I don't know what you're saying. I only know these figures show that before the application fee and after the application fee -- we can only get the figures from you -- the numbers are the same. This Mayor talked about trying to hire non-residents, which I didn't agree with and still don't, because we needed people to apply. Yet you're saying that this is -- Councilman Goode referred to that. This does just the opposite. I don't understand how we reconcile those things. I will follow 68 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 up. In your testimony you state that in the four-year period prior to the fee, there was an average of 45,000 applicants annually and that 45 percent of them didn't qualify or failed to take the exam; is that correct?
Isn't your average of 45,000 applicants annually artificially high? Because the unusually high number of applicants received in 2000, 57,897, and 2002 was 66,692.
As was explained, those are the years that we accepted applications for the police officer and the laborer positions. So there's a greater number of applications to process.
Isn't your department's historical average more in the range of 25,000 to 35,000?
No. I mean, 69 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 looking at the years 2000 through 2003, adding the number of applicants in each year and dividing by four, we come up with 45,472 being the annual average. We processed 181,888 applications in those four years.
Well, I disagree. The figures speak for themselves. Doesn't the number of examinations announced and the number of positions available more directly affect the number of applications you receive? You're talking about some applications. Doesn't the number of exams announced and the number of positions available more directly affect the number of applications?
It depends. Some examinations attract a greater number of applicants than others. On a police officer examination, in 2004 we processed over 12,000 applications. That is a large number of applications to 70 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 process for one position.
The fee isn't the only factor in examining how many applications you receive; isn't that correct?
You have also testified that past fail rates are better because of the fee. You said that. But isn't the type of exam more directly related?
Isn't the type of exam, the position for which a person applies, doesn't that affect the past fail rate more than just the fee? Common sense --
Yes. Yes. Yes. All I said was that the fee has apparently had -- has had a contributing factor to the success rate because the 71 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 applicants who are applying to take the exam are actually showing up to take the exam and are passing those examinations at a higher rate than prior to 2004 when we did not impose a fee.
Do you deny that among the largest cities in 9 the United States only New York City, 10 Chicago and Philadelphia charge this fee? 11 We don't want you to talk about Allentown 12 and Reading and Lancaster and Suffolk 13 County. We submitted a list. New York, 14 $60; LA, no fee; Chicago, police and fire 15 only, $20; Houston, no fee; Phoenix, 16 Arizona, no fee; Philadelphia, $35; San 17 Antonio, no fee; San Diego, California, 18 no fee; Dallas, Texas, no fee; San Jose, 19 California, no fee; Detroit, Michigan, no 20 fee; Indianapolis, Indiana, no fee; Jacksonville, Florida, no fee; San Francisco, California, no fee; Columbus, Ohio, no fee; Austin, Texas, no fee; Memphis, Tennessee, no fee; Baltimore, Maryland; no fee; Fort Worth, Texas, no 72 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 fee; Charlotte, North Carolina, no fee. Those are the largest cities 4 in order of population and size and those 5 who charge fees. And then we go outside 6 the City, bring in more people, and we're 7 in the top three. Does not make -- 8 doesn't make good sense, and it's unfair. 9
The information 13 I have, Councilwoman Blackwell, is that 14 Los Angeles charges $150 fee for their 15 physical agility test and that Boston, 16 the police and fire selection process is 17 administered by the Commonwealth of 18 Massachusetts and that they do in fact 19 assess a fee for police and firefighters. 20
Mr. D'Attilio, I don't think Boston is 73 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 one of the top cities, just for the record.
Thank 7 you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have other 8 people who want to testify. 9
That's 10 fine. I appreciate that. 11 And, actually, I have to say, 12 Mr. D'Attilio, that's a fairly telling or 13 influential list the Councilwoman 14 presented, because with all good -- I 15 know lots of nice folks in Reading, 16 Pennsylvania, but we're a lot different 17 from them, and that is -- and wherever 18 Jefferson County, Washington is, I'm sure 19 they're nice folks too, but it just 20 doesn't -- when I see this, that says something to me. Not to say that we're not right and they're wrong, but it makes me wonder. I didn't know this until this was presented today.
It is more 74 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 common in the Northeast. As I mentioned before, New York State, the City of New York imposes fees. Clearly, they're the largest city in the country. So we're not out there on the forefront. New York City has been imposing a fee for 8 years. So it's not a new concept either, 9 but it is more common in this area than 10 it is across the United States. 11
Any 12 thought why, just off the top, why that 13 would be? 14
Okay. 16 One last question, and I know you've been 17 here a long time. The waiver, do most 18 people -- I don't know if you have 19 records of this -- that request a waiver, 20 do they get it? Do they supply the necessary information to receive the waiver? Do you have any idea? MR. McANALLY: Yes, Councilman. Almost everyone who requests a waiver will receive the waiver on the spot. 75 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 They have to have some proof that they're receiving one of the designated types of assistance and a photo ID and our staff will waive the fee on the spot.
And that's just presented right to the staff and they make that decision right there? MR. McANALLY: That's correct.
Okay. Any appeal out of that, just for the record? MR. McANALLY: For the fee --
Like if they said, I think the person in Records -- I'm hung up on the Records Department. On the Human Resources Department says, No, you're right, is there something else they can do? MR. McANALLY: They can appeal to the Director. It happens very, very rarely.
Okay. Just wondering. Councilman Green, I think you 76 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 had a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just took a quick look at the civil service regulations under Chapter 7 4, 7-400, 7-401, et cetera, and then at the general regulations applying to all departments and other things, 8-407(a), which I think was -- which was cited in what then was sort of a perfunctory approval by the Solicitor's Office, 8-407(a), and what it says -- and I want to read this into the record. "Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Charter, every department, board and commission is hereby empowered to make such reasonable regulations as may be necessary and appropriate in the exercise of its powers and in the performance of its duties under this Charter or under any statute or ordinance." Nowhere in there do I think you can read in the ability to charge a fee. So under the section that they cited, I 77 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 don't see how you can read into that the ability to charge a fee. That's what City Council does. It's essentially putting some sort of taxing power in your hands. I don't see where that authority properly exists in the Commission by its own action. So I'm not sure it will be necessary to pursue this, because I'm not sure you have the authority for what you're doing today. And I just wanted to read that into the record what this was based on. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. And as you said before, we probably do need some opinion from the Law Department. We may disagree with them. We've done that once or twice, but we should probably have an opinion from them as far as the issues that Councilman Green raises. Councilman Goode.
Very 78 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 quickly, Mr. Chairman. Following up on your question, how many fee waivers do you do on an annual basis?
It's 7 percent, 13.3 percent, which averages out 8 about 8,000 or 9,000 a year. 9 It's not that many. I 10 apologize, but it is 13 percent. 11
I'm looking 12 for a raw number of how many fee waivers 13 you do a year. MR. McANALLY: It's probably closer to about 2,500 a year.
Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. If I can just say before you leave, obviously if -- and we're not there yet until we get to the public 79 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 meeting. If this Committee passes this bill out, it would not be before the full Council for a second reading and final passage until September. I think you kind of got the gist from just the Committee -- obviously the sponsor has her opinion, too -- that maybe some fee for some jobs may make some sense, but that the fee that's being charged now and the scope of it, I think it's safe to say we have some uncomfortable feeling about that. So maybe over the summer, if the Committee passes this bill out, there could be some discussion, some thought about that, some discussion with Councilwoman Blackwell. Because, as I said -- I don't want to repeat myself -- this list that she provided, that says something to me. I'm not sure why we should be so much different from all these other cities. Just my personal opinion. But I think you got from the Committee that we have some questions. 80 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 So if we pass this out, I'd like to suggest that you give some thought to some of the things we raised and have some discussion about it.
And this office is always open for any type of dialogue with City Council.
I appreciate that. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
The list I have, I have three other people listed, and there might be others to testify. I got Bobby Davis, DC 33; Sharif Street of the Housing Association; and Mary Whalen 81 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 of Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition. Maybe the three of you could come up together so we could kind of keep it moving. And if I could just say, I know a couple of you have submitted your testimony. All testimony will be made part of the record. If in the interest of keeping things moving, if you wanted to paraphrase, that would be good too so we can get to our meeting and don't lose our quorum up here. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Mr. Davis, I think I got you first here, so why don't you go first. Identify yourself for the record, please, and proceed.
Hi. I'm Mary Whalen from the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition.
I'm Bobby Davis, Vice-President of District Council 33. 82 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
Sharif Street, Deputy Managing Director of the Housing Association of Delaware Valley and an officer of the Philadelphia Revitalization and Education Program.
You always have so many titles, Sharif. I can't keep them straight. Mr. Davis, you're on my list first. Whoever wants to go first is up to you.
Being that we are gentlemen here at this table, we're going to yield to --
And I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of our President, Sharmain Matlock-Turner, and I will keep my remarks brief in the interest of time. 83 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 Briefly, I think you all know GPUAC's mission, and we really want to help people become secure and healthy, live secure and healthy lives. A major focus of our work is supporting and fiscally sponsoring 94 grassroots organizations. Many of the organizations we support work with clients who are struggling to find jobs that will provide them with a living wage. An important part of this and a major challenge faced by these individuals and other Philadelphians is obtaining and retaining jobs that provide a sustainable income. This contributes to individuals living in poverty and being faced with unemployment. According to 2006 census numbers, one-fourth -- and I think you all know this, too -- one-fourth of individuals in Philadelphia were living in poverty. In addition, the 2006 census figures showed an unemployment rate in the City of Philadelphia of 12.4 percent 84 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 compared to a state rate of 6.2 percent and a national rate of 6.4 percent. We know that jobs can move individuals and their families out of poverty. We recognize the City's fee waiver, and they've discussed this. Our concern with the fee waiver is many of the clients that we serve -- and the testimony talks more in detail about this -- would not qualify under that waiver. And this is not going to move these families and individuals out of poverty and into self-sustaining jobs. We think the City needs to be a leader and live by example for all the citizens and ban the waiver. (Applause.)
And I want to add one other real quick thing, and this is my personal opinion, that for many of these families -- and my testimony also talks about the fact that families -- a family of four at 200 percent of poverty, which would not qualify for TANF, we all 85 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 know that, is making $42,400. The Philadelphia self-sufficiency standard published by Pathways PA was 46,800. For these families, the $35 application fee is not nominal.
Thank you. Actually, could I just ask a question? Maybe the others when they testify can address this. You heard kind of where our questions were going and what my comment was at the end. Do you or any of you feel when you testify that any fee makes sense, a lesser fee, a fee for just some of the jobs depending on what they are? You don't have to comment on that. I'm just wondering if you have any --
Yeah. My personal opinion -- and, of course, I can't in that question speak on behalf of GPUAC, but, yes, I think some fee would make sense. One of the things I would like to see is maybe more of an expansion of the 86 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 waiver, looking at maybe some of the other -- maybe if you're on food stamps, medical assistance, some of the other assistance programs that aren't listed currently. New York State has a waiver that is a broader waiver, so maybe looking at some of those examples so that some of these families -- the child care subsidy, you can qualify at 200 percent of poverty. So maybe some of the other subsidy programs where some of these families that are low income but not on public assistance would qualify also would be another step.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chairman Kenney, who is not present today, so I will say Mr. Greenlee in his stay, Councilman Greenlee in his stay. Good afternoon to the members and Committee on the Law and Government. Thank you for the 87 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 opportunity to testify on Bill No. 080542 and Resolution No. 080550, which both calls for the Civil Service Commission to be prohibited from imposing a $35 application fee for the purpose of processing applications for employment with the City of Philadelphia. Before I go further, I'm going to answer your question. First of all, it's a resounding no. I think Councilman Green said it best. This is in violation of the civil service regulation as well as the Charter. There is nothing in there that says that taxpayers for the City of Philadelphia should have to pay $35 after they pay taxes. Our forefathers didn't do it. The people who wrote the Charter did not put a fee in there, and I think that it's clear that the City of Philadelphia is in violation of that Charter, and so it should be a resounding no. 24 (Applause.)
As I stated 88 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 earlier, my name is Bobby Davis, Vice-President of AFSCME District Council 33. I am here on behalf of Pete Matthews, the President of AFSCME District Council 33, which represents over 10,000 members of the City of Philadelphia, all of whom reside in the City. I am here today because our union believes that imposing a $35 fee just for the opportunity to apply for a City job is discriminatory and limits the ability of City residents to enter the City workforce. Traditionally, going to work for the City provided City residents with both an opportunity to serve as well as an opportunity to enter into the workforce and make a decent living, with good wages and benefits. This has always been a way for City residents to work towards the fulfillment of their own American dream. District Council 33 understands 89 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 that there are no -- that there are challenges that the City may face in recruiting certain positions within City government, but charging a fee to apply for a City job sends the wrong message to potential employees, especially since jobs that require an application fee are open competitive and concurrent positions. Almost all of these positions are promotional opportunities for current City employees. Civil Service Regulation 7.09, Application Fee for Examinations, states, "An applicant for open competitive civil service examination must submit a non-refundable fee with application." For many of these positions, the application fee has been waived to non-resident applicants only. This is not equal employment opportunity. (Applause.)
We believe this practice is offensive to the taxpaying residents of the City of Philadelphia who 90 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 are looking for entry-level positions in City government as a way to better their lives and start on the road to successful employment careers. I can't tell you how many times a day I meet residents of this City who ask me how they can become employees of the City. At District Council 33, we believe that there are solutions to the staffing needs of the City. We have always been concerned about the understaffing within the City workforce and the lack of opportunities for City residents who would like to become productive City employees, like the members of District Council 33. Charging a $35 application fee only makes matters worse. District Council 33 has worked with various departments, such as the Water Department, Fleet Maintenance, our Police and Fire Departments, to develop training programs that would allow our 91 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 members to qualify for positions that the City has problems recruiting. We offer computer training to our members through our Comparable Worth Program to help our members with upward mobility. We offer free basic computer classes to our members who have never had the opportunity to learn on their own. District Council 33 even partnered with Philadelphia Graduate and at least colleges and universities to 13 offer our members a Returning to Learning 14 Adult College Fair. The fair received 15 such an overwhelming response that we had 16 to turn people away. We are in the 17 process of planning another college fair. 18 These are just a few of the things that District Council 33 has done that we believe will help the City in recruiting a qualified, proud, invested workforce. Unfortunately, charging a $35 application fee is at odds with what our union has been doing to improve the 92 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 quality of service provided by the City employees. The fee puts City of Philadelphia residents at an unfair disadvantage and serves as a disincentive to City residents who want to work for the City where they live and pay taxes. This is why District Council 33 is in favor of any legislation or ballot initiatives amending the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter that would prohibit the imposition of any fees to applicants for employment with the City. Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on this matter. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, members of Council, Mr. Chairman. We at the Housing Association and Philadelphia Revitalization and Education Program also oppose, in a 93 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 general manner, fees for applications for City work. There are a number of reasons, and I will enumerate some of them, but Marcus Saitschenko, an attorney on our staff, will later submit written testimony at a later time. We don't have it with us. I would like to point out that, one, there are people who are economically challenged; a/k/a, poor, who are serious about working for the City. We would like to point out that there are better means for the City to screen for seriousness and competence that do not necessarily disproportionately affect those who are more economically challenged. We believe that an appropriate study of the alternatives should be undertaken as a means of screening folks that do not disproportionately discriminate against those who are more economically challenged. And if such study has been undertaken, it should be 94 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 available to members of Council and the public at large for scrutiny and review. Further, it's our position that there are some people who are not serious about employment who may be of considerable economic means and a fee does nothing to discourage those individuals from applying. And the reality is that if that really is the goal, to make sure you have serious applicants, that you should have a means that targets that seriousness that some members of Council have discussed that gets at all of those people, not just those who happen to be a little bit harder strapped for cash. Further, we believe that there are technological efficiencies that should be explored. I think we support Councilman Green's concept of a paperless city and believe that there are means of using technology that would allow people to apply, and some of these means are available to people from all walks of 95 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 life. For instance, if you order a sandwich from Wawa, you can do it at a kiosk. Most people know how to do that. McDonald's has paperless applications, as do Temple and Penn and most employers. At the Philadelphia Revitalization and Education Program, we interact with lots of employers and participate in lots of job fairs, and people from many different walks of life, some of whom are economically challenged, are able to utilize wireless systems -- I mean paperless systems that are helpful to folks. Finally, we'd like to point out that fees in many ways take away from people's full-fledged rights as citizens because of their economic means. A part of being a citizen is a right to have an opportunity to attempt to serve the City, and that we believe that we could be depriving the City of Philadelphia from those skills and talents of people who may not have as much money but have a lot 96 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 to offer the City. With that, we will say we too support ballot initiatives and bills, resolutions and other legislative initiatives that Council may come up with that would at this point prohibit fees -- the City from imposing fees in a broad way. I would not go so far as to say there are no instances at all that fees would be -- that would be appropriate. I think when you tend to speak in superlatives and broad statements, you get yourself in trouble, because people will find that one instance in which it makes sense. But as a general matter, we do not support the fees, but would be prepared to look at specific proposals about limited instances in which a fee for a specific position might make sense. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Street. Any questions or comments for the witnesses? 97 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 (No response.)
Thank you all very much. Thank you for your patience. Yes, Mr. Davis?
There's a couple of added things that I would like to propose to the City, and, that is, that one of the things that they talked about was discouraging applicants from filling out these fees (sic), and the thing about that is that many of the people that we spoke with, the reason why some people don't show up is because it depends on the date in which the test is taken. A lot of times if the test is taken on a weekday, many of those applicants work and can't get off in order to be able to take the test. 98 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 So before they start talking about that individual candidates are just blatantly not showing up, I think they should do a study first, and then that way, we'll understand exactly whether these people are not showing up because they just don't care. I don't think people are wasting their time coming all the way downtown to fill out an application. There's many things as to why people don't show up, but it ain't just because they don't want the job, you can believe that. A lot has to do with the date in which these tests are filed. The other thing is, it's somewhat insulting to know that the City of Philadelphia penalizes its taxpayers for living here and that you can put non-waivers on people that live outside the City but you won't do it for the people that is living here inside the City that's paying taxes every day. (Applause.) 99 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
The other thing about the City $35 is, in many cases if I'm someone who works here in the City of Philadelphia and I work at McDonald's and I have a family, just because I have a job does not necessarily mean that I can afford that $35. So, therefore, we are not waiving those low-income individuals who just can't afford to pay the $35, so we're discriminating against them as well. (Applause.)
I think Councilman DiCicco had a good point when he talked about making assessments. We certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. We understand the fact that our employees, the ones that are entering this information, belongs to District Council 33 as members. So we certainly don't want to overburden them with applications that just don't need to be filled. So I believe that, Councilman DiCicco, that should be looked at. We can look at 100 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 something like penalties that will say that on two occasions if you don't show up for a test, maybe we suspend you for three months, six months to a year, but at least look at those. Don't penalize everyone just because we have a few people that haven't showed up. We talked about the -- Councilman Green, you stated earlier that you believe that this is maybe against the law. We brought this up -- the Secretary/Treasurer, Betty McDonald, and myself brought this up at the last hearing, and what we thought was going to happen is that we thought the City was going to come back and there was going to be a vote. The next thing we know, all of the sudden the $35 was imposed and we never even heard that there was a vote that was even held. So we don't understand why did we come to City Council in the first place if City Council didn't have anything to do with them being able to 101 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 impose this $35. And we've been waiting for that for quite some time. So I'm pretty sure you're going to find out that this is illegal. Councilwoman Blackwell, I just think you're one of the greatest. I just have to applaud you on that. We appreciate you. (Applause.)
I applaud you for taking this stand, not just on behalf of District Council 33, but the whole City of Philadelphia. This ain't even about the union. This is about what is right. And I just want to just take the time on behalf of Pete Matthews and his 10,000 and applaud you for what you're doing on his behalf, and we're behind you 100 percent. (Applause.) (Standing ovation.)
Once again, thank you on behalf of the members of District Council 33. 102 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542
Just one quick question. There seems to be a focus on people not showing up for the test, and I understand there are light circumstances that prevent people from doing that, but I'm just wondering if you could give a yes/no answer to this question, I'd appreciate it, but would there be any objection to a returnable -- you put up 35 bucks, if you show up for the test, you get your money back. You put up $15, you show up for the test, you get your money back. If you don't, then you forfeit it, as one way to address that specific issue.
Councilman Green, we thought about that. The problem is, if I don't have the $35 to begin with --
-- then I don't 103 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 care whether you return it or not, I don't have it.
Excuse me. Now, if you want to return $35 that I ain't spend, then that's a good thing.
I would agree, but add the caveat it's better than the current proposal.
It's better than what's currently being done, but it's not something we'd support.
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? (No response.)
Thank you. Thank you all very much. Is there anybody else here who 104 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 wishes to testify on this bill or resolution? (No response.)
Seeing none, that concludes the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government. And in 30 seconds we're going to go into the meeting. (Pause.)
In less than 30 seconds. The Committee on Law and Government is now in its public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Bill No. 16 080542.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 19 080542 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been 105 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and Bill No. 080542 is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. The rules of Council will be suspended -- (Applause.)
-- to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 18 080550.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No. 21 080550 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All in favor please say aye. 106 6/17/08 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 080542 (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and Resolution 080550 is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Applause.)
No other business before this Committee, thank you all very much. The Committee stands in recess. (Committee on Law and Government adjourned at 2:40 p.m.) - - - 107 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 17, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)