Committee Hearing, March 4, 1998

The reason I raised the question, the easiest thing procedurally would be if you succeeded in getting the Mayor to recommend an increase, considering current things. That would make it easier for Council, it would show a united city. Second, the number of city employees -- and I would urge, you know, continued work with the Mayor, as well as with City Council. Even though some Councilmembers are not here, some are in their offices, some may be required in their tick districts or other parts of the city and couldn't be here. Whatever communication between representatives at Community College, the union, so they get a firsthand look at the teachers and some of the students, might be very helpful, if some of them could visit us in the Council offices, as well as communicate with the Mayor. Second, how does your figure of 2308 BILL 980003 37,000 city residents during one year -- I am referring to of your statement -- compare with other universities or colleges? It seems to me you have the highest number of Philadelphia residents.

I would say in terms of serving Philadelphian residents, we serve more Philadelphia residents than any other institution.

I would think we could even add the word "by far," or the two words. And I think that's constantly very important to bring out. Because it might be that, next to the Traffic Court, you have relations with more Philadelphians than any other Philadelphia agency directly, except for the collection of taxes. Last question. There are rumors afloat -- we don't know whether true or not -- the College of Optometry at 12th and Godfrey is going to be leaving, they have made that clear. There are rumors that the Community College may take over the site. I don't know whether you are negotiating or not, but I think it would be 2309 BILL 980003 wonderful. And we would love to have you in that location. We think it is a great location, it is a great campus site. It is the heart of a very active community that would be most supportive. Is there any truth to it?

There is a lot of truth to it.

There is a lot of truth to it. Well, we know you will get a real warm welcome if you head in that direction.

I happen to be a resident in that area, also.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Capshaw, there are no lights on. We thank you for coming. At this time we will have the City Controller.

My understanding is that there are union representatives representing the teachers that are here in the Chamber. After we get finished with the city departments, we will be 2310 BILL 980003 taking testimony. And if there is any union representative or any person who would like to testify on behalf of Community College, there will be an opportunity to do so at that time. At this time the Chair recognizes Jonathan Saidel, City Controller for the City of Philadelphia. We ask him to give us just a brief overview of his statement.

It is my pleasure to be here before you, Mr. President. Again, Jonathan Saidel, City Controller of Philadelphia. And since we are all talking about our past in some form or another, I should inform you, Mr. President, that when I was in high school, my guidance counselor told my family and myself that not only should I not take the academic course, not only will I not go to college, but they were confident that I wouldn't graduate high school. Now, I don't know what the comments of you and I and Councilman Mariano are to the future of Philadelphia, but it certainly shows that you can overcome anyone who stands in your way if 2311 BILL 980003 you have force and determination and a good family.

Thank you.

Rather than read my statement, which has been supplied to your office, let me just make mention a few brief comments. And that is that we are asking in FY '99 for $6.7 million, which is a 3.2 percent increase over the FY 1998 and only 4 percent increase over 1997. The majority of that 3.2 percent increase has to do with a mandatory wage increases based upon the union agreement and Civil Service agreements. And the only additional money that we have been asked for, which has been approved by the Rendell Administration, is an additional $30,000 for the purchase of new technology, which is the purchase of new computers. Beyond that, everything is exactly the same as it was the year before. And we pledge, as we have previously, to live within the borders of our budget.

Thank you very much Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 2312 BILL 980003 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Mr. Controller, my former boss. I won't tell you what he thought I would amount to after I left his office.

I am certainly surprised. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Saidel, your office is called upon from time to time to investigate issues concerning residency. Could you give me an approximate number of cases that you investigate a year? And what is the success rate -- success rate meaning do you find that many of the people who have been turned into your office as not being Philadelphia residents, but being Philadelphia city employees, what is your finding?

Usually it averages around 50 full-time investigations, of which, overwhelmingly a matter of that 50 we find do not life in the City of Philadelphia, and, therefore, violate the residency requirement. Many of the calls we get and referrals from the Inspector General's Office, the 2313 BILL 980003 ones we begin an investigation, we usually bring the employee in, and they make an admission that they don't live in the City of Philadelphia, and then their employment is terminated. We have, for the last couple of years, made a priority out of investigating through Risk Management disability cases. And, as you know, with five employees doing disability cases and the residency requirements, it is difficult to move them around. Because of the fact in residency we need a tremendous amount of surveillance -- it takes almost a month and a half of surveillance at the home where the person is actually living outside the City of Philadelphia -- to prepare a case and move forward to terminate that employee. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: About a week or two ago a resolution was passed in Council calling for hearings concerning residency, and the heads of various departments will be brought in. I think we left your department off, but nothing personal, nothing intended. So can we call upon you, if need be, during the time of those hearings to lend your expertise to the issues 2314 BILL 980003 concerning residency? And it was suggested by me last week to the Civil Service Commission that maybe one way we could begin to identify some of the problems with residency is to get an update on the personnel records by each of the city employees. As some people will, on a yearly basis, change beneficiaries, and et cetera, maybe the Civil Service Commission could include a form on a yearly basis to get the city employees to do a background, a personal history or a personal record, on their residency, et cetera. Is there anything that you can do -- and if you don't have the answer now, maybe you might want to think about it -- to help us in that area?

Certainly. I think the other additional thing that can be done is that on a yearly basis, you can ask people to sign a statement as to what their current domicile is and where their residency is for the purposes of City of Philadelphia City Charter, and then hold them accountable as to what they sign as a statement. But my office is ready, willing, and 2315 BILL 980003 able to work with you, Councilman, in any way that you need to move forward on your resolution and your hearings. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I appreciate that. And the only other thing I had added to the Civil Service Commission request was that maybe, in addition to the employee documenting on a form that this is their address, or his or her address, that maybe we could ask for proof in the form of either a copy of the Deed, if they claim to own their home, or a copy of a Lease Agreement between themselves and the landlord where they may be renting.

I think that certainly is something that we think is an appropriate way of doing things. We also, as you know, look at driver's licenses and life insurance policies and where children go to school that are dependent children living in their household. So there is a variety of things that can be done. And, again, my office is there for you in your mission, and will be there at the 2316 BILL 980003 hearings. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I am told that the Controller's Office can be very aggressive and follow them around and chase them. They can be very aggressive. And I, for one support, all of that. I mean, I think we should be fair. We should respect people's constitutional rights. But if you are working in the city and you have some fake address, and if you are messing around and getting on some train some place, hidden out some place, find them. It is okay. It's all right. Because I know people you have found in the past. You all caught Ericson. You caught Tom Ericson, and he is a person who does work for City Council. I mean, you know, this is the fair thing to do. If you work in the City of Philadelphia, you are on our payroll and you are supposed to live here, then live here. And if you don't, and if you get caught, then that's just too bad. And, you know, there are so many 2317 BILL 980003 parts of this residency problem that we can't control. I mean, some of these quasi-agencies and all, they do all of these things, and we don't have control over all of it. But it is a major concern of this Council. And I was saying to Mr. Certo sitting here that I was just so pleased to have Councilman DiCicco here on this Council now, because I now don't have to be one of the people who raises it. He raises it every time. And I appreciate it. He raise it is every single time, because it is something that needs to be raised. Because it shows a certain commitment to the city when you are willing to live here and send your children to school here and do all the kinds of things we think you can do. The other thing -- and this gets so near and dear to me -- there are neighborhoods in this city that are good neighborhoods for people who make $40,000 a year, $30,000 a year, right on up to people who make lots and lots and lots of money, the kind of money that most of us in this room will never have seen or heard of. I mean, there are neighborhoods in 2318 BILL 980003 Chestnut Hill and way out in Mt. Airy and all where if somebody kicked you out of a car and took a blindfold off of you, you would think that you were deep in the suburbs some place. So there are places for people to live of all incomes. And there just doesn't seem to be any excuse for people not to be able to find a decent place to live, a place that's consistent with their means. And we encourage you to be aggressive in that whole area. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. President, on that same matter, your office, and I am sure all of our colleagues in here, we receive requests probably on a daily basis from Philadelphia residents for jobs. And these are people who by no 19 obligation, they are under no obligation to stay here, but they choose to stay in Philadelphia because this is the city they want it to live in and with with their friends and relatives. And I am sometimes very frustrated because I am not able to assist them in finding jobs. 2319 BILL 980003 And then you have the other people who are in the private industry sector. And over the years, with downsizing of banks and the medical institutions who have decided to stay here while they were working for one of those banks and those medical facilities, they could have lived somewhere else. But now they find themselves out of a job because of downsizing, or whatever have you, and they still are in the City of Philadelphia, and would like to stay here. And I think we have an obligation to them. And if people who want to get a job and be on the city payroll think that they are slick and they are smart, and they are just going to take the money and run, and go out to Montgomery County or Delaware County, sit in their restaurants on a Friday and Saturday night, not pay the 10 percent liquor tax that we have to impose on our residents, then I suggest that they go and find a job in those counties, it is as simple as that, and give the people jobs in this city who have made the commitment to stay here. Especially for those people who could 2320 BILL 980003 move.

If they wanted to, they could move, but they would rather be here. And our obligation, I think, is to them. And thank you for your help.

My pleasure, Councilman. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You have to speak to the President if you want to follow me.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a followup to Councilman DiCicco, which was a followup to me, which was a followup to him. Let's keep this record straight.

I would assume that if a person is using a bad address, let's use the scenario that they live with their mom and dad, they get married, they move to the suburbs, and they continue to show their employment address as Philadelphia, I assume they are breaking some other laws, too. I assume if they work for the city, they may vote here. So that would be a violation, I would assume, of the law. They have their driver's license registered here. I would assume that they 2321 BILL 980003 wouldn't be that stupid to show that they live in Philadelphia, and then have their driver's license at wherever they truly live. We ought to try to figure out all the laws that they are violating, and get the word out, if they are caught, that voter fraud and a violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, there must be a laundry list of laws that a person that is doing that, other than the number one is the fact that you have to live in the City of Philadelphia to work for it, but I think if they realized how many things that they were doing wrong, besides that number one big issue, might frighten them back into town.

What we have found, Councilman Rizzo, is that one lie begets another lie to cover up another lie. And when we do our investigations into residency, we look at voting records, we look at insurance, we look at driver's licenses. And with that, when it has reached a level where the lie begins to violate criminal statutes, those cases are referred to the District Attorney's Office. 2322 BILL 980003

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Controller, Mr. Saidel. Weren't you the son of that great Izzie Saidel? You don't have to answer that. Jonathan, the gas that the city gets, I read in the paper -- and I think I might have talked to you one time, and you had some people investigating -- the stealing of gas by city employees, and maybe some noncity employees, filling up their personal cars. And I know you had a lot to do with this magnet that's in most of the police cars and the city vehicles now, this Fumes program. Are you still doing that? Can you tell me what happened there? I don't want you to tell me whether you are still investigating.

Yes, I can't respond as 2323 BILL 980003 to whether there is a current investigation. But we did, as you know, we did surveillance at the different gas outlets, and actually sent teams of individuals in, using their own personal cars, in which, in front of city employees, were filling up their tanks and driving away unencumbered, and with no questions asked. And the response by the Administration was appropriate, which is the placing of this special nozzle on the gas nozzle, and also the special nozzle within the tank of our new vehicles, so that the gas can't be moved from the tank into a regular car, but only into a tick city car. I can't comment whether we continue to look into that. But I think that that was an appropriate response and a quick response by the Administration.

It made it easier. Before you used to have to get a card, and wait there, and put the card through the thing. Now if you have that magnet in your car, it is really fast. You are in and out in ten minutes, where sometimes it took 20, 25 minutes just 2324 BILL 980003 to get the card to work.

That was a good byproduct of an appropriate investigation.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

My pleasure, sir.

No further questions, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.

Thank you, Mr. President. First I wanted to congratulate the Controller and his Deputy for their vote on the Pension Board, which I don't know how it was recorded as a unanimous vote, but it is my guess that it was really a five to four vote, since four of the members of the Board are appointed by the Mayor, and they must have been in line with his view of support for the CoreStates merger. But we thank you. I know the labor representatives thank you. But I think all of 2325 BILL 980003 Philadelphia should thank you for that vote. It may, in a sense, be symbolic. Obviously the shareholders, most of the shareholders, 90 percent of them, were voting their own personal interests. Maybe they have no 7 responsibility for the welfare of Philadelphia as a city or Philadelphians as citizens. But I think your vote was one that showed real concern and support for the people of Philadelphia. Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, sir.

Secondly, Councilman DiCicco introduced a resolution -- and I think it is going to have public hearings -- on the residency matter. And I wonder if by that time you could put together, maybe it is updating a previous report, I don't know whether you had one or not, on what you estimate the yield to Philadelphia would be if all of the non-residents really lived in Philadelphia. You know, counting in the indirect, as well as the direct sources of additional income that we would get in Philadelphia, if there were 2326 BILL 980003 total adherence to this residence rule.

We did an analysis of the residency situation for the Civil Service Commission two months ago. And as I had mentioned to Councilman DiCicco, we will work with his committee to move forward in any way that we can be helpful. And I will certainly be in communication with you as to any tick information that you need, so that you are well informed when those hearings begin. And my office will be a representative here during those hearings to act as an expert in that tick field. So you may rely upon the good offices of the Controller's Office.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Thank you for coming.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it. 2327 BILL 980003 Oh, I am sorry. Councilman Nutter.

I almost got away.

Actually, I wanted to, we have, you and I, or actually more myself and your deputy, Mr. Volpe, have had an ongoing discussion which at some points has escalated into a debate, if not an argument. And I wanted to finally be able to commend both him, and then through him yourself, for the resulting efforts on our ability to fund street tree maintenance here in Philadelphia. We had about a four or five year pretty serious back and forth on that. And it was certainly partially through the efforts of your office by way of reviewing documents, and then some of the discussions between David and myself, which ultimately resulted in a different direction when we finally came to some agreement on how we can do it. So I want to commend you on the one hand. I look forward to finding some other issue to fight with you about in the future. And maybe we will have just as good a result going forward. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. 2328 BILL 980003

Thank you. And I also want to thank you, Councilman. It is one thing to appropriate funding. It is another thing to see that funding in action on the streets of Philadelphia. And I appreciate your concern and your continuous concern over these years so we can make our capital projects work quickly for the benefit of the people of Philadelphia. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning. I am Ellen Greenlee, echoing throughout the chamber, Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. On my right, next to me is Charles Cunningham, First Assistant Defender. Besides him is Byron Kotter, who is Chief of our Probation and Parole Unit. And on my left is Selim Tawadros, who is our Controller. 2329 BILL 980003 It is my pleasure to be here again before you to present a brief praecipe on the work of the Association and to ask for your support for our appropriation request. As you are aware, the Defender Association has contracted with the City of Philadelphia for almost 30 years to provide legal representation in adult and juvenile criminal matters, to represent in mental health matters both civil and criminal, and to provide representation as child advocates for dependent and neglected children. In terms of our requested appropriation this year, just a moment of brief background. The figures are somewhat up in the air this year, in terms of our discussions with the Budget Director and his staff, due to the fact that an audit ordered by the City Controller, which began in April 1996, has not been completed. And final budget figures are dependent upon, to a certain extent, on what savings, if any, may be realized from this audit that the City Controller is working on. 8 million. And what we are asking is an appropriation of 23,458,298. This difference between the two figures of 623,465 is the difference in the amount of savings that the Budget Director feels they will be able to achieve from the audit, which, as I mentioned, has not been completed. 8, plus the 3 percent increase in December 1998 and a small amount for benefits that follows from that 3 percent increase. We do have a supplemental request because we have not had finality on the audit. We have not been able to discuss up to this point additional staffing with the city's Budget Office. We expect that we will need 12 additional attorneys, which will take us to 200; and 2 other staff positions, in the information 22 services, and the second as an assistant to the 23 Controller. Which I can assure you the Budget 24 Director heartily is in favor of. 25 Mr. Tawadros is clearly in need of a 2331 1 BILL 980003 distance, bearing the full brunt of doing all of the financial information and reporting that we do for the city. During 1997, we had an percent 6 increase in new appointments, which is a big jump 7 for us, because it has been pretty static up to that 8 point. 9 And in terms of our workload, which 10 is the units of work that we do, court appearances, 11 interviews, investigations, and social service interventions, we have had an increase of 5 percent. In areas of court appointments, we handled 23,000 felony appointments. In juvenile, we have reached a level of 6,000 court appointments. And in Municipal Court, 11,000 appointments. These numbers are going up. What they mean really in terms of the impact on our work is that the court lists in the courtrooms are growing on a daily basis, and it is becoming difficult, if not impossible, in some courtrooms, municipal courtrooms, juvenile courtrooms, and preliminary hearings, for us to have one attorney there representing all the cases 2332 BILL 980003 there. And we are finding that we are going to need additional staff so that we may have two people, where necessary, to handle the cases. In the Municipal Court, we had reached the level in the last few months of 4,000 trial listings a month, which is the first time we have reached such an astronomical level. What I included in my testimony was, just briefly, some of the work of units that are not necessarily the trial units, but units that contribute so much to the work that Defender Association is able to do, including Mr.

Kotter's unit, Probation, which has been an enormous player in the whole prison overpopulation situation, in terms of trying to keep that number down and trying to find alternatives for clients instead of incarceration. In probation, our attorneys handle 600 violation hearings a week, which is an incredible number. During the month, he processes 150 early parole petitions which have an 80 percent success rate, which is really quite high. 2333 BILL 980003 And at the preliminary hearing level, his unit is reviewing 500 cases to see if there are alternative programs that we can find for our clients. Mr. Kotter's unit has been involved also in working with the Health Department in setting up 28 new inpatient and outpatient programs. In our Adult Social Service Unit, Adult Social Service plays a critical role in terms of the team effort that we have in representation with the attorney and social worker. We depend on our Adult Social Service Unit for diagnosis and recommendations, in almost all cases, to find placement and services for our clients, and to present testimony and to advocate for our clients in court. It is a small unit, but they are a tremendous adjunct to the work of criminal defense.

We will calculate the cost of that cup.

I also mention the work of our Investigations Unit. We have 37 investigators, all but three of whom are former 2334 BILL 980003 police detectives, who work and handle the cases that need investigation. They are handling an average of 430 investigations a year, plus an additional 80 supplemental investigations that come in, which is a very, very high caseload. I mention also our Appeals Unit. Our Appeals Unit is a unit of attorneys, for the most 10 part quite experienced attorneys, who work primarily 11 as support for the trial staff, and that's how they 12 do their function. 13 Of course, they always also have to 14 screen cases for appeal, communicate with our 15 clients, and decide with the client whether it is in the client's interest for us to file an appeal. They participate in legislative and in the rule-making process and engage in special projects, such as the police corruption that Assistant Defender Brad Bridge has been involved in. We have just four additional pieces of paper for Council. And I know you have more paper that you needed today. The supplemental request we forgot to 2335 BILL 980003 include, which is in the area of some $600,000 for additional staff we have. I have information on our staffing in terms of diversity. I have information on residency and information on salary comparisons with the District Attorney. Which reminds me. In terms of what is yet to be discussed with the Budget Director, not only are we discussing additional staffing, but we are discussing the issue of salary equality. So that is kind of on a separate track right now. Those are some of the services, just some of kind of the peripheral services that the Association provides in terms of representation of low-income and poor people in Philadelphia. I thank you for your attention. I thank you for your continuing support of our work. And I certainly would be happy to answer any questions.

When you do the salary disparity information, I would like for you to consider including some of the people who work in the City Solicitor's Office. It just seems to me that, you know, 2336 BILL 980003 there are lawyers in all of these offices, and maybe what we ought to consider doing is trying to develop some kind of parity of scale that puts people in a position where they get, in some measure, compensated for, you know, their time and experience and expertise, no matter which one of these offices that they are in. I have long been interested in this, and believe that this is a part of our responsibility. And we need to make sure that we are doing the right thing by these various offices. So if you could include that information, it would be helpful.

We certainly will.

And I also need you to make sure to Mr. Certo here and/or Mr. McPherson are involved with you as you work with the city --

Fine.

-- in trying to come up with whatever final numbers you wish to have included in the budget. This is a little bit of a process we go through all the time. But I want to make sure 2337 BILL 980003 that our people are involved in that discussion.

Certainly. I would be happy to do that. Thank you.

We thank you for the good job that you do.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank you for all the good work you do. And as you note in your testimony, a lot of the additional work you do, in addition to representing defendants in the court system, to try to get people diverted or into alternatives, again, is an important way to save money. It is very expensive to incarcerate someone if there is a safe and secure alternative. I must admit, Mr. President, I have difficulty, I think it is very difficult, to consider a budget when the negotiations are still going on with the Administration. And I find it sort of 2338 BILL 980003 incomprehensible that an audit would start in '96 and still not be done. So I just wanted the record to reflect that it is a little incomprehensible. I am sorry the Controller has left, because it makes it very difficult either for us to seriously consider this budget, when the discussions with the Administration are still ongoing. So I find it very frustrating.

Well, Councilwoman, it does seem to be a little bit unusual. But I guess this is really one of the benefits of having an accelerated budget process, because we really do have some time. And it has not been unusual for us during the course of a given fiscal year to make whatever adjustments. As Ms. Greenlee knows, we almost always make these adjustments during the course of the year. We adopt these budgets, and often she comes and she says, this is what we have to do. We have our discussions, and as the need arises, and sometimes -- there is no reason to believe it will not arise -- but, I mean, this is 2339 BILL 980003 just a part of the process. So we will always make sure that the defender is reasonably funded. And if we don't get to do it during the course of these hearings, then we often end up supplementing the budget a little later on during the year --

Yes.

-- as these things develop. So I think she is comfortable that we are going to always make sure we do the right thing. But I am very interested in the staffing stuff. Because you need good professionals. And in order to be able to manage and to operate efficiently, you have to be able to pay people.

Yes.

And it is unfair to have people doing similar work, and in many instances in this case actually sitting across the table from each other, who are getting this disparity in pay.

I would agree. I think this salary inequity issue really needs to be addressed. I think it has come up the 2340 BILL 980003 last two years, though. And as far as I know, nothing has really happened.

Well, we have had discussions. We have had discussions with not only the Budget Director and his staff, but the Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, John Estee. And, actually, he told the Chairman of our Board a few days ago that they expect to have a proposal within two or three weeks. So it is moving along. And the city has been quite cooperative in terms of sitting down and talking about it.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you Mr. President. Good morning. Last year we had some discussion on the residency issue. And I understand a lot more this year than I did last year, that because you are contracted by the city, that your employees are not subject to the same residency requirements that a city employee would be required.

That's right.

Under the 2341 BILL 980003 Charter. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Under the Charter.

Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just as a matter of suggestion -- and I am not sure what the policy is -- when you interview individuals for a position, I would just like to offer this as a suggestion, if you have two people who come in to apply for a tick position, one is a Philadelphia resident and the other is a non-Philadelphia resident, all things being equal on their application, both of them are identically qualified, could you have a policy, could you implement a policy, that it is Philadelphians first, all things being equal? I am not asking --

If in fact all things are equal, I would think certainly. But that's very seldom the case, that all things are equal. A lot of the people who come, certainly for attorney jobs, most of them come from the city and already live in the city. Those who come from outside of the city, we encourage to live in the city. Because 2342 BILL 980003 really it is part of their getting to know the city and getting to know the people of Philadelphia. Right now, of our staff, 70 percent of our staff live in Philadelphia, which I think is a very high percentage of people who don't have to, who choose to live in Philadelphia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I appreciate that. And I think that is good. But, I mean, give me a position other than an attorney, just s an example, that someone would apply for.

Well, I haven't actually considered that as a qualifier or disqualifier. When people come, of the staff who are our support staff, 84 percent live in Philadelphia. And, for the most people part, people who get hired then move into the city. I think we probably look more favorably on people who live in Philadelphia because they know the city, they know the people who are our clients. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that's really what I am asking. 2343 BILL 980003

We are trying subtly to encourage everyone to live in the city. And I think it has certainly increased a little bit since we talked about it last year. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's good news. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.

Just here thinking out loud. And if you don't have a residency requirement, and you would knock someone out that had applied for a position that lives outside the city, wouldn't you be treating them improperly, if you don't have a residency requirement?

I would think so, yes.

So it is not appropriate?

From a strictly legal view, yes.

To make a decision, giving anyone the benefit of the doubt because they live in the city, I think you would 2344 BILL 980003 committing an injustice on the person living outside the city, if you don't have a residency requirement. So maybe you need to move towards a residency requirement before you start rejecting people because they don't live in the city.

Well, I think our Board of Directors actually talked about it, Councilman, at our meeting in January, about the residency issue. And it seems to us that if we are to move in that direction, and if the city wants us to move in that direction, then there are a couple of areas that need to be considered, like salary equality with city employees and participation in the city's pension plan, because we don't have a pension plan. Certainly those are two items that I would be happy to discuss with the city, if they think it is important that we have all our employees be city residents.

Just a point that I wanted to make. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. 2345 BILL 980003

The other thing is -- and I offer this as another perspective on the city residency issue -- does your application for employment call for people to identify their current residence?

Yes. Yes, it does.

So we know whether or not they are currently a resident or not?

Yes.

It seems to me that given the nature of the clientele, you would be entitled to consider as a factor their ability to get to work, their familiarity with the clients that they are likely to have to encounter and have to represent.

Yes.

It seems to me that where they live would be almost as legitimate a factor to consider as maybe what language they speak, or what languages they speak. I mean, there are a number of things that go into making a determination. So that I think in the end, you take all of these things into account, and you say, well, 2346 BILL 980003 these people are all properly trained, and they all have the appropriate background, but here is a person who lives in the city and is likely to have client contact, and, therefore, might be a little bit more inclined to be able to communicate in a tick way. I mean, the attorney-client relationship is a very special kind of relationship. And nobody knows that better than you know that. And sometimes you really need to be able to identify people who can relate to clients in order to be able to talk with them to get them to even be able to represent them in an effective way. So I think where they live might be a valid factor, among a lot of other factors, to consider.

Those are absolutely things that you think about in terms of being able to relate to our client population. The other thing is that I don't really want attorneys to have to travel an hour to get to work. Because we need them there early, we need them there when the weather is bad. 2347 BILL 980003 And I really discourage, as much as one can do that in a legal sense, anybody living very far from where this office is, so that they are available to us, especially among the professional staff.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.

Mrs. Greenlee, unaccustomed as I am to vagueness, I would like to assert -- and then if any of my colleagues disagree or anyone else in the city disagrees -- I think it is clear that the city would like the Public Defender Association and every other agency that we can influence in any way to have a strict residency policy, just like the city's. If it means talking about pensions, sure. We don't want anybody to be hurt as a result of coming into the city and be deprived of rights that regular city employees have. And if it is legal to do so -- and that's the only justification I can find for not doing so, is if for some reason we are found not to 2348 BILL 980003 be lawful, and I can't think; I think the President's position was well stated on that matter -- if there is something happening at Broad and Berks or Broad and Olney or Broad and Cheltenham, it is certainly helpful to have people who have grown up in any of these areas, you know, who don't have to study geography before they meet with the client to understand, you know, where the crime took place that they are interested in defending the person. So we would like to see it move forward. And along that way, if there are any questions, I think the City Council would want to be interested and would want to try to help you find answers, you know, to deal with any questions that might arise. So the answer to your question, you indicated before, you said, if the city really wants us, you know, to follow residency requirement. I want to make it very clear, I believe the answer is absolutely yes, with an exclamation point. Am I right, Councilman DiCicco, that's your point of view? And we have all given support to the leadership that Councilman DiCicco 2349 BILL 980003 has shown in this matter. We think it is important that people identify every way with Philadelphia, and we think they will be the better attorneys for that.

I agree. Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical that people who work in the city live in the city. Because we need to support the city, all of us.

I think that's very important. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President and members of Council.

We are going to take about a two-minute recess while the District Attorney gets set up. (Short recess.)

Thank you very much. This is a recessed hearing of the 2350 BILL 980003 Council Committee of the Whole. At this time we would like to welcome the District Attorney, Lynne Abraham, to the chambers, and ask her to give us a summary of her statement and prepare for questions. DISTRICT ATTORNEY LYNNE M. ABRAHAM: I thank the Council President for giving me the time to set up the board that I have set up behind me. And what I have already done is submitted to Council copies of my budget request, and for supplemental funding to cover a variety of programs somewhat over $3 million. And in addition to that, I have asked Council to supplement the Victim Witness Programs with an additional substantial grant. Our Victim Witness Services organizations are probably one of the most important adjuncts that a District Attorney's Office can have. And our Victim Services Director, Marcia Thomas Bane, and the people with whom she works have done an outstanding job. My budget request covers a variety of topics. And I don't want to neglect any of one of them. But I know in the interest of time I have going to concentrate on just a few, with the help of 2351 BILL 980003 some charts that I have brought with me. I don't want to, however, leave out some of the important things that I wish to make plain to the Council that I am asking for additional funding for. Our Family Violence and Sexual Assault Abuse Unit is probably a national model. It covers not only violence in the family of domestic violence, but all sexual assaults and all elder abuse. It is a national model because it is a very large organization designed to cover all kinds of activities that go on in and around the home. And that frequently is inter-generational, and most often it covers at least two generations and quite often three. There are additional requests for witness protection, for gun trafficking which ties in very effectively with the two programs I am going to speak to you about specifically today, our Truancy Intervention Program, a need to very quickly supplement our budget with monies for cyber crime or Internet crime, which is fast becoming the major player in crimes not involving weapons or violence, 2352 BILL 980003 and a host of other initiatives. E Unit and the Public Nuisance Task Force. And if this microphone comes out, I will use it. If somebody can give me a hand, I can stand up. Thanks. This map highlights the homicides in Philadelphia, 1966 and 1967. And as Council can see, even though the stars which denote a homicide location are small, I believe you can see, relatively speaking, where the majority of the homicide crimes occur. A considerable portion of which occur in the East Division, in this purple box, plus a substantial number west of Broad Street, North Philadelphia, in West Philadelphia, in Mantua and West Philadelphia, trickling down to Southwest Philadelphia. A significant number in South Philadelphia, mostly west of Broad Street, plus in 2353 BILL 980003 the 35th District and the 14th District up in Germantown. So you have a significant number of homicides in these areas. This is important, because I believe that in listening to Commissioner Designate Timoney yesterday, he talked about violent crime, gun-related crime, and drug crime. And I want to suggest to City Council that we have something in place that I think will work very handily. E, the Local Intensive Narcotics Effort. E. This program, as a pilot project, started in the 18th District. It is a proactive community effort which allies the District Attorney's Office with community leaders; everything from a block captain, a team leader, a church official, a citywide agency, or even the local leaders in the community just in that community alone. We also work very carefully and 2354 BILL 980003 closely with political leaders, as well, both state and local. This community-based prosecution effort complements community policing.

It includes such things as mediation of disputes between communities and criminal elements where that is appropriate, but it also provides, most importantly, vertical prosecution of all criminal cases, civil asset forfeiture of the offending person, should a crime have been proven or a criminal action been pursued, eviction, and abatement. The city cooperates with us, of course. And all the city agencies are brought to bear, including the Probation and Parole Department. There are regular up close and personal meetings at the grass roots level between police, neighbors, block captains, political figures and the like. And this program has been extremely effective. Because in the 18th District, we have had the cooperation of the Police Department, of course City Council person Jannie Blackwell, and the community leaders. E. E. activity. E. effort. The idea is to divide the district or area into a zone, so that it is zone-based prosecution. E. area, exclusively. E. ADAs prosecute all drug and drug-related offenses in that sector. The district attorney has total knowledge of the community, who lives where, the crime problems, the nature of the crime problems, who some of the most visible bad guys might be. They know the vacant houses, the stash houses, the smoke houses, the drug corners, the drug houses, and the hot spots. The district attorney's assistant is specifically designated in this area to give limited legal advice to area police officers and neighbors. We also would try to advise people of 2356 BILL 980003 what the law permits and what it doesn't permit, and we properly respond to legal issues. There is extensive intelligence gathering, and we, of course, have a hotline. E. area. E. district attorneys and police; that is, the police made the arrest. We have also sealed 67 properties. E. effort also lends itself to any firearms investigation effort that I have covered in my notes. And if you want to talk to me about that, I can. The other thing is the Public Nuisance Task Force. E. concept has worked effectively in West Philadelphia. As a matter of fact, even though our target area was the 18th District alone, it was so successful that it branched out into six police 2357 BILL 980003 sectors of the 19th District, above Market Street. And, in addition, we started to work down into the 12th District, in West Philadelphia. So we started to follow the drug and crime activity southward. And now Captain Castro wants us to be over into the 16th District, where we can help with some problems in there. And that will also dovetail with Partners In Progress. We have been struggling because the initial grant for this program, as I have advised Council on previous occasions, was a three-year grant. And that money has virtually -- that money has run out. We are operating on a shoe string budget with money that we have given, plus a few very small grants. We have seven lawyers, four detectives that we supply; that is, that we pay for. In addition to which, there are officers which the Police Department provides that are specially trained to do this. We have been trying to excite various citizens and Councilpeople about this concept, because this can work citywide. It can't work citywide, that is, in 2358 BILL 980003 every police district in the city, because the economic costs would be enormous. E. effort, we would gladly accept it. E. project in every single councilmanic district. Each one, however, will have to be tailor made to that councilmanic district. And we won't be able to cover every police district with the initial $1,500,000. E. effort is one of the ways to go. And it already has a proven track record, it does work. However, if it is not funded this year, we cannot continue to carry it. Because it puts too much resources in one geographical area,. And, in addition, it creates a problem with other geographical areas who may want the same service, 2359 BILL 980003 but we can't deliver it.

But the most important aspect of what we are doing is, we have no money to fund this program anymore, and we cannot any longer afford to prefer one geographical area over the city. And as I said in my prepared text, it really would be a pity if we wouldn't have such an effective program citywide. , but operates in somewhat of a different fashion. This map, as the audience can see -- and each member of the press and Council have been given a smaller map -- of the Public Nuisance Task Force, the PNTF is a citywide program. , began with a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. This citywide effort covers, as you can see, broad spectrums. But as you also can see, it covers some of those areas previously covered in the homicide map, in that the nuisances sometimes overlap with the same areas that have crack and drug houses and violent crime, but it is broader because 2360 BILL 980003 it is based on citywide. It covers such things as crack houses, nuisance bars, weed stores, houses of prostitution, stop-and-goes, nuisance corners, and other areas that are a front for crimes or quality of life crimes. And this is a quality of life issue. Not that all crime isn't quality of life; it is. In Fiscal 1996, 1997, as the map will indicate, 250 properties were sealed, closed -- that is, put out of business -- or forfeited, 125 of which are sealed by us. We also work in this program with all the city agencies, the Managing Director's Office and all of the agencies with the Managing Director, under the Managing Director's jurisdiction. In addition to which these areas, as the key indicates, the blue circle with a little dot in the middle are combined agency efforts. In other words, these are efforts that we needed the LCE, Liquor Control Enforcement arm, we worked with the Department of Licenses & Inspections, the Health Department, the operating agencies, of course the Police Department, to affect 2361 BILL 980003 these properties. In addition to that, since Fiscal Year 1997 ended, on July 1, an additional 82 properties were sealed by us alone. And in that same period of time, we also, citywide, attended an additional 150 community meetings. E. E, once expanded, handles the different kinds of crime, generally speaking, but not always, than PNTF. You don't have to have a narcotics-based crime to get involved with PNTF. It can be a smoke house, a weed store which may involve narcotics, but it could be other kinds of quality of life issues, loitering, underaged drinking, rowdyism, a stop-and-go establishment that sells liquor or beer to underaged drinkers. It could be a house of prostitution. It could be a house where liquor is sold, a speakeasy, or some other kind of effort like that, a nuisance bar or tap room. , you have a perfect marriage of a citywide 2362 BILL 980003 community-based effort. It is my considered judgment, Council President and members of Council, that rather than concentrate efforts in the center of town, I prefer to do preventive work, and that's much of what we have been trying to do. Of course we handle the prosecution of the thousands and thousands of cases that occur every year. But in addition to that, we are engaged in a tremendous amount of crime prevention, the prophylaxis. So that if we are engaged in domestic violence, yes, we deal with the person who is injured, but we much prefer to prevent domestic violence from occurring. That's where our Domestic Violence, Family Violence, and Sexual Assault Unit wants to go. We had been hoping for a contract with Public Housing to take a Public Housing area, to educate and train and interact with women and children and mothers, grandmothers, to prevent crime from occurring. E. and PNTF. E. E. works with PNTF because it devolves City Hall, if you will, out into the community. It has specifically trained district attorneys who are known to the community, and the district attorney is that community's liaison.

You pick up the phone, and you call Stephane Latour, for example, who is in Councilwoman Verna's District. When she needs a problem with the PNTF solved, she calls Stephane Latour. Somebody up in Roxborough would call Pat King. Councilman Nutter would call Pat King, who is the liaison there. Because the area of the city is divided into areas. And that's ideal. , divide the city into geographical areas, specifically assign known district attorneys to work out in the community on nuisances, drug crimes. And also, if we could have the best 2364 BILL 980003 of all possible worlds, plug into all of these areas our gun trafficking initiatives. So that we cannot only concentrate on the location, in addition to an individual person or persons, but also where they get their guns, how they were brought into the city, cooperate and coordinate our efforts with the Police Department's IBIS system, the Integrated Ballistics Identification System, and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau of the federal government, and other agencies, we can find out how guns come here, who gets them, how they get them, how they are used in the commission of crime, and so forth. So those three things are, I think, key to any strategy in dealing with guns, drugs, quality of life crimes. , PNTF, is that they work and they are already in place. And that's basically what I wanted to cover in my unprepared remarks. But if you have any specific questions, Mr. President, about my budget request, I would be more than happy to address those.

Thank you very 2365 BILL 980003 much. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Madam D.A. Concerning the L.I.N.E. unit, have you had the opportunity to discuss this unit with the Commissioner Designee John Timoney? And, if so, what was his reaction to this? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: We had a one-hour meeting, one-hour-and-15-minute meeting, with Commissioner Designate Timoney about a week or so ago. We brought up a variety of subjects, but we couldn't get to every one. And it would have been really a disservice to him, before he was even familiar with Philadelphia, to bring up a specific program. However, we did raise the subject of a great deal of community-based initiatives that we had. And he said to us, as soon as he got to Philadelphia and became familiar with his job, that we would meet again to coordinate and cooperate with him, as much as possible, on all these initiatives. 2366 BILL 980003 So we are hopeful. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In your testimony, you mention 1.5 million. Was that for all ten councilmanic districts? Was that cumulative, or is that per district? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No; that's 1.5 million for all ten councilmanic districts. But remember, it is not every division, police division, in every district. We are going to have to look at every councilmanic district to see if we can identify a geographical area to put this program in so that it has the maximum effect. So that when we believe it will have the outcome that it appears likely that it will, we can then go back and say, this is what we promised, this is what we delivered, now let's look at other things, and see how that works in the course of the next budget cycle. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. 2367 BILL 980003 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.

Thank you, Mr. President. A. " And I can't sing, so I wouldn't begin to sing it. E. unit in my area, and it works absolutely well. It is one of the reasons why we have such a strong Town Watch group, why our block groups work so well together, and why we have the degree of community organization we do. Because we know that there is hope on our business strips and in our blocks to get to acquire some of these houses that are being used certainly in illegal ways, these drug houses and drug areas. E. 's department, and certainly with L & I and other agencies that play a part, a role, a lesser role. A. just have, quote, too many resources are spent in one geographical area. We certainly do want to lose what we have because it is needed in other cities, and to spend it in another way. 5 million allocation that she is requesting, because it is really, really invaluable. I talked with many of my colleagues, Mr. President, about crime. We often share our, quote, unquote, horror stories. And we talk about the pressure we get from various community groups to try to resolve these issues. E. unit is very, very important in doing it. We have a great relationship with our captains. We know that we can pick up the phone, call Carl Anderson, and say what do you have on a property, would you begin the surveillance that's needed to try to catch somebody doing something wrong. Would you let this community group know. Would you come out and visit a community group to talk about all of this, all of which currently happens. E. unit and the work that they do. E. unit. Mr. President, we go to court on these properties. Community groups go to court when we hear about these properties coming up, and even talk about how many of the properties can be used once confiscated. B. Kimmons, who is here today, who works a lot in drug groups. And even Herman Rice has been back in recent weeks, deals with a program where we are cleaning up in Mantua. The Captain of the 16th, Captain Castro, is physically taking one or two officers with him and knocking on doors. We are making drug arrests. We are cleaning up. We are fixing up. We are painting up. E. unit expanded to. A. E. unit to this area where we are doing so much work. So I am certainly, certainly asking my colleagues, I just received a tape, in fact, from Mr. Rice, if anyone would like to see it, that shows what groups can do. We have local 332, we want to expand it to include District Council 33, to try to expand the role that neighborhoods do play in cleaning up drugs. But we can't do all of this, we can't clean it all up with nowhere to go. E. unit gives you what you need. It gives you the force you need to not only clean it up, but to confiscate the property so that it can't be transferred again to another drug dealer, but can, in fact, be sold to somebody in the community who is interested in this property. E. unit program. A. uses the word 2371 BILL 980003 quality, the expression quality of life. Because I believe that this is the way we should use it when she talks about, this is the way we traditionally have used the term quality of life when we talk about threats to our community and to community living, as opposed to the new way it is now being used in terms of current legislation that I have been talking about since it was introduced in here some weeks ago. E. 5 million throughout the city. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to inquire about the L.I.N.E. unit. It really sounds like a very, very good program. 2372 BILL 980003 It is my understanding that you said you currently have seven attorneys and four detectives? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Seven lawyers, four detectives, six police officers, five plain clothes officers, and a sergeant.

If we were to expand that, how many assistant D.A.'s or attorneys would we have, and how many detectives would be required? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I believe the L.I.N.E. unit would, if we expanded the L.I.N.E. unit, we would have six prosecutors -- well, ten prosecutors, some law clerks, two career prosecutors -- those are senior officers of the District Attorney's Office -- eight detectives, a clerk typist. And so it would probably be at least 12 district attorneys, at least 8 detectives, plus police officers. And I might add, also, that we would throw into the bargain additional D.A.'s. In other words, we are carrying the ball right now, without any funding. We would put in whatever resources that we could, consistent with 2373 BILL 980003 our mandated requirement to cover the courts, to fill out those spaces that we needed.

And are you saying the attorneys would be ample to cover 10 6 councilmanic districts, excluding the 7 that you 7 have, it would be -- 8 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: We would 9 be supplementing them with additional lawyers. 10 But what we thought we would not have 11 to do is, we don't have to reinvent the wheel when 12 we go out into, let's say, your councilmanic district. We have already done that in an area. And what we have been attempting to do is attract the attention of other communities to say, we want this, too, and we don't have to have seven lawyers in one area. We might be able to do it with less. But if we needed more, we would certainly be willing to put as many resources as possible to demonstrate to Council that this is a program that works, so that next year if it turns out we did X amount with 1.5 million, Council might see the value of enhancing the program to bring further services by giving an additional money. 2374 BILL 980003 If I came in and said I want $10 million for this program, I think everybody would faint, and you would all say we can't do that. So what I am attempting to do is get a pilot project going in every councilmanic district to demonstrate that it works around the city, not just one geographical area. Nothing would please me more than to show you how well it works and come back and say, let's do more the next year.

Fine. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Fernandez.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to second Councilwoman Blackwell's comments about the success of the program in West Philly. I have also heard a lot of very positive feedback about the L.I.N.E. program. I just had a question about the Victim Witness funds. I know a lot of them go to designated groups. But then in the budget request -- and I know they are always asking for 2375 BILL 980003 more. But in the budget backup material, I guess it is -12, on the line that says, Other, Additional Victim Witness, after listing all the specific organizations, like Women Against Abuse and Families of Murder Victims, et cetera, it shows an increase from $75,000 this year, up to 145 for next year. And I wondered, first, what does that cover this year, that 75,000, and what would the increase be used for? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Councilwoman, the 75,000 to 145,000, we are looking to expand the services that we render. When new groups come up, they need Victim Witness Service monies. Or if they expand and they don't have enough money, we give that money to the existing groups or to the newer groups. It is much more easy for us to have the finances on hand, than to try to come to a City Council budget transfer ordinance and ask for additional monies. So we have a little bit of money that we have asked for, that we give to the groups. We 2376 BILL 980003 spend it all. We don't take any money, as you know. You and I have gone over this before. And if we have any money left over, which this year we had a little bit of money left over, we give each individual group that's listed here whatever overage there is. Their services are extraordinary. They do so many things. All this money is, we are just the pass-through agency. We don't take any of the money and use it for budget items, other than Victims Services. So wherever it is, it goes to an existing victims group, an expanded service part that they are anticipating, or any new victims group that we hope will be expanded this year.

Could you just, that 75 for this year, could you just supply the Chair a list of who got that money? Again, I know a lot of these groups. Like you say, they do fabulous work. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Unbelievable work.

I am also to understand that there will be some additional 2377 BILL 980003 dollars for these groups, or I guess you are saying other groups, next year? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Yes. We had a small overage for this year. We gave each of the listed organizations an additional $2,500 for their victims work, which they were very grateful to have. And they used it to very good effect.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.

Thank you. The supplemental budget that you are requesting would increase your staff by 67? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I believe that's correct.

Of those positions, how many of them would be identified as police positions? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, it is a little bit difficult. Other than the numbers that are there, police positions, we don't have any longer a true detective division. We used to have county detectives; we still have a number of those. What we do is, we have in the past -- 2378 BILL 980003 and we don't know how this will work with the new Commissioner, because we haven't worked that out -- but what we worked out with Police Commissioner Williams and Police Commissioner Neal is, we asked the Police Department to assign on a temporary rotating basis officers to the District Attorney's Office, who we paid for, to act as our detectives. There would be more for this 10 group. That means that they would be called 11 detectives, but they would really be police 12 officers, but they would be called district 13 attorney's detectives. 14

So if you took, say, ten, just hypothetically, ten officers from the regular police force, so that would decrease the ten people who would be on the street in the Police Department? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No. What happens is, by our assuming the pay of the officers, the incoming class of new officers would be supplemented by at least an equal number. So let's say they are looking to bring in 105 new officers in the next class. If we took ten, they would just put ten different people. 2379 BILL 980003 So we wouldn't deplete the Police Department at all. All they are doing is increasing their numbers by the number of new police officers.

So I am asking, we are increasing the number of police officers? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Yes; in relative terms. But some of them are designated district attorney detectives.

That's not my question. We get 100 police officers, 10 of them are assigned to you. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Right.

You pay for them. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Right.

We can go back and recruit ten more to replace those ten. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Correct.

So we are increasing the number of police officers in the police officer pool. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Correct.

All right. So 2380 BILL 980003 you are not taking police officers from the pool, leaving them with 80 or 90, and you get 10. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Right.

We still get a hundred, you get ten, so we increase the police force by 110. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Absolutely.

Could you tell me, your L.I.N.E. program, what happens in the L.I.N.E. program in Southwest Philadelphia, in District 18, and what happens in the 35th District where there is no L.I.N.E. program? Tell me, what is the difference. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: The major difference is that there are narcotics arrests, of course, in the 35th District. And if you want specific information, obviously, about anything, we can give it to you. But the difference is that L.I.N.E. is looking to find out intelligence, information, and working with a community so that we have a relationship. We get more intelligence, more 2381 BILL 980003 cooperation, more trust, and we make police officers more responsive and responsible on a community basis by having L.I.N.E. there. We have district attorneys right there in the community. We have the same district attorneys prosecuting the case. So that there is a continuity of relationship between, let's say, I as your district attorney's assistant and you, community leader. You can always call me up. Otherwise what happens in the 35th District is a police officer gets an arrest, it goes to the 35th District Police Station, it is handled in the normal course of business, first by one district attorney, and then by another district attorney, and then by another district attorney, and then by another district attorney. We believe -- and I think our proof is positive -- that by having a relationship with the community, by working with community folks and their elected representatives and the Police Department, we get a much better result by tracking, by information, by intelligence, and by relationship. The system works better for you when 2382 BILL 980003 you know who is out there. And that's what the enhanced L.I.N.E. unit effectiveness is. We get a better conviction rate, we think, because there is only one assistant. And that assistant follows the case through from its virtual inception, until post-verdict motions. So you don't get the switching around of one D.A. to the next, which couldn't work as effectively. One last thing. To maximize the effect of L.I.N.E. units, any kind of specialized effect, it works the best when cases are listed geographically. So, for example, in the 35th District, when the 35th District cases are gathered up, they are not sent to ten different courtrooms on a random basis with ten different assistant district attorneys. You have all the cases in one courtroom, with one district attorney, who follows those cases until their natural conclusion. What that means is, you don't have ten different results in ten different courtrooms, and police officers running from one courtroom to the next, and community leaders and anti-drug 2383 BILL 980003 activists like the C.B. Kimmons' and the John Tieges all over the place. You know where you are going to go, there is a geographical context to the case, and it better serves the community.

So what prevents you from assigning your present staff to that scenario now, without the L.I.N.E. money. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Very simply. Because in order to put the L.I.N.E. program out in the community started out with money, and it allows us to hire people. We cannot --

You can't do it with existing staff, in terms of how you handle your cases? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No. No. 18 We certainly cannot. And that's the problem. Just look at it in real terms. If I can explain it to you this way: If new Police Commissioner Timoney, as he seems to indicate from the press this morning, is going to concentrate on narcotics arrests and gun arrests, there has to be a prosecute or to prosecute them. You can't arrest more and have fewer 2384 BILL 980003 prosecutors. You need more, not less. If you then geographically or district assign a district attorney, the cases are not assigned to a geographical entity. There may be ten cases sent to one room in the CJC, another 7 cases sent to another courtroom, another 20 cases 8 sent. 9 You can't have one district attorney 10 running back and forth on the same day between five 11 or six or ten different courtrooms. So you need 12 community basis, you need intelligence sharing. 13 And remember, it is very labor 14 intensive. So this is specialized, custom made, if 15 you will, not one size fits all. The way we run our 16 criminal justice system is, one size fits all. One 17 size doesn't fit all. 18

Okay. Do I have 19 more time? 20 I want to go to the Nuisance Task Force. And we have had hearings on that and discussion with your staff about how we could better improve that program. But, in your testimony, you did not mention the loss of the Business Privilege license 2385 BILL 980003 as a penalty for being a nuisance establishment. And that was an important piece of the ordinance 4 that I introduced some time ago. And can you tell me why we have not been pursuing that line of activity? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: We have done cease operations and close-downs, we have done that. As a matter of fact, cease operations and other close orders have been very effective. And we certainly can, and will, step up our ceasing of Business Privileges, where we can do that. We have had the effect in our Public Nuisance Task Force not only of ceasing operations; we have put people out of business. I mean, but we have to be careful, and I want to emphasize this, we can only operate and do only operate within the law. We can't use improperly the threat of putting someone out of business or taking their license to do business away, unless they do something that falls within obvious violation of health violations, code violations, or in violation of their license to operation. 2386 BILL 980003 So we certainly do exercise care. Because before we take away somebody's livelihood, we have to make certain they are in violation of some statute rule or regulation.

I believe the ordinance allows that if the establishment can be proven to be a nuisance to the community and identified by the community as a detriment to that community, there are provisions in the ordinance to close it down. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, before I would comment about what a detriment to the community means, I want to be very careful that a detriment to the community, as far as I am concerned, the District Attorney is concerned, has to be a violation of law, not just a store that operates where people don't want it to operate. I think Mr. Mosey wants to add something to what I have already said. But we are willing, Councilwoman Tasco, to do anything possible within the law to make sure that when people are living in a community, any community, we bring them the services that they need consistent with the law and our 2387 BILL 980003 ability to bring them into compliance with the law.

The information might be somewhat misleading. Because when L & I does do a Cease Op, it turns up as an L & I intervention. And we refer to it as an abatement, but it has, in fact, been a revocation of a Business Privilege license.

I believe we will continue to have a long-length discussion about this. Thank you. I have one more question. I have several questions, but on this round. I want to talk to you about your proposed truancy intervention. What role do you play now in truancy prevention, or the whole issue of truancy? What role does the D.A.'s Office play? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: A limited role, to be sure. We want to become more proactively engaged in truancy. My deputy John Delaney, who is in Pittsburgh today -- he would have been here yesterday -- he and I believe that the truancy intervention that's begun yesterday is only a 2388 BILL 980003 beginning, because that's starting in the senior grades of school. The truancy intervention that we are proposing starts at a much earlier age, in grade school and in the first, I believe, year of middle school, like the 6th or 7th grade. I think it is 7th grade, 6th or 7th, depending on where middle school applies. And the court that started yesterday is in the school house. In other words, a judge goes to truancy court. I don't believe that we will play a major role in that, but just a minor role. We want to be more proactively engaged in truancy because I believe -- and I think it is well documented -- that intervention earlier, to get kids to go to school, means not only do they become better educated, but they are less likely to be out on the street and committing crime. In addition to that, it holds, or attempts to hold, parents responsible. For example, a parent can be held to be endangering the welfare of his child by not assuring that the child goes to school. A child or a mother, whoever is 2389 BILL 980003 taking care of the child, mother, caregiver, may not be particularly attune to the fact of how much school that that child is missing. A child can leave the home in the morning and think, say, you know, "Bye, I will see you after school," and the child doesn't go to school. We want to make parents aware that their kids are not in school. So that we can intervene earlier than senior high school. We think there is a better outcome, both educationally and a significant drop in crime committed by kids as young as 7, 8, and 9.

It appears to me that that whole issue of truancy should rest with the School District. Putting it in the D.A.'s Office tends to criminalize the whole issue of truancy, and we are beginning more and more to make children criminals. And I think it is a social issue that deserves to be addressed with the Department of Social Services and with the School District, as opposed to being placed in the District Attorney's Office. 2390 BILL 980003 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, let me make one observation. I know ideally that would be the way you would want to go. But truancy is a violation of the law. It is a criminal violation to not go to school. It is already in the Juvenile Act. Children can be declared dependent children for not going to school, and you need a district attorney to do that. So it is not really decriminalizing. Let me offer you something as a different way of looking at the equation. The whole juvenile unit is designed, at least initially, to be restorative. If we can take a young child, 6, 7, 8, whatever the age of a young child is, impress upon that child the importance of going to school, and the parental or caregiver, and have the additional benefit of the persuasive power of a prosecutor -- in other words, this is not a social issue, it is only in part; it is a violation of law issue -- the prosecute or is not there to persecute. The prosecutor is there to make families aware of their legal, their obligation to send their children to school. 2391 BILL 980003 So that if I am a parent and I am deliberately making certain that my child doesn't go to school, I can be charged, arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of my child. That is already a criminal offense. So it is not criminalizing it; it is already a crime. What it is is putting teeth into the idea that we should take a more proactive role in getting kids in school. That's what our goal is.

But to put it in the D.A.'s Office, it seems to be, if it is not in the School District, it should be in the Family Court, where you are looking at the family as a whole, with all of the other problems associated with what's not causing that child to go to school, the family's problems that they are having. Does the child end up with a record? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No, no 20 record. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: The idea, just remember, if you have the time to not only read the remarks that I wrote in my Council budget proposal, but talk to John Delaney, as well. The idea is that, first of all, the 2392 BILL 980003 District Attorney's Office does work in the Family Court. We are already there.

Well, will this unit be in the schools, or will it be in your office? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: We would probably devolve it into the schools. So, in other words, you wouldn't have to come to the District Attorney's Office. We would send letters out and mediate. In other words, our first priority is, hello, mom, did you know that your child isn't going to school? Gee, I didn't know that. You know your child has to go to school. We'll go out and pay you a visit, we'll advise you of what your obligations are. And in the California experiment, which is in my budget outline, says that in California alone, they have the biggest impact right after the first letter, when the parents say, ut-oh I got a letter, somebody is watching me, I better send my kid to school. And that's the ideal, you get the greatest impact at the front end. It is only the most recalcitrant and 2393 BILL 980003 difficult family structures which will require a greater intervention at the end of the program. But that's what we are using as our model. We believe that we can make that change here. I can guarantee you, if we had more kids in school, we would have less crime during the day when kids aren't in school.

Okay. I have been working with some of the domestic violence groups.

Excuse me, Councilwoman, are you almost?

Almost. Do you have any way of monitoring or tracking offenders so that fatalities can be avoided? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, we don't have any way of tracking an offender. But this morning, for example, I don't know if you and other Councilpeople are aware of this, we have a Women's Death Review Committee, which in fact met this morning. Councilwoman Fernandez, I know, is aware of this, and you may be as well. Some others 2394 BILL 980003 may not. That is a multi-disciplinary program, where we look at, unfortunately, at the end, and we find some woman who has died, let's say, at the hands of an abusive spouse or significant other, and we find what interventions might work more effectively or where some intervention wasn't used at all. We have no mechanism to track an offender, Mr. X. There are different systems at play. For example, if the prison system, the court system, the District Attorney's Office, the Defender's Association or lawyers, defense lawyers outside of the Defender's Office, since they only handle a little more than 52 or 53 percent of the cases, which means that outside counsel handle almost half of the cases, we would all be able to plug into the same information. Some of the information with offenders may be confidential. For example, an offender who goes into treatment, mental treatment, or other kinds of treatment, may be secret from us, under the rules of confidentiality. 2395 BILL 980003 So there is no way, holistically, we can put all of the pieces together. But we try, through the Probation and Parole Departments, to keep as much a track on people as we can. But when they are out in the street, for all intents and purposes, we can't keep track all the time of every person. We don't have that capability.

Okay. Councilwoman Fernandez.

Excuse me.

I want to jump on that one thing.

Just briefly.

Could you, just for the record, note who is on the Women Fatality Review Committee? The Youth Fatality Review Committee has been -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Phenomenal.

-- very, very important. Could you review for this record who is on that? 2396 BILL 980003 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I won't be able to cover everybody. But as part of our Domestic Violence Unit, recruited Dr. Ruth Zager, one of the leading child psychiatrists in Philadelphia, to be on the committee. We have Department of Human Services. We have Lutheran Settlement Home, Women Organized Against Rape, Women Against Abuse, Police Section Crimes Unit officers, psychologists, all the health care providers, District Attorney's Office, and there must be a group of about 40 or 45. We met this morning. And it is --

It is just beginning? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I beg your pardon?

Is it just beginning? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No. It has been in effect. It has been in effect for several years now. But we are looking to all those things that red flag a case, how we can prevent domestic violence. 2397 BILL 980003 As I said before, part of what I am asking for, which I haven't concentrated on, but don't mean to denigrate the importance of the program, is, the domestic violence intervention is one of the most effective ways of preventing violence in the first place, because it concentrates on three types of familial relationships: The wife or spouse, the children, and the older parent. And violence, sexual assault and abuse, is usually three generation, inter-generational problems. And, of course, we are interested in the offender, too. But we don't have control over the offender; the court has the control over the offender. We try to work all those things together.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.

Thank you, Mr. President. District Attorney Abraham, when you 2398 BILL 980003 discussed the numbers of police officers that are assigned to the District Attorney's Office, when those officers are assigned to the D.A.'s Office, and we read the manpower, the personnel levels of the Police Department, are those officers plucked out of that number because they are not really assigned to the Police Department? From what you said earlier, you paid for them. Then the citizens and City Council, I think, should really know the true number of police officers that are in the Police Department. Because how many police officers are there totally in the District Attorney's Office that aren't truly assigned to the Police Department? So maybe we ought to minus them out? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, Councilman, as I think I indicated, the Police Commissioner can give you the exact number of police officers on his fund. We pay for the police officers. They pay for them; we reimburse them. So in other words they are not on our payroll. You will find Police Officer Rick 2399 BILL 980003 Mariano on the Police Department payroll. We reimburse the Police Department. And they do that for their bookkeeping reasons, whatever reason it is. But whatever number are assigned to us, it does not deplete the number of officers out on the street.

I realize that. My point is that, if tomorrow we got a document from the Police Department, and it says that there were 6300 sworn police officers, would that include the officers that are assigned to the District Attorney's Office? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: 30. We have 30. We are not talking about giant gobs of police.

So when we read that we have X numbers of sworn police officers, it also includes the officers that are assigned to the District Attorney's Office? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: That's correct.

I just wanted to understand that. 2400 BILL 980003 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: To use the word that you are familiar with, they are detailed to that office. Which means that the minute the Police Commissioner says, "We don't want them there any longer," they go back. The minute they don't want to be with us, they go back.

But the point being, is that you are paying for those officers, and the Police Department is not. So really the Police Department could replace those officers, basically, as you said earlier, with additional people to make up for that loss. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Sure.

But they don't. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No. No, I am not suggesting that the Police Department is lying to you. No. No. No. 22

All right. Let me clear up another point, personal confusion. I try to respond to people that ask this question: The structure of the District 2401 BILL 980003 Attorney's Office versus the Police Department. I have had people write to me and say, whose job is it to do investigations, surveillances, raids. It appears that we have an overlapping of the responsibility of the Police Department versus the responsibility of the District Attorney's Office. Could you please explain whose job is it to go out and arrest a drug pusher, conduct an investigation, conduct a surveillance, and do a raid? Is it a District Attorney's Office function or a Police Department function? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: It is primarily the Police Department's function. We are not police. However, we do conduct a limited number of investigations inhouse through our Dangerous Drug Offenders Unit. But we frequently engaged police, FBI, DEA, and other federal agencies. So if your constituent says to you, "Councilman Rizzo, who do I call about a narcotics location?" They can call the Philadelphia Police Department, Narcotics Unit. Every district now has 2402 BILL 980003 a Narcotics Field Unit. And, specifically, if you wanted to contact a high-ranking official, my suggestion would be that you would contact Sylvester Johnson.

Then what is the decision-making process that the District Attorney's Office makes when you, basically, go beyond the scope of prosecutors and become investigators and police officers? Do you make that decision? Who makes that decision? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I think the person who can best explain how we reach that process is the man who is in charge of our Narcotics Unit, my deputy, George Mosey, so I will allow him to do that. But I want to make sure that you understand, we are primarily prosecutors, but we are proactive. If we were just reactive, Councilman, I might suggest to you the police would just arrest and we would just prosecute, we would be where we were 20 years ago. I believe in pro action. I believe in prevention. And all of the units I have spoken 2403 BILL 980003 about, Public Nuisance Task Force, L.I.N.E., our Narcotics Dangerous Drug Offenders Unit, Domestic Violence, Victim's Services, they are all proactive. That means we try to prevent as well as interdict.

One of the things we have worked hard to accomplish.

Please identify yourself for the record.

George Mosey, Deputy for the Narcotics Division in the Philadelphia D.A.'s Office. One of the things we have really worked hard to accomplish is to get rid of any wall that exists between the Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. To that extent, just about every venture that we are involved in is a cooperative venture with the Police Department or other agencies. Now, when it comes to identifying investigations that are to be handled by the D.A.'s Office, as opposed to exclusively being handled by the Police Department, that's usually done on a 2404 BILL 980003 case-by-case basis, and it is usually fact determinative. There are certain techniques that actually require the involvement of a prosecutor. You know, we talk a lot about community prosecution or community policing. We have to talk about community prosecution, as well. Because in this area, as opposed to other areas, it becomes so hyper-technical, so engulfed in the legalees, that you have to have a prosecutor basically working hand in hand with the police officers. And under those circumstances, we usually take the investigation and run with it.

So having the District Attorney's Office involved assures, at least hopefully assures, that everybody is doing the right thing?

And that's why we want to do this L.I.N.E. expansion. What it brings to bear is a prosecutor working closely with the narcotics officers who are already in the division. You have both working hand in hand, and there is never a 2405 BILL 980003 question about what is the legal route to take. You know, it is interesting. Prosecutors don't have the same kinds of protection when it comes to investigating crimes that they have in the courtroom. There is no absolute immunity for prosecutors. But we have, nevertheless, undertaken the responsibility. And it is absolutely necessary if we are going to be effective in this area.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: So to answer your question, Councilman, when your constituents say, "Who should we contact about a drug issue," your first response should be, "Call the Police Department."

Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Madam District Attorney. 2406 BILL 980003 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Good afternoon.

I want to go back to the start of this part of the hearing and get a little better understanding of, I guess, your budget request and the process. Is it my understanding that, I assume, some time last year, the Mayor's Budget Office sends out a call or a request to all the various agencies that seek funding from the General Fund to ask what they anticipate their next year's appropriation request is? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Yes.

And I assume you participated in that process? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Not really.

Can you say why? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Sure. The Mayor's Office sends us a note and says, "This is what you are going to get. Send us the paperwork that matches this number." That's what we do. So if you want to consider that a process, I guess the answer is, not really, but okay 2407 BILL 980003 for paperwork. That's the way it has been done, I have been told, for the past 10, 15, years. 5

And was there any 6 followup discussion about that? 7 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Yes. 8

And is it true 9 that as a result of those discussions, the Mayor did 10 adjust that figure by about a half a million 11 dollars? 12 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Correct. 13

And is it also 14 true that they, apparently, made some commitment to 15 seek a little over $100,000 in local law enforcement 16 Block Grant funding that might be reprogrammed for 17 the District Attorney's Office? 18 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Correct. 19

And is it further 20 true that there was a second commitment to seek upwards of another half a million dollars for the D.A.'s Office subsequent to discussions with the Police Department about some of their funding requests? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Yes. But 2408 BILL 980003 we told the Mayor it would be insufficient and we would not accept money from any department, including the Police Department, that would be insufficient to do the work that we wanted to do. So we told them, unless it could be the figure that we asked for, which is about $1.4 million, we would decline the offer of the money. And that specifically was for a Police Misconduct Investigations Unit. As I told you when I appeared here either last year and/or the year before, my first request for investigation of allegations of police misconduct or allegations of corruption or improper firing of firearms or any kind of investigation attendant upon any law enforcement officer using a deadly weapon, whether fatally or not with fatal consequences, in order to do that work effectively, I first came in, I think, two years ago and asked for $600,000, for which I got nothing. I later came in at a different time and spoke to you specifically, as my memory serves, to say that I was relieved that we didn't get the money, because it wouldn't have been sufficient. So to go to the Mayor's Office two or 2409 BILL 980003 three years later, and for him to offer $100,000 less than I asked for, which was already too low, it didn't appear to us to be productive to take an insufficient amount of money to try to make a difference, when we knew we couldn't.

So you take it to be an all or nothing proposition? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: No. I suggested that we would like to talk to the Mayor. The Mayor agreed to talk to me after Commissioner Timoney -- excuse me, Commissioner Designate Timoney, came on board. And the Mayor suggested to me he would like to have a meeting with himself, Commissioner Timoney, Council President, and our office to see what, if anything, we could work out.

Let me respond to one thing you mentioned. With regard to the $600,000 request for a Police Misconduct Unit, as I recall that -- and I think the notes of testimony from that hearing will indicate the same -- that request came with less than an adequate backup of support for the request. In addition, at least at the hearing, 2410 BILL 980003 you were unable to tell us, for instance, how many police officers your office had prosecuted in prior years. So I didn't get the impression personally, I guess, that you were fully prepared to defend the $600,000 request, and I would assume that that may have been one of many reasons why that request went nowhere. It also seemed that that request, I guess, kind of coincidentally came on the heels of the much more public exposure of police corruption out of the February '95 indictment. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, I disagree with that, Mr. Nutter. Because when I came to City Council, I thought -- and I will have to stand by the record; whatever the record says, I agree with. I don't have the record in front of me -- but I believe there came a question specifically of me how many police officers we had prosecuted. And I believe either at that hearing or a subsequent hearing, I think it was a budget call-back, but don't hold me to the terminology or the date, but I know it is in the record someplace, 2411 BILL 980003 as my memory serves, I believe I advised Council at that hearing that my office had prosecuted twice as many police officers as either Ron Castille or Ed Rendell, and it was something around at that time, at that time, 60-some police officers. I forget the exact number, and I don't want to be quoted incorrectly. But let me also suggest that my coming to City Council and asking for the $600,000 was a genuine expression on my part to try to do something appropriate, that would be adequately funded, to address the issues of any allegation of misconduct. And I am sorry if you felt it was not properly prepared. I always try to do the best job I can. And if there is something that you would want specifically, I can get it for you. But I didn't get the 600,000, and it wasn't because I wasn't prepared.

Well, we don't have to spend the rest of the day debating it. You were not prepared at the first hearing. You did come to a subsequent hearing and provide information based on the first request. 2412 BILL 980003 I am sure there are various reasons why that didn't go forward. It may have to do with previous involvement in police prosecution, or lack thereof. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: It had nothing to do with that.

Well, that's certainly your view, and you are entitled to it. We had a conversation back on January 8 regarding activities, or at that time at least alleged activities, use of staff, in the Frederica Massiah-Jackson judicial appointment matter, I believe that was on a Thursday, as a result of a newspaper story that indicated that a prosecutor in another county had received information from prosecutors in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office that they had, quote, unquote, compiled internal memorandums, court transcripts, and other documents setting forth a course of behavior by Judge Jackson that is unjudicial, improper, and illustrates a disdain for police and prosecutors. In that conversation I asked you, was it possible that people on your staff could be engaged in such activities without your knowledge. 2413 BILL 980003 My recollection of the conversation is that you said yes. Is that the case? Were people engaged in this activity prior to our conversation in January? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I am not going to get into the specifics of Judge Massiah-Jackson. However, when any law enforcement agency, such as the Department of Justice or the FBI or any appropriate official who wants information from us, inquires of us, it does not come through me necessarily. So that if the FBI asked George Mosey for some information, or the Department of Justice or the Bureau of Justice Assistance, George wouldn't come to me and say, "Can I give it to them." He would give it to them. So there are two things that you should know. Number one, that law enforcement agencies can ask another law enforcement agency for information, and it will be divulged without coming to me. Second of all, there are people 2414 BILL 980003 outside of my office who may have provided information that I have no knowledge of.

I understand that. The quote was that it was from prosecutors in the office. And I would certainly would expect that you would cooperate with any of those agencies, given your law enforcement responsibility. I guess I would also assume that most of that contact has to do with potentially criminal legal matters. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Not necessarily.

I am sure it doesn't cover all cases. Since that time, there apparently have been people in your office, I assume now because it is public, to your knowledge who have been engaged in preparing information or documents or reports in this tick matter; is that correct? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I will not answer the question as you put it. I will just say that as a result of Senator Arlen Specter's request of my office, at a 2415 BILL 980003 meeting that we held in his office, with Judge Massiah-Jackson there, with a representative and other representatives of law enforcement, Senator Specter and Senator Santorum asked us for information. We are obliging the Senate Judiciary Committee in their request.

Maybe I missed the chain of events. I thought that they had asked you for information because certain allegations were made either by Mr. Morganelli or by yourself, and I thought that you were asked to substantiate those allegations? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Well, Councilman, I am not going to spend my time here answering those kinds of questions. I will just say to you that Senator Specter and Senator Santorum asked us to compile information to them which they would use and present to the Judiciary Committee at a whole for Judge Massiah-Jackson to respond to. We have responded to that request.

Well, I can certainly appreciate your reluctance to get into the 2416 BILL 980003 matter. But it would seem to me that it actually goes directly to the heart of how the office operates, function, role of the office, how staff time is utilized. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: It does not. It has nothing to do with that.

Well, the people are working on these matters; right? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: In compliance with a request from Senator Santorum and Senator Specter, we are giving them information they requested. And people are working on that, of course.

But the initial work didn't come as a result of, as I understand it, either Senator Specter or Senator Santorum. Wasn't it as a result of a relationship and contact between you and District Attorney Morganelli. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I am not going to answer that question, Mr. Councilman. I run the District Attorney's Office. I am the District Attorney. That's what 2417 BILL 980003 the people elected me to do, and that's what I am doing.

Which is why I am asking you how the office is running. I don't understand, I guess, the reluctance to explain what people are doing or how they are doing it in their spare time. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Councilman, I am here to answer questions about the budget. That's what I am here for, that's what I am going to do. I am the elected District Attorney. The people elected me to run my office. I run it very well. I serve the people well. And that's what I am going to continue to do. I am not going to answer specific questions about how the intricacies of my office work, except as appropriate to justify the budget that I am asking for. Now, when a ranking Senator of the United States Senate or the Justice Department or any other law enforcement agency asks us for information, just as with any other case we try or any other issue -- 2418 BILL 980003

Madam District Attorney, I am asking you for -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, may I finish my answer?

I am asking you for -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, may I finish my answer?

Can we just give the District Attorney an opportunity to finish her answer, and, Councilman, you can ask any question you wish.

Thank you. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: When I or anybody in my office are asked to handle an issue or a case or anything else, we try to do it in an effective way. But we don't have a dollar figure on it and we don't have a time figure on it. So when we are asked by Senate staffers, judiciary members, or anybody else in law enforcement for appropriate information and documentation, we supply it.

How many people are working on this? 2419 BILL 980003 DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I have no 3 idea.

Does any one in the District Attorney's Office know how many people are working on it? DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I am not going to answer that question. This is an internal matter for the District Attorney's office, Councilman, and I am running the District Attorney's Office. And I will continue to run the District Attorney's Office.

Okay. A year ago tomorrow you were at a budget hearing, Mr. Gordon next to you was at the same hearing, and I made a request, and I followed up on that request on a couple of occasions, having to do with the nature of apparently, potentially, allegedly false complaints being filed against Philadelphia police officers. Mr. Gordon indicated that he believed that the office, your office that you run, has prosecuted people for filing false complaints. He then stated that he was not personally aware, though, of those prosecutions. 2420 BILL 980003 I asked at that hearing a year ago for information in this regard. I followed up on at least one, possibly two occasions. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABRAHAM: I received your letter of inquiry, I think, yesterday.

Madam District Attorney, I think you received a previous letter. And the request itself was made in the same forum, on March 6, 1997. I can provide you with a copy of the transcript. I sent you a letter in September, I believe, of 1997, which I think was about a six-month followup. So the letter that you received, that you are referring to, the other day is the second request in writing. The first request was made verbally here in the chambers. Can you provide an answer to that question, as you run your office?

Councilman Nutter, we don't know the name of any cases --

Please identify yourself for the record. 2421 BILL 980003

Arnold Gordon, First Assistant District Attorney. We don't know the name of any cases that you have inquired about, and I haven't made any effort to find the answer to that question.

You have made no 8 effort to find the answer to that question?

That's correct.

Is it because you chose to ignore the request, or you have been too busy, or you are doing other things?

It is because we didn't think it was a productive use of our time.

But the other things you have been working on are most productive.

Absolutely.