Committee Hearing, May 5, 2005

- - - 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?

No. 14

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.

Yes. Councilman Kenney, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

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

How's it look?

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.

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.

Good afternoon. 12 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Louis Schwartz.

Please proceed.

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.

Chris Sheridan, Committee of 70.

Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.

Sure. My name is Christopher Sheridan. I am Policy Director for the Committee of 70. Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney.

Good afternoon.

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.

I have a severability clause.

Could you explain what the issue is?

Well, there's a question as to whether or not --

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?

Here's the question on --

Turn your light on.

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.

And the Sheriff also?

Sheriff also, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Any questions? Councilman? 22 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

I have a question. And I'm sorry. I forgot your name.

I'm Chris Sheridan.

Are you an attorney?

Yes.

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 --

Right.

-- 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.

Assault weapon ban?

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 --

Be preempted by --

-- be found to have been preempted by --

-- by state --

-- of the General Assembly.

Legislation -- As -- As this Ortiz bill, over guns or assault guns.

Right. But that remains to be seen.

So what's keeping that from happening? Is somebody 25 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 doing that?

Someone has to bring a case.

That could be any citizen?

And it works its way through the courts.

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.

Thank you. Thanks for the explanation.

You're welcome.

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.

It's very difficult to predict.

You got nothing to say?

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.

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

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?

My first official appearance.

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?

You have it.

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.

Good afternoon.

Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers.

Whoever would like to go first, please proceed.

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

No, it was not my idea. 10

Whose idea was 11 it? 12

It was the -- How many 13 companies did you say? 14

Whatever the 15 reduction. It's 14?

No, no, no, no, no. 17

15. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 15 companies. There are 15 companies that are being affected. Realignment effects 15 stations.

Impact on 15.

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.

Was that your idea?

No. 7

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.

Was it his --

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.

He directed us.

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?

A cut in funding to the Philadelphia Fire Department budget.

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.

That is correct.

Okay. And who do you believe informed Commissioner Hairston that this needed to be done?

I believe the Managing Director. 56 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

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...

I don't disagree.

So my point -- My point, with all due respect.

Please.

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?

Councilman, can I just --

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.

Right.

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 understand what you're saying.

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 --

Oh, I can only do it as Current 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.

Okay.

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 --

Consultative process with who?

Within the government.

With -- With -- With...

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.

So --

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 --

Really?

-- without -- without -- without --

How about unbudgeted --

-- in the City government without the appropriation.

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 --

We're in court a lot.

And courts have decided, you know, have decided some of those, and you know -- 71 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

If -- If -- If this --

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.

Thank you.

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?

-- between the branches of government.

What are the vehicles? Court?

No. In this very budgetary process we're in right now.

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 feel the redress all the time.

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.

Just as I'm sure that --

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 --

Well, I think it's --

And I think you agree on that point.

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

Councilman Mariano.

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.

They can stay. As far as I'm concerned, they can stay.

That's up to whoever the Mayor is going to be. It's not going to be me, I guarantee you that. But it 81 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 will be somebody different than it is on the second floor right now. Dislike or like this guy, it becomes difficult to go back to the fireman that I went to grade school and high school with, and say, hey, Tim, I can't -- I don't want to be in charge of the Fire Department. I don't know anything about it. I don't want to know anything about it. But I understand the frustration of the people that are concerned, not just the elected officials. The people that live in that -- Because it's hard for us -- It becomes hard for to us make these decisions. And people will say, well, that's why you get the money, to sit here and do that. Certainly. Now, I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this thing because I think the right thing to do is to vote against it because we shouldn't be in this business. He almost convinced me without talking to me by what he said to vote the other way. But when I look at it and sit 82 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 down here and think about this, I didn't run for City Council to be a Fire Commissioner or to be a fireman. And I understand that -- the sponsor's frustration. He has nowhere else to turn. Now, that's a dynamics problem between this legislative body and the executive branch on the second floor. I was going to ask the Fire Commissioner, do you have a degree in economics that you didn't tell us about? If you do, good. I don't really care if you do. I have to depend on you or the guy before you to say there's a reduction in service. And you're not going to want a reduction in service unless someone comes to you along the line and says, the plain facts of the matter are, we have less money coming into the City of Philadelphia. And what we do is, we have to raise taxes or we have to cut services. The last thing we should think about cutting is police and fire. But also, I don't want them to cut Councilman Cohen's library. I don't want 83 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 them to cut that rec center up the street from me. And again, back to the frustration that Councilman Kenney so elegantly spoke about. Where do we go with this? We're between a rock and a hard place here with this stuff. And I got to believe Commissioner Ayers. He's the expert on it. He has the guy sitting back there with the white hats, they know about this stuff. The guy with the white hair that looks like Senator Tartaglione's Chief of Staff I told him before this. He's the expert on the other thing. I know diddly squat about firemen except on December the something this year when I was laying on the floor of my house convulsing, they were standing there taking me to a rescue squad. So they were there when I needed them. The people in this City care about everything, but they care when they're laying on the floor of their house or their house is 84 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 on fire, that people are going to be there. You can't guarantee me, Commissioner, and I don't think you're foolhardy enough -- I know the Managing Director isn't -- to guarantee me if that ladder that Councilman DiCicco can tell me the number that I can't remember right now or whatever is, that closes there up in Richmond, if there's a fire somewhere up in Richmond or Juniata, and that fire truck is somewhere else because of the this closing, that's your worst nightmare. We do this, right? And that happens next week -- You don't have to answer. So that's what happens to us here. We could do this stuff back and forth, day in and day out. We're not going to change what he wants to do on the second floor. Friend or enemy, Managing Director, you have to do your job.

And I think the manner of dealing with this issue is perhaps compounding the problem. You know, you -- you don't want... You know, you have -- last -- last -- I think it was 2004 you had 85 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 over 200,000 calls for medical assistance compared to 54,940, I think, or 640 calls for fires or other 9-1-1 calls. And the question is, when you had that medical episode, knowing the data about the need for the -- for the ladder versus the need for the EMS in your particular neighborhood -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.

-- do you really want -- do you really want that medical emergency responded to by a ladder company? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of order.

Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. There's a point of order that Councilman DiCicco has. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Managing Director, you have said it on a couple occasions during your testimony, you question the -- or you bring up the situation about EMS. We currently meet the standards for EMS response with the current number of EMS 86 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 units we have. We do not currently meet the national standards for response, in terms of firefighting calls currently.

No, that's not correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, you testified to that the last hearing, Commissioner.

Would you restate what you just stated? You said we meet the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Standards for EMS.

Yes, we do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And do we not -- Are we not below the national standards for response time with firefighting equipment, putting out fires, whatever the term is?

Are you saying that we do not meet the standards -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're below the national standard.

-- for fire -- for emergency response for fires? 87 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm saying that the national standard --

Yeah. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- for response, for fire calls, we are below national standards currently.

Oh. Okay. We meet or exceed national standards. Is that what you're saying? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. We are below national standards.

Oh. No. I never testified that we're not -- You're saying we're not doing as good as we should, with fire apparatus, engines and ladders? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.

Oh, no, I never testified to that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: At the last meeting or hearing we had, you --

You misunderstood me or -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, maybe you misunderstood me. 88 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

Yeah, maybe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is the time -- What is the response time today? Not EMS. Not EMS. Call comes in for a fire.

You're saying the average response time? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah, today, in the City of Philadelphia.

Average response time is four minutes and some change. Couple of seconds OR so. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And what's the national standard?

The national standard? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Four minutes?

No. The national standard is four minutes for the first apparatus -- See, you -- you -- you missing the whole thing. The national standards for the -- for apparatus to get to a call is four minutes or eight minutes for the -- for the entire box. That's -- That's what the 89 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 national standard is. The Philadelphia Fire Department meets the national standards. We meet it very -- on a regular basis. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And if we reduce the number of ladders and engines as being proposed, I have to assume we're going to get some of the testimony that we're going to fall below that.

Yeah. It's an assumption. We would still meet those standards. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's an assumption based on what I as a lay person and the rest of us lay persons believe because you gave us an example of the day care center in South Philadelphia that was on fire a few months ago, if ladder 11, I believe it is, at 12th and Reed were not there. You said, well, we can get there just in the same amount of time if the ladder came from Fourth and Snyder which I still can't figure that out. 90 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

I didn't say we could get there in the same amount of time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, we would get there in a reasonable amount of time.

We could get there within the national standard amount of time.

Let me make a suggestion. The point -- Councilman DiCicco, the point of order has gone a little long. What I'd like to do is maybe have you come back to that when we recognize you for direct questioning. Councilman Mariano, please continue.

Thank you. And my point is --

Can I answer -- finish my answer?

Let me finish my statement, then you can, and then we can all go our merry ways. My point was, when I was laying on that floor, it didn't matter to me who was there first. I saw firemen. The actual fire truck came first and 91 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 took care of me and made me know that I was still alive. The rescue squad which seemed probably seconds later got there and they took me out in a rescue squad. But there was firemen, four or five of them in my living room, standing around me. And I felt good because I didn't know -- And then there was an EMT -- which, by the way, there was a female EMT that took me out, so I remember her as much, more than I remember the four firemen. But it was there. There was a fire truck there in two minutes, three minutes. And I live on 4300 Block of Lawndale Street. Which made me feel like that I wasn't dying because I thought I was dying. Then when I got in the rescue squad, there was an EMT that took me to Frankford Hospital. At that point it didn't matter, as long as I got to it. And I know the Councilman's up on his numbers and everything. I'm not. It's what's in our 92 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 minds what makes this people tick that live in this City. So the Managing Director's point about us -- exactly what I repeated about what you said -- makes this a viable and a tough question for any of us because this keeps going on beyond us and this legislative body, downstairs, next term, next term, next term. Short of term limitations -- and maybe that's what we ought to do. Maybe there should be term limits around here, and then we would always make sure that the Mayor and Council are all fresh and new. And I'm sure somebody would have a problem with that. So I don't know how to sell that. And it's a real quandary how to vote. Managing Director.

I think you -- you -- you -- you answered -- You said what I was going to say.

Thank you.

I mean --

Thank you. 93 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

Councilman O'Neill.

Yes. I just have a quick question for the Commissioner. And it really doesn't deal directly with this. It's just something I was wondering about. When the first responder units go out, they're basically all firefighters. And they wait for the EMS. They perform a great service. I mean, I know there's a lot of controversy about that when I first started years ago. But I was told -- and I can't remember if I was told by somebody in the City or somebody around the country that I've talked to -- that if one of the firefighters in the first responder unit -- because we're not the only -- a lot of jurisdictions use them --

Correct.

-- the first responder system, that if one of the Fire Department members that goes out on those 94 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 ladders or engine vehicles are EMS trained as well, joint EMS, that we can be reimbursed by insurance, as opposed to not being reimbursed by just the fire -- and it's just, you know, out of the General Fund. I know EMS units are reimbursed.

Yes.

Can you clarify that for me, what that would -- whether it would make a difference if one of the members of the Fire Department who are going out was also an EMS trained person, that we could recoup insurance for that? I'm just thinking of this, how it kind of fits into the whole thing. But it's not relevant to whether we should manage it or, you know, Council should --

Yeah, you're relating to if a firefighter on the engine was a paramedic.

And could do -- And could do more than a firefighter? Is that --

Could do more than a 95 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 emergency medical technician?

Well, you can give me the level of -- Whatever it would take for you to get reimbursed, that person would be trained in it; that I'm thinking of it as a budget issue, as much as a service issue, probably actually more than a service issue. I'm just wondering if it's true and if there's been any thought to doing it. MR. McGRATH: Councilman, my name is John McGrath, Deputy Commissioner for Operations for the City of Philadelphia Fire Department. Councilman O'Neill, when a request for service that has an EMS nature comes in, if the first in medic unit or the second due medic unit is not available, we send a engine or a ladder, a first responder company, that has a qualified emergency medical technician. This is so that we can preserve life.

Okay. MR. McGRATH: We can open an airway. We can restart a heart. We can stem 96 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 bleeding. When we send that, we bill as one request for service.

Oh.

The medic unit follows up. That would be the same thing as differentiating when we respond to a fire. Some fires only require an engine and ladder. Some require four engines, two ladders, two chiefs. It's one response. We send what we need to send to bring completion to the emergency.

Okay.

We would not be eligible nor would the insurance companies allow us to differentiate.

Okay. MR. McGRATH: We do differentiate on some services. If we administer oxygen, we bill for that. If we do certain things, we bill. But to bill separately for the first responder 97 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 company and the medic unit, they would not allow that because we send what we need to send for one request.

And the first responder unit is always going to get a follow-up from a medic unit. MR. McGRATH: Always.

Yes. MR. McGRATH: There is never a time where we only send a first responder.

Okay. MR. McGRATH: As a matter of fact, our procedures do not allow the EMT to recall the medic unit. They come in and then we use their level of expertise to determine what course of action needs to be taken.

Okay. Now, you mentioned two different levels of training on the medical side. MR. McGRATH: Correct? We have what they call an emergency medical technician.

Okay. MR. McGRATH: Which all new firefighters who come through the academy as 98 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 cadets are trained.

Okay. MR. McGRATH: They maintain state certification. And we go through a retaining process over a period of time. And then there is another level, what we call paramedic.

Okay. MR. McGRATH: Paramedics can intubate. They interface with the doctor. They actually can do a lot of the bidding of the doctor at the scene where an EMT cannot.

Okay. Let me amend my question a little bit. If that EMT were a paramedic that was on the first responder unit, also a firefighter. MR. McGRATH: That's correct.

Would it make any difference in our reimbursements? MR. McGRATH: Not any difference. There are models out there in other departments. And they're actually in the process of -- because we are actually in the process of being overwhelmed with our 99 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 requests as they rise throughout the City of Philadelphia. We're looking at other models in how other cities deliver EMS service. And there are models that have paramedics on the engines and ladders. We're looking at that. Our present model does no have that. But even if there was, there would be no 10 separate billing.

Okay. So it would be a service level increase, but it wouldn't be a reimbursement level increase. MR. McGRATH: That's correct.

Okay. Thank you.

In that system, that model, which many jurisdictions talk about, one of the things that we face here in the City of Philadelphia is the fact that three-quarters, over 75 percent of our calls can be handled with a basic life support unit, that we don't need all ALS. And that is one of the reasons that we are doing that research. And based on 100 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 whether or not we'd be able to implement to bring the service, demand that we actually get from the City, which is less fire service demand and more emergency medical service demand, that we'll be able to not only handle the fire service with the current budget that's proposed, but we'll also be able to increase the medical service delivery to the people. It's -- It's -- It's through the roof.

That analysis is still being done?

That we're working with it right now. One of the things that we wanted to do was get through the arbitration and the PLRB process so that we could make the alignments that's necessary, get the overtime what we're paying out currently back in order, and then do effective and efficient delivery of service to the citizens.

Okay.

That's what we were asked to do. That's what we looked at. 101 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 That's what we examined. And we do it or we exceed national standards. That's what we do.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can probably ask a dozen questions or so, but I think this is my third or fourth time that we've had this discussion. So I'm just going to try to see if I can articulate the issue before us and how... I think that we're probably all talking about the same thing, but you gentlemen obviously have a directive. You've been given direction, and you need to follow that. You're hired by the Mayor. We're elected by the people. Mr. Ramos, in your testimony on 1, paragraph three, with over 100 years of experience, among them City Fire Commissioner, deputies of the Fire Department 102 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 completed a careful and meticulous analysis insuring any proposed closure of fire ladder and engine companies would not effect service quality or firefighter safety. I'm going to go through and read a couple of highlights from each paragraph and then kind of put the question into a statement more or less. The next paragraph. As the City pointed out in successfully defending a grievance filed by the International Association of Firefighters, the City developed the redeployment plan to address the shift in demand from fire suppression to emergency medical service, and to provide fire suppression and EMS services to the public in the context... in the context of the City's current fiscal crisis. On the next page, it bears emphasis that the changes that the City of Philadelphia has proposed were not solely a response to budget issues, but were carefully thought out to provide the best services with available resources. 103 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 So far, those three -- In my opinion, those three statements speak to one issue. It's money, money, money, the way I see it so far. Not because it's in the best interests of the Fire Department that will give them the ability to provide better service. They will provide the best service that they can, and they do the best service, and always have, based on what monies that they have available. It's not because this realignment is going to better serve the public, in my opinion. It's because it will serve the public in the best manner, based on the money that you have to spend. So, why I'm reading this the way I am is because everything keeps coming back to the issue which caused me to do this resolution. The realignment plan by the Fire Department will not leave any area of the City unprotected. Boundaries of each region have been reconfigured to accommodate engine 104 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 and ladder realignments, to ensure that there's adequate and safe coverage. I don't know how we do that. I've asked that question a dozen times. If you take a ladder and/or engine from point "A" and eliminate that, how does point "B" respond to the locations in point "A" that were originally responded to by that engine and ladder, when they're much further away? If you're two miles further away from where the engine and ladder company were normally responding to a fire, you can't get there in the same amount of time. It may meet national standards because I know we can play with those numbers all day, but it just -- you can't get there in the same amount of time. It's going to take you longer, no matter how you look at it. On at the bottom you said that -- We get into the Charter. The decision was in direct response to the prior former government which responsibility was diffuse and hence accountability was 105 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 nonexistent. If the City experiences a fiscal crisis, the voter should be able to look to one place to assess blame.

Well, that's all well and good, but because of the Charter which has a two-term limit Mayor, we, the other elected members of City Council who are not restricted under term limits, are left holding the bag, because any Mayor in his or her second term can make all these crazy decisions and it's too late for the public to do anything about it because the results of the past election are in, and unless you impeach the person which will be almost impossible, we're stuck. So the only recourse the public has is to go to their other elected officials and ask for relief. There is no other way of getting around it. I doubt if this Mayor would have proposed this in his first term because maybe the public would have placed the blame in the one place that they should have, and he may not have been Mayor today. 106 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 It's not just Mayor Street. It could be Mayor John Doe. There is no 4 recourse. But the other elected members of City Council, other elected members of the City of Philadelphia. And on at the top you said, but if responsibility for spending and management and administration decisions are between the Mayor and Council, no one is accountable, and no one takes responsibility, and no one can be blamed. Well, it just goes to what I just said before, that we're going to be blamed, we. I can go out to any community group in my district and say, you know, I really like to do this for you or I'd like to do that for you; but, you know, I have no control. It's the Mayor. People get tired of hearing us make excuses that we can't do anything about it. Because you know what they tell us? Well, I won't use the exact words that they use in some of the neighborhoods, but they say, well, who needs you? 107 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 So, Commissioner, in your testimony you sound somewhat defensive. You're taking it personal. Why is the Fire Department being singled out? No one ever questions your ability. We've said that time and time again. We all respect the work that the Fire Department does. And as far as I'm concerned, they're underpaid. And I've said that in the past. And they should be paid more for what they do for the service they always provide. So, we're doing it here because we as a body -- I think the majority. The vote hasn't been taken in this committee yet. And we'll see what the body, the Committee of the Whole does, want to help your department. We want to give you back money which we believe, based on your testimony and your predecessor's testimony, that but for the budget you never would have made these processed changes in the first place. So, we're coming back to you and saying, forget those changes, because you didn't want to have to do them anyway. We 108 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 want to give you back the money. There is not a department, I think, that has come before us so far in the budget process that has ever said to us, we don't need any of this money that we're being cut, you know. It's okay. They all want it back. They're all calling us and saying, could you help us get some of that money back. So, we're trying to help you. We're not here to hurt you. Is this the best way to do it? Probably not. 8 million that Council put back in the budget last year is being spent by your department because a temporary restraining order is in place which says you can't make these changes until the TRO is exhausted and all the appeals. So you're spending it. 8 million? And would you still move forward on the -- move forward on the realignment implementation? 8 million?

If the money was placed in my budget to be used for the companies that's currently there, I would spend the money, and the companies would be there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you.

But that -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. You can answer if you want. I just don't have any more questions. That's all I want to know.

He stated which I was getting ready to say about emergency medical service. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To keep the current status of the department as it is today, keeping the engines and the fire and the ladder companies intact, as you currently 110 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 are, and if we put the $6.8 million, would you use that money to keep that current level in -- in process -- Looking for a better word. Would you continue to use that money to staff your department at its current level, notwithstanding the EMS stuff. That's a whole different issue we can talk about. But the only reason --

Well, EMS service delivery is the issue. Right now -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But that's not the reason -- I have to interrupt you. That's not the reason you came up with this plan. The plan was, cut your budget by $6.8 million, go figure out what you need for EMS, and we'll make it work. But if we put the $6.8 million back, based on what you have said in the past, your testimony, and your predecessor, you never would have came up with this plan in the first place.

With all due respect, Councilman, the way -- the money for the 111 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 emergency medical services enhancement was always a part of the plan. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would you spend the $6.8 million? You said you would not change what you currently have in your department.

Well, when I said that, I assumed that you were going to give me -- assumed again -- that you was going to give me those eight medic units as well. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe we will. Maybe we will.

I'm dreaming about money now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let's bifurcate the two issues. Forget the EMS. We have a situation where this administration is looking to close in my -- and I use the word close -- 15 fire stations in the City of Philadelphia. Okay?

Councilman, may I respond? All right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And close is a word that we can all use in different -- 112 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

As you know --

Mothball, close, deactivate.

What is it? A semantic argument? Because in the firehouse where there used to be two apparatus, there's only going to be one. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or none.

Or none. So I mean, just because the house is there doesn't mean it's not closed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's not closed.

That's not true.

Well, correct the record, then. MR. McGRATH: Councilman, that are no fire houses closing. There are some companies will not be there. There were no 21 fire houses that will not have a fire apparatus that had one before. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: A fire apparatus for 4th and Arch?

Now, wait. Hold 113 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 it. Is it a fire engine or ladder or do you mean a fire apparatus -- MR. McGRATH: An engine -- There is no fire house that will not have an engine or a ladder in it or both.

But in the two slots in the door of the fire house where there used to be an engine and a ladder, there will be one -- some with both of -- missing either one.

There will be one. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 4th and Arch? MR. McGRATH: 4th and Arch heavy rescue moves in there from --

Heavy rescue and the medic unit. MR. McGRATH: -- 4th and Girard. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What happens to the ladder and/or engine that's there now? MR. McGRATH: They go out of service, and heavy rescue unit responds in that --

It's not -- So heavy rescue is not what the average citizen 114 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 would typically think is an engine or leader. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We went through this the last hearing. MR. McGRATH: No, it's not an engine or ladder. It's a specialized, highly trained --

But they're not throwing a ladder up on your wall and going in your window to save you. MR. McGRATH: They have done that or had the capability of doing that.

In the average dwelling fire, does heavy rescue respond to a regular dwelling fire? MR. McGRATH: Yes, sir, we do.

How often do they do that? MR. McGRATH: Heavy rescue responds or one of our new squad companies which --

Every one. MR. McGRATH: Every one. If they have a working tactical box, they respond.

And they're 115 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 first in? They're first in on the scene? MR. McGRATH: They're not the first in company, no. In that local that they would --

Who's the first in? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's the point. MR. McGRATH: At what location, sir?

In a typical residential dwelling fire with people inside, who's the first response generally? Is it engine or ladder company? MR. McGRATH: It's an engine.

It's an engine. So it's not heavy rescue. It's first response. MR. McGRATH: No. 20

Okay. So, heavy rescue is really not an issue in most dwelling fires, correct? MR. McGRATH: Not if you're talking about first in, who's first in.

Well, isn't the 116 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 first in people the one who we're concerned about? Isn't it the first people on the scene are the ones most likely to save life? UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Guy with the ladder. MR. McGRATH: Yes, sir, that's true. And that's why we adhere -- we meet or exceed national standards for response times.

We're getting -- Managing Director, you didn't answer.

You mentioned the heavy rescue at 4th and Arch. Are there other cases like that or is that -- MR. McGRATH: No. 16

I just want to follow up. I was asking whether there were any -- whether in addition to 4th and Arch, whether there was another situation where you had a box -- whether you had, you know, a box with only heavy rescue. What's the -- Are there -- How many other -- How many other fire houses are there where there wouldn't be an engine or a ladder? MR. McGRATH: Engine 20 at 10th and 117 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Cherry. They pick up the workload in that area.

Do you want to waste your time? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 7 I understand they pick it up, and then if they have a call and somebody's got to pick up 10th and Cherry, it just moves down the chain. I know you gentlemen are trying your best. You've got your direction from the second floor to make this work, and it's not --

Well, the direction's coming from civilians. The direction is coming from civilians. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It just doesn't work. It doesn't work.

But this is -- This is -- I mean, I -- There's -- There's -- I mean -- I mean -- I'd like to ask one question. I know it's not my prerogative. Ask your indulgence.

Go ahead. Maybe 118 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 we'll learn something. Go ahead.

And if -- You know, I'm trying to figure out what the expectation because you said let's separate the -- the -- the -- the -- the EMS from the engine and ladder issue. But if -- The way I read the proposal, you know, what you're saying is that every -- that engine and ladder companies end up having to stay where they are unless Council gives permission, forever. And it's not just about money because you're not -- you weren't asking the Fire Department whether, you know, they had the money, whether they could, you know, whether they could -- would get to the point where they would be more satisfied. You were saying, take the engine -- take the engines -- take the EMSs out of it. So, is the question -- You know, is -- you're -- you're taking away the prerogative of moving things around as needed or adding something and taking something else away, apart from the dollar. 119 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But that was you guys --

You guys are taking away the whole credibility of the budget process which is enshrined in the Charter also. (Mr. Ramos and Councilman Kenney speaking simultaneously, not reportable.)

You want to be fair about defending the executive branch's rights in the Charter, that's fine. But then again, you trample over the legislative body's rights in the Charter. And that's fine, too. You can't have it both ways.

Well, I'm just asking what the position is with respect to the sponsor's position. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The library -- Department head of the library comes in and says, we're being cut $2 million. We would like to have it back because we need to do "X," "Y" and "Z." We tried to get it back in. Fire Department comes and says, 120 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 we're cutting our budget by $6.8 million because the administration told us to because there's a fiscal crisis in this City. So we're going to have to try to figure out how we run our department with $6.8 million less. Not that we want to do it. Not that it's something we embrace and we think is in the best interests of the citizens. But that's all we have to spend. We say, we're going to give it back to you so you don't have to make that hardcore decision.

And that's what I'm asking, whether you're saying we'll give it back to you -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't want to run the Fire Department. If I wanted to, I'd be a fireman today.

-- or whether you're saying, here, I'll give you back the $2 million if you do "X," "Y," and "Z" or with the direction to do "X," "Y" and "Z" COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, because there's no other way of doing it because we 121 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 put it back in and they say, you're not spending it anyway, even though the department by its own initiative didn't make the decision to realign the department. They were forced into making the realignment.

Is it your position, Managing Director, that you guys would spend the money if we put it back.

No. I think what I was trying -- I think -- I think -- I think we represent -- you know, we've testified as to --

You will or you won't? You will or you won't spend the money if we put it back?

Can't hear you.

You will or you won't spend the money if we put it back?

The -- You -- You had asked, you know, that -- that -- that -- that question before.

Yeah. What was the answer?

I think that -- that -- 122 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 that -- that I think that at any given moment the departments will run to their -- according to their budgets and adjusting as they go along to whatever --

I don't understand the answer to that question. The question I asked was, if we find a way to responsibly and show where it's coming from and put it back, the Commissioner said he'd love to spend the money. Would you allow him to spend the money or no, to retain our current level of service?

My -- My -- My question is whether you're telling him how to spend the money.

No. 18

You're not? I thought that's what the resolution did.

He wouldn't have done what he has to do unless he was directed by a civilian on a budget issue to do it. And if the only issue is the budget, and the money goes back in the budget, what would be the need for him to continue on this 123 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 plan if the money was replaced? By the way, how much money does the Fire Department turn over to the City General Fund from its collections on EMS reimbursements a year? How much last year?

We tracked in 8 million. 9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And going up. 10

How much? 11

We tracking 20 to 22 12 million. 13

And increasing. 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And going up. 15

And increasing? 16

Yes. 17

And you don't 18 find a problem, just fairness wise, that a 19 department that turns over more than $20 20 million a year back to the City coffers is being asked to take this draconian cut of $6.8 million which they wouldn't have done unless they were forced to by the budget constraints? I mean, you don't find any inequity there? 124 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

One of the things that need to be understood about that is that $22 million is in payment for the emergency medical service delivery. And it's still short by about $10 million.

But you're turning it over to the General Fund.

Yes, we turn funds back over --

-- cost, is what the Commissioner is saying. And you've had the budget -- I -- I think there's a different -- you know, there's a budget difference there's a political difference, there's a political difference. And the issue, you know, and today's hearing is on -- on whether the solution here -- and I understand the sponsor's frustration that -- feeling that this is the only -- feeling that this is the only vehicle. And I -- you know, I'll respect that -- that view, whether this is the way to go about it. 125 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 This body collectively has means of dealing with the -- with the Mayor through the budget process.

What budget process? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just one final statement for me. You know, we keep referring to the Charter and the framers of the Charter. Well, you know, everything starts someplace and ends some place, but things do get amended and adjusted. It's 54 years old, this Charter. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's not time to look at it and make some changes, whether it's for this issue before us today or other issues. There was an attempt a few years ago. It was soundly defeated because of one issue which I still can't remember what that issue was, that killed the whole deal on Charter reform. Had it not been for that one Charter issue, there may have been some changes. 126 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 That's the process. I mean, laws are made, and there are amendments to things. We shouldn't be of the mindset that, you know, it's set in stone for eternity. It was necessary at the time it was created in '51. I started reading the history of the Charter. Just last night I read about ten pages. It's a report from the Committee of 70. And it's very scary. And I would encourage people in here to read it, when you look at the similarities of what caused the Charter to be implemented in the first place. Fiscal spending, corruption. You name it. Very, very similar issues were going on back in those days prior to '51, which ultimately led the citizenry to rise up and say, we want a change, not unlike the citizens are telling each of us in our districts that we don't want these fire stations closed and we don't want our libraries closed. And they look to us as elected officials, again, who for better or worse do 127 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 not have term limits, as the Mayor does. He's gone in two years, and we're left holding the bag. And I can't make excuses as to why I couldn't do anything about it because my office, the way it's set now, in my opinion, for the most part, based on some of the testimony and comments about the Charter, the Office of the District Council or Councilman-at-large for that matter has been basically relegated to a pothole hot line because you can't make any other changes.

Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Seeing none, anyone else to testify on these bills or resolutions? (No response.)

Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing. We will now convene a public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Council 128 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 member O'Neill for a motion to amend Bill 3 Number 050301.

Amendment circulated both to the stenographer and to the members of the committee and the Chair. It's a joint amendment with Councilman Nutter. I mentioned these items at the beginning of the hearing. of the amendment is just some chapter and section changes. , the following changes are made: New Section 20-1002, Section 1, Line 1, delete person and insert individual. Line 2 of Section 1, first word added is calendar before the word year. Going to the Line 3, delete $1,000. Insert $2,000. Line 4 the numeral $2,000 is added. And then going to Section 2 on the same page -- We're still on . This is Section 2 of Section 20-1002. In the first sentence after the first word which is no, we add the new language, person, comma, other than individuals who are covered under 129 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 20-1002, subsection 1, and no. That's the entire rest of the first line. Going down to the third line, add the word calendar just before the word year at the beginning of that line. And then later in that line, deleting $5,000 and adding $10,000. Further down there, Section 3, new subsection 3, we change in the fourth line $50,000 to $75,000 per year. And then on , in each case where City Council, Register of Wills, Sheriff, Clerk of Quarter Sessions, and City Commissioner, we're deleting 200,000 and inserting 250,000. I believe they are consistent with what I had mentioned earlier. And then at the very end on is the severability provision. New section 3 reads as follows: If any provision of this ordinance, comma, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, comma, shall be held invalid, comma, the remainder of the ordinance, comma, and application of such provision to persons or 130 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, comma, shall not be affected thereby, period.

Thank you. Do you move those?

Yes. I'll ask somebody on the committee.

They've been moved. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.

All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.")

There are none opposed. Bill Number 050301 will be amended accordingly. Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill for a motion on the amended bill.

I'm not sure I can, not being on the committee.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm not on the committee. I'd be up there. 131 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05

All right. Councilman Kelly, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Number 050301, as amended, to be moved out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and also move that there be a suspension of the rules in order to allow first reading at the next session of Council.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.")

There are none opposed. Bill Number 050301, as amended, reported out of this committee favorably; request been made for rule suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco for an offering of an amendment which will be 132 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 offered by the committee once he explains it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a technical change that needs to be made to the bill. On , Section 1, second line, a sentence where it says were the election to be held May 17, 2005. That needs to be changed to November 8, 2005. And also, on , Section 4, the same change, changing the date from May 17, 2005 to November 8, 2005.

Thank you. Councilman Kelly, would you like to offer that amendment?

I offer the amendment to be accepted as read.

Second.

Been moved and seconded. All in favor? (Chorus of "ayes.")

There are none opposed. 133 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 Bill Number 050286 will be amended accordingly. Is there an additional requirement for an amendment to the resolution? No. 7 The Chair recognizes Council member Kelly for a motion on the amended bill.

Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill Number 050286, as amended, be moved out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and also ask for the suspension of the rules in order that this bill may be heard at the next session of Council.

Second?

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor. (Chorus of "ayes.")

Any opposed?

Opposed. COUNCILMAN Kenney: Let the record show that Councilman Mariano votes no. 134 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05 The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly on a motion to approve Resolution 4 050292.

I move that Resolution Number 050292 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and also ask for the suspension of the rules in order that the resolution may be approved at the next -- may be read at the next session of Council.

Second.

The resolution 14 has been moved and seconded. All in favor of Resolution 050292? (Chorus of "ayes.")

Let the record show that Councilman Mariano voted no. 19 Bill Number 050292 is reported out of this committee accordingly. That concludes the business of the Law and Government Committee public hearing. Thank you for your attendance. (Public hearing and meeting concluded at 4:08 p.m.) 135 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on May 5, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (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.)