1888 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FY '03 OPERATING BUDGET - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania March 11, 2002 10:00 a.m. - - - BILL 020001 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2003. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK J. DI CICCO COUNCILMAN WILSON W. GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 1889 BILL 020001 PAGE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT JOSEPH DIPRIMIO, Court Administrator ......... 1890 KEVIN CROSS, Deputy Court Administrator ...... 1890 FREDERICA MASSIAH-JACKSON, President Judge ... 1897 SHERIFF'S OFFICE JOHN GREEN, Sheriff .......................... 1945 CLERK OF QUARTER SESSIONS VIVIAN T. MILLER, Clerk of Quarter Sessions .. 1957 JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON, President Judge ....... 1990 REGISTER OF WILLS RONALD DONATUCCI, Register of Wills .......... 1960 CITY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE MARGARET M. TARTAGLIONE, Chairwoman .......... 1970 BOB LEE ...................................... 1975 CITY CONTROLLER TONY RADWANSKI, Deputy City Controller ....... 1992 BOARD OF REVISION OF TAXES DAVID GLANCEY, Chairman ...................... 2008 1890 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
Good morning, everyone. This is a continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 020001. Mr. McPherson, who is the first to testify?
May it please Council, good morning. My name is Joseph DiPrimio. I'm the Court Administrator for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. With me today is President Judge Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson who's been elected by her peers and who also serves by appointment of the Supreme Court as the Chair of the Administrative Governing Board. That is the agency or board, if you will, that determines policy for the First Judicial District. Seated to my left is Kevin Cross. Mr. Cross is the Budget and Finance Deputy Court Administrator for the District. With the leave of Council, Mr. Cross will present the testimony and supporting documents on behalf of our budgetary request for Fiscal 'O3.
Good morning. I'm Kevin Cross, Deputy Court Administrator for Financial 1891 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) Services for the First Judicial District. The First Judicial District submitted a budget request of $114 million. The City's proposed funding level was about $110 million or a difference of $4 million. 5 million and additional monies sought by the First Judicial District for counsel fees. 5 million for counsel fees. The First Judicial District will make every effort to increase its counsel fees to meet that additional appropriation. 5 million reduction in Class 100 that puts the First Judicial District in a very negative situation. That, coupled with increase in First Judicial District positions for judicial staff and increase in a transfer of grant funded positions to the General Fund, is going to cost the First Judicial District about $2 million a year. So when we take a percent reduction and then increase our position levels, we are very negatively impacted. Our position levels currently are low, and at the end of the last fiscal year, we're 1892 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) probably the lowest in years, maybe even years. We need that flexibility within our budget so when we have judicial vacancies we can fill those vacancies when new judges come on. And from July through November, we had new judges come on the 7 bench, and that resulted in about 30 additional 8 positions being brought onto the First Judicial 9 District. 10 We noted that other City agencies have 11 also received -- criminal justice partners have received increases in their budgets as a result of increases in crime and filings. Those agencies may be the District Attorney's Office, the prisons, the police and the Defenders Association. While they're receiving increases, the First Judicial District is receiving a net decrease and our case loads are up also. Our case loads are up 46 percent in Municipal Court in criminal filings. Our dependency filings in Family Court are up 31 percent. In Traffic Court, our disposition rates are up 83 percent, and the criminal trial divisions are 10 percent and civil filings, while they remain flat, the inventory has been reduced so we're reducing the time that our cases take to a come to trial. 1893 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) The First Judicial District has also expanded its court operations and provide more specialized court functions. We now have a Commerce Court and a Community Court. We have a Complex Litigation Center. We provide Treatment Court and Drug Court. We have an Eagles Court. We have a Drag Racing Court, a Vehicle Overweight Court, and a Boot and Tow Court. So our services have become more specifically defined as the needs of the people who bring things to the court have changed. So we're providing more services as needed. Also, the First Judicial District is generating much more revenue in the past four years than it has. Our prothonotary revenue is up about 15 percent since 1996, gone from about 13 million to 15 million. 3 million, and that doesn't include the impact of the new Live Stop Program which will start in July or June. The First Judicial District anticipates turning over about $600,000 from a State grant for the senior judge reimbursement. Then there's also increases in reimbursements from DPW and DHS for Family Court cases under Title 4A and Act 148. So 1894 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the First Judicial District has done everything it can to increase revenue throughout as a reimbursement back for its costs. The First Judicial District has been fortunate to have the Court Improvement Account but has used that account in a way to facilitate renovations, increase courtroom technology, and provide automation and training enhancements. We're currently working on a jury assembly room which will reduce foot traffic in the CJC and reduce juror stress from sending them from one building to another.
It will allow all our civil cases -- the jurors will be used for our civil cases in City Hall. In terms of courtroom technology, we're looking to provide multimedia evidence presentation. Over the weekend I saw something on TV about a case in Atlanta, and you look on the defendant's desk and the attorney's desk and the DA's desk, and they both have computer monitors on the tables. That's the kind of technology that courtroom activities need these days. We need to be able to provide evidence presentation to jurors, to the judge, and that's the kind of technology that the attorneys who bring 1895 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) cases to the court want and are looking for the court to provide. Our automation and technology enhancements include an upgrade in our infrastructure for our network and a criminal case management system. The criminal case management system will allow us to track our cases better, provide the information as needed to the public and to the press and whomever, and the network infrastructure upgrade is a result of changing technologies in our platform for management of our e-mail system and linking all of your courts together. 5 million, we presented a proposal to the Bar Association last year that proposed increase in counsel fees by $3 million. 5 million will provide the court the ability to increase counsel fees in courts where they are definitely needed. Those areas are in Family Court and in the Criminal Court. That concludes my summary of our testimony at this time. And if you have any questions, we'll be glad to answer them.
Thank you very 1896 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) much, Mr. Cross. Did the Administration indicate to you why they were altering the zero growth budget agreement and reducing your Class 100 requirements by 1.5? Further, is it your position that in order to restore the zero growth agreement, you need an additional $2.5 million in Class 100?
That's correct. This goes back to the current fiscal year that we're in. The Administration asked us to take a 1.5 percent reduction. We obliged on a one-year basis, and even in our budget cover letter submission we said that this should be a one-year reduction because we knew that we were going to have the reductions, the loss of grant funds for 35 employees, and we also knew that we were going to have increases in judicial staff and this money was going to be needed. So we wanted a one-year, one-time reduction, and we did not want this to be extended into Fiscal Year '03.
I see that the Administration has recommended an additional $1.5 million for attorney fees. Well, this is short of the amount of $3 million. Will you able to phase in 1897 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the fees increases with this amount? I recall last year this was a very sticky point. And actually, if my memory serves me correctly, you did not get anything at all for the attorney fees. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: That's correct, Madam President. I'd like to respond to your question, if I may.
Please. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Because as you know, last year we were joined at this table by Carl Primavera, the Then Chancellor of the Bar Association, and by representatives of the Family Division, their special committee, as well as their Criminal Justice Committee. And the Bar Association joined with First Judicial District last year at this time requesting the $3 million additional for counsel fees. And while we're certainly appreciative of the Administration's adding 1.5 million and after a great campaign by the FJD, if you will, we must have adequate funding which is reasonably necessary for the operation of the court. And we need the full $3 million. The dependent children in Family Court 1898 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) are those children and families who are abused, neglected, abandoned, truant or ungovernable. And we find that in Family Court, the counsel fees are a statutory right. In the Criminal Courts, counsel fees are a Constitutional right. And in order for us to fulfill our obligations by statute and pursuant to the Constitution, we believe that we must have that $3 million. Certainly, with the 1.5 million over and above the 7.6, we can commence a phase-in. But the advocacy groups that represent the children in the Family Court as well as the Bar Association itself recognize that the phase-in is still too little, and we are actively seeking the full 3 million. Dependency Court has 11,000 open cases with 2400 new cases each year. A substantial percentage of those cases remain open longer than two years. As we sit here today, the First Judicial District pays attorneys only for two years. They need to be paid for a longer period of time and at a higher rate. The advocacy groups have recommended an hourly rate for those attorneys. And we're not opposed to that, however, we will not be able to 1899 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) fulfill that request at the $1.5 million level that's been proposed by the Administration. The Criminal Justice Section has already discussed with me the outlines of a plan for what we call the second chair in capital homicide cases. As you know, Philadelphia has a tremendously high rate of defendants where the death penalty is in fact imposed, a higher rate than any other part of the State. And we believe that we can work with the Criminal Justice Section to develop that second chair which is a second attorney to help with the sentencing aspect.
Can you tell me how many of your employees will be eligible for the DROP Program?
We have that information, but I don't have it with me. We will provide it for you at our earliest convenience.
That would be during the course of Fiscal Year '03, that is correct. 1900 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
Mr. Cross, you mentioned in your testimony about the Drag Racing Court and Traffic Court. How frequently do we have the Drag Racing Court?
I think what happens is when a number of cases are assigned to that courtroom, then the judge holds that particular court. So they will go out and ticket on a weekend or something like that and then assign them to the courtroom on a specific day. So it doesn't appear on a regular basis, but periodically. Maybe once a month.
I know that last year I think they -- I know we have a terrible, terrible problem with drag racing in the Eastwick Section around 60th and 63rd Street, and it was my understanding that the police would actually take the violators into the 12th District, give them a ticket with a date specific for the trial.
Now, they would go to Traffic Court, would they not?
Your office doesn't have anything to do with Traffic Court? 1901 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
Traffic Court is part of the First Judicial District. Our Administrative Judge Fred Perry worked in cooperation with the Police Department in establishing the Drag Racing Court. As a matter of fact, other states around the country have solicited input from Judge Perry, including as far away as Hawaii. They're looking at the Drag Racing Court as a model program. Madam President, illustrated is one the reasons why it's so efficient, is that at the time of the arrest, the accused drag racer is actually given a subpoena for court appearance. And that level of personal service enables the court to assure that the defendant will appear. And if the defendant fails to appear under the statute, the judge is allowed to enter a default order and collect the fine against the defendant which would include suspension of the license. So that program has worked very, very well.
I see that other Members would like to ask, I'm sure, several questions. I see that our Budget Director is here and, your Honor, I would like to ask you and your people to meet with Mr. Dubow and get back to us 1902 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) before we adopt our budget. I'm truly concerned about your Class 100 requirements and the Administration's position on the continuance of the zero growth budget. Mr. Dubow, would you please get together with the judge and her people regarding this issue?
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. I'm interested more -- and I'll begin with the Trial Division. How many judges are currently in the Criminal Trial Division of Common Pleas? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, I don't know the exact number, but it's approximately 50 judges total on criminal and civil. The Trial Division is both criminal and civil. It might be a few more than that because Family Court, about or 23 26 judges. Orphans Court is three judges. So we 24 have about 60 maybe. 25
It says in your 1903 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) testimony that that the cases in Municipal Court alone has an increase in new criminal case filing from '96 through 2001 in excess of 49 percent. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: What page are you on?
. Do you have the disposition rate of these cases in Municipal Court, the percentage of those that have gone on to trial in Common Pleas?
While our cases have gone up, our adjudications have gone up also. So we've actually been able to keep our inventory relatively flat. Our ending inventory is slightly higher because of the number of increases in new cases received. Our new cases received has gone up from about 14,600 to over 16,000. And our adjudications have gone up from 15,300 to 17,400.
When you say adjudication, can you explain that in terms of how many have been dismissed and how many have been settled in Municipal Court and how many have gone on to trial in the Common Pleas Division. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We may not have those exact figures here, but we have those on a 1904 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) computer printout because an adjudication includes guilties, not guilties, pleas, dismissals because one side or the other has failed to appear. It can include a variety of --
Well, I would like to see, because we hear constantly from community groups and everywhere else, and I'm sure you've heard this, we have a revolving judicial door. And usually it isn't the District Attorney or the lack of prosectorial skill that comes into question, because you don't attend drug marches and drug vigils and so on. So it is the judge's decision-making ability that really comes into play. And it is bad judges, it is soft judges, it is judges easy on criminals and pro-criminal judges. And according to some individuals in the political process, as we know, Philadelphia bounds with judges who are soft on criminals. So I'd like to get a clear perspective really of the Municipal Court criminal case load as it comes in, the adjudication of that, how many are pled at the Municipal Court level, how many are totally found guilty at the municipal level, and then what sentencing if any occurs, and what percentage are dismissed, and what 1905 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) percent really goes on to trial at Common Pleas. And if you have any numbers or any opinion about that and whether we have dismissed more because we're making corner drug arrests -- and those really are not arrested are for jail time, many of them, because then we would have jails that are overflowing, which we do. So I'd like to hear from you, one, let's begin with the municipal level stage as to the criminal and how many are drug related and aggravated assault type situation. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We can certainly get that information for you, Councilman. As you know, at the Municipal Court level, that court tries only misdemeanor cases.
Excuse me? I didn't hear that. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Municipal Court has full trials only on misdemeanor cases. But the cases that are held for court to Common Pleas Court or to a higher level, and we certainly track the flow of MC cases that go into Common Pleas and we can get that information.
I would like to see how that tracking breaks out and how many have been 1906 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) pled, how many have been totally dismissed out of the total that are brought. And in terms of your Common Pleas case load, you said you had -- what do you mean when you say you had an inventory reduction of percent on 7 ? 8
That would mean that we are disposing more cases then we're bringing in and that our total inventory is being reduced by that amount.
And you're doing that despite a claim here, despite a 10 percent increase in new filings?
Councilman, the new filings, the triage of the case processing is what's resulting in the reduction of the cases.
From the time of arrest, a defendant is given a photo ID number by the Police Department. That becomes that defendant's DNA, if you will. The case then moves through the system at the district level, then at police level, at the Municipal Court level where a number of charges are preliminarily heard. Some of those charges, as you 1907 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) referenced, are dismissed. I can tell you -- and I don't have the statistics here. We will provide them to you and Council. But the largest reason for the dismissals are for failure to make a prima facie case. And the second largest reason is dismissal for lack of prosecution or for lack of appearance of a Commonwealth witness. Our information is that there's at least three preliminary hearings occur to give the Commonwealth the chance to bring in the witness or the victim before the case is dismissed. Even after a dismissal, the Commonwealth can re-arrest if necessary. That is a very frustrating problem to the court as well. I know it's something that the media has been making a hay about it. But as these cases go through Municipal Court and they are reduced or pled out or adjudicated, then if a case is held for court, that means that the case is ready for a trial to Trial Division level, then the case is assigned a Common Pleas Court number, and it goes through the next level, if you will, of adjudication.
You state in the same page that the judges, the assigned judges adjudicated in excess of 17,000 felony grade cases. 1908 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) That is for the Year 2001? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes, Calendar Year 2001.
Again, I'd like to see a breakdown of those cases that were adjudicated.
I'd like to see how many were pleaded out, how many were found guilty.
Same report from Trial Division as Common Pleas as you want from Municipal Court?
Right. Drugs, aggravated assault. How many of these 17,000 constituted jail time? And in terms of drugs, whether the individuals were found guilty and received jail time or found guilty and were put out on probation or given whatever it is, time. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Sure. And, Councilman, you're aware, of course, that many of the drug cases involve mandatory sentencing? 1909 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
I understand that. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We have all of that information.
That's much better than before. Let me tell you something, we've been trying to get that type of information for a long time. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, we have an excellent court administrator who keeps us on top of all of that detail.
Well, the DA kept saying that they don't have computers so that they cannot give us that type of breakdown. And I just want to see if your breakdown conforms to theirs if they have it. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We have it.
If they have it, because they will refer us back to you probably to see. They seem to have very bad problems keeping records. And if there are mandatory sentencing, Madam President, I'd like to see that annotated somehow. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I'm not sure if 1910 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) we can identify the ones that have mandatory, but we can certainly tell you what the sentence was for every disposition of every case in Year 2001. I can do that.
I appreciate that. On , what's a "bring down"? "... a decrease in the daily number of cancelled inmate trial 'bring downs'..." JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: When the sheriffs bring the defendants to CJC.
And give me a sense of what was the experience before. It says, "As a result --" JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: It's anticipated. It hasn't started yet.
So it hasn't happened yet? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Not yet. And certainly, we are hoping that the sheriffs will cooperate with the First Judicial District. I did see some of them come in. I'm sure they're listening.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 1911 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. I've been concerned for sometime and, in fact, I contacted my colleagues with some background information. Councilman Ortiz asked about some of it, I believe, even though I was distracted, with regard to preliminary and misdemeanor cases being taken out of our neighborhoods. Madam President, that's a real, real serious issue because having people come to Center City to the CJC and many times riding the same transportation as the accusers, both sides of the issue, creates problems. And certainly in the last month or so, we've seen articles in the paper that talk about problems that are occurring at CJC, and we believe it is due to this overload because of preliminary and misdemeanor cases being referred there. So we have a serious problem. I understand and have been told certainly by Judge McCaffery that he believes the backlog will go down. But my question is, will not 1912 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the quality of life in neighborhoods also go down? And the point of having it take place in neighborhoods is to increase the quality of life. Madam President Judge, I'm wondering if you could ask when Judge McCaffery is back if he could come to testify, number one, to talk about this issue with our Committee. And number two, there was an article in the paper last week by former AJ Blasi who states that $17 million was saved by having these cases in neighborhoods, which we now run the risk of losing because they're all in Center City. Having said that, I understand that the District Attorney has other information. Now, we will see her next week, and she thinks that because we have drug cases in one room that that will help and because hearsay evidence is permitted that will help. But my contention is that I don't think that that will solve the problem of us losing quality of life issues. So I'm wondering, number one, if you would ask Judge McCaffery to come before us on an agreed-upon day when we have call-backs. And number two, if you have any indication -- I've talked with victim witness officers across the City who complain about this issue, who talk about 1913 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) seniors who can't come into town, and who talk about problems. I've also talked to judges, who will remain anonymous, who have even dismissed cases in their courtrooms at CJC because they can't wait all day for people to get in the building. Now, I don't know if you have received any such information, but certainly I would appreciate any help you can give us to have the issue explored on the grounds of here at our Council Sessions and just anything you can do to help us in this regard. We really, really take our responsibility to service our constituents, it's a real sacred obligation. I'm really, really upset about this issue of not being able to have people have court in their neighborhoods. Thanks.
Councilwoman Blackwell, for the record, I agree with you. The number of 17 million, I remember because I was involved with Judge Blasi, was a cooperative figure that was reached with Former Managing Director Joe Martz. He brought it to Judge Blasi's attention. I was part of that negotiation, and I can tell you it worked. I'm sure Judge McCaffery has his reasons for bringing the cases back to the Criminal Justice Center, and I suspect he'd be very anxious to tell 1914 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) Council those reasons.
Thank you. And in all fairness, I spoke with Judge McCaffery as soon as I learned about this and traced it and found out it was his decision. And he said he would be glad to come out to my neighborhood and to talk with neighborhood groups about it. But basically, his mind was kind of made up and he said he had already done it. And certainly, I think he's done a great job. I read about all that he does with Eagles and in South Philly with all the quality of life issues that happen there. But in terms of the area I represent, this is just -- it's really, really an issue that will hurt us for some time to come. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, Councilwoman Blackwell and Madam President, this issue of the hearsay is part of this whole picture and that will affect some of the questions that Councilman Ortiz raised earlier. That is, cases that might normally be thrown out, if you will, at the Municipal Court level because after several listings the complaining witness fails to appear for whatever they choose not to pursue a case, those cases now with that hearsay rule, if you will, will 1915 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) automatically make those cases held for trial at our Common Pleas level. And so the cases that you're talking about at Municipal Court are being held for trial, they're being pushed up to our Common Pleas level. And now I'm wearing a hat of President Judge of Common Pleas Court, and I say that it's going to have a significant impact. Several thousand cases.
Well, the result is that the new Administrative Judge James Fitzgerald has determined that he needs to open three more courtrooms to accommodate the increased case load that will now be moving over to Court of Common Pleas. That not only has an impact on the First Judicial District and its staffing of those rooms, it's going to have an impact on the Criminal Justice Center, the District Attorneys. We met with them. They're going to have to staff the room. And I understand the Public Defender is going to be seeking additional appropriations so that they can hire additional staff to cover those rooms as well. It's a circular type of thing. But it also harkens back to what Councilman Ortiz said, and that is, if these cases are dismissed for want of prosecution at the preliminary stage, then some groups, for 1916 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) example, the media says that it's a blowout when in fact it isn't a blowout.
May I, Madam President? And the thing is that when it is done for lack of prosecution, it is something that the people don't know, the people in the neighborhood. So the guy or the woman is out there the next day and they figure, Well, there goes that judge again; there goes that court system again. And it's because of lack of prosecution. And I'd like to find out, really have a real good number on that. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Those numbers will get fuzzy starting now in 2002 as cases are held for trial based on a hearsay rule where no live witness comes to court or just based --
And all that will do is keep that case in the system. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: In the system. And it need not be in the system.
But that's a judicial way for the District Attorney to maintain a high case load -- well, actually -- JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, I can't 1917 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) speak for the District Attorney.
In fact, I contacted the District Attorney who wrote me a letter saying -- a copy of a letter requesting that we have another entrance to CJC. Now, that might be great at some point sometime, but certainly we don't have an entrance that works at CJC. Any morning you ride by there, you see people lined up. And as I said, I've heard judges who just can't wait all day before people can come before them. This is one time, Madam President, I wish I were a lawyer because I'm really at a disadvantage to get into all the nuances to I really help -- (Inaudible. Speaker not on mike.)
Thank you. Honestly, I really need your help because it is very difficulty -- and that was a good point Councilman Ortiz just made about crime being right back in neighborhoods the next day. In fact, another court we have is Night Court that we love in our district. We had Night Court Friday night. And Night Court is the most immediate turnaround in neighborhood crime that I know because, obviously, we don't advertise, but the community groups, town watch groups, the 1918 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) hard hats were all there. And that Friday, people are picked up who are suspected of gambling on the sidewalk, loitering, riding dirt bikes down public streets. All of these crimes that affect people every day, we deal with at night court. I mean, neighborhood court is very, very, very important. I would appreciate your help if there is some information that in your legal mind or Councilman Ortiz and Councilman Cohen, in your legal minds that we could request to help explain this. Perhaps, Madam President, we should -- I did send some testimony to the Police Department because as Judge Blasi says it saves $17 million, the DA said that the equivalent of having crime at the CJC would be the equivalent of hiring more 17 officers. Now, I don't know how you -- of course 18 that would in no way compare. I mean, that would be 19 maybe $700,000 or something. But it's really 20 difficult when you hear one whole set of testimony and something completely opposing it. But I know what I see. When we're out there in our neighborhoods every day, we know when people are suffering, and we know what this means. So although I need my colleagues to help legally explain it, I 1919 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) know that having crime in Center City and not in divisional courts is a severe deterrent to the quality of life in neighborhoods. And we appreciate your help.
Madam President, if I may add to Councilwoman Blackwell's statement. Over the last three years, two and a half years of Timoney's reign, there was an increase in arrests for quality of life crimes. What we don't know, and in essence we would need some other than legal also sociological aspect to this to see what really has been the impact, if any, on the quality of life in neighborhoods. Because the amount of arrests have increased exponentially really during the last few years, and that's what you're seeing in your court system. And we don't know how that has impacted in terms of neighborhood life. And we don't know that because a lot of these cases are getting adjudicated and removed or just revolved out of the court system for lack of prosecution, lack evidence, whatever it is. We don't have a grasp in it. But that's the biggest complaint that we get by phone calls, by community meetings, and so on. That is the biggest complaint we get. And it's something that we have 1920 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) not, over the last few years, been able to really grab hold of in these hearings. How has that impacted? Does the number of arrests equal a bettering of a quality of life in neighborhoods? And if it does not, then why not? And is it because these cases are just thrown out of court, no evidence, the adjudication doesn't place, lack of prosectorial effort, whatever it is? We're never able to get it. And in terms of complaints and so on, that's the biggest thing that we have. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. And may I also note, Madam Chair, that as I said earlier, I've talked with victim witness officers throughout the City who also note, because they're on the cutting edge of this issue, however, their groups are funded by the DA so I don't know how we -- I can get some information, but I'm not trying to get people in trouble whose groups are funded, certainly, by the DA who doesn't agree with this. But the victim witness officers who see crime and who deal with victims --
They usually 1921 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) come in to testify. I'm sure they'll be here this year.
Exactly. But as I said, they're funded by the DA. But I talked with all of them before they knew I would make it a public issue, and they all have documentation to support what I've said.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. First, your Honor, I'd like to thank you on behalf of my colleague Councilman DiCicco and I and Councilman Fumo in your support of the Community Court. We had a great opening the other day. And I think that that's the way to go. And I think that can actually address some of the concerns that Councilman Ortiz and Councilwoman Blackwell have with respect to the revolving door situation that we currently have. Anticipating that this is going to be successful, I have a couple of questions if you can answer that; if not, I can get that information a little later. What was the original cost associated 1922 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) with the physical plant, so to speak, the actual renovation of the facility? I'd like to get ongoing operating costs. I believe we will be looking to expand that in other parts of the City.
Good morning, Councilman. With Councilman's permission, I can provide you with a detailed report. However, I can just tell you that preliminarily the funds associated with the renovations of the physical space at 1401 Arch Street were provided by way of private and some public State funds through the Center City District. Mr. Paul Levy, the head of the District, I'm sure has the detailed breakdown in terms of those costs. The ongoing rent, however, is a mechanism and as an accommodation is being paid by the First Judicial District, and I don't have the exact amount of that rental. Mr. Cross indicates it's in the vicinity $130,000 a year as a rental. Is it a year?
A year, yes. That's just the lease cost, not the operating expenses, the electricity, the taxes and so forth.
That's comparable to 1923 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the going rates in Center City?
Yes. We do have additional personnel that were hired. And thanks to Council, those funds have been made available. By all indication, that program will be a success. If my opinion means anything, I firmly believe -- I am in agreement with Councilwoman Blackwell when she says you bring out the services to where they're needed because in court administration you learn very quickly something called access to justice, and you make justice accessible right where the people live and not in some high-rise Center City office building. So to the extent that we can accommodate your request and through things like the Community Court and through things like the Night Court, Drug Treatment Court, that's what we want to do.
If I can add to that. One of the problems in determining the operating costs, because Community Court is a multi-functional court with multi-different agencies, the police, and the DA's office, the Public Defender, there's treatment staff and treatment program, because it's multi-functional, our costs are just a small part 1924 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) but you have to look at every other department to find out what their costs are and then put them together collectively. And we'll do that for you.
And I'm particularly interested in the aftermath of whatever treatment that individual's given in terms of educational enhancements, drug treatment, and ultimately job placement. Because I think without having some reasonable employment opportunities at the end of day, that person will end up back into the system.
Absolutely. And we have two counselors, a social service counselor and a treatment counselor that are part of the program whose intentions are to divert to those to types of services.
One other thing. The Mayor has announced that Live Stop is coming. I believe that we will probably get a substantial response. Either, A, a whole lot of folks vehicles will be taken; and B, a whole lot of folks who are concerned about their vehicles being taken will come down and try and get there house in order as it relates to traffic tickets. Are we ready for this? I know Judge Perry has been working on 1925 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) this for sometime and I think he's geared up to accommodate whatever may come his way in Traffic Court. But as you know, there's a Court of Common Pleas process and particularly in the appellate side of this whole traffic issue. I'm wondering are we ready for this? Because I anticipate an onslaught of individuals.
Councilman, I truly hope we're ready for it. There have been a number of constituents who have contacted me directly or indirectly with respect to their concerns, and it's not just the resident that might lose his car. We have people involved in the ownership of huge trucks, for example. A major portion of this program is not handled by the First Judicial District through our Traffic Court, rather by the Parking Authority. And on a pilot basis that I believe is about two years old, it's been very successful. The cars were either impounded or taken down to the City's lot. They're towed there, they're impounded there. And when the owner or operator of the car has the funds available, they're able to get their car out, for example. If they can not, there's a whole process through the Parking 1926 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) Authority for the sale and disposition of those vehicles. We have our Solicitors looking into it. We want to make sure that everything comports with due process of law. We've been very purposeful in making sure that no rights are violated in this area because we realize that a vehicle is important to someone. It's means of a livelihood. And to deprive somebody of that means of a livelihood is unfair unless we're complying fully with the statutes and laws of the Commonwealth.
What about the administrative side? I'm assuming that there will be substantially more appeals and that will fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas; am I correct?
I don't have statistics on that yet. I know that the sale of the vehicles is something that --
I'm saying, the actual ticket -- correct me if I'm wrong. I go to Traffic Court. I receive a penalty, a fine, I lose in court. The appellate process is the Court of Common Pleas.
That is a correct. There 1927 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) is an appeal for a hearing before Trial Division in the Court of Common Pleas, that is correct.
And my question is, I'm assuming that as a result of the influx of individuals in Traffic Court, we will subsequently see a substantial increase in the case load associated with the Court of Common Pleas. And my question is that I didn't see that indicated in your testimony that there was going to be an additional administrative resource put in place to handle that. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, we're pretty comfortable that our Trial Division will be able to handle that. We have court rooms specially assigned for those types of cases now. Of course, the expanded Live Stop will start June 1st. So it will be some period after that where if there are additional appeals, that's when we'll start seeing them. But I don't think we'll have a problem.
You really don't? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Not the appeals, no, I don't. You know, one of the things you find out is that people know that they don't have insurance 1928 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) or they know they don't have license. They want to have a day in court maybe to negotiate to pay a lesser amount, but they're not saying not guilty. They're just saying, Let's try and work it out.
Judge, you should go to Traffic Court a little more often. A whole lot of people say they're not guilty. I want to make sure that, you know -- JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I appreciate that. Our judges are ready to handle this. And probably next year this time, Madam President, there will be a special paragraph in here about that.
More money. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: But as of today, we're ready.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, your Honor and the other 1929 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) members of the panel. I have a data request. I know that Councilman Ortiz, I think, had asked about some criminal court data. I wanted to ask in the very narrow but important area with regard to any court statistics or data around the issue of the death penalty, what I'd like to understand from court records on a year-by-year basis -- and I know that apparently either you have to be charged with that or there's some filing of a document. I'm not crystal clear. I mean, I know it has a special name that goes with it. But the actual charge or a petition is made and then subsequent to that depending on what's going on with the case, you actually may proceed down that path or that particular charge may be dropped and other charges that have already been filed, the case is pursued along those lines. And then finally the case happens. A verdict is made. The jury may or may not come to that conclusion. But what I'd like to understand is or get some data or a year-by-year basis is kind of the universe, I mean, the total number of applications, I think it is, that are made. And then how many of those actually proceed to trial, which I assume its smaller than the number 1930 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) that are actually applied for. And then the total number of convictions for the death penalty. And then any information you may have on the number of defendants who are given the death penalty or sentenced to the death penalty on a year-by-year basis. And would you be able to give any statistical data for anywhere in a 5- to 10-year time period through the court records?
We'll do our best. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We could probably do it for at five years. I don't know about beyond that.
And just for my own education, what is it when the charge is actually made, but I think they have to -- JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: First the District Attorney certifies first a case as a capital case. And through the negotiation process, it's determined whether or not the verdict is guilty and then whether or not the jury imposes a death penalty.
Because there's a 1931 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) separate sentencing phase? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: There's a separate sentencing phase. In fact, that's one of the areas that we're looking for increased court appointed counsel to help with that separate sentencing phase, yes.
If I may. There's a request for a certification on capital case, right? And Councilman Nutter has asked for how many cases have been. And then you say through the process of the trial there's negotiations back and forth, which always are. But at the end, if there is no 14 agreement between defense and the District Attorney, then that certification goes as asked for at the beginning of the trial, right? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, the defendant knows he's on trial as a capital matter or not as a capital matter from the beginning.
So if there's no 21 agreement between the two, the defense counsel and the District Attorney, then that stays with the original request, right? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: There's nothing that's always unanimous or a hundred percent. There 1932 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) might be some point during the trial where the DA for whatever reason --
Lack of evidence, for example. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, for whatever reason, there may be a withdrawal of that certification.
Just one last question in that regard. Do you have a sense when you might be able to put something like that together?
When did the concentration of the misdemeanor cases or Municipal Court cases to go to the CJC? When did that begin? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We think it was around the first week of January.
Not to me. 1933 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: At the December meeting of the Administrative Governing Board, Judge McCaffery circulated his plan and announced at that time that the plan was going to go into effect the first week of January. That's the first I knew of it.
And is it part of the authority of the Administrative Judge to make that decision? Was he empowered to make that decision by himself or did it have to receive approval from the Supreme Court or any other body? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, I'll speak from my perspective and Mr. DiPrimio can speak from his perspective. Judge McCaffery was newly appointed as an administrative judge so perhaps he was not familiar with the process. In the past during my experience -- and it's only been a year. Mr. DiPrimio's been knowledgeable of the Administrative Governing Board for about five or six years. But during the past year, in my experience, for changes of that magnitude, we've discussed them first. That was not done in this case. I'm not suggesting that he was not empowered to do that, but I'm simply suggesting that there was no discussion 1934 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) with the Administrative Governing Board.
I raise that question because it seemed so inconsistent with Judge McCaffery's point of view, say, at the stadium. He felt it important to conduct hearings right at the Vet Stadium if there was misconduct there. He was bringing the court to the area where the problem existed. So when I first heard of it, I thought it was just a mistake in report because everything that Judge McCaffery had done in that direction, to my knowledge, before was to move the court closer to the scene of where the problem was. And this moves in totally the opposite direction. I'm wondering was there ever any written explanation? Because I've not seen any. And I'm very pleased to hear this discussion taking place. What's the $18 million? Is that supposed to be saved by moving?
Councilman, when the First Judicial District under Judge Blasi moved the cases from the CJC out to the divisional courts at the request of the City Administration, the savings that the City attributed was in the vicinity of $17 1935 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) million. And that seemed to be working well.
Yes, the Divisional Courts, that's what we call them. In fact, Judge Blasi and I went around and we looked at the courts. We made sure that they were equipped. Police stations were equipped with air conditioning and appropriate facilities, tables and desks and things of that nature. And it was, based on my understanding, it was a success for all the reasons that you and other Councilpeople today have cited. I was just as surprised for the reasons you had mentioned because Judge McCaffery -- and I understand Council wants to speak with the judge, but the judge has had his Night Court program which is out in the community and the Eagles Court and now I think South Street Court or whatever else, and it's all been successful in those regards. So I'm sure the judge has his reasons and I'm depending on him to explain them to Council.
Well, according the to 1936 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) City Administration, the savings of million would have occurred as a result of saving on police overtime.
You were told it 9 would be saved by holding it in the central -- 10
Just the opposite. In 11 other words, the savings occurred when the 12 preliminary hearings were conducted out in the 13 divisional courts, out in the police districts. 14
Historically they were 17 held there until the CJC opened back in '95 and '96. And then Judge Blasi I think in '97 or '98 returned them back to the divisional courts when the savings accrued. Those figures came right from Joe Martz.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from the 1937 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) Members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Good morning. One question and one statement. And let me know if there's already been a discussion on this issue because I can certainly read the transcript. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is responsible for the funding of the First Judicial District and a plan, as I understand it, was put in place to eventually take over this $110 million burden. Is there a plan? Where are we with that plan? Have you discussed that already?
Good morning, Councilwoman. We have not discussed that this morning. But in years past we have discussed that.
I am aware of no 21 progress. I am not privy to those negotiations between the Supreme Court and the State Administration, but based on my peripheral vision, if you will, I don't know of any progress or whether there's any intention to move forward. 1938 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
Who are the principle parties at the table that will be responsible for any kind of discussion or dialog?
Based on my opinion, I believe it's the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and then various entities at the Commonwealth level, be it the Governor's Office or the Legislature.
Okay, then. That certainly explains it. The second is more of a statement. I've learned in this short while that I've been here that the collection rate of child support is currently at percent -- only 26 percent of the monies that are 25 supposed to be directed to children actually get 1939 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) there. And I was informed that there are a number of issues that impact why we're at such a low number: The process is cumbersome. A lack of free representation that is granted by law. Charging of the fees that are not required by law and the like. So I'd like to put that on the table at that hour that that is an issue my office is concerned about to see how we can improve boosting that rate of the percentage of children that are supposed to receive support from parents. Do you have any comment or reaction to that reality as we know it to be today?
Let me just say that the issue of child support enforcement is something that is near and dear to me. I was Deputy in Family Court for about five years. And before that, I served to prosecute those cases when I was in the District Attorney's Office. I do not sit on the actual statistics. Or if you're referencing -- and our testimony has some, but if you're referencing the collections at the State, one thing that has occurred in the last two years is that the actual collection and distribution of those child support cases no longer rests with the First Judicial 1940 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) District. It now rests with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. In fact, the automated system, this pacing system, that is used and is owned by the Commonwealth is managed by the Commonwealth and the Domestic Relations Section has no opportunity to change it or enhance it. It is a real problem. And it's a particular problem in the City of Philadelphia.
When you say Domestic Relations, you're speaking of Domestic Relations in the City Philadelphia.
Yes, Councilwoman. They are part of the First Judicial District.
However, you say that rests with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania?
But actual collection and receipt of the funds and then the paying out of the funds is no longer done. It's about two years it's been done with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
That's helpful in terms of what direction my office needs to pursue. Thank you very much. 1941 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
The only thing I can add is that we did collect $179 million in total collection last calendar year, and that is part of our testimony.
And how does that rate with years before? Is that a dramatic increase? Is that flat?
It's a steady increase from years before. I can remember when the collections in the City were as low as $30 million.
Well, there's been a lot of changes at the federal and state level in terms of the mandatory practices. For example, a new hire reporting. It was so easy to skip and just change employer and by the time wage attachment caught up with the obligor, they just changed jobs again. Now there's legislation I personally lobbied for so that the employers are required to report to Child Support Agency when they hire a new person so that 1942 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the wage attachment can follow that person around. That's an example. Mandatory garnishment of wages, mandatory garnishment of bank accounts. There's a lot of enforcement tools that the Federal Government has forced upon the State that we're starting to see the benefits of.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
With respect to the so-called hearsay rule, in the counties that have adopted that rule, does that rule go up through the Common Pleas Court or is it merely for preliminary hearings? JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman Cohen, I'm not as familiar what happens in the other counties. But I can say this: In other counties they have district justices. Here we have a Municipal Court. The Defender Association is already looking into this, and I know they have a specific response to your question because I've 1943 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) talked to them, but I don't have the actual knowledge to answer your question.
The reason I raise it is I don't see any point to the proposal because it seems to me that as a matter of law if the matter is moved up to Common Pleas Court, they're going to be confronted with the hearsay rule. And hearsay, as far as I know, could never be accepted in the Common Pleas Court. JUDGE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Right. At the Common Pleas level, we would never accept a hearsay rule. You're absolutely correct. The problem is, it holds those cases for trial. So at the Municipal Court level, they expect several thousand additional cases that will be held for trial that will be sent to us at Common Pleas level. Mr. DiPrimio stated earlier that three additional courtrooms have to be allocated at the Common Pleas level to hear cases that may eventually be thrown out because the live witness will not come into the Common Pleas level.
That seems to fit the definition of "made work," work created not for any constructive purpose, but merely to provide an 1944 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) excuse to either maintain records or maintain unnecessary employment or whatever you have. Seems to me to be unfair to the criminal justice system to have to deal with that kind of an artificial system where it's clear that if the person involved is a real criminal, he or she is going to know that the hearsay rule will not be applicable in Common Pleas. So we achieve nothing except additional expense. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm John Green, Sheriff of the City and County of Philadelphia. Madam President, the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office concurs with the City of Philadelphia's Finance Department's recommendation 1945 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) for Fiscal Year 2003 budget request of $12,245,955 and, therefore, formally request the Council to approve that amount.
Thank you. Does anyone else want to testify at the table? Mr. Sheriff, I don't have any questions. However, I do want to certainly thank you for the security that your office has provided us on Council Session days. We're most grateful for that assistance. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Madam Chair, I have a question for the sheriff. I think the issue of the sheriff sales and the information that he does give us in terms of that is extremely helpful and has helped save a lot of constituents houses and give them enough time to be able to get their money together. I want to thank you personally for everything you've done and the service you provided.
Thank you. I really appreciate that. The sheriff's sales is a major part of our operation. And one of the things we try 1946 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) to do is de-mystify that process for people. And to the extent that we've been helpful, we're grateful of that. And that sort of comment will carry us into the next Fiscal Year with even more of a direction and more of a concern and more of a commitment to improving the system.
It's also been helpful in almost trying to deal with the speculators that are out there, so it has led to somewhat in different neighborhoods because you can really identify some people. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. There's just one question I wanted to ask. If we were to request that a house be put up for sheriff's sale, how long would that process take?
Well, there are two ways you can request a property being put up for sheriff's sale. The quickest way is to go contact the Revenue Department and find out if the property can be certified, meaning if there are tax delinquencies. If you go that route, it would take approximately 90 days to get that accomplished today. Because of the 1947 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) computerization process that our office undertook, thanks to Council's allocation a couple years ago, we're now able to expedite the process via the Internet. As soon the property are certified, we're able to put them up for sale.
So how long does it take the Revenue Department to certify?
Now, that's another issue. We can put it up, as I said, 90 days after the Revenue Department certifies it. Whatever process the Revenue Department uses, I'm not quite sure of what's done. And I can just ask the people in my office. I'll check with the Real Estate Unit. I can give you a written report on that, if you'd like.
Thank you very much. I recall several years back we were waiting maybe six or seven years for a property to be put up on sheriff's sale once we made a request. So if you're saying we can do that in nine months now, I think that's wonderful.
We can put it up within 90 days of certification. And we can do that now. The problem, as I recall, in the past was, quite 1948 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) frankly, serving the owner. Because it's a judicial process, you must serve the owner that a judicial process is about to be undertaken. And we had a difficult time finding people because they may have moved to another state. Actually, sometimes people just move to another part of the City. But today, we've worked on that process. We have people who work full time in making sure that we get the properties ready for sale as soon as possible.
Wonderful. How many properties would you say are put on sheriff's sale a year? You don't have to be exact.
I don't want to chance even a guess at this don't because, as you know, we now have three sheriff's sale. In the past we had a tax delinquent sale, and the tax delinquent sales put up approximately, I would say, 150 properties a month, with some of them being stayed. Then we had the mortgage foreclosure sales, and the mortgage foreclosure sales may have been approximately 100 properties. These are just rough numbers. We now have mortgage foreclosure sales, and the mortgage foreclosure sales fluctuate so much that it is very, very difficult to put a number on 1949 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the mortgage foreclosure sale. But I can tell you that we are exposing a record number of properties for sale. Because we are able to do it now through the Internet and now through the regular auction process, we're able to accommodate that without asking for additional money at this time.
Thank you. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Sheriff Green. I know that you have been thanked and I would thank you as well for the service that we've received primarily on Thursdays here up on the fourth floor. What I wanted to ask was, there is a proposal for a variety of upgrades and security to City Hall and I think possibly two other buildings that are often referred to as the triplex of buildings downtown, City Hall, One Park Way, and I guess the Municipal Services Building. With regard to City Hall and the various upgrades, including some proposed for Council Chambers and the fourth floor in general, it may also involve some other floors where members offices 1950 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) are, have there been any meetings or discussions with you about what an upgraded security presence may mean in terms of involvement by the Sheriff's Office and the regularity of that security, whether it's directly involving in City Council or other parts of the building?
No. We have not been involved in any discussions relevant to the security upgrading in City Hall, Municipal Service Building or any other structure that wouldn't be considered a county courthouse.
So let me make sure I understand. Not withstanding the fact that, again, you have most graciously provided the sheriffs deputies, I think possibly six to eight that I can count on at least Thursday morning when Council officially meets, there have been no 19 discussions with you about -- I mean, there's been mention made of, I believe, magnetometers and probably some of the kind of equipment, for instance, that's presently over at the Criminal Justice Center.
I'm left with the 1951 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) impression that that equipment has to be maintained and is used on a regular basis and so there will be a need for literally personnel to take care of those actions, which is different than what we presently experience which is essentially a once a week participation. I'm left with the impression that this will be a regular and fully staffed operation. Let me just encourage you, and I'm sure certainly that Council President will on behalf of the Council, but let me encourage you to be in touch with at least Mr. Rick Tustin from the Capital Program Office. I think they have general responsibility for this. There maybe other operational people who need to be involved. Mr. Tustin's more on the capital side and doesn't get into, I think, so much operations. But I think you need to be included in that discussion on a going-forward basis. It may have some impact on the potentially on the Sheriff's Office. And I think we need to make sure that we're coordinating our capital activities at the same time that they have operational impact and we shouldn't end up with a great security plan but not have the personnel necessary to carry it out. 1952 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET)
I shall do that. As you can well imagine, since the events of six months ago, the Sheriff's Office has been called upon to maintain metal detectors and other devices that are used in order to scrutinize the contents of people's pockets and purses. We are one of two agencies that have people who are certified to do that sort of thing. And there are people who are certified in Philadelphia. One would be the United States Marshal's Office and the Philadelphia Sheriff's Office. We have people who are certified and experienced to do that. And we'll be more than willing to sit down and discuss our role. One of the reason we have reconfigured our office in a manner to be able to do what we do with Council every Thursday is in order to accommodate the request that we had received for our expertise in handling those devices.
You're welcome. Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam 1953 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) Chair. I also want to echo Councilmember Nutter's comments relative to the security issues on Thursday. Your people have just been a tremendous help to us in making us feel a little more safe in this Chamber, which you can see is extremely accessible to the general public to us. I'm within an arm's length of some of the people here at the rails sometimes, and the fact that your checking and make sure that weapons aren't entering the Chamber makes us feel a lot better. But I also want to thank you for just your public service. Your office and the people in your office are extremely responsive to all our needs when we call them. And I've found you to be high caliber public official and you've been doing a great job for years. I just wanted to thank you personally for all the stuff you do for us. I think you're pretty good guy.
Let me tell you something. You don't hear me say that often in this building. You're one that I'm proud to have in 1954 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) front of us.
Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. Let me thank the Sheriff and his department for the job they have continued to do. Certainly, I understand there was an article in the paper about the safety issue and I, likewise, thank the sheriff for the job they are doing. I will admit, I have some other concerns about some of the clients that we service and how they will gain access, but we'll deal with those as it evolves, but we want to say thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. I don't want to left out. I feel badly if I don't say anything nice. You might think I'm angry at you. I do also want to thank you and echo 1955 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) the comments of my colleagues. A job well done. And thank you for that call last week.
Thank you. I'm sure Councilman Ortiz and Councilwoman Brown would like to say a word of thank you.
As Wyatt Earp rides sunset, he just turns around and waves and he goes "Hi oh, Silver" -- that's not Wyatt Earp. That's the Lone Ranger. (Laughter.)
Good morning. The only thing I would add is to commend your office for embracing technology. Because to the extent that you embrace that, it certainly aids us in the work that we have to do in serving constituents. And you've not shied away or backed away from that but use that in a way to maximize the professional service that you deliver. So congratulations to you and your staff, and continue the good work that 1956 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) you're doing.
Thank you very much. We couldn't have done that, of course, without City Council allocating the money that was needed to upgrade our technology. Thank you very much.
We're allocating 8 million more for him, is that it? 9 (Laughter.) 10
I'm just grateful just to get out of here with all of these accolades. I don't need the money. (Laughter.)
Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much. This has been a very rare morning.
Good morning, Council President Anna Verna and Members of City Council. My name is Vivian T. Miller, and I am the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and I have with me this morning Tom Christman, my Budget Analyst; Charles Williams, my 1957 3/11/02 - WHOLE - BILL 02001 ('03 BUDGET) First Deputy; and Lopez Jones, my Second Deputy. I'm going to try to be brief, but I would first ask that you take care of my budget of $4,379,889. And with the permission of the President, I would like to just read the second addendum to my budget address.