COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 11/28/01 10:25 a.m. - - - BILL 010493 Amending section of Philadelphia Code on residence requirements by providing that an employee in civil service need not be bona fide resident of City when appointed... BILL 010509 Amending section of Philadelphia Code on Residence Requirements by providing that active law enforcement officers from elsewhere in the US entering into civil service positions in Philadelphia Police Department need not be bona fide residents of City when appointed... BILL 010526 Amending Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing zoning designations of certain areas of land located within area generally bounded by Parkside Avenue, 50th Street, a railroad ROW, and 51st Street. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 11/28/01 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING - INDEX WITNESS BILL 010526 Thomas Chapman, City Planning Commission...... BILLS 010493, 010509 Linda Seyda, Personnel Director............... Denise Earley, Phila. Chamber of Commerce..... 27 Fred Voigt, Committee of 70................... 27 Joseph C. Vignola, PICA....................... 27 Lorraine Brill, Retired Civil Service Employee 61 - - - 3 11/28/01 RULES - BILL 010526
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your patience today. The Rules Committee now has a quorum with the attendance of Council President Verna, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Nutter, and Councilman Clarke. Could I see just a show of hands of who's on Bill 010526. Just one? We'll dispense with that quickly then. Bill No. 010526 is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area generally bounded by Parkside Avenue, 50th Street, a railroad ROW, and 51st Street. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of Development and Planning for the City Planning Commission. 1I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 22 010526. Councilmember Nutter introduced this bill 24 on September 6, 2001. This bill amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the 4 11/28/01 RULES - BILL 010526 designation of a parcel of land located within the area bounded by Parkside Avenue, 50th Street, a railroad right-of-way, and 51st Street from the existing L3 limited industrial to L5 limited industrial. The purpose of this rezoning is that the L3 classification does not permit commercial uses as matter of right, while L5 does permit commercial uses. The Philadelphia Business and Technology Center is currently a mixed-use containing both commercial and industrial uses. This rezoning will allow the center to replace commercial tenants when necessary, without having to obtain zoning variances. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 18, 2001, recommended that Bill No. 010526 be approved. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you very much. Any questions of this witness? (No questions.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 5 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
Thank you. The next two bills I would read both together because I believe that the witnesses here are here to testify on both bills and they can condense their testimony. Bill No. 010493 is an ordinance amending Section 20-101 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that an employee in the civil service need not be a bona fide resident of the City when appointed but must establish and maintain bona fide residence in the City within six months after appointment. Bill No. 010509 is an ordinance amending Section 20-101 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Residence Requirements," by providing that active law enforcement officers from elsewhere in the United States entering into civil service positions in the Philadelphia Police Department need not be bona fide residents of the City when appointed but must establish and maintain bona fide residence in the City within six months after appointment. The first witness scheduled is Linda Seyda. (Witness comes forward.) 6 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
Sorry to hear about the news. We're going to miss you.
Councilman DiCicco wants to know if you'll miss us. That's the problem.
Yes, it is. It doesn't seem that long though, does it?
No, it really doesn't. And actually -- I actually came to work for the City of Philadelphia under a residence waiver.
Oh. Well, it's appropriate for you to testify. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Linda Seyda, I am the personnel director for the City of Philadelphia and will be for the next approximately six weeks. 's 010493 and 010509. Both of 7 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 these bills, as you are aware, pertain to the residency requirements for City of Philadelphia employees. Currently, the City requires residency for one year prior to appointment, unless a waiver is granted by the Civil Service Commission upon the recommendation of the Personnel Director. It should be noted that pre-employment waivers do exist at this time for approximately 90 different job classes for which there are recruitment difficulties. These waivers give new hires one year to move into the City of Philadelphia. Therefore, it is important to note that there already is a mechanism is ace to grant residency waivers when the need is demonstrated. In the case of the Police Department, it is quite possible that a recruitment waiver will be necessary, but we believe that it is premature to make a final judgment at this time until we know the outcome of our current recruitment drive. As you may know, we are just completing a very ambitious program for police officer recruit, and that recruitment program actually ends this week. Another important factor in making a 8 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 determination concerning the Police Department will be the need of that department to maintain appropriate staffing levels when the City experiences the first impact of the DROP Program. In the case of the Fire Department, it is unlikely that a residency waiver will be needed in the near future. The City recently received 9,075 applications for firefighter. Of this number, 37 percent, or 3300 applicants, took the examination. The number of candidates on the eligible list has not been determined, as we are still in the process of scoring that test, but we are confident that it will enable the Fire Department to meet its hiring needs as currently projected. Recently, the City received approximately 25,000 applications for laborer. For entrance-level clerical positions, we received 2800 applications and had 50 percent of the applicant pool take the examination. The number of passers in both of these tests will be determined at the end of the month. Given the applicant pool for titles such as these, the necessity for a general residency waiver for all civil service titles is questionable 9 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 at this time. Currently, it is possible to address the City's recruitment needs under the current law and regulations. However, should the proposed bill 6 become law, the City may wish to consider giving City residents a preference in hiring; such capability already exists under the current civil service regulations but has never been applied. Bill No. 010509 is a proposed amendment also to the code concerning the residence requirements, and that proposed amendment would allow nonresident active law enforcement officers from elsewhere in the United States to enter into civil service positions in the Philadelphia Police Department and have six months to establish and maintain bona fide residency in the City of Philadelphia. Although the Personnel Department does encourage experienced law enforcement officers joining our force, we do not believe that the proposed amendment will have a significant impact, and this is based upon our recent experience in recruiting military personnel for City employment under a similar waiver. 10 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 Additionally, as I noted in my testimony, the Police Department is currently conducting a recruitment effort, and the Personnel Department believes at this point that it's premature to make any changes until we know the outcome of our current program. This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Rules, and I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Thank you very much And this question may be appropriate due to the fact that you'll be leaving public service and going into the private sector. If you, in your next life, were to become a human resources person, manager, vice president for a company in Philadelphia or in the region, do you think it would be appropriate to limit the pool of applicants that you as a private-sector recruiter could use in an effort to find the best and brightest to work for your company? (No immediate response.)
I mean, if you owned a company in Philadelphia, would you limit your 11 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 ability to hire people who only lived on Broad Street or only lived on Venango Street? I mean, I know it's being simplistic, but I think in some ways, that's what the City's doing; it's limiting its ability to attract the best and brightest from around the country and also pick up new residents to boot in a time when we're losing 70,000 people in the last years. 10 How would you feel if you were in the private sector?
I think you have to differentiate between the public sector and the private sector.
And what reason would that be, or what reasons? Aren't we looking for the best and brightest and most competent people, whether it's private or public sector?
I think that we're definitely looking for the best and the brightest people, and I think that that goes without question.
And I think that the City has been successful in recruiting a very competent workforce among the citizens of our city. 12 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
But going back to the original question, I guess, from a private-sector standpoint, do you think that it would be prudent to limit your private company's ability to recruit from anywhere outside of the City, or anywhere in the country, for that matter? I mean, this is just a private-sector question.
I really don't feel that I'm prepared to answer that question.
I understand. Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? Councilmember DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. In your testimony, you talk about a recruitment program that the Police Department is now going through.
Currently, the Police Department projects that it will be putting on two additional classes this fiscal year: One this 13 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 winter and one in June at the end of the -- at the end of the fiscal year. And I believe that currently -- of course that number is subject to change. Currently, I believe that they're projecting to hire approximately 160 officers.
Do you know the number of applicants for those two classes? 'cause you testified to something in the area of about 9500 or 9600 folks applied for the firefighters?
The recruitment program that's underway now will be used for the class that's hired in June, and that's because that simply will not be available for processing, you know, prior to the spring. We anticipate that we'll have approximately 15,000 to 16,000 applications for police officer recruit. However, of that number, it's likely that only 30 percent will actually appear to take the test, and then of that 30 percent, that perhaps 70 percent will pass the test. And then from the eligible list that's established, we would estimate that approximately 14 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 15 percent would actually be hired. Now, these are just estimates, but given those numbers, we believe that this time next year, we'll be back out recruiting for police officers. And that's why in my testimony, I stated that while it's premature to make a final decision now, we do believe that a residency waiver most likely will be required for the next police officer recruitment program.
I was trying to follow your number. I think at the end, you said percent of the 70 percent that are left over 14 from the first round would be hired or would be in 15 the final pool --
Yes, yes. I mean, it varies from one job to another, but those estimates that I 15 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 gave you are based upon our experience.
And what does that 4 percent represent? Do you have like a ballpark 5 number? 6
I don't have a calculator out 7 right now, but I think we will get perhaps 500 8 hires off the next list. 9
When we do the 10 recruitment, is it in anticipation of the number of 11 vacancies that they expect in the Police 12 Department, or is it because of a certain number? 13 I mean, I'm assuming that number's fluid. I mean, 14 there's some years you may need more than others. 15 So when you do the recruitment, is it based on what you expect the vacancies to be in the not-too-distant future? And, again, I'm speaking about the Police Department only.
Well, for the Police Department, we are interested in recruiting any and all individuals who are interested in a career in law enforcement. I mean, what happens is --
There's a limit to the number of personnel based on the budget, I would assume, that they can hire. 16 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
So I guess what I'm saying is if -- and I'm just using a number. If the budget allows for 7,000 police officers, would these next two classes that are coming up that would hire 160, does that bring us to the 7,000, or are we still anticipating it being lower?
Well, that question is actually more appropriately addressed to the Police Department, and I don't believe that they're here today.
But I know that beyond this fiscal year, they are looking very seriously at the impact of the DROP Program on their hiring needs because there are over 600 police officers -- police personnel who are in the DROP Program, and that in, mm, I believe it's October of 2003, there will be a large number of police officers who will be required to leave City service. And so looking at the next fiscal year and 17 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 the year after, they're looking very seriously at what their needs are going to be. And so that's one of the reasons that recruitment is important right now and the reason that a recruitment waiver most likely will be necessary for the Police Department next time we test.
Well, that's my point. And If those -- if I'm hearing you correctly, with the DROP Program and some of the things that are occurring, that final number of 4 or 500, whatever that number is from the 70 percent to the 30 percent to the percent -- 14
It won't be adequate. So why wouldn't we want to have legislation in place now to address what we anticipate what will happen over the next year or two? What is the downside of doing it now? Why do we need to wait until the crisis is there, then do the legislation and have to go through the whole process? And hopefully we have, you know, the support to pass the legislation, but why wait? Wouldn't it be prudent on our part to have legislation in place that could address that before the crisis occurs? 18 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
I think that we will have the ability to do that before the crisis occurs because in terms of -- in terms of our planning, as soon as we see what the numbers look like for the next test, we will immediately be planning for the next recruitment drive, and if the recruitment waiver is necessary --
If it's done in a typical way, you may not -- and, again, I don't think anyone could identify a specific number, but if it's done in a typical way based on what your testimony is with the DROP Program, we still may not have enough recruits to fill the requirements for the Department. So why wouldn't we just at least -- and I would agree with you that maybe we should give additional consideration to City residents first, but if we don't have enough to complete the quota or fill the quota, we'll at least be in a position to recruit nonresidents under this legislation to fill our quota.
I mean, believe that we will be ready and prepared to do that, whether it's under the legislation or if it's, you know, under a 19 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 waiver, because we're working very closely with the Police Department in order to anticipate their needs in the coming next couple of years.
Well, I just think that we should be prepared for some of these things that we already know are about to occur. Maybe we should do things differently in Philadelphia than we've done for the last 200 years, you know, think outside of the box and get ahead of the curb instead of behind the curb. Thank you for your testimony.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions about the laborer's position and some of the, I guess, what you would call the blue-collar worker's position.
Explain to me the laborer's position in terms of the testing, the 20 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 recruitment. Talk to me about -- what exactly is that? How does an individual get listed as a laborer? Because as I travel throughout my district, I find individuals coming up to me and they say they want me to help them get a City job, and I explain to them that it's civil service and that we politicians can't touch that. And when I ask them what category, they tell me laborers. Can you tell me what that's all about?
Mm-hmm. Most of the -- most, but not all, of the laborers who are employed by the City of Philadelphia are sanitation workers in the Streets Department. And as you indicated, there is a considerable interest in those positions, interest that is much greater, you know, than the City's need for new hires in that category. And what we do each year -- well, every other year, because eligible lists by law can last for up to two years. Every two years, we publish an announcement and we accept applications for laborer positions. There is no formal test. Applicants are ranked on an eligible list in random order so that everybody has an equal chance to be 21 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 number one or number two or number three on the list. The last several times that we have established an eligible list for laborer, we have limited the number of people that we have to put on that list, and the reason for that is because to put 20,000 people on an eligible list when you know that you're only going to hire 300 or 400 or 500, you're raising people's expectations, and we found that really there's a greater fairness in terms of limiting the number of people that you put on an eligible list, because otherwise, we have many, many people who have an expectation that they're going to have an opportunity for a City job, and it's just not realistic and it's just not fair to those people. This time for the current laborer list, we will put a thousand names on the list that will be established very shortly.
It's the roll of the dice. 22 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
So essentially increasing the pool by allowing individuals to apply for these positions outside of the City decreases the likelihood of a resident because it's a lottery -- of a resident being selected simply by virtue of the numbers.
Okay. As it relates to other positions throughout the City workforce, such as the Recreation Department or any other of the ten departments, has there been any difficulty in recruiting or getting applicants? And in the applicants that we've gotten in those particular departments, have we found that those people are not qualified for those positions? Or we have difficulty in recruiting qualified individuals in those positions?
Well, I think, as I indicated in my testimony, where we have had difficulty recruiting a sufficient number of individuals to meet the minimum requirements for the position, we routinely will grant a residence waiver. And we 23 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 have residence waivers, as I indicated, for approximately 90 different job classes.
All right, but the question I'm asking more specifically, and I just wanted this to be for the record. As an example, the Recreation Department, a Rec Leader I, right, which is an individual that essentially runs the recreation center, have we had difficulty recruiting those individuals or applicants for that particular job?
Not to the best of my knowledge, but I'm answering that question, you know, off the top of my head. I can get more information for you, but I am not aware of recruitment difficulties in the Recreation Department.
All right. I guess the information -- and you may have to provide this at a later date to the Chair and subsequently to the members of the committee --
I guess basically I'm trying to get a sense of how many people we actually have on a waiting list, because as I've 24 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 traveled throughout the City of Philadelphia, I get bombarded with individuals who want to get this City job, this great job. And, again, I explain to them that politicians can't touch it. And I guess I'm trying to get a sense of how many people are actually on the waiting list, and you've told me specifically in terms of the laborers, but I guess I want to -- if you can categorize the waiting list for all of the various jobs and departments as best you can, if you can summarize that. I know that's a lot of information to pull together.
I would be more comfortable providing that information to Council after I've had an opportunity to look at that data. That data is certainly available. The number is in the thousands because we have, as you know, many, many different job categories in the City. That information is readily available and I can easily provide it to you.
All right, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 25 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
Thank you very much. Any other questions for Ms. Seyda? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. I'd like to bring up a panel now of Joe Vignola, Denise Earley, and Fred Voigt. And while they're coming to the table, I'd like to offer for the record a couple of written testimonies, one from a gentleman by the name of Steve Novak from Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- I'll just read you one paragraph in his letter. "I've been a police officer over six years. I spent the first four years working in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, and still maintain a valid certification from Pennsylvania. With this certification already in place, I could save the City almost nine months that would spent in the Academy and could start on the road right away. I've spent the last two and a half years as a police officer here in Fort Lauderdale. In the six years, I have attended numerous training classes and gained valuable on-the-job experience which I know would make me an added asset to the Philadelphia Police Department. I'm also an army 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 veteran of the Gulf War and an Eagle Scout from my youth. The other letter is from Jonathon Saidel; I'll read one paragraph. "While the Philadelphia residency provision was enacted to ensure that City residents fill City jobs, it dramatically shrinks the talent pool and clearly limits the City's ability to use civil service employment as a magnet to attract new residents. To enlarge the potential pool of candidates for City jobs, the City should alter its residency requirement to permit non-Philadelphians to apply and be hired for City employment." And third, I have a memo from the William R. Thompson, the Acting City Solicitor, which in short reads: "You requested my opinion regarding legal issues raised for Bill No. 010493. Bill 493 would amend the portion of the Philadelphia Code addressing the residence requirements of the civil service employees. In my opinion, the bill would be lawful if adopted by City Council. If passed into law, however, the change in the residency requirement will likely be considered a change in terms and conditions of civil service employees' 27 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 employment that will require the City to bargain with employees' union representatives before the change can be put into effect." (Copies of above communications attached hereto.) (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you very much for your patience and attendance and please identify yourself for the record in any order you'd like to go.
I'm Denise Earley, Director of Public Policy for the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce.
I'm Joseph C. Vignola, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, known as PICA.
I'd just like to add my voice to yours with regard to the Personnel Director. Linda Seyda has really been a treasure and will be 28 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 sorely missed by not only people in government but certainly people like myself who watch government. She has been an absolute gem. Anytime that I've needed information relative to anything within her domain, she's been more than forthcoming and more than helpful and always cheerful. And we'll miss her.
We agree. Thank you. Whoever wants to start, it will be fine.
I'm Denise Earley, Director of Public Policy for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and I'm delighted to come before you today in support of Bill No. 010493 and 010509, eliminating the pre-employment residency requirements for all civil service employees. From an equity perspective, the Chamber concurs that one uniform residency policy is in the best interests of City employees. But beyond that, giving people a reasonable amount of time to become 29 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 residents is more in tune with running the City like a business. The Chamber represents over 6,000 members, none of whom require an employee to live in a certain area for a certain of time as a precondition for employment. Whether it is by modifying the residency requirements, adjusting age requirements, or requiring college credits, every measure should be taken to ensure the recruitment of the highest caliber City employee. As you know, the Chamber has always supported measures that encourage people to move into the City, and this bill would do just that. In these economically distressed times, it is even more incumbent upon the City to create incentives to not only move into the City but to stay in the City, and I can't think of a better incentive to stay in the City than a job. As we persuade people to move into the City, the need for more housing will spur job growth and economic development. This will benefit all Philadelphians. Another reason why it is so important to enlarge the City's potential talent pool is the baby boom syndrome. As the City's civil service 30 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 and file ages, many will, or already have, signed up for the City's DROP Program, and consequently, the City will need to draw from a skilled base to fill these critically needed positions, particularly in the Police and Fire Departments. We feel certain that this bill, if passed, will have a great impact on the decisions of potential City employees/residents who, absent this bill, would be deterred from even considering moving into the city. Again, from business a perspective, this bill makes sense. The Chamber applauds the sponsors of the bill and hopes that the Rules Committee will vote it out with a favorable recommendation. Thank you for this opportunity.
In 1998 -- actually, in 1997, we undertook a governance study that focused on the Police Department of the City of Philadelphia. We also, as we engaged in that process, examined how other departments in other major cities go about their business of governance, and that included 31 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 looking at Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, and Indianapolis. What we found in most of those jurisdictions is that they don't have a pre-employment requirement, all right? They recruit wherever they can and however they can. It was interesting to note when we did this study that recruitment in Philadelphia back then was a rather haphazard affair. As you know, historically, this bill was adopted in 1953 over the protests of then-Mayor Joe Clark, and Joe Clark was heard to say in his opposition that you wouldn't want to have to choose the Phillies to put on the field if you could only choose the Phillies from Philadelphia, from amongst the pool of Philadelphia residents, but --
His exact quote was, "No one expects the Phillies to get all of their players from within Philadelphia, and yet, these same people somehow feel that the City should find all of its employees within its own geographic 32 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 bounds."
Well, in those days, I remember we were a lot larger and we had a bigger pool of people to choose from. In fact, a recruitment was unheard of; you didn't need to recruit for the departments. People wanted City jobs, they wanted to be police officers and firemen, and they arrived on your doorstep. And as a consequence, over a period of time, the recruitment drives atrophied. I remember when we were doing this study, we were going up to Temple where they were having a job fair, and New Jersey State Police were recruiting on campus, but not the Philadelphia Police Department. That's changed. Under this new administration, there has been a huge effort and emphasis, as Linda Seyda testified, to really go out and scour the community for applicants, the best and the brightest. And there are restrictions obviously when it comes to the Police Department. The problem is, the pool is dwindling. As she said, with the DROP Program, it's probable that a waiver is going to have to be required the next time out. 33 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 And let me tell you, from my conversations with others about recruitment, we're competing. Even if we were to remove this requirement, we're competing with every department in the country. New York has spent in the last year millions and millions of dollars recruiting candidates, and to take the police example, it's just completely the reverse of what it historically it had been. People are looking for other jobs. Now, with the economic downturn, that may reverse slightly, but for example, last year -- you heard Linda Seyda refer to the recruitment of military veterans. Well, guess what? The military itself is very reluctant to see the people that they have trained go, so they have retention programs. They don't have any desire to cooperate in any big way with somebody who's attempting to steal their people. So there are impediments to that, beyond which, there's geography. Most of the military bases are in the South, where it's warm, and if you're going to be a cop and you want to get out of the military, the tendency is you want to stay where you are. You don't want to come up unless 34 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 you grew up here, where it's cold. I mean, those are the bitter facts of life. So the point I'm making is it's difficult, and it will become increasingly difficult, to get the best and brightest under the best of circumstances. Now, the wages -- let me tell you the -- of the police officers. When you compare them to other jurisdictions, we're not really competitive, and it's a major impediment. The flow is not into the City; it's out of the City. I mean, how many police officers do you know -- I can think of a whole bunch of 'em, starting with Michael Chitwood, who aren't here. They're in Portland, Maine, they're someplace else, they're in the 'burbs, because they can go up the ladder be a chief, and they get paid a lot more. So the times are coming, and we know that those times are coming, when the pool will no 21 longer be adequate. There just aren't enough folks left that want to have that kind of job -- not the kind of jobs that Councilman Clarke talked about. I'm talking about in the Police Department itself. We're adequately staffed in the Fire 35 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 Department. We've heard testimony that that doesn't appear to be a problem. But nonetheless, any barriers to getting best and brightest are barriers that are going to burn us in the future.
What we can no longer afford, as we could in the past is to sit idly by and say, Okay, we can deal with the waiver. Now, waivers work, and there are waivers in place for a lot of different jobs that are hard to fill; but nonetheless, the fewer barriers we have, the better.
Thank you very much for your testimony. - - - 36 11/28/01 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Because we have an issue of a quorum requirement and we started late and the Council President has another meeting to go to, I'd like to momentarily recess the public hearing and enter into our public meeting, and recognize Councilmember DiCicco on motion Bill No. 8 010493. And then we'll come right back to testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010493 be approved and request a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, aye. Are there any opposed?
Yes? There's one opposed. Let the record show that Councilmember Clarke opposed the motion on Bill No. 010493. All others voted in favor of the bill. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 010509.
Thank you, 37 11/28/01 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 010509 be approved and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
It's moved and seconded. All those in favor aye? Are there any opposed? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010509 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. Also, 010493 will be reported out of this committee favorably with a request for a rules suspension. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 010526.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 010526 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) 38 11/28/01 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 010526 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. - - - 39 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
Now we will resume our hearing on these two bills in front of us. (Referring to Bills No. 010493 and 010509.) The Chair recognizes Joe Vignola.
Good morning, Councilman Kenney and members of the committee. My name is Joseph C. Vignola and I'm currently the executive director of the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, and I'm pleased to testify this morning in regard to the proposed changes in the residency requirement for all civil service employees. Although this issue is one that does not appear to fall within the financial oversight authority of PICA, I take a personal interest because in prior government service, I had the opportunity to criticize, support, and enforce, as City Controller, the residency requirement of the City of Philadelphia. But in addition to my personal following of these rules and regulations and ordinances in the City of Philadelphia, PICA believes that the residency requirements, as they currently exist, 40 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 limit the ability of Philadelphia to attract, as the other witnesses have said at this panel, the most qualified applicants. This is one factor that prevents the City from achieving the most efficient and cost-effective government possible. PICA believes that these requirements are another factor in the inability of the City to attract new residents. All of these result in an impact on the fiscal and financial health of the City of Philadelphia. PICA staff reviewed the requirements as they currently exist and looked at residency for some other municipal governments. While there may be some limited benefit achieved from increased wage-tax collections from individuals moving into the City in order to apply for a civil service position, it is impossible to accurately identify the specific amount. I do believe that the amount is fairly small and is most likely outweighed by the loss in the applicant quality and cost efficiency for Philadelphia. Throughout my career in government, I have advocated uniformity within government rules. It 41 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 prevents the appearance of favoritism, simplifies the bureaucratic process. As such, I strongly favor the adoption of Bill 010493, which would create one uniform residence policy for all City employees. Some may argue, as has been said, in other cities which change residency requirements that making this change at this time is a sign of desperation. To the contrary. I believe that amending the residency requirement is a show of strength. I believe that Philadelphia is a great city with many wonderful attributes for potential residents. This amendment gives us the opportunity to bring in highly qualified people and sell them on the City for at least the first six months of their employment. It is, in essence, a recruitment for new workers and new residents. In light of the current weak economy and Philadelphia's recent history of losing jobs and residents, we should make every effort to bring new people in and introduce them to our city. They will bring the skills, the knowledge we need, and we can show them what a special place Philadelphia is. 42 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 With that, I conclude my testimony and be able to -- would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Mr. Voigt, in your written testimony, you referenced police officers, but I didn't see any specific reference to other employees. Is it your contention that you support the residency waiver -- well, not necessarily the waiver -- the change in the law that will allow police officers only to have -- or are you talking across the board?
We're in favor of broader language rather than just dividing up by job category. However, we feel most strongly about the Police Department because we feel that that's where the biggest problem lies and where the biggest problem will lie in the future. And I want to emphasize that there's no 43 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 magic to this. That is, we're competing with people all over the country for police recruits. And that doesn't mean we're going to win that battle, but we can't win that battle unless we're fully engaged. And that's why we are most urging and putting the emphasis on the Police Department rather than focusing on the broader question, but we're in favor of the broader removal. It's not going to mean that the City residents can't get prioritized, can't get a premium -- you can certainly do that -- but it shouldn't be a barrier.
So why -- why is it that you're in support of changing the residency requirement for other than --
Yeah, because I think that when you go through waivers, waivers sometimes give the appearance of not being fair, of not being fairly applied. I don't happen to believe that but that's something that they can certainly 44 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 communicate. We absolutely support the residency requirement for all City employees, and that's across the board; even though that, by the way, has been weakened substantially by the City solicitor's opinion, which we think was clearly in error. But as it was litigated all the way to the United States Supreme Court, the lead case on the residency requirement came out of Philadelphia, and it was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Nonetheless, this solicitor's opinion came along, and as it happened, as you may recall, involving Kevin Tucker.
But insofar as the pre-employment requirement, we think it unnecessarily places a barrier to the ability of the City to get the best and the brightest.
All right, but if we have an overabundance of qualified, other than police officers if you want to take that out of the discussion for the moment, why would we feel the need to increase the number of applicants?
We have a number of very 45 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 qualified applicants for lots of different positions, but as the prior testimonies, there are at least 90 waivers for different positions. I just don't happen to think --
Okay. I'm inclined to believe that they're more specialized positions and not the general workforce. And I guess my question is --
Centering more around the general workforce, what I don't understand is if there's an overabundance of qualified applicants for positions, why do we --
They should get priority. There's a way that you can provide for prioritizing, for advantaging, giving --
Well, why would you prioritize it if you already have a overabundance?
No, no, my point is, you can 46 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 provide for a bonus plan that advantages City residents.
Now, you referenced the unfairness, and I'm saying, you know, some people might say --
We give military preference. We have a military preference, for example.
I mean, there are other ways you can do it so that you're not disadvantaging City residents at all.
Well, I guess I'm just unclear as to what is the need to change the residency requirement for a position when it's been stated on the record that there's a overabundance of applicants for those positions and qualified applicants. What's -- I mean, I don't understand 47 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 that.
As the sponsor of the bill, what I would argue is, is that we don't have any idea of the number of people and the talented people that we're not even getting to apply because they say, Look, I'm not going to invest and buy a house, get an apartment, move into the City, wait for a year, and then see if I can get a job. We can't even quantify the number of people who refuse to even apply or are kept from applying because of the way the law, the way it exists now. We could use the best and brightest everywhere. And one of the things I'd point to is when we have the ability to hire people from out of town, we certainly do. And if you look at the commissioner's level, in almost every department in the City, they're from somewhere else. We have a tremendous Streets Commissioner from California, I believe; our energetic and tremendous Commissioner of the Recreation Department is from "Nawlins" (New Orleans); we have a police commissioner from New York. I'm sure there are a number of other people from Human Services and places that have come from 48 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 other cities. So I guess the point is, if we're looking for the best and brightest around the country at the top, why shouldn't we be looking for the best and brightest in the middle and on the lower end? And having the benefit to boot of a new resident moving into the City with their family? I mean, I think you can't lose.
But I think that we can't quantify the number of applicants for the existing positions that are --
But you don't know how they match up around other people around the country 'cause the other people can't apply.
Well, what I've been told is that there are qualified applicants that are City residents.
They may be qualified applicants, but don't we want the most qualified applicants?
But we won't know until we change the law and let other people apply. 49 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
Well, maybe the private sector can -- I mean, I can't imagine a company in this world that would limit themselves to hiring somebody just from one geographic area. I mean, to me, you can't run a company that way, and you're not getting the best talent if you say, I'm only going to hire from Camden, I'm only going to hire from Philadelphia, I'm not even looking at an application from any other part of the country 'cause we don't want to be bothered with them.
Yeah, but you're suggesting -- and I'm sure you're not, but it sounds like you're suggesting that somehow we don't have a qualified workforce.
How do you know that we can do better? I mean, what's that based on?
I'm sorry, you're 50 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 right, we can't do any better, forget it, we can't do any better. It's a lost cause.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, having run a department in City government that had to recruit from the civil service list -- and that's the auditing department in the City of Philadelphia -- I can tell you, back in the '80s, when I was trying to recruit minority and female professionals to be auditors on my staff, I was at a distinct disadvantage. I was at a distinct disadvantage because we tried to recruit in the local collegiate pool. Now, granted, you had to have the special qualifications. The Charter requires that you have a bachelor's in business administration or a bachelor's in accounting. So it's not the general workforce. We went to area colleges, and I had a special emphasis to try to recruit minorities and females. I was very unsuccessful because at the time, the technical requirement is, you had to be a resident one year before you took the civil service test -- forget getting employment, one year before you took the test. We had a waiver granted to that 51 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 so people could take the test. Then on top of that, because it was a professional position, I had the additional disadvantage of saying, We would like you to work in the controller's office; however, you have to take the civil service test in April. That same applicant -- in many instances, they were minorities and females -- would walk across the street to the then-Meridian Tower that housed two larger accounting firms, and they would interview. Those managing partners would see the same qualities that I saw and say, Can you start in April?
So in recruiting, I had that problem that we were able to work with one. And I guess all that I'm testifying to is, Philadelphia has very bright people, they have the best and the brightest. We already have preferences for veterans. We could establish a preference, whether it's for laborer, whether it's for semiskilled worker, whether it's for an auditor, whether it's for an accountant, whether it's for a management trainee 52 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 for Philadelphia residents, but let us at least try to get the best pool possible from across the country. Now, we may put the invite out and give a party and nobody will come, but at least let's give the party.
In your speech, you referenced the civil service test as an impediment. Are you suggesting that we don't --
No, no. In my remarks, as city controller -- I'm only using it in that one example 'cause I want to set the record straight -- that I had trouble recruiting minorities and females, right, for two reasons. The first reason was that in the civil -- one of the reasons is, and I'll answer your question, was in the civil service test, that when I saw an outstanding applicant, whether they were a Philadelphia resident, attending a Philadelphia college, a Philadelphia resident attending a non-Philadelphia college, or a non-Philadelphia resident attending a non-Philadelphia college, right? In order for me to hire that person in a professional capacity, I had to say they had to 53 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 take a civil service test, that the interview was not sufficient. In many instances, I could get over that because I was able to convince them, using other incentives about the need not to travel and the fact that we offered CPA training, but at the same token, when I was paying the salary that was not competitive with what first-year graduates of accounting programs were making with Big Eight or even small accounting firms, they would walk across the street on the same day, do an interview, and be offered a job.
So it was not the test itself but it was the requirements associated with the test.
No, no, no, it was both. Because what I'm saying is that I couldn't recruit with -- if I'm looking at minorities and females, I couldn't recruit minorities -- a sufficient pool of minorities and females because they were not eligible, not being Philadelphia residents. I could not go to West Chester, I couldn't go to Howard and recruit people because unless they were Philadelphia residents who were attending 54 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 those schools, I couldn't get them to take the test. So even when -- and people came for interviews, you know, wanting to take the test, and I got the waiver for them, but when I got the waiver for them, even on top of that, there was another impediment. I don't mean to mix the metaphor. One impediment was my ability to go out and recruit the sharpest pencils going, and I was limited especially when I was trying to change the demographics of the controller's office at the time. It was very difficult for me to do it because the people I was going after, the men and women that I was going after were sought-after. And I couldn't be competitive for two reasons: One, the residency requirement to take the test; and two, was, you know, taking the test. But we'll put that aside. I agree with the civil service position. None of us here are advocating doing away with that.
(Inaudible.) (Unintelligible; parties 55 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 talking over each other.)
-- and say that that was the only reason. There was another reason.
But I'm telling you, as a head of a department, trying to attract good people 'cause I believe the controller's office had to have the sharpest pencils. You know, if I'm going to find mistakes and find errors in other agencies of government, I figure I had the people who had the potential to be better and were, in fact, I think, you know, better auditors and accountants, and give them the proper training to succeed. But I couldn't attract those people because they weren't Philadelphia residents.
Let me ask you this question, and I guess any of you -- with respects to laborers, given that they're a lottery position, so it's essentially the luck of the draw, and increasing that pool decreases the Philadelphians. Are you saying that we should -- 56 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
You could give -- you know, if it's a thousand people, it's the first thousand Philadelphia residents.
What Councilman Clarke is saying, if I read him correctly, is that you have an overabundance, you already have Philadelphians applying in terms of $20,000 to $30,000 for labor positions. So the Civil Service Commission votes and says it's the first thousand Philadelphia residents; and if there's not a thousand Philadelphia residents that make that first thousand cut, there's only 900 applying, then we'll go for the other hundred who are not Philadelphia residents.
So when you pull that -- when you pull those names out of that hat and they're not Philadelphians, you just throw them aside.
Right, they get bumped 'cause they're -- we do the same thing with the 57 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 military, Councilman. If you scored 100 on the test and I scored 99 on the test, if you have prior military -- if I score 100 on a test and you score 99 on the test and you have prior military service, you get a preference ahead of me.
Well, my point is, it's not a test; it's a lottery, it's the luck of the draw.
But it's a ranking. All I'm suggesting is that it's a ranking. And you say we're only going to rank --
It's not a ranking; it's a lottery. It's not a ranking.
Well, they won't take the number -- they won't take 1,000; they'll take number on the list. They pull them out in a ranking order.
That's not my understanding. (Addressing Linda Seyda.) Can you clarify that, please? 58 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 (Linda Seyda returns to witness table.)
They pull out the first thousand, and each one is given a number, number 1 and --
My understanding is a lottery is a lottery, right? Looking at 6 o'clock at night, little balls drop down, nobody knows what they're going to be. I mean, that's --
That's right, but once they're given that number, it's their number.
For the laborer, we're calling -- it is in fact a lottery. We take all the applications. We have approximately 25,000 applications and we rank them randomly. So the first name out of hat is number on the list, the second name out of the hat is number on the list, the third name out of hat is number 3. When we get a thousand names on the list this year -- I think the last time we did it, we put 1500 names on. This time, we'll put a thousand names on, and those thousand individuals will be on that list for up to two years.
And those are the eligible individuals? 59 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
Yes. Those individuals will be eligible for consideration as their name is reached on the list.
So once those thousand individuals are listed that were picked out of a lottery, you're suggesting that the ones that are not City residents, right, are taken off of that thousand rank, and then we go get an additional whatever that number will be amount? I'm trying to understand your thinking in this.
Yes, yeah. If you don't have a thousand Philadelphia residents. But the Personnel Director testified that that's not going to be an issue. There will be more than a thousand Philadelphia residents.
The list will be restricted to Philadelphia residents, who will get a 60 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 preference.
And you could do it for a civil service test just like you do it for a military. (Addressing Linda Seyda.) Am I correct? You could give a residence preference.
The -- Well, I would like to have some further discussion with the attorneys before I go too far down this road. But the civil service regulations do provide for what we call "selective factor certification" for two categories: One is language and the other is residency. We have never used the -- used residency -- actually, we've never actually applied it, but the regulation is on the books. So I would think that you could use that in a way to provide preference for City residents. But, again, I think it would be appropriate to have some further discussion with the attorneys.
Okay, thank you. 61 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509
I want to emphasize a most important problem, the one directly in front of us, which is the Police Department. So while we may debate and argue about the broader problem, action, I think, really requires addressing.
I actually voted for that in the committee, that bill.
I think we all agree that the staffing of the Police Department is going to be an important issue over the next couple of years.
Thank you. Lorraine Brill, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. I'm Lorraine Brill. I live at 814 Disston Street and am a resident of Philadelphia all my life. I didn't even know this hearing was being held today, and I just happened to come in 'cause I'm going to stay for a later hearing. But I have to give you the benefit of my experience. 62 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 I'm a retired civil service of the City. I was hired in 1962, worked for 30 years, and retired in 1993. And I do have to tell you is my experience in working with community and so on, I think it's very important that residency in Philadelphia get the main preference, that we keep things the way they are. I can't speak for the Police Department. I worked for the Free Library and I saw many people come into the system through civil service. If they had had to compete with people outside the City who maybe had come in, they would not have had their jobs. And I have to say that everybody that went through the training and the civil service became excellent employees of the City. I know when I took the test, if there had been people from outside the City, I might not have gotten the job 'cause they were only hiring 10 people at the time I got hired. We do have a waiver ability and I know in the library, they used waiver abilities when they had a hard time getting people and so on. But we also ran into the problem where 63 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 people come in from outside the City, then when they have to move in, they leave 'cause they didn't want to move into the City. This could happen with the Police Department. They come in, they get the training, and then they leave because now they can go someplace else because we paid for them to train and they don't want to stay. I think we're underestimating, that we do have a large pool of talent here in the City already. And regardless of what's going on with the schools, we happen to know that we have some excellent schools in the City and there are people. So I think you have people here -- we're already -- we have job access programs, we're transporting people out to King of Prussia for jobs. We need to support the people that are already in the City and need the jobs. And it's very nice to try to get people to move in, but they will move in for other things.
Lorraine, with all due respect -- they're not moving in, Lorraine, they're moving out
We need to take care of the people that are here first, and there are many, 64 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 many people looking for jobs.
Let me ask you a question. If you owned a bookstore -- instead of being a librarian, you owned a bookstore on Cottman Avenue and you were interviewing people to come in and work in your bookstore, and you came across a young man or woman that was really brilliant, really loved books, understood the business, was well red, was conversant, was a great personality, and find at the end of the application or the end of the interview that the person lived in West Chester; would you not hire that person because they lived outside the City?
Yes, and I'll tell you why: Because you want somebody who's reliable and is going to be there every day and lives close to where they work. And that's very important because if --
So you think residency is the first and most important element of hiring someone?
As a beginning, but then, you know, they still have to take the test and you still get qualified people within. If you have a 65 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 position -- and I know that waivers are in like the medical field where there's a hard time, you know, and specialty people that you might have a hard time getting people. But as long as the people pass the test with, you know, passing grades and they meet it and you have a list and there are qualified people, we should be supporting those people; we shouldn't be paying welfare for them when we can give them jobs. And they're already here in the City. There are people that are dedicated to living in the City that don't want to move out, but sometimes they're forced to move out because they can't get a job in the City. And I can only say, you know, over the 30 years that I worked with the people -- my husband was also manager of the Finance Department. When he was there, he had people working for him who he trained and who moved up the ladder. And there are people available. And I would like to see Philadelphia residents who have made this city important and who live here -- I'm not saying the people from someplace else, you know, wouldn't want to stay here because I have seen that happen, but 66 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 we do have a lot of people that need jobs and I would like to see them get first crack at everything. That's my feeling.
I just want to say that I agree with you a thousand percent. The reality is that I think that individuals who have made the commitment, not speculatively, but they've made the commitment, they've stayed in the City of Philadelphia or are seeking gainful employment should be given that opportunity. I think the reality is that our ability to attract people to the City -- if you talk about the ability to get a City job, I think that's real low down on the list, to be honest with you. The people that left didn't leave because, you know, they weren't able to get a City job; there were a 67 11/28/01 RULES - BILLS 010493, 010509 lot of other reasons.
And while I understand the concept of increasing opportunities to bring residents into the City, I just think that in this particular case, particularly in those categories where we have a substantial and overabundance of individuals who are already on the ranks, waiting to be hired, waiting to be interviewed, I think that's the wrong way to go. So I want to thank you very much for your testimony.
Good luck. Let's see what happens in the next ten years when we lose another hundred thousand people. Thank you very much for your attendance. (Proceedings end at 11:32 a.m.) - - - 68 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Council Committee on Rules of Wednesday, 11/28/01, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Ordinance No.'s 010493, 010509, 010526 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)