COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 10:07 a.m. - - - Bill 080468 - Enacting a new Chapter 9-3200, entitled "Entitlement to Leave Due to Domestic or Sexual Violence," to the Philadelphia Code to provide that certain employees may take unpaid leave from work to address domestic or sexual violence. Bill 080169 - Relating to transfer of powers and duties of Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation (to be renamed "Department of Parks and Recreation") and reconstituting Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation. Resolution 080181 - Proposing amendment to the Home Rule Charter relating to transfer of powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: William K. Greenlee, Chair James F. Kenney, Vice Chair Blondell Reynolds Brown Frank DiCicco W. Wilson Goode, Jr. Jack Kelly Maria Quinones-Sanchez OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darrell L. Clarke Curtis Jones, Jr. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 6/10/08 LAW AND GOVERNMENT I N D E X WITNESS Bill 080468 Jennifer Serrano, Domestic Abuse Victim Duane Bumb, Dept. Director of Commerce 13 6 Denise Earley, Chamber of Commerce...... 17 Joe Mahoney, Chamber of Commerce........ 31 Cynthia Figueroa, Women Against Abuse... 57 Terry Fromson, Women's Law Project...... 67 Ana Yoder, Lutheran Settlement House.... 76 Janet Ginsburg Community Legal Services 85 J. Otero-Cruz Congreso de Latinos Unidos 88 A. Crawford, Women Organized Against Rape 91 Tamela Luce, Women's Way................ 93 Bill 080169, Resolution 080181 Dr. Donald Schwarz...................... 108 Deputy Mayor for Health and Opportunity Pete Hoskins, Phila. Parks Alliance..... 137 L. Bournefriend, Phila. Parks Alliance 141 Doris Gwaltney, Carol Park Neighbors.... 144 Graham Finney, Phila. Park Alliance..... 146 Judge Alex Bonavitacola................. 151 Fairmount Park Commissioner Senator Philip Price.................... 154 Resident, 800 block of Navajo Mike McCrea, Recreation Advisory Board 195 * * * 3 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Good morning, everybody. Can I have your attention? We're not too late, only about seven minutes late, so that's not too bad, 'cause we want to started 'cause we have a busy schedule; we have a couple of very important bills here. The Committee on Law and Government. For the record, we have a quorum with myself; Councilman Kenney, who is the vice chair of the committee; Councilman Goode; and Councilman Green. Would the clerk please read Bill No. 080468, please.
Bill No. 080468, an ordinance amending Section 9-1103 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Unlawful Employment Practices," and enacting a new Chapter 9-3200, entitled "Entitlement to Leave Due to Domestic or Sexual Violence," to provide that certain employees may take unpaid leave from work to address domestic or sexual 4 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 violence, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. As the clerk just read, we're going to deal with the bill dealing with domestic-abuse leave first, and then after that, we'll deal with the bills on the consolidation of Recreation and Fairmount Park. And I think a lot of people knew that; I tried to get that word out so folks weren't sitting here too long. Before we call our first witness -- in fact, our first witness, maybe she can come to the table first -- is Jennifer Serrano. Jennifer, could you come to the table. (Witness comes forward.)
And as she's coming up, I just want to make a short statement on this bill. As we know, domestic violence affects people from all backgrounds. 5 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 The bill before us today gives some protection to people; it allows them some time to get their lives together to get medical help, psychological help, legal help, et cetera, and will still know that they will have a job after a reasonable time of unpaid leave. I believe this bill will not be the burden to businesses that some seem to fear. This proposed law, which was also cosponsored by Councilman Green and Councilman Clarke, asks one basic question: Should government try to help make sure that an individual gets the assistance she or he needs in a domestic-abuse situation and will not have to fear losing their job. Some might argue let's wait, let's study the situation more maybe there's other entities that should deal with this. But in summary, I'll argue the problem exists now; let's 6 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 try to help now. And with that, Miss Serrano, if you could just identify yourself for the record, speak as close to the microphone as you can, and proceed with your testimony. Good morning.
Good morning, Councilman Greenlee. My name is Jennifer Serrano. Thank you for allowing me to testify on this important piece of legislation that will positively impact the lives of so many Philadelphia women like myself. I also would like to thank you and your staff, particularly Kevin Boyle, for your interest in improving the lives of domestic-abuse victims. I would like now to discuss the impact domestic violence has had on my life, particularly on my ability to hold a job and pursue my educational goal. My name is Jennifer Serrano, 7 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 and I have been a victim of domestic violence since I was years ago old. 4 I have lost several jobs and had to 5 drop out of school due to being a 6 victim of domestic violence. I have 7 spent countless days in numerous 8 hospitals all over the City due to 9 domestic violence, and I have suffered 10 over the past five years. 11 Although I am very nervous 12 right now, I feel it was very 13 important to be here today to be a 14 voice for victims of domestic violence 15 throughout the City. 16 There are two important issues I want to discuss today concerning domestic violence: The difficulties I have had maintaining employment due to my situation and challenges in completing my education. Over the past five years, I have lost several jobs due to the abusive relationship I was in. Even after I had the encourage to leave my 8 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 abuser, he continued to hinder my ability to keep a job. On several occasions, my former abuser had both verbally and physically attacked friends and relatives of mine. I would continually be late, and even not show up, for work due to the fact that my abuser would be waiting for me at the bus stop. I would have extensive stays in the hospital due to the abuse and missed days due to my injuries. My inability to maintain employment had other effects. Due to this, I have spent extended periods living in the streets, bouncing from home to home and shelter to shelter. I have also lost custody of my two little girls, being able to keep my job and have gone along in helping me to avoid these devastating consequences. My struggles have also extended to my ability to complete my education. When I was a high school 9 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 senior, I became pregnant with my twin girls at the age of years old. 4 After their birth, I attempted to go 5 back and finish my degree. My simple, 6 everyday decisions were controlled by 7 him, with the ever-present threat of 8 violence. I eventually was able to 9 complete my degree on line. 10 When I finally left my abuser, 11 I attempted to go to school for 12 nursing. I attended a school an hour 13 away to be far away from him, but he 14 continued to find me. I missed 15 several days due to his harassment and 16 had two emergency room stays due to 17 his violence. These acts of violence all occurred well after I had ended my relationship with him. I ended up being dismissed from school due to missing too many days and now owe several thousand dollars for a degree I was unable to complete. The legislation Councilman 10 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Greenlee is introducing today will remind those of us who look over our shoulders constantly that there is someone standing with us as we take back control of our lives. Over the past year, I have finally begun to regain control of my life. I am currently a full-time student at Community College. I began to volunteer at the State representative's office who helped me start an internship, which then later became a position in legislative staff. (Witness weeps.)
I own my own apartment and I'm working with Legal Aid to get my girls back. This legislation is really important to not only myself but to hundreds of women across the City of Philadelphia. And for women like me 11 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 who have experienced losing a job and not being able to explain it to your employers is a undertaking experience. I speak on behalf of the women across the City of Philadelphia and I speak on everyone's behalf that this is a really great idea. And this legislation, I really hope it gets passed. Thank you, Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Miss Serrano. Thank you for coming down. I'm familiar with some of your situation, and you're to be congratulated on the courage you have shown through this whole process. And in my personal opinion, if we can pass what I think is a sensible, reasonable thing that can help people like you -- it doesn't solve all of your problems, but I think it will go far to at least make 12 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 you take away one of those fears that you have, which is losing your job. So, again, I appreciate you coming down here. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No questions or comments from committee members.)
I think you were a poignant start to this hearing. Thank you.
Our next two witnesses are: Duane Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce; and Denise Earley from the Chamber of Commerce. Denise, are you -- I thought I saw you come in. There you are.
Maybe you can read it in if Joe comes in while you're here.
Good morning, Chairman Greenlee and members of City Council. My name is Duane Bumb. I'm the Senior Deputy Director of Commerce and I'm appearing here today to testify on the proposed amendment to the Unlawful Employment Practices section 22 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Entitlement to Leave Due to Domestic or Sexual Violence." I would first like to commend 14 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Councilmembers Greenlee, Clarke, and Green for raising this important issue. Every year, tens of thousands of cases of domestic abuse are reported in Philadelphia, threatening the fabric of our communities and the sanctity of our families. It is incumbent upon all of us to come to the aid of victims of those acts in order to alleviate the psychological and social toll inflicted upon them. While the merits of the bill 14 before us are unmistakable, the Commerce Department would recommend that its passage be put on hold to permit more time to address concerns raised by the City's business community. Local employers fear that mandating unpaid leave for employees affected by domestic and sexual abuse would impose an undue burden upon doing business within the City. Among the anticipated costs cited by the employers are a decline in 15 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 productivity and an added strain to human resource departments. To ensure the bill does not create any unforeseen obstacles to our city's economic growth, it is our recommendation that a cost analysis be performed to provide a more complete understanding of the bill's implications. Additionally, since the proposed measure would only affect local businesses, there is a reasonable fear that the bill's implementation would defer investment away from the City. As demonstrated throughout the country, with the exception of New York City, legislation comparable to this measure has been enacted only at the state level, thereby ensuring municipalities parity in the application of this benefit. Furthermore, legislation pending in the U.S. Congress seeks to 16 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 provide a similar benefit to victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Given the presence of pending federal legislation and the prospect of disincentivizing local investment, it is necessary to question whether local government is indeed the appropriate setting for this legislation. The legislation before us today is well intentioned but warrants further evaluation. While it is important to protect our residents from the devastating social effects of domestic abuse, we must first evaluate the potential detriment this measure poses to our overall economy as well as the pragmatism of implementing this benefit at the local level. Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. I'd be happy to respond to questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Bumb, for your testimony. 17 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Just for the record, members of the committee have come since I first announced this: Councilman DiCicco; and I saw Councilman Kelly, and I'm sure he'll be back; also not a member but one who has interest in this issue is Councilman Jones; and Councilman Clarke, who is a cosponsor of this bill is here also. I think it might be better, Miss Earley, if we hear from you, and then maybe we'll have questions, if that's okay with the committee.
Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my name is Denise Earley. I am the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. I come before you today to ask questions about and to offer comments on City Council Bill 080468, an ordinance amending Section 9-1103 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled 18 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 "Unlawful Employment Practices," and enacting a new Chapter 9-3200, entitled "Entitlement to Leave Due to Domestic or Sexual Violence," to provide that certain employees may take unpaid leave from work to address domestic or sexual violence, all under certain terms and conditions. Let me preface my prepared remarks on Bill No. 080468 by outlining the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce membership for you. We have a approximately 5,000 member companies stretching across 11 counties in 3 states of the Greater Philadelphia region. Fifty-four percent of our membership is in Philadelphia and eighty-five percent of our membership represents small businesses, with less than 100 employees. The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce membership with less than 50 employees is 3200. When Bill 080468 was 19 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 introduced on May 8th, sponsored by Councilmembers Greenlee, Clarke, and Green, the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce immediately sent out a notice to our Philadelphia businesses to obtain their comments and feedback on this bill and to ascertain the impact Bill 080468 would likely have on their businesses. While most were sympathetic to the issues of domestic violence -- and certainly the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce understand the intent of the bill to help these victims -- the overwhelming majority of businesses replied that this would be devastating to their business and it would be particularly onerous on small businesses, which, as I just mentioned, represents 85 percent of our membership. With Bill 080468, employees would be entitled to eight work weeks of leave during any twelve-month 20 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 period from an employer who employees fifty or more employees, or four work weeks of leave during any twelve-month period from an employer who employs less than fifty employees. This bill would broaden the circumstances covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. For instance, threats of violence or stalking would not be eligible under FMLA. The bill also broadens the scope to cover employees with less than fifty employees. FMLA covers employers with fifty employees or more. This expansion could certainly be particularly onerous to the many small employers based in Philadelphia. In addition to the negative economic implications on employers, Bill 080468 raises an array of other issues and questions for businesses like: The certification and documentation process and the 21 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 administrative and recordkeeping processes that would be burdensome on businesses to implement and maintain, particularly since the proposed leave may be taken intermittently or on a reduced work schedule. What is meant by "the employee shall provide such certification to the employer within a reasonable period of time? Other questions and concerns that we've received include: the opportunities for abuse to the proposed benefit requiring only 48 hours' notice to the employers, if at all; and how does one prove household member. The leave should not be a recurring benefit. There must be responsibility on the part of the victim to get out of an abusive situation. Employers should not expect to grant leave every year. As many businesses have moved 22 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 to the PTO, or paid time off, which includes sick, vacation, personal, et cetera, under this bill, would employers be permitted to require employees to first exhaust their PTO time before accessing this annual leave time?
Finally, we've been asked how Bill 080468 would apply to temporary staffing agencies. Who would be required to cover the proposed leave, the staffing agency or the temporary employer? Under the category of "unintended consequences," it is conceivable that it could raise the question in a prospective hiring manager's mind as to the likelihood that the candidate might become a victim of domestic or sexual abuse. Does this then contribute to gender discrimination? Another unintended consequence of Bill No. 080468 would be for 23 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 employers to reduce hourly rates of pay and/or to discontinue other benefits like paid vacation time, retirement programs, reduced staff, et cetera, in order to pay for this additional leave time. Mandating time off for victims of domestic or sexual violence may make it difficult for employers to offer time off for other reasons, such as to observe religious holidays or to spend with family members going to or returning from military service. Many employers are already providing military leave, and this added tier of regulation could be the final decision for an employer to stay in Philadelphia or to leave. Employers need flexibility to deal with myriad reasons employees may need time off. These policies are best determined by individual businesses, not mandated by the City. The City has made great 24 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 strides, and the current administration is working hard to improve the attractiveness of Philadelphia as a destination to live, work, and play. Mayor Nutter has proposed tax reductions to both the wage and business-privilege taxes, and this Council just passed them on May 22nd and the Mayor signed them into law, essential to the continued success of the City as a vibrant downtown with thousands of workers present every day. This bill, if passed, will place Philadelphia at a competitive disadvantage with our surrounding neighbors. It is particularly onerous for multi-state employers who may choose to move their employees out of the City. Again, the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce is not insensitive to the needs of abuse victims, but as a business 25 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 organization, we cannot stand by and watch businesses leave the City due to excessive regulation. Private employers simply cannot be asked to bear additional costs of this nature without significant consequences. Thank you for this opportunity.
All right. Thank you. I have some questions, but, Councilman Goode, why don't you start. Go ahead, Councilman Goode.
Good morning. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Bumb. Is it fair to say that if 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 there was a cost analysis done that showed minimal impact, the Commerce Department would not be opposed to the bill?
Our basis for having concern is that we don't understand the cost. And so I think I would agree with you that if we could demonstrate that this bill did not provide a negative economic impact to the City, we would have no opposition to this, that's right.
Okay. Can you explain to me what that cost analysis would look like?
We would like to better understand from a local employer's perspective both for small companies and for --
My question is not why you want a cost analysis; my question is what that cost analysis would look like.
It would document 27 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the -- it would identify the incremental costs associated with the implementation of this bill.
I -- well, I think that's difficult, and that's part of or reason for not being able to support that.
Did you actually survey the business communities and ask how many of their employees have faced abuse and would take advantage of the bill?
That could be one methodology, yes. I think that that could be a part of a survey. Again, I...
And do you think that would be -- I mean, I just 28 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 threw out one example, I mean, but I don't think that would be an effective model. I mean, could you tell me what an effective cost analysis model would be? because I can't think of one that exists that makes sense. And in theory, the only way to do a cost analysis would be to have the bill become law and examine it over a year or two to see what impact it's having, but without the law actually put in place, you would never know what the cost analysis is. Does that make sense?
So the Commerce Department is not really waiting for a cost analysis.
The analysis -- well, we're sort of saying that we don't have any sense of what the cost to the business community is right now, and we should have one. 29 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
So you actually don't know whether it's a minimal impact or a major impact.
And there's no way to actually know whether there's a minimal impact or a major impact unless the bill becomes law.
I think that one way that one could assess that is to look at those jurisdictions that have in fact passed comparable legislation to determine what the impact has been. We did that sort of thing when we had the discussion about a smoking ban, when there was some concern.
So are you aware of any jurisdictions that have passed this type of legislation?
There are at least ten states that have it and two local jurisdictions. (Indiscernible; parties 30 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 talking over each other.)
I don't know the impact from any of those jurisdictions, no. No, I don't have any documentation that they have negative impact.
So this is just fear of the unknown; it's not so much that we can document one way or the other whether there is actually going to be negative impact.
And you would agree that there's no way we can know whether there's going to be major impact in Philadelphia without the bill 20 becoming law.
Without the bill becoming law, there's no way to know. 31 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Again, I think one can -- there -- I'm not saying there's -- there haven't been assessments of other jurisdictions that have imposed similar legislation.
You don't know of any analysis that's been done to that effect in other jurisdictions.
Okay. Thank you for your testimony. And, Mr. Mahoney or Miss Earley, what would you suggest as an alternative to this particular piece of legislation?
Joe Mahoney, and I'm Executive Vice President at the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. One of the areas of concern, Councilman, to our members and 32 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 particularly to the small members is that, you know, right now, if you have under fifty employees, you know, you're not subject to the Family Medical Leave Act. So there is a fear factor to them, particularly the small members as to, you know, what this would cost if they were faced with a situation of, you know, losing an employee for, you know, the four-week period. I think that, you know, one way to address some of those concerns is looking at a threshold, you know, of where you make, you know, the law effective, you know, as the federal government did when they passed the Family Medical Leave Act so that those very small businesses --
You know, that's probably, you know, one of the biggest. I know that Denise cited some questions in there of clarification on things like, you know, temporary employers. And, you know, most of this testimony, the questions that were in there were questions that came directly from our members, you know, when we surveyed them as to what their thoughts were on the bill. So if we could get some additional clarification around, you know, some of those concerns and maybe look for a small-business exemption, I think that the bill would be, you know, would be easier, particularly for the small business community to take a look at.
So with certain amendments, the Chamber of Commerce could actually be in favor of the bill?
We'd want to look 34 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 at those amendments. I don't want to give you a blanket statement; I think that would be irresponsible to do that. But I think it would be more palatable if --
The question is simply whether the Chamber of Commerce is against the bill, period; or whether the Chamber of Commerce could ever be for the bill with amendments.
It was -- we have questions. You know, if there are amendments that made the bill, you know, more palatable to our members, you know, perhaps, you know, we could support the bill. We didn't go into this with, you know, with being dead set against the bill. We reached out to the members. We do have a concern, Councilman, that, you know, with the City, you know, only doing it and it not being, you know, broader and 35 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 including more jurisdictions, that there could be some lost opportunity costs.
And I know that, but, you know, but there could be some lost opportunity cost of some who may not -- who may say, "Gee, I'm afraid of this. This could have a negative impact on my business."
But my simple question is: Is it possible that the Chamber of Commerce could be for the bill --
-- under some scenario where there are amendments offered.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 36 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Thank you, Councilman. I know Councilman Kenney had some questions, but if I could just ask a couple real quick here. Both Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Bumb, I think, mentioned the -- maybe better doing it statewide. Are you aware of any state legislation pending right now?
I'm not aware of any legislation in Pennsylvania that's pending, that's right.
And in fact, surprisingly, there's no legislation, to my knowledge, pending in New Jersey, which generally is a few years ahead of us on issues like that.
Okay. It would nice to get ahead of them once in a while, wouldn't it? Okay. And I guess -- is it fair to 37 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 say that, particularly getting back to Pennsylvania, that they oftentimes aren't the leaders in progressive legislation? Would that be a fair statement that I could make? (No immediate verbal response.)
Okay. If I could ask the Chamber, when this bill 18 was sent out to the members, was the whole bill sent out or was it the title of the bill?
We sent out a title of the bill, we sent out a summary of the bill, and if people called us, you know, and asked for a full copy of the bill, we did send it 38 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 out to them, Councilman.
Okay. But did some of the people who expressed concerns, to use Miss Early's statement, that it would be devastating, did all of those people, to your knowledge, actually get the whole bill, or did they just see the title of the bill or --
Most of them did, Councilman. When I originally sent it out, I did not send the attachment, and then I got so many e-mails back asking for the bill that I resent the notice with the attached bill. So I would say that almost a hundred percent of them saw the actual bill. I don't know if they took the actual time to read it, but they were sent the bill.
Okay. So you did say, in answer to Councilman Goode, that the Chamber would be open to something that may limit this a 39 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 little bit more; is that what you're saying?
Yeah, I think it's, you know, the -- for the most part, you know, and I hate to say it was universal because we did have comments back on the bill from large businesses, you know, medium-sized businesses, but a majority of the responses, you know, I believe I can say came from small businesses, and those small businesses that have never had to deal with a situation like, you know, family and medical leave which larger companies already deal with, you know, I think were the most vocal in their opposition. So if there were ways to exempt those small businesses and maybe put the bill in line, you know, with a federal law, I think it would be much more palatable for small businesses, and we'd be happy to take a look. 40 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
I understand that, but just a comment. I guess my concern about that and the concern that was raised -- and there will be other testifiers to talk about that -- but oftentimes, it's those small companies that don't have other benefits -- sick leave, vacation, whatever --
And those people, their employees are oftentimes the biggest victim of this. You know, if you're in a bigger company, oftentimes, there's vacation, there's sick time you can take, but some of these small companies you can't. So while I understand what you're saying, to be honest with you, I -- I think that it might leave out a lot of people also. So that's my concern about your concern, if you understand what I'm saying.
Yeah, I 41 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 understand where you're coming from, you know, and thank you for understanding the situation that in a mom-and-pop business, you know, with only a few employees, you know, should one of their employees be in the unfortunate situation to, you know, to have to claim, you know, leave under the bill as it's written right now, you know, the impact on that small employer that only has a couple of employees is, you know, much greater than on the larger employer so -- and I know that you recognize that.
And one last question, Councilman. Was there a lot of -- and I may have missed this in your testimony, I'm sorry. Was there a lot of concern that this would be used for the wrong purposes by employees? Was that raised by many employers?
I don't know that it was many, but several wrote back 42 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 that they were worried about the chance for abuse of the sick leave -- of the annual leave.
And that they didn't feel it should be recurring year after year, that it should be a one-time -- if at all, it's just one time.
Mm-mm. I guess the concern I would raise about that concern is with what a person has to go through to show that they were victims, somehow I don't see them going through that just to get Tuesday off. You know, it doesn't seem to make sense to me, you know. So to use Councilman Goode's phrase, it sounds more the fear of the unknown than a realistic fear on that, but I guess that's to be debated. I won't go on that.
I think that, you 43 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 know, what was raised by, you know, a couple of people particularly in regard to that, Councilman is, you know, we've all heard of stories about individuals who, you know, for whatever reason, you know, fail to get out of an abusive situation. And the feeling was that if the person is in the unfortunate situation, that they are in an abusive situation, there was a concern about how do you get them out of that so that this is not a recurring thing to either the employee or to the business.
Mm-hmm. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there's any doubt that what this legislation's asking for is for business to subsidize an ill of society, which we have to make a determination whether 44 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 or not that subsidy is worth -- something that we should do, but there's certainly a cost associated with it; I don't think there's any way you can avoid it. And probably the concerns I'm hearing by the witnesses is that probably a larger company could absorb the cost of this accommodation more so than a small company.
I mean, I'm thinking of scenarios in my mind where, you know, you have a one-person law firm with one secretary who's going through this terribly situation, and for four weeks, in addition to whatever she may get in vacation time, she's out. And if you have a specialty kind of business where people -- you're investing in people to train, it could have an impact, and it will have a financial impact on the continuation of benefits, medical benefits, and other 45 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 benefits that you may provide. So the question we have to determine is whether or not we want to force that situation, force that subsidy or not. And Councilman Goode's correct: I don't know how you quantify the cost. I don't think the abuse is that much of an issue; I think you'll probably -- the vast majority of people that take advantage of this are legitimately going through this terrible situation, and you may have, you know, a few here or there, two or three that are going to take advantage of it. People take advantage of everything. I mean, I could probably go to my doctor today and get a note saying that I'm disabled and have handicap poles in front of my house within the next couple of weeks; I'm not. But, I mean, people abuse accommodations that we make for them, 46 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 and I don't think in this case, that's as big an issue. And because we can't quantify beforehand what the costs are, one of the suggestions I would make, after whatever amendments come out of this discussion, is that perhaps we sunset it for a year and reauthorize it a year from the day it goes into effect to really see whether or not there's a quantifiable complaint, abuse, cost, you know, and see whether that makes any sense, as opposed to doing it in perpetuity. I'm not -- certainly, the sponsor of the bill can make that decision, but you will certainly, at the end of that period of a year, have something to quantify. I would suggest you probably won't have much complaint, but at least you'll have a year's worth of data to figure something out about whether to reauthorize it or no. 47 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 T so that's just my suggestion. Thanks.
Thank you, Councilman. Do you have any comments on that, on that sunset idea?
No. We haven't really thought about a sunset. I mean, it's something for us to think about, Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, the Councilman raises a legitimate point. And, you know, and his example of the one-person law firm with the -- you know, with the support staff, you know, is really the issue that I think a lot of our small businesses are hoping that they don't find themselves in that situation.
Okay. By the way, I think just -- and then I'm going to recognize Councilman Jones. I think Mr. Bumb's testimony, I think -- and it will be brought out in other 48 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 people after you, but I don't think New York City is the only city, the only municipality that has some kind of law, and I don't want to get into a back-and-forth on that, but --
I'm sorry. The -- there is one other that I'm aware of. The one other example that I know of is Miami, and I guess the reason I would have distinguished the two is because Miami's is actually a piggyback on top of a Florida statute; whereas, we've got nothing to piggyback on here. And, again, so much of the concerns that I would -- this is an important issue and we don't want to undercut any of that. The important issue that I was trying to express here is that we don't want to sort of do things that sort of separate -- that change the cost of Philadelphia -- the differential for Philadelphia relative to suburban and regional efforts, and 49 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 so --
But, Mr. Bumb, don't we make that argument every time we're going to do something? I mean, we always say, Well, you know, the concern is they're doing something in the suburbs. Well, if they're not doing something -- if they're something in the suburbs that's wrong or they're not addressing an issue, then maybe we should do it. You know, I guess --
I mean, I understand that to a point, but I think we use that as a crutch sometimes, you know, Oh, well, geez, let the State take care of it. Well, they're sure as heck not taking care of guns, for crying out loud, just to use one example. And there's a lot of other things they're not taking care of.
So, I -- I -- 50 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Like I said, I don't want to hang by my thumbs waiting for the State to do some good things 'cause, I -- you know, with all due respect to the folks ups there, and it's mostly not the Philadelphians.
You know, I think if we waited for them, we'd be behind Utah or something, you know? (Laughter.)
So -- sorry for the speech, guys. Maybe I'm apologizing to Utah; I don't know. (Laughter.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have a couple of quick questions and thank you for letting me getting them in. Mr. Bumb, what is the largest 51 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 number of new small businesses demographically in the nation, new start-ups? What demographic represents the largest growth group among small businesses?
And I would probably argue that that statistic is true for the City of Philadelphia; would you agree?
Well, I think it's reasonable that we track the national trend.
Have we sought out the opinion of the women's Chamber of Commerce on this issue?
We have not sought -- my department has not sort of sought 52 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 out other sort of chambers' opinions, including the women's. No, we have not done that yet.
Okay. And I would also ask you then that the -- it's my understanding from previous testimony and from members who deal with this on a daily basis is that the two places that domestic violence occurs most is at the home and at the workplace, at the home and at the workplace. And if that is true, has there been an analysis of lost wages, lost productivity to small businesses due to actual domestic violence that has occurred in people staying out of work anyway, in spite of a law on the books? Has there been any analysis, cost analysis, of the loss of productivity to existing businesses today?
No. That's a good question. I'm not aware of any 53 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 analysis of that.
Okay. And then finally, I would ask that we take a hard look at whether or not those costs really are already in progress, this situation of domestic violence, is costing productivity now, because if someone's in fear of their life, they're leaving work now. So there is a cost already associated with this. The only thing that I would say that might be of good news to that cost analysis is that there is probably a period where domestic violence occurs more rapidly in the beginning of a heated situation, and that with a cooling-off period, when people kind of collect themselves from the emotion, may well find that they don't engage in violence. And if that is true, this bill may, in the long run, save businesses lost wages, lost productivity, and lost profits, if we look at it from a different spectrum 54 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 of analysis. And I'd like you to consider that.
Thank you, Councilman, and I'm glad you mentioned that 'cause that was something I think is very important. I think some other witnesses will bring that out, that the anticipated cost concerned may be addressed in this bill; there may be more costs involved in not giving people leave than there is in giving people leave. And just one last question, and I know we got a lot of witnesses and we got a whole different subject coming up. There have been bills, laws around the country, both state and city. Has anybody, any of you, your organizations, done a study to 55 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 see if these concerns that seem to be raised have happened? Like New York has a law; it's not the same thing, but New York has a law -- New York City has a law since, I think, 2001. So it seems like there's enough time to study some. I mean, have these concerns come out anywhere of any note?
We have not looked at other jurisdictions. On behalf the Chamber, Councilman, you know, our outreach at this point was strictly to our own membership, you know, asking the feelings of, you know, how they felt the impact was on them. That's something we can certainly, you know, try to take a look at, but we have not done it at this point.
Okay. I understand that, but I guess if you're going to give a full picture, it seems like studying it a little bit, it 56 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 wouldn't have been bad -- I mean, it wasn't like we moved the bill in one week; it was introduced a few weeks ago. I mean, if you're going to make accusations, maybe that's too strong a word, but it would seem to be you could say, Well, this city had it or that city had it. If cities aren't having it, maybe it's not there, maybe it's not there. And I'll just leave it at that. Any other questions or comments from the committee? (No further questions or comments.)
We have a group coming up -- we have two more panels. And I ask all of the witnesses to -- and I know I've said this to you 57 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 before: We have a long day here. If you have written testimony, your testimony will be put into the record, and if you could just abbreviate your testimony, I'd appreciate it. And for all of those who have come in lately and want to -- that are here for the Fairmount Park recreation consolidation, you didn't miss anything yet, okay, that's going to be the next bill coming up. (Witnesses come forward.)
Okay. I see Cynthia Figueroa there. Why don't -- I know you asked to go first. So, you know, ask and you shall receive. Go ahead. Could you identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Thank you, Councilman. Good afternoon. I'm Cynthia Figueroa. " WAA particularly appreciates the support of the co-chairs, Councilman Kenney and Greenlee, who have continued to show leadership around our issue. It's our hope that our testimony will provide an overview of the many challenges that victims of domestic violence face in gaining and retaining employment while facing issues of domestic violence. I have to depart from my written testimony to say that sitting here today, I feel like, as a movement, we've come a long way. 59 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Given what I heard from some of the recent testimony that we're following, I feel like we're about to take some major steps backwards in the movement that we've made as women in a working environment. It's estimated that 73 percent of domestic violence goes unreported. And in Philadelphia, the prevalence of domestic violence is partially demonstrated by the following statistics: There are over 13,000 protection-from-abuse orders filed annually. 115,000 9-1-1 calls were made to 9-1-1 in 2003. And in 2007, the Philadelphia Domestic Violence Hotline answered and responded to 8,011 domestic violence hotline calls. I want to clarify a few points that have been brought up in the previous testimony. I want to clarify 60 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 that there is not just one or two cities, but there's actually a number of cities that have enacted similar legislation: New York City; Miami, Dade County has already been mentioned; San Francisco; as well as Washington, DC. And, in fact, Washington, DC provides paid leave for domestic violence issues. Domestic violence has long been considered a private matter that occurs in the home. And experience, however, demonstrates that the instances of domestic violence (indiscernible) throughout the larger community, including workplaces. Workplace violence is a reality that businesses and corporations need to be prepared to manage and -- clearly, given the testimony today -- have better understanding about the financial implications. Consider the cost. 8 million. This was a report, as asked by Councilman Jones, the Center for Disease Control actually performed a prevention survey that was conducted by the National Center for the Injury and Prevention Control. In one case, a wrongful death action against an employer who failed to respond to an employee's risk resulted in $850,000 to the employer. In context, when an employee is vulnerable -- in any context, when an employee is vulnerable, the employers are also vulnerable. This is no different in instances of domestic violence. This bill is a great first step in preparing the workplace environment to appropriately respond to employees who may be dealing with issues of domestic violence. Leave can provide a victim with the ability to ensure that she 62 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 will maintain her employment while seeking the support, medical attention, and safety measures needed. Replacement of employees can be a costly burden to employers, and loss of employment for victims can mean that they cannot escape violence due to the lack of financial stability. In addition to this leave, I would actually ask the business community to consider ensuring incorporating domestic violence initiatives into your workplace policy, train management, and train human resources staff. We have actually worked with employers who have, unfortunately, lost colleagues to domestic violence, and the impact that remains on the workforce and productivity is significant. As will be mentioned in testimony today, the majority of support mechanisms, including filing 63 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 for protection-from-abuse orders, occur during business hours. WAA's experience providing housing and legal representation represent that an individual's ability to flee a violent relationship is directly linked to her personal safety and financial stability.
In addition, our experience has illustrated that violence can escalate for victims when they begin to establish financial independence. To illustrate this, I'm going to share with you a recent case that we had. I've changed the name to product the identity. Mary reached out to Women Against Abuse after being brutally beaten by her boyfriend. She was beaten until she was unconscious and left for dead. After she awoke on the kitchen floor, she was brought to the emergency room by her abuser, who feared she was dying. The abuser, who 64 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 mentioned that she had fallen down the stairs, was quickly apprehended and detained. After spending three nights in the emergency room with a broken jaw, Mary decided to file a protection- from-abuse order and agreed to move ahead with testifying in criminal court. When we began working with Mary, one of the very first concerns she had is that she had recently begun a new job and that she was afraid she was going to lose it. She was devastated to think that her only link to being able to get away from the abuse with her kids was the job that she had. She shared that she was far too embarrassed and too concerned about what to do and did not have accrued time off. Mary had a long history of being gainfully employed when she started dating her boyfriend. Her 65 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 partner started becoming abusive as time went on and he forced her to quit her job. Months before this brutal incident occurred, Mary decided that she needed to leave but needed to have financial income to do so. Mary began to bring home some money after the abuser agreed to reluctantly allow her to work, and she started to show independence. While I am pleased -- that escalated until, unfortunately, resulting in her recent hospitalization. While I am pleased to report that we were successful in Mary's ability to get a protection-from-abuse order, provide her with shelter, and support her criminal case, we were not successful in helping her maintain her employment. The leave that Councilman Greenlee has introduced can save victims like Mary their job. Domestic violence does not fit nicely into a little box, and it 66 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 happens to everyone. We cannot force individuals to leave soley because they're experiencing domestic violence. And just to be clear that the leave that's introduced is not a mandate but that it's something that could be an option, a readily available option to victims. For Mary and the thousands of women that we serve, I encourage you to pass this bill, and I also urge the business community to become better aware of the issues that are facing victims of domestic violence. Enacting this leave, as stated before, is a wonderful first step in addressing the complexity of this issue.
Thank you, Miss Figueroa. Maybe we could have the testimony of the other two witnesses first before any questions or comments. And, again, we respectfully 67 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 ask you to try to be as brief as possible so we can keep moving 'cause we -- you know, as like said, we have a long list here.
Good morning. My name is Terry Fromson. I'm managing attorney for the Women's Law Project and I applaud Council for taking up this important legislation that will provide domestic violence victims the opportunity to take steps to protect themselves from further violence without risk loss of employment. The Women's Law Project knows firsthand how important the adoption of this bill is. Through both our telephone counseling service and policy initiatives, we hear from women who are unable to obtain protection orders or seek the assistance of other social services to help them address the abuse to which they are subjected because their jobs do not give them time off for such activities. 68 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Unable to risk losing their ability to support their families, these individuals continue to live in fear and suffer abuse without legal protection or other support. Those who take time off from work to address the domestic violence, even though they lack the time, risk loss of employment, destitution, and homelessness. Except for the Domestic Violence Hotline and emergency services in Philadelphia, the courts and most social services operate on a 9-to-5, Monday-through-Friday schedule. While someone faced with imminent danger may call 9-1-1 or file 19 an emergency protection-from-abuse petition, at any time, anyone seeking a final order or relief from the criminal justice system must ultimately appear in court during the work week typically for many hours and often on a repeated basis. 69 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Women seeking such orders have told us they simply could not take more time off from work to return to court again. If you don't show up in court, your petition is dismissed, and you do not get any relief. In 1998, I served on the Employers Working Group of the attorney general's Family Violence Task Force. As part of that working group, we researched the impact of domestic violence on the workplace. We found that lost days from work and loss of employment are major costs of domestic violence. We undertook a statewide survey of Pennsylvania employees. Approximately twenty percent of those responding reported that family violence had affected their workplace in the previous two years. Despite being aware of this effect, few employers had developed policies to address family violence. 70 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Less than 27 percent of employers who responded reported having developed workplace violence policies. Only about percent of those addressed 6 domestic violence. 7 With respect to leave and 8 attendance policies, only 21 percent 9 reported a leave policy that 10 accommodated domestic violence victims, while only 10 percent reported having an attendance policy that accommodated them. Needless to say, the attorney general's report recommended recognizing that an employee who is a victim of family violence may need to be absent from work to address a number of number of matters, including court appearances, health care, family issues and applying attendance and leave policies to accommodate the reasonable needs of employees. It was certainly our hope -- it is certainly our hope that in the 71 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 ten years that have passed since that survey, that more Pennsylvania employers have come to understand that victims of domestic violence need this time off to protect themselves. However, recent research reflects that domestic violence continues to impact the ability of victims to work. A 2003 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that victims of rape, physical assault, and stalking lose an estimated 8 million days of paid work due to intimate partner violence. A 2005 report from the Maine Department of Labor and Family Crisis Services documented the impact of domestic violence on survivors' employment.
They reported significant amounts of lost work time due to obtaining medical care, going to the court for legal relief, receiving counseling, and addressing children's needs. Many of the 120 survivors 72 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 interviewed noted that they had exhausted all of their paid time options, and ten reported loss of job due to attendance problems. The business community has asserted concerns about misuse or overuse of the leave provided by this legislation. This concern has been raised in other venues in which the Women's Law Project has worked to discrimination against and achieve accommodation for battered women: insurance discrimination and waivers of welfare work requirements. We have seen no abuse in those arenas. In conversations with state insurance departments around the country, 42 states have antidiscrimination laws. I have been assured that the number of individuals seeking relief under these statutes have been extremely low. In our work in Pennsylvania on the implementation of the family 73 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 violence option, which allows domestic violence victims to be excused from work requirements if it impedes their ability to comply, we have also seen no abuse. Despite estimates that 40 to 60 percent of the TANF population is -- consists of people who have experienced domestic violence, the number of TANF recipients in Pennsylvania seeking to be excused from work requirements is very small: only approximately 2 percent or less of the TANF adult population statewide. Philadelphia's numbers are even lower, with the percentage of the City's welfare population seeking work waivers consistently below percent. Just as fears of false allegations of domestic violence have not been realized in these situations, we do not anticipate false claims in this one. The reasons are the same: 74 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Battered women want to work and they need to work to support themselves and their family. They are not likely to take unpaid time off for reasons other than those provided for by the legislation or for longer than necessary. They do not disclose domestic violence easily. Shame and fear of loss of benefits and employment are a strong deterrent. Because they must disclose to domestic violence to avail themselves of the unpaid leave provided by this legislation, it is our expectation that they will not request leave unless it is absolutely necessary. My last point is that there has been research on the impact of this sort of -- of sick-leave regulations on employers. Surveys in 1995 and 2000 on the effect of the federal Family Leave Medical Act on employers demonstrated that the 75 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 percentage of employees who take unpaid leave is low, the leave is infrequently taken and for a short period. Employers have generally reported that such leave has been easy to administer and has not negatively affected their businesses or their employees. The Women's Law Project stands firmly in support of this legislation. We are working closely with the Nutter Administration to improve the response of law enforcement to domestic violence as well as to expand social services. This bill is a significant component of what needs to be a multifaceted response to a complex problem. With the enactment of this bill, Philadelphia will take the lead in helping Pennsylvania victims of abuse achieve economic and personal independence. Thank you.
Thank you 76 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning. My name is Ana Lisa Yoder, and I'm the director for the Lutheran Settlement House Bilingual Domestic Violence Program. We are a community-based organization which has served victims of domestic violence in the City of Philadelphia for more than 30 years. Incidentally, we're also a longtime member of the Chamber of Commerce. Lutheran Settlement House's 30-year history of working with victims of domestic violence in Philadelphia has taught us about the tremendous impact that domestic violence has on the workplace. Last year, our organization served close to 3,000 victims of domestic violence, the large majority of whom were employed. One of the most commonly cited 77 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 reasons why victims of domestic violence say they are unable to leave abusive relationships is a lack of financial stability. How employers respond to domestic violence has a great impact on this, and we see this in the lives of our clients every day. In response to this in 2006, Lutheran Settlement House designed and began providing specialized training to Philadelphia's employers on addressing the effects of domestic violence on the workplace. Since that time, we have trained close to 400 supervisors, managers, and employees about the impact of domestic violence on the workplace and best practices for addressing this issue. Among others, we have trained all of the supervisors and managers of Philadelphia's Community Behavioral Health System and staff from the Department of Public Health, the Department of Human Services, and 78 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Philadelphia's Coalition of Mental Health/Mental Retardation centers. In our trainings, it is common for multiple participants to disclose that they have either dealt with an employee struggling with domestic violence or have experienced domestic violence themselves. It is clear that domestic violence is affecting businesses in Philadelphia both financially and otherwise, whether or not they're aware of it. And while we understand that there may be a concern about the financial burden of this bill on businesses, the fact is that many businesses are already paying for domestic violence. The Bureau of National Affairs estimates that domestic violence costs businesses across the country between 3 and $5 billion annually. Terry already mentioned some of the reasons for that. But hiring and training new 79 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 workers when domestic violence victims leave their jobs is a large part of these costs. The University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication found in a public opinion survey that 76 percent of Philadelphians believe employers should play a role in helping to stop domestic violence. Anecdotal evidence shows us that when employers support employees who are experiencing domestic violence, this increases morale and loyalty in the workplace. It is has also been shown firing victims due to domestic violence situations prevents disclosure from other employees and coworkers, which increases the danger of violence spilling into the workplace. Our trainings are meant to help employers understand how to manage domestic violence cases before 80 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 they explode. This ordinance will allow victim employees to take measures to protect both themselves and, by extension, the workplace. Many large employers now understand the importance of developing and implementing policies which provide support for employees who may be victims of domestic violence. American Express; Verizon Wireless; Altria Group, which includes Kraft Foods and Phillip Morris; Liz Claiborne; Blue Cross Blue Shield; and State Farm Insurance have all taken strong stances in addressing domestic violence in the workplace through companywide policies and procedures, including paid and unpaid leave for victims and education about domestic violence for their employees.
Local governments have also taken a stand on this issue, and I believe Cynthia Figueroa already mentioned a number of those. 81 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 As we recently testified to the Public Safety Committee, victims of domestic violence who wish to pursue legal remedies in Philadelphia are asked to navigate an extremely complicated system requiring an extraordinary amount of time that can very directly affect their ability to maintain employment. The Law Enforcement Subcommittee of the Mayor's Task Force on Domestic Violence was formed to coordinate efforts to improve the law enforcement system's response to domestic violence. In an effort to gain a clear and complete understanding of what it was like for an individual victim to go through the law enforcement system from start to finish, the subcommittee together created a case law based on the fictitious case of Jane Doe. The Jane Doe case law takes the victim through the various systems, from the 9-1-1 82 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 call through the end of prosecution. The last page of this testimony includes a flowchart representing this process. For Jane, unlike for many victims, each system provides an ideal response based on existing police directives, court processes, and departmental policies. Jane's saga begins when she dials 9-1-1 to report that her partner is beating her in her home. It ends a little more than a month later, when Jane decides not to prosecute -- but only after five visits to court, six calls or visits with the police, and contact with twenty-six different people in ten different systems or organizations. For each visit to the police to serve her protection order, for each visit to court, for each appointment with a lawyer, she has to take time off work. Imagine the burden of navigating this system in addition to 83 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the burden of worrying about whether or not she's going to lose her job because of missed time at work. Our clients regularly have to balance those two needs. They should not have to choose between safety and employment, yet all too often, they are forced to do exactly that. By passing this ordinance, Philadelphia will be making a strong statement about our commitment to the safety and rights of employees working in our city. I want to urge this committee to move forward on this bill. And thank you once again for your time and attention.
Thank you. Any comments or questions? (No questions or comments.)
Could I just -- by show of hands, how many other people want to testify on this 84 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 bill? One, two, three, four. Okay.
I just -- and I again don't want to shorten anyone's testimony, but from a poll of the committee up here, I don't think there's anyone against it, so you don't have to convince us, you know, to a large degree; we're kind of there, I think. So with that being said and hearing--
Yeah, right. I was going to say -- so, again, as I said before, if you have written testimony, it will be made a part of the record. If you can just come up and maybe state, you know, your 85 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 support or whatever, if there's one particular thing you want to add, but I really respectfully ask, because we really do have to move on. It's a little warm in here, and we have a lot of people waiting and I promised they would try to get started by 11:00 and we're already behind. So if there's anybody that wants to testify or you just want to put your name on the record or submit your testimony. Your testimony's all been submitted. You'd like to testify? Please. (Witness comes forward.)
Thank you. Just identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Janet Ginsberg. I'm a senior staff attorney at Community Legal Services. I work in the Employment Unit, and we represent 86 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 low-wage workers in Philadelphia on a broad range of employment matters. Among the employment problems we see is women who are -- mainly women, almost all women, losing their jobs. Their jobs are threatened as a direct or indirect result of domestic abuse. Now, the people before me have very eloquently posed the problem, and I do have written testimony. What I do want to emphasize, though, for this committee is just how particularly important the protection of this ordinance would be for low-income citizens of Philadelphia, for low-wage workers. A lot of our clients do not have any leave: they do not have sick leave, they do not have vacation time, they do not have paid time off at all. And they also have fewer resources than a lot of workers in Philadelphia to deal with the consequence of crises 87 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 that arise unexpectedly in their lives. A lot of them are single parents, they have no one to turn to. So I do want to add on top of -- the part of my written testimony that I think I just wanted to say was just how important this legislation is, particularly for low-wage workers in Philadelphia. And just as a final thing, the threat to jobs can take several forms, not just missing time off the way it's been described, but also people who lose their jobs because their employers think they're going to be threatened or harassed at work; they don't like the phone calls that are received. So we completely support this ordinance. I would, in the future, love to see some further protections given to victims of domestic violence so that they can't be fired really just because of their status of being 88 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 victims of domestic violence, so that there are workplace safety plans put in place rather than firing individuals who are showing up at work but they're concerned that they're going to be a threat to the workplace in some way or lose productivity for the workplace. So my written testimony is in. Thank you for caring about this ordinance for this population.
Thank you very much. And, as you say, there are other things to be done; this isn't the only thing. But we hope we're moving forward with this. Anybody? Come on up. Why don't you all come up together, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
And whoever then would like to go first, just state your name and --
Hi. My name is 89 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Joanna Otero-Cruz, and I'm with Philadelphia Congreso de Latinos Unidos. I have submitted my written testimony. I just want to emphasize this amendment would lift the added burden of unemployment worrying on whether or not a survivor's job is still there by the time that they're able to return to work. And, again, I just want to say that Congreso de Latinos Unidos, we (indiscernible) domestic violence program, and we definitely support this bill. Thank you.
Hi. My name is Amber Crawford, and I'm a representative of Women Organized Against Rape, and I'm testifying today as a survivor of sexual violence and 90 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 also as a counselor at WOAR. I wanted to ask that Councilmembers just imagine this for a second: You're at home, you're enjoying a nice, quiet evening, and you hear glass break downstairs. In the next instant, someone's holding a gun to your head, ripping off your clothes, and raping you. Or imagine this: You're putting laundry away, and in your spouse's drawer, you find pictures of your five-year-old naked. Or you spend an evening in the emergency room with your ten-year-old son while he's getting stitched up due to a gang rape that occurred in a playground. Could you go to work the next day? These are the stories that we hear constantly at Women Organized Against Rape. And for most survivors, this is only the beginning, because 91 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 what follows is hours and days of time at hospitals, police stations, courtrooms. From the time someone is sexually assaulted and the court process begins, it can be two years later before the trial actually goes. A majority of survivors, after a sexual assault, experience post-traumatic stress disorder, which is characterized by three kind of clusters of system: reexperiencing symptoms, where they are constantly getting thoughts and images of what happened to them pop into their head; avoidance symptoms, where sounds, tastes, smells, people, places are constantly reminding them of that; and hyperarousal symptoms, where a person hears a car backfire or they can't sleep, and that's sending them into a constant state of anxiety. These symptoms are not only for the survivors themselves but for the family members of the survivors. 92 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 So, again, I say: Could you go to work with all of those things and be as productive as people would like you to be with constant images floating into your head? As a survivor who was assaulted at years old, this bill 9 would have extremely helped my mother, 10 who, you know, would burst into tears 11 in the second she thought about what 12 happened to me and would have to run 13 out of her job, who had to take time 14 off to take me to hospitals, to take 15 me to different appointments. And 16 luckily, she had an employer who gave her these leniencies anyway. But for so many people who don't have that, this bill would be greatly appreciated, and Women Organized Against Rape hopes that you support it. Thank you.
Thank you. 93 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Can you identify yourself for the record, please.
Yes. Hi. My name is Tamela Luce. I'm a representative of Women's Way. We're one of the funders of many of these organizations in the room today and very pleased to be present here. You have my written testimony, but just a couple of points that I want to make. It's estimated that to 30 14 percent of abused working women have 15 lost their jobs. These women are 16 doubly victimized. You know, and one 17 of the comments made earlier about 18 women abusing the system, you know, if 19 you lose your job, you may have no 20 other opportunity but to return to 21 your abuser due to the financial 22 circumstances you find yourself in. 23 Many abusers cut off, you know, the 24 ability to access your financial resources, and you really may have no 94 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 other opportunity but to return to your abuser and the cycle of abuse. So you have my written testimony. We really support this legislation and appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you all for your testimony. Anybody else that wishes to testify? (No response.)
Seeing none, I appreciate -- and I appreciate particularly the last few people's brevity. I know we've been at this a little while. I'm going to do something just slightly unusual so the folks that were here for this bill don't have to wait around for the next bill. We're going to recess the Committee on Law and Government on this bill and go 95 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 into the public meeting on Bill No. 3 080468, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for an amendment to this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 080468 be amended accordingly to the -- with the amendments that were circulated prior to the hearing. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that the amendments be approved. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Seeing none, the amendments are adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill 22 080468, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 080468, 96 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? It's been approved that Bill 13 No. 080468 is reported out of this committee with favorable recommendation. The rules of Council have been suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now recess the public meeting and go to the public hearing on the Fairmount Park bills and we'll give folks a chance to leave quietly 97 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 for a minute. Thank you all very much for coming. Thank you. 98 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Okay. After many threats, the Committee on Law and Government is now back in session. We have reestablished a quorum. Could I have everybody's attention. I appreciate everybody hanging in there I know today's little warm in this room today. The -- would Mr. Boyle please read Bill No. 080169 and Resolution 13 080181, please.
Ordinance 080169, an ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City of Philadelphia of the proposal set forth in a resolution 19 approved by Council proposing an amendment of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation (to be renamed "The Department of Parks and Recreation") 99 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 and reconstituting the Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation with new powers and duties, and authorizing the appropriate officers to publish notice and to make arrangements for the special election. Resolution No. 080181, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter relating to the transfer of the powers and duties of the Fairmount Park Commission to the Department of Recreation (to be renamed "Department of Parks and Recreation") and reconstituting the Fairmount Park Commission as the Commission on Parks and Recreation with new powers and duties, and providing for the submission of the amendment to the electors of Philadelphia.
I believe the sponsors of this resolution, who have been involved in this for a long time, would like to make an open 100 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 statement. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, thank you very much for allowing me, followed by my colleague, the prime sponsor of the bill, to provide a perspective and to put this six-year journey into a context. My remarks are as follows: The 63 parks of the Fairmount Park system, totalling 9200 acres, or 11 percent of the City, provide Philadelphia citizens and visitors with opportunities for all of what we know passive and active recreation that comprises one of the largest municipally operated landscape park systems in the country. Since 2001, following the very stunning, I always believed, quite analytical and very objective "Acres of Neglect" series, which raised our antenna about the many issues, 101 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 problems, and opportunities facing Fairmount Park, Councilman Clarke and I have been intimately involved with this issue. The record should reflect that it was June 14, 2001, that former colleague Councilman Nutter, Clarke, and I introduced a resolution 10 authorizing hearings regarding the status of our park. Fast-forward to May 15, 2002, one year later, the recommendation to the administration was that we seek the funding for a strategic plan. Our city put up 50 percent of the cost of that strategic plan, and we thank the William Penn Foundation for serving as a partner with the matching funds. Fast-forward to June 2004, two years later, or twenty-four months later, and the strategic plan for the parks was released. That was followed by several public forums, hearings, and Council 102 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 briefings over the next two years around the number of recommendations cited in the strategic plan. December 2005 hearings were actually held on charter-change legislation. That too was followed by public forums posted by the Philadelphia Free Library, hearings, and Council briefings. We met with all of the stakeholders around this legislation, and in June 2006, Councilman Clarke and I, along with Councilman Nutter, actually introduced a resolution 15 addressing one of the critical unresolved matters, which was funding for Philadelphia Fairmount Park, calling for a task force. September 14, 2006, Clarke and I held hearings on that resolution, seeking additional input. And all of the work continued until fall of 2007, where Clarke and I were ultimately successful in getting what we call "getting all the stars aligned" to act 103 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 on the legislation. We then received an important call from the then-presumptive, now-Mayor Nutter thanking us for the work done but asking that he have an opportunity to weigh in on the work done up to that point. Councilman Clarke and I then decided not to take the affirmative action on that bill 11 last winter and allow our new mayor to have a say. Clarke and I then introduced new legislation in January of this year, and six months later, after meetings with the Mayor, his staff, with Pete Hoskins, leadership at both Philadelphia Fairmount Park, leadership with the Recreation Department, we're now at an important juncture around this legislation. And we both want to just give a huge applause to Mayor Nutter and to Pete Hoskins because we would not be at this point but for their intimate 104 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 involvement. We also want to thank the leadership of Council for working very, very closely with Councilman Clarke and I up to as recently as yesterday, where we met and, in many ways, combed over every single word in what we'll be acting upon today. And so with that, we are now ready, we believe, to take another small step to some, giant step to others, in bringing Philadelphia Fairmount Park into the 21st century. So I thank you for allowing me to provide that context, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clarke, would you --
Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to say that first, I concur with my colleague and friend Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown, 105 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 and I would like to both thank and apologize to members of Council for having given them this headache for the last three years as it relates to this particular process, but thank them for their diligence in working with us to establish what we hope today will be legislation that will give us the best and, I think, probably the most efficient and, hopefully one day, most well-funded recreation and park system in the country. So I look forward to the testimony. It has been a very good process relating to some of the give-and-take and the interaction between the advocates, commission members, and all of the interested parties. I'm -- given the history of this process, I'm going to hold -- I'm going to hold congratulations as it relates to the passage until we 106 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 actually vote. Those that have been involved for a while will understand that little inside joke, but I think that this makes some sense. I'm glad that the advocates and the commission members were as aggressive in their raising their voices of concern about that 'cause I think at the end of the day, it will allow us to establish a much better bill and a much better process. So I hopefully ask for the committee's support here today in moving out so we can move this, I'd like to say, earth-shattering legislation to ultimate fruition. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Councilman. And I think we all need to thank both you and Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown for all of the work you've done on this very important issue, and I know you've had many discussions on this. 107 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Sorry, Councilman, and I'd just like to say one thing. I just would like to -- I know this is not tradition, but I would like to thank Sandy Shea, who is a member of the Daily News, and I'm not saying this just to get her support -- (Laughter.)
-- in the paper tomorrow, but she has actually exhibited a significant interest in the parks for a number years in her prior position and currently, and I think it had no relationship to her position in the paper; she has truly been an interested citizen who likes the parks, and she has been very good in making sure that this issue stays alive, so I would just like to thank her publicly today here today.
And if you don't get a good editorial out of that, I'll be shocked. (Laughter.) 108 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Okay. Thank you all very much. Our first witnesses are Dr. Schwarz and whoever else may be testifying for the Administration. (Witnesses come forward.)
Oh, you're just going to hang out behind him. Okay, I understand. Dr. Schwarz, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Councilman Greenlee, members of the Committee on Law and Government. I'm Donald Schwarz, Deputy Mayor for Health and Opportunity. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony today on this legislation that represents a critical step toward the formulation of one modern system of parks and recreation in Philadelphia. I especially want to 109 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 take a moment to thank Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown for their passionate efforts on behalf of our parks and recreation systems. The Administration greatly appreciates the opportunity to discuss many aspects of the proposed Charter change with the sponsors and to recommend revisions and refinements. My testimony will discuss key elements of the proposed amendments. This administration has a strong commitment to our parkland and recreation facilities and programs, and we understand the important role they play in the City's quality of life, environmental sustainability, public safety, citizen engagement, and economic development. Our park and recreation systems are critical components of a safe, vital city, and we will do all that we can to support them. Much of the rationale for the 110 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 proposed legislation comes from the strategic plan developed for Fairmount Park in 2004, as mentioned by Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown. This plan strongly recommended a merger of the Department of Recreation to improve services, increase accountability, eliminate fragmentation and confusion, and reduce duplication of services such as the maintenance, (indiscernible), and optimal use of athletic facilities I also want to note that of the ten largest municipalities in the nation, only Philadelphia has separate departments for parks and recreation under the municipal administration. In Chicago, one agency, the Chicago Parks District, handles both park and recreation facilities, although not under the municipal government. Resolution 080181 proposes an amendment to the Home Rule Charter to merge the functions and duties of the 111 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation into a new department to be named "The Department of Parks and Recreation" to establish the Commission on Parks and Recreation and to provide for its powers and duties. The department would be directed by a Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, with two Deputy Commissioners, one for parks and one for recreation. Bill 080196 authorizes the corresponding question for the Charter change to be placed on the November 2008 ballot. If approved by the voters, the legislation, as amended, requires that the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation and the new Commission on Parks and Recreation both be in place by July 1, 2009, and that the mergers of the two departmental operations be completed no later than July 1, 2010. 112 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 The Administration feels strongly that this legislation provides us with a great opportunity to respect the history and mission of both departments, while strengthening the services we provide by making the best use of each organization's inherent strengths and capabilities. The Parks Division would focus on environmental resource management, passive, self-directed recreation, and environmental and stewardship. The Recreation Division would focus on providing services that are responsive and sensitive to the diverse needs of our citizens through safe, active recreation, with an emphasis on sound programmed activities and facilities. The newly formed Commission on Parks and Recreation will meet at least quarterly. The public will be given an opportunity to comment at each meeting of the commission. There will be a public call for applications 113 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 to serve on the commission, and commission members will reflect the diversity of our population.
The commission will be responsible for adopting standards and procedures on land use, watershed management, green space, sustainability, and the sale, transfer, and lease or acquisition of park and recreation land and facilities. The new standards for the conveyance of land and facilities will include criteria for evaluating proposed sales, long-term leases, conveyances, and acquisitions so that there are clear standards to use in considering every transaction. Additionally, the legislation proposes that the commission will make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council on any proposed sale, long-term lease, conveyance, or acquisition of any park or recreation 114 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 land or facilities, and the Mayor and City Council shall give substantial weight to that recommendation. All of us know how important parks and recreation are to our citizens. The establishment of a Department of Parks and Recreation will put accountability for this vital exactly where we think it should be: With the Mayor. Our vision of a city of healthy and sustainable neighborhoods is dependent on a vibrant park and recreation organization; our citizens deserve no less. Thank you for allowing me to present testimony on this crucial issue. I'll be happy to answer questions.
Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Are either of you testifying? I should for the record, though, just welcome our new 115 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Recreation Commissioner, Commissioner Salsa. Thank you. I think this is the first time you're officially here. (Applause.)
And as Mr. Foulke next to you knows, whether you like it or not, you'll be here a few more times. So welcome. Just a question, if I could, Dr. Schwarz. Given that all of the other cities are doing what we're basically doing, what generally -- and I know this is a very general question. What have you learned by looking at some of those other cities and maybe make changes on what we're doing here or -- if you understand my question.
I think so. I think one of the chief issues that becomes clear as we look at other cities is efficiency, so that we currently -- although the strategic planning effort that ended in 2002 116 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 clearly stated that we should think about merging functions, we've done some of that, but there remains duplication in a number of areas. So, for instance, we have two permitting offices. So if a citizen wishes to figure out how to get a permit for an activity, it's unclear in many cases to which entity, Parks or Recreation, they should go. We have duplication in -- although coordination in contracts, for instance, for mowing came up in Council when budget hearings occurred both for Parks and Recreation, that the contracts are separate between the two departments, although for the first time, recommendations were made by Parks to Recreation for selection of vendors for mowing. That sort of inefficiency, I think, is one thing that in other cities they've recognized as important in terms of coordination between the 117 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 two. The other issue that arises is transparency for the public in general. So we have wonderful facilities, we have athletic facilities, and it's often unclear for people in the neighborhood to which entity they need to go in order to obtain the right to use that area -- not just a permit but simple what are the hours and so forth. So I believe that for the citizenry, for those who live in Philadelphia, we will have a more efficient and transparent system.
Okay. Thank you. Just one other question and then anybody else that might have one. I know when this process began -- I know the sponsors know this better than I do -- there was concern particularly raised by Fairmount Park advocates that the park system would 118 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 be shortchanged by this combination, and I know you weren't involved in this way back when, if you will, but could you just address that concern? I don't know if it still exists at all, but I know there's been trough a lot of conversation about this, but could you address that issue generally.
I believe that if we look, Recreation is the bigger of the two departments, and the concern has been that the unique issues for Fairmount Park would be lost in a merger. I think what we've seen certainly as we've begun bringing parts of those two departments together is that each has a unique voice. And one of the issues for both departments is that neither one is 119 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 tremendously large, so that by bringing the two together, in fact, I think we'll probably get more attention both in the budget process and as we go through working with other agencies in government, because the overall size of the entity will be larger. There are safeguards built in in terms of rules and standards, and I believe that those will be particularly sensitive to the needs and the concerns of those who have been wonderfully strong advocates for our parks.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Councilman Green.
Thank you. I just note that under -- good afternoon, Dr. Schwarz.
I just note that under current governance, you know, each of the three branches of our local government play a role in the park. The judiciary appoints the Fairmount Park Commission, the Mayor proposes a budget, and City Council approves the budget the Mayor proposes. And I'm just wondering what the benefits are of moving away from that sort of governance and just consolidating the operations under the Recreation Department; in other words, keeping the power to sell the land, lease the land, et cetera, within the Fairmount Park Commission, which is whether we nominate it by judges or other methods of different -- you know, a different approach. Can you just talk briefly about the concerns that are raised by taking the judiciary or some other nominating panel out of the process.
I believe that 121 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the intent here has been to align authority and responsibility, so both in terms of budget and in terms of all of the other municipal functions which are required to have strongly running parks and recreation centers, the Mayor's Office is responsible. And what this does is align that authority with responsibility, and it says that the Mayor, with City Council, who are responsible for the budget for these entities and are responsible for the oversight in terms of all of the other supports, will now officially have authority over the two entities, Parks and Recreation, and the citizenry can then very clearly and transparently look to the Mayor and City Council for that responsibility and authority, which is what other cities have done and which seems to be a more representative way for the citizens of Philadelphia to both expect and to demand people who 122 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 will maintain our parks and our recreation system.
Wouldn't it have been possible to move all of the operations into one department but leave the lands in essentially a trust with a commission or other people? I mean these of lands that were -- many of which were donated to the City of Philadelphia. They're different from other public lands. In my view, they've been put in a public trust. And the intention of the legislature when they put it with the judges at the time was that it somehow removed it from the political process then so that lands would maintain or stay in a public trust. And I just wondered if you could explain the Administration's position on taking it out of that sort of public trust -- you can think of the commissioners as trustees of the land -- and putting it into the normal political process in 123 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Philadelphia.
Both in terms of acquisition and sale, there are standards which we would hope the current commission would uphold. I think we could agree that these are public lands entrusted to a commission. What the legislation asks is that a new commission be named jointly by an open process between City Council and the Mayor's Office and that that commission promulgate rules and standards and that the Mayor and Council be particularly attentive to those rules and standards. It provides public input into what those rules and standards are for sale and acquisition. And I believe it's a more open and representative process, and it's certainly one that is more transparent than the current process. I would say --
And how 124 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 would you see that working? What do you mean by "rules and standards"? If rules were not followed, Council couldn't act to sell land or...
The current piece of legislation does not restrict the ability of the Mayor and Council to do that. It strongly directs. And there are certainly rules that Council has for itself, which could include such structures as to the abeyance of those rules and standards. This piece of legislation sets out the structure and the operating principles in general. And we have both the public and the duality between the Mayor's Office and Council over the next eight years, hopefully, to assure that any rules that are developed maintain the integrity of the park and recreation system.
What is the Administration's objection, if there is one, to having a super majority of 125 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Council approve the sale of lands rather than a simple majority of Council approve the sale of these parklands?
The Administration at the moment believes that Council can look at its own rules regulations on those issues but that as with any other decision -- with most other decisions for acquisition and sale, simple majority is used. But as you mention, these may be unique lands donated to the City, and Council rules could reflect that.
Once again, they'd be governed by a simple majority of Council rules, I mean. Council rules are governed by a simple majority.
But Council can determine, as I understand it, the rules for that.
By simple majority, though. 126 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Sure, but if it's a simple -- you can always change the rules.
And all you would have to do is suspend the rules and a simple majority could do that. So I just wanted to see what the Administration's position was on the record. That is my concern about this, and I will -- that's all I have for now.
Okay, thank you, Councilman. Any other questions by members of the committee? First let me just recognize that Councilwoman Sanchez is present at the hearing. 127 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Councilman Clarke?
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm obviously not a member of the Administration, so I'm not giving a response to Councilman Green, but I just wanted to weigh in on that whole issue with respects to, one, the Council rules, and this will actually come up in testimony later on by another witness that's here. During the course of the discussion, there had been significant concerns raised about the disposition of parkland more so than the acquisition issue, and we understood that that was a concern. But I just want to say for the record, in meeting with the advocates and some of the interested parties, that disposition of parkland, to my knowledge, I can't ever remember when that was initiated from the Council of Philadelphia. 128 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 The process traditionally is that it is forwarded to the department, the department and the staff reviews the proposals -- and this is the current process -- and it is reviewed by the commission. It then comes to Council. So this whole notion that somehow City Council initiates all of these park sales is just not reality. So we have never been involved in that process, with the exception at the tail-end. Just so we can clear that up. That's not what we do. We don't initiate land sales. With respects to this issue of the two-thirds majority, understanding that it is a concern, we have had discussion with respects to that process. And as Dr. Schwarz has said, Council has the ability to alter its rulings as it relates to park disposition, acquisition, and any other issue. 129 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 While I have personally -- and I only say that because I'm only one voted -- committed to the concerned parties that I will try to initiate a process that looks at establishing a policy within the rules of Council that establishes a higher threshold as it relates to park disposition, I have made that commitment personally, and then it's my responsibility to find out where to get eight additional votes. So I couldn't commit that that definitely would happen, but that's something that I think is of significant interest to park advocates, so I think that that's something that we should probably entertain and ultimately implement as it relates to our internal process. One of the other things that came up as a result of park disposition is that it was made clear that there should be significant 130 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 standards and guidelines for everyone to operate from 'cause currently, under the current process, there are no guidelines, there are no standards, and we have had significant levels of controversy as it relates to disposition of parkland because there are no guidelines or standards, 'cause, you know, a proposal comes in, and then, at the end of the day, it's operating based on who happens to be the staff person of the day or who happens to be the commissioners on that particular committee. So we have also agreed to establish aggressive guidelines and standards. We also believe that under this proposal that the commission should weigh in on all issues as it relates to disposition and acquisition in addition to being at a public hearing and testifying either for or support. So we understand that that is 131 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 a significant concern, and we've tried to establish in the amendments that you will see at a later time in the hearing to put people at a comfort level as it related to those issues.
Thank you. Dr. Schwarz, are you aware of any other municipal park system of the scope or magnitude of our park that has it all combined like this as opposed to, you know, a separate -- in a separate trust or...
Just one second. New York City has a department of parks and recreation with more than 1700 parks and playgrounds and recreation facilities. It constitutes 28,000 acres. There are 614 ball fields, 991 playgrounds, and they manage 550 tennis courts. And I can go on.
The City of Los Angeles' department of recreation and parks maintains over 15,600 acres of parkland, 387 neighborhood and regional parks, lakes, and 176 recreation 7 centers.
Okay. And do they -- what stand -- do they have different standards or differing standards for the disposition of those kinds of lands, or is that something you looked at?
-- in terms of governance. And they, unlike Chicago, but they -- Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas and so forth -- all report to the mayor and 133 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 have a similar arrangement with the city municipal representative body.
And are the rules -- I mean, do they have an FP -- similar to what's the new FPC with rules and regulations.
Are those rules and regulations binding in those cities, or they non-binding like here in Philadelphia?
I don't know that answer. Let me see. We can find out for you. I don't know the answer to that question.
If you could provide that answer to the Chair, I think that fact is an important fact. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions of the 134 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 committee? Councilman Jones.
I would be interested in knowing, and since we're talking about a merger, are there similar policies for recreation-owned and controlled properties specifically on disposition but also when it comes to a lease? Because in effect, a lease becomes -- if it's years, in effect 16 is a form of ownership; you just can't 17 sell it. It's a definite control 18 factor. 19 And I guess what I would want 20 to know is how this policy going 21 forward would be on leases to private 22 concerns and/or nonprofits. 23
It would be the 24 expectation that the commission, which 25 would now cover both Parks and 135 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Recreation, would set out rules for lease, acquisition, disposal of property that is included in the whole system, so all Park and Recreation properties. So we'd have a uniform system.
It would be uniform, and the terms and conditions would be reviewed by the commission?
They would be reviewed by the commission. And if there were a significant transaction, as defined in the legislation, it would come before Council.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions from any -- oh, Councilman Green. Sorry.
I did want to put one thing on the record. In 1995, this Council did attempt to take Burholme Park out of the jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park 136 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Commission and put it into the jurisdiction of the Rec Department or somewhere else; I'm not sure where. So, you know, this body has in the past initiated attempts to take parklands and do something that is not under the jurisdiction of the Fairmount Park Commission. I'm not sure it would have changed the use of Burholme Park at all, but that has, in fact, happened in the City of Philadelphia, so I just wanted that on the record.
It would be useful to know what the intent had been, whether it had to do with maintenance, for instance. I don't know, but I hear the point.
Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank 137 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 you, Dr. Schwarz. And I don't know what your schedule is, but if you could stay around in case questions come up, I'd appreciate it. The next group that I have listed to testify are representatives of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, everyone. From the written testimony, it looks you each have a part here. Mr. Hoskins, I think you're to start. Okay, identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Yes. I'm Pete Hoskins, and I am the Chair or President of the Board of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. And I want to thank you and members of Council for allowing us to appear today. Twenty-one years ago, I appeared before City Council as 138 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Fairmount Park Director recommending a 53 percent increase of $6.3 million operating budget dollars to restore the landscape and historic assets of Fairmount Park. Nineteen days ago, over two decades later, you became the first city council and Mayor Nutter the first mayor to significantly increase park funding. You approved a 46 percent increase for parks over the next five years. That's historic, and we thank you. Today, we have another new opportunity. The Philadelphia Parks Alliance believes that the proposed legislation, with the proposed amendments, will reform the governance and management of Fairmount Park in a way that will make future investments much more possible. The bill, led by Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds-Brown, will amend the City Charter and fundamentally change the 139 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 accountability for success of the parks now under the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department. I want to give deep thanks for the leadership in City Council, particularly Councilmember Clarke and Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown and the Mayor that have combined to make possible this historic moment to our park legacy. History has clearly demonstrated that a separate parks commission and a parks director disconnected to the Mayor's chain of command is a recipe for neglect of parks. No matter how dedicated the individual commissioners of Fairmount Park Commission have been -- and many have -- no matter how hard the long-diminishing park staff have worked -- and many have -- the fatal flaw of disconnected governance has been cruel to our parks and people who 140 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 rely on them, most especially as taxpayer funding has had to compete strongly against many other vital public needs. On behalf of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and all who benefit from the reforms of this legislation and subsequent increases in parks investment, I urge full City Council support to amend the City Charter to bring the governance and management of City parks under direct accountability to the Mayor, with appropriate checks and balances of City Council and a new Commission of Parks and Recreation. I want to now turn to Lauren Bournefriend, who will speak more directly to the legislation and the amendments. Again, I thank you.
Good afternoon, Councilman Greenlee and members of City Council.
Good 141 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 afternoon.
I am Lauren Bournefriend, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. For years, the Parks Alliance has been at the forefront of an effort to revitalize our parks, to fully fund them and to reform the governance of Fairmount Park and improve the management of all parks. We are indeed making process on all fronts. Many thanks to Councilmembers Clarke and Reynolds-Brown and to Mayor Nutter and senior administration staff for engaging in a thoughtful and open dialogue with the Philadelphia Parks Alliance and our stakeholders. We have come a long way together. The Philadelphia Parks Alliance supports the proposed bill 22 and amendments being submitted today and believes that this is another major step forward. Why? First, it reforms the 142 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 governance of Fairmount Park. We all agree that the parks need strong, diverse expert and entrepreneurial leadership selected in a process that is open, that is based on qualifications, and that is empowered with adequate funding. The commission should be a policy board clearly charged with its roles and responsibilities. Second, parkland and assets must be protected. We agree that the Commission on Parks and Recreation has the power and the responsibility to set forth guidelines and policies for the lease, sale, acquisition, and development of parkland and recreation land and assets. These guidelines are the standards by which the Mayor and City Council will make decisions about parkland and assets. In addition, the new Commission on Parks and Recreation will interpret the policies they 143 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 create and make recommendations to City Council concerning specific projects. Philadelphia has a long history of protecting its watersheds, open spaces, and parks. That history should be honored and expanded upon and made more efficient inclusive, and transparent. Third, the Mayor will be more directly accountable for the stewardship of the City's parks. This direct accountability is essential to improving and revitalizing our park and recreation system. They need to be led and managed with an understanding of their significance for health and recreation as well as for economic development for the City and region. I'd like to turn our testimony over to Doris Gwaltney. Thank you.
Thank you. I am Doris Gwaltney, President of the Carol Park Neighbors and a board member of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance. I know from my own experience at Carol Park the positive impact a park can have on a neighborhood. Our volunteers have invested their sweat and time and thousands of dollars, and public and private funds have been spent to make Carol Park what it is today. Parks do matter. A revitalized park can heal a neighborhood and lift a community. Carol Park is one of the 76 parks currently managed by the Department of Recreation. So a few years ago, when I heard about the proposal to consolidate the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation, I opposed it. Other park volunteers from the Fairmount Park parks also opposed it. So did the 145 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Parks Alliance. At the time, we perceived the proposed change as a cost-cutting strategy. Today, I am pleased to say that the Philadelphia Parks Alliance is ready to support the merging of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Department of Recreation into one unified department. A lot has changed. Your recent approval of 3.5 million new dollars for parks and recreation indicates to me that the proposed merger is not about cost-cutting. In our meetings with Mayor Nutter, he has assured us that the implementation of the merger would be done thoughtfully and strategically so that the merger will result in a more effective and efficient delivery of services and programs to parks and recreation centers. Rest assured the Park Alliance has every intention of seeing that the 146 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Mayor keeps his word. We are now confident that consolidation will mean more for all and not less for both. Thank you. Now let me ask Graham Finney to make our final comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Graham Finney and I am a board member of the Parks Alliance. Yesterday, the alliance issued a groundbreaking report that for the first time estimated the benefits -- financial, economic -- received by both the City government and by residents of the City as a result of its fine parks and recreation facilities: $23 million in added City revenue because of housing located with proximity to a park; 16 million in cost savings as a result of the parks' ability to handle storm water 147 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 runoff, to plant trees that help air quality; and not to be forgotten, the volunteer effort that citizens put into park maintenance and programming at the present time. In addition property values are enhanced by being adjacent to parks. And then there is the one-and-a-half billion dollars estimated in this report that citizens save by having access to parks and recreation facilities that are publicly provided and by health benefits that derive therefrom. That's a lot of value. For the first time ever, we can now begin to quantify the importance of this precious set of assets. The report also points out, of course, that if we invest more and keep the process that's just been started going, that those benefits could easily double or triple. Now today, we're considering 148 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 changes in the governance and management of our park and recreation facilities. A hundred-and-fifty years or so ago, visionary leaders of Fairmount Park created Fairmount Park and set in motion the system that now is in use and in which we take great pride. But after long years of neglect and deterioration of those facilities, we now have an unparalleled opportunity to be strong stewards of that acreage and to get things going again. To tackle that job, it makes no sense to have a park commission entangled in the minutiae of daily operations. Therefore, if we urge to fully fund and wisely invest in our parks and the future, it makes sense to have and empower a diverse, talented body of committed citizens and charge them with formulating policies and standards that will guide, protect, and enhance all these 149 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 areas and facilities. The members of this body would be selected in an open process and carry out its responsibilities in the same transparent manner. Once implemented, this legislation will need the support not only of this Council and future city councils, this mayor and future mayors to uphold these policies to see that those steps of progress are retained and sustained over time. We will also need committed civic organizations to continue to watch over and stimulate that these developments keep going. With the legislation being presented to you today, this Council has an enormous opportunity to enable Philadelphia's loved unmatched park recreation system to reach its true potential in the years ahead, and we urge you to seize that opportunity. And we thank you very much for hearing us out this afternoon. 150 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you all for the many years you've put into advocating and improving Fairmount Park and thus, obviously, improving the City of Philadelphia. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Okay. Thank you all very much for coming. On my list, the last page I have is Judge Bonavitacola, Senator Price, and Mike McCrea of the Recreation Advisory Board. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. And thank you for all your patience. You've been here a long time. I know Mike was here before I got here this morning, so I know he's 151 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 been here a long time. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of printed statements.
Sure. Thank you. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, there are only three of you left, so there are three copies.
Okay. Your Honor, if you could just identify yourself for the record and proceed. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Well, good afternoon. I'm Alex Bonavitacola, retired judge and presently a Fairmount Park commissioner. I have set forth in the written statements some points that I think Council and this committee need to address and be concerned about. And I do not intend to read this off to you because you're perfectly capable of going through it yourself. Except to say that, number 152 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 one, we must remember the history of the Fairmount Park Commission, which was created in 1867, right after the conclusion of the Civil War. And the purpose was to keep Fairmount Park away from popular political whims because it was necessary for the conservation of water, because even today, we draw a great deal of our drinking water from the Schuylkill, to preserve the purity of that water by having grass and open land to filter through rain or storm runoff, and to provide the citizens of our city with open greenery. Now, there seems to be a discontent with governance, and I think that my feeling is that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The process for electing the ten commissioners in May of '07 was the most open, well-publicized process that I have ever seen concerning the election of commissioners. 153 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Most of the complaints that we hear are lack of maintenance, deterioration and, as it was said, twenty years of ever-diminishing budgets, or at least static budgets, with no increase for inflation. We know what the problems are; we did not have the money to fix it. And the last two points I want to make are: Number one, the commission has nurtured and fostered the friends groups, and there are a lot of people out there who volunteer their time, their efforts, their money to help the park system along. Secondly, the conservancy raises from the private citizenry a great deal of money which is used to help restore, maintain, or improve certain historic properties in the park such as the Water Works and places of that nature. So I don't think that it's 154 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 wise to tamper with something that's been in effect for 140 years unless there is a compelling, urgent need. And, frankly, maybe I'm too close to it; I don't see a compelling urgent need. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator? SENATOR PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of Council for the opportunity. I'm appearing here, as is Judge Bonavitacola, as an individual park commissioner and I don't pretend to speak for the Park Commission as a whole. But before going further, let me just mention that there are other park commissioners here today showing their interest obviously in commitment to this system we've enjoyed for 141 years: Commissioner Farrah Jimenez and Harris Baum. And Debra 155 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 (indiscernible), of course is the Mayor's representative on the Park Commission. And the staff, I'd like to pay tribute to the staff and ask them to rise just so you can see how many talented people there are on the senior staff of the Park Commission who -- who have helped maintain the system so well for so long.
Very good. SENATOR PRICE: What I'd like to confine my remarks to is not the administrative consolidation which is being proposed, because that's not only a matter outside my competence, but if it does produce savings in terms of cost savings to the City taxpayer, and secondly, more importantly perhaps, better services to the citizens, it should be done. And if all of you on Council and the Administration and others who 156 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 are knowledgeable about city government think that's appropriate, then it should be done. But I raise two questions about it, though. One, I think those savings and improvements in services might be quantified before you pass this bill 9 and submit it to the voters so that the general electorate can see how significant this change would be in their benefit. And secondly, when it does go through, I would suggest, in order to understand what monies are allocated to recreation and parks that there be some way of explaining a financial system that shows that difference, so that going forward, we all know how much money is being spent on parks. One of the questions earlier -- or one of the statements earlier raised was that the park system has been woefully underfunded. Of course, that was not always the 157 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 case. When the City Charter was passed in 1951, the first year after that Charter amendment, two-and-a-half percent of the City budget was spent to maintain Fairmount Park. Before the recent increase, which you should be applauded for approving, difficult with the tax proposal that you had to approve to fund it, before that, four- tenths of one percent of the City's annual operating budget was spent for Fairmount Park. So I don't think -- it's a recent phenomenon, not a historical phenomenon. But what I would like to confine my remarks to is the importance of maintaining a separate body that looks after parkland. And the Fairmount Park Commission, if you want to change how they're selected -- and I suggest that in my testimony, one option for that. To make it more, quote, accountable to city government, my proposal would outline one way of 158 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 doing that and also a selection process that would be a little bit different. But the importance of maintaining a citizen body can't be overstated. It is what has really created this park system. There's been a partnership for all these years between a citizen group called the Fairmount Park Commission and all the nonprofit organizations that have been connected to that system and City government, both the Administration and City Council. Otherwise, the Parkway would never had been developed. The acquisition of lands to complete the protection of the waterways, for example, of Pennypack and Cobbs Creek, those acquisitions took over twenty years each to acquire, and you wouldn't have had that continuity, with all due respect, in government. You had it because there was a body 159 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 with long-term stability. The members change from time to time, but long-term stability with a single purpose, a commission, a single purpose, of first creating and then preserving and protecting the park and making it as useful as possible to the citizens. And I think in this consolidation, if you eliminate that enormously beneficial system, which is -- which can be as creative in the future as it has been in the past, then I think we will all have lost a great, great deal. I'd like to suggest just from my written testimony a couple of paragraphs that I'd like to just mention orally as well. A new role for the Fairmount Park Commission.
Act as the planning and policy board for all of Fairmount Park's land and buildings, including having the power both to accept 160 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 additions to parkland, as Councilman Clarke mentioned, and approve the lease or sale of a limited number of acres for non-park uses under a public process that includes a long-range plan long-range plan and public hearings. Again, the importance of land as opposed to recreation is what makes me suggest that. Also, have the responsibility for continuing to administer the trust and custodial funds, which are now under the jurisdiction of the Park Commission. I think this independent body would serve the City well in doing that, and I can't see any reason to change that. Work collaboratively and closely, obviously, with the conservancy, which may be of a merger with the Fairmount Park Historic Preservation Trust, and act as a single entity, if you will. Have direct connections, as 161 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Judge Bonavitacola mentioned, with all of the friends groups going forward, which has historically been a very important aspect of the commission. Recommend improvements to Fairmount Park. Again, if you have a body outside city government, in my experience, you have the ability to look at it long-term as opposed to short-term, and recommend improvements that could be made to everyone's benefit. And continue to enforce the policies that have been established over the years by the commission such as signing and naming. Those kind of things. I won't continue in my testimony, but I think those kinds of responsibilities would be extremely important to continue going forward, and I think there's a way to accomplish the administrative consolidation of the two departments without losing that special interest 162 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 of having citizens who are not beholden to any special interests, thinking about these subjects long-term and giving their best advice to it. And, finally, let me just comment on some of the questions that, Chairman Greenlee, you asked and others asked. You suggested, I think, Chairman Greenlee, that there's a question of whether the park system would be shortchanged going forward. I think perhaps by separating, at least for the public's purpose, the expenses and revenues that are supporting recreation and parks going forward would be a way to do that. You also asked, What is the experience of other cities? Well, some other cities are beginning to engage the private sector more in the management of the parks. We all know what happens in Central Park in New York. There's a Central Park 163 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 conservancy that now has full responsibility for the management of that 890-acre park, which million 5 people visit a year. And that wasn't 6 done overnight, but the point is that 7 New York recognized the importance of 8 having private citizens involved in 9 the park system. That's all I'm 10 suggesting here by saying that the 11 Park Commission should be continued in 12 that framework. 13 The question of disposition of 14 land, obviously, is enormously 15 important, but if you had a policy 16 group like I'm recommending be 17 continued, making that suggestion 18 after a long-range plan and public 19 hearings and the like, it would be a 20 lot easier for all of you in City 21 Council to make the ultimate decision. 22 So those are the kinds of 23 things that lead me to suggest that it 24 would be enormously beneficial to 25 continue the Fairmount Park Commission 164 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 with these limited responsibilities over policy and the other matters I suggested as opposed to administration. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you both for your testimony. Before Mr. McCrea testifies, maybe -- and, Senator, you kind of started to answer the question I was going to ask anyway, but to kind of reverse it from what I asked Dr. Schwarz. In his testimony, he pointed out that the ten largest cities in the country have a system like is being proposed here. Why -- and I know you both touched on it, but why do you think Philadelphia should be different from that in your opinion? SENATOR PRICE: I'm sorry. What was that?
Why should Philadelphia be different than 165 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the other large cities in the country, either -- SENATOR PRICE: Well, how it developed historically, there wasn't any recreation system in Philadelphia when this park commission was established, obviously.
Mm-hmm. SENATOR PRICE: Recreation, as a formal matter, really didn't begin until the 1920s or the 1930s, so this park system being created first in about 1855 predated that. But there was always an enormous cooperation between the two. There was a park commission president who was the recreation commissioner president named Robert Crawford back in the early '60s and early '70s, who did a lot for both systems. In fact, the first president of the park commission was a mayor, Mayor Morton McMichael in 1867. So that having them combined 166 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 isn't necessarily the only way you can gain cooperation. You gain it, as has been the case here, in other very, very significant ways.
Thank you. Judge, were you going to say something? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: No, I was just going to say that one of the dangers of consolidating the authority and the power on the political side is reminiscent of what occurred to the area known as League Island Park that's at the southern terminus of Broad Street. It originally went from the railroad tracks to 11th Street. The City Council, in 1924, cut off everything east of Broad Street, and that's because they wanted to build the then-municipal stadium and other amenities associated with the sesquicentennial, so that the park was 167 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 twice as large -- well, I don't want to say twice as large. A third again as large as it was originally intended, and a third of it was cut off and used for other municipal purposes because you have these popular ideas that arise, and everybody has a knee jerk reaction to a popular new idea, but maybe it's time to stand back a little bit and say, Wait a minute, maybe this too will pass. So that's all I wanted to add to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Senator Price. Senator, you are a former legislator; is that correct? SENATOR PRICE: I haven't been 168 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 called that for a long time, so I have to think.
But you're familiar with legislation. Is there anything in the current form, or as amended, that would suggest that this legislation does not allow for the involvement of private citizens? SENATOR PRICE: I'm sorry. I missed that. Excuse me. I --
Is there anything within this current legislation or proposed amendments that suggests that there would not be an allowance for the involvement of private citizens? SENATOR PRICE: No, not in the legislation. But what I'm saying is, I think it would be, from my perspective my thought about this, and the historical record, if you will, of the Park Commission to have an independent body selected in the way that I suggested in my testimony. 169 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
But -- SENATOR PRICE: That would think about it long-term and have responsibility for it.
But there's nothing within the legislation that precludes -- SENATOR PRICE: Well, I haven't seen the amendment. With all due respect, I haven't seen that, so I don't know what it says. And I thought the original bill made the commission advisory only and not -- not with any powers. If it's advisory, it will have virtually no effect whatsoever, in my opinion, and probably within six months would disappear as a function. That's been the traditional result of advisory commissions.
And within your testimony, you used the term "private citizens with no connection to special interests"; is that correct? 170 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 SENATOR PRICE: Well, I'm saying that everyone has a connection or an interest.
Exactly. SENATOR PRICE: I'm saying if you have citizens who are outside the political, the direct political process, involved --
But there's no such thing as private citizens with no connection to special interests. SENATOR PRICE: Well, we all -- I don't think any of us has a purity in that respect. But what I'm saying is that the involvement of those outside government -- I'm not trying to say that government is the problem. That's not the problem.
But, Senator, Senator -- SENATOR PRICE: But you gain a lot of --
Senator, 171 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 let's just -- SENATOR PRICE: -- additional thinking if you have outsiders as well.
Which this process will allow for and does allow for. And sticking with the legislation, this does allow for private citizens to be involved. Let's just get down to the real issue: Politics. SENATOR PRICE: Well, I would -- I would --
Ultimately, who should make the decision about the Fairmount Park Commission? SENATOR PRICE: Well, I'm saying that this commission, as I propose it continuing --
The question was -- SENATOR PRICE: -- was to develop policies --
The question is: Ultimately, who should make the 172 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 decision about the Fairmount Park Commission? SENATOR PRICE: Well, the government, as it does today. In other words, City Council has the power to accept and dispose of land, and it has done so obviously on the recommendation in previous years, on the recommendation of the Fairmount Park Commission. For example, in thinking about this testimony, I --
Ultimately, who should make the decision about whether Fairmount Park should be merged with Recreation or whether Parks should be merged with Recreation? Ultimately, who should make that decision? SENATOR PRICE: You -- the Administration and City Council, no 25 question about it. I'm not arguing 173 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 about it --
Actually -- SENATOR PRICE: -- or even suggesting an alternative.
Well, actually, I disagree with you. SENATOR PRICE: Pardon me?
Actually, I disagree with you. Ultimately, I believe that the citizens and the voters should make a decision. SENATOR PRICE: The elected representatives make that decision. What I'm saying is, you've got a benefit from a private group, which is what the Park Commission has been all these years. You got a benefit of a private group that thinks about these public issues about acquisition and disposition of land, the uses of buildings in the park and the like, that help you all in Council and the Administration make those decisions.
Ultimately, 174 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 if the electorate should make the decision and those people who have put in years of volunteering have years of expertise, want to offer their advice not only to the legislators, the legislative branch of government, the executive branch of government, but to that electorate, at the end of the day do you really believe that the electorate would not want more control of the parks in the hands of their duly elected representatives? SENATOR PRICE: Well, you -- you have -- you have that power today really.
My question is: At the end of the day, if it's the electorate that should make the ultimate decision, do you actually believe that the electorate would not want the power in the hands of their duly elected representatives? SENATOR PRICE: I think that's true because they have it today. What 175 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 I'm suggesting is that --
Thank you, Senator. SENATOR PRICE: -- if the process is a little more open, the decision-making might be better.
That exchange has triggered a question for me. Senator, do you believe that, given the last six years of what Councilman Clarke and I would like to think has been a very open, transparent process wherein all 176 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 stakeholders up and down, depth and wide, has had a chance to weigh in, do you believe that that has been fair and open? SENATOR PRICE: Yes, I do indeed. I commend you on doing that.
Okay. And it's understood that you have not yet had a chance to review the amendments that are coming before you. Do you believe that the intent of what we've tried to do with regards to opening up the process of the selection of commission members has been -- do you think we've achieved a goal there with regards to making the process more transparent and open? SENATOR PRICE: Well, I think that has been a very useful exchange, and all I'm suggesting is an opinion that you might take into consideration when you consider a final bill for passage to present to the electorate. I'm one opinion, along with 177 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Judge Bonavitacola and others, and all I'm asking today is that, as you've given me the opportunity to present a viewpoint to be considered when you finally craft the final bill for presentation to the electorate.
Okay. SENATOR PRICE: But I think your process has been very fair, open, and inclusive, yes, indeed.
Thank you for your testimony. SENATOR PRICE: I appreciate it.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to see you again Judge Bonavitacola and Senator Price. And I apologize if this question has been asked, but I was 178 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 just wondering if we could have insight from Judge Bonavitacola into what the traditional practice was of selecting Fairmount Park commissioners by the judiciary, if that question hasn't been asked.
Well, he kind of addressed it before, particularly the latest selection process, but --
I don't know if there's anything you quickly can add, yeah, but he did --
Okay, I'll look at the record. Thank you. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Actually, the selection process has changed tremendously.
Mm-hmm. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Judge Leon Tucker, who was formerly a member of the Fairmount Park Commission, chaired the board of judges panel and opened it 179 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 up with publicity, aided, of course, by the Daily News and the Inquirer, who made it clear to the citizenry at-large that the process was ongoing. He received, I think, 60 or 65 applications, interviewed over 50 -- he and his committee interviewed over 50 of the applicants and then made their recommendations to the full board of judges. That, indeed, is different than the way it was done before.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quickly, 'cause I know we have a number of other witnesses. First, I would just like to say -- and I know, Mike, you still have to testify, and please be as aggressive for the Recreation 180 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Department component of this bill. MR. McCREA: (Inaudible.)
'Cause I do believe that recreation in a lot of neighborhoods is as important as the park system because that's the only thing that a lot of people in these neighborhoods have. SENATOR PRICE: I didn't mean to suggest by my comments that it wasn't.
I just wanted to make it clear that, you know, we feel equally as passionate. And as a person that grew up in Strawberry Mansion and lived for tens years directly across from the park but also lived a block from the recreation center at 33rd and Diamond, I understand the nature of both of those systems, so I view them as equal as it relates to the citizens. And I want to thank you all for your testimony today and your continued support of the 181 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 parks. But I just want to say that we hear you. We understand that change is difficult, particularly in the City of Philadelphia, 'cause we have traditionally not accepted change very well. At one point, this building was the tallest building in the City of Philadelphia, and it was believed that nothing could ever be taller than it, and had we continued along that mindset, then we wouldn't have what we have on West Market Street, employing thousands and thousands of people. I had the occasion to go to the Comcast Building. A couple of members, we went to that, and it was impressive in terms of the type of building. It's LEED-certified; that's that new green term. The employment opportunities that have provided 3,000 new people working in the City of Philadelphia. So sometimes things change. 182 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 While I respect historical perspective of this, the City has changed, the diversity of the City has changed. The economics of the City has changed. So sometimes we have to be nimble enough to change as it relates to the process. This issue about the park systems not being broken, I, frankly speaking, respectfully I have to disagree. One, it's broken because there are not a enough resources in the park. Having been a member of the Fairmount Park Commission for five years and, prior to that, president of the Fairmount Park Commission Advisory Council, I saw some of the shortcomings as it related to that process and those entities and tried to aggressively, when I was a member of the -- president of the commission -- council, I'm sorry, had to resign because I didn't feel that the citizens' input was adequate. 183 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 We immediately started a process where we actually had meetings out in communities, something that was never done by the Fairmount Park Commission. And the members of the council went out and we had staff to come along with us, and people really were happy about that process, but I was quickly told that I wasn't a commissioner and I needed to stop having such meetings out in the neighborhood, all right? You know what I did? See you later, right? I resigned, right? And then I came back as a commissioner, thanks to an appointment by the Council President. SENATOR PRICE: Sorry you were treated that way.
And I agree that the process and the commission has improved. The process as it relates to the board of judges selection was more open as it related to the solicitation 184 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 phase, but it did not have a public process as it relates to any of the selection phase, which was something that we think we should have. It should be extremely transparent, which we're attempting to do. I had conversations with some of the board of judges and the past president of that particular committee that received the initial nominations, and I suggested that there be some public process, but there was a lot of push-back. And the belief is, and as a 24-year ward leader, there are politics and were politics involved in that process. There may not be now, right? But everybody knows in the City of Philadelphia, you know, that politics plays a large role in the judges getting elected, to the point where they're now talking about merit selection 'cause they don't think the judges should be elected because they 185 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 think that we are -- politicians are too deeply engrossed, so there are politics in that process, and there have been, right? And I'm okay with that 'cause I'm definitely a politician, right? And I think, hopefully, you know, some people think actually a good one. But I think that if it's going to be politics involved and political people involved, it should be a open process, and we're going to do that in any way imaginable, to the point where we actually have problems deciding who's going to chair the committee that has a list of every applicant who has applied and expressed an interest 'cause we plan on having a full-blown public hearing where every person that fills out application wants to come in in a very public way and say why they should be a member of the commission; we plan on doing that. I think it's important. Or they want to support 186 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 somebody to be on this commission. So we're trying to have as transparent a process as a imaginable. I think that the operations -- and I think you probably both agree that the operations should be within -- under the jurisdiction of the City, the Mayor, 'cause operations have to be in a position to work efficiently and be cost-effective. And in all honesty, I think having Recreation as a part of this newly-formed commission is going to increase the chances of more funding, and I can say this, first time publicly, that during the deliberations as it relates to Councilmembers, there tends to be a more aggressive approach in making sure that the Department of Recreation is funded, right? more so than its parks. And I'm just being very candid, right? 'cause recreation 187 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 centers are things that people are in every neighborhood of the City of Philadelphia. And everybody loves a park, but nobody thinks that it's a part of the City as it relates to their Councilperson getting money for it. They want the grass cut, they want to be able to picnic, you know what I mean? They want to be able to have the baseball field cut, the diamonds, but they don't view it like a rec center 'cause I rarely get calls to me about making sure that there's money in the parks, but I always get calls about making sure there's money in the recreation system. So I think having the Recreation Department a part of this process is going to enhance funding opportunities. I also think that the commission should diligently be involved in external fundraising because I think there are limited 188 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 opportunities. I like to bring this up and I'll be bringing it up one last time hopefully, because hopefully, we won't have to have another public hearing on this issue. When you ask somebody anywhere in the United States where Central Park is -- new York.
If you ask somebody outside of Bucks County where Fairmount Park is, they don't have a clue, which means that we have not done the appropriate marketing job as it relates to our parks. And we need to enhance that, and I think it's an important role for the commission to play, along with the conservancy and the trust, to make sure that this park stays on the radar screen in a meaningful way, a national and an international way so we can get the appropriate external funding, 'cause government will never have enough money to fund our parks and our recreation systems the way they need 189 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 to be. So I hear you and I commend you for being as diligent on this issue 'cause it's important. As I said earlier, without the level of input from all of the interested parties, we would not have ended up with the bill that we have before you. So, you know, you have my commitment, and I can only speak for myself that this process will be as open as possible, it will be as inclusive as possible. )
-- I think was more policy as opposed to 190 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 legislatively. I would like to see some formal entity be put in place which codifies that this must be in place to help supplement the commission's work and all of the other departments' work. So we hear you. We're going to hopefully make this the best process. It's going to take some time to implement it 'cause we want to do it in an appropriate way and give the Administration the appropriate time to make sure that we get this right, 'cause I think we get one shot at this. So we hear you, we understand, and we're going to do what we think is the best thing for the citizens. And one of the things that Councilman Goode -- he was talking about earlier about who ultimately decides whether or not this is a meaningful proposal. The citizens 191 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 will, 'cause this is a Charter initiative. You know, we hopefully will pass this bill, but at the end of the day, the people will speak about whether or not this is a good proposal, and I think that's the way it should be. SENATOR PRICE: I'm all in favor of that. If it's useful, my testimony includes some suggestions on how to keep the process open.
Thank you, Senator. SENATOR PRICE: Thank you for those comments.
Thank you, Senator. SENATOR PRICE: You're welcome to everybody.
Thank you, Councilman. I think, Councilwoman 192 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Reynolds-Brown, you have your light on.
I will be brief, but I'm compelled to speak because we're hopeful that this may be the last public opportunity in this forum to have this kind of exchange. So in the spirit of Councilman Clarke's comment around issues of marketing, fundraising, and branding, be reminded that the strategic plan, which we were determined not to let sit on a shelf, Councilman Clarke brought his own experience, and I brought the experience of working with Leon Younger, who were consultants, who have done this very same thing in other cities. So together, we were able to make sure that the strategic plan does what it was intended to do, and that is to be instructive in how we go forward. So change is uncomfortable, 193 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 but know that given the input at all levels as well as a document that was extremely academic in how it gathered the information, that should give us some level of comfort that we're moving forward in a good way because we need to. SENATOR PRICE: Sure. No, I agree with that. I think that the document is very well stated. I understand that about half the recommendations for, quote, realignment of the functions between the Recreation Department and the Park Commission have already been completed, so --
(Indiscernible.) SENATOR PRICE: -- this process is going on and everyone accepts it --
Yes. SENATOR PRICE: -- and is supportive of it. As far as change is concerned, 194 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 that doesn't bother me. If you have children, you know that life changes, and so I'm not afraid of that. All I'm suggesting is that the points of view expressed today and previously about the value of having outside citizens involved in a meaningful way --
Yes. SENATOR PRICE: -- will create not only what we had before, but will, I think, solve some of the funding problems that Councilman Clarke mentioned in the future. The private sector will be very important for funding going forward, and we want to encourage that. That's all I'm suggesting.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 195 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Thank you, Senator. Mr. McCrea, it's finally your turn. (Witness comes forward.) MR. McCREA: Last but certainly not least.
Maybe last, yeah, but certainly not least, I agree. MR. McCREA: Thank you.
If you could identify yourself for the record. Do you have testimony? MR. McCREA: Here's copies, guys, if you want 'em.
Okay. MR. McCREA: Thank you. I'm Michael McCrea, President of the Philadelphia Recreation Advisory Council. First of all, I want to thank you for having the opportunity to testify. 196 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 On its face, Bill No. 080181 eliminates Fairmount Park as an individual entity, merging it with the Recreation Department and creating a new department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, it eliminates Fairmount Park Commission, replacing it with a new Commission on Parks and Recreation. While this sounds fairly simple and straightforward, the devil, as they say, is absolutely in the details, details that are not currently available, some of which will not be worked out for another 12 months or more. Seeing as the bill needs to be voted on and passed by June 19th to get it on the November ballot, it will clearly require an enormous leap of faith. Having met with Mayor Nutter within the last week, the Philadelphia Recreation Advisory Council understands his vision and what his 197 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 ultimate goals are concerning both recreation and parks. While we see the positives, it's also clearly a two-edged sword. The final product of the merger could work either to our benefit or our detriment, depending largely on the details that will not be worked out until long after the future of this bill has been determined. While our concerns are many, we will try and narrow 'em down to a manageable list. First, the existing program services need to at least retain their present level of funding, staffing, and resources. These services are vital and important to the survival of most communities across the City, and we cannot return to the dark ages of the previous eight years. 4 million, the current situation, while certainly not perfect, gives our communities a real boost. Our children have gained much momentum in the past six months, and we do not intend to let them give up without a serious fighting. Next, the existing bare- minimum level of custodial services must at least be retained with an eye towards a much needed increase in both full and part-time positions. After many years of below-minimum staffing levels, we currently have full-time custodial staff at all Class A and Class B facilities. Again, while not where it needs to be, it's a step ahead of where we've come from, and we cannot forward to again give up any momentum. One of the more important pieces for the success of the Recreation Department is its partnership with the Advisory 199 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Council's and volunteer organizations. They need to remain intact for several reasons. It allows each facility to raise funds at the local level to be utilized at each individual facility, and this would include maintaining the current financial accountability and controls, as outlined in our policies and procedures manual. Currently citywide, over 50 percent of the direct program dollars come from sources outside the Recreation Department and the City budget. The importance of this partnership cannot be understated. Next, the community programming at all facilities need to remain in charge of the Recreation Division. It's been responsible for the Recreation Department for almost 60 years. They know how to do it, they have the pulse of every community across the City, and they do it very well. It does not make sense to 200 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 change something that already works. They should also apply to permitting of all facilities in the attached fields. Currently, the Recreation Department operates several facilities within Fairmount Park, and the attached fields are permitted through Fairmount Park with little or nor consideration for the children who need to utilize the fields of various activities.
There are often conflicts between adult's and children's programs, and while we currently recognize and respect the importance of all programs, in our line of work, the children are all of first and ultimate utmost priority. It is clear that better communication would certainly help the situation, so it makes perfect sense for the facilities to be in control of the permitting responsibility and ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity 201 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 and scheduling will be controlled by one entity. When it comes to eliminating duplication of services, it certainly makes a lot of sense to combine the skilled trades to facilitate better overall level of service and preventative maintenance. While not unsalvageable, the current work-order system leaves much to be desired, and developing a more comprehensive work- order system with more individual accountability would be an area that desperately needs to be addressed On that same note, combining special events also all under one roof would also help eliminate the duplication of some services. Now, in speaking with the Mayor last week, he stated that this would be an ongoing process and that we would be a part of the conversation in developing the details over the next year or more. 202 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 Now, his words carry a lot of weight. However, the leap of faith will require some action to go along with those words, and we hope to see that action sooner rather than later. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? MR. McCREA: Just a couple of points here just on some of the things that were said earlier.
Okay. MR. McCREA: Just being in the interest of opency [sic] and some transparency, I do have to kind of disagree with a couple of the comments the -- all of the stakeholders were not necessarily involved with this process, 'cause, to be honest with you, until the Mayor called me two weeks ago, and Councilwoman Sanchez was the only other one that actually even stepped up to 203 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 the plate and asked us to even comment on any of this and put us in the process at all. So throughout that whole process, we were not consulted one bit, so not all of the stakeholders were at the table on that. And since I represent probably close to 200 organizations -- and each of those organizations has many stakeholders -- there were a lot of stakeholders that were not necessarily at the process in this. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. McCrea. That is all I have on my list of testifiers. Does anybody in the audience wish to testify on this bill 24 or resolution? (No response.) 204 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
Seeing none, the Committee on Law and Government is in recess. We will now go into the public meeting of the committee. Just hold one second. All right. This is meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. * * *
Just for the record the hearing of the Committee on Law and Government is concluded. We're now moving into the public meeting of the Committee on Law and Government. It's been a long day; I'm using the wrong words here. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding amendment to Bill No. 080169.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 080169 be approved. (Motion duly seconded.) 205 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468
All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? The motion passes and the amendment is adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 9 089169, as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 080169 as amended, be approved. And we're asking for a suspension, I assume?
And a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Motion duly seconded.)
All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries, and Bill No. 24 080169, as amended, is reported out of this Committee with a favorable 206 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 8 080181, the amendment of same.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the amendment to Resolution 080181 be approved. (Motion duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye Opposed? The amendment is adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Resolution 21 080181, as amended
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Resolution 080181, as amended, be reported out of 207 6/10/08 LAW and GOV'T - BILL 080468 committee with a favorable recommendation. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Hearing none, Resolution 10 080181 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. Having no other business, the meeting of the Committee on Law and Government is concluded. Thank you all very much. (Proceedings end at 1:45 p.m.) * * * 208 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Law and Government are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)