Thanks.15 I'd like to go to something16 that I learned yesterday. For years the17 Airport reported to the Commerce18 Department and I understand for years19 that the Water Department -- the water20 collection responsibility by Charter was21 the Water Department's. So many years22 ago, somewhere somebody decided to take23 the collection process, even though the24 Charter said it was the responsibility of25 271 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the Water Department, and gave it to2 Revenue. Apparently there's some3 loophole that allows that to happen.4 Could you explain that loophole5 and why the Division of Aviation is no6 longer reporting to the Commerce7 Department, that it is reporting to the8 Division of Transportation? It makes9 sense, but I'm just curious about the10 Charter and how the Charter --11
First of all, it's12 our understanding that the Charter gives13 water collections to the Revenue14 Department. I'll try to find the15 provision while we're sitting here.16
The Division of19 Aviation, how it reports -- your question20 is?21
The Division22 of Aviation -- matter of fact, even in23 our budget schedule yesterday, it said24 Commerce - Division of Aviation. How did25 272 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 we remove it from Commerce and put it2 with a new reporting relationship?3
With a Memorandum4 of Understanding that the Charter permits5 the departments to execute so that they6 can agree, the departments can agree, to7 a different reporting structure.8
So there's a9 provision in the Charter that allows for10 a Memorandum of Understanding?11
Okay.13 You're the City Solicitor. I believe14 you.15 Thank you, Madam Chair.16
Thank you.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman18 Green.19
Thank you,20 Madam Chair.21 I really am not trying to beat22 a dead horse here, but I do have some23 questions about collections and tax24 collection, because it's been a rather25 273 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 large issue.2 Councilman Jones on April 14th3 asked the Administration for an aged4 accounts receivable in each category.5 Does any office have that?6
Well, Revenue would7 probably develop that, because Revenue8 has developed the ones that we are aware9 of, one for real estate and one for BPT.10 I am not aware of the request, because no11 one would look to the Law Department for12 that.13
So you don't14 have an aged accounts receivable within15 the Law Department?16
So how do18 you manage the debt the way it was just19 described?20
There is a report.24 Revenue does generate a report that25 274 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 shows -- I mean, when you say -- I want2 to make sure we're talking about the same3 thing. When you say an "aged4 receivables," in terms of -- what I'm5 thinking of, because this is the universe6 I've been working in in my head for the7 past couple of weeks, is sort of how much8 is collectible over time. But Revenue9 does generate a report that shows how10 much of the debt is this -- how much of11 the outstanding is this old, how much of12 the outstanding debt is this old.13 Revenue does have that, and then to14 figure out sort of how much is15 collected --16
Since they20 don't share it with us, perhaps you can21 share that with the Chair, the latest one22 you received?23
By tomorrow,25 275 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 please. Because many of my questions for2 you relate to what the aged accounts3 receivable looks like and what our4 collection rates typically have been.5 I'm somewhat familiar with the industry,6 because I've represented people who are7 not in the collection business, but who8 are in the business of looking at a9 portfolio of debt, estimating what will10 be collectible on it and buying it --11
-- instead13 of collection. They will make you an14 offer. And there are many companies out15 there that do that.16 Have we turned over all of our17 data about our debt to any of those18 agencies where we could maybe go get, as19 Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez says, 25 or20 50 cents on the dollar from third parties21 in a year when we really need the22 revenue?23
We have not turned24 over that information to any such firm.25 276 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 We have debated internally the2 possibility and sort of the pros and cons3 of -- and we did this several months ago4 actually -- the pros and cons of selling5 some of the debt, let's say, of a6 particular age, and I think the concern7 was financially what the benefits versus8 the disadvantages of that were. Because9 I'm not the Finance Director, I can't10 really recall specifically what the11 financial analysis was, but that was the12 concern. We did look at that issue, and13 we continue to look at that issue. And,14 again, back to leaving no stone unturned,15 it's not an idea that we've rejected out16 of hand.17 To your point, though, about18 the collectability of debt over time,19 that's the report that we don't have. We20 just -- the report that I've seen just21 shows how much of -- like how much of22 this real estate debt is owed from 1999,23 how much is owed from 1998, without24 any --25 277 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Based on6 that data, I can just give that report to7 one of these agencies and they'll be able8 to tell me how much they think they can9 collect without even looking at the10 underlying stuff. So maybe you guys11 ought to think about doing an RFP for12 someone to come in and tell you what they13 think is collectible.14 With respect to your current15 collection efforts, depending on the time16 we refer it out to a collection agency,17 the amount of commission they charge, I18 would assume, under every contract we19 have is less. If we turn it over in20 three months, they only take seven21 percent. If we turn it over in six22 months, they take 15 percent. Is that23 how our contracts work?24
We have some25 278 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 contracts that work that way and some2 that have a flat collection rate -- a3 flat commission rate.4
So why would5 we not turn stuff -- do we give flat6 commission work to -- in other words, if7 we have a firm that collects at seven8 cents and we have a flat commission firm9 at 18 cents on the dollar, do we give all10 of the three-month stuff to that firm11 that will charge us only seven cents or12 do we spread it around?13 (Bell rung.)14
I'll let Dan15 Cantu-Hertzler speak to that. He16 negotiated the contract.17
I'm Dan18 Cantu-Hertzler, Chair of the Corporate19 and Tax Group in the Law Department.20 First of all, since, as Cindy21 explained, we have now -- we're22 developing first, second and third23 placements, we tend to give the first24 placements to the firms that charge25 279 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 cheaper commissions.2 As far as real estate taxes, we3 are going to be instituting a4 differential system so that people that5 owe no more than three years delinquent6 taxes pay attorney fees at a lower rate7 than those that have older debts.8
Okay. So9 can you please -- I mean, it makes no10 sense for us to have a system where11 somebody charges seven cents, somebody12 charges 15 cents and we don't give all13 those debts at three months to the person14 who charges seven cents. Do you have any15 sense of what that decision costs the16 City every year?17
Well,18 that's one very important factor, but19 there are also others. You can have20 somebody that's charging a very low rate21 but also collecting very little for the22 City, so that overall less is coming in.23 We're trying to evaluate that. We're24 trying to compete it more having, as much25 280 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 as we can, more than one firm doing the2 collections so we can shift more work the3 way of the ones that are doing a better4 job.5
Okay. So I10 note that -- I'm sorry. My time is up,11 Madam Chair. I'll come back.12
Next.13 Councilwoman Miller.14 You'll be back in a minute.15
I also20 had questions about the commission as it21 relates to the collection firms, and I22 really wasn't listening, but did23 Councilman Green ask that something be24 sent, the last part of Councilman Green's25 281 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 request?2
I thought he asked3 us to send him the report that we have4 from Revenue that shows the tax debt5 spread out over the years and how much is6 attributable to each tax year.7
Because I8 also just was wondering about what these9 collection firms -- what the commissions10 were and how they were calculated. And I11 believe that the gentleman that was just12 sitting with you started to answer.13
I've19 talked to him on the phone, but I think20 this is the first time I've ever seen21 you. How you doing?22 MR. CANTU-HERTZLER:23 Councilwoman.24
I wanted25 282 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to know too the commission that the2 collection firms were making that collect3 the delinquent taxes, but if there's a4 chart or something that you have that you5 can send in to the Chair that lists what6 the firms are, what the commission is --7
-- that10 will just be as good. Okay? Thank you.11 Also, tell me, what is the12 Community Development Fund in your budget13 on your first page of your statement and14 what exactly does it do?15
The Community16 Development Fund pays for our housing17 staff. So it comes from --18
So your19 L&I, Equity Court, all those kind of20 things?21
No. I think it's22 the lawyers that are -- we have lawyers23 that actually do housing work in OHCD.24
Oh, okay.25 283 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Okay. All right. I didn't think of2 that.3 And the other thing I'd like4 you to send to the Chair -- and I don't5 know whether Councilman Jones asked for6 this or not, but I know he did ask a7 question earlier when I had to leave the8 room. I'd like to know who you contract9 with and a list of the firms you contract10 with and identify those that are MBE, WBE11 and DBE as it relates to this 28 percent.12
I have it here.16 There are 27 firms currently under17 contract to do various types of legal18 matters for the City. Of those firms,19 three are MBE certified. They get 2820 percent of the total contracting budget21 for Fiscal '09 of 6.5 million, which is a22 total of about $1.8 million. In addition23 to those three MBEC-certified firms, we24 have another five that are not MBEC --25 284 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 I'm sorry; another six that are not MBEC2 certified where the lead or billing3 partner is a minority or female.4
Because5 with the Law Department, they don't have6 to be certified, correct?7
Okay.9 Which is good, but you can still count10 them.11
And if I might, I14 mean, because of the nature of the work15 that we often have to send out, often the16 larger firms are the firms that have the17 capacity to handle it, but we try to18 encourage the firms to give that work to19 minority lawyers and partners who are20 competent to handle that work, because21 that's how they generate their own22 success within that firm and that's how23 they're able to sort of build their own24 value to the firm. So we try to do it25 285 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that way as well.2
Okay.3 Well, that sounds really good.4 I think that's my last question5 for now. Thank you.6 COUNCILWOMAN TASCO:7 Councilwoman Brown.8
-- ladies.13 I'd certainly like to follow up to14 Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller and15 Councilman Jones and take it a step16 deeper. You've provided the numbers of17 participation for disadvantaged law firms18 and your quote is, We try to encourage19 those firms to subcontract with MBE/WBEs.20
What I said was24 that in addition to using -- in addition25 286 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to the MBEC-certified firms that I -- the2 number of MBEC-certified firms that I3 identified, at larger firms that are not4 MBEC certified we try to encourage those5 firms to have the work handled by6 minority or female partners and7 associates within those firms to8 encourage their development of business9 within the firm, because that's how those10 attorneys are evaluated within their11 firms and that's how they succeed within12 those firms.13
Okay. So14 that is to suggest, then, that you cannot15 require those majority firms to make sure16 that they do business with disadvantaged17 businesses if they are in fact18 receiving --19
Well, we're not20 requiring them. They're doing the work,21 so they're not subcontracting any of the22 work. They're doing the work themselves.23 This is a matter of who within the firm24 is actually doing the work.25 287 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
That's what we try3 to encourage. For example, at Ballard,4 the law firm that handles -- is the lead5 counsel in our labor work, Shannon Farmer6 is a female, the lead counsel. She has7 two female -- two white female and one8 African American female associates9 working with her on that matter.10 At Archer and Greiner, which is11 the firm that primarily handles our civil12 rights conflict matters, one of the13 billing partners there is Carlton14 Johnson, an African American male.15 Another is Stella Tsai, an Asian female.16
So what17 has been the level of success, your18 observation, in terms of --19
Well, I think over20 the past few years, the Law Department21 has -- as the universe of minority and22 female lawyers and partners within these23 firms has begun to very, very slowly and24 incrementally to grow, the universe of25 288 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 attorneys that fall into those categories2 that we can use at those firms has grown3 and we have encouraged the firms to do4 that, because they know it's important to5 us. I think the prior two or three6 solicitors actually also did that, but7 the numbers in the firms have to increase8 in order for us to have people there to9 rely on.10
And that's11 the next level where Council would enjoy12 continuing to see growth in that way.13
During the15 testimony of the Board of Pensions, they16 testified that the Law Department will be17 responsible for selecting the replacement18 for Wolf Block due to their closing.19 Discuss the steps that the Law Department20 will take to identify a replacement firm21 since Wolf Block is no longer a fact.22
The attorney who23 handled the pension work at Wolf Block24 was John Nixon, an African American male,25 289 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 by the way. He is now at Duane Morris.2 Under the contracting ordinance, we had3 to take emergency measures to have4 continuity of the work until we could put5 out another RFP for that work. So that's6 what we're working with John to do now,7 to transfer -- essentially to try to8 assign the contract or develop an9 emergency contract to bridge that gap10 while we put out another RFP, and that's11 what we have to do.12
We have a13 chart here that shows the participation14 levels of various departments and the15 Pension was like two percent. Is the Law16 Department at the table when the Pension17 Department is making those type of18 decisions about -- I'm looking for the19 chart.20
Are you talking21 about Pension contracts for investment22 firms, I assume you mean?23
Yes, yes,24 yes.25 290 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Investment firms2 are selected by the Pension Board. The3 City Solicitor is a member of the Pension4 Board, along with three other5 Administration representatives, four6 union representatives, the City7 Controller, and City Council has, I8 believe, a non-voting representative as9 well.10
So the Law12 Department, yes, along with members of13 the Administration, is a participant in14 their selection process.15
You should16 be advised that we've invited the Board17 of Pensions leadership to come back and18 sit with OEO and help us understand how19 that happens.20 (Bell rung.)21
Thank you.25 291 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Councilman Jones.2
Thank you,3 Madam Chair.4 Real quick. We had a lot of5 discussion yesterday about the BRT and6 about full valuation.7
I mean, a9 lot of discussion. I think that might be10 an inadequate adjective to describe it.11 But my question to you would be, one of12 the interesting points that was raised,13 that if we are wrong on full valuation14 and we then raise real estate taxes, what15 is our legal liability and is there a16 chance of a class action suit? That was17 mentioned in the discussion, and I just18 wanted to get your feedback on the19 possibility.20
It is unlikely that21 a class -- there's law that prohibits22 class action lawsuits on tax claims, as a23 general matter. There's a possibility24 that a class action suit seeking25 292 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 injunctive relief, meaning not monetary,2 not the refunds, could be brought, but if3 it were -- our analysis is that if such a4 lawsuit were brought just based on the5 increases on the basis of the current6 assessment system, if the claim were to7 succeed, the remedy would not be to roll8 back the increases. It would likely be9 an issue of whether the underlying10 assessment was appropriate, and perhaps11 the BRT would be given -- if the court12 found that the assessment process were13 not appropriate, the BRT would be given14 some time to address that.15
But it would not18 undue -- a lawsuit on that basis would19 not be addressing -- would not get at the20 tax increases. It would still be related21 to the underlying assessment system.22
Thank you,2 Councilman.3 So the BRT testified yesterday4 that the current system is not uniform,5 unfair, inequitable, to mention a few6 phrases. One might argue that makes, if7 you kind of look at caselaw, it illegal.8 And could not a court in an action if a9 mandamus was brought essentially require10 us to go to full value immediately prior11 to the time that we've put in any circuit12 breakers? In fact, isn't that what's13 happened in other counties? And we may14 be precipitating a lawsuit by increasing15 illegal taxes today.16
I don't think17 that -- I think that the system itself,18 wherever it is now and whatever the BRT19 has said about it or the actual value20 initiative implicitly says about it, is21 what will trigger -- is what could22 trigger a potential lawsuit. I don't23 think that a tax increase -- that an24 increased tax rate is even necessary to25 294 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 do that, particularly not at this stage2 with all the information that's come out.3 And that's what I was saying, that the4 issue would be the underlying assessment,5 not the increase.6
Thank you,7 Solicitor. What you're saying is we're8 at great jeopardy of a lawsuit right now9 the way our system works, and that's, in10 my view, one reason why we shouldn't11 upset the public and increase the12 property taxes, since 86 percent of them13 don't want it anyway.14 Thank you, Madam President.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 You're welcome.17
I'm a little18 more confused than I was. My question19 basically is that if there were a20 lawsuit, it would be just on the21 valuation and not on the increase of22 taxes, and the remedy would be not23 monetary but a readjustment of the24 valuation? And I've successfully25 295 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 confused you.2
What I understood7 your question was -- I thought I8 understood your question to be about9 potential real estate tax increases, a10 lawsuit over the increases. If what11 you're asking me --12
What I said was, if18 such a lawsuit were brought, the19 increases -- there's nothing problematic20 about the increases themselves.21
I think what the23 court would ultimately look at is the24 underlying assessment system. So in all25 296 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 likelihood, if a lawsuit were brought and2 were successful, the remedy would not be3 to roll back the increases or to4 invalidate the increases, but it would5 probably focus on the underlying6 assessment system itself and, as7 Councilman Green, wherever he's gone, as8 Councilman Green mentioned, potentially9 enjoin the current assessment system and10 force the BRT to go back and figure it11 out.12
Thank16 you.17 The Chair recognizes18 Councilwoman Sanchez. She's not here.19 Councilwoman Brown, did you20 want to be recognized?21
Okay.25 297 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 You're already prepared to2 offer to the Chair a list of outside3 firms. Speak to how your department4 works with the Office of Equal5 Opportunity just in terms of process.6 How does that happen?7
Is there a12 role for them?13 What we're trying to do,14 members of Council, is to get a better15 handle on where does the buck stop. Is16 it with the department head or is it with17 the Office of Equal Opportunity or not,18 and who is at the table as you move to19 render a decision on who the awardees20 are.21
We put out an RFP25 298 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 and we get responses back, and based on2 those responses, we select firms that fit3 the requirements. So some of our4 selection is obviously impacted by the5 responses that we get --6
So then in9 that equation, is there any role for the10 Office of Employment Opportunity as it11 relates to the Law Department?12
I don't think so.13 I think they set goals, and then our14 ability to meet them is impacted by the15 number and kind of proposals that we16 receive from firms who seek to do the17 work in relation to our needs.18
I think they do,21 yeah. But our ability to meet them,22 again, is impacted by the responses that23 we get.24
Okay. All25 299 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 right, then.2 That concludes my questioning,3 Madam President.4
Thank9 you.10 Shelley, are you on the Mayor's11 diversity cabinet, or whatever it is?12 Are you a member of that?13
Well, no,16 no. Michelle was on the same committee I17 was on, the Diversity Commission, but the18 Mayor has that cabinet, the Economic19 Opportunity Advisory Cabinet. I think20 that's what it's called.21
You're on24 it?25 300 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Because I6 think what Councilwoman Brown was trying7 to get to at some point, I thought that8 that was going to be the cabinet, the9 group that worked with the OEO to make10 sure that minority goals and whatnot were11 set and carried out.12
So I14 think that's what eventually -- I think15 what we want to know is the role of the16 cabinet and how often are they going to17 meet and how close will they work with18 OEO. And OEO's staff has been cut, so I19 don't know how OEO is actually going to20 get around, but somehow it has to be21 figured out, because our goal is to22 increase the participation numbers in so23 many of these departments.24
All5 right. Thank you.6 Thank you, Madam President.7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 Councilwoman Brown, are you finished?9
Thank15 you, Madam President.16 A couple more questions as it17 relates to our tax collection. When18 Commissioner Richardson was here, he19 stated that he didn't have any20 current-year contracts because the21 contracts were being renewed. Do we have22 current contracts now or will they take23 effect July 1st?24
We're in the25 302 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 process of awarding contracts, I think,2 as we speak.3
As we4 speak, okay. Do we have a timeline for5 that?6
A number7 of them are in place. Some of them are8 in process.9
So we17 have some in place and -- do we have a18 deadline for when we expect everything to19 be in play?20
It always21 takes longer than we hope. I think22 within the next month, we hope.23
The24 reason I'm asking is because I'm25 303 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 concerned around some of our discovery2 work and that we were having that3 conversation in the context of discovery4 and our discovery efforts for folks who5 we know traditional sectors -- our6 traditional discovery efforts and the7 possibility of ranking that up a little8 bit, because we knew that there's some9 sectors of people who skirt taxes all the10 time. So where are we with that?11
That12 contract has been conformed. It was13 conformed, I believe, last week14 Wednesday, and they have gotten the15 referrals they were waiting for, I16 believe. I should confirm this. I was17 promised that they would on Friday.18
Okay.19 That's important stuff, because I think20 that --21
Okay.24 All right. I know we don't want to tell25 304 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 people we're coming, but I think that2 there are sectors that need to know we're3 coming.4 Have we ever done a cost5 analysis between what it costs us6 internally to do this tax collection in7 comparison to what the firms charge us?8
Well,10 again, there are many factors involved in11 this. I think we make pretty good use of12 our resources internally. If you add up13 the salaries of our Tax Unit and the14 other costs associated with their work, I15 think our cost of collection is something16 on the range of five percent or so,17 whereas we're paying an average of about18 17 percent for outside firms.19 Now, that said, we still think20 it's cost effective to refer to outside21 firms because we don't have the capacity22 to do some and they are handling some of23 the older and more difficult matters. So24 we're not really quite comparing apples25 305 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to apples here. But we're trying to make2 those comparisons and adjust the workload3 as best we can.4
I'd like5 to again, because of my work with6 Commissioner Richardson, to look at those7 numbers. One is because if it means we8 need to strongly advocate that you keep9 your money in your budget, because I10 haven't asked you what your Plan B is,11 but if one is to be able to justify the12 budget that we have because we are being13 successful and, two, the diversity of our14 collection options increases our15 collectability, I want to start looking16 at that. Because, again, I think that17 you have a Revenue Commissioner who gets18 it and I think the collections department19 that gets it, and I think all of that20 stuff is being ramped up. So I just21 want to start analyzing that so we can22 prove the data and the positions that23 we're taking as it relates to our24 collections. I'd like to see that.25 306 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 One of the things you talk2 about -- so I think I'm going to leave3 with that. Again, it was something that4 we specified in our Freshmen 15 and it's5 one that I continue to be actively6 involved and want to be helpful on, just7 because I hear it from my constituents8 all the time, Are you coming after me?9 Collect the debt that's out there. So10 it's part of that work.11 One of the things that you12 mentioned, Solicitor, was that you're13 looking at a new case management system.14 I don't know if someone asked you when I15 walked out. What does that look like and16 what are the processes that helps17 facilitate in your office?18
We are in the19 process of contracting for that now.20 It's a case management system. Right now21 we have a case management system22 internally that's about 17 years old.23 It's had some upgrades over time, but it24 manages primarily on the litigation side25 307 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the number -- the cases in and out and2 the progress of those cases as they move3 through the various stages of litigation.4 Because it is a system that was5 designed for litigation, it doesn't help6 us report on the transactional side,7 because those cases are just -- those8 matters are just very different. So one9 of the things that the upgraded case10 management system will do is, in addition11 to upgrade -- in addition to modernizing12 the system for 2010, let's say, a system13 that was originally designed in 1993, it14 also will enable us to track15 transactional matters and figure out what16 their progress is and sort of match up17 our own internal case management with the18 ASIS system that manages the contracts19 from department to law firm.20
Is this21 off the shelf? Are other firms using22 this?23
It was designed --24 I think it's an off-the-shelf system that25 308 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 was modified for us, because the original2 system is called 4-D and that, I think,3 is an off-the-shelf product that was4 originally modified for us, and this is5 additional modification and also an6 upgrade for the transactional side.7
Okay.8 Last question, how are you doing -- I9 notice you said you were able to hire10 four reasonably experienced attorneys.11 How close are you to being at capacity12 where you'd like to be?13
We have another14 several -- we have 11 vacancies. We15 have, I think, four in the process now of16 waiting for approval, and we are17 interviewing to try to fill the rest.18
In the19 appropriations discussion because of the20 fact that you had gone over budget, in21 your Fiscal 2010 situation, there's an22 additional 6 million-plus that's23 requested. Are you going to be able to24 stay in line with that?25 309 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
I think so. We've2 actually only -- as I testified at the3 transfer ordinance hearing, we had4 reduced last year and continue to reduce5 as we get more staff the number of6 matters that we send out. So I don't --7 I think that the number that we're8 budgeted for for Class 200 more9 accurately reflects what our real10 expenditure was, which last year's budget11 did not. We didn't start from a12 reasonable -- we didn't start from a13 budget place last year that really14 corresponded to our expenditures. This15 year we're -- in the Fiscal '10 budget,16 we are starting from a place that does.17
But18 what's your number you expect at the end19 of the year to be over your budget this20 year?21
I think we're25 310 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 projecting another 1.9.2
For a total of --5 which would be a total for the year of 96 million, I think. And we projected in --7 when we were here for the transfer8 ordinance, we thought it would be another9 2.1. So we're actually a little ahead of10 ourselves, which is good.11
So it's12 your testimony today that the budget that13 was given to you will not result in an14 over budget of 9 million?15
What is18 your Plan B if we don't have all of the19 revenue projections that we need as a20 city?21
Well, we were not22 asked to prepare a Plan B, because our23 choices are either we cut our outside24 counsel budget and then end up spending25 311 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 the money anyway because we need it,2 because a cut doesn't reflect our actual3 history of expenditures, or we cut our4 internal staff and then have to spend the5 money on outside counsel anyway because6 we don't have enough lawyers to handle7 the work, because as I've testified8 before, we don't have control over what9 we get and so we have to deal -- we are10 sort of like the Prisons, that we have to11 take what we get and defend it in12 accordance with the Rules of Professional13 Responsibility.14
The15 issue becomes we're asking everybody to16 have a Plan B.17
As you19 are well aware, we are very far off from20 agreeing on our revenues. So I think it21 would be appropriate that you submit to22 us a Plan B, because from my perspective,23 you have two things. People who generate24 revenue, which is why I think it's25 312 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 important that we track our ability and2 our revenue, and the people that deliver3 service. So we have to cut -- we may4 disagree with the Mayor on this -- what's5 in the middle. So you either generate6 revenue or you provide a vital service.7 If you're in the middle, then you're on8 the table.9
Right. I don't10 think we're in the middle, though. If11 you would put us in the middle, I think12 you and I would disagree on that.13
I'm not14 putting you there. I'm saying what's15 your Plan B? If everybody is expected to16 have a Plan B, we expect our law office17 to have a Plan B.18
Thank24 you.25 313 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 The Chair recognizes2 Councilwoman Tasco.3
Since the7 new state Right to Know law went into8 effect, has there been any noticeable9 change, increase or decrease, in the10 number of requests for documents received11 by the City or in the scope of those12 requests?13
I think there has18 been a slight increase, yes. I don't19 have the number off the top of my head,20 but I think based on the ones I see, I21 think there has been a slight increase,22 yes.23
So what is24 the method the Law Department is using to25 314 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 monitor this situation?2