The second question is, Why five years? I think we've answered the question of why ten years is not particularly equitable for this particular group of employees. The second question is, Why five? Because what we have seen from our own practice is that the inability to offer a pension to a manager that's coming in and who is not going to come for the entire, say, eight-year period of time, that during the course of any administration, there are vacancies, the Capital Programs Office is perhaps the largest one. The individual in charge not going to be there for more than four years. What has happened is, it's a disincentive to come to work for the --
Yeah. It's a disincentive to work for the City. They do not have the option of having a pension. They get their contributions back, they don't even get interest on that. 75 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 What you've seen is historically a pattern of managers at that level working for two years and moving on. And what happens is -- and I can tell you that I know this 'cause I was subject to it. That after two years, you begin to realize what you're losing in terms of not having a pension option. And, therefore, five years seemed to be an equitable number where there is a longer-term commitment to the City that's more than one term but it is certainly less than the probably impossible-to-reach ten years, and it encourages people who traditionally have been with us for two, three years to stay longer. That was the rationale for it.
Because unless you were here on the first day of the new administration, you will not get a pension. So when you are recruiting for a manager, particularly in a technical area -- when you're recruiting for a manager in the second or third year of the term, eight years will not provide them with a pension. 76 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 Five years also in pensions is sort of the general number in which vesting is approved in the private sector, so there's a consistency there. That's why five chosen over six -- just because it tends to be what you see in the private sector.
Well, let's go back to -- the flip side of this discussion, as Councilman Cohen laid it out, is take that provision out, and is there anything that prevent us at that point from waiting to see what happens in future contract negotiations if, under the premise -- and we'll make the argument for the moment of -- I'll hold to your argument that this is a bargaining issue. Unions negotiate the contracts in 2,000. Suppose they do, in fact, bargain for this and the vesting number comes down? There's nothing to prevent us from going back and making, for the non-exempts, the number the same as whatever the unions negotiated for.
That is correct. Historically, however, this has not been an issue that stayed on the negotiating table for terribly 77 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 long; maybe that changes this time. The reason we're proposing it now is -- 'cause this will not benefit the Rendell Administration, obviously. That the next mayor coming in, and during that period of time when the next mayor is beginning to put together the look of the administration, this gives that mayor an extra tool to recruit people. He won't have that if you wait till the negotiations are completed in the year 2,000. You've lost six months easily; probably something significantly more.
I understand that. Are there examples of people who decline to come here because of the pension issue?
In my own experience, yes, it's been a contributing factor in a number of cases where you're trying to recruit professionals, and the lack of viable pension option was an issue. And then keeping them once they're here, you get that two-year, two-and-a-half-year cycle that we're so familiar with, and they are offering this to some of our really strongest 78 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 people who you would want to keep.
I understand. But, again, if contracts expire June 30, 2000, the negotiations are whatever they are. And if the issue is bargained, theoretically, somewhere within the first year of that mayor's term, the issue could, in fact, be legislatively resolved.
That is correct. By passing it as suggested in the recodification ordinance you would give the new mayor the opportunity to use that tool starting in November, when people begin to think about what the structure of their administration's going to be instead of waiting until the administration has already begun. There's no what-if's to offer somebody, like, Maybe I'm going to get this, this is an option. If you're with us for five years, you will vest. And when I was younger, it didn't matter that much to me, but I can tell you that at a certain age, you start thinking about the pension and the fact that, gee, you don't got one, and it makes a big difference as to whether you 79 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Hearing - 980843 stay.
Gentlemen, I think we might have a break-through here. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. President, I feel that the position I have stated has great merit, but I also feel that the matter of pension recodification that's taking place is a very important thing, and I don't want in any way to have the five-year vesting period interfere with the overall question, particularly since on Monday, we're going to be discussing another aspect on the COLA. And under those circumstance, I will withdraw this amendment known as "Cohen-1" in the interest of our moving forward with the recodification generally and the conversation of the COLA bill on Monday.
I thank you, Councilman Cohen. You do know we appreciate that. Does anyone else have any question of any person on any amendment? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. 80 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting - 980788 The Council Committee of the Whole public hearing is now in recess. - - -
We will now convene a public meeting on the Council Committee of the Whole. We will now be in a public meeting of the Council Committee of the Whole. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 980843 -- I'm sorry, on Bill No. 980788 as it relates to the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments stand approved on Bill 14 No. 980788. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The bill is amended. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on this bill, as amended.
Mr. President, I move that Bill No. 980788 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; also a recommendation that the rules of 81 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting - 980843 Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. It is so ordered. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 980843.
I move that the amendments be approved as presented to us on Bill 13 No. 980843. (Duly seconded.)
And these are the amendments that were offered, the Administration amendment, Cohen-2, and Councilman Nutter's amendment.
And I believe -- weren't there some amendments on Monday?
Is there a second? 82 12/3/98 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - Public Meeting - 980843 (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. The amendments are adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen Vern for a motion on the bill as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980843 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Those opposed, say nay. The ayes have it. It is so ordered. This is the end of our public hearing and our public meeting on these two bills. (Adjourned at 2:08 p.m.) - - - 83 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, December 3, 1998, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE BILL NO.'S ^ __________________________________, MAUREEN BRODERICK Registered Professional Reporter __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter