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 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
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
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
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
But6 no office has been cut the way this7 office has.8 DEPUTY
I15 think we have to be very honest with each16 other. Is she going to be made whole if17 in fact the grant is not forthcoming?18 DEPUTY
It19 depends on what you mean by "whole." Is20 she going --21
What22 she was before she was slaughtered.23 DEPUTY
Well --24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 145 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Slaughtered. I'm asking. Do I have an2 answer to the question?3 DEPUTY
My4 question is, we are looking for5 additional funds in order to make sure6 that she can get the money that she can7 get.8
So9 you're asking a question or you're making10 a statement?11 DEPUTY
You14 said, I'm asking a question. What is15 your question?16 DEPUTY
No. I17 don't have a question, ma'am.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:19 Didn't he just say I'm asking a question?20 DEPUTY
If23 this funding does not materialize, what's24 going to happen to the DA's Office?25 146 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 DEPUTY
The one2 thing I will say is that the money that3 we're talking about trying to use to make4 sure that the DA has additional funding5 is money we already have in hand. So the6 money being, quote/unquote, materializing7 is not necessarily a question. We8 already have that money. The question9 is, how much money are they going to be10 eligible for under the grant. That's a11 different question, and how that would be12 able to be used is a different question.13
Who14 is asking for a point of information? I15 see hands are going --16
Madam17 President, I just want to support as a18 member of City Council we need the answer19 to this question. This is not mirrors.20 It's a matter of public safety.21 If in fact the grant doesn't22 come through -- and to have this dropped23 on us about this grant at this point in24 the process just kind of amazes me.25 147 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Mr. Gillison, at what level2 will you commit today to restore the3 District Attorney's budget? That's what4 we need to know, or we're not going to5 get very far here.6 DEPUTY
The7 District Attorney has identified the need8 for somewhere around $29 million. That9 was something that was dealt with under10 the resolution that was passed by the11 CJAB. That $29 million is, as far as I12 can see, much like the courts. I think13 their request was for 106 million and I14 believe the Defender was for another to15 million. So I'm looking for trying to16 see how we can balance all of those needs17 given the money that we currently have.18 If we are unable to do that,19 obviously I'm looking for additional20 money for not only the District Attorney,21 but for all of the criminal justice22 partners.23
Point of24 information.25 148 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
If he wants to2 give me the money and put it in the3 budget, just budget the money. Now,4 remember, the 13.5 million is for two5 years and is for all the criminal justice6 agencies. It's for everybody. There's7 just -- I mean, the simple answer here is8 there. There's just not enough money for9 that two-year program for the District10 Attorney's Office to be made whole.11 We've got a budget reduction of $712 million. That's more than half of the13 $13.5 million that is targeted that the14 City already has in its budget. If the15 Mayor was going to give me the $7 million16 that he cut from my budget, he would have17 picked up the phone and said, Don't worry18 about the 24 million, we're giving you19 the money. I never would have said a20 word about anything. I would have said,21 Madam President, although the budget22 calls for 24.9 million, the Mayor is23 going to budget an additional 7 million.24 Thank you very much and good-bye.25 149 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 This discussion --2 DEPUTY
This is neither5 here nor there.6 The reason he won't answer your7 question is that there isn't any money8 and he can't give it to me, and if there9 was money, I don't know that he would10 give it to me today anyway. And I'm11 talking about Mr. Gillison. I'm not12 talking about the Mayor.13 The fact of the matter is that14 if you're going to cut the District15 Attorney's Office by 22 percent and cut16 people by either three percent or four17 percent or increase by eight percent, the18 CJAB has made the recommendation, which19 we submitted to you. It's not a20 requirement, and Council, frankly, is21 free to disregard it and give us the22 amount of money that you gave us last23 year, $31,987,373. We'd be happy with24 that. But we're trying to be25 150 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 conciliatory.2 But I'm listening to this stuff3 and there's not a single declaratory4 statement in anything that Mr. Gillison5 has said that answers anybody's6 questions, because he can't answer it.7 The Mayor cut the budget by 22 percent.8 There isn't any money that's going to9 make that up. We might get a few dollars10 here or a few dollars there. We may get11 a grant if we're lucky enough to get a12 grant that everybody else is eligible13 for. But this whole process of the CJAB14 has been a big smoke and mirrors thing15 here today. If he had told me six weeks16 ago, Listen, Lynne, you're getting $717 dollars, I wouldn't be here. But he's18 not said that, and we don't even know19 what the money is going for, and we were20 told it was heavily weighted towards21 police technology, not for the District22 Attorney's Office. And everybody was23 there. Judge Dembe was there. Judge24 Presenza was there before he retired.25 151 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Web Keogh was there. I mean, this is2 not -- this is not -- some reporters3 drifted in and out. This is all absurd.4
I7 just have one question I'd like to ask8 Mr. Gillison. Are we allowed to9 supplement City funds with these grant10 funds?11 DEPUTY
Not12 with this particular fund, no.13 Supplantation is not allowed under this14 particular one, which is why we've been15 asking for proposals that can help move16 things forward in a way that we will17 allow them.18 So, for example, Madam19 President, if you end up having a -- for20 example, I know that one of the things21 that the courts have asked for is money22 for community courts to be looked at, and23 part of that was in order to help not24 only with court functions but also to see25 152 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 if we could get money for district2 attorneys, public defenders and3 supportive staff. A new program, not a4 supplantation to the program, but a new5 program. That is something that we6 believe is going to be allowed under the7 grant. So it is not supplanting. It is8 actually money that is used going9 forward. That's the kind of thing that10 we're looking forward to getting, because11 it's not supplanting. It's actually12 putting in a new program, but taking13 money and using it in a way that is more14 efficient, allowing us to get the better15 bang for our buck.16
You know what the17 bottom line is, Madam President? They're18 giving criminal defense attorneys twice19 as much as we're getting. And by20 Mr. Gillison's own admission, they can't21 supplant. They're going to start a new22 program when we won't be able to carry23 out our core functions. Now, what's that24 about? Do you expect me to do a25 153 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 community court when I have violent2 robbers, multiple murderers, shooters,3 stabbers, rapists, sexual predators and4 I'm going to spend my time going in a5 discretionary community court? Not in6 this lifetime. I have to make the City7 safe. I'm not looking to pick the8 low-hanging fruit. In a perfect world,9 have I been lobbying for community courts10 all over the City for the past 12 years?11 Yes. Have I ever gotten it? No. I12 mean, so what are we talking about here?13 What we are talking about, a cut of the14 DA's budget to half what they want to pay15 defending criminals. That's what it16 amounts to.17 And don't try to tell me,18 Mr. Gillison, that this is fair and19 you're going to look for money. If the20 City is short, you're short. You're not21 going to get it from supplanting federal22 dollars for new programs.23 DEPUTY
And the24 idea is, as you're aware, Madam District25 154 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Attorney, is that by freeing up monies2 that we can use with grants, you can3 actually do your core services in a way4 that will be able to provide the services5 that you'll need.6
Well,8 we are trying to budget for it and we're9 trying to budget for it in the best way10 that we can going forward. I mean,11 that's the answer. If we end up getting12 to the end and we are short, we're short13 across the entire criminal justice system14 and we're able to say that we're going to15 be able to do our processes different in16 order to save the money we need to save.17 The bottom line is that in an18 economic crisis, we all have to do things19 differently, and we're trying.20
The23 Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a24 point of information.25 155 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Thank you,2 Madam President.3 Madam District Attorney, did4 you refer to people that go through5 Community Court and diversion programs6 as, quote/unquote, "low-hanging fruit"?7
In the criminal8 justice system, if you're trying to9 compare a person who has --10
I actually11 asked if you used the words "low-hanging12 fruit."13
I can24 clarify the question.25 156 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
No, no. I4 asked a question. I'm clarifying the5 question, Madam President.6 This is our Chambers.7
If you're talking17 about murderers, rapists, sexual18 predators, assaulters and the people who19 make this city absolutely unsafe as20 compared to people who urinate on the21 sidewalk, people who are aggressively22 panhandling, people who have simple23 possession of drugs, they are way down,24 way down on the list of people that I'm25 157 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 going to pay attention to. That doesn't2 mean --3
I just asked4 if you used the term "low-hanging fruit."5
Excuse me.6 Low-hanging fruit means the easy cases.7 It doesn't mean anything disparaging.8 Don't try to make it disparaging when it9 isn't. When you look at the criminal10 justice hierarchy, you're not going to11 put panhandlers in the same level as12 capital murderers. I'm sorry. It13 doesn't work. It's the lower level14 offender who needs the programs, but15 we're not going to be diverted from our16 core functions by paying attention to17 community courts when we're trying to get18 violent offenders off the street.19
Not only do20 I agree with you, but that's what the21 $13.5 million should go towards, the22 low-hanging fruit.23 Thank you, Madam President.24
The $13.5 million25 158 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 has not even been discussed yet.2
The7 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a8 point of information.9
Thank you,10 Madam Chair.11 I have two questions for Deputy12 Mayor Gillison. The first is, about five13 minutes ago, you said, We have the money.14 We have the money. We'll transfer the15 money, whatever the DA needs -- or you16 didn't say whatever the DA needs, but --17 DEPUTY
The20 statement was, We have the money. If we21 need more money, we'll provide the money.22 Where is that money?23 DEPUTY
The24 $13.5 million was allocated to us from25 159 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the --2
No, no.3 This was a comment that was outside of4 the $13.5 million.5 DEPUTY
So you have9 in your mind a secret number that you're10 going to apply to the DA's Office, then,11 because you're saying, We have the money12 or we're going to get them more money.13 That was essentially what you said five14 minutes ago right here. What is the15 secret number?16 DEPUTY
I'm17 waiting for the District Attorney to --18 basically for us to do what I think was19 suggested, which was to sit down -- I20 think you even suggested it -- is to say,21 This is how we think that we can actually22 use this money in a way that will make23 what we need to get done get done. That24 discussion, obviously we've been waiting25 160 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 for that discussion. It has not happened2 at this point, but I'm sure that it will.3 So I don't have a figure in my4 mind right now as I sit here. I have no5 idea. I know that the figure that she6 has given is $29 million, is what she7 feels that she can actually use going8 forward. So now I have that as a9 placeholder in my mind and I will now be10 able to look forward.11 So I think that if you look at12 the $24 million that is currently there13 and if we can use grants or some other14 way to come up with -- or some other way15 of getting to a $29 million figure, we're16 talking about $5 million.17
So we19 have to take a look at how that would be20 done and in what ways that will be done.21
But you've22 testified here today that $24 million is23 not enough for the DA to do their job.24 DEPUTY
I've5 testified that $24 million is where we6 were, and we've always maintained from7 the beginning that we would be seeking8 grant funding to end up helping them9 achieve their matters. That's what we10 said from the beginning.11
It's your12 position that they need grant funding on13 top of the 24?14 DEPUTY
So it would17 be irresponsible of this body to pass a18 budget of only $24 million if you have19 not identified therein the grant funding20 that is going to be given to the DA's21 Office, wouldn't it?22 DEPUTY
And I23 think that one of the things that has24 been consistent with what we've said is,25 162 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the $24 million would be the Class 1002 probably or both. I think it's a little3 bit less than that, but the $24 million4 is where we are. We have always said5 that we were going to help them with6 looking for grants and also getting7 grants. We've been very fortunate, I8 think, to have grants available to us to9 help them, where they're going, forward,10 and I think that once we have that11 further discussion, they will end up12 having a little bit more money than the13 24 million at their base. But that will14 be in grant funding that will help15 supplant -- we've been consistent for the16 past six weeks in saying that this is17 what we're going to do, and we remain18 consistent in that effort.19
I'm20 confused. You're asking us right now21 with what you have before this body to22 pass a budget that you say is not enough23 money for the DA to run their office.24 You've got about five days to get back to25 163 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 us what grant funding is going into the2 DA's Office or where, or you're asking us3 to pass an irresponsible budget. You're4 saying it's not enough money, but you5 want us to appropriate not enough money6 and you'll figure it out later. That's7 irresponsible on our part. I certainly8 won't be party to that kind of9 irresponsible behavior. You need to10 identify the additional funding that's11 coming from grant funding, and then we12 need to hear back from the DA that this13 works.14 DEPUTY
The19 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown. I20 know you've been waiting quite a while.21
Thank you,22 Madam President.23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 You're welcome.25 164 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
It is2 clear we're not going to resolve the FY103 budget at this hour. So if we could4 focus on, for a minute, FY09.5 Let me first seize the moment,6 Madam District Attorney, to also offer my7 personal congratulations to you, because8 I've seen you on the front line and in9 the trenches as well in every10 neighborhood of this city. We appreciate11 the work that you have to do.12
And you15 should know for the record as well that16 I've asked this question of every single17 City department that has come before us18 irrespective of branch of government.19 Whether they're receiving a penny or $1020 million, the question is the same.21 In your FY09 budget of your 3122 million plus dollars, is it true to say23 that 90 percent of your budget is Class24 100?25 165 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
And tell3 us what the other ten percent is used4 for.5 MR. TOCZYDLOWSKI:6 Councilwoman, Albert Toczydlowski,7 T-O-C-Z-Y-D-L-O-W-S-K-I.8 Councilwoman, the other ten9 percent is for Class 2, 3 and 400. Class10 200, 600,000 of that goes to all the11 victim witness groups in the City through12 contracts. The rest of the money is13 spent for equipment and services such as14 experts that we use in court, subpoena15 service, things like that, service16 contracts.17
Yes. Those20 are contracts -- when you say21 "subcontracts," it's a contract directly22 with the District Attorney's Office.23
And the24 prevailing question for every department25 166 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 is, tell us the breakdown in terms of2 opportunities for women and people of3 color.4
With respect5 to the contracts that we have with the6 MBEC report, we filed with the MBEC, the7 problem with those groups is, you have to8 contract with whoever in the neighborhood9 has risen up to provide victim witness10 services in those neighborhoods. So, for11 example, it's the Support Center for12 Child Advocates, Women Against Rape,13 Northeast Victim Services, East Victim14 Services.15
On the18 expert side, we use -- well, that we hire19 experts based on the expertise. We'd20 have to go back and look at the doctors,21 the psychiatrists we use.22
So we need23 you to provide to the Chair the breakdown24 in terms of MBE/WBE participation.25 167 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Now to the3 staff complement. The total number of4 staff, of lawyers, at the DA's Office is5 what with 90 percent of your budget being6 in Class 100?7
No. We didn't12 include it. These are just the figures13 in case you asked us, because we didn't14 know if you would ask us again this year.15 So we have it as an addendum.16 It's 60.82 percent female, 4.6117 percent Asian, 19.5 percent African18 American, 3.01 percent Latino, 72 percent19 white.20
And of25 168 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 those numbers, where are we in terms of2 supervisory, management responsibilities?3
I don't believe I7 brought that, but I'll be happy to8 provide that.9
Right. I will12 say that two of our top deputies, George13 Mosee, who is the Deputy for Narcotics,14 and Elois Howard is the Deputy for --15 sorry; George Mosee is the Deputy for16 Juvenile and Elois Howard is the Deputy17 for Narcotics. Two of our six deputies18 are African American.19
Okay.20 Your testimony cites that budget cuts21 could impact or eliminate economic crimes22 against seniors.23
Please25 169 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 tell us briefly what you're doing in that2 area and if there's a relationship with3 the Philadelphia Corporation of Aging.4
Given that7 they are the "go to" agency that's8 providing services.9
Like a referral10 agency? We obviously are looking --11 well, first of all, many of our referrals12 come from people in City Council, people13 like yourself who have somebody, a14 constituent, call them up and said, My15 plumber ripped me off or my contractor or16 my house was stolen from me while I was17 in a nursing home or some situation like18 that. We obviously work with any service19 provider in the community, including the20 services to the elderly and aging21 Philadelphia.22 The biggest problem that we23 face right now is that senior citizens24 because they're home a lot and because25 170 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 they're alone a lot are victimized,2 because they are frequently subjected to3 pressure tactics over the phone or in4 person. They're ripped off. These5 house-stealing cases invariably involve6 seniors, people who are desperately7 elderly and ill, people who may be in8 nursing homes or even people who have9 died. So we always get the people who10 are the most vulnerable populations who11 are victimized, the very young, the very12 old, the poor and the minority. Those13 are our primary, but not exclusive14 obviously, victim base.15 So we're very concerned about16 the ability to serve these people when,17 for example, we used to be able to take18 any case that perhaps walked in the door19 if it was a decent dollar size. We've20 steadily had to increase the dollar21 figure to about $50,000. In other words,22 if you are a victim of a crime and you23 want a special investigation, we can't24 take it because of budget cuts unless25 171 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 it's amounting to $50,000.2
That's the5 baseline now, yeah. And it's going to go6 probably even higher, and the reason is7 that over the course of...8 (Bell rung.)9
Over the course12 of years because we've had so many13 crimes, economic crimes, identity theft14 crimes and a whole host of other economic15 frauds, we've been incapable of16 investigating all these crimes. And many17 times involving seniors, for example,18 they sign contracts that they didn't19 read, unfortunately, didn't understand.20 It's quite common for a person to go to a21 an elder's house, say they need repairs,22 say, Here, sign this contract, and the23 elderly person says, What does it say?24 It says that I'll fix your roof25 172 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 or do your plumbing or do whatever for X2 thousand dollars, and the elderly person3 just signs the contract without reading4 it. Many times these elders don't know5 that they have three days, three business6 days, to rescind the contract. They7 don't read it. They can't read it8 sometimes. Many of them are sight9 deprived. Some of them don't understand10 the small print or the lingo that11 contract language is, and they're always,12 they're always prey for these slicksters,13 and then they take their money, usually a14 big down payment, and sometimes they15 disappear. Functionally it's impossible16 to find these people. They may be all17 over the country.18 But we really try to help our19 seniors any way we can. We did that with20 our house-stealing investigation just a21 few weeks ago.22
The Economic25 173 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Crime Unit?2
We've had an4 Economic Crime Unit as long as I've been5 there.6
Well, we started9 getting involved with house stealing when10 Della Clark, a lady who had to go to a11 nursing home -- I think it was featured12 in the Daily News. Della Clark had to go13 to a nursing home. When she came home14 from the nursing home -- I'm not laughing15 at her. I mean, the whole thing is so16 bizarre -- she found somebody else living17 in her house, and when she put the key in18 the door, it didn't work, and the person19 opened the door and said, Who are you?20 And she said, Who are you?21 And he says, Well, I live here.22 And she said, No. You're in my23 house.24 He said, No. It's my house.25 174 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 And that's how this whole house stealing2 came to light and how in Philadelphia3 it's so easy to steal people's houses.4 It's not only Philadelphia. It's all5 over the Commonwealth and indeed all over6 the country, and seniors are usually, but7 not exclusively, the sole source of8 victimization.9
Well, the10 bell has rung, so I'll see you on the11 next round.12 Thank you, Madam President.13
Thank14 you.15 The Chair recognizes Councilman16 Green.17
Thank you,18 Madam Chair.19 Thank you for your testimony20 today. I think Deputy Mayor Gillison's21 testimony, combined with your testimony,22 has demonstrated that if the system is23 not broken today --24
It25 175 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 will be.2
-- that it3 will be broken if we fund the District4 Attorney's Office at the level that is5 being suggested.6 Could you talk about the effect7 on other organizations within the8 criminal justice system if you have fewer9 DAs in terms of the length of time it10 will take cases to be brought to trial,11 what that will cost the court system,12 what it will cost the Police Department13 in overtime, what it will cost the14 Prisons in terms of the number of15 detainees that will start going --16 approaching the federal court limits that17 we're under, et cetera.18
I'll be honest19 with you, Councilman. I don't know if I20 can put a dollar figure on, but it is21 hyperbole when I tell you that if we are22 taking down 100 lawyers by this 2223 percent cut, our office effectively would24 grind to a halt, and there's a very25 176 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 simple reason for it. It's not just the2 lawyers and the jobs, although I will3 fight like a tiger for the jobs of my4 lawyers. Like the Public Defender, we5 depend on these young great professionals6 to give their life to City service. We7 don't demand that they stay there8 forever, but we do require that they9 learn their craft well. But when they10 are out of a job, what that means is, the11 rest of them, the 200 lawyers left, have12 to handle all the thousands of cases that13 those 100 lawyers don't handle.14 In addition to that, the courts15 have talked about furloughs. I know that16 I heard Judge Dembe talk about, Well, we17 might have to furlough. Crime doesn't18 take a furlough. If you look at the19 figures for the police statistics on20 arrests, they're pretty stunning about21 how many arrests they make a day, a week22 and a month, and I have all the figures23 with me. Last year, 73,000 -- sorry;24 73,528 arrests in 2008. That was up from25 177 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 71,117 the year before and up from2 71,200 and -- I'm sorry.3 Mr. Toczydlowski's handwriting is even4 worse than mine.5
It's greater than8 2006 and 2007. There has been a shift in9 the kind of crime, but there's still a10 lot of crime.11 So I can tell you, you take 10012 lawyers who handle on the average of 3513 or 40 cases a day, say, Okay, take away14 100 lawyers. So what happens? Prisoners15 stay in jail longer. Defense attorneys16 don't show up. The Defender has to wait17 until we get ourselves ready. Judges sit18 there longer. You can't handle -- you19 can't -- I don't even want to use the20 word "handle." This is a criminal21 justice system. We're trying to do22 justice to victims. And I want to remind23 this body that we handle all victims,24 whether they're defendants tomorrow or25 178 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the day before yesterday. You can be a2 defendant as well as a victim. We take3 all-comers. We don't have selective4 prosecution.5 So when you delay prisoners and6 cases, it just backs up the system. It7 just forces more cases on the list. They8 cannot be adjudicated fairly, and9 everybody is denied their day in court.10 I believe everybody is entitled11 to a day in court, both defense and12 prosecution. This is really such a13 tremendous blow to the criminal justice14 system. This system can't operate that15 way, period.16
Thank you.17 If we were to appropriate some18 more money or you can work something out19 with the Administration on a combination20 of additional funding sources -- I think21 you understand that has to be very22 quickly -- or if we were to appropriate23 additional funding, are you committed to24 continuing to work with CJAB to lower the25 179 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 costs of the criminal justice system, and2 could you talk about some of the measures3 that your office is willing to do to4 bring down the cost of the whole system5 with respect to Drug Court diversions and6 other things so that we can have some7 sense of --8
Well, in addition9 to Drug Court, we're now working on a10 Mental Health Court. We know that of the11 people entering our prison population, 8012 percent are drug addicted and many, many,13 many are mentally ill, have mental health14 problems. Jail has become because of the15 closure of state hospitals -- and that's16 a whole other political question we can17 deal with some other time. The jails of18 our country have been the mental health19 treatment centers for people who are in20 the criminal justice system. A jail is21 not the appropriate place to deal with22 mental health problems. So several years23 ago, we sat around and discussed about a24 Mental Health Court. We thought it's a25 180 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 good idea. That would be totally off the2 table without this money.3 We've also consolidated, as you4 know, because of the prison package that5 Sarah Hart wrote, the woman who was here6 before, Sarah Vandenbrack-Hart, she wrote7 the prison -- oh, here you are. I'm8 sorry. I thought Al Toczydlowski was9 still here.10 This is the stealth prosecutor.11 This woman wrote the prison reform12 package. She wrote it for us. We went13 to Harrisburg and lobbied it, and every14 forward-thinking prisoner reduction15 program is because of Sarah Hart, who16 works for me, not the Administration, not17 the Governor. We had the Governor's18 help. And we went through Denny O'Brien.19 Bless his heart. Sarah and Denny O'Brien20 just ganged up on the Legislature, and21 the Governor and the Legislature said22 this is a good thing.23 So we've already reduced just24 in the first three months of this year25 181 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 five percent of our prison population,2 and we're going to reduce it more, not3 only through programs but through4 shifting prisoners to the statewide5 system where they get Department of6 Correction programs, interventions,7 prevention programs and so forth.8 So there's a whole host of9 things that we can do. We're a10 progressive office. We're not stuck back11 in the 18th century the way Mr. Goode12 likes to make it look like we are. We're13 progressing. Everything that we're doing14 is to make the criminal justice system15 more responsive to the needs of our16 citizens and of the defendants. So that17 we're trying to do all kinds of things.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:19 Excuse me.20 The Chair recognizes Councilman21 Goode for a point of information.22
Madam23 District Attorney, since you don't have24 the benefit of all the budget testimony25 182 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 listed, you should know for the record2 that the Prison Commissioner, whether he3 was wrong or right, testified that we may4 reach 10,000 next year.5
Well, I don't6 think so because -- as a matter of fact,7 we have the statistics, and Ms. Hart can8 talk about that. Actually, we're going9 to be well under that figure. I10 absolutely -- I like Lou Giorla. He's a11 wonderful man. I'm not saying anything12 bad about him. We just disagree, and13 I'll give Ms. Hart the microphone to14 answer your question.15
Because of the16 prison package, we've had some major17 reduction. Not only have we been able to18 get an agreement to transfer 25019 long-term prisoners to the state, we have20 a 56 percent reduction in the long-term21 sentenced prisoners now entering our22 system. We also have an agreement under23 the legislation to reduce by about 9024 prisoners the ones that come into the25 183 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 state.2 So we're hopeful it's going to3 be about 800 in the near future. What we4 have seen so far is, the average monthly5 population, total population in whatever6 form, was 9,787 as of January.7
The statistics today10 from the Prison is 9,381. This is a huge11 savings as a result of these programs, as12 well as the ones with the courts with13 AVOP and ARC, and we're continuing to see14 very significant reductions.15
And we have16 saluted that within this Council, but17 since you also have not had the benefit18 of all the public testimony we've taken19 and the budget testimony we've taken, the20 Deputy Mayor for Public Safety has also21 testified that he'd like to reduce the22 prison population by 3,000. So when you23 characterize my thinking on this, you24 should know that what I'm trying to do is25 184 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 take us from where the Prison2 Commissioner says we might be at 10,0003 to where the Deputy Mayor wants to get us4 at.5 So you can make little snide6 remarks if you want, but I listened to7 all the testimony and I view it as a8 criminal justice system.9 Thank you.10
Well, just so the11 record can be clear, I think that's a12 very nice goal. I don't know how13 realistic that 3,000 goal is, and I'll14 tell you why. Of the admissions to the15 Philadelphia Prison up on State Road, 8216 percent have been admitted at least17 twice, 69 percent have been admitted to18 the prison at least three times, 5619 percent four times, 36 percent six times,20 28 percent seven or more times, 2221 percent more than eight times, 17 percent22 nine times, 13 percent more than ten23 times. And we have as many as 3024 admissions to the prison.25 185 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
And just this3 weekend, this man, Elliot Stevenson, who4 is featured in the Philadelphia Daily5 News, who was struggling, according to6 the paper, with a police officer over his7 gun, has eight aliases, is wanted on a8 dozen charges, including assault, fleeing9 the police, and he's out on bail.10 So I think that Mr. Gillison's11 attempt to empty the prison just means12 more crime on your constituents, and13 that's all it does. I mean, if you have14 programs for them, if you have jobs for15 them, in this economy it's really hard to16 get the prison population down even with17 the best of circumstances, but it's not18 going to happen.19
Throughout20 the course of testimony and budget21 hearings, I've actually made the point22 that you just made, that we don't have a23 lot of new criminals and that we have to24 focus on strategies to combat instead25 186 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 recidivism, and what we talked about in2 terms of reducing prison population was3 community reintegration strategies and4 investing in those.5 So it's not simply about6 letting everyone out of jail, but it's7 also not about locking them up in jail8 and throwing away the key. So I don't9 believe I have characterized your view of10 criminal justice, and I'd appreciate it11 if you don't characterize mine.12
Well, my13 characterization is based on your very14 tough questioning, which is really15 unjustified, and I'll tell you why. I'm16 on the --17
No. I'm sorry.20 I'm on the same side of the issue as you21 are. We're here to serve the public.22 We're not here for ourselves. At least I23 can speak for myself. I'll let everybody24 else speak for himself. But I don't25 187 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 believe this body is here to serve their2 own purposes. I'm a servant of the law3 and I'm here to make the City safe.4 I don't believe that5 Philadelphians feel they're safe, and I6 think furthermore, this is compounded by7 a whole host of issues that neither you,8 nor I, nor this body are going to be able9 to solve. But one thing I know is clear:10 In a tough economy, when you have a11 reentry program with no meaningful jobs,12 with all due respect to the Goodwill13 Industry -- I think they've done a14 wonderful service. They're paying young15 guys or men, whatever their age, about --16 I don't know, whatever the dollar figure17 is for their job. It's short term and18 it's not remunerative. If I had my19 choice as a young guy standing on a20 corner making 1,000 or 1,500 or 2,000 a21 day and I'm going to work for the22 Goodwill Industries for a short amount of23 time and I'm behind the eight ball with24 my education and everything else, the25 188 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 choice is going to be clear.2 Any reentry program really3 needs, besides all the external fittings,4 the mental, the emotional and the other5 stuff, I need a meaningful job that's6 going to turn me away from crime, and7 working for the Goodwill Industry, as8 good as it is a place to start -- and it9 is. I support the Goodwill Industries10 and their work -- it's not going to turn11 the corner and it's not going to mean pie12 in the sky figures that 3,000 people13 would be turned out of prison. You know14 why? They're too dangerous to be turned15 out of prison. They have shown16 themselves resistant to any kind of17 meaningful programs. They've gone18 through all the drug treatment programs.19 They've gone through probation. They've20 gone through the court system. They are21 not frequently rehabilitatable, and22 that's the reality. You don't have to23 agree to it.24 I'm with you, I think we ought25 189 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to have meaningful programs. It's not2 going to work.3
Madam4 District Attorney, I don't disagree with5 you. Two points. One, you cited the Pew6 study that said that crime was the number7 one issue.8
That's what10 the headline said. If you actually read11 the Pew study, it says that crime is the12 number one issue why people leave. It13 said that jobs was the number one issue.14 And there's a difference.15 The second thing is, at the end16 of the day, I don't disagree with you17 about the need for employment of18 ex-offenders, and I think I've spoken19 loud and clear on that and continue to20 speak loud and clear on that, but the21 characterization of how many people we22 can or cannot send through diversion23 programs, send through Community Court,24 send through Mental Health Court, how25 190 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 many lives we can save and whether it can2 be done for community reintegration,3 that's a policy debate that is hot and4 heavy, will remain hot and heavy and will5 last beyond Fiscal Year '10 or your half6 portion of it.7
There's no8 question about it. This is going to be a9 discussion that's going to go on for10 years and years and years, as is11 victimization and how we can best handle12 the criminal justice system. This is a13 thorny issue that the whole country is14 grappling with, not just us.15
And if16 everyone was locked up, people wouldn't17 feel safe because there's criminals on18 the street --19
No, no, no.20 Remember, I told the Council President21 four hours ago or three hours ago -- I22 forget how long it was -- that also with23 the Public Defender, I have been the one24 who has been a founding member of every25 191 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 forward-thinking diversionary program,2 every single one of them. That is, by3 definition, a reality, and it also means4 that I support diversionary programs,5 mental health treatment, interventions,6 risk assessment for release of prisoners7 so that they don't victimize the8 community again, and I absolutely support9 all of those programs, but you still have10 people who are not capable of changing11 their behavior.12
I think we15 got a little far afield on that point of16 information.17
The question20 really was, what is your office doing to21 lower -- and just your office -- doing to22 lower the prison population, and we were23 getting to it is lower to about 9,30024 now, and what are reasonable expectations25 192 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 as a result of continued work on these2 efforts that we can look at, in your3 opinion -- I know different departments4 are going to have different opinions --5 in your opinion, going forward in terms6 of some of these thoughts. And I thought7 the statistics you just read on who is in8 our population is telling, but if you9 could just talk about where you are right10 now and going forward.11
Fundamentally why12 we've had a particular problem in13 Philadelphia has been the sentencing14 structure in Pennsylvania that puts an15 inordinate burden on the county system to16 incarcerate long-term offenders. In the17 legislation we've obtained, we have some18 immediate short-term savings that will19 result, and in the long-term, after two20 and a half years no longer will long-term21 prisoners, anybody serving a sentence of22 two or more years, be able to be housed23 in the county prison.24 We expect right now --25 193 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
No. It's been4 changed. Under the new law, it would5 require the judge, the district attorney6 and the county jail administrator to7 agree to the placement, plus the prison8 population would have to be below 1109 percent of rated capacity. We do not10 envision that happening at all in11 Pennsylvania.12
Just a point of13 information. Before this package was14 passed, it was up to the judge where to15 keep the prisoner. Up to four years and16 364 days, the judge could mandate that17 they be held locally, and that meant that18 long-term prisoners who should have gone19 to the state were kept in the county20 prison, which boosted our population.21
In the immediate22 term, to answer your question, we have23 identified approximately another hundred24 inmates that we believe can be shipped to25 194 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the state system in the next couple of2 months. We believe by the adoption of3 Act 82 that we can reduce the numbers4 that come into the county jail by up to5 about 90 inmates, and that's just within6 this next year. That's a very7 significant savings when you're looking8 at $100 a day.9
So you can10 get them down to 200. Have you looked11 at -- I'm going to save that question for12 Councilman O'Neill.13
So back to16 the who is in our prisons. It has been17 suggested by the courts during their18 testimony that we could significantly19 reduce the prison population by20 encouraging the defenders and others to21 actually convince their clients to plea22 if there's a small change in your office23 policy, which is when someone is arrested24 in another county, the arresting document25 195 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 has a ton of information on it and the2 early disclosure of this information to3 defense counsel tends to result in many4 cases being disposed quickly via pleas5 and there's much more of a delay6 Philadelphia County versus -- and it7 wasn't a criticism. There's much more of8 a delay in Philadelphia County versus the9 surrounding counties in terms of getting10 that information to the defenders, and as11 a consequence, the long list of people12 who have many priors who would likely be13 sentenced to state prison stay in our14 prison system as pretrial detainees, and15 if we pled them out and got it over two16 years, we could -- with an appropriate17 sentence -- I'm not telling you how to do18 your -- because basically by providing19 that information up front, we can20 actually lower the prison population,21 because 70 percent of people in our22 prisons are pretrial detainees.23 Do you have any thoughts on if24 that's something that the DA could look25 196 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 at with CJAB?2
Councilman, John3 Delaney, D-E-L-A-N-E-Y, Deputy District4 Attorney for the Trial Division.5 We file in every adult criminal6 case a criminal complaint. The contents7 of that complaint are specified by the8 Rules of Criminal Procedure. What we9 provide in that complaint is sufficient.10 Otherwise it would be dismissed at the11 preliminary arraignment.12 In some counties, not all13 counties, the police officials who14 actually prosecute the preliminary15 hearing -- and outside of Philadelphia,16 no matter what you're accused of, you get17 a preliminary hearing. In Philadelphia18 if you're accused of a misdemeanor, like19 drunk driving, you get a misdemeanor20 trial. So we accelerate the process for21 our misdemeanors as opposed to what22 happens in the counties.23 In the counties, in order to24 take advantage of what we have in25 197 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Municipal Court, the police officials2 will sometimes disclose the entire police3 report to the defendant at the4 preliminary hearing in an attempt to get5 him to plead guilty.6 Our experience in misdemeanor7 court is, in our misdemeanors we have a8 pretrial listing for every case. The9 number of cases where the defendant10 pleads guilty at the first listing of a11 misdemeanor trial where he has all the12 discovery is incredibly low. Our fear is13 that if we give information early on in14 felony preliminary hearing cases, the15 information will not be used to dispose16 of cases. The information will be used17 to cross-examine witnesses.18 It's hard to compare19 Philadelphia practice to the other20 counties because the way our system is21 set up. That said --22
It sounded23 like a reasonable suggestion, so I'm24 asking.25 198 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
That said, we're2 certainly willing to talk to anybody3 about disposing of cases earlier, because4 delay is the prosecutor's worst enemy.5 Our cases do not get better with age.6 They get worse.7
Thank you.10 The Chair recognizes Councilman11 Jones.12
Thank you,13 Madam Chair.14 This is more of a statement15 than a question. Twenty-five percent of16 our budget is policing, judicial and17 incarcerations, impacts on our budget.18 We can try to count all the paperclips in19 the world. We're never going to balance20 our budget until we attack these three21 main areas. And I think that CJAB is an22 important component of breaking down the23 silos between the departments and24 worthwhile causes of each of those silos,25 199 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 whether it's the Police Department,2 whether it's the courts and appropriately3 today the District Attorney's Office.4 But I think one of the missing elements5 is this Council, and one of the6 recommendations I would have as a7 Councilperson is to have a representative8 on CJAB that has an eye towards trying to9 make us all work together, and I guess10 the best example might be how first we11 get a better relationship with the second12 floor, but I don't view us operating13 independently from them without us in the14 discussion because of our role within15 government.16
Well, Councilman,17 the CJAB meetings are public. You and18 everybody else are welcome to come.19
I'm going to20 invite myself then, but I'm going to21 encourage others to attend as well.22 Finally, we need to do a cost23 analysis on all of the alternative24 sentencing, alternative courts to see how25 200 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 we can massage this to at the end of the2 day reduce the payments that we pay for3 those three vital processes over time.4 But I do not think that a knee-jerk cut5 in one area where we don't know what6 those impacts are is appropriate in this7 budget cycle.8 Thank you, Madam Chair.9
Thank you.10 The Chair recognizes Councilman11 O'Neill.12
A couple17 questions I have just are questions that18 have come up particularly when the19 Prisons were here. I asked the Prison20 Commissioner the question, of the 9,70021 or so inmates on State Road, how many22 need that kind of incarceration, heavy23 duty, let's just say, and how many could24 be in anything from an ankle bracelet25 201 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 with GPS up to minimum security, and he2 very forcibly answered 4,000 have to be3 there on State Road, that we could4 divert -- 5,500 is the number -- we were5 kind of using 9,500 as a round number --6 to those other ankle bracelet to minimum7 security if we had those available to us,8 those other levels of detainment or9 detention.10 Could you give me your opinion11 of that?12
Yeah. First of13 all, we support -- and John Delaney is on14 the committee regarding electronic home15 monitoring, and Judge Sheila16 Woods-Skipper has just put out protocol17 and requirements for electronic home18 monitoring. We find that when carefully19 screened, paying attention to the20 defendant's prior record and the kind of21 offense he's committed, his failure to22 appear rate and other factors, that when23 we carefully select the people who are24 out on electronic home monitoring, the25 202 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 failure to appear rate is infinitesimal.2 They generally show up.3 Now, here's what I think we4 have to be careful of. The operative5 term is "carefully screened." As the6 Prison Commissioner, I could just say get7 rid of 5,000 people, which is really what8 he's saying. Well, again, remember that9 an ankle bracelet, if I'm selling10 drugs --11
I didn't15 ask him that. I just asked him to look16 at every inmate that could be waiting17 trial or serving a sentence, if that were18 the case, we didn't distinguish, but19 didn't have to be on State Road and could20 be in that $10 a day to $70 a day21 somewhere else, in their own home or --22
Well, I'll tell23 you, I have to be honest and say this.24 I've been in this business 43 years. I25 203 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 could never give you a statement like2 that and feel comfortable with it. I3 would have to look at everybody's file.4 If he said, look, here are X number of5 files and I think these people ought to6 be out on the street, as the elected7 District Attorney or as the elected8 Councilperson, if you sat down and looked9 at this person's file and decided that10 was the case and you were ready to take a11 chance -- remember, being out in the12 community means not supervised by any13 paroling or probation authority, not14 having any guarantee that they will show15 up. Our recidivism rate and our failure16 to appear rate is astounding. And --17
I'm sorry.18 I was not thinking of just sending people19 home.20
I am22 talking about any of those areas that23 would have supervision.24 (Bell rung.)25 204 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1