1579 ¡›î› COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 24, 1999 9:45 a.m. - - - BILL NO. 990023 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN W. THATCHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 1580 ¡›î› I N D E X BILL NO. 990023 JUDGE ALEX BONAVITACOLA, First District of Pennsylvania --------------------------- 1581 JOSEPH DI PRIMIO, ESQUIRE ------------------- 1581 JOHN GREEN, Sheriff's Office ---------------- 1588 VIVIAN MILLER, Clerk of Quarter Sessions ---- 1589 RONALD DONATUCCI, Register of Wills --------- 1592 ELLEN GREENLEE, Chief Defender, Defender Association ---------------------------- 1603 DEAN CAPLAN, Budget Director ---------------- 1629 CHARLES CUNNINGHAM, First Asst. Defender ---- 1644 LYNNE ABRAHAM, District Attorney ------------ 1651 DEAN CAPLAN, Budget Director ---------------- 1705 THOMAS COSTELLO, Commissioner of Philadelphia Prison System -------------------------- 1724 PRESS GROOMS, Deputy Commissioner ------------- 1738 1581 BILL NO. 990023
May I ask that the Council Members who are in their offices please come to the chambers. We're ready to start our public hearings. Good morning. This is the continued public hearing of the Committee of the Whole regarding Bill No. 990023. The First District of Pennsylvania will be the first to testify today. Identify yourself for the record. JUDGE ALEX BONAVITACOLA: Good morning, President Verna. I'm Judge Alex Bonavitacola, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and Chairman of the Administrative Governing Board of the First Judicial District. With me today are Joseph DiPrimio, our Court Administrator; and Kevin Cross, our Senior Staff Advisor who takes care of most of our fiscal matters. We are prepared to support the submission that we had sent to you and the other Members of the Council in lieu of not receiving our budget from the executive branch of government.
Good morning, Madam President. 1582 BILL NO. 990023
My name is Joseph DiPrimio. I'm the Court Administrator of the First Judicial District. In preparation for the budget for the courts for FY 2000, we noted that the City Administration did not include funding for the Philadelphia Courts. That has resulted in the need to present our funding request directly to Council. I believe that the whole issue that underlies the City's position is couched in the Supreme Court case of Allegheny County II, which was the order that was issued in 1987. It has been a little over 10 years that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not implemented a plan, I should say, to bring into effect the funding structure for all courts throughout the Commonwealth. The Supreme Court mandated that the Commonwealth should be responsible for the funding of a unified Pennsylvania court system, of which obviously Philadelphia is the first and the largest. Last year, as a result of not being included in the City's FY '99 budget, the First Judicial District filed an action of mandamus for that particular year. The City presented and 1583 BILL NO. 990023 Council approved a mid-year transfer ordinance 3 sometime in June to cover the first six months of our funning, and then in late December, early January, was able to convince Council to fund the courts the second half of FY '99. We're back today because, once again, the State Legislature has not implemented legislation which would allow the expenditure of any Commonwealth funds to pay for court operations. Despite the fact that Judge Collins recommended to the Supreme Court as a result of the mandamus action that by the beginning of FY '99, the State Legislature should be funding the courts. So once again, we're here to support the budget submittal that we present to Council on behalf of our courts. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: President Verna, the written testimony that we prepared according to Council's request sets forth all this information concerning the mandamus action, the lack of funding, and the impasse that apparently is now in effect between the legislature and the executive branch of state government. We're hoping that there will be some break in that impasse. But nonetheless, in the meantime, we continue to look to the County and City 1584 BILL NO. 990023 of Philadelphia for our funding. There are no dramatic changes in our funding. As a matter of fact, we have been quite successful in containing our costs despite the increase in business activity which we anticipate as a result of the boom in Philadelphia arrests. And of course, as Council is aware or will be shortly aware, the District Attorney's Office is requesting an increase in staffing.; the Defender's Association has already increased its staff. And even with that anticipation, we are holding our own. For example, we have kept below our authorized personnel significantly since this entire thing started and have not exceeded authorized position levels.
In fact, we're 101 positions below our authorized level. This reduction or attrition of staff was largely achieved through redeployment and efficiencies in operations, but also in the cooperative effort or commitment that the courts gave to the city to essentially control what heretofore had been viewed as run-away hiring. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: I should say that our expenditures for technology are beginning to be 1585 BILL NO. 990023 felt in that we find that we can keep below our authorized strength because of efficiency of computerization and things of that nature.
Your Honor, in your testimony, I believe it's on , it's stated that on July 30, 1997, the master files and interim report with the Supreme Court, the interim report recommended that the transition to state funding be accomplished in phases with the first phase direct state funding of the salaries of trial court administrators and their deputies to be accomplished by July 1, 1998. Was that ever done? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: The money was added into the budget message that the governor gave the legislature. That budget was passed intact with that funding in it. But the legislature adjourned without adopting enabling legislation to allow them to spend that money. In Philadelphia's case they announced $873,665 which we continue to have to pay because the state ---
I'm sorry, what was that figure again, your Honor? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: $873,665. And we 1586 BILL NO. 990023 continue to have to provide for that because the state legislature has not enacted the enabling legislation yet.
Your Honor, for sometime it's been quite disturbing to many of us that the police overtime, court overtime, is astronomical. Are you working with the district attorney and the police commissioner to somehow or other address that problem? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Yes. What we have done is to remove preliminary hearings from the Criminal Justice Center back to the districts at the request of both Mayor Rendell and Police Commissioner Timoney because they wanted the police officers to be in the districts available for duty while they're awaiting testimony in preliminary hearings to obviate the overtime necessitated by bringing them all back into Center City, waiting around here, not being available for other emergency uses, and then when they're finished going back to the districts. A lot of that was overtime. And it was anticipated that they could save upwards in the twenties of millions of dollars if we did that.
How long has 1587 BILL NO. 990023 that been in effect? JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Approximately six months or so. Plus the inconvenience to witnesses who don't like to leave their neighborhoods to come into Center City to testify and then go back home. So we have done that. I'm hoping that the savings will be felt in the city budget.
Madam President, if I may add to that, as a result of redeploying the court's resources out into five or six divisional courts so that the police department could reduce their overtime, the First Judicial District has experienced an increase in its operational cost. Specifically, municipal court has submitted additional positions for budget support in the form of three additional court officers, two court reporters, two clerical staff, and one court interpreter. The total impact of additional monies that we are seeking for Class 100 to be able to support these enterprize would be $238,840. So while the police have incurred a savings on the overtime, the court has not. And we're trying to -- we're reaching out to Council to assist us with that shortage. 1588 BILL NO. 990023
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? Anybody have any comments? Thank you very much, your Honor. JUDGE BONAVITACOLA: Thank you.
The Sheriff's Department is next. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm John Green, Sheriff of the City and County of Philadelphia. Madam President, before starting testimony on behalf of the Sheriff's Office, I'd like to congratulate you on your assuming your new position, and we wish you well.
Madam President, the Sheriff's Office has agreed or does agree with the City's recommended fiscal year 2000 budget allocation of $11,069,094. In our written testimony we submitted to Council, we stated the only uncertainty that we might have during the fiscal year be will addressing 1589 BILL NO. 990023 the YK2 problem, and we are working -- we have put together a team of people in the Sheriff's Office to assess our needs and to make recommendations for whatever changes and repairs we must make before the new millennium.
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? You're home free.
Is the Clerk of Quarter Sessions here? I'd like it to be noted that this is the first time we're waiting for people to come in rather than people waiting for us.
My name is Vivian Miller, Clerk of Quarter Session, and you have copy of my testimony. If it is important that you think I must read it, then I will do so.
No, but if you can just abbreviate your testimony for the record, 1590 BILL NO. 990023 it will be fine. We'll make certain that the stenographer has a copy of your full testimony.
It's my privilege, of course, to address this most distinguished body and Council. And of course, my fiscal budget for the amount $4,197,271 is my budget for the fiscal year 2000. And of course, this is for personnel, purchase of services, materials, supplies and equipment. And I'm grateful to this administration for allowing moderate increases to meet some of the budget needs of our department. Of course, this is not enough, but we're grateful for whatever we can get. And I thank you and hope that you will consider my budget.
Thank you. And it's the same as it was the a last year, Ms. Miller?
Very well. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller. 1591 BILL NO. 990023
By the way, the increase is 15,000 in Class 200 in my budget analysis.
I just want to state that I believe as a Council we should support the Clerk of Quarter Sessions' need to upgrade their computer capabilities. As it states on the first page of her testimony that they are performing too many manual functions. And earlier we were talking about overtime. And overtime is required certainly if you have to do it by hand versus a computerized system. And that's the statement I want to make.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sure the Clerk of Quarter Sessions and her staff are aware of the existence of the Productivity Fund Bank that may enable you to -- you could certainly submit a proposal to the Fund to request additional funds for the upgrade of computer systems, especially if it's tied to efficiency and 1592 BILL NO. 990023 reduction in overtime. And my experience is with a few other departments that I've dealt with, the police department and some others, that they are generally willing to agree to those requests if it's tied directly to a reduction in overtime and efficiency. So just a suggestion that that may be the way to go to do something quickly as opposed to waiting for next year's capital budget.
Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much.
We're now waiting for the Register of Bills to testify. Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. We do have copies of your testimony, so if you'd like to abbreviate your comments. 1593 BILL NO. 990023
Thank you, Madam President and Members of the City Council. My testimony -- my letter basically states our efforts and our success in helping, in my opinion, to bring fiscal stability and responsibility to the City of Philadelphia. We are very aggressive, Madam President, in our day-to-day running of the office in the sense of we were, not to use a term that's used every day, a user-friendly office. But I believe anybody's that's ever dealt with our office, the public, the Bar, is very aware of our commitment to a friendly-type service. All of my employees answer the phone by mentioning their first name. We try to make everybody comfortable when they come into our office; we go out of our way. But at the same time, we are also looking at ways of generating additional fees and becoming more creative. I've highlighted some of our areas where -- and I want to thank you personally, Madam President, because we had asked for another computer, and I know your staff is trying to get us a computer from the City Council because we've shown 1594 BILL NO. 990023 where just one computer alone and our additional fees has generated over a hundred thousand dollars additional revenue just in one year. We could use additional computers, but we understand the situation which is going on in the city. We're the only office in the five counties that has a Register of Wills Office open on Wednesday evenings -- I'm sorry, it's our Marriage License Bureau. And we had the lowest fees in the five counties. We raised our marriage license fees which will bring approximately $900,000 in revenue to the City of Philadelphia, and we brought them in line with the other counties. Plus, like I said, we're providing this service where a lot of the other counties come into Philadelphia on Wednesday night to get a marriage license and they wind up utilizing our restaurants and we encourage them to use our -- to visit Philadelphia on Wednesday night. That's why we opened on Wednesday. We used to be open Saturday.
Well, it's my training from Congressman Bill Barret and the late Councilman 1595 BILL NO. 990023 Bill Sabati.
Now, with that comment, what is it that you really need? (Laughter.)
I'd like to increase my Class 200. No additional employees, just somewhere down the line if we could get us some additional computers. We're trying to computerize our probate section to bring it on line where we could charge a fee for lawyers to access into our computer bank to see if the stakes have been raised. We're in the process of getting that done, so maybe somewhere down the line if we could get some of that productivity money.
We're in the process of now getting the application ready. We're trying to stay within the city's guideline for our budget, which we have been very successful over a number of years. But when we're ready, if we need some help, I will maybe ask your help because we will show how just a few extra computers have brought in maybe $250,000 in additional revenue to the city. 1596 BILL NO. 990023 The bottom line, we are a self-sustaining operation. We have two offices outside of City Hall. We're in the northeast in North Philadelphia. We have a traveling probate service. We have a speakers bureau, and it's a service-oriented office, not an expense or a drain to our economy of the city.
I would suggest that you make your application for the Productivity Bank as soon as possible.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have a question, but I have a comment, and I think it needs to be said because this office often becomes the brunt of criticism from various sectors of the media about -- not what services that you do or critical of the services you perform, but of other extraneous issues. I have not experienced a department in this city that gets more compliments through my office about the way they were served when they are 1597 BILL NO. 990023 sent down from the third floor to the first floor. I look at your letter here, and all I see is increases, increases in revenue in every department, in every service that you provide. Considering the fact that you deal with people most times in the most difficult time in their lives, losing a parent, losing a loved one, they are treated sensitively, they are treated effectively and efficiently. And maybe this large government needs to take some kind of example as that personal service to citizens still matters. You know, we have a lot of departments that are very large and deal with lots of problems in a very impersonal manner. These people who work there every day very hard deal with people directly and sensitively, and it's a good image for the city and it makes people happy that they came to City Hall. So I want to thank you and your people because you do a great job every year, and you don't get the credit that you deserve for it.
Thank you, Councilman. If I could just expand on that, it's not only the citizens of Philadelphia that come into our office; we have people from across the United States and the 1598 BILL NO. 990023 world that come in to visit and research for genealogist purposes. We have records that go back to 1682. I get a kick, if I can make a side note, that they always write to the Mayor and say, "You have an excellent department in the Register of Wills." And I have to write back and say we're independent of the Mayor's office. And he gets a kick out of it because, as you said, the extraneous thing you mentioned is that my office vis-a-vis a patronage office. But I'll put it up against any city department.
The one thing about the issue of patronage, if your people don't perform, they get the boot. If civil servants don't perform, it could take 10 years before they get the boot, if ever. I think this is the model of what effective patronage and public service office should be, and I think that other departments in the government should take some example from it.
That's why we require our employees to identify themselves when they answer a phone. Every so often -- we're human 1599 BILL NO. 990023 beings in the office; once in a while one of my employees will have a bad day. But if there's a pattern, immediately I bring them in and say, "What is the problem. You're dealing with bereaved people. Please, go out of your way." And we're famous for that. People come in and they don't have a death certificate. We don't send them home. We processes the papers. We hold the application. We'll mail them a self-addressed envelope, please mail it back. We save them another trip in to City Hall. We receive a number of letters, we have file, and I'm proud of that and I'll continue to do that.
And I would like to echo Councilman Kenney's remarks. And I think what's even more refreshing, when you call your office, it's not voice mail; you get a human being who answers the phone immediately, is always very courteous and tries to be extremely helpful. I never get more frustrated then calling 1600 BILL NO. 990023 some of the offices and you're on eight minutes before you're even able to say who's calling with this voice mail.
Well, we had it one week, Councilwoman. I tried, and it's a not what we're about.
So did I, and I got rid of it. It's not personal at all.
It's a cop-out. When you finally reach somebody they'll say, "Geez, my voice mail wasn't working. I didn't get your message." We don't have that problem. You deal with human beings.
And it works. I mean, there's no extra work. So someone has to put someone on hold; at least you're talking to a human being. I think it's very important.
I just wanted to join in the remarks of Councilman Kenney and President 1601 BILL NO. 990023 Verna in complimenting the way in which your office performs public service. In addition to what they've said, when there's special needs that develop in a matter and you have to go really a extra mile to satisfy the constituent, I've always found that when I make such a request, it's always complied with. And. I wanted to compliment you, and particularly the work of your office during the period when they were being treated so unfairly with respect to the increase and they continued to work diligently and performed excellently all during the time as they processed their problem. I think it just speaks so well for the whole structure of the office, the management and the employees there. I think it is a model office and I would like to see other offices throughout the city at the same level with respect to acting when people call upon them to act. I've never had a complaint in all the years I've served. If there's ever mention of the Register of Wills Office, it's always been a complimentary one, and I congratulate you.
Thank you, Councilman. 1602 BILL NO. 990023 I'm glad you brought that up, because I'd like to thank Madam President and all of the Members here. I look around this room, you are the ones that are responsible for getting the raises to every other city employee. We were the last, and no pun intended, the orphaned child. I think it was six years before any of my employees received a raise. No one -- seven, I'm sorry. They corrected me. It was like six and a half. But none of our employees walked off the job. Like you said, we tried to work within the system. We finally had City Council, Councilman Cohen, everybody, Blackwell, Jim Kenney, DiCicco, everybody in this room, Frannie Rizzo, everybody got on the band wagon and put pressure to bring this to a head. And I thank you because nobody should go without a raise, except for elected officials, for eight years. At least we can control our own destiny. Here, working people, and they see all their colleagues and every other branch getting raises, and we're raising all kinds of money for the city. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell. 1603 BILL NO. 990023
Thank you, Madam President. I agree also with everything that has been said and say thank you as well.
Any other questions or comments of the Register of Wills? Thank you very much.
Thank you. Public Defender's Office is next. Good morning.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes, I will, but I must comment, though, Madam President, it's a particular pleasure to appear before you in your new role after all the years you provided us leadership as Council chair of the Appropriations Committee and also, I might note, the first woman President of City Council. 1604 BILL NO. 990023
I'm Ellen Greenlee, I'm the director of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. On my left is Charles Cunningham who is the First Assistant Defender. On my right is Selim Tawadros who is our controller. The other two members of my staff here today are Christen Muhl who is our assistant controller in a new position that opened up as of November; and my execute assistant, my good right, arm Linda Kazinski (ph) is also here. It is a particular pleasure, as I mentioned, to appear before you, President Verna and Members of City Council, in requesting support for the appropriation for the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I appreciate all the time and interest and energy that Council brings to this particular project. Just for the record, let me note that it's now 30 years that the Defender Association has been contracting with the City to provide services in three main areas, to provide representation as criminal defense counsel for adults and juveniles who are charged with crimes, to represent those who 1605 BILL NO. 990023 are respondents in civil mental health hearings, usually about 4,000 hearings a year, and to act as child advocate for 7700 dependent children in the Human Services system in Philadelphia, which is the largest unit in the Defender Association, our Child Advocacy Unit now which comprises attorneys, social workers, paralegals and administrative staff number 67. So it is a unit that is our largest. It also has case loads that are kind of astronomical in terms of doing this kind of work that we struggle to deal with on a teamwork basis. As you're aware, because I know you've heard from Police Commissioner Timoney, there has been a quite substantial increase in arrests during the past year, which we tally because we represent everyone at arraignment at percent over the year, 18 25 percent increase in arrests which has meant a 19 very huge increase in the numbers of cases that are 20 in the high volume courtrooms. By that, I mean our 21 preliminary hearing lists, our misdemeanor cases in 22 municipal court, and our cases in the felony waiver 23 program and also in the juvenile program. 24 What we're finding is that the lists are 25 growing to a level where it is almost becoming 1606 BILL NO. 990023 impossible to staff these courtrooms with one attorney. And we're having to provide -- and we have, as I will mention later, been in ongoing discussions with the Budget Director as it's an ongoing process with us in making staffing needs known to them and providing the documentation. It is becoming increasingly difficult to manage the case loads especially with one attorney so we're having to plug in what we call a splitter to help with case lists. Thirty preliminary hearings in a day is not an unusual list. When we pass that mark, we have to send two. In good conscience, I must say that we should probably send two before we reach 30, but we try to keep our staffing as lean as we can and obviously to keep the cost down for the city to, not only provide effective representation, but to provide the most for the dollars that we get. As I mentioned, there's been an increase in our court appointments. There's been a very large increase over the year, 16 percent. We had been hovering at about 50,000 for several years, even dropping below a few years ago. But our new appointments during 1998 reached 62,000 plus, which 1607 BILL NO. 990023 is a percent increase. Most of them, as I mentioned, are because of the large increase in arrests, and most of them fall at the lower end of cases in terms of seriousness. Most of them are misdemeanors, and obviously, the bulk of them are drug cases because there has been an enormous increase over the last year in the arrest of buyers, not just sellers. Multiple buyers being arrested when a seller is arrested. This is a new practice that has come in with Commissioner Timoney. So the volume has grown tremendously in terms of case loads.
And 14 increase in case loads not only means that you have 15 to have sufficient attorney staff, but it obviously 16 implicates the work of all the others, our investigators, our social workers, and our administrative staff. We also use, as we mentioned in our testimony, in addition to caseload numbers, we have devised in the four years -- I think it's four years we've been working with Dean Caplan and his very competent and able staff. We have devised various ways of reporting the work that we do. They keep our feet to the fire in terms of reporting, and we 1608 BILL NO. 990023 have come up with in the last few years, especially through the good offices of our executive assistant, with a way of calculating our work load in terms of the numbers of court listings where an attorney goes to court with a file to represent a client. And also the ancillary services that we perform, whether it's an investigation that's done, it's a social service referral that's acted on or other services. Appeals, as well, would be included. In these numbers, in our work load numbers, there has been a percent increase. So as I mentioned, there's 13 been a 16 percent increase in case loads, court 14 appointments, and a 14 percent increase in our work load. These have really strained our resources. But as I mentioned, we have over the last several years been in constant meetings and communication with the Budget Director and they have listened to us when we're able to present documentation as to case lists and new courtrooms. They have respond to our needs, and we had a gradual increase in staff over the last several years so that we are able with considerable effort to meet the requirements of our case loads at this time. I must add a simple caveat that, 1609 BILL NO. 990023 obviously, if these case lists continue to grow as they have over the last year, we will assuredly be not able to manage these. And as you are aware from my written testimony, our appropriation request is really a temporary figure. We're using the figure from fiscal year 1999 because we have not finalized our work with the Budget Office. In particular, the pay equity plan that we had been working on for sometime, which we have had a first draft on and expect soon to complete. I think you're all aware -- I look at President Verna because she's heard this the eight years that I've been sitting here. We have been striving for equitable pay because one of the reasons we're constantly hiring is that we are not able to hold on to staff because our salaries, our starting salaries particularly, have been stagnant at the same level over these eight years.
The starting salary for someone who passes the Bar is $31,500, which is probably $3,000 below the District Attorney at this point in time. 1610 BILL NO. 990023 So in terms of our appropriation request, this has yet to be finalized what the cost of this will be. And I should add that this pay equity plan is not a one-shot deal, but it is a plan that envisions four years where we will work towards parity so I will certainly ask that Council look at this very seriously and consider very seriously because it's not just this year request for appropriation, but it's a four-year plan that we hope to put into effect. As I mentioned about staffing, we're holding our own at the moment. I don't expect that that will continue unless -- I mean, if the cases continue to increase at the level and at the rate that they have over the last year. We will have to probably provide more attorneys in the high volume courtrooms. I might mention that in addition to adding attorney staff, based on our work with the Budget Office, we added Assistant Controller Christen Muhl, as I mentioned. We've also added a manager of information services which we really had a great need for, and just December we added a programmer to that. So we're attempting to try to 1611 BILL NO. 990023 build up our technology. We're way behind the other aspects of the criminal justice system, but we are working to build that up. Those are the main areas that I wanted to cover and to ask that Council be responsive as always and receptive to the City's request for pay equity plan at such time as that is completed and to listen to our final appropriation request as such time that we complete our discussions with the Budget Office.
Thank you very much. Ms. Greenlee, as you meet with the finance director I'm going to make a request.
And that is that Mr. McPherson be made aware of when you're meeting, and I would like him to be present so that we will be fully aware of what your needs are and how we can address them.
Thank you. There's no 22 one better able to do that than Mr. McPherson who sat in that other Chair not too many years ago.
Exactly. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. 1612 BILL NO. 990023
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Ms. Greenlee. Do you have any sense of the time table of this pay equity plan? I heard your testimony that you're in ongoing discussions with the Budget Office about this. I seem to recall that a year or possibly two ago we've had a fair amount of somewhat intense discussion about this, and I know that some progress, at least from a paperwork and study standpoint, has been made. But do you have a sense of when discussions may conclude and there might actually be some agreement on this?
My expectation is that probably within two months this will be finalized. We had a draft a couple months ago and they're re-working the numbers. I think probably at the outside I would say two months.
So when it's completed at that point in time in some way, shape, or form, either by letter or report, you're saying. And then the president has asked that one of our financial people be involved in those discussions, you would either come back to Council in a formal 1613 BILL NO. 990023 fashion or we would get some kind of report that lays out what, in your words, is a four-year plan. So you're not trying to get immediate parity; you're anticipating that it's something that's built up over some reasonable period of time?
That's correct. There would be a good first step for fiscal year 2000, but the entire plan will take four years.
When people leave the Public Defender's Office, you said that your starting salary, a person just coming out of law school and passing the Bar was $31,000?
People stay for how ever long they stay. Do you have a sense of what the average tenure is for people in the Defender's Office?
It's hard to say because we have a significant number, probably 60 or 70 people who are senior trial attorneys who have been 1614 BILL NO. 990023 with us and are career Defenders. In recent years, the young people are staying for shorter periods of time. We ask for a three-year commitment when we hire them. We have probably percent or more who are leaving before 7 they complete two years. 8
So what's happening 9 is your more senior people either really enjoy the 10 job or don't necessarily want to be back in the job market at the certain stage of their life so they just kind of stay, and hopefully we can increase their salary. The younger people, maybe not having as many obligations, haven't been in as long, get their training, provide their service and then at some point decide, "I'm out of here."
Yes, and I think the primary reason is that the pay is not adequate because most of them have considerable loan debt to repay.
The wonderful world of loans. When they leave, where are some of the places that they're going and what are some of the 1615 BILL NO. 990023 salaries that people are leaving the PD's Office to go for?
The first one that jumps to my mind when you say that is a young woman who left after two years, Marissa, who went with Dechert who went from probably 33 to 75 to be an associate at Dechert. Most of our young attorneys do not go to the big law firms; that would be kind of rare. They hang out a shingle or they go to small or mid-size firms. They're probably increasing their salary, I would guess on average, 12 to 15,000 if they're taking a position somewhere and not hanging out their shingle.
So they're looking at a third to, at times, a 50 percent increase in their pay to go to the next location?
Ms. Greenlee, I just wanted to ask you one question before I recognize the other colleagues. How many of the 1616 BILL NO. 990023 defenders in your office live in the city?
The last time we looked at it last year, 70 percent of our staff live in the city.
That's the line of questioning I was going on. Of the $18 million or so, $8 million requested, all funded by the city, entirely city funded contract?
Probably 99 percent. More than that, 99.9 percent city funded.
When I recognize and actually understand the parity argument vis-a-vis the District Attorney's Office, I think it's very important that we maintain that parity or try to attain parity. We've had lots of discussion in here about teachers, police officers, city employees, recruitment outside the city, and there seems to be a general -- whether it's an accurate or inaccurate belief -- a general belief that people who live in 1617 BILL NO. 990023 the city and have a stake in the city somehow are more either productive employees or have more of a stake in what goes on in their job as it relates to the neighborhood that they live in. Of the 30 percent or so employees who do not live in the city, at what level, what positions do they hold? Do you know in general? For example, I'm looking at here the higher paid jobs, 61 senior trial attorneys at 75,000, 66 attorneys, Attorney I, 30 to 50; 56 social workers between and 67; 8 12 paralegals between 22 and 45. Of those types of 13 jobs, what percentage of those people live in the 14 city, if you can find out? 15
The last number we did 19 overall, as I mentioned, was 70 percent. When 20 Councilman DiCicco requested that, we looked at 21 attorney staff; it was 60 percent. We haven't 22 looked at it in a year. Off the top of my head, 23 those attorneys for the most part who live outside 24 the city have been with us a long time and moved 25 when they had families to counties. The bulk of the 1618 BILL NO. 990023 staff and the younger staff lives in the City of Philadelphia, as do Mr. Cunningham and I, obviously all our lives, live in Philadelphia.
Do you have an opinion as to -- I wouldn't expect to ask a long-term employee to relocate back to the city. But moving forward, would it not seem fair in parity argument that the District Attorney's people need to live in Philadelphia, all the people in the courtroom, all the courtroom staff, the judges, the jurors, usually the defendants, live in Philadelphia with the exception of maybe 40 percent of the trial attorneys who are defending individuals who don't live in the city and live in the suburbs and go home to a suburban community every night. Wouldn't we be better off moving forward if all of our employees in that regard lived in the City of Philadelphia?
I certainly support people living in the City of Philadelphia, and I agree with you in terms of one's interest. I think there is one trade-off that's missing, is that we don't have a pension plan. And it would seem to me if the City were interested in requiring people to even prospectively to live in the city that that 1619 BILL NO. 990023 might be certainly something that might be offered in that respect, that we be allowed to be part of the city's pension plan.
That's certainly something, I guess, that could be explored. Council President, I want to yield for a point of information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Kenney. The only point of information is, Ms. Greenlee, are the people who work in the Public Defender's Office, are they city employees?
I mean, I understand the Councilman's argument, we don't have any disagreement about the larger issue. I just wanted to make sure the distinction is clear that 1620 BILL NO. 990023 you are not City of Philadelphia employees; you have a contract with us.
And I just want to add, and I think it's already been said to this distinction about them not being city employees, when your contract is 100 percent funded by the taxpayers of the city, technically you're not a city employee, but in reality you are. And my only point is again, not to anyone who's picked up their family and moved to the suburb for better schools or greener pastures, I don't want to hurt or attempt to inflict any pain on anyone. My concern is as we move forward with Welfare Reform coming, and I see a lot of clerical and entry level types of jobs available, which I assume a higher percentage are city residents, but if we opened up the opportunity for all of them to be city residents, I think it would also help in trying to find jobs for Philadelphians. I also believe that from a senior staff position, their job that they do quite well in a 1621 BILL NO. 990023 very dedicated way and absolutely needed I think would be better understood and better appreciated if in fact those people were actually sharing the pain and the gain of living within our city and contributing to our community institutions and spending their grocery dollars at the grocery store in Philadelphia and all the types of other things that other city employees do, considering that this is a hundred percent funded city contract.
Yes, I understand that and am certainly willing to pursue that further with our board. I would venture to say, though, probably in all the hiring that we've done recently, 90 plus percent of the people we hire live in the city. It's really people more the long-term employees who live outside.
And I'm not sure what the revenue cost impact would be to discussions over pension, but perhaps that would be something that would keep some of your employees employed with you longer, if in fact there was some additional incentive as a trade-off having to live in the city, being part of contributing to the pension system, and perhaps having more of a commitment to the 1622 BILL NO. 990023 office because the pension is growing.
I think there's no 4 question that that's true. Those of us who are close to that point where we're retiring are feeling the pinch about that, not having any kind of pension. Not that we don't have an annuity plan; we do. But it's very different to be involved in the pension plan.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I am very much interested in that pension aspect because we have others who are not city employees who I believe are part of the city pension plan. Has that ever be investigated? I think employees of the Redevelopment Authority. I don't know whether they're in our pension plan, but I know some are, Philadelphia Housing Authority, there are groups other than city employees who are part of our pension plan where they, you know, basically do city work even though they may exist under state corporate laws. 1623 BILL NO. 990023 I would just urge that you investigate that. I know nothing about the annuity plan and don't know to what extent that takes care of the pension.
Well, I think you have a very strong case in equity, you know, in concepts of fairness to pursue the pension plan. I don't know how it would work with senior employees, but they could come in at some point. We have systems of purchasing credit for past service. Sometimes it's pretty expensive because the pension system requires each retiree coming in for the first time, when he or she purchases, to go back and pay interest and so forth. But I think that ought to be a subject you ought to pursue.
And I share the feeling that's been expressed here. I think it is 1624 BILL NO. 990023 important that people, if at all possible, live in the city.
And I think it gives them a greater stake, and it makes it easier for us dealing with budgetary problems to feel that everybody is kind of sharing in every aspect of city life. I do want to commend your office in general. You know, you work so quietly that generally nobody even knows you're around and you do this tremendously efficient job of representing these thousands of defendants. I don't know what we'd do, and I don't think the court system could exist without the Public Defender system. There wouldn't be enough private attorneys and they couldn't even be paid if we had to appoint. I'm sure the cost would be double or triple, maybe even more than that of the cost of the Public Defender. I also wanted to thank you for the special services you perform. I know our office gets calls frequently concerning people who get arrested, usually parents calling about children. I 1625 BILL NO. 990023 know in every case in which I've asked the Public Defender's Office to look into the case, that there was certain information we obtained from the neighborhood or from the family that we thought might be relevant. We asked you to convey that to the attorneys and consider that in your representation. I've found that the response was excellent in every case, and I wanted to publicly thank you on the record for that service.
I find it very important because I think in many areas the Defender Bar represents the highest form of excellence in representation. You're in court all the time. Your people are so thoroughly experienced. You know every aspect of the law, and I think we're very fortunate to be served by such an agency. I wanted to thank you very much for that.
Thank you, Councilman. I think part of the reason for that is that we have always stressed our training program and training our young attorneys as thoroughly as we can because what we're asking them to do in terms of the high volume of cases is kind of extraordinary. I think 1626 BILL NO. 990023 that that training really does show itself in the courtroom because I would expect that our attorneys are always the most knowledgeable of the case law in the courtroom.
One other question, Madam President. With regard to this larger caseload that you have, you mentioned that the budget is open with respect to the parity question?
Is the budget also open with respect to what needs there might be as a result of this increased caseload and maybe further increases in the caseload?
Councilman, there's nothing on the table at the present time about increasing staff. We've increased staff over the last two years as the needs have arose with additional courtrooms. Last year in the fall we added eight attorneys because of the increased volume. So at the present time, there isn't anything that's on the table that the Budget Director is considering. What I was suggesting is if this continues at this rate, 1627 BILL NO. 990023 then we probably will have to in the not-too-distant future look to increases of staff. But at the present time, we don't have any numbers. We haven't had any discussions about an increase of staff.
As a result of the increased load of work that's come from the new consideration given by the police commissioner on the question of arrests and increase in arrests, has there been any increase in your budget or have you been able to absorb that? Just in this year's budget.
In this year's budget, we did get some additional staff. We got eight attorneys specifically because of the increase in high volume. We got an assistant controller and we got the information systems people. And we have through our parole project which is funded by the City, we've added an attorney and other staff.
That's correct. During the year we've had some increases, yes.
All right, thank you. I know the matter is going to come up from reading 1628 BILL NO. 990023 the newspaper accounts when the District Attorney appears. I'm just trying to get a feeling as to what the City's attitude has been when the question of how do we meet the additional burdens on both sides, the Defender and the District Attorney's Office.
Well, the plus side for us has been that we are in ongoing discussion with the Budget Office. We meet with them on a fairly regular basis, and we report monthly on our case loads and work loads, the number of children we have in Child Advocacy, a number of areas. We meet monthly on what our numbers are so that they can see in a moment what the increases are, and when we talk to them about the need for additional staff, if there are additional courtrooms, they can see that; if the numbers are growing, they can see that. So I think that's -- the benefit for us has been that it's a continuum; it's not a once-a-year thing that we go to them and tell them that we need to increase staff. And that has worked much better for us to try to maintain a level of staff to cope with the case loads.
Would Mr. McPherson 1629 BILL NO. 990023 know whether there were any transfer ordinances during the year to add the money? Was it done to the budget of the Public Defender, or was it done in some other fashion, the additional increases?
Why don't we have the Budget Director come up and explain whether they did a transfer or whether they just increased the base of their budget.
Dean Caplan, Budget Director. The budget for the various legal services that the city contracts for has been increased rather steadily over the last several years in the base, and then what we do is within the confines of that budget, we negotiate with the Defender and other providers to establish the appropriate level of funding for them based on exactly what the Defender just pointed out, their case loads and other requirements. So we haven't actually had to come back to Council for an increase. It's been --
You say you have or 1630 BILL NO. 990023 you have not had to come back?
We have not had to come back because we've increased it in base budget going forward and then negotiated a contract with them based on the budgeted amount.
That's a different procedure than would be applicable to the District Attorney?
The fundamental difference is the District Attorney is a city agency so they get a direct appropriation which they then spend. The Defender Association has a contract with the city, so as the Defender's pointed out a couple times, what happens is after the budget is passed, we finalize a contract based on those amounts. As she has stated, we've had a very productive working relationship, I think, and have been able to resolve most of the issues between us as a result.
What makes the decision as to when a contracting agency like the Public Defender comes before us in the budget process that many other contract agencies that don't come before us? Is that a decision made by the 1631 BILL NO. 990023 Mayor's office, by the Budget Office, by City Council?
I believe it's the City Council's choice to ask the Defender Association to appear.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmen DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Ms. Greenlee. Most of the questions I was about to ask you were already asked by the President or my colleague Councilman Kenney. But I want to go back to the residency issue one more time. Last year when you were here, we had some discussion about the residency issue, and I think we had discussed when a individual comes in to apply to a position, that all things being equal, that city residents would be given first preference. I think you probably have attained that goal because you said about 90 percent of the employees are Philadelphia residents. What is the reason, in your opinion, that we are still going outside for employment? 1632 BILL NO. 990023 Outside, meaning outside city residents to be employed in the city in your department. Is it because you're not getting the number of applicants or is it based on qualification or a combination of the two?
I think it's more qualification than it is numbers. Certainly in terms of our administrative staff, which is where we have the most movement all the time in terms of filling position, it's a matter of finding people who are qualified who can type 55 words a minute or have the skills because we test all applicants on grammar, spelling, and all those things. And we have a lot of people who don't pass the test. I haven't drawn any conclusion from that as to where they go to school or anything, because I don't really know and I haven't really looked at it.
That's typing. When we're looking for a clerk typist, that's what we look for.
I think the requirement in the courts is 80 words a minute on 1633 BILL NO. 990023 Word Perfect, where it used to be 40 words a minute on manual typewriter. That's why I asked the question.
Is there any interaction with your department and PIC, as an example, to try and recruit people for the entry level positions?
I might suggest that you might want to look into that. The other thing Councilman Kenney mentioned about the residency requirements and the fact that you are a city-funded agency but you're not city employees, could it not be a matter of policy that future employees be Philadelphia residents?
It could, and it's a matter that would come before the board, the board of directors.
Who is on that board? Could you supply the Chair with the list of the people who are on that board?
Sure, absolutely. The 1634 BILL NO. 990023 chairman is Edward Madeira of Pepper Hamilton, and it's a board of 30 people.
Thank you. I have no further questions, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
In an unusual sign of generosity, Madam Chair, actually, I believe Councilwoman Miller's light was on before mine. Mine has been off and on.
I don't believe so. However, if you're willing to have Councilwoman Miller to be recognized first, I'd be more than happy to.
If the Chair so rules, I'll take my turn as it comes. Ms. Greenlee, in the same area -- and I'll even volunteer my colleague because we enjoyed so much recently working on some pension issues. In your ongoing discussions with Budget Office, has there been any serious discussion about creation of a pension plan or accessing the city's pension plan or a separate pension plan? 1635 BILL NO. 990023
There really hasn't. I'm not in a situation where I can say that we have raised it and there have been discussions. We really have not asked for any serious discussion of that issue.
Any information you can share with us on the experience of other public defender type agencies in other cities? Are they usually under contract? Are they usually a part of the municipal government in the other locales? How did you come to be an outside agency in the first place?
The majority of public defenders are state employees. Most states have a state defender system, and that's probably 60 percent of the country is run that way. I don't think that there are too many that are run like Pennsylvania where every county has its own system, which is kind of unusual.
In the other counties, is the Public Defender's Office a contracted agency or are they part of that county government?
I don't really know. I 1636 BILL NO. 990023 don't really know because I think in most counties the public defender is appointed by the county commissioners and hires staff. I don't know whether they are county employees. It may vary because I think they're probably independent as to how they run it.
Well, any information you could get us on the experience either outside Pennsylvania in major urban cities like ours or what goes on in maybe the counties around us, to the extent that, I guess, if the goal here is to create a closer relationship, deal with issues of residency, issues of pension, and if you are totally or virtually totally funded by the city government and are almost like public employees and if you want to be paid at least the same rate that the public employees are being paid and the whole parity issue and therefore you get residency as a component of it, any information that you might be able to gather on what goes on in other locales would certainly be helpful. As I was mentioning earlier, we've had some recent experience with some pension issues. Not that we're necessarily experts, but I think 1637 BILL NO. 990023 we've demonstrated some ability to try to come up with something that works and is rational. I recall last year's discussion about this. I was left with the impression that while it may not be a formal policy, you seem to have somewhat of an informal policy by way of your interviewing that you really do try to encourage, not only the hiring of people who are already residents, but if a person is not, you do try to encourage them to move into the city.
Probably the two largest public defender municipal areas are New York and Chicago. I'll get what information I can on that and through the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. I'll try to get more general information about what's going on in the country. I'm actually meeting -- going to be in a meeting Thursday and Friday in Washington and I'll see a lot of these folks to see what I can find out.
If there are other East Coast, again, relatively large cities, whether 1638 BILL NO. 990023 it's Boston, Atlanta, anything that might be going on in New Jersey and some of those jurisdictions, any of that information would be helpful in this larger effort to not only try to help you, but if there is going to be give and take, if we're doing certain things and then you're going to be required to do other things, then we need, I think, to know what's going on in the larger universe around us.
I just want to state that I do support Councilman DiCicco's suggestion to work with PIC to find appropriate referrals for employment through that agency. I have a couple questions. The first one is, what is the Center City Community Court? 1639 BILL NO. 990023
Well, it doesn't exist yet. It's in the talking stages. As I understand it, it's to be a model on Manhattan's Community Court where those crimes that are denominated as quality of life crimes, blocking the highway, prostitution, disorderly conduct, summary and misdemeanor offenses would be dealt with through a community court which would provide, in addition to disposing of the criminal case, it would provide the social services that are required and require community service of that person and also provide the person services needed in terms of housing, addiction, employment, that it would kind attempt to front-load the services that the chronic people on the street, the chronically homeless and others, require to try to get them out of that life-style and into a more productive life-style. Discussions have been going on for about year with the Center City District and all the players, District Attorney, Defender, and others to try to set it up.
If you don't mind, 1640 BILL NO. 990023 I've been working on this project with members of the District Attorney's Office, the Administration, and Senator Fumo's office for some grant money. In fact, today at 2:30 I'm having a meeting with Paul Levy of Center City Special Services District and others to talk about it. It's an ongoing process. We have not yet come to any finalization. It's a conceptual thing. To date, to the extent that we have at least agreed on the concept, we have community involvement, we have participation from the District Attorney's Office and the courts, but we have not yet been able to put this package together. We're working on it. At such time when the recommendations will be coming out of this committee for finalization and implementation, I will probably have a briefing with Council or a meeting with the Councilmembers who are interested in this pilot community court program.
Well, does Center City denote that that's the only geographic area that will be served by this court or would people city-wide benefit?
Initially, it 1641 BILL NO. 990023 would probably only be the Center City area because that's primarily where some of the issues that Ms. Greenlee spoke to, quality of life issues are more prevalent in the Center City area. Again, it would be a pilot. If it works in Center City, our hope is that we can do this throughout the city by councilmanic district or whatever; I'm not sure of that. But we have to start somewhere. There's a cost involved, and those are the issues that we have been discussing for the better part of a year now. Again, I will bring everyone up to date at some point when I think we're about ready to get this thing up and running. Thank you.
One other question. Have you had discussions or any thoughts regarding how Welfare Reform will impact your Child Advocacy Unit? Do you believe there will be an impact?
Well, the Child Advocacy Unit has ongoing discussions and trainings about it. But I don't have anything specific that I can tell that I've been involved in.
Maybe we can -- 1642 BILL NO. 990023 give me somebody I can call. I'd like to call somebody and talk about that.
Only child advocacy issues because I have some specific questions.
Michael Lewis is a Director of Social Service. And the Legal Chief is Bill Norvell, N-O-R-V-E-L-L. Either one would be happy to talk to you about it. Michael's probably more up on the Welfare aspects of it since he heads a very large social service unit.
Thank you. I don't have any further questions, Madam President.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You said you had an increased caseload?
Can you detail what type of activity the increased caseload represents? 1643 BILL NO. 990023
Most of the increased caseload is in the criminal area, Councilman. There's been a percent increase in arrests over 5 the last year, the majority of them in the area of 6 drugs, misdemeanor drug offenses. As I mentioned 7 earlier, the biggest increase has been in the 8 arrests of multiple buyers in various transactions, 9 as many as five or more, as many as five people who 10 are buying drugs being arrested. 11 In the old days, there was a seller and 12 a buyer. The seller was usually arrested. The 13 police didn't usually bother to arrest the buyer. 14 But now, all buyers and multiple buyers are being 15 arrested on transactions. So that's probably the 16 biggest increase in terms of cases. 17
Can you tell me what 18 happens when you arrest the multiple buyers? You 19 arrest the buyer; I would imagine the buyer also 20 comes in as a misdemeanor drug offense. What does 21 that mean in terms of what it represents, what kind 22 of threat it represents to the person that is 23 arrested and so on? And what does the person face, 24 what type of penalty? 25
What type of penalty? 1644 BILL NO. 990023 Maybe I can defer to Mr. Cunningham, if you don't mind. He's a little closer to the action than I am.
I think when you're talking about the penalty that the person can be facing, if it's a misdemeanor, depends on the gradation of the misdemeanor.
I'm sorry. Charles Cunningham. I should identify myself. Charles Cunningham, First Assistant Defender. It's going to depend upon the particular misdemeanor. It's going to depend upon the gradation. It's going to depend upon the person's background, whether or not the person has any prior history. Therefore, if the person has a prior history, he may in fact be looking at a jail time even though it's a misdemeanor offense. On the other hand, if it's his first offense, he may be looking at probation and sometimes even a fine. More than likely, he's going to be looking at probation or she's going to be looking at probation.
What's the usual time an attorney spends on each one of these cases? And 1645 BILL NO. 990023 what's the usual time spent by the individual that is arrested and incarcerated?
I'm not quite sure I understand your question. You asked how much time the individual attorney spends on a particular case?
I mean, it's an increased caseload. I want to know what amount of time is being dedicated by the individual attorney because of the caseload and whether he's able to attend to his cases in a timely manner. Or is this causing for the asking of postponement of cases and continuances down the line? Does this lead to a creation of a backlog between the District Attorney's Office and the Public Defender's Office and the judicial system? Is this increase in misdemeanor arrests leading to individuals, who should be released almost on their own recognizance immediately, spending more time in jail and thereby taking up room that should be taken up by someone that may be a more hardened criminal?
Well, let me just say this. You have an increase in arrests. There are a number of people who are in custody now that would not have been custody at an earlier time. And I'm 1646 BILL NO. 990023 talking about at a time when Judge Shapiro was overseeing the prison system. Part of the problem, I think, is sometimes the commissioners who are at the preliminary arraignment are not following some of the guidelines that have been set and they are in fact incarcerating people that might normally and should be considered for release on their own recognizance. The number of arrests, obviously, is going to increase the number of people that are going to be held in custody, and the number of arrests are going to increase the number of cases, and the number of cases is going to, in fact, result in a backlog of cases. It also produces problems because one of the biggest problems that we have is the fact that before we can go to trial on matters, we have to get the discovery from the District Attorney's Office. They in turn have to get the discovery from the police. And then there's a great deal of problem getting the discovery, which in turn results in a number of cases being continued because the Commonwealth has not supplied discovery. 1647 BILL NO. 990023
And you're doing this with the same amount of attorneys and the same budget as you had in previous years?
We have had some increase in our staff size. But let me say this, the increase that we're having in our staff size is an increase that has resulted from the substantial increases in the number of arrests that have occurred. And I think, as Ms. Greenlee has stated earlier, we are right now capable of handling this increase. But if the volume does continue to increase, we will find ourselves in a situation where we have to bring on additional attorneys because the lists are continuing to grow, not only in our preliminary hearings which are preliminary hearings for felony cases, but also our misdemeanor cases. I mean, the bottom line is if you have five buyers from one arrest, and previously in the same type of circumstances you might have gotten one or two, you obviously have three additional defendants that now have to be represented. And that, obviously, is going to result in an increase in volume for everybody, including our staff. You asked about our preparation time. 1648 BILL NO. 990023 Our attorneys do their very best to prepare their cases and to spend as much time on each and every case that they can because they take every client to be a client that needs their very best, but it does cut down on their time. We also would like to have a situation where we have an opportunity to have a few more low level supervisors so that they can get into these courtrooms and observe our younger attorneys when they're at their least experienced state, so to speak.
I want to get a very clear answer. Are people that should be released spending more time incarcerated because of these problems that you're having, therefore, creating an obtainable prison population and people occupying cells that they should not be? And is the amount of arrests and trial dates being prolonged and extended because of the amount of arrests that are happening?
Because justice delayed is justice denied. In terms of the diversity question of 1649 BILL NO. 990023 the staffing of the PD, I've asked you this before and I've asked this of the District Attorney; what are the professional level attorneys, paralegals, and so on in terms of Latino, Asian-Americans, females that are currently employed by the Public Defender's Office?
We have the latest figures here, Councilman. We haven't distributed them, but we do have them because we thought they would be of interest to you. In terms of our staffing, overall total staff is 448 right now. If you want, we'll just give you a copy.
Attorneys, just about 198. Twenty-eight percent of our attorneys are minority, which is the lowest percentage on our staff is attorneys.
I don't have the breakdown for attorneys in terms of -- I have a breakdown for professional staff which includes 1650 BILL NO. 990023 attorneys, social workers, and investigators in terms of breakdown. Professional staff totally is 60 percent white, 28 percent African-American, 5 percent Hispanic, and percent Asian. That's a breakdown of professional staff.
And if you can break down the attorney levels and so on down the line, I would appreciate that.
You're welcome. Any other questions of Ms. Greenlee? Thank you very much.
The District Attorney's Office is next to testify. Good morning.
Good morning, President Verna. First, my hardiest congratulations upon your attaining the presidency of the City Council, and I wish for you a long and successful tenure.
My name is Lynne Abraham. I'm the District Attorney of Philadelphia. Joining me to my right are George Mosee, my Deputy for Narcotics, and Al Toczydlowski who will spell his own, please, name for the record, who is the Deputy for Administration.
I'm appreciative of the opportunity to address City Council, and I would first like to -- Mr. Toczydlowski will provide your