COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:20 a.m. - - - - BILL 040936 - an Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter... RESOLUTION 040942 - a Resolution proposing an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter... PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 I N D E X BILL 040936 LYNDA ORFANELLI, City of Phila....... MICHAEL MCANALLY, City of Phila...... 6 PETER SPECOS, Phila. Unemployment Project.......................... 56 7 LAWRENCE SWAN........................ 61 FAITH WHITEHEAD...................... 62 8 BOBBY DAVIS, Local 96, District Council 33............... 64 9 ERNESTA PETERSON...................... 70 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 3 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
The Committee on Law and Government of the City Council of Philadelphia is now in session. The Chair will ask Ellen Berkowitz, the Clerk of the Committee, to read the title of the bill and resolution involving the $35 charge the Administration seeks from job applicants.
Bill No. 040936, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter set forth in a Council resolution relating to the preparation of Civil Service Regulations, requiring that any fees to be imposed for the purposes of processing applications for positions within the City be first approved by City Council; fixing the date of a special election for such purpose; prescribing the form of ballot question to be voted on; and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution No. 040942, a resolution 4 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 proposing an amendment to Section 7-400 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, relating to the preparation of Civil Service Regulations, by adding a requirement that any fees to be imposed for the purposes of processing applications for positions within the City be approved by City Council.
Thank you. The Chair notes that the quorum of the Committee is present, in that Councilman Nutter, Councilman Goode, myself as Chair, and Councilman Rizzo is present. I know that Councilman Mariano is ill and won't be here today. I've also been informed that Councilman Kelly is not available this morning. That leaves one missing, and I'm not sure who that is or why that person is not here, but the quorum exists. Councilwoman Blackwell, before we go ahead with the one witness that we have noted, Personnel Director Orfanelli, is there a statement you as sponsor of the bill and resolution seek to make on this matter?
Thank you, 5 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. As you know, we introduced this resolution dealing with the $35 fee being charged to people who apply for City jobs. Our concern is that you have some people who apply who are not prepared. I had a person who applied for an architect's job, and I think they took art in high school. Basically my main problem is that people can't afford to pay fees. If they apply for two jobs, they have to pay two $35 fees. I've always been open to any suggestions as to what we could do with regard to having people maybe pay after they're hired at some small rate. But certainly in terms of the resolution to which I associate myself with, this Resolution No. 040942, we hope that the Committee will consider reporting it out. We would like for it to go on the ballot so that the public at large gets a chance to decide and make a statement about how they feel about the victims or the people who need and want jobs and the low morale this 6 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 practice is causing our City, about how they feel about this $35 fee. Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make some brief remarks. I hope that the Committee will consider reporting it out with a suspension of the Rules. Thank you.
Thank you for a very clear statement. All I can add is that my office received many calls verifying how people were feeling in the City, how strongly they were feeling against the proposal. The first witness will be Lynda Orfanelli, the Director of Personnel for the City of Philadelphia. We appreciate your being here and welcome this interplay between the Administration and the City and the City Council. Ms. Orfanelli, you may come forward. People with you may also come forward. Will you all introduce yourselves to the microphone? 7 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
Good afternoon, Councilman Cohen. I have a cold and I'm losing my voice so I'm not able to speak that loud. I apologize. With me today, I have Deputy Director Tanya Smith, and head of my tech specialist team, Michael McAnally. Good afternoon to you, Councilman Cohen, and to the Committee on Law and Government. I'm here to speak about the application fee Charter change that would prevent us from -- excuse me. I'm having trouble talking. The Charter has provided the Personnel Director and the Civil Service Commission with the responsibility to protect the civil service and provide merit selection of employees, and the process to achieve this goal is determined by the Personnel Director and the Civil Service Commission implementing application fees provided us with the ability to focus on core job seekers. It also gave us the opportunity to enhance services by focussing our resources on the services we provide. 8 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 The Personnel Department has implemented several improvements to our services so the applicants receive more value for the fee. We have included examination dates and the exam announcement allowing applicants to plan for testing dates. We now have evening testing for some large holdings to provide applicants with a more convenient time to test so that they don't have to miss work from their current jobs. We're using more equivalent eligible lists for the three-year period, '01 to '03. Approximately 24,000 people remain on eligible list without being appointed or promoted. These 24,000-plus people have displayed interest in employment with the City and they demonstrate they possess the education experience required to compete for City employment and have successfully passed the exam. The Personnel Department will begin to aggressively review eligible lists with a surplus of candidates and determine if these candidates can be appointed to vacant positions in related classes. 9 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 The implementation of a Charter change will require us to come before City Council before any change can be made in the application fee. It will be difficult for us to plan based on the uncertainty of the outcome and timing, especially when Council is burdened with many other matters. The application fee is part of an administrative process relating to the way we perform our job. Any modification to the application processing fee, no matter how significant, would require your approval and a lengthy process for minor adjustments, thereby delaying our ability to deliver services quickly and efficiently and to adapt to changing situations. The anticipated revenue that will be collected from examination application fees this year would be about $600,000, and has been included in the City's five-year projection and will be used in the General Fund to help pay for services provided to the public, such as police and fire service, the operation of district health centers, 10 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 libraries and rec centers. Even though none of the revenues will be allocated directly to the Personnel Department, the anticipated revenues have allowed the Personnel Department to avoid the reduction in staff experienced by other City departments. In the nine weeks from October 4th through December 3rd, we have collected slightly over $43,000. The fees will pay the base salary for close to two entry level clerk typists whose combined salaries would be $47,668. Failure to collect the fee may result in staff reduction in personnel and reduction of services provided to the public. I'm prepared to answer any of your questions that you may have at this time. I'd like to ask is that you delay a vote on this until we have an opportunity, all of us, to get together and talk about what changes you would like to see in this bill to make it more palatable or more appropriate for the public. There are many things that could be done. There are many ways we could handle 11 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 this.
I think that if we would get together, myself and my team and you all, to talk about this, I think we can have a good outcome. It seems as though a Charter change is shooting a cannon at a flea. It doesn't make sense to me to take a small administrative process and do a Charter change. Charter change in my mind is something momentous, something important, something critical. If we start taking the Charter and every little tiny thing we'd have to have a change, the Charter will become a document that is of no value. So it just seems that this is something we can get together and work out, and I'm more than willing to hear you and work with you to do that.
Ms. Orfanelli, if the Committee were to accept your proposal, does that mean the Charter would be discontinued and we would revert to the status, or would you go on charging until the matter is resolved?
I would have to 12 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 check with the Administration. I can't make that decision on my own.
I would say I could not consider your offer seriously unless it included an agreement that the current charge would be ended until a final agreement were arrived at. I like your idea of arriving at an agreement and the parties getting together, but I am concerned about the fact that the charge would go on indefinitely.
I can tell you that based on what's happening with our City and hiring right now, we are announcing very few jobs that actually require a fee because we are not doing as much testing right now as we normally would be doing. Our testing is at a much lower level. It's impacting on a lot fewer types of jobs.
Well, then it would seem to make that agreement much easier than it might normally be. But if you can get back to us, I think we might be ready to consider that proposal.
I would appreciate 13 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 that very much.
But it would have to be on the basis of no charge in the meantime, so that the status quo is renewed before the imposition is charged by the City. Any questions of Ms. Orfanelli? Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Orfanelli, in your testimony you talk about City Council approval requiring a lengthy and difficult process. I didn't read anywhere within the bill or the resolution 15 that City Council approval could not be done by resolution rather than by ordinance. Is it your interpretation of the bill and resolution 18 that it has to be done by ordinance?
I guess my interpretation was that you were looking to have a change to the Charter, and therefore any change we would want to make in the application fee would require us to come to you for some ordinance or resolution change.
But if it's done 14 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 by resolution it can be done very quickly. It could be done in a matter of a day. So it would no longer be a lengthy or difficult process.
So you wouldn't need the Committee of the Whole to approve?
We would need the Committee of the Whole, but that can be done within a stated meeting, not necessarily requiring a hearing. It's just says City Council approval as written right now.
I just know that usually there's multiple readings, there's Committees. It has to come out of Committee. It seems like you have a formalized process for good reason. I'm not knocking the process. But there's a process that's in place and usually it does have multiple steps.
But the legislation before us does not say anything about an ordinance or a resolution being required. It simply says City Council approval, which means that it's not necessarily a resolution that requires a 15 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 hearing, but City Council approval. Next question is, I heard your statement about a Charter change and whether it should or should not be necessary. If in fact you're requiring City Council approval, I would think that it would be necessary simply because it's allowing a City Council decision in municipal administration, which requires a Charter change.
If you're actually requiring a City Council approval, which is allowing City Council a say in municipal administration, that requires a Charter change. You have to do a Charter change once you engage City Council in that. Final question. The last time we discussed this issue we discussed a number of things regarding new provisions regarding income, eligibility and/or possibly even doing sliding scales rather than just a flat $35 fee, but having a scale based upon the quality and income of the job. Have you done any 16 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 research?
Yes, we actually have. I would like Michael McAnally to tell you about the research he's done on the sliding scale option.
Yes, Councilperson, we have done research. If we were to implement a scale comparable to the scale used by New York City, most of the examinations that we announce, we would charge a fee higher than $35 based on the income which we pay for all the job categories.
Yes. Most of the jobs that we announce have starting salaries that are lower than the minimum starting salaries, the $25,000s. So most of the salaries that we're announcing on an open competitive basis have a higher starting salary. The New York scale is based on the starting salary of the job. 17 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
So why not waive the fee for lower earning jobs and use a sliding scale starting at higher paying jobs?
Well, the research that I have done shows that none of the jurisdictions waive the fees for all their jobs. Even for the entry level jobs in New York City, the sanitation worker job in New York, they charge a full fee.
I already read the legislation and rules in other cities. My question is, are you considering a sliding scale and could that sliding scale be instituted for higher paying jobs, with a waiver on all lower paying jobs? Couldn't you just start a sliding scale at a higher level job?
Councilman Goode, that's exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to have an opportunity to sit down and say, here are all the options. Which are the modifications that make the most sense to you. We'll go back to you. We'll find out what the value of those modifications are, come back to 18 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 you and say, okay, this is what it does. This is what it means. Then we can make a decision.
The legislation before us would not affect that at all because the legislation before us just requires City Council approval. So you could go back and do all of that and bring it to us for approval.
Yes, but that would be after the Charter change was approved. I'm talking about something to do that will eliminate the need to have a Charter change.
Not to speak for Councilman Goode, but I think what he was saying is, if Council is in the process at all through approval of what's normally an administrative function, you need a Charter change, even though it's a small issue; is that correct?
That's true as it stands right now. Nonetheless, I've heard you 19 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 and I don't have any problem with coming together with you and working with you.
No. It probably was announced to the public simultaneously at the time it was announced to us, but --
No. We announced it during our budget testimony in the spring.
One of the things I would suggest in the -- and going on Councilman Goode's line of maybe waiving the fee for entry level, lower income people who are trying to get a job is -- one of the things in your testimony is the need for the 20 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 $35 is people signing up for a test, having all the administrative work done, and then when the test is given don't show up. Is there some way we could work out a reimbursement? What's your average test complement, people that sign up?
Say it's a thousand people signing up for a test and it's not a lower level entry level position and the person meets lower income requirements.
Well, most of the open competitive exams that we announce actually are entry level. If it's a higher level job, then it's going to be a very small complement of people because it will be a specialty and then it will be maybe 30 people that show up.
And is it more likely that on the specialty jobs more people show up to take the test?
Again, in your deliberations or your consideration, does it make any sense to charge a fee, whatever that fee is, and then the day of the test you have a stack of checks that are given back to the people who come to take the test? If people don't come to take the test, we keep their money. To me, it seems the argument, as it always is with a fee, the argument is we have a cost associated with doing a certain procedure. We want to cover our costs. The issue is getting people to take the test once they've signed up. Then they should be perhaps reimbursed of their $35 or $25, whatever it is, to show up and take the test. They're handed a check. They take the test. They either pass or they don't. They're either hired or they're not. Those who don't show up to take the test, you keep their money. It seems to be actually addressing what the initial complaint was, and that is people sign up to take the test and don't show 22 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 up.
Administratively I think it would be difficult to implement that. For example, at a police recruit exam where we have two different school holdings and we have monitors who are not City employees to --
That would probably make more sense. But nonetheless, then we'd need more money in our budget in order to be able to do this because we wouldn't have enough employees --
You're going to get some more money in your budget because the people aren't going to show up. You're going to have that money.
The actual money isn't coming to us directly. It's coming into the General Fund
I think that is why people are skeptical as to the initial reason for the fee. It's like we issue 23 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 parking tickets because we want to free up parking spaces in commercial districts. But then that parking ticket process becomes a revenue generator. Then we generate revenue beyond the cost of what it is to implement the program. And now we've gotten used to taking the money so we're going to continue to take it. I'd rather you come to us and say, we want to implement a $35 application fee because we need money. We're broke and we need to find ways to generate revenue. People come in and say, well, we want to impose the fee because it costs us money to implement the test and people don't show up. Well, if it's a matter of getting people to show up, just reimburse the people who do.
Well, it's interesting. You're using two reasons why we're implementing the fee. In fact, both those reasons apply here. Although the money isn't coming back directly to the Personnel Department, we lost less people in terms of our budget because the Administration took 24 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 into account that we were going to be generating revenue for the General Fund so that there would be less people that had to be laid off in the long run.
Was that in the initial testimony or was the initial testimony just the fact that we're trying to recover our cost for this wide range of people who don't show up for the test?
Thank you. You indicated that you're willing to work with us on this, but as Councilman Goode explained, this is the way Council responds when we're not getting the cooperation that we need. I think the Administration knew that the majority of the Councilmembers -- at least I'm speaking for myself -- did not think this 25 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 was a good idea to do, and I didn't have anyone from the Administration contact me explaining that they were willing to work. It seems as though now that we're up against a potential Charter change here, the gears have shifted and now we want to cooperate. Just going forward, I think it would be appreciated, at least to me, that that spirit of cooperation would have existed before this legislation was proposed. Because I was basically told, this is what we're going to do. Like it or not, this is the way we respond when we're delivered that kind of a message. So I just wanted to let you know how I feel personally about this new spirit of cooperation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We met certainly with the Administration. We testified at our last hearing that we're happy to work on any 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 compromise. We have seen none. My other concern is that today, Madam Personnel Director, you're talking about charging for job testing. However, when one applies they have to pay $35 to submit a job application. Are you today making the change in the application saying that you pay if you take a test and you don't if you don't? That's something different than what we discussed at our last hearing.
That was the impression I just got from your dialog with Councilman Kenney.
Councilman Kenney was suggesting that if you showed up at the test we would give the money back.
I arrived at that point or position based on the fact when initially this was brought to light, the argument for it was that people would sign up for a test. They would process all the paperwork and when the test was given they 27 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 wouldn't show up and it would cost us money to have an empty desk there.
But the whole process leading up to taking the test is what the cost is predicated on.
I'm not sure of the number of non-tested applications there are.
In other words, we're back where we started. Anybody who applies for a City job. So if you apply for laborer, they take thousands of applications for laborer. So maybe they take 10,000 applications for laborer and intend on hiring 10 people. All of those people pay this fee when I know we're not even hiring that many people in a given time period, two or three-year period. They take the $35 from these people, which gives them an indication they have a chance for a job that the 28 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 overwhelming majority do not have. That's unfair. We can't blame the victim or make the citizens of our City and people who rent here and those who live here think that we're not concerned about them, that we're not being honest with them and that we're not extending the opportunity for them to work for their government to them. The people have a right to apply for positions within the City. We can't insult their intelligence by giving the impression that they can apply for jobs for which there is no consideration. It's not fair to charge people who don't have these fees. We talked in our last hearing about a system that does not single them out, where a person does not have to indicate how much he or she makes. We talked about all of these things that we wanted cleared up before this next hearing. As Councilman Rizzo just said, you say you're extending the olive branch, but to date, before we introduced the legislation, 29 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 then and now nothing changes except that the fee was charged immediately and the fee is still being charged. That is unfair. We think it's wrong. We only go the extra step when we feel that we have to do it to protect the citizens of our City. (Applause.)
I would like to follow-up on what Councilwoman Blackwell just said. I know the private sector doesn't even use employment applications anymore. I know one particular company, that they post all available jobs. They don't even have a personnel office accepting job applications. Have you looked at the way the private sector does this to see if there's a better way to do it? Most companies today, large 30 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 corporations, don't even accept job applications. They post what jobs are available. If you're interested, you come in and you talk about that particular job. I don't know too many big companies that even accept applications today. You're the expert. You should know that, and I think you do know that.
Councilman Rizzo, we're the biggest employer in the City. We get many more applications than most large companies. We are also required by the Charter to use a merit system. As a result, we have to take application and we have to vet those applications.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Orfanelli, let's get some context here. How many people applied for positions with the government last year?
Councilman Nutter, over the past four years was 45,000 applicants 31 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 per year.
45,000. That would be twice the number of people who currently work in the government?
The hiring rate for a three-year period -- I don't have it for the entire four-year period -- but the hiring rate was percent of the applicants who showed 13 up. 14
Yes. Of the people 20 who are on our eligible lists, we hired 22 21 percent. 78 percent of the people who passed 22 our tests were never hired.
You've gone completely beyond the question that I asked. I understand you're trying to stay within your 32 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 testimony. Let's start with, just answer the question that I ask you. Don't try to anticipate.
45,000 people applied for a job last year, that's your statement, right? On average over the last four years, 45,000 people applied for a job with the City?
What I want to know is, how many people were hired last year out of the 45,000?
The data that I have is that for Fiscal Year 2003, 2,021 people were hired. The three-year average is that approximately 2,200 people are hired per year. If 45,000 applied, 2,200 were hired.
Also, Councilman, remember that almost half of those 45,000 don't even show up for the exam.
I got that. So let's say that 22,000 people showed up, and you're now telling me out of the 22,000, 2,200 33 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 were hired?
Okay. So that would be about a percent hiring rate off of 6 the number of people that actually showed up 7 and took a test? 8
Now, what is 10 involved in processing an application?
Our clerical staff has to enter data from every application into our computer system --
Stop right there. A person comes to the personnel office and gets an application?
So you pick up an application, you take it home or wherever you want to go and you fill it out?
And then someone 34 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 has to type that information from that application into the computer?
Then one of our analysts will review the application to determine if the applicant meets the requirements to compete in the examination. We then send a disposition notice to the applicant telling them either that they are scheduled to take the examination or they don't meet the requirements. We have to construct a test, assemble a test, do all the administrative work to have enough copies available, schedule the test --
Is every test constructed specifically for that examination period?
There are some tests that we can use over and over again. We will do slight modifications, but we can use tests over.
Let me ask this 35 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 question, just from a pure production standpoint. Why wouldn't you just scan the information into the computer? I'm certainly no expert on technology, but I understand that there are machines that you can take a document and scan it into a computer and then it's all there. Why would you have someone sit and retype it?
Councilman, I'm not an expert on the technology either, but the technology that we have is not compatible with scanning. We don't have sophisticated scanning equipment, and the applicant tracking system that we use requires that the data be typed in.
Well, that's a system problem, right? I mean, doesn't it make more sense to just scan the information in as opposed to having a person fill it out on a sheet of paper, they hand it into us and then we retype it into the system? Isn't that inefficient?
The's the technology that we have available. 36 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
That's all that we have available to us right now. Certain data has to be in certain ways.
That may be the technology that you have available to you --
I'm not a tech expert either, but my tech person is not here for technology. However, that may change in the future. Currently that's what we've got available.
Councilman Rizzo made reference to the private sector. It's my understanding that in Chicago you can apply for jobs on-line, and you can apply for multiple jobs from one location. Is there any ability in the City of Philadelphia to apply for a job on-line?
Have we ever had 37 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 any conversation with anyone in Chicago who is presently doing that?
But we have had conversation with MOIS about working that out.
Wouldn't that further negate the need to have this data entry?
It may. That's very possible. But we're not there yet, however.
Has the Department had any conversations about a productivity loan to upgrade your technology?
As a matter of fact, we have had some conversation about that.
In your testimony, on what I guess is , you talk about raising approximately $600,000 per year 38 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 assuming a full hiring schedule. Now, $600,000 in processing fees would translate into $17,143 applications, based on $35.
Your four-year average though has been 45,000 applications?
So are you also saying that 28,000 people essentially won't apply?
We're also expecting about percent of the applicants to get a 15 waiver. And our experience right now is 16 almost 18 percent of the applications we've 17 waived the fee. 18
I was thinking how undignified it is for a City to compel people to state their finances as being too poor to afford a $35 fee. I just can't understand why City government --
That's why they 39 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 need a job, Councilman.
-- would want to put its citizens through that kind of situation.
Actually, they don't. They have an Access card that shows that they're receiving TANF or other forms of subsidy from the government. They don't actually tell us their income.
No. But you compel them to admit they're getting government help, that they're not able to afford to carry themselves. I don't know why. Most people find that an undignified thing to have to talk about. How do you explain to somebody who comes to your home looking for a job, as many people often do -- to homes of elected officials -- they come to you because they're desperate for food or for money and they ask about the possibility of government employment. You say to them, well, I don't know. You have to go through. You have to pay a $35 fee and I'm not sure whether you're 40 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 going to be waived through or not. I'm going to have to tell people you're on government assistance. I mean, what kind of thinking is that of a governmental body toward its citizens, to compel them to go through that kind of a scene in order to make them eligible for government employment? Some people pay their taxes and don't eat. You have to tell that to people? I can't imagine what the mind of person was who conceived of this idea. Do you have an answer to that? Who thought of this idea? Where did it come from?
This came from another city. We didn't think of it. This is being done in many other cities and states. We're not starting this as a new initiative that's never been done anywhere.
Well, don't we think for ourselves or are we so poor of talent that we have to look around to see what other cities do and if they scrounge around and find new ways of hurting poor people? We then are ready to emulate that? Is that what 41 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 we do? Do we always look to New York City?
Councilman, we look at what other cities do in terms of a number of things. We go to the Internet. We see what other governments are doing. As a matter of fact, several Councilpeople have asked us if we looked at other governments. We do look at other governments.
But you look at other governments to find ways to tax the people harder, to make life tougher. Why don't you look at other governments on what they allow people and tell us as soon as you find a government that gives more benefits to its people than Philadelphia? Come in here with a bill to provide those benefits, then we'll trust you. It seems as if the only thing you use other cities for is to say, well, they do it too, and if they get away with it, we can get away with it. I think that's a wrong way to run a City.
Councilman Nutter, go ahead. 42 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
Probably one last area. Councilman Goode and I were just chatting. He was reminding me of something that came up at the last hearing. This, quote/unquote, government assistance waiver -- is that what it's referred to as?
So if you are on government assistance, whatever the type may be, you get a waiver?
That's correct. We have a very simple form that you fill out.
Now, what happens if you are not on government assistance, but essentially have the same income as a person who is on government assistance? Do you have the opportunity for a waiver there?
We have not actually done that. Actually, that would be a situation where Councilman Cohen is mentioning where we would have to see your income. It would be a lot different than just showing us 43 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 a card and filling out a minor form.
Well, because under that circumstance you would then create an environment where the person really would you have to prove they are so poor, as the Councilman laid out, that they needed a waiver. Maybe they're just working at wherever they're working and it possibly happens to be a rather low wage job. Now we're saying, even though you're working and trying to do whatever it is you're doing and you've chosen for whatever reason not to apply for some type of government assistance, unless you can prove to us that you have an income issue, there's no opportunity for a waiver?
That's correct. It's something that actually we've been thinking about. But as Councilman Cohen mentioned, it's a lot more onerous than showing us a card. It's an area that we really need to explore.
But I guess my point is the person still has the need to in essence not pay because it has a substantial 44 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 impact on their overall financial situation.
That's an area that we should definitely explore. I agree with you. I understand your point. I agree with it.
Lastly, in the testimony, you talk about in the nine weeks from October 4, 2004 to December 3, 2004, the Department has collected slightly over $43,000?
Which again, just taking the $43,000 number for the $35, that would translate into 1,229 applications. Can you tell me from that pool, how many people were hired?
I don't have the statistics yet because these tests have just been given, most of them. Some of the tests were just given a couple weeks ago. There's no scoring completed on some of them. In some cases no hiring has been done yet. I don't have total numbers. I think we have to come back in another few months and say who's been 45 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 hired so far. It's too soon.
If you could forward that information to the Chair, I'd greatly appreciate it. What do you estimate the costs to be to process an application for a job in Philadelphia?
We actually sent that information to Council after my last testimony.
I have a vague recollection of that. How did you calculate the number?
We actually did a Time and Motion study of everything that we do. And we added things like postage, things like that, printing costs.
I mean, I'd be 46 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 intrigued by this. You fill out the application. The clerk typist types it into the computer, which actually should be scanned in, but you don't have the technology. You send the letter. They show up. They do what they do, and you get a letter saying that, unfortunately, for whatever reason, you didn't qualify for the job. Now, you paid your $35. You showed up for the test. I mean, what did you actually get out of that experience, other than your pocket is $35 lighter?
Next time you take a test you'll do better. Actually, the list is alive for two years. So it's possible that you may not get hired in the first month or two, but you could get hired next year.
Ms. Orfanelli, you're here resisting -- and I use that word carefully -- resisting a Charter change. One of the things that really sometimes annoys me about government is the fact that you have a mechanism. You indicated that you can't do things differently because you're caught up with the Charter. I described on-line. I think Councilman Cohen's point is good. You said you went out and looked at the way other cities do it. But one in Chicago that's doing it on-line, we've totally overlooked or ignored. I think the responsibility of the Administration is, if you need things in the Charter changed to do your job more effectively and bring it into this century, like scanning -- I think kids in second grade do that. You should take a real strong look at your department. If you have recommendation, you know how the Administration does legislation. Comes here. If there's 10 things that you 48 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 would like to do differently and you're caught up, and it's going to be like that for the next 50 years, somebody better start moving and somebody better start looking and make the changes that are required to do it and do it effectively and not do it by charging someone $35 bucks to apply for a job. I think that's the responsibility of the Administration. If you need some things changed, let's change them for the better, not change them and make it for the worse. Not that this is the worst thing in the world that's ever happened, but it's not obviously the desirable outcome. The desirable outcome would be to look at the way other cities do it or create a system that works well for you. If it requires a Charter change, then let's do it. Let's not use it to fight you. Let's use it to help you.
The other thing that I'd like to know, if you get an exempt job in this government, could you describe the process for a person that is hired without 49 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936 civil service status, an exempt job, do they fill out an application?
We're not involved in exempt hiring. We have nothing to do with exempt hiring at all.
Well, tell me what you do. Tell what your Department does when a person --
We have a system that captures information on every City employee, whether they're exempt or civil service, and it's our top responsibility to handle all the appointment papers and termination papers and any other documents.
Should they be charged? 50 12/14/04 - LAW - BILL 040936
That's an Administration decision. That doesn't come through my Department.