We have a Right to3 Know officer, Chris DiFusco, who works4 with City departments and counsel to5 respond to Right to Know requests. We6 track them and we respond to them in7 accordance with the law.8
Do you9 respond to them or do you refer them to10 the department that would --11
I think it depends12 on the response. If the response is13 simply to provide the information -- what14 we do is work with the department to15 figure out whether or not the request16 falls legitimately within the Right to17 Know law; that is, they're asking for18 information that on its face is what I19 call right to knowable, disclosable, and20 if it is, then the department can just21 respond to that, or if they like, we can22 work with their -- they're all supposed23 to have a Right to Know officer or within24 each Deputy Mayor group, they're supposed25 315 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 to have a Right to Know officer. We can2 work with that person to provide a3 response to the person who requested --4 to draft a response to the person who5 requested the information.6 If for some reason we believe7 that what's requested falls within an8 exception to Right to Know, then Chris9 will either work with the department to10 craft an appropriate response along those11 lines or we'll do that for them.12
PGW13 recently had a case where they denied14 access to customer records, and the15 company requesting this information16 appealed to the state. Even though the17 Law Department was aware of the case, the18 City did not intervene. Is there a19 reason why the City didn't intervene in20 this situation and does the Law21 Department have any criteria for when the22 City would intervene in an appeal23 involving a City-related entity?24
It's my25 316 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 understanding that we received2 information about that appeal and the3 deadline about two days before the4 deadline -- for us to intervene if we5 were going to. We made a determination6 that PGW had thoroughly and appropriately7 drafted a brief on all of the relevant8 issues and that its position would not be9 necessarily enhanced by City10 intervention, and we didn't feel like we11 had enough time given the deadline to try12 to craft additional materials that would13 add anything to PGW's position in that14 short period of time.15
Okay.16 What steps is the Law Department taking17 to keep departments and stakeholders such18 as City Council informed of Right to Know19 do's and don't's that may surface as a20 result of appeals?21
I believe when the22 new law -- before the new law took23 effect, Chris DiFusco conducted a series24 of training sessions both for the City25 317 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 departments at one or two executive team2 meetings. He did one early on before the3 law -- when the Administration first4 changed, he conducted a training at an5 executive team meeting, and then6 subsequently as the law was about to7 change, he conducted at least one or two8 more, and I believe he also conducted a9 similar training for City Council. If10 I'm not mistaken, he worked with Anne11 Kelly King to set that up and conducted12 training for City Council. And as13 updates -- to the extent that14 developments in that new law have come15 up -- and there haven't really been any16 recently, there haven't been any so far17 that I'm aware of -- he certainly18 disseminates those to the clients as19 necessary.20
The25 318 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a2 point of information.3
The Right to4 Know law -- I just want to make sure I5 hear it from you -- it's available to6 other than the media?7
So if the12 general public wants to know something,13 you still put it through that exercise of14 whether --15
Thank19 you.20 Councilman Green, your light is21 on. Did you want to be recognized?22
Yes, Madam23 Chair.24 Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez25 319 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 touched on this a little bit, but I2 wanted to just make sure I understand3 exactly what the expenditure is going to4 be for Fiscal 2009. So I will be asking5 specifically about the estimated6 obligations that are on of the7 departmental summary, but by way of8 background, I think last year in the9 budget testimony you decreased outside10 attorney expenditures by 2.7 million or11 84 percent, and you testified that,12 quote, "with four additional attorneys to13 represent the City in litigation, we will14 reduce Class 200 expenditures for outside15 counsel." When you appeared in February16 seeking an additional 5 million in Class17 200 funding, you testified the Law18 Department had hired two General Fund19 attorneys. Your testimony today20 indicates that you've now hired four,21 quote/unquote, "reasonably experienced22 attorneys" since January 2009. So that23 it appears that you've hired the number24 of attorneys that you testified about25 320 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 last year that you needed to drive down2 outside counsel costs, but you are3 basically requesting -- you've received 64 million in additional Class 200 this year5 and you're requesting FY10 basically that6 same $6 million. Can you explain that to7 me?8
Sure. I believe --9 first of all, at the time that I10 testified for my Fiscal '09 budget in11 2008, we had not yet commenced --12 certainly we had not completed labor13 negotiations. So we have -- so that's a14 significant driver of our outside counsel15 costs. That's one thing. They're not16 handled in-house. And at the conclusion17 of that, because we reached contracts18 before just a year, we've basically been19 in continuous labor negotiations. So20 that, I would say, characterized -- was21 sort of an unanticipated -- a bit of an22 unanticipated cost for outside counsel.23
And how much24 are you going to spend on that category25 321 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 of outside counsel costs in '09?2
Our total outside3 contracting costs, including the4 healthcare consultant that was agreed to5 as part of the contract, $927,000, just6 about a million so far, and another7 approximately $400,000, which comes out8 of our budget, our Class 200 budget for9 the healthcare consultant. So that's10 just so far.11
I'm sorry.12 You've requested 6 million in additional13 Class 200 funding this year and you spent14 a million on labor negotiations.15
I wasn't finished.16 You asked me. I was explaining. I said17 first thing is.18
So where we started20 last year in our -- where we started in21 Fiscal '09 in our budget allocated to22 outside counsel was at $516,000, which23 was not a number that correlated in any24 way to any previous year of outside25 322 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 counsel expenditures, and what we've been2 doing is making up for that. I think at3 end of this year, we'll be at a total of4 about $9 million, which is over even the5 average expenditures for previous years,6 but what we're requesting for next year7 is a more reasonable -- the $6 million is8 a number that reflects, including the9 cost of labor negotiations, an amount10 that we typically spend for outside11 counsel when we're more or less fully12 staffed. So we're not requesting the13 same amount that we spent this year.14 We're requesting less, but it's certainly15 more than was budgeted in Fiscal '09. Is16 that clear?17
No. I mean,18 you testified last year with great19 assurance that you would be able to20 achieve these savings. We've spent a lot21 more money than you testified you'd be22 able to do. This year you're testifying23 that you can lower it a little bit and24 you're giving us your assurance that you25 323 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 can do that.2
So I'm just4 trying to understand what's really going5 to happen this year.6
Well, again, the7 amount of money that was budgeted this8 year was completely disproportionate to9 any amount that we typically spend.10
You asked18 for $15 million total spending last year.19 You came and testified that you could do20 this.21
Okay. I have22 reduced the number of cases, the number23 of matters that we have sent out, from24 the first year -- just a minute.25 324 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 In 2007, calendar year 2007,2 the Law Department sent out 68 matters.3 In 2008, we sent out only 54 matters.4 From 2009 to date, we've sent out four.5 So I have continued to reduce6 the number -- as I've been able to hire7 people, I have continued to reduce the8 number of matters that we send out. My9 ability to do that -- and I think I10 testified -- I tried to testify to this11 at the transfer ordinance hearing -- we12 have to have the right people in place in13 order to have the matters handled14 appropriately.15 Last year we had what I would16 describe as some unexpected attrition in17 relation to our staffing and our ability18 to handle those. We've adjusted so that19 we now have attorneys in-house who are20 able to handle the kind of matters that21 we have in-house, and we've been able, as22 I said, to increase that number. And23 correspondingly, we have substantially24 reduced the number of matters that we25 325 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 have referred out.2 So based on that and assuming3 that that staffing continues, that we4 keep in place the kind of attorneys that5 we need to do the work, we should be able6 to continue at that pace and maintain a7 level of spending that's within the8 number that's budgeted.9
Okay. But10 what you're saying is sort of11 inconsistent in that you have given out12 far fewer cases this year. You've only13 spent a million dollars on labor14 negotiations. You expect to have many15 fewer cases given out next year, but you16 still are requesting a Fiscal 201017 obligation level of $8,832,911.18
We have matters19 outstanding that are already with outside20 counsel that we cannot efficiently bring21 in-house. We have cases that it's just22 not efficient to bring in-house. We have23 the prison class action matter. There's24 one -- the original one is still active25 326 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 and the second case is still ongoing, as2 an example. And we have a number of3 matters that are out and cannot be4 brought back in. So as those matters5 conclude, the amount of our outside6 counsel expenditure will decrease, but7 those matters have to conclude.8
Oh, the other11 thing, before I answer your question, the12 other factor is that we always have13 conflict matters that we can't anticipate14 that have to be sent out. So we have to15 factor in a potential cost for those16 conflict matters, and we do that based on17 prior year's expenditures. And in the18 bulk of our outside counsel matters,19 other than labor costs, is conflict20 matters. So those are matters that we21 always have to send out, and we have,22 again, no control over when we get them23 or what kind of work they require. Those24 are matters that just have to go out.25 327 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
How is the5 fact that because over time you're going6 to be able to refer less people or fewer7 cases to outside counsel by maintaining8 your current staffing level or maybe9 even, if we can really gain all these10 efficiencies, increasing your staffing11 level, how is that fact reflected in the12 Five-Year Plan?13
I'm going to speak14 to -- I'm going to ask Mr. Agostini to15 speak to that.16
While we're17 waiting for Mr. Agostini, if you could18 please -- Solicitor, while we're waiting,19 if you could please provide to the Chair20 all of the outstanding cases with outside21 counsel that we can't bring back --22
-- the24 nature of the case, who is handling it25 328 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 and when you expect that case to be2 resolved.3
That way, we7 can take a look in the Five-Year Plan and8 see if we can perhaps claw back some of9 that cost. And the cost, the anticipated10 cost.11 Thank you.12
With respect to13 the reflection of changes in14 efficiencies, the '09 budget did include15 approximately a $1.2 million reduction in16 the outside counsel that was reflected in17 the increase of approximately half a18 million or so in the Class 100. We did a19 direct trade where we lowered Class 20020 for outside counsel in order to provide21 additional funding for Class 100, so22 staff would be on board and save money.23 In the process, however, we ran24 into difficulty because of the November25 329 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 revise in filling positions --2 COUNCILMAN GREEN:3 Mr. Agostini, the question --4
The question7 on the table is about the Five-Year Plan.8
I'm getting9 there, if you'd let me finish my answer,10 please.11
I'm getting14 there. Would you let me finish my15 answer?16 COUNCILMAN GREEN:17 Mr. Agostini, please let me finish my18 sentence.19
I just22 wanted to make sure you understood the23 question.24
I did. I was25 330 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 right there.2
Now that I3 know that you understood the question,4 please proceed. And please stop.5
I understood6 your question. I was here. I heard it.7 I was answering it.8 So that million two was9 reflected in the '09 through '13 Plan.10 There was an increase in the Class 10011 cost associated with that. As I was12 saying, at the time of the November13 revise, a number of positions throughout14 the City government were held in order to15 see where we would be in addressing the16 revise and, in essence, reviewing or17 hiring moving forward. Because of that,18 many positions were not filled, and to19 this day, there are still a number of20 those positions that have not been21 filled. That change was reflected22 throughout the '09 through '13 Plan. In23 the transfer ordinance hearing that we24 had about 45 days ago, we increased by25 331 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 approximately $5 million the amount that2 was going into Class 200 for this year.3
Class 200 that5 was in the budget for FY09. Those6 changes in staffing are still reflected7 in the Five-Year Plan. Those have not8 been changed. So the augmentation for9 the number of positions in staff in-house10 and staff for the purpose of avoiding11 Class 200 costs are still reflected in12 the budget and in the Five-Year Plan, the13 '10 through '14 Plan.14
What changes15 are reflected in the Five-Year Plan?16 What is reflected in the Five-Year Plan?17
As I said a18 moment ago, Councilmember, the changes19 that were done in staffing that were --20
So you're21 maintaining a lower staffing level or a22 higher staffing level in the Five-Year23 Plan?24
We added a half25 332 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 a million dollars in staffing in the2 Class 100. That augmentation was3 reflected not only in the '09 through '134 Plan, but remains in place for the '105 through '14 Plan.6
Okay. That7 being said, the Solicitor has testified8 that with that additional staff, she will9 be able to refer many fewer cases in the10 out years, because the only reason11 outside counsel spending is so high,12 according to the testimony, is because of13 current cases. She's only referred four14 cases to outside counsel so far in 2009.15 The question is, are the savings16 attendant with having a fully staffed17 Solicitor's Office carried through the18 Five-Year Plan in Class 200?19
I want to make sure20 that we're talking about the same numbers21 before we get to -- as we answer your22 question. When I explain about costs so23 high, I'm referring to the costs over24 what we typically pay for outside25 333 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 counsel. If you go back several years2 and look at our annual expenditures,3 because that's what we -- when we budget4 or when we estimate our cost, that's what5 we base our analysis on. So if you go6 back to 2002, Class 253 costs were $57 million, 2003 they were million, 20048 they were million, 2005 they were 39 million, 2006 -- so they average10 somewhere between two and a half and $511 million every year. That's our average12 in the past. So when we talk about --13 when I talk about extra money being14 spent, I'm referring to in excess of that15 amount of around three and a half or so16 million dollars on average, which is17 where we are this year.18
Okay. But19 you were saying that there are savings as20 a result of the additional 500,000 in21 Class 100 that we can't see this year22 because of existing cases.23
Right, but savings24 off of expenditures for this year, not25 334 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 savings off of what our typical annual2 costs are, because those are based on a3 more full staffing level to begin with.4 Those numbers I was just reciting to you5 are numbers based on a higher level of6 staffing than we had in, let's say, 2006,7 2007, going into 2008 that we're now8 recovering from.9
In Class10 200, in FY11, it is the same amount of11 money for Class 200.12
Even though14 some of the cases that you say you can't15 take away from outside counsel will be16 finished, and you are referring fewer17 cases to outside counsel than you have in18 the past because of your additional Class19 100 --20
As a25 335 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 consequence, in the Five-Year Plan2 shouldn't that savings be reflected in3 the Class 200 budget in the out years?4 In FY12 you maintain it at 9,152. In5 FY13 the same expenditure. In FY14 the6 same expenditure. You're saying that7 over time the cases are going to bleed8 off, that you're referring far fewer.9 Why are we budgeting for $9,152,000 then10 in FY14?11
Well, we're trying12 to get back to a more normal, meaning13 historical, annual expenditure amount,14 which correlates to a higher staffing15 level in the office. In other words,16 normal in relation to what's been17 expended in this fiscal year and the18 previous fiscal year, '09 and '08, plus19 an additional amount of money -- the20 Class 200 costs also include contracts21 for our internal expenditures for writ22 service and for experts for litigation.23 So that's all included in Class 200.24 That's not just outside counsel.25 336 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
I2 understand.3 I mean, I don't know how else4 to ask the question. You've testified5 that you're going to refer fewer cases6 every year in the future because of the7 additional people that this body has8 allowed you to hire. You've said that9 cases that you currently have are going10 to bleed off. Why don't we see that11 reflected in Class 200 expenditures in12 the out years of the Five-Year Plan?13 You've just told us in your own testimony14 that you're going to save us money as a15 result of giving you these four new16 positions and that the only reason you're17 not saving money in the current year is18 because of existing cases that are19 already referred. So I'm just asking you20 based on what you told me why we're not21 lowering outside counsel expenses in the22 out years of the Five-Year Plan. "I23 don't know" is a fine answer. We can do24 that for you.25 337 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Councilmember,2 when we did the FY09 Plan and then3 compared that, particularly in light of4 the transfer ordinance that we had5 earlier this year, we had already made a6 reduction of about a million dollars. We7 built that into the base moving forward.8 Clearly, this year the expenditures were9 much higher than we anticipated for a10 variety of reasons that the City11 Solicitor has, I think, described, but12 that initial reduction is still in the13 base.14 Now, if the question that15 you're asking is why isn't that declined16 or why isn't that going down further over17 time, I think we had made an assumption18 that with the addition of the four -- the19 500,000 in Class 100 expenditures for the20 Solicitor's Office, that we would see a21 ratcheting down, and then if you looked22 at the average for the prior four or five23 years, we would be at about four and a24 half to $4.6 million over that period of25 338 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 time. That's what we put in the budget.2 So that has been built in.3 If your question is why isn't4 that declining even more, then we just5 built a base and assumed the base was6 going to be the same over time. And7 that's the answer to the question, at8 least from my perspective.9
Based on the12 information that we had in front of us13 and based on the analysis we did, that14 was what we put in the budget.15
Thank you.16 I just -- I don't feel like there's17 anywhere else to go on this question, so18 if you could just provide the information19 I requested about the existing cases, I'd20 appreciate it.21
Turning to23 the subject of ongoing labor negotiations24 which you mention your department is25 339 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 involved in, on what dates -- now, can2 you tell us when you agreed with the DC3 47 and DC 33 last year to extend the4 contracts one year so that you'd have5 time to negotiate --6
I don't remember7 what those dates were off the top of my8 head. I believe they were in July or9 early August, but I don't remember the10 specific dates. I remember 33 because I11 remember that the Mayor actually was on12 vacation and came back, but I just don't13 remember what the dates were. I'm sorry.14 I can get them for you, but I don't15 remember what the dates were.16
I thought it17 was before the end of the fiscal year, it18 was in May or June.19
So from that24 time -- let's just call it July.25 340 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
-- when did3 the City make its first proposal to DC 334 and DC 47? The purpose of the extension5 was so that people could sit down and6 negotiate and figure out how to reach a7 resolution. When did we make our first8 proposal to DC 33 and DC 47?9
Well, part of the10 purpose of the one-year extension was so11 that the Administration could get a12 better handle on its options with respect13 to the very expensive cost drivers, like14 pensions and healthcare. Those did not15 require negotiation or discussion with16 the unions as much as they required17 internal examination of those18 expenditures and the options that might19 be available to us as we headed into20 negotiations.21 All of that said, there is a22 statutory timeframe within which23 proposals are to be submitted to the24 unions, and it is, I believe, 120 days25 341 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 before the budget is submitted. I do not2 remember -- because the Mayor's Office of3 Labor Relations is actually the first4 line of negotiations and they are the5 ones that exchange the proposals. I6 don't remember the exact date on which7 the proposals were delivered, but I can8 certainly get that for you.9
Well, I can10 tell you it was last week. No proposal11 has been submitted to DC 33 or DC 4712 before last week, or maybe it was the13 week before.14
I'm not sure if it15 was last week. I know there was a16 meeting last week.17
So we have18 taken all this time so that we wouldn't19 have to be in a situation where we20 wouldn't know what the labor expenses21 were going to be for the next period, and22 we spent a million dollars on our23 lawyers, and we didn't submit one24 proposal to them until last week. Is25 342 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 there an explanation for that?2
First of all, I'm3 not sure that it was last week. I know4 there was a meeting last week. Of that I5 am aware. I don't believe that is when6 the proposals were delivered.7
Okay. But as I10 said, one of the primary reasons for11 negotiating a one-year contract was so12 that the Administration could develop a13 better understanding of the pension and14 healthcare issues, which are, as15 certainly you are absolutely aware,16 complicated in terms of what solutions17 might be available and how to approach18 those.19 We have been working -- we20 negotiated with all of the unions an21 agreement to work cooperatively on the22 healthcare issue and we have been -- the23 Director of Labor Relations is in regular24 communication with the union leadership.25 343 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 As you're also aware, there was2 a mid-year budget adjustment that caused3 layoffs to occur and there were4 discussions that occurred around that.5 The universe changed in terms of our6 fiscal situation from the time that the7 contracts were negotiated until the time8 that proposals were exchanged, and so9 some of the time is certainly10 attributable to that.11
Okay. I'm12 glad you mentioned pension, healthcare13 stuff. I have questions on that.14 So when the City entered its15 one-year contracts, there was a lot of16 press and announcements about how we17 entered into -- we were going to18 establish a series of joint City-union19 committees, and during the course of the20 year, these joint committees were going21 to meet and figure out savings on22 healthcare and figure out savings on23 this. So how often has the24 Labor-Management Cooperation Committee25 344 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 met?2 (Bell rung.)3
Off the top of my4 head, I don't know, but I know that the5 Managing Director has kept a record of6 that.7
Never.13 How often has the committee14 charged with looking at contracting out15 in the Health Department met?16
The Managing17 Director has kept a record of when all of18 these committees have met.19
Okay. With20 respect to the healthcare consultant who21 was going to take information from all of22 the unions, when were they finally hired?23
They were finally24 hired sometime between when -- it was25 345 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 sometime before the firefighters award2 was issued, I believe, sometime shortly3 before the firefighters award was issued,4 because all of the union representatives5 participated in the selection of the6 consultant.7
Why did it8 take so long to hire them? They were9 originally supposed to be hired in10 November.11
No. I14 understand that they weren't given the15 data because the Solicitor's Office was16 negotiating a fee.17
"Given the data" is18 not hired to me. I don't know what you19 mean by that.20
They were21 not -- there was no contract with this22 consultant until January of this year,23 and my understanding is that is because24 the Solicitor's Office spent months25 346 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 negotiating a contract with this2 healthcare consultant, resulting in3 savings of $50,000 off the original4 proposal, which I would commend you for,5 except now we will not have the report of6 this consultant until after the contracts7 that we have in place expire.8
Okay. The9 consultant began working with the10 committee long before that. I would --11
If you would12 just, rather than debate this, if you13 would just get the Chair exact dates --14
-- I'd16 appreciate that.17 And we have to pass a budget18 out of this Chamber by not this Thursday,19 but next Thursday. So if I don't get20 answers by Monday, we're going to have to21 just start making assumptions on all22 sorts of things with respect to --23
I'm happy to24 provide you with the information you're25 347 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 requesting.2
Thank you.3 I'm sorry. I don't know if4 somebody else has questions, Madam Chair.5
Let me just8 see if there's anything I must ask.9 (Pause.)10
I will11 submit the rest of my questions in12 writing, Madam Chair.13
Thank you14 for your cooperation, Councilman Green.15 Any other questions?16 (No response.)17
We18 appreciate his cooperative spirit, and19 you may leave.20
Thank you.23 You know when you come, to bring your24 lunch and/or dinner.25 348 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Good5 evening. Would you please identify6 yourself for the record and begin your7 testimonies.8
Madam Chair, I'm9 Robert Heim. I'm Chair of the Board of10 Trustees of the Free Library of11 Philadelphia.12
And I'm Siobhan13 Reardon. I'm the President and Director14 of the Free Library of Philadelphia. And15 Bob is going to start with a statement.16
Could you19 please speak into the microphone. Bring20 the mike up to you so we can hear you.21 Thank you. Thank you.22
Oh, yes.24 Much better.25 349 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
16 Your commitment to the Free Library and17 their commitment confirms the value of18 our services, and as I believe you know,19 the statistics show that nationally in a20 time of economic stress, usage of21 libraries tends to increase, and that22 certainly has happened across the country23 and it has happened here in Philadelphia24 as well. 5 I was honored to succeed Wilson6 Goode this past July as Chair of the7 Board of Trustees, and I am very pleased8 to be here with you today. The Trustees9 are deeply engaged in the work of the10 Library. They approve policies, they11 look at finances, they visit the branches12 and talk to our library staff, and we13 learn a great deal every time we're out14 looking and meeting with the staff and15 the people that make our libraries go and16 make them so effective, and that includes17 our customers and our patrons. 1 you that I've personally visited all of2 the regional branches and most of the3 neighborhood branches since I've been a4 trustee -- what impresses one most is the5 dedication of the library staff. Despite6 operating today with more than 100 less7 employees than we had just six months8 ago, the staff continue to provide9 meaningful programming for children, to10 assist job hunters with using computers11 and submitting online applications, and12 ensuring that our facilities are safe and13 secure. Simultaneously, we are keeping14 abreast of changing needs. We are15 offering online books and video,16 materials in non-English languages and17 electric fees payment. 1 about a year ago that led a national2 search. It was a Board that consisted of3 trustees and members of the Foundation4 Board of Directors, and after that5 nationwide search just a year ago, we6 selected Siobhan Reardon, and we selected7 Siobhan Reardon to lead the Library based8 on her deep understanding of library9 issues, a firm grounding in finance and a10 vision of what the Library can be in11 coming years. And I can tell you that12 when we met, the search committee met,13 one of the questions that was asked of14 every candidate is, What are the great15 libraries in this country doing. What16 are the truly great libraries doing to17 serve their patrons and customers. 9 Siobhan Reardon is the first --10 well, she's the seventh President and11 Director in our 100-plus years and12 Siobhan is the first woman to lead the13 Free Library of Philadelphia in those14 100-plus-year history. And I want to15 publicly thank her for her leadership and16 tenacity, particularly under the17 challenging circumstances that we've all18 had to deal with in the last six, seven,19 eight, nine months. 24
Thank you25 354 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 very much for your testimony. We2 appreciate it and appreciate your3 leadership.4
Council President6 Verna and members of the Council, as I7 mentioned, I'm Siobhan Reardon, President8 and Director of the Free Library of9 Philadelphia. 13 I am pleased to be appearing14 before you for the first time and thank15 you for the past support that you have16 given to the Free Library of17 Philadelphia. 1 have learned much about this historic2 city. While I have many observations3 about the Free Library, three in4 particular stand out: the dedication of5 the staff, the important role that all of6 our libraries play in the lives of our7 citizens and the breadth of services that8 the library staff provide. 13 In 53 neighborhoods we14 transform lives every single day through15 the care and expertise of our staff, by16 providing programs for job seekers and17 entrepreneurs and an array of programming18 for young people that help improve school19 performance and reduce the City's dropout20 rate. 968 million2 in City General Funds. 6 In addition, the Governor's budget calls7 for 13,964,000 in grant revenues from the8 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The latter9 funds supports services for the Library10 for the Blind and Physically Handicapped,11 the Mayor's Commission on Literacy and12 general operating funds, which support13 collections and general maintenance of14 our 54 aging buildings, among other15 things. 18 With this level of funding, the Free19 Library will be able to provide days and20 hours of service comparable to the21 current schedule, with somewhat more22 stability. All neighborhood libraries,23 including the three regional libraries -24 Joseph E. Lucien E. Before proceeding, I want to5 publicly thank the employees of the Free6 Library for their warm welcome and7 support. I have been continually8 impressed by their dedication and9 professionalism, particularly during10 these difficult times. 16 Personnel costs represent 8517 percent of the Free Library's operating18 budget. Our staff are the linchpin in19 ensuring that the Library, and thus our20 customers, thrive and have access to the21 information they need. Over the past22 months, in order to keep open as many23 locations as possible, we have been24 redeploying staff on a daily basis. 1 the month of March alone, for example,2 2,446 staff hours were spent by employees3 who were moved on any given day from a4 location to which they were assigned to5 another location so that we could keep a6 branch library open. 9 As I mentioned, the Free10 Library is able to offer a wide array of11 materials and services. While some may12 think of the library as an institution13 that simply lends books, we are in fact a14 multi-disciplinary cradle-to-grave15 institution that serves teens,16 entrepreneurs, older adults, new17 immigrants, job seekers, young children18 and employers, among others. And as the19 economy declines and unemployment rises,20 we are seeing increased demand for our21 services. 2 There are comparable increases in the3 number of reference questions answered by4 our staff, a 12 percent increase over the5 prior year, 17 percent over two years ago6 and a 22 percent increase more than three7 years ago. 16 The power of new digital collections,17 technology and public training position18 the Free Library to help Philadelphia19 make the transition from a service20 economy to a high-tech and21 information-based economy. Many people22 entering the workforce rely on a library23 to get them online. 1 databases to help write business plans,2 keep competitive and to find new business3 opportunities. Families and caregivers4 rely on the Library to provide essential5 pre-school reading and learning. 9 We know the public values our10 services, because they have told you and11 they have told us, both directly and12 through increased utilization of our13 resources. 17 As mentioned earlier, 8518 percent of the Free Library's budget is19 personnel.
Consequently, if we had to20 absorb an additional ten percent21 reduction in the budget for Fiscal Year22 2010, 168 full-time equivalent and 8623 seasonal employees would be laid off. 3 The schedule would preserve LEAP, the4 after school assistant program, which5 serves 80,000 young people annually. We6 would offer six-day service at the three7 regional libraries and, as required by8 law, seven-day service of the Parkway9 Central. We'd also cut back on several10 contracts, including cleaning, building11 maintenance and contract guards, and take12 a minimal amount from equipment. 21
Thank you22 very much. I appreciate your testimony.23 And thanks to the supporters and Board24 members who have come out to give your25 362 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 support.2 The Chair recognizes Councilman3 Green.4
Thank you,5 Madam Chair.6 Good afternoon -- or good7 evening. I'm sorry we kept you waiting8 so long. I appreciate your patience.9
I want to12 start by asking Mr. Heim just a very13 quick question.14 For the record, Mr. Heim, how15 did I get the idea to provide dedicated16 funding for libraries?17
Well, I don't know18 whether the thought came from -- I think19 the original thought, to be fair, came20 from Representative Mark Cohen at a21 meeting that we had at the Cohen branch.22 And when he raised it and told me about23 it, I said, Wow, that is really a24 fascinating, interesting concept, and25 363 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 then I asked Siobhan whether that2 happened anywhere else, and she told me3 that in fact there are other places where4 there is -- that there are in fact a5 number of localities, municipalities6 where they have dedicated funding for the7 library.8
I can't take credit10 for it. It really is Representative11 Cohen.12
Well, I may have. I19 may well have. It was an intriguing20 concept.21
So just for22 the record, the Board of Trustees would23 support dedicated funding for the Free24 Library?25 364 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Well, I don't -- I2 never try to speak for the Board of3 Trustees until the Board of Trustees have4 spoken. I think the Board of Trustees5 finds it very interesting, but as one6 Trustee said to me, the devil is in the7 details. We'd like to know more of the8 details.9
We have10 proposed a bill. We'll be happy to send11 it over. I think we did in fact send our12 bill to the Board of Trustees for your13 review.14
We sent it17 to the Central branch. So perhaps18 Ms. Reardon will share it. It was19 addressed to the Board of Trustees.20
Very good.22 Before the current budget23 crisis and the court's order not to close24 11 libraries, the Free Library opened25 365 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 libraries with three staff members2 present, as has been its policy for3 years. In fact, it's in written notes of4 negotiations between labor and5 management, et cetera.6 In February, the Library7 administration announced a new policy8 under which four workers, including a9 security guard, must be present before a10 library branch can be open.11 As we've heard from hundreds of12 library users, constituents and as the13 Free Library has admitted, implementation14 of this new policy has resulted in15 something like chaos, with unexpected16 closings and resulting uncertainty in the17 community about whether a given library18 branch will be open on a given day. I'm19 trying to understand why in this budget20 crisis when both library users and21 employees understand the need to make22 accommodations to maximize service with23 limited means the Library is taking the24 opposite inflexible approach executing a25 366 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 major policy change with the clear2 predictable result of limiting library3 service.4
Councilman, the5 opening with three was not the norm. It6 was actually the exception. And when I7 came in in September, the actual norm for8 opening a library was six staff members,9 and it is basically between five and a10 half and six.11 When I started going around to12 each of the libraries, I was deeply13 concerned that we were not -- that14 somebody who was very busy up in the15 front of the library couldn't see what16 was going on in other corners of the17 library. And then the other issue for me18 was the safety and security and the19 cleanliness of each of the buildings and20 so, therefore, not having a municipal21 guard who does two jobs, basically he or22 she will clean the building in addition23 to securing the building. And it's24 really a procedure or guideline. It is25 367 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 not a policy. It's not a stated policy.2 It is a sort of standard operating3 procedure which we've put in place. And4 I'm different from you. I'm hearing from5 the staff that they're thrilled with the6 fact that we need to open with a security7 guard or a municipal guard, because that8 person is also the front line on any9 issues with the building, in addition to10 securing when the library gets busy. So11 from 2 o'clock on, they change their12 uniforms and they're a security guard.13 So it is -- I want to make sure14 that our public is served by professional15 librarians and that there's adequate16 library assistance staff that's in there17 re-shelving the books and moving the18 collections as they come in.19
We have --23 basically the services -- 39 branch24 libraries are basically staffed very25 368 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 similarly, between five and a half and2 six people per library. Then we have3 larger units that are either bigger4 one-floor square foot units or two-floor5 units, and then we have the regional6 libraries.7
So if you8 take -- I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I will9 come back.10
All right.11 The Chair recognizes Councilman12 Jones.13
Thank you.14 Good evening and, once again,15 thank you for your patience.16 A couple of questions. I17 understand you have 428 employees and18 then 54 from the state?19
We have 62820 employees and then another 50 from the21 state, yes.22
And where do23 the state employees -- what fund does24 that come under?25 369 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
We get $13.92 million from the State of Pennsylvania,3 and most of them are basically4 supplemental. They supplement the5 schedules, collection care, also6 maintenance support of the building. But7 basically it supplements the operating8 support of our organization, and many of9 them also work for -- the Library for the10 Blind and Physically Handicapped has a11 number of staff, I want to say 28 to 30.12
Is that an16 addition over last year's level of17 staffing?18
No, no. Last19 year we started the year with 73020 allowable employees on the City fund and21 also the same number of 55 on the state22 fund. We have not an increase in the23 state fund.24
Under the25 370 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 questions that my colleague raised about2 the closures, you said you went from3 three to six to now four?4
No. Our5 libraries -- you can go back and see that6 our branches, the 39 sort of smaller7 branches, have an average of six staff.8 They had six in September. But what the9 discussion is what it takes to open a10 library, not operate a library, and what11 I have asked is that we put a procedure12 in place where we have a minimum of four13 to open and one of those four have to be14 municipal guard.15
My concern16 with that is that it has created an17 environment for your employees of18 unpredictability. So they get up in the19 morning and, if I understand your20 process, they have to call in and see21 what the head count is at the particular22 library. If that head count falls below23 that level, that library is closed and24 then they're disbursed to other branches25 371 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 throughout the City; is that correct?2
What happens is3 that the staff report to their original4 locations and that they have an hour past5 the time the library is supposed to open,6 because we will open with three as long7 as one of them is a municipal guard or a8 municipal guard is on the way. We've9 opened as long as there is another person10 coming.11
Based on12 your standard now, what has been the13 closure rate of libraries throughout the14 system?15
It's accelerated.16 We have 300 -- if I find my statistics,17 but we've had since the beginning of the18 year 11,000 libraries with -- hold on.19 Let me get the right numbers for you.20 We've had over 300 hours -- we've had 30021 days closed.22
Isn't one of23 the responsibilities of librarians and24 other staff that are at the libraries to25 372 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 plan for the summer vacation period and2 create programming during that period for3 youth and participants in summer programs4 affiliated with the library?5
Do you think7 that this unpredictability has a8 disruptive impact on their ability to9 plan summer programs if they're not going10 to be there one day, and to what effect11 do you think these random closures have12 on parents that use the library for a13 stable way of having activities that are14 supervised for their children?15
Well, I'm going16 to go back to the fact that we didn't17 operate the library with three people.18 We always operated with five and a half19 to six people per library. And so to20 answer your question specifically about21 the summer reading program, is that our22 last Saturday of service will be June23 6th, and so we normally -- we absolutely24 will go down to five days during the25 373 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 week. We will not have Saturday hours,2 and so that will then stabilize the3 schedule, and the staff will only work on4 a five-day schedule than worrying about5 trying to cover a six-day schedule, which6 is what the problem is now.7
So you8 believe by reducing the amount of hours9 that the library is open, you can10 condense the amount of staffing and11 fewer --12
Okay. Let14 me say this to you -- and I understand15 the unintended consequences and impact of16 library closures -- there are some parts17 of my district that when your library18 facility is closed, if they had to walk19 out of their house and figure out whether20 they were going to run into a book, a21 vegetable or a gun or bullet, they're22 going to wind up -- the two they would23 get to before would be not the reference24 book, but the gun or bullet, and they25 374 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 won't see the vegetable.2 We have a situation in some3 parts of this city where you are the safe4 haven, where that's where the good kids5 go, that's where the kids that want to6 develop a future, and in some of those7 areas, the parents are too poor to afford8 anything other than a staycation at a9 library.10 So I want you to understand11 that you are an important, vital,12 integral part of our community. So when13 we're playing around -- and I don't14 believe you're playing around. I15 shouldn't have used that kind of word.16 (Bell rung.)17
But when we18 are tinkering with this, this kind of19 operation has massive impacts on a family20 when they walk up to that library that21 morning and that single-parent with a22 dependent child is on her way to work in23 a recession where she's holding on by the24 skin of her teeth to a job, to find out25 375 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 that the after-school provisions aren't2 there, it has unintended consequences3 that are far-reaching within the4 community. And I wanted that to be a5 part of your understanding of why you're6 so important.7 Thank you, Madam Chair.8
Let me just,9 before we finish, I think what's really10 important is that we did lose 10211 positions. So we're trying to keep a12 six-day schedule with 102 positions down,13 and it's -- I think we're doing a pretty14 darn good job.15
We agree19 that you are doing a good job. We can20 all do better jobs. We have one of the21 best library systems in the nation, and22 so why mess with it.23
Right. Thank24 you.25 376 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1
Thank you4 very much.5 Let me just ask you about the6 employees who are funded with your state7 supplement. Are they considered state8 employees or are they city employees?9
They are paid10 through the City of Philadelphia. The11 money actually comes through the City.12
Right. So, for18 instance, when we went through the layoff19 roster back in October, literally the20 state-funded employees were part of the21 total mix, and so some of the people that22 were also laid off were people, we were23 surprised, were people from Library for24 the Blind, which were never part of the,25 377 5/5/09 - WHOLE - BILL 090212, etc.1 what we would assume, were part of the2 mix, but very much are, because they're3 part of the overall funding for the4 library.5