COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:55 a.m. - - - - BILL 040326 - an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code... 10 BILL 040755 - an Ordinance amending Title 22 11 of the Philadelphia Code... 12 BILL 041005 - an ordinance amending Title 22 of the Philadelphia Code 13 14 15 PRESENT: 16 COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS, Chair COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. 17 COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY 18 19 20 21 - - - - 22 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 I N D E X BILL 040755 GWENDOLYN BELL, Board of Pensions... EVAN MEYER, Law Department.......... KAREN BOYLE......................... JOHN A. REILLY...................... 7 BILL 040326 8 THOMAS CRONIN, AFSCME DC 47......... JOHN A. REILLY...................... 9 BILL GAULT, Local 22................ BOBBY EDDIS, FOP.................... 10 FRANK FERRIS, DC 33. .............. 27 DANIEL GREVY........................ 31 11 BILL 041005 12 THELMA SUGGS........................ 37 AUDREY COCCIA....................... 40 13 JOHN A. REILLY...................... 48 GWENDOLYN BELL, Board of Pensions... 49 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755
Good morning, everyone. This is City Council's public hearing for the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. I'm Councilman Juan Ramos, Chair of the Committee. I would like to recognize Councilmembers Wilson Goode, Jr., Councilman Jim Kenney, and Councilman Frank DiCicco. Seeing that we have a quorum I would like to start this hearing. The Clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 040755, an ordinance amending Title of the 15 Philadelphia Code entitled, "Public Employees 16 Retirement Code," by amending Section 22-501 17 relating to service connected healthcare 18 benefits to amend the requirements, all under 19 certain terms and conditions. 20
Thank you. Our 21 first witness will be Gwendolyn Bell. 22 Is she here? Good morning. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
My name is Gwendolyn 4 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 Bell, Executive Director of the Board of Pensions. And this is Bill 040755?
Okay. The bill would amend Section 22-501, which provides healthcare benefits to surviving spouses and dependent children of a person who has had a service connected death. If the Pension Board determines that the death of a police employee or a fire employee is service connected, healthcare benefits shall be payable to the surviving spouse for the remainder of his or her life until the widow remarries. Healthcare benefits are payable on behalf of any surviving child until they reach the age of 18. Or if the child is enrolled as an undergraduate student, then the benefits would cease at age 22. Although the Board is responsible for administering the healthcare benefit, the cost of the benefit is a general obligation of the City and is not payable from the assets of the retirement system. Accordingly, the Board's role in the payment of this bill is 5 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 merely that of an administrator of the retirement system and the Board has no 4 liability with respect to cost.
I don't have an opinion on this because it's not something that the Retirement Board administered.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you so much for your testimony this morning. Does the gentleman next to you care to testify as well since you're there.
I'm Evan Meyer, senior attorney from the Law Department, legal advisor to the Pension Board. I just came along to answer any legal questions that you may have about the Pension Code or the bill.
Any questions from the Committee Members? Councilman Kenney. 6 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to kind of frame the reasons why we've come to try to get a bill 6 passed to correct this issue. I recognize the Pension Board's position on this, that they're one of an administrator of funds and not necessarily -- as I understand, it's not coming out of the Pension Fund. It would be coming out of the General Fund and you would administer those payments; is that correct?
The reason we're here is that there has arisen in the past certain circumstances where dependent children of officers and fire fighters and City workers who have passed in the line of duty, as you said earlier in your testimony, that when the widow remarries, she loses those benefits. But also the dependent child loses the benefits also. We had a situation where a young woman who was still being carried by her 7 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 mother a number of years ago whose father was killed in the line of duty fighting a fire. That child was born severely disabled and needed constant care and needed to be in a hospital setting. Her mom went on with her life. Met someone luckily and decided to get married and move on and have another life. But the marriage -- and she didn't know this at the time -- when she did get married, her dependent child, who was institutionalized, lost -- was in danger of losing her benefits. It doesn't happen often. Local 14 told me that there's two instances that they 15 remember, this being one of them, and another 16 one earlier on. It was a young man who was 17 severely disabled and dependent for life. I 18 don't know how many there were with the FOP or 19 any number of the other unions, but this is 20 not something that happens all the time. It 21 is not something that's usual. And I think 22 that because it's so limited in its circumstances that we do owe that family who gave their husband to the service of the City, we do owe them to take care of that dependent 8 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 child for the rest of their lives, without having to hamper the mother or the widow from never being married again. It's just a circumstance that's tragic. We don't want to make it more tragic by keeping people from getting remarried or by having them be concerned that their dependent child will lose benefits. So that's really all we want to do, is correct that inequity and that's why we're here today.
Thank you, Councilman. Thank you for giving us an example of how this bill will impact positively on people that need this type of support under the circumstances outlined by Councilman Kenney. Any other Members of the Committee care to ask any questions? Any statements? (No response.)
Well, thank you both for coming and testifying this morning. Our next person here on my list is Karen Boyle, Local 22 Firefighters Union. Good morning. 9 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755
Good morning. My name is Karen Boyle. I work for Local 4 Philadelphia Firefighters Union. Thank you, 5 Chairman Ramos, Members of this Committee, 6 especially Councilman Kenney and Councilwoman 7 Krajewski for making it possible for me to be 8 here today. 9 My name is Karen Boyle. I'm the 10 administrative assistant for Tommy O'Drain and 11 Local 22 Philadelphia Firefighters Union. I 12 am here on behalf of the widow and daughter of 13 deceased Firefighter Richard Iannacone. 14 Mrs. Iannacone-Shaw (ph) is the 15 widow of Firefighter Richard Iannacone, who 16 was killed in the line of duty on May 16th, 17 1976 when the Barson's Deli on Bustleton 18 Avenue and Bergen Street collapsed, trapping 19 four fire fighters in the basement of that 20 building. 21 At the time of Richard's death, he 22 was married to Anna. They had one daughter, Tracy, age five years, who was and is profoundly brain damaged. Mrs. Iannacone was pregnant at that time with her second 10 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 daughter, whose name is Robin. Tracy's neurological age is between three and five years old. She also has cerebral palsy and has no speaking skills. With the help of family and friends, Tracy was able to stay home until the age of 21. Sadly, Tracy's care became more difficult for Anna and she placed her in Martha Lloyd Institute for Women in Troy, Pennsylvania. Tracy is now 34 years old. In 1995 Mrs. Iannacone remarried. When her remarriage was discovered by the Board of Pensions and Retirement, her medical benefits were canceled in April 2003. This of course had a devastating effect on Tracy's medical benefits. Anna was aware of the fact that her Workers' Compensation would cease if she remarried, but that her pension in the amount of $268.75 a month and medical benefits would be there for her daughter for life. Tracy was placed on Medicaid when she lost her benefits, and Anna pays for anything Medicaid does not cover, including doctors visits, prescription drugs, dental and 11 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 vision. She also pays $1,200 a month out of pocket for her to be able to stay in the home she is in right now. Tracy has been given excellent care at the Lloyd Institute through these years. Unfortunately, the out-of-pocket costs have escalated to a point where Tracy will probably have to come home in January. I am requesting this distinguished panel to recommend that disabled children whose parent pays the ultimate sacrifice be allowed to maintain medical benefits for life, regardless of the marital status of the surviving parent. Your kind consideration and approval of this request on behalf of Tracy Iannacone and any other disabled child in this circumstance is the right thing to do and is greatly appreciated by the members of Local 20 and the families that it affects. 21 Thank you. 22
Thank you for your testimony, Karen. Does the gentleman to your left care to testify? 12 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755
Yes, sir. My name is John A. Reilly, retired firefighter and elected trustee of the Board of Pensions and Retirement of the City of Philadelphia. Councilman Ramos, Councilman Goode, Councilman Kenney, Councilman DiCicco, thank you for hearing me. As you know, in 1986 Council passed a Bill, 655-A, which gave members killed in the line of duty, their dependents, certain benefits for medical benefits. In 209.7, the service connected healthcare benefits shall consist of -- and it's in the bill -- regular payments on behalf of the spouse and the employee's dependent children of the appropriate costs in obtaining medical, dental and optical and pharmaceutical prescription benefits for such beneficiaries of the same benefit level as would be enforced if the deceased employee were still alive and employed in the same position as he or she had at the time of death. Payments to the spouse will cease on remarriage. Payments on behalf of the 13 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040755 surviving children were until the age of 18 and if they were in school, until 22. It is our position, as it says dependent child, this mentally retarded child is a dependent child for the rest of her life. In addition, at the Board of Pensions, in their code, it's retirement and survivor benefits. It states there that same thing, until death. And if any such child remains dependent because of physical or mental infirmity for the duration of the infirmity. Therefore, there is collaborating evidence in the Board of Pension and Retirement to support your bill. I thank you very much.
Thank you both for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say, Karen, I really appreciate your testimony. I think you really put a face on these people. I also think that 14 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 the members of your union are very lucky to have someone like you that cares. You picked up the phone and called. You were outraged that this was happening and you really fought for this member, this deceased member and her daughter and widow. But I know you fight for those members of Local every day. And even 9 though you have a lot of good executives and 10 elected officials and trustees of that union, 11 it's people like you that put a face on 12 everybody. So thanks. 13
Any other 15 questions for this witness? 16 (No response.) 17
Seeing none, 18 thank you for your testimony this morning. 19 Anyone else wishing to testify 20 regarding this bill? 21 (No response.) 22
Bill No. 040326, an ordinance amending Title 22 of the 15 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 Philadelphia Code entitled, "Public Employees Retirement Code," by amending Chapter 22-400, entitled, "Disability Benefits," by amending Section 22-401 relating to service connected disability retirement benefits and Section 7 22-402 relating to ordinary disability retirement benefits, delete provisions related to a reduction in benefits for gainful employment, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Our first witness will be Mr. Tom Cronin from AFSCME DC 47.
Good morning, Members of City Council. I am Thomas Payne Cronin, President of AFSCME District Council 47. I am here today to testify in support of Bill 22 040326, which amends the municipal retirement ordinance to remove the provisions related to reduction in benefits for gainful employment for disabled members who receive service 16 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 connected or non-service connected retirement benefits. Our disabled members are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Whether their disability arises from a work-related injury or a non-work related medical problem, they're serious enough to disable them from continuing to perform their City jobs. The benefits that they receive from the municipal retirement system, whether disability or non-disability related, will never increase. In addition to suffering disabling injuries and living on fixed incomes, these disabled members suffer from the ravages of inflation as they must sit and watch the buying power of their pension checks dwindle over time. In most cases the disabled member has little option but to seek other employment to supplement their fixed incomes. Yet because of the City pension ordinance as it is currently written, they risk a reduction in their already meager pensions if they obtain some form of supplemental employment. 17 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 I believe that these provisions requiring reductions in benefits for gainful employment for disabled members are completely unfair to our retired and active members of the workforce who may have given many years of dedicated service to the citizens of this City. More often than not, disabled members are driven to seek supplemental employment after their retirement out of economic necessity, not choice. To further penalize these members by further reducing their fixed pension income because they are required to seek outside employment to supplement their income is unconscionable. I urge the Council to enact Bill 17 040326 and remove these onerous reductions in benefit provisions from the retirement ordinance. Do justice to our disabled members. Please pass this legislation. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today to testify in favor of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Cronin. 18 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Our next witnesses will be Mr. Tom O'Drain and John O'Reilly of Local 8 Firefighters Union. 9 Good morning. Please state your 10 name for the record and begin your testimony. 11
Good morning. My name 12 is Bill Gault, and I'm Vice President of Local 13 22 Firefighters Union. 14
Good morning. My name 15 is John A. Reilly, retired firefighter and 16 elected trustee of the Board of Pensions and 17 Retirement. 18
Billy, do you 19 want to go first? Whatever you guys want to 20 do. 21
Thank you. I am not speaking for Billy or trying to put words in 19 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 his mouth. We're in support of this bill, number one. What really irked all City employees is the fact that you work for the City of Philadelphia. You're injured in the line of duty. You were making 100 percent of salary. They reduced it to 70. You can't live on the 70, so you go out and try to get a menial job so that you can support your family. And they come around in arbitration in 1992 and 1993 and change these rules. The's not right. It's inconceivable. It's unethical and it's ungodly and that's all I've got to say.
City Council, thank you very much for hearing us. Moon said it perfect. Thank you for holding this hearings.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
You're not off 20 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 the hook yet. Our next witness is Mr. Bob Eddis from the FOP. Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
Bobby Eddis, E-D-D-I-S, from the FOP. I'd like to first start by saying thank you very much for listening to this issue because we feel as if it's a significant one. We see our officers get hurt. Sometimes it's off duty as Moon stated. We're penalized by it. Our officers then try to go out as a result of the line of work that they have. They're also penalized because of the fact we also have a social security offset, which I know is a horse of a different color. However, when you're going to pay your bills, money is money. So when you see your social security offset as well as having your pension offset, to us, our members are harmed greatly. We just want to thank you so much for entertaining this issue. Because as we say, we see our officers, they're hurt. They 21 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 then go out there and they're penalized and we don't see where there's any significance in that. So it's very important to our membership.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's how I came to want to introduce this bill. Not only is it true what the representatives of the unions have said, but it's such a terrible disincentive to improve your life. Giving your physical body to your job, you can no longer chase bad guys, climb ladders, haul trash to the back of a trash truck, all the things you did when you were a City worker. You're permanently disabled and you decide that you want to use your brain to go back to school to become a computer operator or to become a social worker or a journalist or whatever it is you want to be. Why would we disincentive people to go improve their life? 22 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 I don't understand the loss to the Pension Fund to the City. If the worker was disabled and sat home on the couch day after day, they would still get whatever they had coming to them. So the Pension Fund is not losing any money. Now, I have a situation where that individual worker is now a teacher or, again, a social worker or a journalist or a cab driver, whatever it is they can do that isn't affected by their disability. They're paying taxes. They are paying wage taxes. They're buying things they wouldn't be able to afford to buy. I guess I wasn't that aware of what happened in '92 in the arbitration. But I never understood the whole rationale why this is a good thing for the City vis-a-vis the worker. The worker is better off because they have an incentive to go on with their life and to improve their life and to continue to be contributing members not only of their family, but of the City tax rolls. They've given their body to the City 23 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 already and they deserve that 70 percent. They actually deserve more. But to limit someone's ability by taking one dollar for every two dollars they earn is petty. It's really not in the best interest of the City or of the worker. I just never understood the whole thing. If someone from either the Pension Board or the City Administration who may have been supportive or are opposed to or have no 12 position on how this is a good thing for anybody back in '92 and how it's a good thing in 2004, almost 2005, I just don't get it. I would rather see that worker who contributed obviously a lot of their physical condition to the City and the City taxpayers be able to go improve themselves and have a life and pay their kids' tuitions and go on vacation and pay taxes.
No, they didn't. I totally agree. That's how I got to the position we're at now in that whole thought 24 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 process. I want to see people have an incentive to go out and make a different life for themselves after they've given what they've given to the City.
We thank you for that. May I comment on the previous issue real quickly? Not to digress, but we every year bring in our widows and we have a little luncheon for them on the day of our memorial. It's very significant, because unfortunately what we see is, in most cases we see 27-year-old ladies with three children is what we see. We had an incident a few years ago which was very sad, where one of the widows called up and she said to me, I can't come to your luncheon this year. I said, why is that. Her husband was killed outside the stadium down in South Philly by a drunken driver. It's a very sad situation. And she said, because I'm not going to be part of your family anymore. She said, I'm getting married. She started crying on the phone. 25 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 And I thought, what kind of system do we have where we wouldn't want our widows to have the opportunity to go back out and give their children the chance to have the benefit. We had a plaque dedication a few weeks ago at 5th and Snyder for Officer Pluntowski (ph) who was killed in 1927. We would like to thank everybody for your support. Mr. Pluntowski, the son, was nine months old when his dad passed away. The system was a lot different then. He said, one of the things that was so significant was he didn't know his dad because he was only nine months old, but a few years later, his mother, thank God, remarried. And he was able to have some kind of guidance through his life. I get a call once a week -- and this is no exaggeration -- from one of the children of one of our officers that was killed in 1993. And the mother never had a chance to remarry because if she did she's cut off. She's a young mother. She's going to lose the health benefits. She's going to lose 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 everything that she had. So instead, now we're dealing with the fallout of this gentleman who is in his twenties who has mental problems as a result of not having the support. We're not blaming the system as a result of that, but we're saying, things change. And when gentlemen like you take the time to look at it, it's so significant to us because that's what we're here for. We're here for our children and we're here for our family. The mere fact that you took the time to address it means so much to us and we just want to personally thank you because we do get to see this every single day. We see the impact. Like we said, when we turn around, whether they're being penalized as a result of them getting hurt and not being able to go out and get a job so they can't feel full about themselves and make themselves, we want these guys and girls to be able to go back out and become part of society and pay taxes and do everything that they're supposed to do. 27 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 That's all we're trying to accomplish, is to correct some mistakes along the way. Without your support we would never have that opportunity, so we thank you.
Officer, thank you for your testimony this morning. Mr. Frank Ferris of DC 33.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to testify on Bill 040326, sponsored by Councilman Kenney. My name is Frank Ferris and I'm a civil service specialist working for District Council 33. I'm here today to offer testimony on behalf of Pete Matthews, District Council 33 president, and on behalf of the members of the City workers for District Council 33. I'd like to start off by letting you know that District Council 33 is strongly in support of Councilman Kenney's bill. We believe it addresses a longstanding inequity 28 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 that has faced District Council 33 and other unions' members who were forced to take service related disability pensions or who received ordinary retirement disability benefits. The sections of the Philadelphia Code at this legislative proposal, which seeks to amend Section 22-400 and Section 22-402, have over the years made it very difficult for City workers who are on service related disability retirement to keep up with the rate of inflation by seeking gainful employment. Many City disability pensioners have seen the value and buying power of their pensions diminish over the years. But when they try to seek additional employment, they were faced with a penalty that reduced their monthly pension by one dollar for every dollar the member makes in a new job. District Council 33 believes that this penalty is both a hindrance and a disincentive to members seeking employment outside of City employment and is inherently unfair to City workers on service related or regular disability pension. 29 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 Many District Council 33 members in these circumstances need to find gainful employment in order to bridge the gap between the time when they retired on disability and when they begin collecting their full pension. Councilman Kenney's proposal seeks to address this inequity in a way that District Council 33 believes is fair to the City's retirement system and to the members of the union. We believe that this is a fair compromise and one that will not cost the City any increased financial burden. It will, however, allow City workers on service related or regular disability pensions a measure of fairness that they do not have under existing City regulations. The provisions of this bill also contains safeguards against fraud and misrepresentation and the ability of the City to maintain close control and supervision over disability pensions. For District Council 33, this legislative proposal is a matter of basic fairness for City workers, and we want to go 30 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 on record thanking Councilman Kenney for researching, drafting and introducing this bill and for his efforts to seek through its passage. Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to present this position of District Council 33 in favor of Councilman Kenney's bill. We ask that the Council and the Members of the Committee push this thing through and through the entire Council. I also would like to leave it open that if there's anything additional that you would like me to present, I'll certainly be glad to present something in the future. Because at the present time, I'm not sure that the bill allows a window to allow those who are already out on retirement a one or two-year window maybe to allow those already out on retirement an opportunity to come back into the fold. I thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Ferris. Any questions for this witness? 31 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Ferris, for your testimony this morning. The next witness on my list here is Daniel Grevy. Good morning.
Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
Daniel Grevy, G-R-E-V-Y. Let me start by saying I'm not much of a public auditor, so just bear with me. I was called the other day to come down and testify on behalf of this bill. I worked in the Philadelphia prison system as a correctional sergeant. In August of 1999, I was on a cell block at PICC up on State Road and I walked in on a fight involving one officer and several inmates. The officer's partner was at lunch at the time so he was alone on the block. I immediately went to his aid in fending off these inmates. While fighting these inmates and 32 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 trying to quell the situation, I was stabbed brutally by a third party inmate three times. He hit me from behind. He stabbed me in the upper left shoulder, which caused some internal injuries. I had a collapsed lung. Then he proceeded to stab me a second time. He went for my left chest in my heart area. I fended off that blow with a deflection of my arm. I was stabbed in the left arm and then he finished me off with a stab wound to the left side of my body in the rib cage area. I went out on disability. Well, I went out on IOD, of course, and eventually I was awarded disability. My diagnosis for disability is primarily PTS, posttraumatic stress disorder. Since that time, although I feel I'm capable of having outside employment, I'm hindered. There's a disadvantage written into the pension where if I do go out to work, I have to forfeit a dollar for every three that I make. And I feel this is very unfair given the fact that there's not much of a coal (sic) 33 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 to build into my pension plan. So what I was awarded with when I left is what I have to contend with for the rest of my life. I have three children, two of college age that I'm putting through college. I have a younger daughter that is in high school. I'm paying her tuition. And it's a burden. I could use some outside employment to help defray some of these costs. I'm hindered to do so because, as the law is now, I have to pay a dollar for every three that I make. With taxation on top of that, it's not worth it for me to work. I've had numerous people come up to me who wanted to hire me and wanted to employ me and I have to turn them down because I can't do it. I feel I gave close to years good 19 service to the City of Philadelphia. I never 20 wanted to get hurt. Nobody does. It's one of 21 the things that goes with the job, and I realize that. If I had it to do over again, I would do the same thing, naturally, go help another human being even if it meant getting hurt. 34 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 Like I said, I feel I gave good service years to the City of Philadelphia. I was never in any trouble. Always a model employee. Came to work on time, didn't abuse any sick time and I feel that the City should give me leeway in return. And that's about all I have.
Thank you, Mr. 10 Grevy, for your testimony. 11 Any questions for this witness? 12 Councilman Kenney. 13
Just a 14 statement. I think this witness kind of sums 15 it up. If the unions were in here asking for 16 an increase in the disability pension benefit 17 -- I think they deserve it -- but I think 18 there would be a more rational argument for 19 why the Pension Fund can't afford it or the 20 City can't afford it. 21 All these people are asking for is for the City to get out of their way so they can go make a living and not asking anything from the City directly. Just the ability, without being penalized, to improve their life 35 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 040326 and to pay their kids' tuitions and to have a decent life after giving this heart wrenching story about his experience in a Philadelphia prison. I'm sure we have a number of stories from the Fire Department, Police Department, or 47, that would be equally compelling. 8 All they want is the ability to not 9 be penalized for having incentive to go out 10 and go on with their life. I think this 11 witness sums it up perfectly, so I thank you 12 for coming today. 13
Thank you. I would just 14 like to say that, you know, that's basically 15 all I want to do. I want to go out. I still 16 consider myself a relatively young man. I 17 just turned 52. 18
Thank you. I just 20 turned 52 and I still feel I have a few years 21 that I can contribute. And, you know, I mean, 22 I don't want to be put in mothballs yet. 23 Also, another thing, if I might bring out before I leave is, if I'm out working, I'm again contributing to the City 36 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 coffers because I'm paying City tax. That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you, Mr. Grevy, for your testimony. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Anyone else wishing to testify regarding this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill 041005, an ordinance amending Title of the 20 Philadelphia Code entitled, "Public Employees 21 Retirement Code," including Sections 22-701 22 and 22-702, to allow for benefits to be paid to trusts for disabled and disabled adopted children of members, under certain terms and conditions. 37 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005
Thank you. Before we call on witnesses, Councilman O'Neill has included an amendment to this bill, which has been circulated to all Members of this Committee and given to the stenographer to be put into record. Our first witness will be Audrey D. Coccia. If I'm pronouncing your name wrong, please correct me when you get up to the witness stand. Thelma Suggs can join her as well.
Good morning. Please state your name for the record and then start your testimony.
I'm Thelma Suggs. I'm going to go first. First I want to thank Council for allowing me to testify on Bill 041005, and special thanks to Brian O'Neill and cosponsor, Donna Reed Miller, for introducing this bill, and to Mr. Aaron Feinstone (ph) for keeping me apprised of its progress. My name is Thelma Suggs. I am an 38 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 employee of the Fire Department, and I'm here on behalf of all City employees caring for dependent, disabled adults and those desiring a change to the City's Pension Code. I thank my supporting cast. I didn't really expect all these wonderful people to come. We have Sharon Hartford-Young, Lisa Padilla, Officer John Grady, Vince Coccia, Michael Wolf, Edward Tilter, Harry McGee, Kitty Zellenbach, Rosette Prudian, Bernadette Lennon, Sheila McCloud, William McNulty. Would you all please stand for a hot minute? As a parent of a mentally challenged son, my biggest concern is what will happen to my child at my death. Allowing a change to the Pension Code where it reads, in trust for, would lessen my concerns. Leaving a pension straight out to a disabled person could render them ineligible for future governmental benefits. $500 more or less a month could cause them to exceed income limits. However, by designating, in trust 39 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 for, and establishing intent to supplement their present income, our survivors' governmental benefits would not be jeopardized. Benefits such as Medicare, Medicaid, therapy, respite and others could continue. Caregivers are not scheming against society. After all, they're a big part of that society. We're just trying to maintain some normalcy to our loved ones' lives. Perhaps the pension could keep them in their home or familiar surroundings. What is the cost to the City? It is the same, whether I designate my pension outright or in trust for, the City's obligation is the same. The trust would end with the death of my beneficiary. I urge you to pass this amendment to the Pension Code. It is for the most challenged, most vulnerable, most deserving people ever created. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Suggs. Next witness, please. 40 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 Please state your name for the record and you can start with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Audrey Coccia. I would like to begin by first thanking the Members of the Council and this Committee for the opportunity to speak here today. I'm the wife of a veteran retired Philadelphia firefighter who served our City for over 31 years, and equally important, I am the mother of a 41-year-old woman with significant disabilities. In my work life, I'm the executive director of a Philadelphia non-profit organization called Vision for Equality. We provide advocacy, training and monitoring services for people with developmental disabilities who live in Philadelphia through contracts with the City's Department of Behavioral Health and Mental Retardation services, and the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare, Office of Mental Retardation. We are well aware of the needs of people with disabilities and what puts them in jeopardy. 41 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 I am also the co-founder of an organization here in Philadelphia called the Philadelphia Police and Fire Association for Handicapped Children. I come here today in support of the proposed trusteeship bill. And a number of active and retired police, firefighters and City employee families are here with us today because they too want you to know how important this proposed Charter change is to their lives and the futures of their sons and daughters. This bill holds the key for loved ones to potential future security and financial stability, potentially helping to provide for their continued lifetime needs. This bill is a win, win. It will the cost the City itself little, but offers much needed important additional help and protection for City employees' disabled family members, and it ensures supplementary financial help to them for their future. As you know, the present City pension ordinance under ordinary death 42 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 benefits does not allow City employees' dependent, disabled family members to have their parents' pension money placed in trust for them. The only options offered to these families up until now has been a catch 22. Deny the dependent child their right as a beneficiary to the pension, thereby excluding them from benefits their parents have earned, or include them in the pension as a pension beneficiary and have them risk losing their much needed additional government benefits, leaving them in either case without adequate financial support. Those of us who have already had our spouses retire were told having the money placed in a trust under the present ordinance 18 would not be permitted. As parents of children with disabilities, we have acted as our children's protector, teacher and advocate throughout their lives. Our problems are unique in that concern for our sons and daughters with disabilities is not just when they're young, but for a lifetime. We worry about them when we are here and we worry about 43 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 them even more about what will happen to them when we are gone. We face each day with a what if. For us it is crucial to have in place planning and protections for their well-being without putting them at risk of losing existing or potential services and government benefits that they so desperately need. Most of our sons and daughter once they reach years of age are eligible for 12 limited but much needed government benefits. 13 These benefits are usually SSI or SSDI and 14 Medicaid. As you know, eligibility standards 15 for these benefits and services have certain 16 requirements. Income earned and unearned and 17 assets of any kind are considered in 18 determining eligibility. Gifts and inheritance, including pension benefits, would disqualify a person from receiving services and all government benefits could be entirely lost. It is equally important to note that even with these benefits, if they receive them, people with disabilities are still 44 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 condemned to a life of poverty once they are on their own.
Luxuries like a new coat, a movie, hair shampoo, deodorant, lunch out or a vacation usually lie beyond their means. The only way to help them is to have some way to protectively supplement their care. A government program like SSI is important for a person with a disability, both for the limited financial support it provides and because eligibility for this program is a touchstone for eligibility for other needed services. These additional services such as health care, housing and habilitation, workshops and day activities are vital to the ongoing development of people with disabilities. Preserving eligibility to these benefits is extremely important. Not just to the person with a disability, but in this case to the City of Philadelphia too. A number of us have been interested in working towards acquiring an ordinance that would allow for benefits to be paid in trusts for our disabled children and adult children for City employees under certain terms and 45 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 conditions since 1991. The Philadelphia Police and Fire Association for Handicapped Children have met with staffers of several Councilmembers over the years to seek a way to speak to this issue. We are now so pleased Members of the Committee and Council have elected to tackle this important matter. The trusteeship bill will finally address this grave need. And we applaud you for it. We would like you to make one very important additional recommendation for your consideration. We appeal to you to extend this not just to the past year, as is written in the present bill, but to include all past retirees so they can too protect their children. Many were denied this opportunity, as we were, when they retired. If you could include them and give a limited grace period to them to apply, they will able to provide for their sons and daughters too. It will have no real financial ramifications to the City. We're not talking about a lot of people, probably less than percent of 1 25 percent. 46 1 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 I'd like to conclude on a personal note. My husband and I have been concerned about this since 1991 when he retired. We kept hoping that somehow, some way this would be worked out before, as long as we were around. Remember I said earlier families with loved ones with disabilities live in a "what if" kind of mode? Well, the "what if" happened to us. My husband was diagnosed with a serious form of cancer a few years ago. His chances of survival were grim and reality set in. In the midst of all we were going through as a family, it struck our hearts that we might in fact leave this world and never be able to achieve the opportunity to provide this little bit of extra care for our daughter, Gina. Maybe we wouldn't get to guarantee her that small supplement to help her when we were no longer here. The harsh reality struck our hearts with fear. I personally appeal to you to consider all City employees, including those who have retired previously, so that they can 47 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 get the opportunity to protect their sons and daughters before it is too late. I want to tell you how much we really appreciate the strong Council support for this bill. We also want you to know that should this bill pass, you will be giving our children the best chance at a higher quality of life and allow us to feel more secure about their future when we are gone. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses?
If I could add just one other thing. I happen to know Mrs. Iannacone. Because I have been an advocate for over 35 years, I met Mrs. Iannacone when she was a young mom when her husband was first killed. I know what she's been through. I know the struggles that she had over the years while she has kept her daughter at home. She had to carry her. She had to lift her. She had to 48 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 feed her. When she finally did have to place her, it seems that there ought to be some way for us to ensure that those few insignificant, again, numbers of people who have children with developmental disabilities that are very significant can get the kind of support they need throughout their lives. I know their fathers and their mothers that are deceased would really want us to do that for them.
Thank you both for your testimony this morning. Anyone else wishing to testify regarding this bill? Please state your name for the record.
My name is John A. Reilly, retired firefighter and elected trustee of the Board of Pensions and Retirement. Good morning, Councilmembers. Firefighters Local is in full 22 support of this bill. I've known Vince D. Coccia for many years, and they are strong advocates for benefits for the handicapped. This bill will allow the handicapped to be 49 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 assured that their uptake will be provided. We're asking that the in trust provision be enacted by this Council to provide for the handicapped after their parents have died.
Thank you for your testimony. Anyone questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you again for your testimony. Anyone else who cares to testify regarding this bill? Please state your name for the record.
Gwendolyn Bell from the Board of Pensions, and with me is Evan Meyer from the Solicitor's Office. Mr. Meyer reviewed the bill. We don't see any legals problems with the bill. And the actuary has reviewed it and found it cost neutral.
I'm not in support of the 50 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 bill because I think administratively there's some other issues that we have to deal with. But there is no cost to the Fund.
Well, there are a number of options that a person has when they go into retirement. I don't think this bill will take care of all of those options. For example, if a person enters DROP, that election is irrevocable. I don't think this bill takes care of every person that might be proposing the bill. So we have administrative restrictions on people that enter DROP where their election is irrevocable if they choose a certain option. The bill as written isn't necessarily supported administratively because I think it means a lot of research for us in determining who's eligible, who's not eligible. It does not cover for every person that would be applying.
There's no cost. And you also said that you didn't see any legal ramifications.
There's no legal problem with it. I had been asked to prepare testimony -- and I'm sorry -- for Bill 040326. I don't know if I can do that at this time.
I'm just here as before. Evan Meyer from the Law Department to answer any questions you may have about the legal aspects of the bill, but I have no testimony.
Currently under Section 22 22-401 there is an offset for service connected disabilities as well as ordinary disabilities. Each year we collect income tax returns and monitor the earnings for outside 52 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 earnings. Originally, the provision was enacted in part to reduce disability pensions with respect to a member's disability, preventing him from working for the City, yet was not so severe as to prevent gainful employment. So a person could work and we would monitor their earnings. The underlying rationale for the disability benefit is to supplement the income of those people who became disabled if they were prevented from performing the duties otherwise required by their current position with the City. If such an individual can maintain gainful employment for a non-City entity, the main basis for the early entitlement was to provide a disability benefit for those people that could not work. Accordingly, the offset is meant to prevent double dipping in which members paid a disability benefit due to inability to work for the City, but nevertheless working for a non-City entity. We've asked for the actuary to cost 53 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 out the cost of approving this bill, and I had provided information from Mercer Consulting. There's a cost to the fund of $720,000 per year over the lifetime of the current members. The present value of allowing active members and already retired members to not report their income would be $5,680,000.
I am a little confused as to allowing members not to report their income. My understanding of the reason that this -- whether you agree with the reason it was implemented in the first or not -- was the Rendell Administration's attempt to crack down on Workers' Comp and disability fraud, which was apparently a problem at the time. Since the advent of Risk Management Department, I understand that that situation is relatively under control and that it's tightly monitored and that disability pensions are not given away as political favors, but people are 54 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 actually disabled. I guess it's been effective in reducing the number of disability claims that are awarded. However, we've come to a point now where we have the problem under control. There's really no need to disincentive people, because Risk Management will do its own job in determining whether a person is truly disabled or not. The inability to climb a ladder or to carry a hose or to chase a criminal through an alley or the other things that are done, they're disabled from doing that. I think double dipping is an improper term because you can sit at a computer screen and still be in accordance with the disability that you are being paid for. You can still teach school. You can still do other things. I also don't understand the actuary's rationale in -- I can understand how the number adds up to $720,000. If we're collecting that money inappropriately anyway, it's actually money that we won't realize. It's not money being paid out of the Fund. 55 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 It's money that's not going into the Fund. I don't want to make it seem as if we're taking $720,000 a year directly out of the Fund. It may be money that you can't determine that you're going to collect as a result of what you think is going to happen with people's outside employment. I don't think it's the exact same thing as a direct cost to the fund. It's money that's not realized. But that money that's not realized is being paid back into the General Fund in other ways. We may be able to in the future determine what the value of that is in wage taxes and other taxes that are paid by the employee. I just think that this money had been collected inappropriately in the first place and we're just correcting that inequity, or trying to correct that inequity. But I understand the actuary's position. I just think that we've gotten the disability and Workers' Comp fraud under control, thankfully. The people who are getting disability now are actually really hurt. 56 12/14/04 - LABOR - BILL 041005 I heard the bad old days of people getting disability pensions when they should have been fired, but that's not the case any longer. What we're trying to do is to get people the ability to continue to have a decent quality of life after being disabled from work with the City.
Thank you, Councilman Kenney. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you so much for taking time out to testify this morning. Anyone else wishing to testify regarding this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing. - - - - 57 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE - - - - Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Labor and Civil Service, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 040326, 040755, 041005. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS, Chair COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY 58 12/14/04 - LABOR - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into the public meeting. This is the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a motion on Bill 040755.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040755 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request be made for Rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 040755 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and further moved that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of Bill No. 040755 at our next scheduled Council meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 59 12/14/04 - LABOR - PUBLIC MEETING
The ayes have it, and the motion passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a motion on Bill No. 040326.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040326 be reported out of this Committee favorably and a request be made for Rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 040326 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and further moved that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of Bill No. 040326 at our next scheduled Council meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, and the motion passes. 60 12/14/04 - LABOR - PUBLIC MEETING The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment from Councilman O'Neill to Bill 041005, which has been distributed to all Members of the Committee. It's a straightforward amendment that changes the effective date from immediately to be retroactive to January 1, 2002. I move for the adoption of the amendments. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 041005 be amended. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a motion on Bill No. 041005. 61 12/14/04 - LABOR - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 041005 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 041005 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and further moved that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of Bill No. 041005 at our next scheduled Council meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. That concludes our public meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to allow 62 12/14/04 - LABOR - PUBLIC MEETING us the ability to do decent and good things around Christmas.
It is my duty. That concludes our public meeting. Thank you all for taking time out to testify this morning. (Council adjourned at 10:55 a.m.) 63 C E R T I F I C A T I O N. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, December 14, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR