The other work that we highlight, Council President, is our juvenile work. I also mention all the work that our Municipal Court Unit does, which has 129 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET handled 81,000 cases last year. That's kind of astronomical. But they've been doing some good work, legal and social service work, in domestic violence issues, in the domestic violence status court. And also we have taken over representation on 11th Street in Family Court in domestic violence criminal matters, and we have been able to provide a lot of needed social service there in the domestic violence area, which I think has a lasting impact in terms of reducing the number of domestic violence cases. Also in the area probation and alternative sentencing, we handled a huge number of hearings last year. We handled 60,000 probation and parole violation hearings, which is really an increase of 56 percent, a huge increase, since the year 2000. There is more in there, but I hear what you're saying. I go back to simply asking that Council assist us on these parity issues, salary parities, so we don't visit it every year. I thank you for your time and attention. I thank you for your continuing 130 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET support of our work.
Thank you. And thank you for the wonderful work that you do. You were talking about parity. In the City Solicitor's Office, what do the attorneys' starting salary -- what is their starting salary?
To tell you the truth, I don't know. But it's, I'm sure, at least $44,000. I don't have any information on the Solicitor. It's hard enough to get any information on the DA.
Okay. I don't know that any of the Councilmembers have any questions. Thank you all for your patience. You were very kind waiting. The DA will be here, so we're going to recess until 2:30. Thank you very much. 131 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET (Recess taken.)
This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 040255. Is the District Attorney here?
Please approach the witness table, identify yourself and proceed with your testimony. I do apologize about the delay this morning. Thank you.
Just give me one moment, Madam President, if you would. Good afternoon, Madam President. I'm sorry for the delay. I'm glad to see you. It's always a pleasure to be here before you and City Council. I know that Council has been supportive of our office and I'm going to ask you to do the same today, but in an unusual fashion. I previously provided to Council a copy of my budget message, and it presents, I think, a fairly balanced approach to the issues facing the District Attorney's Office. 132 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET As you can see, behind me are various chiefs, deputies and others about whom you may be hearing more later. To my right is Al Toczydlowski, and he'll spell his name for the record.
He is the deputy for all of our administrative issues which may come up during the course of our proceedings. I'm not going to read my testimony, unless anybody suggests that I do. I'd be happy to do that. Otherwise, I'm just going to ask that my budget statement be introduced as part of the record and made an exhibit thereto and an attachment thereto in its entirety. That will avoid the necessity of reading it. Essentially what I'm asking Council to do is a brave and bold step, and that is to say no to the proposed budget cuts provided to the office through the Budget Director of the City of Philadelphia, the Finance Director and the Mayor. As you may know, the office is a 133 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET very complex structure with a variety of responsibilities and jobs. But essentially what has happened is that we were presented with about a $600,000 budget cut this year. We have always been accommodating to the Mayor and the Administration to the extent that we've been capable of doing so in the past. 5 percent budget cut in each of the three fiscal years. We didn't complain. We didn't moan. We just said, well, we'll do our part because the City was suffering. Similarly this year when our budget statement came through from the Budget Director via the Finance Director, we agreed that we would relinquish $600,000, plus or minus some dollars, to the City as an accommodation, because I read the newspapers and I live here just as you all do, and thought that I would want to do my part, as I have done in years before. We submitted our budget papers to the Budget Director with the $609,000 budget 134 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET cut. 8 percent. And the Budget Director asked us to fill in the papers agreeing to that cut, and I wouldn't do that and I'm not going to do that. The Budget Director is going to do what he's going to do. The Finance Director will do what she's going to do. And I'm asking you to do something that's very brave and bold, and that is say no to this monstrous budget cut. I believe that I am fairly clear in my statements, that the kind of budget cut that has been suggested by the Mayor through his Budget Director and Finance Director is going to result truly in a loss of life and in a loss of quality of life that is truly incalculable. And I'm not here going to try to put a dollar figure on anybody's life or anybody's life quality, but I can tell you that the kind of budget cuts proposed will 135 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET mean a drastic reduction in both programs as well as people. Programs will be initially phased out or eliminated. People will also have to be phased out. We're not going to lay off anybody and we're not going to fire anybody. But obviously, as people leave, we will not replace them. Cases are more numerous in many of our courtrooms. Our courtrooms are really filled to the gills every day with cases. And the fact of the matter is that crime becomes more complicated, more difficult, and the expertise that you need to prosecute difficult cases only comes with experience. Every person in this City who is a victim of crime wants to come into court assured that he or she is represented by skilled counsel. It's the same kind of counsel that you would want if either you were a defendant or a victim. You would want the best quality representation that you could get. And it stands to reason that when people leave the City of Philadelphia and leave our office for the kinds of salaries that we can't even offer 136 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET incoming people -- our salary structure is such that our young lawyers who come to the office are grossly underpaid relative to the open market. While they want to come to Philadelphia or remain in Philadelphia, it makes it more and more difficult for them to survive. So the ultimate upshot of all these budget cuts is that we are going to reduce programs.
And these programs will also be reduced, in addition to the people that we will reduce over the course of this budget cycle. Obviously, lawyers aren't interchangeable. You can't take a youngster fresh out of law school and the Bar and put him on major trials and homicides. It takes a tremendous amount of time and skill to gain that kind of expertise. When senior people leave, you can't replace them with somebody who's just left law school coming into the office. And if you cut the people that we have in this office through this enormous budget cut, the citizens are the ones to suffer. And that's why I'm asking you to say 137 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET yes to the programs that I suggest, that I believe that you want to, support and say no 4 to the program cuts that are going to have to happen. In addition to that, I think it's important to say that because I've been participating in so many marches and so many protests and so many issues and have served with City Council for such an extended period of time, I think I know the pulse of the people of this great City. They really want a strong prosecutor's office. They want to be confident that they're going to get the best possible representation. They are the people who you see, you Councilpeople see, every day, fearful, prisoners in their own home, worried about school violence, worried about shootings on the street, seeing too many young people going to funerals. They cry out to us. They say to us, help us. As my opening quotation says from John Norcross' book, The Wealth of Cities, the City of Philadelphia will never truly be safe unless or until we're ready to take ownership of all of the constituent 138 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET issues that are related to fighting crime. I think Commissioner Johnson is correct. You can't arrest your way out of the problem. There are too many issues. But I believe that a strong and dedicated cadre of men and women, such as are presently occupying the District Attorney's Office, every day going into court, handling countless cases and numerable problems are really doing their yoman's best to represent every person in the City and to make Philadelphia safer and better. They have to live here. They are citizens. They have children. They have wives or husbands or partners. 2 million budget cut. So I think that by asking Council to say no, I'm asking you really to say yes. I'm really asking you to say that we recognize as a body the issues that the prosecutor brought to your attention and that you support them and you want a change in the budget. I know you can't change the budget. 139 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET In other words, you can't put more money in the budget, but you can change money in certain classes from certain things to certain other things. And if you choose not to do so, I can assure you that men and women in the office will continue to do the best job that they possibly can and they will work very, very hard, but you can't hope to have courtrooms covered with insufficient people. And as my budget statement mentioned, we've already told two administrative judges that we will be unable to man courtrooms that they want us to open. It is going to be impossible. It's already impossible for our DAs to handle in some rooms. We used to have many more rooms where two DAs would be there because there would be one on trial and then another one also on trial or ready to try. And therefore, you have to have some respite. You can't just be like an engine or a horse without a break. There are other problems that I've outlined in my notes that will indicate programs that will have to be cut and will be 140 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET cut, and this will mean a tremendous detriment to the City of Philadelphia. So I think that in fairness to Council, I'm asking for your help.
I really want you to take that bold step as Councilpeople and reconfigure the budget so that the loss is not so terrible, so that we can continue to provide high quality representation to all victims of crime and to do the first-class work that our men and women want to do. The consequence of not being able to hire people to replace people who are leaving or to give raises to the people who are trying to stay, is that they will leave and go elsewhere. And there will be a price to pay for all of this. We'll survive, but there will be a heavy price to pay.
Thank you. I see that you're being cut by over $2 million.
Have you had any conversation with either the Finance Director or the Mayor regarding this? 141 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
Well, I can't say I had a conversation with the Finance Director. She was in the room. But she couldn't answer any of my questions and was not particularly helpful. As a matter of fact, I describe my conversation with her as trying to speak to the Oracle of Delphi, trying to divine shrugs and other things. So I didn't get any satisfactory response. The Mayor was in the same meeting, and it was a cordial meeting. The Mayor has always been cordial and gracious, but I got no 14 answer from him either. I mean, I laid out my problem. I told him what the issues were, tried to explain as best I could the disastrous effects these cuts would be. He was very nice and very gracious, and we left. I didn't get an answer, if that's your question.
Thank you. Can you elaborate for the record what programs will have to be reduced?
Yes. I didn't have a chance to bring everything with regard to the 142 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Public Nuisance Task Force, but as you may have been reading -- I'm sure you've been reading -- of all of the things that the Public Nuisance Task Force has been doing all over the City. The most recent cases involve McGinnis Tavern in Frankford, which is in Councilwoman Krajewski's, I believe, district. We're presently in litigation with Club M on Chestnut Street at 2nd. We've closed a number of clubs along Delaware Avenue working with Representative Marie Lederer and Councilmen of various neighborhoods and Councilmanic districts, including Councilpeople at large. So we have hundreds of potential targets. We have several major targets, including -- and I'll just read you a few -- several bars in the 25th District, in the 39th District, the 22nd, the 26th, the 24th, the 6th, the 9th, the 3rd, the 4th, and several in West Oak Lane and in Councilman Nutter's district and a group of others. There's just too many to mention. For example, while we are not going 143 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET to eliminate the program, we've cut two people from it. In other words, two people have left. We haven't replaced them in anticipation of losing the $2 million. And that means that the six remaining people will have to do the work of eight people. That means, given the fact that this is labor intensive, multiple court hearings, a variety of court documents and investigations with the Liquor Control Board, Liquor Control Enforcement, State Police, Health Department and other agencies, that the need is so great you can only do so much with two people less. That's one program. In addition to that, we've already advised the record that we're not covering two courtrooms at 1801 Vine that Judge Field wanted to open. I spoke to Judge Fitzgerald the other night and told him we would not staff three new homicide trial rooms. We are incapable of doing that. We are not going to be prosecuting or even appearing in Traffic Court any longer. We won't prosecute any appeals from Traffic Court. I'm not talking 144 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET about parking tickets. I'm talking about Traffic Court appeals. You may say, so what. Well, the so what means that while our assistant was in Traffic Court and prosecuting those appeals, we collected $1 million for the City. So we're not doing that any longer. We're not going to staff Community Court. We're not going to staff or approve cases for Drug Treatment Court. We're going to charge some of the loss that we're going to be suffering to the Safe Streets Program because we put four prosecutors to handle Safe Streets cases. We can no longer afford that. Several of our long-term investigations would have to be ended or even not begun. Our Family Violence and Sexual Assault Unit is going to be reduced by four prosecutors and two victim advocates. We're going to close our charging division from about 5:00 or 6:00 until the next morning. We will be unable to put people in charging. And probably our victim witness services will be reduced by five advocates and there will be 145 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET other victim witness services which will be impacted. In addition to that, as far as we can tell right now preliminarily, we're going to end our truancy program because we can't afford that either. Now, others may be impacted. It can shift and change. Nothing is written in stone yet, but $2 million is $2 million. It's got to come from someplace.
How many of your employees are under the DROP program?
Not very many. Let me just see. I'm going to just double-check, but it wasn't all that many. Let me just understand your question. Do you mean how many people have signed up in total or how many all together?
How many people will be going out in the next fiscal year?
Are most 146 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET of them clerical?
It's a mixed bag. Some are clerical. Some are detectives. I think maybe just one or two are assistants. I believe just one or two are assistants. I'm just trying to get the names. Just one is an assistant DA.
Which you haven't been able to replace, I'm sure.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam DA, and I want to take this opportunity to thank you, 147 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET especially the members of your staff, for all the hard work they've been doing and all of the issues that we have to deal with, in particular the nuisance bars, now in Gotham and Club M and on and on. Being the representative of Delaware Avenue and South Street does have its joyful moments, but it also has some of its problems.
Now we have Old City, which is becoming the more popular place, entertainment venue. With that comes a lot of problems. You mentioned earlier that in the Community Court you will not be staffing it, I think you said?
Tell us what that means to the court and to the function of Community Court and what that will mean to us.
Well, you will have to bear in mind, Councilman, if I can sort of answer this in an explanatory way. I feel 148 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET closely about the Community Court because essentially Judge Silverstein, I and one or two others from our respective offices went to New York in the early 1990s to see what they were doing in the mid-town court in Manhattan. For the next seven years we tried to get a Community Court started in Philadelphia. And as you may remember, we couldn't get anybody to fund it. It was only through the intercession of Senator Fumo who put up $2 million, plus the Charitable Trust, which floated some preliminary money, that that court got started. The good news about that court is that it takes minor matters, a lot of the citation cases and the minor cases that would never get to really be handled appropriately in Municipal Court because they're the least serious of cases. They're put at the end of the regular list. And by the time the judge gets to them, the witnesses who have come for vandalism, shoplifting, graffiti, the quality of life crimes, drinking, urination, all the bad things that ruin people's quality of life, 149 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET they left. So the cases would be dismissed. So the best way to do it was to take those people, put them in Community Court and we would handle them. There would be a prosecutor, of course, because it's a criminal case. And the prosecutor would review and approve cases for Community Court. They would go to Community Court. The defendants invariably pleaded guilty or are found guilty, and as a result of the pleading guilty and being found guilty, they're given services, drug treatment. They pay fines. They do community work. This is a win/win situation for the City and for the defendant, because the defendant frequently would not subject himself or herself to treatment interventions, job training, all the protocols that are right there in a one-stop shopping location. And obviously the fact that it is a prosecutor in the room and the fact that we have to approve every case that goes into Community Court -- I can't say that the court will not function. It just is not going to function at all well. 150 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET And we're not going to be able to review the cases, approve them and allow them to go there. So citations will go there, but the low level summary offenses and misdemeanors won't go there if they come through our office because we won't approve them. We just don't have the manpower to pay them to do this. So there won't be a prosecutor in the court. There won't be anybody reviewing and approving and sending cases there.
Thank you. I'm well aware of the time that was spent to get that court up and running. It was in my first term that I actually brought the bill to Council working with you and Senator Fumo.
Yes, I know. And the results of it fantastic. I'm not sure if any of my colleagues have ever seen some of the direct results. I have seen it in my district where the defendants have chosen or have been put on some sort of community service. So in addition to not having these 151 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET folks go through some of the other programs, the drug rehab, which they voluntarily sign up for, and other things like that, the community will lose even more because some of those services that we are using those defendants for, cleaning streets, removing graffiti, will probably no longer exist, which then puts a heavier burden on the City to address the problems of cleaning the streets and removing graffiti. So it will have a ripple effect in other areas that are more tangible for me as a Councilperson. Because I know through Citizens Alliance, as an example, a number of those defendants are now being processed through Citizens Alliance and they're being dispersed throughout various communities to do those kinds of quality of life issues, removing graffiti and cleaning and stuff like that.
I love the program. I think it's a dandy program. And it really hurts me since I spent seven years of my life trying to get this up and going. But I think these cuts are not going to be cost effective. 152 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET It's going to wind up costing the City multiples of millions.
That was the point I was trying to make. I didn't spend seven. I spent about three, but I share your pain in that as well. I have no further questions, Madam President. Thank you, Madam District Attorney.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam DA, I've heard so much about cuts even before you came. And I wanted to ask you about one of my favorite programs, and that's victim witness service, as you know is one of my favorite programs, and ask you where we stand with that and are we going to be able to maintain the offices, even if we limit what we do?
Well, as I mentioned, 153 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Councilwoman, I'm a big fan of victim witness services too. I'm on every victims group, committee, alliance. You and I share the same view that victims are the least served of any community in Philadelphia. Everybody is advocating for somebody. There are only a few of us, yourself, myself, and others in this room who are advocating on behalf of victims. But obviously, yes, victim services will be cut as well.
Well, the money that we would use, for example, for victim assistance people in our office will not be forthcoming because it's all Class 100 funds.
No, not the whole program. Oh, no. No. No, not the whole program. Remember, we do get money through Class 200 funds that we pass right through to the victims' groups. That's going to be cut 6.8 percent because we are suffering a 6.8 154 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET percent budget cut across the board. So everybody has to share the pain. If it's across the board, everybody gets cut 6.8 percent. So the program will not be eliminated, but it will be a cut.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
I wanted to go back to the start to get a little better understanding.
I'm sorry. I didn't hear your first word. You wanted to go back to what?
I didn't hear you. I 155 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET understand the word. I just didn't hear you.
All right. I don't want to have a fight. The President was asking you about your most recent budget process experience, and I didn't hear the beginning of your answer, and I apologize. Did I hear you say that you were in a meeting primarily with the Finance Director or there was a larger meeting with all the budget-related people?
No, you did not hear that. What the Council President asked me was, did I meet with and speak to the Finance Director and the Mayor, and I said I did. I asked to meet the Mayor.
As a result of all the back and forth on the budget stuff?
I just called him up and said, I'd like to have a meeting about the budget. Mr. Goldsmith, the Managing Director, and Janice Davis, the Finance Director were there. Mr. Dubow was not there.
Okay. And did you know at that point what 156 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET the proposed budget for the DA's office was or what the proposed cuts might be?
And I'm sure you made your case about the impact and were passionate and forthright?
I think I was as passionate as I could be in the circumstance where I was asking that my budget not be cut, that I would be absolutely satisfied -- not pleased -- but satisfied to accept the first cut of $600,000. But I was not going to be pleased and not going to be happy and it was not cost effective to cut the office budget by 6.8 percent. In fact, it would be counter-productive.
And the response was? 157 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
Well, you have to understand, Councilman, I've been talking to mayors since I've been in office. I've never really gotten an answer from Mayor Rendell or Mayor Street. I just got knowing acceptance of what my message was and no answer.
That's an incredible skill to have something presented and just not respond. I never had that experience. Well, the other thing I guess I wanted to ask, which is a little more difficult, is when I went to the budget book, there's only this , which is the departmental summary by fund, but there are no 20 other documents in the book. I mean, your budget, including grants funds, is $46 million.
Councilman, what happened was when we were notified -- we got the second budget memo. We had sent budget 158 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET detail over the first time we got the memo in December, showing a $609,000 cut. We got the memo in March saying that, by the way, it's going to be $2 million. Please send us more budget detail showing $2 million. The DA responded that she was not going to send additional budget detail, that she asked the Budget Office to send the original detail submitted to Council. They refused to do that, so we delivered our own copies to Council. So you should have gotten the budget detail that we prepared.
I saw the back and forth about that. I guess I didn't completely understand what you were communicating until I literally flipped the book open and I didn't see what was just handed to me before.
What I was communicating was my total rejection of their suggestion. You know, I try to be a team player. I try to help the Administration out, and I agreed to the $609,000. But then the Budget Director then sent me papers that says, 159 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET no, it's $2.1 million. And I said, no, it isn't. Now, the only way I can communicate in an effective way that I wasn't going to agree with it -- and I don't have to fill those papers out and I wasn't going to fill them out -- was not to do it. I said, please send the original papers that we filled out to you noting the $609,000 to Council. I was advised that they wouldn't do that. So that's why we sent our budget pages to you so that you would know what we previously submitted.
Well, I understand that. And I really would desperately seek to be the last person to jump in between the dispute between the DA's office and the Mayor's office.
I wouldn't characterize it as a dispute. It's a really deep seated, on my part, belief that this is a fiscally unwise move. It will not save the City any money. It will cost money. And all it will do is make people's life quality worse. But I wouldn't call it a dispute.
It's a 160 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET difference of opinion. You have different views on the issue. I guess where I'm a little stuck on this is, one, you said you don't have to fill out the papers, which maybe you do, maybe you don't. You've laid out, at least in your written testimony and what you've delivered at the table, which could be virtually the same as the written, it does help us to better understand the potential impact on the office if we can see the detail of whatever is being proposed. One, obviously just because something is proposed, doesn't necessarily always mean that that's the way it's going to be. But you can go page by page, category by category, and see what FY '03 was, what FY '04 presently is, what FY '05 is proposed to be and make a comparison. I mean, one of the first things naturally we look at, which you've gone through, is what is the impact on a personnel standpoint. To have the budget detail that shows a $2 million cut to the office, I can look in a box and it's going to tell me you had 100 people before, and now you've proposed 161 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET to have 80. I obviously made those numbers up. Whatever they are. And we would of course query you about that. You'd go through two people from here means you can't do this, and five people from there -- so you've laid out in the overall. But I have to be honest with you. I'm not speaking for the Body. It's for myself as the process I try to go through. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage to quantify what you've laid out as a potential impact because I can't see it in a budget detail.
Well, there's two things to think about, Councilman. I obviously mean no disrespect to the Body of Council. But what I am concerned about is filling out budget pages in which I have no 19 faith that it would be taken other than my agreeing to the $2.1-something million budget cut. Second of all, we were given virtually no time to prepare this. We were given a statement of fact. This is what it is. Get it back to us in two days or three 162 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET days. I said, first of all, I'm not going to be treated that way by the Budget Director. Second of all, we already did this once, and I don't want to be held to agreeing to the idea that we're going to automatically lose that kind of money because I felt that Council had the ultimate authority to move the figures, so to speak. In addition to that, I thought that given the 6.8 percent cut across all classes, the biggest expenditure is Class 100, so it's jobs. And then Class 200, 300 and 400. And so therefore, if you want to use it just for jobs, it's about -- depending on the salary of the person -- but roughly 40 to 50 jobs. It's a big loss. It's a big loss. That's a lot of people to leave a prosecutor's office in a City where murder is up, narcotics are up, gun arrests are up, robberies are up. It's a tough figure to swallow. And that's the only way I can show my displeasure and protest and explain that this is not a fiscally sound way to try to balance a budget given the 163 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET inordinate losses to the City.
Well, I think quite honestly you pretty much conveyed that anyway, but the information that you just gave me in terms of the 40 to 50 jobs, which -- I mean, I don't want to keep beating this and I know you understand what I mean, again with those documents -- and I understand you don't want you to put yourself in a box and somehow you submit a document and then it's assumed that you're in agreement with it, which you would tell us that you weren't anyway. Knowing that you're talking about those kinds of numbers, again, is helpful information. So you'll ultimately do what you want to do. So your testimony is that the proposed $2 million cut could result in the loss of 40 to 50 people in the office?
And you had your meeting and you got no response. You made mention of the issue of crime up, murder up. From your perspective, what is going on? Why is crime going up? Why 164 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET are murders up? What are some of the key elements that we need to have in place to obviously get crime going in the other direction?
Well, obviously if I knew the answer to that, we'd all be in very good shape. But several indicators, I think, are present. I'm not going to get into the family issues, but obviously issues within the family structure themselves are very difficult and are creating issues. We see a tremendous amount of abuse and privation of children who turn around and they become bullies in school and they abuse other kids. While Paul Vallas, I think, is doing a most spectacular job -- and I work with him on many of these initiatives -- crime begins when kids come to school beat and abused, not fed, ill prepared to go to school. And then they are in crowded facilities. They lack support from parents. There's a feeling in some circles that the whole school structure has to be changed, and Mr. Vallas is attempting to do that. 165 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET I think as far as the personal view from my own self is I believe that in former days the shame of being outside of the law was enough to keep people within the law. In other words, it was a great shame to people's families. I remember as a kid growing up in West Philadelphia, one of the things I was always taught by my family and my neighbors who cared about me -- because we lived in that era where everybody knew and cared about everybody else, which is sadly lacking in several areas. But we were taught never to bring disgrace on the family. And disgrace was doing something bad, acting out in school, not going to school. Those social controls are severely strained, so that it is not considered a shame or bad when a kid acts out in school. In addition to that, we respected and sometimes feared authority. We always respected the police. Sometimes we were scared because, you know, cops were scary to kids. But we were frightened that we'd be 166 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET punished by mom and dad first. That was the first thing, that mom and dad would punish us and we'd be a disgrace. And we always were worried about the consequences. For many kids that's still the case. They're sure that mom and dad will punish them, that they'll be grounded or sent up to their room, that community will frown on them. But for some people, the social controls of being ostracized or punished or singled out, that doesn't go any longer. And many of our kids who get into trouble aren't concerned about the consequences either. There's really not the kind of factor that we've seen previously, going to court and being punished and having your picture in the newspaper. And an extraordinary turn of events, in my day it was never considered a possibility that I would die by the time I was 18. It was totally out of the question. Kids today are shooting and being shot at, and it is not uncommon to know many people in their community, even people in their own families, who have been shot, stabbed, robbed. 167 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET I think there's a confluence of things that prosecutors and police can't do alone. And I think that people as a general rule don't fear the court system in Philadelphia. I think some people do, but most don't. I think witnesses are not coming forward like they used to.
Well, because I don't think that they think there's much of a possibility of being caught by the police and of being punished. I don't believe that the fear of being caught and punished is any more of a deterrent than any of the other things that I've mentioned.
I mean, if you could maybe be a little more specific with regard to, I guess, your views on what's going on with crime fighting on the police side or adjudication on the court side. I do at least want to throw in one additional factor, which is I understand everything that you laid out in terms of kids 168 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET and what's going on with families, and certainly I have my own concerns about those issues. But many of the people who commit crime in Philadelphia are not necessarily kids.
At least age wise. They may have grown older. It doesn't necessarily mean that they've grown up. But there are some older people around who are creating a fair amount of mayhem. I think I picked up that word from your testimony in our City who have not been kids for a while.
Councilman, let me first of all make this statement. There are about 230,000 kids going to schools in Philadelphia. The vast majority of those kids are great kids. We have a number of community outreach with children. They're a joy to be with. But there are a number of kids who do create substantial social issues. We see about 12,000 cases a year, 11 to 12,000 cases a year in our juvenile court, which given the 169 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET percentage of kids in the City is not gigantic, but it's significant and it's problematic. And it starts off with truancy. You show me an adult criminal today, the older people that you refer to, and I'll show you a truant and a purse snatcher or a car thief 8 or 15 years ago. So we have kids who commit 9 crimes and we have adults who commit crimes. 10 And as you can see by our homicide rate, which is roughly paralleling last year's, which was not a great year for homicides, that is continuing.
Police and courts, what's going on there from your perspective?
I think there are two things at play. First of all, it's never quite clear to me how much crime there is because we don't know how much is out there as opposed to how much is reported. There are guesstimates or estimates that learned people try to make about how much crime there is, but it's always difficult for me to try to get to the root of that because if you don't report 170 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET it, it's hard to know. Second of all, there's the reported crimes. How many people actually pick up the phone and report a burglary, a robbery, a shooting or a stabbing, a car theft or whatever else it is? And then the next figure is, what's the percentage of people that way who are arrested? Of reported crime, how many people? And of that group, if there are five people, how many of that five are arrested for that crime, one, two, three? In addition to that number, you have to extrapolate a figure out for going to court; what are the chances of it going to court? After you distill all of that, and then how many will be punished and what does that mean as a deterrent to those people who are committing those crimes, are reported, caught and prosecuted? I have really little doubt that people as a general rule out there -- that people committing the crimes may get away with crime 20 or 30 times before they're caught because they're brought to court before they're punished, before they're sent away. 171 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET And that deterrent is not nearly as great as it used to be. That's why we have career criminal statutes and repeat offender programs and all those three strikes you're out programs because the same relatively the same cadre of people are committing the most crimes.
Typically what kinds of things do you think the Police Department needs to be doing or what kinds of things should the courts be doing or what are they not doing?
I'll tell you something, I have had nothing but good relations with the Police Department. I think that Commissioner Johnson has shown himself not only ready and willing, but absolutely anxious to engage in a whole host of things that many other commissioners wouldn't dream of doing. I would be the last person to try to tell you what I think he ought to be doing. I think he's extended himself in ways that just defy description. He's ready to put himself out on the street at all hours of the 172 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET day or night. We go to vigils and marches. We go to schools. We engage in anti-crime efforts. We do COMP stat. We do all kinds of things working together. I think Philadelphia is lucky to have him and I'm happy to be a partner with him, so you're looking at the last person to criticize Commissioner Johnson.
I certainly was not looking for criticism. We've had the Commissioner in. I was asking you in your professional capacity as a law enforcement person what other -- I mean, Commissioner Johnson would be the first person to say that there are more things that can be done or that need to be done, especially in an environment where homicides are up and some of our other part one crimes are going up. So I'm not trying to elicit criticism, but any suggestions as a professional law enforcement person or observations that you have. I think we're all on the same team.
If I had my druthers in the crime fighting arena, I think that probably the one thing that this City ought to 173 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET do beyond all others is I think we -- we have to do two things. Number one, we have to do really intensive COMP statting of juvenile crimes. And number two, more importantly even than that, is we have to change the whole way we prosecute crimes and how we put cases together. For example, I believe that we're sort of spinning our tail and running around spending a lot of money and losing a lot of overtime, seeing a lot of cases being dismissed because the City isn't in zones. In other words, if you're a police officer in your police district, the 19th District, and you make -- you're an aggressive police officer. Let's say you're lucky and you get arrests. 20
It makes me nervous that you actually know what police district I live in.
I know. I understand that. But trust me, you're doing the right thing, Councilman. 174 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET You're trying to make your community safe, so you're an aggressive officer. You make arrests and they're all the 19th 5 District. It is likely that your cases will 6 be put in 10, 15 or 20 different rooms, 7 depending on how many cases. So while you're 8 busy testifying in one room, another judge is 9 throwing out your case in another room because 10 you're not there. Now, we have two choices 11 when that happens. We can either re-arrest, 12 which creates additional manpower and money 13 issues, or we cannot. 14 If we would take the simple 15 expedient of dividing the City into zones, 16 colored zones, a pink zone, a red zone -- you 17 pick the color -- an orange zone, a chocolate 18 zone, a strawberry zone -- I don't care what 19 color you put it -- but a zone either 20 designated by colors or some other symbol, and say, we're going to put all the cases that arise out of the 19th District in two or three adjacent courtrooms, so that when Officer Nutter is in Courtroom A, Judge B right next door can know you're right next door and 175 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET you'll be right there. That will mean that you will not have to run all over the City of Philadelphia getting your cases on, and that the chances of a person being arrested beating the case because it was dismissed just because the judge didn't want to wait for you to come back to that courtroom will be significantly less. We will be saving overtime. We would be saving prosecutorial resources. We will be making sure that you are there where you're supposed to be in those courtrooms. Now, we'd have to make an adjustment for preliminary hearings that are held out in the districts and 1801 Vine. But if we could just bring this to scale with the City and divide the City into zones, I think that's more effective because the same people are committing the same crimes over and over again. It's our inability to marshal our resources because the forces are arrayed against us to make sure it doesn't happen. And that's why zone prosecuting is one of the most important things because we can put our 176 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET people in the zones. We'd have designated district attorneys in zones. We'd have designated judges in zones, and the police would be in their own districts so they wouldn't have to be all over the place. I think we could save multiples of multiples of multiples of millions. We won't have cases disposed of. Here's an important part. A disposition of a case doesn't mean that justice prevailed. Disposition can mean the case is thrown out. That's not justice prevailing. It just means that somebody beat the case because the cop was busy in another courtroom. So I think that in my judgment, that's the most efficient, effective way that we can get a real handle on what are the reasons why cases are being dismissed, who's responsible for it, what its costing us. And I think we can save multiples of millions on police overtime alone. It's more efficient. It's more cost effective, and it works. And if it doesn't, we'd find out why it didn't work. This way everybody is in 12 different 177 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET directions and it strains your resources. And the bottom line for the community is a less appropriate result.
A couple last questions. How many -- the police refer to them -- and I guess you do as well -- as part one crimes. How many part one crime prosecutions were there last year?
I have arrests. I don't know that I have prosecutions. In 2003 part one adult arrests was 15,175 according to the Police Department. These are not my figures. These are figures provided to me by the Police Department. In part two crimes -- as I've been provided with -- that's weapons, narcotics and so forth, 38,597, for a total of 53,772. That's adult. Now, on top of that, for juvenile there's an additional 12,015 juvenile arrests.
Part one and part two, 12,015. Part one is 4,563. Part two is 178 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET 7,452, for a total of 12,015.
So for all of those arrests, how many actual prosecutions were there?
Well, all of them were prosecuted. There are some that are eventually dismissed or declined or withdrawn, but they all go through the paperwork. In other words, these are the people we have approved for arrests. This does not include the thousands of cases that come to us where we tell the police that we can't approve an arrest here. You have to go back and do more. So by arrest, that means the person is actually put on the books.
I think as you indicated -- I guess my question is, not all of these end up actually in court in a trial?
Well, they end up in court. Not all of them end up in a trial. Some are withdrawn. Some are dismissed. Motions to Suppress are granted where we never get to the issue. I don't want to leave you with a 179 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET thought that just because it doesn't get to trial, that the case isn't litigated. We do thousands of Motions to Suppress. We do preliminary hearings, thousands and thousands of those. It may be that at the end of the preliminary hearing the case is dismissed. We do thousands of Motions to Suppress. The Motions to Suppress that are granted to the defense, we either have to decide to take an appeal or don't take appeal. If we don't take an appeal, the case is dismissed. But it still is a case which we litigated.
I understand. The part one crimes, the 15,175, for whatever the disposition was, how many of those cases resulted in either, I guess, a conviction or a guilty plea?
It's hard to tell, Councilman, for this reason. I don't have the exact figures. I can get them for you, but a lot of these cases are not disposed of in the year that they made the arrest. So it's hard to tell how many of these cases are still in the mix of the 65,000 cases that are out 180 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET there.
Well, we have carry-overs. I think we have some figures. Let me just see if we have any. I think we have some cases that we might be able to provide some inventory. I think the courts -- and I know they're up next -- I believe, Councilman, that they would be able to give you the figures of how many are in the system. But that doesn't include -- and I really want to be cautious when I tell you this -- that it may or may not show multiple listings, pretrial hearings, discussions with the court, post-trial matters, parole and probation hearings, post-conviction hearings. It's an enormous number. In other words, the number of arrests -- they are numbers -- don't tell you the number of cases that we have to deal with, sometimes 10, 15 or more listings of the case. Excuse me. There were 250,000 adult listings last year. We handled every one of 181 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET them. And that's only trial listings. That's not appeals and all that other stuff that I talked about, pretrial conferences and so forth.
Can you provide to us through the Chair any data that you have on the number of repeat prosecutions of individuals that have occurred over the last, say, three to five years?
The answer is no. In other words, when we started our Repeat Offender Unit we contacted then Commissioner Timoney, now Commissioner Johnson, and we asked for a printout of every single defendant in the City of Philadelphia who has multiple arrests above the number, let's say, five or six. They print out a big computer run for us of how many defendants there are in their inventory who have committed from X number of arrests on upward, and it's a significant number. I can call the Police Department and ask them to do it. You want the number of repeat offenders in the last five years? 182 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
Yes. The people who just repeat going through the system.
Well, if they have it, I'm sure they'll provide it to me. I'll tell the Commissioner of Police you want it.
Two last questions. How many death penalty chargings did we have last year?
I have several figures, Councilman. Roughly the number of trials where we have empanelled a jury and seek the death penalty was about 40 or so, give or take a few in each of the last four years. So it's about 15 percent of all the homicides where we seek the death penalty.
You were very precise, though, in your language with regard to -- I think you said charged and empanelled a jury.
Does that mean 183 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET that others could have been charged, but you did not panel a jury? Is that the correct term?
Well, there are two ways to look at it. We are required by Rule of Court 801, because the defense attorneys insisted on it that right within a matter of a few weeks after the arraignment, that is the formal notification of the defendant after his preliminary hearing that he or she is charged with a crime that is potentially a capital crime, we are required by that rule to give notice to the attorney that we may seek the death penalty. So we give many more notices, because if we fail to give that notice we can't later on after our investigation go out and then say, oh, listen, we found evidence that this is a capital case. So we've done more of those. So if you want to know how many notices were filed --
Last year in 2003 we noticed 133 cases out of 303 homicide cases. We actually requested the death penalty in 45 of those 133.
How many actually -- now, does something happen between charging -- is the term you used paneling a grand jury?
The notice, I got that part. Then you do something with the jury.
No. Let me try to explain. What we do is, if a murder happens tonight, somebody is found shot to death in their store, somebody is raped and strangled and murdered in the street, preliminarily that would be a case that we might consider as a possibility of the death penalty because it was committed during the commission of a felony, because there was torture engaged in, because this person was a witness, because it was a police officer on duty, whatever the circumstances are. We are required by 801 185 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET that we have to submit notice to the defense attorney within a few weeks, within three weeks after the preliminary hearing of the fact that we may seek the death penalty. Now, what happens is, it turns out that what we thought was torture didn't meet the legal definition of torture. For example, when a person was found and the person was sexually assaulted, we couldn't tell if the sexual assault occurred before the death, in which case it would be a potential death case, or the sexual assault happened after the death of the person, or we couldn't prove when the assault occurred. So we couldn't meet the legal definition that the courts have set out for us as to what cases qualify for the death penalty. We wouldn't know that at the time we are required to give notice, or we may not know it. We may in addition know certain things at the time of the preliminary hearing, but find more things out later on. So we give notices more than we intend to go to trial on because we must meet that deadline or we're foreclosed. 186 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
So tell me this. Of the 45 that you mentioned out of the 133, how many actually resulted in death penalty convictions?
Again, you seem to make a distinction. You said one death penalty, not conviction.
Well, in a capital jury trial last year 35 people were found guilty. The jury came back with a death penalty in only one of those cases.
Because under our capital structure the jury is the entity that fixes the penalty. So if the jury either can't decide, in other words, they're hung, or if they unanimously -- and that's many of the cases -- the jury is split between life and death, it's automatically life in Pennsylvania. If the jury comes back and says, we unanimously find death, then it is 187 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET death. If just one juror disagrees it's life.
So 33 were actually found guilty of the 45, but only one received the death penalty sentence?
Of the 45 cases we tried to completion, only one jury came back with a capital verdict last year.
By the way, this is not out of line terribly with the past several years. Usually the jury comes back in a given year with a relatively few death penalty verdicts.
Well, is that some kind of message that's being sent by the various juries?
The wonderful thing about our jury process is we let the jury decide on the punishment and it's up to them to fix the punishment.
I understand that. But just from an analysis standpoint or a statistic -- I mean, I don't know what goes 188 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET on in other jurisdictions, but if these kind of cases keep coming up and you take them through completion and you put on your best evidence, make your best case, they're finding guilty on the crime, but not assessing that level of penalty, and you're saying now it seems to be somewhat consistent over the past few years --
No. What I'm saying, Councilman, is this, as I said before. The jury consists of 12 people. In order to get a capital case declared, a death penalty, all 12 jurors must agree. 11 of them could have been for death and only one not. Under our capital sentencing scheme, that one person failing to agree with the other 11 who wanted the death penalty automatically means it's life. It is what it is.
I understand. But I mean, I guess you would agree that it certainly must take a great deal more of your resources from a prosecutor's standpoint to proceed in a death penalty case than other kinds of cases, right? 189 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
Councilman, let me just say this. To me and to our office and the men and women, the loss of all life is extraordinarily precious. We want to give every victim who's been murdered on the streets of Philadelphia the best chance that we have for justice to prevail. We don't do this in dollar figures. We try to be fair within the law and within the confines of the death penalty statute. We go to trial with those cases that we truly believe are death appropriate, and we go to trial with only those cases and we leave to the intelligence of the jury drawn from the people of the community the ultimate decision on what they want to happen in this case. And we accept it for what it is.
All right. And they are obviously expressing their will in that process.
Well, they may or may not be, because as I said to you before, assuming but not admitting that the jury was 11 to one for death, 11 people expressed their 190 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET opinion one way and one the other.
It could be either one. Sometimes the jury comes back and says we're split evenly six to six. We can't agree. What should we do? The judge will either tell them, go back and deliberate some more to try to reach a unanimous verdict, or do you think further deliberation would be helpful. And if it will, I'll send you back. And if they say, no, we don't think so, then we accept it for what it is. I don't know what you want to divine from 12 people being evenly divided. It is whatever it is, Councilman.
Councilman Nutter, excuse me. There are a number of Councilmembers that would like to be recognized, so if you will ask your last question now and then the second go around we'll recognize you again.
It is the last one. Thank you, Madam President. 191 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Madam DA, I did want to at least point out that -- I've read your testimony a couple times and I understand your very serious opposition to the proposal by the City Administration. I was struck, though, by comments in your testimony that appeared at a certain level to almost attack, I guess at a minimum, fellow members of the Bar. Naturally, they are on the other side in many of your cases. But in the context of budget difficulties, I was a little surprised at a pretty head-on attack with regard to the Public Defender's Office. And I guess I was just trying to understand, as you fight for your own budget, which you should do, why you felt compelled to attack the Public Defender's Office in the context of a budget hearing?
Councilman, I have to disagree with that characterization. In fact, I think it's a mischaracterization. As a matter of fact, when I left and went back and watched for a few minutes -- and that's really all that I cared to watch -- Ms. 192 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Greenlee's ad hominem statements about me, which were all untrue -- I think you lost me just there on that last statement. I am a strictly a meat loaf and mashed potatoes person. I really just tell it as it is. Frankly, I said exactly what I said, which is accurate. They handle 62 percent of the cases according to the court administration. They handle 10 percent of the homicides. We handle all of them. They have been moved into newer headquarters. They have been given, I think, a disproportionate share of the criminal justice dollars relative to us. They're not being cut 6.8 percent. They're not being cut $2 million. They're not being cut at all. So frankly I think I was being not only fair, but accurate. It is what it is. I stated it exactly as it is.
I understand that. And you certainly have a right to state your opinion.
It could be 193 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET both. In my relatively short period of time here, I've just never read a budget testimony where one department raises issues about another department or a component of the government or a contractor with the government about their situation or their operation or what's going on in the course of making -- I mean, you, again, made your own argument with additional facts about other things going on with the City budget. It was just surprising. I've not seen that in the past and I just --
Well, Councilman, there is an interplay between us. This is supposed to be a criminal justice system. The court system is being cut. We're being cut. The public defender is not being cut. And proportionately to the amount of labor that we shoulder, that we are being given a 7 percent and they're not, I think it is not only fair but appropriate that I bring that out, A. And B, you and I just engaged in a conversation in response to both Council President Verna's question and your question about the Mayor. That's another constituent part of the 194 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET government.
Madam DA, it's the Mayor's budget. It's not my budget.
And in my budget statement to you, Councilman, I also pointed out with regard to the workings of the government how this City has failed and refused to do what they are supposed to do on water bill collections, on stadium money owed, on PGW -- and you and I are both in that lawsuit because we're appalled. That's another branch of the City government. There's all kinds of lawsuits and federal investigations in branches of the government. I think it is an appropriate statement as a law enforcement officer and as an elected City official -- I am an elected official of this City -- I am entitled to look around at the City and say, there's something not right. And frankly I don't think it's appropriate for you to tell me that I don't have that right. I'm a taxpayer, a citizen and an elected official. And on either one of those floors, I respectfully disagree with 195 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET you.
Well, I hear what you're saying. We don't have to have an argument. I have not under any set of circumstances -- you can talk to the stenographer, check the tape. I didn't say you didn't have a right. I expressed to you that I had not seen that in the past and I was just --
Well, I have, not only in this Chamber, but elsewhere. It's a function of our liberty interest. We are allowed as citizens of the United States to express opinions about everything, as long as it's done in a respectful and appropriate way. And I don't characterize our differences of opinion as a fight or a dispute. I'm merely putting my position forth and you're putting your position forth. I think it happens in government all the time.
I don't have any dispute with you, none whatsoever. 196 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
I didn't say I'm having a great day. I said every day is a great day. I'm having a marvelous day, as a matter of fact.
Just a few questions I have. One, I am struck by and concerned like many about the many proposed budget cuts, 197 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET particularly on the truancy program. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Paul Vallas about that knowing --
Have they yielded anything that might suggest a way of salvaging that important program?
Well, I'll be honest with you. I didn't ask Mr. Vallas to pay for our assistant district attorneys to enforce the truancy laws of Pennsylvania. That's a function of the City of Philadelphia. You may remember that when we started this program -- you may not remember. You weren't here then. No disrespect intended. This was before you were elected. I came to City Council and said, a predictor -- not the predictor -- but a predictor of later misconduct by kids starts with truancy when they're five and six and seven and eight. You show me a criminal, I'll show you a person in many instances who wouldn't go or didn't go to school. And I asked Council to support me in a truancy program. We got a pilot project 198 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET going. It was only a pilot project. And we've been doing that. I have to tell you that in my judgment, this is another one of those unfortunate consequences of being fiscally -- fiscally, it's not going to work. It's not going to balance the budget and it's going to cost taxpayers a lot. Because what happened was, when we went into all the schools that we covered with our assistants, we not only trained all the truant officers, the parent truant officers, we've worked very closely -- I think you know this -- with Paul Vallas and all the schools in our district. We've gone out to hearings, we've met with parent groups, we've gotten kids back to school. I even started a program with my foundation of bringing 600 or 700 kids into our office to get them back into the thought of staying in school. We'll continue to do that because it's supported by a foundation. But insofar as going into the schools -- when I came here I said, you know, we found out -- this was before Paul Vallas 199 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET came here -- that the school system was cooking the books. Just like the Police Department did. They were lying about how many kids were in school every day because they got paid by the state for every kid who occupied a seat. And when kids weren't there, in order to keep up their subsidies from the state, they would falsify their books. They kept double entry books. And that's not the good double entry. That's one real set, one phony set. And we found out through our assistant who found out how to get into the computer and find out what the real figures were and what the fake figures were, that the School District finally agreed, we're not going to keep two sets of books. I'm not convinced yet that that's the case, but I know that Mr. Vallas is working. So we've had dozens and dozens of meetings about truancy, but I couldn't possibly go to him in good conscious and say, Paul, support my prosecutor who gets parents to recognize the obligations that parents have of making sure their kids go to school. No, I 200 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET didn't do that. That's a City function.
We know the reality is either pay on the front end or you pay on the back end. One way we're going to pay.
Let me say this. This is a pitch, but it's not really a pitch. If we had sufficient funds from this Council to devote to truancy intervention, early childhood intervention before the kid gets to 1801 Vine, if we had that kind of front end impact, getting kids to go to and stay in school, much of the reason for juvenile delinquency -- criminal conduct -- it's really not juvenile delinquency, it's criminal conduct committed by juveniles -- our crime figures, I think, would drop dramatically. We'd have the power to get parents into court. We'd have our judges saying, listen, mom and dad, you've got to get your kids to school and if you don't we'll declare your child a dependent child and we'll make him go to school. We don't want to do that. Do your duty. If we had more money for that, instead 201 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET of having a pilot project, which nobody is supporting now and hasn't been supporting, but we've been bearing the cost because we think the return is so great, we'd have far fewer than 12,000 kids in our juvenile court. Not none, but far fewer. So I think that by eliminating our truancy program, it's going to wind up worse than better. And this is not crying wolf; this is just statement of fact.
How many dollars are we talking about for the truancy program?
That's a perfect segue to of your testimony where you mention that $18 million in payments related to luxury box revenues --
Yes, that's true. I'll tell you where that came before from. 202 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Give me a moment. On -- I took a out of Michael Nutter's book and I read Jonathan Saidel's Mid-year Economic Report. On it says, "While the former tenants of veterans stadium owes the City approximately $8 million in payment related to luxury box revenues, we do not anticipate the City collecting this money in the near future." That's a write-off.
Let me move to another item. Truancy program. More and more I and other members of this body are paying particular attention to composition of departments. Your testimony doesn't discuss that. Could you provide for us either now or later a breakdown and update us on the recruitment efforts that your office pursues.
I'll tell you what I'd love to do. I'm going to invite, if it's okay with you, Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, if you would indulge George Mose who is the Co-Chief my minority recruitment, along with Joe 203 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Whitehead who is seated on the front row. They Co-Chair our minority recruitment efforts in the District Attorney's Office, and he can explain that for you.
Please. And this is a function in addition to lawyer responsibilities, prosecuting responsibilities?
I'm George Mose. That's M-O-S-E. I'm actually the Deputy for the Juvenile Division. Joe Whitehead is the Deputy for the Narcotics Division. In Calendar Year 2003, the composition of the office was as follows with regard to minority personnel: 20.27 percent of the Assistant District Attorneys were minorities. Of that, 20.27 percent, 12.96 percent were African-Americans. The percentage of minorities office-wide was 33.8 percent.
The percentage of 204 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET minorities office-wide which would include support staff, detectives, and attorneys was 32.8 percent.
A significant number of our permanent hires come from our summer interns. And in 2003, the intern class of 9 included 9 minorities. 10