the room that can explain that? I mean, I know you're not with the Law Department, but it just -- I'm still not clear on why we have to have a Charter change on this, since there have been other civil service issues that have been done without a Charter change.
My guess is that otherwise it would be a matter of executive privilege. So the only way to take away that executive privilege would be to change the Charter.
Okay. I had a couple. Councilman Goode, I know you have some.
Thank you. 21 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 Good afternoon, Mr. D'Attilio. Welcome. Congratulations, and thank you for being responsive last week when I placed a phone call to you regarding benefits. I believe that issue is moving forward.
I have a series of questions. I actually came to this hearing undecided for a number of different reasons, but I did find some things within the testimony troubling as I go through this thought process, the first being -- I'll put this in the form of questions. You said the original purpose of the action years ago in October 2004 was to offset the cost of processing applicants. Do we know what that cost actually is?
There was an economic analysis done in 2004. Mr. McAnally can better address that question. He was here at the time and 22 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 participated in the economic analysis.
In October 2004 when the decision was made to move forward, what was the cost of processing applicants?
My recollection is it was $38 an applicant. MR. McANALLY: Yes. That's correct, Councilman Goode. It was --
Please identify yourself for the record. MR. McANALLY: Certainly. Michael McAnally, Office of Human Resources. The analysis showed that it cost approximately $38 to process an application in 2004.
And what was the aggregate amount? MR. McANALLY: It was $38 and a few cents.
Thirty-eight dollars per applicant? MR. McANALLY: Per applicant. 23 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
How many applicants? What was the aggregate amount, the aggregate cost? MR. McANALLY: I don't have the aggregate cost, but at that period of time, we received approximately 45,000 applications per year. So it was 45,000.
I guess the next question is, so how much -- I know the way it was framed back in 2004 was that there was a $38 cost and, therefore, the $35 fee -- I guess some of the fees are lower -- defrayed some of that cost. But in terms of the revenue being brought in from application fees, how much is that? How much was that in the last fiscal year? MR. McANALLY: For the current fiscal year, it's $534,121.
I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Can you pull the mike a little bit closer. MR. McANALLY: I'm sorry. $534,121. 24 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
And how much a reduction in applications have there been? MR. McANALLY: The average reduction per year is 8,500 applications per year.
What percentage reduction has there been? MR. McANALLY: That would be about a percent reduction. 12
So what do 13 you think the cost would amount to if we 14 waived the application fee or reduced the 15 application fee? The cost is less than a 16 million dollars? MR. McANALLY: Yes.
Civil service employees? I believe the figure is about 23,000.
About 23,000 civil service employees. 25 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
And what do we pay those employees in terms of wages and benefits?
No. I'm asking total personnel costs in terms of wages and benefits.
I don't have that information. MR. McANALLY: I don't know, Councilman.
I can tell you. It's roughly $2 billion. It's actually more than $2 billion. In reality, if we spend the amount of money that we do on personnel costs and benefits, over a couple billion dollars -- I think at some point it's projected to be 60 percent or more of our budget costs -- $1 million for processing applications is really a drop in the 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 bucket, is that true, for the size of the workforce and the amount of taxpayer dollars already invested in personnel --
From a relative standpoint, that would be correct. However, there were other purposes.
But may I add, our staff isn't equipped to handle the influx of applications that we would receive.
I'm strictly dealing from -- the first issue that I raised was you said it was partially to offset the costs.
I'm simply dealing with the cost. So in terms of the issue of cost, it is a minimal cost in the broader context of what we're investing in terms of wages and benefits.
Relatively speaking, that is correct, but it is -- 27 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
The second part of your statement was -- I found this troubling -- designed to discourage those individuals who have no intention of actually taking the examination from applying. So it's designed to discourage people from applying?
Only non-serious applicants. When we have 75 percent of our applicant population either applying for positions they do not qualify for or applying for positions that they do qualify for, we schedule examinations and they don't show up, that's a drain on resources.
I understand that, but that's not necessarily the question I'm asking. I'm asking more directly, so you are actually trying to discourage applications from certain types of people, those who you deem non-serious or unqualified?
Those who are not qualified and those who do not have 28 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 an intent to take the civil service examinations and compete for a position in the City. We are not trying to disqualify -- we are not trying to discourage qualified and interested applicants.
I thought we went through a series of hearings this year when the Administration actually testified and said that they were trying to broaden the pool of applicants.
So you're trying to broaden the pool of applicants in general, but discourage through a fee those people who you deem to be not serious and/or unqualified?
It's not us who are deeming the individual to be not serious. The individual is deeming themselves to be not serious. Again, they're the ones who are applying for positions that either they don't qualify for or they have no intent to compete for 29 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 the examination.
But clearly these are all people from the past. They're not people from the future, because you're discouraging them, so they won't qualify in the future. So you're talking about people in the past.
I understand. I'm also getting there. But my point is, the people you're talking about are actually in the past. They're not in the future, because you're actually discouraging them, you're hoping they won't apply.
Since 2004 we're hoping that we only have applicants who are serious about competing for City jobs and are qualified for those positions. We want quality, interested --
You are not answering my question. I'm going to keep 30 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 asking the same question until I get an answer to the question.
I understand. But when you're talking about people who are not serious and people who are not qualified in the context of what you're talking about, you're talking about people from the past. You're not talking about people in the future.
Okay. So let's talk about people in the future. In the future because someone doesn't care or isn't concerned or can pay an application fee, does that make them more qualified or more serious?
I would say it makes them less serious if they're not interested in the position.
No. My 31 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 question is, if I don't care about paying a $35 application fee, does that make me more qualified or more serious?
I can't speak to that individual's qualifications. I can speak to that individual's seriousness about obtaining a City position, and I would say that if they weren't interested in paying a $35 fee, which is nominal, then they're probably not that interested in pursuing the opportunities that we have.
Are you sure that's a true statement? If it were a $30 fee or a $25 fee or a $20 fee or a $15 fee or a $10 fee and they were willing to pay 10 or 15 or 20, at the end of the day, they may just want a job, but may be discouraged by having to pay $35.
That could be. You're indicating that there might be a threshold that they're willing to pay but not $35?
It does not make them any less qualified or more qualified.
There are a group of individuals, Councilman Goode, who traditionally apply for City positions and then don't compete for those positions. Those are the individuals that are not serious.
We're not talking about the past. We're talking about the future. I got rid of the past. We're talking about the future. 33 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
But even in the future if we do away with the fee, we know from historical data that we will have a number of people who apply to take exams, we will vet those applications, and then come test day, they won't show up for the exam, and we'll have resources allocated to test people who don't show up for exams.
And so why do you think that people apply for a City job and don't show up for the exam?
I don't know. Each individual might have a different reason.
I understand you're really trying to run an efficient operation, that to some extent this application fee has shown itself to work in some ways, but there are many 34 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 unanswered questions. Some of the unanswered questions is whether the fee should be $35. Another unanswered question is simply whether someone who is not willing to pay that fee or a fee is actually less qualified and/or not serious. There are any number of different things that could contribute to someone not applying for a job when there's an application fee versus applying for a job when there is no fee, and where I land at the end of the day is if there are actually citizens throughout the City of Philadelphia who are qualified, who are serious, but look at this fee as it is or even if we reduced it as being discouraging, which are your own words, is that right? It might be efficient, but is it right?
I think it is right, because we have to maintain an effective City government, and the fee is a nominal fee and individuals who are 35 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 interested in City government and who could afford to pay that fee -- that would not discourage me from applying for a position in City government, and if I couldn't afford the fee, there's a mechanism in place to waive that fee. So as a serious applicant for a City position, it would not discourage me.
It would not discourage you, but I've already established I believe that it actually is discouraging real citizens within Philadelphia. I don't know what the number is. You don't know what the number is. But at the end of the day, if there are real people in the City of Philadelphia who are qualified, who are serious, who are, in your own words, discouraged by a fee --
The intent is 36 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 to discourage those individuals who really are not interested in --
But those are people from the past. They're not people from the future.
Past or future, Councilman, our intent is to discourage those who are not interested. It is not our intent to discourage those who are interested.
Do you think that those people since you've taken from the past into the future and you know who they are obviously, do you think that they would be discouraged by a $10 fee or a $5 fee?
The intent is to discourage only those individuals who 37 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 aren't interested and end up creating a lot of unnecessary work for the City employees who have to administer the examinations. That's the intent.
I understand the job you're charged with. I understand the efficiencies you're trying to reach. I understand that there was a $38 fee cited -- $30 cost cited in 2004. That's why there is a $35 fee. At the end of the day, I believe that in the context of what we're going to invest in personnel costs and benefits, which is over $2 billion, that this is a drop in the bucket in terms of covering the costs, which we both agree is probably less than a million dollars. I believe that if we're trying to reach some greater efficiency than existed before October 2004, that it probably might have made sense to look at smaller application fees, $5 or $10. And what I know to be true is when a proposal was presented to us a few 38 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 years back, it was at a point it was beginning to build a fund balance, and so we were not as hard up for the money when the proposal was presented to us, and we're not that hard up for the money now in the total context of personnel costs. And that's just my opinion. I came in here somewhat undecided. But what I do know is that I believe perhaps there should be a fee to achieve some of the goals you're trying to achieve. I don't believe it has to be a $35 fee.
Thank you. It looks like other members of the Committee want to be recognized, too. But just a quick question sort of as a follow-up, and I know you said about the $38 cost, but was there any sort of cost 39 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 analysis done about lower fees, about how much the City would still gain, but maybe not as much, but you might be able to get more applicants, the kind of thing I think where Councilman Goode was going on this? MR. McANALLY: We did not do a detailed analysis. We assumed that as with any pricing scheme, as you lower the price, there's going to be increased consumption. So if we were to lower the fee, we would expect that there will be more applications, but we didn't do a detailed analysis about what the percentage increase would be.
One last question on the people who don't show up. Do you keep records of that, who they are, that kind of thing?
Has been any thought given to sort of a penalty for people who don't show up the next time they apply? I mean, can that be -- 40 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 has that ever been thought of? Because I understand the argument, and I'm like Councilman Goode, I kind of came in with mixed emotions on this. But I understand the argument of people, for whatever reason -- I'm not quite sure why you do this, but you keep filling out applications and don't show up. Has there been any thought or look into about sort of a penalty, that they get a cost assessed if they miss two, three exams, that kind of thing?
Not that I'm aware of. It is certainly something that we can take into consideration with the Civil Service Commission. I think that we would have to explore both the legal aspects of that as well as how that would be administered.
I guess just off the top of the legal aspects, you're really, in a sense, then addressing the problem, right? You're addressing the people who don't show up 41 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 for the examinations, which is what we're really talking about here, right?
I'm just not sure how we would go about -- if I apply for a position today and three months from now I don't take the examination, we would have to keep a record of it, and then next time I attempt to apply, we would have to somehow try to assess the fee, and I'm not sure how you would do that. But we can certainly explore it.
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order on that same line of questioning. I don't know if you've thought about this, but if you place a fee or keep a fee in place, for those folks who would not come to actually take the test, I think there should be some sort of -- I 42 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 don't want to use the word "penalty," but some sort of an assessment for the fact that the City had to go through the time and cost to develop the test and prepare for it. Councilman Goode made a good point that in the scheme of things, the cost in terms of dollars is minuscule in terms of what the budget is. Is there a way of -- you may not have the answer now, but some sort of if you don't show up, you forfeit a portion or all of -- using $35, if you don't show up, the $35, you don't get it back, you didn't show up for the test. But if you do show up for the test, maybe a portion of that could be returned to the applicant. Just some thought, and then I'll get back to my other questions.
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Green's, I think, 43 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 light was on first -- or Councilman Kelly. I'm sorry. Who was it? Councilman Kelly? We'll let the Roman guy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. D'Attilio, I just want to ask you, how many years have we been imposing this application fee?
I don't know that. Maybe Mr. McAnally -- MR. McANALLY: Since October --
I thought you said opposing. I apologize. Since October of 2004.
2004? I see. And the revenue produced for each year, according to the testimony with Councilman Goode, is less than a million dollars a year?
It's averaging 44 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 about $500,000 a year.
Have you seen a reduction in the amount of applications since you've been imposing this fee?
We pointed out on a large test holding such as the police officer recruit, from the 2004 to the 2006 administration, we saw roughly a 9,000 applicant decrease once the fee was imposed.
If this fee was eliminated, would you see that the number of applicants would rise considerably?
And what would that do to your department? For instance, would you have to go out and hire additional staff members to -- 45 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
We would either have to hire additional staff -- and our staff is down considerably. When I first started working in Personnel in 1983, we had over 120 staff members. Today I have 68. So it's a significant decrease over the last years, which is why we need 9 to be more efficient. 10 If we do not hire those staff 11 members, what will happen is that the 12 work that we do will take longer. So a 13 few weeks ago you saw in the paper that 14 Prisons is frustrated by the fact that it 15 takes so long to hire a correctional 16 officer. Well, that timeline will expand 17 because we'll have fewer people handling 18 a greater number of applicants, so it 19 will take longer to process the 20 examinations, process the applications, 21 establish lists and then do the post list 22 testing. 23
So this 24 would be a significant increase in costs 25 to your department? 46 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
Can you run through how the costs would go up again very quickly?
Can you run through how the costs would actually go up?
Well, again, we're working on a limited resource. As I mentioned, we have 68 staff members. If we were processing a significant number of additional applicants, we would either have to hire more people to process those applicants or take longer to accomplish the work that we need to accomplish. So if the Prisons is waiting for a year to get a list, that will grow, 47 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 and the overtime cost --
But you claim that even though it will take you longer to process the applications, you claim that less people show up for the test. So I don't understand how it's harder to create a list for the Prison System or anyone else when you have X amount of people showing up for the test, X amount of people are going to pass. In fact, you actually said that more people are passing now.
So that doesn't extend the hiring process more than if there were less people?
The process 48 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 is not already extended by removing the residency requirement?
The extension and the process occurs at the front end. Each application must be processed, which means that we have to physically key in the personal information for each applicant into our applicant tracking system. We have to review those applications and match them up against the requisite training and experience requirements.
I will apologize to Councilman Kelly for interrupting his time, but just very clearly, the Administration has come in here and testified before and said they're trying to broaden the pool of applicants, trying to broaden it as broadly as possible, removed the residency requirement for that purpose. So my guess is you're expecting the pool of applicants to already increase, which is why this testimony just simply 49 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 conflicts with the testimony we've heard from the Administration earlier this year.
I think there's a balance that has to be struck between the need to have a greater number of qualified applicants and a need to not waste valuable City resources processing applicants who are either not qualified for the positions that they apply for or, again, who won't show up for the exam. I have to tell you that when I was here back in the '80s, we had some applicants who would apply for every position that was announced every other week that those announcements came out, and I'm sure those individuals still exist. I can't tell you why they do it, but I know that it takes time and resources to process those applications, and that really is the intent of the application fee, is to deal with those individuals who are wasting City resources and they're really not 50 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 interested in competing for a City position.
When I first started in the Personnel Department in 1983, there was over 120 employees in our department.
And that could mean that a substantial amount of people would have to be hired, I guess, for your department. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I'll recognize Councilman Green, but on follow-up to Councilman Kelly, not to disagree with him, but between 2004 when you started imposing this and now, what's 51 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 the difference of employees then? Because I know you said that difference from 120 to 68 was in years you've 5 been here. So that's a little bit -- I 6 mean, how much has your numbers dropped 7 in the last four years since you've 8 been -- because that's, in fairness, a 9 little more comparable on the issue we're 10 talking about. 11
12 Mr. Chairman, if I might, while I'm 13 waiting, I can give you some figures that 14 between -- the City received 28,507 15 applications between '07 and '08. Isn't 16 that close to the number of applications 17 the City received in '01, which was 18 31,175 and in '03, 26,124 when we had no 19 fee? 20
Okay. I 21 understand what you're saying. I guess 22 my question was different. My question 23 was employees in the Personnel 24 Department, the difference in those four 25 years that we've had -- 52 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
In 2002. So two years before the fee went into effect, we had 92 employees. We now have 68. My guess is we had about 88 or 90 in 2004.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, I know Councilman Green has been -- then maybe we'll go to that question, if that's fair. By the way, for the record, Councilman Green is also present, and we now recognize Councilman Green.
Thank you for coming in this afternoon. To follow up on many of the questions that have been asked, how many of your 68 people are involved in data entry of the 20-some thousand applications you receive a year? In other words, people fill out a piece 53 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 of paper, I assume, and then you take that piece of paper and someone puts it into a computer system?
We have nine clerical or administrative support staff who would be in charge of the data entry. We have another analysts who are 12 responsible for evaluating each 13 application that would come across their 14 desk. 15
And do they 16 evaluate them in paper or once they're 17 input? 18
All on 21 people, 26 people? Okay. So you don't 22 have a computer system that can 23 automatically look at age, weight, other 24 criteria that might be applied to certain 25 things because you don't have that data 54 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 electronically. So you have nine, plus people basically doing what a computer 4 would do. In other words, if the 5 department, it seems to me, comes into 6 the 21st century, you can handle hundreds 7 of thousands of applicants 8 electronically. And I'm just going to 9 refer you to my paper I wrote during the 10 campaign called A Paperless City 11 Government, and what it called for is for 12 people, departments like yours, to have 13 online applications that automatically 14 puts stuff into databases, and then also 15 to have kiosks for people who want to 16 come in and get a piece of paper. 17 Instead of getting it, they would stand 18 at a kiosk, they would enter their 19 information, name, everything required 20 for that application. It would go in 21 electronically. It would go in 22 automatically. And if you did that, you 23 would save a lot of money in your 24 department. 25 What I'd like you to provide to 55 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 the Chair -- and it's not really necessary for this matter, but for further observation or investigation -- is a list of precisely what everybody does in your department grouped by categories, grouped by people who are looking at paper, not just data entry clerks and analysts, but also the people who then take the files, refile them, keep paper files, all that stuff, to see if we can't find tons of efficiencies in your department that would allow you to accept applications for free. I don't really -- I mean, I don't expect you to have an answer for that, but, frankly, that's how this department should be run, and it's kind of embarrassing that you review 26,000 pieces of paper with lots of analysts. You need to look at systems that you can make an investment in that will provide the department an ROI within 12 to 24 months, and then I'd be very proud to fight for funding for that, because this 56 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 is an extremely inefficient process you just described and I can see a need for an application fee with such an inefficient process. But why not make the process more efficient so that people can apply for jobs for nothing.
We are looking into that, and I will take you up on your offer to help us. We are looking at online applications. We have a pilot program set up to try to do that in the fall.
It's not online applications. It's replacing all the paper that comes into your department --
To your point, our applicant tracking system is over 20 years old. The technology has passed --
That is where the inefficiencies are, not in the 57 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 number of applicants. It's because the department hasn't changed its technology or work process flow for its people in its department for 20-plus years.
Okay. And there's probably a very strong internal rate of return case for an investment in technology in your department. So I throw that out to you. The other thing is, do you have a legal opinion from the Law Department saying that the Commission can do what you're doing? I mean, I can't understand how a fee can be imposed or a tax or any kind of charge can be imposed without the approval of City Council. Do you have a legal opinion?
I do not. I'm not aware of a legal opinion on that. I 58 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 don't know if one was issued in 2004.
Okay. Would you please provide that information to the Chair? Frankly, I don't understand how what you're currently doing is legal, and I don't want to do a Charter change to reverse what you're doing if what you're doing is not legal and all we have to do is get the Solicitor to issue an opinion that what you're doing is not legal rather than put something permanently in the Charter. So is anyone from the Commission prepared to testify today about why what you're currently doing is legal and where you got the authority to impose what I thought only City Council could do, which was fees and taxes?
There's no one here from the Law Department that I'm aware of who can address that issue. And to your point, that really should be from the City Solicitor, not from -- certainly not from me. 59 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
Well, I think that's important information to get to us. Frankly, I'd like to see it before we act.
All right. Well, if it could be communicated by -- I know there's other people from the Administration here, that any information that you have, we'd appreciate it. By the way, Mr. D'Attilio, you made Councilman Green's day. He's been really wanting to talk about that paperless city.
So even if he's belligerent to you, it doesn't matter, he's very happy.
Councilman DiCicco. 60 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon again. There are certain processes that are typical. A person comes in, fills out an application, paper application goes to someone for review, whatever. Once the test -- when a test is being prepared, are there differences in the time it takes to prepare testing based on the job --
Based not only on the job, but also on the number of applicants who are competing for the position. Certainly if you need to assess a greater number of applicants, then the testing methodologies must be more intense. So, for example, with the police officer recruit where we're testing thousands of people, there's a written examination, there's a 61 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 psychological examination, there's a background investigation. If you have an applicant pool of only two or three, we have what's referred to as Rule of Two in the City. So if we have a vacancy -- if we have an exam announced with a vacancy of, for example, one and we have only two applicants, we won't administer typically a written examination. We won't develop a written examination. We'll assess those candidates on the basis of their training and experience, and it's a much more efficient and quicker process. So the more applicants that we have to process, the more work that has to go into the examination. I have to say, though, that it's not our intent to discourage qualified applicants from applying. So we welcome the work that needs to be put in to developing assessment instruments to test a large quantity of qualified applicants. What we don't want to do is spend a lot of resources developing those 62 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 instruments and then having 75 percent of the applicant pool not show up on test day for the examination. That's what we have a problem with. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In your testimony you refer to halving, almost in half, the annual average of 45,000 applicants. Somewhere along the line did I hear some testimony that the cost was only a half a million dollars to process these? Did someone say that not too long ago?
The applicant process -- the $35 applicant processing fee is based upon the 2004 economic analysis that determined that it costs an average of $38 to process. The application fee itself, not counting the waivers or the people who submit checks that are returned for insufficient funds, the application fees are netting on average about $500,000 a year. So there's a correlation there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So I 63 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 understand, but the cost back in '04 would have been $38 times 45,000 applicants.
That's true. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which it's over a million six, a million six, a million seven, just raw numbers.
We don't assess the applicant fee on -- again, we waive the fee on at least percent of the 12 cases. There are also positions that 13 we've determined are hard to fill, and we don't have an applicant fee for those. There are also promotional examinations that we do not impose an applicant fee on. So we process a greater number than I guess that number we're talking about. MR. McANALLY: Councilman, the 45,000 included promotional applicants, and we do not charge a fee for promotional applicants. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was going to ask about that as well. There is no fee for promotional? 64 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
There is no fee for promotional. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Again, I just -- I brought up the subject earlier about some sort of an assessment. I mean, I'm trying not to compare it, but just as an example, I know there's some restaurants that if you make a reservation and you cancel your reservation on the day of whatever that reservation was, you have to give a credit card in advance, they will assess you for not showing up pretty much. There are things out there that apply kind of similarly where people either apply for something or reserve a seat at a concert or whatever where they're assessed if they're a no-show. That's kind of where I'm drawing when I suggest that maybe we need to look at something like that as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman. 65 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 Councilwoman Blackwell, you've been very patient over there. Councilwoman.
Thank you very much. We're talking about people testing, but laborer, they may take 10,000 applications for laborer. There's no written test. And they may hire 100. How do you reconcile that and say that's fair when people know that they have no 13 chance and yet they're still charged a fee? Albeit in that instance, there is an enormous number of people who -- that you take -- how can you take 10,000 applications and maybe hire 100, like you do for laborer? You don't give them a written test, so you'll get more people to try to apply. What's the rationale for that?
Well, we only charge $10 for the laborer application, and there's still a cost of processing those 10,000 applications. We still have 66 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 to enter all that information into the computer to process, send out notices, that sort of thing. So the fee is a reduced fee.
Well, I think I made my point. Again, the City received -- I'll use round numbers. They're easier to keep in one's mine. The City received 28,000 applications between '07 and '08. Is not that close to the number of applications they received in '01, 31,000, and in '03, 26,000? '03 you had 26,000. '07 and '08 you had 28,000 when there was no fee. So this whole issue of people not showing up is not a legitimate issue, because we say that the numbers basically have been the same before the fee and after. Can you respond to that? MR. McANALLY: Yes, Councilwoman. There's a fluctuation in the fee because we generally announce the laborer examination and the police 67 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 officer recruit examination every other year. So during the years when we announce those two examinations, the numbers go way up. In the years when we don't announce them, the numbers go way down. That's why we average the number over a four-year period, so that the average number of applications before the fee was approximately 45,000 applications.