- - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE ON LAW & GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, May 5, 2005, 2:20 p.m. - - - Bill 050286 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution 12 approved by Council proposing amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to Council's power to adopt by ordinance 14 standards for the organization of the Fire Department and the manner by which the Fire Department carries out its powers and duties, including the deployment of Fire personnel, and the duty of the fire Commissioner, Managing Director and Mayor to abide by any such standards in managing and supervising the work of the Fire Department; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 Bill 050301 - An Ordinance amending Title 20 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," by amending the provisions relating to campaign contributions and expenditures, relating to, including but not limited to, the District Attorney, City Controller, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Clerk of Quarter Sessions Court and City Commissioner. Res. 050292 - Resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Ruler Charter relating to Council's power to adopt by ordinance standards for the organization of the Fire Department and the manner by which the Fire Department carries out its powers and duties, including the deployment of Fire personnel, and the duty of the Fire Commissioner, Managing Director and Mayor to abide by any such standards in managing and supervising the work of the Fire Department, and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 3 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention. Present today are Councilmen DiCicco, O'Neill, Mariano and Rizzo. Under normal circumstances, Councilman Cohen would be chairing this committee, but I as vice chair am sitting in for him today. We will be hearing testimony on three bills today. The first is Bill Number 050286, which is an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council -- I'm sorry. We're going to strike that. I'm going to go back to Bill Number 050301, which is an ordinance amending Title 20 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Officers and Employees," by amending the provisions relating to campaign contributions and expenditures, relating to, including but 4 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 not limited to, the District Attorney, City Controller, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Clerk of Quarter Sessions Court and City Commissioner. Is there anybody from the administration that's scheduled to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Councilman O'Neill, do you have anything you'd like to say prior to the testimony?
Anyone here to testify on this bill? Please come forward and identify yourself for the record. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The two possible amendments today that may want to be commented on. I thought it might be a good idea to speak up front. Councilman Nutter had mentioned that he thought he would have an amendment 5 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 prepared to take the individual yearly contribution limit from 1,000 to 2,000 to make it the same, consistent with the current version of the bill that is still in the process of, hopefully, being passed, dealing with pay to play, that he has sponsored. And also to be consistent with that bill as well, that the PAC contribution limit be raised from five to 10,000 because that's what's in the other bill. So this would be a straight -- a straight line. The only other thing I mentioned for the committee members present -- and I had mentioned to it Councilman Nutter -- is that the row offices that are in this bill are set at 50,000 a year in the non-election years, in terms of their fund raising limit. And in the election year the voluntary piece that's in the original legislation is the same as Council's 200,000 spending limit, if the candidate chooses to. And many people have suggested, not just from the row office standpoint, but from Council's standpoint, that more reasonable 6 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 numbers may be 75,000 in the three off years, in terms of the fund raising limit, and $250,000, in terms of the voluntary spending limit in an election year. I'll leave that up to the committee, and if Councilman Nutter comes on the other.
Any witnesses on this bill, please feel free to comment on the additional comments made by Councilman O'Neill. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Hillel Levinson. I am the Republican candidate for City Controller. And I've been invited here to testify on the amendment to the ordinance 22 having to do with campaign contributions. I guess first let me start off by saying this is the first time I've been back in these chambers since 1979. 7 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05
Looks pretty good. You did a good job on fixing it up. But it's a very comfortable thing. I had some very interesting moments and hours here back in the '70s, as you probably remember. But I thank you very much. I'm here just to support the amendments to the ordinance. I think it's only fair that if there are restrictions or conditions imposed upon the Mayor and City Council, that they also be imposed upon other elected officials in the City of Philadelphia. And I'm very comfortable with either limit, by the way. I don't necessarily feel it's important for me to be able to distinguish between the limit that's in the original version that I saw, and the suggested changes that Councilman Nutter has made. But let me go on to add, if I may, that I hope we can all agree that this is 8 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 probably just a starting point, in terms of trying to straighten out some of the critical issues that are facing the City of Philadelphia. I've been campaigning now for a little better than three months. And I go into every neighborhood that I'm invited and some neighborhoods that I'm not invited. But across the board, in every neighborhood, people are disgusted by what they at least are reading. And again, I'm not here to say that everything they read is accurate. But the impression that most of the taxpayers, the responsible taxpayers, in the City of Philadelphia have is that things are out of control in the City of Philadelphia, and someone really has to stand up and do something about it. My father used to tell me when I was a kid growing up, when I would come and complain to him that... He would say, Hillel, stop complaining and do something about it. 9 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Well, I think maybe that's something that all of us can look at and see whether we have an opportunity to do something about it. This is clearly a good starting point. But again, if everyone here thinks this is all we have to do to straighten out the operation of City government, I think we're deluding ourselves. So, I thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it. I would like to leave you with one more thought. One of the things that I'm running as a Republican is that in the City Charter, in the first section it refers to the City Controller as being independent of the officials that he will audit. I think the realities of party politics today is very difficult for someone in the same party -- And it has nothing to do with whether the Democrats are in control or the Republicans are in control. With party politics, it's very difficult for a person who is of the same party as the Mayor and City Council to be as 10 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 critical and as much of a watch dog as is necessary in the Controller's Office. And I would respectfully request you to look at the issue of whether or not an amendment to the City Charter could be created that would require the Controller to be in some way more independent of the party system that we now have in place. I think it would go a long way, in addition to what you're doing today, to help straighten out the situation. And I thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for Mr. Levinson? (No response.)
Seeing none, we thank you for coming in and for your thoughts.
Thank you. I'd like the record also to reflect that former City Controller or I guess he's current City Controller. 11 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Jonathan Saidel has sent a letter. Dear Councilman O'Neill: I hope this correspondence finds you in good health. It's my understanding the hearing on Bill 050301 will be held on May 5th for the Law and Government Committee. Though I believe the campaign contributions and expenditures bill in question leaves a lot to be desired, I support the inclusion of the City Controller election and these limitations the. Other officers mentioned should also be included. We also have a memo or -- Yeah, memo from the Philadelphia League of Women Voters, who are also sporting the amendment or this particular piece of legislation. Is there anyone else in the room to testify on Bill Number 050301? Please. We will let also the record reflect Councilman Nutter is also in attendance, along with Councilman Kelly.
Good afternoon. 12 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm an attorney in the City. Let me also add I am the Republican candidate for District Attorney, and for the record I am in favor of this bill. I think we can all agree that the increasingly high cost of political campaigns is counterproductive to democracy, for many, many reasons. And a lot of politicians are of the opinion that they can benefit financially from policy decisions. And for this reason I think we need to impose limitations.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Questions for the witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else in the room to testify on this bill? 13 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Please.
Sure. My name is Christopher Sheridan. I am Policy Director for the Committee of 70. Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney.
Members of the Law and Government Committee. I'm here in my professional capacity as Policy Director for on the Committee of 70. And I thank you for the opportunity to address this body this afternoon on an issue the Committee of 70 considers an important matter of public interest. As an initial consideration, extending the current campaign finance ordinance to all elected municipal offices serves the interests of both consistency and uniformity. 14 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 With all candidates for municipal office covered by the same dollar limits, contributors would have a uniform set of rules to follow without exception. Extending the contribution limits applicable to mayoral and City Council candidates which are as proposed, a though per person and five thousand for political committees to the Offices of District Attorney, City Controller, Register of Wills, Clerk of Quarter Sessions, and City Commissioner, will give the public increased confidence that those who are elected to these offices will not be beholden to major contributors. It would also create an incentive for candidates for these offices to organize more fund raising that is targeted towards modest contributions of 25, 50 or a hundred dollars, and actively solicit the participation of a wider cross-section of the community in funding their -- in the funding of their campaigns. Regarding the effective date for the 15 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 proposed amendments, 70 favors an effective date after the conclusion of the current election cycle, for example, January 1, 2006. If these amendments take effect immediately upon passage by City Council and this bill becomes law prior to the municipal election on November 8th, there's the potential to disrupt the current campaigns for District Attorney and City Controller. A 2006 effective date would also be consistent with implementation of the original legislation which became law on December 18, 2003 which was after the completion of the 2003 municipal cycle and well ahead of the first covered cycle at that time, the 2007 mayoral cycle. It should also be noted that the 2006 effective date for these amendments would not preclude the 2005 candidates for D.A. and City Controller from publicly pledging or from agreeing with their opponents to voluntarily comply with these provisions. As a final consideration, 70's legal 16 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 staff publicly expressed concerns in early 2004 that the original campaign finance legislation covering candidates for Mayor and City Council might be partially struck down by the Pennsylvania courts as preemptive by the Pennsylvania Election Code, which is Title 25, on the basis that the General Assembly had created a comprehensive body of legislation governing public elections. Our legal staff still has concerns about the enforceability of Philadelphia's campaign finance law. But as with every legally enacted ordinance, it is the law of the City unless and until a successful legal challenge is brought.
Not always. Sometimes we pass laws in here that just get ignored before any judge rules on them. But I understand your position. I couldn't -- Your comment just elicited that immediate response from me because I have one instance now that we're dealing with. So, please proceed. I didn't mean 17 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 to interrupt you.
Thank you. The passage of these amendments will also reaffirm the commitment of this Council to municipal campaign finance reform, and send a message to our citizens, prospective candidates, prospective contributors, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and the Pennsylvania courts that Philadelphia's elected legislators consider both contribution limits and increased transparency via the section which mandates singular campaign accounts as priorities for municipal elections. Finally, the Committee of 70 is pleased to have been included in the original version of this legislation pertaining to the creation of election reform board, and would welcome the opportunity to participate. Thank you for your time and consideration, and thank you Councilman O'Neill to appear here today.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 18 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Rizzo.
Thank you. There's some... And I don't want to use the word controversy, but there's some, I think, confusion on my part. I've heard that the Register of Wills cannot be affected by this particular legislation because it's some constitutional issue. Maybe the sponsor --
Councilman, I believe that Councilman O'Neill does have information relative to the Register of Wills and what may be done.
Councilman O'Neill, before you ask that question, let me ask this to you or him, whoever wants to answer. Looks like it's you, that... maybe the second part of Councilman Rizzo's 19 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 question. The D.A., too. Aren't they county employees? Do we have the authorization to do that?
There's an issue with the D.A. I don't think it's a big issue. Because we know that under the Arlen Specter case in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that the D.A. is subject to not state law, even though it's technically a state position, but to the City Charter, in terms of having to resign to run. The decision came down a week before the election. So, the Supreme Court said, in this case because it's one week before the general election that we're making our decision, Mr. Specter, the District Attorney, does not have to resign. Going forward, D.A.s have to resign. And I understand now Justice Castille resigned when he ran for Mayor. 20 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 So, you can argue yes, no, but there's a severability clause here, that if it's challenged and it's taken out, it won't affect everyone else. I think from a policy standpoint it's incumbent upon us to treat every office under this -- under this bill the same. And there's an argument that can be made with the Register of Wills that it's a constitutional office not bound by the Charter. If this Register or another Register of Wills wants to go there and say, I'm different from everybody else; I need more money or I need bigger contributions which I don't think is going to happen, there's a severability clause that doesn't affect everyone else, if some judge removes that portion of it affecting in one case the District Attorney, in the other case -- But I think there would be enough political pressure on both offices not to want to go there. And I think it's important that -- 21 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 that we deal with it the way we think it should best be done today and not play judge and jury, trying to figure out what some court might do later. I think we're doing the right thing if we bring them in, but allow severability. I have the amendment here that the Solicitor has prepared.
Councilman, would that include the Clerk of Quarter Sessions also?
I don't think there's any question about the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. They're in it. Nobody's raised the issue with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions at all.
I have a question. And I'm sorry. I forgot your name.
Thank God. Explain to me the part that the original bill that the Councilman's basing this on which is the one that affected this cycle coming up for the Mayor's election. Were you or the Committee of 70 -- You said something --
-- about concerns that the legality of it may not -- You had some questions. The committee had some. Explain to me like, I'm not an attorney and I'm plain stupid. Okay? If you could do that.
We had concerns about the enforceability, based on a prior case. 23 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 That was the case where this Council sought to regulate firearms. I believe it was -- I don't know if it was Commonwealth vs. Ortiz or Ortiz vs. Commonwealth.
Right. In the mid '90s. And essentially the theory on this is that where the state enacts a comprehensive legislative scheme, the cities and counties are preempted from legislating in that area, as is the same case with the federal government versus the 50 states. So the concern is that because they have a comprehensive regulatory scheme for campaign finance, although it does not include dollar limits, they've legislated the field so that you don't have the power to act in this area.
So -- So, basically, in my non-legal mind, you're saying that the current bill that we passed, that I voted against, anyway because I didn't 24 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 get into all that legality part. I just thought it wouldn't be fair if some state rep wanted to run against a City Councilman or Mayor and wouldn't have to resign. That bill could be struck down due to state constitutionality; is that what you're saying?
Right. It could be preempted by -- The actions of Council could --
Legislation -- As -- As this Ortiz bill, over guns or assault guns.
So what's keeping that from happening? Is somebody 25 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 doing that?
Any citizen of the Commonwealth or the City of Philadelphia could bring a case against that campaign finance bill that we passed here?
I would believe anyone who has standing, someone who would want to contribute in excess of the limits or a candidate who felt that the limits improperly impinged on his or her ability to raise money. So I would say it would have to be a potential contributor or a candidate to have standing under that bill to challenge it.
Let me just Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 add, Councilman Mariano, the standing question is clear. Somebody has to have standing to bring the action, and a lot of people could claim standing here, I think. But it's not so clear that it would be -- that this legislation would be knocked out by a preemption of the state. The Supreme Court, both in state and in the federal government, move back and forth in this area as to where they see preemption. For instance, a state's rights, where, you know, sometimes states rights, sometimes federal. You don't know until you get there, to be sure. Environmental laws, you know, a lot of liberals become state's rights activists because states can enforce stricter environmental laws than the Federal Government. In other areas they can't. So you've got -- It's -- It's far from clear. But the issue being raised, I think, is important, so we know -- and I think the 27 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 severability clause, if there's a particular portion -- not what I talked about today, but something else, maybe as to expenditures. Maybe it's as to contributions. Maybe it's as to one office versus another. The severability at least leaves everything else in place, if that's all that gets dealt with in that.
So, Councilman, as a citizen of the City of Philadelphia which is a City of the First Class -- You know, and correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm going both on your legal abilities -- and you can jump in here to sure I got this right. In the State of Pennsylvania you can do certain things. But if you come into this City of Philadelphia -- I'm trying to think of something that you can do in Bucks County that you can't do here, that I'm sure. I just can't think of something. There's something, if anybody can think of something. Is there an example? Can you think of an example?
Sometimes we're 28 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 specifically excluded as a City of the First Class. Sometimes we are included only as a City of the First Class. But you just don't know until something's being challenged, until you get to court. But I think raising the issue and making it known that someone can is fine.
Could we relate it to the current gun laws in the City of Philadelphia? I mean ten years ago it was really hard to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the City of Philadelphia. Then about four or five or six years ago they were relaxed. Now, that was to, I thought, again, in my non-legal mind, it was to level the state -- across the state. Like, why should you be able to get a permit to carry in Shamokin, Pennsylvania? Be easier than -- I mean, the reasons to you and I are obvious. And what we're seeing on the streets of Philadelphia -- and this isn't a shot at 29 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 anybody having to do with them gun laws. I'm just trying to understand. Because if I don't understand this, people out here that are -- actually don't understand this that are listening to this and maybe reading about this tomorrow -- I mean, this country was founded on state's rights. And the Federal Government has rights. And the City has rights. I mean, which one is it, guys? I mean, I hear what you're saying, Councilman. And you're saying that just because it gets challenged doesn't mean it's going to -- It can be knocked down.
You know, it's just that you're better off if you know that there are possible challenges. You're also better off if there's a severability clause to allow the law to stand, if only part of the --
Because we as a municipality or whatever we call Philadelphia, the legal term, we -- we -- e do that. We have certain laws that we can 30 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 deem responsible, as may not be as responsible outside that's the City borders.
No. I just... In the event that we're challenged, given the difference in subject matter, it would be a case of first impression. And depending on whether... the degree of deference the courts want to show to local control would determine -- partially determine that outcome. By passing these amendments, the City Council of Philadelphia would send a message to all involved that you're serious about campaign finance reform, which I think makes a stronger case in the event it is ultimately challenged.
Any other questions for this witness? 31 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 (No response.)
Am I right? Is this the first official testimony of the new regime of the Committee of 70 here in Council? Have you been here at any other hearing before or is it? Is this the first?
Congratulations. And welcome officially. Thanks. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. Any other witnesses on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to Bill Number 050286 and Resolution Number 050292. Resolution 050292 is a resolution 23 proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Ruler Charter relating to Council's power to adopt by ordinance standards for the 32 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 organization of the Fire Department and the manner by which the Fire Department carries out its powers and duties, including the deployment of Fire personnel, and the duty of the Fire Commissioner, Managing Director and Mayor to abide by any such standards in managing and supervising the work of the Fire Department, and providing for the submission of the amendment of the electors of Philadelphia. And Bill Number 050286, an ordinance 13 providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to Council's power to adopt by ordinance 19 standards for the organization of the Fire Department and the manner by which the Fire Department carries out its powers and duties. Could Managing Director Ramos and Commissioner Ayers please, if they have testimony, present themselves to the witness table. 33 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Mr. Managing Director, is there written testimony that -- Has it been circulated?
Okay. Hold on. Thank you. Please identify yourselves for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Pedro Ramos. I'm Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia.
Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney and members of the Committee on Law and Government. I am Pedro Ramos, Managing Director. I am here to testify on Bill Number 050286 and Resolution 050292, which propose a 34 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Charter Change amendment and ordinance that would empower City Council to manage the Fire Department, by mandating standards for the organization of the Fire Department, and by directing the manner by which the Fire Department carries out its powers and duties, including the deployment of fire personnel and the duty of the Fire Commissioner to abide by standards determined by City Council. I am joined today by Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers. The administration opposes the proposed legislation for two primary reasons. First, the legislation assumes that the current decision-making process is flawed, and that the administration has erred in making its proposed redeployment of fire and emergency medical services personnel and equipment. Second, the resolution attempts to make a fundamental and I think ill advised change to the modern form of local government established under the Home Rule Charter and 35 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 does so in a piecemeal manner. I recognize that Council is concerned about the redeployment of public safety officials and equipment. No one is more concerned about the safety of our residents and the safety of our firefighters than the professional leadership of the Philadelphia Fire Department. With over 100 years of experience among them, the City's Fire Commissioner and deputies of the Philadelphia Fire Department completed a careful and meticulous analysis ensuring any proposed closure of fire, ladder and engine companies would not affect service, quality for firefighter safety. Geo-coded maps were created that detailed the location of all engine and ladder companies, and the volume, distance and response time for calls. Fire Department management used these maps to select the appropriate companies for closure, to ensure this would not impact service or safety. Simulated runs were performed in 36 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 June and August 2004 to check the time it would take affected perimeter companies to respond to their new first-in local areas. This testing was done under a worst-case scenario, at reduced speeds and without lights or sirens. It was against this factual background that an arbitrator recently ruled in the City's favor on the legality of the department's proposed action. As the City pointed out in successfully defending a grievance filed by the International Association of Firefighters, the City developed the redevelopment plan to address the shift in demand from fire suppression to emergency medical services, and to provide both fire suppression and EMS services to the public in the context of the City's current fiscal crisis. Again, this plan was well considered and thoroughly evaluated by fire commanders who in the aggregate had more than a hundred years of firefighting experience. 37 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Field tests were conducted to measure firefighter safety, and the department additionally hired a consultant who evaluated the plan, using the same technology recommended by the Firefighters International Union. The results of these examinations were consistent with earlier testimony from the IAFF's expert on safety issues given at a previous interest arbitration proceeding that the number of companies did not present a firefighter safety issue. We are committed to maintaining our record as one of the best metropolitan emergency service departments in the country and ensuring that our employees keep their jobs, jobs that are safe. It bears emphasis that the changes the City of Philadelphia has proposed were not solely a response to budget issues, but a thoughtful effort to provide the best service with the available resources.
They were designed to address the changing environment that the Fire Department 38 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 is facing, the needs of the City as they change from time to time. The nature of response calls has changed drastically since fiscal year 1990. While structural fires have been significantly reduced, from approximately 4500 in fiscal year 1990 to 2500 in fiscal year 2003, emergency medical service runs have increased from just over 100,000 runs in fiscal year 1990 to slightly fewer than 200,000 in fiscal year 2003, an increase of almost 100 percent. Thus, while four ladder companies and four engine companies are considered for realignment and the equipment and personnel redeployed, we are also expanding EMS units by eight advanced life support units. This addition would not only increase the total number of active EMS units available to 48, but would redeploy these added vehicles to neighborhoods where they are most needed, namely, Old City, Richmond, Greenwich, Fairmount, Port Richmond, Bella Vista, Summerdale and Overbrook. 39 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 The realignment plan by the Fire Department will not leave any areas of the City unprotected. Boundaries for each region have been reconfigured to accommodate the engine and ladder realignments to ensure that there is adequate and safe coverage. They will not affect the number of companies and personnel responding to a call, and the Fire Department will continue to meet the standard for response time established by the National Fire Protection Association. Fundamentally speaking, City management must have the flexibility to manage resources to changing needs. This is essential to any administration, present and future, and to the executive function of government, especially under the design of our City Charter. I hope that I have demonstrated the meticulous analysis that preceded our decision. I would stress again that part of our plan was to increase our capacity to provide EMS services. In other words, we hope to enhance, not diminish, the total 40 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 services citizens receive from the Fire Department, which living within the City's means, and while ensuring that other departments had the resources they needed to fulfill their responsibilities to your constituents. In short, I believe that the administration fulfilled its responsibilities under the Charter to provide safety and provide other City services and maintain a balanced budget. The proposed Charter amendment contained in Resolution 050292 would interfere with the capacity of any administration to fulfill those responsibilities in the years ahead. If enacted into law by the voters, Resolution 050292 would unravel the very core of our Home Rule Charter and do a profound disservice to our -- to your constituents. It would obliterate the bright line distinction between executive and administrative responsibilities on the one hand, and legislative responsibilities on the 41 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 other, a bright line that the framers of the Charter fought so hard to establish in the name of true reform and that now risks death by nicks and cuts. Today's Charter keeps the management of municipal affairs outside of the legislative branch. The proposed legislation recognizes this, but would change the Home Rule Charter to give Council that power with respect to managing the affairs of the Fire Department. Council understandably is concerned about the administration's plans to cut back on staffing of certain fire engines and ladder companies. But as I have tried to demonstrate today, the administration's plans are well thought out and the appropriate domain of the administration. The Charter framers were correct to vest this responsibility in the administration. Attacking the Charter because one disagrees with a decision of one administration is not in anyone's best 42 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 interests.
The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter is a product of many years of thoughtful deliberate work by many public spirited citizens, dating back to at least 1922, when a constitutional commission proposed, and the General Assembly and the voters ultimately adopted, a Home Rule amendment to the Constitution. That work culminated in 1951, when a commission of civic leaders, after months of deliberation, produced the current Home Rule Charter, our Constitution, approved by the voters in April of that year. The Charter was not designed as a collection of rules but as a system of governance, with interdependent parts. That Charter remains essentially the same today as it did upon adoption. The strong mayor form of government is one of the critical hallmarks of that document, supported by extensive deliberation and consideration of the commission in reaction to the extraordinary inefficiencies of ward 43 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 driven governance unanimous in that era. While City Council was vested with critically important powers over budgeting, appropriations, taxation, multi-year municipal projects, and the police power of the City, the framers of the Charter made a conscious, thoughtful, deliberative decision, reflected in the minutes of their extensive meetings, to vest responsibility and accountability for running the day-to-day affairs of the government, including in particular fiscal management, in one City-wide elected official, the Mayor. This decision was in direct response to the prior form of government, in which responsibility was diffuse, and hence accountability was non-existent. If the City experiences a fiscal crisis, the voters should be able to look to one place to assess blame. But if responsibility for spending and management and administrative decisions is shared between the Mayor and Council, no one is accountable and no one takes responsibility 44 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 and no one can be blamed. The framers of the Charter were pragmatic. They recognized that it is excruciatingly difficult for a legislative body, particularly one with most of its elected officials from districts, to support any action that is perceived as a reduction of services, no matter how thoughtfully planned that reduction may be. By vesting administrative and fiscal responsibility in one City-wide elected official, the framers of the Charter sought to ensure that the interests of the City as a whole, including fiscal responsibility, would remain paramount. They also sought to ensure that there would be one place in government with the day-to-day responsibility for balancing the competing demands and needs for government services. And the framers were firm in their commitment to the division of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches. As you know, one of the hallmarks 45 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 of the budgetary process under our Charter is lump sum budgeting. The annotation to Section 2-300 explains why. Appropriations -- This is a quote. Appropriations are to be made by such categories to offices, departments, boards and commissions which will, subject to the direction and control of the Mayor and the Director of Finance, decide how money within any category is to be spent for the purposes designated by that category. How many persons are to be employed, how many automobiles are to be purchased, and similar questions of administrative policy will be determined within overall appropriation limits by the executive branch and not the Council. Without the type of deliberative proceedings, the formation of our current system of government, these general principles are being diminished both in Harrisburg and in the bill under consideration by City Council today. The takeover of the Parking 46 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Authority, and the requirement that the City continue to enforce local parking regulations through a state-controlled authority is an excellent example.
A current and very much alive example is the pending proposal in the General Assembly to restrict the City's ability to determine how to manage fire companies and staffing of fire locations. Similarly, the proposed legislation before you today would unravel the strong mayor structure of government, driven not by broad disagreement on our system of government but disagreement over an administrative decision. Yet, we have something that's excellent and worth preserving in our Charter, a reform document that has withstood the test of time. I would not contend for a minute that a healthy examination of how government is structured in Philadelphia is never appropriate or called for, but piecemeal incursions on the fundamental elements of the 47 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Home Rule Charter are not healthy. They only respond to the needs of the moment. Piecemeal incursions, divorced from the bigger picture, run the danger of destroying Home Rule and destroying the fiscal and administrative accountability, responsibilities and efficiencies established under the carefully crafted and balanced Home Rule Charter. I recognize and appreciate how strongly some of you disagree with the planned changes, and no one would expect anything less than your zealous advocacy for that in which you believe. But I believe that a Charter change, especially in such a piecemeal manner, is the wrong way to go. Whoever is the next mayor should not be confronted with a form of government that is dramatically inferior to the one we have today, especially without a full exploration of the consequences for our system offer local government under the charter. I respectfully urge Council not to 48 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 go forward with Bill 050286 and Resolution 3 050292. And finally, Councilman, I'd like to wish you a happy Sinco de Mayo.
Thank you. Gracias. Commissioner, would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon Councilman Kenney, and members of the Committee of Law and Government. I am Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers, and I am here to testify along with deputy commissioners McGrath, Harget and Augustin on the impact of proposed Bill 050286 and Resolution 050292 which propose a Charter Change amendment and ordinance that would empower City Council to manage the Fire Department, by mandating standards for the organization of the Fire Department, and by directing the manner by which the Fire Department carries out its powers and duties, including the deployment of fire personal and the duty of the Fire Commissioner to abide by 49 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 standards determined by City Council. With all due respect to this August legislative body, I must state in the strongest possible terms the total objection to these proposals by myself and by my deputy commissioners. We four individuals seated here before you have over 120 years of combined experience in the operations and administration of the fire service in Philadelphia. Our appointments were made by the Mayor, under the authority of the Home Rule Charter, based on our career body of work, our education and training, our experience in the fire service, and on our demonstrated ability as managers. As department managers, we advise the Managing Director and the Mayor and carry out City policy in the areas of our expertise, emergency service delivery, mindful of the dynamic and dangerous environment in which our department members work and of the ever-changing emergency 50 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 service needs of the public whom we serve. We do not make decisions on this service in a vacuum or take our responsibility for the safety of the public and our men and women lightly. Every phase of our operation, from fire suppression, fire prevention and fire investigations, to the delivery of emergency medical services and the training and deployment of personnel are guided by industry standards. These standards, such as National Fire Protection Association 1710, the standard for the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations by career fire departments, and Pennsylvania Acts 45 and 82, which govern emergency medical service delivery, provide the Fire Department with the flexibility, as well as the direction necessary for a Fire Commissioner to respond to the various and ever-evolving emergency service needs of the public. No Fire Commissioner could manage a department effectively under the restrictive 51 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 and intrusive intent of the proposed Council resolutions. I believe that the adoption and passage of these resolutions would lead to ongoing political pressure on the day-to-day operations of the Fire Department and ultimately result in less effective management of a department that has been called the crown jewel of the City's operating departments, and which has served the public well and faithfully for over 134 years, often in times of fiscal retrenchment that necessitated staffing reductions and station closings. Yet, the department has always fulfilled its mandate to protect the public. Accordingly, my deputies and I must question the need for these resolutions and why the Fire Department is being singled out for a shift from the executive branch of City government to the legislative branch of City government. Over the last 15 years fire deaths have been driven to all-time lows, and 52 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 dwelling fires have been significantly reduced, as the demand for emergency medical service has skyrocketed. While we are acutely aware of the concern over the department's redeployment plan, necessitated by the difficult financial situation facing the City, it is our belief that we have, we are and we will continue to provide professional, safe and effective emergency services to all of our citizens. As such, we do not believe that there is a need or a rational reason to alter the City Charter.
To do so would show a lack of confidence not only in the leadership of this department, but also a lack of respect for the established avenues of legal redress, namely, the grievance arbitration process and the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, which are already addressing the underlying issues instigating this action. For these reasons, we object to the passage of Council Bill 050286 and Resolution 24 050292. This concludes my testimony. 53 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05
Thank you very much. First for Commissioner. Is this your idea to make these reductions? Was this -- Did you initialize the idea of reducing or ladder and engine 8 companies? 9
15. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 15 companies. There are 15 companies that are being affected. Realignment effects 15 stations.
There is a resolution -- I mean, there is a plan to redeploy personnel and equipment which would result in a reduction of four engines, four ladder 54 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 companies, and an increase in eight medic units.
Okay. So how did you go -- How were you directed to go about implementing this reorganization?
We were directed by the former Fire Commissioner Hairston to stop, look at all of the resource that we had, and to come to a conclusion.
It was not my initial idea. It was the work that was done by myself, Deputy Commissioner McGrath, Mike Moore, who's the Chief Dispatcher, and Commissioner Hairston to come up with the results that we came up.
To your knowledge, was it Commissioner Hairston's idea?
It was Commissioner Hairston's idea to make sure that we come up 55 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 with the alignment that would --
That's not my question. Commissioner Hairston initialized on his own, this plan, or directed you to come up with this plan.
I understand. Was it your information that it was Commissioner Hairston's sole idea himself that this -- was this needed to be done? What prompted Commissioner Hairston to direct you to do this plan?
So, Commissioner Hairston was required, due to notification of a cut in funds, to have you guys do your best to come up with this plan.
Okay. And who do you believe informed Commissioner Hairston that this needed to be done?
Is the Managing Director a fire official or a fire expert?
The fire -- the Managing Director is not a fire official or fire expert.
So, why would, then, you not be -- or you or Commissioner Hairston -- be as concerned about the direction of a civilian, in telling you to reduce your operations, however safely you may think you're reducing them, but a civilian, similar to the civilian nature of this legislative body, directing you to do the same. Why would that not be as upsetting to Commissioner Hairston or to you as Commissioner now, that a civilian, either the Mayor, Mayor's Chief of Staff, or the Managing Director would impose upon you a need to do these reductions? What's the difference between these civilians and those civilians?
The direction was to examine the department and to make a 57 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 reconfiguration of the department that would save and provide a service to the citizens, and to do so, based on the budget that we received. And I think that, when we advise the Managing Director the same as we would advise our members in the field, as to what's going on, what the cuts are, et cetera.
And make no 11 mistake. I in no way ever questioned your team's desire to implement that mandate as safely as you possibly thought you could. However, had not the Managing Director and/or the Mayor and/or whoever else it was that was directing this had not directed you to do it, would Commissioner Hairston or yourself have made these reductions?
I believe that the catalyst that caused us to make these reductions was the budget, but I also believe -- I also believe that it's the responsibility of the Fire Commissioner to examine and to make suggestions to the 58 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Managing Director on what is going on, as far as the configuration of fire service delivery, those types of things. So...
My point is that to say that the catalyst that started us to look at this situation was the budget does not mean that it was never going to be looked at and that it wasn't going to be a suggestion to rearrange and make more effective and efficient the delivery of fire and EMS services in this City.
Are you telling me that without a mandate from the Managing Director or the administration, relative to the budget, that Commissioner Hairston or yourself would have recommended the inoperation of eight ladder and engine companies. That was something you guys would 59 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 have come to the Council or came to the administration. Says, you know what? We're going to reduce eight ladder and engine companies because we think it's a good thing to do. Or would you have only done it by being directed by your boss who either the Mayor or the Managing Director to go ahead and investigate how we can, in your opinion, safely do it. Would you have done that? Would you have shut those companies done on your own?
No, no, no, no. 17 I'm sorry. This is a professional -- Listen. Let me make sure I understand this.
I have questions for you, too. I'm not going to answer I just want to make sure that I -- that we all understand what your question is because your question is focusing on part of the change which is the cut, not the addition. And you're 60 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 asking --
No, that's not my -- No, no, no, no. His testimony, as I understand it -- and I respect his testimony -- is that they are the fire professionals. They are the people with the hundred years' worth of experience. And I know them all, and I don't disagree with their experience. My concern in the testimony today is that the civilian legislative branch should butt out of this business because the professionals know what they're doing. And I don't discount that. But the point is is that this whole exercise came about as a result of a civilian telling them their budget was going to be cut; make the best of it. And I don't think in my opinion that they would have made that decision to do that other than a civilian, who doesn't have firefighting experience or anything else, told them to get this done. My point is, what's the difference between a civilian legislative elected body 61 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 or a civilian appointed official who neither of us have any fire experience. These guys do. And I find it hard to believe that unless they were mandated to do it for budget constraint reasons, they would have ever suggested that this be done. Not that you wouldn't have suggested maybe the expansion of paramedic and those kinds of things, but I doubt in my heart you would ever suggest to close eight engine and ladder companies, other than mandated to do it by a civilian, with no fire experience. That's all I'm saying. So I don't know whether or not you would have made those cuts without being told to do it, but I think it's pretty odd that one civilian, who happens to be appointed, can initiate this reduction when 17 civilians who are elected, it's the worst thing in the world for them do. I find there's a big inconsistency there.
I understand what you're asking. And the point, again, what I'm 62 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 trying to tell you is, you referenced the medic units. What I'm saying is that my staff at some point would evaluate what the fire service delivery is. Would we have came up with, based on the budget that we had before, to, hey, let's trim this? I don't believe so.
What I'm telling you, though, is we were -- the catalyst was the financial situation and we were told to examine the situation, and to say -- and to tell the administration as to whether or not we could do this, do it safely, and still provide the service that was being demanded by the public which is the medic EMS service.
Commissioner, there's no doubt that this is a budget driven issue. My only point in this record is that if it is a terrible thing for civilians to direct decisions being made about professional fire service in the legislative 63 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 body, it's as equally bad for civilians in the executive branch to be doing the same thing. And as you said to me now, you may have decided through review to expand EMS system but you probably wouldn't without the budgetary requirement or budgetary problem decided to cut the engine ladder companies. Is that a fair assessment?
It's a fair assessment except for the fact that we've been asking for an expansion of EMS for a long period of time.
No argument. And I think you have a right and the ability and the knowledge to request that. But the reduction in the Fire Company's ladders and engines would not have happened other than a civilian in the executive branch giving you a budget number and telling you to live with it. Fair?
I just -- And -- 64 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Okay. I have a -- Just let me ask a couple questions of Mr. Ramos, because both as former City Solicitor and Managing Director --
You are an attorney who has experience in government. So, what do you think the role of Council's budget process is? What's your assessment of what we go through every year that I've been going through for the past 14 years, other people in here -- Councilman O'Neill -- for a lot longer.
Some of where you were leading in the question with the Commissioner goes, I think -- I agree with your point to -- with what you're saying to a point. In the -- In every year Council has to approve a budget, lump sum budgeting by department.
And in fact, every year since the Charter, you have, you 17 65 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 civilians, have directed the Fire Department on its resources. Sometimes it's up. Sometimes it's down. But as a group, you -- that's exactly what you've done. When you pass a budget, you're saying live within these means, just as the Mayor in a different stage of the budget process says, this is the processed expenditure level for -- And it's done in a consultative process. Like -- As you said --
And I wasn't -- I do recognize -- Now, the Commissioner and I weren't -- weren't -- weren't -- weren't in our respective roles at the time, but my understanding of the process leading to the current proposals was that it was a lot more iterative than what you're saying here. Live within this number, that it was -- that it was back and forth. 66 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 And it was trying to balance the fiscal situation that -- that -- that -- with the safety needs and the -- and the service needs. It would have been a lot easier to make some, you know, engine ladder reductions and not increase EMS. So it was done -- And at the end of the day, and I think there's testimony in Council, as well as in -- before the arbitrator and in the court, as to that process. The fire -- Both the former Managing Director and the Former Fire Commissioner have said -- and then there's a point where we said, does this get us there? Is it still within the national standards. And they -- And they --
I don't mean to cut you short. I don't mean to cut you short. I'm not talking about the specifics of the process. I'm asking you what you think --
Every year you exercise 67 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 the role that you just described.
Okay. The Mayor sends over his proposed budget. We deliberate it. We tinker with it. We change it. We up it. We down it and we pass it. Once it's passed, what do you think the requirement for the administration is to follow that budget? Do you think that they have a Charter required mandate to follow the budget that we deliberate and pass?
The how... I think that there is a -- a -- that you've given permission to a different branch of government to spend the money, and you've given policy, and you've given direction whether there is a -- whether -- And I think it's also established that -- And I'm not speaking as Solicitor -- that -- that -- that -- that the decision on spending is one that legally resides with the executive branch.
And then Council -- the Council has political recourse through the 68 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Charter -- has lots of ways of exercising its will through the -- through it's -- through the big hammer of -- of -- of budget appropriation to -- to -- to -- to deal with the other branch of government.
What good is it if the Council deliberates the proposed budget, makes changes, finds ways within their own process to replace some of the cuts that are proposed by the Mayor, shows how that replacement money would be provided for in a responsible fashion, and passes the budget, what right under the Charter does the Mayor then have to ignore the budget and continue spending or not spending his or her -- in this particular case his -- agenda outside the parameters of the budget? I mean, if Council is a weak form of Council and a strong Mayor, the Mayor's got all the power that he or she needs right now. The only power that the Council has remaining, for the most part, is its budget function. If we pass a budget, and we put 69 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 things back, and we do it responsibly, and the Mayor decides, I'm not spending it because I'm ignoring the budget, is that -- I mean, you're here for the most part, you know, defending the Charter -- The Charter framers insistence that, you know, this is how they wanted it. Well, do you think the Charter framers wanted a budget process that was meaningless?
Well, no. The -- The -- The framers meant for that budget process to give the enormous leverage that it has because no money can be spent in the government without --
How about 40, 50 $60 million in unbudgeted police overtime for 70 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Operation Safe Streets? Did he have the authority to spend that money? Without Council's approval? When we asked for information about how much money was being spent, we were told, mind your own business. They took money that was unbudgeted and spent it, without our authorization. Now you're going to tell me that --
Well, you -- you -- you -- you -- Council has a budgetary process. Council in the past also has -- has -- when it believes that -- that -- that the -- in the past when -- when Council as a body has believed that -- that the executive branch has exceeded its authority or not fulfilled its authority, Council has also sought redress in the courts. And we -- we -- we -- we --
And courts have decided, you know, have decided some of those, and you know -- 71 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05
And the other point, Councilman, that I was making in the testimony, too, is -- The point I don't want to lose is... I mean, there's an argument -- You know, the -- the -- You know, the strong Mayor form of government, you know, to some extent is what it is. And if we're going -- And if the idea -- And if -- If this point in the City's history or evolution there should be a reconfiguring or any kind of modification, it should be done -- it should be done in a broad deliberative way, just the way the Charter was initially done.
You and I don't disagree. But I will say one thing because I've dominated this too much and I want to move on. We're here because this administration has decided not to follow the Charter that you so eloquently defended because our process here and our work here 72 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 and our budgeting here is totally ignored. And that is why we're sitting here debating this particular issue because if the administration at least respected the minor role in this government that Council has in the budget process, we wouldn't be dealing with this now, you see, because the overreaction that we're seeing now is based on five, six years of being totally degraded in our process that we go through. We sit in this room. We listen to testimony. We ask questions. And we make amendments. And we move money around. And we send it but we pass it. We send it on, and it gets ignored, year in, year out, year in, year out. And that's why we're sitting here today because the frustration level on many Council members is so high that you wind up having to deal with issues like this because our process and our role is totally disrespected. And that's before you got here. Commissioner, I apologize. It's before you 73 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 got here, but it's ongoing today. Councilman Kelly.
I think the Charter framers, except for the part about doing it by Charter amendment, probably would not take issue with what's going on here. They would say, you know, there are vehicles for when there's that type of fundamental disagreement -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Where are they?
The budgetary process we're in right now? If we pass the budget -- We put things back in this budget and show responsibly where we're putting them back, and the administration ignores the budget. What's our redress? We go to court. 74 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05
I'd just like to follow up on Councilman Kenney's question. What assurance do we have that the Mayor is going to spend the money the way we appropriate it? In other words, if we did restore full funding to the Fire Department which in our minds that you could keep those stations open, the ladder companies intact and whatnot, what assurances do we have that it's going to happen? We last year appropriated a million dollars to the library. We don't know where that money was ever spent. But I know the libraries didn't receive it. So, again, it comes back to what assurances do we have? We have no assurance if we're going to find that, as Councilman Kenney just stated, that if we find it responsibly, if we found the money, if we found a way to raise the money, that doesn't mean that it's going to be spent the way that 75 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 we intended to be spent.
Furthermore, as a matter of fact, the administration has clearly told Council tech staff that if we found the money and put it back, he'd refuse to spend it, I mean. So, where's the give and take here? Where's the cooperation?
I mean, there's -- there's also more at issue than that question, which is take -- take the -- the budget issue and assume that we agreed on how much money should be spent on the Fire Department. The other issue that's -- that -- that is -- that's on the table with the Charter proposal isn't just -- it isn't the budgetary question. It is you're also seeking to legislate the manner in which the Fire Department goes about spending that money. And I think that does go far beyond the structure set up in the City Charter. The Fire Commissioner and the people charged with the administrative function of 76 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 the government should be able to say -- You know, again I'm assuming that parties agreed on how much money -- that this engine company belongs here and not there; that ladder company belongs there and not here; and we should have more EMSs, without -- and -- and -- And by -- by putting that exclusively in the administrative branch, I think the Charter --
I think everyone agrees that the Fire Department is the one that should make those decisions. There's no 14 doubt about it. We're not going to be up here trying to run the Fire Department, believe me.
But our position is to make sure that you have the sufficient appropriations to run the Fire Department as you would like to run it. And that's what our job is.
But when we talk about standards of deployment and all that, what we're -- what we're doing is, you know, the 77 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 former Managing Director, nor I, I'm confident, would ever be so presumptuous as to say where to put an engine company, where to put a ladder company, how much -- how many EMSs do you need. Getting into setting those types of standards -- And I'm now, you know -- I -- I -- moving -- you know, making a different point than the money -- than the money issue. We -- We -- We shouldn't go there. I mean, I think that --
Absolutely. But I think it's the role of the Fire Commissioner to come before us and say, look, if you want these stations manned adequately, if you want to have excellent fire protection, this is what it's going to take. It's going to take "X" amount of dollars, and this City Council has to find a way to obtain that money, that revenue, and to put it up 78 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 there, and to make sure that the Fire Department sufficiently receives the appropriations it should. And that's where -- That's where we come in. But there's no guarantee. There's no assurance that even if we raise the money it's going to even get to the Fire Department.
If you put the money back in, the Commissioner, with all due respect to him, is going to be told not to spend it. I mean, that's where we're at
Thank you, Councilman. As the Managing Director and the Fire Commissioner can see, people's emotions on this subject are really high. And I know the sponsor personally. And he means -- he means it. And you can see by Councilman Kenney's Irish temper, his face getting red --
No. I'm pretty 79 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 much in control, I think.
-- he means it. He feels out of control. Not out of control. I'm sorry. But he feels that it's unresponsible. And I don't feel the same way he does. And that's the difference between apples and oranges. My problem here is -- and the Managing Director, unbeknownst to me, said when he wrote this thing, the framers of the Charter were pragmatic. They recognized it is an excruciating difficult -- difficulty -- extremely difficult for a legislative body, particularly one with most of its members elected from districts that support any action that is perceived as a reduction of services. If I grew up next to that fire house in Port Richmond that's in his district -- and it's been there forever -- If my store is across the street from that -- and I've said this before to people. If all of a sudden 80 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 that fire house closes or cuts services in half -- and they may be services -- because that neighborhood at one time may have had a lot of factories. And there's not that many factories now. And the population may be getting older. So for instead of a ladder that was important, now it's EMSs because there's a bigger need for that. And it's happening. That's why it's hard for us to get anything done here. And I feel his frustration. And a lot of it's because we are constantly running for election. The only hope I could give the Councilman -- and he won't heed this -- is there's going to be another Mayor here in two years, and maybe another Fire Commissioner another Managing Director, and these issues will stay around.