Just a question. I don't know if Mr. Blagmond 62 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 knows. Was this a permanent waiver or was this just a waiver for this class for the Police Department? Do we know?
I think it might just be for this class. I'm not sure. That's what I'm just wondering.
You believe it has been just for this class, you mean?
Was this waiver, was this just for this particular class coming up, do you know, or was it --
Maybe does Mr. Armbrister know? I was just wondering, or somebody. 63 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
We can maybe ask the Personnel Director. He's coming up in ten minutes.
Oh, the Personnel Director is coming up? Okay. He's probably the best one. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
I'm Ellen Mattleman-Kaplan. I'm Vice-President and Policy Director of the Committee of Seventy and I am here with the Assistant Policy Director, Sarah Stevenson, and I understand that a number of you were at yesterday's hearing where the President and CEO of the Committee of Seventy, Zach Stalberg, testified on proposed amendments to the Home Rule Charter, so you probably heard a number of the issues that are raised in our testimony, so I'm not going to reiterate 64 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 those. You know the history of the Committee of Seventy, having presented a package of proposals that dealt with the Police Department because of our concern about the crime emergency, and one of those proposals did have to do with eliminating the one-year pre-hiring residency requirement, and this bill, if passed, would make that permanent, and we do support that. I'm also not going to go into the reasons why we support the bill. Again, that's in our testimony. Again, our concern is just simply that it's very difficult sometimes for people to uproot their whole families when there is no 19 guarantee of a job. It's our presumption that serious candidates will not apply in the first place if they're not very committed to moving within the City limits after they are hired. And as Councilman Kenney did testify a few minutes ago, I think it's important to 65 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 understand that we are requiring people to move into the City of Philadelphia to become Philadelphia taxpayers six months after they are hired, so they will be Philadelphians. So this is not a situation like they have in Los Angeles or Baltimore where there are no residency requirements even after you are hired. So we're certainly not going that far and we would say at the Committee of Seventy we certainly should not go that far. We think people should become residents of the City of Philadelphia. Now, one technical point that I did want to raise has to do with the Philadelphia civil service regulation that states that all new civil service employees are subject to a six-month probationary period after their appointment, unless otherwise provided in the civil service regulations, and permanent employee status is not approved until the successful completion of the 66 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 probationary period. Now, there's another provision in the civil service regulation that references a waiver that can apply to a designated class of positions whereby people within that class may be permitted to live outside the City for the period of their provisional appointment during the probationary period and then don't have to move in for another six months, and our concern would be that there might be some misunderstanding. So we would say to Council, to this Committee, just to clarify any misunderstanding, the residency requirement is triggered at the date of the appointment. The fact that you then have a probationary period of six months does not mean that you don't have to move into the City until that probationary period is over and you are a permanent employee, because if interpreted that way, effectively that would give new hires a year to move into the City. In other words, you have your 67 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 initial appointment. You have the six months probationary period and then an additional six months that -- the shorter period of time is what I believe is intended in this proposed legislation, and I would just suggest that it is clarified so that there is no 9 misunderstanding about the fact that the residency requirement is triggered at the time of the initial hiring. And I just wanted to, again, just talk about some other cities. You may have heard some of this yesterday from Zach, but Pittsburgh's city code requires all city employees and officials, including police officers and firemen, to live in the city at the time of their initial appointment and, of course, throughout the term of their employment.
With very, very limited exceptions, New York's administrative code requires employees to establish residence within that city's five boroughs only after being hired, and they 68 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 have to do that within 90 days after their initial hiring. We talked a little bit about Boston, because Boston is the only major city that the Committee of Seventy found that still requires its police department recruits to live in the city for one year before joining in the police force, and that would have been consistent with the pre-Civil Service Commission waiver of February. However, that is applicable only to police officers, because in Boston other members of its workforce have to live in the city at the time they are hired. Again, I want to say, as I said a few minutes ago, that we found it very interesting that neither Baltimore nor Los Angeles required job applicants or city employees to live within their respective cities, and we're certainly not saying that Philadelphia should follow suit. We think it shouldn't. But it is interesting, and I think that 69 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 speaks to the fact that other cities do recognize that residency requirements can be a barrier to the recruitment and retention of employees. So, again, I'm not going to go into everything else that's in my testimony, but I'll certainly take any questions.
Thank you. I do have a question. Can you clarify the residency requirement distinction that you were making, six months probationary period? How do you think this legislation should be corrected to make something clearer?
I think that the legislation could be clarified to say that it is six months after their initial appointment. The point that I was making -- and I apologize if I didn't make myself clear -- that in the civil service regulations, once you are appointed by the City, you are on probation for six months, so you can be 70 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 discharged. So it's only after that six-month period that you become a permanent employee, and I guess our concern is that there could be a misunderstanding maybe by somebody who would say, Wait a minute, I'm not really a permanent member of Philadelphia's workforce because I'm still on probation; therefore, I'm going to apply for a waiver because I'm not going to move my family in if there's a possibility that after that probationary period I may not have a permanent position. So we are just simply suggesting that there might be some clarification just to make it as clear as possible that the residency requirement is triggered at the date of the initial hire, that it does not have to do with a probationary period.
Are you saying clarification in this legislation or just clarification in general?
I think 71 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 it could be clarified in the legislation and obviously in the civil service regulations. And as a matter of fact, I think this was an issue that came up with the Police Department waiver, because as I understand it, there are two probationary periods in the Police Department. And the City people in the room could correct me if I'm wrong. One has to do with when you're in the Police Academy and the second one has to do with after you graduate from the Police Academy. Now, my understanding of the present waiver is that you need to move into the City after this first probationary period, within six months of this first probationary period. In other words, after you graduate from the Police Academy, you don't get another six months after you are finished your probationary period.
That's also my understanding of how -- it currently 72 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 works the way I think you're asking for it to be clarified. So are you aware of any problem with that? Have you seen anybody take a different position?
Councilman, I don't work for the Personnel Department. I don't know, but I can see that there may be a problem if it is not settled, when the actual date is.
No, but the reason actually that I brought it up was simply because on the Police Department's website, they do talk about moving in six months after the probationary period, without indicating what the probationary period is. So that if somebody is looking at that and sees that --
Good afternoon. Please give your family my regards and let them know that the question I'm about to ask you was also directed to the last person from the Committee of Seventy that came before us on this issue, and the reason I ask the question is because you work in the private sector as opposed to the public sector and a viewpoint from the private sector I think adds to the discussion here. Are you the best qualified person for your job?
If you know my father well enough -- and I think you do -- I will tell you that my father 74 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 would say I'm the best qualified person to do anything.
In the City, in the state, in the nation, are you the best qualified person for your job?
Councilman, I think that there are probably other people that could do my job equally, do my job as well as I do. I hope they don't apply for my job because I'd like to keep it, but...
I live in 75 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Wyncote. I'm buying a house in Fairmount, though.
So 50 percent of the workforce right here is from Philly, right?
Okay. I say that because I respect the Committee of Seventy. My history goes back to the Committee of Seventy to Fred Voigt when we co-authored, along with Congressman Fattah, Governor Rendell, the electoral review of the election process in the City of Philadelphia. And I understand the Mayor's need to kind of regionalize Philadelphia. In fact, I want to work with elected officials in the county so that this region becomes a great region. My concern is that we -- and I don't know if you can answer this, and I understand the Personnel Director is coming here. We don't do enough to recruit talent within the City of Philadelphia, 76 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 in my opinion. Yes, we may advertise a job in the three daily papers, but I'm telling you, I traveled the width and breadth of my district and in particularly low-income areas. The number one question was, Where are the jobs. And I have people of varying degrees of education, skill levels that cannot find jobs, and until I'm satisfied that we've exhausted that pool, I don't know if I'm comfortable at all going outside of it. So I believe in the City. I'm not moving. I'm going to haunt this city when I leave this planet. But I've got to believe that we have to do a better job of looking at homegrown talent. And I'm going to recruit you back into the 4th Councilmanic District. I want to make it such a great place to work, live and play. But one of the incentives is that we kind of recognize our own talent pool and that we kind of grow that talent 77 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 pool, and we recruit it from the high schools to the colleges to the barber shops and beauty salons. And I don't know yet if we've marketed to that group as well as we should before we go out to a more expansive pool, and that's my reservation at this point. I just wanted to let you know I respect the organization. I think the world of the work that you do, but I am concerned that we have to look at Philadelphians, because if we do not, we'll pass over opportunities of great, talented people that have suffered through some of the bad times and now look optimistically to this Administration and going forward saying that this is for me as well.
I would just answer that by saying that I think perhaps that there are two different issues here. One is, do we do enough to let people who currently live in the City know about job opportunities and make 78 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 sure that they are eligible to get those jobs, that they can do well on the test, that they can get the benefits and so forth. Not just the City jobs but of all jobs. We're talking here obviously about City jobs, but all jobs. And I would agree with you that making City jobs better known to the communities and having more aggressive recruitment efforts would be a positive thing, and certainly we would support that, but I think this bill doesn't mean that we can't do that while at the same time saying to people who live in other places right now, We want you to become Philadelphians, we want you to come live here, we want you to pay taxes here, and we're going to let you take the test and we're going to let you be hired by the City of Philadelphia, but you still have to live in the City. So I don't think that those things are mutually exclusive. And another comment I just wanted to make, because you talked 79 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 earlier in the previous hearing about a feeling of welcome. Well, I think, with all due respect, that we should extend that feeling of welcome not just to the people who live here but to people who want to come here and live. And I think there are a lot of people who are included in that group, including my own son, who I've told he'd better come back here after he graduates from college in June. And so I think that there are a lot of efforts going on around the City to attract and retain residents and jobs, and I think it's difficult to say to people, Well, we want you here, on the one hand, but we're really not going to let you have a City job because it's not going to be available to you. I think --
-- we just need to say to them, We want you and come here. 80 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
Thank you. I just have a quick question about that, and actually probably a question for the Personnel Director, but don't we basically hire everybody we want when we can show that there's not a person who can have that -- who has applied for the test, who is available for that position in the City of Philadelphia as it is? I mean, what problem are we trying to solve here?
What problem are we trying to solve? Well, it's interesting, I had a question about that, too. Is the question are we trying to solve a problem about certain positions where there might be job shortages? I don't think that that's the case, because I don't know that the Council would want to parse through every single job category and say, Okay, we have enough people to fill this, we don't have enough people to fill that. And, frankly, that was really why I mention in 81 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 the testimony that I found it a little odd that laborers were exempted here. Not because I object to it or feel that it should be fatal, but simply because if we say, well, there's no problem filling these positions in 2008, well, what if there's a problem filling those positions in 2010? And sometimes it is cleaner to make this uniform, and I believe the 2006 bill did do that. But I think it is difficult to go position by position and make that kind of analysis. I think what we're trying to say is, we want people to come to Philadelphia. We want to open City jobs to non-residents, but you got to live here, you got to be a resident.
I think it's only fair to point out in that context we're having the exact opposite discussion with respect to other jobs in the City of Philadelphia and whether or not they should be residents or non-residents. 82 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 But Councilman Goode, and then I'm going to recognize Councilwoman Blackwell for a question.
Mrs. Kaplan, how many people do you actually believe we can attract to the City through this legislation?
I don't know how many people we can attract until we make it so that they can apply and actually be hired.
How many new jobs do you believe would be available over the next ten years?
And how many unemployed people are there in the City of Philadelphia?
How many unemployed people are there in the City of Philadelphia? 83 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
Mr. Chairman, I only have one question, and that is with regard to the mission of the Committee of Seventy. Is your mission to service the region, the country or Philadelphia, or all of the above?
The mission of the Committee of Seventy is primarily focused on the City of Philadelphia, but it is also --
It is or it is not? Is it the City of Philadelphia or is it not the City, or is it other areas?
Well, I think that speaks for itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, 84 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Councilwoman Blackwell. If there are no further questions, thank you for your testimony today.
I'd like to thank Celia O'Leary, the Deputy Personnel Director, and Mark O'Connor, the Hiring Services Manager, for coming over here today. They had no notice that they'd be called, but we had some questions that I thought they might be able to help us with. So recognizing that you came completely unprepared, I thank you, and if you can't answer the questions today, perhaps you can get back to us with the information. Thank you very much. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Could you state your names for the record. I'm sorry. 85 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
I'm Celia O'Leary, the Deputy Personnel Director for the Personnel Department.
Mark O'Connor, Hiring Services Manager for the Personnel Department.
Has someone given you a copy of the legislation we're talking about today? Are you familiar with it?
Great. So there was a question asked earlier and, that is, can people outside the City of Philadelphia take the civil service exam? Do you have to be a resident to take it?
There are a limited number of classes that have what we call a class residence waiver on file. It's roughly 100. I haven't counted them. Medical doctors, for example, 86 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 where you do not have to be a resident before you take the examination.
If I may, in general, you can take an examination if you are a non-resident, but you cannot be appointed to the position until you move into the City and establish residency for one year. Most eligibility lists are good for two years. So technically anyone can take the examination. You just can't be appointed.
Okay. Do you have general thoughts about this or would you like to get back to us about your -- is there a problem that we're solving here? Do we need to increase the talent pool in the City of Philadelphia?
Well, I think for certain positions there really is a need to kind of widen the net. I do believe that. My area of expertise is 87 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 uniform hiring. I hire police, fire, corrections, those types of positions and do the promotions, too, for those areas, and over the last several years, we have had an increasingly difficult time finding the numbers that we need. It's a volume issue. I mean, we give an examination for police officer recruit. We have several thousand applications. By the time we get to the end point where we're ready for appointment, many of those thousands have been winnowed away --
The issue of police recruitment has been resolved. I 88 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 guess the question that was asked earlier of the Administration was, are there recruitment problems across the board?
And in what areas are there recruitment problems other than police?
Skilled craftspeople, electrician, for example, nursing, medical fields in general.
And how do you deal with those recruitment problems now?
Well, departments having trouble filling their positions appeal to the Civil Service Commission to issue a class residence waiver, which is what I was describing where you waive the pre-employment requirement. And if there are sufficient documentation provided to support that we have to widen the net, as 89 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 Mark said, then the Commission grants the waiver.
I don't have an answer to that. I mean, there are certain positions where, as Celia indicated, it does work very well.
In specific areas; for example, Celia mentioned some of the trades, there is a need to hire additional individuals.
My question is, is there a talent deficit in the City workforce across the board?
I don't think you could say across the board. I really do think it's situational. I mean, there 90 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 are positions in the City where they're in excess of qualified candidates.
Over the next ten years, how many positions do you think would be impacted by this legislation?
We typically hire and promote into permanent jobs in the civil service 2,000 or so people a year. Those are hires and promotions. So through open competitive testing, it's a smaller number.
I could give a projection based on what we've done in the past for you, sir, but I don't have it in my head, so I'd have to follow up with that.
What percentage of the workforce do you believe will be new hires over the next 91 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 ten years?
It will be a higher number than we have been, because right now we have pretty much an older workforce. The majority of our workers are in their 40's, so we will be experiencing more retirements in the next ten years and so we will be backfilling with new hires obviously.
Good afternoon. How do you currently market for civil service jobs? How do you recruit? How do you market?
Well, the basic avenue is to publish job announcements, which we do on our website, and the 92 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 actual hard copy announcements go out to City departments. So it kind of spreads through that venue. There's advertising done. There's also efforts --
Can you specifically tell me the advertising that you do?
Well, for police, for example, we advertise in local newspapers. We go out into community organizations and do that kind of outreach. Most of that is not handled by the central agency. Most of that kind of recruitment and outreach is actually handled by the individual departments. So, for example, if we have a push-on for correctional officers, for example, the Prisons Department brings together a unit and they staff that unit internally, and those people go out to job fairs, as I said, to local organizations and they do that kind of outreach. Police Department has a recruitment unit in place year 93 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 round.
So if we look at the departments, there are two that actually have recruitment year round?
There are at least two. I know the Water Department also is involved in recruitment.
How many departments are there within the City of Philadelphia?
I believe it's 38 largest ones. The boards and commissions don't have HR staff assigned to them full time.
The small boards and commissions don't have a dedicated 94 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 human resources staff.
My thinking and line of questioning is and my concern is, have we exhausted the marketing recruitment techniques that could be utilized to solve some of the problems that we have? Because the list of exempt categories far exceeds the three departments that have their own hiring, HR and recruitment techniques. My issue to you is that when we find it difficult to recruit, attract a skill set that is needed by the City of Philadelphia, what marketing techniques do automatically kick in to try to satisfy that and is there a way to do just that and more narrowly tailor, more narrowly tailor from time to time, from year to year, from class to class those specific deficits by way of talent pool? It seems to me when the 95 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 hospitals find a --
No. I just want -- yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. I just want to put one other thing on as a question. When the hospitals find it hard to recruit nurses per se, they have a specific recruitment process in a targeted market they go after. It seems to me they don't go out and say, I also need to just exempt janitors, because they don't have a glut there. So when the private sector does it, they go after recruiting a specific class of workers. So that's my question.
Well, there is an effort made to, as you said, recruit specific classes. I mean, that does happen. Unfortunately, we don't always have the resources available to us to do that in any large-scale way. It's as simple as that. 96 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
Let me ask you this: It sounds like the departments are doing their own recruitment. In your experience in the public sector, is recruitment centralized? I mean, I don't know if you go to other cities and see what they do or look at -- is recruitment centralized generally or is it done by department?
There should be partnerships, because they are the ones who are maintaining membership in professional organizations, for example, to give us access to mailing lists. The Health Department does this to try and recruit pharmacists, and they worked with us. We have a graphic designer who is very talented on our staff. She did a postcard to try and attract them, because what's good about our jobs is, it's not shift work. You could reliably go home at the end of the day. For someone 97 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 perhaps in a second career, that might be attractive. Similarly, your question about nursing, we want to talk about what's attractive about working for us, steady hours, access to public transportation and so on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the residency waiver issue, is there a trigger that each department or each job sort of has to generate the request to have a waiver? Am I making sense? I just confused myself.
I understand what you're saying. Yeah. Is there a certain threshold or something?
I don't think there is anything specific in place. Typically what happens is it's our track record on finding people to fill those positions. For example, if we announce a job open and we have fewer number of candidates than we have vacancies or those kinds of issues seem to surface over multiple times that we announce that, then we say, Hey, we'd better look at this. We'd better do some -- broaden our recruitment efforts. The departments and us, as Celia said, will partner to come up with some strategies to address that. But a specific trigger? No. 17
Is it usual that the Civil Service Commission will approve a request? I mean, are there times they turn them down? Do you have any idea?
They consider it very carefully, but we vet it out first. We don't take it to the Commission unless we're convinced that we've made every 99 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 effort to recruit Philadelphians and there's a genuine need to widen the net.
Just one last question on another point that I brought up earlier and people weren't sure. On the police waiver, is that something -- some people thought it was just for this class and other people thought it was more of a permanent. Do you know?
No. That's moving forward, that once that is in place, that is not for a specific class.
Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. So what would be the public policy rationale, if you can answer this 100 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 today -- and if you need to consult with the Administration, I certainly understand. But what would be the public policy rationale for excluding people who are not residents of the City of Philadelphia rather than encouraging people to take the test from everywhere, including the City of Philadelphia, to take the test? Is there a good reason for this residency requirement in today's environment, in today's economy?
I don't know that there's ever a good reason for excluding people. What you are always looking for is the best person for the job, and I think that may be the goal of the Administration. I don't want to speak for the Administration, but I think that may in fact be the goal here.
Okay. So 101 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 what would be your reaction to a point differential? If we were to pass this bill and then provide an advantage to City residents, like we have for veterans, what would be your thought on that and how much -- well, answer that question first.
We could readily accommodate that with our computer software. So that would not be an operational issue for us.
And how often does that come into play where, say, a veteran gets an advantage over a non-veteran because of their veteran status?
That's very class dependent. I could give you a couple examples. For firefighter, for example, it's very important. It's critical. Individuals who get those ten additional points are invariably at the top of the list, and since not a ton of firefighters are appointed from that list 102 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 based on the number that's actually on the list, veterans preference is paramount to getting appointed. Police officer recruit list, not so important, because on that list we tend to use the whole eligibility list. Since there's always a shortage, we run through that list in about a year, and it's a list that lasts for two years. So having a veterans preference on a list like that might move you up a little bit, you might get hired a little bit more quickly, but everybody who meets all the qualifying standards on that list will get hired. So it has zero impact on whether you're going to get hired or not.
What about sort of the non-police, fire type jobs, clerks, middle managers, other people that take civil service exams? Does it have much of an impact there?
Veterans preference has a huge impact if the veteran is reached on the eligible list, 103 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 because with the rule too in the City of Philadelphia, if you pair a veteran with a non-veteran, the City of Philadelphia is required to choose the veteran.
So what impact would you predict giving additional points to a resident versus non-resident would have in hiring?
Well, without knowing specifically the lists, I mean, it could have a tremendous impact. I mean, because there are positions that are very competitive, where five points or however many points you want to assign for being a City resident would have a tremendous impact. There are other lists -- again, I keep referring to police officer -- where it would have no 23 impact.
Okay. But, remember, we're only -- everybody will be 104 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 a resident after they take their first exam, so exams to move up, it will have zero impact.
And we wouldn't advise that you assign points in promotional testing, because as you said, it's a moot point.
So it would have a huge impact, you're saying, though, at the initial hiring level?
And as Mark said, again, the high demand classes, it will have less impact because we'll reach everyone, because we've got to have social workers, we've got to have skilled trade workers. It's like clerk typists, however, where there are more people than 105 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 we need that the residents would come to the top of the eligible list and we'd hire them first.
And to what extent is providing a preference for City residents a deterrent or to prevent people from taking jobs? Do you have any sort of information on that?
In terms of recruitment efforts, getting people to take the test in the first place?
Right. I am not aware of any data on other jurisdictions actually having that kind of preference, so it's hard to predict what kind of impact that might have.
If you can find data on that, would you share it with us? Councilman Goode.
Thank you. Good afternoon. You said you 106 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 believe the purpose of the legislation is to find the best and hire the best. How do you know if someone is the best hire?
Well, we're in the permit selection system in the City government, so people are taking an examination which is supposed to, if it does what it's supposed to do, ferret out the better qualified folks from the lesser qualified and rank them. So that's the tool we use to determine who is the best.
We give them a test and then the department also interviews them.
And you know who scored better and you know who scored 107 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 best?
Again, good afternoon, and on such short notice, I applaud you for coming over so promptly. I'm aware of the Mayor's interest in establishing a better curriculum, better homegrown talent. His commitment to the Community College is one such example, of that funding increase. To what degree does the City of Philadelphia's Personnel Department work with course design, course curriculum for local universities and high schools for jobs that are available?
It's job specific. We've recently worked to 108 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 change the clerk typist requirements to take advantage of the Philadelphia School District's interest in the ICDL. What is that? The International Computer Driver's License. So we want to find ways to write our job descriptions and the training and experience requirements to allow folks to come into the civil service if they go through specific programs sponsored by the School District, for example.
Yeah. I think there are some apprenticeship kinds of programs out there where the City partners with various organizations.
So you don't work with maybe Drexel to look at engineers that might fill these lists? 109 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003
I don't believe we dictate curriculum, but we participate in the work study program where --
So the Randolph Skills Trade Center, which is in the 4th Councilmanic District, doesn't work with the City's Personnel Department to look at some of the skill trades that you're talking about to kind of design curriculums so that by the time a young person out of 12th grade in public school is eligible, prepared, prepped to take a civil service test for the City?
I think what happens is kind of the opposite of that, and give me a second to explain. We're not in the business of dictating to organizations or to universities what their curriculum should be, but what we have been looking at recently is our testing process to make sure that our tests are more in line with what's being taught out there.
I applaud 110 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 that effort, but an additional step might be if you are the chief HR department for the City of Philadelphia, there are job descriptions that are being written all over the world called "green jobs." I defy anybody to show me at this Council what those job descriptions are, what the prerequisite skill sets are and whether or not they're connected to the educational process in the City of Philadelphia. And if the answer to that is it does not exist, it should exist. So I think we should be proactive. If we're trying to really satisfy the labor question here in the City of Philadelphia, then it begins in the public education process, and that design for jobs that are needed in the Water Department, which I understand has a world-renowned reputation for its skill level, should be designed into high schools that are career-track driven, that can go to universities, that can go and then apply for mentorship 111 2/20/08 - LABOR - BILL 080003 opportunities within the various departments that we are having a problem finding workforce. I am sure that Cheyney University or Lincoln University's Department for Law Enforcement would be tickled pink to help you satisfy your problem of finding correctional officers within the City of Philadelphia, but we have to take a step towards that in our design of those curriculums so that we don't have a problem with young people not being able to take a civil service exam and they should then pass.
I didn't hear a question in there, so if you have no comment, does anybody on the Committee have any additional questions relevant to Councilman Kenney's bill? (No response.)