The Board was informed as soon as the information was compiled. As I told you, the corporate counsel and myself and others were trying to get the information. It was not made readily available. When it was finally compiled --
Okay. So they couldn't give you -- how long did it take you to get the information? Sounds like us, right, when we ask you for information and can't get it?
Well, I'm back to the original question that the Councilwoman asked, which was, how did the DA know to investigate anything? I'm still waiting for that answer.
The DA's investigation started on September 30, 1998. It was generated by stories that appeared in the Daily News. It has been pervasive. They have been in residence in the building almost continually. They have had tens of thousands of documents subpoenaed and sent over to them. They have interviewed before the grand jury scores of our people, including the Board members.
Madam Chair, if I may, if I may. Apparently there is a simpler explanation, and I'm reminded of it. 00117 On October the 22nd, Mr. Martin was placed on administrative leave, and that was announced in the newspaper. It was at that point, the District Attorney asked us to provide materials that had been provided to the Board on which the administrative leave was prefaced. So that's how the District Attorney -- that's -- apparently, the timing of it would suggest that that's how she learned about it.
I thought you said that it was given to her October 19th.
The first Board meeting was October 19th, the continuation of the Board meeting was October 21st. The materials were provided after the administrative leave on October the 22nd, I believe.
No, I'm sorry. That was the Board meeting. The Board materials of October 19th, they were provided to her subsequent to that date.
So she called you after she read in the paper that he was leaving. 00118
I'm not sure whether it was a call or not. David Gressing (ph.) in our office is the one who handles those matters.
Well, why would she ask you about cost overruns? Did she think it was a criminal matter, a criminal issue?
No, we have not. It's not within our purview to determine whether it's criminal.
Do you plan to have an investigation as to why the cost overrun exists and who was responsible prior to the dismissal of Mr. Martin? Was there an internal investigation to establish that he was soley responsible for it?
What is your process by which you, Mr. Hayllar, and the Board dismissed Mr. Martin? Was there an internal investigation? 00119
Was there a detailed internal investigation as to who was responsible for the cost overrun? See, we have a CEO, who is a former Finance Director of the City, who was a member of the Board, who knows absolutely nothing about what's going on over at PGW. Thank you. I'm finished.
You can't answer that question, Mr. Hayllar, either?
She wants to know why the District Attorney found out about this?
I think we've answered that question. We have had countless records subpoenaed and sent over to the District Attorney's Office. She has had before the grand jury scores of our people, including -- 00120
The question I'm asking is, was there an internal investigation to establish responsibility for the cost overrun for the IT system? And on what basis was Mr. Martin given to the Board for dismissal? That's the question I want to have answered.
There was a series of memos that were prepared and that were given to the Board, and on October the 19th, there was the Board booklet that indicated that --
What was the process for termination of Mr. Martin? Was there an internal investigation to establish that he was solely responsible for the cost overrun of the system? What was the determination on why he was let go?
Because he had the company pay for improvements to his own private 00121 residence, and that's wrong.
What was the internal investigation to prove that? Was there a hearing, was there a process by which that was established? Did he have an opportunity to answer and to defend himself before the Board?
The process on this, Councilwoman, was that on October the 19th, the Board had a meeting in which the initial materials were reviewed. And on --
Did Mr. Martin have an opportunity to go before the Board --
Yes, he did. On October the 21st, the Board met again to review the materials and to speak with Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin did have an opportunity to defend himself. I was not present at that meeting but my understanding is that he spoke with the Board for an extensive period of time. The Board met that day between 2 in the afternoon and quarter till 8 at night. So my understanding is that he 00122 had an opportunity at that point to speak directly with the Board members.
Was he informed as to the intent of this meeting and what the allegations were, what the charges were? Again, we go back to process.
I don't think so. Mr. Hayllar, you said you have been around since 1994? And we are -- we have to question? My goodness, we've been talking process for the last 15 minutes, and you have no 16 information that you can give us specifically as to how any of this happens, with all of these people who are announced that they have been let go or somehow forced out, and this public record can't indicate anything with regard to process and what PGW does and how and why?
If people wish to conceal things, they will conceal them until they're discovered, and they were discovered.
But I'm 00123 talking about you with your record with regard to PGW since 1994. You've been involved with PGW, by your own admission today, since 1994. How could we ask all these questions and you have not have answers and just continue to accuse people and take the ratepayers' money?
If this were a private company, maybe we could have a different discussion, but we have a public responsibility here, and that is why we're taking it so seriously. And we still get no answers. And you think that we're going to pass a budget of this size with no answers? That we are not responsible to the people of this city? I don't think so. We have absolutely no intentions of passing a budget without think answers, without information that makes since so that we can justify what we do. We will not take dollars from unemployed people, from poor, ill seniors and others in this city who are having a hard time making ends meet when we can't justify why we're doing it. We won't do it, sir, will not do it. 00124 Councilman Cohen?
I was struck during the newspaper articles that many people, or a number of people seem to state that what Mr. Hawes and Mr. Martin specifically did -- well, it was Mr. Hawes, I don't know whether it was Mr. Martin at the time -- whether they specifically followed industry practices. Do you remember that?
Did you ever find out whether it was the industry practice?
Well, they had come from the private sector, hadn't they?
I don't think that in the private sector, that some of the things that they did would be tolerated under circumstances. They're perhaps more tolerant than we are, but this is a publicly-owned utility and 00125 the highest standards have to be applied, and they weren't done. And I don't think the --
And I don't think industry standard permits free work being done on personal residences.
Free work, having the company pay for improvements to a private residence. I just don't think that's tolerated anywhere.
Well, do you know? I mean, you say you think it's not done, but you've been in the public sector for a long time, where everything is scrutinized.
Yeah. I don't -- I can't think of any -- and Gregory Driscoll has stated in, I think, the same article that you read that he had never heard of such a thing. And to say that it's somehow an industry practice, I think, is a serious mistake. And it should not be tolerated.
The quote was that it was not, and I don't believe anyone would countenance doing that. And if it were industry practice in the private sector -- and, obviously, it's not the norm in the public sector and it's not something we should countenance. We should not be allowing ratepayers to pay for improvements to a private residence.
Well, I just find it an area of doubt where there is industry practice, and then we, from the public sector, say we've got to get private-industry people who have experience and know how to operate things better than government people, 'cause that's what the saying is most of the time, and then you have them follow the industry practice and then condemn them for it. I mean, maybe it's not a wise policy and maybe it ought not to be followed, but if it is followed --
Again, we have no reason to believe that a private sector would tolerate the kind of behavior that we had seen in numerous instances from some of those people. It's just not done in any ethical society. 00127
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? (No further questions.)
Then this hearing will be recessed subject to the call of the Chair. Excuse me, before we do, yes, Reverend Shine? (Reverend Shine returns to witness table.).
Just identify yourself again for the record, if you would, Reverend Shine.
Thank you for this renewed privilege. I'm Reverend Robert Shine, Vice President of the Black Clergy, also serving as the Chairman of the Civic and Social Committee of Black Clergy. Madam Chairman, for the record's sake, it was not my intent at this table to imply that the union could possibly have threatened the home 00128 or the family of the persons now in question. I cited what has happened in previous experiences where I personally was involved from the corporate community. I think it was a unwise remark that was made before this Council to suggest that I had any knowledge that this union would be threatening the home of Mr. Martin or any other person -- leading me to another point that I'd like to make. At the senior vice presidency level, all of us are much aware that there is an authorization, a budget authorization, that requires his signature and his signature alone. If, in fact, I was the senior vice president of an organization, my responsibility may include having a million-dollar budget, but I could sign up to a million dollars because of my position in the company. It is not unusual, Madam Chairman, it is not unusual for there to be some maintenance of security. As a matter of fact, it is consistent with if you employed me and I came to you from another state and part of my package in coming here was that the company that I'm going to be employed with would provide me residence or assist 00129 me in relocating, and I said that included in that relocation would be these factors that I would want to be considered, and if it, in fact, those factors were agreed upon and they were of the nature that my family and I were comfortable with, then that would be part of my agreement to come, my contract. If I were not satisfied and I decided to make some changes or improve and modify those conditions, certainly, it is within the realm and the scope of what my role is because of understanding my leadership. In the case of Mr. Martin, Mr. Martin came to Philadelphia, as I understand it, because he was asked to come. He never sought this position but was asked to come. I believe that if we understood what the contractual arrangement was and that it included certain perks, some benefits that he would be entitled to as a vice president, then of course, if there was some modifications -- not that they were going to renovate his home -- I believe the issue is a security system -- what is the cost of a security system. I further want to make this 00130 observation, and that is that if this is a criminal action and if this criminal action was started because of something read in the newspaper, how many people would I be asking the District Attorney to bring action against? If this information was forwarded over on the grounds of suspicion and, therefore, wanted to bring in the District Attorney's Office and the District Attorney decided to take some action, it is not based on some hypothetical or some just intuition. It's based on something that was placed in that person's hands, the District Attorney's hands. The District Attorney does not have that role, I believe. I don't believe that it was in the jurisdiction of the policy of her office, unless she is asked to come into it. And then perhaps by protocol -- protocol being that upon a written request from either the Council, upon a written request from the Mayor's Office, perhaps from the Solicitor or from some other office, a request that there be an investigation in this matter, if this was an internal problem, as I have aforestated, whereby mismanagement did not begin 00131 nor conclude with Mr. Martin, there are other extenuating reasons about this. And I would beg this body -- this hearing to give consideration to the voice of the people of this city. I speak for the clergy, of course, but the people of this city deserve. No 8 longer should we be tolerant but intolerant of those actions at will because there's the feelings of those that would take these courses of action.
We must have prudence and wisdom and we must have justice and fairness for all. And until and unless that's done, then, Madam Chair, I'm asking you respectfully if you would withhold any action on this legislation. Thank you once again.
Reverend Shine, may I ask you a question. Did you request a meeting on behalf of yourself and the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and the city, the most respected religious group, one of them in our city, did you request a meeting with Mr. Hayllar?
The secretary, when I phoned the office, it became the bureaucratic way, and I asked her if I would please be privileged to speak with Mr. Hayllar. I finally prevailed, but I understood the consternation from the voice that was used by the secretary, or whomever it was that answered the phone -- presumably his secretary. Mr. Hayllar returned my call. Then he offered a date of Wednesday, at 9 a.m., in which we could have such a meeting. The clergy meets Monday and Tuesday. The Philadelphia conference meets. I took that knowledge, and I tried unsuccessfully on Friday evening to reestablish a point of contact with Mr. Hayllar. Being unsuccessful, the issue was brought to the clergy conference. They unanimously did not agree that the Wednesday date was satisfactory, inasmuch as we had been informed that there would be some action taken against Mr. Martin on Tuesday, today. 00133 We, therefore, urgently wrote him a letter and sent it by Express Mail in the hope that he would receive our plea to meet with us prior to a meeting today for some course of action. So, in fact, yes, to answer your question. I was giving the scenario of how things did occur. And I phoned again to -- Mr. Hayllar returned the call in my absence as I am involved in the Public Education and Communities of Faith Conference. And so in an attempt to reach him again, then the decision of the clergy, the unanimous decision, was that in the event that you are unsuccessful in reaching Mr. Hayllar, then we should take another course of action, which we attempted to do.
Thank you again, Reverend Shine. Mr. Hayllar, would you again come back to the witness stand? (Mr. Hayllar returns to witness table). 00134
May I assume then that you know of this organization, know of their work in this city and that they wanted to meet with you?
Yes. And I have an appointment with them at o'clock tomorrow. 8
Well, then may 9 I ask you, why was there a meeting this morning given the fact that we had this hearing at 10? Why was there a meeting this morning? The rumors were flying all around yesterday. So why, then, was not time granted for this meeting? And why was there a meeting this morning to make a decision to send Mr. Martin a letter firing him before this complete hearing even started?
The Board set the time of their meeting, and I'm not a member of the Board.
Please, Mr. Hayllar, please, please. At least we can act in good faith here.
Please. We all heard it yesterday, we all heard it yesterday. And even when the Black Clergy asked to meet, that they were given a Wednesday date so you could try to do that today, which you also tried to do even before our hearings started so that if we dealt with the issue, it would be moot. Please, let's not insult one another's intelligence. It's absolutely unconscionable when we are acting in the public faith. This is not your company or for you folks over there. This belongs to the public trust. It is so top-heavy and has been traditionally, and yet we continue to have problems and continue to have no answers. So we now have six issues on the table. And one of them is the whole issue specifically of Mr. Martin, the disrespect shown members of our Philadelphia community. And we are asking that this whole issue be reviewed so that we understand just what is going on and feel that everybody paid with public dollars, as was Mr. Martin, that the entire issue is one where the 00136 public is satisfied that right has been done. And so we are asking that until this issue is cleared up, that no definite decision be made without inclusion and full airing before this committee in that regard. That's form him as employee and whatever other people are involved in all of this whole decision. That is the Chair's recommendation. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here who would like to testify? (No response.)
All right. Then this hearing is adjourned subject to the -- recessed subject to the call of the Chair. (Adjourned at 1:00 p.m.) - - - 00137 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, November 9, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BILL NO. 990712 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter