I'm just asking the question; I don't want to debate the point for the moment.
Is this amendment different than -- does this do something different to the bill than was explained by the Finance Director when I asked him in the example of the 20-year employee, when I talked about their service at years 10, 11 and 12, and that their salary was $25,000, but they may have done overtime in those three years and that the pension would be calculated on a $35,000 figure. The finance director responded, or Mr. Kidwell responded, that the bill only applied to their prospective years of service, that they were not going back to capture those years of 10, 11, and 12. He said that people would have to work more years to be able to capture the three highest years and the average. What I am asking you now is: Does this amendment, in fact, do what I asked the Finance Director, does it do? To which he responded no. 25 Does this amendment, in fact, go back and capture 101 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212 those years in my example of 10, 11, and 12 in order to calculate that person's pension?
This amendment, in fact, does not in fact deal with that situation, but let's the situation be interpreted as it is currently interpreted. The precise answer to the example you give would be that whatever benefits, whatever benefits the employee would have if he retired three years from now, however that section that you talked to Mr. Kidwell about would be interpreted, that the straight provisions of pensions would apply. One of them -- there are many provisions that would apply.
One of them applies to everybody. Whoever works for the City under the regular pension law, the full three years are calculated, the full three years at the highest level. It's true today, under the pension system, it's not the last three years, it's the three highest-paid years. 102 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
Yeah. Well, that would remain in effect, and we're not seeking any change at all in that.
Councilman, just a point of information here. I just conferred with City Council Attorney Mr. Shapiro, and we would have answered that question yes, so I think there's a little bit of disagreement as to exactly what this does, and I want it to be very clear. He would have answered your question yes, I would have answered your question --
Well, let just answer that question directly. 103 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
Right now, say Mr. Mattia retired tomorrow; he would get the benefit of those highest three years, say, if they were in his file for 1980, '81, and '82.
He would get that benefit now. That's a benefit that the current pension law applies to everybody that retires. It takes their three highest years. All that this amendment would do, the only change this amendment would make is --
I thought the purpose of the bill was to deal with that.
I thought the purpose of the bill was to deal with that.
I'm sorry. 104 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
The purpose of the bill is to permit the inclusion of overtime in the computation of what the pension should be.
The amendment only deals with -- it applies to current employees. Right now, any overtime they had in the past is not covered, it's just not counted.
This would permit for overtime to be counted going all the way back. And I don't know what that would do to anyone's three last years.
Okay, all right. That's my first question. Now, my second question is --
But it would be the same standard applicable to every other retiree.
Okay. 105 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
My second question is? Was there any discussion about this amendment by either Mr. Hayllar or Mr. Kidwell on the record?
Well, you're asking questions that if answered maybe directly don't give an answer to the question.
They said in reply to this question -- I raised it. There was a lot of discussion, not just a mention, lots of discussion. And Mr. Kidwell and Mr. Hallyar both 106 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212 said in the course of the discussion that this applies prospectively, that the overtime that they've worked in the past would not be counted.
This amendment is aimed to include that. We don't know what's the justice of counting overtime next year but not counting the current year.
Right. But, Councilman, I'm still asking the question. You may have had the discussion.
Right. I'm still asking the question, was this amendment and it's language --
I understand that. So this amendment and its language, as presently before us, was not discussed specifically and directly on the record by either Mr. Hayllar or Mr. Kidwell.
No, no. 107 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
No, except that they said they were opposed to this amendment.
Councilman Cohen wrote this during a Tasty break. It was that quick.
I was struck by what I think is an injustice. Why, if Tom Mattia retires now, should he be denied in his pension.
I'm not on the committee, the committee has indulged me greatly.
I just want to at least raise, for the committee's purposes --
I would have no 108 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212 objection to --
Is there any need to get specific and direct testimony on a now-written amendment --
As the chairman of this committee, I would think so, yes.
No member who was not here, in my opinion, going to be able to understand what happened here this afternoon.
I have no objection to the hearing being continued to another date. We could take it to a specific date and have this specific amendment discussed.
I mean, I'd just like to at least have them at the table to ask the question. They'll say whatever they're going to say, but --
Okay, fine. 109 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
Can we take a recess for five minutes? No, no, I want to recess for five minutes to straighten this out. Because these people been waiting for this since 1996. And it's my point -- and this is for the record -- that they wanted this. They didn't know about amendment. The amendment has a great intention, and I would be in favor of this amendment. But Councilman Nutter's right; we might be putting an amendment in that the administration probably is going to be against -- not that that's important in our scope of things, but it's something we have to realize.
Well, yeah. I mean, I only raised it because the administration was against this bill two years ago.
They changed their position on the bill to be supportive. Now, there's a new piece to it. 110 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
I'd just like to get an answer. It'll be whatever it's going to be, we'll take whatever position we're going to take.
How about we just vote on the amendment as it stands? I'll vote against the amendment if it has to be come to it.
That's your call. I mean can't do anything about that.
Would the Councilman be willing to withdraw his amendment to another time?
Do you want to withdraw your amendment till we get in front of --
I would be happy to withdraw the amendment if another hearing would be called very promptly. I have no reason not to want the administration to discuss the amendment specifically.
Yeah. I'm not arguing their case; I just want to know --
I would be -- 111 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
'Cause the thing is going to end up on the floor one day. I just want to know what I'm voting for.
All I'm trying to do is to avoid making a decision before this amendment is considered.
Let me just ask you this: If he withdraws the amendment and we vote this out of committee, we can have a discussion on the floor, too.
You can have a discussion on the floor but you're not going to be able to ask -- you're not going to have testimony.
They can send a letter, but you're not going to have the Finance Director or the other guy at the table to ask questions. That's all I'm saying.
I'm going to convene this public meeting to the call of the Chair and leave it just where it is.
So you're not going to report it out; you're going to leave it 112 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212 where it is.
We're going to leave it just where it is, all right? And when we get Hayllar and them back over, we'll do it.
Well, the second one, well, that -- that convenes our public meeting. And the second bill, before we convene the public meeting, that was just a bill that Councilman Kenney withdrew, and we just had the testimony on it, so that stays on the record.
970212 is withdrawn, okay, by Councilman Kenney. Thank you. That convenes the Labor and Civil Service.
Well, wait a minute. What happened on the resolution? 113 COMMITTEE ON LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Bill 970212
Okay, then you got to say it on the record because it was advertised. These three were advertised so you got to dispose of all three of 'em.
Okay. And the Resolution No. 980154 was being held by the request of Councilman Ortiz, who submitted it. Thank you.
Thanks for your help. (Adjourned at 1:15 p.m.) - - - 114 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, October 27, 1998, were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE BILL NO.'S 960598, 970212 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter