Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
You know my interest in the whole area of housing is in preservation and maintenance.
And I would like to see in terms of dealing with middle-income neighborhoods, which we have quite a number, and to help those homeowners maintain their homes, to cut down on future blight.
So my interest would be in providing more money for systems repair and going beyond that, in terms of maybe paint up or some of those kinds of services that could help senior citizens as well as middle-income people. We have a program in the northwest, as you know --
-- where we took an entire block, we got some money from the State to do this, and we surveyed the block and had a meeting and asked the individual homeowners what would they need. We replaced doors, we replaced lighting, did some sockets, just some general maintenance work, and which was greatly appreciated. And, you know, we didn't do it all over the place. I mean, it was a targeted area so you could see the difference. Some of it was 1871 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 repainted, a house that needed painting. And that's the kind of support we can give those individuals who live in neighborhoods where people are staying, that are paying taxes. And in a lot of these neighborhoods, there are single heads of households that could use the support. We didn't ask for an income guidelines 'cause we could do that, but we were looking for private money. And also part of it with sweat equity.
But it's important that we look at a new way of spending the money. And I know that in other cities in some parts of this country, Community Development Block Grant dollars have been used to create golf courses and boat marinas, so it's just not geared to low-income neighborhoods. It can be appropriated for the community in general. I just think our money has been targeted to probably those areas that require -- that have the greatest need, but I don't think that we can continue to exclude the surrounding communities that require some support. And I'm 1872 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 going to continue to seek that support for those programs, which I do believe you support, but we've got to put some dollars in the budget for programs like that.
Great. I think this would be a good time just to get back to the Councilwoman, and I will, through the Chair, with regard to the issue of eligibility, so that we can comment on what other cities have done. And I believe where community development funding has been used for marinas, for example, the kind of pretext has been, Well, this is really job creation so it's okay. I don't know of any instance in which the CDBG funding has been used for middle-income housing, but we'll look at that and get a report to Council through the Chair. The resource question really is critical because unless we can get a waiver, as Councilman Kenney indicated, or find a loophole in the federal regulations, the only other sources of funding are the City's General Fund, which is a limited resource that hasn't been used in the past to any great extent. The Economic Stimulus 1873 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 Program, again, is very limited, and the State, which has not been very receptive to affordable housing, our State funding was cut in half from a fairly meager 4 million to 2 million. So I don't think the State is a potentially big resource. So the issue of what is the funding base for this middle-income housing support is critical. There's no question that we haven't done enough an that we need to do a lot more.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning again, Mr. Kromer.
When I stepped out of the office, I heard there were some questions about PHDC. Now, I've been working recently with PHA too because they've been doing a lot of leveraging of public and private dollars for mixed-income properties in various neighborhoods. And the person we have who was 1874 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 really typically under OHCD, we did a lot of that on our side with PHDC, and I'm wondering why we can't back to that. Now, my understanding also is that when we were doing that, even when we were doing the Men (ph.) Program, HUD recognized us for having the highest production. And also, also a job center was started and certified by the State, the first job center. We did a lot of things when we had we had cordon bleu (sic) over PHDC. We worked a lot with them. We had records, we broke records. In fact, the only reason I recognized the style when I talked to Carl Green about some things we were trying to do in the neighborhood, and I found out that Cordell was over there. So if we're having problems, can't we get 'em back? What could we would do? What's your suggest about PHDC at this point and programs that we had in the past and what we can do? You know, as they say, if it's not broken, don't fix it. If we know what it takes to get us there, wouldn't it make sense for us to move into that direction? What do you think, Mr. Kromer?
Well, there's no question 1875 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 that there's always a need for improvement, but I'm very pleased with PHDC's record over the past decade. The Men Program, which was a national success, was terminated by Congress, and the funding with SCOFF (ph.), so the program died on the spot. Among PHDC's accomplishments in recent years have been building up the Home Repair Program, the basic systems repair program, to one of the biggest, if not the biggest, one of its kind in the country, and then rebuilding North Philadelphia in the Cecil B. Moore area, the biggest sales housing development program that the City has undertaken since the 1960s. So there's a lot that PHDC done and doing that I think we have reason to be proud of.
Well, I'm not saying we don't, nor am I criticizing the current director. I'm only talking about the functions we did, where we were absolutely very, very successful.
And that it seems to me that we could do it again, given the 1876 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 talent that we have out there. And certainly, we're absolutely supportive of that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Mr. Kromer, I wanted to follow up on a question that was asked earlier with respect to the targeting of certain allocations of dollars -- in this particular case PHDC. And I want to get a sense for the Community Development Block Grant dollars generally. I remember years back, in my infancy, at least my political infancy, there was this whole issue about monies coming into the City and not necessarily being spent in the appropriate manner, and this money was coming to the City as a result of certain low-income people and the population and targeted areas and it never found its way. 1877 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 Can you tell me how that formally is -- first, why do we get this money for the City of Philadelphia, what is that based on?
The funding that Philadelphia and other cities get is based on a formula that includes population, number of families below the poverty level, vacancy, and so on. So it's a formula that basically gets at the usual of distress, is there economic distress in the City. So it's very much based on the statistics that come out of areas like North Philadelphia, where most of the money is being -- or a substantial amount of the money is being spent. The issue of targeting is one over which the City has a lot more flexibility than it used to. In the 1980s, HUD required the City to designate so-called neighborhood strategy areas, and those were required to be the focus of targeting. Now cities have flexibility in determining whether or not to target, and for some limited programs, like the Home Ownership Zone Program in the Cecil B. Moore area, we have to 1878 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 spend within a targeted area, but for nearly everything else, we can decide to either target and to encourage neighborhood groups to develop strategic plans that are very focused, or we can support citywide programs, like the Moderate Rehab Program, where anyone can come in with any house anywhere in the City and get support for rehabilitation. So we've tried to balance the citywide programs with targeted programs, but not to be inflexible about requiring targeting within --
So -- but in every instance in the targeted programs and all of your tragic initiatives, it has to fall within an income level as it relates to that particular neighborhood.
That's right. The beneficiary has to be an area of low to moderate income or a specific household that is within the federal income standards, yes.
So a large part of the reason, if not the sole reason, that that level of funding went through PHDC for that particular neighborhood was because we needed it? 1879 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
Because of the calculation of the formula, which showed that a substantial number of residents and a substantial number of distress was being experienced in that area, absolutely.
Okay. That's enough for now. I just wanted to get a sense for, you know, the question was raised about this level of money going into a particular section of the City, and I just wanted to get some clarity as to why it went into that area, other than just your decision.
That's right, those indicators of distress earn us the money that we're getting.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you, 1880 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 gentlemen.
Personnel Department. (Personnel Department witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. The stenographer does have copy of your testimony, so if you would simply summarize, I would appreciate it.
Thank you. Good afternoon, President Verna. My name is Linda Seyda. I am the City's Personnel Director, and I am here to present testimony in support of the Department's $4,901,618 Fiscal Year 2001 Operating Budget. With me at the table today is my deputy, James Kimpson, and Celia O'Leary, our Administrative Services Director. Our FY 2001 proposed budget contains $4,273,590 in Class 100, $556,800 in Class 200, 1881 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 and $71,228 in Classes and 400. The 28 percent 3 decrease in Class 200 is related to nonrecurring costs for police officer recruit testing. The Department is establishing two police officer recruit-eligible lists for this year. Our budget for next year does not anticipate another holding. Briefly, the mission of the Personnel Department is to recruit and retain effective employees in support of the goals of the City. Various programs and initiatives have been developed to accomplish our mission and to support the City agencies. I will very briefly summarize those for you. Over the course of the last couple of years, we have established a workforce planning process, which enables us to work better with the operating departments in terms of identifying their manpower needs prior to and during the course of the fiscal year and working with them to establish target dates for accomplishment of their staffing needs. This process has been in place for the last two years and has been working very well for us. In the current fiscal year, we are very 1882 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 pleased in that we have been able to provide and meet deadlines for 98 percent of the services that we have committed for the operating departments as part of our workforce plan. Also, as City Councilmembers, know the number in candidates tested for City employment varies year to year, based upon the needs identified in the workforce plan and the creation of our large-scale entry-level and promotional-eligible lists. In Fiscal Year 2000, to date, the Personnel Department has received over 45,000 applications, tested over 31,000 individuals, and placed 10,459 individuals on a total of 388 eligible lists. In FY 2000, the Department has established, or will soon establish, lists for major job classes such as police officer recruit, correctional officer, laborer, and entrance-level clerical, and social worker positions. In FY 2000, in addition to requests on the workforce plan, the testing program will focus on supervisory and command-level jobs in the Police and Fire Departments and also on the creation of a new school crossing guard-eligible list. 1883 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 In today's tight labor market, the Department has established a recruitment team which works through an advisory committee to identify the recruitment problems that the City is having and to organize a program to better meet the recruitment needs of the operating departments. While this is, at this point, is a very small group -- it's only two individuals -- they have been working closely with the operating departments, particularly the Police Department and Corrections, to identify ways to better meet the City's manpower requirements. Also, I would like to add that the continuing efforts in recruitment and selection have resulted in an increasingly diverse workforce. 8 percent Asian, Native-American, and other races, and approximately one-third female. Since we expect the diversity of the workforce to continue to increase, the Personnel Department plans to provide additional managerial training related to managing a changing workforce, and this is included as one of our projects for the next 1884 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 fiscal year. Efforts continue to support the City's goal of creating an equitable working advisement for all of our employees.
The Personnel Department ensures that policies are in place that support sound employment practices and minimize the City's potential liability under employment law. We provide training in applicable law for supervisory and managers, consult with departmental clients who are experiencing problems, and provide informal and formal avenues for employees to seek assistance. The Personnel Department's training and development efforts have focused on building partnerships with City departments and providing leadership in training initiatives. In Fiscal Year 2000, we established citywide guiding principles to articulate the overall mission goals and objectives and commitment with the City of Philadelphia to employee to government. Moving forward into the future, one of the priorities of the Department is to implement an automated human resource system. At the present time, the City spends over $5 million 1885 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 annually on the processing of HR-related transactions. It is our hope that we will be able to identify funding for the implementation of a new computerized system at some point in the near future. And, finally, I would like to comment on the Personnel Department's customer service center. During the last year, we have established a new customer service center to provide information to both applicants and employees on vacancies, procedures, test schedules, etc. We have an automated job hotline, which is available hours a day to provide basic information on 15 available jobs, the Civil Service process, and for 16 candidates to make appointments to review 17 examinations. 18 Since July 1st of this year, the 19 hotline has received over 63,000 calls. The 20 Personnel Department also maintains job 21 information on the Internet, and we have had some 22 have good feedback in terms of how that's working. 23 This concludes my remarks, and I am 24 prepared to answer questions of Council.
Thank you. 1886 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Miss Seyda, the Personnel Department also has responsibility with respect to the health insurance programs of the City?
The Department has responsibility for administration of a medical health and welfare program for those approximately 8,000 employees who are on City-administered plans, that is correct.
When was the last contract entered into by the City on behalf of those 8,000 employees?
That's basically -- every few years as necessary, we go out on an RFP process and to see what is available in the provider community for employees, you know, for our employees. 1887 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
Now, of those 8,000 employees, are any of them Civil Service?
Of that 8,000 number, that is made up of Civil Service employees, exempt employees, Court employees, and District Council -- some District Council 33-represented employees.
Are the District Council 33 employees, are they people who are not currently members of District Council 33 but have opted to join our health plan, or do they remain members?
So they're former members who had been in the District Council 33 plan, who then opt to come into the City plan and give up their membership in the union?
Right, they are represented by District Council 33 but they are not members, that is correct. 1888 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
Now, does the health plan consist of two basic components: one, a prescription plan, and then also a vision and a dental plan, and then a doctor and hospital plan? I don't know how you phrase them. How do you refer to them? How would you define the health plan of the City? What components does it consist of?
There is a medical plan, a dental optical and prescription component, as you mentioned. There is also a provision for employees to elect not to take medical coverage, and in lieu of that, the City gives them a certain amount of money that they can use for other benefits or take in cash.
Now, does that 8,000 also consist of recent retirees from City employment? Isn't there a four-year period that the retired employee continues to receive not all but most of all of the benefits?
That is correct, and that is true, I guess, for most City employees, that there is a provision for continuation of coverage for four years immediately after retirement. 1889 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
What happens where a person is a member of the union plan and then retires? Does the union continue to provide the benefits, does the City provide the benefits?
Under our contractual agreements with the labor organizations, the City provides a sum of money to each labor organization for those active employees and for those individuals who are within the first four years of retirement.
So, in effect, the union continues to provide the benefits for the retirees, and the City continues to make the payments on behalf of them.
The City's obligation is to provide a sum of money, that's our contractual obligation.
Does the City provide to the union membership sufficient funds to maintain the same level of benefits to a retiree as it does for a current worker?
The City's contractual obligation is to provide a sum of money. It is then up to each union to determine how that money 1890 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 is going to be spent.
How is the money that is provided to the union computed? Is it just taken out of the air? Does it have any connection with the number of employees that the union has to cover?
The City's contribution, which is established in our contracts, is based upon the number of employees, and the amount for each employee is determined based upon a formula in each labor agreement. And the formula is -- varies somewhat from union to union.
Well, let's take a specific union. Now, you are -- before we go into the provisions of the union, you are in a position to be familiar, are you not, with every agreement that exists? Because aren't you the City representative on the boards of each union- administered plan?
So you would have a direct familiarity and an ability to examine documents as any member of the board would?
Now, when an employee retires in a union-administered plan, is the amount of money lessened or maintained the same as when the employee was currently working for the City? Or is it a different standard used for a retired employee? Take District Council 47, say.
The same is true for all four unions. Contractually, we are obligated to provide a sum of money -- the same sum of money for active employees and for retirees during their initial four years of retirement.
So you pay the same for the first four years. Do you pay anything beyond four years for union-covered employees?
And that policy of paying the same amount for the -- let me strike that. The four-year period of coverage is the same whether a City employee is covered by a union or not covered, is it not? I'm not talking about the content of the policy, you know, of the benefits provided, but any City employee who 1892 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 retires, is there a year requirement, do they have to serve a certain number of years to be eligible for the four-year coverage post-retirement?
In order to be eligible for the four-year retirement coverage, the City employee must be -- must have ten years of service, and there are some variations on that in terms of whether or not that may be continuous service or not, but it's the basic --
And if somebody has less that ten years, do they get any coverage at all in the post-retirement period?
Now, when a non-represented City employee retires, say, after a ten-year period, does that employee receive the same benefits as the union rep -- as that employee did during service? 1893 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
Could you just answer that "yes" or "no"? Is there a change in the coverage for a non-represented City employee after retirement? And I'm speaking of an employee that's served at least ten years.
The coverage is provided under the terms of the Civil Service regulations and the Administrative Board rules that are currently in effect.
And the benefits that are provided under the Civil Service regulations and the existing Ad. Board rule provide a continuation of medical benefits and prescription benefits.
And what does it not provide for that was provided to the employee during the period of employment?
It does not provide for dental benefits, for vision benefits, or the opportunity to opt out of benefits, or the opportunity, which some employees have, to elect supplemental life insurance, or the ability to get 1894 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 payment for unused sick leave.
So the result of that means that as between union representation and non-represented employees, the represented employees maintain their benefits for a four-year period. There may be exceptions here and there -- and I'm not dealing with that -- while the regular City employee, who is not represented loses certain benefits; is that right?
Well, that's a decision that each union makes terms of the benefits that they're going to provide and how they are going to fund those benefits.
And we have a situation -- we have situations where the unions may continue to provide a benefit, and if there is not sufficient funding available from the City, that they will use other funding which may be available to them. So it's not a -- you know, it's not a simple apples-to-oranges comparison.
Well, let me differ with you. As far as the City's contribution, the City's contribution to represented employees 1895 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 remains the same. You've testified to that.
But the union's contribution toward the payment of benefits for non-represented employees is reduced, is it not?
'Cause I'm sure we don't get dental benefits provided free of charge or vision benefits or any of the other benefits that are lost upon retirement.
What the City does is to provide a continuation of the medical benefits and the prescription benefits. And you have to take into consideration that for a retiree, the cost of that benefit may be greater for retirees than it is for active employees, because utilization tends to be higher among older employees than it is among younger employees.
Miss Seyda, maybe we are not going to have enough time today to get you to answer questions, but we're going to get the answers to the questions, and I don't know why you want to make it so difficult to get -- you don't have to protect yourself by pointing out 1896 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 constantly that the Civil Service Commission and the Administrative Board have set these regulations. I'm asking for the facts no matter who set them up. You know, we're just trying to get the facts. The fact is that a City employee who is not represented and retires gets less benefits than a represented employee gets, and that the City continues the same expenditures for represented employees but reduces the expenditures for the unrepresented employees, for the 8,000 that it covers. Isn't that plainly a fact? The benefits are lowered.
I agree that the benefit level is not the same, but where I must take exception is that I can't state that the City's contribution to the union fully funds the same level.
I didn't ask that question. I asked what happened? and you answered the question before that all four unions basically that represent City employees basically cover their retirees for a four-year period, without 1897 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 lessening of any of their benefits. Now, how the union -- I didn't ask how the union covers it 'cause all I asked was what the City contributes. The City does not lower its contributions as a result of represented employees retiring. And that seems to many people to be vastly unfair to the non-represented employees in this city. Now let me move on to another area. Is isn't it true that even among current employees, that the benefits vary and sometimes to the disadvantage of the non-represented employee? And I'll give you a precise example. Tell me, what is the prescription benefit that a District 47 employee receives. And I'll point your attention to the prescription plan in the City. A City-covered employee who takes a prescription regularly, the same prescription maybe for years, can only get that prescription filled for one month under the Rite Aid plan that we have. Isn't that right? Do you know that?
And that's despite the fact that there has been a 1,000 percent 1898 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 increase in the prescription price since the original inception of the contract with Rite Aid, isn't that right? Didn't it go from $1 to $10?
Well, because the current co-pay is $5 for generics and $10 for a brand, so it's --
It's $5 for generic, $10 5 for a formulary brand, and $15 for a non-formulary 6 brand. 7
What's the 8 difference between a formulary and a generic? 9
A brand prescription can be 10 a formulary or a non-formulary, okay. A generic 11 drug is one for whom there is an equivalent to the 12 brand, which, in almost all cases, is much less 13 expensive, so henceforth, the co-pay is less. 14 This is a very, very common co-pay structure. 15
Well, I don't want to take time in the budgetary hearing to get the difference we can deal with that separately.
So I will say the increase has even been 500 percent or 1,000 percent with Rite Aid, because it's either you pay $5 instead of 1, or you pay $10. I haven't --
15. Well, I haven't found people that have gotten $5, but we'll deal with that later. I --
And seriously -- I mean, if you have a -- if there's a specific case or incident where there's a problem, we would be more than happy to look into it for you.
Well, I've been taking brands that are generic brands, they've always been described as "generic," but I know the cost is $10, but I don't want to make that an issue here because I want to deal broader questions than that.
Now, isn't it true that in District Council 47 -- and maybe the other unions have the same thing -- a person can get a -- with one prescription can get a three-months supply with a single co-pay payment? Whereas in the City-covered employee, that employee would have to make three separate co-pay payments -- either, by your statement, $15, or by mind, $30, 1901 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 for what the union person pays $10? And can you tell me, is that true in District Council 47? With the same company, Rite Aid.
For some, that would be true, in some cases where it is a medication that is used on an ongoing basis. That is true in some cases, yes.
Well, I understand it's true in the vast majority of cases. How about --
Incidently, who negotiated the contract with Rite Aid? There is vast discontent expressed about the Rite Aid policies for years, they've been expressed at every budget hearing. And, again, the policy was renewed, there was no input given to anybody that I know of, no one in City Council that I know of had any input whatever. Why would the City have, I'm going to say, "dared" to reenter into a contract with Rite Aid in view of all of the possibility about the company, about strange goings-on, plus the 1902 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 discontent of employees? And who did the negotiating?
Actually, there was an RFP process. There were a number of people in City government who reviewed the RFPs, and I can provide you with the names of those individuals. What you are referring to as "the Rite Aid contract" is not Rite Aid per se, but it is a company called PCS. It's a benefits management company, a large benefits management company. They are currently a subsidiary of Rite Aid at this point in time. But the PCS was the respondent to the RFP, not Rite Aid itself. The cost difference between Rite Aid and the next lowest respondent was approximately $2 million on an annual basis.
And what is the total payment to Rite Aid on an annual basis? You say it was 2 million lower. Give me the total figure so that I have some basis of knowing what percentage was allegedly being saved by that.
Do you have an 1903 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 approximate figure?
All right, we'll take that, 7 or 8 million. Did the difference have anything to do with the City's refusal to enter into an exclusionary contract with one successful bidder? Whereas the unions agreed that whoever would get, you know, the contract, would be the sole company servicing the people covered during the period of the contract. And that's only one year each time, I understand.
Well, the City of Philadelphia, for its 8,000 employees, permits a choice between two health-care companies, does it not? U.S. Health Care or something like that and Blue Cross Blue Shield? 1904 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
Doesn't District Council 47 pick one company, and in the negotiations, don't the companies afford lower rates if one company gets the whole contract instead of just a portion of the contract?
Not necessarily. I mean, that's part of the negotiation process.
The negotiations would be representatives from the Personnel Department, from the Finance Department, and the City Solicitor's Office.
There's no people with permanent positions in the health-care industry?
For example? There's no 20 one else -- not outside of the City government.
It seems to me the City hires all sorts of experts in all kinds of areas, in all other areas. So why does the City in this case feel that City employees who have many -- you have many other duties. As you 1905 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 outlined in your opening remarks to us, you cover a remarkable wide, diversified area of activities, and I assume that that would be true of people in the Finance Department and in the Solicitor's Office, and you are competing with people who are fully trained. It seems to me a very bad match. Would you -- Madam President, what I'm going to suggest is, because there are many questions that are disturbing, because it seems that City-represented employees are at a deep disadvantage with respect to the health benefits they get. I understand the labor organizations hire experts in the health-care field to negotiate for them because they spend all their time and know the tricks of the trade. And would you be prepared to meet with Councilmembers and staff members of Council for a fuller discussion of this, outside the budget hearings here? Because we're very concerned, and many Councilmembers believe that because of the disadvantaged position they're put in, the fact that they're given no rights and representation in the negotiations, no knowledge about them at all, and therefore have suffered, we think some of this 1906 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 at least are concerned about two aspects. One we think that all City-represented employees are being badly represented in this area. And, secondly, City Council is a separate body. It has the responsibility for all City employees on one hand; it also has a separate responsibility for its own employees. And we would like to try to clear up many of these areas. Would you and others that you feel are knowledgeable in this area who have done the negotiations, would you be prepared to meet with Councilmembers and their staff members so that we can accumulate the information? If we're wrong, we'll learn the information. But we're told that staff members have tried for several months now to get information from your office and have not been successful.
Well, we would certainly be willing to open a dialogue with Council or representatives of Council in terms of discussing these issues.
Madam President, I'm going to stop, then, at this point, and I would like to be able to pursue this in a fashion with 1907 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 Council representatives and this office and the Personnel Office and those representatives from the Finance Department and Solicitor's Office that have been dealing with this issue.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, we've been going through this, and the other day I was at the Town Meeting at Roberto Clemente, and around six of the questions that were asked were related to that 1991 Human Relations report after the hearings in terms of Latino employment in the City and so on. And you just said that Latino employment is, at the present time, at 3.2, which is very low, it's still very low. And that does not take into consideration -- and you don't give the numbers of -- Latinos in supervisory positions, which would probably be much less than 3.2, much lower than that. And so I'd like to get a clearer picture, a total picture, because I told 1908 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 the people that I will get back to them with this. And during the last ten years, the population of the Latino community in the City has grown over 50 percent. And I think right now, probably in the census, with this under-count, even, even with this under-count, the census will still show that that has been the way that the population growth has taken place. So if you can give me a clearer picture of Latino employment by departments in the City, I really would appreciate that because I would like to, at the next meeting that I have with community groups, I'd like to take that, and that we do have a plan of doing something about increasing the number from 3.2 to a much more representative number.
We will be pleased to provide that information to you. Also, I would like to add that, you know, together with -- part of our emphasis that we're putting on recruiting now includes a focus on the Latino community and, in fact, we are in the process of establishing a relationship with 1909 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 the Congreso to work with them to develop ways to enhance our recruitment activities in the Latino community. So I would like to add that this is an employment issue that we are sensitive to and that we are developing you, know, directing additional resources toward enhancing those initiatives.
Well, I'd like to have those figures and I'd like to see that.
I would like to be able to see what the plan looks like and to be able to have some input into that.
Miss Seyda, you state on of your testimony that in Fiscal 2001, a new school crossing guard-eligible list will be created. Will all of the existing school crossing guard positions be filled by the time school opens in September? 1910 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00
When the City sends representatives to colleges and universities for recruitment purposes, do they coordinate activities with the School District?
Well, the relationships with the colleges and universities are primarily the local universities. There are programs within the City government in terms of working with the School District. I mean, clearly, that is an area where I think that we can -- need to and should improve and upgrade our activities. There are a number of apprenticeship-type of programs within the City government, but certainly, there are other opportunities there to work with the School District itself. And we certainly would be, you know, endorse, you know, enhancing those types of activities.
Could you 1911 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 provide us with a list of those job titles that have been deemed critical to City operations?
And can you also tell us how many waivers have been granted during the last year, residency waivers? I know that it was testified earlier today that there were two in recent months.
Yes. The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission testified this morning that there were two waivers for the Health Department that were approved.
I do not believe that there were any additional waivers approved last year. However, there are individuals who are hired in the City government who are hired under existing class waivers. And at this morning's hearing, Councilman Rizzo asked for a listing of who those individuals are, and we will be providing that to your office.
What are the job titles and how many are existing? And I would 1912 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 think that -- I thought that we had an understanding that people who were exempted were not being exempted, we are just are giving them a waiver and they would have to move into the City within a year's time. So how many are existing now that -- and how long have they been existing?
Most of the individuals who are not currently City residents are individuals who are hired within the past year and are obligated to move into the City. There still are a few, and it's no more a handful of individuals who live outside the City on an indefinite waiver, but there's no more than a handful of those people. You could probably count them on one hand, and they will certainly be included in the list.
Can you give us your reasoning. What type of titles do they have that we give them an indefinite waiver?
They're -- the most -- the 1913 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL 05 - 2/23/00 last waiver of that type that was granted was a couple years ago, and it was a hardship waiver for an individual who had undergone some serious medical procedures and needed to reside with family that lived outside of the City. Aside from that waiver, I do not believe that there have been any indefinite waivers granted for the last, I would say, maybe ten years. And, in fact, probably about ten years ago, the City made a conscious effort to take a hard look at all of the existing indefinite waivers, and at that time, most of them were withdrawn.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
City Planning. (City Planning witnesses come forward.)