COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT3 Room 401, Caucus Room6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, February 24, 20117 10:25 a.m. PRESENT:9 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE10 COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.11 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY12 BILL 110050 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 9-1100 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled14 "Fair Practices," by changing the title to "Fair Practices Ordinance: Protections15 Against Unlawful Discrimination"... BILL 110060 - An Ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the17 City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a Resolution approved by Council proposing18 an amendment of The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the creation, appointment,19 powers and duties of an independent Jobs Commission...20 RESOLUTION 110063 - Resolution proposing an21 amendment to The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter to provide for the creation,22 appointment, powers and duties of a Jobs Commission...23 - - -24 2
Good2 morning, everyone. I'm sorry for the3 delay. We have a little logistics4 problem here, because some people are5 still going over to the other side, and6 we just want to make sure we had7 everybody in the right place.8 This is the Committee on Law9 and Government. I'm the Chair, Bill10 Greenlee. Besides myself, we have a11 quorum: Councilman Kenney, who is the12 Vice-Chairman of the Committee,13 Councilman Goode and Councilman DiCicco.14 Ms. Marconi, if you could15 please read the title of the first bill,16 please.17
Bill 110050, an18 ordinance amending Chapter 9-1100 of The19 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Fair20 Practices," by changing the title to21 "Fair Practices Ordinance: Protections22 Against Unlawful Discrimination," by23 replacing "handicap" with disability as a24 protected status, by adding domestic or25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 sexual violence victim status, familial2 status, and genetic information to the3 prohibited bases for discrimination; by4 amending the definition of5 discrimination, employer, life6 partnership, public accommodation and7 other terms, and by adding or deleting8 other definitions; by narrowing certain9 exemptions with respect to employment10 preferences; by amending the prohibition11 against housing discrimination to include12 commercial property and real property; by13 reordering and clarifying the complaint,14 mediation and hearing procedures of the15 Commission; by amending and clarifying16 the remedies available to the Commission17 upon a finding of a violation; and by18 changing the order of sections and making19 other changes, all under certain terms20 and conditions.21
Thank22 you.23 Just for a few points here,24 first of all, for those of you who don't25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 understand why we're in here, the State2 Legislature has a hearing across the3 hall. There was a mixup in schedule, and4 in order to facilitate good state-city5 relations -- I'm sure it won't make any6 difference, but in any event, I ceded to7 come over here. So if it's a little less8 comfortable than usual, I apologize.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I thought10 President Obama was coming with all that11 security over there.12
I know.13 This bill that we're first14 going to take up is a revision, basically15 a rewriting of the Fair Practices law or16 anti-discrimination law in the City of17 Philadelphia. Where there had been some18 amendments over the years, it hasn't19 really been totally looked at and totally20 amended in over 60 years, and it needs to21 keep pace with the legal and policy22 changes on the state and federal level.23 The ordinance right now offers24 less protection than other civil rights25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 legislation. This new bill would also2 give added protection to the LGBT3 community, which is obviously very4 important. And I don't want to steal Rue5 Landau's statement, but it allows City6 residents to go to their City government7 to deal with any problems of8 discrimination. But there is nothing in9 here that I think people should be10 concerned about unless they plan to11 discriminate.12 So I think this is a good bill.13 It's something that we have worked on a14 long time with the Administration, and I15 want to give everybody that's been16 involved credit for it, and I think17 hopefully the Committee will see fit and18 the full Council to eventually see fit to19 move this forward and make it the law of20 the City of Philadelphia.21 So with that said, any other22 Committee member want to say something?23 Councilman Kenney.24
Thank you25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you2 all for attending.3 I would like to compliment the4 Chairman of the Committee and the5 Administration for their work in this6 regard. I mean, since I've been here in7 Council back in the '90s, we've moved8 forward with domestic partner legislation9 and groundbreaking legislation to protect10 folks and their rights as workers and11 employees of the City. I think it's been12 the hallmark of this city and this13 institution of Council to be in the14 forefront of this. So I am proud that15 our Chairman has worked as hard as he has16 on this bill, and I think that it's --17 obviously in 60 years it hasn't been18 amended. It needs to be.19 But I just want to thank the20 Administration for their work on this and21 thank the Chairman. He does stand for22 and has been, in the course of his career23 here as a Councilmember, in the forefront24 of protecting people's rights.25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 So thank you, Mr. Chairman.2
Thank you3 very much, Councilman. I appreciate it.4 Our first witness is Rue5 Landau, Executive Director of Human6 Relations Commission.7 And as she's coming up, I just8 want to put on -- and the other members9 of the Commission. I'm sorry.10 I just want to put on the11 record just a thanks to Rue and to12 everybody particularly involved with the13 Human Relations Commission and also with14 the Administration generally. This is,15 as I'm sure she will say, this isn't16 something that was done in two weeks.17 This was a long -- I think we started18 talking last spring or something, Rue,19 but I think the key was, we wanted to get20 it right. We wanted to cover all bases21 that we could cover. We wanted to make22 sure that this was an encompassing law,23 but also a fair law to everybody. So,24 again, my thanks to them.25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:4 Ms. Landau, please identify yourself for5 the record and proceed.6 And for the record, Councilman7 Green, also a member of the Committee, is8 here.9
10 Good morning, Councilman Greenlee and11 members of the Law and Government12 Committee. On behalf of the Philadelphia13 Commission on Human Relations, we thank14 you for this opportunity to testify in15 support of Bill 110050. 16 Sixty years ago, in 1951, the City of17 Philadelphia took the historic step of18 establishing the Commission as the first19 local official human relations agency in20 the country. In the decades that21 followed, a number of significant new22 provisions have been added to the23 ordinance. 1 cover sex in 1972, sexual orientation in2 1982 and gender identity in 2002. But in3 the 60 years of the Commission's4 existence, Council has never passed5 legislation comprehensively updating the6 City's civil rights law. 12 Every year, hundreds of13 individuals file administrative14 complaints of discrimination against15 employers, housing providers and public16 accommodations doing business in17 Philadelphia. Many of those are filed18 with the Philadelphia Commission, but a19 large number are also filed with our20 state and federal counterparts. 1 reality, that those agencies have2 significantly greater enforcement3 authority than the Philadelphia4 Commission. Those agencies cover certain5 individuals and entities that the6 Commission does not cover under the7 current Fair Practices Ordinance. They8 offer remedies that the Commission cannot9 offer. 17 Bill 110050 responds directly to those18 issues by significantly enhancing the19 Commission's enforcement authority. 2 In employment, the bill fills3 the enforcement gaps created by a4 definition of "employer" that when5 compared to state and federal law is6 uniquely limited. 12 Consistent with federal law,13 the bill would eliminate this exclusion14 and instead cover a broad range of15 employers, but also include an exemption16 for religious organizations. 2 The definition in the current ordinance3 is an extensive, but -- is an extensive4 but non-exhaustive 19-line list of5 institutions that service the6 Philadelphia community. 12 The bill also modifies the13 existing housing protections in two main14 areas. 18 Second, it includes changes to19 the Commission's procedures to ensure20 that parties appearing before the21 Commission in a complaint of housing22 discrimination have the same rights under23 the ordinance that are available under24 federal law. 5 Civil penalties for violations6 of the ordinance are currently $300, the7 same amount they were in 1963. The8 damages and remedies that victims of9 discrimination can receive also have not10 changed in roughly 50 years. Federal and11 state anti-discrimination laws allow for12 punitive damages, attorneys' fees,13 hearing costs and other damages. 16 Having a civil rights agency17 with more limited administrative remedies18 than its state and federal counterparts19 hurts all Philadelphians, but it20 particularly harms the LGBT community,21 because state and federal law do not22 recognize sexual orientation, gender23 identity as protected categories as24 discrimination. 1 the LGBT community have no other place to2 turn if they experience discrimination3 based upon their sexual orientation or4 gender identity. 10 These changes benefit not only11 the people who work, live and visit12 Philadelphia, they make business sense13 for the City as a whole. Ensuring14 greater consistency between local, state15 and federal law makes it easier for local16 businesses to recognize and respond to17 the Commission's authority. 1 bill attempts to achieve is full2 protection of the members of our3 community who face discrimination. 6 Over the past several decades,7 the area where the ordinance has been8 updated most significantly is in the9 protected categories. In 1963 when the10 Fair Practices Ordinance was included in11 The Philadelphia Code, the law covered12 only race, color, religion, national13 origin and ancestry.
And although the14 ordinance covers a number of additional15 categories that weren't contemplated 5016 years ago, such as sex, age and17 disability, it still does not fully18 reflect the current realities of19 discrimination. 1 currently covers handicap, but does not2 explicitly cover disability3 discrimination to the same broad context4 as federal law. 18 The bill also protects against19 two forms of discrimination that are not20 currently recognized by federal law but21 are an unfortunate reality in22 Philadelphia. 1 against victims of domestic and sexual2 violence. 7 This bill provides much-needed8 protections against discrimination by9 including familial status and domestic10 and sexual violence victim status as11 protected categories. 17 The changes of the Commission's18 enforcement authority and the protections19 afforded by the ordinance would have20 limited impact if the people affected by21 the ordinance do not understand these22 protections or how they can benefit from23 them. 12 In addition to the changes13 introduced three weeks ago, we would like14 to propose a few limited amendments to15 Bill 110050. First, there are some16 technical amendments that we believe17 would make the ordinance even more clear18 and consistent. 1 The second proposed amendment2 is the inclusion of ethnicity as a3 protected category. 10 Enacting Bill 110050 will send11 a strong message that Council is12 committed to protecting Philadelphians13 from discrimination. The amendments to14 the Commission's enforcement authority,15 the protected categories and the language16 of the ordinance are critical and, in17 many cases, long overdue. 6
Thank7 you, Ms. Landau.8 Are either of you testifying or9 are you just here for backup?10
My name is Kay14 Kyungsun Yu and I chair the Commission.15 And Rue is exactly right on the16 last point of an amendment, that we would17 like to ultimately have all of the18 procedural verification requirements in19 our regulations as opposed to in the20 statute, but for the time being, because21 we had some amendments to the22 verification process, we are going to23 include them in the current bill of24 amendments but then reserve the authority25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 to replace them altogether with2 regulations in the future.3
Okay.4 Just for the record, for the members of5 the Committee and anybody else here6 that's reading the bill, I know sometimes7 it's a little hard to follow. It's a8 large bill. It was my preference to take9 out basically all of the ordinance and10 put in, I guess, what you call a clean,11 new one, but the Law Department felt it12 was better to just amend everything that13 was in there. So you have a lot of14 brackets and underlining, so maybe it's a15 little harder to follow, but I think Rue16 kind of gave a good overview of17 everything that's going on here.18 So any questions? Councilman19 Kenney I know had a question.20
Thank you21 very much, Mr. Chairman.22 I wonder if you could for the23 record kind of explain a little clearer24 , Section 9-1104, Paragraph 125 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 relative to religious organizations. To2 me it's not clear or it leads me to3 believe that in some instances they are4 permitted to discriminate.5 Could you explain how you think6 that would in practice or give me an7 example of what would happen or what8 circumstances would apply to the9 non-discrimination issue.10
Yes. We have changed11 the structure of the definition of12 "employer," but there are certainly13 constitutional limitations as to how far14 we can reach in our regulation of such15 religious activities. So rather --16
Could you17 do me a favor, could you define, I guess,18 the definition of "religious activities."19 I want to know what your thoughts are on20 what it is. The conduct of a service,21 those things?22
It does include that.23 They include defined religious entities24 to include certainly churches, services25 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 in that manner, but also educational2 institutions, so religious educational3 institutions as well.4
How about5 religious educational institutions that6 receive public funding or forms of public7 funding?8
In the way that we9 restructured the new definition, that's10 not a factor. It is --11
So if12 there's Title I money or busing money or13 any other, crossing guard, or any other14 government assistance to the institution,15 the educational religious institution,16 that would not be covered?17
Could a gay19 man or woman teach in a religious school20 without being discriminated against?21
Okay. The answer to22 that question really is going to be23 determined by court, but the outline of24 how that decision would be made is to25 27 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 look at whether there is anything2 ministerial to the duties of the3 individual whose job it is. So if you4 have somebody who is a crossing guard,5 for example, I would say that they're not6 involved in religious activities.7
If I8 have -- and I don't want to belabor this9 with anecdotal, but I just want to10 understand, because in this area, you're11 right, it's complicated, because you12 don't want to try too far to control it,13 but you also don't want to let it go too14 far the other way.15
A gay man,17 a social studies teacher in a religious18 school that was not known of his status19 prior to his hire and is then fired,20 would that individual have an action21 under this code?22
That type of claim23 would be something that we would24 absolutely accept. So we would take --25 28 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
So you2 don't determine social study teacher as3 performing a religious function or a4 ministerial function?5
Well, I think that we6 would accept the claim, assuming, again,7 that the claim is that he was fired8 because he was gay.9
With that in mind, we11 would accept the case, but then we would12 have to make the determination as to13 whether or not teaching in that14 particular institution constituted15 religious activity. And so you've gotten16 it right there, it is a question.17
So what18 you're saying is that is somewhat19 intentionally vague because at some point20 in time a court under whatever21 circumstances is going to make a decision22 about it and to be too confining may23 cause the law itself problem?24
I think that is25 29 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 absolutely correct. We, as the2 Commission, would make the decision in3 the first instance, but that would be4 subject to appeal.5
On another6 issue, what is the status regarding this7 bill of an individual who resides in the8 City but whose citizenship status is in9 question, either the individual does not10 have a green card, may be in some11 violation or outside the regulations of12 current immigration law? Are they13 permitted to be discriminated against?14
Our ordinance covers15 everyone who lives and works in16 Philadelphia regardless of --17
I want the22 record to be clear that that's the case,23 because a lot of folks for lots of24 reasons slip through the cracks and are25 30 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 taken advantage of and are not ready or2 readily come forward to complain about3 it, and you may have that situation with4 the passage of this bill where folks5 won't come forward, but if they did6 decide to come forward, regardless of7 their status, the claim would be at least8 accepted to be examined?9
Absolutely. And10 we also enforce the City's language11 access regulations as well.12
Thank14 you, Councilman.15 Councilman DiCicco.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.17 Good morning. This may be18 somewhat of a stretch. Would anything in19 this bill be applicable to an agency, a20 non-profit agency, as an example, who has21 either a direct or indirect benefit from22 the City of Philadelphia and would23 discriminate against an individual24 working within that non-profit25 31 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 association or would discriminate against2 individuals who may want to be members of3 that association? If we were renting a4 building to a non-profit organization and5 they discriminated against -- I see you6 shaking your head. Is there anything in7 here that would help us in that regard?8
You9 haven't left a lot to the imagination.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there11 anything in here that would be helpful to12 that cause?13
Reynell Staley,17 staff attorney for the Commission.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I never19 got to the Boy Scouts. I was only a Cub20 Scout.21
So like the22 religious exemption that Kay was talking23 about earlier, there are certain24 constitutional limits to our coverage of25 32 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 public accommodations. So in the2 employment context, we would fully cover3 a non-profit that was discriminating4 against an employee based on all the same5 basis as the -- as any other type of6 organization. With public7 accommodations, it depends. We would,8 again, accept cases that we think are9 alleging discrimination, but there could10 also be issues relating to how far we can11 go based on constitutional limitations12 and First Amendment issues.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.14
Thank15 you.16 Any other questions?17 Councilman Green.18
Just to19 clarify or close the loop on Councilman20 DiCicco's question, if the person is not21 an employee, if they're a volunteer or22 want to be a volunteer organization, they23 would not be covered by this statute?24
So under this25 33 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 ordinance as it is under the current law,2 it's unlawful for any organization,3 whether it's in employment, housing,4 public accommodations, to discriminate5 based on any of the bases that we cover.6 The issue comes in in whether how far we7 can go in enforcing that, and that's8 where the constitutional limits come into9 place.10 So a volunteer or -- volunteers11 in some cases may be considered12 employees, but talking about someone who13 just -- who is a patron of this14 non-profit, in which case it would fall15 under the Public Accommodations section,16 we would accept the case, we would fully17 investigate it, but how far we can go in18 actually ending that discrimination is an19 issue that may have larger constitutional20 implications beyond just our specific21 ordinance.22
Thank23 you.24 Councilman Kenney.25 34 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
Just to2 follow up on the issue of immigration3 status and language, licensed businesses4 with the City, businesses that are5 licensed with the City, under this6 proposed ordinance would they be7 permitted to refuse service to8 individuals relative to the language9 barriers? I mean, if we license a10 business, I assume we sanction the11 operation of that business, we inspect it12 for health issues, we inspect it for13 license and inspection issues, we provide14 additional ordinances when requests are15 made for outdoor seating or for any of16 those things.17 Would a business in that18 situation be permitted to refuse service19 under public accommodation to anyone20 relative to a language issue or language21 barrier?22
Again, our ordinance23 prohibits discrimination on the basis of24 national origin, and that is really where25 35 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 the language issues can come in. And so2 we prohibit discrimination on that basis3 as well. And so if someone is refused to4 be provided service based on merely5 language, that that could constitute a6 claim as discrimination under national7 origin.8
There was a9 recent -- not really recent. A few years10 ago there was an issue that the Human11 Relations Commission took up and found12 that there was not discrimination, which13 I thought from the very beginning of the14 case that they were going to find that15 way. Would this bill change that in any16 way? And I'm asking you to be the judge17 in a case that's not before you, but does18 this bill strengthen or further clarify19 the inability of a businessperson to20 refuse someone service or accommodation21 or a seat, or whatever, based on the fact22 that they have a language issue?23
There are no24 amendments to the ordinance in that25 36 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 regard, but I would like to point out2 that the Commission looked very different3 at the time of the prior case and that4 none of the Commissioners who are5 currently in service heard that6 particular case.7
But there is nothing9 in the ordinance that has been amended10 particularly that would affect that area.11
Thank you,17 Mr. Chairman.18 Explain the amendments relating19 to lending institutions, what they mean20 and whether any case has ever been21 brought with regard to lending22 institutions.23
There are not --24 in this bill there are no amendments to25 37 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 our protections for people against2 lending institutions. The language that3 I think that you're looking at has been4 in the ordinance for many years. We have5 had cases in the past. There are no6 current pending cases against lending7 institutions.8
I'll address that14 generally. We, as part of the amendments15 that we went through, again looked at16 everything very particularly, and we17 noticed that there were terms that were18 used sort of imprecisely, and so we took19 a look at how the word "person" was used20 and how the word "individual" was used.21 "Individual" meaning a human person, but22 "person" can be an individual, a23 corporate entity, a non-profit entity.24 So that was what we went through to make25 38 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 sure that we used the term "person" as2 opposed to "individual" consistently3 throughout.4
So there's5 clarifying definitions in the Definitions6 section.7
So I8 understand you're trying to broaden the9 definition of "person" to include other10 entities and it does not necessarily11 relate to fair lending, but that's why I12 asked about the case you had with regard13 to fair lending.14 Do you think that the change in15 definition should be somewhat compatible16 with fair lending laws and is there any17 definition in terms of fair lending laws18 that might apply better?19
The changes that20 we made to the Housing section in21 general -- and there's not many changes22 to the lending area -- make our ordinance23 more in line with the federal Fair24 Housing Act. We did this for many25 39 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 reasons. One, we want our ordinance to2 be in line with federal law, and, two,3 it's setting us up for a potential4 contract with HUD that we hope to get5 that will reimburse us for the housing6 cases that we take. It will make our --7 we're making our law substantially8 equivalent to HUD's law.9 So, in general, most of the10 provisions were left in here because they11 are in line with the federal Fair Housing12 Act, and we added some important --13
I'm14 referring more to lending institutions15 than fair housing, more fair lending and16 whether there are things in terms of17 federal law in terms of how you prove18 discrimination that might be able to19 update this.20
We are in line --21 the federal Fair Housing Act does cover22 lending institutions, and we are in line23 with the federal Fair Housing Act now.24 And we believe that the law as written25 40 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 now gives us all of the teeth that we2 need in order to enforce fair lending.3
Okay.4 Lastly, you say you haven't had any5 recent cases, but what type of cases have6 you had in the past and what were their7 conclusions?8
We did a lot of9 mortgage lending cases in the past.10 Again, one of the reasons why we're11 strengthening this part of our law, to be12 honest, we don't get that many fair13 housing cases. Most people who have14 claims, whether it's lending, mortgage15 through any sort of lending institution,16 mortgage, leases, they've been going to17 HUD or the Pennsylvania Commission,18 because their remedies, what they can get19 for finding someone in violation, are20 much stronger. We are now mostly in line21 with where we need to be. Unfortunately,22 there is one provision that we need to23 add to our law that will possibly be up24 to the state to pass, because the federal25 41 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 Fair Housing Act requires that you can2 assess penalties up to $50,000, which we3 can't do here in Philadelphia. We're4 working on that piece, but our goal with5 this ordinance and this bill was to make6 sure that we are as online as we possibly7 can be. We want to take more of those8 cases. We want to make sure that we're9 ensuring that Philadelphians are as10 protected as they can be and certainly11 have fair lending going on in the City,12 but we also need the teeth to help us get13 there.14
And you15 believe the Fair Housing Act covers small16 business lending or business lending?17
The federal Fair18 Housing Act does cover lending, yes,19 lending institutions.20
Okay. Thank24 you.25 42 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
And in addition to6 that, some of the changes that we made to7 this bill would ensure that we cover8 small businesses. So by protecting real9 property and commercial property and10 other real property, it ensures that it's11 not just residential lenders but also12 small business lenders who would be13 protected by the ordinance.14
Thank16 you, Councilman.17 Any other questions for this18 panel?19 (No response.)20
Seeing21 none, again, thank you all for your work22 you've done on this.23
Thank you very24 much.25 43 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
I'm going2 to jump a little bit out of the list,3 because the gentleman who needs to go to4 a class, I understand, has asked to go5 next. Ted Martin from Equality PA, and6 after that, it will be Carol Tracy,7 Women's Law Project.8 As Mr. Martin is coming up, I9 just want to make an announcement.10 Anybody here that's for the other bill11 and resolution we're dealing with dealing12 with the Jobs Commission, as soon as13 we're finished here with this bill, we'll14 take it right up.15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17 Mr. Martin, could you identify18 yourself for the record and proceed.19
Sure. My name is20 Ted Martin, and I would say good morning21 and thank you, Councilman Greenlee and22 members of the Law and Government23 Committee, for the opportunity to present24 very brief testimony in support of City25 44 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 Council Bill 110050. I am the Executive2 Director to Equality Pennsylvania.3 Equality Pennsylvania is the statewide4 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender5 advocate organization. I'm here really6 today from my office in Harrisburg. We7 also have an office here in Philadelphia,8 but I'm here today really to thank you,9 to offer thanks to the Philadelphia10 Commission on Human Relations, to Mayor11 Nutter, to Councilman Greenlee and12 Councilman Green for introducing this13 important legislation.14 In my role with Equality15 Pennsylvania, I spend much time in16 Harrisburg monitoring legislation. I17 spend much time in Harrisburg talking to18 individual legislators, and primarily19 what I say is a lot of negative things:20 Please don't do this; no, you can't do21 this; I would ask that you not consider22 this. And so to be honest, it is very23 refreshing and good to be here today to24 talk about the leadership role and to25 45 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 thank Philadelphia for playing that2 leadership role for the LGBT community3 here and really in the Commonwealth of4 Pennsylvania.5 You know, Philadelphia added6 sexual orientation to the Fair Practices7 Ordinance in 1982, gender identity in8 2002, a life partnership ordinance was9 passed in 1999. These are all terrific10 and wonderful things and show the11 leadership of the Commonwealth. The bill12 today, 110050, really enhances the13 protections to the LGBT community in a14 number of ways. It increases remedies15 available for complainants. It includes16 a new protected category for familial17 status. And it's really streamlined and18 easier to understand, and that's19 important for everyone in the LGBT20 community.21 So for that, I come here to say22 thank you for that. I say we support you23 in your efforts, and we really want to24 commend you for moving forward. It shows25 46 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 once again that Philadelphia is a leader2 in protecting the civil rights of LGBT3 citizens, and that's certainly important4 here as well as across the Commonwealth.5 So thank you very much.6
Thank7 you. Thank you for coming down and8 testifying.9 Any questions or comments from10 the Committee?11 (No response.)12
Our next17 witnesses, I'll call them up as a group18 just to keep things moving. Carol Tracy,19 Women's Law Protect, is Rachel Garland20 here from CLS, and Molly Callahan from21 Women Against abuse.22 If I can just ask -- I know23 some of you have written testimony. As24 you know -- I think you've all testified25 47 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 here before -- that can be made part of2 the record. You don't have to3 necessarily read the whole testimony, so4 we can kind of keep moving here.5 No offense, Carol, but yours is6 kind of long.7
Well, I realize8 mine is long and I did ask in advance if9 I should read it all or shorten it, and I10 was advised to read it all.11
14 Good morning. My name is Carol15 Tracy and I'm the Executive Director of16 the Women's Law Project. 19 Women are especially at risk for20 discrimination on the basis of21 caregiving, genetic conditions and22 domestic and sexual violence, and have23 long been in need of legal recourse. 7 The Women's Law Project knows8 firsthand how important the addition of9 familial status protection is to working10 women. We hear from women who11 disproportionately shoulder the burden of12 balancing work with the demands of13 parenting and caring for aging and ill14 family members. These demands impact15 women's ability to maintain employment,16 placing them at risk of losing their jobs17 and benefits, losing opportunities for18 advancement, and experiencing demotions19 because they are primary caregivers. 2 According to recent census figures, in 663 percent of households with children both4 parents work. The children of aging5 parents are now taking care of both their6 children and their own parents. Over 407 percent of caregivers nationwide have8 children under the age of 18. One in9 four families takes care of elderly10 relatives. 39 million Pennsylvanians13 provide essential family caregiving to14 aging family members, many of whom have15 complex medical needs and who rely16 exclusively on family for assistance. 20 While men are also at risk of21 family caregiving discrimination, women22 are at greater risk because more women23 are working while women continue to be24 primarily family caregivers. 1 point two percent of women 16 years and2 over were working in 2009. S. labor4 force and are projected to account for5 more in 2018. Sixty-one percent of6 American women who gave birth in 20087 were in the labor force. Nationally 758 percent of all family caregivers are9 women. Mothers perform one-fourth to10 two-thirds more childcare than their11 partners. 18 There are no federal or state19 laws that specifically prohibit20 discrimination based on family caregiving21 responsibilities. 1 sex, disability or other characteristics2 protected by federal employment3 discrimination laws, not all familial4 status discrimination fits neatly into5 these categories. 10 The EEOC makes it clear that Title VII11 does not prohibit discrimination based12 solely on parental or other caregiving13 status. An employer does not generally14 violate Title VII if it treats working15 mothers and working fathers in a similar16 unfavorable or favorable manner as17 compared to childless workers. 12 Unfortunately, many individuals13 have been placed in just this14 predicament. An increasing number of15 employees are seeking legal recourse for16 familial status discrimination, but gaps17 in the law may leave these individuals18 without protection. For example, a19 single mother in Massachusetts was fired20 when she was unable to meet her21 employer's demands that she work22 additional hours beyond those required in23 her job description. 1 that her employer violated the state's2 public policy favoring parental care and3 protection of children as an extension of4 the policy's underlying eligibility for5 unemployment compensation. 11 Men are also impacted by family12 responsibilities discrimination. In one13 lawsuit, a firefighter was passed over14 for a promotion because as a single15 father, he traded shifts, a common16 practice in the department, and took sick17 leave to care for his children. His18 chief repeatedly questioned him about his19 ability to care for his children while20 working as a firefighter. 4 The addition of familial status5 protections in the amended Fair Practice6 Ordinance will not only allow women and7 men to provide care for family members8 without fear of losing employment, but9 will also clarify the rights and10 responsibilities of employers. 6 Let me emphasize that the goal7 of familial status protection is not to8 burden employers or favor people with9 caregiving responsibilities, but simply10 to treat family caregiving fairly.
It11 will not give workers any additional time12 off or other benefits to which they are13 already entitled under the law or their14 employer's policy, nor will it prevent15 employers from disciplining or16 terminating employees for poor17 performance or misconduct. 1 caring for the children or parents of2 employed mothers and fathers. Working in3 their employer's homes behind closed4 doors, domestic workers are vulnerable to5 abuse and sexual harassment. The vast6 majority, 95 percent, of domestic workers7 are women and the vast majority are8 foreign born and/or women of color. 12 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196413 applies only to employers with 15 or more14 employees. The Pennsylvania Human15 Relations Act applies to employers with16 four or more employees. Individuals who17 employ domestic workers typically do not18 meet this threshold. It is, therefore,19 appropriate that Philadelphia's Fair20 Practices Ordinance, which applies to21 employers who employ one or more22 individuals, provide protection from23 employment discrimination to this segment24 of our workforce. 11 However, by otherwise removing the12 exemption, the Commission has widely13 extended necessary protection from14 discrimination to domestic workers while15 they are employed. 20 We wish to --21
-- emphasize the24 importance of the addition of genetic25 59 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 information protection as a protected2 classification under the Fair Practices3 Ordinance. Genetic employment4 discrimination occurs when an employee is5 dismissed, harassed or treated6 differently than co-workers as a result7 of having a gene mutation linked with a8 specific disease. For women,9 discrimination may be based on the gene10 mutations for breast cancer. Although11 federal law prohibits discrimination12 based on genetic information in the13 context of health insurance and14 employment, this law does not cover15 smaller employers who will fall under the16 jurisdiction of the Fair Practices17 Ordinance. So we strongly support this18 addition.19 Finally, we urge Council to20 adopt this bill because it streamlines21 complaints and hearing procedures and,22 most importantly, improves the legal23 remedies available by providing punitive24 damages for the first time. Increasing25 60 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 penalties sends an important message that2 discrimination will not be tolerated in3 our city and is the logical next step in4 deterring discrimination and extending5 rights to every Philadelphian.6 In addition, we encourage the7 Commission to adopt regulations that will8 specifically address service and9 resolution of complaints that identify10 the offending party as the chief11 executive officer or executive director12 of the organization against whom a13 complaint is filed. As we have seen in14 connection with the Philadelphia Housing15 Authority, a CEO charged with16 discrimination cannot be the only person17 informed of a complaint or the person18 responsible for responding to it.19 Regulations should require notice to and20 response from the entity's board of21 directors or other authority.22 In closing, we stand firmly in23 support of the comprehensive amendments24 and urge you to enact this bill, and25 61 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 thank you for providing me with the2 opportunity to present this testimony3 today.4
Good morning,8 Councilman Greenlee and members of the9 Law and Government Committee. My name is10 Rachel Garland and I'm a staff attorney11 at Community Legal Services in the12 Housing Unit. 5 The Employment Unit at6 Community Legal Services represents7 low-income citizens of Philadelphia in a8 variety of job-related discrimination9 issues, such as discrimination, wage10 claims, family medical leave, welfare to11 work, disability benefits and barriers to12 employment. Among the employment13 problems we see is individuals, mainly14 women, whose jobs are threatened as a15 direct or indirect result of domestic16 violence. The threat to jobs can take17 several forms. We've seen women lose18 their jobs because their batterer19 threatens or harasses them at work,20 leading either to their needing to quit21 or to their employer firing them. 3 Some lose their jobs because of time away4 from work needed to deal with the5 consequences of the domestic violence,6 going to court, seeking new housing,7 getting medical attention. 20 Unfortunately, there are very few21 employment protections for victims of22 domestic violence. 5 Because of the lack of job6 protections, we are pleased to see City7 Council addressing this issue within The8 Philadelphia Code. Adding victims of9 domestic violence to those covered by the10 Fair Practices Ordinance would help to11 provide some necessary protection to12 those whose jobs are threatened for13 reasons other than leave taken. We14 strongly believe that it should be an15 unlawful employment practice for an16 employer to fire or otherwise penalize17 workers, as they do, merely because the18 employee happens to be a victim of19 domestic violence. 6 The housing piece. The Housing7 Unit at Community Legal Services8 represents low-income citizens of9 Philadelphia in their housing cases,10 including evictions, repair issues and11 fair housing claims. Among the issues we12 see are victims of domestic and sexual13 violence who are refused housing or14 evicted from their homes for reasons15 related to the violence perpetrated16 against them. The threat to housing17 could take several forms. We've seen18 women evicted for calling the police or19 for enforcing a protection from abuse20 order. We've seen women evicted for21 damage done to a door that the abuser22 broke down to try and get in. 1 to terminate the tenant's and family's2 lease. We've seen women evicted or3 denied housing for refusing the sexual4 advances of their landlords. 8 For domestic violence victims,9 safe and stable housing is a crucial10 element in their ability to break out of11 the cycle of violence. Domestic violence12 victims are often forced to remain with13 or return to their abuser when they are14 unable to find adequate housing for their15 families. 3 In 2005, when Congress4 reauthorized the Violence Against Women5 Act, they included a new section6 specifically addressing the issues7 domestic violence victims face in8 maintaining stable housing. The9 reauthorized VAWA amended the federal10 Fair Housing Act to prohibit11 discrimination against domestic violence12 victims living in or applying to13 subsidized housing. 1 sexual violence victims deserve as a2 class to receive protection under the3 laws of our city. These protections will4 enable victims to find and maintain5 stable housing so that they can break out6 of the cycle of violence. 16
Thank you. Good20 morning. Molly Callahan from Women21 Against Abuse Legal Center.22 Women Against Abuse appreciates23 the ongoing support of City Council in24 addressing issues related to domestic25 69 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 violence and thanks Councilman Greenlee2 and Councilman Green for inviting us to3 testify today.4 Women Against Abuse is the5 largest domestic violence program in6 Pennsylvania. We operate the only7 battered women's shelter in Philadelphia8 and the first domestic violence legal9 center in the nation.10 Domestic violence continues to11 be an epidemic in the United States. In12 2009, the Philadelphia Police Department13 responded to over 114,000 domestic14 violence calls, and the Philadelphia15 Domestic Violence Hotline received nearly16 9,000 calls for help.17 The proposed amendments to the18 Fair Practices Ordinance ensure that19 victims of domestic violence and sexual20 violence cannot be discriminated against21 because of their status as a victim.22 Such discrimination is wrong and harmful23 on its face. It also plays into the24 abuser's hands. It further isolates and25 70 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 disempowers the victim. It punishes the2 victim for the abuser's behavior. Too3 often we hear stories of victims who are4 in danger of losing their job or their5 home because they have been victims of6 abuse. Because the abuser damages her7 door or because the victim has to call8 the police when the abuser shows up, the9 victim is in danger of being evicted.10 Because the abuser continually calls her11 job or because the abuser has beaten her12 and left marks on the victim, the victim13 is in danger of being fired.14 This ordinance will have an15 immediate positive impact on domestic and16 sexual violence victims and their17 children. It will keep them in their18 homes and it will keep them in their19 jobs. And it will also have a positive20 impact on the City. It will mean less21 unemployment and less homelessness and22 less of the problems that we see down the23 road when victims are not protected.24 To reduce violence now and in25 71 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 the future, we must ensure that victims2 and their children are supported by the3 community. Without this support, victims4 may be forced to return to the abuser,5 and this continues the cycle of violence6 for the victim and for generations to7 come.8 This ordinance recognizes that9 violence is a community issue and that it10 is through community support that we will11 truly break the cycle of abuse.12 Women Against Abuse strongly13 supports this legislation, which puts14 Philadelphia at the forefront of15 protecting victims of domestic violence16 and sexual violence.17 Again, we thank you for your18 support.19
Thank20 you, Ms. Callahan.21 Thank you all for what you do.22 Councilman Kenney.23
Thank you,24 Mr. Chairman.25 72 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 Just quickly, on the basis of2 the testimony, a couple things came out3 that I probably was aware of, but once4 you brought it to my attention, it had5 kind of been incredulous in some regards.6 And I'm wondering if the people from the7 Human Relations Commission could give me8 some idea as to whether or not if a woman9 is beaten, harassed at her workplace and10 winds up being fired as a result of that11 and takes an issue to the Human Relations12 Commission and is found that she in fact13 had been discriminated against, is that14 information private or is that a public15 record? Because my thought is that if16 there's --17
Currently all of20 that information is private. One of the21 provisions that we've included in the22 proposed amendments is that if the23 parties settle, that the terms of the24 settlement would be public. If it25 73 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 went -- if there was a finding of2 discrimination by our staff and then3 there was a public hearing before the4 Commissioners, that entire process would5 be public, and it currently is now as6 well. But under the existing ordinance,7 any case that where there's a finding of8 discrimination and the parties settle9 before there's a public hearing, there's10 no public information about that.11
Because one12 of the, I guess, ways in which to keep13 employers in this regard honest is the14 threat of having them exposed as being15 discriminatory. I mean, I'm not naive16 enough to think that women have not been17 fired for things like this, but when you18 bring it into the record and to our19 attention, it's, well, who the hell are20 these companies that are doing this to21 people, and I think that one of the ways22 to kind of keep that from happening or at23 least give an incentive not to do it24 would be exposing -- I can't imagine a25 74 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 major company that does this that would2 want that information in the public3 domain.4
I recall last year5 or two years ago when Councilman Greenlee6 introduced the legislation to allow7 unpaid leave, that he got a lot of8 pushback from employers on that issue.9
And I think10 we sunsetted it and it turned out to be11 fine.12
And when15 we made it permanent, I ask every year,16 has there been any complaints about it.17 Not one. Not one.18
I just19 think that the more -- again, I don't20 want to revictimize the victim by having21 this in the public domain if she doesn't22 want it there, but I do think it's23 important that companies realize that the24 threat of exposure for the firing of a25 75 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 woman who comes in and has been battered2 and doesn't look the way he likes her to3 look and fires her, or the abuser is4 constantly calling the office or calling5 the business, I mean to be fired for6 that, I think the public, the buying7 public or the shopping public, should8 know who those folks are.9
And it also should,10 if I may, bring these employers to the11 table to help end domestic violence.12
That people who14 have status and resources in the15 community should be part of --16
I know it's17 naive again, but you would hope that the18 owner, the manager would have some19 empathy and try to help as opposed to20 making the situation worse by making her21 unemployed.22 So, again, you answered my23 question, but I do think that founded24 cases of that where the business is25 76 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 discriminating like that should be made2 public.3
And we absolutely4 agree, which is part of why we actually5 included that amendment in the bill as6 well.7
Thank9 you. Thank you, Councilman.10 Any other questions or11 comments?12 (No response.)13
Seeing14 none, again, thank the three of you very15 much.16 Is there anyone else here to17 testify on Bill 110050, the fair18 practices law?19 (No response.)20
Seeing21 none, Ms. Marconi, could you please read22 the title of the next bill and resolution23 before us, please.24
Bill 110060, an25 77 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 ordinance providing for the submission to2 the qualified electors of the City of3 Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in4 a Resolution approved by Council5 proposing an amendment of The6 Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating7 to the creation, appointment, powers and8 duties of an independent Jobs Commission;9 and authorizing the appropriate officers10 to publish notice and to make11 arrangements for the special election.12 Resolution 110063, proposing an13 amendment to The Philadelphia Home Rule14 Charter to provide for the creation,15 appointment, powers and duties of a Jobs16 Commission; and providing for the17 submission of the amendment to the18 electors of Philadelphia.19
Thank20 you.21 I have three witnesses listed.22 Here comes Councilman Clarke.23 He's the sponsor of the bill, and he has24 asked to speak first. Then I have three25 78 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 witnesses, Kevin Dow, Mark Edwards and2 Robert Nelson.3 Is there anyone else here to4 testify?5 (No response.)6
Thank you,9 Mr. Chair. I will be brief.10 First, I'd like to thank you11 for holding this hearing in a timely way12 so we can get this issue on the ballot.13 Real briefly, as you know,14 we're talking about forming a Jobs15 Commission. This particular legislation16 was sponsored by all members of Council.17 One of the things that we wanted to do18 was to get a consolidated effort with the19 branches of government, meaning the20 administrative and the executive. In21 addition to which, we want to make sure22 that everybody gets to participate in the23 process that will ultimately end up to24 create good jobs for the citizens of the25 79 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 City of Philadelphia.2 As you know, there have been a3 number of commissions, the Tax Reform4 Commission, the Zoning Code Commission,5 which is currently winding down, all6 types of commissions, but there's not7 really been, from my perspective, an8 issue to merge all these commissions and9 to come up with one plan that at the end10 of the day talks about a job. I'm11 concerned that, as an example, the12 Chamber of Commerce essentially has had a13 single-minded approach as we move14 throughout the years of basically cutting15 taxes, which is probably something we16 would need to do, but it's clear that we17 have to do more than just cut taxes.18 We said in the hearing19 yesterday -- it was a six-hour hearing.20 We had a number of individuals who were21 from the ex-offender community, people22 who were working as advocates for the23 ex-offender community, to talk about24 strategies as it related to creating jobs25 80 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 for those most challenged individuals as2 it relates to their ability to get a job.3 They need to be a part of the discussion.4 We need to have the educational system as5 a part of the discussion, because at the6 end of the day, you create a job in the7 City of Philadelphia and the8 Philadelphians aren't adequately educated9 to take that job, then it's really not10 our primary objective.11 So I think that this will give12 us an opportunity with Council and the13 Mayor naming this panel, given a short14 timeframe, six months, get us a report15 that will essentially lay out a blueprint16 utilizing all of the information that's17 out there and the information that we18 will anticipate over the next year, both19 coming from the federal and state20 government, as it relates to some of the21 changes legislatively and from a22 resources perspective to give us a23 blueprint as we move ahead in the next24 decade to create some significant job25 81 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 opportunities in the City of2 Philadelphia.3 So I respectfully ask for your4 support for this legislation.5 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:6 Councilman, we were presented with some7 amendments. Are they your amendments?8 Are they amendments that we all agree --9
These are10 Administration amendments. I believe --11 well, I'll let them explain it, but12 they're Administration --13
They'll14 explain it? Are you supportive of those?15
Yeah. We16 found them to be acceptable to the17 legislation.18
I was19 going to ask for an explanation, but I20 thought Mr. Dow may be --21
Great.24 Any questions or comments for25 82 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 the Councilman?2 (No response.)3
Thank you,6 Mr. Chairman.7 Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. There8 were actually a couple of other9 individuals here representing10 organizations that had to leave because11 of the time.12
So they're15 going to be submitting supporting16 documents.17
That's18 why I try to get people to -- but what19 are you going to do.20
Mr. Dow.23 Again, anybody that has written24 testimony can submit it to the25 83 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 stenographer. We'll make sure it's part2 of the record. You don't have to read3 every single word.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6
Good --7 still morning, Mr. Dow. We got you up8 before at least noon.9
I'm patient. 13 Good morning, Chairman Greenlee14 and members of the Law and Government15 Committee. I am Kevin Dow, Deputy16 Commerce Director and Chief Operating17 Officer of the Commerce Department. I am18 here to testify on Resolution No. 110063,19 which proposes an amendment to the20 Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, and Bill21 No. 1 The proposal, sponsored by2 Councilman Clarke, would ask the voters3 at the May election to establish in the4 City's Charter a Jobs Commission. The5 resolution outlines the manner of6 appointment of the members of the7 Commission and the purpose of the8 Commission; namely, to study how City9 government and related economic10 development agencies can best marshal and11 coordinate resources to help create and12 preserve private-sector jobs for13 Philadelphians. 16 Before addressing the Charter17 change proposal directly, let me first18 briefly address some of the19 Administration's current efforts in this20 regard. 3 Rather, a coordinated effort fostering4 economic development and jobs growth have5 been a centerpiece of the work of this6 Administration. 18 As we begin what is hopefully a19 sustained upswing from the historic20 depression we have recently endured, we21 are positioning ourselves to grow in what22 we hope will be a dynamic and enduring23 way. 9 This is just the latest sign10 that the Navy Yard is taking off in a way11 that is spurring very significant job12 development. Based on the 130 million13 grant from the Department of Energy, the14 Greater Philadelphia Innovation Cluster15 will be built at Building 661 at the Navy16 Yard. 10 Also in West Philadelphia, Children's11 Hospital recently received bond approval12 to build a state-of-the-art ambulatory13 care facility, which will lead to 250 new14 permanent jobs in its first phase. 24 The PhillyLive! 20 Through our Office of Economic21 Opportunity, we are also creating an22 environment where opportunities are being23 created for minority and women-owned24 businesses. 1 we have increased participation in City2 contracts of these businesses to almost3 24 percent. 13 As you can see from these many14 and many more accomplishments, our15 commitment to job creation is strong and16 successful. 1 coordination of efforts among the many2 agencies and entities involved. We would3 like to propose several amendments to the4 resolution, however, to more closely5 match existing Charter language in6 connection with similar bodies created to7 conduct studies and provide8 recommendations. Most significantly, the9 composition of the Commission should be10 firmly established and, therefore, not11 subject to change by future City Council12 ordinance. The same applies to the13 duties of the Commission. These duties14 are well spelled out in the resolution15 and should not be subject to change by16 Council ordinance. 21 Our proposed amendments were22 submitted to the Committee with our23 testimony. 1 Thank you for the opportunity2 to testify regarding Bill No. 110060 and3 Resolution No. 110063. 12
Thank13 you, Mr. Dow.14 Any questions?15 Councilman Goode.16
Thank you,17 Mr. Dow. I'm actually trying to do the18 calculation here. You presented the19 Administration's record pretty clearly on20 job creation. Can you tell us what the21 investment is per job on average?22
I just did25 93 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 it.2
It's $4008 million invested. Is that number9 accurate?10
I have a grand total11 for projects that I have listed roughly,12 public investment, of -- for 2010, I13 broke it down, and then if you add the14 total for '08 and '09. So for 2010, we15 have 52,000,954. That leveraged16 project -- that was a total project cost17 of 48 million --18
I'm actually19 looking at in your testimony, next20 to the last paragraph.21
You said in23 the last calendar year, the City has24 invested over $400 million in numerous25 94 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 economic development projects.2
And the7 result in the creation and retention of8 4,500 jobs. Do you know how many --9
Do you know12 how many of those jobs were created and13 how many of those jobs were retained?14
I do not know.15 That's a combination of construction16 jobs, permanent jobs. So I don't know17 that breakdown right now.18
I'm going to19 try to separate the creation from20 retention, not so much whether they're21 permanent or temporary, but how many were22 created and how many were retained.23
Well, I mean, the24 example, that would include the 1,30025 95 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 from Glaxo that were retained and --2 that's the biggest number that I would3 know right off the top of my head.4
Because if5 they were all created, the cost would be6 about $11,250 per job, which is not bad,7 but knowing that the majority may not8 have been created but retained, once that9 number gets to a certain figure, the10 investment per job creation is not11 necessarily as good. So I was wondering,12 is there a goal in terms of what the13 maximum per job should be in terms of job14 creation?15
A goal from the --16 well, we would like to maximize as many17 jobs as possible.18
I'm saying19 what's the maximum that should be spent20 per job in terms of job creation?21
That's a very good22 question. I wouldn't be able to say23 specifically what that number should be24 relative for every job created, this is25 96 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 how much we should spend. What I would2 say is that that's relative based on the3 scenario at hand.4 So if you look at the retention5 of GlaxoSmithKline, that might be a6 different scenario than the retention of7 another type of business. When you look8 at the type of employees that Glaxo has9 in terms of the level of income that10 those generate, therefore, the taxes that11 they generate. So we might very well12 spend a little bit more for that type of13 client or something different.14 So I don't know the answer, but15 I would know that it's relative based on16 that.17
I guess at18 the end of the day, that's why we19 probably do need a Jobs Commission,20 because I think it needs to be averaged21 out. You're right, we're going to spend22 more for certain jobs. We should spend23 more for certain jobs. They're higher24 quality jobs. But if we have limited25 97 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 public investment, there probably does2 need to be some sort of standard set that3 we look to spend per job on an annual4 basis so that we're making sure that5 we're maximizing our job creation with6 the few dollars that we do have.7
Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17 Respectfully, did you write18 your testimony?19
Was someone22 in the Administration, did they review it23 and say that this is okay?24
There was a team of4 individuals, Legislative Affairs, Mayor's5 Office --6
Yeah. I speak for9 the Administration, so this was approved10 by the Administration, yes.11
You weren't16 in the room when the Mayor approved it17 or -- if he did, you weren't there?18
I'm just20 trying to figure out who -- again, I21 usually don't like to take issue with the22 Administration on many things, but I find23 the testimony bizarre. I mean, the bulk24 of it was this what I heard at the25 99 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 Chamber of Commerce luncheon. I think2 I've heard that whole list of things.3 It's wonderful, but it had nothing to do4 with the Job Commission. And then you5 come to the end of your testimony, you6 say, Well, by the way, we're not opposed7 to it. I mean, not exactly like stellar8 support for it.9
Part of what we10 wanted to extend the message is that the11 Administration is doing things to create12 jobs and create an environment.13
Does the14 Administration believe that the15 introduction of this bill was somehow a16 comment that you weren't?17
It would19 seem to be very defensive, and I don't20 think there was a need to be defensive.21 And the other issue, frankly,22 and, again, respectfully, I'm less likely23 to want to support these amendments24 because of the way in which -- the25 100 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 reasons for which they were given, and,2 that is, you don't want us to do anything3 on our own. You don't want this Council4 or future Councils to take action.5 Why would the Administration6 want to take a position like that?7
We were trying to8 align the amendments up with similar9 bodies that had been created, so to10 create consistency from commission to11 commission to commission. We seen in the12 past different from what we had today, so13 that's what we were trying to do.14
Again, you15 know me, I don't necessarily like to16 fight with you guys, the best I can, but17 I find it somewhat offensive that you're18 going -- the reason for the amendments is19 to protect everybody from us, which to me20 is how I heard it, and then the bulk of21 your testimony is the accomplishments of22 the Administration, and I applaud them,23 but -- and then kind of lackluster24 support for the Commission itself. I25 101 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 mean, to me it wasn't appropriate2 testimony, but, again, respectfully,3 you're able to do whatever you want. But4 I'm less likely to support those5 amendments based on the rationale for6 them. And I, again, applaud the7 Administration's job creation and8 retention efforts. I think they've done9 a great job in the midst of a bad10 economy, but I think that maybe an11 approach that we applaud Councilman12 Clarke or Council's efforts to continue13 to help our citizens get work.14
That's more16 of an approach that would have been more17 palatable, I guess.18
To succinctly say, we19 do applaud Council's efforts here. We20 applaud the Councilman's efforts here.21 We do and are very much open to more22 creative thinkers. The more minds that23 are thinking about this topic, the better24 our success can be.25 102 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
So the2 Administration in that regard doesn't3 oppose this?4
We are on board with8 the proposal as is with the amendments9 attached.10
Thank you.14 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:15 Councilman Green.16
Thank you.17 Does the Administration support18 the proposal without the amendments?19
I would say we would20 rather have the proposal move forward and21 the legislation move forward with the22 amendments.23
So if we24 ever need another Jobs Commission after25 103 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 this one is done, we would have to have2 another Charter change rather than simply3 by legislation sort of changing the date,4 appointing new people, doing things that5 would allow us to have a Jobs6 Commission -- let's hope we don't need it7 in ten years again if we need it --8 without going back to the voters?9
According to the10 resolution as it stands, that would be11 correct.12
Well, I just16 would be curious to know what the sponsor17 of the bill thinks about the amendments.18 I'll be guided by his...19
Thank you,20 Councilman. As I said earlier, these21 were the Administration's amendments.22 There was one amendment that we need to23 make, simply taking out the language24 annually two times a year. This is a25 104 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 six-month commission. So we need to2 delete that from the bill, because if3 it's a six-month commission, there's no4 need to have a reference to having two5 hearings, two public meetings a year.6 That needs to come out.7 These amendments are amendments8 that I can obviously live without. In9 the spirit of cooperation, if this10 Committee supports those amendments, I'll11 go along with it, but it's not something12 that I asked for. I'm trying to do this13 as diplomatic as possible.14
That was15 a very politically correct answer,16 Councilman.17
I do want22 to concur with Councilman Kenney's23 reference to the testimony and say that24 the intent of this Council was in no way25 105 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 attempting to put the Council -- put the2 Administration on the defensive and3 suggesting that you're not doing a good4 job or as an aggressive job as you can.5 It was simply that we are allegedly a6 partnership, and Council has the right7 and responsibility to be proactive in its8 attempt to deal with all citizens of the9 City of Philadelphia as it relates to10 coming up with creative ideas. I mean,11 we understand that the Administration in12 terms of staffing has all of the various13 departments as it relates to job14 creation. Unfortunately, we don't have a15 Commerce Department within Council, which16 I wish we did, but we do have significant17 talent not only in terms of18 Councilmembers but on staff. So it's our19 way of showing that we are engaged in the20 issue, which I believe personally is the21 most important issue that we should be22 focused on.23 So it was not the intent to put24 you guys on the defensive where you felt25 106 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 the need to come in and testify about all2 the wonderful things you've done.3
I understand that,9 and it was a way in which to put on the10 record the efforts that we have to create11 jobs and create an environment for12 Philadelphians for jobs. It was not in13 any way as a disrespect or disregard to14 you or the Council as a whole or the15 Chair. And we too look at this as a16 partnership. We too would say that more17 individuals -- the more we could do with18 creating the environment for Philadelphia19 to get jobs is what we're all about, and20 if this Commission can help us with that,21 augment our efforts, we're looking22 forward to working with them as well.23
I guess I24 didn't answer the question.25 107 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:2 Councilman Goode.3
I do try my4 best to function as your Commerce5 Department within Council.6
Mr. Dow,7 I can't resist this, even though it8 doesn't exactly deal with this bill. In9 that spirit of cooperation, do you think10 it's probably a good idea when there's11 communication made by the Administration12 on a bill, that there should be13 communication with Council and sponsors14 of that bill?15
I appreciate your21 understanding in that regard, and I22 appreciate your professionalism and the23 leadership.24
I25 108 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 couldn't leave that one go, sir. Thank2 you.3 Councilman Clarke.4
So I'm5 comfortable with the Committee if they6 are not supportive of the amendments and7 I'm comfortable if they are.8
I10 understand your concern, believe me, but11 there was some -- and this is a public12 hearing, but there were some13 conversations behind the scene. I think14 that the testimony as originally written15 would have been a little less palatable16 to Councilmembers.17
Okay.21 All right. Duly noted. Thank you.22 Any other questions or comments23 for Mr. Dow?24 (No response.)25 109 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
Seeing2 none, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Nelson, why3 don't you come up together.4 Is there anyone else here -- I5 asked this before. Is there anyone else6 here to testify other than these two7 gentlemen?8 (No response.)9
Again,10 I'll try this one more time. If you have11 written testimony and you would just like12 to submit it and paraphrase your13 statements, that would be fine. Thank14 you.15 (Witnesses approached witness16 table.)17
Mr.18 Edwards, you're on the list first, so I19 guess you can go. Just identify yourself20 for the record first and proceed. Do you21 have copies?22
We'll24 distribute them. Thank you.25 110 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1
Good morning,2 Chairman Greenlee and members of the3 Committee on Law and Government. My name4 is Mark Edwards. continue to mount. percent in3 Philadelphia and is even higher in many4 of our neighborhoods. The loss of a job5 or the inability to find one in the first6 place leaves a trail of personal7 destruction in the wake of each person8 that is affected. S. families spent at11 least one night in a homeless shelter in12 2009 than in each of the previous two13 years. 18 The creation of a Jobs19 Commission will support other important20 efforts now being undertaken in the City21 to promote job growth and reduce and22 prevent the kinds of devastating23 consequences just cited. 1 streamlined agency that unites the2 Philadelphia Workforce Development3 Corporation and the Philadelphia4 Workforce Investment Board. This merger,5 which is targeted to occur before the end6 of the current fiscal year in June, is7 part of a broader plan to improve8 coordination and enhance the local9 workforce system. It reflects the Nutter10 Administration's position that the people11 of Philadelphia would be best served by a12 single workforce system that includes the13 broad scope of adult and youth employment14 and training services. 19 For example, the Deputy Mayor20 of Economic Development has been21 appointed to both the Philadelphia22 Workforce Investment Board and the23 Philadelphia Workforce Development24 Corporation Board. 11 From my perspective, and based12 on numerous conversations that I have had13 with businessowners since January of last14 year, one of the areas we might consider15 in this new approach is to help identify16 current legislative and fiscal policies,17 laws and regulations that discourage or18 even thwart job creation and the19 recruitment of new employers to20 Philadelphia. 10
Thank11 you, Mr. Edwards. Why don't we hear from12 Mr. Nelson and then if there's any13 questions.14 Mr. Nelson, please identify15 yourself.16
Yes, sir. Thank17 you. My name is Bob Nelson. I'm18 President of the Philadelphia OIC. Good19 morning, Mr. 21 OIC, if you don't know, was22 founded in 1964 by the late Reverend Leon23 H. 2 percent. 15 Let me add another number to16 that. I attended a workshop of United17 Way a couple of months ago and prior to18 the start we were given a multiple-choice19 quiz. Two of the questions and answers20 were as follows: How many adults in21 Philadelphia have not completed a high22 school diploma? 7 And the implications of that8 are staggering, as there were 200,0009 adults who do not have what used to be10 the basic credential. In the 21st11 century, the basic credential, at a12 minimum, is an Associate degree but more13 so a Bachelor's degree. 19 There is another phenomenon now20 being played out. Historically OIC has21 served the most disadvantaged among us,22 those among the 200,000 I articulated23 earlier. 1 example, when they go to get a job, they2 are now standing in line with people who3 have a college degree. 9 This economic crisis has forced10 people to take whatever job they can get,11 even if that means making a significant12 career change. 16 Let me share an example. We17 recently graduated a student from our18 housekeeping course who has a Bachelor's19 degree in biotechnology and a Master's20 degree in chemistry. 9 The Jobs Commission may be a10 great idea, but only if the work focuses11 on the following questions: Where are12 the jobs and what are the educational,13 experiential and skill sets requirements14 for the job? 20 Moreover, there must be surveys of the21 small business community, community-based22 organizations, churches and certainly23 through PWDC to create a database of24 prospective employers. 19 Also creating this Jobs20 Commission may be a good idea but only if21 it galvanizes the broad range of22 community employers to offer those23 opportunities. 1 for us. 7
Thank8 you, sir.9 Are there any questions or10 comments for either Mr. Edwards or11 Mr. Nelson?12 (No response.)13
Seeing14 none, thank you both very much. Thank15 you for all you do. Thank you for your16 patience and hanging in there to testify.17 Is there anyone else here to18 testify on this bill or resolution?19 (No response.)20
Seeing21 none, that ends the hearing of the22 Committee on Law and Government. We will23 now go into the public meeting.24 The Chair recognizes Councilman25 122 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 Kenney for amendment to Bill 110050.2
Thank you,3 Mr. Chairman. Again, congratulations on4 all your hard work on this bill.5 I move that Bill No. 110050 be6 amended as was discussed in testimony7 today.8 (Duly seconded.)9
It's been10 moved and seconded.11 All in favor please say aye.12 (Aye.)13
Hearing16 none, the amendments are approved.17 Once again, Councilman Kenney.18
Thank you,19 Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.20 110050, as amended, be reported out of21 this Committee with a favorable22 recommendation and a request made for a23 rules suspension to allow first reading24 at our next Council session.25 123 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 (Duly seconded.)2
It's been3 moved and seconded.4 All in favor please say aye.5 (Aye.)6
Hearing9 none, Bill No. 110050, as amended, is10 reported out of Committee with a11 favorable recommendation, rules of12 Council suspended to allow for first13 reading at our next session of Council.14 Once again, Councilman Kenney15 on Bill No. 110060.16
I will17 respectfully defer to the Commerce18 Director of City Council for that motion.19
Otherwise25 124 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 known as Councilman Goode.2
Thank you,3 Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 110060 be4 reported out of Committee with a5 favorable recommendation, the rules of6 Council be suspended so as to permit7 first reading at our next Council8 session.9 (Duly seconded.)10
It's been11 moved and seconded.12 All in favor please say aye.13 (Aye.)14
Hearing17 none, Bill No. 110060 has been reported18 out of the Committee with a favorable19 recommendation and a suspension of the20 rules to allow for first reading at our21 next session of Council.22 Once again, Councilman Goode on23 Resolution 110063.24
Thank you,25 125 2/24/11 - LAW & GOV'T - BILL 110050, etc.1 Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution No.2 110063 be reported out of Committee with3 a favorable recommendation.4 (Duly seconded.)5
It's been6 moved and seconded.7 All in favor please say aye.8 (Aye.)9
Hearing12 none, Resolution 110063 is reported out13 of this Committee with a favorable14 recommendation.15 There being no further business16 before the Committee on Law and17 Government, thank the members and18 everyone here. The Committee stands in19 recess.20 (Committee on Law and21 Government concluded at 12:10 p.m.)22 - - -23 24 25 126 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on February 24, 2011, and7 that this is a true and correct transcript of8 same.9 10 11 12 13 --------------------14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 17 18 19 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24 25