You get the benefit because you have been in public school and because you have graduated from public school.
Well, I appreciate your effort to respond to the question. I think that's probably not a response that I'm going to give in the example that I pointed out. And I think they'll probably be a little more conversation and discussion. My last question is, how many students do you expect will apply?
Right now I think the number might be anywhere from -- And I 54 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 don't have the finals, but -- you know, maybe about 2500 to 3,000 students right now. But it could have jumped since the last time I checked.
So you're saying every graduate? Every graduate is going to apply?
No. I didn't say they would because not every graduate would have plans right now to go on to college.
No. I'm sorry. Let me take back the question. You said earlier you thought that about 3,000 young people had -- of the eight or nine thousand who graduated last year went to college. So now you're saying that every young person who's going to college is going to apply?
I'm saying we are encouraging as many students as possible because as I'm sure, you know, students may be applying to a variety of colleges, some of which might be eligible for the core 55 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 scholarship and others of which would not. So we would certainly encourage every student who has plans to go on to college and encouraging students to make those plans to also fill out an application.
No; I understand that. My question is: You've got 11 schools. What I want to know is, what's 12 your anticipated application for the 13 scholarships to these 19 schools for the 14 upcoming graduating class? 15
Your response 17 was 2500 to 3,000. Your earlier testimony 18 was that only 3,000 students from last 19 year's graduating class went to college.
And I also said I wanted to check those numbers; maybe it was a little bit higher. But the same students who could -- I'm not sure why that's a...
No. But that's what I'm 6 saying. But the same student who might 7 have applied, for example, to a private 8 university might also apply to West 9 Chester. And as of April she may not know 10 which college she will ultimately attend. 11
So she would... And we 13 would encourage her to also complete the 14 application for the core scholarship even 15 if she ends deciding to go to Gettysburg. 16
I understand that. Then those dollars are available for someone else.
Thank you very much, Councilman. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be remiss not to comment on this important educational issue, since it was our last October that brought it to the attention of my colleagues. And I need to do a couple things: One, acknowledge and assure or reassure my colleagues that under the leadership of Juan Ramos, I am completely optimistic that we will resolve the issue of insuring that all Philadelphia students who deserve this educational opportunity get it. That was the intent at the door. And we're working daily to make sure that we resolve this prior to the close of budget; and secondly, to say thank you for initially at least supporting the concept 58 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 last October of a core scholarship program. You'll recall that in that initial correspondence, we asked for and received your support to support the concept for startup costs, knowing full well, as is indicated also in that correspondence, that we had a lot of work to do to ensure and make sure that parochial students and private school students get this opportunity as well. So in closing, again, Juan Ramos, Councilman Ramos and I are in conversation, dialogue regularly, because we recognize we have to get over this hurdle and make it an inclusive opportunity for every single high school student in the City of Philadelphia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Kahn, I found it startling, not just interesting but startling. Councilman Ramos mentioned meetings with still an 59 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 ongoing conversation. Talking about how difficult explaining something is. We have a deadline of April 15th. And I want to go back on the applications. Nothing's been pushed back in case there is a decision to allow all Philadelphia... all students of Philadelphia taxpayers. So it seems to me that the decision's been played. At the same time we're going to keep the conversation going, which means nothing, if the decision's been made and April 15th is the last day. So, I'm going to assume on April 13th that if come April 15th that's still the deadline, that the decision has been made, and people are going to have to act accordingly. Discrimination... Whether it's intended... A lot of times it isn't intended. Councilwoman Tasco just -- and I were just having a discussion earlier about an Ebay situation. It was not intended by 60 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 Ebay. But once they discovered it, once they saw the magnitude of it, they have entered into a conductive dialogue. I don't want to jump the gun on anything, but it seems like it's been much more productive than this one. And I don't know how you defend this kind of discrimination, once it's been presented, once it's been made clear. And when you have a situation that is inherently unfair to begin with, that everyone is willing to live with... Last year, the last term, when, you know, some people in Council were accused of being pro Street and others anti Street, there was some uniting issues. One was condominium trash pickup. People paid taxes and didn't have their trash picked up, and other people paid tax and had their trash picked up. And there is a large discrimination issue. The Mayor didn't want to either pick up their trash or give them a credit. 61 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 I believe the vote in City Council was nothing. And I think it was the same after a veto. I believe the matter's in Court. But Council members felt very strongly a nerve had been hit. Every once in a while a nerve gets hit in this City among a fairly quiet populous, just the average taxpayer. And PGW hit one in the last couple of weeks, with their surcharge. And I believe among all those people that have the extra sacrifice of sending their kids to a parochial, private religious school in this City, knowing full well they still have to pay the same taxes as if they have their children going for free to the public school, and are willing to accept that, that this crosses the line. And I don't know how you expect Council members, who feel so strongly about trash discrimination, to feel any differently about education discrimination, whether it's one of the finest Congressmen in the country who initiated the program or 62 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 whether it came out of the Mayor's Office or any place else in the School District, it still has the same problem attached to it. And so I'm going to assume that I don't expect to hear anything in the next two days that I haven't heard in the past several months, that the decision's been made. Maybe sometime in the future it will change. 2 isn't in the budget until it passes. It's just a recommendation. So, I think, number one, it speaks volumes of... I can't call it anything else but arrogance, that you would have a deadline without a decision by the legislative body to put the money in the budget, with many Council members 63 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 expressing different levels of concern, and I think concern throughout the Council, that this is discriminatory. Councilman Nutter brought out some great areas. You've got people going to the same schools that students went to last year.
You have no way of distinguishing whether -- This is in the public school system, now -- whether we're just going to get an extra $3,000 -- and certainly you're entitled to anything they can get, as any student is -- but that we're going to put one more person in college. These are structural problems within a school system. These are not wave $3,000 out there and all of a sudden you're going to increase the situation. Kids in Catholic schools and other private religious schools aren't any richer. In fact, they may be poorer because of the extra expense that their parents have. Yet they have higher percentages. Are we talking to the parochial schools and 64 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 the other schools that have the higher college percentages and saying, what are you doing differently culturally in your schools that takes the entire four years into consideration, not waving money at the last minute and hoping that there's a change, a change you can't define. It sends such a bad message that I hope somebody is listening, whether it's at the Parkway, 21st and the Parkway, whether it's in Congressman Fattah's Office, whether it's Mayor Street's Office, that this really is intolerable situation. This isn't just we'll try -- we'll try to make it better. It's -- Either it is discriminatory or it isn't. Right now it is. And I hope we can't treat it any differently than we did condominium trash. Thank you.
Thank you. Over the weekend the Philadelphia Inquirer released a study that showed our 65 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 City lost the most people, that is, residents out of a City; that they went to Jersey or suburbs, or where have you. With that in mind, the core scholarship program discredits the hard-working middle class taxpayers of my District and gives them fewer and fewer reasons to stay. More than 60 percent of parents in my District send their children to private or parochial schools. First of all, they would have not opt out if the public school system worked. So now they have to pay school taxes for schools they don't use. They sacrifice and pay tuition for their children's school, the child's school. And you want me to tell them that the tax dollars again will help everyone but them. So tell me, why should they stay?
Well, again, we do hope that the program, however, also gives credit to the 40 percent who, you know, 66 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 members in your District and the thousands of families across the City who do choose public school. I do, you know, hear your concerns, as I heard them last week.
No. I hear your objections, however you would characterize it. I would just want to clarify one thing, and a point that Councilman O'Neill raised. The deadline was set for when it was. And in fact, we did move it back, I think, at least once or twice, in order to get the maximum participation. But the volume, in any event, of the public school students would be greater, you know, than students in any other schools, so we needed that time to be able to process the applications and make sure they were all correct. Certainly if any kind of arrangement can be worked out, then it would be done not in a false way, and there would be 67 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 accommodations made, certainly, on the rest of the timetable, so that if in fact a decision is made for other students to participate, that they would in fact be able to do that.
Well, I, like Councilman O'Neill and Councilman Rizzo and others, I'm not prepared to vote on this at all. I just feel it's the worst discrimination against any schools that I ever heard of.
Yes. It was my understanding that the deadline had been extended again. Is that true or... It was my understanding that it was extended further past April 15th.
It was, again, originally, I think in March. And then we moved it to April 15th. If it has been, I am not aware of it. I can certainly go back and check. But again, that was -- that was a 68 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 timetable for the current -- currently participating students, the public school students, and what was thought to be needed for those students. Of course, if any kind of arrangement is in fact worked out with the Archdiocese or any other schools, then we would make yet another adjustment in order to allow those students to participate.
So I think you need to extend this indefinitely until we can come to agreement of this City Council.
Make it very simple. You hear the sentiment of this Council. And I don't know if there's anything to work out with the Archdiocese. When you have taxpayer dollars being used, as Councilman Nutter pointed out, for a 69 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 program or a project, there should be no 3 discrimination. So, shouldn't be any discussion about ongoing dialogue, going to a discussion. Should be a decision made that the program will be open to all school children, period. That's what you should be saying, bottom line. Because you cannot discriminate with taxpayers dollars: Who gets it, who doesn't get it, unless it's based on some other income kind of thing that's been established. But when you talk about those dollars, those parents pay those dollars just like we all pay, through Wage Tax, through their employment. And I just agree there can be no discrimination. So, you know, that said, it should be just, look, we're going to make it happen, bottom line. Because it's not going anywhere. D.O.A.
Thank you. Councilman Rizzo and then Councilman 70 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 Nutter.
It's just a point of information. I'll be brief. I think what I need to hear today -- And I think you're hearing from it my colleagues. We need some specifics here. We need to hear you say absolutely that there's no April 15th deadline. We need you to tell us a date certain of when these conversations would be completed with the Archdiocese, because I can't imagine the Archdiocese not wanting this, and I think they'd do marathon around the clock to nail down opportunities for their students to receive scholarships. So, I think what I need to hear from you is give me a date when you'll have a decision for us, because I'm having really a problem, and I think you're having a problem here today trying to convince us that there's work in progress here. But I need to know when you're going to have a definitive answer about this program.
I certainly hear loud and 71 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 clear that you want to have an answer to this program before the decision will have to be made on the budget. I do not, quite honestly, have the authority right now to tell you that there can be that decision made on such and such a date. But I will certainly take this back and... you know, all of the comments that I -- you know, were made today.
Well, if the budget is not going to fly, I think that that -- I think I would whisper in the lady next to your ear or take a two-minute recess and figure this out, because this really needs to get addressed; it really does. And you tell -- Did I hear you say that you don't know the date? I mean, if you don't know, who does?
I said that I didn't have the authority right now to give you the date.
No, no, no. The 72 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 April 15th date.
The date, again -- And I want to make this clear. I mean, that was the date that, of course, was established to apply for the students who are currently in the program, as we know them, which are the public school students. I actually am not aware of any reason why that timetable can't proceed because, again, there's time that's needed to make sure those applications are complete and thorough, and all the rest. But I don't see how that has any bearing, if another group of students ends up participating in the program. What I'm saying is, obviously, and certainly they would operate according to a timetable that was pushed back. And so, one set of deadlines for the public school students shouldn't have to absolutely apply to any additional students who would be --
I understand that. But you're telling me the date for 73 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 the current eligible students is April 15th, and that ends on April 15th.
Again, that was the last information I had. If someone at the School District, again, for a reason that -- I mean because I'm not there on a day-to-day basis.
Don't you think that's something -- Again, I don't want to be disrespectful. You have a significant position in this Administration. Wouldn't you consider it an insult that you don't -- that they would change a date so significant that you wouldn't know that?
Thank you, Madam 74 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 Chair. Miss Kahn, just a couple of other questions. First, the information, the series of questions that I asked you earlier, some of the more data-driven questions -- And I understand that you want to go back to the shop and be able to check. What I wanted to know is, when will you be able to forward that information to the Chair so that I could know what the actual answers are?
Certainly this week, if not today. Depends what time I get out of here. No. I mean, I can, you know, do it probably today or tomorrow at the latest.
Okay. So for those questions I'll have answers today or tomorrow about that.
Okay. In line with Councilman Rizzo's comments, I guess, which goes back to what I asked you 75 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 earlier, in terms of just who is running the program, if... Councilman Ramos mentioned it. He thought the deadline had been extended. Who is actually in charge of the deadline and who could make that decision?
This is a brand new initiative that has a lot of parts to it. And so, we have been functioning as a... in a team approach initially, with me representing the Administration, where I want to --
Well, initially with the School District representative in charge of the high schools and --
Why don't we start with this. Who are the members of the team?
Craig Williams, who is 76 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 the Deputy Chief Academic Officer for the School District, in charge of high schools.
And Jacqueline Barnett who is staff aide, staff member to Congressman Fattah.
We have done that collectively, and at the last time, again, in March, when the initial deadline had been set, we decided collectively that, in fact, that should be moved back.
April 15th. So the last collective decision was April 15th that all three parties signed off on.
So is there a requirement that all three parties agree? 77 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
I'm wondering whether it would not be advisable for us to recess these hearings to give Miss Kahn a chance to talk or find out who she should talk to to get the information and report it to us, because it seems to me we've got to live or deal with the problem that we face, instead of being told these vague stories of maybe, and I don't know who. Let's find out the answers.
I would like to suggest, Councilman Nutter, if you would, that perhaps we ought to think in terms of recessing these hearings until we get these answers. 78 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
Well, Councilman, I think under the circumstances, this is actually the first office that's up in hearings today. This is one component of, you know, a page and a half of testimony. I think that shortly Miss Kahn will probably be able to leave. We have many other people that we're going to ask questions of. And I think Miss Kahn should then be able to do exactly what you said, and even come back to us later on today. We'll probably be here for a little bit.
So, Miss Kahn, is there an agreement among the three parties that deadlines can only be changed with the agreement of the three parties? Is that the way it works in the team approach?
There's no written agreement to that effect, but our operating understanding is that that should happen, 79 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 yeah.
Okay. Let me ask this question: If, along the lines of where Councilwoman O'Neill was, today's the 13th; the deadline is the 15th. If the decision with regard to participation by all students, regardless of system from which they may be graduating, if that component is not changed by the 15th and some how, some way it's not changed even prior to the budget being approved, come July 1, when the funds are available, will you go forward with the program as it is presently structured?
If the funds are included in the budget, then, yes, it would be the intention to proceed with the core scholarship practice, if that's...
Excluding the students outside of public school system at the moment, because you don't have an agreement on that. That was my question. If you don't make a decision to change the program by the 15th which is the current 80 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 team decision deadline, if the budget is approved by May 31st, and these funds are included in the Mayor's Office budget for the scholarship program, if there's no 6 change in the guidelines of the program in terms of who's eligible and who's not at the moment, notwithstanding all the conversation and discussions and meetings that are going on, when the budget becomes available on July 1, 2004, will you take this program forward with eligibility only for public school graduates?
My understanding is that we would proceed as we have begun, and that, yes, the program would be put into effect as it has been previously described.
Okay. Now, with regard to all the discussions that are going on -- and I'm glad that you're having conversation with the Archdiocese -- and obviously you can have discussions with whomever you want to have discussions with. What I don't understand is, you don't need to have a discussion with the 81 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 Archdiocese or anyone else with regard to the City's $4 million. You can make that decision today about our participation and who's eligible for City dollars. There's a subsequent argument that probably could be made by others in public or other forums in which they want to argue about the School District's money because the School District doesn't have any money of its own. It has money from taxpayers at the various levels that people pay their tax. It comes back to the District. The District has an obligation to provide some services to non-public school students, either by consent decree, court decision or just general good public policy. But there's nothing preventing you from making a decision with regard to the City tax dollars and participation at all, is there?
I think that the question has been the terms of the participation and the affordability of that participation. 82 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
You don't know how many people are going to participate. We've already established that.
That's right. And that's a reason why we need to be a bit cautious. When the program was originally designed, again, there was no intent to exclude --
Well, your caution is determined by making a distinction between what school system you went to versus any other criteria, because your --
Let me finish. Your answer earlier was, as long as you meet the eligibility criteria, you can apply, and you'll probably get a scholarship.
The caution was actually in the original design, expressed in a variety of ways. One way was by capping the per student amount of the scholarship, number one. 83 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
Secondly, by limiting the number of colleges. So limiting it to that subset of colleges.
I understand the decision. I may disagree, but I understand the decision. That --
That still doesn't exclude anyone, regardless of what school they went to, based on those criteria --
-- but I'm trying to explain to you why we're very cautious in our financial outlook. Thirdly, the decision was made that the scholarship funds could be available for only that first year, as opposed to continuing through. So, my point is --
-- that there were a variety of precautions, already limitations that were imposed on the program.
I can't vigorously disagree about any of it. It's only when you draw a line between two students who literally could live on the same block, whose parents made a decision, as is their right, to decide to send one kid to a public school, the other kid to some other school. They pay the same taxes on the same block to the same government, and we have no right under that circumstantial situation to tell the other parent, your child is not eligible for these City tax dollars to go on to college. We have no 20 right to do that. And you know that. I can't debate about a cap amount. I can't debate about, too vigorously, about the 14 schools, although I think we try to encourage the students to go to whatever school you can further your education in, 85 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 and get an application approved. There are any number of limits that could be put on, which we could have differences of opinion about, but they do not materially go to the issue of making the fine line distinction between what system you happen to get your education from, and now you're trying to go on to another system. It's not like the money is going to the system. The money is going for the student, and more than likely, probably not even going into their pocket. I'm assuming a check is being written as a part of a larger package to the college or university that they're going to, right?
Okay. So you've now made the decision that regardless of what happens, if we pass this in the form that it's in, and all these other things don't get worked out, the program is going to go forward. I would like to better understand 86 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 who makes the decision on the City dollar side. Again, you can have as many conversations with the Archdiocese as you want. That's a different discussion. $4 million, City money... We don't need to have an outside conversation with anybody about how our dollars are spent; isn't that correct?
Okay. Now, the $10 million... And if everyone received the max, will serve 3,333 students, right?
You're going to get the numbers on how many people graduated, how many went to college, how many went to the 19 schools. 87 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
But you at least know that's the pool of availability. And do you expect that everyone will get the $3,000, and how will you -- Who will decide and how will they decide how much of the up to $3,000 a student receives?
Just simply based on the experience of, again, the students who have participated in the Philadelphia Scholarship Program.
And because the different schools have, you know, different amounts. For example, the students attending Community College, might -- their need might actually be, you know, less than somebody attending Temple, as an example.
Okay. So every 88 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 time someone doesn't receive the max, that's more money that's eligible for a broader number of students, right?
Okay. You think you might have some information for us later today, if we let you out of here?
Councilman Ramos. I'm sorry, Councilman Ramos. Councilman Clark first, then Councilman Ramos.
Thank you, Madam chair. Good morning. I wanted to ask a couple of brief questions about the positions added to the Mayor's Office to deal with government entities: State, local and Federal. I'm glad to some of you to see... 89 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
Councilman, can we finish on education and then call you?
Just for a point of information to my colleague, Councilman Nutter. Some of the research that I've done on this area of education will be eligible for scholarships. It is my... It is my understanding that there are approximately 3300 eligible seniors. And of those 3300, about 38 percent are from non-public high schools. As such a theory, there should be about 1200 plus non-public high school seniors that would apply that would qualify for or be eligible to apply for the core scholarship, if that's of any help to you. 90 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
Thank you. More concerns on education at this point. Councilman Ramos.
No. I want to thank Councilman Clarke for letting me put that in.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Kahn. So we'll look forward to you getting back to us with regard to this whole issue. Let me ask, Madam Chief of Staff: I haven't read it, but I've heard that there's in the press today there are articles with regard to the PGW issue. Could you clarify that? Because we know that that would affect not only our budget but the entire five-year plan, so that we understand just where we are.
I 91 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 understand this article says that the Mayor has agreed to forego the million for a 4 longer period, for four years, and also 5 that the 45 million be extended another at 6 least a couple years as well. So that 7 affects our entire five-year plan, and even 8 beyond the Mayor being in office. 9
The... The 10 Administration is... responds to concerns 11 raised by S & P, did represent that it 12 would not seek to collect the $18 million 13 for the next five -- this -- FY '04 and 14 four out years, and indicated that it would 15 approach City Council for legislation 16 authorizing the two-year extension on the 17 repayment of the $45 million loan. 18
Thank you. I have no idea what you said, but I'll catch up. Councilwoman Tasco and then Councilman Clarke. I'm sorry, Councilman, because you haven't had one time to speak. Would you yield to Councilman Clarke, please? 92 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
I was up on the question on the matter related to the Mayor's Office.
I'm sorry. You are correct, Councilman. Please continue.
Because I'm concerned if we start talking about PGW, I'll never get my shot.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask, with respects to the three positions that were added for purposes of lobbying and interacting with government agencies -- and I'm glad to see that at least as it relates to... I'm 93 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 assuming it was interacting with the City Council. Mr. Grace, who has done an admirable job to date, and given the fact that there's been a number of concerns raised throughout the past four years about interaction between Council and the Mayor, but I think that pales in comparison to the interaction between the state and the Administration. Can you talk to me about how that's structured and who in particular will be dealing with the state, given the recent takeovers, recent interaction, primarily in a negative respect, as relates to the state agencies and state legislators and the Administration in the City.
The Administration uses various resources in trying to interact with the state. We George Burrell, who's the Secretary of External Affairs is working with Shawn Foreman and Joe Grace and Kia Floyd, who are the members of the team. 94 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 We also have under contract various lobbyists, that work with us on interacting with the state, and also in our federal interactions. And they will have the responsibilities for managing and developing and servicing the relationships with the various legislative delegations, primary responsibility. You know, and -- You know, the staff is not so large that anybody can have an exclusive legislative body with which it will be interacting as a result.
So Mr. Grace, as an example, may from time to time deal with Council but also state and federal elected officials.
that's my expectation on how it will probably work in reality, when Council is not in session. You know, my guess is Joe will be dragged into other issues, you know, if there are things moving at the Federal level. 95 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 And we also have people throughout government that are involved. For example, every Friday, the Administration has a meeting with representatives from the Managing Director's Office, the Law Department, just across government, dealing in various areas. And they'll be working in this, providing the substantive background information that Joe or Shawn or George or the others will need.
Well, I think that, you know, the issues are interdisciplinary. A lot of... There are a lot of relationships to be managed. And it's more than any one person can do. Joe Grace, though, will have primary responsibility. When I look to somebody and want to know, you know, how does Council feel about a piece of legislation, my expectation is that Joe Grace will be the one that will have the, you know, the 96 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 view -- you know, have met, have talked with the Council members or their staff and have the most up-to-date view on what's going on.
So if it's a Council related matter, and we need to get a follow up, we should deal directly with Joe or do we start with George or work our way down or what? I'm just trying to get a sense of how this is going to be structured.
I think Joe is the point person. Each Council member has -- You know, my experience is different Council members have different relationships, have different ways they want to approach the Administration. Some -- You know, some are... you know, have a relationship, a preexisting relationship with Joe, have confidence in him, and so will go to Joe. But there are going to be other Council members that have different relationships. So, you know, it doesn't -- 97 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 It makes it challenging for everybody. But Joe is the person that I'll be -- you know, be turning to. It's Joe's job to... Joe has access to the Mayor, has access to me, has -- is developing relationships with all the Commissioners. They know and they hear from Joe that a Council member wants follow up on this or that, that they need to get back to Joe; that he is a point person, and that these the relationships with Council members are relationships that we value.
Talk to me about the state. Over the past couple years particularly there have been a number of problems with the state, i.e., either takeovers, i.e., legislation that we -- particularly the Administration does not see eye to eye. And without divulging your strategy, can you talk to me about what could possibly be done differently so we're not in a position to be concerned about the Redevelopment Authority or the Housing 98 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 Authority or any of the other authorities being taken over or any legislation being passed at the 11th and a half hour that could drastically affect the City of Philadelphia? I understand right now there's actually a bill that talks about... Councilman Cohen, I think you might be interested in this... that talks about taking powers away from the City as it relates to development, that the Parking Authority finds itself in. And it essentially prohibits our ability to zone or have any interaction or any involvement in any development that the Parking Authority would embark on, just simply bypassing all traditional City signoffs and zoning, and things of that nature. What are we going to do differently to make sure that doesn't happen?
The Administration changed its strategy, actually, midway through the last term. We began meeting 99 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 with groups of state legislators on a regular basis here, in both their concerns, and also trying to move the City's legislative agenda. We were very active with the delegation in -- in -- in working through the last budget, getting budget restorations around issues that were critical. And so we've got teams of City people working with legislators. And I think they would tell you that they understand the City's position on the various issues. Moving forward, we hope to have Shawn Fordham in particular playing a more direct role in trying to... in trying to lobby and manage those relationships -- develop the relationships and manage the relationships. We also hope to have, you know, the Mayor more directly involved; but, you know, there are no guarantees. It's a very -- 100 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
You said you're going to have the Mayor more involved?
And he has been involved. But it's a very fluid and challenging dynamic up in Harrisburg. And my expectation is that, you know, there will continue to be challenges for the City. We will use the array of resources that we have, both staff lobbyists, and just the whole array of relationships, trying to defend the City's positions.
I guess my time is up. I just want to have a follow-up question. With respects to our lobbyists, hired lobbyists, first, will we be keeping the same lobbyists in place? And if so, what will -- I mean, I'm assuming you will ask them to do things a little differently because in some respects they were unsuccessful on several issues. And if we were going to hire a new one, who would that be? And to a degree what would their directive be, without divulging a 101 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 strategy?
I don't have the list. I don't know if there's going to be a change in the lobbying team moving forward, but I can get back to you on that. I think the City -- this City has, you know, done we will on some fronts in Harrisburg over the last four years, so we don't want to change everything; but, you know... And I can get back to you with the list of the lobbyists that we intend to use.
Thank you, Councilwoman. And before I call on Councilwoman Tasco, I heard, Madam Chief of Staff, that you said the Mayor has agreed to forego the 18 million and defer, I suppose, the 45 million. 102 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 But our question is, how does it affect our duties, in terms of voting for a balanced budget?
The Administration will probably will have to amend the proposed PICA plan, the five-year financial plan, in order to take this into account. And we don't have yet a specific proposal to make. When Joe was here, he indicated additional concerns. You know, I think the process over the course of the next several weeks is going to involve a lot of conversations with both Council and PICA, and the other -- you know, the other concerned parties, as we get a clearer sense of what the revenues are likely to look like moving forward.
Yes. Two items, one on that note. What action is required of Council on both issues of foregoing the 45 million, as well as the 18 103 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 million?
The restructuring of the 45 million would require an ordinance 5 by City Council on the 18. There is no... In order to simply not collect the 18 million, there would be nothing required from City Council. But I'll have the Law Department giving some guidance on that issue. And I'll have --
The other thing, back to the lobbyist. In your budget, you have a reduction of lobbying services, $156,000. And then you talk about having lobbyists. Where is the expense for those lobbyists? Is it throughout various departments or where?
Most of it's carried in the Mayor's Office. 104 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
I'm looking at the Mayor's Office. I'm looking on the of the Mayor's... Where it says increases and decreases in all funds. Maybe I'm missing it. MR. McPHERSON: .
We'll be spending approximately $582,000 on buying professional services. The firms are identified that -- I guess most of them are identified -- that we use. We'll probably be using less of the services, as we increase our staff and our in-house capacity. You know, there are less specific tasks that we'll be using the lobbyists to do for us.
You will agree that the success of the City and its relationships with Harrisburg rests and depends on the relationships between individuals. 105 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04
No matter how many people represent us in Harrisburg in terms of staff. The real relationship are the people who actually make the decisions, basically the Speaker and the Appropriations. The leadership in Harrisburg. What is the strategy in developing a better relationship? Because I think a lot of the actions taken by the Senate -- I mean, by the House or the legislature, to me, and maybe interpreted by other people, based on the relationships or lack thereof between the City and the legislature. And can the lobbyists and/or staff people fill that void?
I think that there, of course, has to be a major role played by the Mayor. I think in some -- in some situations, however, mediated relationships actually do work. Some of the lobbyists with which we work, frankly, have closer relationships with some of the people who 106 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 are critical to, you know, the City's interest. And so, we will be using an approach that, you know, one draws directly on the Mayor, has staff people working in support roles in some situations, but also have found that frequently lobbyists can play an effective role, that they are frequently in Harrisburg on a daily basis. The Administration is not there with that kind of coverage. And so we, you know, we believe that if we use both consulting services, staff services, and direct involvement by the Mayor, that that will give us our best...
Well, what do you do if you -- Councilman Clarke mentioned the fact that there may be a bill 20 in Harrisburg to limit our ability to control development by the Parking Authority. And then we have the... in the budget dollars to take over the parking garages. I mean, it's that kind of 107 Bill 040255 - 4/13/04 activity between both parties that seems to be the political tension there. We're doing one thing or appears to be doing -- to take over the parking -- the garages at the airport, and this move in Harrisburg. I mean, how are you going to resolve all of that, when it boils down to the politics of this business?