Committee Hearing, January 30, 2002

Michael Giordano, owner of Century Forrester Real Estate in the 1600 block 16 of East Passyunk Avenue. 17

Gregory DiCoco (ph), owner 18 of the St. Jude Shop at 1807 East Passyunk Avenue. 19

You can tell they're 20 all from South Philadelphia; they pronounce 21 Passyunk as "PASH-YUNK." (Laughter.)

Mr. Giordano, please proceed with your testimony.

Al Masino, Terry Shear, 73 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 Greg DiCoco and I are today as business owners and property owners along Passyunk Avenue and as members of the Passyunk Avenue Business Improvement District Steering Committee to voice our strong support for Bill No. 010125, entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls." We need this legislation to preserve and improve Passyunk Avenue and to encourage new investment along this important thoroughfare. We are also here to support the proposed amendments to this bill extending the boundary lines to Washington Avenue and the technical changes relative to prohibited uses. We recommend that you move this legislation forward, and we thank you for your support of this bill.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)

We appreciate your patience in waiting. It's a lengthy process and we hope you understand. Go back to work.

Thank you. 74 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 PANEL MEMBERS: Thank you.

Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 010126, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning 9 and Planning," by amending Section 14-1610 entitled 10 "Old City Residential Area Special District 11 Controls," by providing that fortune-teller 12 establishments and tattoo and body-piercing 13 establishments are prohibited uses within the 14 District, all under certain terms and conditions. We have to do the planning Commission first, please.

How will we ever know what lies in our future? (Witnesses come forward.)

Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Deputy Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to speak on Bill No. 24 010126. This bill was introduced by Councilman DiCicco on March 1, 2001. 75 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126

Excuse me. I need to interrupt you for a second. I know it's a long day and people have been here a long time, but all of the extraneous conversation taken together is really drowning out the witnesses, so if you have any need for conversation, please go into the hall. Even if you think you're whispering, all of the cumulative whispering becomes tough to hear. Please proceed with your testimony.

This bill amends the zoning code by amending the Old City Residential Area Special District Control, which is another 14-1600 overlay, by designating fortune-teller establishments and tattoo or body-piercing establishments as prohibited within this area. This overlay currently covers the area bounded by Wood Street on the north, Front Street on the east, Market Street on the south, and Fifth Street on the west. No legally existing buildings would be affected by these amendments. A new business of this type would need to be approved by a variance of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. These amendments were requested by old City Civic 76 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 Association to address community concerns regarding the conduct of these businesses within a residential community. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 15, 2001, considered these amendments and recommended approval of Bill No. 010126. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)

Seeing none, we thank you. Please come as a panel. (Witnesses come forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Cindy Filo, Director of the Old City Special Services District.

Joseph Schiavo, resident of Old City, 155 North Third Street.

Ted Nubow, 112 Cuthbert Street resident.

Please proceed.

As I said before, I'm Cynthia 77 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 Filo, I'm the Executive Director of the Old City Special Services District. The district provides clean, safe, and economic development improvements for a 22-square block area, which is smaller than the residential overlay that is being proposed today. I'm also an 11-year resident of Old City. I'm here today to support the additions to the Old City Residential Area Special District Controls, as proposed by Councilman DiCicco and supported by the community here today. Each of the uses added to the ordinance -- tattoo, piercing, and fortune-teller establishments -- are already regulated elsewhere in the City. This is just bringing Old City in line with its neighbors -- Rittenhouse Square, Main Street in Manayunk, South Street Head House District, and now Passyunk. These additions will serve to protect the major public and private investments by property owners, both commercial and residential, thereby maintaining the economic vitality, aesthetics, and the historic nature of Old City. I'd like to thank Councilman DiCicco for his work in putting this matter in the forefront, and I would also like to thank him on his work with 78 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010126 the Special Services District and the community here today. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions, if there are any.

Thank you very much. See, Councilman, some people do love you.

Is Richard Tom not coming today? (Laughter.)

No, he is not coming today.

I suspect I will read his comments in the paper tomorrow?

I assure you that I can probably send his love to you from here.

Thank you. And thank you for all of your hard work. It's a joint effort, all of you.

Does anyone else have anything to add? (No response.)

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Anyone else here to 79 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will quickly move to Bill No. 010718, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded generally by Chelten Avenue, Baynton Street, Belfield Avenue, and Logan Street, a railroad right-of-way, and Germantown Avenue. Planning Commission, please. (Witnesses come forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, I'm Deputy Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 010718. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Miller on December 6, 2001. This bill represents comprehensive rezoning under the Planning Commission Citywide Zoning and Remapping Program. Approximately 367 80 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 acres of land located in the northwest section of Philadelphia are included in this bill. This rezoning covers an area bounded by Chelten Avenue, Baynton Street, Belfield Avenue, Logan Street, Germantown Avenue, and represents the Wistar neighborhood. This bill was prepared at the request and in connection with the Wistar Neighborhood Council and was the subject of several community meetings of the zoning committee of the Wistar Neighborhood Council during summer and fall of 2001. This group -- this zoning group consisted of representatives of the residential community, the business community, the development community, and representatives from Councilwoman Miller's office. The major zoning changes that would be accomplished by this remapping include the following: The C-3 commercial zoning designations in the area of Germantown Avenue and Chelten Avenue would be changed to C-2 commercial in order to reinforce the retail commercial nature of this area. 81 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 Several parcels of Chelten Avenue would be rezoned to C-7 commercial, reflecting the abilities of these sites to provide off-street parking for customers. Former industrial sites have been rezoned to permit the redevelopment as residential uses, while existing active industrial sites have remained zoned G-2. The community expressed concern regarding the conversion of single-family dwellings to multifamily dwellings, and accordingly, most of the R-10 and R-9 residential zoning are being changed to R9-A or R10-A, which, the Council knows, is limited to single-family occupancy. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 6, 2002, considered this bill and recommended that Bill No. 010718 be approved. I will be happy to answer any questions. There is one amendment since this bill 21 was prepared and it apparently has been requested by a property owner and has been reviewed and approved by the Community Council. That is one property, which would be south -- and this amendment we will provide to the clerk of the 82 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 Council so the committee can adopt it. One property which is being proposed to be rezoned to R-5 residential on Germantown Avenue, south of Logan, would be rezoned to C-2 commercial to reflect that it is commercial occupancy in that building. With that one amendment, we would, again, recommend that the bill be approved.

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

Seeing none, sir, would you like to testify? (Witness comes forward.)

My name is Lawrence Halliman (ph) and I'm here to represent the Penn Area Neighborhood Association in Germantown. We are on the east side of the railroad, the Reading Railroad tracks. The Wistar Town Council is responsible for what they call "the west side." I will be brief. Thank you for the time.

You're welcome.

The only concerns that we have with regard to any aspect of the bill, sir, is 83 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 that Belfield Avenue was originally a creek. The 5200 block and the 5300 block of Belfield Avenue have stability issues. They have abandoned gas stations from Esso as well as Sunoco stations with tanks still in the grounds. I'm referring specifically to what was formerly Reading Railroad property that is now Bob Toyota's carcass. We need to make sure that the powers that be understand that because of severe flooding, the fact that it was carcass, the fact that it was wetlands at one time, that if we were in Exton, it wouldn't even be developed. The fact that when it comes down to it, there is an issue with regards to PCBs. We have a major Superfund site in the 5200 block of Belfield Avenue. These are all on our side of responsibility corridor with regard to the railroad. We need to make sure that not only the Planning Commission, City Council, as well as any developers work with Penn Area Neighbors. We have been accessible since 1955. 1955 was the start of the battle over 15 years over developing a glen into Bob Toyota with Reading Railroad. The neighborhood lost; now we have an abandoned 84 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010718 automobile dealership that is flooded with regard to contamination and PCBs. We need communication; that's all we're asking for. We want to make sure that we're available and accessible, but we do not want to be left out of the loop. Every other parcel is the responsibility of the Wistar Town Council. Those parcels on the east side of the railroad, specifically the 5200 block of Belfield and the 5300 block of Belfield need to be addressed in public meetings with the community that is affected by them. And that's all I have.

Thank you. I assume you've had this discussion with Councilmember Miller's staff and --

Yes. I've just been approached.

Great, thank you. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 85 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

Seeing none, we will now call two bills for testimony. The first is Bill No. 010617, which is an ordinance providing that no agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other commitment for the operation, financing, or management of the School District of Philadelphia, which will substitute for or supersede the functions of the Board of Education or its successors or assigns which will require the appropriation of City funds, the imposition of taxes by the City of Philadelphia or the authorization by City Council of the levying of taxes on behalf of the School District of Philadelphia or its successors or assigns shall be entered into or be any force or effect without the prior review and approval of the Council of the City of Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions. The second bill is 010666, which is an ordinance providing that no agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other commitment for the private administration, management, or operation of any school within the School District of Philadelphia which will require the appropriation 86 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 of City funds, the imposition of taxes by the City of Philadelphia, or the authorization of City Council of the levying of taxes on behalf of the School District of Philadelphia or its successors or assigns shall be entered into or be any force or effect without the approval of the parents of students at that school and without the approval of the Council of the City of Philadelphia, under certain terms and conditions. I'd like to recognize Councilmember Nutter first, and then we will begin our witness list. We thank you for your patience.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. First, there are a number of citizens, taxpayers, and parent advocacy groups and others that are here with us this morning, and before the official testimony starts -- and we will hear whoever is here -- I want to thank all of you for taking time away from either your work schedule, your life schedule, possibly your child schedule to be here with us to see if we might have an opportunity to still provide you with what I think is an appropriate place to be, which is a voice in 87 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 what is going on in public education. These bills were introduced in October and November of last year primarily for the purpose of trying to secure a place at the table for parents as they are concerned about what is going on with public education and specifically at their child's school. And so we want to thank you for coming out this morning. I look forward to the testimony from all perspectives, but I wanted to acknowledge the parents who are here with us this morning and express my deepest appreciation, and I'm sure my colleagues share in those sentiments.

Thank you very much I want to call these witnesses in threes. Hopefully we can move through this quite efficiently. First is Ted Kirsch, Mr. Jerry Mondesire, and Mr. Tom Doyle, or anyone with them. (Witnesses come forward.)

Mr. Kirsch, please identify yourself for the record. and proceed.

Okay. Good morning, members of Council.

Good morning. 88 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

I am Ted Kirsch, President of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and joining me is Jerry Jordan, Vice President of the PFT. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of our more than 21,000 members. Before I would begin, I would like to take a minute to recognize the contributions of Philadelphia public school employees. While the debate over privatization rages, most people forget that dedicated school employees have gone to work every day amid chaos, fear, uncertainty, but they're determined to do their jobs and educate our children. They deserve our gratitude because in tumultuous times, they have remained focused on students and education, which is more than I can say for some of our elected leaders who seem to have forgotten that children are educated in classrooms, not in back rooms where political deals are being made. I want to thank my --

Feel free to highlight who they are, so we're all not included in that group.

Yeah, I don't see any of 89 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 them in the room, I might add.

That's a fair way of stating that.

I'm glad I didn't leave.

I want to thank fellow PFT members and all school employees for their commitment and hard work under these difficult circumstances. I am here today to support Councilman Nutter's initiatives, which, if approved, could restore the school reform efforts, a semblance of democracy, and public dialogue that have been conspicuously absent from the present process, where companies are bidding and the public is kept in the dark. Since its passage in April of 1997, Act 46 has represented a new legislative low point in Penn. The Philadelphia school take-over law was passed in just a few hours without any public notice or opportunity for public discussion. Afterwards, a dozen legislators, who voted for Act 46, had the audacity to admit they didn't know what was in the law they had just approved. 90 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Three years later, in another stealth legislative activity in Harrisburg, State legislators amended the take-over law to increase already sweeping powers that a politically appointed School Reform Commission would have over Philadelphia's public schools. The legislature created a five-person commission to run our schools -- unelected and unaccountable to the Mayor, the Governor, the legislature, the City Council, or the people of Philadelphia. The Commission was granted absolute authority to privatize any or all of our public schools as well as district managerial functions. It can hire, fire, or suspend employees; it can privatize jobs or service provided to our schools and our students; it can hire for-profit management for neighborhood schools, and if parents don't like it, they have absolutely no recourse. Throughout the nation, parents and taxpayers have expressed growing concern about the privatization of their children's schools. Stagnant test scores, declining enrollments, high teacher turnover, and big cost overruns are raising serious questions about risky privatization 91 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 ventures. In New York last April, when parents were given the right to vote on privatization of their public schools, 80 percent voted no, a resounding defeat for those efforts when parents were given an opportunity to voice their concern. In San Antonio, in Minneapolis, Lancing, Michigan, and just yesterday in Wichita, Kansas, where privatization experiments began going terribly wrong, their elected school boards, parents, and taxpayers were able to say "enough" and out the private-management companies. Yet here in Philadelphia, the Cradle of Democracy, we have neither a voice nor a vote on who runs our schools or how they run them; the legislature took that we from us. Furthermore, the legislature robbed Philadelphia residents and taxpayers of their most basic franchise: Our right to vote to determine for ourselves how our tax dollars are raised and spent. Act 46 confers upon the new commission the authority to levy taxes and incur debt until the Secretary of Education issues a declaration revoking that awesome power. The unelected 92 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 commission has the authority to increase City taxes without the consent of the people who pay those taxes, until the unelected Education Secretary says otherwise. In the birthplace of democracy, one of democracy's most basic rights have been crushed because the new State-controlled board will have the power not only over our schools but also over our taxes. We believe, as Councilman Nutter proposes, that it is up to the City Council to restore the same rights that Americans living in New York, San Antonio, and every other city enjoy: The right of self-determination and to taxation with representation. Councilman Nutter's proposals would help restore independent oversight, public input, and a system of checks and balances to guard against potential abuses of power that could occur under this unparalleled scheme. Already there are hints of abuse.

Voters and taxpayers have still not seen in writing documentation of agreements made between the Governor and the Mayor. Since the agreement and 93 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 State takeover in December, the interim chairman of the Commission has awarded $675,000 in no-bid contracts for consultants, media companies, and law firms; while, I might add, students and teachers are still scrounging for basic supplies, school libraries are closed or understaffed, successful reading programs remain unfunded, and many schools lack full-time nurses. Revelations that Edison Schools has spread $85,000 in, quote, business to influential companies with ties to the Mayor or other local politicians, private meetings between the Commission Chair and Edison officials in New York and the hiring of the Governor's lead attorney on the Edison deal to work for the local school Commission should make us skeptical and cautious. The PFT is calling on City Councilmembers to insist that Philadelphians be given the right to vote on who will manage their schools and that City Council be given an ambiguous oversight over the Commission on spending City tax revenues. It's no secret why Act 46 is silent on the issue of public input. There's been a groundswell of opposition from parent, community, 94 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 civic, and labor organizations. In an independent poll this fall of Philadelphia residents by Peter Hart & Associates, a highly regarded national polling firm, it showed that 76 percent of Philadelphians oppose privatization. In fact, the only support for privatization seems to come from those who will stand to profit from them; our children will not profit from it. The Hart Associates poll found that more than two-thirds of all Philadelphians want changes in our public school system but they do not want the changes that have been proposed so far. Parents, teachers, students, and the community are unanimous in their desire for safe, orderly, effective schools in which all children succeed and become creative, productive citizens. The public supports: Early-childhood education programs that prepare children to learn; significant smaller class sizes, which have been proven to raise test scores, close the achievement between white and minority students, and prepare more minority students for college; uniform and consistent disciplinary standards that make every 95 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 school safe and orderly; and top-notch schools alternative schools where troubled students can learn without disrupting their classmates. We agree that we need: A District-wide curriculum; we need proven reading and math programs with track records of success; qualified supported teachers with modern books, materials, and technology in the classroom; well-stocked libraries, access to music, arts, and sports programs. In fact, it was just reported in yesterday's newspaper in the Chester Upland area where the Edison schools are requesting the right to have 10 percent of their teachers unqualified and uncertified. It's another indication that the best interests of our students will not be served by privatization. We need school nurses, psychologists, and other resources to meet children's special needs. We need a statewide funding system that provides children with the same educational opportunities regardless of the affluence of the community they live in. )

These reforms are the 96 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 reforms our students need and deserve, reforms that work. I urge you to choose education over idealogue and democracy over demagogue. Put the public back into public education and democracy back into our government. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much for your testimony. Whoever would like to go next, please feel free to ... Good afternoon.

Mr. Chairman and other members of the Philadelphia City Council, good afternoon. I'm Jerry Mondesire, President of the Philadelphia branch of the NAACP. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you this afternoon concerning Bill 21 No. 010617 because the NAACP believes that Councilman Nutter's legislation is among the most important matters this body will consider for many years to come. At its heart, this legislation speaks 97 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 directly to the issue of just how much citizen participation will be allowed in the restructuring of Philadelphia's public schools. It speaks to just how much the political decision-makers in this city and in Harrisburg are willing to listen to the parents, the students, and the taxpayers. To date, except for the two days of hearings this Council held last year in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus, there really has been no public discussion about the future of public education in this city. Yes, there have been plenty of public demonstrations and rallies and press conferences -- heck, I've either planned or participated in most of them. But a real conversation among all of the stakeholders, that public discussion has been consistently blocked by both the City Administration and by Harrisburg. No more significant issue related to the future of Philadelphia as a city can be found after the public school issue. No public act has such lifelong consequences as education. If we fail the students now, we will have to live with the effects forever. A failed public education system cannot 98 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 be reversed; it will outlive us all. Thus I commend this Council and urge you to pass Bill No. 010617 since the expenditure of taxpayers funds for public education should not even be considered without the prior review and approval of City Council. You are our representatives and it is to you that we taxpayers look to when it comes to controls on the public purse. In addition, we urge passage of this bill 12 and also the companion bill, 010666, because it should be up to the parents to approve any authorization to have a private company take over a public school where their child attends. This is the public's business, and no 17 private company or appointed official, or for that matter, even an elected official should have the power to seize control of the education of our children unless and without parental consent. (Applause.)

If we require children to bring a signed note from a parent before we allow them to attend a school trip, say, to the museum or to the aquarium, how is it that we would surrender 99 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 control of an entire public school system without first asking the parents to render their opinion. Today, public school children, most of whom are black, brown, yellow, and come from working class families, are under direct threat by some of the most callous politicians in the history of this Commonwealth. Additionally, they are under direct threat by some of the greediest corporate entities ever seen in the public arena. In my days on Capitol Hill, I've seen arms dealers who displayed more compassion for what they were trying to sell. Many of these politicians and business interests want to make money off of our children. Like you, they know the Philadelphia school budget, at roughly $1.7 billion, is the second largest budget in the Commonwealth. Only the City of Philadelphia's municipal budget is larger. We spend more taxpayer dollars on public schools than it takes to run the entire City of Pittsburgh or to run Harrisburg, Allentown, and Scranton combined. That's why the privateers have arrived at our doorstep when we face our most serious funding crisis. They are not here to help us; they are 100 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 here to get paid. All doubt about their motives should have been erased last December 28th when the so-called Reform Commission approved spending of nearly a million dollars in pin-striped patronage deals to politically connected lawyers, PR consultants, and insurance experts, even as the District continued to pay the salaries of experts in these fields, who are already on the public school staff. We in the NAACP will continue to speak out against such flagrant abuses of the public trust, and we urge you to pass these two bills to better protect us in the future. Finally, as you consider these very important pieces of legislation, we at the NAACP also ask that you remember that in a city where the working-class, middle, and upper-middle classes have their choice of any number of private schools, from Quaker to Catholic, from Jewish to Christian academies, from Islamic to Korean schools, which one of these systems sets up children as engines of profit as does the current plan as outlined by the so-called Reform Commission? Can you actually buy stock in any 101 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 archdiocese or Quaker or yeshivah school? Of course, you can't. These schools were never set up to make their investors rich. So why, then, have we allowed ourselves to reach a point where we are prepared to subjugate the poor, the black, the brown, the yellow, and the white public school children in ways we wouldn't even dare consider for the children of the privileged Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Thomas Doyle, and I'm the President of Local 1201 School Employees in Philadelphia. I apologize that I do not have a prepared statement today; I didn't find out about these hearings, to be honest about it, until late yesterday afternoon. But I would like to read briefly from a report in regards to contracting out school services. The significant expansion of contract-out janitorial and custodial services to private operators requires very careful consideration. 102 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 This careful assessment is required because cost reductions based on wages and benefits can have serious negative effects on worker productivity and commitment. Five years ago, the public school board considered contracting out its janitorial-custodial functions to the private sector. Before doing so, the board instituted a three-year research program to compare the relative performance of the private sector versus in-house public-sector workers in matched schools. Subsequent to the intensive study, the public school board conclusively decided against contracting out. The research results from this study indicated that public school workers outperformed the private-sector employees by a percent margin 18 in the key area of cleaning function. Moreover, 19 the deficiency of cleaning performances by 20 private-sector workers led to tens of thousands of dollars damage to floors, rugs, and other elements of school infrastructure. And as you know, the (indiscernible) report in 1956 [sic], the infrastructure repairs needed for the School District of Philadelphia is 103 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 $956 million. We also noted that the private-sector employees displayed a general lack of commitment to their work, 0coupled with some real hostility to their employees. This serious lack of worker commitment and in regard to daily tasks and upgrading skills stemmed from a single source: Substandard pay rates and benefits received by contracted-out employees. The observed deficiencies in worker performance and attitudes were not attributed to specific private-sector operators but observed throughout the industry. The reason for this is that industry is too competitive because entry into this industry is easy. No great investment in equipment or apparent skills is required; as a result, bidding by contractors is extremely intense. So the contractors are under extreme pressure to minimize their major operating outlay, wages, and benefits. Contracted-out employees respond by displaying a lack of workplace commitment and excessively high turnover rates. During the three-year period of our study, turnover rates of 104 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 contracted-out employees approached 500 percent. As an interesting aside, I've noted that sometimes decision-makers who are ideologically committed to contracting-out/privatization will seek to minimize public knowledge of private-sector underperformance contracts, which is what is going on right now. No one in City Council, no one in the School District of Philadelphia other than the Reform Commission, and absolutely none of the parents or students know what's going on because there's no information being given to anyone. This is all being done behind closed doors and back-door deals. Decision-maker espousing contracting-out policies under conditions where excessive competition prevails in an industry have to confront an inescapable economic reality. If employers pretend to pay their workers, the workers will pretend to work, regardless of the presence of seemingly airtight obligations. If, on the other hand, workers and supervises receive adequate pay and benefits, these positive incentives will encourage all employees to 105 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 view their workplace as a career possibility.

To put it in brief, contracting-out, as is proposed right now by Act 46 and the legislature, will not benefit the School District of Philadelphia, absolutely the students of Philadelphia, the parents of the students of Philadelphia, or the employees of the School District of Philadelphia. We have proven over and over that we do it better, faster, and cheaper than everyone else. We believe in Councilman Nutter's bills, we believe the parents should have an opportunity to vote, they should demand to vote. We, unfortunately, believe the parents still don't know what's going on in the School District of Philadelphia and what's happening with the takeover. We also, at this point, I would like to emphasize that a part of the education process is a clean, healthy, and safe environment. The School District of Philadelphia, and we believe influenced by the Reform Commission, has decided to cut 50 percent of the asbestos-abatement team that works for the School District of Philadelphia who 106 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 are members of my bargaining unit. Since January now, they've cut it by 50 percent, and they said that they can still meet the federal requirement levels by reducing it in half. The School District, since January 2nd of this year -- today is the 30th -- has 53 locations of schools where they are removing asbestos, and it's not all being done by our members. They said they could meet the requirements. If they can, why are they currently contracting out and they're going to get rid of half of the department. They can't meet those requirements. These are copies. This is just for January. They cannot meet these requirements. As you go through these letters, they are in classrooms, in hallways, in ceilings, in pipes, in crawl spaces, gyms, cafeterias, you name it. These are cancer-causing agents, this is poison in the air that's there every day that the students of Philadelphia are breathing, that the staff in the building, the teachers, the cafeteria worker, the 1201 workers, the administration, that everyone one of them is breathing every hour of the day that they're in school. These schools are located all 107 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 over the City of Philadelphia. Each one of you has a copy. Right now, I'm sure it's a different location. They are in everyone's Councilmatic district. Since last year, this is the bundle that we received from the School District for asbestos abatement that was done by our 1201 members, of which there are only 30, and they cut it down to 15. This stack here does not include one asbestos abatement date for the months of February, March, half of April, May, and June. We have six months' worth in this stack, so you can imagine it will most likely be doubled. And yet, the Commission and the District has determined that they can meet the requirements and it's cheaper for them to do it with contract labor. Contract labor for asbestos removal in the City of Philadelphia is $42 an hour. Our members make less than half of that. Less than half. It is not economically feasible, it is not economically justified, and it is certainly not by cutting 50 percent of that workforce creating a safe, healthy environment for the students and 108 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 staff and members of the School District of Philadelphia and the parents that go in as they pick up their children or attend their PTA meetings or whatever it is. We ask that the Council in these hearings, as a part of these hearings, go back to the District, demand to know what's going on, why they are taking people that are certified, which every one of these members has a supervisor's card, which enables them to go in and visibly identify, visibly identify, with training from Drexel University and a certification from Drexel University, why they're being removed, and it's going to be left on the building engineer, who has received in their career two hours of training.

This is unjustified, it's wrong, and it's killing people. We ask you to seriously consider that, bring it back to the Commission and the Board, and demand that these people be brought back to work, that they be kept, and that the students be kept safe in the School District of Philadelphia Thank you.

Thank you very much 109 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 for your testimony. (Applause.)

The next witness is Aldustus Jordan, Wendell Harris, and Veronica Joyner. (Witnesses come forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record, whoever wants to start.

First I'll say good morning --

Good morning.

-- to Chairwoman Verna and the distinguished members of the Committee of Rules and all of the Councilmembers that are present. My name is Wendell A. Harris. I'm currently the North Academic Area Representative and School Safety Chairperson for the Philadelphia Home and School Council as well as a board member for the Parent Union for Public Schools. Over the past 18 years, I have served as president for five different home-and-school associations, and currently, I have three children in public schools and four on the way. All that's to say, I have been involved 110 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 in the struggle for improving Philadelphia schools for a long time, and I have a lot invested in this district. However, I have, and I am disheartened by many of the current reform proposals that would turn our district into a for-profit free-for-all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to our educators, administrators, and school staff making a living, a good living in fact. However, I draw the line when for-profit companies line up to bid on our schools like cattle, especially given the fact that their first responsibility is to their corporate shareholders and not to our children and parents, the true stakeholders. In the current school reform debate, there's been a lot of talk about partnership with parents and community. However, these words mean nothing unless the parents and community have a say in the decisions being made. Thus far, we cannot trust anything coming out of the mouths of many of our elected officials because the voice of the parents have been excluded from the decision-making process. Most parents will tell that you reforming 111 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 public school education is not just about painting schools and changing management. What is most important is what takes place in the classroom. Real reform is about providing our kids with the same resources as kids in suburban districts, reducing class size, making sure that all of our children have qualified teachers. Most importantly, school reform is about involving parents in decisions that will have an impact on their lives and the communities that their children will grow up and work and serve in. What we're asking for is nothing less than what parents expect in public schools across the country. In New York, for example, parents were given the opportunity to vote on whether schools were to become privatized. Are we any less important here in Philadelphia the birthplace of democracy? I say not. What kind of message do we want to send across its nation of ours? All we ask is for our voices to be heard. We urge you to do the rights thing for the true stakeholders of this city. Vote in favor of this City Council resolution, 010666, and allow the parents to choose the type of education that they 112 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 want for our children. Anything less can only be construed as a hostile takeover. Thank you and God bless you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much, thank you. Whoever would like to go next, please proceed by identifying yourself first.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Aldustus Jordan, and I'm here representing Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, the region's outside government child advocacy organization. First, I'd like to thank the Committee on Rules for the opportunity to provide public testimony on Resolution 010666. PCCY is also an active member of Philadelphia United to Support Public Schools, a coalition consisting of parent organizations and other education stakeholders from across the City. Since August, our coalition has advocated for common-sense approaches like to improving schools, like reducing funding the gap between Philadelphia 113 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 schools and the surrounding suburban districts, lowering school class sizes, and making sure that every student is taught by a qualified teacher. Most importantly, we have argued, rallied, and marched in order to provide parents and students, those with the most at stake in the school reform debate, to have a voice in shaping the future of their public education. We strongly believe in civic involvement in school reform and have been outraged by the lack of parent, student, and community engagement throughout the State takeover process. With plans in the works to turn over as many as a hundred schools for privatization, there has been no mention of whether the stakeholders at these schools will have a say. Parents and students must be the driving force behind school reform in Philadelphia, not Edison's $2.7 million report, which, by the way, is required reading for any potential District contractor. According to Edison's report on the District, we can improve school by eliminating 500 teaching positions, when, in actuality, we need more qualified teachers. According to the report, the District can save money by charging community 114 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 groups for the use of school buildings; in actuality, this would save very little and discourage parental and community partnerships. Furthermore, the report suggests that we need to make a significant financial investment in the cleaning and upkeep of schools, at the same time, recommending cuts in school maintenance costs, starting with eliminating school asbestos workers. This type of logic flies in the face of common sense and further strengthens the argument for parents to have a voice to decide whether or not this type of change is what they want for their children's education. We're asking Council to provide Philadelphia's parents with the same basic rights that are afforded to public school parents across this state and country. In 2000, under the State of Pennsylvania's current charter school law, the parents of York, Pennsylvania, were given the option to vote on whether or not they wanted a private company to have the power to take over a public school. Under a similar provision, parents 115 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 in New York City public schools were given the opportunity to decide on whether schools would be privatized. The parents of Philadelphia should be given the same opportunity to vote on the question of school privatization. (Applause.)

We call on members of Council assembled today to restore some level of democracy in a school reform process, which, up to this point, has been completely lacking public input and accountability. We count on you to have the courage to fight for the right of parents to have the opportunity to decide what they want for their children's education and future life chances. In closing, we urge you to vote Resolution 010666 out of this committee and vote in favor of its final passage when it is brought in front of the entire City Council. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. 116 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

Good afternoon. I'm Veronica Joyner. I'm a teacher formerly with the Philadelphia public schools and I'm the president and founder of Parents United for Better Schools, which is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) multi-racial parent advocacy organization. I represent 20,000 parents in the City of Philadelphia. I am also the chair of the NAACP Education Committee I wanted to make City Council aware and I wanted to thank everyone here in City Council, the representatives who are being our voice. I really commend you. I also wanted to make people aware that the first public schools were founded right here in Philadelphia in the 1600s. And I think what's going on today is criminal in terms of our schools and this takeover. I am here to support Councilmembers Nutter, Ortiz, and Cohen's bill, and that's 010666. I have never seen parent groups and community groups work so well together and have said repeatedly "no" to privatization, State takeover, give-over, management, whatever. We have said no. 25 I agree with the appropriation of funds 117 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 or any increase of appropriation of funds on behalf of the taxpayers must be voted on by the taxpayers and the citizens of Philadelphia. Parents and legal guardians of the minor children attending the Philadelphia public schools should have a right to vote, and they have voted verbally repeatedly. Further, no agreement to privatize or to manage the schools should be agreed upon without the vote of the taxpayers and the parents. I agree that 75 percent of the parents whose children are registered at the schools should be required to vote for any privatization. I did think I lived in a democracy in this society, and that right has been denied every citizen here. I continue to say no to privatization, takeover, give-over, and I want the right to vote and so do the parents I represent. Thank you.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

I'm sorry, your name is?

I'm sorry about this, but I was going to enter testimony into the written 118 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 record and not testify, but I was told that I could do so. My name is Roseanne Lentz and I am a parent and I am also an area academic rep for the Northeast.

I would ask you -- 'cause your name is not on the list and people have been waiting and have asked, so I would ask you to please make it brief.

I will. Thank you. I wanted to say good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My testimony's in letter form, so I'm going to begin by saying: "Dear Councilman Nutter: We are the parents of a student who attends Northeast High School. We are submitting this letter in strong support of Bill No. 01066. It is about time someone has considered the constituents, the taxpayers, the stakeholders, the parents, guardians in this issue, privatization. We applaud you, Councilman Nutter, for the foresight and commitment you have shown us. We demand to have our rights reinstated and to be afforded the democratic process proposed in this bill. 119 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 "We have been dismissed as being unimportant in the scheme of things concerning privatization and the takeover. We have been ridiculed by Governor Schweiker and the press with the statement he made that we do not have the best interests of our children at heart if we want to sustain the status quo that exists within the Philadelphia School District. "Our statement is no, we do not want to sustain the status quo; we all know that reform is needed. We as parents and guardians who have had experience and vast knowledge concerning education, we have not been consulted, nor has our advice been sought by our elected legislators nor our appointed governor. Our illustrious mayor, John Street, has also abandoned us. "We urge someone to ask us what our vision is concerning schools, but especially the education of our students. Ask what we envision the end-process to be. Do not attempt to force us to accept the private corporation whose goal is to enhance and build their profits at the expense of our students' education. "We all know that more funding is needed, 120 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 along with smaller class sizes, improved technology, teacher professional development, teacher incentives, and community learning within the school buildings. "There has been a grave omission because, in the meantime, the Reform Commission has been appointed and has been meeting, and we, the parents and guardians of students in the Philadelphia Public School District do not have our rightful place at the table. Students were a part of the former process at the former school board. "We will continue to fight for our rights and our place at the table in the decision-making process that is occurring, not after all of the important decisions have been made. Mr. Nevels has hired a private firm to deal with the parents. We will not be afforded direct contact with Mr. Nevels, nor the Commission. How ludicrous. The situation will not be tolerated. "Reform. Perhaps Mr. Nevels needs to consult Webster's Dictionary for the meaning of the word. "Thank you for the above bill. We are working very hard in spreading the word to have 121 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 this bill pass within City Council. Councilmembers, we insist and urge you to right the injustice that has been done to us. We, the people, are the constituents, the taxpayers, the stakeholders, the parents, guardians. Our voices will be heard." Thank you.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

The next group of witnesses is Dane Harris, Cecilia James, and Dolores Shaw. (Witnesses come forward.)

Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record, whoever would like to go first.

Good afternoon, Council President. My name is Dolores Shaw and I am a member of the Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, and I thank you this afternoon for the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Please proceed.

I am a product of the Philadelphia system. I have two children currently 122 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 the Roberto Clemente Middle School in Hunting Park. EPOP believers in the ability of our public schools to provide an excellent education for all of our children, and will continue to advocate for this cause. As parents and citizens of this city, we demand the right to participate in the educational future of our children and the fate of our public school system. As defenders and stakeholders in our children's future and education, we must have full participation in all the decision-making processes. Our voices and our votes must be heard. (Applause.)

We urge and implore City Council to support Bill No. 010666. Your support will send a clear message to all, that the rights of parents to vote for and participate in the educational system that serves all of our children will not be denied. Thank you.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. 123 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

My name is Cecilia James, and I represent the Alliance Organizing Project. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to express what parents want for their children's education. We strongly believe that parents should have a voice. This entire process has not included parents and what they want. Parents want smaller class sizes, more certified teachers, greater resources -- things that privatization will not bring. We understand that our schools need improvement, but we want the State and the City to implement reforms that work. Our greatest concern is that a community-based organization or educational management group will come into a school that has been making steady improvements and hurt the learning that is taking place. We're also concerned that the teachers that do an excellent job educating our children will leave, refusing to work in a school that is controlled by CPOs or EMOs that does not know or understand how to educate our diverse population of students. We fully support your plan for parents 124 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 who have a voice, especially since during this entire process, no one -- not Edison, not a community-based organization, not the Mayor, not the Governor -- has asked parents what children need to learn. A vote will give the parents the power to decide what educational system is best equipped to educate students. A vote would also give the parents the power to maintain a voice in schools and also make CPOs understand that you do indeed work for us. I'm also a member of -- I'm also a noontime aide, a member of Local 634. I've been employed by the District for almost years. I 16 say "almost" because as of September 3, 2002, I may 17 very well be out of a job with thousands of other 18 School District workers. 19 Let me ask you something: Would you 20 allow someone to walk in your house and make a 21 change without your permission? 22 AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. 23

I do not think so. Then how 24 come we're allowing this to happen? People will lose their jobs. What about the people that have 125 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 gone from welfare to work; do they go back on welfare? When I go back to my seat, you may not remember my name or who I am, but please remember this: One person can't do everything, but everyone can do something. So I'm asking each and every one of you to consider the fate of our city, because in the long run, this is going to affect every one of us, every one of us -- the workers, our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren for generations to come. Think about it. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you.

My name is Dane Harris and I want to thank you for giving me the time to testify today.

No problem.

I'm here on behalf of the 5600 members of Pennsylvania ACORN and the members of Philadelphia ACORN's independent membership organization, which is made up low- and moderate-income people who wish to change their 126 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 communities at the neighborhood, local, and federal level. Our members have children in schools throughout Philadelphia and we have consistently been critical about the Philadelphia School District and have agitated for positive change. I also have two girls who attend schools in Southwest Philadelphia. We have done much to (indiscernible) decrease teacher vacancies in our neighborhoods and believe that without adequate funding and public pressure, we can create public schools where our children can succeed and thrive. For generations we have struggled to win the fight -- I'm sorry, to win the right to vote on issues that affect our children and communities in our cities. However, right now, our children's future is on the line, and we as parents have not had the chance to make our voices heard. In fact, everything about the recent State takeover of the School District and the possible privatization of our schools has happened behind closed doors. The most troubling aspect of Edison's recent entry into our school crisis is a systematic 127 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 attempt to keep parents, teachers, and students out the decision-making process. Why is Edison afraid to allow us to vote on the future of our schools? Because if we are given the chance, parents will overwhelming vote to keep public schools public. In New York, the ACORN chapter reports, there was a parent vote at a school that was considering privatization or privatizing. Despite the promise of a free computer, parents voted to keep their schools public 3 to 1. Closer to home at, Wharton Elementary School in Southwest Philly, where I live at, ACORN organized a mock election on privatization, and 92 percent, or 300 parents, who turned out voted against privatization. Our right to vote is too important to ignore, especially when our children's future is at stake. For this reason, ACORN supports Councilman Nutter's bill, 010666, requiring that schools (indiscernible) before any potential privatization. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much for your testimony. 128 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 The next witnesses are Sarah Gilliam, Barbara Dowdall, and Phyllis Gilbert. (Witnesses come forward.)

Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and whoever's going first can proceed.

My name is Sarah Gilliam, the Executive Director for the Parents Union for Public Schools in Philadelphia. The Parents Union for Public Schools submits the following testimony in support of Bill No. 010666: First of all, we'd like to commend Councilman Nutter, Ortiz, and Cohen for presenting this bill for consideration. It is imperative at this pivotal turn in public education that parents have the right to be included in the decisions made around their children's futures. This should have been the process from the very beginning. Parents want what is best for their children, and allowing for a process such as Bill 22 010666 gives parents the opportunity to make those decisions that will ultimately impact their children's educational experience. A bill such as this allows for parents to feel included as well as 129 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 assuming responsibility for the reactions resulting from the decisions made. This is a fair and honest approach. We at Parents Union feel that such a bill also allows for a different approach to parent involvement. It allows for parents to feel empowered and not powerless. Parents will have the opportunity to investigate for-profit companies running their schools as well as to mobilize and organize other parents to have an invested interest in being proactive at their children's schools. Parents do make a difference. When given appropriate information, they are able to make rational decisions. This bill would certainly begin the dialogue that is needed in most of our schools. Clearly, an informed parent can be an asset to creating better schools. Far too long, parents have been excluded. This must change. Statistics and data support the fact that when parents are involved in their children's schools and decisions surrounding them, the children's academic performance fares at a much higher rate. A true partnership is one that gives 130 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 all parties equal rights and responsibilities. Bill No. 010666 can be the beginning of a process that has been long overdue. For the many parents in Philadelphia which our organization serves on a daily basis, we are certain that they would welcome a process that allows for them to determine what type of educational programs they want for their children. The passing of this bill will begin to remove some of the cynicism and distrust. Parents and educators can begin to work as a team, with the common goal of educating all students with the input of their parents or caregivers. This should not be a privilege; it should be an entitlement. No true reform can occur without the engagement of parents. It is our hope that Councilmembers will acknowledge the importance of this bill and vote yes to this process. We must begin today for securing our children's futures for tomorrow. Thank you. (Applause.)

Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record, 131 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 whoever's next.

Good afternoon. My name is Debra Zubow, and I'm here to give testimony for Barbara Dowdall, who is a teacher, and we are associates in the Philadelphians (indiscernible) Support Public Schools Coalition, and I'm here representing her because the hearings today are happening during the day, at a time when teachers and students, two of most important stakeholders in this system, are not able to attend, and I'd like for myself to strongly urge you to consider having hearings at a time when teachers and students can also be presented and have their voices heard in person. (Applause.)

(Reading.) "Good afternoon, Councilman Nutter and other members of the committee. I thank you for this opportunity to voice my support for Bill 21 010666. My name is Barbara McDowell-Dowdall. I am a 1964 graduate of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, a 27-year veteran teacher in the School District, currently serving as English Department Head at Dobbins Randall Area Vocational Technical 132 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 High School and a parent of a 1999 Central High School graduate. "Schools succeed where parents are involved. This resolution is, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, "a beacon of hope" to all who have been locked out of the State takeover process from its inception. By placing decision-making power in the hands of the stakeholders, you profoundly enhance the possibility for quality education in Philadelphia. "As a child growing up and attending public schools in Germantown, I observed the common pattern of intense involvement by a parent at the elementary school level. Today, I can walk a few blocks to Fitler School and see the assembly room 17 addition that the Home and School Association lobbied for under my mother's leadership in the late 1950s. As my siblings and I moved on to junior high and high school, my mother went back to work, and her ability to participate diminished. "Parents and guardians today face similar challenges. Even so, their interest in and commitment to the best for their children remains as strong as ever. Parents, students, teachers, 133 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 and administrators, we all have our moments -- the stress of the situation, large classes, inadequate resources, decrepit buildings, high-stakes testings creates tension, and on occasion, misunderstanding. We sometimes disappoint one another as we struggle to make the best of our schools under difficult circumstances. "In more than a quarter of a century of teaching, I have had hundreds upon hundreds of positive conversations and meetings with parents. They have sat in classes, accompanied us on trips, brought in baked goods and covered dishes, taught life-saving, and in one case, produced a video about our school program. As a parent, I was pleased when administrators knew who I was and when teachers praised my daughter's efforts. A child thrives when school and home work in concert. "Perhaps the only benefit of the school takeover process thus far is the unity engendered among parents, students, school employees, and community activists, as we have shared in the feelings of powerlessness while backroom deals were cut. "The Coalition Philadelphians United to 134 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Support Public Schools consists of many such groups working together to reclaim the democratic heritage of our beloved city. With this first step of empowering parents, the elected representatives of City Council show their commitment to creating the better schools that every one of us yearns to see. "Thank you very much. Barbara McDowell-Dowdall, 13th Ward, 4th Division, 8th Councilmatic District." (Applause.)

Before the next witness, just let me give you a little -- to the witnesses here and the people in the chamber who are interested in this issue, let me give you a little bit of a Council political primer. It's likely that the people who are here today will vote this bill out of committee, it will go to the floor. It is also likely that a majority of the members of Council will vote in favor of these two bills. It is also likely that the Mayor will veto these two bills. There is where you come in, both advocates and parents. Do not allow those Councilmembers who voted for this bill the first time around to switch their vote to support the 135 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Mayor in his veto override, because it's happened in this room in the last couple months four or five times, where bills get out of this Council to 2, 5 17 to nothing and come back on a veto and wind up 6 having this Councilmember sustain that veto. If 7 you allow that to happen, it is a mockery of the 8 process. 9 And I am telling you: It will get out of 10 committee today, it will probably be passed, it 11 will probably be vetoed, and that's where the 12 rubber hits the road, and you've got to hold these 13 Councilmembers -- both at-large members and 14 District members -- accountable for their 15 flip-flopping on issues that are important to you. Thank you. (Applause.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Thank you for that reality check, okay, and we'll certainly work very hard to override a veto. I'm not so sure it's going to pass in Council either but --

No, I think we have a shot at it, I think we have a good shot. 136 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

Okay. Thank you very much, Councilman Nutter and City Council's Rules Committee, for the opportunity of testifying in support of Bill No. 010666. My name is Phyllis Gilbert, and I am speaking as a parent of three daughters who graduated from our public schools. I was once a volunteer for the Citizens Committee for Public Education, and I helped to found the Parents Union for Public Schools, and now I'm the director of Peace Action Delaware Valley, and an organizational member of the Coalition United to Support Philadelphia Public Schools. Peace Action Delaware Valley is a 45-year-old advocate organization with 3,000 members in its Delaware Valley. Its local mission is building democratic and peaceful communities. We believe that maintaining public control of our City schools and improving their effectiveness with the insight and expertise of public workers and parents is essential to keeping Philadelphia a liveable and democratic city. Local educators know our students and the difficulties they face from poverty, drugs, and 137 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 violence in the community and sometimes at home. These problems inhibit student motivation and parents' ability to help children learn. We all know by our own experience and the findings of many studies that high student achievement is much more likely when students have the crucial benefit of significant parent support. Parents know that education reform has been grossly hindered by lack of adequate funding; nevertheless, their voice has not been heard. Despite the decision of the Supreme Court that parent participation in decision-making to influence educational excellence, our governor and mayor have chosen to privatize our public schools without consulting parents. Bill 010666 will give the first structural step towards that democratic right to parent participation in voting for or against private management of our private [sic] schools, and I'm sure, of course, that the parents will vote for no privatization. Peace Action Delaware Valley reiterates that all of Philadelphia's youth deserve an effective public education. For years, public 138 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 funds for education have decreased due to a falling tax base in the City and diminished state and federal support. Consistently, the public schools were expected to educate more and more disadvantaged youth with less resources. 7 million to evaluate Philadelphia's public schools, with the expectation that it would then run many of the City schools after the State takeover. This deal speaks of a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, while teachers are without basic school supplies and little access to computers, the State School Reform Commission is hiring an additional group of consultants at a cost of $675,000 and no bids. The hypocrisy of pay-to-play also applies to the State's sham aim of increasing educational effectiveness. The claim that private enterprise will produce better education for students cannot apply to the track record of Edison Schools Incorporated. This private company has not made a profit since 139 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 its beginning years ago. However, it has promised its shareholders that taking on a large number of Philadelphia schools will erase their debt and make them profitable. In two independent reports, Edison-run performed no better, and often worse, than public schools in the same districts. In cities from New York, Lansing, Michigan, San Antonio, Texas, Miami-Dade, Baltimore, Detroit, Las Vegas to San Francisco, Edison Schools show high costs, poor performance, high teacher turnover, and lowering enrollment. So this private enterprise has not only failed at what business does (make a profit), but also at improving students achievement.

In the mid-1990s, Philadelphia was offered an education reform opportunity by the recommendations of Judge Doris Smith's report developed by her education expert commission to improve the City's racially-isolated schools. Again, parents were not consulted. It is no 22 surprise that the report called for smaller class size, extensive training for teachers and parents, expanded early-childhood programs, improved facilities, and greater community control. 140 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Peace Action Delaware Valley would also suggest smaller school size and an intensive teacher monitoring and community volunteer program are necessary for significant reform. To implement these recommendations would require much, much more money. Instead of the State heeding the judge's findings and the report, the State made a political deal with Philadelphia's mayor to shelve that report. Despite the political leadership's refusal to support Philadelphia's publicly-run schools, the system is struggling to encourage more parent involvement and to push for more equitable statewide funding for public education. Many schools have reinstated home-and-school bodies and now have an opportunity to participate in hiring their principals. In contrast, the present School Reform Commission is an appointed body with no realistic or codified way to make it accountable to any of the public school stakeholders: The parents the students, the teachers, and administrators -- let alone the City taxpayers. Real educational reform requires real collaboration between all 141 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 stakeholders rather than reliance on secret and behind-the-scene deals. We respectfully urge that this bill be passed and we're delighted that it would give the opportunity to parents to be significantly involved.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Alice Sharboro (ph) and thank you for allowing me to speak.

You're welcome.

I'll be brief. Thank you, Councilman Nutter and the Rules Committee for the opportunity to testify on the merits of your bill, Bill 01066 and its role in building parent participation in Philadelphia public schools. Again, my name is Alice Sharboro. I have three children in the Philadelphia public schools and am a board member of the Parents Union and a member also of the Political Action Committee for the National Organization of Women. 142 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 NOW is a women's advocacy organization that has 900 at-large members in the Philadelphia area. Members take public education as a prime family value that is a bedrock necessary for an effective democracy. We are painfully aware of the struggle of many single mother heads-of-household to have the energy and the time to help their children succeed in school. Eighty percent of our students' families are on some sort of welfare. Our public schools are a reflection of the serious problems plaguing our urban societies. NOW knows that parent support is crucial for improving public education and, therefore, parents must have a voice in public school policy. As an involved parent in my children's schools, I have experienced the positive effect of parent participation in the classroom and in helping other parents get involved. Through the home-and-school organizing parent education, we are arranging for teacher-parent cooperation in the vein of helping parents know how to support their children. Parents are gaining confidence in their involvement and do not trust the policy of profit-making companies taking the education of all 143 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 of our children as their prime goal. Profit-making companies put their stockholders first instead of putting children first. (Applause.)

Our children are not for sale. Parents know that our public schools need smaller class size and a curriculum that motivates children of all abilities and experience. We do not trust private management that operates in secret and ignores the demands of our parents and our students. (Applause.)

You may have heard that many high school students have also spoken out against privately-run public schools. Now it's excited at the possibility of parents having a voice on how their schools will be managed. Bill 010666 will be a welcome first step. Many do not presently know about the troubling track record of privatized schools, especially those run by Edison Schools Incorporated. Nonetheless, NOW will help other coalition members ensure that parents are well-informed about the 144 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 issues involved so that voters will make a well-considered choice for the sake of our children's future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

We have four witnesses on this list: Rosalind Spigel, Kati Sipp, Debra Toney, and Pat Raymond. (Witnesses come forward.)

And in the interest of time -- and I know you've been very patient sitting here, but we have a hearing that was scheduled at 1 o'clock. No interest in limiting what you have to say, but if you can kind of contain it to new ground or to simplify your testimony on the bill, we'd appreciate it, but if you feel you have something you need to say, please, we in now way want to hamper your ability to speak, but we're running up against a time problem. I called four names. Is that person -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Debra Toney is not here. 145 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

Okay, right. Please proceed.

Thank you. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity -- thank you very, very much.

You're welcome.

My name is Rosalind Spigel and I'm testifying on behalf of the Coalition to Keep Our Public Schools Public. I only have a of testimony.

Thank you. The Ghettysburg Address very short very effective.

Yes. This coalition includes parents, students, community and union members organized to oppose State takeover and support legislation that would guarantee our right to vote to determine how our tax dollars will be spent and how we will educate our children. Corporate privatization promises us that it will raise student achievement in the low- performing schools for the same amount we currently spend to educate our children. Time after time in school district after school district, this promise 146 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 has been broken. Taxpayers have faced millions of dollars in cost overruns ranging from three-quarters of a million dollars in Wichita to million in Dallas. 6 There's more. Private education 7 companies have violated state laws by hiring 8 teachers, with no background checks, have not 9 improved test scores, have not addressed student 10 behavior problems, and have not elevated poor 11 school performance. 12 Private-education companies have, 13 however, provided resolving doors for their school 14 administrators and excessive cost overruns in 15 district after district. 16 And parents and students have nothing to 17 say about this. A corporate experiment could take 18 over our schools and once again, we would be frozen 19 out of the process, once again subject to the 20 backroom dealings and secret meetings. From its conception, the Coalition to Keep Our Public Schools Public has demanded right for Philadelphians to vote on whether or not to privatize. We support Resolution 010666 and insist that before any school can be privatized, 147 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 75 percent of the parents of the school's kids need to approve privatization. (Applause.)

We at the Coalition know that privatization does not equal reform, but we know it is up to each person to decide this issue for him or herself. We have more than enough evidence that privatization equals patronage. Education reforms that we know work have yet to benefit from the dollars doled out in contracts so far. The track record is clear: Private-education over-promise and under-deliver. We don't need below-par academic performance and cost overruns. Philadelphia's families can't afford more broken promises. Education is the fundamental issue of our city's well-being. Our coalition demands the right to vote. We will not stop until Philadelphians control Philadelphia's schools. It's our city, they're our children, it's our decision Thank you. (Applause.)

Please identify 148 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 yourself for the record.

My name is Kati Sipp, and I'm the Director of Philadelphia Area Jobs With Justice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today about this important resolution. Jobs With Justice is a coalition of over 50 labor unions, community organizations, and religious leaders who have united in the struggle for social and economic justice. Like many of the groups that have testified today, we have been active in the fight against school privatization for the past six months. I am here today to let you know that we are firmly in favor of Councilman Nutter's proposal to allow parents to vote on the privatization of their children's. As our friends from ACORN and the PFT have already testified, polls of Philadelphia residents taken last fall show that parents of children in our district are solidly opposed to the privatization of the public schools. The voices of these parents must be heard as our schools consider the option of privatization. The School Reform Commission, in holding their hearings at in the afternoon, when most 149 1 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 parents have to be at work, has shown that they are not interested in encouraging parent participation in the fate of our schools. Since the Commission is unwilling to allow parents to play a role in the creation of public policy, it is imperative that City Council act on the parents' behalf to ensure parents have a voice in the creation of School District policy. At this point, the Commission has begun a bidding process where the public is not even allowed to know what companies are bidding on public services. Our city, as the birthplace of American democracy, should be an example of open government, not one of closed-room deals of this kinds. If, in fact, the Commission is planning an open bidding process, as Chairman James Nevels has stated, then they should start by opening the books on this process to the parents of Philadelphia. Since the Commission is unwilling to shed such light on the sale of our schools, then parents should have the right to vote down any proposed privatization. We commend Councilman Nutter for carrying this legislation and urge the 150 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 committee to vote it forward. Opponents of privatization have often been criticized for defending the status quo for wanting to protect a faulty system that is said to be failing our students. I am here today to say that this is not true. We are interested in developing an education system that has a vision of creating a better democracy with students who are able to participate in our society as citizens, not as subjects. Selling off our kids to the highest corporate bidder doesn't tell kids that they are valuable members of our society; it tells them that they are commodities to be used by any and all to turn a profit. (Applause.)

We at Jobs With Justice resist the "corporatization" of our schools for the same reason that we resist union-busting and unfettered globalization because a system that prioritizes profits over people is one that is failing the people it purports to serve. Give our parents the opportunity to act for themselves and their children by letting them 151 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 have a voice on the privatization of schools. The people of this great city deserve to have that voice in their children's future. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Pat Raymond.I am co-president of Philadelphia Home and School Council. I'm here today to ask for your full support for proposed Bills 010617 and 010666. I am doing this in an effort to give the parents of the students of the public schools in our great city a chance to be heard. When you take the public out of public schools, you take the parents' voice away. This is a voice that has been gaining momentum and strength over the years but still has not realized its full potential. This would be a tragedy. 152 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 By supporting these bills, you would be supporting the citizens of Philadelphia by giving them the chance to make the decisions pertaining to their own children's school. This will lead to more informed parents. For example, do you think the average parent understands that private schools do not have to take special-needs children, whether it be physical, mental or emotional? By being better informed, more parents will see that they can make a difference and might be motivated to volunteering at their children's schools more often. Most importantly, by supporting these bills, you are supporting the children of Philadelphia. They can't vote until their public education years are almost over. They have to rely on their parents, neighbors, educators, and government officials to make the calls for them to make the very decisions that will affect them in the future. These decisions are made more often than not based on funding or lack of funding. With adequate funding always as the bottom line, the decisions made on behalf of Philadelphia's children 153 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 are not always the best but, rather, the cheapest. When you factor in a profit margin and stockholders, then the equation becomes more difficult, therefore, adding a greater margin of error. Do you really want to make more mistakes with our children? Our children cannot be used as a lesson in economics. When you add profit to any equation, you increase the chance for corruption, dishonesty, and deceit. These may be good vocabulary words, but there is no other place in education for these negative qualities. The morality of the situation is that you cannot make a profit on our children. Someone has to be able to have some control over the privatization of our schools. Public education in Philadelphia, the very thing that should be the saving grace of the future of our city, what would be the stellar reason to live in Philly, has made us a national laughing stock. All eyes are on Philly now as begin our latest experiment. We don't allow testing on animals, so why would we allow experimentation on children? (Applause.) 154 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

Until the State of Pennsylvania proves that they are capable of resolving the equity issue and all the other issues surrounding public education, it is up to our local government to help our parents do what is best for our children. I call on you now to support Bills 010617 and 010666. We, the stakeholders of Philadelphia and its future, our children, need your help. And I will assure you that Philadelphia Home and School Council has taken this ball, we have run with it, we have kicked it, we have punted it, and all the other cliches I can think of, and we will make sure that we do everything within our power to notify the parents what is going on. (Applause.)

What we are asking you, though, is, can you tell me the timeline that we have to get to the Mayor? Does it have to be within the next hours, two weeks? 22

What will probably 23 happen today is that these two bills will be voted 24 out of committee. We will have a special session of Council on Tuesday, the 5th, and we will 155 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 probably -- if the sponsor of the bill requests a suspension of the rules, we will have a first reading on Tuesday, the 5th, and then we will have another Council session the following Thursday -- not that Thursday, but the Thursday after that -- on the 14th, Valentine's Day, at which time the bills will be eligible for a vote, considering that the sponsors desire that there will be a call for a vote, and then we will pass it or defeat it. And at that point in time, the bill is sent to the Mayor, who has ten days to either sign it, let it become law without his signature, or to veto it and send it back, at which time we would undertake a veto override. So we're taking about maybe three to four weeks. We're educating people better these days so maybe we have a better shot.

And we thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Additionally, we have written testimony which will be entered into the record from Lois Yampolsky; Rosalind McKelvey, President of Martin Luther King Home and School Association; Glenavie 156 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Norton and Steve Gulick, who are parents in Philadelphia; Bob Turino, President of Upper Roxborough Civic Association; Alan Woodruff, a resident; Kristine Soffa, Neighborhood Preservation Alliance; Ellen Tichenor, a resident; Thomas F. Gordon, Ph.D., resident; Shortie McKinney, Ph.D., resident; Abby Ruder, resident; Deborah Kodish, Director of Philadelphia Folklore Project; and Jill Saull, President, John Story Jenks Home and School Association. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to the two bills? Please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)

Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Good afternoon, Chairman Kenny and members of City Council. My name is Debra Kahn, and I am Secretary of Education for the City of Philadelphia, and I am here today to testify on behalf of the Administration of Mayor Street regarding Bill No.'s 010617 and 010666. While we admit to some confusion about the full intent of these proposed ordinances, I do 157 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 want to say that we absolutely recognize that an important underlying purpose of the ordinances is to provide a means for parents and City Council to have a say in the future direction of public education in our city.

Miss Kahn?

Councilman Nutter.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. Let me just first make sure. We have your testimony, right?

Yes, you do. You've had it for a few hours.

I'm sorry?

I understand you've had it for a couple of hours now.

Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Do you wish to -- would you rather wish to summarize the six pages of the testimony and have this included as a full part of the record?

Well, I would like to --

I mean --

Yeah, I understand that you do 158 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 have some time concerns, but I would like to get the legal concerns on the record and then maybe summarize. Maybe I can make reference to the Mayor's address yesterday about why we're in this partnership arrangement that we're in.

Okay, all right. I just wanted to offer that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

But I would like to say that we do respect and appreciate the concerns and the interests of City Council and parents and the broader community when it comes to reforming our schools. We claim absolutely no monopoly on good ideas and no illusions that we can succeed in isolation. In fact, it is clear that it was the active and the persistent voices of this community during the months of negotiations with the Commonwealth that helped make it possible for us to reach the partnership arrangement that we now have. And in particular, it was the forum created by this City Council under the leadership of Education 159 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Committee Chair Councilwoman Donna Miller, in full concert with the Board of Education and with the Legislative Black Caucus that was very effective in helping us air information and a range of experiences and opinions about privatization of public schools. We always had the position, and it was confirmed by the voices of this community, that a takeover accompanied by immediate and extensive privatization of both the management functions and school operations would have been a disaster for our city. Philadelphians absolutely spoke out and their voices were heard. In order to assess the impact of any of these proposed ordinances under consideration, I do think it would be useful for me to summarize the main points of the agreement that Mayor Street and Governor Schweiker shook hands on December 21st. The agreement, first of all, recognizes and establishes a governing partnership in which the City has a meaningful voice on the School Reform Commission. The Mayor and the Governor also recognized that they could not determine any terms or scope of work or costs of contracts with any 160 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 consulting organization. And the Mayor just yesterday, and continuously, has publicly acknowledged that he and the Governor disagree about the role that Edison Schools should play in the School District. And, in fact, you know and the City knows that the School Reform Commission has solicited proposals and are under review proposals from more than 30 businesses and organizations to do various sorts of work at the School District. The Governor and the Mayor also know that they cannot determine the full educational program that is undertaken by the School District, but this agreement does lay out some parameters -- and parameters that I think everyone in this room would be in agreement with: A full-day kindergarten, a reduced class size in primary grades. And extended-day and year-end instructional programs are essential educational components, and they will be preserved and continued in our schools And then finally, the agreement addressed the financial parameters which the Mayor did in his budget message address to you yesterday. The legal concerns that we have -- and accompanying my 161 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 testimony is an opinion from the City Solicitor, and Richie Feder, the Chief Deputy City Solicitor, is also here today in case you have questions about the legal aspects. First, if what you're trying to say by these bills is to affirm Council's absolute role, undeniable role in being the only body that can appropriate funds for the City, we agree with that. There is certainly no dispute on that. However, we don't see the need for any additional legislation to affirm that because that's a position that we certainly support. However, if the intent of these bills appears to somehow be precluding the Mayor from entering into certain agreements that do not now, and never could, exist, then we don't think that these bills make sense. The Mayor has absolutely no authority to enter into any arrangement that would supersede the functions of the Board of Education, and he has in fact not done so. The Mayor's agreement with the Governor did not authorize the State takeover of the School District.

That action occurred pursuant to Pennsylvania State law when the Secretary of 162 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Education declared our district to be financially distressed. Nor does the City/State school partnership agreement authorize the private administration, management or operation of any school. Again, the Mayor would not have the power to do that. This agreement does not actually do what these bills imply, and we can only conclude that their impact would be meaningless from a legal standpoint. However, they could be harmful from a perception standpoint if they create the perception that somehow, the City's commitment to this partnership is weakened. And, finally, if the intent of these bills is to be far-reaching and to govern the conduct of the Governor or other State officials or the School Board or the School Reform Commission, then the Solicitor has concluded that Council lacks the power to govern their activities and is prohibited from enacting legislation to regulate public education. So the passage of these bills would not actually provide the kind of input and the process that parents in this room apparently think that it 163 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 would. But rather than dwelling on the legal aspects of these measures, I do think it's important to have this partnership in some context. And because of the School District's perpetual cash crisis, the fact is that we've been under the threat of a State takeover since the General Assembly enacted Act 46 in 1998, and actually probably before that, given prior legislation. In May of 2000, we were warned by Governor Ridge that unless we adopted a balanced school budget, we would be taken over. We got short-term relief that year, but the fact is that a year later, we proposed a City workout plan that was dismissed as being unaffordable. The Mayor and the members of this Council know full well that the City cannot afford to provide all of the money that's needed to put the District on track and to balance its budget, yet alone to provide smaller classes, technology, well-trained and supportive teachers that our children need to succeed. The State could not -- would not consider significant new funding without playing a greater 164 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 role in the operation of the District. The Mayor, therefore, concluded that the best course for this city was to negotiate the most favorable terms, the timing, and the conditions under which takeover would occur. The Mayor said yesterday he believed strongly that local control of schools is the way to go, it's our preference, but the fact is that given the cash crisis that the negotiation and establishing this partnership is the best situation that we can have at this time. And it is true that this arrangement provides the City with a meaningful say. Again, in the interest of time, I just want to point out that our ability to make the City-State partnership work would be enhanced tremendously if we could achieve cooperative relationships within our own city. We absolutely do need to create workable vehicles where we can have regular communication and community participation through the School Reform Commission and in other ways. I believe that all of us -- the Mayor, City Councilmembers, students, parents, faculty -- we know really good schools when we're in them. 165 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 These are schools that are colorful, they're even a little bit loud; students and teachers are attentive, they're animated, they're working with engaged, learning materials; there's energy there's activity, there's creativity, and there's confidence. I'm a parent, and it saddens me that too many of our schools just simply don't fit that description. And I haven't heard one thing in this chamber that any one of us would disagree with what about what we need to turn our schools around.

And I think that we all want so badly for our children to have access to these types of quality schools, that sometimes I think the frustrations are the big problems and the scarce resources in the long run cause us to create conflicts, where we all would be better off having unity and cooperation and hearing where we have common ground and points of agreement. But I think if we can remember our successes, stay focused on our ideals, we just might be able to work out the difficult details and realize the problems of this new partnership after 166 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 all. Thank you.

Thank you very much Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Miss Kahn, I know that you indicated that you had gotten the testimony to us a few hours. I do, with every respect, want to remind you and any other members of the Administration that may be here that the rule in the Council is that testimony from the Administration come in hours in advance, not 15 2 hours in advance. It's very helpful if we have 16 the testimony in advance and we can actually figure 17 out where things are going and get people lined in 18 the appropriate fashion. So I would just 19 appreciate it for anything that we might have to 20 do, if we can get the testimony in 24 hours in 21 advance, I'd appreciate it. 22

I understand that, and I 23 generally try to do that, but just wasn't able to 24 this time.

Okay, thank you. 167 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 Now, in your testimony -- I only have a couple questions -- you made reference to the word "agreement" eight times in the testimony. Can you provide the committee with a copy of the agreement to which you make reference?

I cannot yet but I do hope to be able to do that shortly.

When do you think that will be?

I don't have an exact date; we are still working out some of the details on the language, and I do hope to be able to do that shortly.

This was the agreement that was reached back on December 21st of 2001?

That's correct. It was in broad parameters, and as you know, when it comes to putting something down in writing, there are just certain details that we need to work out.

Is there a draft of this agreement?

There are various drafts and memos that I have. 168 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

There are various drafts that we have, but nothing that it would be right to issue. We want to make sure that the final agreement is ready.

Okay. Just so I understand, five weeks after the, quote/unquote, agreement was reached, there is still no written agreement as to the agreement that you make reference to eight times in your testimony.

There is not a final written agreement.

Okay. So how do we know what the agreement is, if it's not written?

I just told you, and my testimony says what some of the highlights are, and there will be some more details when it is issued in final form.

Okay. And who all knows what all of the particulars of the agreement are? Who are the parties that have knowledge and information about the agreement?

The Governor and the Mayor, 169 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 the State Secretary of Education, myself, and various members of our respective administrations.

Okay. And no one else knows the details of the agreement?

I don't believe so, but I could be wrong about that. We, as you know, had briefed members of City Council with, again, some of these highlights shortly after the new year.

Okay. Now, is it true or not true that the agreement, unwritten as it may be, of December 21, 2001 is what set into motion, actually, the creation of the SRC, pursuant to either Act 46 or Act 83, which came subsequent to the Education Secretary's declaration of distress; is that's correct?

I want to be careful how I answer that.

I bet you do.

Again, nothing in the agreement established that body; the agreement could not do that.

The agreement allowed that to go forward, though; isn't that correct? 170 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666

It didn't allow it because it could have gone forward no matter what. What the secretary did was issue a finding that the School District of Philadelphia was in financial distress according to the terms of, as you referenced, Act 46 or Act 83.

Right. And the Secretary could have found that distress at any time; is that correct?

At any time when he thought, in his judgment, that the District met those criteria, right

But part of the agreement between the Mayor and the Governor was, until we reach agreement, the Secretary of Education will not find the District in distress until we have an agreement; isn't that correct?

As I said in my testimony, the Mayor concluded that since this situation was essentially inevitable because the School District --

I understand that. I'm not asking what was in the Mayor's mind; I'm asking you about a series of factual things that 171 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 happened. Isn't it true that as a result of the Mayor and the Governor reaching agreement, the Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania then found the District in distress and would not have found the District in distress until those two executives reached agreement. Isn't that correct?

I don't know that the second part is true, I don't know that he would not have found the District in distress. It is true that upon reaching that agreement, the Secretary issued a declaration of distress.

Okay, notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary could make that finding at any time point in time but, I mean, your testimony is not that it was sheer coincidence, that the finding of distress came subsequent to the reaching of agreement between the two executives as opposed to at any other point in time.

I am not saying it's sheer coincidence. I am saying that he could have done it at any other time, and it was not a result.

Okay. On , it 172 1/30/02 RULES - BILLS 010617, 010666 is somewhat intriguing, you talked about the potential cash crisis and that as a result, the District was under threat of takeover since the General Assembly enacted Act 46 in 1998. Now, is it true that the General Assembly was, I guess, to some extent pushed into creating Act 46 as a result of a previous decision that had been made that the District would just run and run and run until it ran out of money and possibly shut down. Isn't that the fact pattern of how Act 46 was created?