Committee Hearing, May 5, 2009

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 - - -4 Room 400, City Hall5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 5, 20096 11:15 a.m. 7 - - - 8 9 PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN12 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.13 COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL14 COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER15 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO16 COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO 17 BILLS 090212, 090213, 090214, 090215, 090218,18 090219, 090220 and 090221 RESOLUTION 09022619 20 - - -21 22 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services23 Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 60024 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.267025 2 1

Good2 morning, everyone. I'm sorry for the3 delay, but these are very hectic times4 and hectic days. So we will start our5 public hearing, and the first department6 to testify this morning will be the7 Defender's Association.8 (Witnesses approached witness9 table.)10

Good11 morning. Kindly identify yourself for12 the record and proceed with your13 testimony.14

Thank you, Madam15 President. My name is Ellen Greenlee,16 G-R-E-E-N-L-E-E. I am Chief Defender of17 the Defender Association. On my left is18 Charles A. Cunningham, First Assistant19 Defender, and on my right, our20 Controller, Selim Tawadros, S-E-L-I-M,21 T-A-W-A-D-R-O-S. 5 As you know, the Defender6 Association is an independent, non-profit7 that contracts with the City to provide8 legal services, criminal, child advocacy,9 mental health and for delinquency. 15 The attorneys of the Defender16 Association are supported by17 investigators, social workers, paralegals18 and administrative staff, all of whom are19 dedicated to providing high-quality legal20 representation to our clients. The21 Association is committed to having a22 diverse staff to represent a very diverse23 client population. 2 In terms of minority staff, the numbers3 are, among our managers, 61 percent white4 and 39 percent minority. As to our5 professional staff, we are 67 percent6 white and 33 percent minority, and our7 administrative staff is 44 percent white8 and 56 percent minority. 13 By combining the legal,14 investigative and social services areas,15 the Association is able to handle the16 high volume of cases with a minimum17 number of staff and to provide18 professional and economical services to19 Philadelphia's poorest citizens. 2 Our financial picture today:3 For Fiscal Year 2009, the City4 appropriated $37,729,202 to us to provide5 legal services. And I should mention6 here parenthetically just so there is no7 confusion about funding, we do have a8 federal division, a Community Federal9 Defender, which is totally separate in10 its operation and funding, which is11 funded in the last fiscal year at the12 level of $12 million. These are not13 funds to which we have any access. They14 are strictly run by the administrative15 office of the federal court. 38 million. 1 hiring freeze. We reversed the salary2 increases given to some staff members in3 the fall. We reduced our attorney4 starting salary, and this causes us great5 pain to reduce the starting salary from6 49,500 for an attorney to 48,500, which7 keeps us at the very bottom of the three8 City law agencies, the Solicitor, the9 District Attorney, and the Defender is a10 distant third. 13 As things stand now, as we near14 the close of the fiscal year, we were15 able to decrease spending without16 reducing services and to end the fiscal17 year on a sound footing. 320 million to 35,036,000. 1 The Defender Association uses2 85 percent of its appropriation for3 salaries and benefits. The remaining 154 percent must cover all our operating5 expenses - rent, insurance, equipment,6 supplies, travel, postage, professional7 services, on and on, every expense that8 any private business would have. Without9 exception, these costs continue to rise,10 and any additional budget reduction for11 Fiscal Year 2010 will come through12 attrition, then through layoffs. 16 It is no exaggeration to say17 that the court systems - adult, juvenile18 and dependency - cannot function19 efficiently and provide equal justice for20 our poorest fellow citizens without the21 presence of the Defender Association22 provided with the resources necessary to23 continue to do the excellent work we do24 and have done for decades. 4 In terms of economies affected5 by the Defender Association, Common Pleas6 cases where the Defender is counsel are7 disposed of 71 days more quickly than8 those of court-appointed counsel,9 representing substantial savings where10 the client is in custody. 13 Also, if the Defender were to14 cease representation in Municipal Court15 as a result of insufficient staff, it16 would cost the City $5 million more per17 year to have court-appointed counsel18 provide representation. 20 Among our efforts to help21 reduce prison population are the22 following: We, as an institutional23 presence in the court system, move cases24 quickly.

1 detentions, getting people who should not2 be in prison out as quickly as we can,3 within days certainly of discovering an4 illegal detention. We file hundreds of5 early parole petitions and petitions to6 lift detainers affecting early releases7 of our clients. We work with the8 Intermediate Punishment Program to keep9 people out of custody. We handle case10 consolidations whenever possible, whether11 it's probation violations or simply more12 than one case that a client has. And we13 have a large, fairly large, not large14 enough, social service component, which15 works on finding alternatives to16 incarceration for our clients. 1 them out of custody. 6 We felt it necessary to give7 Council as well as the City8 Administration a serious look at how9 another five percent cut in our10 appropriation for 2010 will impact our11 ability to continue to provide in 201012 the same level of services as we did and13 are doing in 2009. 17 Our request then to you, Madam18 President and the members of Council, is19 that you recommend to the Administration20 that the Association's appropriation for21 2010 remain at the 2009 level of22 $36,382,604 and that no further budget23 cut be imposed. 1 to present these issues and for your2 attention and support. 5

Thank6 you very much. Thank you.7 The Chair recognizes Councilman8 Jones.9

Thank you,10 Madam President. Good morning.11 Good morning.12

Good morning,13 Councilman.14

I'd like to15 take a second as a relatively new16 Councilperson, but we age quickly here,17 in dog years almost, so we're no longer18 new per se, but give me the philosophical19 reason the Defender's Association was20 originally created versus what21 court-appointed attorneys do, and what is22 the general philosophy there.23

Well, the24 Defender Association was created to25 13 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 provide counsel to those who are unable2 to afford counsel and to provide an3 institutional presence in the court,4 because an institutional presence such as5 the Defender Association could have more6 influence in terms of policies and7 procedures in the court than can an8 isolated individual attorney. So we are9 appointed to represent all those persons10 who are financially eligible for our11 services. The only exception there would12 be where we have a conflict of interest.13 Then under those circumstances, other14 counsel will be appointed for someone15 charged with a crime or a dependent16 child.17

Just to18 recap, how many people do you represent19 annually?20

Well, we have --21 the one figure that we use is, each time22 we go to court with a case file and23 represent someone in court, that number24 is at 400,000 in all of those units, for25 14 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 adults, juveniles and for child2 dependency matters.3

And I had an4 opportunity to talk to you off record,5 and you don't represent the guys or women6 that are in child support hearings, and7 you explained why, so you don't have to8 do that for me, but I appreciate knowing9 that that is not one of the groups. And10 I'm very much fascinated in your11 Alternate Sentencing Unit and whether or12 not there's been some evaluation, cost13 analysis as to how much money that14 actually saves us as a city, and I think15 that kind of thing needs to be on the16 record.17

Let me defer to18 Charles.19

Charles20 Cunningham, First Assistant Defender.21 Councilman, let me just say22 this: We give a conservative figure with23 regards to our Intermediate Punishment24 Program and our early parole programs.25 15 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Combined, those programs we gave a2 conservative figure of $12 million that3 we save the City on an annual basis.4 However, we got a report back from the5 state that said that the savings was6 considerably higher than that. But we7 always like to use the most conservative8 figures. Okay? And right now those9 figures are alone that we're saving the10 City approximately $12 million a year.11

And I'm12 thinking we as a body here in Council but13 I'm hearing more through conversations14 with members of CJAB that we're moving15 more towards using this and/or a16 rendition, hybrid rendition, of where we17 are with community courts to kind of move18 that specialty court concept and19 alternate sentence concept and additional20 treatment courts to a hybrid that may21 allow us to use it as a model citywide22 and using your input obviously to help us23 design that to kind of shift the24 hard-core offenders from the folk that25 16 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 might be able to benefit from these type2 of alternate sentences and, therefore,3 spare us the tax burden of incarceration4 at $100 a day and rising.5

I think that6 we are all moving forward and looking7 towards trying to create different8 programs so that we can accomplish those9 goals. As a matter of fact, right now10 I'm even on the Governor's commission,11 and they're looking into mental health12 courts. And even here in Philadelphia,13 we are looking at trying to establish a14 mental health court, because once we can15 get these clients out of the prison16 system and get them help, it takes it off17 the City's budget as well. And we have18 actually taken our own Mental Health Unit19 and revamped it, because we saw the need20 with the high number of people who are in21 the prisons who suffer from a mental22 health problem and, on the occasions, a23 mental health problem and a drug problem.24 You have to start devoting resources to25 17 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 them, and that we have already begun to2 try to devote those resources, and we3 would like to try to maintain those4 resources.5

If you had6 to guess, out of the 400,000 clients that7 you serve, what percentage of them could8 be diverted into these types of alternate9 courts, alternate sentencing programs?10

Councilman, I11 would feel uncomfortable trying to come12 up with a figure like that.13

That's fair.14

However, there15 are people that I think that would be16 able to try to give you some at least17 educated guesses as to that, and I will18 in fact inquire of them and try to get19 that information back to you.20

And while21 you're doing that, if you would, I would22 look at what the level of charge would be23 at the high end to the low end that you24 would recommend, feel comfortable with25 18 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 being eligible for those types of2 programs. At this point, what we want to3 try to do is look at the 24 percent we4 spend on incarceration, imprisonment and5 the judicial process and figure a way6 cross-departmentally how to apply those7 charges in a lesser way to reduce the8 burden on the taxes.9 (Bell rung.)10

So any11 recommendation you could provide the12 President and this body, we would gladly13 use in our analysis in how to make14 recommendations going forward.15 Thank you, Madam President.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 You're welcome.18 The Chair recognizes Councilman19 Green.20

Thank you,21 Madam Chair.22 Good morning.23

Good morning,24 Councilman.25 19 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

One of your2 favorite Councilpeople told me I had to3 be very, very nice to you.4

I can't imagine5 who that is.6

And7 suggested that he'd get the drumstick at8 Thanksgiving if I behave myself.9 I just had a couple of quick10 questions, and they're really for the11 purpose of informing myself more about12 what your office does, and, that is, I13 had a question about what you do besides14 our constitutionally mandated practice15 areas. In other words, other than16 low-income people charged with criminal17 offenses and children in abuse and18 neglect proceedings, what practice areas19 do you have beyond that?20

Well, that's the21 bulk of it, except for we do civil mental22 health hearings as well, as representing23 clients who have mental health problems24 who have criminal cases. But we do about25 20 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 4,500 civil mental health hearings a2 year.3

And is that4 constitutionally mandated for the City to5 provide?6

Not to my7 knowledge, because there aren't criminal8 charges involved.9

Okay. So10 how much of your budget is spent on11 non-constitutionally mandated things like12 that?13

Dependency and14 mental health?15

You don't16 have to answer now.17

Well, probably 318 million. A little more than 3 million,19 according to the Controller.20

And if you21 look at sort of pure organizations, Legal22 Aid Society in New York, do they do23 non-constitutionally mandated things24 also?25 21 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

I would imagine2 that they do. They must, because every3 public defense agency is involved in4 alternative programs and other5 representation.6

Are you7 seeking, have sought, actively sought,8 private funding sources for what you do?9

Well, the only10 private funding sources that we really11 have sort have been in the juvenile area12 where the McCarthy Foundation has funded13 a number of programs that we're involved14 in with juveniles.15

And how16 about like the George Soros Open Society17 Institute?18

No. We really19 haven't, no.20

I mean, we'd21 be happy to help you. I don't know22 whether you get to take advantage of the23 grant writers that are in the24 Administration or other people, but there25 22 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 are some things like that that perhaps we2 could look at.3

We certainly4 will pursue that.5

I just had a6 question about given the current economic7 downturn and the deferrals that are being8 put in place by many of our major law9 firms, is this an opportunity for you10 guys to try to get people who law firms11 may be giving partial salary to for the12 year to defer their employment, to get13 them to come in and help try cases, get14 some trial experience for a year before15 they go off to some of the major firms in16 the City?17

We're working on18 that. Actually, it turns out to be a bit19 more complicated than it looks at first20 blush, and it's not just a matter of21 looking a gift horse in the mouth. It's22 a little more complicated as to whose23 employees these folks are for that year,24 are they the law firm's employees, will25 23 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 they be our temporary employees. We're2 trying to iron out the situation in the3 contract and perhaps the disclaimer that4 we'll have to get from them in terms of5 liability, because they'll simply be6 given a stipend and then they have to pay7 all their expenses.8 We've had conversations with9 three law firms. At this point in time,10 we've only really been able to identify11 six people. We hope to get a dozen or so12 who will come in for a year, and they13 certainly will assist with us as14 attrition takes place among our staff in15 terms of the lower-level trials and16 interviewing our clients.17

That's what18 happens when you get a bunch of lawyers19 involved in something.20

I know.21

It will take22 six months to get it done.23

As soon as you24 involve the employment lawyers, you're in25 24 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 big trouble. That's what we found. But2 we're working on it.3

And I assume4 you've got programs with the local law5 firms for some of the maybe mental health6 work or -- I mean local universities for7 law students?8

We have four9 clinical programs at four local law10 schools.11

If you turn12 to the Disposition Disparity table13 attached to your testimony, I wanted to14 make sure I understood what some of the15 terms meant.16 Regarding the number of days17 for disposition measure for Common Pleas18 criminal cases, are all of these19 defendants incarcerated during the entire20 period until disposition?21

Not all22 defendants are incarcerated. However,23 what we found out is that those -- in24 regards to the disposition, not all of25 25 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 them are incarcerated.2

Do you know3 what the average incarceration period is4 or could you get back to us? In other5 words, we're trying to find ways to get6 people who are in the system in prison,7 not yet adjudicated, maybe on electronic8 monitoring or other programs that will9 save the prisons money that would make10 more money available for your office, the11 DA's Office.12

We can find13 that information out. I think that the14 Director of Prisons has that information15 available as well.16

Do you guys17 participate in CJAB?18

Yes.19

Yes.20 (Bell rung.)21

As minority22 members.23

Well, thank24 you very much.25 26 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

The2 Chair recognizes --3

There are 134 members of the CJAB and seven are court5 employees. So they pretty much get what6 they want.7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 Councilman Jones.9

Thank you,10 Madam President.11 A couple of other questions.12 You aren't a City department per se.13

No, we're not.14 We're private.15

So you16 receive the bulk of your funding,17 however, from what sources?18

From our19 contract with the City, virtually 10020 percent of our funding, except for those21 grants, and this last year we received a22 total of about 1.2 million in grants, the23 bulk of which goes to juvenile practice,24 to training juvenile defenders, to after25 27 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 care, disposition of cases, for2 disproportionate minority confinement3 work and work along that nature we've4 received grants, the bulk of them coming5 from the McCarthy Foundation, but some6 from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime7 and Delinquency.8

Is there a9 salary differential between you and other10 legal departments within the City, DA?11

Yes.12

What is that13 differential?14

Well, we're15 third in terms of salaries. Beyond the16 initial level of starting salary, there17 are disparities that are from $10,000 up18 when you get to mid-level staff. I was19 told this morning that the average salary20 in the District Attorney's Office, the21 average salary overall is 50,000, and our22 average salary for entire staff would be23 44,000. We are substantially below what24 the District Attorney offers. Once you25 28 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 get past the first three or four years2 where their differential may be only a3 couple thousand, then it rises4 dramatically. At the fourth year, it's5 now $10,000, and it goes up. Department6 heads, I understand, earn about $132,000,7 which is 20,000 above our highest salary,8 which is mine.9

Do you have10 turnover issues, retention issues by way11 of personnel?12

Well, I don't13 think anyone has any turnover issues14 right now because no one is going15 anywhere this year. What we do,16 Councilman, is when we hire an attorney,17 we ask them to commit for three years,18 and it's been our experience that19 virtually all the young lawyers who come20 in commit for that three-year period,21 because it's an intensive training22 process and they want to learn how to be23 good trial lawyers. Thereafter, probably24 by the time they reach the fifth year,25 29 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 most folks are thinking about moving on,2 because they can't pay their law school3 loans. At about $50,000, they have4 difficulty marrying, raising a family,5 thinking about buying a house, and the6 law school loans are prohibitive for just7 about everyone who comes in.8 So I would say we get the9 three-year commitment. Then when you get10 towards five years, most folks are11 looking around for something more12 lucrative.13 COUNCILMAN JONES:14 Structurally, how do we on an15 apples-to-apples comparison compare to16 our surrounding counties and surrounding17 states? Do they have similar18 associations?19

Well, in20 Pennsylvania we're the only one that's a21 private agency. The rest in all of the22 other counties are county employees.23

And why are24 we different?25 30 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

That's a good2 question. It predates me. I don't3 really know.4

So I guess5 the answer is like --6

I guess because7 the origin of the Defender Association8 was the voluntary defenders way back in9 1934 when a group of private lawyers got10 together to provide -- in an attempt to11 provide counsel to what they called the12 deserving poor, and I think eventually we13 grew out of that. By the time we got to14 1969, we were a private agency that began15 to contract with the City to provide16 services. At that point in time, in the17 criminal area only.18

So one of19 the distinguishing characteristics that20 are different between you and21 court-appointed counsel is that you are22 an advocacy group for the whole criminal23 justice process, as well as individual24 defense for clients?25 31 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

Well, I think2 that's a fair statement. I think that's3 a fair statement. Although the private4 Bar has its own Bar Association, criminal5 justice section, which serves as an6 advocate for private attorneys. But we7 are the institutional presence. We are8 the voice for, I think, Philadelphia's9 poor citizens in the criminal justice10 system.11

Well, thank12 you --13

As well as14 Dependency Court.15

Well, thank16 you for what you do.17 Thank you, Madam President.18

Thank you.19 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:20 You're welcome.21 The Chair recognizes22 Councilwoman Brown.23

Thank you,24 Madam President.25 32 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Good morning.2

Good morning,3 Councilwoman.4

Let me5 hear again the answer to Councilman6 Green's question regarding the average7 time someone is currently held before8 receiving a trial. What was your answer?9

Councilwoman,10 there was no answer to that because I11 don't have that information as to the12 average time. I can tell you, however,13 that a lot of the people that are14 presently incarcerated in our county15 prisons are awaiting -- are pretrial16 people. In other words, they haven't17 been convicted. They are awaiting trial.18 So the answer to that question,19 as I said before, we can probably get20 that information because I think that the21 Director of Prisons has the information22 as to the average stay of the individual23 person.24

That fact is25 33 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that among the prison population right2 now, the number of prisoners who are3 awaiting trial and not sentenced is 734 percent. So it's a very, very high5 figure. It used to be lower. This is6 the highest that I can ever remember it7 being at 73 percent people awaiting8 trial. Of course, many of those folks do9 have probation matters and detainers.10 It's not always simply a matter of bail,11 because anyone who is in simply because12 of bail, we're right on and we're filing13 bail petitions if they're our clients to14 try to get them out or to get some type15 of conditional release.16

Besides17 lawyers coming together at designated18 points on behalf of a person that's being19 held, do the three systems talk to each20 other, like with the use of technology?21

Three systems?22

Your23 office, the DA's Office, the Prisons. Is24 there anything that connects those three25 34 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 worlds?2

Not really. Not3 really.4

I don't know5 that there's a technology link between6 the three offices. Obviously there are7 various meetings that we go to to discuss8 various programs. For instance, they've9 just started a program called the AVOP10 program, Accelerated Violation of11 Probation.12

It's13 called the what program?14

Accelerated15 Violation of Probation program. It's16 designed basically to look at people's17 probation situations and to try to18 consolidate their probation situations in19 front of one judge.20 We're also looking at what's21 called the ARC program, which is the22 Accelerated Review and Consolidation,23 which is, again, looking at clients24 trying to see all -- the whole case, the25 35 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 whole situation, not just whether or not2 this client has one case, but whether or3 not he has multiple cases and whether or4 not we can dispose of all of those cases5 at one time. So we're all combining our6 efforts to try to dispose of these cases7 at a far faster rate.8

Wouldn't9 it be great value of those systems being10 able to talk to each other with the use11 of technology when you look at the fact12 that 73 percent are awaiting trial and13 then we hear from the Prison Commissioner14 also how long it takes to move them15 through the system?16

Anything that17 will allow communication, I'm all in18 favor of. I mean --19

We do have20 meetings all the time with the various21 stakeholders.22

And23 therein lies the wrinkle. We have to24 wait to coordinate 15 different schedules25 36 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 before you can take some active action on2 a particular case.3

Well, I think4 if there's action that needs to be taken5 on a particular case, many of the times6 we can in fact communicate with the7 District Attorney's Office. And there8 are procedures set up so that these cases9 can be brought in and can be disposed of,10 like track programs, so that you can get11 all of these cases brought in, talked12 about and we will talk about these cases.13 And we're trying to talk about these14 cases at a far earlier date, and we're15 putting in a protocol that will allow us16 to do so.17

So not18 having the benefit of knowing, at least19 right now as we sit here, the average20 time someone is currently held in the21 system, if your department is forced to22 make the proposed cuts, how will this23 impact that number, 73 percent, awaiting24 trial?25 37 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

Well, it would2 certainly increase, I would think, but I3 don't know by how much it would increase.4 A lot -- what would happen -- assuming we5 get to the point where we have to make6 staff cuts, which services will be cut to7 a certain extent would have to be done in8 conjunction with the courts deciding9 where they think that the Defender does10 not need to staff a room. So it's hard11 to say. I think in all likelihood, those12 numbers would only go up. The numbers of13 people in prison awaiting trial would14 have to increase.15

Councilman16 Jones has raised questions about17 comparable salaries compared to other18 counties. Where does Philadelphia sit19 with regards to other cities, like20 Baltimore, Boston or DC, when it comes to21 the salary for entry-level public22 defenders?23

I don't know. I24 don't have those figures, but we can25 38 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 certainly check that out.2 (Bell rung.)3

I don't know.4

Okay. The5 bell has rung. I'll wait for the next6 round.7

The8 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez.9

Thank10 you.11 Good morning.12

Good morning.13

I want14 to thank you for the hard work that you15 do, but as you all know, we are in the16 midst of making some really tough17 financial decisions, and I think this is18 one of those times as an organization19 diversifying your funding pool is going20 to be important. So I want to ask you,21 do you charge any fees to the clients22 that you serve?23

No, we don't.24

Have you25 39 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 ever looked at that before?2

No, we haven't.3 Part of the reason for that is that it's4 trying to get blood from a stone, because5 every time someone goes to court, there6 have been dramatic increases in the7 number of costs that are assessed against8 people, fines, that people can come out9 of court owing hundreds of dollars. We10 have never seriously looked at that11 situation.12

Again, I13 appreciate the work you do. I think it's14 very important work, and when we look at15 the bottom line, you save us money, but I16 think given the financial situation that17 we are, I think it would be important if18 we did an analysis, even if it was --19 70,000 cases a year, $25, $100. It's20 things we have to begin to explore, and21 it's tough decisions. And, again, the22 work that the lawyers do in choosing this23 field of public service is very24 important. But if you came up -- we're25 40 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 looking at it at the Health Department.2 We're looking at it all over our budget3 in our departments. I would encourage4 you to look at that analysis and share it5 with us, if you could, about what you6 think something like that would look like7 so that we can take into consideration8 as, again, we make some really tough9 decisions. Because what I didn't see in10 your testimony is what's your Plan B if11 you don't get all your money.12

There is no Plan13 B.14

Okay.15

But we will16 certainly look at that and share that17 information.18

I think19 it's important.20

I think also21 that we do not decide whom we will22 represent.23

No. I24 understand.25 41 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

It's the court2 that decides who is provided our3 services. So I think that any assessment4 of fees would have to start at that level5 and not with us trying to get money out6 of our clients, but the appointing7 authority would have to be involved, it8 seems to me, in terms of assessing any9 type fee, if that were the way the City10 wanted to go.11

Okay.12

Point of13 information.14

The15 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a16 point of information.17

Thank you,18 Madam Chair.19 Just so I can understand the20 answer to that question about the court21 decides who you represent, does that22 apply to your non-constitutionally23 mandated cases?24

All cases we25 42 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 handle.2

So they're3 assigning you cases that we don't have an4 obligation as a city to provide work for,5 yet we're paying for it. If you were out6 of that business, could they assign them7 to private lawyers?8

Well, the --9

Or law firms10 or pro bono efforts?11

Certainly they12 could.13

And so maybe14 something we can look at is trying to get15 law firms or other people to take those16 cases, at least for a little period while17 they have less work to do anyway.18

Well, invariably19 it costs a lot more. I don't think that20 they're going to be doing it pro bono.21 Invariably it costs a lot more to provide22 the services that we provide.23

Well, I mean24 pro bono. The hours of pro bono work25 43 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that is done by the major law firms in2 this city is something that this city3 should really be very proud of. We have4 to be like in the tops nationally.5

That's true.6

And I'm just7 wondering -- I don't know. Three million8 dollars for stuff that we're not9 constitutionally mandated to do when10 courts could order people to do it, maybe11 is something to think about. I mean,12 courts can order people to represent13 people.14

It's kind of the15 prescription for chaos, but it's16 certainly something that one could look17 at.18

Okay.19

However, the20 dependency work that we do representing21 dependent children is because of a22 Consent Decree that the City entered in23 1990 agreeing to provide counsel to all24 dependent children in contested custody25 44 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 cases. So while we can say they're not2 constitutionally mandated, the City is3 part of that.4

That's a5 great answer to the question. So other6 than that, how much are we doing that's7 not constitutional?8

Well, the only9 other thing that you can say is not10 constitutionally mandated is civil mental11 health hearings, but the City and12 probably the court have agreed that13 people have a right to counsel at civil14 mental health hearings.15 There really is no effective16 way, it seems to me, other than with an17 institutional presence that is set up18 with what we have, with attorneys, social19 workers, investigators and support staff,20 to provide the kind of service to21 thousands of clients in whatever area,22 whether you call it mandated or not23 mandated. In terms of economics, it's24 the only way that it works sufficiently.25 45 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

I appreciate2 that, and you guys do a terrific job3 representing all of the people you4 represent with the resources that are far5 too limited, and I commend you for that.6 I'm just trying to learn about what you7 do and understand what we can and cannot8 do.9

And I know that10 the law firms do provide tremendous,11 hundreds of thousands of hours in pro12 bono services.13

Millions.14

Among the15 leaders is Pepper Hamilton.16

Can I just17 jump in for a second?18 One of the things about the19 Defender organization is the fact that20 when we are appointed, we have an21 attorney on location. That means that22 those cases that the Defender Association23 represents will be disposed of when it's24 listed. When you have private counsel25 46 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 coming in, whether it's assigned, pro2 bono, however, you're always running the3 system in accordance with their schedule.4 To give you sort of just one5 small anecdote --6

I get it.7 You're saving the system money, and8 that's the kind of argument that you need9 to make, and what we need on Council is10 for everybody in the system to work11 together so that we can reduce the number12 one cost that seems to be out of our13 control, which is prison costs, by14 finding alternative sentencing methods,15 community courts, community sentencing,16 et cetera, and we'll be interested to see17 where the CJAB gets on that this year.18 Thank you very much for your19 testimony.20

Thank you.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 Councilwoman Sanchez, are you finished?23

Yes, I24 am.25 47 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

Thank2 you.3 Councilwoman Brown.4

Thank you,5 Madam President.6 In your testimony, , you7 indicate that there will be budget cuts8 to the Child Advocacy Unit. Again,9 please describe the impact of those cuts.10 Potentially affecting 850 cases? One11 attorney for social workers could12 potentially -- amazing.13

Well, part of14 the situation with our Child Advocacy15 Unit is, many of our lawyers are new16 lawyers. So if you're having layoffs,17 you have to do it by seniority, and18 probably the last six or seven lawyers we19 hired were in the Child Advocacy Unit.20 So they would be hit harder than other21 units.22 There are -- we have23 approximately, I guess, 4,000 cases. So24 if you lost six or seven lawyers, you25 48 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 probably have to close one, maybe two2 courtrooms and the cases would have to be3 reassigned. I certainly hope that we're4 not going to reach that eventuality.5

An average6 caseload for a lawyer in the Child7 Advocacy Unit is what?8

Well, let's see.9 I would guess 200, approximately 20010 cases.11

Okay.12

Their cases13 will be around a lot longer.14

That15 becomes --16

Years and years.17

Their cases18 are around years and years, because we've19 had -- and then there are a number of20 children within a family. So it's not21 unheard of for a Child Advocacy case to22 last until somebody is over 18 and23 sometimes even as far as 21 years of age.24

Where's25 49 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the linkage with DHS on matters like2 that?3

On what?4

Where is5 the linkage with DHS?6

Well, DHS is the7 provider and the agency that sees what8 disposition happens with the children,9 whether they're put in placement, whether10 they're put up for adoption. They assign11 the social workers to the children. DHS12 is the provider agency in terms of13 dependent children, and the Solicitor, of14 course, is the lawyer for the DHS agency.15 But they're the ones that are responsible16 for decisions as to where a child will be17 placed, what disposition will happen18 within a child's case.19

I see.20 That completes my questions,21 Madam President.22 Thank you.23

Thank you.24

Thank25 50 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 you very much.2 Are there any other questions3 from members of the Committee?4 (No response.)5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Seeing none, thank you.7

Thank you, Madam8 President.9

Thank10 you.11

Thank you,12 members of Council.13

We14 will now hear from the District Attorney.15 (Witnesses approached witness16 table.)17

Good18 morning. Welcome.19

Thank you, Madam20 President.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 Please identify yourself for the record.23

Yes, indeed. My24 name is Lynne Abraham, L-Y-N-N-E,25 51 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 A-B-R-A-H-A-M. I'm the District Attorney2 of this great city, the City of3 Philadelphia, and I'm pleased to be here4 before you. In a few moments you5 probably will hear from the gentleman on6 my right, whose name is Al Toczydlowski,7 and he'll spell his name for the record,8 and John Delaney, the Deputy for our9 Trial Division.10 Madam President, this is the11 eighteenth time I've appeared before this12 Committee, and each one has been not only13 interesting, but highly rewarding and14 informative. I wanted to thank you,15 Madam President, for your leadership and16 your care with regard to conducting these17 hearings, and I want to thank you as well18 as your Councilmembers for giving me and19 members of my office a fine-tuned ear to20 the problems that face the City of21 Philadelphia.22 I have been really blessed to23 have been the leader of an office whose24 unsung heroes are the hundreds of25 52 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 district attorneys assistants who every2 day go into court and battle for the3 rights of victims and to help to make the4 City safer. These men and women have5 dedicated their lives to public service,6 and I wanted to, if I could, in some7 other way showcase their extraordinary8 talents, but perhaps during the course of9 my remarks today, some of the talent may10 be showing through, either through the11 voice of the deputies who are here with12 me or through other means. But I do need13 to make sure that the record reflects14 that these men and women are just15 remarkable public servants.16 I have previously submitted to17 Council a copy of my full budget18 testimony, which I would ask the court19 reporter to, if Council President20 pleases, make a part of the record so21 that it is put into the record in its22 entirety.23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 Absolutely.25 53 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

Is that2 acceptable?3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:4 Absolutely.5

Well, for the6 last time, I'm here to ask you to7 consider what I believe to be one of the8 most disastrous budget cuts in the9 history of the District Attorney's10 Office. I would have hoped that the last11 time I appeared before this Council I12 wouldn't have to engage in this kind of13 discussion and that we could all join14 hands and sing songs and the people of15 Philadelphia be happy about the budget16 situation, but, unfortunately, I'm unable17 to do that, and that is really because18 I'm asking this body to once again reject19 out of hand Mayor Nutter's proposed20 budget of a 22 percent cut in the21 District Attorney's Office budget from22 the amount that you appropriated last23 year. 5 I remember listening to the6 Mayor standing behind you at the podium7 saying that on many occasions he heard8 the people speaking. He said, I hear you9 loud and clear. The public said loud and10 clear they wanted more police, but they11 were never asked if they wanted to put12 the people whom the police were arresting13 in custody or in some appropriate program14 or how much their safety was worth to15 them. 18 The Pew Charitable Trust's19 latest report issued just a few weeks ago20 still ranks crime as the number one21 overarching concern of the citizens of22 Philadelphia. 1 worldwide, but a continuing loss of our2 population, we can simply no longer3 sustain the things that are going on4 right now with this population loss, and5 part of the population loss is driven by6 a number of factors and one of which is7 crime. 6 percent. 19 There has been some, I have to20 call it, drivel, because I don't21 understand what it is. Association budget harmless. Now, I have to parenthetically4 say that I'm the first one that says that5 we need a robust criminal justice system6 with prosecutors and defenders, and on7 most occasions, we have hundreds of8 meetings with the Defender Association,9 which nobody ever hears about. We10 quietly either agree or disagree on a11 variety of issues and we go about our12 business. 518 million he received in targeted grants19 from the United States government, which20 has already been received, and the21 millions he's going to receive from the22 COPS targeted federal funds very shortly,23 which will pay for the Police Department24 or new recruits. 1 reflect the $2 million that we've saved2 just the first quarter of this year by3 transferring prisoners to the state4 prison, where they have belonged all5 along, and the $9 million roughly that6 we're going to be saving the City from7 the rest of the transfers from the county8 prison, where only we pay for them, to9 the state prison. And we have lots more10 testimony to offer about the prison11 package, which my office wrote and12 lobbied for and got passed. 22 Twenty-five million dollars from the23 $32-plus million that you appropriated24 for FY09 -- I'm sorry. 1 her telephone conversation. 2 I'm sorry, Councilwoman. I was3 distracted by your telephone4 conversation. 5 I started to say that I really6 don't understand the Budget Office coming7 before City Council and representing that8 the budget proposals that they have9 submitted for our office is a 12 percent10 budget reduction. If you do the math,11 $25 million for this coming year, FY10,12 from 32 million, which you appropriated13 last year in '09, Fiscal Year '09, is14 not, never can be and never will be 1215 percent. 3 percent. 4 percent for24 '09. 3 So if you look at it total,4 it's probably five times the cut of the5 Public Defender's Office. And here's6 what's really distressing: Four percent7 cut for them, 22 percent for us.

That8 largesse is difficult to understand even9 if the Public Defender's Association,10 which does a good job, were a public11 office with responsibilities equivalent12 to that of the District Attorney's13 Office, but in fact these lawyers,14 although referred to as public defenders15 or previously, as you heard, voluntary16 defenders, are public only in the sense17 that they're paid with our money. 6 The District Attorney's Office,7 on the other hand, handles 100 percent of8 the cases. S. taxpayers,11 $8 million additional for court-appointed12 private counsel, which doesn't even cover13 privately retained lawyers -- who knows14 what private lawyers get paid for15 representing their clients -- $55 million16 for defense counsel, not including17 privately retained counsel, which we18 don't know the figure for obviously, and19 25 million for the District Attorney's20 Office. public on many occasions that we can look2 for. The Mayor has suggested that we4 can close all this budget shortfall by5 forfeiture money. 3 million in our8 forfeiture account, except that he9 neglected to tell anybody that 5 million10 of that is the Philadelphia Police11 Department's and 300,000 of that belongs12 to the District Attorney's Office to fund13 our narcotics program. 16 The Mayor's plan to cut the17 budget based on anticipated forfeiture18 funds is not only clearly illegal, but he19 asks you to also commit a crime as what20 he is proposing he would do if he were to21 anticipate forfeiture funds. 1 states, and I quote, "The entity having2 budgetary control shall not anticipate3 future forfeitures or proceeds therefrom4 in adoption and approval of the budget5 for the district attorney," period. 10 We don't know in advance11 whether or how much forfeitable property12 may be seized by police officers or13 detectives. 16 By asking Council to consider17 state forfeiture funds as the reason for18 slashing the DA's budget, as I mentioned19 before, the Mayor is asking you to join20 him in violating the law. 1 office is grounded very wisely in several2 considerations. 12 This cannot be the way we run our13 business. Both state and federal laws14 were drafted with a view towards avoiding15 this inevitable peril if you follow what16 the Mayor wants you to do. 22 So what's going to happen if23 the budget is cut by $7 million? 1 our budget for 100 percent of the2 cases -- and that's about 73,000 cases3 last year up, not down. The arrest rate4 has gone up, not down. About 90 percent5 is Class 100, or salaries. 8 It's the thousands and thousands and9 thousands of cases of petitions, pretrial10 motions, post-trial motions, intermediate11 motions, violations of probations,12 investigations, appeals and everything13 else that our office covers, from soup to14 nuts, from beginning to end. That cut15 would mean that more cases will be16 dismissed, more inability to investigate17 matters because of cutting in18 investigations and pretrial preparation,19 longer delays in trying cases because20 fewer lawyers have more cases to try. 1 population going up, more lawsuits. 8 Victim witnesses services,9 including restitution assistance, court10 accompaniment, transportation, will be11 greatly scaled back. House stealing,12 contractor fraud all have to be13 terminated. This Council initiated an14 investigation into so-called house15 stealing. It took us over a year to16 investigate house stealing in this city,17 and we only scratched the surface of a18 very few cases, maybe about 85. 1 crimes, which we had to raise in the2 past, will even go higher. 10 All of the courts that you11 heard Ms. 13 Drug Treatment Court, Community Court,14 Gun Court, DUI Court, Mental Health Court15 would all have to be subject to16 elimination. And, unfortunately, the DUI17 Court right now can't even accept any new18 people, because the two probation19 officers who are assigned to it have more20 cases than they're supposed to have. So21 even that is grinding to a halt.

4 So from a fiscal perspective5 alone, a 22 percent cut in the DA's6 budget is going to cost more than it7 saves. 11 It doesn't shrink. I don't believe that12 this economy will increase the number of13 homicides, although that is a potential,14 but what is happening, as we can see, is15 gun sales have just gone through the16 roof. 18 Eleven thousand one hundred and19 forty-three cases await trial, up from20 8,000 last year, because more people are21 being arrested. Four hundred and22 fifty-three homicide cases are awaiting23 trial. 1 Court. Seventy-three thousand two2 hundred fifty-eight arrests last year,3 2008, up, not down, from 2007. 7 I think that there's a better8 and, if I may say so, a fairer way to9 allocate scarce resources, and as you10 have heard both from the courts and a11 little bit from the Public Defender, the12 Criminal Justice Advisory Board. The13 Criminal Justice Advisory Board, we were14 one of the last jurisdictions in the15 Commonwealth to have it. We think it's a16 good idea. It brings all the important17 heads of most of the departments, not18 everybody certainly, but it's sort of19 like a modern-day version of the Criminal20 Justice Coordinating Committee, which I'm21 sure Your Honors are well aware of. 1 which has no binding effect on City2 Council whatsoever, but one of the3 mandates of the CJAB is to coordinate and4 to allocate a better way of responsibly5 allocating monies passed down through us6 or to us so that we can have an effective7 criminal justice system. 8 It's not an ad hoc body. We work9 together as a system. 20 Now, I understand about the21 voting. 1 her budget will be cut by the amount I2 suggested in our resolution. 7 I have agreed to take a huge8 bite out of my budget of about somewhere9 between 9 and 10 percent. I don't want10 to give that money up. I'd fight like a11 tiger if I knew I could keep it, but I'm12 not willing to give up 22 percent while13 everybody else gets increases or14 virtually no decrease. 1 hopes that people would leave, but nobody2 has left, because there are no jobs. In3 fact, we have more people volunteering or4 wanting to volunteer that we have space5 to put them. We can't train them and we6 can't keep them. 17 Now, I'm not saying there's not18 going to be any pain. There will be lots19 of pain, and we won't be able to be as20 creative as we'd like to be. 4

Thank5 you.6

Thank you, ma'am.7

Thank8 you very much.9 The Chair recognizes Councilman10 Goode.11

Thank you,12 Madam President.13 Good afternoon, Madam District14 Attorney.15

Good afternoon,16 sir.17

We have not18 always agreed, and we probably won't19 agree today.20

That's okay.21

But I will22 take this opportunity to commend you on23 your long years of public service.24

Thank you. I25 74 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 appreciate that.2

I am3 somewhat aware of your record dating back4 to 1972. You were head of the5 Redevelopment Authority --6

Correct.7

-- under8 Mayor Frank Rizzo.9

Correct.10

I also note11 that in 1972 you were a finalist for12 Outstanding Young Leader of the Year of13 young JCs.14

Correct, right15 behind your father.16

But you lost17 that one.18

Yes, indeed.19

The20 runner-up in that was a young congressman21 named Bill Green.22

You bet.23

But he lost,24 too. The outstanding young --25 75 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

I had nothing to2 do with that.3

The4 outstanding young leader that year was a5 young community developer named Wilson6 Goode.7

That's right.8

And 37 years9 later, I raise that for a reason. Not10 just because you have the sons of all11 three here that will be questioning you12 today, but because 37 years later, you13 are the District Attorney of the City.14 My father spends a lot of time15 in prisons across this country.16

I know that.17

And he has a18 different story about fathers and sons.19 In fact, he tells a story about men who20 have met their sons in prison, some of21 whom wait to meet their grandsons in22 prison.23 So the question I ask first24 today is, if we have two or three25 76 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 generations in prison, is the criminal2 justice system broken, not just here but3 nationwide?4

Well, I have to5 say the criminal justice system isn't6 broken per se. We strive always to try7 to make improvements in the criminal8 justice system, but if you are looking at9 the fathers and sons that I believe your10 father is talking about, I'm very well11 aware of the Amachi Program. And by the12 way, you forgot to mention that I worked13 for City Council, too. So I wanted to14 throw that in too, that I worked here as15 well.16 Just so you know, I did the17 study for City Council that recommended18 40 years ago that the Youth Study Center19 be torn down. My recommendation finally20 has borne fruit. Every time I look at21 that magnificent open space, I say, My22 report did it, just 40 years late.23 The people that your father is24 talking about, and in particular in our25 77 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 prison system, are not the people who are2 there for minor offenses. They are there3 for a variety of very serious crimes,4 frequently, but not always, homicides,5 aggravated assaults, robberies and a6 whole host of serious, violent repeat7 offenses, sexual assaults and so forth.8 Our prison is --9

And you know10 that off the top of your head?11

I beg your12 pardon?13

You know14 that off the top of your head?15

Sure. Look, do I16 speak to every father and every son in17 prison? No. There are seven million18 people under probation, parole or in19 prison in this country, two million in20 custody and about five million on21 supervised parole or probation. That22 figure I think is pretty solid. But if23 you look at our own local jail as a24 microcosm of that, I have some25 78 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 interesting figures, because I know that2 the --3

But my4 question was in the context of having5 two --6

It's not broken.7

Next8 question is, from your experience, where9 should we be investing to stop that10 cycle?11

I'll tell you12 where I think you should be investing.13 From the very moment that a young unwed14 mother conceives, there should be, not15 from the DA's Office, intense social16 services poured into poor and underserved17 communities to try to get young women,18 young girls into prenatal care from19 physicians and how to be a mom. It's not20 just procreating. It's how to be a real21 mother.22 I think that I would try to23 instill in people the concept of a24 family, a family meaning a father and a25 79 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 mother, if not living together, at least2 socially connected, a whole host of3 social programs that invest in the child,4 loving a child, inculcating a child,5 raising a child well --6

In that we7 don't --8

All those things.9

In that we10 don't disagree.11 So what is the role of the12 Criminal Justice Advisory Board in13 stopping that cycle?14

Well, the15 Criminal Justice Advisory Board has that16 as its function, looking at the criminal17 justice system to see if there are18 different ways of approaching a variety19 of issues. For example --20

I'm talking21 about specifically stopping that cycle of22 generations of people in prison.23

I don't know that24 the Criminal Justice Advisory Board has25 80 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that as a central function. However, if2 there were funding that would direct our3 attention to certain aspects of the4 criminal justice system, we would address5 them.6

My question7 again is, what is the role of the8 Criminal Justice Advisory Board in9 stopping that cycle in terms of10 generations going to prison?11

Well, I don't12 know that the Criminal Justice Advisory13 Board has that role at all.14

Well, that's15 why I'm sort of curious about why you're16 making recommendations on other people's17 budgets.18

Well, because the19 Criminal Justice Advisory Board has20 requirements, and I'll read them to you.21 It proves analysis of the problem;22 planned, produces the data and analysis23 needed to improve decision-making. It24 improves communication, cooperation and25 81 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 coordination. It has clear goals,2 objectives and priorities, more effective3 allocation of resources, which provides a4 framework for resource allocation --5

And --6

Hold on. I'm not7 finished.8

None of that9 is going to stop generations from going10 to prison.11

I'm not finished.12 It improves programs and services which13 may have that effect. It improves14 capacity and quality of personnel.15

But none of16 that is going to stop generations from17 going to prison?18 (Bell rung.)19

Well, it might20 have some effect, but I don't know what21 you're driving at.22

I'm talking23 about the fact that you're making24 recommendations as part of a budget25 82 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 process. I can understand you making2 recommendations about your own budget. I3 don't understand you making4 recommendations about other budgets,5 particularly for a criminal justice6 system that is broke.7

Well, it is in8 our bylaws and it's part of the benefits9 of a Criminal Justice Advisory10 Commission.11

As long as12 there are generations of people going to13 prison, the criminal justice system is14 broke.15

No. The criminal16 justice system is not broken because17 people go to prison. People go to prison18 because they commit crime. They commit19 crimes against society, which society20 says, Look, we've tried diversions, we've21 tried treatment, we've tried mental22 health, we've tried intervention. We23 can't put up with it anymore.24 Part of our national problem is25 83 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that we do have to isolate people who are2 so repetitive, so violent and so3 predatory that we have to lock them up4 and put them out of the company of5 civilized society. That's what every6 society does. We have --7

Every8 society does not do that, and your9 characterization of all those people in10 prison I don't believe is correct.11

Well, okay. We12 can differ on that.13

Lastly, I14 will just say jail doesn't work either15 and it's very costly for us right now.16

Well, I'll tell17 you something, Councilman, if you ask the18 people in any community that you go to,19 any community --20

Citywide.21

Citywide. That's22 what I said, any community.23

I'm24 at-large.25 84 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

I know that.2 Citywide, you say, What is the price of3 your safety and security? They would say4 it's incalculable.5 What do we do with the worst6 offenders --7

Those8 criminals are released on the street9 anyway.10

That doesn't mean11 a thing. That doesn't mean a thing.12

They return13 to communities anyway.14

It doesn't mean a15 thing. It means that people want the16 worst offenders in our midst to be17 isolated from the rest of us so that we18 can live in a society that is as much19 free of crime as we can possibly make it.20

Madam21 District Attorney, thank you again for22 your service. The issue of the criminal23 justice system being broken is not just a24 local issue. It's broken nationwide.25 85 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Thank you.2

It is not broken.3

It4 absolutely is.5

It is certainly6 not broken.7

Thank you,8 Madam President.9

It can always10 stand for improvement, but our justice11 system, presided over by our courts, is a12 society of laws. It's not a society of13 men. I'm a servant of the law. The law14 says what a person does, and a person is15 supposed to follow the law. When people16 can't follow the law and they are17 lawbreakers, they live outside of the18 law, and the punishment for the most19 severe of those is to put you in prison,20 we hope so that you will repent, and21 maybe through your father's program some22 of them will repent, but that isn't a23 guarantee.24

(Councilman25 86 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 speaking without microphone.)2

Well, we can3 argue that some other time. It doesn't4 affect the budget one iota. People who5 are in prison in our prison system are6 there because --7

At $100 a8 day.9

-- they should be10 there.11 Well, yes. Well, ask12 Mr. Wilson, who got stabbed last night,13 whether the person who stabbed him should14 go to prison for $100 a day, when he's15 going to leave the City, sell his16 business and leave his neighborhood.17

Not everyone18 should. Not everyone should.19

I didn't say20 everybody should. I said those who are21 repeat violent repetitory offenders ought22 to be isolated.23

With that we24 agree.25 87 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

I2 guess that debate is over with.3 I would like to invite the4 Budget Director to come up to the table,5 please.6 (Witness approached witness7 table.)8

Good afternoon.9

Good10 afternoon.11 You have heard the District12 Attorney testify, and I will say that13 year after year when she has been asked14 to make sacrifice and cut her budget, she15 has willingly done so. I cannot16 understand in my wildest imagination how17 we can cut a department such as the DA's18 Office by $7 million. And I don't mean19 to add oil to the fire, but under the B20 Plan, she would be actually cut by21 another $4 million. How can anybody22 function an office with cuts of that23 size? It's totally, totally impossible.24 How do we rectify this problem?25 88 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

Well, if I may,2 Madam President, going back to the3 numbers themselves, there is a bit of a4 confusion about the numbers. The revised5 budget that was brought forward by the6 Mayor in November made a reduction in the7 District Attorney's budget of 1.48 million. All of those reductions at the9 time were for six months of the current10 fiscal year that ends June 30th. That11 cut had to be annualized as part of the12 FY10.13 When you do the annualization,14 the actual cut for that is about a four15 percent cut. So there is 1.4 million16 commencing January 1 of 2009 as part of17 the rebalancing for FY09. When we18 annualized those cuts, that meant another19 1.4 million was reduced for FY10, and the20 starting point for that was then21 approximately $28.9 million for their22 budget for FY10. The 4 million reduction23 from that number gets us to the 24.924 million for FY10. That reduction is25 89 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 about a 13 percent reduction.2 Now, I think Mr. Gillison, the3 Deputy Mayor, should talk to you with4 respect to the policy implications of5 that, but with respect to the budget, one6 of the reasons we looked for a more7 sizable cut in FY10 is that the cut that8 was taken as part of the revision to the9 FY09 for the District Attorney was a10 rather small cut in comparison to other11 departments in the City, whether it was12 libraries, whether it was Police, Fire,13 both on a dollar basis and on a14 percentage basis, and that was the reason15 why we looked for a larger cut of not 2116 percent -- unfortunately, that math is17 not correct -- but for a 13 percent cut,18 and that's what we did.19

Point of20 information.21

Point of22 information.23

The24 Chair recognizes -- who am I going to25 90 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 recognize first?2

Point of3 information.4

Yes.5 The Chair recognizes Councilman Green.6

I just have7 a simple question for the Budget8 Director.9 If you take the FY09 authorized10 budget, you compare it to the11 Administration's FY10 proposed budget,12 what is the percentage decrease in the13 amount suggested for the DA's Office?14

I don't have15 that calculation. I'd have to go do that16 for you, but --17

Well --18

-- in --19

I have a20 calculator.21

Well, I do too,22 but in response, remember that the FY0923 budget does not represent a full year24 reduction. So it's not an25 91 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 apples-to-apples comparison.2

Mr.3 Agostini, it's a simple question. The4 answer is 22 percent.5 Thank you, Madam Chair.6

It's not on an7 annualized basis, so it's an incorrect8 comparison.9

Why10 is the Deputy Mayor not here since he11 could explain policy?12

Madam President,13 I don't know. We've been trying to get a14 hold of him this morning, and we are15 endeavoring to get him over here.16

You17 know, we're supposed to be interested in18 public safety. This floors me. It19 floors me.20 I believe that you were going21 to say something after the Budget22 Director spoke.23

Well, he just24 agreed with me. They took 1.40922525 92 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 million from last year, and because it2 was so late in the year, we said, If we3 take ten percent, we'll be out of4 business.5 He said, Okay, we'll cut it6 five percent, 1.409225 million. Then7 they want for this year $5.6350988 million. That's $7 million. It's 229 percent. I don't care whether you10 annualize it or you stand on your head.11 It's 22 percent. You can't cut it any12 thinner than that. Twenty-two percent is13 22 percent. It's not 18 percent. I14 don't understand this fuzzy math stuff.15

The16 Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.17

Thank you,18 Madam President.19 I'm truly going to miss the20 exchanges between you and my colleague,21 Wilson Goode, and I would hope somewhere22 somehow in some forum you might continue23 that on an academic-only basis, because24 truly there's two different sides of25 93 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 opinion that both need to be heard from2 to create what I think is the balance of3 public policy that we need to have.4 Having said that, I want to5 congratulate you on your years of service6 to us. I can too remember some of the7 times in which you have and years in8 which you have made a difference both in9 the justice department here in10 Philadelphia, but also in communities.11 I've seen you at small community forums12 walking it like you talked it and willing13 to exchange and try to make people's14 lives better who are also victims of15 crime, and I think it's important that we16 note that here in Council today.17

Thank you,18 Councilman.19

I would like20 to go on and say would it surprise you21 that the criminal element in the City of22 Philadelphia is keenly aware of our23 budget problems and our budget24 constrictions and are conducting their25 94 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 business accordingly? Would that be a2 surprise to you, that they understand our3 process as well as we do?4

Not really.5

And what I'm6 hearing is, they know how because of the7 time delays and because of our8 overcrowding problems, how many times9 they can duck court, how many times they10 can avoid coming in before it becomes a11 serious matter, and, in fact, they know12 how much -- and I hear this in barber13 shop chat around the City of14 Philadelphia -- they know that if you15 commit this crime at this level, that the16 probable plea out is going to be this,17 that or the other outcome and, therefore,18 are able to plot their kind of progress19 in their field of endeavor, which is20 crime, based on that knowledge. Would21 that be a surprise to you?22

No. They23 probably missed the lecture by Reverend24 Goode.25 95 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

I won't go2 there, but what I will say is that one of3 the issues that I have been advocating4 for as a cost reduction process is the5 alternate sentencing, the alternate6 judicial process of community courts, and7 one of the redeeming qualities that we8 heard in this Council from Red Hook, New9 York where they practiced this is that,10 A, everyone gets sentenced to something11 that is found guilty, that you don't walk12 away without any kind of remedial13 punishment and/or treatment, and I'm14 thinking that it goes a long way in15 reducing, A, separating the weak from the16 chafed, if you would, from non-violent17 offenders to violent offenders that need18 a more intensive treatment, such as19 prison, and I wanted to get your20 reflections on that.21

Could I ask a22 question of you, Councilman? When you23 say "Community Court," is that a term of24 art or -- there is a Community Court in25 96 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Philadelphia, as you know, which is, I2 think, on the chopping block, but that3 court was modeled after the New York4 court. Ms. Greenlee or one of her5 representatives and I --6

Red Hook.7

Yeah, Red Hook.8 We went there to New York to see the9 Community Court. That's for usually10 first-time non-violent offenders who get11 HIV treatment, mental health treatment,12 psychiatric treatment, job training,13 health counseling, and it's a14 non-punitive court. It diverts cases15 from the criminal justice center, and the16 notion is to try to get people to get17 back on the right track.18 But there are also other courts19 like Drug Treatment Court where you plead20 guilty and you go into drug treatment,21 which is not an easy thing, for, again,22 non-violent offenders, who really want to23 get their act together and they can go to24 Drug Treatment Court where, after they25 97 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 complete the program, go to job training2 and go to jobs, their record is expunged.3 We also have the Domestic4 Relations Court where there's pretrial5 anger management and supervision6 involving that kind of program, where we7 hope that the person who is threatening8 his significant other isn't going to9 resort to violence.10 There's our Gun Court where we11 try to divert people from the regular12 list so that people can get specialized13 treatment and, if necessary, custody and14 follow-up. These special courts are all15 designed to concentrate our efforts on16 the most hard-core recidivist offenders17 who get the punishment they deserve after18 trial. That means usually state19 incarceration. And there are a whole20 host of other programs that we've21 initiated as well. There's a Mental22 Health Court, which is not going to get23 started if our budget is cut, and also24 this AVOP and ARC programs, the25 98 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 consolidation of all the defendant's open2 cases into a review and consolidation and3 the accelerated violation of technical4 probation programs.5

That is6 exactly what I'm talking about. The7 question becomes here in Philadelphia is8 codifying all of those different services9 under one court and trying to get10 multi-jurisdictional courts in local11 communities, and the key of it is local12 communities, because they have a better13 chance of getting folk from the community14 back in the community without that kind15 of centralized justice process that kind16 of moves paper as opposed to rehabs17 people.18 (Bell rung.)19

And let me20 just segue to this, that although murders21 are down I believe 15 percent overall,22 violent shootings are up 30 percent, and23 I wanted to know, in January there's24 going to be a new DA. Is there some25 99 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 advice you can give the City of2 Philadelphia dealing with this increasing3 gun problem that we're facing?4

I just want to5 correct the record. According to the6 statistics we've been provided -- and I'm7 not privy to where yours were --8 homicides are down year to date, but it's9 difficult to extrapolate for the rest of10 the year, because the most violent months11 of June, July, August, the summer months,12 are yet upon us. They're down around ten13 percent, but shootings are up four14 percent.15

Okay.16

That's the latest17 figures.18

Well,19 according to the records I have, in20 November of last year this time, we had21 121 shootings that month. During22 Christmas, we had 130 shootings,23 non-fatal, that month. First of the24 year, 114 shootings that month.25 100 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 February, 101, non-fatal. March, 117.2 My point to you is, are we3 experiencing a downturn in murders or are4 we experiencing people that can't shoot5 straight?6

Well, I'll tell7 you, I think the truth of the matter is8 we are experiencing some small, but not9 insignificant, decrease. However, I10 think the single most important feature11 of our homicide and shooting rates is our12 trauma teams and our wonderful hospitals.13 If we didn't have great trauma surgeons14 at Penn and Temple and other first-class15 trauma centers, our homicide rate would16 be right through the roof. What turns a17 homicide into an assault with intent to18 kill or aggravated assault is frequently19 a great surgeon, and we have great20 surgical interventions, and that's really21 what does it.22 Sometimes people will shoot --23 and now is the normal case -- multiple24 times and not hit their target at all or25 101 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 just hit one time. You can look at the2 litter on the street and find 40, 50 or3 100 shell casings with perhaps only one4 or two people being shot, but the5 neighborhood rendered paralyzed.6 So I don't know what to make of7 it. I think it's really dangerous to try8 to extrapolate. Nobody really knows why9 people don't shoot one day and shoot the10 next. It's one of those things. It's11 poor impulse control. It's a whole bunch12 of other things. But I don't take any13 great comfort that for a short period of14 time our crime goes up. If you look at15 our crime waves over the years, it goes16 up and down and up and down, and17 sometimes there's just no explanation for18 it, but it doesn't mean that the criminal19 justice system is broken.20

My last21 question was, in January we're going to22 have a new DA.23

Yes, sir.24

If you had25 102 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 some advice for them facing what we're2 about to face in the City of Philadelphia3 when it comes to dealing with your4 office's duties, what would that advice5 be?6

Well, I wouldn't7 presume to give anybody, including the8 next District Attorney, advice. I think9 that's for him to grapple with, but I10 would say this, that a 22 percent budget11 cut means that the services that any12 District Attorney would be able to render13 to the citizens of Philadelphia would be14 so far diminished, that taking your15 previous comment, the defendants would16 have a field day. And we're not dealing17 with a stupid population. I think18 because some people think that some of19 our defendants are not particularly well20 educated translates into stupid. Quite21 the contrary. They know how to game the22 system pretty good. They know exactly23 what they're doing, and I think that that24 means that criminal defendants now have a25 103 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 real big leg up on victims, and that just2 means they further engage in predatory3 conduct in our neighborhoods. That just4 increases people's concern. It weakens5 our business rating. It weakens our life6 quality. It makes people want to leave7 faster. It concerns our school system.8 It concerns every system.9 It's not just the District10 Attorney's Office. As I tried to explain11 to Councilman Goode, it's the criminal12 justice system. That's what the CJAB is13 for, to make it work in a systemic,14 thoughtful way that gets the most15 benefit.16 But I think the next District17 Attorney is going to have his hands full18 with all kinds of issues, and,19 unfortunately, some of them are promising20 pie in the sky, putting prosecutors out21 in the community. They're not going to22 have any prosecutors to put out in the23 community. They won't even have24 prosecutors to put in court. Really25 104 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 silly.2

Thank you,3 Madam President.4 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:5 You're welcome.6 I see that the Deputy Mayor7 Gillison has arrived. I would ask him to8 please join us at the witness table.9 (Witness approached witness10 table.)11

Good12 afternoon.13 DEPUTY

Good14 afternoon, Madam Chair.15

I16 don't know if you heard the District17 Attorney's testimony at all.18 DEPUTY

I have19 not. I've been at a reentry opening that20 we've had at Goodwill down at 7th and21 Callowhill putting people who are22 ex-offenders back to work in order to23 help with the Mayor's program. So I have24 not, but --25 105 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

Well,2 that's wonderful.3 Now, can you tell us how the4 Administration arrived at the decision to5 cut the District Attorney's budget by 226 percent when no other law enforcement7 agency was cut by that amount?8 DEPUTY

Well, I9 was able to -- and I thank the District10 Attorney for providing the testimony11 early on. I did read it this morning. I12 know that there has been previous13 testimony given by the Budget Director14 indicating that we do not agree as far as15 certain beginnings and end, but putting16 that aside, whether it's a 22 percent17 cut, a 20 percent cut or whatever, what18 we have tried to do from the beginning is19 to take a look at all of the partners in20 the criminal justice area and to look at21 what their needs are and to look at where22 they will be able to have access to23 funds. The best way to do this -- and I24 think that the District Attorney25 106 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 referenced it in her testimony -- was2 that there were going to be grants3 funding that would be available to the4 District Attorney with the support of5 this Administration, and that's something6 that we are very, very happy and have7 been waiting for the District Attorney to8 actually propose how she would actually9 be able to use certain funds that are10 available.11 She's talked about in her12 testimony, I believe, that the Mayor has13 access to certain Burn funds for grants14 that have come as a result of the15 economic -- or the American Recovery Act16 and that we or he has available --17

Is18 that guaranteed?19 DEPUTY

The20 money that she has referenced in her21 testimony is guaranteed, yes, it is. We22 have $13.5 million that we're going to23 try to allocate fairly within the24 criminal justice area. We have pledged25 107 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 as a way of seeing that CJAB is going2 together, that we are able to go forward3 in working together in making4 recommendations. Those are things --5

Is6 that money budgeted in the detail?7 DEPUTY

It is8 not because we just got that money in the9 last, I guess, last six weeks from the10 matter. So it is not budgeted in the11 detail at all.12

And13 when was the budget presented?14 DEPUTY

As I15 sit here right now, I don't -- I guess it16 was a little bit over -- right after that17 matter went forward is when we received18 the money from the Congresspersons who19 made it available through the Burn local,20 and that we have advertised to all of our21 criminal justice partners to come forward22 with suggestions. We have received23 various suggestions from the courts.24 We've received suggestions from the25 108 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Police. We received suggestions from2 reentry and the Prisons, and we've3 extended, because the deadline is May4 18th, we've extended an opportunity for5 everyone to actually come forward and6 give suggestions so that we can work7 collaboratively in making sure that we're8 meeting various needs. That's part of9 the process that we're going forward and10 that's --11

I'm12 sorry. You say the deadline is May 18th?13 DEPUTY

Yes.14 That's correct.15

The16 deadline for what? Applying?17 DEPUTY

The18 deadline for us actually detailing how we19 are going to utilize the funds that are20 available to us is May 18th.21

Point of22 information.23

Yes.24 Did you ever notify the DA's Office of25 109 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that?2 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:3 Absolutely. It's been a part of our4 discussions at CJAB for two weeks.5

You know what, I6 must be in an alternative universe.7 Sarah Hart, Al Toczydlowski, John Delaney8 and I, either all at once or at various9 times, have been to every CJAB meeting.10 As a matter of fact, contrary to what Mr.11 Gillison says now, at the CJAB meeting he12 said that the $13.4 million was heavily13 weighted to the Police Department. He14 never extended us an invitation to apply15 for anything, and you can ask Mr.16 Toczydlowski, you can ask Sarah Hart, you17 can ask John Delaney.18 This is a mystery to us. The19 grants that we are trying to get are20 federal monies that we compete against21 everybody else in not only the world but22 in Pennsylvania, and we cross our fingers23 and hope that we'll get some money, but24 nothing is guaranteed to us. And I have25 110 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to tell you, I listen carefully at all2 these CJAB meetings and take good notes.3 He has never said to us, ever, we can4 apply for some of that $13 million and5 they'll give it to us.6 DEPUTY

I said7 that -- and I will stand on what has been8 stated that has been taken both in the9 notes and everything else. As we ended10 up going forward, there are several11 different pots of money that have become12 available. One of them has been the13 money that has come under the Burn14 local -- Burn grant that is being15 controlled by PCCD. The District16 Attorney is very well aware of that. We17 are all waiting for additional18 instructions as to how to apply for $4319 million that is controlled by the state.20 Those guidelines have not been made21 available to us, and we are going to seek22 to coordinate the application.23 One of the great things about24 CJAB is that we have been working25 111 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 diligently since August to make sure that2 we as a system are going to go forward in3 coordinating our applications for4 everything that we do. It is not just5 the stove piping that has been the6 hallmark of this area for quite a long7 time. It has been trying to work8 everyone together. I am quite happy to9 hear that the District Attorney is very10 supportive of CJAB and the concept of11 CJAB. The Mayor made that a priority12 when he ran for Mayor, and we have13 implemented that. We have had certain14 very great successes in working together,15 and we will continue to have those16 successes.17 There are certain things that18 we have to do and do together. One of19 them is trying to coordinate and make20 recommendations as to how to use money.21 And the bottom line is, as far as the22 local money that came forward as even her23 testimony does indicate, she's indicated24 that that money is there available to the25 112 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Mayor to, quote/unquote, use any way he2 wants to use it, and one of the things3 that we made and stated at the last CJAB4 meeting, which was only a couple of weeks5 ago, was that we were going to publicize6 all of the things that came forward that7 people have made as far as their8 suggestions, and that once publicized, we9 would ask for information to be given to10 each of us as to how that money should be11 used, and those recommendations will be12 taken to the Mayor.13 Those things have come forward,14 and each of the partners have actually15 put together various things. I received16 those from Dave Lawrence. I received17 those from both the Prisons, the Police18 and everybody else, and for the District19 Attorney to say now that she doesn't20 remember or that she was never given a21 direct invitation, I'll just leave that22 to her statement.23

Well,24 I believe we had Judge Dembe testify last25 113 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 week.2 DEPUTY

That's3 correct. I was here for that.4

I5 don't recall Judge Dembe ever mentioning6 the fact that they were going to be given7 additional monies from this grant. I do8 remember Judge Dembe saying something to9 the effect that if the District10 Attorney's Office were cut, the justice11 system could come to a complete halt.12 DEPUTY

Well, I13 agree --14

You15 heard her say that?16 DEPUTY

Oh,17 absolutely. We agree with all that.18

Now,19 how long will this money be available20 from this grant?21 DEPUTY

The22 grant has to be used over a two-year23 period. For most of the money it's --24 look, $13.5 million is not going to solve25 114 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 anybody's direct or total need. We have2 to be mindful of the fact that we are in3 an economic crisis. The economic crisis4 has resulted in us having to cut budgets5 that we do not want to cut. I mean,6 that's just the reality of it. The issue7 is is that how do we use the money that8 is available to us to target things in9 the best way, and what we have tried to10 do is balance everything that has come11 before us in a way that is targeted to12 use the money in the best way, and we13 believe that the budget that we have put14 forward for all of the various partners15 at least gets us through the tight years.16 And since we're working together -- and I17 want to emphasize that. We are working18 together. We're working together better19 now than we have in quite a long time.20 Everybody has had to give up something.21 I was here when the courts said22 that, you know what, they came up with a23 program, the AVOP program, that puts24 together various matters that allows25 115 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 multiple-hold defendants to be processed2 earlier.3 I know that the video4 technology was not something that was5 embraced by everyone prior to this6 Administration, but that we have been7 able to sit down and talk about how to8 use and expand video technology, and,9 therefore, we're moving forward on that.10 I know that we have had11 problems with electronic discovery for12 quite a long time, and we now have that13 actually moving and moving well, where14 all the discovery is getting to the15 District Attorney's Office faster now16 than it was before.17

Point of18 information.19 DEPUTY

Each of20 those things are being done for us21 working together to help us.22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:23 Excuse me.24 The Chair recognizes Councilman25 116 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Green for a point of information.2

Madam Chair,3 thank you.4 I'm not sure what we're5 discussing here, because for the first6 time we're hearing about revenue that is7 available in FY10 that is not in the8 budget, and so I'd like to get a clear9 explanation from the Administration on10 what exactly is available and what11 exactly we can use it for, because as we12 had discussions with the Sustainability13 Director and with members of the14 Administration consistently since we knew15 there would be extra federal money this16 year, we have pointed out and this body17 has made clear that we get to appropriate18 where that money goes. They're going to19 make the recommendations. We get to20 appropriate. And when they know there's21 a pot of money, they committed to come to22 us and let us know in advance so that the23 decision wouldn't be whatever they24 decided it had to be because we had no25 117 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 input in the process, it was all decided2 in advance. They come to us at the last3 minute and say, This is the only thing we4 got the authorization for, so now you5 have to appropriate it exactly as we say6 or we can't use the money.7 What he is describing is a8 situation where they have known for six9 weeks that money was available that10 Council could appropriate for one purpose11 or another, for the DA's Office, for the12 courts, for the Police, for the Prisons,13 and they have chosen not to make us aware14 of that revenue. They're about to put an15 application in in just 13 days, and we16 cannot -- unless we have input in the17 process now, the Administration will18 decide it doesn't go to the DA's Office,19 it doesn't go the courts.20 So I'd like a clear explanation21 from the Administration as to exactly22 what this money can be used for so that23 we can appropriate it the way we see fit.24

Point of25 118 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 information.2

The3 Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a4 point of information.5

I actually6 saw the press conference. It was7 reported in the news. I've read it in8 the newspaper. The money is not a9 secret. Everyone I think who read about10 it knows about it. And the issue of11 whether we appropriate in this budget or12 not, at the end of the day, the Mayor can13 spend it however he wants after July 1st.14 Thank you, Madam President.15

He cannot16 spend it in any department where we have17 not appropriated funds for him to spend.18 That is the way this process works,19 Councilman.20

Actually,21 I've been here for ten years. I22 absolutely know how this process works,23 and I'm assuming the money has to be24 appropriated according to the federal25 119 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 guidelines so it would go to a place2 where it has to go. Does that make sense3 to you, Councilman?4

We get to5 apply for where it goes, Councilman.6

Does that7 make sense?8

I understand9 what you're saying. Do you understand10 what I'm saying, Councilman?11

Does it make12 sense it has to go to the criminal13 justice budget one way or the other?14

The15 Administration is going to choose on16 their own --17

Thank you,18 Madam President.19

-- where20 this money goes and would have, had we21 not learned of this matter today. It is22 not in the budget.23 It is not in the budget you24 presented to City Council. Now, please25 120 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 explain where the $13.5 million can be2 spent.3

We knew4 about it before. This is not secret5 money.6

However you7 want to characterize it, it's money I8 didn't know about before today,9 Councilman.10

There was a11 public press conference. It was covered12 in the newspapers.13

Maybe I'm14 delinquent in my duties. It's money I15 didn't know before today and I want to16 know what that money is eligible for.17 Where can we spend it?18

Criminal19 justice.20

In any21 department in the system that you just22 mentioned?23

Criminal24 justice.25 121 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 DEPUTY

It's a2 criminal justice. It's a Burn local3 grant. It's something that the City has4 applied for in various areas. Heretofore5 before this Administration, there has6 been -- it has been left to each of the7 various stove pipe areas to try to get8 money. Police would apply. The District9 Attorney's Office would apply. The U.S.10 Attorneys would apply, and it would be a11 competitive grant. I mean, that's the12 way it is. As a result of the additional13 monies coming from the federal14 government, they made additional money15 available to the Administration for the16 same purposes that they have had17 heretofore. It gave us an opportunity.18 We had a very large press conference. I19 believe it was six weeks ago. I'll check20 my calendar. But it was six weeks ago21 when they said that this was becoming22 available. And what we tried to do is23 take the needs that are out there, and24 since this money cannot be used to25 122 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 supplant -- and this is what Mark Alan2 Hughes has been saying from the3 beginning. This is one of those grants4 that can't supplant what we're doing, but5 to be able to invest in things that for6 the future and also to try and see if we7 can help save some jobs. Those are the8 things that we're trying to use.9 We made an announcement at not10 the CJAB meeting that was just in April.11 We actually made the CJAB meeting in12 March where we said if there are things13 that you want to be able to do or you14 want to have recommendations made or how15 the money should be used, please let us16 know, and all the other criminal justice17 partners have actually suggested various18 things that we should invest in.19 We know that we have to bring20 these things to Council. We know that21 that's going to actually have to be done.22 We have to notify --23

If it's24 after the money is authorized, it's sort25 123 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 of irrelevant, because we can't2 appropriate it anywhere that hasn't been3 authorized by the federal government.4 You should have the discussions with us5 in advance.6 DEPUTY

The7 idea was that we were going to try and8 make sure that everyone had an9 opportunity to put together the10 information. We had actually put11 together a notification process that12 after all of the various proposals came13 through, that we would discuss it at CJAB14 so that we would be able to have a15 recommendation be made, and that's the16 way that we were going to do it and we17 were going to actually have that process18 being done.19

So there's20 nothing -- I still don't understand your21 answer. If you can just provide the22 written detail --23 DEPUTY

That's24 not a problem.25 124 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

-- by the2 end of the day so we can take a look at3 this ourselves.4 DEPUTY

Not a5 problem. The Burn --6

I have one7 more point of information. Were you8 helping ex-offenders this morning or were9 you at a press conference?10 DEPUTY

I was11 doing both. There was a helping --12

Thank you,13 Madam Chair.14 DEPUTY

--15 ex-offenders that were down there who16 have gotten jobs under the guise of the17 Goodwill and the Knight Foundation. So18 I've been doing both. Thank you.19

Madam President,20 could I have the microphone back on for a21 moment?22 Thank you. This is just23 drivel, as I said before. He doesn't24 really answer the question. He hasn't25 125 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 explained to you one thing with relation2 to why we are the only people he's cut 223 percent. We've been talking all about4 everything else but, because he can't5 justify it.6 If everybody is going to have7 at this $13 million, which he never told8 us about -- and I'm going to have9 Ms. Vandenbrack-Hart tell you about the10 grant process and the monies in a11 moment -- then he would have cut12 everybody. So why are we the only13 persons to get a 22 percent cut?14 DEPUTY MAYOR GILLISON:15 Everyone was cut.16

Well, you know --17 no, no, no, no. The Public Defender was18 cut 3.7 percent, while we were cut 18.419 percent. And I don't care how you20 annualize it, semi-annualize it or look21 through the microscope at it, it's still22 1.3 million for them and 5.6 million for23 us. And don't you for one minute believe24 that the Mayor is going to give me $5.625 126 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 million. I mean, let's not be playing2 funny games around here with this fuzzy3 math.4 Now, I'd like5 Ms. Vandenbrack-Hart -- I'll put her two6 names together; Sarah Hart for short --7 introduce herself and to give you some8 interesting information.9

Let me just by10 background explain that I spent four11 years running a grant-making agency in12 the Office of Justice Programs, which is13 part of the funding agency here.14 There are four stimulus grants15 that potentially -- three grants that can16 potentially be used under the Burn17 grants, in addition to a COPS fund. The18 13.5 million has been specifically19 allocated to the City of Philadelphia. A20 requirement of that grant is public21 notice and the review by City Council22 before that application is made.23 The CJAB also passed a24 resolution asking specifically to see how25 127 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the Mayor proposed to spend that money.2 So far, they have refused to provide it.3 They still have not agreed to provide it4 to us, but simply seem to say if people5 send us requests, we'll decide.6 Some of the ideas that have7 been put on the table are things like8 shot-spotter technology, things that are9 not proven to work. There are serious10 questions about the proposed expenditure11 here. There needs to be transparency in12 the process. Legally you're entitled and13 the public is entitled to know what this14 money is being spent for. And before15 this money is cut from the District16 Attorney's budget and the rest of the17 criminal justice players, it seems only18 appropriate that this body make an19 informed decision about how that money20 should be spent.21 DEPUTY

And the22 bottom line --23

There's also --24 excuse me, Council President. There's25 128 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 also a billion dollars in COPS money, $12 billion. It's not a piddling amount of3 money. And there are other targeted4 grants that go to various entities and5 agencies.6 We're in the competitive7 business. Nobody is giving money8 earmarked to the District Attorney's9 Office. We're just a little fish in a10 great big pond trying to get the11 attention of anybody who will give us12 money for the programs that we need to13 run the office or which we think will be14 extremely helpful to our crime victims.15 But we're not guaranteed anything by16 anybody, not the Mayor, not the CJAB, not17 the Burn, not the federal government, not18 anybody. It's just as I said.19 This was never brought to us.20 We were never told of it. The money is21 not -- we don't know where the money is22 going, but I can tell you where it's not23 going. It's not going to the District24 Attorney's Office in any amount necessary25 129 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to close the 22 percent slashing that2 this Mayor proposes. And if Mr. Gillison3 thinks that you're fooled by his4 rhetoric, he can't be thinking that,5 because we know he worked for the Public6 Defender's Office for 30 years. He's not7 on our side.8 DEPUTY

Excuse9 me.10

This is --11 DEPUTY

At a12 certain point, the verbiage and what I13 would call -- because what I have tried14 to maintain since taking this position is15 something that I think it's time that16 some things just stop.17 Number one, the issue about18 where I've worked and what I have19 dedicated my life to do, which is to sit20 back and to actually be a voice that is21 not only constitutionally required but is22 necessary for the effective criminal23 justice being done, is something that I24 will never take back or never say that25 130 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 was done in error. Without a district2 attorney being in the room, you can't3 work. Without a public defender in the4 room, you can't work. And let's not get5 too far ahead --6

There's no7 disagreement about that. We're not8 talking about that.9 DEPUTY

So the10 idea that you would say that this11 Administration because of where I have12 cut my teeth for 30 years has taken13 anything other than an equal view of how14 things need to be done, I have examined15 everything that has come from your16 budget, and as I will remind you, is that17 when we asked for all departments to do18 and provide certain information, your19 department chose not to do certain20 things. All we did was say we will work21 on what you were giving us and we will22 work together.23 I have emphasized and this24 Administration has emphasized a25 131 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 collaborative way of going forward. If2 there is something that needs to be done3 in a way, then I would suggest that you4 end up doing like everyone else has, we5 sit down at the table and we hash things6 out and not just, as I would suggest,7 take the verbiage and say that that's8 going to be a way of getting things done.9 It has never impressed me to begin with.10 I think that the best way to do things is11 to collaborate and to sit down and to12 discuss what are needs.13 One of the things that I said14 to you from the beginning is, I thanked15 you when you ended up putting the16 resolution down, because it was the first17 time that your office indicated that it18 could even sustain a cut in an economic19 time when everybody was being cut. So20 the realization that you finally have21 come to, that the office needed to be cut22 because everyone needed to be cut, is23 something that I thanked you for, and24 we're going forward. And as I said to25 132 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 you before, this Administration stands2 ready to help in identifying not only3 sources of funds, but additional funds,4 where the need has been identified and5 where the need -- we can actually make6 the things work. We are going forward on7 this together, because that's the way we8 have to go forward.9 So I would just want to say10 thank you for that particular courtesy.11

Madam President,12 I think Mr. Toczydlowski has a point in13 opposition to what Mr. Gillison just14 represented to Council.15

Point of16 information, Madam President.17

The18 Chair recognizes Councilman Green.19

Thank you,20 Madam Chair.21 You know, I'm not sure pretty22 speeches or debates about what happened23 in the past and how we got to where we24 are today is going to help this body make25 133 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 up our mind about where we have to go2 with what the funding is. So like all3 the water is under the dam, as far as I'm4 concerned. The point is, we are where we5 are. As a practical matter, this Council6 has to introduce a budget by May 14th for7 it to pass by our Charter-mandated time.8 That is not much time. If you guys can't9 work it out in the next week, we can't10 introduce -- we can't do the amendments11 necessary to the budget to get the budget12 passed and give proper notice by May13 31st, which means we're into June, which14 means we're violating the Charter and all15 sorts of things.16 So the fact that we haven't17 had -- I hear you saying you want to help18 with funding, but you guys need to sit19 down and do it now. This isn't a debate20 anymore. There's a week left. Work it21 out with the DA's Office and come back to22 us with something both parties can live23 with, because I can tell you, this body24 is not going to cut the DA's Office 2225 134 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 percent. It's not going to happen. So2 work it out.3 Is there money in this grant4 that's possible? Give some to them. I5 mean, just don't debate here.6 DEPUTY

I'm not7 debating anything. I was asked to answer8 questions.9

You're10 giving speeches about things up here, and11 I don't have enough information to make12 any kind of rational decision about what13 the funding should be for the DA's14 Office. So I'd like to get down to some15 questions about specific things within16 the DA's budget that may be able to help17 save money elsewhere and other things,18 which is why we're here today, but I'm19 very disappointed that according -- and20 I'm sorry. The other person who spoke21 about the May 18th date, could you22 specifically describe for us what is23 required, what approval is required by24 Council prior to the submission of a25 135 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 grant, and then could the President's2 Office or the Administration tell us3 whether or not we've been contacted for4 this approval, and then maybe the5 Administration could tell us when you6 were planning to come to us and get our7 approval, because if it requires an8 ordinance, it's already too late.9 Thank you.10 DEPUTY

It11 doesn't require an ordinance.12

If I may, for the13 record, Sarah Hart.14 Specifically, I can forward to15 you the grants here that -- the specific16 solicitation which has the grant17 requirements in it. It requires review18 by the legislative body. That is a19 deliberately fairly vague term, because20 it's based on what the local practice and21 requirements are. If you're required to22 approve it, that's what's required, but23 it uses the term "review." It requires24 public notice and review by you,25 136 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 submission to you before that is sent to2 the Department of Justice.3

Point of4 information.5

The6 Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.7

I believe at8 first you said approve, then you said9 review, then you said something needs to10 be submitted. What exactly does it say?11

The language in the12 solicitation uses "review."13

So it just14 says "review"?15

But it does not16 preclude --17

So "review"18 means review of policy?19

No; the application.20 It requires the review of the application21 before it is submitted to the Department22 of Justice.23

What does24 that mean in your mind?25 137 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1

In my mind? The2 minimum that the department will require3 is, it has to be sent here before the4 application is submitted in sufficient5 time for your review.6

That makes7 sense to me.8

That does not9 preclude, however, if your local10 requirements require something else, the11 Department of Justice does not trump your12 local requirements, like an ordinance.13

So14 essentially it means we have to review15 it, which means it has to be submitted to16 us for review so we're aware of it?17 DEPUTY

That's18 correct.19

So we are20 now aware of it.21

No. You don't have22 the application yet. None of us have23 seen it.24

Point of25 138 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 information.2

The3 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a4 point of information.5

We have two6 more meetings before the May 18th7 deadline, I believe. When were you8 planning on having a final application9 for our review?10 DEPUTY

Once11 the -- it was our intention to have the12 information prepared and have the review13 by CJAB and then the proposals reviewed14 and then made, and then we would then15 submit for Council's review of the16 application. Right now I don't have an17 application ready for you to review.18

There's only19 one way for the Administration to20 communicate with this body officially21 and, that is, announcements on Thursday22 mornings. There's two Thursdays left.23 When does CJAB next meet?24 DEPUTY

No. We25 139 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 were going to actually do this if it was2 necessary -- and it appears that it would3 be necessary -- once all the proposals4 came through, we were going to put it out5 and have a meeting via e-mail and/or if a6 meeting was necessary, the Chair and I7 decided that we would actually call a8 meeting for that particular purpose. So9 that for the review process, we thought10 that it would be best to have a meeting11 of CJAB so everyone could see what the12 various proposals were and then how to13 actually support and what would need to14 be supported as CJAB as a recommendation15 to the Mayor. We would then put together16 all of those things and put it in the17 application, and then we would notify18 Council, consistent with the review19 process that is in the Burn grant.20

The only way21 you can do that is by eight days from now22 having submitted a completed application23 to this body to be announced from that24 podium. That's the only way you can do25 140 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 it.2

Council, I just3 want you to know, Councilman, the CJAB4 has been asking for the application for5 six weeks. We don't have the next6 scheduled meeting for CJAB yet. So this7 is all -- this is the way this is. So I8 don't know when and, frankly, I don't9 know what your review process is. You10 just look at it and say, Okay, or does --11 and I don't know enough, so I'm asking12 you. Rhetorically. You don't have to13 answer me. But if this requires an14 ordinance, I don't know how you're going15 to do it. If it just requires a cursory16 review or discussion and public notice,17 that's something else.18

It doesn't require19 the approval before this application is20 submitted, but, however, the review has21 to come before the application.22 DEPUTY

That's23 correct.24

That has to occur25 141 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 before. Any later approvals that might2 be required can occur afterwards, but3 review has to be before the application4 is submitted to the Department of5 Justice.6 DEPUTY

That's7 correct.8

Do you9 happen to know under the guidelines if we10 reviewed it and didn't approve of it?11

I think it would be12 bad faith to submit an application that13 they felt the City Council was not going14 to approve.15

Thank you.16

I17 don't know that a question was ever18 answered. I believe it is said that the19 funding will last for two years?20 DEPUTY

Yes.21

How22 about the Five-Year Plan? It's not23 indicated in the Five-Year Plan at all.24 DEPUTY

This25 142 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 was done after the Five-Year Plan. This2 money only came in after the Five-Year3 Plan.4

So5 the Five-Year Plan is going to be6 amended?7 DEPUTY

It8 depends on -- I would think it depends on9 what the application of the money would10 be. For example, if one of the pots of11 money that was used was under the COPS12 grant and if -- there is a requirement13 under the COPS grant that after the -- in14 the outer years, it would really be in15 Year 4 and Year 5, that there would be a16 need to amend the Five-Year Plan, because17 if we get that grant, we would have to18 pick up the full cost of the police19 officers if we should get it. The first20 of the matters with the Five-Year Plan,21 the COPS money only requires -- we would22 believe that we would get a few police23 officers, not anywhere near the numbers24 that we've applied for. We're hoping25 143 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that -- we have heard from the2 Administration in Washington that we3 would get additional opportunities to get4 additional police officers under the COPS5 grant once they have expanded the6 program, but that's going to be for after7 July 1st and not this year.8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:9 Mr. Gillison, if the grant does not come10 forth --11 DEPUTY

If the12 grant does not?13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Approved. If it is not approved, in all15 good conscience, do you think the16 District Attorney can function an office17 without additional monies?18 DEPUTY

As I19 had said from the beginning, we would end20 up providing and trying to provide all21 the monies that we are able to provide in22 this environment.23 I think that they need24 additional money? The answer is yes. I25 144 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 think that most of the people in criminal2 justice need more money, and we are3 looking at every -- in every way that we4 can in order to help provide more money.5