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.