COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON HOUSING, NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND THE HOMELESS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, May 22, 2006, 10:30 a.m. - - - Resolution No. 050871: Calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and The Homeless to hold public hearings on the administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies. PRESENT: Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell Councilman Frank Dicicco Councilman Frank Rizzo V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 WITNESS Kevin Hanna............................ 8 Secretary of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Debra McCullough...................... Director of Housing 7 8 Veronica Pankey....................... 34 President of AFSME Local 1971 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 3 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871
Good morning. Thank you for being here. The Committee on Neighborhood Development and The Homeless is being called to my order. With me to my right is Councilman Frank DiCicco. We also have Councilman Frank Rizzo here, and we have other members who are in their offices and who certainly, if practice dictates, will be here in a little while. We thank all of you for taking the time from your jobs. I know that it's a sacrifice and a sacrifice on what happens in the summer. We appreciate you being here. And having said that, we're going to ask the clerk to again read the title of the bill. Let me say first that this is a recessed hearing regarding Resolution No. 22 050871 on housing reorg. Our former hearing dates were: November 15, 2005; December 8, 2005; February 9, 2006; March 16, 2006; April 18, 2006; and May 2, 4 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 2006. So today is the seventh hearing on housing reorg. And we will ask the clerk to read the title of the resolution.
Resolution No. 7 050871, calling on the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless to hold public hearings on the Administration's proposed reorganization of housing agencies.
Thank you. We ask Mr. Hanna to take the witness table, Miss Califano, and anyone else whom they would like to invite. (Witnesses come forward.)
Again, we thank all of you for coming. And, you know, I heard on Tom Joyner's show last week one morning, when I was feeling kind of low and worrying about all of and you and worried about this program, I heard him say: If you think you're at the end of your rope, 5 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 then just tie a knot and hold on. So we know we're trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, so we're going to all hold on. (Applause.)
Given all of the publicity, et cetera, we thought at this point, and since it's our seventh hearing, that maybe we would swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? (Laughter.) (Applause.)
Okay. I will get mine. (Addressing clerk.) Would you 6 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 get it off my table, please. We thank you very much. Would you please introduce everyone at the head table with you today, Mr. Hanna, while he's bringing me my bible.
To my left, your right, is Kathy Califano. Kathy serves as the Deputy Secretary of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. To my right, my immediate right, and to your left, is Mary Metzler. Mary represents our organization at --
-- at Ballard Spahr in any labor issues. And to her right, my far right, is Pat Heron. Pat is our Human Resources Director at OHCD.
And I note they have been here for the last -- is this their third or second hearing? Third? I thought so. And we also note that the heads of the other housing agencies are here, 7 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 and we thank them for being here. We see Deb McCullough, Executive Director of the Housing of Community Development; Anthony MacIntosh from Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, he heads that; Herb Wetzler, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority; and John Coates, Executive Director of Vacant Property Review Committee. (Clerk hands bible to Councilwoman Blackwell.)
Now, this is my favorite bible, I want you all to know. (Laughter.)
And it's a good bible, and I take it to church every week. And having said that, Mr. Hanna, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
I do solemnly 8 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 affirm, yes.
Thank you. Miss Califano, would you do the same, please. (Laughter.)
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you. The others, I don't know if you will speak. If you do, then we will swear you in. Thank you very much. We will now call on you. Unless a member of the committee or Council has something to ask, we'll now call on one of you to deliver your testimony.
My name is Kevin Hanna. I serve as Secretary of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. Good morning, Councilwoman 9 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 Blackwell and members of the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. I'm here to testify on Resolution No. 050871. I wish to read a brief statement to provide an update to the committee. I met last week with the Redevelopment Authority and the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation to have them present to me their first takes on the impact that the budget cuts and reorganization will have on their respective agencies. As has been our custom for the last several years, they will make arrangements to meet this week with the union leadership to discuss their budgets and how they plan to deal with the funding cuts. I wish to respond further that we did meet as planned with the Mayor the week of our previous hearing. However, we did not have certain information which he thought necessary. We now have that 10 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 information and are scheduled to meet again with them -- the mayor, that is -- on Wednesday. As you know, we have met with you and members the RDA and PHDC to work out a compromise on our strong desire and your strong desire to maintain VPRC and the administration's desire to create a land bank. At our last meeting on Friday, this past Friday, you raised several important issues which we followed up upon with the Law Department and Risk Management this week. And with that, Madam Councilwoman, I'll answer to the extent that I can any questions that you or committee members might have.
Thank you very much. As all of you know, we've been very concerned about program delivery, the process for program delivery, as well as the personnel involved in any housing 11 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 reorganization. As we have said -- and I understand those involved won't be testifying -- we know that this is an important issue. And unless I'm incorrect, Mr. Hanna, you can confirm or deny that, that the heads of agencies -- John Coates from Vacant Property Review Committee, Anthony MacIntosh from PHDC, and even a person not involved in this, Dainette Mintz from OESS -- are involved in housing reorg and in changing positions and are affected personally by this housing reorganization plan. Isn't that true?
And their perspective positions as leaders, are their situations worked out?
No, they're not, but we have had conversations with -- I take that back. Miss Mintz's situation has been worked out by virtue of her 12 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 promotion to the Director of OESS. As for the other people that you have just mentioned, they have not been completely worked out, but we have had conversations with them.
And I'm not even sure even Miss Mintz's situation is straight because she went from OHCD, and I don't know whether that is the same plan, but that is an issue we won't take up here today. With regard to the others, I mentioned that to say that if the leadership positions are not worked out, we know that the union members rank and file, no matter from whence they have come, their situations are not worked out. And I said this to you and I've said it to the Mayor, that City Council is due to recess on June 15th, and if we have not resolved any of these issues with regard to who is concerned, how they're concerned, and what happens, what 13 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 happens then to any of these departments at the end of May or at the end of June since our fiscal year starts July 1?
What happens to personnel? We are -- we haven't even identified who is to be reorganized, less said a reorganization plan, a process for programs and individuals. If we consider the individuals, how can we move forward when we don't know who's involved and where they might work?
You're absolutely right. We won't -- we can't move forward until we know and unless we know who's involved, who's moving where, and assigning some kind of a time frame to that.
Having said that, then my next question is: Since all of this comes under the Consolidated Plan, any monies or maybe not, in terms of housing reorganization, 14 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 how much is involved from the Consolidated Plan, and what part of it or percentage could be from the General Fund? Where do we stand with where the monies from all of this might come from?
The budget that Council passed on Thursday, a budget which I still haven't seen but have heard about, that budget includes, I guess, two components of the General Fund as being contributed to the Consolidated Plan in the Office of Housing. One is that typical -- I think the number is like $224,000 that's -- that has been contributed from the General Fund to the Office of Housing and our programs within the past couple years. But in addition, through legislation that created the Housing Trust Fund, there is the potential for another $20 million or so to be 15 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 contributed, again, from the General Fund, and that those funds come to the City first before they're siphoned off and sent to the Office of Housing. So I suppose the General Fund impact could be somewhere around to 8 $21 million. 9
Okay. 10 Now, if we're talking about money that 11 would come from the federal government to 12 the Administration and then to the Office 13 of Housing and Community Development, 14 that's the way this money flows; is that 15 correct? 16
All 18 right. If we're talking about that, the 19 general flow of dollars, then it seems to 20 me that the -- that we have to consider how we -- that we can't dispose of it until we resolve the issue of the Consolidated Plan and the Housing Trust Fund and those dollars overall; is that correct? 16 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871
That's correct. In fact, unless this issue comes to some kind of a resolution by the time Council is scheduled to go out on recess, then the City stands to lose all of the federal dollars that typically come through -- or that are represented by the Consolidated Plan.
My understanding from last year or maybe the year before is that, technically, the feds don't have to have it until about October.
But if COUNCIL doesn't get back -- if Council were to wait to act on this until they got back from -- from recess, it would be too late. In fact, we have to have certain information -- and I'm going to ask Debra to come up in a second. I think we have to have certain information 17 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 into Washington, into HUD, by like August in order to meet HUD's deadlines, and HUD gets back to us by September sometime. Debra can add a little bit more light to that, I think. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. Good morning. MS. McCULLOUGH: Good morning. I'm Debra McCullough, Director of Housing. The Consolidated Plan must be submitted to HUD no later than August the 15th. And that's because HUD has to have the budget before -- and the Con Plan with its budget 45 days before the end of the federal fiscal year, and the federal fiscal year ends September 30th. So we must have submit the Consolidated Plan on or before August 15th, or we would be in danger of losing the funding that was allocated to us for the current federal fiscal year. So working backwards from that, 18 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 we need to have a Con Plan approved by City Council before the Council goes into recess on June the 15th so that we can submit it to HUD to meet the August 15th deadline.
Then my question still is: How do we do a plan? How do we approve a plan that nobody has yet? How do we approve a plan when we don't know where people work? If we don't know where leadership is or what their jobs will be, how do we do it for rank-and-file people across the board, and how do we in Council consider it a process for our programs being approved in our respective districts?
What that means, Councilwoman, is -- and your points are valid. What that means is that in the next two weeks, all of this stuff has to be worked out. We don't necessarily have to, by June 15th, be able to tell you exactly which individuals will end up 19 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 working at RDA, PH, and RD -- and OHCD. In fact, we can't do that because of the bumping process. We can tell you -- well, we will tell you over the next two weeks our recommendations for that. But, again, even after those recommendations are made, the bumping process needs to take its course before anybody will know anything with any finality.
The bumping process could be, depending on how many people -- I don't know -- three months, four months?
So if bumping could take four months alone, that aspect of housing reorg, then I don't know you -- how can you be straight by September 30th or August 15th if you don't know if bumping won't be completed?
No, we don't have to submit HUD the names of all of the 20 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 individuals who will be working at the Office of Housing. What we need to submit to HUD is our plan for spending the money. In the past, when there have been layoffs, we represented to HUD that we spend X-dollars for administration for RDA, OH, and PHDC. And then HUD left it up to us to figure out how to -- how to spend those dollars.
Well, Mr. Hanna, if it's taken us November 15th of '05, December 8th of '05, February 9th of '06, March 16th of '06, April 18th of '06, and May 2nd of '06, and now today, May 22, '06, how do you do we know what will happen? We cannot in good conscience at our seventh hearing say go and do it and we trust that it's going to happen and people will be protected, 'cause it hasn't happened. This is our seventh hearing, and it hasn't happened since last -- 21 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 since before Thanksgiving, so how do we know what will happen, and how do we know that people will be protected as well as programs provided for, given the fact that we don't know now and that you haven't identified who's involved yet? How do we know? (No response.)
And let me give you a question that maybe you can answer -- or two questions. I have pulled out these charts, my staff did, with regard to -- that you gave out, I don't know, at the last hearing or at the hearing before on some level of housing reorg. Are these -- do you -- are these in any way valid? I assume everything -- well, let me ask you: Do you view these as valid charts at this point?
Yes, I view them as valid insofar as they represent estimates. I think I know what you're holding; obviously, I can't see the print 22 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 from where you're sitting and from where I'm sitting. But I think what you're holding are, among other things, our estimates of savings from the various categories from administrative, from personnel, et cetera.
I'll pass you my copies. I'm sure you have them because you gave us these copies. And then if anybody wants copies, then we're happy to duplicate them.
Thank you. Yeah. This... this particular sheet outlines our best estimates as to the savings that would be accomplished through administrative initiatives, benefit initiatives, and personnel initiatives, along with our estimates of certain costs that would go along with the reorganization. The second sheet was actually provided to you at your request. You had asked for a chart indicating the 23 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 differences among and between the various agencies and how that related to the City. To the extent that these benefits have not changed since they were submitted to you -- and there's no date on them. To the extent that these benefits haven't changed, yeah, we -- I'll tell from you our standpoint, we deem them both to be accurate. Again, that first one, the 8-by-11, should be considered an estimate.
And as we were concerned then -- and we still are concerned -- it seems to us that the City has some estimate. You know, some people say 50 people, some people say 90, some people say 150, some people say 190. You know, you get all kinds of numbers about reorganization and personnel being switched. And we don't know -- we've 24 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 asked -- do you have a number estimate about who's involved and from which departments they would come?
Yes, we do have that estimate but I will leave it to the RDA again. But it's been our custom in the past to sit down with the union leadership first and then for them to share that information with the rank and file. I can tell you from OHCD's standpoint, again, as I stated at the last hearing, we looked to hire somewhere around, I don't know, between 80 and 90 people. Most -- all of those -- well, 80 to 90 people. In talking with PHDC last week, in talking to the RDA last week, they now have estimates as to how the budget cuts and reorganization are going to impact their respective agencies. They're going to give those specific number, or a range of numbers -- they can't give a specific one yet but a range of numbers to the 25 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 union leadership this week.
What about the issue of incentives? And maybe people would -- and I've asked you this in private meetings and I'll say here that we've asked about incentives being offered to employees who may want to go to another department if the offer is such that they would be willing to consider it. Has the Administration even considered making offerings? Not a DROP but some other way to offer people incentives, and then maybe people would want to consider it?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, that's going to be the main topic of conversation when we meet with the Mayor on Wednesday. I can't offer all of those kind of definitive offers -- options to people until and unless I get the Mayor's signoff on it. But, yes, we've given quite a bit of thought to what those kind of 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 offerings, what those kind of options can be. Obviously, we have to be careful to stay on the right side of the labor contracts. But, yeah, we're absolutely positively looking at it, and we will present the Mayor with options along the lines of what you just talked about.
Let me ask another question. All of this reportedly began because of -- is it $7.8 million; is that what the cut is supposed to be from the federal government, $7.8 million?
That's the cumulative cut we will see when accounting for CDBG, HOME, and HOPWA dollars, yes.
All right. Then let me ask you another question. Since all of this comes under OHCD and the Consolidated Plan, why can't we take or borrow from the plan to get 27 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 rid of this problem and move forward and not have the threat of Council going out of session on June 15th? And since you have a deadline of August 15th and we don't come back to session until around the third week of September, why can't we take this from someplace else -- it's all in the same housing projects -- and get past this emergency? (Applause.)
Maybe even the Housing Trust Fund dollars. Why can't we take the 7.8 million we need? We have a brand-new program called "Housing Trust Fund" -- no funds have ever been expended from it to date. It's brand-new plan. It is not, you know -- it has not expended one dime to date.
Why don't we this year, whether we have to 28 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 create a resolution or legislation, or since it's all housing funds and it's all expended under OHCD, why can't we take the 7.8 out of that $13 million dollars, and then we don't have this problem, and then we don't need to reorganize? Why can't we do that? (Cheers.) (Applause.)
Well, there are a couple issues. First of all, it's state legislation that creates housing trust funds that permit municipalities in the Commonwealth to establish housing trust funds. That state legislation limits the amount of money that can be used for administration to 10 percent of the housing trust fund dollars. Now, if there's a way to, while remaining in compliance with the State legislation, if there's a way to figure out a way to move money around or in some way to do what you're asking to do, we'll 29 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 certainly find it. That's the answer -- or that's one answer to one of your questions. Another comment, though, that I need to make is: There is the need to -- I've always represented, Councilpeople, that what we're doing here has -- has -- we're here for two reasons. One is budgetary, meaning the $7.8 million that was thrust upon you was by Washington. The other is the way that we're structured. Now, I've talked about this before, the fact that there were redundancies. There is -- there are ways to better organize ourselves so that the money that we do spend, so that we could be able to spend less money on administration, freeing up dollars to put more money on the street into adaptive modification, into BSRP, into affordable rental. Again, two aspects to what we're doing. One is budgetary. The 30 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 other is from an efficiency standpoint. Now, I would submit that even if the budgetary gap could be plugged, there are still enough other reasons to pursue reorganization in an effort, again, to keep as much money on the street as possible. Now, the impact on the employees will certainly be less than if we combine both reasons together. But even if you took away the budgetary issue, there are still efficiency reasons to go through some measure of reorganization.
I believe that the union, the employees, and the Council have never said that we can't always be more efficient -- that's everybody. We can always be more efficient in our own offices. And so we've never thought that where there's an overlap that we're not willing to consider that. We are happy to consider it; the union's saying that. 31 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 The union has not said that they're not willing to even consider their part -- the redevelopment part, the part that the employee considers. But obviously, it's never been put on the table in a way that we can deal with it, or else we wouldn't be here for our seventh hearing. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Right, right.
So that's where we are with those two issues. But my question is, and I hear you saying that the state legislation limits administration to 10 percent. Then why can't we take money from the Housing Trust Fund and put it directly into HOPWA, into HOME programs; we don't have to put it into administration. (Applause.)
Well, Councilwoman, that's what I had in mind when I said to you just now that if there is another way 32 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 to move money around, we will certainly look into trying to get that done.
We believe -- again, I say this to my colleagues and to all who are here, that it's all housing dollars. So we should be able, within our housing budget, to work out issues to fund our needs so that we don't have to go through all of this grief we're going through. People shouldn't be, on May 22nd, they shouldn't be worried about going away this summer or whether or not they're going to have a job in September; it's not fair, it's not right, it is morally wrong. And we have to we have to realize that we're here. Everybody here pays taxes, and that we have to try to be fair to the people who elect us as elected officials and who make sure that all of you as appointed officials are paid. It always comes from the 33 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 public, and that's where it comes down to that's what it comes down to; that's where it comes down to in our mind. So, again, we're asking that that be considered as a way to get past this impasse. I don't know if we still have the money issues. When you said we don't have to go to this degree, I don't know that we need a big housing office. We've had small ones in the past where functions have changed. We haven't had to have hearings like this about it all summer long when we need to improve how we operate. Improving the process and how we operate is not an issue, bu it shouldn't take a citywide effort and fear of what housing reorganization means and who it affects and how it affects neighborhood programs in order to deal with the issue. So we're again asking that you consider this, and we want to know if you 34 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 have any other suggestions as to -- or, Miss McCullough, as to if you don't agree with the Housing Trust Fund, if you have other suggestions, if you could put them on the table for us as to where else these dollars may come. Or, Miss Califano, we're happy to consider any other place. I tried to come up with something. You know, you pray about it all the time for some way we could deal with this issue. So -- but we're happy to consider any other funding or delayed funding or funding for next year or the year after if you would like to consider that. Do you have any suggestions that you would like to put on the table? (No immediate response.)
As to where funding might come? Or funding that is deferred for a year or two? We all know that there are alway programs that don't move when they should, and if 35 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 there's funding from that pot of money, something -- you know, some programs have problems; that's natural. And sometimes we may -- we can defer money for those programs. I'm saying that we're willing to consider any other funds within the CDBG. We're willing to consider other funds that we may want to use to get past this impasse. And if -- and I said this to the Mayor. If the Mayor is committed to housing reorg anyway, even if we remove the dollar issue, which doesn't make sense to me, if we remove the dollar, we can just improve; we don't need to reorganize. If the Mayor is still committed to housing reorg, then we're against saying if he doesn't want to take the whole $7.8 million, that he should take half of it out of the Housing Trust Fund and delay this reorganization until maybe November so that we all have time to meet 36 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 in a process where there's no hammer over our heads to get it done. You know, it is my responsibility as chair of the Committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless and as chair of the Council Committee on Finance through which the CDBG hearings come, it's my responsibility to try to help come up with solutions and not just articulate problems. And we want to do that. I know I've been holding the bills, I know that. And it is not my goal to delay program funding and to delay the process in any way, but we do feel that we have to have a plan, and we have to know what the process is to protect programs and to protect all of the people who are here today. And that's where we are, that's where we are. And, you know, since the Housing Trust Fund has started sending letters around to my colleagues, telling everybody to push to get the it released, 37 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 they know what comes out of CDBG. And, you know, nothing gets released until we introduce the CDBG legislation. But I say to them, you know, the ball is in my court. I put on the table that we release funds from the Housing Trust Fund to programs that will affect the CDBG funding so that we can move forward, and then I'm happy to introduce the bills and everything works out fine. I'd ask you all to comment in that regard -- you, Mr. Hanna, and you, Miss McCullough.
Well, I don't know that there's a whole lot more that we can add. Obviously, I'm not going to speak for my colleagues. And like you, we've looked high and low and have tried to shrink, if not eliminate, that deficit, that cut in funding. You know, one of the reasons for forming a land bank, for instance, is 38 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 to try to sell more property in an effort to get more resources, more revenue, in an effort to shrink this gap. That was one of the ideas that we put forward. In addition, we ask -- well, we've asked a number of people, from the union to state to federal to local elected officials to appointed officials, for them to come with us with any ideas that they may have as well, understanding that we don't know all and see all. But to date, what I am faced with is a $7.8 million gap, but until -- but we'll continue to look. And certainly what you've put out relative to the use of housing trust fund dollars we'll consider. But, again, we have to make sure we stay within the parameters and the confines of State law. But the deck that I've been dealt so far has a $7.8 million deficit in it. And until and unless more resources are brought to the table, something has to be done. Again, even 39 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 without reorganization, something has to be done to fix that very large and looming problem.
Thank you. Would -- Miss Pankey, would you like to testify? Thank you very much. (Witness comes forward.)
Again, we say we try to come up with ways we think can solve the problem. So now, as they say, the ball is within the Administration's court to work with us to solve the problem. Well-meaning people can solve amending and this is a legitimate problem, a long-standing problem. You know, we've tried to come up with -- we've been praying about it and trying to come up with ways to help resolve it. And if we can transfer money into the areas where we need it, then we shouldn't have a problem and we shouldn't need this reorganization. 40 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 Tightening up and overlap is one thing; we do that all the time, and that's not a big reorganization effort. But certainly moving some hundred people around within the agencies is a big thing. And at May 22nd, when we recess June 15th, that's a big thing. We need a way -- we want to meet you more than halfway, but we need a way to do that. Thank you. Good morning.
Good morning, Councilwoman Blackwell. My name is Veronica Pankey, President of AFSME Local 1971. And this is Joseph Wills, Vice President of Local 1971. Just to give the committee an update on where things stand in regard to talks with the Administration pending housing reorganization, we have not had 41 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 any meetings since March 22nd regarding the transition process of this reorganization. We had left some questions on the table with the Administration and are looking for a response, but we have not received that to date. However, there has been a meeting with PHDC on May 3rd, at which time they informed the union that they would be having a layoff and that layoff notices would be issued by June 30, 2006. They did not at that time identify the number of individuals who would be affected nor the number of positions that will be affected but made it clear that they would be having a layoff and was in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the union, and PHDC had asked us for alternatives to layoffs. With a 50 percent budget cut, I don't know that there's anything particularly that we can issue to them as 42 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 cost-saving measures that will put a dent into a 50 percent budget cut to them. However, we are complying with the collective bargaining agreement and are gathering and soliciting our members for alternatives to layoffs at PHDC. Likewise, at the Redevelopment Authority on Thursday, May 18th, we received a written correspondence from Mr. Wetzel, stating that there, in fact, would be a layoff of some 50 to 60 employees at the Redevelopment Authority, and they too have asked for alternatives to layoffs. And there is a meeting scheduled with the members of our Local 1971 tomorrow to have a discussion regarding that. Again, our position is: With a 50 percent budget cut to the Redevelopment Authority, there is absolutely nothing that we believe that they would consider to put a dent in the 50 percent budget cut that has been bestowed upon them. 43 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 Looking back at some of the information that has come out to you in these hearings, specifically this list of items of concern for the Administration, and they compared the unions, our local to that of District Council 33 and District Council 47, I can say to you that none of these issues have changed, nor have any of them been addressed since we last met. There has not been any contract negotiations held, and there are none scheduled for any of the three agencies. So, therefore, these items of issues of concern for them will continue to be a concern for them until we get back to the table and until they are ready to consider the concessions that they have on the table. We will not, we will not consider any of their concessions until they are really ready to consider some of the items that we have on the table. We have limited the number that we initially 44 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 submitted, but none of them are appetizing to them, nor is anything they submitted have to us appetizing to us. This transition process that we need to get through is going to be a very difficult process, and the union is ready, willing, and able to meet with this administration on any day, including the weekend, on any hour of the day, providing that they come with an open mind and a willingness to bend. If, in fact, they intend to meet with us with the same attitude that they have had with our contract negotiations, then there will be issues that will be held in vain, and there will not be any progress made. We know how many members we have in our union. We have approximately 195 now, and that's as a result of a number of individuals who have retired in the past two months. Keeping in mind those individuals who have left, those 45 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 positions haven't been filled, and the job is still being done.
Again, they're turning to the union to get the job done for them, and we continue to not to get any recognition. That is not something that sits very well with us, but we take it. We take it, and we continue to do what we have to do. But what also is not so happy for us -- not only is it the fact that individuals are leaving and retiring, and the positions aren't being filled, but then we also get information that some management and administrations are continuing to get their coffers lined with pay increases -- specifically the executive vice president of PHDC who recently received a pay increase. While we say that we're all here to work and we're all here to make a dollar, but the recognition that any of the management staff receives is from off the backs of the labor movement here, off 46 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 the back of labor. )
It would not be -- if it was not for our efforts and for our hard work and us piling the widgets, hammering the nails, and going out and doing the job on a day-to-day basis, they would not get the recognition, they would not get the dollars in their pockets, they would not be able to line their coffers. But we get nothing. They get all the glory and we get absolutely nothing for all of the work that we do. We're asking not only for consideration and open minds to be brought to the table when we deal with this transformation process regarding this housing reorganization, but we're also asking for the same consideration in trying to obtain a contract. There's no secret that we have gone four-plus years without a contract. And, again, we're going through the same 47 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 cycle. However, if it is the Administration's desire to obtain a contract with us -- and they've clearly stated that they want a contract and one that mirrors that of the City -- we want to make it clear here again, as we have made it to the table, that if unless -- that if they do not come to the table with an open mind and a willingness to remove or at least to present to us their reason for the requests for all of the concessions, their demonstration to us why they believe the concessions that they're asking for are absolutely necessary, we will not have any movement. We will not give into the layoff language that they're asking for. We will not give into change in benefits. We will not give into anything unless they can clearly demonstrate to us the need to do that -- other than saying because we want to do that. There are lots of things that 48 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 we wanted but we chose to take them. We had them on the table, and we've even considered to take them off the table. But each and everything that we have presented to them in our last sessions has continued to be no, but then they expect us to accept every item that they have on the table in exchange for any type of economics or just to get a contract. And that's not something that we can consider. We cannot consider that and we will not consider that. So, again, we understand where things stand regarding this reorganization at this point, which is nowhere. We still have no additional information than we had since we were last here. We do expect that the Administration will be meeting with us at some point to talk about the transition process and come to the table with some information for us to consider. 49 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 We will not continue to come to the table and pour our hearts out to them and give them our information and walk away from the table with our pockets continuing to be turned inside out. That's always how it's been. We always walked away from the table with no information. It's always: I can't answer that question or I'll get back to you or we haven't met with this person, we haven't met with that person. But, in fact, they come to us and for information and we give them the information. No more. We can't continue to give, give, give and not get anything in return. We're already doing that on a daily basis. (Applause.)
So at this point, again, we're asking the committee to consider any and all changes to the budget that have been submitted. At this point, listening to the Administration prior to me speaking, they 50 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 use the April 15th deadline as a ploy, you know, as a form of trying to force the budget to be put into place. I don't think that that's fair -- not only to the members of this union but to the citizens of Philadelphia, because what they fail to realize is that even when this process takes place, there will definitely be some impact on the service that's provided to the City, clearly. (Applause.)
Do you have any idea how many -- you said you have 195 members. How many did you have before? Do you have any idea how many people are gone already?
Since the hearing started, we were at 207. And as of today, we're at 195, and those individuals -- most of those individuals left as a result of retirement, and the majority of them were that of the Redevelopment Authority. They will be 51 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 split between the Redevelopment Authority and PHDC, the majority of that being the Redevelopment Authority.
We'll ask Mr. Hanna to return. Thank you. Oh, Councilman Rizzo, did you have a question for Mr. Hanna as well?
So you can retreat; I'm not going to require you to have a response. But I'm glad to be here today to be able to stay in the loop, to understand the process, and to hear 52 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 exactly what's on the table and what's not on the table. And what I did hear -- and maybe Mr. Hanna can respond to that when we gets to the table -- is that there's urgency now, there's dollars that are possibly in jeopardy. Maybe, maybe not. But it sounds like the delay, the possibility of there being some critical timing is, based on what I'm hearing here today, that if there were a little more talk back and forth to answer some of the questions, we might be in a position to move forward. But until we have a communication that's satisfactory, what I'm hearing is that there's very little communication. So, Mr. Hanna, I just don't want you to blame City Council for the dilemma that you've put yourself in. (Applause.) (Cheers.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. 53 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871
All right. Mr. Hanna, we have a question for you. Please approach the witness table. (Witness returns to witness table.)
All I would like to hear is just to correct the record. If, Mr. Hanna, what we're hearing today is that people are waiting for some -- and not just people, but leadership of the union that appear to be waiting for answers to very important questions. I can't think of a more important question than about my job. (Applause.)
And if there's been a delay, I think it's only fair to we in Council that you take some of that responsibility in that delay.
Councilman, I've never shirked any responsibility for 54 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 delays in providing information. I've never shirked that. I will say that to represent that there's been no 5 communication is a misrepresentation. I will say, too, that to some extent, the information that has been provided has been information that folks didn't necessarily want to hear. Nobody wants to hear that there are going to be layoffs or that there's going to be an X.X million-dollar cut in funding. Not to have told people that would have really been reprehensible. It's my job as the Secretary of Housing to share that kind of information when it's available. Now, I agree. I wish that we did have more information, and I wish we had had more information starting with November 15th, the date of the first hearing. Again, I've not shirked that information -- or shirked responsibility, and I've now -- I apologize for not 55 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 providing it, but it wasn't as a result of our trying to, you know, steer people in the wrong direction or misdirect people. If the information is available and if I can share it, I've done that. In the past, there has been information, but it has not always -- I've not always been given the authority to share it. I think that's probably where most people take offense. And, again, given the hierarchy of the Administration, those kinds of things are going to happen. I apologize for it. But, again, given that the guy who hired me tells me when and when not to share information, when it's safe to and when it's not safe to share certain information, again, I'll take that responsibility as the Secretary of Housing.
Well, it's awkward for you to possibly be prepared 56 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 and want to communicate and not have the authorization to give that information, and I think that's what ruffled many of the members in this Council, that we came to meetings and we expend a lot of time on staff, and there was more effort to collect the papers after the meeting than to communicate at the meeting. So it's just a -- it's just a shame that you weren't given that ability to communicate. And I'm not saying that that's across the board. But you just said it right now, that the information is not available or the ability or authorized to give the information. So that's why I'm paying so much attention to this, because that ran the flag right up the pole for me, and I got real focused when, all of a sudden, the secrecy and not being able to communicate with people that you want to help you make a decision or authorize you to do certain things in this government. 57 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 So, I mean, shame on you guys if you're running out of time. And I just wanted to make it real clear that it's not this Council's responsibility. (Applause.)
Let me say, Mr. Hanna, so that you may let the Administration know, that we're very disappointed that the unions had to tell us that they've been approached with the timeline of a 30-day notice of layoffs. It's the most offensive thing I've heard today. We've been meeting since last November, and this is our seventh hearing, and nothing has changed. We feel that nothing's changed, that people have wasted taking all of their time off and wasted all of these efforts. I mean, we know that we've been blessed to try to come up with some way where this can be funded. It's all 58 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 housing dollars. And if we can resolve it within this framework, I don't understand why we have to be here, why unions get layoffs. It's so offensive for the Administration to just keep on going as if we haven't been doing anything, making any appeals to them to try to resolve this matter. Further, let me say this to the Administration: We're going to continue this hearing until Thursday, June 8th, at 1 p.m., but I hope that you will let them know. I'll introduce the legislation I have on the Housing Trust Fund and CDBG when all of this is resolved. I'm happy to do that, it's my responsibility as chair of the Finance Committee and chair of this committee on Housing, Neighborhood Development and the Homeless. But we expect to see some movement to resolve this when we 59 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 introduce that legislation, and that hasn't happened. I'd like to introduce it on Thursday, but I need to know, after your meetings tomorrow, that we've made some progress so that I can be assured that things are moving forward. At this point, the Administration continues to move ahead and we continue to make appeals and nothing happens and. So as the Administration uses what at its disposal, I'm using what's at our disposal. And we're going to hold up the legislation and wait to hear from you tomorrow sometime, and we're ready when you're ready.
Again, we would like to meet on June 8th with an addendum with different organizational 60 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 maps that we hope can be prepared by then as we meet, as you meet with the unions to talk about legitimate housing reorg. We would hope that we will hear from the unions and you and the Administration that all of this layoff language -- did you give them numbers? Well, they said 50 percent of their workforce is to be laid off. Can you tell us what that means?
No. I believe -- and please feel free to call Miss Pankey back up, but I think Miss Pankey related to you what came out of her meetings with PHDC and RDA. I wasn't in those meetings, so you would have to ask her.
She said 50 to 60 RDA. She didn't say how many from PHDC.
Well 50 percent is 50 percent; half is half 61 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 any way you look at it. We are really, really concerned about all of the residents of our city who give and who need their jobs and who want to do their jobs and who served time at their jobs. We've still heard nothing about the woman who will be 55 next year and has worked 36 years for the City. We've heard nothing about the person who has worked nine years for the City and is ready to be vested, and now they're told for the second time that -- we've heard nothing about vary many situations involving people. And we've tried not to make it personal, but it's personal when you deal with folks' jobs and their income and their livelihood and how they support their families. We are very concerned about all of our programs being funded in our neighborhoods. Ten of us are District Council people. We want our programs 62 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 funded and we want our city to move forward; we want things to work. But we have to be -- you can't accomplish a good way in evil means, so we've got to do -- no good will come of it. We have to do the right thing, and we have to try to do it in the right way so that our city moves forward in a positive direction with our workers protected. And so, again, please let the Administration know that we want to introduce all of those bills. You know, it's not my goal, and has never been my practice, to hold up legislation. I've not done it in the past, but then we haven't been quite in this situation in the past. So we hope that tomorrow we may hear of some resolution so that we can move forward. I respect the fact, as Deb McCullough, said that we need to move forward, but we have to do so with a 63 5/22/06 - COMM. ON HOUSING - Res. 050871 process and a plan, and we will wait to hear from you in that regard. Having said that, is there anyone else who would like to say anything at this hearing? (No response.)
Then our hearing will be recessed until Thursday, June 8th, at 11:30 a.m. Thank you. (Applause.) (Meeting adjourns at 11:30 a.m.) * * * 64 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 22, 2006, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. ____________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)