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