COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR and CIVIL SERVICE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 12, 2006, 10:35 a.m. - - - Bill 060432 - Amending Section 20-101 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that an employee in the civil service need not be a bona fide resident of the City when appointed, but must establish and maintain bona fide residence in the City within six months after appointment. Bill 060506 - Amending Section 22-310 of Philadelphia Code, entitled "Deferred Retirement Option Plan," by providing for extraordinary extension for purposes of enhancing public safety for participants in the DROP Program who are public safety employees. COUNCILMEMBERS: Juan Ramos, Chair W. Wilson Goode, Jr., Vice Chair Frank DiCicco James F. Kenney Michael A. Nutter Frank Rizzo - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 - - - WITNESS INDEX BILL 060432 Denise Earley, Chamber of Commerce........ Linda Orfanelli, Director of Personnel.... 18 6 Alan Butkovitz, City Controller........... 43 Ed Schwartz, President.................... 62 Institute for the Study of Civic Values Christopher Sheridan, Committee of Seventy 86 Toby Rich, Scoop Newspaper................ 100 BILL 060506 Bobby Eddis, President, FOP, Lodge No. 5 110 John Riley, Bd. of Pensions and Retirement 112 Pedro Ramos, Managing Director............ 113 3
Good morning, everyone. This is the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. I'm Councilman Juan Ramos, Chairman of the committee. Please note, also in attendance are Councilman W. Goode, Jr., Vice-chair of the committee, along with Councilman Frank Rizzo and Councilman Jim Kenney. We have a quorum so I would ask the clerk to please read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 060506, an ordinance amending Section 22-310 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Deferred Retirement Option Plan," by providing for an extraordinary extension for purposes of enhancing public safety for participants in the DROP Program who are public safety employees, under certain terms and conditions.
Madam Clerk, read the title of that bill again, please.
432. Amending Section 20-101 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that an employee in the civil service need not be a bona fide resident of the City when appointed, but must establish and maintain bona fide residence in the City within six months after appointment.
Thank you. At this time, the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Kenney, has a statement to make.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank Chairman Ramos for holding today's hearing and all of the members in attendance. The current pre-employment residency requirement that affects applicants for civil service jobs was created by Council in 1953. This prerequisite hinders the City's ability, 5 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 in my opinion, to attract the most applicants and discourages potential employees from moving to Philadelphia. Furthermore, it puts our city at a comparative disadvantage to other cities who, without these cumbersome requirements, recruit from our own city's workforce. As I have contended since 2001, when I first introduced this bill, our current residency requirement prevents the City from achieving the most efficient and cost-effective government possible and is a factor in the inability of the City to attract new residents. If enacted, this bill would create one uniform residency policy for all City employees. This alone prevents the appearance of favoritism and simplifies bureaucratic processes. I strongly believe a new approach is needed to send the message that Philadelphia welcomes and encourages people to move into our city, including 6 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 any potential applicants for our municipal jobs. And I appreciate your attendance and the testimony here today. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony, Councilman Kenney. The first witness on the list is Denise Earley from the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. For the record, I am Denise Earley from the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and I am here today to read a letter of support for Bill 19 060432 into the record. Dear Chairman Ramos: On behalf of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, I am submitting this letter of support for the subject bill. Bill 24 060432 would grant potential City employees six months to become bona fide 7 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 residents of the City of Philadelphia. The Chamber of Commerce supported this measure back in 2001 and wishes to be on record as supporting it now. As you know, the Chamber has always supported measures that encourage people to move into the City, and Bill 10 060432 would do just that. It is incumbent upon the City to create incentives for people to not only move into the City but to stay in the City. The best incentive to stay in the City is a job. Job growth will spur housing and economic development, and this will benefit all Philadelphians. As the City's rank and file 19 ages, many have already signed up for the Deferred Retirement Option Program, or DROP, and consequently, many departments will be facing a critical shortage, particularly in the Police and Fire Departments. This bill would help create a pool of skilled candidates to fill 8 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 those vacancies. From a business perspective, this bill makes good sense. The Chamber supports Bill 060432 and hopes that the committee will vote it out with a favorable recommendation. Thank you for this opportunity.
Any questions from the committee for this with I? Councilman Goode.
Good morning, Miss Earley, and thank you for your testimony.
Philadelphia does not have an overabundance of jobs, does it?
Philadelphia does not have an overabundance of jobs, does it?
I don't know how 9 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 many -- you mean vacancies or...
I'm talking about the City of Philadelphia -- not just the public sector, but in general.
Philadelphia has a problem with job decline and a lack of jobs; is that correct?
I'm not sure if there is a shortage of jobs or not. We're trying to make more jobs for people.
There is a shortage of jobs. And, in fact, our job -- our main job strategy is reverse commuting, actually sending people to the suburbs for job as opposed to creating jobs here. Is the reason for the Chamber's support for this bill the fact that it 10 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 believes that there's a skills deficit in Philadelphia?
No. We would just like to see the City get the best qualified candidates for any openings that there may be.
And you believe that those qualified candidates don't exist as residents of the City of Philadelphia?
Oh, I'm not saying they don't, but if we can help with the job base, you know, I think it's good that we do that. I would like to see more people move into the City and live here.
But we have people who already live here, we have jobs that are available, and there's a lack of jobs in Philadelphia. We wouldn't want those jobs to go to Philadelphia residents first?
Well, these people would be Philadelphia residents 11 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 eventually.
Wouldn't we want those jobs to go to existing Philadelphia residents first?
Thank you. Ms. Earley, are you aware of any members of your chamber, either small business, large, or medium-sized business that has a similar pre-employment residency requirement?
Do you think that that would be a benefit or a detriment to these companies in their talent search if they had a pre-employment residency requirement?
It could be a 12 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 detriment.
Okay. Again, in addition, to getting the most qualified applicants, I think it's important that we attempt to use our city's human resources as a way to bring people into the City. As you know, we're continuing, despite gains in many, many neighborhoods throughout the City and the increase in residential housing prices and housing starts, we're still continuing to lose residents at an alarming rate. I believe, and I think that it's a credible belief, that the use Of City employment opportunities is also a way to generate new residents in our city, because, of course, this bill would not eliminate the City residency once hired; they would still have the six months to move in. But this would allow us to go to college campuses throughout the country, to go to military bases 13 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 throughout the country, to go to other parts of the country where we can pool talented people committed to living in the City into our police force, Fire Department, Health Department, wherever. There was also an amendment that was made back in 2001, which will be included in this bill also, and that is that entry-level labor positions, jobs that do not require specific skills, would have to go to City residents, or you have to be a City resident for a year prior to applying for a job as a sanitation worker, you know, in the Sanitation Department, or on a road crew or somewhere. So those entry-level labor positions would be a one-year requirement pre-employment, and that was at the request of Councilman Clarke back in 2001. So I do think it strikes a balance on trying to give the opportunity for Philadelphians to work, but I also 14 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 think we need to expand our horizons as a city. I think that Richardson Dilworth, in 1953, was quoted as saying -- and he opposed the ordinance of 1953, and he said, Imagine if the Philadelphia Phillies could only recruit from Philadelphia what kind of team we would have. So, I mean, we do it. Most of our department heads -- not most, but a lot of our department heads throughout the two administrations that I have worked with have been people that have come other areas of the country and have been given waivers in order to get around the pre-employment residency requirement. So I just want to try -- if that's good policy for administrations to follow, I think it would be good policy also for the rest of the civil service workforce to follow. So thank you for your testimony. 15 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Earley, could you define the term "best qualified"?
Well, I'm sure every position has a job description, and the person that would be the best qualified would meet the job description.
That's a person who is qualified or who is qualified enough. Can you define the term "best qualified."
I'm not a human resources expert, but I just think that this would help to bring in qualified people.
But you use the term "best qualified" as your main reason for supporting the bill. I'm not sure what the word "best qualified" 16 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 means. I understand what "qualified enough" means, I understand what "qualified" means. I'm not sure what "best qualified" means. Isn't there always someone who is potentially better qualified? And do we ever hire the person who is actually best qualified? Does that actually ever happen?
I don't know. "Better qualified" might be a better term, then, as opposed to "best."
I'm not saying that. I just think that this will help to bring people into the City.
That's exactly what you're saying, because if Philadelphians who actually live here are qualified, and if they are, in fact, qualified enough, and, in fact, you never actually hire the person who is best qualified. 17 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
I've just been in support of expanding the base to get good, qualified candidates to the jobs and to bring people into the City to live and work here and pay taxes here.
But if what we have now as a job strategy is reverse commuting strategy because we're not creating enough jobs, aren't we at risk of losing those people who are reverse-commuting to eventually living in the suburbs?
Any other questions for our witness from the committee? (No further questions.)
Not seeing any, thank you very much for your testimony this morning.
You're welcome. Thank you. 18 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Our next witness is Linda Orfanelli, Director of Personnel for the City of Philadelphia. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, Chairman Ramos and members of the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. My name is Linda Orfanelli. I'm the personnel director, and I'm here to present testimony regarding Bill No. 12 060432, which would amend Section 20-101 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that an employee in the civil service need not be a bona fide resident of the City when appointed but must establish residence in the City within six months after appointment. I would initially like to thank Councilman Kenney and DiCicco for introducing this bill in an attempt to assist the Personnel Department in its sometimes daunting task of recruiting sufficient numbers of candidates for the 19 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 City's civil service. I agree that the decline in our population and in our current stringent residence requirements sometimes hinders our ability to attract a sufficient number of best candidates and discourages applicants from competing for our jobs. I would like, however, to provide some additional information and share some concerns I have regarding this bill, in hopes that you will take these into consideration before enacting this legislation. The Personnel Department has for sometime requested and have been granted waivers of residency by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with civil service regulations. " They pertain to a designated class of positions to allow nonresidents to apply, compete, and to be appointed in City civil service positions. 20 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 When the Commission waives the residency requirement, they do so for six months following completion of a probationary and for a total of one year. Currently, we have requested and been granted 98 such waivers. This is about percent of our titles. R. reps; librarians; recreation and social service positions. Often these waiver are a result of our inability to attract enough candidates to fill positions from our traditional pool of Philadelphia residents. In the case of many of our entry-level positions requiring a bachelor's degree, we have sought waivers 21 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 in order to assist in recruiting students in local colleges and universities who may not originally be from Philadelphia. Attracting these students to the City's workforce and retaining them in this area, we believe, is of tremendous importance. This process, the current process, is efficient and flexible. Residency waivers, when warranted, are granted in a timely fashion. They may also be rescinded when their utility expires. I believe this process is sufficient to meet the needs of the civil service at this time. For the vast majority of open, competitive employment opportunities with the City of Philadelphia, we have a sufficient volume of candidates. Granting a general waiver of residency for all civil service positions runs the risk of generating a surplus of candidates. In addition to the burden 22 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 presented to the Personnel Department that processing of these applications would present, there's a great likelihood that this surplus would work to the disadvantage of current City residents. For example, the most recent administration of the firefighter examination administered in November of '05 generated 38,041 applications. Of that number 2800 candidates took the written exam and 2,077 passed that exam. When comparing this test administration to the previous holding of firefighters, we see that the previous exam, given in October of 2001, generated an eligible list of 2537 candidates. Of the number, 2102 candidates remained on the list when it expired four years later. That is only 435 candidates, or 17 percent of the passes were selected from the eligible list. Similarly, the announcement for police officer recruit conducted in August of 2005 produced 12,386 23 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 applicants.
The eligible list, which was generated as a result of this recruitment, consists of 2,229 passing candidates. Of that number, 2,065 remain on that list. Only 164 candidates have been selected or otherwise removed from this list. Clearly, the majority of successful competitors for these positions had no realistic opportunity to be hired. Since no residency waiver applies to either firefighter or police officer recruit, these candidates are residents of Philadelphia. Since firefighter and police officer recruit are representative of our candidate pool, granting a residency waiver to all competitors would decrease to a significant extent the chance that a City resident would be selected and hired. I believe that City residents should, whenever practicable, have preference for City civil service 24 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 positions. Similarly, I believe a general waiver of residency would disadvantage City residents in competition for an appointment to the majority of civil service positions. As I mentioned earlier, our current practice with regard to class residency waivers is to allow employees six months following completion of their probationary period to establish residency in the City. Since the probationary period is six months, this essentially equates to a one-year residency waiver. This bill would reduce this to a total of six months and require that newly-appointed employees relocate while still in a probationary status. I believe that it is inadvisable to require that a probationary employee relocate when they have no assurance they will be granted permanent civil service status. I am also concerned that if 25 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 this bill is enacted, the resultant increase in volume of applications would create a burden to our department. As you are aware, the number of Personnel Department employees decreased from approximately 135 in 1993 to only 78 today. Processing the 22,830 applications received in calendar-year 2005 often stretched staff capability to their limits. The increase in applications received resulting from a waiver of residency for all civil service positions would result in additional overtime costs, data entry backlogs, and delays in testing and hiring. This concludes my testimony regarding the bill, and I'm glad to answer any questions.
Thank you, Miss Orfanelli. Miss Orfanelli, you bring up a number of concerns that you have. I don't want to misinterpret your 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 statement. Are you for or against this bill?
Do you know what the position of the Department was then?
Thank you. Miss Orfanelli, I want to go back to an issue a few months ago in a 27 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 conversation I had with my colleagues. We had an issue with paramedics, where there was some confusion on what the Fire Department thought and what Central Personnel -- for lack of a better word, I'll call it "Central Personnel" -- thought was getting on. And in a conversation, I've learned that you can go to the Civil Service Commission at any time there's an need and ask for a waiver. Could you explain that process, and why the Fire Department, knowing that there was an issue with the shortage of paramedics, why they didn't request you -- or was there any rationale why -- was there any rationale why there wasn't a request for the waiver that seemed -- that could have been secured rather easily based on the importance of the issue. So could you just explain for the record how a commissioner, having a 28 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 dire need for employees like advanced medic technicians, how they could have gotten those with the system as it is?
Okay. It's very simple for us to get a waiver. Usually, we either have the department ask us for a waiver because they remember in their experience that there wasn't a large enough candidate pool. We have a system where we can actually see how many candidates apply for an exam, how many passed, how many appointments we made, and if there was a shortage. In the event there's a shortage or there's a problem hiring in certain categories -- and paramedics is a category -- then what we do is, we prepare a request for the Civil Service Commission. I meet with them every week. I take that request up to the Commission, make my case for why we need a, waiver and they can approve it. And it's effective immediately. 29 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 It takes literally one day. And what we sometimes do is ask for a waiver for just the holding of the next exam to see how it works. If it's a kind of -- if it's a situation where it's a continual problem, we ask for a class waiver, and so there's a waiver in that position until we ask for it to be removed.
If you would have gone to the Civil Service Commission, if the Commissioner of Fire would have asked to you pursue that, explain to the committee what that would have accomplished and the scenario of -- you mention your concern about a person moving in with no assurances. 30 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Explain for the record what exactly that waiver would have provided both the potential employee and the Fire Department.
Okay. If the Fire Department had asked us to put a waiver on paramedic, then we would have announced it, that it was for -- that it was not required that you be a resident of Philadelphia. At that time, then we would take applications from residents and nonresidents. Now, let's say we appointed someone from the list who was from Delaware County. That person would have a six-month probationary period and then six months to move in. Although we do not reject a majority of our candidates, we do reject several candidates a year in a variety of positions. So it's -- it's logical and prudent for someone to wait until they pass their six-month probationary period 31 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 before they make a rather, you know, a choice that has a lot of implications of finding an apartment, buying a house, relocating their family, or whatever. So it makes sense a lot more sense to have passed probation before you make those changes in your life. So that's why we have a one-year waiver.
Well, it concerns me that the Fire Department suggested that they had a very critical need for paramedics, and why the Commissioner -- and I can understand the committee's frustration. If they're not implementing an administrative procedure to deal with this, then I guess the next best is to waive the residency requirement. What exactly happened with the paramedic issue? And I'm not here to embarrass anyone, but I know that there were two different -- there was a lack of communication, from what I understand, 32 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 between two organizations. I just heard on the news this morning that we have now medics on bicycles. Where did we get 'em?
From among the paramedics. But those medics on bicycles are going to be used for events. They will be used for events like 4th of July or, you know, Live Aid or those kinds of --
Or overtime in some cases, but they'll be regular paramedics the rest of the time, but that gives them the facility to get to the place they need to be quickly rather than waiting for an ambulance to get there. They can be on the scene more quickly.
Right, I understand that. But now, where are we with the medic issue? In other words, do we need a waiver, do we need to wave residency? 33 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Where are we the -- do we have enough medics?
Well, let me say, the concern with the paramedics is this: We're not the only ones experiencing problems hiring paramedics; it's not just in Philadelphia. So that even if we opened it up, would we really have had that many more candidates? That's a question. So I believe the Fire Department believed that it wasn't going to make that much of a difference at the time. So they didn't ask us for a waiver.
Councilman Kenney just said to me, Well, what's the harm? If you have a shortage -- how many medics do we need today? How many have you been requested to hire?
I'm not sure how many have actually been hired and what the vacancy number is. I'd have to check. 34 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
And when you did advertise, you only got a couple dozen candidates?
It was a -- don't quote me, but it was around 37, I believe.
Okay. Well, obviously, if the pool is running dry, you need to do something. Either we're going to fix it for you or you're going to need to get the attention of the commissioners to request of you what you what described a very simple process, especially when it comes to life and safety.
Well, we announced for Philadelphians. I also told the Commissioner that if we didn't get sufficient candidates, we could announce again and open it up.
And what 35 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 happened?
And we're now in the process of appointing, and then we're going to see exactly how many vacancies are left and move forward from there.
I mean, it seems like there's a step before this step, and it doesn't seem that we're doing what we need to do to fix the problem. And, again, it's frustrating when -- sitting on this side of the aisle.
Thank you. Miss Orfanelli, do you have any idea how many cities in the country have a pre-employment residency requirement?
I think there's one, and that's Boston. What does that tell you?
Right. But what does that tell you about the policy that no other city in the country, with the exception of Boston, requires this? And I would argue probably -- and correct me if I'm -- wrong that there's no business in the country that does this, that requires this. So why would we not want the opportunity for all positions, with the exception of the entry-level labor stuff that I talked about, to go to military bases to find, you know, for example, an African-American female lieutenant that's retiring after 15 or 20 years, that she be hired as a police officer or firefighter or any other job and bring her family to Philadelphia to live in one of our neighborhoods. 37 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Why would I not want to go to the University of Southern California and recruit? Why -- I'm having a hard time understanding the effect of this policy in keeping Philadelphia this stifled, parochial provincial place that you only have to -- in order to get any benefit from it, you have to be here, you have to live, or we don't want you around. I mean, I went through this situation over the weekend with the cheese steak. I mean, it's like we don't want to open ourselves up to the world or to the country because we want to hold this to ourselves. I don't get it. I mean, I was at a ball game, a Phillies game, a few weeks ago, and there was an NYPD van on the sidewalk or on the street there parked, recruiting. I mean, what does that tell you? It tells you that they're coming down here to take some of the best and brightest that we have because there's no 38 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 pre-employment residency requirement. I mean, I don't get it, I really don't get it. This may pass, it may not pass. And I'll try it again, I guess, in another three years. But unless we start breaking this cycle of "Philadelphia for Philadelphians only," we will never be the city that we all want it to be, and that is an open, welcoming place that is vibrant and brings people from all over the country. I just don't get the policy. I don't understand it. When no other city in the country besides one is doing it, we're going to hold own to this 1953 relic in a global economy, where we need these people to compete. I don't -- I just don't get it. From an H.R. perspective, it makes no 24 sense to me.
First, let me 39 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 tell you that we actually did recruit on military bases about three or four years ago, and we got one candidate.
Well, maybe we didn't recruit as well as we should have recruited. Why would the NYPD be parked at the Citizens Bank Park, trying to take our people to New York to be cops? I mean, it --
Well, the other thing I'd like to tell you is that I'm a member of the International Personnel Management Association, and I, not very long ago, was a part of an e-mail stream asking questions. And one of the things that came up that a lot of these entities were very -- rued the day that they didn't have the residency requirement because they wanted officers that were in contingent areas. And they were saying to me, "Aren't you lucky?" 40 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 So I don't know.
There rules changed a long time ago and they can't change them back.
Then why isn't there a rush in every legislative body in every city in the country to change it back if it's such a benefit?
Apparently, they can't get it changed back, as much as they would like to.
Well, maybe their legislature is forward-thinking and won't change it, but I'm really -- I just don't -- I can't think of any business reason, any efficiency reason. Any qualifications reason to make any sense of this. And we're going to hold on to this as tightly as we can. It's just said sometimes, it really is, but we'll see what happens.
Councilman 41 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Kelly?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Orfanelli, can you tell me, what's probationary period now of an employee?
And is that for all employees or just civil service employees.
Civil service employees? So, therefore, if we do this bill, then what kind of problems do you foresee?
Well, if I were an new employee, a new employee of the City and I was on probation and I didn't 42 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 know whether I was going to be retained or rejected, I would be hesitant about actually making a serious commitment to --
How many employees do you know of that were rejected before during their probationary period?
Five percent? Okay. It's definitely an incentive to become a better employee. Okay. So the probationary period is just six months, and that's for all employees? 43 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Who set that regulation; is that because of the Charter?
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you, Miss Orfanelli, for your testimony this morning.
Our next witness is City Controller Alan Butkovitz. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Councilman Ramos, Councilman Kenney, and members of the Labor and Civil Service 44 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Committee. I'm controller Alan Butkovitz, and I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today in favor of Council Bill 060432, legislation that will change the residency requirement for Philadelphia civil service employees, making it consistent with the residency requirement for non-civil service employees. As you know, non-civil service employees are currently given six months to move into the City after they are appointed. Civil service employees must be residents of the City one year prior to an appointment. This legislation will eliminate the pre-employment residence requirement for prospective job applicants and eventual civil servants, although it will not abolish the existing residency requirement for all City employees. The disparity between the two residency policies eliminates the 45 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 potential pull of qualified job applicants who do not even apply for civil service jobs in City government because they do not meet the one-year residency requirement at the time of the job offering. Today, we live in a very mobile, fast-paced society, where competition for the best and brightest is fierce. A one year-residence requirement for City civil service employees prior to their appointment hinders our ability to attract and hire the best and most qualified. Recently, the Fire Department had only 30-some candidates to choose from when trying to fill approximately 60 to 70 EMS paramedic positions. Part of our job as elected officials should be to stop the exodus of our residents as well as attracting new residents to our city. Changing the residency requirement for civil service employees, permitting them to move into the City 46 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 after their appointment can only serve as yet another tool to attract new residents to our city. Currently, there are 109 job classifications residency waivers authorized by the Civil Service Commission. Some of these position waivers include architects, civil, electrical, and mechanical engineers, social workers, and program analysts, some having been in effect since the late 1950s. In fact, the auditor trainee position of the City Controller's Office has been on the waiver list since 1987. The practice of authorizing specific job classification waivers by the Civil Service Commission, approximately 100 to date, is a piecemeal attempt at addressing a serious problem. I believe it's time to establish a uniformly consistent residency policy for all employees, which will allow the City to attract the best 47 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 and most qualified employees and fill some very critical positions in City government. Thank you.
I sent you an e-mail this morning actually congratulating you on some of your recent work, so I hope that will balance this out a bit.
The first question is: Aren't we really trying to create more job growth in the private sector rather than in the public sector?
Look, I get the point that you asked the previous 48 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 witnesses about, and certainly I think there is a need for more jobs in Philadelphia, but there's a couple of points here. First of all, the lack of sufficiently -- a sufficient pool of qualified candidates for some positions such as the paramedic situation, that's number one. Secondly, the fact that this is already the law for high-level appointees, who get -- so it either should be one way or the other.
I understood that point in your testimony, Mr. Controller, and I don't disagree with some of the points associated with it. My question was what it was. Isn't the message we're trying to send as a government that job growth should really come from the private sector rather than the public sector?
Who is the "we"? 49 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
I'm asking if you disagree with the statement. And if you disagree with the statement, I'm willing to say, as the economic -- as a former economic practitioner, as chair of Council's Commerce and Economic Development Committee, that I'm seeking more private-sector job growth, not necessarily more public-sector job growth.
And that the way I want to market this city is focused on private-sector job growth; not saying come to Philadelphia, that we have more taxpayer-funded jobs for you.
We're just saying that is a side benefit. The critical issue in public employment is, what are the needs of the citizenry? That's what comes first.
And the needs of the citizenry are jobs -- private sector and public sector. 50 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
No, no, the principal need of the citizenry is for the service that is being provided. We wouldn't create a job just to create a job so somebody will be employed. You have a job because -- if you're having a heart attack, you need a paramedic to be there right now. I mean, that's the point. And then you can talk about the fairness or the way that that's handled. But we only create public employment to fill a need.
This is not establishing a policy just for the paramedic position; this is establishing a policy across the board. But my question is: What is your specific policy position on whether our major focus should be on creating private-sector jobs or public-sector jobs?
I believe we should only be creating public-sector 51 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 jobs where there is a need. There have been many commentaries that the population is much smaller than it was in 1950. And yet the eneral public employment level is about the same. So the goal would be to have the employment more or less match the population -- unless there are higher needs in public safety or other areas which are in crisis that justify a deviation from that.
And I would agree with you that private employment is the place where we're -- we have very elastic opportunities for growth, and that should be the focus.
And we have the flexibility within our Charter, within our Code, and within our administrative policies to address places where there are concerns and to offer 52 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 waivers. Is that not correct?
Well, you come back -- sure, you have waivers, but why should there be a delay? I mean, there's been front-page news stories recently about delays in emergency paramedic service. There shouldn't be --
You don't create a policy for all positions just because of a crisis in one.
Well, that's -- that's -- well, first of all, if somebody dies because we can't get to them, I think that is -- I differ with you. I think that's pretty serious. And there was a prominent Philadelphian who did die in the last few months, and that rightfully was a matter of public controversy. That's one of the most important functions that the City performs, but it's not just that. It's a question of what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. 53 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 If the rules should be that you live in the city beforehand, then that should apply to everybody, even commissioners, deputy commissioners, et cetera. It should not be unfairly applied.
And, finally, it strikes me that there's a real federal constitutional issue with this kind of approach. Certainly, if you move from Georgia to Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania says you have to live in Pennsylvania for a year before you get welfare benefits, that's unconstitutional because the commerce clause says that Americans have the right to move around to get the basic benefits of government from being American citizens. I believe if a case was brought, included in that would be the right to public employment. I mean, I don't -- the fact that -- 54 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
-- there's only two cities in this position to me indicates that probably many cities have reached that conclusion. I mean, if we are for the enforcement of all the freedoms in the United States Constitution, we have to take everything that that means -- when it works in favor of what we're trying to do at a particular time and when it works against it. But we -- liberals are for free movement of people from state to state, city to city, and we have achieved very important constitutional victories in court on that. This would go in the opposite direction.
I am not yet a United States Congressman or a United States senator; I have elected to represent the citizens of Philadelphia. And I -- 55 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
You swore to enforce the United States Constitution as part of your oath.
The united States Constitution, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter. And the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, as long as it does not conflict with the Pennsylvania Constitution or the United States Constitution, which it does not in this case, states that there should be a preference. And regardless of what any other city does, if I still believe there should be a preference, there should still be a preference. But beyond that, my point is this: It's not that people should be free-flowing in terms of population, but they should want to come to Philadelphia because of private-sector jobs, not 56 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 because of public-sector jobs. I want to move forward a little bit and ask you about the statement similar to the question I asked the Chamber of Commerce. In your testimony, you say, "which will allow the City to attract the best and most qualified employees." How do you know who the best and most qualified employees are?
The people who will perform the best on the tests and the interviews are the -- or else those tests and interviews should be changed. They should be relevant to the real criteria that you want in those positions. But, you know, when I go to a doctor, I want to go to the best doctor, not to the guy that, because he didn't have enough competition, he made it into medical school.
Do you look for doctors locally or do you look for 57 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 doctors nationally?
Last question. With regard to the auditor trainee position, why is it on the waiver list?
Because we cannot get enough Philadelphians to apply for the test. We can't get enough Philadelphians with the background qualifications for that job to apply for the test. And there are significant gaps between the time somebody retires or there's an opening and we're able to fill it, and that means more workload on people who are already working very heavy schedules to get all of the mandated work done.
So you believe that there's a skills deficit within the City of Philadelphia that does not allow enough people to apply for an 58 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 that does not allow enough people to apply for an auditor trainee position as opposed to it being a recruitment problem?
That's right. I mean, it's our experience that the tests are announced and we don't get enough applicants.
But there are very possibly enough applicants within the City of Philadelphia.
I would say the evidence is that there is not, because if I wanted a job and I was auditor-qualified, I would certainly look at the City Controller's Office announcements as a place to work. Where else would you go as a starting-out auditor?
I generally don't deal anecdotally in that fashion, so I'll pose the question to you this way: Where would you recruit outside of Philadelphia specifically? 59 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Well, as part of our regular program, we go to a number of colleges and recruit for entry-level auditors.
I mean, specifically, where are the auditor trainees that you want to hire?
I would love to hire them from inside the City limits if they were applying. I mean, we certainly do outreach to all the colleges in Philadelphia, and we do outreach in the colleges in suburban Philadelphia.
But you don't know that they are specifically auditor trainee in waiting outside of Philadelphia.
We go to Penn State, we go to colleges where people are training to be accountants.
My question is: Is there a pool of auditor trainees out there, somewhere outside of Philadelphia that you need to go tap? 60 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
They're at these colleges. There's not a township that I'm familiar with that is occupied by accountants and auditors exclusively.
So they are quite possibly within the colleges within the City limits as well.
Yeah. And we work very hard to go to all of the local colleges and get our candidates here.
And it's quite possible that they might want to go work for a private-sector accounting firm rather than the City Controller's Office.
Well, my problem, is I have to get them into our office. Whatever their other opportunities or motivations are, I have a problem of getting the work done that we have to get done in our office.
But it's not necessarily a skills deficit within Philadelphia.
You're now in 61 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 the realm of philosophy. It's -- I mean anything that's phrased like that, of course, it's not necessarily. But the common-sense experience is, if you need a job and you're qualified for that, and the main place, public place where you would go to get that kind of job, and you can't get enough applicants, there's probably not enough people with those qualifications here.
Well, Mr. Controller, the realm of philosophy began with the statement, "which will allow the City to attract the best and most qualified employee." I'm not sure that that's an accurate statement. I mean, it's fair for you to offer it as testimony, but I'm not sure it's an accurate statement.
Any other questions for this witness? (No response.) 62 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
The next witness is Mr. Ed Schwartz from The Institute of Civic Values. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Ed Schwartz, and I'm here as President of the Institute for the Study of Civic Values. I would add, as is known, that I've had two positions in government -- one as a member of this Council years 19 ago, and a five-year stint as Director of 20 the Office of Housing and Community Development. And I've worked with, for, and around government for just about the entire period of time that I've lived in Philadelphia, which has really been only 63 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 half of my life. I came here from another place, directly from Boston and earlier from New York. I -- my perspective on this, as reflected in my notes, grows out of analysis of some of the highest positions in government. I know we've gone beyond that here. Let me say that my support for this bill is simple. It's common sense. That is, it's common sense to me to say that you're going to hire somebody and give them time to live there rather than forcing somebody to live here before they hired someone. Now, that common sense has also given rise to a waiver position. Somewhere, somebody along the way knew that this was a problem; why else have a waiver? But I have a real problem with something that requires a waiver of a law in order to achieve common sense rather than to apply common sense to the law. 64 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 And if there are administrative problems that grow out of the new system, surely we can work those out, just as we seem to have worked out the systems, in fact, that currently exist to some extent. I do think that the context of all of this, including many of the questions that have been raised, is the understanding of the labor market worldwide that we are now dealing with. And that anyone who wants to address the issues of jobs and economic development has to start with the presumption of the economic situation in the world as it is now -- where, in fact, in India, you call on technical support from Dell Computers, and you're more likely to be talking to Bombay than we are to talking to even Texas, where Dell is located. That's the world in which we live. Now, at the highest level of 65 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 public administration in this city, not the Mayor's -- and, by the way, I would point out that the last three mayors did not grow up in Philadelphia; two of them did not even grow up in Pennsylvania. I believe the last mayor from Philadelphia was your father, sir, Councilman Rizzo. And many of our best public administrators, the ones who are serving with us now, came from other cities as part of national searches. Paul Vallas from the School District, and we were thrilled when he decided to be here because of his reputation throughout the country as a top-notch public administrator for schools in Chicago. Diana Neff, from the Mayor's Office of Information Services, who was less well known, but I knew of her from my work in the Internet she. Had put together the best website of a municipal government in a little place called Palo Alto, California in the mid-'90s, before 66 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 she came here. Kevin Hanna, currently the Director of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, came from Atlanta. And, by alternative, in this new mobile world, three of our local administrators recently, over the last six years, have found great jobs in other cities. Rob Hess, who had been the Director of Homeless Services in Philadelphia up to about a month ago, has now taken that position in New York. Police Commissioner John Timoney is police commissioner in Miami. The Finance Director, Janice Davis, left for Atlanta. So a career in public administration, which is one particular occupation and one -- I'm giving you the top of the ladder, but I think it affects all levels ot it -- assumes that you're likely to move from city to city. Or at 67 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 least to keep that as an option available.
And furthermore, whether or not there's some other field that we also are trying to expand in the City, which we are trying to do, is irrelevant to what makes sense in the particular fields that we're talking about. What we want are the best qualified and best to serve public administrators in our government. Now, whether or not a local resident or somebody from outside the City meets that bill is something that gets worked out when an employer starts interviewing them and evaluating them. That's done on a case-by-case basis. And obviously, to me at least, someone who's in the City with that experience and who's lived here comes with a tremendous advantage overall from somebody who's not in the City. And that would be taken in considering in the employment. 68 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 But to simply say that, therefore, we should make it three times as hard for somebody outside the City who may be really good and someone we immediate and someone whose talents as a person in public service, which is what we're talking about, would help the City and help its residents, it seems to me that that doesn't make any since -- particularly as you, Councilman Kenney, point out, that we seem to be one of two cities in the United States with this provision. Another way to avoid all of these requirements at the top, of course, is becoming a consultant. And here again, this is another example of where the labor market has taken us. You don't have to be anywhere to work everywhere. And that's the first premise of the world economy that we need to, in fact, understand if we're going to be able to be competitive in the job market of Philadelphia today. 69 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 That even within the common system, if we're going to talk about the colleges and universities in this area -- and I think that is a huge asset to us. Several are in the City, several aren't. Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, three of the top liberal arts colleges in the United States, are located outside of Philadelphia, and the people who are attending those schools live outside of Philadelphia. Do I want to make it possible for Swarthmore, Haverford, and Bryn Mawr graduates to become employees here in either sector? You bet. They're some of the most talented people. I've taught in one of those institutions, and I can tell you that the people who, from those institutions have come here, have done a terrific job. And I would not want to make it impossible for them to have those judgments if that option were open for them to come into the government. 70 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 So I support this because I think it reflects the direction that the labor movement already has taken, and that, in fact, we need to be competitive with that. Does it wipe out the ordinary standards of judgment that an employer will make as to whether or not the people who are working for them makes sense? No. 12 Does it give -- eliminate the advantage that somebody who has lived in the City, who has been around might have very somebody outside of the City? No. 16 But I've given several examples from the top of this government where the fact that we were able to attract talented people from other places made it possible for us to have people in these positions who are, if not the absolute best -- 'cause who knows what that is -- certainly did a credible job and benefitted the City, as have many, many people who've come here from outside of 71 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Philadelphia, myself, I would hope, included. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schwartz, you said in your testimony and whether it's in your written testimony, but you said in the course of your oral testimony that it should not require a waiver of the law. In fact, the waivers that exist are not waivers of the law; they are, in fact, waivers under the law. Is that correct?
That's a semantic difference, Councilman. Surely you know --
Mr. Schwartz as a legislator, you know that, in fact, it's not waiver.
Fine, I will agree with you. If you want to make a 72 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 point, I'll agree to you that.
It's not a waiver of the law; it's a waiver under the law.
Under the law, but it's a waiver of a position that, in fact, is created in the law that requires it to be -- a law that requires the waiver to make the law reasonable.
Which, in other words, means that there should be a general rule that applies across the board, but provisions put in place like waivers and instances when it should not apply across the board. And -- and -- and --
Well, actually, I believe that's what I said. I said that if we had a waiver position in this, surely we could -- which doesn't make sense, the law, then we could find some equivalent waiver to deal with exception or whatever, administrative implication to deal with whatever problems might grow 73 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 out of this new law. I think that's what I said, Councilman.
I crafted the minimum wage law last year; it had waivers within it, which means that as much as possible, I wanted people to be paid at a certain rate but understood that there were waivers that had to be built into that law in order for it to make sense.
And that's, it seems to me, what I just said, that if there were waivers built into the current law and there were administrative problems moving in this new direction, then I'll use your language, waivers could be built into that law. That's the process of developing sensible legislation.
There are waivers built into the current law. Let me move forward. I don't believe your testimony regarding public 74 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 administrators has anything at all to do with this bill. Can you please explain to me how your testimony regarding public administrators at all relates to the bill.
I think that, in fact, this seems to apply to all levels of public administration, number one.
And, number two, to the extent that I have given examples here of what's happened in the area that I know best, I think it applies throughout the system.
No. I think that, in fact, the logic applies throughout the system. The fact that we have, in fact, been able to benefit the City by having a pool of people from all over the country compete for the key jobs here, that principle ought to be applied to the 75 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 administrative structure throughout the City. We have benefitted as a result of being able to get a Paul Vallas, who's not even a City employee, but School District, and whose tenure -- or a Diana Neff, or some others I know who came from outside the City. Now, why shouldn't that advantage be an advantage for the rest of the City bureaucracy?
To be perfectly honest, the issue of whether Paul Vallas is key to the City in terms of the reform of public education is now very debatable. Maybe last year and the year before, it was not. I think if you asked the people in Chicago, they don't want him back.
Well, I think that's a judgment about an individual person.
We didn't steal him from anyone; they fired him. 76 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Well, that's your judgment about the particular individual. I mean --
No, they fired him. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
The people in Chicago fired Paul Vallas. He ran for governor. After he lost running for governor, then we went and got him.
I see. In other words, a person who's been a school administrator gets fired when he loses a job running for office. That's a very interesting formulation of on employment situation. The fact is that Paul Vallas had a pretty good reputation as superintendent of the schools in Chicago. He served there a number of years.
And got 77 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 fired.
He was hired here and he's highly regarded in terms of his performance here.
He's highly regarded enough by the School Reform Commission that he still has his job.
But we should not assume that, one, because he's highly regarded by the School Reform Commission that other people would hire him in that same position throughout the City of Philadelphia. The schools have improved to the extent that people suggested they have improved. But, more importantly, my 78 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 question was: Does your testimony related to public administrators directly relate to this bill?
And the principle of the bill, as I understand it, is that right now, in order to take a position in the City of Philadelphia, you have to have lived here for six months. And if you haven't lived here for six months, then you can get a waiver on that provision. I am saying that if that provision is applied, it eliminates or makes less likely getting the most competent people that you want to be able to get in positions of service, which is what we're talking about, not some other field, than we might get. And there are a number of people in colleges and universities in 79 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 this immediate area who don't live in Philadelphia but who would be very, very good in working in our and for our government at whatever level the employment is. And they might not, in fact, be in a position or want to take the risk of moving here for a job that may not, in fact, occur. And they'll leave. And, you see, to me, the biggest problem, or among the biggest problems of employment in this city, is that people with college educations don't stay here; they leave. They leave because they think the City, in fact, is out of tune with what they're able to get from other cities. And if we, in fact, continue to operate on the basis that we did 35 years ago, when we had a manufacturing economy where people grew up, maybe it's a better economy, it's gone. And if we continue to operate on that basis, we're not going 80 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 to get very far. The starting point in all professions -- government, private-sector and whatever -- is figuring out how we attract people who have education and talent to be able to come to the City and stay here, as a number of us have.
Aside from that having nothing to do with the bill 11 either, can you name one civil service administrative position that is impacted by this bill. Name one civil service administrative position.
Well, then I don't know the answer. If there's some specific one, we've heard various things. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
I assume that every single civil service position is impacted by the bill because, in fact, 81 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 they apply to all of them, correct?
Your testimony was regarding public administrators, which you termed as "key administrators." Aside from the fact that I think you're referring to non-civil service administrators, my question was: Can you name one civil service administrator position that you believe to be impacted by this bill?
I think any civil service position. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.
You're asking me, do I know all of the civil -- do I currently have in my head all of the civil service positions in the City?
I asked for one position you're advocating for that this bill needs to impact.
I'm not advocating for any particular position. 82 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Why is that a requirement. I'm advocating for a law that, in fact, represents common sense.
Your testimony does not relate to the bill; that's my point.
Thank you. I know that Mr. Schwartz couldn't answer the question, but I believe that the Personnel Director did indicate in her testimony that there were 109 different positions that waivers have been asked for at the Civil Service Commission. Was the number 109, I believe? Classifications?
98. I'm sorry, 98 classifications. So there's apparently at least 98 classifications and positions that have requested waivers in the past, so I guess that may be the answer to the question.
There are deputies all over the place that are civil service. You know, I mean --
The 98 classifications requested for waiver, I think, maybe correctly indicate that there's a problem in those areas, or you wouldn't ask for the waivers. And so that's --
Councilman Goode? 84 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
My question was if any of them are administrative positions. And if none of them are administrative positions, your testimony regarding administrative positions is irrelevant to the bill.
Well, okay, Councilman. I don't agree with that. I think that, in fact, the standards you create for employment in the City, in the City government, in fact, have an effect on every aspect of it. I don't think it's fungible in that way. And to the extent that I used this example as a citizen who's been here suggests that my impression is that whatever the standard is in one area, it needs to apply in other areas. And Philadelphia has a reputation well deserved. The positive side of Philadelphia is that we care bow the City as a place, and we care about the people who live here. 85 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 And if this were a bill to limit the residency requirement, period, I'd be here opposing it because I support residency requirements. But somewhere, there's a proper balance between maintaining a community and then encouraging new people to come into it and make a contribution. And I am among those people. I didn't come here for civil service particularly or even a job in government. But there are plenty of people who came to Philadelphia who stayed here, and there are other people who might come to Philadelphia and stay here for the jobs that are available to them not necessarily in the private-sector, who would add a lot to the City if it was a little bit easier for them to make that decision. That's the only point I'm making. It seems to me, In listening this, that that's the basic point of this legislation. 86 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 And if there are administrative problems that that would create, then I think, in fact, that should be worked out with the Personnel Department, just as the problems of the current situation has created have been worked out with the Personnel Department.
Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Schwartz, for your testimony this morning.
Our next witness is Mr. Christopher Sheridan, the Committee of Seventy. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Christopher Sheridan, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the Committee of Seventy. Thank you to Chairman Ramos and the Committee on Labor and Civil Service for allowing us this 87 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 opportunity. The Committee of Seventy supports Bill No. 060432 as consistent with current practices in other major cities and as a way to promote employment competition and growth in the City of Philadelphia. Allowing nonresidents to apply to Philadelphia civil service is a progressive idea that will increase employment competition, resulting in a more qualified applicant pool for municipal the jobs. Proposed legislation eliminates the one-year residency pre-application requirement and allows applicants for Philadelphia civil service up to six months to establish residency after appointment. This change will allow the City to market employment opportunities, for example, to students at colleges outside of Philadelphia, who might want to pursue a career in our public service but are 88 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 currently foreclosed from applying to civil service jobs here. By requiring an employee to reside in Philadelphia after appointment, the proposed change would still ensure the employee will establish and maintain a connection with the community, which is an important consideration behind civil service residency requirements. The proposed change would also bring uniformity to the City's residency requirement. Currently, municipal employees not in the civil service have six months to establish Philadelphia residency from the time of appointment under the Home Rule Charter, Section 18 3-306. As moted in the proposed bill's preamble, the system creates an appearance of preferential treatment, and one consistent policy truly is in the best interests of the City's municipal workforce. Opponents might say this 89 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 proposed measure could reduce opportunities for current residents, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. To be fair, increased competition may disadvantage some individual and municipal job-seekers, but the interest of 1.5 million Philadelphians and the best city workforce possible should not be undermined by protectionist arguments. This legislation will make the process more competitive but also more transparent and effective. Support for this bill is also consistent with Seventy's previous testimony on civil service residency requirements. In 2001, Seventy delivered testimony based on its Philadelphia Police Department governance study. While this previous study applied only to police hiring, its findings are applicable to the civil service 90 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 generally. Seventy found, among others things, that Philadelphia and Boston were the only major cities in America that required applicants to the police force to be residents for one year prior to taking the exam. Furthermore, Seventy found that this requirement hampered the Philadelphia Police Department's ability to attract the most qualified applicants, including minorities, and more currently, highly qualified veterans of our armed forces seeking a return to civilian life as law enforcement officers. In closing, the passage of this bill is a step forward in Philadelphia's effort to be viewed as a progressive and welcoming city. It is also an invitation to members of our armed forces to bring their substantial skills to our city, contributing not just to a more qualified pool for law enforcement positions, but also to a more qualified applicant pool 91 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 for all civil service positions, given that today's veterans have a full range of knowledge and experience, which could be an asset for any City department. Okay, thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? Councilman Goode.
Your testimony states that allowing nonresidents to apply to Philadelphia civil service is a progressive idea that would increase employment competition, resulting in a more qualified applicant pool for municipal jobs. Will that definitely happen? Or possibly happen?
I believe it will happen because you're opening the 92 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 applicant from 1.5 people to 300 million. Or if you leave out children, from 1 million to about 200 million. So I think that as a basic rule of economics, the more competition you have, the higher the qualifications at the top of the applicant pool.
But it's also potentially very possible that we have enough Philadelphia residents that are qualified for these positions.
Well, my feeling is that Philadelphia residents deserve the most qualified civil servants they can have, so I don't know that having enough people who are, quote, qualified is adequate. PI think that our people deserve the best qualified applicants that we can find and hire.
You walked into that one. What does "most 93 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 qualified" or "best qualified" mean?
I mean it's a combination of education, experience, skills, training. I mean, it's --
How do you ever know you have the most qualified or best qualified person?
Well, I mean, most qualified is a relative pool. I mean, within a pool of applicants, human resources professionals try, whether it's for the City or whether it's for their firm, to get the most qualified people. So they look at a variety of variables and try and get the person who's going to provide the highest- quality service to the constituents.
The point I've made throughout this hearing is that there's no such thing as most qualified, there's no such thing as best qualified. There's qualified, there's qualified enough. In some cases, there is better qualified. 94 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 In the end, there's no such thing as most qualified or best qualified.
How do you determine who the best qualified candidate is? Are you the best qualified candidate for your job?
Of course. No one could ever know if you're the best qualified candidate for your job.
Yeah, but there's a range of skills and experience. I mean, you know, we're getting into terms -- it is a matter of semantics.
It's not a matter of semantics. I asked you about your specific job, whether you're the best qualified person, most qualified person for your job.
I think a lot of 95 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 people think I am but I don't know that.
There's no 4 way to ever know that; that's my point exactly. You may be qualified, you may be qualified enough, you may have been better qualified than other applicants, but there's no such thing as being the best qualified or most qualified for a position. That's just something that people have always said, and so that is semantics. My next question is, you say in your testimony that opponents might say this proposed measure could reduce opportunities for current residents, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Can you explain that.
Well, I think that unemployment tends to be higher in areas where there is less opportunity, so, I mean, that's -- you know, that's possible. 96 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Now, the amendment concerning taking labor positions out of this obviously removes part of that concern, but not entirely.
I'm asking you to explain, what is a disadvantaged neighborhood?
What is a disadvantaged neighborhood? I mean, we have neighborhoods in Philadelphia which are affluent, middle-class, and disadvantaged. And there's a range. I mean, disadvantaged. I mean, obviously, places where people have lesser economic opportunities, have less financial resources. I mean, disadvantage, it is what it is.
So your position is that these civil service positions should go to middle-class and affluent residents of the City or other cities?
My position is that these positions should go to the 97 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 most qualified person, whether they live in Philadelphia or not.
We've absolutely done away with the term "most qualified."
Okay. Can you explain to me again who would be the most qualified person for your position.
Until you can answer the question. Who would be the most qualified person for your position, and how do you determine that?
Well, probably somebody with or 30 more years of 19 experience in law and government than I 20 have. But you always have the factor as well that what a given organization or entity is willing and able to pay is what determines the -- that sets the ceiling.
I'm 98 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 finished, Mr. Sheridan. I'll make one more point, and you can respond to it if you want. You just determined three classes of people -- affluent, middle- class, and disadvantaged. That speaks to your testimony in volumes. Thank you.
You said, "affluent, middle-class, and disadvantaged," and I asked you to define what a disadvantaged neighborhood is.
And I don't see the relevance of this; I honestly don't. I think that, you know, basically people come from every class in society and succeed. You know, we see that all the time. You know, the point is that people in Philadelphia deserve the best workforce they can get. 99 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Mr. Sheridan in your testimony, you stated that opponents... Opponents might say this proposed measure could reduce opportunities for current residents, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. I simply asked you to explain that statement from your own testimony and to define "disadvantaged neighborhoods" and what you meant by it in your own testimony. And you said, Well, disadvantaged neighborhoods -- well, there are affluent, there are middle- class, and then there's disadvantaged. That was your testimony.
I did not interpret it; that's what you said. Thank you.
Any other 100 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
The next witness is Mr. Toby Rich from Scoop Newspaper. (Witness comes forward.)
Mr. Rich is also known as "the Mayor of Girard Avenue." That makes him my mayor as well.
Let me recognize that Councilman DiCicco's been here for a good while, and I have failed to make note that he is a member of this committee and is in attendance this morning. Please proceed.
I may be a little nervous, so please bear with me. When I first heard -- 101 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432
Mr. Rich, can you state your name for the record, please.
My name is Rich Toby Rich; I write for the Scoop Newspaper, and in the paper I'm considered the Mayor of Girard Avenue. I may appear to be a little nervous because most of the time that I have been in here, I was always the side being a nuisance. I find myself this time wanting to testify because I really feel kind of strongly about this issue. Some folk from the Fire Department asked me to be concerned about this issue. And when I first saw things going on, I really looked at it and considered, well, maybe it's not such a bad idea to have somebody able to come and get a job after they have been here six months. But my point is, and the reason why I'm against this is because there are people in the City of Philadelphia that 102 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 are qualified. And if you come to me and say that you went through all your resources and could not find a single qualified person for this job, I'll throw my hands up and say, Okay, then we'll go and fine these people from outside of the City. And once they work, give them the opportunity to live in our city, because we have places in Chestnut Hill, Roxborough, West Mt. Airy, very nice places where they can get a home. So folks can live here in the City of Philadelphia and get a job here. My concern too though is getting a job like that and then taking the tax dollars out of the City. We need the money from those respective jobs to be back in the City. And I heard talk about the paramedics and I'd like to say that I am very proud of the paramedics that are here in Philadelphia. I was at a fight in West 103 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 Philadelphia, Councilwoman Blackwell's district, and one of the boxers was knocked out. And the response from the paramedics was quite well. They knew how to get the to 57th and Haverford the Shepherd Recreation Center. There wasn't an uprising. There were all kinds of ethnic groups in this facility in West Philly -- African-American, White, and Hispanic. And the response from the people in the crowd was not that they were glad this gentleman was knocked out; they were concerned about his well-being. And when he was carried out of the ring, folk clapped. I -- I was overwhelmed to see in this city, with all of the violence that we have and all the rhetoric, yeah, the City of Brotherly and Sisterly Love, as it's called, may sound corny, but it's some good stuff here in Philadelphia. And we have good people here in Philadelphia. We really don't have to go 104 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 outside of Philadelphia to find somebody to do work. And this term of "best qualified," I have a problem with that, because I remember as a kid, when you cawed the best qualified, it was folk that was overlooked for some reason -- be it the color of their skin, the way they talked, where they came from. And I know that I'm before some very distinguished people today and we're not in the '60s anymore, so I know this is not a race issue. But least we forget that we have had issues in the past. And I would really hate for somebody that was very qualified to have a job be looked over for somebody's friend or family member that lives somewhere in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, or Montgomery County, and is given a certain job, and that person that is qualified that lives right here in the City of Philadelphia for some reason is overlooked. 105 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 And I don't think they made this rule for no reason. There's a reason why they made this rule. And there's a reason why the City of Boston and Philadelphia upheld this rule. If you look at history, the things that happened in Boston, in Philadelphia were very similar. So the folk that represented government at that time must have had a reason for this. Now, I will keep in mind that today is a new day, and we don't need to always look at what happened in the past to try to make the future uphold to it.
There are things that happened in the past that need to stay there, and we do need to move forward. So I don't want you to think that I want to just stay locked in what happened in yesteryear. However, like I said before, until you can come to the City of Philadelphia and say that you've looked and you've searched and you have found 106 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060432 absolutely no one that could be a fireman, a policeman, or a paramedic or whatever other civil service job there is, and then, then you can come to me and ask me. And I will write in the paper with the same vigor that I gave those that wanted the camera thing to be passed. But before that, I'm not for this. I'm very much against it.
Thank you, Mr. Rich, for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony this more than.
Are there any other witnesses on Bill No. 060342, please come forward. If not, hold on, please. This will conclude our public hearing on Bill No. 060432 only. 107 6/12/06 - LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - PUBLIC MEETING We will continue with another bill, 060506 shortly. We will now move into our public hearing to -- I'm sorry public meeting. We're now in our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Ken for a motion on Bill No. 060432.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 060432 be reported out of this committee. Favorably that's it. I'm sorry. And a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion seconded.)
It's moved and seconded that Bill No. 060432 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and also moved that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. All in favor, signify by saying 108 6/12/06 - LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - PUBLIC MEETING aye. Any opposed?
One nay. Councilman Goode votes nay on this bill. The majority of members of this Council voting aye, this bill has been moved out of committee. * * * 109 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506
We will now move back to the public hearing on the Committee on Labor and Civil Service for Bill No. 060506, and. At this time, we will call a recess and continue shortly. (Recess.) (Proceedings resume.)
Good afternoon. This is the continuation of the Labor and Civil Service Committee on Bill No. 060506. Can the clerk please read the title of the bill.
Bill 060506, an ordinance amending Section 22-310 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Deferred Retirement Option Plan," by providing an extraordinary extension for purposes of enhancing public safety for participants in the DROP Program who are public safety employees, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. We're waiting on the Managing Director 110 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 but we'll get started now. He'll be back in a couple minutes. How about if we start with Mr. Bob Eddis, President of the Fraternal Order of Police. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please proceed. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Bobby Eddis, President of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5. I also have Ron Stagliano, who's our representative on the Pension Board. We're here today in support of bill as a result of our current situation, which is our shortage of manpower. As we go around and visit the numerous districts in the City, as I'm aware that everybody in this room is 111 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 aware of, there's been a complete downsizing in the Police Department, which has impacted us greatly. It's our hope that as a result of this bill, it will give the police enough time by extending it by one year to keep seasoned veteran officers on the street while they're getting ready to get the next classes through. That's basically our intent and we're opening that this bill goes through.
Thank you for, Mr. Eddis, for your testimony. Does the person that's accompanying you care to testify for the record.
Any questions for Mr. Eddis from members of this committee, members of the Council. (No questions.)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Eddis, for your testimony 112 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 this morning.
I would like to call Mr. Brian McBride, President of Firefighters Union Local 22. (Witness comes forward.).
Good morning. My name is John Reilly. I sit on the Board of Pensions and Retirement for the City of Philadelphia.
And Brian had to leave, he had a commitment, but he supports the bill.
Okay, that's good testimony. Any questions for this witness?
A man of few words. 113 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 (No questions.)
Seeing none, we will proceed. At this time, Mr. Vince Jannetti and Managing Director Pedro Ramos. (Witnesses come forward.) MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Good afternoon. Pedro Ramos, Managing Director. And I'm joined by Vince Jannetti, Director of Finance. We're here to comment on Bill 060506. We've looked at the proposed bill as currently drafted from two different perspectives -- one financial, the other managerial. And I can leave the financial analysis to the Finance Director, but I'll sum it up from the Managing Director's perspective very simply, which is that when we looked at the cost of a fifth year for someone in the DROP Program, we do know that while it costs a little less on pensions because the average salary is higher and the rate of 114 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 absence slightly higher for that demographic group, it will be more expensive than both overtime and straight time. I don't think that will be a surprise. That said, then the issue becomes, Well, under extraordinary circumstances, when would it make sense to use something that's even more expensive but that gives you the managerial flexibility. So most of my comments and observations will be about that part which is, when does it makes sense. As currently drafted, the bill 17 does not provide the flexibility that I think was intended by the bill, and we have had some discussions this morning with Councilman Nutter, who, I believe, is making some revisions to -- prepared to make some revisions to the proposed bill that I think, at least on first blush, appear to address several of the concerns that we discussed this morning. 115 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 However, I would like to suggest, and am offering, and given the timing of the City Council session, I think it works anyway, that the FOP, the IAFF, and I continue to work through the summer on proposed amendments, starting with the language that ends up before you today to see whether we can craft this language that I -- that under extraordinary circumstance would give the Mayor more flexibility rather than take away flexibility with respect to public safety officials. That's pretty much the extent of where we are right now. We have had very constructive discussions with the two unions representing public safety officials. And while we're not here prepared to support this bill today, we do think that there -- that with some time, over the summer, we could probably get close to, if not agree on, some proposed amendments that we could bring to you together. 116 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 At the end, there's no 3 fundamental difference here; it's about when we have flexibility and being able to exercise that flexibility. For example, the types of issues we've raised are being able to set a number of slots that would be needed under various circumstances in each department and how we would go about making sure that the specific needs of the City under, those extraordinary circumstances, are addressed by using the fifth year that's offered under the bill. So in terms of uniformed, nonuniformed, within the uniformed departments, or the combination of staffing within the departments to be able to do that in a way that makes sense. So that's pretty much where we are. We're -- you know, what we would like is for the committee to consider taking the -- giving us the 117 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 opportunity to work with the unions representing the two public safety departments on potential -- on language that could work all around.
And does mr. Jannetti offer any further testimony on this bill? G.
Thank you. Any questions for our witnesses? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak. First of all, I want to thank the Managing Director, Mr. Ramos, and the Finance Director, Mr. Jannetti for some earlier discussion that we had regarding this bill, some recommendations that were made based on the concerns expressed that by the Managing Director and the Finance Director. And we did reach some level of 118 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 agreement about the concerns, very legitimate concerns, about flexibility that were raised. And so I would like to put forward a proposed amendment to this bill. It is -- it's the language that's already in the bill plus some additional language on the front of it, with a more clarifying amendment that it is only for individuals who are in their fourth year in the DROP Program. Second, just the very quickest history here. This comes as a result of what I think is not only this City Council's important response to the extraordinary surge in public safety issues -- specifically, of course, violent crime in Philadelphia -- and this Council taking the position that we want to hire more police officers, which we did as a result of actions taken in our budget process. Nonetheless, we all know that when the City starts recruitment process, 119 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 testing process and, of course, extensive training for those new recruits, those officers will not be out protecting Philadelphians until sometime next year, virtually ten months to probably a year from now. In the meantime, we know that from data that we lose about police 10 officers a month through the DROP Program and, so for the rest of this year, we will lose somewhere between 50 to 60 police officers, just as a result their participation in the DROP Program. What this legislation seeks to do is to give us the flexibility to then hold on to those officers should they choose, I suggest, respond to a public call-back to service. And many police officers have indicated to me that they would like to stay, and this bill is an attempt to make that transition as easy as possible. On the flexibility issues, of course, none of this is triggered unless 120 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 the Mayor determines that there are staffing issues in either of those departments, the public safety departments for the City, and then the additional flexibility to figure out the specific staffing needs. So I would like to put this amendment forward. It may not solve every issue or concern that the Managing Director and the Finance Director have expressed. And there will be many issues to discuss, I'm sure, over the course of the summer. Should the bill come out of committee, of course, it would only get a first reading this Thursday, and we could then take the rest of that time o. But I think it's a timely issue, it's an important issue, and I would appreciate the committee's consideration of the amendment and, should the bill be amended, to report the bill out, as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 121 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506
Thank you. Mr. Managing Director, if this bill's accepted, the bill won't be voted on finally until our first session back. So just for the record, all of the individuals whose time comes between now and that particular period of time would leave the service; is that correct? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Yes, certainly, in a couple different respects. But in the most technical way, this will not apply to, as I understand it, even as originally drafted and as revised. It only applies to persons who have not yet retired. So they're persons within the retirement. The other is that, again, this bill on its face is a bill that is providing flexibility in pretty extraordinary circumstances which -- which entail the overall all, you know, 122 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 best interests of the City, including the financial interests. And we're not here like in the overtime debate to say -- to say, you know, overtime versus straight time. This is more expensive than both overtime and straight time, but our starting point is that this is a tool for those circumstances that the Mayor determines extraordinary beyond that, including, you know, whatever analysis goes into that.
But during the course of the summer -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Let me answer directly. Employees -- persons in their fourth year that drop shouldn't plan on the fifth year of DROP at this point. This is very preliminary. The bill 21 wouldn't have passed. We're not saying that we're prepared to use this in the immediate future, so we don't want to create an incorrect perception in the rank and file 123 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 or confusion for those people who are making plans.
So if you hit your deadline -- absolutely, if you hit your date before we come back in September, you're gone, correct? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Yes.
Okay. During the course of the summer -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: And by the way, I think that's a technical -- I think that that's probably where, for tax reasons, that it's probably where we, you know, and given some of the changing of moods in the IRS, it's probably where you would be advised anyway.
During the course of the summer when often is the time when there are extraordinary personnel circumstances vis-a-vis the Police Department and the Fire Department also, this provision would not be in place to allow them -- for example, if we have -- I don't know what our big events 124 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 during the summer, if -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Like Welcome America.
Welcome America, for example, we would not have the flexibility to take advantage of this provision until September potentially. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Well, first of all, we've -- you'll be happy to know and I know you know that all of these major events that go on during the summer we've been planning for months.
I understand. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: And Deputy Commissioner Fox and the Police Department and the deputies in Fire and two commissioners are -- we've been doing our planning for the summer, and I understand it's absolutely right that just as the total number of people on vacation during the summer is greater.
Right. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: But 125 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 this is about a longer term than the summer.
I'm not in any way being critical and I'm not trying to throw any monkey wrenches anywhere. All I'm saying is I want to make sure that it's understood that if we had some, say, non-planned for event in August, we would not be able to take advantage of this proposed provision. Or could the Mayor issue an executive order and do the same thing? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: With DROP, it's a lot cleaner to do this by ordinance and if it's a catastrophic type of thing --
God forbid. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: -- there are emergency powers that we could turn to. A concern that I had about the timing of this hearing, in fact, was part of what you're getting at, I think, is I don't want rank and file employees to get 126 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 to have any of their planning sort of confused because we're having it in this discussion now. And I was worried that we would end up with some of that concern over the summer that people will start --
I mean, even if this legislation passes, the Mayor still has to invoke this special circumstances -- MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: He has to determine that there are extraordinary public safety circumstances and in the best interests of the City overall, including you know, now three options financially, you know, how he would meet it.
And is it the intention of both yourself and the Councilman to try to work out a different bill come the fall that may not have this apply at all, maybe a totally different agreement on DROP? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: What 127 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 I committed to was that -- and you can have that confirmed by the FOP, that I've committed this to them, which is I committed to work with them, and I've committed to Brian McBride of the Firefighters Union, who was here earlier, that we would work through the summer because if we're going to have this, it sort of has to work for everybody. And some of the issues that would be problematic from a managerial perspective become issues on the rank and file union perspective too, I imagine. We want clarity, and we want that flexibility to play out. We don't want the right to pick choose, to cherry-pick and to say that we're able to get the type of subordinates we're looking for without cherry-picking.
If your date is up in 2006, you pretty much can plan on not having an option and going. Again, for those individuals' sake, I had 128 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 questions from people over the weekend, and I wanted to be able to give an answer that's definitive. Whether they like the answer or not, it's definite -- this is what's going to happen, and you're not -- most likely not going to be eligible for any extension in any calendar year. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: My response to folks, and I get a lot of same questions, is to not plan on it, that this has still got some ways to go as we develop -- as we refine the language. It has to make its way through the legislative process, and then other things have to happen.
Okay. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: I mean, I can't read a crystal ball about what could await us on December 31st, but I would tell people not to plan on it and that this is something that at its most useful is a long-term flexibility and that they should not in the short term be changing their plans. 129 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506
Part of the fairness issue and some of the complaints I get is that it's not necessarily relative to the Police and Fire Department but to some of the other departments, I think. And, again, it's anecdotal, and I don't have it conferred, but the Health Department, for example, and Recreation, people are hitting DROP dates and coming back on contract. I mean, maybe that's a good management policy, but is it something -- and it creates an atmosphere of kind of unfairness or favoritism that certain people can come back as a contract employee -- contractual employee even after they're dropped, and some people can't and some people are asked and some people are not. I mean, do you find that to be not widespread but significant? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: This -- my understanding of the background of 130 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 this bill is that it has been focused on the public safety needs because of the discussion that's been had, you know, around our recent debates here in City Council and with the Administration involved in those about overtime versus straight time. So that's really highlighted some of that.
But in the non-safety departments, do you find that that's a tool being used by The administration to retain employees post their DROP date? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: I don't -- I haven't looked at this in any -- I haven't really taken a hard numerical or empirical look at this. My own observation, especially more when I was in the Law Department, was that it's -- that what you're talking about probably happens more in the non-administrative, independently elected offices. 131 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 I mean, the press has sort of, you know, made a lot of some of those.
I was hearing more about health And Recreation than -- but okay. We could research it. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: And it's a lot. You know, and this is about -- you know, this bill is about, you know, really extraordinary circumstance in public safety. That's how we've been sort of engaged in the discussion with it. I think that Councilman Nutter's revisions do begin to address the concerns that I've expressed to him, but I would like the opportunity to work with the two unions with whom we've had a very constructive and very positive relationship. When there's a of a common- sense solution, we tend to find it and we would like the opportunity to do that. At least I would like the opportunity to 132 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 do that with them.
Is there anyone else who wishes to ask any other questions? Councilman Rizzo.
With this legislation, what can the administration do if there would be a need of let's say -- what can you do to retain people -- Police, Fire, et cetera? MANAGING DIRECTOR RAMOS: Some of the questions are about what happens in a catastrophic event or an emergency. There are some emergency powers that exist. And one of the things will be, you know, by the end of this month, the Mayor will get a report on the review of emergency preparedness and will be talking to City Council members about the progress on that. But one of the areas down the road where -- that we're working with the 133 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - BILL 060506 Law Department on is making sure that there will be the legal -- that either the legal forms will be in place, the legal documents or right local and state statutes so that in a real catastrophic type of emergency, we're not having -- you know, it's not this issue that we have the flexibility to address that. So...
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you for your testimony this afternoon. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. * * * 134 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now move into our public meeting. We are now in our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode to offer an amendment on Bill No. 7 060506.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 060506, as submitted to all members of the committee, be approved. (Motion seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060506 be amended. All in favor, signify by saying aye. The ayes have it. Any nays? The ayes have it, and the bill 21 is amended. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a motion on Bill No. 060506, as amended.
Thank you, 135 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 060506, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Motion seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. There are no nays. The ayes have it. Bill No. 060506, as amended, will be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and it's also been moved and seconded that the rules of Council be suspended in order to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 136 6/12/06 LABOR/CIVIL SERVICE - PUBLIC MEETING The ayes have it. This concludes the public meeting. I would like to thank everyone for attending. Thank you. 137 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on Monday, June 12, 2006, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)