Well, actually, the Register of Wills is a somewhat different animal from the other row offices in that it's my understanding that it would take the State Legislature to remove that function as a row office. Other than that, I guess there is no real bar. It has happened. In many counties the sheriffs are under the jurisdiction of the courts.
So the answer is basically none. I mean, if you decided that that Sheriff's Department was a police function, court function, at some point you could decide that?
Well, remember, this was the Supreme Court, not me.
I mean, the "you" of your branch of government. You could decide that?
You can't remove the row offices, but to the extent that things are court functions, 124 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that's probably true, that the Supreme Court could order that.
So at some point we could see the Sheriff or the others in this same capacity. And that's a legal matter, but I just want to -- I was curious about it, as to the will of a body to take over the functions of another, and I just was concerned about that. And Deputy Mayor Gillison mentioned that the Mayor gave his word that he would offer all protections. Let's say, God forbid, something happens to the Mayor and you become Mayor and you decide that you don't want to honor what the last Mayor said. What protections would they have?
I think if you were to do a survey, you would find that the employees who work for the First Judicial District, by and large, are experiencing a lot more job satisfaction than the folks who have been 125 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. working for the Clerk of Quarter Sessions.
I don't doubt that, but my question specifically was, if the winds of change happened and you decided, the Mayor said that and it's not in writing anywhere and it wasn't under oath and he changes his mind, what protections do they have? Because we're talking about 100 employees. We're talking about many of them are single parents. We're talking about not the richest salaries in the world, but they make a world of difference to those families. So my question is -- you all are nice people. I know all of you, and I can say that safely, but suppose three other actors were sitting there. What protections would they have? DEPUTY
If I may, Councilman. Everett Gillison, Deputy Mayor. We have looked at the 126 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. protections, and Civil Service protection basically would extend as long as there was a -- to the individual as long as there was a Clerk of Quarter Sessions. That's why the Mayor wants to honor those that choose to stay Civil Service with keeping their legal protections if they choose not to go. However, if the Clerk of Quarter Sessions is -- and this is where the City Council has the role to play. We are bringing and will be bringing an ordinance that will basically ask that that office go the way of most in the United States, go the way of the dinosaur and go away, what we are trying to do is modernize and to go forward. By doing that, we will need to look at the 114 positions and make sure that these people are -- basically they continue to be made whole, as best as we can.
I do not doubt your intentions. I'm going to repeat, I think all of you are character 127 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. people. I really -- I don't say it if I don't mean it, and I'm saying it. But what happens next administration if there aren't three character individuals sitting there? What protections will they have? DEPUTY
It's just the law that protects them. It's their union contract that protects them.
So it's their union contract, but they're not Civil Service? DEPUTY
Well, that's correct. Those that go over there, that will be transferred over, will no longer be Civil Service. That does not exist -- the Civil Service is only a function of the executive, which is why this arrangement that you see here is so unique. You have the judiciary and the executive working together towards a particular end, and we will need the permission of Council to complete the job. 128 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
So within that provision of Council, is there any provisions that we can put in to save -- listen, I'm all for efficiencies, but a lot of these people live in my district.
We have a written set of policies and procedures dealing with all those issues like employee discipline and termination and the like. We do not just throw thunderbolts down from the sky. DEPUTY
And, Councilman, also always remember that we have been working with the same union, because they're in the same union. They're represented by the same persons, both where they are now and where they will be. So there's no difference there. And the reason why I've been trying to speak to the fear of individuals is to make sure that they understand that the sky is not dropping. The First Judicial District is not the place where all the sudden the pit is opening up and they're 129 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. just being worked, worked and worked to death, that rather we are being supportive of them in their advocation as they are getting additional training and going forward. And I think that what the Supreme Court's order allows us to do is to modernize and to go forward, and for this Administration it is important for us to make sure that we allay their fears wherever possible. But people still have to get up and go to work, and they're going to be able to get up, go to work and get to do their job that they've been doing, and doing as well as they have been able to do it, they've been doing very well, and we're supporting them as they make this transition. And I think that the Supreme Court order kind of pre-stages the fact that I think that you could see the writing on the wall, that the Supreme Court is not just looking at Philadelphia as the first and only, but rather it looks like -- and I don't know whether Justice Castille is going to 130 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. continue, but it looks like from the outside that all of this is going to happen across the State. So we're just part and parcel of modernizing the courts across the board, and we're trying to be as cooperative as possible.
Again, and I'm going to say it the third time, I know you're character people. When it comes to waylaying fears, my analogy would be the sheep's fears are waylaid on their way to becoming lamb chops by other people, not necessarily the farmer, but the butcher down the road. And so what I as the good shepherd try to be is to make sure that they are protected to every degree that we can within the roles that we play. And so when I ask these questions, it is never to impugn the character of the people at the head of this table, but only to make sure that that protection extends beyond the three people there but into perpetuity. DEPUTY
Thank you very much. I'll call on Councilwoman Miller before I ask my question.
Most of my questions have actually been asked by other members, but I do want to echo the concerns of employee protection. Now, I guess I would consider them at-will employees? DEPUTY
Well, 132 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. except that they do have a union.
They have a union, absolutely, but the answer I think generally would be yes.
Because most at-will employees have sponsors, and I think -- DEPUTY
-- sometimes they think the sponsor can do a whole lot more than the sponsor can actually do. But, yeah, they do have sponsors. For example, I may have -- there may be people working at one of the other exempt agencies that maybe got a referral from an elected official, ward leader, et cetera. Then they're considered their sponsor. Well, there's no point in asking the rest of my question, because I had to explain sponsors, but anyway, 133 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that's one way we could handle some of this. I know when -- I used to work for Representative David Richardson, Jr., and when he died, a lot of the people that he had referred for employment at various agencies, I became their sponsor just because I used to work for him. So that's one way, but I was also worried too, a little concerned about the protection, but then earlier I did hear you state that these employees will have a union. So how many did you say wanted to stay and become Civil Service? DEPUTY
We have not -- I don't know as I sit here right now. I don't know what the number is. I am hoping and I know that through the efforts of Mr. Evers to my left, that I am prayerful that it will be 100 percent. What my challenge will be is that 134 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. depending on who says that they don't want to go, then I have my work cut out for me. I do not anticipate that it will be many. I have heard initially that there was a large number, but as I have worked over the last four weeks and as Mr. Evers has done yeoman's work to make sure that people understand that this is not a Draconian move, this is basically just modernizing an office and we need them. People who know how to do the job, we need them. We don't want them walking away. I know Mr. Evers does not want people who know how to do the job walking away at a time when they critically are in need. So we're looking at a way of making sure that they realize how much they are needed, and provide whatever assurances they need going forward.
Councilwoman, if I could just expand on 135 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. that a little bit. President Judge Dembe speaking. You can't get around the fact that on any given day we've got 73 courtrooms running. We've got to have bodies in those courtrooms, and you have to have some spares, because people get sick, people go on vacation, people are in training. You just can't run the operation without these people. So they are vital to all of us.
Yes. I know that they're a very important part of the operation of this office. Everett, could you explain why you keep using the term "modernizing"? What does that mean, other than I read that the equipment over at Family Court, 1801 Vine, is -- but when you talk about modernizing, I immediately think about equipment, supplies. DEPUTY
I can allow Judge Dembe to talk about it, but I have a specific thing in mind that we've 136 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. been dealing with for a while. The Clerk's Office has been in need of update of just their software.
Councilwoman, we would like to see the Clerk's operation on the criminal side within a couple of years beginning to win the kinds of national awards for modernization that we've won on the civil side. Every time we create a piece of paper, we spend a fortune, because first -- well, when I came on as President Judge, we were spending $600,000 on toner for copiers and printers. And so every time you create a piece of paper and somebody has to put it in a file and somebody has to move it and then somebody has to move the file 22 someplace else, all those things should all be done electronically, so that we're not creating and moving pieces of paper, so we're not trying to read each other's 137 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. handwriting, so that we're not waiting for the mails. Our staff created an electronic system for sending out court notices and judges' orders on the civil side, and in just a few months, we saved $90,000 in postage. So that's what we mean, using technology to save cash.
Okay. All right. I thought that's what you meant, but I didn't want to make an assumption, because when you're talking about moving the staff and then that's connected with modernizing, I'm like, Well, what are they going to be doing. But anyway, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. I heard what you said, that they will still be represented by the 138 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. same union, which we respect, and certainly we ask if they will be given the same respect as you do under Civil Service when it comes to promotions and other issues that affect employees.
Absolutely. Some people will get an automatic raise just by moving over to the FJD, and for everybody else, we will treat them as we've treated the staff on the civil side. We actively encourage people to take up training opportunities so that they can make themselves eligible for promotion.
And will the union be given the same respect as if they were Civil Service employees in terms of their rights and their ability to be union representatives?
All right. Number three, will you maintain 139 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. contact with the President so that we are aware -- this has not happened before in our city -- so that we're aware of every step, what happens, what happens with each employee, no matter where they are?
All right. And my last issue is just an old one that I mention with President Judge Dembe, and, that is, all winter long -- in fact, Tom Massaro brought the issue to us. We saw these people lined up at Broad and Arch all the way out in the street in the snow and wheelchairs and such. Summer will come and then they'll be out in the heat, and we're asking if -- I know I asked the Judge so much when I saw her, one time she just answered, because I've asked this question so much. But people who were in line for Community Court and other court issues near McDonald's there at Broad and 140 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. Arch had to line up all the way out in the street through the snow, through the rain, through no matter what the elements are, and the request has been for a long time to try to find some way for people to be inside. Could you respond to that, and if you're not prepared today, do a written response to the Chair?
I can give you a more detailed written response, but after months and months of banging our head against the wall dealing with a very uncooperative landlord and not getting too far, what we have done, as I understand it, is, we have changed the scheduling of people who come to Community Court so you don't have the large numbers at one time. In other words, I guess we're spreading them out across the day so that you don't have people needing to wait outside so long. It's not perhaps the perfect solution, but it seemed to be the best we 141 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. could come up with given the circumstances of operating in a building that we don't own.
All right. That's always something we can deal with. Everybody wants -- and we do have other City buildings around, that people who come to Community Court will go any place. So certainly we support making it as easy as possible for folks to get through the system, and maybe we need to look at not renting from somebody who is not user friendly.
Would you keep in touch with Council and provide a letter to the Chair and we will know just what's going on and be responsive?
Thank you, Madam Chair. 142 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
Thank you. Just for the record, going back to Councilman Jones' question, what codifies this action? Where in the record will it show what happened, what took place, what should take place, what will take place? Where do we put that?
There are two items in writing right now. One, of course, is the Chief Justice's order absorbing the functions, and the second was my order appointing Mr. Evers to manage the whole affair. As to the other elements, proposed ordinances, proposed Civil Service things, transfer ordinances, the City Solicitor's Office and the lawyer for the courts are working out the final details. It all seems to be going pretty well, but you know what happens when you put four lawyers in a room, they --
If it's 143 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. only four, it's good.
It's better than ten, but four can be just as bad. Let me ask you another question just for the record. What happens if Council doesn't pass the ordinance?
Well, the courts will, of course, since we've been given this responsibility by Chief, will do the best we can. I have to tell you that trying to accurately record what happens in the courtroom is going to have to take priority over managing the monies, and that makes me very unhappy, because it's not going well now and I would hate to be in a position of pulling more resources away from that. We would do the best we can, but at some point we would probably have to start terminating employees. You know what our budget is for the FJD. You know how many employees that supports. It would put us in the position of choosing between clerks and 144 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. probation officers. DEPUTY
In other words, Councilwoman, the idea that the Supreme Court order would have to end up being effectuated by the court itself would mean that the Administration would be in the untenable position of having to provide -- we would have 114 people that would basically -- we would be paying for and they would technically have nothing to do. That would put us in a very awkward position. I'm sure that there will be additional time to discuss this when we talk about the ordinance and our information as we go forward. However, I'm sure the court would have to then figure out how it would end up doing the work within the budget that is currently being proposed for the court. And in addition, you would have the situation that you would have an elected official that would be in place without any responsibilities. 145 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. So the reason why we're working so hard and so well together is because we have, both the Administration and the courts, basically respecting one another, and we have also been very respectful of Council's role, which is why we've tried to go to each and as many members of Council to appraise them of what's going on as it is happening. And then as we then put forward our suggestions from the Administration, we will be able to be in consult with -- I'm sure leadership and the Mayor will be in touch with both you, the Council President and everyone else so that everyone understands what the positives and negatives would be so that Council would have an informed choice to make going forward.
Again, for the record, what is, do you know, the history of the Clerk of Quarter Session and is it a function of the Charter or just a function of the county, a county role? 146 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc.
And I guess the other part to that, so I won't have to come back, I guess based on the jurisdiction, how does the Supreme Court have sway over where that office belongs?
The Home Rule Charter gives City Council the power to direct what will be and to change the form of or abolishment of the office itself. There's nothing in there that speaks really to the functions of the office as a function of the Home Rule Charter. That is one of those functions that comes to us from, I think, midieval French law into English law and was brought over with the colonists and eventually made a part of State government on a county level. It is -- and it's worked that way in most states and commonwealths. It is a court function more and more. In most states it's one more department within court 147 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. operations. So the functions itself which are court functions are the only things that the Chief Justice addressed in his order. DEPUTY
If I may just add, the way that we have come to this is that when you recognize that Council has the role of determining the structure of government via the Home Rule Charter, the functions of the court are still the functions of the court. Back in, I think, our historical review of when this happened, they ended up -- the court pretty much deeded the right because of the historical nature of the office. They allowed the functions that are core court functions to be done by an elected official. And then it was just brought into the functions during the 1950s when the Home Rule Charter was put forward. When we were looking at the analysis of how to respond to the court's proposed order, one of the things that we 148 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. did come to -- and the Law Department was part and parcel of advising me as representative of the Mayor -- what would happen if we said no, and we actually thought through the blow-back and see exactly what was going on. The bottom line, though, is that when you put your eye on the side of looking at the modernization of all functions of government, we felt that this is one of those functions that needed to be both modernized and put where all other states and all other experience in courts have left us, which is this is a core court function. The court should be responsible. The court should actually have the power to do the things that it needs to do to function in an efficient way. This is one of those anachronisms that need to go away, quite frankly. And we think that we will be able to protect everyone, including respecting the rights of the court, respecting the rights of Council and also 149 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. respecting the rights of the Mayor when looking at how we have to deal with the government, which is why we haven't just rushed in here and said, Please do something, but we've been very thoughtful in our approach and respectful of all functions of government as we proceed down this road. It is not something we're just doing willy-nilly, but rather something that we are taking our time to make sure we get it done right, so we don't get to the ultimate question hopefully that you have posed us. We have thought through the answer. We'll be ready to talk about it at the appropriate time, but I am quite hopeful that we will never have to get to that particular matter in reality.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. 150 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. President Judge Dembe, I admit this question isn't directly related to the Clerk, but a Councilmember asked me to relay this, because I don't think it was asked when you were here before. Since you're here, we'll ask it. Mediation costs, private attorneys, is there -- do private attorneys do mediation through the court?
I've been out of town. I just got back late last night, so I only found out about this one. There are a couple areas where we do pay people. We pay arbitrators who come in and hear the smaller civil cases. I think they get $200 a day. We have been moving toward getting law clerks and volunteer attorneys to handle that, and the bill for that has gone way down. There are -- we use judges pro tem, who are experienced lawyers, who come in and without charge for several hours will try to resolve a civil matter. 151 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. After a certain number of hours, I believe they are, with the agreement of the parties, able to charge them on an hourly basis, and it's just a way of keeping it from getting way out of control. And, of course, there are -- in many instances people can choose if they don't wish to take their dispute through the civil court system, they can choose to use a private arbitration or mediation service like Carasbox (ph) or something like that and pay for it.
Right. That has become -- that was very popular at one point. It kind of rises and falls. As cases in the Philadelphia civil system began moving with great speed and efficiency, the impetus to use those services declined somewhat. I'll be willing to bet that you'll find that they're booming in places like Montgomery County where the civil case sort of 152 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. enters a Bermuda Triangle once filed.
Okay. And just finally, if there was a way you could or someone for you could just give a breakdown on the cost --
-- and get it through the Council President, we'd appreciate it.
And I apologize. I know that wasn't directly to the Clerk, but it's a question that came up.
There 153 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. being none, we thank you so much for your testimony.
Is there anyone else here to testify? Would you please come forward, please. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Madam Chair, respectable leaders of City Council, my name is Bobby Davis. I'm the Vice-President of District Council 33 and the President of Local 696, and I sit with Lillian Randolph, who is the Business Agent of Local 696. It was not our intention to testify today, but there was a couple of things that was mentioned, and we just felt as though we just need to make sure it becomes a matter of record. 154 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. We are working as diligently as possible to try to reserve the jobs of those 106 people that was talked about here today to assure that they maintain their benefits and their level of employment with the City of Philadelphia, as well as pay and pension and all the benefits that goes with that package. The concern that I have is that some of these promises that are being made need to be cautioned as to how they are being presented to these employees. They are being told and many employees are now looking at taking the package in which the City is presenting, and I think that they're presenting that in a false sense of security. You have to understand something. These are some special individuals in terms of their pay scale. They are pay range 14, which is the highest paid clerks in the City of Philadelphia. There are no other positions in the City of Philadelphia that will allow them to maintain that 155 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. level of employment with the City of Philadelphia without protecting that in the forefront of these discussions that are going on. And when people come to those employees and make it seem like it's going to be an easy task for them to get employment outside the First Judicial system, that is not going to be something that is going to be done, and we just want to make sure that City Council understands that. And we also would like to let the City officials that are going out informing these members, our members, the employees of the City of Philadelphia, that there are no pay range 14 jobs that are going to be able to accommodate about 73 of those people, and if you're making them feel as though that that can happen, then I just felt as though I needed to come up here and explain that to City Council, that it won't be able to be done. The highest clerical position in the City of Philadelphia is a pay 156 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. range 11, and in order for you to be able to be something else, you would have to be qualified for those positions. So unless the City is willing to change some additional City Charter laws and regulations, then we're giving these people false hope, and I think we should do a better job in letting them know the truth, that if you decide -- because what we're doing in Local 696 is trying to encourage those employees to stay put. We're going to do everything that we possibly can to work along with the First Judicial to maintain all benefits. And we're not even ruling out Civil Service at this time. We believe that if you're looking to do something different, then think outside the box. Just because you don't have Civil Service employees in your system at this present time doesn't mean you can't have them. It just means that there have to be some language that is incorporated that even if you don't call them Civil Service employees within 157 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. the titles in which they're going to hold, do not let them lose the Civil Service respect that they have gained over the years. So we just want to make sure that there is proper language in all aspects of this as we move forward with this, and I just thought that as leader of that union, Local 696, I needed to go on record and say that.
We appreciate those comments. Are you working with the judicial system as well as Mr. Gillison and have you had this conversation with both parties?
Well, I'm just finding out about the promise that was made in terms of promising them positions outside the City. I believe they're going to do everything they can to keep that promise. However, they're not telling them the full extent of it. The full extent of that is that you are probably not going to be able to maintain 158 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. your status as a pay range 14, because there are no jobs in the City of Philadelphia that will pay that range.
So if they remain with the judicial system, they would maintain that range?
That's what I'm going to encourage them to do. And everything that we've talked to the First Judicial management core is that they maintain that, and we think that we could pull that off, yes.
Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We appreciate it. Councilwoman Sanchez. Just a second.
For the record, what is the difference between the 11 and the 14 in terms of pay?
And/or 159 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. responsibility, I would imagine.
We're talking about at least maybe anywhere between $4,000 to $7,000.
Okay. I just wanted that for the record. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify? (No response.)
We certainly encourage all parties to get together so that we're very clear on what is being said and what is being promised and that all parties are on the same page. There being no further testimony, this Council is adjourned until today at 4:00 p.m. at the Mt. Airy Church of God in Christ at Ogontz and Stenton Avenue for a public hearing. Thank you very much. 160 4/27/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100115, etc. (Committee of the Whole adjourned at 1:25 p.m.) - - - 161 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on April 27, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)