COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, May 3, 2004 9:50 a.m. - - - BILL 040255 - An Ordinance adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
The hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 4 020455 will now come to order. Judge. We have Council members who are in their offices, and they will be able to hear the testimony. I think you have waited long enough. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. HONORABLE FREDERICA A. MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good morning, Council President Verna. My name is Frederica Massiah-Jackson. I am the President Judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Chair of our Administrative Governing Board of the First Judicial District. And I would like to introduce you to Joseph Cairone, who is the First Judicial District Court Administrator. He will be presenting the testimony today. And I would like to introduce you to Kevin Cross, who is our Deputy Court Administrator for Financial Services. And, of course, Mr. Cross has a great deal of the 3 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 backup information relating to the budget today.
Good morning, Madam President, Council Members. With your permission, I would like to proceed.
The First Judicial District respectfully submits its FY '05 general fund and grants revenue budget for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2004, with the recognition that this City Council and 66 other counties throughout this Commonwealth are faced with the dilemma of funding 60 judicial districts that by case law should be state funded. We, therefore, seek your support committed to the tasks of increasing city revenue and reducing costs wherever possible as borne our by our performance over the past several years. This budget submission is consistent with the City of Philadelphia and FJD FY '03 mandamus settlement and FY '04 budget 4 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 agreements, both of which allow any and all savings generated by the FJD to be transferred to the court improvement account to fund FJD technology, training, and facilities projects. 6 percent decrease in overall funding totaling approximately $9 million. 4 million, as well as line items to address DROP terminal leave formerly funded by the city and DROP right-sizing. Net of the new programs and additional operating expenses, the FY '05 proposed budget is $3 million less than the district's current FY '04 budget. The proposed new programs and additional operating expenses, however, are 5 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 required for continued third-party grant funding of the court's juvenile specialized probation program; the continued operation of two decentralized juvenile probation offices, one each located in North and West Philadelphia; juvenile advocacy services provided by the Support Center For Child Advocates; the continued provision of interpreter services, including those offered by the court to the deaf and hearing impaired; community court coordinator services; additional Traffic Court postage; fully state-reimbursed judicial staff following Harrisburg's increase in the District's judicial complement; and, finally, the FJD's continued participation in the city's DROP right-sizing program. The combined Family Court Juvenile Operations increase of $894,000 consists of three components. When we testified before this body last year, we established that the Juvenile Court Judge's Commission grant funding of the juvenile specialized probation program 6 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 requires a departmentwide juvenile probation officer complement of 233. Absent staffing at the full 233 officer level, the JCJC has advised they will withdraw support for continued funding of the probation officers currently assigned to the specialized probation program. To account for the total shortfall of 33 departmentwide officer positions, the FJD negotiated with JCJC a phase-in of additional positions negotiated over the course of three years, 11 hires in FY '03, FY '04 and FY '05 respectively. The FY '03 hires were supported within that fiscal year budget and are, therefore, not resubmitted as an increase in this submission. The 11 positions filled during FY '04 were funded by a one-time $400,000 carry-over from Fiscal Year '03. We, therefore, request funding for 22 probation officers in FY '05 to avoid the potential closure of the court's juvenile specialized probation program. 7 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 The second component of the Family Court request is made because of juvenile probation's unique supervisory requirements. The department, located at 1801 Vine Street, has decentralized part of its operation to better serve its client base. Two units were relocated to remote sites at 46th and Market and I and Tioga Streets. Grant revenue originally budgeted for rent is no longer available as a result of reduced funding. The District's request for $72,000 will permit juvenile probation's continued community partnerships at these locations.
The last element of the Family Court's juvenile request is to provide for the Support Center For Child Advocate's increase in representation of children in need in our dependency court proceedings. The center continues to deliver the highest quality of services to each child and family, and has been recognized as a highly dedicated provider in this area. In recognition of the center's 8 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 increased caseload and concurrent increased costs of services, the FJD agreed to increase the center's contract by $35,000. In reality, the center's services exceed the contracted cost, but they have graciously agreed to maintain the current level of supports provided. It is our belief that neither the District nor the public it serves can afford to lose the services of this valued provider. We are all aware of issues appropriately raised during our testimony last year and the need to provide additional services in the area of domestic violence. During this past fiscal year, various improvements in operations and to the physical plant at 34 South 11th Street have occurred to provide increased services to the victims of domestic violence. We have worked closely with various interest groups to review operations and participated in preparation of a request for grant dollars to create a domestic violence triage center. 9 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 To address the continued demands in domestic violence filings, as identified in our written testimony, and in anticipation of an increase in client inquiries and filings resulting from the city's domestic violence hotline initiative, we request additional funding for clerical support. There is also an increased request to support Family Court child custody issues. Increased court-ordered home investigations, mental health assessments, and family counseling sessions require the addition of one psychologist to enable the custody unit to comply with state-mandated time frames for scheduling conferences and case disposition. As you are aware, the First Judicial District is committed to engaging citizens in the administration of justice by enhancing access to judicial proceedings and the services provided by the courts. Utilizing the Trial Court Performance Standards as a guide, persons with no or limited English proficiency are assisted through the use of bilingual forms and 10 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 documents, professional interpreter services, and bilingual and multi-lingual FJD employees. In the last calendar year, the FJD serviced a broad cross-section of fellow Philadelphians by providing interpreter services in 51 languages. This effort has been recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Race and Gender Bias. In particular, the committee remarked in part in its final report, "Pennsylvania's First Judicial District in Philadelphia County has taken a lead role by initiating a formal court interpreter system. " The FJD implemented many new ideas and initiated several improvements to address the needs of persons with no or limited English proficiency and those with hearing disabilities in the following areas: The recruitment and training in court procedures of bilingual and multi-lingual employees, 11 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 staff interpreters, and contract interpreters; telephonic services; services for the deaf and hard of hearing; the establishment of a court information office; and the development of forms, brochures, and videos in Spanish and English. The FJD supplies accommodations for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community in several ways. These services are provided by the court to assist litigants, attorneys, witnesses, and judges. Overall, since 1999, contract interpreter services expenditures have increased by 147 percent, without corresponding increases in funding by the city.
The FJD can no longer internally fund these uncontrollable expenses and, therefore, requests a $200,000 increase from baseline FY '02 Class 200 funding for this line item consistent with projected FY '05 increases as provided before you. The Philadelphia Municipal Community Court has emerged as an alternative court that 12 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 combines criminal justice and social services in a centralized location to respond to quality-of-life offenses. As a court of alternative sentencing, community service and behavioral health treatment programs are emphasized for less serious criminal offenses rather than incarceration. The court's mission is to reduce recidivism by addressing the defendant's underlying social service needs. In addition to community service, ancillary services include drug treatment, education and employment referrals, and anger management counseling, as well as on-site physical health screenings and continued medical care and referrals. This budget submission includes funding for two community coordinators in order to continue this diversionary service program. 8 million in Fiscal Year '03. We anticipate the city's share of 13 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Traffic Court collections will exceed $12 million this fiscal year. To continue Traffic Court initiatives, to enhance notification, dunning, and enforcement, we require additional postage expenditures totaling $72,000. Our submission also seeks funding for judicial positions related to a legislative increase in the Philadelphia judicial complement. This request is cost neutral, given that the city receives reimbursement from the state for judicial staff. As promised during our negotiations with the city last year, the FJD will continue to participate in the city's DROP work force right-sizing initiative in Fiscal Year '05, under our previous agreement which excludes those identified from consideration. To support our submission and others proposed, the FJD has preliminarily identified cost reductions necessary to achieve various budget targets. Making those reductions will impact the current level of service delivery. 14 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 But until all variables are examined, specific predictions are impossible. The FJD is continually developing plans to further reduce costs. As you are aware, we have reduced positional levels by a total of percent 8 over the past several years. When all 9 additional positions relating to the city's 10 requested assistance in prison overcrowding 11 relief are removed from the equation, the 12 reduction in work force totals 26 percent. 13 During this same time, case loads 14 have increased in all courts of the FJD, as 15 detailed extensively in the appendices and 16 attachments provided. 17 This fact alone demonstrates the 18 commitment of the judiciary to cooperate with 19 its government partners in seeking 20 efficiencies wherever possible. 21 Not only have we planned for additional savings as part of our submission, but the FJD has, consistent with the long established practice of sharing FJD-generated increases in revenue from filing fees, 15 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 submitted a revised civil fee bill to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which seeks increases to its current fee structures in alignment with surrounding county fees. 2 million will be transferred to the city General Fund. The FJD has generated substantially increased revenues over the past five years thanks to aggressive collection policies in Traffic Court, the prothonotary, and adult probation, where collections directly benefit both the city's General Fund and victims of crime. The revenue sent to the city from Traffic Court are ironically not a result of increased ticketing activity by police, which dropped by percent in 2003, but, rather, by 21 traffic court's aggressive initiatives and an 22 increase in dispositions before Traffic Court judges.
Historically, filing fees for all local governmental agencies have been waived 16 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 by the district, notwithstanding the fact that these fees are added to judgments entered in favor of those agencies. These fees amount to approximately $2 million per year. 9 million, this practice can continue. However, a General Fund budget of less than the requested amount will require a reexamination of this policy. We have stated in prior budget testimony, and continue to emphasize, that the FJD generates revenue in excess of 55 percent of its operating budget request. Appendix provided details to collection of FJD-related revenue. million over the past two fiscal years and are anticipated to increase further as the electronic citation program develops and 17 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 awareness campaigns increase. The Municipal Court has implemented a pretrial summary diversion program that has generated in excess of $672,000 to date. And, finally, the Family Court juvenile branch is working with DHS to increase reimbursable expenses under Act 148 and Title 4(E). Since FY '98, the FJD has generated $21 million in additional revenue to the city General Fund as provided in Appendix 3. Notwithstanding substantially increased revenues to the city generated by the District, the FJD has accepted reduced budgets in FY '02, FY '03, and FY '04 in the spirit of cooperation. This budget submission for FY '05 continues to demonstrate the District's commitment to increasing revenue and services and, wherever possible, reducing expenditures. For the past ten years, the FJD has not requested any funding whatsoever from the city's Operating Budget for any of the very substantial improvements to its technology 18 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 infrastructure or its physical facilities. Rather, these expenditures have been totally self-funded through prudent expenditures and the responsible management of our budget. Many of the improvements in question benefit not only the judges and employees of the court, but are of mutual benefit to the District's criminal and juvenile justice partners; such as, the police, prisons, district attorney, clerk of quarter sessions, sheriff, and the Department of Human Services. All of these justice partners rely heavily on the FJD systems in carrying out their respective missions. With that said, this submission, coupled with very conservative expenditures, may allow us to maintain that which we currently provide. The FJD supports various segments of its operation through grant revenues. An overwhelming majority of those revenues received by the FJD are from Title 4(D). In conjunction with the State Bureau of Child Support Enforcement and the Federal Office of 19 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Child Support Enforcement, the Philadelphia family court's Title 4(D) child support enforcement program has implemented Phase One of the Improved Case Management, ICM, plan during Fiscal Year '04. The ICM plan is designed to improve case processing and generate additional program revenues to ensure a future self-sufficient program. The ICM plan establishes a team approach to case processing, with a major goal to increase performance measures by improving the four major areas: Paternity establishment, court-ordered establishment, collection of current support, and collection on arrears cases. These new integrated efforts will increase the number of absent parents located, support orders established and enforced, and collections provided to Philadelphia families. This new plan of action will dramatically improve child support services to children and families in Philadelphia and is fully supported by the Commonwealth of 20 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.
Although not a part of the FJD-submitted budget request, recent events at the Criminal Justice Center further demonstrate the need for adequate security in all government facilities. The minimal amount of security in City Hall should be of concern to all of us. We recognize that, as a multi-purpose public facility, imposition of security measures will cause some degree of inconvenience. Additionally, security hardware and adequate security staff involve substantial expenditures. We are aware that the Capital Programs Office has been working towards improving security in City Hall, and we solicit the support of Council in expediting work in this very important endeavor. Finally, on behalf of the Philadelphia judiciary, Administrative Governing Board, employees of the First Judicial District, and the citizens of Philadelphia for whom we appreciably work, we 21 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 9 million for Fiscal Year '05. Thank you for your attention, and we are happy to entertain any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Cairone. Did the Administration inform you of their intended budget reductions? And, if so, did they share with you their rationale for the cuts?
They did share with us their intended budget reductions. And we have had -- and the rationale, the overall city rationale, of reductions. Not specific to the court, but the need to reduce budgets as a result of the city's fiscal dilemma. We have had several meetings with city Administration germane to this issue, and we have exchanged information at several of those meetings.
If your proposed budget gets approved as is, what operational impact will this have on the ability of the 22 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 courts to operate?
In fact, Madam President, we will enhance the services provided by the court.
I said, if the proposed budget as presented is approved, what operational impact will this have on the ability of the courts to operate?
Although we haven't analyzed entirely the budget impact at 106, we have preliminarily reviewed operations that may be impacted. And the reason I say, "may," it is because we don't want to make decisions in a vacuum, without other agencies that we interface with. But our first blush is to look at the court's core responsibilities. And what we have identified are those items that do not fit within core responsibilities. There are many jurisdictions throughout the country that do not operate 24/7 as courts. We need to look at the continued operation of preliminary 23 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 arraignments on a 24/7 basis, the operation of bail interviews, pretrial conditional release supervision, and all of those matters that relate to 24/7 operation. And, of course, there is a snowballing effect in that respect. If we reduce some of our shifts, for instance, the 3:00 to 11:00 or 11:00 to 7:00, then we can reduce some of the data processing and MIS shifts in relation to that. We have looked at the possibility of not bringing in jurors one day a week to reduce the cost of juror services. We have looked at the possibility of -- the unique, distinct possibility of reducing specialized probation programs because they increase the case loads of other probation officers, and we can't --
Sure. There are certain defendants that fit into categories that require special supervision; such as, mental health, domestic violence, sexual 24 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 offenders. We provide reduced caseloads for those individuals, or probation officers that supervise those individuals, because of the intensity of the supervision. We also participate in the youth violence reduction program. Each adult probation officer has a caseload of between 30 and 35 that are assigned to that program. General supervision probation officers carry a caseload in excess of 180. So if we had to reduce our costs, naturally we would look at reducing specialized areas so that we could spread the caseload over those that remain. We have looked at ceasing all improvements for physical plant, of course, because there will be no surpluses. We have looked at cell phone use, parking, automobiles. And we are doing that in conjunction with the Managing Director's Office. We have looked at collapsing the juvenile probation satellite offices, which will be necessary. 25 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 We have looked at, of course, eliminating all overtime as it relates to probationers that have to come in off hours or the use of warrant officers off hours to support electronic monitoring and conditional releases. We have looked at reducing pretrial supervision for those defendants that are released conditionally after incarceration because they cannot afford limited bail, and for those defendants that are placed on conditional Type and Type release after the preliminary arraignment, which is specific to reducing prison overcrowding. And, of course, we have looked at the general areas that most people look at, and that is reducing positions through attrition and not filling positions as quickly as they are vacated, as we have done this fiscal year. So those are some of the things that we have looked at. We have looked at the possibility -- I'm sorry. Do you want me to continue? OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
No. Just what you have said, in looking at some of those cuts, wouldn't that be creating a very, very huge backlog?
Yes. And I didn't mention the need to close certain courtrooms as a result, because we won't have staff to staff them.
It is almost paralyzing. You mentioned in your testimony that the new programs you are requesting are required for continued third-party grant funding of the court's juvenile specialized probation program. For the record, can you explain the program, who funds it, and what happens if you were to lose this funding?
What you just mentioned? 27 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Well, these are -- the programs I mentioned previously related to adults. These are juveniles, but they fit within similar categories. These are juveniles that have been identified as the highest risk, sexual offenders, assaultive backgrounds, that require specialized probation and intensive supervision. The program is funded through the JCJC program, which is a Juvenile Court Judge's Commission. It is a state-funded agency. So the money is --
It is not a matching fund. The only match that's required is that we maintain a certain level of probation officer positions, and they will give us the funding for the 31 officers assigned to the program.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 28 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions. I would like to get a better understanding from the court's perspective on the issue of recidivism. Do you have any statistical information that would indicate on a yearly basis how many of the same people over any period of time, a year, two years, three years, end up coming back through the criminal justice system, coming back through the courts?
We do not currently maintain that statistical data. I don't know if the police department does through police photo numbers. We do maintain probation information as far as defendants that are on A, B, C, or D probations. So, we can identify those that have had multiple probationary sentences.
Each time a defendant 29 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 may be sentenced to a probationary period, we escalate it alphabetically by the next probationary sentence he or she may receive so that we know that they have been in the system before.
Could you provide us, obviously without any descriptive information, any statistical data for the last, I don't know, three to maybe five years how many -- is A once and is B a second time, and it goes in that direction?
That's correct. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, I do believe the prison department keeps some of that data that you are asking about, about the recidivism.
Okay. I just wonder whether, through your computer system over in the courts, you would have any ability to provide us any information, just in terms of who is coming through your system and how many times over some period of time to show --
I think we can probably provide the data as it relates to 30 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 probation, but I do want to make sure that I am not making an incorrect statement. As far as those that return through the preliminary arraignment process, we don't currently track that information. But unless it requires programming, I will find out if we can put something together in that nature, as well.
Okay. I am assuming that when there is an inquiry about someone who is in the system, there must be some identifier, whether it is -- is it called a PPI or a Social Security number, or something.
All right. On of the testimony, it talks about the Domestic Violence Task Force. Again -- and I know that her Honor was asked to be a member of the task force -- does the court system have any ability to give us data or information regarding the issue of domestic violence as it comes through the 31 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 court system? And could you tell me, or tell us, rather, either what kind of trends you are seeing in the courts on domestic violence, how are those cases being handled in terms of prosecution and sentencing, what happens or what has been happening to individuals who might violate, for instance, I guess it is either called a Protection Order or Stay Away Order. Any information that you have in that regard would be appreciated. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, as you know, I was appointed by the Mayor to that Domestic Violence Task Force, which is chaired by Commissioner Sylvester Johnson and Ellen Tracey. I have some statistical information which may be on point. The domestic violence unit of the courts was created in 1990. And that was in response to a 1989 amendment, state amendment, to the Protection From Abuse Act. At that time, back in 1989, there 32 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 were 2000 PFAs, protection from abuse, petitions, filed. And we subsequently opened up our unit. We had five court employees. By the end of that year, 7,000 petitions were filed. And when we go forward to 2003 --
Your Honor, I am sorry. You are saying by the end of 1989? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: 1990.
There were 7,000. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Correct. And if you look at of the testimony, you will see a chart. By the end of 1990, there were 7,000 petitions filed. And by Year 2003 --
14. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Correct. There were 14,004 petitions filed, and our domestic violence unit had increased to 14 employees. So, over the years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of domestic violence petitions and protection from abuse. 33 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 If you want, I can give you the breakdown of what happened to each of those orders, those 14,000 orders
That would be helpful. I just wondered what actually happens when someone violates an order, and how they are being dealt with in the court system. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I can answer that, if you want.
Oh, great. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I have two pages for you.
You are always prepared, always prepared. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Our domestic violence unit in Family Court is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. And we have an emergency unit that works through our Municipal Court from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. And, of course, 24/7 over the weekends and holidays. 34 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 That emergency unit is staffed by masters, attorneys appointed by the Municipal Court, and authorized by the PFA Act to grant emergency relief. Petitioners filing in the domestic violence unit are screened, they complete their intake forms, they are interviewed in private offices, and then the petitions are presented to Common Pleas Court judges for review and a possible entry of a temporary Protection Order. All petitioners are presented with lists of resources for additional assistance that they may require. Then, once they go before the judge of the Court of Common Pleas, each judge will hear the case, the judge reviews the petitions which are filed, and including those emergency petitions which may have been filed overnight or over the weekend. Then a petitioner receives two copies of the petition that's filed, one for his or her records and one to be served to the respondent. 35 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Personal service must be made to the respondent before the court date, and the petitioners are encouraged to use police assistance. And certainly with the initiative of Sylvester Johnson, the police have been much more receptive to these. And written instructions are given to the petitioners. Copies of all orders are entered and sent to the Pennsylvania State Police, and there is a state registry for Protection Orders. The court must notify State Police within hours of the entry of an Order, and 16 then the State Police enter the Orders into 17 their database. 18 If an arrest is made, then the 19 individual may be charged with indirect 20 criminal contempt, if there is a violation of 21 that Order. 22 If there are additional charges 23 which rise to the level of a felony, then the 24 case goes before a judge in the Criminal Justice Center. 36 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 There may be charges at the misdemeanor level, and those are heard over 34 South 11th Street, with the domestic relations division. If there is no arrest, then the victim may open a Civil Petition For Contempt, and Women Against Abuse or the Philadelphia Legal Assistance Fund will assist those ladies. And, also, another alternative is that a private Criminal Complaint may be filed, in which case that would be heard in Municipal Court.
Thank you, Your Honor. One last question in that regard. Of the 14,000 or -- I don't know if you have any data for last year, but I think for '02 it was up in the 14,000 range, as well. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Correct.
Do you have any information that indicates how many of those Protection Orders were violated? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, 37 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 not all 14,000 ended up as final Orders.
Okay. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: In 2003, 1,124 were entered by default; 2,546 were final Orders, and they were entered into by agreement; and there were 307 final Orders that were entered by court, by the court, after a hearing. But 6,700 of those petitions were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prosecute, and 813 of those petitions were withdrawn at the plaintiff's request.
So about half. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes. So I can see if we have the information about the number that were actually violated.
Thank you. The last question was about this mitigation protocol you mentioned on . HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes.
Can you tell me a little bit about that, and when did it get started, and what was the genesis of it? 38 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes. In Year 2001, when I came before this City Council, you may recall the First Judicial District asked for $3 million specifically for counsel fees, court-appointed counsel fees. That request was denied at that time, but in 2002 we received $1.5 million in counsel fees.
I remember that. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: And from that one and a half million dollars, approximately -- about a quarter of a million, 250,000, was set aside specifically to create what is really ground-breaking, this protocol for mitigation representation to defendants who are charged with first-degree homicide where death penalty's an issue. And Mr. Cross and I and Dominic Rossi, one of our deputies for First Judicial District, the three of us worked with the Philadelphia Bar Association and Jules Epstein and created this mitigation protocol. It specifically addresses the penalty phase of a homicide hearing, after 39 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 defendant has been found guilty of first-degree murder and faces the possibility of death.
So you are using those funds to help? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Just that portion of the funds. Most of the balance of that one and a half million is for counsel fees for Family Court, over in juvenile section.
Right. Okay. Last comment. With regard to the overall budget, and the issues affecting the First Judicial District, and the ongoing discussion of who should fund the courts, given the proposed cut, can you tell us if there have been any attempts or efforts to seek even some partial funding for the First Judicial District by the state in accordance with, as I understand -- I am sure you know better -- a previous State Supreme Court ruling with regard to funding for courts? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: 40 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Councilman, if you look at , Footnote 1, you will see, although this Order of the Supreme Court from July 26, 1996, states 1996, the original opinion in this Allegheny case --
I thought it was an early one. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: -- was 1986 or '87.
Right. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: And, since that time, I believe every judicial district throughout the state has looked to, has spoken with our AOPC, which is our central Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, looking for additional funding. The state legislature has not only not been receptive to assisting individual districts; the state legislature has cut the funding of the statewide court AOPC. So the answer is, yes, we look to the state legislature. But, as I have recounted, we have had no success at all.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 41 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Thank you. Your Honor, weren't we able to hire, if my memory serves me, four employees that are funded through the state? Was it four?
There are employees 7 that are currently state employees, including 8 Mr. Cross and myself. 9 HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: And that 10 started what, 1999? 11
I think they originally started covering 4, now we are up to 13?
No. I think the original proposal was specific to what it is today, Madam President. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: And, Madam President, as you know, the original theory is that the 13 would expand to all 2500 employees. But, that's never happened.
I recall. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo. 42 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to touch on that, also, just to bring us up to date on that Supreme Court issue. Because we are starting to find out that the state owes the city a lot of money, and in other areas, also. What do you think we can do? Again, maybe our approach should be, let's not go after it all all at once, but let's start chopping away a little bit at the state to get some funding. What do you think we can do as a Council, what the Administration can do as an Administration, and collectively what can we do to start the process and get some funding headed this way? Because it amazes me. It is very difficult to try to explain to my constituents how the State Supreme Court could rule on the funding of the courts, and no one pay attention. What have we done to try to make an 43 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 issue of this? I really haven't seen anyone really get extremely aggressive on this particular point. We have kind of, at least from my observation, we have accepted the fact that, like you have just mentioned, that the legislature isn't receptive to funding either specific courts or all the courts to some degree. What do you think we can do? Because I don't think it is fair that the Supreme Court ruled, and the state is ignoring that. Maybe they need to come before you, Judge, I don't know. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, Councilman, perhaps a resolution from this body presented to the AOPC, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, expressing your concerns about this ongoing situation of lack of funding, and asking the AOPC to take aggressive action with the state, at least recommending that. I can tell you that the AOPC has 44 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 heard from all 60 judicial districts with concerns such as you have expressed.
Judge, do you think we could be -- again, to start the process, are there maybe some creative ways that when the court sentences someone that goes to the state for incarceration, that maybe we could come up with some type of a criteria that says, okay, we want to be paid for this particular activity. And if you could come back at us with that resolution to be specific in areas that we should -- if we start our list, and the top 100, let's start at No. 1 and say, this is an area where the state, it is real obvious that they should be supporting our system here in the City of Philadelphia. Do you think that's possible? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, I will work with you on a resolution. I will find out the language that should be used or could be used for something like that.
Because I am sure 45 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 that there are areas in the system that are specific and supportive of the state. Am I correct to say that there are people that are sentenced that are taken out of our system because of the magnitude or the sentencing guidelines, and they go directly to their incarceration as directly at the state level?
And the state assumes that. So they are assuming that part of the burden?
Yes, they are. Once a defendant is transferred to a state facility, then the state assumes that responsibility.
Could you just educate me for a second. What does a person need to do to not go to the city jail versus the state jail?
There is a maximum sentence of two years or more, and that makes it a state-incarcerated sentence. So anyone that's sentenced to to years or greater -- 46 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
No; goes to the state. Anything less than two years as a maximum sentence can stay in the county.
I am sure that, after today, you could get together and you could come up with some areas where it is very, very obvious that we could appeal to the state. I think we have to start someplace. It is like anything. They owe us. What is the significance of the state's -- could you put a number to what the state -- did this ruling say that they were responsible in total for the funding? What exactly, if you could put a number to the state's responsibility versus the city's responsibility, or is it all the state's based on this ruling? Could you just give us, enlighten us on that?
It is all the judicial districts within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that were mandated state funding.
What I meant was, 47 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 dollars to this system. Did that ruling suggest -- or, not suggest, did it state that the entire funding should be the state's responsibility?
That is correct. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes, that's correct.
And not one dime has showed up. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Correct.
Well, except for the 13 positions that they have assumed in January of 2000.
And I think if you looked at the Justice Montamura plan, there was a phase-in approach based on positions of how it could occur. And this, the positions that we currently occupy, was the first phase of the 48 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 plan.
One thing I wanted to point out. So it obviously is important to you, if you put it in your remarks here today, is the Traffic Court postage, and I am sure postage throughout the entire system. And the reason I am making this observation to you, as we talk about this, we are finding that many of our agencies within our government are not or -- do they have a person -- do they have a person that is -- I am trying to stay in eye contact with you there. That there is no one in this government that is keeping their eye on the postage rates as they change on a monthly or annual basis. That we find that in many agencies there is one way to send a letter, and it is First-Class Mail. But when you find that there are many ways, with presorted zip codes and bulk rate, and I know that probably in your areas it is very sensitive, you use a lot 49 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 of Certified, I assume, I will tell you, in some of the areas, in some of the agencies, after they looked at it and either worked with the postal service itself or a person with expertise, they were able to absolutely save a significant amount of money in the area of postage. And I assume, is this your entire -- or is this just Traffic Court, $72,000?
That just represents a small piece of Traffic Courts. We are asking for an increase in that amount to Traffic Court postage to continue the initiatives that they started to increase collections.
So this is additional postage expenditures, the additional is 72,000?
Yes. And 52,000 of that expenditure is specific to Certified Mail, which is required. When police officers write citations and can't deliver it to the offender, they are sent to Traffic Court, and then we are 50 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 responsible to send them by Certified Mail to the defendant, by state statute.
A good investment, seriously, other than the certified and the other types of very expensive mail, is to -- I think it would be a great investment to either ask the people from the postal service to come in and look and see what you do. If they provide that service, I don't know. Or a consultant or someone within our government that's already here that really understands where there is a potential to save money. Because in every agency that's looked at it in just the last few months, they tell me that they have identified a significant amount of ways to reduce their postage costs, knowing -- you know, an example. You take a magazine with an article 23 that you want to send someone, and you take it down to the Post Office. And if you don't ask the question, they will tell you it is going 51 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 to be $1.75 to mail it First-Class. But then when you tell them in the envelope it is an educational magazine, it turns out to be, like, 40 cents. So you can imagine that there is a significant amount of money to be saved. And I know you folks watch every dollar over there very carefully, since it is all ours, and I am sure you will if we get some state money, also. But I would really encourage you to look at that, because I think you will be pleasantly surprised that you will be able to get a bigger bang for your buck when it comes to taking advantage of some of the postal regulations that are out there
Thank you. And we will do that. And we have done that in the past, and in fact have had substantial savings in both probation and pretrial. We deliver two bulk mailings to the postal service on a daily basis currently. And Traffic Court is currently working with 52 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 the Office of Administrative Review to examine their bulk mailings, as well, and to reduce costs in that area. And we actually have taken some steps, Councilman, to effectuate changes in Traffic Court already.
That will be great. Because if you look at it as a big universe, and you pull it all together, you could really -- and I am not suggesting we use technology to communicate with many of the people that come before you, but I am talking about the inner-agency stuff, and to use technology to the extreme would be very helpful. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You are welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Good morning, Councilwoman. 53 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good morning.
On your testimony, you discuss DROP program. You mention that there are certain job classifications that you do not allow to participate. Could you discuss that for us? Please explain why. Also, why are they allowed to be exempt from the program? I was unaware that some agencies are able to opt out of it. Please.
Judicial staff, which is the first area that we have identified, we have asked for an exemption in that area since the city is reimbursed dollar for dollar for all judicial staff. So that would not have an impact. And we are mandated by the numbers that we must provide to the judiciary. I am sorry. Mr. Dubow, maybe, is clarifying your question, and I want to make sure I understand it appropriately. Are you asking that they are in the 54 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 DROP program, and they are not leaving, Councilwoman, or they are in the DROP program, they are leaving, and we are replacing them, and they are exempt from the DROP right-sizing?
Well, your second question is, actually, my followup question.
All of our employees that are in DROP are in the participating categories. Once they finish their DROP-qualifying period, they leave the First Judicial District, they resign, and they are not rehired. So, they do leave. But there are certain categories where we have asked for exemption in replacing those employees; in other words, that they be exempt from the 50 percent that cannot be replaced. And these are the categories that we have identified on . 55 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Is there a rule in place that would prohibit retirees to not be rehired in your department?
Our administrative governing Board ruled on that issue, and we have decided that DROP employees will not be rehired.
When the DROP program was initiated. It was within the last year that the ruling came about. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilwoman, as you know, I am the Chair of the Administrative Governing Board. And we have discussed that, and we have made it pretty clear to our First Judicial District that once someone retires on DROP, they are not rehired.
They are not rehired within the First Judicial District?
That's correct. 56 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Just by way of background, I am developing some of these questions from Friday, April 23, where the Philly News, the article that talked about cashing in on pension loophole. So just know that's the framework from which I am speaking. On of your testimony, you mention legislative increases in judicial complement, that's a quote, legislative increases in judicial complement, and that you are seeking funding for staff related to that. Can you provide more detail for us on that?
Yes. The judiciary was increased by three positions. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We used to have 90 judges on our Court of Common Pleas, now we have 93. But that's by state legislature.
I see. That explains that. Could you provide to the Chair a numerical list that breaks down by race and gender employees who work as probation 57 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 officers; indicate, if you would, how many are male, female, African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Asian. Please provide separate breakdowns for both the adult and juvenile probation. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Sure.
And also show me on this listing those who are supervisors by race and by gender.
There is an enormous concern raised by some of us here, and a number of individuals at the state level, that the supervisory leadership levels of both juvenile and adult probation in no way reflect the makeup of the majority of those who come through those doors. And, so, this is an attempt to see what the facts are first, and proceed from there.
One last thing. If I read your testimony correctly on , you outline that there is an $8.6 58 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 million difference from the proposed budget and what you are asking for. Can you please list out for me what is included in that 8.6 million. And I am curious to know, of that, how much of that are mandated dollars? I mean, it is like the city budget where there is no wiggle room because of mandates, then you have the discretionary portion of the city's budget. Could you break this 8.6 million down somewhat the same way?
Well, I'm not sure we can do that, to be honest with you, because we are not sure how the city came to the 106. What they did was, they initially proposed a budget of 111 in December, and then further reduced that amount by an additional 5 percent in their second submission when the Mayor presented his testimony. So the only thing the city did was identify the 5 percent reduction in each of the class categories, and did not identify how those reductions should occur. 59 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 I believe they left that up to each agency. And we are currently reviewing where it is that we would have to make cuts. And I mentioned to Council President Verna some of the areas that we have considered thus far.
Okay. Finally, an update, if you will, on the space -- this was an issue expressed and advocated heavily by Councilman Ortiz, and we actually participated in meetings where you gave us an update on the space of where victims and those who act out, if you will, around the issue of domestic violence. Can you just give us an update on that? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes. Councilwoman, I touched briefly on this with Councilman Nutter earlier. But we have made significant improvements in the area that you and I visited over at 34 South 11th Street. There are private offices for interviewing. The plexi-glass window, there are now two of them. And when somebody initially goes in for intake, and we have made 60 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 it a more private area.
So are you pleased with the progress to date? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We are pleased with the progress to date. We have also increased security in that area, with more individuals walking through the hallways, as well as the plexi-glass and cameras and surveillance equipment. Yes.
Okay. If there is no violation, I guess, of confidentiality, in the meeting where you came to the decision that it is not appropriate or is inappropriate or for whatever reason retirees from your department will not come back to that department, do you recall the reasoning or rationale that you moved to to render that particular decision?
Yes. I think our thought process was that the individual entered DROP with the thought that they made a commitment to leave employment at the end of that four-year period, or some time prior to 61 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 that, at their discretion. And that since they made that commitment, that we would hold them to that and evaluate whether the position needed to be filled. And if it did need to be filled, certainly we would fill it at an entry level, at a savings, so that we could generate additional savings within the budget.
Okay, then. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: They signed a contract, you know, when they entered into the DROP program.
All right. Thank you for your explanation. Thank you, Madam President.
You are welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good morning. 62 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
I was hoping to get into some technology issues, but I will leave them aside initially. I have had some conversations. And I will be honest, they are both from probation officers in adult court and union members, union officials. So I don't want to pretend it is just coming innocently off the street. Although I know quite a few, and was in juvenile probation for several years some time ago. As a juvenile. I think I was that young then. Could you just describe -- the frustration, let me just give you the frustration level. And I don't know adult probation, juvenile is different, you have to go to the homes, you have to do home visits, it is a big part of the job. And the questions I have gotten, or the frustrations are, that they are kind of locked in the office all day, caseloads are 63 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 too high, but the inability to get out and make visits, contacts in the community; unlike the juvenile, which has branched more into the community than it was when I was there. And their requests, or some of the requests, are for staggered hours. People work all day. If they work all day, they can't get into the office. If there is something going on in the community, the probation officer can't get out there, if they are confined to a 9:00-to-5:00 schedule. There is also some issues with the number of vehicles available because of the number of probation officers and caseloads. But if you could just talk about that. I am sure this isn't the first time you have heard it, but I would like to get something on the record. Because the court is doing a pretty good job from a historical perspective. You can always do better, I am sure they could find a lot of things wrong. But with so much progress being 64 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 made, would I rather speak in a constructive way with you about this, because I am sure you have some ideas and plans.
Well, ironically, I could address the vehicles first. It is ironic that the Managing Director's Office is telling us that we underutilize our vehicles. And we could always use more vehicles for probation officers so they can go out into the field. We do have vehicles that are available. We have visitation policies that must be followed. We insist that two probation officers go out in each vehicle on the adult side when they do make visitations. And, quite frankly, we have quite limited by the number of visitations that can occur on a daily basis by the number of automobiles that are available to us.
We do not approve that they use their own cars. And that's because we don't want to put them into a position 65 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 where they have to lie to their insurance carrier that they are not using their vehicles for business purposes, and then, God forbid, something happens and they are liable. So that's why, at least on the adult side, we are insisting that they use the city-provided vehicles to make the daily visitations. The vehicles are available off hours, if the visit is warranted during those hours. And if there are extra vehicles available, we will certainly make them available to the officers. Now, in truth, adult probation is different than juvenile probation. It is more of a centralized process, and there is not a need for the home -- the frequent home visitations that there are with juveniles because of the interaction between the parent and the juvenile. And that's important for the juvenile probation officer, to get into the home and see the family situation, as opposed to the adult situation. 66 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 We will make available, and I think we are making available currently, flex hours for those probationers that have probation -- or, probation officers that have probationers that work full time. Now, we may do it in a little bit of a different fashion that some of our employees wish it to be done. And that is, look, I am not going to hide the fact that we are cost-conscious. And we have to be cost-conscious, given the flavor of what we are discussing here today. We wouldn't be doing our jobs prudently if we didn't consider the cost associated with everything that we do on a daily basis. We have made available in the past one officer from each unit. And the officers are assigned to units geographically in line with the way police districts and police officers are assigned, so that we can build some rapport in that respect. And we have made one officer available from each unit to see clients that 67 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 can't come in during normal working hours in off hours. Now, the problem is that we want to use flex time hours, and many of the officers want to use comp time or overtime for those purposes, and that's understandable. I have been there, and I have experienced that myself. But, again, we are trying to reduce the comp time, we are trying to reduce the overtime. And we have to balance the scales, if you will, in order to do it appropriately. Now, I know that Administrative Judge Fitzgerald has directed that we make more flex hours, or, if necessary, comp hours or overtime, available for adult probation officers to see clients that are working full time. We encourage them to work full time, obviously. And there is no reason that we would encourage them to miss work just so they could make a probation officer's appointment. So we will look at that. We will expand it, if necessary. But, at the same 68 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 time, we are committed to being frugal in that area, when it is necessary.
Let me just mention the other area that comes to mind that I have heard about. And that is that, I know this is a little sensitive from a management standpoint, but that, while the caseloads have grown and the probation officers haven't increased to the same proportion, that you are kind of top heavy with supervisory personnel, almost to the point where there is, you know, too much at the top and too little at the bottom. We hear the same thing about the police department. I think it is valid on the police department. I don't know as much about the probation operation. So if you could comment on that, I would appreciate it.
Sure. And, in fact, in 1995, we did a review of the adult probation department and came to that very conclusion. And, as a result, as co-chief 69 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 probation officers and others in higher-ranking managerial positions have left, we have not replaced them and spread their responsibilities amongst other managers within the department. And, as a result, have been able to actually increase the PO level at the adults -- on the adult side, so that we could try to reduce caseloads, instead of having them increase. I mean, it is no secret that there are more and more people that are being assigned to probation. We are dealing with over 60,000 probationary cases at the adult probation level, and that consists of about 52,000 individuals. And we only have 250 probation officers to assign to those individuals. So, we have looked at that. We have made some dramatic changes at the adult probation level, as far as management is concerned. And it is our position that we will continue to review that as people leave, or we can find other assignments for them 70 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 within the agency that they would be good at managing. So, we are committed to that. Now, they are currently doing the same thing on the adult probation side. Administrative Judge Field -- I am sorry, on the juvenile side. Excuse me. Administrative Judge Field recently replaced Retiring Chief PO Ken Hayle with a new chief probation officer. And they collectively are looking at the structure of juvenile probation and how it can better support our operations by increasing line staff and decreasing management, managerial positions, through attrition or other means, as far as transfer.
One technology question. There is an organization I am very active with, Public Technology, Incorporated, out of Washington, D.C., that is sort of a joint venture with the National Counties Association, and National Legal of Cities, and the ICMA, the International City and County Managers Association. 71 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 One of the things they try to do, or maybe the thing they most try to do, is incubate private-sector technologies using task forces of real line people all around the country that work in large cities and counties, and try to make them accessible to other member jurisdictions, and even smaller cities and counties. The one item that I want to ask you about is, one of the great difficulties in this country, from homeland security, from policing, from public safety vantage points, is the inability for systems to talk to each other and databases that can't be accessed. Everybody wants their own control. There is at least one company that is way out there in front of everyone else that is working in Louisiana right now, state, federal, state, and all local jurisdictions, and has managed to develop software that seems to have 360 databases, national, state, county, local, talking to each other. And when the police officer pulls up to a car, files the license plate, within 72 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 about five seconds all 360 of those are accessed. That police officer knows the person in that car, just about everything about them except some very private things, but anything they have ever done in the criminal area or in the court area. And in a very small town in Louisiana, they had their first person on the terror watch list came up. But saw some examples of, you know, approaching a car where this person has nothing to lose. If they didn't know about the information, homicides, you know, on the run from these different things, that officer is in a much different degree of jeopardy than if they are staying in their car waiting for help because they know they have a truly dangerous felon on their hands. They are looking for pilots to do in large cities or counties. We happen to be a city and county. The concern of courts and police departments is, naturally, control over their information; who gets it, who doesn't get it. 73 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 You certainly don't want to be giving information away to the enemy. I am told that both our police department and our courts have been resistant because of that fear. But I am also told that it is an unrealistic fear; that you can decide, the courts, the police department, who has access to your information and who doesn't. And I am just wondering how I go about trying to get you into the mix. Because pilots are free, that's the nicest part of them. And somebody else, you know, the private sector, is paying for them because they think they have something to sell to someone else. Dianna Neff is very familiar with it, our MOIS Director. And I am just wondering if I can, can I get you two together to --
Well, sure. We are happy to participate in any initiative in that endeavor. But I thought we already were in the mix, quite frankly. 74 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 Just so you understand, some historical perspective about sharing information. We actually started in 1995, as a result of the Criminal Justice Center initiative, a review with all of the criminal justice partners, and came up with a solution to sharing information at the front end that has been unprecedented to date, and that is our PARS system. And there are a number of people that want access to PARS throughout the city on a daily basis today. And what PARS does, it electronically transfers information from the police department, to the district attorney and pretrial services, and then to the Municipal Court in order to effectuate the preliminary arraignment process. And one of the things that we completed during that process was the understanding that each of us owns certain information that is germane to our operations. And we understand that the police 75 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 own the police photo number, and that's the photo number that will carry through the process from beginning to end. And that we will accept that police photo number as correct. And what we do is, we build information within PARS to the point where the preliminary arraignment occurs. And we all share that information appropriately. And there are security measures that are built in within that process. So we all -- we are already sharing data in that respect. And then the PARS system populates the court system and other areas to create the Municipal Court --
I am always concerned when you tell me -- and I am sure you are being honest -- that you are participating, or you think you are participating. 76 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 And I just on Saturday have spoken to the director of our MOIS and asked, are we in this, and the answer is no. 5 And the reason is that the courts and the police are nervous about -- and I will be kind saying, "nervous about," because I was actually told there was a refusal. But how do I get you together with -- I will take it one at a time. You, the courts, together with MOIS to make sure that they know you are okay with this? I mean, this is almost futuristic stuff. There is no other system I am aware of on the federal, state level that even talks about connecting all these systems. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, I am going to first say, at of our testimony, you will see a brief description of PARS and you will see a brief description of JNET. But in a more elaborate vein, along the lines you are talking about, the Commonwealth has a statewide automated system using the internet, and we are connected. 77 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 If someone is arrested in Philadelphia, in Pittsburgh they will know.
Judge, I understand. But if you have seen -- I will give you the name. The company's name is Think Stream, that's who we are trying to do the pilot with. You are talking about two databases you just mentioned, yours and the states. We are talking about 360 databases, basically every possible database that a criminal could be, you know, involved in. And for law enforcement, for homeland security, I don't think there is anything out there that approaches this. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: We are willing to meet with them. That's not even an issue. We are willing to do that.
My only concern is where Dianna may have gotten her information that we are resistant, since no one has 78 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 approached me to discuss this.
The courts might be, someone other than you. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam President, the courts, for being here, and your administrators. I want to thank you first for taking time out a few months ago. The judge was so kind to come visit me and talk to me about the work that they do, given that I am a freshman around here. And we spent about two hours together. It was a very candid discussion about a number of issues and particular concerns of mine. One of my concerns were the service to limited English proficient people, specifically people, Spanish-speaking people. 79 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 And we went on for a good while to talk about that issue of, you know, interpreters, and how people were being welcomed into the courts and so forth. So what the good judge did is, she sent me a 24-page report. And I appreciate that a lot. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Mr. Councilman, I hope I answered your questions in that report.
I had prepared a list of questions, and you answered them in this well-put booklet on your work on the issue of limited English proficiency and the city's initiative to implement this program through Global Philadelphia, mostly, in all of our city services, including the courts. How many people visit Family Court in a year? Do you keep that type of data? How many people come through your Family Court division in a year? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I can tell you how many cases.
We can tell you how 80 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 many cases are scheduled on a yearly basis.
But how many people actually attend those cases, the only way we would be able to know that is to ask the sheriffs at the front door to give us a --
Okay. I see in your report on the limited English proficiency, you state, I just want your -- just give me, for my purposes, a better understanding what you mean by this. It says the courts -- this is, Madam President, on the courts, this is on your booklet entitled, Engaging Persons With No Or Limited English Proficiency in the Judicial Process. 81 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 On , Background on the Organization, the second paragraph you state, "The courts must work to enable persons with no or limited English proficiency, (LEP), to participate. And these efforts are not limited to the strict verbatim translation of languages. All parties proceeding should fully understand the nature of the events and their part in the process and eventual outcomes." I don't want to bring up, you know, something that comes up that might be a concern, but can you define what you mean by this, please? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Certainly. I think I understand. If you look at the brochures, 10, videos, forms, brochures
I saw that. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: That's the sort of background we provide to anyone who comes into the court, courthouse. So it could be a family member or a friend, someone in the audience. 82 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 But for the individual who is on trial or has a specific proceeding, those individuals do have the verbatim translation of the language. But the second sentence there, "all parties to the proceeding should fully understand the nature of the events," that's to give them background as to what it is they are involved in.
Does the Civil Rights Act say that there has to be verbatim translation? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: I'm not familiar with the Civil Rights Act that you are referring to.
The Civil Rights Act on limited English proficiency of 1964. This is where this is derived from. I didn't look it up, either. But I think -- I don't want to guess, but I will look it up on my end. It lends itself to saying, you know -- correct me if I am wrong -- I don't mean it as a positive or a negative, that, 83 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 regardless, the show must go on when you come to court. In other words, if we don't -- if one of our eight translators are not available, and if you are not ready, knowing that you are going into an English-speaking court, you know, we are not definitely obliged to provide you at that moment because the case, you know, has to go on. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: That is not the approach we take, Councilman.
I am not saying the approach. I am just saying when I read this account, it says all parties to proceedings should fully understand the nature of the event and their part in the process and eventual outcome." HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Right.
So I could go there, you know, Spanish speaking, with very little English proficiency, and the interpreter -- and I know this has happened as recent as last year -- the interpreter is not available. 84 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, the first sentence says, we are not limiting to verbatim translation; that is, we are doing more than the verbatim translation. Both sentences need to be read together. So that as someone comes to the courthouse and has limited English proficiency, what we as a court do, we don't limit, do not limit, to the verbatim translation; rather, we try to ensure that they fully understand the nature of the offense, and we explain to them their part in the process. So we have an expansive approach, not a limiting approach.
Okay. So besides the strict verbatim, there are other means as well as your -- HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Correct.
I had judge Lynne on my radio show one Sunday last year, and he told me he had this new system where he can dial and get a translator on the phone. 85 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 And I told him, well, we need to get that word out there so people -- and get our judges, all the judges, to use it, as well. So that last sentence does not imply that -- I mean, what happens if you don't have a translator and you cannot communicate in the language, the principal language, of the person? Does the court proceeding continue? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Oh, no. 11 No. 12 As a matter of fact, Councilman, we have a procedure where if an individual knows in advance that they have a court date, let's say, tomorrow or Friday, they can -- if they desire, they can call to the courtroom in advance, their attorney will call, and say, "I have someone who speaks Spanish," or -- Spanish is easier. But let's say French or Creole or Chinese or whatever. And we, within the court, make arrangements to have that type of interpreter present in the courtroom on the day a case is listed. Or at the first listing, there is a 86 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 continuance request for a specific date and time to address the specific language that's needed. The telephonic service that you are referring to, you will see on , 3.4, that's what Judge Jimmy Lynne was referring to. You can see all the different languages that were requested in Year 2003, from A to Z. There were a total of 687 different requests. And this is just using the telephone services. And the word is out there. Certainly we have spent almost a million dollars in the past year for many different languages. Now, this is just telephone services.
Yes. And I see in that graph, which was a point that you and I discussed -- HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: What page?
I am sorry. OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 8, Madam President. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes.
That one point that we discussed was that it is very important for us in this great society that we live in to be welcoming of immigrants of so many parts of the world. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes.
But in our city, what we have is a tremendous increase. While others are leaving Philadelphia, we see that a Spanish-speaking population is moving into this area, now primarily from the area of Central America, particularly Mexico. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes.
And you will see by even on your graph, on your statistical chart here, on , that the need for Spanish-speaking translation was almost 5 to 21 more so than all the other languages combined. 22 And that's a stark reality of the situation in 23 our city. 24 And it is very indicative of the 25 growth of -- without acknowledging the growth 88 1 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 of other immigrant communities, but of the growth of this Spanish-speaking community coming from Latin America, it is really increasing in this region. One of the things that you pointed out on the front page of this report is that Philadelphia remains the only Pennsylvania county that a terms to provide interpreter services to the courts in a systematic manner. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Yes.
Is there a plan to establish certification procedures, and what kind of time frame are we looking at? So although Philadelphia County has yet to establish certification procedures, has developed a model that may prove helpful elsewhere in the Commonwealth. How far ahead? I am very glad that we are taking this initiative, and it is very commendable. How far are we ahead from certification? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Well, Councilman, if you look at , there is a -- 89 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04
Now I have two of your reports. Which one? The Spanish report -- HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Of the interpreter report, . The certification procedure is a statewide procedure. And, so, it is not Philadelphia, it is not limited to Philadelphia. You will see under Recommendation 19, the comment, response, there is no 13 requirement for certification of interpreters in Pennsylvania. However, all of our First Judicial District staff Spanish interpreters have passed a New Jersey certification. And, also, the Delaware examination has been -- in the State of Delaware, rather, there is a certification, and many of the contract interpreters have passed one or the other. So within Philadelphia, we do not have a certification, but we model and certainly adopt the New Jersey and Delaware. Additionally, there is a Senate bill 90 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 currently in place in Harrisburg, Senate Bill 3 669, I believe -- we referred to it at and top of 24 -- where the concept of testing and certification has been introduced in the State Senate in Pennsylvania, and we certainly support that.
I think you have done a very excellent job, and the job that you do is a very difficult job in the court system and so complex. But my whole intent in our meeting and during this proceeding is to just be able to share with you how this growing immigrant community is going to impact on how we live in this city and how government services people. And I am glad that this Administration has taken the lead through Global Philadelphia to address this issue of limited English proficiency. And I thank you again for the report you forwarded to me. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Councilman, thank you very much. I would like to believe that I am particularly sensitive to the concerns you express about the immigrant 91 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 community because both of my parents were immigrants. And they met in Philadelphia, and I was born and raised in Philadelphia, but my mother's native language was French. And I certainly saw, as a child, what she had to go through trying to speak with an accent, and trying to work things out, and the difficulties when she went to public offices or city offices. And I believe our whole First Judicial District has been very sensitized to the issues relating to race, gender, and language barriers. And we have tried to eliminate those or minimize those in whatever way we can.
Thank you, Madam President. On you talk about, let me get back to that, the staff to support legislative increase in judicial complement. Can you 92 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 explain that to me?
Oh, this is an increase in the judicial complement from 90 to 93, and the staff required to service those three additional judges.
How much extra is that? It doesn't say how much extra it is.
It is $305,000. It is in the budget on . And, Councilman, that is a dollar-for-dollar reimbursement from the state, so it is cost neutral.
Okay. Thank you. The second question is, . And I think Council O'Neill beat this one up pretty good. But future technology needing 93 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 upgrades. I think what Councilman O'Neill spoke about was one end of it. What about the other end? And it may happen, excuse me for my ignorance. If you have to be in court for something, maybe something with your family, it may be something that happens to you, witness, victim, whatever, is there a website we can go to without using hallwatch.org?
Absolutely. And every one of our criminal cases that are scheduled are on the website, as well as civil and civil docketing, orphans court, and Family Court.
Is it to the point where you could go to that today and find out what judge is sitting in what courtroom tomorrow?
Those were two easy ones. Here is a third one. Security. 94 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 You talk about security in City Hall, . Actually, you talk about City Hall. Are you responsible for all security over the Criminal Justice Center, or is that the sheriff?
That's the sheriff, although we share responsibility in the courtroom.
So getting into the building, with the elevators and the whole screening process is the sheriffs. But up in the courtroom it is the sheriffs to one point? Is there any point where you would be in charge of security?
We help with the courtroom security, obviously, and controlling the crowds and the individuals that are coming into the courtroom, because the sheriff is responsible for the defendant that's in the courtroom.
Thank you. They are all my questions. Thank you very much.
You're welcome. 95 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. Question with regard to court issues. We have a teen court. And the President and I were both at a meeting with the D.A. Does the D.A. sponsor some court programs and the court sponsor other court programs, or are they all paid for by the court? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Which court program?
We have night court and then they have teen court. They may have teen court. I think I saw it. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Let me just check here.
Is the teen court perhaps something that is administered through the District Attorney's Office, and utilizes, 96 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 I don't want to say, judges pro tem, but volunteers to sit as judges in the districts? HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: There is also something that I have read about in the high schools themselves, where the students are involved in a court.
They do have that. But these things don't reach you, they don't -- HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: No. 12
Okay. All right. There are three instances. Okay. Thank you.
Good morning, Councilman. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: Good morning.
I want to ask 97 OPERATING BUDGET - BILL NO. 020455 - 5/3/04 you a couple of questions about community service programs. I think I probably ask this question every budget session. First, can you talk to me about the categorization of community service programs, if you have them on the various courts, in Family Court? Talk to me about that. HONORABLE MASSIAH-JACKSON: What do you mean by "community service"?