So there are probably other people like those folks in other parts of the government that do what they do even on a small scale basis?
I would say that in the departments the work that is done is basically handing out material and channeling it through the various City offices and that work that's done in the department that they do for non-represented 54 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 employees and exempt employees they also do similar -- maybe not identical, but similar processing work for other employees as well.
The Councilman's going to yank the mike from me in a second, so why don't we agree at least for the moment that we absolutely agree that there are $300,000 in cost out of Personnel. Why don't we agree that there is some unaccounted amount of dollars in other parts of the government that may be not only have we not figured out yet, but we don't even have an agreement about how we want to do that calculation for the moment, because I'd like to get through the chart. It's kind of a yes or no -- I mean, you either agree that the chart is mostly right or you're going say the chart is mostly wrong and you're going to tell me where those items are. Certified audit, is that a disputed item?
Well, I believe we've indicated that even though the Controller's Office does do their regular audit every year that we've agreed to work with the Controller on another audit.
Let me ask this 55 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 question. If I called anywhere today and said, "Can you give me a document, pages, 50 pages, 500 4 pages, that represents the audit of the City's 5 health plan," could you pull it off the shelf somewhere and hand it to me? (Audience reacts.)
Ms. Seyda, we have much more painful questions going down the chart.
I don't think we have the kind of audit you're referring to. (Applause.)
We talked about the administrative charges; we don't need to go back down there. Employee assistance program, do we have one?
Actually, until very recently we did. The vendor we were using is no 20 longer in this business and we are in the process of looking for a replacement vendor.
So today the answer is no? Next week the answer could be yes?
Yes, but for the past number of years it's been yes. 56 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476
It was yes, presently it's no, and it will soon be yes?
The only difference is that the division plan and the dental plan that is offered for the active employees has not been authorized for the five-year retirees, has never been.
I think that that is one of the roles the staff in the Personnel Department plays in terms of working with individuals who have problems. That's also the role that the staff people over the Board of Pensions has as well.
I think we talked about this item. The input on the plan design. I think we had our earlier philosophical discussion about input versus reactionary and all that. I mean, we don't really have non-represented people involved in designing the new plan for the upcoming year, right? 57 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476
This drug benefit, there's at least one chart that indicates that PCS, some outside entity was out of 8, 47 PCS was 7 No. 1 -- I'm sorry, MPA, in a customer satisfaction 8 survey. That's a document. Do you have any reason to dispute that?
Well, there are a number of surveys that are done concerning pharmacy benefit managers. PCS has been ranked at different levels within the same survey.
Actually, I can provide to Council a summary of an independent survey that was done which shows that PCS ranked very high as compared to other pharmacy benefits.
If you could forward that to the Chair, I'd appreciate it.
No dispute about the co-pays? I was just at the doctor two days ago. 58 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 I know about the $10. The 10-20-70 versus 15-25-70, those co-pays and the in-patient deductible.
Right. I would also add that the City has a Personal Choice 210 plan as well.
For any of the items that are not crystal clear yeses or noes, if you could provide us with additional information. But based on our kind of back and forth, I don't get the impression that you find anything radically out of sorts in terms of this particular comparison, maybe notwithstanding the PCS MPA issue.
No, although actually we're in the process of taking a look at the 47 versus the City-administered plan and I expect to have some information available to share with the Administration and with Council in the near future.
At this point, Ms. Seyda, may I ask you to sit on the other side of Ms. Wilkerson because I'm going to call up two people who I think need to sit next to each other. Ms. 59 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 Wilkerson, you stay where you are because we only need one change. On many occasions, we've used District 47 as a model. The other union health plans are also excellent. But I'd like to call up Tom Cronin and Bob McAllister. (Applause.)
And if the other union representatives want to add those personal notes, I'm going to ask them for statements with respect to the testimony that you've heard. If the other groups are interested in making statements, I will be calling on them, too. But before I do, I'd like to recognize Councilman Rizzo. He had the question of either Ms. Wilkerson or Ms. Seyda. Go ahead, Councilman.
Councilman Nutter covered part of my question on how we could accept a prescription drug pharmacy manager that comes in No. 8 versus No. 1 and even why we would agree. When that recommendation was made, was there any questioning the choice. Did you agree? When you saw these lists where it was all over the chart from one end to the other, didn't that cause some concern 60 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 that you were picking a PCS when it was potentially -- did you conduct an internal investigation before agreeing to that recommendation?
That was one of the questions that was included in the RFP. We asked for that kind of information, and I will be please to share it with Council.
But how could you as essential personnel see that an organization is so badly rated probably in a majority of the surveys and go with that? How do you explain that?
Actually, I don't know that the survey that 47 had was one that we had seen. I know that this survey is done on a, I guess, fairly regular basis. It's my understand that PCS has been evaluated very well in the survey. There are also some concerns in terms of the methodology that is utilized by that survey.
Maybe that was one that the consultant didn't want you to see. (Applause.)
I'd like to point out that I've learned that we were earlier talking about 61 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 the communication with members, with employees, and I understand that District Council 47 and Mr. Cronin might be able to comment on this. You indicated that there's very little communication, there's very little input, it's informal. I don't believe it's as an informal at District 47 as it is with the City-administered. Mr. Cronin could you comment on the communication?
That's one of the course issues that we have with the City. We've heard the testimony today that there's really no focus groups, very little input, occasionally maybe someone from City personnel will make a comment to one of the providers. Contrast that with 47's direction which is to have focus groups, to bring in members, to let the members make the decisions, to have an open dialog where all of these meetings are open. We go out and we solicit from all three locals, whether it's the court local or whether it's 2186 or 2187. And then further, we go to every single job site that we're invited to all over the City and every single City department, commission, agency, and 62 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 board and meet with the members and make a presentation and answer their questions and have stuff on the web, information on the web, invite discussions, invite debate to have that to get a feedback. The City doesn't do that and we do. (Applause.)
And that's got to be said, I think, loudly and clearly to the City because that's one of the things that we're worried about. When a member has a problem, has a serious problem with the health care provider, they know that they can go to that steward, that they can go to a trustee, that they go to the president of the local or the president of the council and get an answer and get action quick. They can't do that with the City of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
My final question, and I think I know the answer. I believe you took notes or you remember, Ms. Seyda, at the last hearing that this chart was an exhibit and the last column was left blank and I believe we asked you come back with a chart that had that last column filled in. Are you prepared to fill in this column 63 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 today or do you need more time? What is the situation here?
I believe that at the time that that chart was put together, I think that's the chart in the five-year plan, I don't believe that the information was available at that point in time. But if I was going to do this today, I would say that the number would be about $6100.
I'd be interested in knowing what that number would compare active employee benefits between the City-represented group and active employee benefits for the union group and not mesh in the retiree benefits. Again, for the record, my name is Bob McAllister, I'm the benefits administrator of District Council 47. The City has stated that it does not provide the dental and optical benefits for its five-year retirees but yet they blend that dollar figure in when they give you the overall cost. Let's compare apples to apples; active employee benefits for the union and active employee benefits 64 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 for the non-represented -- (Applause.)
Ms. Seyda, could you provide that document to the Chair on exactly how you arrived, what's in, what's out so we can really see how you got to this number of 6100?
As I indicated, I think I indicated to the Chair that we were still working on this and we would continue to work on it. However, I think it's important to add that over the course of the last couple of years, District Council 47 has drawn down on their reserves in order to provide the benefits they provide and that's not included in the number that's on that chart.
Thank God we did have a reserve there to draw down on because of the continued underfunding from the City for health benefits for union members. (Applause.)
When this is all said and done, you're going to see that there's a disparity in the health care dollars and how they are distributed between non-represented employees and union employees. 65 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 (Applause.)
Now, Mr. Cronin, you and Bob McAllister came in in the middle of the question. Are there any other comments you wish to make about the testimony that was offered?
I have a few that I would like to make. I want to go back to the opening statement about the City finally providing a prescription drug benefit for those retirees after four or five years. I am very glad that the City is now going to provide them an unlimited prescription drug benefit, something that District Council 47 has been doing for over 10 years. (Applause.)
For our folks who are on the Security 65 plan, they will have and still do have an unlimited prescription drug plan. Unfortunately, I think the City's plan is going to be a $250 deductible and a 50 percent of the cost. So those folks who are on the City-administered Security 65 plan are going to be going deep into their pockets to pay for prescription drugs.
I'm confused when at various times, Ms. Seyda, you stated the City would 66 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 be amenable to such and such or not amenable. It seems to me that currently the decision is being made by a single person; am I right?
Is it a fact that the Mayor is the one that makes the ultimate decision on the health plan or is it you? Tell us who it is. Ms. Wilkerson, I think it needs the Chief of Staff for an answer.
The Mayor in consultation with others. We advise the Mayor on the decision. Ms. Seyda doesn't have the sole authority to commit the Administration unilaterally on all these issues. I am provided with backup information. There's a lot of discussion about this.
I raise that because I think it very important -- I'm very pleased that you're here today because we were getting a sense 67 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 that while the decision was being made by the Mayor's Office we didn't know on what basis. But the fact that you are here today enables you to know of the discontent that exist, the basis of that discontent, and we certainly hope you're going to convey to the Mayor and to convey to him -- because in a phone conversation just before the hearing when I renewed the invitation for the Mayor to appear here, he said he was agreeable to a meeting. He preferred not to be at this meeting, but agreed to be at a meeting with the Law and Government Committee to discuss the role of the City's plans. And we're hoping that you're going to convey to him the deep concern all the people have about a plan that affects their lives deeply but about which they seem to play no role in, about how it looks to the world when the City abruptly cuts off retirees. We'd like to know how the City feels about how do people manage to get health care if at a time when their income is at the lowest point and cost are highest the City says to them "That's your problem, not ours." We need answers to that and we need answers as how the feelings of the employees are going to be represented. 68 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 We think the Mayor ought to be concerned about the fact that employee unions have apparently through diligence been able to offer greater benefits often for longer periods of time at less costs than the City. One would think the reverse would be true because except in the case of District Council 33, the numbers are really in the City's advantage. The City among its non-represented group represents more employees than District Council 47 and it's retirees. Probably the same may be true of the FOP and the Firemen's Union. And what we all would think would be an economy of scale seems to work in reverse and we're very concerned about that. (Applause.)
We think it has to be -- for the non-represented plans, I think the City has to study the union plans. It has to agree to submit itself to the same stringent tests that the City imposes upon the employee health plans. (Applause.)
And I think instead of insisting on trying to dissolve all the good plans and substitute the one plan that seem weakest and most expensive and least useful to employees, 69 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 that what you ought to do is seek to strengthen each of the employees' plans to enabling them to continue their fine service instead of -- (Applause.)
The final thing is somehow I think, as I see it, based on the testimony, that in some way the plan has to be opened up so the City can get some input from the non-represented employees rather than just imposing plans on them. (Applause.)
Now, are there any other matters District 47 wishes to raise today?
Just one quick point and the other thing is a hope. The quick point is when we talk about administrative cost to a health plan, we've heard the City's testimony of what they believe it is. But it's interesting to me, and again, I hope as Bob McAllister said, we're comparing apples and apples and oranges and oranges because if the City uses a computer, if the City uses the telephone, that's got to be factored into these administrative costs. It is with us; it should be with them. So there's all kinds of hidden 70 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 expenses that I would hope, Councilman, that your committee will take a look at and figure into that administrative cost. Let's put it all out on the table. Let's rip the curtains back, let's open the doors, open the windows, and let the sunshine and the air come through and have all this information laid out here. We're required to do that in the labor contract that we have now. We're supposed to be sitting down with the City of Philadelphia and doing that in terms of getting everybody into one plan. Well, we can't very well do it or be honest if we're putting our cards on the table and the other side is not. (Applause.)
Let me just say one other thing. There have been a number of things that have been said here by the representatives of the City that I'm sure at some point both the fire fighters and FOP would like to have a shot at or at least a rebuttal or a response to some of things that have been said. In arbitration hearings I hope they get that opportunity. But let me add my comments by saying that over the next four years, there is not an issue, and I include the stadium issue in this 71 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 package, that's as important to the people of Philadelphia as what these health care cost. In every single labor agreement, whether it's with the fire fighters, with the FOP, with District Council 33, with 47, with SEPTA workers, with PGW workers, and more, and when you begin to add all of them up and their families, how many people are we talking about and how significant is it in terms of health care? Because, Mr. Chairman, I am telling you right now, if you put pencil to paper and you take a look at what is happening with these collective agreements and the cost of health care, that what workers are being asked to do today, not even two years from now, four years from now, is that they're being asked to choose do you want benefits or do you want wages because you're not getting both. And I would say to you just put it down there and let people see and you'll be able to see for yourself. And I say this to the committee, I say this to City, and I say this to my brothers and sisters. Two years from now and four years from now if we don't start raising more hell than you can imagine, that's the choice you're going to have because you're not 72 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 going to be able to get wages and health care, let me tell you. And if we take the plans that we have which are good plans run by honest people where we spend a lot of time and we go out and make it democratic and ask the people what they think and say that we're going scrap that for secrecy, for political contributions, for whatever it is, let me just say what the State of Israel said, "Never, never, never." (Applause.)
Thank you. Mr. McAllister, is there any final comment you wish to make? I agree it's pretty difficult after that last address by Tom Cronin.
Well, I just suggest you stay there. I'd like to hear from the other union groups if they wish to be heard. Is Mr. Costello still here? Please come forward. Mr. Casey, too, if you wanted to bring anybody up with you, you could. Mr. Costello, why don't you begin.
Without belaboring the 73 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 point, Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking us back, but we did have a chance to make a statement at the last hearing. I do want to reiterate one point of that statement, and that is something Mr. Cronin referred to is that to a certain extent we are all victims in the medical care crisis facing us because unlike some of the other benefits that employees have or employers distribute, you can't sit down and make a deliberate choice and conscious election not to get ill and not to use your medical benefits. That necessity is imposed on you. And when we continue to use the tool of wages or benefits as a weapon against employees, we are beating them with something that they are every bit of helpless with as anyone else. And it's not only unfair, it borders on very cruel. So we are looking to this committee and this Council to take a serious look at the issue, particularly when it involves our retirees because under labor law it's very difficult for bargaining units to bargain for those who are no 22 longer in the bargaining unit. The only place the retirees can go for relief is to a body such as this. So there is a lot riding on the outcome of these hearings. 74 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 (Applause.)
I would just like to say that out of the top 30 cities in the country, Philadelphia is the only one that doesn't give its retirees health benefits. That's a complete disgrace. I just went to a seminar in health care. I can see why the City always fights us about going seminars, because they don't want us to be educated. What they're doing is they have to form a trust. If they do not have a trust, they have to form a trust. And if they do have a trust, people should sue them because they're not holding up to thier fiducial responsibility for the people who retire and the people who are in their health plan. So if they do have a trust, take a look at it; you might be able to sue them. If they don't have a trust, they have to. Because if they were following (inaudible) like our brothers in the trades, they'd be in jail. (Applause.)
I ask Mr. Villela do you have statement you'd like to make?
I would just like to ask a 75 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 question. What is MPA on that drug list?
What is MPA on that drug list for the drug company on the list that Councilman Rizzo was talking about?
That's the one we have. I can't understand why the City doesn't have that because they have representatives on our board and also on the FOP board.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been put very eloquently here by the union brothers and sisters who represent their employees. I think most of the things I wanted to say have been said except for one thing. Non-represented 76 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 employees are essentially second-class citizens. We do not have the ability to communicate with the City. We don't have the ability to negotiate. We don't have the options except when the unions decide to go on strike, we are the ones cover on their behalf, not because we want to, because we have to. So I hope that these hearings also bring an opportunity to for us to dialog. At the beginning of this Administration, the group of ACMPE, Association of Civic Management and Professional Employees along with the Board of Directors requested a hearing and a meeting with the Mayor's Office and we provided information. We opened our hands and said we were willing to help you, we can work together. And we never heard from them, ever. This was almost a year ago. So I don't really have much to say other than we want to treated fairly and equitable. We are not second-class. We are the same employees as Union 47, as 33, as the court employees, and as the exempts. And as you know, we don't have any ability to negotiate anything other than accept whatever they want to hand us out. That's all. Thank you very much. 77 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 (Applause.)
Seems to me, Ms. Wilkerson, if you have any questions -- we usually don't ask witnesses if they have questions, but I'm going to say that to you because it's my intention to in the next few minutes recess this hearing until Thursday afternoon April 5th at 1:30. It is our hope that there will be the meeting I referred to with the Mayor beforehand. We hope by that time to be able on April 5th to begin reaching resolutions. We're hoping that the retirees will have an opportunity to be heard on these options plans before they're finally placed before them. We're hoping that the City's policy will become clear so that what we can talk before the revised, revamped plan presented by the City to its unrepresented employees that begins to compete somewhat with the City plans. And perhaps the City will be ready at that time to announce that it is not going to waste anymore time in trying to plan how to destroy four good City plans. (Applause.)
And instead look for ways to strengthen it. We hope the City will be 78 3/8/01 - LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000476 forward in having a full audit so that we can have the real facts before us in City Council upon which we can base our independent judgment. If that's satisfactory to all parties, the hearing will stand in recess until Thursday, April the 5th at 1:30. (Council adjourned at 3:30 p.m.) - - - 79 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of March 8, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public