COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO BILL 090706 - An ordinance amending Title 2 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Board of Revision of Taxes"... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 090706. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 9 090706, an ordinance amending Title 2 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "City-County Consolidation," by abolishing the Board of Revision of Taxes.
Thank you, Madam President. The reform legislation under consideration today, which will bring fundamental, necessary and lasting reform to Philadelphia's property tax system, including by separating the assessment and appeals function, was co-sponsored by 14 Councilmembers and is the work of this body. Our goal with this bill is to 3 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 bring accountability, professionalism and transparency to a broken assessment and appeals process. City Council has focused on ensuring that the citizens of Philadelphia will have a property tax system that they can trust, that adheres to the highest standards of professionalism and under which all citizens are treated equally. In developing this bill, we pursued a collaborative process whereby multiple Council offices made valuable contributions to this legislation. The bill before Council today was very much improved by that process. We intend to pursue a similar process going forward. We have received helpful suggestions for amendments to the bill -- many of them are technical in nature -- from the Administration, the public and other stakeholders. For instance, we agree with the suggestion from the Administration that the bill include a 4 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 date certain for transition of functions from the BRT to the new Office of Property Assessment and Board of Appeals. To that end, my hope for today is that Council hear from the Administration and members of the public on the draft bill. As always, we welcome this input. We are ready to work -- we are already at work preparing amendments to the bill based on the input we have received to date, and that work will continue after today's hearings. Given the other serious issues facing Council in the months ahead, including the budget hearings, which will soon be upon us, I hope to have amendments circulated to my colleagues after input from my colleagues within the next few weeks so that we can move this bill forward shortly thereafter. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 5 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Goode.
Thank you, Madam President. I was proud to co-sponsor this bill, and I can vote for it with or without amendments. The key is that property assessments meet industry standards for accuracy. This bill will do that with or without amendments. In fact, the legislation recommended by the Tax Reform Commission in 2003 would have accomplished that. The issue is not just one of competence, though, but one of ethics. Historically, Philadelphia's assessment inaccuracy is highly regressive, as low-income neighborhood homeowners pay more than their fair share and upper-income neighborhoods pay less than their fair share. This bill, amended or not, will not make assessments fair or equitable; just more fair and equitable. Simply moving away from a system of fractional assessments does not 6 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 solve the issue of fairness and equity, as long as there are those who still won't pay their fair share because of governmental intervention and/or more success in challenging their assessments based upon their economic class or status. If I have been overassessed for years and I receive a fair assessment 11 in Year 16, in fact I am owed money for 12 the last 15 years. If I have been 13 underassessed for 15 years and I receive 14 a fair assessment all the sudden, am I 15 really going to pay my fair share? Is that really fairness and equity? The assessment system was never structured to be objective. It has been rigged for years as a form of class discrimination. I hope this is a step in the right regard. Thank you.
You're welcome. Our first witness? 7 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 MR. McPHERSON: Rob Dubow. (Witness approached witness table.)
I know you have submitted written testimony. Does everyone have a copy of Mr. Dubow's testimony? (Yes.)
If you don't, if you'll raise your hand, we'll make sure you have a copy. Please proceed.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of City Council. I'm Rob Dubow, Finance Director, and I'm here to testify on Bill 22 No. 090706, which amends Title 2 of The Philadelphia Code by abolishing the Board of Revision of Taxes and creating a new Office of Property Assessment and a new 8 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Board of Property Assessment Appeals. Reform of our property assessment and appeals functions is needed in order to restore public confidence by creating a predictable, consistent and equitable property system that treats all taxpayers fairly. Accomplishing meaningful reform in the property assessment and appeals process will be a significant accomplishment for the City and one that is long overdue. On May 6th, Mayor Nutter and Council President Verna issued a joint statement in which they said that Council and the Administration would work together to reform, restructure or dissolve the BRT as quickly as possible. Over the course of the summer, two working groups comprised of Council and Administration staff members researched and outlined the issues and options related to the BRT. One group reviewed the BRT's Actual Value Initiative data and methodology and the other was 9 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 responsible for assessing governance and administration of the agency. The Data/Methodology Working Group review is ongoing. They continue to evaluate and test the BRT's Actual Value Initiative preliminary assessment results. The Governance Working Group issued two final memos on September 18th, 2009, one detailing the options and preliminary assessments by the working groups provided a framework to guide the Mayor and City Council on their collective efforts to reform the assessment system. Following review of the summer's analysis, on October 6th the Mayor articulated the principles he supported for any BRT governance legislation. He said any changes would need to address accountability, consistency and independence. Specifically, the Mayor stated that Philadelphia needs a property tax system that is accountable to the Mayor and 10 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 citizens, that separates the appeals and assessment functions, and for which the employees are subject to the same requirements as other employees in the executive branch. We appreciate that Council has crafted a bill responsive to these principles and look forward to continuing to work together to pass legislation this calendar year, thereby placing a question on the May 10th ballot for necessary voter approval. While the Administration supports passage of this bill, we would like to propose a number of specific amendments to it. And before I go to the next section, the way this is laid out, the Task Force had pros and cons for a series of recommendations. So I'm going to go through the Administration's proposal and then discuss what the Task Force said. The first issue is placement of the Office of Property Assessment. As 11 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 currently drafted, the bill does not specify where this new office is housed. It reads that the assessment office is hereby created within the executive administrative branch of City government. The Administration recommends that the bill be amended to specify that the office be placed within the Finance Department. As far as placing the assessment function in the Finance Department, the Task Force said the pros were that Finance is currently charged with the overarching responsibility for financial functions, which makes Finance a logical choice for a department in which to house real estate assessments, and that the Department already has responsibility for a number of tax-related functions, including the Tax Review Board and revenue collections.
But the group also noted negatives, however, because there could be a perceived conflict by locating the 12 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 assessment office in the same department whose mission includes collecting revenues and making expenditures. As the group pointed out, however, this concern could be addressed by highlighting Council's role in setting the millage rate and by including a provision that the Chief Assessor can be fired for cause only. The second issue is appointing authority for the Chief Assessor. The bill states that the Mayor appoints with Council approval. The Administration recommends that the bill be amended to provide that the Finance Director appoint the Chief Assessor to be consistent with our recommendation that the Assessor be in the Finance group. The Chief Assessor's service, the bill has it at the pleasure of the appointing authority or removal for cause only. The bill states that the Chief Assessor serves a four-year term, with removal for cause by the appointing 13 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 authority. It says the Mayor would put the cause in writing and a two-thirds vote of Council would be required to remove the Assessor after hearing is needed -- after a hearing is held. In accordance with our recommendation that the assessment function be housed in Finance, the Administration also recommends the bill 11 be amended to provide that the removal for cause be initiated by the Finance Director, who would state the cause in writing, with a hearing before the Mayor. The next issue is the appointing authority for the Appeals Board. The bill provides for a nominating panel comprised of seven members, one each appointed by the Mayor, Council President, the Realtors Association, the Bar Association, Housing Association of Delaware Valley, the BIA and the local Assessor's Association. Then the Mayor selects from the names submitted by the panel and Council 14 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 confirms. We believe this process would be too cumbersome and recommend that the bill be changed to provide the Mayor appoints with Council confirmation. We also think that the nominating panel would lessen the Mayor's and Council's responsibility for the eventual appointees. The Work Group noted the following pros with respect to Mayor appointing with Council confirmation. The executive and legislative branch would both be involved in the appointment process. A public hearing process will enable the examination of appointees' credential and help increase public confidence in the Appeals Board. The cons were, some members could be deterred by a public hearing process and there's a potential for a public perception the Board is comprised of insiders and that process would take longer. 15 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 The process noted some pros with respect to using a nominating panel. It's in place for some positions already and it helps spread the workload if there are a large number of absences. The cons are it would make the process take longer. The next issue is service of the Appeals Board. The bill is silent on removal. The bill recommends that -- Administration, sorry, recommends the bill be amended to provide that the Appeals Board member could be removed for cause, but only with the Mayor stating the cause in writing and Council removing after a hearing. We think removal for cause increases independence -- cause only increases the independence of the Board members. The Work Group listed pros and cons for removal for cause. It would make the Board appear independent of politics. The process would attract 16 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 professional board members, but an appointing authority might have the basis for removal that does not meet the "for cause" standard. And the group also looked at the pros and cons of serving at the pleasure of the appointing authority. It would create accountability for that appointing authority.
If a new appointing authority came to power, the appointing authority has the opportunity to appoint Board members without having to wait for terms to expire. But there could be a public perception of a politicized process, and the approach may deter some potential members from applying. The next is compensation of the Board members. The bill provides for annual salaries of $68,000 for the Chair, $65,000 for the secretary and $63,000 for Board members. We recommend that the bill be changed to provide for a per diem payment. 17 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 The next section talks about some of the pros and cons of an annual salary. It does provide budget predictability and is consistent with current practice, but it's not tied to the work performed and it does present a risk that the City will overpay if the appeals caseload is less than was anticipated. Likewise, if the caseload far exceeds prediction, the compensation may be low in relation to workload and may impede getting members to serve. For per diem compensation, the Work Group said that a pro is compensation is tied directly to work performed. It's consistent with the model used for other entities. The approach could rebut the public perception that BRT Board members are overpaid. It's easy to administer and could provide budget predictability if there was a cap set on the amount. However, on the negative, it could create an incentive to reduce the length of 18 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 meetings so that there were more days of service, and a caseload could far exceed prediction. A compensation cap then may make people think that the compensation is low compared to the amount of work that they're required to do. The next issue is the effective date of the transition to new structure. The bill does not give a specific date. We recommend the bill be amended to provide a very clear effective date, which would help to plan and guide the transition and provide a clear end date for the current BRT. The Administration recommends the effective date be October 1st, 2010. Thank you for considering those changes and additions. I also wanted to take a couple of minutes to talk about what's been going on at the BRT. The Administration has taken some steps to improve oversight and management since the earliest that legislation could take place is after a 19 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 vote in May 2010. We think these steps will help to restore confidence in the assessment function and will allow the City to move to more closely examine the assessment work of the current BRT and help pave the way for a smooth transition to a new system if voters approve the governance changes provided in this bill. As you know, on October 7th, the Mayor announced that with the cooperation of the BRT Board, an agreement had been reached which establishes the Finance Director as the Interim Executive Director of the BRT and brings the assessment function under Finance's responsibility. The agreement, detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding, will remain in effect for an initial term of six months and can be extended for a period of up to six months. The Interim Executive Director will supervise all operations of the BRT relating to real estate appraisals, 20 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 valuations and assessments. The Board of the BRT will retain responsibility for matters relating to appeals of real estate valuations and will continue to make all determinations in granting of exemptions and any duties performed by the Board in connection with eminent domain proceedings conducted by the Board of View. Under the agreement, the property assessment functions fall under the responsibility of the executive branch, and it gives us an opportunity to restore accountability to the public of the assessment function. We've taken a couple of steps already working with Al D'Attilio, the Director of Human Resources, to evaluate all personnel in positions in the assessment function at BRT.
This review will enable both Council and the Administration to work from an accurate understanding of the current responsibilities and activities of the property assessment function at the BRT. 21 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 When the review is complete, the Office of Human Resources will have fully reviewed classification and compensation characteristics, developed and conducted any necessary position examinations and sought any necessary changes to civil service regulations. As you may also be aware, on October 16th the Mayor requested a non-confidential opinion of the City Solicitor to address the status of BRT workers on the School District's payroll. Clarification of this issue will help guide the personnel and position evaluation we are currently undergoing at the BRT and in determining how the BRT is ultimately organized. In the months to come, we'll continue to work diligently to improve oversight and management, as well as property assessment operations at the BRT. We'll also continue to work with an eye towards repairing any transitional issues that we anticipate pending voter 22 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 approval of permanent changes to the BRT. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I'll be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Dubow. Can you tell us where you are in the selection of an Interim Executive Director?
Sure. We have several candidates, a couple of whom are really promising. We're in the kind of discussion process. We hope to have someone named very soon.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm encouraged today that we are taking a giant step in the right direction to fix a system that is clearly broken. I am also encouraged by the fact 23 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 that we have so few items that we radically disagree on. I mean, this is a first and a level of cooperation that I hope goes forward. I want to focus not so much on some of the small details about when the BRT would end, those dates, even though they are important, but I want to focus in on the membership composition that you guys have kind of highlighted as one of your priority amendments. And this body took a great deal of time, a lot of discussion to try to be as broad-based and as transparent as possible in including advocacy groups that kind of represented a broad brush of what the concerns would be about this particular issue, and I notice that the Administration wants to kind of relegate that to Council and the Administration, and I wanted to get a little more rationale as to why.
Sure. Let me start by saying, I think there are a number of 24 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 ways this can work so that even if the bill isn't amended, I think this can still work. But I do think that the way this is laid out with the number of entities, it would be a cumbersome process that would take a while. I think you can still have openness and transparency in a process that has the Mayor making appointments and Council confirming. You can have a hearing process. You can take testimony from various groups. So I think you can still be inclusive and open. I think it would just be a smoother process.
Okay. When it comes to smooth, that's important, but getting it right is, in our opinion, more important and getting a consensus about the stakeholders who are most impacted by what we do and what this new body will do. The other thing is that as we look at individual organizations, it was, I guess, in the spirit of this that we 25 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 would even if, for example, one organization went out of existence, the surviving organizations could kind of name a replacement and, in so doing, kind of keep that broad-based consensus. I just don't see why expediency would be the reason why we would not want to be more inclusive in the number of organizations that could participate. And that's just my opinion. I don't expect you to --
Like I said, I think you can be inclusive in a number of ways. You can be inclusive through the hearing process, too. So you could get input from all those organizations if you had it structured with the Mayor appointment and Council approval.
My second question would be on the per diem versus the strict salary.
On the per diem, couldn't that be -- and not to say 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 that any of these good, hard-working individuals would ever do that. Couldn't that kind of on the top end mean a lot more money than a salary cap, if you would, by way of a straight salary?
We looked at that. I mean, we thought kind of if all they're doing is appeals, you could see a heavy workload being five months at five days a week and seven months maybe at three days a week. Even that comes up to under $40,000, which is less than the amounts that are in here. So I think that doing a per diem, you'd wind up with a lower cost.
I overheard my colleague mention the words "full valuation" and then the nightmare of kind of dealing with straightening out that process, and if the meter was running on a per diem basis, it could add up quickly, and I don't know if you thought about that, but eventually this is the easy part of this fix. 27 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
If you had a per diem of $200 a day, if they worked 300 days in a year, it would be $60,000. So you'd still be below a couple of the salary levels here. So I don't think it would wind up costing us more.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Kevin Gillen wrote a paper for the Tax Reform Commission report in 2003 and updated it last year based upon 2007 data, but in the 2003 report there are several interesting statements. I wonder if you would comment on whether they are still true. 28 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 The first is, A greater level of assessment uniformity would not be revenue neutral. To offset the total decline in assessed value and thus tax revenue, the City would have to assess at higher fractions of value, increase the assessment rate, raise the property tax rate or some combination of these three.
The City would have to assess at a higher fraction of value, increase the assessment rate, raise the property tax rate or some combination of those three, because assessment uniformity would mean that those that were underassessed essentially probably would not pay their full share immediately and/or would be more successful when challenging their assessments.
Let me try to answer it this way and see whether I actually answer your question. I think 29 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 in terms of total taxes, it could be revenue neutral depending on where you set millage rate. For individuals, it won't be neutral. There will be some will pay more and some will pay less than they had before. If you put in some kind of buffering, it will mean that people who were paying more than they should have relatively before take a while for them --
Let me move to the second question. The comment may help you along. The City must carefully weigh the benefits of greater assessment uniformity against potential costs. If the City successfully implements a regime of more accurate property assessments, it may still be a net loser if many of these households succeed in challenging their assessments or even decide to vacate the City. Improved assessment accuracy would likely require more actives than frequent intervention by City Council to annually 30 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 set revenue targeted assessment and/or tax rates like the suburbs do. This is because tax values in Philadelphia exhibit greater historical volatility than have assessments. In other words, the market changes more than assessments do.
And, therefore, any immediate change would automatically cause an immediate shortfall.
I think it's very likely that millage rates would have to change frequently, clearly more often than they do now. But I think that's true. If you have -- if you move to accurate values, that you will see more need to shift millage if you want to keep the revenue level consistent.
In other words, we will be doing this every year or several times a decade?
I think that's 31 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 probably right if you want revenues to stay consistent, yes.
On the issue of property assessments meeting industry standards, can you tell me the difference between the legislation that was offered by the Tax Reform Commission, the Memorandum of Understanding between the BRT, the bill introduced in City Council and the amendments that are offered by the Administration? In terms of the actual assessment standards and procedures, are they all the same under all those scenarios?
Well, our amendments don't recommend anything about changing what the bill says about industry standards. I don't think the MOU does either. So I think all three of those are consistent. I'd have to go back and look at the Tax Reform 32 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Commission.
Part of the question was, through the Memorandum of Understanding, do you have the power to meet industry standards now in terms of property assessments?
Last question. On the question of equalization and the fact that there have been neighborhoods based upon their income level that have been historically overassessed or underassessed, what do you think the BRT was doing in terms of that and what do you think that any new entity should do in terms of that?
I can speak to what a new entity should do. I mean, I understand from what the BRT said itself that there were differences, but I think a new entity should work to make it so that values actually reflect value, that there are not differences by neighborhood, that everything is at 100 33 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 percent of what its value should be.
But a hundred percent of actual assessment value does not necessarily mean that some will pay that assessment immediately. In other words, those who have been historically overassessed are more likely to pay their new full assessment, even if it's less, than those people who are historically underassessed are not necessarily going to be likely to pay their full assessment. So you still have a problem with equalization in terms of who is actually bearing the property tax burden whether people are actually paying their fair share.
As you go through the transition period, you mean, if you have buffering in a transition period? I think that's right. I think that one of the goals here is to get to equity, but as you do buffers to make sure that the sticker shock isn't too much for people, you will be -- 34 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
So it's a fair statement to say that it's going to take us a while to actually get to real fairness and equity?
I think you'd probably want some kind of buffer that would take at least a few years. So, yeah, I think it would. I mean, even once you get the assessments right, I think you'll want some kind of buffering process.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.
Thank you, Madam President. I guess it's still morning. Good morning, Rob.
Can you 35 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 describe the process through which the Finance Department or you essentially became the Executive Director of the BRT, the negotiations that took place, who they were with, what happened?
Right. I can't really describe the negotiations because I wasn't part of them, but I understand there were discussions between the Mayor and the BRT that resulted in an MOU that essentially transferred authority over assessments from the BRT to me or my designee.
Has that MOU been approved by the BRT in an open and public meeting?
I don't know what process they went through. I don't know -- I know that members of the BRT signed it. I don't know what the process they went through.
Three members signed it and there are six members currently there, and I'm just 36 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 curious, are all of the members of the BRT in favor of this change?
Okay. Well, I would suggest that it's actually not a legal agreement until they approve it at a public meeting, and before you start exercising authority, you might want to request that they do that. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. My question centers on one particular category of employees, of your testimony where you give mention to the School District employees. Can you update us where you are at this juncture with regards to the personnel and position evaluations of those 37 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 employees?
Yeah. We've actually just started that process. So we're right at the beginning of that process.
I'm going to ask Al D'Attilio, the Director of Human Resources, to walk you through that. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Albert D'Attilio, Director of Human Resources for the City of Philadelphia.
If you 38 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 could just share with us what that process will be or what that process includes, where you are in the process.
Well, as Mr. Dubow just indicated, we have just begun the process. The process begins with employees being asked to fill out a position classification questionnaire. Basically, they outline their duties and responsibilities. We will then interview a representative sample of employees. We will have those position questionnaires reviewed by management to make sure that the responses are accurate and complete. We will conduct salary surveys. We will benchmark against what other jurisdictions do. And ultimately we will create a job classification and submit that to the Civil Service Commission for consideration.
Okay. This position classification questionnaire, is that a standard operating procedure? 39 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
So you've given at least four or five steps here, and Mr. Dubow mentioned that you've just started. So where are you in these steps?
We passed out the position questionnaire roughly a week ago. We have not yet received any responses.
Okay, then. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
With respect to the employees who are currently civil 40 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 service employees at the BRT, is it your intention to simply continue that classification now through the period once the BRT legally approves the Memorandum of Understanding and you take charge, continue it now until we can pass this legislation and get it on the ballot and approved? And afterwards are you just going to move those classifications over to the Office of Property Assessment? I mean, what is the intention with respect to people who are already civil service?
We are in the process of evaluating those positions as well. The Department of Human Resources has been tasked under the Charter with maintaining the classification system for the civil service employees, so we are evaluating those positions with that same process in mind, and those job classifications may or may not change depending upon what we find. If employees are just being 41 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 transferred within their job titles from one department to another, a classification change is not needed. But if the position -- if we find that the position has changed, that the requirements are not what they should be, then we would have to go to Civil Service to change the classifications, but it wouldn't impact whether the employees worked in one department or another.
What is the Administration's intention with respect to the School District continuing to reimburse or fund the existing positions within the BRT? Do you expect that to change during the interim period prior to passage of this bill, and what is your expectation afterwards?
We don't expect that to change. I guess there are two questions. One is whether those employees are on the School District's payroll or whether they're on the City's payroll. And then the second question 42 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 is, regardless of where they are, who pays for them. And I think your question was about who pays for them. We don't intend to have that change. I mean, even in the School District's budget, when they assumed that the employees would come off their payroll, they then budgeted for a contract with the City. So they maintain funding, but just in a different way.
Are you aware that the Controller's Office has School District employees?
Do you believe that they should eliminate those positions also? I mean, is that essentially this is a bad thing, so we should get rid of it everywhere? 43 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
I don't think I said it was a bad thing, we should get rid of it. I said there were two questions. One was who pays and one was where they --
What is your intention with respect to those employees?
I don't know. We're going -- there are two things. We're looking at what they actually do, and the second is, the City Solicitor is studying the issue and going to provide a non-confidential opinion on their status.
Is it your intention to have them remain School District employees?
You don't 44 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 have a preferred path at this moment; is that your testimony?
I think we're trying to understand those two things to determine what path we take.
But either way, it is the Administration's position -- because there's been a lot of public clamoring for that money to be returned to the schools. Either way, it is the Administration's position that the School District will either pay for the employees or reimburse the City for the cost of those employees?
I am done. 45 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to make sure. I didn't want to jump on your time. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On of your matrix or dubbed matrix -- I'm not sure if it's yours or Council's -- there's an issue relative to the appointing authority for the Appeals Board, and the current bill 13 talks about the nomination of seven members appointed by the Mayor, Council President, Board of Realtors, Bar Association and various other organizations within the City that have an interest in this and that are longstanding members of the community. The Administration's recommendation is that the bill be amended to allow just the Mayor to appoint and Council to confirm. Do you think there might be some public benefit in having a 46 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 cross-section of the City involved in the nomination of people to serve on this Board? If we're looking to change the cultural attitude about the BRT and to have the public buy in to what we're doing, shouldn't the public be part of the process in addition to the elected body of City Council and the Mayor?
Yeah. I mean, it's a question of how they're involved. I think they can be involved in a hearing process by providing testimony, but I do think they should be involved. It's just a matter of how the nominations are done.
But it just seems that the recommendation of the Administration will not allow that to be a formal part of the process, that it will be an informal part vis-a-vis they are giving their opinion as opposed to having a memorialized part in the legislation.
Right. I mean, I understand the issue. 47 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
I think considering where we are in the public view of this entity, maybe we need everyone kind of rowing the boat or helping to row it so that everyone buys in to what the end product is.
I hear you. I think there are a couple of ways you could do it.
And the other thing is, going back to the School District employees and relative to political activity and all the stuff that's been circulating around all that issue, the Law Department, have they considered -- and our Solicitor is here -- recent Supreme Court ruling relative to political activity of federal employees and maybe adopting that standard citywide for our employees so we get out of this issue of who is political, who is not political? I mean, let me tell you what I think the political part of it, the big P, little P 48 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 issue. I mean, I think people who live in the community, who work for the City, who work for the BRT, who work for wherever, should be active in their community, and I think one of the ways that you are active in your community is by being involved in the political process. I mean, it's not just all guys with cigars in the back room making a deal. It's people in the community that have served in the community for decades that avail -- generally a lot of them for free -- of being problem-solvers in the community, community organizers, block captains. I mean, isn't that the kind of public employee we want? I mean, I don't think we should have politics in the system so that somebody can do a favor for somebody else. I get that. And that's something that we have an IG for, we have an Integrity Officer, we have a District Attorney, all those folks to take a look at that. But I think in some ways 49 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 cutting people off from the ability to be active in their community through a political process is something that's kind of unAmerican. And I recognize years ago how this happened and why it happened, but I think we're in a different environment now, and if the Supreme Court can make a determination that federal employees should have a modicum of ability to be involved politically -- and I guess my long question is, have you studied the ruling and do you think it applies either in this particular case to BRT employees or to our recreation center supervisors or our police officers or whoever? I just think cutting off people from politics and the political process in the good sense of the word is not something we want to advocate for. (Witness approached witness table.)
Shelley Smith, City Solicitor. Good morning. 50 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
First of all, I'm not going to pre-stage what the ultimate conclusion is that will be reached in the opinion. Certainly in evaluating these issues, we're evaluating all of the applicable law, any court decisions that are applicable and precedential on the issue. The political activity restrictions on City employees certainly allow City employees to engage in some level of political activity that is not overt public or partisan. That said, that, as you have acknowledged, is a long history that pre-dates the City Charter that illustrates the rationale for limiting the political activity of City employees. So all of those factors are factors that we're considering in evaluating the questions as they relate to -- 51 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
For example, the conduct of elections throughout the City of Philadelphia could not take place twice a year without basically volunteers, because the length of the time that folks work in a polling place for the stipend that they receive is pretty much a volunteer job. They're not partisan. They work the election table. They inspect the machine. They assist people who need voting help. And I think that's something that should be commended, not something that should be eliminated and somehow there's something wrong with doing that kind of stuff. I mean, the folks who sit in those polling places -- and I could tell you, if they didn't show up one election, we wouldn't have one. And I think that that whole system, although that needs to be tinkered with too as we move forward in the modern times and we've done that with voting machines and other things, I still think that there's something -- 52 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 it's not a bad thing to get up at o'clock in the morning and be at your poll and help people in the democratic process of voting. And I think somehow we've lost that in this whole discussion, and I would urge you in the course of your evaluation to take that into consideration. I mean, I don't want people doing favors for anybody, but I don't want to tell people that they shouldn't be involved in the democracy that we birthed here in Philadelphia.
We are certainly evaluating all those issues, Councilman Kenney.
While we're on that topic, the Mayor's -- I can't remember its -- Task Force or Commission 53 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 on Ethics has issued its preliminary report. In that report they conclude that the City's current political activity restrictions are unconstitutional under the -- so what standards are you going to try to apply to anybody given that our current standards are unconstitutional, according to the Mayor's own commission?
Certainly the fact that the Task Force has issued a report that suggests that the rules are unconstitutional isn't dispositive of the issue. I don't think you're suggesting that it is.
I'm saying that the Task Force conclusions are not dispositive of the issue. We are evaluating the question in the context of the request that has been made for an opinion as to the status of these employees. Certainly their political 54 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 activity is a relevant factor in evaluating the issue, and we will evaluate the issue against all of the relevant standards, including the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted it and many of the factors that Councilman Kenney identified, including the history of political activity that led to the political restrictions that exist in the Charter today.
Do you agree or disagree with the Task Force's conclusions with respect to the constitutionality of our current restrictions?
I'm not in a position to sit here today and state whether or not I agree or disagree with it. All I'm saying is that we are issuing an opinion on the question -- on 55 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the issue of the status of these employees, which will include some analysis of those issues, and the fact that the Task Force has reached that conclusion is not dispositive of the issue.
Okay. We'll have separate hearings on that issue. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
I forgot my question. I know the City Solicitor will offer a fair opinion based on all of the parameters that she outlined. I certainly hope that these employees are not used as the scapegoat for the problems that the BRT, as has been portrayed lately, that they are the problems that the assessments are high and all the other problems with the BRT. 56 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 So sometimes in those decisions that are made even by the court, the court of public opinion weighs in on the decision, and I certainly hope that the decision just because these employees happen to be -- some of them are. I don't know if all of them are. I don't know too many of them. I would hope that they are assessed at the performance on their job and what might their political involvement might have had on any impact of the decisions or operations of the BRT. I'm trying to be very careful what I say, because I don't want to be misinterpreted. But I think at one time all of us were political employees, no 19 matter where we worked, political appointees at some point, and exercised fairness and honesty in dealing with what we had to deal with. So in any case, that's all I'm going to say. Mr. Dubow, can you explain why the Administration recommends that the 57 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 Finance Director appoint the Chief Assessor as opposed to the Mayor with Council approval?
Yeah. We think that it kind of belongs within a specific department as opposed to kind of freestanding, and we think Finance makes sense because we have some similar functions, like the Tax Review Board, for example. So we think it's more -- it makes sense if it goes somewhere, for it to go with us and that it should be in some specific -- should report to somewhere in the Administration.
Okay. Why would they be exempt from civil service? 58 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
I think in terms of the flexibility and finding the right person with the right qualifications, being exempt from civil service would help.
You're saying that people who might qualify would not want to participate in the civil service process?
Can you explain why the Administration believes that a nominating panel for the Appeals Board would lessen the Mayor's and City Council's responsibility when, according to this bill, the Mayor ultimately appoints and City Council confirms the Appeals Board?
Yeah. I think it would lessen Council and the Mayor's responsibility because the names would be coming from somewhere else. So they wouldn't -- the Mayor and Council wouldn't be determining the universe from 59 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 which the names could be selected.
But the organizations that we've recommended in the bill represent a broad spectrum of organizations in this business and would have, to me, a good sense of who some of the appointees might be based on their involvement in that arena.
Yeah. Like I said to Councilman Jones, I think there are different ways to do this that will work. So, I mean, I think if using an appointing panel, that process works. We just thought the bill would be a little stronger if you had the Mayor making the nomination with Council approval, but we do understand it can work either way.
Well, the Mayor would get recommendations from various venues. He's not going to know all the people in this field. Why not allow this Board to make those recommendations from people that they vet and who they know? 60 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
I think it can work either way. If that's the way Council decides, I think we'd be fine with that.
Okay. We had a nominating panel which is a part of the Charter where the School Board prior to the SRC take over. The School Board appointees were recommended by a panel to the Mayor and the Council for appointment. So that process didn't seem to be cumbersome, and of course the public had input in making those recommendations. So it seems to me it makes it a little more transparent, since we are all concerned about transparency here. In your testimony, you state that the Administration supports a per diem payment for members of the Appeals Board. In this regard, would the Administration support a total annual per diem payment that was annually capped at the salary level? You talked about caps in part of your testimony. 61 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Okay. Let me ask you a question about the assessment process just on this full valuation. Where are we with that and are we going to accept the program as submitted by the BRT or are you looking at doing another program?
We have been looking at what the BRT did, and I think there are still a number of issues with it. I don't think that the way it is now is ready to be used, so we wouldn't accept that. So I think there's still work that needs to be done on it.
Well, we are actually working with the BRT on it, being the Budget Director is working with 62 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 the BRT on that issue. He can actually -- I mean, I can ask him to give you some more detail if you'd like on where we are in that process.
I'd like to know, because people are asking me when will they get this new assessment and I don't have an answer for them. Plus the fact will the system that's presented will be one that's different from what was presented to us before. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members. Steve Agostini, Budget Director for the City of Philadelphia. As Mr. Dubow said, there are a number of issues that we have encountered and identified with respect to the assessment process that BRT has been working to implement, which has come to be known as the Actual Value Initiative. Very succinctly, the issues 63 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 are, there are some pretty significant data problems where there are a number of either missing residential units that are not incorporated currently in the sort of extensive database for all properties in the City. A number of the properties have significant errors in terms of the description of the property, the zoning, the use, which then makes the development of any kind of proper assessment for that very difficult. In addition to the data problems, there are very significant issues, I think, with respect to the modeling that need to be at least reviewed. Many appraisal entities in the United States use a computer-aided type of appraisal process where there's an underlying statistical model that's used based on sales over the prior five- or six-year period. That model that's currently being tested by the BRT I think has a number of issues, and we're trying to delve into them. The issues have to 64 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 do with the kind of variables they're using to develop the model, some of the underlying data issues that I mentioned a moment ago, as well as whether the actual values that are being calculated are the appropriate values given where we are in the marketplace today. So succinctly, there's some data problems, there's some modeling problems, there are issues that we need to address in both of them. I think that the timeframe to get that done is probably somewhere in the six months to a year period to address the modeling. The data problems are much more significant and may take a longer period of time. That may take a couple of years to get to a point where we have an accurate data set for our properties in the City where we believe there's an integrity to that. That I think will take a little longer. It's conceivable that we could fix some of these things in the next 65 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 three to six months, but it will be very difficult to do that. So I think it would be, in my opinion, a timeframe that contemplates a year to months of fixing these issues 7 is probably an appropriate timeframe. 8
You know, 9 I'm not familiar with the process that 10 was used or the company that was used to 11 set up this whole program, but the BRT, 12 who are they working with? Are they 13 working with a company that they 14 contracted with or do they have a 15 different company? What's with that? 16
The BRT engaged 17 three different consultants to assist 18 them. One is a recognized expert in assessments throughout the United States, two are local. One is a professor at Temple, one is a professor at Wharton. Actually, Kevin Gillen, who I think someone made mention of earlier. I think it was Councilmember Goode. They were engaged to provide some of the 66 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 underpinnings for these models, the statistical models. This expert, national expert, was used to provide sort of a constant oversight of the process. I've talked to all three of them at length. I just think that at a minimum, we probably -- the City probably needs to bring in another expert to at least review, if not revise, the model to address some of the issues that I think are significant, because at the end, the BRT relied on models that it developed as opposed to purchasing the services of a contractor or an economist, if you will, to do the modeling. They did the modeling themselves. And I think that before we were to move forward with that, there are a lot of things that we need to review and feel comfortable with, and right now I don't think they're in a place where we should proceed with them. At least that would be my recommendation, that we need to review them very carefully. 67 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll only ask two questions at this point, and one is, I see that this panel picks a board, but my question is, it appears that there's only one taxpayer or one homeowner on this panel, and is that something -- one residential homeowner on it, and is that something that we all agree with? It seems to me that on all of this, we should have people who pay the freight. People who pick this group and people who will be making decisions certainly should be residential homeowners, as well as businesspeople and business types. So I bring that up and ask you to respond to that. 68 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 And my second question is, on , (d)(ii), could you explain that to us in layman's terms, what that section means, what (ii) means?
First, on your first comment I guess on membership of the Board, one of the requirements is that everyone who is on the Board be a City resident. So everybody would be paying the freight. So I think in that way, that covers it. And it also by laying out some expertise, I think it will, first of all, have people who are on the Board have that level of expertise that will help them make informed decisions and will give the public more confidence in what they're doing. So I think that makes sense. In (d)(ii), what that's saying is, there are kind of common measurements of how consistent your assessments are, and you want to make sure that if you have two houses, that they're assessed in the same way. That's really just getting 69 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 at kind of statistical analysis to give you comfort that that's happening. And that's very important. You really need to have that in an assessment system to make sure that people can have faith in it and think that it's fair.
I'll go to my -- I don't know -- I guess we're a long way from having faith in anything, because, you know, this is a question mode. So we'll try to keep our mind open and see where this goes. But on , (d)(ii), could you explain that?
Yeah. I'm sorry. That's what I was trying to explain, but I don't think I did it well.
It lays out a number of ways of testing whether the assessments that you're doing meet statistical tests so that you know that they are consistent across properties. 70 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 And that's something, as we talked about earlier, that we haven't been able -- we have not achieved in assessments in the past. So it's important that we be able to do that, and it's important that those standards are set in that we know that they're being followed. So to us, that seemed like a very important part of the bill.
So if we required that of the current Board, would our problems then go away?
Well, I don't think so. I think you still have some inherent problems if you have, for example, the assessment function and the appeals function together. I think there's a perceived conflict there. You need to really separate those two functions from each other. You don't want the people who are doing the assessments also hearing your appeals.
But one part of them, the way they are even 71 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 physically located, where the assessors or evaluators go out in the street and they come back and they work with the assistants who have information, in order to have a whole new process, you'd have to have a whole new way these people operate. You'd have to create more than rules. You'd have to have a whole new modus operandi, because the way -- because the current system in any form wouldn't work with these rules. It's like we're talking about totally separate things. The way they work together, the assessors go out and assistants go out at times, and they come back and they do the records and confer back and forth and people do appeals. Everybody is interrelated, and I don't know that making a rule to change that would make it better, and I still don't -- and I don't know how you do this. Is it your plan to restructure the whole operation as it currently 72 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 exists where people sit, what they do? You've got a lot of detail to work out if you want to make these kinds of new rules.
I think there are a lot of details that have to be worked out in making sure that these new rules were followed. I think, though -- I don't -- I mean, I think in terms of who works together, other than the appeals function being separate from the assessment function, I think you'd still have or you could have, depending on where your analysis takes you, the same people working with the same people. I don't think that necessarily has to be completely different. But, for example, this requires -- the bill requires certain certifications of employees. So you would need some training to make sure that they met their requirements of the certification and you'd need to make sure they got certified. So that would be a 73 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 change from where we are now.
But we have tests for the real property evaluators. They have to take tests if they want to move up. When people appeal their increases, then they have to go back to these same people, or maybe they appeal in five areas, and the assistants go back to the evaluators and they talk about whoever saw the property, they talk about what they need to do, they work out and maybe they compromise. All of those things happen now. It seems to me -- I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me that the people who work there don't have issues with how they work. It is we who don't see it, who sit on the outside and say what should happen in a total vacuum and in a total unaware way of what they do and how they do it, and I don't know that we can technically come up with these rules without taking in mind how it all operates. All of us agree that we have 74 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 good people who work there, and I don't know that what we're doing is improving it or in any way even works in concert with how they operate. I don't know how that -- I don't know how any of this happens.
I take a couple of things there. I think what even the BRT has said is that the assessments we have now are not accurate and they are not equal across properties. So the system as it is now isn't fair and --
But we know that. That is why they were talking about changing the Board up top. I don't know -- we read things that say we want to change the Board, then we want to change the departments, then we want to change what they do, all of this. This isn't just about changing how it's run. This is changing everything, and it just doesn't seem realistic. You know, I mean, some people have left, and poor Ricky that we all 75 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 know got so sick, he couldn't -- he was already sick. He left, although it's a shame how he left. But I just don't know. If we talk about how it's run, that's one level, but we're dealing with every level of how it's run and who does what, which is unrelated to the real world that we live in and that these people work in. We have good workers. It's not them. It's the system.
Yeah. I don't think -- and obviously the Administration didn't draft the bill, but I don't think that anything in the bill is meant to imply that the people who are working at the BRT, the evaluators, are the problem. I think it's really trying to set out standards that need to be met. I don't -- and I think that's actually a good thing. If you want to make sure that people understand how the process works and believe that it's fair, I think it's good to have standards that everyone 76 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 needs to meet.
Madam President, my last -- because I know Councilwoman Tasco has a question. This is my last statement on the issue. And, that is, that I believe that change should be for improvement. I don't believe even if there's public outcry, that we change to change. If it's not better, we wait until we are sure we change it for the better. And as always, we're against full tax valuation. Have been and will be, no matter how this discussion is and where it goes. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon. I think it's important that we put on the record today the absence of any of the BRT Board members, who were 77 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 invited to this hearing by the key sponsor of this legislation, Councilman Green. And I think it's also important that we just go back a little bit in time when earlier this year when we -- in their budget proceeding hearings, when the Chairperson, along with several other BRT Board members, did appear in front of this Council, and I posed the question as to when she expected that the full value system would be in place. If memory serves me correct, she said it would be done sometime in the spring. And if memory serves me correct again, I think I said, Well, I'll believe it when I see it, because I've been hearing about this new system that will be in place for probably the last three, four, maybe even more years than that. Not to be here today I think is very insulting to the citizens of this City of Philadelphia. And I say that because I don't want to look back and talk about all the things that we know 78 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 are wrong, because that's why we're here today, is to try to figure out legislation that will improve the system going forward. But my question is, what happens between now and the time we have a final bill that we all agree on? We don't know what that bill will be. It will probably be a lot of the meat that's in here today, but I'm sure there will be some changes that will have to be made in order for us to agree on a final bill. They're not here to answer any of those questions. During the summer, I wrote the Chairperson a letter when many of my constituents had received new assessments in the mail, as I'm sure that a number of my colleagues, your constituents, have received similar types of increases.
You got that? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I did and a number of my constituents, a 79 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 vast majority of those -- 15,000 I believe reassessment notices were sent out -- had received increases as high as 600 percent. And I asked the Chairperson in my letter if she would respond to me as to what procedures they were going to follow going forward, and I also asked that they would refrain from sending any additional assessments out until such time we had the opportunity to discuss the current system and where we are going forward. I don't know if anybody else has received any assessments since that time. I suspect there have been a few. I think the other problem that I'm faced with today or we're faced with today by the fact that they're not here is that the only comments I have heard from the BRT or any of its Board members have been through the media. And that, again, is not being fair to the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia, or any of us for that matter. And I think that one of the 80 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 reasons I'm bringing this up is, although I'm a co-sponsor of the bill and I fully intend to continue to work with the sponsor and my colleagues, is that we're very silent on the matter by which new Board members will be selected. I, for one, have always believed -- and are more convinced today seeing that they did not take the time or have the courtesy to come in here -- that current Board members should be prohibited from being reappointed to the Board in the future, no matter how that Board takes shape. So I just wanted that to be on the record. And we talk about politics and people who are committee people or ward leaders who work over there. We're never going to remove that entirely. The Board of Judges makes the selection for the current Board members. Those Board members lobby judges, have used excuses as to why they are no longer on the bench, because they may have voted for a pay raise for judges and used that as an 81 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 excuse to get the sympathy of the Board of Judges to get themselves appointed. I mean, we're never going to be able to eliminate that completely. But, again, I just want to reemphasize my disappointment in the Board members and none of those Board members having the opportunity to be here today to be heard or for us to ask them questions. And there are a few of those Board members that are my friends, and I've told them personally that I would be one who would be pushing for a prohibition from any current Board members from being reappointed in the future. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam President. A couple of quick questions, and I think Councilwoman Blackwell 82 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 struggled to try to get an answer to it, and I'm going to try it one more time. Just simply put, have we done a process review as to how appeals are done and the time it takes to do them and what the number of them were thus far last year maybe?
We have not done that. I know that the number of appeals this year is under 20,000.
So we estimate that there are 20,000 appeals. Do we know how long it takes to process an appeal?
No? All right. So these are worthwhile things 83 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 that we want to at least evaluate so that we can kind of get a handle on so that we can know if there are 200,000 properties that we need to get through, that we can do a time management estimate on what it's going to take to do that. That's number one. The second thing, in light of the fact that we've just gone through an arduous budget process, we're going to go through another one again, what the fiscal impact of those appeals were net loss to City coffers. Do you know that?
Yeah, I do. I don't have it with me. It wasn't a giant number. There weren't a lot of appeals last year, because there weren't a lot of new assessments, and it will be the same this year, because there haven't been a lot of appeals and, again, because there weren't a large amount of assessments.
And then is there a timetable for staff evaluations and civil service evaluations? If we 84 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706 know what the task is going to be and we know -- and I agree with Councilwoman Tasco that we don't want the current employees to be the scapegoat for whatever inefficiencies process that we have, but going forward, how do we move them into a secure position where they can do their jobs and know their jobs and have some system by which to be evaluated on?
What's the timetable for that kind of discussion? Has there been an evaluation of the classification of jobs within the complement of employees?
The Office of Human Resources is starting that process right now. We distributed questionnaires to all the employees, and I think that process will take -- it will take several months. It's not a short process. But we've just started that, so we are in the process of doing that. 85 10/27/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090706
Because I think what the spirit of Councilwoman Blackwell's comments are is that this is the beginning of a long process of fixing this, but each one of those subcomponents is important to begin now so that at some point we actually fix the real thing that we came to fix, which is the dreaded full valuation that Councilwoman Blackwell had a definite opinion about. But at some point, we have to address it and deal with the inequities that are out there, but we can never get to that if we don't fix these other systems.