The permanent class of 15 2003 included 7 minorities out of 28 hires 16 and -- let me count again. 17
Thank you. 21 Speak to the management level there 22 in the District Attorney's Office, the 23 composition of the management level. Can you, 24 or is that information you might have to forward to the Chair? 205 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
The total make up of the District Attorney's Office, the management level composition is what I'd be interested in.
I can say that for the first time in my recollection of the history of the office, we have two deputy level minority prosecutors.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Finally, District Attorney, I am referencing the April Inquirer article that 23 talked about the drop program, and I learned this week because I've asked this question of all department heads, I learned this week that 206 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET the Managing Director issued issue a memorandum, I guess the word was suggesting, that those who opt to take the DROP Program please not reconsider coming back to that particular department. In this April article, it does 8 mention somewhere in here that you were 9 confronted with that choice and you opted to 10 allow the professional to return. Could you 11 speak to that? 12
Well, I'm not sure -- 13 before I get to the meat of your answer, I'm 14 not sure what the Managing Director memo means 15 in light the City Solicitor's memorandum 16 saying that it's perfectly acceptable. In 17 other words, I don't believe -- no offense to 18 Mr. Goldsmith -- that his statement can trump 19 either the statute or the City Solicitor's 20 interpretation of the statute. 21 The City Solicitor, as I understand 22 it, has the total authority to decide what 23 your statutes say. In other words, he or, if it's a woman, she issues a legal opinion. Now, what Mr. Goldsmith says and what Mr. 207 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET Ramos now says is between those two, Number 1. Number 2 --
The former City Solicitor Nelson Diaz issued an opinion to Mayor Street saying that under the statute that was passed regarding DROP, it is not only lawful but appropriate for the City to rehire people who have operated to take DROP. In addition to that, the memorandum that Mr. Goldsmith sent out was well past the time that I extended the offer to return to two of the or people, whatever the 16 number was -- what was the last year? 17
We also 18 received a memorandum from the City Solicitor. 19
Is this the new City 20 Solicitor or the former City Solicitor? 21
What I suggested to 24 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown was that -- she mentioned that Phil Goldsmith had issued a 208 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET memorandum. And I said, well, Pedro Ramos and Phil Goldsmith are going to have to decide who is in charge of deciding what your statutes, what the City Council ordinances say. I'm not getting into that. But in response to the Councilwoman's question, I was saying that I offered the two people I asked to stay on the opportunity to stay on well before Mr. Goldsmith's memorandum. So that's one thing.
I don't think we're bound by the Managing Director. However --
However, I do think we are bound by the City Solicitor's opinion.
In all fairness, as I'm getting my arm around this issue, I've learned that there are two perspectives, if you will, around DROP and I credit Charley McPherson for that. But it was a question that I posed to a number of department heads. I'd like to hear from you 209 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET what your reasoning is.
First and foremost, Councilwoman and members of the body, it cannot be, for me, that Council didn't contemplate the effects of their own statute so I have to believe and I absolutely do believe that Councilwoman Verna and everybody in Council anticipated that there would be some people in the City whose value was so significant or unique that they would want to retain them, and that is because in the DROP statute which is in the Philadelphia Code so -- when you say "you," I don't mean you personally -- you Council passed on it, it's -48 of the statute. It says "G. Rehire." So therefore, right within the DROP statute is the provision that Council and the Pension Board had to have contemplated that somebody was going to be rehired because it says, and I quote, "A retiree may be rehired by the City subject to the provisions of this title," and that relates to the fact that you couldn't go back into DROP and extend your 210 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET DROP beyond the four years but you could be rehired. "But no former DROP participant who is rehired by the City may be eligible again to participate in DROP." So, obviously, what that statute says is, A, it contemplates the City rehiring people with who went into DROP. It does not address nor does it eliminate people like elected officials from participating in DROP. So, for example, I know some of you -- not maybe some of you, but I know one person at least in Council has agreed to participate in DROP. The statute doesn't say it's not for elected officials. It says anybody, people who are hired by the City. Number 2 -- I beg your pardon?
Well, the answer is actually -- I'm glad you asked that question. Can I answer her?
Councilwoman Tasco, the answer IS, as this statute is written, yes you could -- let's say Councilperson X leaves 211 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET the City after DROP. As the statute is written right now, you could hire that same person back tomorrow morning. (Inaudible.)
You know something, I don't believe that -- I think this is going to have to be fought out in the court, because I don't believe you can prevent a person from running for office. The question is, to what extent, if at all, would they be able to participate in DROP and/or a pension program. That's going to have to be something decided by the courts for a person who, let's say, is an elected official who decides to go out on DROP and then three years, four years, they say, "Oh, I miss it, I want to go back. I can do so much more. I'm going to run again." So that may have to be decided by the courts. You're right. The way this is written, just step out for one day and you can come back.
Now, that's something that -- now, wait a second. You're all 212 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET laughing. Wait a second. You're laughing, but that's what the statute provides for. The statute provides, therefore, for anybody who leaves the City for even one day and you didn't limit it to just employees, it includes elected officials from the Mayor, the District Attorney -- I'm not in it, by the way. I'm running for reelection in case anybody is wondering -- any City employee. And it doesn't say for how long a period they have to be out before they come back. And I think there's a reason for that. Now, you can argue anyway you want.
I think it says hours, they have to be out 24 hours. 17
One day. So here's 18 the point. If you, meaning you Council or the 19 Pension Board wanted to contemplate who to 20 eliminate, you're going to have to go back and 21 redo the law because it doesn't limit it to 22 elected or appointed officials, it can be 23 policemen, firemen or anybody else who works 24 for the City. It doesn't eliminate elected office and it doesn't prohibit rehiring. And 213 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET you could leave the City, participate in DROP, and be hired the next day as a consultant, which has been done in this City, getting a full salary plus your pension plus your DROP. And the difference is if I was in DROP and let's say I was entitled to, oh, 80 percent of my salary because I had worked for the City for, let's say, 40 years. Really when I come back to the City and I'm on the City payroll, I'm really only working for percent of my 12 salary because I could stay home and collect 13 my pension of 80 percent. So what I'd be 14 saying to you then is "Well, Councilwoman, 15 thank you so much for working for the City for 16 40 years of dedicating your life and sweat to 17 the City. And as a reward for that, we're 18 going to allow you to come back and work for 19 20 percent of your salary." 20 No, what we would do is say, -- actually by coming back you're really only working for 20 percent. And the reason that's good, frankly, and I think that's what you obviously contemplated, there are some people in the City who represent a value for dollar. 214 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET For, for example, the police Commissioner, I'll give his as an example, I am personally pleased that the Mayor said to the Commissioner, "I am rehiring you for DROP." He did it also with Deputy Commissioner Mitchell. Council did it with your Chief Clerk. There's another category of people whom you haven't even considered who wouldn't be working for percent of their salary, 12 using the example I gave. And that's 13 consultants who have left the City government, 14 they get their DROP -- and by I way, I just 15 want to dispel something that I think is very 16 important and which I'm very critical of the 17 Inquirer article about because if it wasn't 18 defamation, it bordered on it and it was 19 written with knowledge that what they were 20 writing about wasn't true and accurate and was written with a purpose to defame, I believe. That is that if I was in DROP and I left the City of Philadelphia and stayed home, the money that I got at DROP in a lump sum I would get over four years anyway. So the people who 215 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET are in DROP are only getting what they are entitled to anyway. And to me, it's a defamation to say that I'm getting something I'm not entitled to when I am entitled to it under the statute, and it's not only fair but it was thoughtfully thought out by --
Look, that money is not in the General Fund. That money is money that I put away which the City matched and it's over here in another pile. And I would suggest to you that there isn't a person in City Council who wouldn't take advantage of it if they could and if they so desired, and I encourage you to do so. I want to say one other thing. I want to finish that. But it is a defamation to say that a person who is so good -- it's really a disgrace to say of Commissioner Johnson that he's doing something wrong when he's invited back because his expertise is such that the City benefits from it in a time of crisis, and they are. 216 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET In addition to that, if you really want to get to the nub of the issue, if somebody wanted to be slick and cool and collect their DROP and their pension money and then get 100 percent of their salary as a consultant, then you might have an issue that you want to argue with me because you're not working for percent of your salary, you're 10 working for 100 percent of your salary. So I 11 think what the problem is is that the Inquirer 12 exploited the fact that most of the people in 13 the City of Philadelphia don't understand what 14 DROP said and were deliberately trying to 15 defame either me or my office and try to give 16 people the idea that I or my office was doing 17 something illegal or improper. And frankly, I 18 think that is not only just demonstrates the 19 reckless disregard of the truth that the 20 Inquirer reporter had, but it shows a total dismissal of the work of the two people that I retained. And I'm not saying there isn't any other person else that I could have hired. I would, but I wouldn't save the City one dime. The two employees would still be home or at 217 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET another job collecting their pension money and their DROP money which they earned by the sweat of their brow. And I would still put somebody in their place at the same salary I would be giving to them, so the City would not end up with one dime's worth of saving. And frankly, Councilwoman, I think it's a disgrace that this is happening. And I also have to point out one important thing because if I forget it I'll be mad at myself. I think that the City of Philadelphia is doing something that other cities have not done. And frankly we're in a much better position with our DROP program than with other cities and I commend your attention, because I thought it would be of interest, to the front page -- I'm going to hold this up for the camera -- of today's New York Times. Couldn't have been at a better time. Cinco de Mayo and the front page of the New York times. "City's enriched pensions but now struggle to pay." It is a very interesting article about DROP or whatever is called DROP and they refer to it in other 218 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET cities like Houston where unlike Philadelphia, you can participate and other cities that have allowed people to increase their drop for a number of years so they can get like a million dollars and they guaranteed returns of 7 percent or greater plus they put in all kinds 8 of incentives and others. Now, here's the 9 only criticism I have of DROP. I'll be honest with you. It doesn't offend me in the least that it applies to anybody who works for the City. It doesn't offend me the least that the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police or anybody else who is rehired who, like the two people I rehired, have a unique skill set and talents that are far beyond anybody else's and who can't be replaced. They're irreplaceable. And I think there are two things that need to be done. Number 1, since it's been voted to keep DROP permanent now, which I support, by the way, I think the mistake if I can call it that is by guaranteeing a certain amount of return of percentage.
Repeat that, 219 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET District Attorney. Guaranteeing --
A return, an interest of 4 or 4 and a half percent is not good. It was good when interest was 8, 9, 10, whatever percent it was. When the stop market bubble was up and we were investing money and getting 10, percent or whatever percent we were on 9 our money, then you could say a 4 percent 10 return if we were getting 10 percent is good 11 because we still are percentage to the good. 12 A variable rate that reflects the stock market 13 return and how our pension monies are invested 14 -- and we certainly hope they're invested 15 wisely and we're not overpaying fees for people losing our pension money for us, myself included. And I think also that there has to be, if you want to sort of put a finer point on it, you may wish to look into if you so please whether consultation contracts for people who used to be employees is the better way to go rather than just saying, "Look, Joe or Blondell, you have such great skills, we can't replace you so than instead of engaging in this fantasy and costing us more to our 220 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET treasury, stay on and we need your help for the next whatever period of time." I think that's better and preferable to using people on salary where a city isn't kicking into DROP or anything like that. Rather than give you a consultant contract, we are getting a hundred percent of money from the pile that comes from General Fund than the pile that comes from a pension pile which is not our operating budget.
Sure. Well, as I mentioned, I posed the question to a number of department heads wanting to hear their perspective and really rationale because DROP did happen before I came. And in raising questions, I've learned a whole lot more. So let me thank you for your very comprehensive explanation. Thank you very much.
Well, read the today's New York Times. It may give you some additional insights into some of the problems that Houston, Milwaukee and other cities are having and whether or not over the long haul this is good or bad for the City, given the 221 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET current financial situation. That's your decision. I don't have any dog in that hunt, frankly. But I stand by my decision to retain those two people, my first assistant and George Rayborn who is our expert in election law who is our expert in grand jury and who can't be replaced. And after all, that's what DROP was designed to do, to keep the most experienced people. But I can't train somebody in two or three or four years to replace somebody with 40 years experience. I'm sorry; you can't do it.
Thank you. Well said. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Tasco.
Thank you. I'm glad you make that explanation because I agree, the concern I have about DROP is the set rate. But, of course, we did it when the market was good and we didn't know that it was going to go down. 222 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end.
But it is your money and you have earned it and you should take it if you want it. I just have a couple of questions. I'll be very brief. You know, we are concerned about the Nuisance Task Force, and I read in your testimony that may be one the things to go. You know, we've tried on two occasions in my area to deal through the Nuisance Task Force to close down a couple of nuisance facilities, but the neighbors get nervous and won't follow through and the institution, the place, remains. I mean, what can we do? Is there anyway we could amend or do something to the law to allow us not to have to have neighbors engaged? When we do the flyer to get the petition, my staff has to do it. We can't get 223 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET the neighbors to do it.
I tell you what I can do. I think we can't really amend the statute and have the full effect. As I mentioned in my previous testimony, I forget whether it was whether it was to Council President Verna or to Councilman Nutter, you can't arrest your way out of the problem. And part of my dismay at the proposed budget is the fact that the City isn't taking ownership of just the issue you're talking about, that's community involvement. The criminal justice system depends on community involvement. If we as members of a community don't take ownership of our own problems in our own community, the cops can't do it for us. This is a way of -- and I hate to use this over-worked word, but it is true -- empowerment. I would be happy, pleased really, to come out to the community that you serve or any constituent group of the community and with chapter and verse show them what other citizens all around the City have done. The importance of the community 224 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET participation is that once they feel that they're taking ownership of the issue, if they are willing to do this, we'll shoulder the major burden. But since cops can't be out there every minute of the day, prosecutors can't be out in front of the bar every single day, liquor control enforcement, L&I, all those people. But you live next door to the bar. You know. So all we're asking you to do -- we're not asking you to go out there and be vigilantes, we're not asking you to take action. We just want you to sit in your house, peep through the blinds, if you will, watch what's going on, note on paper what you saw, a narcotics transaction, prostitution, shootings, and we'll use police -- how many calls, for example, the police went out to that establishment, what they saw, how many arrests, how many narcotics buys. And by everybody in the neighborhood putting their name on the petition, there's strength in numbers, I guarantee you, Councilwoman, you know we have been wildly successful with public Nuisance Task Force precisely because 225 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET this joins all constituent elements of the community and that's one of the things that is sorely missing. When we don't have a witness protection program in Philadelphia that we are funding, we're not taking ownership, we're depending on the Attorney General's Office to shoulder our burden for us, but that leaves something to be desired. By the community banning together as an entire entity, 40, 50 people, a hundred in your community, we can work with those hundred people, I guarantee you you'll see results. And maybe, just maybe, that will translate into an idea. When one person comes forward, it's a little bit dangerous. When everybody comes forward, you can't overturn the will of a community.
Well, I know. We know the process. We've been through it twice. It's very interesting, the reaction. Please describe the asset forfeiture program. What is the total value of assets that has been acquired through this program last year and this year? And what entity is responsible for auditing the program? And 226 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET when was the last time the program has been audited and what were the results?
I'll let Mr. to his do that because he is conversant with those figures, Councilwoman.
Councilwoman, in response to your audit question, the program is audited by statute every year by a auditor. It's required. The auditors submit it to the Attorney General's Office by each county, including our county. The Attorney General then publishes a report every year. The audits are not permitted by statute to be made public, but the Attorney General's report is. So if you would like that report, we can certainly send you a copy of the Attorney General's report for all the counties, including Philadelphia. In terms of total dollars, that fluctuates. And the way it works in Philadelphia, in this year so far, this present fiscal year, we forfeited a little over $3 million. The way that money is split up is there are administrative expenses that 227 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET are paid 200,000 to the Police Department and 900,000 thousand our office to take the cases into court and actually forfeit them. The remaining money is then split between the District Attorney's Office and the Police Department. The Police Department gets 60 percent, the District Attorney's Office gets 40 percent. This year so far, the Police Department has requested and we have transferred to them $2 million and another million on the way for Safe Streets overtime.
The properties that are forfeited are sold at public auction. There are a very small number of properties that the DA donates to organizations to help in the fight against drug because the assets has to be used to enforce the Drug Act.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 228 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
I'll be brief. I know we've all been here a long time. District Attorney, can you talk to me about the types of crime? Because I want to ask these questions where they have some relationship to the budget, although they may not necessarily be budget-related issues per se. The types of crimes and the cost associated with prosecuting these crimes, i.e., misdemeanor, felony, capital crimes, homicide --
We can't do that. The reason -- first of all, let me start with an observation that crime is probably the greatest public health cost to this City, bar none. The cost of gunshot injuries, trying to save people's lives, the human cost is just staggering. In every aspect of our criminal law, the human cost is incalculable, but the public health cost is enormous. Plus there 229 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET are court costs, which I don't know how the court works, and our own prosecutorial and defense efforts. You, the City of Philadelphia through Council, pay all those bills. But what we don't do and can't do really is try to figure out on the average case how many dollars per day it cost for a prosecutor. How many dollars a day for victim witness advocate. How to even gauge that cost. What we do know is you, Council gives us a certain amount of money. And for all the money that you give us, every single day all we do is do the best that we can to make sure that victims of crime and defendants get a fair and just trial. But we can't figure out how much it is on a dollar basis.
So you're telling me that you can't generally tell me the difference in terms of the cost associated with a person who is being arrested for shoplifting versus a person that's being arrested for homicide.
Well, I can only say 230 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET it in this general way --
I understand that. The dollar cost, all I can say is the cost differential would be enormous because in one case you may be on trial for your life and in the other case you may go to community court and you may have to clean up a neighborhood or take down some graffiti or remove signs that people put up on poles that say "work free at home" and all that that are legal, so that cost is relatively little compared to first degree murder. But I couldn't give you a dollar figure on it, no. 17
So would you say that the first degree murder case is probably more often not the most costly type of case, if you're looking at the investigators on the Police Department, the level of District Attorney that --
It certainly is the most labor intensive. But there are cases of enormous complexity, for example, and I don't 231 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET want to take away from the thrust of your question, that when we did, for example, complicated investigations of municipal corruption and fraud, they are tremendously rich and costly. And you can't compare a long-term two-year investigation into thefts involving the City Treasury and a homicide case. They're both very labor intensive and very costly. So I couldn't say that one, quote, costs more than another. One may have a shorter duration than the other but the cost is still --
We do more violent crimes, obviously, than we do investigations. So obviously, the total cost for our violent crimes is a majority of our budget. Whereas, investigations are a smaller part. But I still couldn't figure out a dollar cost.
But we can agree that homicides tend to be one of the more costly?
Multiple robberies, 232 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET major investigations, serial rapists, homicide cases, repeat offender really difficult cases are all labor intensive and expensive. But I couldn't say that -- let me give you an example why I can't give you a figure. Suppose X is arrested for homicide and Y is arrested for multiple armed robberies. X pleads guilty at the first opportunity in court. Y insists on trials and separate trials for each of his multiple robberies. In that case, your example would not hold true. The robbery case would be much more expensive than the homicide case because we have to try separate cases, motions, pretrial, you 16 know, all that other -- so it doesn't really 17 work that way. 18
Okay. All 19 right. So we agree that based on your 20 statements that both of these cases probably deal with guns, because that's where I'm going. I want to talk about guns.
Well, obviously, the human cost with guns is enormous and the prosecutorial cost are proportionately larger, 233 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET but I don't want to put a dollar figure on it because the more important cost is the human cost than the dollar cost.
I understand that, but we're talking about the budget today.
We're talking about the budget today, so I want to talk about guns if at all possible. As you know, I have for some time had some issues with respect to guns, and we currently have nine bills pending relating to gun violence. And, unfortunately, you were unavailable. You were out of town.
And you sent a letter that, in all due respect, was not what I wanted. It was not --
Well, let me just clear that up, Councilman. I absolutely support Council's attempts to regulate guns 234 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET except that you have no authority to regulate guns. So I have an obligation as a public official to another public official to tell you when you ask me, I support this, which I do, but you have no authority. So essentially, if you want to do this as a symbolic act, by all means, I support that. But at the end of the day, it's the State Legislature that has the total authority to regulate guns in this Commonwealth, period.
No, it requires -- well, they're not going to -- no disrespect to you, but the State may or may not accept your bill but the State Legislature is the originating body. They have to introduce and pass a law which may mirror or be identical with your --
But all of the bills that I forwarded to you for your review and subsequently your testimony, each bill 24 required state authorization, state enabling legislation. 235 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
So they were not symbolic because before we can enact them, we required state enabling legislation.
No, you're not going to get -- no disrespect. I think we're talking about two different things. The State, in my judgment -- now I can't speak for the State Legislature, but the State is not going to enable the City Council of the City of Philadelphia to introduce and pass laws that relate to gun crime. They're not going to do it. So what you're saying, it seems to me, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the State is going to enable you to somehow do these statutes. No, they won't. If you want the statutes enacted that you are proposing, they have to be introduced in the State. The State is not going to enable you to do anything. They have to originate and pass through both houses of our State Legislature.
The State enables us to do things on numerous occasions. 236 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET
No, it's a statement of fact. I've been dealing with the Legislature for years on issues of guns -- 9
Are you saying 10 that they will not do it based on your 11 understanding of the politics of the state or 12 are you saying that -- 13
I understand that. But I'm saying that the State passes legislation on a consistent basis, has throughout the years, that enables the City of Philadelphia to do some things. They allowed us to do something on the senior citizen exemption on taxes. We are preempted by the State as it relates to tax exemptions by the 237 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET abatement bill. The State enable us to impose local taxes on abatements on new construction. They do it all the time.
You're totally preempted by state law and criminal statutes because the Crimes Code of Pennsylvania is passed by the State of Pennsylvania. The only jurisdiction that the City Council has is what you already know. I mean, this is not me speaking, this is state law. You are allowed to --
Well, Councilman, look, if you believe that I am wrong, then you pursue whatever course of action that you believe you have. But all the examples you've given me are civil, not criminal. The State Crimes Code is passed for the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If the State wishes, the State Legislature can say, "This 238 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET law applies to cities of the first class only." That still is not going to give you the right to take over the state function because the Crimes Code is state based. So you are preempted. Now, if you believe that the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will give to you the right to regulate guns, go ahead and do it.
I understand. We just disagree in terms of -- I understand what you're saying. But the bills that we introduced were for the State essentially to regulate.
You asked me that, and I said they're not going to do it because you're doing something which is outside of your authority to do. You don't have the authority introduce --
We on a consistent basis have done things that traditionally were outside of our authority until we got state enabling legislation.
Councilman, we're not 239 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET in disagreement. You and I both agree too many guns, too many fatalities, too many issues related to gun violence in every aspect. So you and I are really not on different sides of this issue. You asked me my opinion about these bills, and I candidly said and honestly said, these all may have merit but you have no 10 authority to enact them because you've been preempted by state law. If you can go to the Legislature and if the Legislature wishes, if they can do this and I don't even know if they can do that, give you the authority to regulate guns in the City of Philadelphia, God bless you. But I don't believe you can. I don't believe they will. And I don't believe they can either. But, you know, if you want to go ahead and try it, I'm in favor of it.
Which leads me to my next line of questioning, because in order to do this and we're starting a process, 240 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET we're meeting with state elected officials --
We actually do have some people interested in this issue. If in fact, wherever the venue maybe, and you believe it will be in the state level, I think we'll have something here locally if we get to the point where we get enough support on the state level. Would you be or will you be in a position to support the legislation that was submitted to you, particularly the one gun a month.
Councilman, just so you know, even before your suggestion, I was in favor of one handgun a month and proposed it. It didn't even get out of the legislative gates. In fact, when I went to speak to the Legislature about this, I spoke off the record with some legislators and I said, "Just tell me honestly, does this have any reasonable chance of passing?" And they said not a chance. Now I support it. It's worked in Virginia very well. It should be something 241 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET that I would support and hope that happens. I just want to give you a caveat, and that is that Pennsylvania has the second largest group of NRA members in the country after Texas. And I do not, in my own opinion -- I maybe wrong. I don't believe that the State Legislature or the people who elect those state legislators are going to permit you to allow one handgun a month. Do I support it; absolutely. Do I think it's going to happen; absolutely not.
I agree with you in that it will never happen in the state and I would never seek to have such a law imposed on the state level because it would be a total waste of my time. What we're simply seeking is the ability for citizens of the City of Philadelphia or the prohibition of one gun a month. My understanding is the statistics show that 55 percent one gun a person, as Councilwoman Tasco says, you're talking about never getting any support for that. The statistics show that 55 percent of the weapons 242 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET that are used in the commission of a crime are actually purchased in the City of Philadelphia, which was kind of surprising to me, and 82 percent in the state. So if we can simply have that imposed for the City of Philadelphia, we're looking at a possible substantial reduction if those numbers hold.
I also want to add something else that you might want to think about and I think this is really important. Gun ownership in the home is closely associated not only with people committing crimes with them like homicides but also suicides and accidents. So you have a gun -- first of all, if you have a gun in a house and I break in your house, I'm going to own your gun. That's the first thing. Second of all, if you have a gun in the house and I break into your house and have my gun on you, you're not going to be able to reach for your gun. I'm going to own your gun. I may own your life. If there are children in the house with weapons that are kept and stored improperly, there maybe an 243 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET accident or an argument that breaks out and somebody picks up a gun and before you know it somebody is killed or injured. So between accidents, suicides, homicides and other crimes, you show me a person who has a gun in his house, and I'll show you a tragedy in the making. So I'm right with you.
I'm glad to hear that because the tone of your letter left me somewhat disappointed.
It's not personal. I just gave you a statement of fact. It's okay.
I understood that. I just wanted for the record that if in fact we get the appropriate debate in whatever the venue that we can count on District Attorney Abraham supporting --
-- the gun 244 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET legislation.
One hundred percent with you. One handgun a month is -- look, a family of four, if you need more than four guns in the house with four adults in a house each one buying one a month. I mean, you know. I can't be any plainer than that. I'm right with you, Councilman. It wasn't a non-agreement with your position, it was a disagreement with the method with which you wanted to see this happen.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions? Any comments?
One comment to you. Councilwoman, I just wanted to again thank the President for being so gracious and generous. I know it doesn't appear as though I do, but I like coming to Council. I like interacting with the Council people. I like working with them. We may not always agree, but I will 245 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET bend every effort to work with and through you, especially through the Council President who has always been not only willing but more than happy to extend a helping hand. And I thank you for being so gracious and generous with your time today.
Thank you. And I certainly want to thank you and your wonderful staff. You do a fantastic job. It just saddens me that you have to come in here, you know, and tell us about your budget being cut so dramatically.
It's not only painful for me personally as a public official and a citizen, the cost to the City will be dramatic. I can assure you.
I know. Thank you. I would like the record to reflect that the Department of Commerce was due in at 246 05/05/04 - WHOLE - FY '05 BUDGET 1 o'clock today. They indicated through Councilman Clarke that they were not quite prepared to come in. However, they will be on call. And this Committee will stand in recess until Monday, May at 9:30. Thank 8 you all very much. 9 (Council adjourned.) 10 - - - - 247 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, May 5, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR