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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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 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
-- 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
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
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
The24 Chair recognizes -- who am I going to25 90 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 recognize first?2
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, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The18 deadline for us actually detailing how we19 are going to utilize the funds that are20 available to us is May 18th.21
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
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
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
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
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
-- 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
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
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
I have one7 more point of information. Were you8 helping ex-offenders this morning or were9 you at a press conference?10 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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