Well, I have gone all the way back to Willy Williams in Houston, Texas, who opened up to the commissioner shipping in New York. And then I have been here through Commissioner Samburg's (ph) tenure to address --
There is no 240 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 guarantee?
Okay. Now, with regard to the legal argument, and you know that I am reluctant to get into a constitutional argument with someone as qualified as yourself, but I will struggle on. Your position is that if we make the change, purely the constitutional argument, that last line of your testimony, "adopting this bill could be a good first step towards resolving constitutional problems inherent in the city's present pre-employment residency requirement --" that is from your testimony. And I guess it strikes me as -- well, I will just ask the question. You seem to believe that the pre-employment residency requirement for all City jobs, manufacturing, and then you said for the moment, let's change it for the police department, doesn't that potentiality if not, in fact, give a future litigant more cause to file a challenge given the fact that we would have, under your contract, changed it for one area not for the others as opposed to just 241 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 keeping it -- I am not making an argument one way or the other about keeping it or not keeping it. I am making a legal argument. (Continued) -- changing it for one instead of keeping it the same for everyone, doesn't that, in fact, raise a larger red flag for the potential litigant that something is going on here and then asking the question, "well, I don't necessarily want to be on the police force, I want to be in the Recreation Department, and if you change it for the police, you've now created an unfair situation for everyone else that wants to apply for something. Isn't that one of the potential results of only taking it for one and not for all?
That may absolutely be the case. I would much have preferred --
I would much rather before City Council a bill that says, City Council, I would like to change or abolish its pre-applicant process in toto. But the ordinance 242 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 before us is a limited one, and I think it is a small positive first step.
So from your perspective, this will be the start of that process, that we would, in fact, be taking a step down that road?
It would be my hope on a constitutional basis for the reasons -- the very reasons you suggest, that that would be the ultimate goal that we would be reaching.
And would you agree, at least legally, we will professionally be on stronger grounds -- again just for the legal argument, that we would maintain some greater strength of position if it was the same for all as opposed to different for one narrow segment? Which is the stronger argument for the potential for defense for the City in this particular case?
When you first -- posited the attack, I immediately thought --
I never attacked you. 243 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
My feeling was, absolutely, protect it all. This would now not only give the litigant the right to travel, but also would present on the protection challenges because there was some treatment. But as I thought about it, equal protection really doesn't come into play because we are not talking either about what the law presumes is suspect categories of individuals; that is, the legislation turns on race or alienage, nor are we really talking about carving up privileges in such a way that I think adds anything to the attack. So often it leads to the same tact, so the litigants make the same challenges regardless of whether you have done this or not.
So then lastly, you are saying that the Courts have ruled that people have a constitutional right to travel and go to whatever city they want to, and if a particular city has a pre-employment residency 244 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 requirement, that that, in fact, infringes upon their ability to travel wherever they want to travel to try to get a job even though that requirement cuts all the way across the boarder and effects everyone, but then the courts have stopped at the point of establishing residency once you get the job? I mean, is that still valid?
And that is not a restriction of your travel at that point?
No. Because the balance of equity tips at that point. And they are simply negotiating. An employer some legitimate basis to draw the distinctions which were not returned when one was receiving or simply asking a similar position.
And so you are saying that the Courts have said there is no 21 legitimate reason to have a pre-employment residency requirement for anybody?
Those were the cases I was able to pull very quickly. And I didn't have much time. I was asked late in the week last 245 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 week to take this test -- I very quickly came up with federal and state cases that had struck these kinds of clientele.
And my last request is more of a informational request. If you could, because I know you will have much more time when you come back, could you attempt to find any cases in the reverse position that pre-employment residency has ever been upheld.
Yes, if I -- I have not to date. But if I do, you have my word that you will be forwarded it.
Thank you very much. I only have about six lines of questions that I would like to pursue with you. Just kidding. Any other member have any questions? Thank you very much. Councilman Rizzo, I see you sigh a breath of relief. At this time we would like to have the police commissioner, Commissioner John Timoney. 246 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Thank you, very much, Commissioner. Before you proceed with your testimony, you are going to have to explain that thing on your foot, because we know you are a runner, and we know it must be paining you to have it there. And I know you ever been asked a zillion questions about it since you have been here, you might as well put it on our record. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Thank you, Mr. Street. This is a -- as you are familiar with -- a running injury that has been bothering me for five years. And I have a great tolerance for pain. And so I tolerated the pain for five years. But as you are aware, I ran last May with you in the Broad Street 10-mile run. And while I can take the pain, I just couldn't take the embarrassing slow time. So I decided I better have this thing taken care of. So I had an operation this week. And the stitches will be out next week, and hopefully I will be running by the New Year. Thanks for the inquiry.
Please proceed. 247 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good afternoon. I am commissioner John Timoney, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify in support of Council Bill No. 6 970212/980796. I have testified previously on this bill, and my testimony is in the record. And so I will just mention a few key points. Before I mention those points, to my left and your right is my counsel, Karen Simmons, and to my right and your left is Special Assistant John Gallagher. There are a few reasons -- pretty good reasons, I think -- why I urge the Council in the strongest fashion to pass the legislation before you. Number one, there is a hiring crisis in policing circles, not just in Philadelphia but throughout this country and in every large city. Cities like New York, for example where just a few years ago on any given examination would attract upwards of 40,000 candidates, as recently two months ago received a total of 4,000 applicants to take the police officer's exam in New York City. And that's -- 248 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 they were looking up there to hire between 1500 and 2,000. Recognize that in any pool of applicants, you wind up -- as a result of a whole host of things, you wind up usually hiring one out of every ten that apply and sit for the exam. If you just do the math, New York City, had they gone ahead with the exam -- which they didn't -- would have realized a final candidate pool of about 400 people, some to 1500 short 12 of its hiring. Similarly, Philadelphia, the last exam we gave was in June of this year, 2300 applicants sat for that exam, while on the previous two exams, each had over 3700 people apply. But even eight or ten years ago, it was common for the Philadelphia Police Department to attract upwards of 10,000 applicants. Now, I understand the visceral reaction on the part of some Members of Council and some of the folks in Philadelphia to want to put aside or save the job of police officer for local young men and women. I understand that. But I think -- I think it is short-sighted. 249 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 If the law before you today was to be passed, it's not going to result in thousands of people flooding the job market here in Philadelphia. My expectation would be, hopefully, you would get a few real good candidates, a few good men and women that will be willing to come in, take the exam, pass, and then hopefully be sworn in. You're really looking at, you know, a handful of possible future, what I call, superstars, the future leaders of this department. So I think some of the opposition to this bill, I think is misleading and that leaves the impression that literally thousands of young men and women from the Navy and Army bases around the country will flood the market. And that is just not the case. I was part of an initiative up in New York in the early 1990s under commissioner Lee Brown and Commissioner Ray Kelly where we conducted an extremely active, aggressive recruitment campaign on military bases. And we did have some success in attracting candidates who later on became police 250 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 officers. But trust me, the numbers were nowhere near what one would have expected, number one, and certainly probably what we would have expected. I thought we would have done better. Nonetheless, we did get some very attractive candidates to sit for the exam, and some of those candidates are now presently members of the New York City Police Department. But for the police department recruit, for the ranks of those who have honorably served in our nation's armed forces, the bill before you will significantly increase the pool of qualified candidates. Military personnel often make good police officers. By their nature and training military personnel are dedicated individuals. They have demonstrated their dedication to civic duty by the service.
By virtue of the military organization and rank structures, these individuals understand the need and requirements of discipline. These individuals are also proven workers as their honorable discharges attest to it. Since the military determines where the 251 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 subsequent home is during his or her course of active duty, residency is not a matter of choice for the men and women who serve in the military. The military installs maturity, experience, and pride of service in others. These are ideal qualities for future Philadelphia police officers. They are also ideal qualities for the type of people who want to move into the city. And so we should welcome them as productive new citizens of the City of Philadelphia. I had noted earlier or read earlier or heard earlier some testimony regarding the seeming dichotomy of recruiting people from the Armed Services who have trained to go out and obviously kill an enemy and that that is not necessarily the attributes that you want in a police officer. I couldn't agree with that any more strongly than it was stated. However, there are other attributes that Army and Navy personnel possess: leadership skills, the whole idea of working in teams, discipline, all of the things that I outlined in my testimony just two months ago. 252 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 So I think the great attributes that candidates from the Army or Navy or some of the services would bring to Philadelphia are so desirable that they would outweigh any kind of negative connotations that somebody may want to apply or put up on some of those kind of service people. In any event, my position on this matter is quite clear. I think this bill should be passed. I hope you will agree with me. And I will stop there and I will answer any questions that you may have.
Madam Chair, Mr. President, I need to be excused for about 16 minutes. I have a meeting with the 17 Superintendent of Schools in a conference room 18 with some members of my neighborhood, so I would 19 like to be excused. But I do want to be a part 20 of this discussion.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna.
Thank you. 253 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Good afternoon, commissioner. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good afternoon.
Commissioner, can you tell us how you feel about the polygraph test and if there should be some change made to address that issue? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I have made my feelings known quite publicly from the day I arrived here. I came from a department that did not use a polygraph exam. And so the use of a polygraph exam is something new to me. I am familiar with some of the more notorious cases where the whole exam seems to have fallen flat on its face. And so I am completely open. And I am in the process of reviewing our use of the polygraph. I have not made a commitment one way or the other in my mind. And I am serious about this; I am completely wide open. And my personal feeling is that we could probably achieve, with a very good aggressive background investigation, some of the results that we've achieved through a polygraph. 254 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 However, I have had meetings with senior staff, and they have made to me some pretty compelling items in favor of continuing to use the polygraph. So the debate, the discussion continues. But let me say, some of the more notorious cases that have been in the press recently make for good reading. They may or may not, in fact, be true. It is pretty hard, one, to tell; two, to discuss because there are issues of privacy and things of that nature. Suffice to say that in all of those cases that have come to our attention, either through the press or when I go to community meetings and egregious or seemingly egregious cases come to my attention, I actually look into those things. And to date, I haven't come across a case where I would overrule the findings of the examiners.
I don't understand how an applicant can take three or four polygraphs for the police department, fail and yet be accepted with either the FBI or CIA. However, that being said, I believe I wrote you a 255 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 letter in the early part of the month, and we talked about looking for candidates who had military experience. And I had one of my constituents come in to see me. And apparently had served five years as an MP. He took the police exam, because both of his parents had been police officers, and he was very, very much interested in becoming a policeman. I believe he received a score of 104, that was with ten points including his military service. He passed all phases of the examination, with the exception of the polygraph. So here we are saying that we want young men and women who have been in the military -- they score very highly. And I will tell you, I never met a young man who was really so charming and very courteous and everything was yes, ma'am, no, ma'am. You know, I don't know what we're looking for. And he said he would swear on a stack of Bibles that he had never attempted to use drugs. I don't know what direction we're going. I mean, if the polygraph is denying 256 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 people like this and youngsters who are accepted with the FBI or CIA and they are not good enough to be on the police force with the City of Philadelphia, I just question that. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you. And prior to coming here I was familiar with two cases where young men, both from two of the so-called best schools in the nation, failed the polygraph for the FBI exam. And it's usually for the same -- usually around the same questions having to do with drug use, prior drug use. I think one of the problems -- and clearly when I came here, I looked at the matrix that was set up that helps the background investigation unit determine whether a candidate is qualified or not qualified, meets buster or doesn't meet buster. When I looked at it, I thought, it was, in my opinion, far too stringent, not flexible enough and that really had no -- no redemptive qualities about it. So, for example, automatic disqualification occurred for drug use no matter how young or no matter how insignificant. 257 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Now, I don't have all of the perfect answers, but let me tell you from a personal and a professional point of view, if a young man or a young woman has used drugs when they were and 6 16 -- I'm not talking about selling them. I'm 7 talking about recreational use, tried it out and 8 tested it -- and then that individual was going 9 through the teenage years and stayed out of 10 trouble and they are now 20 or 21 and they've 11 gotten out of high school and they haven't been a 12 problem, they are overall pretty good kids, I've 13 got no objection. As a matter of fact, I have no 14 problem whatsoever in hiring such a person. 15 The matrix that existed when I got here would have automatically rejected those people. I don't automatically reject anybody. I like to look at people; you know, look at them and see what they've done and don't just hold one or two minor strikes against them. I think it's wrong. So hopefully some of the changes -- there were other changes within the matrix. Hopefully some of the changes we've made will help us in administering the polygraph, if we 258 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 continue to do so. So, for example, if I ask you the question, did you ever try drugs and you say, yes, I mean, that will not automatically disqualify you. So we are trying to get some reasonableness, some common sense and really -- I absolutely believe in redemption and giving people a second, third chance. I got second and third chances in my youth and life growing up. So, I am not as hard-nosed as maybe some other police officials will be in this regard.
Now, we talked about the polygraph test. And as I said, I've had many, many young men come into the office and they do very, very well with every phase of the examination with the exception of the polygraph. And then on the other side of the coin, I read in the paper maybe nine months ago or a year ago that a police officer had been on the police force for two years before they found out he committed a very, very, very serious crime. So why didn't the polygraph pick that up? I think it is so erroneous. I really do. 259 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Something has to clearly -- it is not infallible, which is one of the reasons it is not admitted into court. However, it is supposed to be just a tool to assist you in conducting background investigations, and it shouldn't be the sole, I don't think, criteria.
Would you know at this point in time how many individuals have flunked the polygraph in the last say year or two? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. 14 Not, I mean -- people, as I mentioned earlier, you wind up hiring one of every ten candidates that sit, and people wash out for a variety of reasons: failing the polygraph; a lot more wash out as a result of failing the pre-employment medical, and things of that nature; they failed out of high school. There are a whole host of reasons why people wash out and don't make the final cut. And I do not know the final statistics. But I will check with Mr. Norris and get back to you.
Thank you. 260 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. Commissioner, this change that you are discussing today, are you satisfied that it should be limited to the way it is written with military personnel? Why such a narrow focus when we have -- I've received numerous calls from the police officers working in small departments, many of them training in the Philadelphia Police Academy that would like an opportunity to be Philadelphia police officers. Are you looking to expand that beyond active-duty military? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, my own personal and professional opinion is, I would love to -- absolutely. I would love to go to New York; I would love to go to Washington; I would love to go to Baltimore. I would love to recruit all over this country. Again, I don't think you are going to get the huge numbers that people are worried 261 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 about. But you may wind up getting a few potential superstars. And I think that is desirable for everybody. Besides, the one thing that I think that some folks forget is that we have the residency requirement when people are hired that they must move to the city. And I am all for that. So I don't see the objection to encouraging people to move into the city to take a move from New York or Baltimore or Washington or California or whatever and to then to settle down in Philadelphia and one of the neighbors is their family. I think it is just a win/win --
Commissioner, you are not just locked into just active-duty military personnel? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. The bill 19 before us addresses that very issue. But I've said from Day I would like to recruit literally 21 from all over the country. 22
Commissioner, I am 23 hearing today there is possibly a problem with 24 the entire process. And I made comments earlier 25 that we were discussing the lie detector. We are 262 1 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 talking about lists that run out after a period of time of qualified people that have met the requirements that just fall through the cracks, the lists run out. And we have police officers that at a very young age have the ability to retire. What are we doing about incentives in areas of pension to keep men and women 40 years old, years of service on the job without 11 stopping them from -- or giving them some 12 motivation not to retire? I mean, I am hoping 13 that we are looking at this entire process before 14 we make significant changes to the way we do 15 business. 16 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Oh, we are. 17 And I guarantee you, Mr. Rizzo, we are at 18 completely at opposite poles when it comes to 19 this issue. Rather than keeping people, I would 20 encourage them to leave. One of the things that passed here some years back, the mandatory -- I'm sorry, the minimum retirement age had been 45. And somehow it was changed from 45 to 50; in other words, you couldn't retire until you are 50. 263 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 That is in nobody's best interest. My sense is that -- I haven't looked at the issue increasing literally all over country -- that quite by accident and not by design, New York may wind up having, despite itself, one of the better systems. In New York, you are allowed to retire after years, so you can retire when you 10 are 40 and 41. And people are not hesitant to 11 make career choices when they are 40 and 41 to go 12 on to other careers, especially if they haven't 13 moved up the rank structure, they haven't become 14 sergeant or detective. 15 Where if it's 50 -- I think 16 Philadelphia is 50, and I think Boston is 53 or 17 55 -- when people have reached that age and 18 haven't moved up in the organization, haven't 19 really bettered themselves, the possibility or 20 hope that those folks will retire within the profession diminishes with time. You wind up with people who probably shouldn't stay on who wind up staying on because they are not going to make second career choices as they are entering their early 50s. 264 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 The bottom line is, if you are allowed to retire after years, then you should 4 be allowed to retire after 20 years no matter how 5 old you are, whenever 20 years takes place. 6 So I've heard this argument for years 7 and years and years, the whole idea of retaining 8 seasoned veterans. 9 We can sit down and have a 10 discussion. Maybe it's on a regular problem, but 11 my sense is it would take a week of regular 12 problems to discuss this whole issue. But 13 things, as the song goes, aren't always what they 14 appear to be. 15
Thank you very 16 much. 17 The Chair recognizes Councilman 18 Nutter. 19
Good afternoon. 20 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good afternoon, sir.
Sir, I would like to go to your -- either someone from your office or -- somehow I got a letter dated November 25th, 1998 attached to what I guess is your testimony 265 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 that you gave at the first hearing. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Right.
Why don't you go to that? Your testimony at the time, you talked about New York City facing this problem. You've alluded to it in either prior testimony or in your earlier remarks. When New York faced this problem even with apparently, in your testimony, lenient residency requirements, what did New York City do to address the recruitment problem? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Are you talking about now?
Yeah. Is that -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I have no idea what they are doing. This just happened, Mr. Nutter. This was, I believe -- it was only in the last two months.
Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: So what they did and what they are doing, I am not sure. I mean, I do have friends that I stay in contact with, but that issue, actually, surprised me somewhat, because they hadn't had problems for 266 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 some time. But my sense is -- I can't prove this. But my sense is that there has been such a hiring binge, if you will, for want of a better term, over the last five and six and seven years as a result of the legislation passed under Mayor Dickens, where they've hired literally or 9 12,000 new police officers over that period. 10 Maybe that in conjunction with the great economy -- I mean, there are plenty of jobs out there with good people that -- also people that are done with the Civil Service. Let me just point out that the so-called greatest class, smartest class, brightest class that ever went through the NYPD throughout its whole history -- and they track this stuff pretty good up there -- was the class of 1939. And there were a lot of graduates and a whole host of people that later went on to run the department in the early '50s.
Is that your own class? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. No. 25 Ironically, the '67 or '68 class was known for 267 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 something different than scholars. We were known as mostly criminals and things of that nature.
The question was raised earlier, although not by myself, I believe to Mr. Voigt, do you have a particular type of military person that you plan to go after? The bill is, even in this area, just talks about military people. There are a lot of different people in the military. The example was made and there was one person who testified -- which it was certainly interesting to see the young man who is an MP in the Navy -- there is nothing to require you to go after people with actual policing background with their military background or preclude you from going after those people, it is just all military; is that correct? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: That is correct sir, yes. Basically you are using, the people in the military and the military base is just as the recruital.
I understand. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: So it's really more of a target audience than anything else. 268 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
Whether a person is an MP or a mechanic, both would be able to go after the job and apply for it? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Clearly. The appealing thing with the military, it is painted on a whole variety of levels and for a whole variety of reasons. But some of the raters involving police recruitment and police hiring some specific to this city, most specific to all of these cities, the issue of race and how do you get a good number of qualified minorities. I mean, you have a pretty good ready pool there at the military bases. We had some discussion a month or two ago. The Army and -- well, not just the Army but the Navy, also, has done -- the whole institution has done, I think, a great job in the area of getting a diversified work force, much more so than, I think, some of the more enlightened institutions. If you looked at "New York Times" today in reference to two of the more prominent schools, Dartmouth and the University of New Hampshire and the problems they are having attracting minority, not just minority students 269 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 but also minority faculty, when you start to look at military services, they've done the an enormous job.
How many officers do you anticipate hiring in the next year or so? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I don't have the actual figures here on me, but I think we have at least three classes that are lined up, that are scheduled, you know. By the way, one of the real benefits -- one. There are lots of benefits, but one of the real benefits over the last three or four years as opposed to prior years has been -- which is has been pretty helpful, has been the kind of regularity from hiring. The history of not just this police department but certainly New York and most major police departments has been the uneven hiring practices that causes you, after you have gotten a good recruitment and background investigation unit set up, there is this hiring freeze and you wind up closing down those units. Then the academy has to start up again in a year and a half with little notice from the administration, 270 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 no matter who it is, and then you expect to get the same people that you've trained to run the academies and run the background units. And they say, no, I am not going back to that unit. I already found a niche somewhere else in the detective division or the narcotics division. So uneven hiring practices are problematic.
Most of the hiring over the last few years has primarily come as result of taking advantage of the crime bill. And I believe we are pretty much at the end of that. I think the statistic generally is in Philadelphia we lose about to 30 officers. 16 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: 30, yeah. 17
So we certainly 18 have to replace those. And I don't know what the 19 future plans are for just pure net additions to 20 the force. But you would expect most classes are 21 what usually, what, 80 to 100 officers? 22 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Usually 100. 23 But having said that, the one thing I am not 24 going to sit with a flat hand, I would like to 25 make -- or recommend, at least -- I don't make 271 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 changes that I can make, but I also recommend other changes that may create a more dynamic organization. I mean, I would be in favor of looking at a whole host of things to get the organization moving.
And I would be glad to at some point in time to talk to you about those. I think one of the things that you've possibly taken either from today's testimony or previous testimony has some level of, I think in your words, earlier opposition, may not show the opposition but maybe more of an interest in knowing what the overall plan is for the department. I've shared with, you know, some people who are here in the room today or folks around you, the greater interest in the larger plan. This can only be, at best, seen as a part of a whole series of other changes that need to be made. To be honest with you. I would be much more interested in the bill and its points if I could see it in the context of a larger plan 272 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 having to do with age, education, and having an extensive discussion about polygraph tests itself and other issues that affect the department. Because I, quite honestly, have not been able to really figure out even with this positive tool, if no other changes are made or if we are not aware of those changes being made or there are no 9 discussions about those changes being made, what goes on with the recruitment unit. And I want to ask you some questions about that. And I don't really see how you get the maximum benefit out of out of it. And as I said, I am less interested in having the discussion because I can't deal with a larger context. Let's move on. You are aware of two studies done, both by the Committee of Seventy and the Integrity and Accountability Office, I'm sure, right? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes, sir.
And what the city currently operates under? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes, sir. 273 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
Can we share your perspective on the impact of any of the unfortunate recent or past scandals that have affected the department, whether it is in police corruption or brutality in areas and any of the impacts of that on our ability to recruit qualified people even with what you view as restrictions on only being able to hire Philadelphians who qualify with pre-residency qualifications? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: (Pause.)
Do you think there are people less inclined if they think there is something wrong with the organization to want to be a part of it? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I'm pretty sure I think I agree with you. I may phrase it a little differently. Not that they may be less inclined as that I think that if you improve the image, the reputation -- if it looks like this is a pretty good place to work, that this place is on the move, this place is on the ball, you tend to want to attract more people.
It's like if you 274 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 were a draft choice -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.
-- and you are anticipating getting some calls. And maybe you get a call from, I don't know, San Francisco 49ers or Minnesota Vikings or maybe even get a call from the Eagles --
I mean, you want to play football, but the location does kind of matter to you. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: That's a great question. And I am going to give you the answer you are not expecting. Had that call been made a year ago, everybody would have jumped at San Francisco. My sense is, this year because of the improved image and performance of the Minnesota Vikings, my sense is most would jump on the Minnesota Vikings.
Commissioner, how may we recruit people for the police department? Who are the officers in the unit? How do they get there? What is their background and 275 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 training? And what makes them qualified to do that job? And how long have they been there? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I am not pushing off this question, but the whole issue of the recruitment and background units is being addressed. And the background investigations generally has been completely revamped under a new captain. And as I think I mentioned earlier, the matrix -- and I don't handle all of the details because it is an internal document they used, but the matrix has been completely revamped. And I got a presentation probably about six weeks ago by the commanding officer of that unit, the Background Investigations Unit, along with his staff. And -- (unintelligible) -- of the day and up and running and heading in the right direction with some modest suggestions and alterations on my part, they agreed they got their act together. The issue of recruitment, that whole issue, because it involves a few things other than just personalities, is being looked at by Commissioner Johnson. and I am not going to 276 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 comment right now on whether it looks the same or it changes, or the personality will change.
Does it need to change? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, it depends. And the one things I always do in certain situations, no matter how I look at it, a lot of things, point blank, at individuals or team or something like that, I often look inwards; look at the institution itself. And has the institution done all it can to encourage, or are they just reflecting the attitude of the leadership? And if that's the case, then it is kind of hard to hold somebody responsible for doing just an average job as opposed to above-average job. And so that is part of the overall interview process. The reason why we were able to go so far ahead in the background investigation unit, it was part and parcel of the whole revamping of the internal affairs structure, which is one of the first issues I attacked when getting here. Because it was clear with me that with three 277 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 separate internal affairs divisions, none reporting to the commissioner, I mean that that was going to be what my number one priority is before I can look at the other parts of the organization. And so you may say, well, why did you fix one and not look at the other? The fact is that was a prior issue that I got into.
I understand that. Is it accurate to say then that you are not completely satisfied with the effort and the operation of the recruitment given as it presently functions today? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Why don't I put my own words in my own mouth, as they say.
I will be happy to give you an opportunity to. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Let me say, is there room for improvement in the recruitment unit? Absolutely, sir. Will there be changes? Absolutely, sir. What will those changes encompass? Will it be just systems changes? Personality changes? That decision I haven't 278 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 reached yet, but rest assured there will be changes.
With regard to personalities, you need to know that I wouldn't know one person in that unit or have any relationship or contact within that unit. If all of them came in here right now, I wouldn't know who they are, so there is no personality issue on my side. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah.
In both of the studies, they, whether one read the other study or they arrived on the same conclusion, both reports recommend allowing recruitment at military bases, universities, especially those with historically high enrollment in other law enforcement agencies. How do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I couldn't agree more. I could not agree more and --
Did you seek to have that change made legislatively? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. I think when you listen, there are a whole host of 279 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 changes that I would like to make. There are a lot of ideas that I have that I think about all the time in running. And there are sometimes, I guess, compromises you make -- I don't know -- you get past or you try to get past that which you think is passable. And my sense is, if this is legislation that is overly broad or sweeping, it will be less likely in getting passed then if the item was made as it is here for military bases; that it is easier understood, its entire audience. And my sense is there was a better chance of getting this passed than some kind of sweeping piece of legislation that would open up recruitment throughout the whole country, city to city or campus to campus.
Does this go to your quality issue? I mean, it seems to me it is all the same argument, whether it is with military bases or colleges and universities. You're trying to go after highly qualified people, it is no more expenditure. As best I can tell, it isn't any more political capital, it is all the same argument. I mean, did you talk to -- 280 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No, I --
-- to anybody about this? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I'm sorry.
Did you talk to any of the various members about military only versus military colleges other law enforcement agencies? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. We've talked about a whole host of issues.
"We," you mean the internal "we?" COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah. And with people in the mayor's office. But what's possible and what's not possible, I mean, let's be realistic.
Do you know if they talked to any members of the body about this? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I have no 22 idea. I said from Day I think -- and I maybe 23 even said it here. I maybe even said it to you 24 my first day here, that I would like to recruit 25 from all over the country. 281 1 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 But getting the analysis -- and I've had some prior experience with using military bases up in New York in 1992 and 1993 as a tiny population. I've never quite, I guess, understood recruiting. But recruiting is really marketing. And you go after target audiences. And so my sense is, we will get the best bang for your buck and get the best, I guess, possible future police officers, people that are used to working in a semi-military or military organization, people who are well disciplined, all of the things that I outlined in my testimony.
Right. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: And then there was some added benefit as I mentioned earlier recruit qualified candidates, which is always a desirable goal.
What does the term "test examination" and "candidate's success" -- however "success" is defined on that examination -- what does that tell you about that person's ability to be a good police officer? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Oh, you know, 282 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 I am not a psychometrician. I am not trying to be cute about this, but the system is what the system is, the Civil Service system is what the Civil Service system is, whether it is in Philadelphia, New York, San Francisco, Boston. I mean, this is years of practice. Whether I agree with you it is the best system or not, I think we have a lengthy discussion on that, sir.
Okay. I look forward to it. But I guess I am still trying to understand it. Do you think our test gives a legitimate evaluation as to whether or not the person that passes the test, whoever the person is, will or will not make a good police officer? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: That's the $64,000 question that the Courts have been wrestling with for years, are these exams -- do these exams -- do they do the whole thing? Are they great predictors of future success? I don't think anybody -- I don't think anybody has studied that whole issue, I really don't. They may have said they have, but I don't think. And even when you get past that, when you get into something that would be more 283 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 managerial -- for example, Civil Service exams for the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant and captain -- even there the studies haven't been done with regards to how people do those exams and how they eventually later on, as a supervisor. So I know a lot of answers, but I don't know the answer to that question.
What military bases do you anticipate recruiting from? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Clearly you do the most obvious. There are limited resources. It's not like we have all the cops and an unlimited budget so we can start flying them all over the country. So we will go, I would think, with 2, 300 mile radius of Philadelphia, the usual suspects, places in Maryland and New Jersey, things like that.
And how will the people get here? Is that on their own or do we take care of that? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I haven't even thought of that, mainly because we want to see what the legislation -- I mean, there are a whole host of issues to do with that. One of the 284 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 things in New York, by the way -- I mean, why drag them all the way down to downtown to some school to take the exam; why don't you just go to the base and administer the exam there?
Thank you. Now, I am sure there are other members that have other issues. I appreciate it. (Councilwoman Verna takes the chair.)
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go back for a moment or two to the polygraph question. Because in my private practice before I became a district Councilman subsequent, before I came back to council as a councilperson-at-large, I had many folks -- because I operate in the community -- many folks in the community that would come who sought to get on the police force. And the one thing that stood out constantly was the polygraph test. The number of complaints must have been 50 to as other complaints. And generally, 285 1 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 it was because the applicants were young and they had apparently made the decision to say no to the question of have you ever used drugs. And once having said no, they apparently, if they were given a second opportunity to take the test, they were frightened and would say yes for fear then they would have, you know, admitted to having lied. And would they take the no, was usually wrapped up with the fact they couldn't be sure, they thought maybe they had experimented, what should they do, and apparently the polygraph recorded the uncertainty and the hesitancy. And my experiences were the same as the Chairperson's, that they seem like very fine people. And in the explanation you gave, you talk about redemption, which is fine. But the experience -- or the example you gave was the example of somebody admitting that he or she had done so. But would your answer be the same to the person who denied it saying on the kind of factual basis I had raised? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yeah. I mean, I raised that very issue myself and so our 286 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Background Investigations Unit will take that into consideration. So, for example, this young man or woman has made out the -- there is a huge long application process where those questions come up. They've now changed the policy. When they come in -- you made it out three or four or five months ago, and I say, Okay, listen, Mr. Cohen, you have an application here. I understand you made it out three or four or five months ago, is there anything you have second thoughts on and is there something you would like to change before we hook you up, before we go over this? And if you want to change it, that's fine, do not worry about it. And so we encourage them. And the idea is to encourage them to tell the truth. And then to tell the truth, not to punish them. So, fine, we now go back over, you would, like -- you let your investigating officer know you made the changes accordingly. And then assuming that it is just one of those kinds of like sort of an innocuous situation of recreational use, I suppose, for 287 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 example, as opposed to, for example, sale, you shouldn't have problems. So the taking -- the one thing I am trying to get to a lot of these systems, the systems are very important, but you also need a little bit of common sense and understanding. And so I am trying to do that.
Well, I appreciate your comment. But the problem has been that there didn't seem to be common sense. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I know. I am trying to change that. But you can't hold me up to past practices. What you can hold me up to is present practice. And I am just telling you what the present practice is. The matrix has been changed, the whole issue that, if you now change your mind, three or four months later with regard to the application you have made three or four months ago, that will automatically -- no, it won't. It means we will sit down and discuss it, and you now can go back and make the changes without being thrown at the door and rejected.
I will wait with great interest to see what happens. But I think that has been a very serious block toward 288 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 recruiting in minority communities, in particular, but in all communities. But this is a problem that seems upon -- it was somewhat not part of the minority community, but generally the problems seem to arise in large numbers in the minority community. But we will wait to see. Incidentally, would people that have been turned down before, will they be eligible if they meet the other standards? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. Because, I again, I am not going to go back and correct every mistake or procedure mistake in the past. There is a process in place. Take the exam over again and start the new process. Pretty simple.
Now, you talked about the fact that not a significant number of people -- I think you used that word. But typically not a lot of people would come from outside of the city anyway, that that problem is overestimated. Given the fact that in your mind the likelihood of three additional classes of each averaging about 100, could you give us in terms 289 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 of number what would you mean by "not a significant number"? Would it be five? Would it be 100 would not be significant out of 300? I don't have any idea what you -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, my sense is that those next three classes are spoken for anyway. I don't think it applies to the next three classes. We're talking -- my sense is we are talking about the future here. You know, maybe the third class. I have no idea. The only experience I have in this area is up in New York when we recruited on the military bases. We got a lot -- we got -- we got candidates, good, qualified candidates that took the exam. We administered the exam on the bases. Did we get the candidates I thought we were getting? Probably not. My sense is that the same will apply here. There are not hundreds and thousands of people waiting to come take this exam. If there was, there would not be a hiring crisis in policing. And I know you are very skeptical. I'm sure you said last time, and I'm sure I haven't convinced you that there is, in fact, a 290 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 national hiring crisis in policing. But there is. And if there weren't, people would be flooding by the thousands to Philadelphia or for that matter, to places that are that are easy, places like New York. But they, too, are suffering from this hiring crisis.
Would you have any objection to a specific limitations such as no 10 more than percent of those recruited within any given year shall be from outside the city. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: I just -- no. 13 I think artificial numbers like that are just -- no. I would be against it. I am not looking to create artificial numbers. I am not looking to create another bureaucracy to overlook, to make sure it is not 11 percent and it is only 10 percent and then there is a group from military bases saying, Hey, listen, you know, there's 9 percent here, where is the other percent? 21 I think it should just be opened up 22 and allow us to go recruit on the military 23 bases. And just my sense, just my sense is that 24 you are not going to get thousands of people 25 rushing in. It is just not going to happen. 291 1 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
You indicated in New York that there was a limitation to hiring outsiders to surrounding counties? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No. 6
No? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: There was no 8 limitation in New York whatsoever as far as recruitment. You could recruit -- so long as you meet the basic qualifications, and you're a U.S. Citizen and now -- now it is two years of college. Whatever the basic qualifications were laid out by the Civil Service Commission in New York, once you meet them, anyone can take the exam. What you specifically -- what you referenced is the residency requirement to be a New York City police officer. You just reside within the five burros of New York City or the six surrounding -- and not even adjoining -- six surrounding residential county: those are Suffolk, Orange, Westchester, Putnam -- a huge, huge area.
Are you saying there was a limitation or not a limitation? 292 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: No, there's a limitation. In other words, you could be a New York City --
After you were hired you could continue to live -- COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes, sir.
-- in any of those surrounding areas? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Yes, sir. In other words, you could actually come in from Washington, D.C., take the job, be sworn in tomorrow as a New York City police officer, and take up residence as far as north as 85 miles outside the city.
What is the greatest mystery to me of this legislation is the fact that you, of course, do not need legislation from City Council to bring about the change you are talking about. Are you familiar with that? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Well, I am familiar with the -- I am not familiar with what's on your mind. I am familiar with the regulation which says, you can take an exam and be a resident anywhere in the United States, however, you must be 293 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 a resident in the City of Philadelphia for one full year prior to being appointed. I didn't mention today, and maybe I should have read my speech -- but I get bored reading the same thing over and over again. I read it a month and a half ago. The problem in that regard is self-evident. If I was a young man living in Washington, D.C. or Baltimore Maryland and I took -- I come down on a Saturday and took the Philadelphia police exam and now I realized I was going to be sworn in next December 1st and so I moved in to Philadelphia tomorrow to establish the one-year residency requirement prior to my swearing in, I mean, who do you think is going to hire me realistically? Who do you think is going to invest in me with regards to training and personal improvement when they know next year, December 1st, Timoney is out of here, he is going to the Philadelphia Police Department? I mean, look, I don't decorate way hard work or manual labor, but you would be left with jobs that may not pay enough and may not be personally fulfilling. 294 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
Well, I had specific reference to the City's own known charter. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Enlighten me, sir.
Do you know there is a provision, Section 7-401 Subparagraph U that says: "Such residents' qualifications --" referring to residents' qualification set forth by City Council "-- for employees in the Civil Service as the Council may from time to time require but the Civil Service Commission may, upon the request to the personnel director, waive such requirements whenever in its description the circumstances warrant such waiver." Now, as I gather, this bill is an administration request. And I am puzzled why the administration -- I will eliminate -- I assumed it was an administration request. But let's say it's not. But why would we go to legislation?
Why don't we get a 295 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 point of order from Councilman Kenney who wants to clear this?
Thank you. This bill was introduced by me. I mean, I thought about this bill, I looked into it, decided from my perspective as an elected representative and as an at-large member of being elected in every neighborhood in the city that this was a good thing for the police department to do. I had no prior discussions with Commissioner Timoney, no prior discussions with the mayor. And I'm sure you don't either when you introduce your own legislation, get clearance there with the mayor. This is a bill generated by me. I talked to Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Krajewski, they agreed to be the cosponsors if any other piece of legislation goes through this pot. It does not imply in any way that the mayor either wants it or doesn't want it, or the police commissioner wants it or doesn't want it. I think I have a opportunity and a right as an elected member of this body and this legislation -- 296 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
Of course you do. And nothing that was said was intended to indicate you didn't. What I don't understand is why the commissioner is in support of this bill, why doesn't he go through the provision that exists in the charter that would not require city council legislation. The Civil Service Commission, upon the request of the personnel director has the full power to waive the requirement of any residency set forth in the council ordinance.
I said by the commissioner's support, so he would not be in support of this if he had cleared this with the mayor. I am assuming, and I may be wrong even as to that. But I am saying why wouldn't you use the provision in the charter, because that could be done without any legislative action.
If I may, I am Karen Simmons for the police department. The provision of the section that you are referring to, I think the person to speak on this -- this is not something that the commissioner, the police commissioner, can 297 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 go to Civil Service and do, it is something that Linda Sadel (ph), our personnel officer, would have that ability. And I think she would be the person to direct your issue. But just specifically to Section 7-401 of the charter, you must look at that in conjunction with the Civil Service Legislation. One does not preempt the other. And once you look at the both of them together, one talks about the post-employment, one address pre-employment. But I think there are specific issues, ones that would have to be addressed with the personnel officer. I wouldn't want to speak on her behalf knowing what the issue is, what the specific provision calls for.
Madam Chair, I would be happy to make it much simpler. I want to see this happen. If it happens by Civil Service Commission or if it happens by this legislation, in my mind, in my book, the ship is not important just as long as it happens. If we can come up with a legal opinion that says the Civil Service Commission can do this next week, I will withdraw the bill. I want to see the effects of this 298 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 legislation, not necessarily my bill being passed. As with a lot of things I've introduced in this body, it seems it takes a year or so and then we get around to do it. I will withdraw it now if the Civil Service Commission passes it, and we will go on. I have no problem with that for the record.
And I appreciate the fact that the commissioner is in Philadelphia only recently, and he has been very busy on many things and wouldn't have had the opportunity. But I certainly would like to recommend that for your consideration and for the consideration of the administration, there is a provision that does not require City Council and Civil Service Commission can fill in whatever gaps have been found and have regulations and making it all applicable.
Councilman Cohen, will you yield to a point of information?
If I can just ask based on your statement and on the statement of 299 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Councilman Kenny, if we can ask the police department's legal counsel on this issue and in this form to request the formal legal opinion on the issue raised by Councilman Cohen to lay out what the procedure is under apparently two alternatives to this. This same issue is raised in the Committee of Seventy report, again on where I was talking with Mr. Voigt. It says: "The Civil Service Commission is allowed to waive the requirement with cause so it is possible that the mayor can instruct the Commission to grant the mass waivers to certain class of applicants; for example, applicants who are minorities or those serve active duty in the military." So, Ms. Simmons, will you get us a full explanation and legal opinion on this particular issue?
This is a point of 300 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 information on the councilman's point of information. If we can take that a little bit further, Ms. Simmons, when we do this, can we find out also the Councilman's bill here, once that happens, if it happens, is it good forever? That's what I want find out. This thing, if Ms. Sadel does something to help the Civil Service Commission, is that just for a certain amount of time? Do you get my point, council? So we may want to continue doing this with the Councilman's bill because --
This doesn't solve all of our woes if this is going to be a temporary thing. This may be something for him or the following police commissioners from now to eternity have to do. We may have to do this because we are always going to have a problem.
The councilman may change his mind, and the Civil Service Commission could also. So I think it is temporary in the sense that nothing we do as a legislative body or anything that any administrative body does is permanent. You know, it is as permanent as we all want it to be 301 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 permanent, but there will be other people making decisions. I think the permanent temporary nature is the same in either process. And I would agree with Councilman Nutter; I would very much like to see that opinion. I just don't understand why we have to go through this legislative action when there is administrative action that could tailor much more than we could the procedure along the lines that the commissioner is talking. He would have full input. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would assume -- I may be incorrect in assuming that from Councilmember Cohen's comments, the vehicle or change in this particular -- with regard to the service commission, he would be supporting that effort?
Well, we have to see what we do just as we have to sit here. But they certainly have the power and they don't have to come to us. 302 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
Well, again, just let me state for the record the results of what happens, whether it is here or in the Civil Service Commission is what is important to me. Commissioner Timoney has come in here and has asked us to -- or at least supported what myself and some other Members of Council are trying to accomplish. He thinks it is important and he thinks he needs it. If the expeditious track for that is the Civil Service Commission, so be it. I will be happy to withdraw the bill. But I do think that we ought to make these changes and make them now. If we start trying to put this stuff on the back burner until we have an omnibus bill or omnibus strategy to go after this, it may take us another year or two years. In the meantime, we lose all of that opportunity to continue to improve not only the quality of our police force but the diversity of our police force. One of the reasons -- and this goes to Councilman Nutter's question directed at the Commissioner is, but I don't think he was able to answer, because I am the author of the bill, is I want to see our department continue to diversify, to 303 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 attract more minorities, high-powered, good minorities who are willing to bring their families in the city. And that's the reason why I chose the military. The military has its problems and had its problems historically. But within recent years, recent decades, a lot of those problems have gone away. And maybe one of the only or one of the main opportunities in this country from minority and women and others to progress through the ranks of military. And that is why I chose the military, with an eye toward diversity and ability to bring qualified minority and non-minorty candidates to our city as future residents and taxpayers and future parents and everything else. So that is the reason why I chose the military. If there is some other way to do it, fine. If there is some other way to do it through the Civil Service Commission, fine. We won't have to beat our heads against the desk here every 30 days or so. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam 304 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Chair. In follow-up to Councilman Kenney, during the break we had about an hour or so ago, I had a conversation with a couple members of the F.O.P. who are in the galleys today. And I asked the question, did we ever recruit outside of the Philadelphia area or in specific or in particular any target groups in variables within the military. And with all due respect, Commissioner, you weren't around in the '70s in Philadelphia. Anyway, it is my understanding that we did do some recruitment with the military. The way I see this bill, there are two issues: one is recruitment of the target group and there is also the question of residency. But as it relates to the recruitment of the specific group and in this case the military, it is my understanding again that we did, in fact, do some outside recruitment during the '70s.
Do you know how they did that? 305 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
It think Mr. Rocks is on the phone. He might be able to answer that better. I am trying to get his attention, Madam Chair.
Yeah, I believe so. Mr. Rocks? I believe what the issue was in the '70s, when there was a lot of unrest in many urban areas in the country, there was a need for additional police. And the federal government, the military, the U.S. Military was offering a six-month early out for military personnel if they would, in fact, get to be employed by a major city police department. However there was a residency requirement and there still is. So I am kind of like separating this bill into two different groups. So my point is, this is not really all that unique, from what my understanding is, in the '70s -- and I believe Mayor Rizzo was the 306 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 mayor at the time. And having been a former police commissioner, it was acceptable to the commissioner then in the '70s that we do go to look at a specific group of people and in particular the military personnel because of their qualifications. And what our needs as a major city was at that time in relationship to the crime. I am trying to get Mr. Rocks' attention.
Mr. Rocks, would you please approach the witness table?
I think Mr. Rocks can address that a lot better than I can.
I would like to get one thing on the table while Mr. Rocks is coming. Councilman Kenney asked Councilman Cohen if based on his recommendation about Civil Service would he, in fact, be in favor if the Commission were to take action versus the legislation action. The Councilman artfully dodged the direct response to the question, which I appreciate. 307 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 I do want to ask though for Councilman Kenney, if that is the route that is chosen, even though the Civil Service Commission may not be required to come to Council for anything under those circumstances, I would, at least, be interested -- and most other members, I am sure, would at the same time at least be interested in whatever it is that they come up with and that they would at least tell us about it or present it to us before, in fact, changing the regulations, even though they are not required. Do you have any problem with that?
Chair, again, it is the end result that is important. If a request is made from the Chair to the Civil Service Commissioner and they are willing to come in and explain what it is they were going to do 308 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 from an informational standpoint, I would very happy of that, I would be very supportive of that, and I have no problem at all.
Madam Chair, Mr. Rocks is here, if you have any questions as to what the policy was in the late '60s and '70s.
Have you informed Mr. Rocks as to what the question was?
I mean, whether through Councilman or ultimately Mr. Rocks, I think the only question was --
Mr. Rocks, why don't you take the witness table, please?
How did they deal with the pre-residency issue for these military people in the '70s because of urban unrest?
In August of 1967, I went into the military. In the early part of 1968, I was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division. One 309 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 of the things that we were doing is we were undertaking, along with combat training, civil defense training. We were trained in riot control. In April of '68 when Martin Luther King was tragically killed, I was a member of the 82nd Airborne Division. I moved into Washington, D.C. to assist the Washington, D.C. police Department as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division in the control of that riot condition. Subsequent to that, we had a whole bunch of combat arms trained solders. And when we all came back from the Republic of Vietnam, which I served with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, there was not much we could do. As a young man, I was torn between what do I do here? Do I stay in the service, stay in the bright and shining lie that was still going on -- although I didn't know it was a bright and shining lie at that time -- and risk going back there and doing what we did best, or to go to other things? And what the Government come up with was a six-month early out for any solder who was 310 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 interested in going to any major city police department that bought into this. And they would grant them a six-month early out, if they were accepted into that employment and that police department. And there were cities all over the place. I was considering at that time going to several different cities regardless of what my home of record was, because my address at that time was Fort Bragg, North Carolina. But my home of record was the City of Philadelphia.
Did you come directly from the military to police employment?
When I got done, I got back to the City of Philadelphia, which was my home of record. And then I subsequently in 1971 became a police officer. I was in the military --
Excuse me, Mr. Rocks. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman 311 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 Clark.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Rocks' testimony is not relevant because he fits the prior residency. So we need somebody who is from Podunct who took that early out and chose to come to Philadelphia or go to New York or some other major city.
I'm not sure whether it is qualified or not. Because I am still at the point of when you got out of the military --
-- did you immediately come a Philadelphia police officer or did you wait a year?
(Unintelligible.) -- based on your original residency here in the city?
-- in August of '70. And I became a Philadelphia police officer in April of '71. So I had a little more than eight months 312 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 or nine months.
Basically his address never changed because of his military status.
I thought the requirement was you had to be a resident a year before you took the test.
But I thought the requirement was you had to be a resident a year before he took --
Right, by moving up here and going to school. So his experience, while interesting, is not relevant to prove the point that you can hire somebody from outside Philadelphia. It is interesting but not relevant.
Because you were saying he was always a resident? 313 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
He was always a resident. And nothing he did changed his residency. I need someone who came from Podunct.
So is it that you are from Philadelphia and go into the military, get assigned to Hawaii, you can automatically come back --
Excuse me. Excuse me, please. I think if we got Linda Sadel up at the witness table, it may help to clarify this for us.
Just to finish his question, Madam Chair -- just to finish the question --
Your address doesn't change in the military unless you want to. If you vote here, you can stay here.
That's right. And that's the only point that I make. He never lost his Philadelphia status.
He could, if he wanted to. 314 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
So you need someone who wasn't a resident of Philadelphia who came back here. Can anybody who do that?
It didn't -- what I suggested -- I said I separated the two issues. One is residence and one is targeting a certain group, because a lot of them in the discussion today dealt with why we need a military. Why is it -- I am using someone who was in the military at a time when the military was offering a six-month early out and cities weren't recruiting people who were taking advantage of that six-month early out. Mr. Rocks may be a poor example in so much as he was a Philadelphia resident and a nonresident. But I am speaking to the issue of the pool of people that we are looking to recruit to the Philadelphia Police Department.
No, but there 315 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 has been a lot of discussion and controversy today -- unless I was hearing wrong -- why do we need to go to the military? What is so important about going to the military? Why are we trying to go to the group of people? All I am saying is we are not reinventing the wheel. It is something that has already been done in the past.
Will you please identify yourself for the record and share with us your experience on this matter?
My name is Linda Sadel and I am the Personnel Representative for the City of Philadelphia. And I think I do have some insight into the situation. Back in the mid '70s, the City of Philadelphia did recruit in the military. We recruited individuals whose residence of record was the City of Philadelphia. And at that period of time -- I mean, I know. The person who did that recruiting was a person who at some point later in his life became my husband. So I know from personal experience exactly what happened. And at that point in time, people -- several people from the personnel department went 316 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 to selected military installations and did recruit military personnel who were from Philadelphia. What I also need. To let you know that it was an effort that, as I think the commissioner testified to earlier, did not bring large numbers of people in to Philadelphia, because, recruitment, whether it be recruitment in the military or it be recruitment at colleges --
Madam Chairwoman, point of information. I think the question is with respect to Ms. Sadel, did you recruit anybody for Philadelphia that wasn't in Philadelphia -- that their home of record wasn't Philadelphia? Did we do any of that in the '70s? Because I was in high school. I don't remember high school.
The question is can we do it? 317 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796
In terms of "can we do it," we can certainly today recruit people from the military whose residence of record is Philadelphia. With a residency waiver, we could also recruit military personnel whose residence of record is not Philadelphia.
(unintelligible) -- service commission that that's necessary -- (unintelligible.)
I'll restate it 318 11/30/98 - WHOLE - BILL NO. 980796 because I thought I heard you say it; is that correct?
Yes, that is my understanding. I have never asked for a formal legal opinion, but that is my understanding. We routinely request a resident waiver to enable the city, the City of Philadelphia, to go outside the city limits to recruit in those situations where we feel it is warranted.