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?
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.
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.
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 --
-- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
And increasing. 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And going up. 15
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.
-- 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.
They've been moved. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
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 on the committee. I'd be up there. 131 Law & Gov't - 5/5/05
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)