COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:00 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN, CHAIR COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN MARIA QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL BILL 080003 - An ordinance amending Section 20-101 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that certain employees in the civil service need not be a bona fide resident of the City... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
A quorum is present for the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. Committee members Curtis Jones, Maria Quinones-Sanchez, Bill 6 Greenlee, Bill Green, Wilson Goode and Jim Kenney are present. Ms. Vidas will please read the bills and resolutions into the record.
Bill No. 080003, an ordinance amending Section 20-101 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that certain employees 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. Before we call the witnesses, I'm going to recognize Councilman Kenney for some comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to give some opening remarks. They'll be 3 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 very short. The bill before us today is familiar to many of us. It would remove the pre-employment residency requirement for civil service jobs and instead require workers to establish residency in Philadelphia within six months of being hired. In turn, this change would provide a uniform residency policy for all City employees. Furthermore, it would allow the City to recruit locally, including from our colleges and universities, regionally and nationally for the most qualified candidates for municipal employment. On February 11th, Mayor Nutter announced that the Civil Service Commission exempted Philadelphia police officers from the pre-residency requirement in a recruiting campaign to hire 150 officers by April 4th. The Police Department has only received 50 applications from Philadelphians. Eliminating the residency requirement 4 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 will allow the City to recruit the best police officers to fill all 150 positions and enhance safety for Philadelphians. As I have contended since 2001 when I first introduced this bill, the City must make this change for civil service positions to achieve the most capable and experienced municipal government for the residents of the City. The only exemption in this bill currently is for the labor classification, which would constitute 766 routine manual work positions. The reason for exempting this classification is that the City does not have problems filling these positions. I'd like to make it clear. This bill is not intended to dismiss the talent and skills right here in Philadelphia. I'm proud of Philadelphians and expect them to continue to be part of our City's municipal workforce. The folks we hire from outside the City will become City residents within six months. These new 5 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 residents will be diverse, capable and will help refill our depleted neighborhoods. This bill is, however, intended to ensure that municipal positions are fully filled with the most qualified individuals to improve the City's effectiveness and ability to provide the best service for the residents of the City of Philadelphia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilman Kenney. I'd like to call Clarence Armbrister, Chief of Staff to Mayor Michael Nutter.
Good morning, Councilman Green, members of the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. My name is Clarence D. Armbrister, Chief of Staff to Mayor Nutter, and I am pleased to appear before you today in support of Bill No. 080003. This measure introduced by Councilman Kenney and co-sponsored by 6 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Councilmembers Greenlee, Sanchez, Tasco, Jones and Green amends Section 20-101 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by eliminating the one-year residency requirement for taking the civil service exam. The bill before you today is not a new issue for this Council. As Councilman Kenney said, in 2001 the Philadelphia City Council passed Bill No. 12 010493, which eliminated this residency requirement. That bill passed unanimously, and Mayor Nutter, who was then serving in City Council, voted in favor of the bill. However, the 2001 bill was vetoed by former Mayor John Street. Councilman Kenney reintroduced this bill in May 2006, but that measure was not voted on before the end of the session. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Councilman Kenney for his strong and steadfast leadership on this issue and the bill's co-sponsors 7 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 for once again introducing this measure. Under current law, Section 4 20-101 of The Philadelphia Code states that no person shall be appointed as an employee in the civil service of the City unless he has been a bona fide resident of the City for at least one year prior to his appointment. This provision imposes a one-year residency requirement in order to be able to take the civil service exam to see if you may qualify for a job. While there are many City residents who need jobs and certainly qualified for civil service positions, a residency requirement to take the civil service exam limits the pool of possible applicants. Removing this residency requirement would expand the number of potential applicants and increase the competition for job openings, thereby improving the quality of the job applicants and enhancing the diversity of our workforce. 8 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Removing the residency requirement for job applicants would also greatly enhance the City's ability to quickly staff up and fill critical positions, such as in the Philadelphia Police Department. In order to fulfill a commitment to citizens of Philadelphia to get more police officers on the street to respond to the crime emergency, Mayor Nutter and Police Commissioner Ramsey announced a change in the one-year pre-academy residency requirement, lifting a major barrier to recruiting qualified applicants from across the region and nation to our Police Department. This residency waiver was granted by the Personnel Department and was announced on February 11, 2008. S. cities that impose a residency requirement in order to take an entry exam for the Police Department. In 9 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 addition, removing this residency requirement would create parity among civil service employees and exempt employees. As you know, appointed officials who are exempt from civil service do not need to be residents when hired and they have six months to move into the City. This bill, if approved, would allow non-residents to take the civil service exam and apply for a job, and if hired, the new employees would have six months to establish residency. Let me clearly state for the record that Mayor Nutter strongly believes that City jobs should be for City residents, but he also believes that the opportunity to take a civil service test and apply for a job should not be limited to residents only. We need to grow the City, and local government needs to renew itself. We need to attract more young people to public sector jobs. We need their energy, we need their ideas, we need their technical skills. 10 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 With over 80 universities and colleges in our region, the City is eager to retain college graduates.
However, many students do not change their residency from their parents' home until they graduate and find a job. This residency requirement is in direct conflict with our desire to attract and retain college graduates. In conclusion, in order to be competitive, to attract the best and the brightest to our workforce and to ensure that the taxpayers receive the quality performance and customer service they deserve, the residency requirement for taking the civil service exam should be eliminated. I respectfully request that Bill No. 080003 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and I further request a suspension of the rules in order to allow for first reading at the next Council session. This concludes my testimony. 11 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. I'd like to note for the record that Councilwoman Blackwell is in attendance. Just for the record, other than Police and Fire and EMS emergencies and the need to get skilled technicians in specific jobs quickly because we have a need, what problem are we trying to solve as a city by adopting this change?
I think the problem, as you characterize it, is to expand the pool of applicants for our jobs and to make sure that among those who are applying for jobs here in the City, that we get an opportunity to attract those who are really qualified but who have not yet established residency in the City.
Thank you. Councilman Kenney, do you have any questions? 12 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
I have a series of questions. Let me first state for the record that I still have an open mind about this bill. When it was originally proposed, I was a sponsor of the legislation, and changed my mind, and I am proud of my ability to change my mind. To be perfectly honest, I think that no one should always think that they're right all the time, and that type of flexibility and careful thought and deliberation sometimes leads us to change our mind. The second time around I asked 13 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 a series of questions, which I believe were never answered, and today I have even new questions, and I hope at the end of this, if I should be for this bill, I can be for this bill. The first question is, what do you believe the original purpose for the residency requirement was?
What do I believe as -- you mean in terms of the 1951 Charter?
Well, there are a number -- there may be a number of reasons to have a residency requirement. One could be that for the jobs that are being applied for, people might need to know something about the City before getting those jobs. That could be a particular reason. But probably the reason generally stated is to make sure that the residents get the opportunity first to apply for those jobs. 14 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
Well, I'm not sure that there's to maintain a preference, but it might be connected with a job that it's important that the employee know something about the City, clearly.
Do you believe that whether there is a requirement or not there should be a preference for City residents?
I'm not sure it's important what I believe. I'm not sure that a preference for City residents, particularly in light of some of the legal issues that have been raised about preferences, would be legal or not, but I don't see a problem in having preferences -- this is my personal opinion -- for City residents for jobs. However, I think the City must note that in giving preferences for jobs, that if you do that with respect to the 15 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 application process, you are limiting your pool. I mean, obviously the way this bill is written, that if people were to apply, they have to become City residents, and I certainly believe that residents should be given the jobs.
My question is from a public policy standpoint, not necessarily from a legal standpoint. Does the Nutter Administration, regardless of what it's done in terms of requirement one way or another, does the Nutter Administration want to maintain a preference for hiring City residents?
I think the Nutter Administration wants to maintain the fact that residents, bona fide residents, get City jobs, and that is the requirement of this provision, that bona fide residents would have to -- that anyone applying would ultimately have to become a bona fide resident of the City of Philadelphia to take the jobs.
I guess I 16 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 might be a bit more specific. Does the Nutter Administration want to maintain a preference for hiring existing Philadelphia residents?
The intent of this bill, which we obviously support, is to open up the opportunities for all applicants to get jobs. We believe very clearly, as the legislation states, that once you get a job, you do have to become a resident of the City.
My question is whether the Administration wants to maintain a preference for hiring existing residents. Residents who may have paid taxes for many years but are unemployed, should they be in equal competition with someone who has never paid taxes in the City of Philadelphia?
I'm not sure that I've given any thought with respect 17 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 to whether or not they should have a preference, but what we are trying to do is to make sure that the pool is open and whether or not they get a preference or not --
I'm going to get there. I would rather just get past this point, and to some extent, it can be a personal opinion, it can be an opinion of the Administration, if you feel qualified to do that, but the question is whether, quite simply, you want to maintain a preference for existing Philadelphia residents, and it really is sort of a yes or no question.
Well, not in contravention of the bill that we're proposing. So my answer would be that the public policy of the bill --
I'm not asking the question strictly -- I'm not asking a legal question. To some extent while we are considering a piece of legislation, I'm not even asking a 18 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 question that is purely in the context of legislation. I'm asking from a public policy standpoint, does the Nutter Administration want to maintain a preference for hiring existing residents?
And I think my answer would be particular and it has to be related in the context of this bill, would be that, no, we want to maintain -- we want to expand the opportunities for all applicants to apply for jobs in the City of Philadelphia.
So the Administration does not want to maintain a preference for hiring existing residents? I think you said no. I just wanted to be clear.
Point of information, though. I just want to make sure that it's clear that the bill still contains a 766 slot preference for 19 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Philadelphians only in entry-level positions. So it's not just all the --
There was a carve-out at the request of, I think, Councilman Clarke at the time.
I'm getting there, too. I really needed that "no" for the record. The next question is, are there recruitment problems across the board in City government?
I'm personally not aware of recruitment problems across the board. We certainly identified the one area in which we've gotten an exemption in the Philadelphia Police Department. I know that there are probably other areas within the government where there may be recruitment problems.
Do we know where there are recruitment problems? 20 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
Can I just do one more point of information? I apologize for interrupting. In your packet of information is a list of currently existing pre-employment residency waiver positions, which is about four pages long and lists the specific jobs that the residency requirement was removed because of --
Well, I just want to make sure the packet was understood. Thank you.
Often times 21 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 they are dealt with by vacancies and/or people aren't able to recruit, the existing problems. The one that we dealt with with the Police Department is that we got a waiver of that particular rule with respect to that issue.
Because we think it unnecessarily limits the opportunities available for the general employment pool to apply for jobs and we think it's unduly restrictive.
No, I didn't say that. What I said is that it unduly restricts the opportunities given to the employment pool, and what we would like to do is to expand that opportunity so that, for example, the example that we cited in my testimony for college students who have not yet made residency here to be retained, things like that. 22 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
No. I think the people that I've met are extremely talented.
But they were all Philadelphia residents before they --
Some of them may not have been. Many of -- in my short period of time here -- and, again, not on the civil service side, but dealing with mostly exempt employees -- many of them we went outside of the City, but that was because they were drawn here. And if people want to be drawn to this particular City for whatever reason, be it because they like the Mayor, they like working with you as Councilmembers, we don't think that they should be duly 23 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 restricted.
I'm not aware of a talent deficit, but you can always enhance the talent by enhancing the pool of applicants. I think that that would be a fair characterization.
How many positions will this legislation impact over the next ten years?
How many positions will this impact over the next ten years? In other words, how many new hires will there be if people leave and you are replacing them? How many positions will this actually impact over the next ten years?
I'm not sure I have that information, Councilman. I'd have to get an analysis of the turnover, the typical turnover in the workforce, 24 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 and how often those folks are replaced.
Just in terms of new hires, will the workforce grow over the next ten years, City workforce?
I don't know, Councilman. I can't predict that. I mean...
So you have no idea what percentage of the workforce this will impact?
No. I can't predict the turnover of the workforce in any particular year. I mean, we could certainly get you statistics that shows historically how the workforce has turned over over the last several years and make some reasonable estimate of what that is certainly.
Let me pick a number. Say roughly 20,000 employees. That number does not change in terms of the aggregate amount regardless of how many new hires, how many people leave. 25 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Let's say this bill affects 2,000 employees.
Two thousand positions. Is that ten percent of the workforce considered to be the best and the brightest? Is that ten percent of the workforce considered the best and the brightest?
Those 2,000 people who work for the City ten years from now who came from a wider pool of applicants that was not restricted to Philadelphia residents, because they came through under that new process, is that ten percent of the workforce to be considered the best and the brightest?
I'm really struggling to understand your question. I mean, if what you're saying have we improved the potential quality of the 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 pool because of the increased numbers, I think most of us would agree that competition is a good thing and the extent to which you could enhance the pool in which you're competing, I think most people would say that that might enhance the pool.
"The best and the brightest" are the words used within the Administration's testimony, used within articles and editorials written about this. I'm sure it's probably used in other testimony on this matter. I didn't create the term "best and brightest." My question is, if the goal of this bill is to have the best and the brightest and that applies to ten percent of the workforce ten years from now, is that a fair characterization that --
-- that ten percent of the workforce is the best and 27 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 the brightest and the other 90 percent is not?
No, I certainly wouldn't characterize that that way at all.
Let me give you two terms: Best qualified and qualified enough. What's the difference between those two terms?
The difference between best qualified and qualified enough?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean, qualified enough, I would think, means that you've met some minimum qualifications, as would the best qualified would say that you've met some minimum qualifications.
I'm not sure that that's a distinction with a 28 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 difference.
Well, do we ever know that we have the best qualified or do we just know that we have someone who is more qualified?
I think what we know is that we have a group of people, the extent to which, again, going back to the kind of competitive forces, that the extent to which you can enhance the number of people competing for a job, that you generally enhance the pool of people and generally enhance the number of people who are qualified for a particular position.
In your testimony you say, Let me clearly state for the record that Mayor Nutter strongly believes that City jobs should be for City residents, but he also believes that the opportunity to take a civil service test and apply for a job should not be limited to residents only. Couldn't we simply allow 29 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 non-residents to take the test without removing the residency requirement?
Essentially, that's what this bill does. You allow non-residents to take the test and then once they -- if they're accepted or offered a position, then they are required to become residents.
I'm not sure that's what this bill does. I'll defer to the sponsor. I think this bill deals with the appointment of employees and the residency requirement as related to the appointment of employees.
I don't think so. I mean, I think the intent -- and I'll let the sponsor of the bill --
If I may. I mean, my intent, whether it's articulated clearly in the bill or not, is a couple issues. Number one, I think that we need to send a message to the rest of the country that the City is open and available for people to come in and 30 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 become residents, and as one of the opportunities to become a resident, if the enticement is the potential of a position in the government, I think that that's a resource that we should use to try to bring new residents to our city. Secondly, I think it's important that we make this city known around the country as a place that seeks out the best and brightest talent, and best and brightest is an appropriate word, and the way we determine that is through a civil service test. There may be other ways of doing it, but the way we do it here is, you take a test and whoever does best based on other preferences for veterans and other things is offered the position. I don't think that anyone in their right mind would want to come to Philadelphia, establish residency, either buy a house or rent an apartment for a year, with the chance that they would be getting an employment opportunity with 31 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 the City. I think that Philadelphians are bright and best also and can compete with anybody in the country. I just thought that part of the benefit of this bill was the ability to attract people to become new residents in our city through the enticement of a potential position. Now, they can take the test and not do as well and not be hired, but it is -- I think it's partly policy, but it's also partly the way the City looks to the rest of the country, that somehow this city is not open to people from outside the City, and I think that that's part of the other subjective issue that I was motivated by to introduce the bill.
My question was actually to the witness in terms of whether his testimony that says that Mayor Nutter believes that City jobs should be for City residents, but that the test should be open to everyone, 32 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 whether there's another way of achieving this by allowing people to take the test, allowing outsiders to take the test. And it's a simple question, whether --
And I think my response was that I think that that's what this bill does. It allows non-residents to sit for civil service exams without first becoming residents.
Okay. So there's two questions that are different. One is, can non-residents take the test. Do you know the answer to that question?
Does anybody know the answer to that question, can non-residents take the test? They can? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's one year from appointment.
The Administration's testimony says, Let me clearly state for the record that Mayor Nutter strongly believes that City jobs should be for City residents.
He also believes that the opportunity to take a civil service test and apply for a job should not be limited to residents only. If that's the goal of the Administration, to maintain a preference of hiring existing residents, but the 34 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Administration simply wants to be able to test everyone, I'm not sure that's not already the case and/or it can't be the case without waiving the residency requirement.
If I might add, the problem I believe in that regard is the length of the list. Once you get on the list, it may last for a year, which would give you a day or two to move into the City to make an appointment number, to make the appointment deadline. So you could be on a firefighter list, a Police Department list -- well, I guess not Police Department, but firefighter or some other position list and by the time that year is up, the list may be gone and then you're not eligible for appointment. If this bill is passed, you're eligible for appointment through the whole course of the list and then you have the six months to move in. You could expire on the list before you are appointed.
I understand 35 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 that. Walk me through the list and the purpose of the list.
The purpose of the list is to help people come out of the test, and then they are ranked based on various factors. Some of it is minority aspirational, some of it is veterans preference points, and the list becomes what it is.
But if you are ranked the highest on the test, you're at the top of the list?
Not necessarily, unless the person that ties you on the test is a veteran and gets ten points, would be above you.
So whoever is on the top of the list should get appointed?
Not if 36 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 they're not eligible to be appointed because they're not a resident for a year. So if they came in the top five, it wouldn't matter because they couldn't appoint them, because they don't have the pre-employment residency requirement.
Well, at the end of the day, my point is you can craft legislation that says that people -- I mean, simply the same as there's a Charter requirement for the lowest responsible bidder in terms of contracting, you can craft legislation that actually says that we're selecting the best and the brightest, if that's what we're doing. I'm still not convinced that that's what we're doing. What this dialogue and discussion has turned into and from the sponsor's own responses to my questions is that this bill is also to attract residents.
Is that the 37 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Administration's position?
I think it's both to do that and also to expand the opportunities for people who want to take jobs in the City, that is correct. Particularly the example that we use was the college students who are here who could theoretically take a test and then have to establish residency before they could get the appointment. So within the time frame before they get appointed.
We literally could continue to allow anyone to take the test, promise to appoint them and shorten the period of time if the one year is an issue. But if the purpose of this in the end is what it is, to have the best and brightest, then you can achieve that differently. If the purpose of this bill is to attract City residents, then it probably should remain as it is. So I guess my last question is, if the purpose is to attract City 38 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 residents, is it still true that the Administration strongly believes that City jobs should be for City residents?
We clearly still clearly hold that jobs should be for City residents and that's why they're required to become City residents after they get the appointment.
But not for existing City residents; City jobs should not be for existing City residents?
No, no. We don't disagree with that either. They should be for City residents as well.
I know there is talent in the City of Philadelphia, because you live in the 4th Councilmanic District and you're the Chief of Staff. So I know there is qualified talent. 39 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
Thank you, Councilman. I appreciate that endorsement. Thank you.
I have a couple of questions. I'm looking at the residency waiver here and if I understand, the purpose of this waiver is that we are having some degree of difficulty attracting this type of talent in these specific categories?
And if that is indeed true, I have a couple of questions on that. I understand why we might have a problem attracting an aquatic biologist maybe in the 4th Councilmanic District or an architectural project coordinator, but why is the sanitation engineer and the lifeguard and the librarian trainee also on this exempt 40 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 list? I am finding that hard to understand why those kinds of skill sets can't be found and --
Councilman, I can't vouch for every one of these, but obviously these have gone through a process through the Civil Service Commission, the Personnel Department, and they were able to make the case that these were very difficult positions to fill and they were granted the waiver.
Sanitation engineer, do I understand sanitation engineer to mean someone to put the trash on the truck?
I am not sure what that classification is, but I could find that out. I think it's something more than that.
It's my understanding, excuse me, that sanitation engineer is more of a sanitarian dealing with health issues relative to restaurants and those kinds of things. 41 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 It's not a sanitation worker.
No, no, no. 6 You asked me about the sanitation engineer.
Maybe I'm getting it wrong, that lifeguard means something else. My point to you is, second, is that by what process do we recruit these skill sets, these individuals for these jobs?
Well, I think you'd have to talk to the individual departments, but my guess is that they go to whatever journals and newspapers that put out whatever ads that they can, but the qualification, particularly with respect to a civil service job, is that 42 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 they give the residency requirement limitation, and that might be one of the reasons why they don't get as many applicants as they would otherwise get.
My concern here is that when I go to the barber shops and beauty salons and different places in the 4th Councilmanic District, the first thing, not the second thing, not the third thing, that I hear is, Where are the jobs and how can I apply? So my question sincerely -- and I'm not being sarcastic -- is, are we doing enough to recruit within the talent pool that we have in the City of Philadelphia to find the brightest, the best in these categories, and what is our relationship to our universities and even high schools to try to train and recruit homegrown talent for these spots? Because if we look at this kind of legislation -- and I, like Councilman Goode, am going to keep an open mind to this process, but this question is near 43 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 and dear to people in my district. And the second part of that is, if we are requiring or at least examining under the trade unions the residency and the lack thereof of Philadelphians, then kind of sort of we need to really try hard to understand what the recruitment process is first before we kind of make a move on this piece of legislation.
Councilman, I would say that you can always -- we can always work harder to employ people. It is often very difficult to find people. But in terms of the Personnel Department, we will work with them to find out exactly what their efforts are, but my guess is that they have worked very hard and the fact that these waivers have been granted, someone came in and produced evidence to show the difficulty with which they've had in getting people to fill these particular jobs.
Councilman Kenney has some questions, then we'll 44 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 have Councilwoman Blackwell.
As the long-suffering sponsor of this bill for seven years now, let me just say from my perspective -- and I'm going to make it very clear -- I think Philadelphians are talented people and can compete with anybody. So that's why I don't understand why we'd be hesitant to allow them to compete with anyone. The issue for me is that there's one city in the country that does this. I don't know what their legislative history on why they do it, but I also know that there is not one other city in the country that requires a year pre-employment residency anywhere in the nation, and there are cities that we compete with all the time, like Washington and Chicago and New York and the Sunbelt and the West Coast. There is also not one single corporation that I am aware of that would restrict their ability to go after talent 45 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 throughout the country or actually throughout the world, for that matter. And I really do believe that on a number of levels, both from a talent attraction, from a new resident attraction and from a reputation for a city of this size and this importance to be restricting ourselves to just the people who live within our borders, I mean, I just look not only nationally or internationally, I'm talking about the five-county area. I mean, you have people who are talented both inside the City and out, and if they sit for a fair test and the test is administered and all the other qualifications are considered, I want a new resident. What I envision is the ability to maintain our diversity, to maintain our diversity aspirational goals when it comes to minorities and women throughout our government and throughout employment in our government, but I see no reason in the world why I can't do those goals and 46 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 accomplish those goals by going to an Army base in South Carolina and attracting a female African-American captain who is getting ready to retire, who has a family and who is willing to move that family up into Philadelphia and live in South Philadelphia and Overbrook or Mount Airy --
Let me finish. And that person is trained and that person has a skill, and we can take advantage of that skill, at the same time gaining three, four, five new residents in our city. I really think this is what we should be about. I just think we should be open, competitive and willing to show this world and this country that we're as good as anybody else.
Point of information. The sponsor mentioning those 47 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 other cities across the country that don't have this requirement, do they have lower unemployment and poverty rates?
This city is very different in terms of its unemployment rate and poverty rate.
I know for sure that there's one entity that thinks Philadelphians are as competitive as anyone else in the country, and that's the New York Police Department, because every time --
This is not a police issue, because we've already 48 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 dealt with the police issue.
I'm not talking about the Police Department. Let me make my point and you'll see where I'm going. We're talking about the ability for Philadelphians to compete with people throughout the country. Obviously the NYPD think we're very competitive, because they park their recruiting van on the sidewalk at Citizens Bank Park just about every game to recruit Philadelphians and people in the region to come to New York to be police officers. So they think we're qualified and capable to compete, and I think we are, too. And that's just an example of how we wind up losing people of good, high quality to other cities because we have this restriction.
If I may. First, I agree with you that Philadelphians are as good as any other city in the free world. So we agree on 49 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 that. My question isn't that. It isn't even whether we go to South Carolina and find a minority recruit off of a naval or Army base. My question is and remains, how well do we go to the barber shops, beauty salons, colleges, universities to find that talent pool? And my only question and why I have an open mind in this is, I may agree with you to some degree. But I will not move off of this until I find whether we are doing all that we can, all that we can to find a Philadelphia resident first, because they've suffered through the bad times, as we have a good vision for this city as it raises in the world view, that I also want the people that live here now to benefit from that new opportunity. And I question, because I don't have an answer before me, how we recruit that talent.
I can't speak historically, but I can say this, Councilman Jones, is that under this Administration, we'll be very active in 50 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 trying to recruit City residents of Philadelphia. This bill is not intended to their exclusion, but to enhance the pool of talent with which we can recruit. We're not going to sit here and talk about what happened before, but I will tell you going forward that there will be very aggressive recruiting efforts, because we need people. We need people to carry out the vision that we're trying to conduct for the City of Philadelphia and for all of our residents. So I want to say that this isn't being offered or we're not supporting this to the exclusion of Philadelphia residents, that we will do everything we can, and we will get a report to you from the Personnel Department about what their recruiting efforts are. But going forward, I can assure you they will be very aggressive efforts to do that.
Could you make sure you give me the definition of a 51 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 sanitation engineer, please?
Thank you. I specifically came to this hearing because I know my colleague has been fighting for years for this, and every time he fights for it, I fight against it. If you need people who want jobs, you can go into 408 and we can give you people. Every day I have one staff person who just deals with jobs. It's insulting. I told the Mayor that you could take maybe 4,000 applications for labor and maybe hire ten and make people pay $30. I don't even know where we are on the job fee. It is unfair that you could have here that we need a waiver for a 52 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 camp director in the City of Philadelphia, that we can't find a qualified person to be a doggone camp director. People, I'm Councilperson in the 3rd District because I'm elected. I'm not elected to represent Montgomery County or Bucks County or some other place. The people who elect me expect me to fight for their right to get unemployment, to get housing, to have an opportunity at the tree of life. This bill is so anti that. The last Police Commissioner fought against them going outside the City to hire police officers and others. We have enough people. When the Mayor gave his inaugural -- not his inaugural. When he gave his budget speech, he talked about reducing the dropout rate. He talked about reducing unemployment. He talked about increasing the numbers of those who go to college. How are you going to do those things and 53 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 tell Philadelphians who are unemployed, Oh, yes, we want to reduce by half, 50 percent, the number of people who drop out of high school. We just won't have a job for you when you do it. I mean, we can't speak with forked tongue. Our people have a right to get every job that we have. People who want to do jobs other places, that's their right. I'm not elected by those people. I'm elected by the people of the City to try to protect them and their interest in working for this city. Anything we have in government, any jobs we have, they have a right to apply, not people -- I don't owe those people -- I make no apologies about being close-minded about this issue, Councilman. We don't have to be open-minded about giving people someplace else the right to the jobs in our City and in our government. And as Councilman Goode just said, look at the poverty rates, look at the other rates of those 54 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 people. I worry about people who sleep on grates, about people who have DNA problems, about people who have mental health problems. What happens if they get straightened out? No. We're busy giving people outside the City, people who come from the suburbs where they have a higher quality of life, higher income -- we go through it all the time when we talk about utility rates. They have the money, but we have the people. Let us protect the rights of the people who live, who are born in this city so that we don't have to turn on TV and see that crime rates increase, see that people have so many problems and they lose it and they go and they kill other people, not just for domestic reasons, but because they don't have jobs. Let us protect the rights of the people who sent us here to represent them. Thank you very much.
Thank you, 55 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Councilwoman. Go ahead, Councilman.
Thank you very much. After an unofficial poll of this particular committee, it seems that this bill will not get out today. So I'm going to save everybody a lot of time and hold the bill. If people want to stay and give testimony, that will be fine so it's on the record, but there's no sense in torturing everybody if it's not getting out. So I'll continue trying my best, but apparently it's not happening today.
I'm going to continue to have everybody testify who is here so we get the testimony on the record, and the Councilpeople who want to stay and ask questions can. We do have the Director of Procurement coming over in about ten or 15 minutes -- sorry; Director of Personnel coming over in about ten or 15 minutes, and I think many of the 56 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 questions that Councilman Goode asked can probably be answered by the Director of Personnel, for the record, and so we'll have a record for this hearing. Any further questions for the Chief of Staff?
I have to go, but I wanted to go on the record. I actually don't have a problem with us opening up the process, because I understand the cumbersome administrative nightmare of the waivers and all those other things, but I cannot do that unless this Administration commits to giving us a ten point residency preference, and that would be my only condition on this. But I think the administrative nightmare of the waivers and the application piece and the pool, I understand there's some technical positions, but only if the 57 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Administration would support that.
And just to make it clear, ten points for residency on the exams?
I do want to state for the record that there's currently a case against the City of Philadelphia, Joseph P. McCool versus City of Philadelphia. The case survived the 12(b)(6) motion. The judge appeared to have some issues with our residency requirement. So we can either deal with the residency issue or I think the federal courts may do it for us. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Goode has one more question.
Mr. Armbrister, do you believe that there is a level playing field for employment in the private sector?
Level in what 58 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 sense, sir?
I think that many people have obstacles to overcome that -- I think there are differences in obstacles that various people have to overcome, whether it's racial or gender or maybe just opportunity.
The question is, do you believe there's a level playing field for employment in the private sector?
I don't think everyone has an equal opportunity at every particular job, if that's what you're asking me.
That's what I'm asking you. So you do not believe there's a level playing field in the private sector?
Thank you. Next we're going to call Gene Blagmond. (Witness approached witness table.)
Eugene Blagmond. I'm Political Coordinator for the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 here in Philadelphia. We are in support of this bill, and I think couple of things I'd like to point out as far as my personal history to explain why. In 1971, I took the police test. Back then they gave the police test every day. Anybody who showed up at the MSB, whatever building it was, at 8 o'clock any morning could take the police test every day. I think since then, the number of people applying to the Police Department has declined. I think you could see is graph that the number of people who actually want to be police officers has declined. 60 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 We used to have a list even as late as 1982 of about 4,000 people applying to be police officers. That list now is -- it might be under 1,000 for the first time since I've been alive. It's slimmed down quite a bit. So the pool of people we have to pick from has gone down, and I think that this bill 10 would only help. A friend of mine took the test before I did. His father was a police officer. Now, they called me first, but he did get hired. So I think if you are qualified and you pass, you will get hired. You may not be hired first or second, but you will come onto the job, I think, if you're qualified. So I don't think that people in the City are afraid of competing with people from outside the City. I don't think it should be a major factor. I don't think that many people will actually apply to be police officers from out of town, but I think those that do and are qualified should be allowed 61 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 to.
Just one question and/or comment. The issue with regard to the Police Department has been resolved; has it not?
The issue related to the Police Department in terms of recruitment has been resolved; has it not?
I'm saying through the action that was taken last week, the issue regarding the Police Department has already been resolved?