COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 10:35 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO Bill No. 050871 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning. We thank you all for being here. This is a continuation of a recessed hearing with regard to Resolution No. 050871 on housing reorganization. We will ask the clerk to read the title of the bill.
Resolution 050871 calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development, and The Homeless to hold public hearings on the administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies.
Thank you very much. All of us know why we are here. We certainly want to thank all of those represented who are here. We see, of course, your president, Veronica Pankey, Local 1971. (Applause.)
We want to thank our housing agencies. They're always here, Tony McIntosh, PHDC, PRDC. 3 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 (Applause.)
We want to thank Lawrence Rust, BIA, and all of our other special guests who have taken time out. We want to thank Sherman Harris, DC-33. (Applause.)
And certainly all who are here. We're now going to ask the administration in the persons of Kevin Hanna, secretary of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, and Catherine Califano, deputy secretary of Housing and Community Development, if they would come to the witness chair. We note for the record that we have asked for a comparison of the housing units -- the housing departments and benefits. We have here in our presence a chart that has the agencies, OHCD, PHDC, RDA, DC-33 and DC-47, and the issues listed on 4 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 this -- we just got this last evening at our request -- were bargaining units, hours worked, compensation plan, vacation leave, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, and pension. And certainly we are concerned about the whole issue of housing reorganization, how these -- a comparison between the departments and a cost. And we call on Mr. Hanna to respond with regard to this chart and how it affects housing reorganization.
Councilwoman, my name is Kevin Hanna. I serve as secretary of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. As you said, pursuant to your request, we provided a chart which essentially outlines certain aspects of the union contracts held with OHCD, PHDC, the Redevelopment Authority, along with DC-33 and DC-47 for certain components of the contract. We're prepared to answer any questions you might have, any clarification questions you might have on the contract, but I 5 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 need to emphasize that we cannot on advice of counsel and on instructions of the Mayor, we cannot negotiate or discuss in any real detailed terms what's contained in this document. Those kinds of discussions, those kinds of negotiations are reserved for a specific forum, which would include the union and its negotiating team for RDA, PHDC, and OHCD, and our negotiating teams. Those discussions have, in fact, been taking place all during these hearings over the past couple of months or so.
Let me say that we have continued each and every hearing. And let me say that on November 15, 2005, December 8, 2005, February 9, 2006, March 16, 2006, this committee has met, that is, the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless have held hearings on the administration's proposal to reorganize the City housing agencies. We have continued to recess and to reopen these 6 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 hearings to talk about the whole issue of housing reorganization and never have we proposed to negotiate for the union. We've been very clear about that. We know that Veronica Pankey and all the union presidents understand how to do their business and we understand our role. Our role is to deal with the housing departments -- (Applause.)
And we have continued to say one question that I'll begin this hearing with and one question that I'll end this hearing with, and that is, where is the report? (Applause.)
We asked for a copy of this chart on the various issues because the administration has declined to specify the impact on labor and the issue of whether or not there are layoffs involved, how employees and residents of our city deal with being transferred. Since the administration 7 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 says they're trying to make sure that everybody is provided for and protected, we want to know in regard to these departments if transferring them around, how that impacts their benefits, how that impacts their lifestyle, how that impacts their salary. That is what we're doing. We're not trying to negotiate the contract because we understand our role, but still this is the fifth hearing and we'll have a sixth one after this if we're not satisfied. (Applause.)
But we wanted to make sure that residents of our city who live, who work here, and who are committed to our city as are we are protected. That's our job to do that. The Chair notes that Councilwoman Marian Tasco is here. We thank her for being present this morning. (Applause.)
As you know, Mr. Hanna, at our last hearing we 8 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 had someone who will be 55 next year who has 36 years in and was worried about being transferred from RDA to another department and how that affects her whole lifestyle. She was crying. I've had so many people who have been crying about the issue. And certainly we ask you to respond as to the plans in terms of housing reorg and how it affects people who are here and people who are not here and their job and their job protection.
First of all, in response to your question a couple minutes ago, that of when the report will be made available or made available to the Council and the public, we expect that that report along with the year 32 consolidated plan will be made available by the end of this week. As for how that affects individuals specifically, obviously I can't speak to that right now, but the Mayor has. And I echo his commitment to sit down and speak to each individual who will be affected by this 9 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 reorganization one way or the other, first of all, to ascertain what their individual situation is and to do what we can to either soften or minimize whatever the negative effects might be. That's the Mayor's commitment. That's the commitment he made I guess it was last month or several weeks ago when he came into our meeting downstairs. And that's the commitment that I echo here this morning.
But, Mr. Hanna, how can the Mayor do it in reverse? How can you bring us a report Friday when it's already done without talking in advance to the workers? We all know about the meeting that happened and we all know about the discord that came out of that meeting. You can't reorganize -- it doesn't help if you meet with somebody and say even though you have nine years in, we're going to transfer you and you have to start your benefits all over again. That doesn't 10 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 help -- (Applause.)
It doesn't help when you deprive people of their benefits, their salaries when you transfer them and say on Monday you have to report X place at a lower salary at a different job description. It's not fair. It's not moral. And you can't do that to the residents of our city. (Applause.)
And I certainly thank God that when you give the report on Friday that goes before finance committee even though we're in the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Preservation and The Homeless, on finance committee that's my committee as well. And we're going to have something to say about any report that does not include a unified plan where everybody's included. That's our job to do that. (Applause.)
Is it 11 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 true that the administration is then or will be based on your report that you'll have this -- that you will give us a copy of all this finally on Friday, is it true that the administration will be requesting that unionized housing employees resign their positions and reapply for new positions under the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation?
No, ma'am. I spoke to that I think one of the last times I was up here. The statement that I had made in the negotiating session was erroneous. That won't be a requirement that people resign their positions.
Then are we to assume if people won't be required to resign their positions, are then we to assume that they will be -- they will maintain their current positions in their current departments?
I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I understand your 12 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 question. Will people be required to -- I'm sorry, Councilwoman. Would you mind repeating your question?
You just said that people will not be -- housing employees will not be asked or required to resign their positions and reapply for new positions under OHNP. Will they be required to apply for new positions under any other housing agency?
Well, the way I envision the process working, Councilwoman, is that the CDBG budget -- well, the consolidated plan as it has for the past 31 years will outline our proposal as to how to spend those federal dollars, CDBG, HOPWA, and home dollars as well as state and other financial resources. We have less money this year as I have been stating all along. We have less money due to nobody's fault in this room or in this state. We outline how we intend to spend that money. Each year we allocate so much money for 13 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 programs, so much money for administration, so much money for program delivery. That consolidated plan will specify how we propose that money to be spent. Now, as far as the individual agencies who are represented in this room 8 are concerned, there's less money and so there will be less money going to each agency. It will be up to the agency to figure out and determine how they decide to spend the administrative and program delivery money that will be allocated to them from the Office of Housing and Community Development. That's always been the way it's worked. It's just that this time we'll have less money.
Does that then mean that each department will be required to deal themselves with the personnel issues? Is that the plan?
Define department because there's a personnel department or are you defining RDA as a department?
RDA, 14 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 PHDC, and OHCD. Will those department heads be required to deal with their own budgets in their own way?
Yes, to a large extent. Remember, though, PHDC, RDC, OHCD all do the will of the City of Philadelphia. PHDC can't decide on its own to start running a McDonald's franchise or something. Each of those organizations are designed to fulfill a specific purpose as prescribed to them by the City of Philadelphia and its chief executive officer, the Mayor. So, yes, to some extent they'll have some discretion, but to a larger extent they need to work within the parameters that are -- that will be communicated to them by the administration.
That means, Madam Chairwoman, that RDA, PHDC were created for specific purposes. They need to 15 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 continue to administer programs that were assigned to them, that will be assigned to them. The amount of money that's provided to them to carry out those specific purposes will be less. They need to work with the administration in an effort to figure out how best to utilize the resources, the money that is, in fact, going to be allocated to them. They can't just by themselves go off and decide to do A, B, and C when Council might want them to do X, Y, and Z.
But that's common sense. We have experienced department heads. Each of the people who heads our departments have been in office almost, you know -- I don't know. What's the least amount of time anybody's been here? Maybe 15 years. They've been here 15 years, 20 years, 25 years. They understand their jobs. And they understand their role in communicating with the Mayor and with his administration. So I don't know what 16 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 that means. I don't understand your response. They've always worked with the administration as has this Council. We've always worked with the administration. We understand the administration spends money. We negotiate. We're the legislators. We make the laws. And we understand that the Mayor has the authority to spend it and they do too. Nobody works outside of the framework of government. So I don't understand your response.
I'm sorry. With my limited vocabulary, that's the best I can do to try to explain it to you.
I'll defer to Councilwoman Tasco and then I'll come back with additional comments and questions.
I'm just going to stumble here because I don't really know what I'm asking, so bear with me. This whole discussion about the reorganization began how long ago? 17 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06
At that point was the financial consideration, the cost, one of the reasons for the reorganization?
Yes, that was one of the reasons, not the only reason, maybe not even the primary reason, but that was one of the reasons for looking at reorganizing.
There were a couple different reasons. One reason was to try to eliminate redundancy where it existed. Another reason was to try to keep as much money -- in fact, this was the primary reason, to keep as much money in programs, money on the streets as possible, and try to I wouldn't say 18 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 minimize but at least limit the amount of money that was needed in the bureaucracy so more money could be spent on programs.
You gave us a chart here that shows the various hours and compensation and vacation and a comparison with the department. Didn't the unions, each department negotiate their contracts themselves? I mean, it seems here that it shows RDA supposedly has a more liberal benefit package, but wasn't that because of the leadership of the union? They get punished because they're able to negotiate a better contract?
It's been our practice in the past to have a different negotiating team for PHDC, RDA, and OHCD. What you have in front of you, what we're dealing with in terms of the respective union contracts is a result of those individual and respective negotiations.
So the team who had RDA -- I don't know how to 19 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 say this -- negotiated a stronger contract?
So, now, you said earlier about the employees having to resign their positions. How do you reorganize to reach your goal? In the plan that you are going to submit, how are you going to reorganize RDA without some massive layoffs?
The reorganization can't be looked at in a vacuum. The reorganization needs to also be looked at along with the fact that the federal government will provide to us starting July 1 $7,818,000 less than they provided to us July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006, the year we're currently in. Even if there was no reorganization, we'd still have to deal with a $7.8 million cut in funding.
But, Mr. Hanna, remember, your reorganization you stated at previous hearing would only 20 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 take care of 1.2 million, so you still have some $5.8 million deficit. (Applause.)
Let me finish responding to Councilwoman Tasco's question. Even without reorganization, we would need to deal with this huge cut in our funding. I've said publicly, I've said in negotiating sessions that it would be very, very difficult to deal with a $7.8 million without there being some layoffs of some kind somewhere of some number, so you can't blame any layoffs on reorganization. It's unfair to blame layoffs on reorganization. You know, to your comment, Councilwoman Blackwell, referring to the $1.2 million that would be saved through reorganization, that was only one aspect of the savings. The other aspects will be outlined by the end of the week in the report that you'll receive. Another way, however, to look at that $1.2 million is to say that if it 21 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 weren't for that $1.2 million that comes as a result of reorganizing, then that many more people would need to be laid off. In other words, if we didn't fix the phone system, if we didn't consolidate the fleet, if we didn't take these other nonpersonnel steps, then that money would have to be saved someplace else. And, again, the choices are take it from programs or take it from delivery.
But we have a surplus in this year's budget. Why can't we go to the general fund and keep people working? (Applause.)
It's a matter of priorities for us. You know, in a moral society people have to do the right thing and that's what -- and the final analysis, you can't say you have a surplus and then have people who live and work and have given their lives for the city and lay them off. It's wrong. It 22 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 still comes down to a matter of priorities. We have to do the right thing. And leaders have to lead. That's from my level, from your level, and from the administration level. (Applause.)
I don't know. We've asked on November 15, December 8, February 9, and March 16, at all four times we've asked for this housing report and we haven't received it. Now we're told we'll get it but we'll get it after you have all the changes in mind. That's wrong, Mr. Hanna. And it's wrong for people who have worked with this administration. I've been around longer than I care to name, but people who have been partners in trying to establish a housing agenda and tried to revitalize and refurbish neighborhoods, it's wrong for you to disrespect us in this way by not -- (Applause.)
23 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 Councilwoman Tasco, I saw you talking and thought you were finished. Councilwoman Tasco?
No, I hadn't finished. Let's say as you look at the staffing of RDA, how many employees would be leaving through the DROP and through attrition and how many dollars would that save? Has an analysis been done of that?
Have you looked at DROP and looked at attrition in terms of that and what financial impact it would have on RDA's budget?
We know that approximately eight people are expected to leave the RDA either through DROP or retirement over the next couple of years or so.
I'm sorry. That's 24 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 actually over the next couple of months.
Has there been an analysis of the number of people who are leaving in the DROP program now this year and how many vacancies you have that you plan not to fill? Has that been taken into consideration?
Yes. We took all of that into consideration in coming up with the plan, the consolidated plan that you'll be presented with by the end of this week. All that's been taken into consideration.
Well, how many employees are new employees in your office, Housing and Neighborhood --
I couldn't tell you how many people. I don't know. I couldn't tell you how many people have been hired over the last five years. We can provide that to you.
But if you were hiring new people in your office and you knew you were going to have a deficit, why were you hiring new people?
A number of people that have been hired have been hired to replace people who have retired or otherwise left from the Office of Housing.
But we knew last year the community development grant dollars were being cut, so now you've hired new people in your office but some people in RDA may have to go because of the decrease in the community development block grant --
No, I think that's something of a misrepresentation. At OHCD, folks have been hired at OHCD. Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 Over the past couple years, folks have left. Not everybody at OHCD -- I'm just using that as an example -- that left have been replaced one for one. If you look at the number of people at OHCD who were at OHCD in 2004 and look at the number of people at OHCD now, there are fewer people net at OHCD now than there were in 2004.
But the people who were hired, were they at a salary level that may have equaled more than those people who left?
No, no. The whole purpose for releasing -- well, not replacing certain people and releasing certain people was that so OHCD -- and, again, I'm just using that as an example -- so that OHCD's administrative number would be less.
So we'll see that when you submit your budget that there will be a decrease in the administrative costs of OHCD in terms of 27 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 staffing over the last five years?
What you'll see by the end of the week is how we propose to spend the money that has been allocated to the City of Philadelphia, which obviously takes into consideration the $7.8 million less this year than last year. What you'll see is how we propose to spend that money, ma'am.
Thank you, Councilwoman Tasco. Good morning. I was trying to get my arms around this upstairs. I just need to ask a couple questions which may have well been asked before, but I need for the record. State for me the labor organization most impacted and the name of the locals most impacted for the record to the labor representative at the table.
Local 1971 28 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 represents the employees at the Office of Housing. When I say "Office of Housing," I include RDA, PHDC, and OHCD. Local 1971 represents all the employees at the Office of Housing. Now, as to who will be affected, each of the organizations, RDA, PHDC, and OHCD, will be affected by both reorganization and the cut in funding.
And of Local 1971, that's the umbrella, if you will, the umbrella local?
That's my reason for trying to get my arms around the facts. According to testimony here, it also states that District Council 33 AFL-CIO will also be potentially impacted by this new plan. Is that not so?
Just to clarify, my name is Mary Theresa Metzler. I'm an attorney at Ballard, Spahr and I have 29 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 been involved in the contract negotiations to some extent.
Yes. The bargaining units are represented at -- there are various bargaining units at RDA, PHDC, and OHCD, and they are all represented by different collective bargaining agreements, but they all happen to be represented by AFSCME Local 1971, that's the local, and separate bargaining units at each of the three agencies.
I see Ms. Pankey shaking her head. Would you clarify who represents whom? Could you come to the table a moment and clarify? Thank you. (Applause.)
Yes. Good morning. I understand they have a 30 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 limited vocabulary so I'm going to help them a little bit. Our proper name, our proper legal description is AFSCME Local 1971. We are an affiliate of not only AFSCME but also that of District Council 33 and of the AFL-CIO. The only local that will have -- I'm not going to say the only local because we're limited on how all will be affected. We know that we will have the greatest impact on this reorganization, that is, Local 1971. Whether they choose to put us in any other local within the city is rumor. And the reason I state that it's rumor is because not only the Mayor but members of this administration have chose to have conversation with all other union leaders other than those who are affected as to what's going to happen with the displaced employees. I have yet to be -- we have yet to be approached as to what is going to happen to those of us who do not go into the other -- who does not go into this new entity. If, in fact, we are 31 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 going to any other agency within the city and if it's their intention to put us in a unionized position, then, in fact, the impact is not only going to be felt by Local 1971, it would potentially by affected by any other local within the city which could fall under either District Council 33 or District Council 47. But we haven't been given that information. But when you look at the reorganization as we see it today, as you see it, the only local right now is Local 1971 that has a direct impact on the reorganization. How we're going to be dispersed, we will then be able to determine what other locals and what other councils will be affected as a result of that placement.
And when you say they will decide what other locals we go to, who is they?
The City administration. They seem to be the ones holding the cards. As you know, we 32 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 always asked to be a part of this process and have not been given an opportunity. And I think from my position very seldom in the business world does the businessman get the opportunity to have cooperation, especially from those that are going to be directly impacted by what we consider to have an adverse effect on us. Recognizing from day one this would have an adverse effect on us, we have asked to be a part of this process. It is this administration that chose to limit us, pretty much not even include us when they feel like they're backed into a corner because they're being questioned from other individuals, clearly not from our own questions.
Are you suggesting then that you will not learn until the formal plan is released, only at that time will you learn where those other places those employees will be placed to, shifted to? Is that what I hear you saying? 33 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06
I can assure you not even when the plan is released this week or next week or whenever it's going to be released I will not know where the individuals are going to be placed.
Councilwoman Tasco, were you still raising questions? Thank you very much. I believe that Mr. Hanna was truthful when he said this started when he was hired in '02. And, in fact, as they say, hindsight's always 20/20, but from reading the old Brophy reports and these housing reorganization task force documents that we've managed to come across, it seems to us that I agree that Mr. Hanna was probably hired under the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, under that title because that was the plan from '02 to now to reorganize in that way. 34 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 Is that your opinion, Mr. Hanna? While he's coming forward, we note that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown is here. (Applause.)
As well as Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller. (Applause.)
Councilwoman, when I was hired back in December of '02, that was the title. As I was interviewing for the job back in '02, that was the title of the position for which I was interviewing. Now, as to the motives or why that particular title was chosen, I can't speak to that, but that was the position for which I interviewed.
I believe now that that was the plan for these years why you were hired, to bring us to where we are today, and I still resent the fact -- I sat in the luncheon on your interview. I sat on the 35 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 luncheon --
-- where a couple candidates were interviewed. And certainly it is very disappointing to put it nicely to feel that the whole plan was to bring us to where we are now. It's just worse now because of the Bush administration cutting 7.8 million, but that the whole plan from the beginning was to do housing reorganization at this level. And I don't know how many cuts they planned on doing, but never to make us full partners in the process but only to administratively do what those at the top, what the administration and yourselves think should happen, and yet we're out there in the neighborhoods every day representing neighborhoods in addition to the employees. And it's our responsibility to try to rebuild neighborhoods, but we're not partners in the process. That's absolutely wrong. 36 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 I'll continue to say that. And I'll continue to resent it. There's no reason why we should have to be here on a fifth hearing. We started this process last November. And I'll continue to say it. It's unfair that we have to be here, that people have to take off from work to talk about their job security -- (Applause.)
-- when we have tried to be partners in the process to revitalize the city. It's the only way a city can move forward. In other cities, I have documents from other cities and they have programs where they show in Boston and Pittsburgh and other places, I have documents that show where cities receive partnerships for millions and billions of dollars to do housing development. Why could we not have a partnership with the administration where we put on the table our partnership, the amount of money we need to redo neighborhoods, and not have to be in an 37 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 adversarial position where the administration, the executive and legislative branches, are fighting and the people are pawns, the workers are pawns in the middle? Why does it have to be this way? (Applause.)
I continue to believe that people who mean well and want the best for the city can work together. I don't understand why we're here. I don't understand. We have to continue to fight. I don't understand why I have to plan another hearing, which we've already done for May 2 at 10:000 because obviously we're not going to allow ourselves to receive a report on Friday and just assume we move forward and that everything's okay. That's not fair. We feel, Mr. Hanna, that in spite of all of this that we're being smacked in the face because you continue to move full steam ahead. You know, from November 15 to December 8 to February 9 38 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 to March 16 to today, April 18, we've said where's the report. We've continued to say where's the report, where's the plan, show us the documents, work with us. We're your partners. We have staffs. We're all in the same city. Why can't we have worked together? Why would you insult our intelligence by finally giving us in your time frame and your time table a report that will come out on Friday? What do you expect -- how do you expect us to view it and how do you expect us to feel about you issuing this report still at your time table? We're already in April. We know we have the hearings and the CDBG hearings that come up. And we feel that you've just continued along the same path and said, well, in spite of their hearings, we'll try to get people to stay away, you know, it's kind of lonely up here, we try to get people to stay away and we'll try to make sure that no matter what happens that things don't change. We'll just cut 39 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 back. We'll just reorganize. They'll find out when they find out. And because they love their neighborhoods and want funding so much, they're forced to go along. (Applause.)
I don't know what you expect from us, but I think that many people in this Council have been telling me that they've kind of had enough and they're willing to -- (Applause.)
And I'm speaking about district councilpeople as well. I represent a district, but we district councilpeople have had enough as well as those at large who have the whole city to keep in mind. And we're willing to put our concerns on the table. You cannot treat our neighborhoods and the people who work here this way. You just can't do it. (Applause.)
In the 40 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 report we are to get on Friday, what will you be asking of us? Just to give you our opinion on what we think for it? Will you be asking then for the public hearings on CDBG? What do you view as the next steps in this negotiation effort?
What will be provided to you is again through the consolidated plan for year 32 our proposed method of spending the federal, state, and local dollars that are available to the City of Philadelphia for housing. In addition to the consolidated plan, you'll be provided the consultant's report, better term for it would be their findings and the work that they've done. Over the past -- this is April now -- three months or so, we've met with various constituents, constituencies, to include Council people, to share with you the proposed reorganization. That was the Power Point presentation. That presentation, the reorganization that was 41 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 contemplated with that presentation -- well, we had asked for input from folks, all kinds of folks on that presentation and on that proposed reorganization. Over the past couple of months, we've received input, to include from the union. We've received input from various folks on that proposed reorganization. The elements of that proposed reorganization are factored into the year 32 consolidated plan.
Mr. Hanna, that Power Point that was very long and very detailed didn't seem to leave -- it was your report. It didn't lend itself to input or elaborative agreements by anybody. It was your saying this is it and that's the way we're proceeding in the future. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, you had a question.
Before the Councilwoman speaks, I need to respond to that statement. In every single instance 42 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 where I presented that Power Point presentation, every single instance I prefaced the presentation with this statement that this is the, quote, proposed reorganization. We're providing it to you, whether you are City Council people, whether you are BIA, whether you are whomever. All the folks to whom that was presented, I prefaced that presentation with you're being provided a version of the proposed plan. It's proposed because the Mayor has asked me to go out, make these presentations to you all to get your input. The Mayor reserves the right to tweak, to overhaul the proposed plan based upon your input I said at each and every one of those presentations. People who have wanted to provide their input, their comments on the proposed plan have done that over the past couple of months or so.
But Mr. Hanna, you continued to say the Mayor won't let me respond, the Mayor won't let 43 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 me tell you, the Mayor won't, the Mayor won't, the Mayor won't, the Mayor won't make up his mind, so we've had no 5 opportunity to input because you have given us nothing to respond to. We still have never received a document, never. Every time we raise the question, you say, well, the Mayor says we can't say this, we can't respond, the Mayor -- if we push further, we've been told the Mayor had not made his decisions. Therefore, we've been at a disadvantage. You need something to respond to. You know, that Power Point, I don't know, that Power Point was so long and detailed I don't really know what it said yet. And we wanted a document. We asked for a document. We've been asking for a document since November 15, December 8, February 9, March 16, and April 18. The questions have been the same. We believe that we have a right to respect a copy of the plan -- to receive a copy of the plan, and we believe that it is 44 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 intentional we haven't because now we'll get a copy of the plan along with the CDBG, the application. So we feel that was the plan from the beginning to just wait, drag it out, make it wait, and force us to vote for it. That's wrong. (Applause.)
Councilwoman, we need to make a distinction between the proposed reorganization plan -- that's what was presented in the Power Point presentation -- and the consultant's report. The consultant's report is what's going to be provided by the end of the week. The consultant's report goes into the detail as to their method for gathering information. It goes into detail as to the findings that they got from the surveys that they did. It goes into some detail as to the findings that they got from talking to municipalities outside of Philadelphia, outside of the City of Philadelphia. That report details their methodology for 45 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 recommending what they recommended. The proposed reorganization, that which you've called very long and very detailed, that's what was presented to you via the Power Point. You're certainly within your right to require, to demand a copy of the consultant's report, their methodology, their findings. And we'll make that available to you, but to represent that we have not provided details of the proposed plan, we've done that. You've just said that we've provided that in some detail.
Mr. Hanna, you have not. You have not. Nobody cares more about the issue of housing -- I don't know anybody who cares more than I do. Lucien Blackwell started the homeless program in the City of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
We're committed. We believe everybody in this city and certainly in this nation has a 46 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 right to have a decent place to live.
Nobody comes in my office without someplace to go. It may not be the Taj Mahal, but nobody comes in my office without someplace to go. That's my commitment to God and to people. (Applause.)
We work with everybody. As you know, we work with homelessness, the Mayor's ten-year plan to end homelessness. We established our own many years ago. We work on everything available. No 17 consultant asked me my opinion on anything. (Applause.)
I mean, there are those of us who care. Why could not we be the partners that we project? I've extended myself. I'm a partner in this. You all just don't accept us as such, but we are partners in 47 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 this issue. We're partners in the area and we are partners in the arena to improve the quality of life for all people. I learned a long time ago if the bottom comes up, the top has to rise. I'm clear where my commitment is and I'm clear to whom I am committed. I'm clear about my job and clear about my mission. We deserve the right -- in a partnership, it means we have full rights. That means we're included. You know, you can't say that it's okay for me to fight to get it passed and after we pass it I don't have anything else to say. You can't do that. It's not right. It's not fair. It's not fair to put us in this position. We shouldn't have these people take off from work. And now we're getting ready to go into the same thing with biosolids in the water department. Why are we having all these union problems in our city with civil employees? (Applause.)
And 48 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 nobody can expect, neither you nor anybody in the administration can expect us to fight the very people who elect and send us here. We're not going to do that. (Applause.)
You should extend yourself to us as we do to you all the time because we want to do the right thing for the right reasons. I believe in God. And job or no job, we're going to be here to try to do the right thing and try to help people and work for people, but we shouldn't have to fight you to do that, shouldn't have to do that. Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.
To the Committee Chair's comment, the consultant as best I understand it did not meet with members of Council. Can you share with us who they did meet with in light of the fact Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell chairs this committee and as 49 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 already indicated has a long-standing reputation with housing issues?
She's asking who the consultants are, and there's another question asked with whom they met. Would you release that information who the consultants are and with whom they met?
My name is Catherine Califano. I'm deputy secretary of the Office of Housing. The consultants met with all of the management -- managers of the three agencies. They met with the boards of PHDC and the Redevelopment Authority. They also met with organizations that work closely with the Office of Housing and the Redevelopment Authority and PHDC, including other City departments. They met with the head of PHA and some CDC 50 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 groups. They're all named in the report that you'll see on Friday. The team was led by public financial management, the reinvestment fund, and there's four other consulting groups that were also part of the team, Lamar Wilson and his organization, Allred Consulting, which helped on our personnel assessment issues. And we have two other consulting team members and I'm forgetting -- Val Piper from Piper and Associates.
Were any members of the labor community talked with about the type of information the consultants were seeking? Were they a part of the survey?
In addition to doing one-on-one interviews, the management team met with the labor leadership and talked about the reorganization process. It invited members to participate in what we called our process teams. Our process teams allowed over 50 employees with a mixture 51 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 from both the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC, and OHCD to meet for six weeks with the consultants to look at various aspects of the work. So there were line employees from all three agencies a part of the process team activities.
Friday we will get the consultant's report and then the proposed reorganization will be a part of the budget testimony for our budget hearings?
I keep hearing the union say and staff say at the housing agencies that they really did not have any input, and in the past when 52 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 other administrations have attempted reorganization, that they've had more input, they worked together. Is there some reason why that didn't happen this time? To me, when we got the -- when we saw the Power Point and nothing was written, then I kind of felt like it was all confidential and maybe that's why we haven't seen a written document for us to examine and have input. Now, I did send a letter. Hopefully, you got copies of that. I sent it directly to the Mayor's office in terms of my input. But it seems like there's a piece missing here. Everyone from the union says they were not a part of the reorganization plan, got no input. I overheard some of the workers talking when they left the hearing one day on the way to the elevator, and I don't know who but one woman said that -- I guess she was probably one of the 50. You said it was 50 employees?
But once she realized something was going on that made her very uncomfortable, she stopped participating. So it seems to me that something has happened that turned people off, made people not want to participate, and felt that they were being excluded. And I just don't think that's the way we do a reorganization. (Applause.)
Councilwoman, we can provide you with the dates that we met with employees, union officials, have met with those folks over the past couple of years since this reorganization effort started in earnest. We can't right now because we just don't remember them off the top of our head, but I'll be more than happy to provide you with them. As to why certain folks decided to participate or not participate, obviously, like the young lady you saw at the elevator bank, you'd have to ask them specifically why or why not. Obviously, 54 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 some folks are unhappy with the process, unhappy with the way that the administration has tried to reach out. To say that we haven't tried, though, I think is untrue. It's okay I think to take a stand one way or the other as to the extent to which we've tried to reach out. That's okay. I mean, different people with different opinions will have varying opinions on how that process worked, but the administration, to include, well, me, the folks sitting around me here, have, in fact, made some effort to try to reach out to try to get input from folks. Again, you can take a stand as to whether or not you think it's been legitimate or enough. Certainly, people judge you all every day as to whether you are doing enough no matter how much you're doing in your respective districts. So I take that criticism and I'm not offended by it at all. But we have, in fact, tried to reach out over the past 18 months, two years or so. We 55 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 have, in fact, offered opportunities to folks in the Office of Housing to participate in the process. And at this point I think it's important for folks to understand, to realize, folks all over this room, no matter how you feel about me, no matter how you feel about the Mayor, what you need to understand, what you need to remember is that we have less money this year than we have in the past. Given the pot of money, given the pot of money, given the pot of money, given the pot of money, given the pot of money that we have to work with, some very difficult decisions have to be made. As the secretary of housing, it's my job to make some of those decisions or at least make recommendations for how those decisions ought to be made. Ultimately, it's the Mayor's decision, but it's my job as secretary of housing to make these decisions. Agree with them, disagree with them, it depends on your perspective obviously, but we've tried over this 56 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 process, in this process to do the best we can with what we have to work with. We are at this point. We're going to have to make certain decisions. Good or bad, we are at this point.
Mr. Hanna, could you tell us who you have hired and their salaries since assuming your position? (Applause.)
Madam Chairwoman, I've been here since December 2002. We have currently somewhere around 300, 310 employees. I'd be hard-pressed to tell you all of the people who have been hired over the past three and a half years.
I'm talking about OHNP, Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, your department only, your management level. I'm not talking all the various housing agencies, just yours. 57 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06
The only two people that have been hired to the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation have been Catherine Califano, my deputy, and Madeline Massi, my executive assistant.
I'm told there are other people. Is it not true that Mr. Gibson or someone named Davenport were hired? They don't work for OHNP?
Richard Gibson works for the finance department. He's been detailed to the Office of Housing just as we have attorneys who work for the City Solicitor who have offices at the Office of Housing and Community Development. Andy Davenport has been hired to work for the Office of Housing and Community Development, OHCD. Cathy just reminded me Mr. Gibson is actually funded out of the general fund. He's not funded out of the block grant dollars.
So in 58 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 your department you're saying you have yourself and Ms. Califano only?
So far as OHNP. Is this your plan -- in the information we will receive on Friday, will it indicate that there is an increase in your staff?
Yes. As we've been providing in the Power Point presentation, as I've been explaining to everybody that I've presented that proposed plan to, yes. The proposal is to decrease the number of people who are at RDA and PHDC and to consolidate offices, consolidate departments into the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation.
Councilwoman Miller's asking for the rationale and I'm asking about how it affects where they are now and their pensions and their benefit packages. 59 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 Will these people in this plan receive at least what they have now?
That's a negotiating question, Madam Councilwoman, and I can't get into it at this meeting.
I think I remember in the Power Point that all four housing agencies will still remain intact: your office, RDA, PHDC, OHCD; correct?
OHCD will be subsumed into OHNP, so there will no 16 longer be a --
OHCD it is proposed to be subsumed into the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, so OHCD goes away.
So then the only one that won't be around then is OHCD; correct? 60 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06
So shifting people, though, from one -- basically, people will end up doing the same tasks but maybe under OHNP or whatever? What are those initials?
Well, you know more about this than I do, but it just seems very confusing, a little bit redundant. The same people will be doing the same work only under now a different agency or maybe not, but it just doesn't seem -- and maybe it's because I haven't seen the consultant's survey --
Mr. Hanna, you just said that the departments would have to determine where -- if it's not through attrition or for retirement, 61 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 they would have to determine how they shrink their departments. How does that interplay -- interface with you still trying to reorganize the departments? So you want to reorganize the departments plus cut them? I don't understand.
First of all, the departments will find out the amount of monies that are going to be provided for them for general administration and for program delivery.
I mean, in other words, it sounds like you want to reorganize the departments, take their people from them or gut their departments, and then say this is how much money you have so they're done. They can't do anything. (Applause.)
They're stuck. If you take somebody's money away, naturally they can't function. If you take their money and their employees away, what can they do? 62 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 And then you say it's your decision. Well, they have no choice.
Certain responsibilities, Madam Councilwoman, are going to be consolidated into the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. This is what was shown on the Power Point presentation. There are certain departments that exist in each of the existing groups. There are three human resource departments, there are three legal departments, and so on. Certain of those responsibilities will be consolidated into the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation and taken out of RDA and PHDC.
So what happens to the director position of OHCD?
What happens to the director? There will no longer be a director of OHCD. That position, that job responsibility goes away.
So 63 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 what happens to that job then, for example?
That job goes away. There will be five deputies for lack of a better term.
Yes, ma'am. For development, for administration, there will be a CIO, legal counsel, and one other, planning. The thing you need to remember, however, is of all of the management positions in the new reorganized office of housing, if you take all of those boxes, there will be fewer of those than there are currently if you took all of the boxes, all the management positions at RDA plus PHDC plus OHCD.
Mr. Hanna, I really, really resent it. We still -- we talk about assessors when we try to get properties done. We have basic level jobs that we need filled. 64 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 And yet through all of this we've talked about overlap, duplication. All the departments are willing to deal with that as an issue. Where we can consolidate, where we can streamline, that's okay. Everybody was willing to work in that regard. We said this at our first or second hearing. Everybody's always willing to give. And when people mean well, compromise is always possible because everybody gives a little, but here the administration's giving nothing. You have given nothing. This is the same -- these are the same fears that we learned about last year. And what again that you and the administration have shown, you've shown us that you've just kept full steam ahead, you're going to do what you want to do, treat people the way you want, deal with City Council however you want to because we want to fund our neighborhoods. It is the most shameful, undermining, disgusting, disappointing experience, one of the most that I've 65 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 ever endured. (Applause.) Councilwoman Tasco.
In 1993 you weren't here, but there was a reorganization. So tell me, to your knowledge, why are we reorganizing what was reorganized in 1993? And I read this someplace that there have been several attempts to reorganize. It goes one way, depends on this Mayor, and then in 2008 we're going to have another Mayor. It just seems that we're so late in the process. And this started in 2002. This is, what, four years later. And so when the next Mayor comes, he's going to look at it maybe and maybe reorganize that and we spend a lot of money with the consultants and everybody, probably spent $1.2 million on the consultants to get the job done. So what is the difference in this reorganization and that reorganization?
Lots of things have 66 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 changed since 1992, '93. Technology, for instance, technology allows us to do a lot of things today that we couldn't do back in 1992. To ignore certain technology improvements and continue to do things in 2006 the way we did them in the early '90s speaks to the inefficient or inefficiencies of the way we're doing things right now. So technology has changed. I have no idea how much money we were receiving in 1992 or 1993. I would imagine that in the late '90s, earlier this decade we peaked in terms of the amount of money that we get from the federal -- from all sources, from federal sources, state sources. We're probably never going to see those levels again in terms of funding. If we don't do something to react to technology, to the lack of funding, then -- well, in my view if we don't do it now, I don't know when it will get done. And as I said, when I was hired, this was one of the responsibilities that was given to me. 67 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06
Mr. Hanna, you can't in '07 when this term is up, you can't do this effective '07 and then we all run in '07. You can't organize the last year of a term. If it had happened when you came in '02, we could have some discussion, but you can't do it at the end of a term, the last year of a term and make other people think you have their intentions in mind that you want to do the right thing. You can't do it the last year of an administration. It doesn't make sense. We don't buy it. We don't trust it. We don't believe in it. Someone just gave me a note that this reminds them of the creation of Homeland Security and FEMA not -- (Applause.)
We all know what happened with the Hurricane Katrina. It's just unfair to expect that in year '07 you reorganize, the last year of this administration, and think that any new Mayor or that anybody's going to 68 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 have any faith in it. You don't do business like that. Scripture says don't let your good be evil spoken of. If this is good, we don't see it. You can't expect us to believe this is anything that helps anybody. (Applause.)
It's so unbelievable that we could just do away with departments and create -- the only thing that I'm sure is not touched is the Vacant Property Review Committee because City Council created that one in 1976. So that's the only thing that's salvaged, I assume. Am I correct?
Nobody's touching that? That's the one we created.
That was created by City Council. We couldn't dissolve it if we wanted to.
That's the only thing we end up -- that's the 69 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 only thing that's salvaged because Council created that, but it does not mean we are happy to do away with various departments, create these deputies. If it is so good, Mr. Hanna, and I say again to you, to all of you here and to the administration, if it's so good, what's the secret? What's been the secret? The scripture says and I said before you spread the good news. If it's been so good, why has it been such a secret since last year? Why haven't we been able to buy in, to have a partnership, to be co-creators, to be partners in a plan to improve the way our city operates, the housing departments, the way we deliver services, all our neighborhood programs that we enjoy, and to have a better relationship in terms of employees of the city? How can you not expect us to not believe that you're operating in the best interest of us, of the employees, and of the city residents? How can you not expect us to question it or to think that 70 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 you're not working in our best interest? How can you not expect it? I don't understand it. I don't understand it.
A few years back when we were in City Council dealing with item pricing with Councilman Cohen, we had three bills that we voted on, sent three bills to the Mayor and asked him to sign one. I think it was three. Since we have to approve the OHCD budget, you might want to think about having two plans because you need nine votes. (Applause.)
I suggest you have one without the reorganization and one with the reorganization because you need to get nine votes. And I don't know where people are, where they'll be, but we always get this at the end of our 71 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 term. And you have to have it passed before I think October or sometime to send to Washington and all of that. And I don't intend to be here through July like I was last year so I hope that you all give it some thought and maybe the Mayor will entertain having two bills. (Applause.)
Thank you, Councilwoman. I've been checking with our colleagues and they seem to feel as we do. Nobody likes a secret plan. Nobody likes to be left out of the process. And I don't know anyone who says I support housing reorganization. I haven't talked to one Councilperson who says I'm for it. (Applause.)
I haven't talked with anybody who's willing to accept something blindly and be told we have to vote it out immediately. It's not fair. We just had enough. It's not fair for the administration to expect us 72 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 to do that. And it's not fair to think that we who have tried our best to work in concert with you could be treated like this and expect to support a plan that we know nothing about that reorganizes, that guts everything, and we're not going to do it. We're just not going to do it. (Applause.)
I believe we tried to make our position clear. I assume that you've heard us. This is a serious issue. And it's serious when you deal with the livelihoods of people who live and work in the city. It's serious when you threaten the programs that we fought so hard for. It's serious when we have to fight all the time year in and year out for decisions on programs and where we don't feel that we've been dealt with honestly and forthrightly. Let me ask, is there anyone else here who would like to testify? We're going to now ask Veronica Pankey, 73 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 President of 1971, to come forward and testify. (Applause.)
I hope as you take your seats that you have heard us. We're serious about this issue. It's one to which I have a commitment and I've heard nothing to convince me otherwise. We have no 11 intention to give up or to give in when it comes to housing reorganization and how it affects our people. (Applause.)
As I say whenever I'm in tough battles, I always say I'm not afraid to lose, I'm only afraid not to do the right thing. We're going to try to do the right thing. We're going to fight. We can win or we can lose. And we pray to God that we win, but we're going to stand for what's right. We're not afraid to do that. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself to our 74 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 record again, Ms. Pankey, and begin your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Veronica Pankey. I'm president of AFSCME Local 1971. This is Joseph Wills. He's vice president of AFSCME Local 1971. We don't have prepared written testimony today, but we just wanted to respond to some of the comments that was presented by the administration regarding this reorganization. Since last testimony on March 16, there has been two meetings which we have reported out to you at that hearing on the 16th that was scheduled for the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd of March. On the 21st of March, we were asked by Mr. Hanna -- and let me just preface this by stating he did all the speaking at this meeting. No one from the -- no one else from the administration had any participation. I know Mr. Herrin had a few comments he wanted to add, but Mr. Hanna clearly demonstrated that he 75 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 would take responsibility for handling this meeting. And in this meeting on the 21st, Tuesday the 21st, the question by the administration, Mr. Hanna directly, was, what is Local 1971's concept on the restructure? I don't want to know what your feeling is on the restructure, on this reorganization. I just want to know your concept on the chart, the restructure. And what the union did on that particular day is we went through that 15-page Power Point and we presented him questions and concerns that we had with each page starting with Page No. 8 million deficit. We asked for detailed information as to how much was program and how much was administrative cost of this deficit for each one of the three housing agencies. We couldn't get the information. They didn't have that information. We asked -- went into the structure of the chart and asked them a question. Their concept which they talked about today, 76 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 three finance departments, three personnel departments, in their structure that they presented to us, they show that there will be remnants left back at PHDC and the Redevelopment Authority. And our question was based on the structure that you're presenting to us, how do you expect that the personnel transactions and the fiscal transactions are going to be done back at these particular agencies, and his response to us was we have to rethink that. There was several questions that was presented that we haven't gotten an answer at this point. And our hope is that we're going to have a followup meeting. Those meetings were extended to all three agencies to participate, OHCD, PHDC, and the Redevelopment Authority. When we got to the meeting on the 21st of March, the Redevelopment Authority representatives were there. David Thomas and Herb Wetzel and the union representatives were there. We were 77 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 waiting for Mr. Hanna and his team to come in. While we're sitting there, Redevelopment Authority is getting up and leaving. We asked them why aren't they staying and they told us the new technology, the Blackberry, just received a message they were uninvited with no 9 explanation. So Mr. Hanna and his team comes in and we asked for an explanation of that. And they stated -- he stated they wanted to deal with us on an agency by agency basis and the first was dealing with OHCD issues. We accept that because based on the contract, we have joint labor management committees and they are dealt with on the agency as it pertains to their issues. So that was fine with us, but we also made it clear that we do expect to have meetings with the other two agencies as it pertains to their issues. We don't expect that the concepts and the issues that we discuss at OHCD is going to be the same for that of PHDC and the Redevelopment Authority. 78 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 Each agency has their own issues, but to date we have not gotten any followup meetings scheduled nor have we finished conducting the business as pertains to OHCD. On the 22nd of March, we went into the meeting and the meeting was opened by Mr. Hanna again and this was still dealing with just OHCD issues.
And his question to the union was, what does the union want to see happen in this reorganization? And we stated to him that's our exact same question. How do you plan to have this transition take place? And the response was we don't know. We're three months away from the end of the fiscal year. 8 million deficit. You don't know the breakdown of this deficit as it pertains to program and administration cost, as it pertains to Redevelopment Authority, OHCD, and PHDC. You don't know how you're going to get the individuals over to the new agency. You 79 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 have no concept. And this is his response to me -- to us was we don't know what level of staffing we will need at the new entity. They did state to us that the Mayor has intentions to want to sit down with each one of the individuals and discuss with them the impact that this would have and what it is they currently do in their positions. We made it clear then and I'm going to make it clear again if it was not understood. Individuals in the positions that they held were hired based on the job specs that they currently have. There is no need to ask and they will not be permitted for this administration, be it the Mayor, Mr. Hanna, or any other individual to meet with any member of this union regarding the work that they do. It is clear. We were hired based on an agreed-upon job spec, agreed by both management and the union. That is the position that we currently hold. That is 80 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 the position that they need to look at in terms of filling the level of employment at this new entity and anywhere we intend to go. And if we choose, if we choose to have to take a position below based on our layoff rights to demote in lieu of a layoff, that is something we would consider. What this administration is stating is they want to revise our job specs prior to filling our position in this new entity. We can't agree to that. We don't have a contract so how can we agree to any revisions of our current contract language, which our current contract language clearly says that we must agree on any revisions to a current job specification. And if we can't agree, we go to the Civil Service Commission for them to make a determination. That has not even been a consideration by this administration. It is their choice, their desire to want to meet with the individuals and make a determination based on the feedback they 81 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 have gotten and assumptions they have -- they the administration have made in order to determine what job fits these individuals along with what benefit package is going to go with that and what salary. And that we cannot and will not agree to. As it pertains to these committees they formed, yeah, they met us with us back in February of 2005 when we had the Power Point and they told us at that point that they were at phase two of this whole consultant process. And they stated that they wanted to form these committees and they said that the committees would be comprised of employees on a volunteer basis. Members of labor, yes, they did join while some of them -- some who did not join, they were solicited by Cathy Califano. They were called on the phone and asked to join and those members declined joining. Most of the members that did join, they wind up pulling out of the committee. 82 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 And as Councilwoman Miller stated, she wonders why. And I'll make it clear. They found out that they were being used, that these consultants were stealing their knowledge in terms of how they do their job. It was clearly not because they were interested in making this a smooth transition, in making this not have any adverse effect on their position but clearly how they currently do their job and how they were going to incorporate this in their new agency and make any revisions to it that they see fit.
And as a result of that, we later fond out that, in fact, that's exactly what they were doing, that the administration was meeting with their attorneys to revise job specs and even abolishing this bargaining unit. That was information that we discovered. This administration has never even to this date allowed us to be a part of the process just as Council. It's been after the fact. They have their package 83 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 already bundled up with the ribbon on it and then they ask for our input. In our opinion, they're just going through the formality. They have no interest in what it is is needed in this process, none whatsoever. We continue to ask to be a part of the process. It's clear that -- it's clear to us that they're bottlenecked to some point because if, in fact, they had all their ducks lined up in a row in order for this to take place, it clearly should have been implemented. This has been going on based on our notes for eight years, eight years and nothing is in place. When Mr. Hanna came in in 2003, there already had been distributed in December 2001 a reorganization based on NTI. And if you look at the structure that's in this 2001 point, it is the same restructure chart that was in the Power Point that we got in March. It's nothing different. It's nothing different. His explanation might be different, but when you look at this structure, it's nothing 84 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 different. Five years later and it's still not in place. What is the problem? The issue from the union's position is just then as it is now they chose not to want to deal with labor. And they realize now that they have to and they're doing as little as possible to deal with us. We will not sit down. We will not lay down and die and roll over and be ignored. We are the backbone. We are the nuts, the bolts of getting the jobs done in this city. The developments that are happening, the emergency repair programs that's going on, anything pertaining to housing for the most part is dealing mostly with that of the Redevelopment Authority, PHDC, and the Office of Housing and Community Development. We will not be ignored. We have never said no to a reorganization. We're not saying no now. But we are not, we are not going to commit to anything that we do not have knowledge of. We cannot and we will not, and we will not 85 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 allow this administration to continue to disrespect us, to continue to treat us unfairly, and to continue to give us limited participation in this process. I'm certain that this Council has seen and this administration has clearly seen that we have been demonstrating, vocalizing our position and we will continue. And the bottom line is that if you take us down, we will not go down without a fight. )
Thank you very much. We're going to ask Mr. Hanna to come back. We have just another few questions to ask you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hanna, the 1991 report and/or the 1992 Brophy reorganization report, based on the 1991 report, I have one, is this how the housing agencies will be reorganized 86 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 in terms of the report we receive on Friday?
I don't have a copy of the Brophy report or the report that Ms. Pankey just alluded to.
You don't have a copy of that. Can you tell us --
Madam Councilwoman, the proposed plan -- Ms. Pankey has pointed out a couple of very good points, that as a result of input from folks we saw the need to -- human resources is a good example. Fiscal is another example. There is the need to maintain some element of those two departments, at least those two departments in RDA and PHDC. She accurately alluded to the fact that at that meeting we said, well, we acknowledge that and are going to adjust, modify the proposed plan accordingly. But having said that, the proposed plan, the one that again I've shown to a bunch of different people, the proposed plan 87 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 does a pretty good idea of outlining what the administration wants to do and how we plan to try and get it done. Again, I haven't looked at the Brophy plan for a while because I've been focused on this plan for the past couple years or so so I can't really tell you whether or not this looks like, a lot like the other one. I can say that this plan is based on current information, not information that the Brophy report was dealing with back in the early 1990s.
Can you tell us how many people will be cut from each department?
Can you tell us how much money will be cut from each agency?
Can you tell us with regard to job 88 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 descriptions how they interact with the reorganization?
At the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, there will be some new positions created. Yes, we need to create job descriptions for those positions. At the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, there are going to be some responsibilities that are going to be brought in from RDA and PHDC. Those jobs will not be exactly what they are at RDA and PHDC.
Can you tell us how you can -- and we know that the union hasn't gotten a contract in years and it was to get to this point when this could happen. But having said that, can you tell us how you can reorganize when people are hired under one job description and how you can transfer them to another, if they're hired under one job description now, how you intend to transfer them to another 89 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 job with another job description?
That's something we're going to have to negotiate with the unions -- well, the union.
Given the fact that you said we'll get these reports on Friday, how can you give us a report with people with job descriptions that have changed without having negotiated it with the union?
No. What you'll get by Friday, not on Friday but by Friday is the consultant's report in addition to the consolidated plan. We've never in the consolidated plan gone into detail as to people's job descriptions with a consolidated plan. What we say to you, Council, is here are the resources that we have available, here is how we propose to spend that money.
Yes. You talk about in the consolidated plan various programs.
Various city programs. But obviously if you are -- well, what will the consultant report include then?
The consultant report will include the methodology for coming to the conclusions that they came up with, how they went about doing the survey, the results of the survey.
So then the consultant report will include all these cuts and all this transfer --
All that will be included in the consolidated plan. I mean, we've got to present to you how we propose to spend the money that we have available to us. That as always is going to be presented in the consolidated plan.
So, in other words, we'll get a consultant report that will say we decided to 91 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 reorganize and then we'll get the consolidated plan with all of it reorganized and the rub is in the middle, we got to figure out who's cut, where they work, where they're transferred to, and all of that, so we still won't be given a breakdown of how what has happened?
In the consultant's report, you'll get essentially the logic for the reorganized office of housing. In the consolidated plan, you'll receive our proposed way to spend the money. The consolidated plan will also include the reorganized office of housing, how we propose to reorganize, meaning what positions we plan to bring in under the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation from RDA and from PHDC, what departments are going to be consolidated from RDA and PHDC into the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. As far as job descriptions are concerned, again, that's something we need to 92 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 negotiate, we plan to negotiate with the union.
The question is when will you be meeting with them and negotiating with them if you're going to give us by Friday reports of everything already done? So when will this happen? Under the guise of what kind of meetings or plans will this happen if you give us reports by Friday with everything done?
If we were to try to negotiate job specs before we give you the plan, the reorganized plan, in my mind that's putting one before the other. If we were to negotiate the job specs with the union, firm those up, and then come to you, Council, and say this is a fait accompli, this is the way we want to reorganize, these are the job specs, in my mind again that's backwards. It makes more sense for us to come to you to propose the way we're going to spend the money and based on that proposition go 93 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 back to the union and negotiate those jobs that are created by the proposed plan. If we were to try to negotiate the jobs before we had a plan, again, that's counter-intuitive.
Well, we believe that we've been given a fait accompli already and that it's pretty obvious that in the spirit of cooperation and negotiations there's been a violation from the beginning. Again, we say we're very disappointed in all that we have heard. It has been apparent that as chair that I've been ignored. It's been apparent that this committee has been ignored and that this Council has been ignored in this whole process of housing reorg. We deeply regret it and we feel it is unfortunate that we have to be put in a position of fighting the administration in this plan. We understand the parameters of our authority, but we also realize that this is wrong. It's wrong the way it was 94 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 done. The spirit of it has been wrong. The plan is wrong in its lack of inclusion. We think it's wrong the city residents have to fight their own government. We're not a party to that. We don't agree with it. And what we're going to do as we end this hearing is we will say that we will look for that report. We're going to recess this hearing until May 2 at 10:00 when we will begin this issue again. After we have received it, after we've had a chance to review it, certainly we hope that all of those here will be able to come back again. And we hope, Mr. Hanna, that you will let the Mayor and the administration know how deeply we regret and more than that we resent what has been happening and we resent not being included in the process and we resent any housing reorganization that does more to divide than it does to bring us together. Having said that, then this hearing is recessed until May 2 at 10:00. We thank 95 Bill No. 050871 - 4/18/06 you all for coming and God bless you. - - - 96 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on April 18, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Kimberly A. Overwise Certified Realtime Reporter Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)