Why have the meeting Friday? Why not just have it Monday or Tuesday?
I think we can go ahead Friday, and I think that we go ahead on Friday, as we had planned. And I will keep in contact during the meeting, if necessary, so that we can do that. I don't think there will be or needs to be any communication problem. 217 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228
Is it your understanding, Mr. Kromer, as well as Jeff's or Pete Matthews', that there are proposed give-backs that no other City employees in other unions have been asked to deal with or to consider?
Absolutely, absolutely. Nobody in District Council 33, to my knowledge, had to revise their promotion language, nobody had to give back on their layoff language, nobody had to give back on their retiree health benefits, and nobody had to give back on the provision of temporary -- or the ability to appoint temporary people outside the bargaining unit. Those are the four issues that I understand that OHCD still has on the table, the four non-economic issues. They may be the only four issues. But those things -- nobody else in District Council 33 had to give back those items. And that's what we're saying, it is not fair to 218 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 request or to demand and to hold, as Councilman Cohen said, the 3 percent -- hold these people hostage for the 3 percent to give back, when nobody else was even asked to give back in District Council 33. It's not fair. (Applause.)
The Local 1971 OHCD contract is substantially different from the D.C. 33, for whatever reason, and I'm sure we would agree or disagree on the use of the term "give-back." But our position has been, from the start, we need to negotiate some changes in contract language, and that's all that we're taking about now.
I'm certain that I speak for myself, and I know that the Chair and other members of the committee, when I say that that we are willing to play any part that we can in being helpful. It's very frustrating and disparaging that these things go on so long, without progress. I was saying yesterday that it reminds 219 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 me of the SEPTA strike. Here we're still working under old contracts, and it's very difficult for people to plan when they don't know what tomorrow brings. So, certainly, we want to be available in any way we can and to be helpful in any way that you deem proper to help expedite things. So, you know, we kind of feel guilty that here we're all in the City, and we haven't been able to make a difference thus far. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Kromer, just a couple quick questions. Is it true that in the Year budget, 19 there was a 3 percent wage increase that was 20 approved as a part of the Year 23 Plan? 21
And what is the reason that the approved and, I assume, allocated and authorized funds were not given to the 220 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 employees?
Let me be clear, Councilman. We proposed, and Council authorized funding for developers in the Year Plan also. 6 Some of that funding has not been released to 7 developers. 8 And the same principle is at work here. 9 It's the principle -- let me -- 10
Mr. Kromer, I don't 11 want to talk about developers, I don't care about 12 developers. 13 (Applause.) 14
So the same 15 principle doesn't apply to developers that applies 16 to our public employees. Do not go there. We 17 want to talk about the employees. 18 (Applause.) 19
Why wasn't the 20 approved, authorized, allocated funds given to the 21 employees? 22
The raise was not 23 implemented because we did not have a signed contract.
Well, let me ask 221 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 this question: Are the people getting paid?
We have a signed existing contract which -- and we're working under those terms, but we do not have a new contract.
So your position is that even though raise dollars have been approved, allocated, and authorized, and even though the people are on the payroll today, and whenever their pay periods are, whether it was last week or this coming Friday or whatever, since you don't have a new contract, you will not authorize the payment of the funds? Is that your position?
And we did not propose anything different to Council in Year 23.
So -- I mean that's -- I guess that's the leverage that you try to hold over them in terms of dealing with the contract; that unless you agree to a contract, you 222 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 don't get your raise? I mean, is that the way this goes?
That is my understanding of the term "negotiation." And we are negotiating a fair contract for both parties.
But we didn't have a negotiation about the 3 percent when we went over the Year 23 Plan, right? You didn't have that negotiated at --
All right. So when you came in in Year and said, We plan to have a 15 3 percent raise, do you recall that your testimony 16 was that it was subject to a new signed contract? 17 Is that your testimony? 18
I don't recall any 19 discussions of that whatsoever. 20 But it has always been our position 21 that we negotiate a contract and we execute a 22 contract. And that is our intent now. 23
Well, my last question is-- I mean, all of this obviously comes up because we're now at Year 24, and you have to 223 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 make an application to HUD for the next round of funding. When is the application due?
We intend to submit it next month, subject to City Council's approval.
Well, there's no 10 deadline. But the sooner it gets submitted, the sooner we can receive the funding and move the program ahead.
And I may have missed some of the earlier discussion when I was in the hallway. There's a meeting coming up on May 8th? This is the much-discussed mediation session?
Okay. And did I hear you make a statement earlier that you thought that things were going to be concluded soon?
I distributed a summary of the proposed approach, which OHCD will present at that session, which, I feel, would resolve four 224 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 very significant issues and could resolve them on that day.
All right. Madame Chair, unfortunately, I'm going to have to go back down the hall to finish another piece of business, and I'm not sure whether this discussion is going to go back and forth. I have to say, though, that at the moment, having gotten a lot of information about this and having talked to a lot of people, I haven't necessarily heard anything from the OHCD side that's given me any greater comfort, and I'm not necessarily sure that we're exactly in a position to deal with the Year Program and 16 budget, under these particular circumstances. 17 (Applause.) 18
So -- I mean, I'm 19 sure that other members have other questions. I 20 am not going to leave a vote, and I will only be 21 down the hall, and I'm not sure where this 22 ultimately ends up. 23 But I think we need to reconsider what 24 we've been asked to do today and what the implications are of all that, given the request 225 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 for a suspension of the rules, advertising issues, Council sessions being scheduled, not being scheduled. And now we learn of a no-deadline situation on this particular application. I'd like to see this issue resolved for both sides in a fair and equitable contract. I don't plan to be at the negotiating table, but I am uncomfortable, under these circumstances, taking an action that seems to place one side in a much more superior position than the other side. And I don't particularly appreciate if we did the Year and there were apparently some 14 strings attached that we were not told about. I 15 don't like that. 16 (Applause.) 17
So having possibly 18 created a little further confusion, knowing this 19 will not conclude in the next few minutes, I'm 20 going to excuse myself. I shall return. 21 (Applause.). 22
What I hear from Mr. Kromer is that he hopes that Friday morning will 226 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 be the beginning of another 17-session mediation course, maybe even exceeding the sessions and 4 on to 19 or 20. 5 I don't -- and that's not the direction 6 this ought to take. And item 1 on salary 7 increases should not be on the agenda. There is 8 enough to negotiate on that. That negotiation was 9 done in connection with the Citywide contract in 10 which it was agreed that all City workers, without 11 distinction, were to get that 3 percent increase. 12 And I don't understand -- I just can't understand 13 why it appears as No. 1 on the negotiation. 14 In other words, Madame Chair, I'm 15 charging that OHCD -- and I didn't want to say 16 that -- in my judgment, is not negotiating in good 17 faith. (Applause.)
Is somebody going to respond? As I said, I think we're getting into negotiating a contract, and that's not our job or our responsibility.
Well, Madame Chair, I have to disagree. When an agency of the City government takes something that's already been 227 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 negotiated and agreed upon --
-- and then uses that against them, I say that's wrong.
I don't think Mr. Kromer said that that was negotiated. And I hate to tell you, Councilman, but I don't think that people in City Council got the bonus or the 3 percent. So, Mr. Kromer, will you please answer? We're going to conclude this. I think -- who's going to answer the comments made by Councilman Cohen?
I intend to and would like, with the support of Jeff Brown and Local 1971, to resolve these four substantive issues on Friday. I'm sure they will be characterized in different ways, but -- and there may be recommendations for changes that will be discussed 228 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 on Friday. But if we can resolve them, then we'll be well on our way to --
Now, Mr. Kromer, if they're not resolved by Friday, are you willing to meet with them one day next week to work toward the end this entire issue?
I'll do whatever is needed to resolve this, but to go through a constructive negotiation between both parties.
Can I make a closing statement? You know, I listened really intently, and you have to understand, the clock is ticking here. Now, I'm -- maybe this is my personal opinion on this. But from what I understand, the City's working because of the union. I mean, all the P.R. that they put out about America's Mayor and how everything's going with the City, and you know, it did it off the back of the workers, and we accept that. But the clock is clicking to the year 2000. And if this the kind of negotiations that we're going to expect in the year 2000, well, 229 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 they're really getting us prepared for it 'cause this is wrong, this is wrong. These people should have that money, there's no need for that. This is 34 members of a local which District City Council 33 strongly supports. And if goes past Friday the only way we can look at this is it's a threat to District Council 33 what's going to happen in the year 2000. And I could tell you, we are going to be absolutely prepared for that. And we want to send this message out to all the Councilpeople, all elected officials that -- you know, I stand with Jeff Brown, and I understand his position in not giving anything back because that is strongly my position going into the year 2000. And District Council 33, under no 19 circumstances, will give anything back. If they said we made this city, they got it off the workers' backs, well, we're going to accept that. And we're going to go into our future negotiations, as Jeff is doing right now, saying that we won't give anything back. And I stand fully behind Jeff with this. He's supposed to 230 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 have that, he negotiated strongly for it. And now -- now one issue that comes up, if they can't come to agreement on something that I normally wouldn't do, but Jeff seems to be comfortable with that, why don't they go to binding arbitration. He has absolutely no problem with that, why don't they go to binding arbitration and then let a mutual party decide. That should be the question in the back of everybody's minds. Whey doesn't management go along with that? And, Jeff, you're willing to do that, right?
So Jeff is willing to do that, so that should be -- why -- why won't they do that? What is the answer to that? Why won't you do that? Why won't you agree upon that, upon binding arbitration?
We've agreed to Local 1971's recommendation regarding the mediation process. And we think the process has yielded some constructive results, and can -- we'd like to see it through to a conclusion. And I think we can reach a conclusion on some substantive points 231 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 on Friday. I don't want to abandon that process which you have proposed and which we support.
I certainly commend all of you who are here for having this discussion. Certainly, Councilman Cohen and I were at an affair, I guess, maybe a week ago or two weeks ago, with Mr. Matthews, and he said the exact same things in terms of give-backs at his union hall. And so we understand that he is sincere and committed to this as well as Mr. Brown. And we're hopeful that we can, with Mr. Kromer, negotiate some kind of a settlement, to be as close to it as we can be, to help the party helping him to resolve this. It's really gone on far too long.
Councilwoman, I think we have all indicated our willingness to help in whatever way we can. And, again, I would say to Mr. Kromer, I know you're indicated that you cannot be at the 232 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 willing Friday. If there's not a conclusion to this is Friday, I would like your commitment that you will certainly personally meet with the mediator and whomever one day next week, because I think this has been going on for much too long, and it has to be resolved one way or another.
Because Mr. Kromer has had this position, with the precise words, for months. And he intends to keep it. Because what he wants is to be able to make all of the important decisions affecting their lives without union intervention. That's 233 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 what this is all about. (Applause.)
He's going to stall and stall and stall and making pretty and making nice while he holds their money in his pocket. And it's outrageous. And we should not be giving him any leeway whatever. He violated that union contract, a 3 percent increase was agreed upon. It is not on the negotiation table. What they're talking about -- you have the union which is saying, We're not giving back. And if they do, I can tell you, it will take a long time before they do. You have Mr. Kromer saying, Well, if we make progress, but what he means "If I frighten the union badly enough and scare them enough and threaten enough layoffs, maybe they'll come around and accept my point of view." And that's dirty union-busting. That's all it is. (Applause.)
And I don't think we ought to make it appear that we've arrived at any 234 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 kind of agreement -- we haven't. Because he hasn't said one thing that indicates that he's willing to recognize the rights of the union in this situation. If he had the slightest good faith, he'd immediately pay them off, then go into negotiations and let negotiating take place. (Applause.)
Our next witness is Lionel Drain. Is Lionel Drain still in the audience? (Lionel Drain comes forward.)
Excuse me, Mr. Drain. We're still trying to have a hearing. I would suggest that you leave quietly. Thank you. Mr. Drain, please identify yourself for 235 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Mr. Drain, you're going to have to pull that microphone closer to you, please.
Mr. Drain, just a minute, please. Please proceed. Thank you.
I'll start over. My name is Lionel Drain, L-I-O-N-E-L, D-R-A-I-N. I am a community developer in the Mantua section of Philadelphia. And I'm here on behalf of Mantua. There is a development that is in the process at 40th and Aspen Street, which we are interested in being the developer, or a partnership in developing that particular lot. We had just gotten information on that, and we need the Council's help -- we need the Council's help in order to be a CDC for that site.
Have you been in communication with the District Councilperson?
Yes, I have. Just 236 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 recently, yes. But we also have -- we also have just found that L&I has been going around in our community just recently in the past week, putting red tags on abandoned houses to be demolished. And we are also trying to start a new program where we will go right behind them and acquire these lots so that we can start the paperwork to have X-amount of houses built on those lots. Rather than have a lot sit for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years before we do anything, we want to start immediately on the lots in which the houses were sitting on.
I believe this is in Councilwoman Blackwell's district, and I know that if you work with her, she will do everything possible to form a partnership with you so that much of what you're talking about could be accomplished. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madame Chair. 237 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Lionel Drain is from the area in Mantua where Tim Spencer once lived. And what they're doing -- we have various organizations in Mantua, but he wants to be part of a CDC effort on new ventures that come in, one new one that's in question now. And that's what his interest is. And, certainly, we support him. He works with all the people down there, and he's kind of assumed this leadership mantle since we lost Tim Spencer and those who come after him, Charles Underhill and others. And we respect his leadership and certainly look forward to -- in fact, we invited him here today so that he could get on the record stating they want to be a new CDC in Mantua. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Drain, for coming in. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I believe that concludes our list of witnesses. We will just 238 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 wait for two of the members of the committee to return to the chambers so that we can go into the public meeting. There were other witness scheduled to testify. However, I believe, the hour got late and many of them had to leave. We will give the stenographer written testimony from a couple of the groups, namely -- who did we have?
Madame Chair, the Walnut Hill Community Development Corporation and Northwest Counseling Services, and the full testimony of Dr. Capkin.
All right. This concludes the public hearing on Bill No. 980228. We will now go into our public meeting - - -
Madame Chair, I move that Bill No. 980228 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. 239 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly move and seconded that Bill No. 980228 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; and further, that a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, the motion is carried. This concludes the public meeting of the Finance Committee. Thank you all very much. Oh, and, you know, Mr. Kromer, I just have to tell you, I remember years ago, as I'm sure my beloved colleague Councilman Cohen will remember, when we had people hanging from the rafters here during these hearings, and they would last perhaps three or four days. I want to commend you. Apparently, you have been out in the community, you have explained to area residents and community people what the budget was all about. And I think if they were 240 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 unhappy, I think we would have had people hanging from the rafters again. So I think you're to be commended. I think that you've done a great job in communicating with people regarding Year 7 budget, and I know it's a very difficult job and I 8 want to thank you for it. 9 I just can't believe it. This is the 10 first time in my memory that we've had so few 11 people come in to testify. 12
Madame Chair, I've 13 come to understand that all the people who used to 14 be in the rafters and came to protest are now 15 working. 16 (Laughter.) 17
So they have no 18 interest in coming to these hearings. 19
One comment. This is our last full fiscal year 241 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 funding during this Administration. I'm sure you'll hear a lot of speeches about what's been accomplished. But, really, there's no cabinet member or commissioner who owes more to Council than I do for your support. We've never, ever had a sustained community development approach up until now, because of your support. And that to me is why it's all the more important that we resolve this issue with the union, which is not fundamentally going to change the program. The people that you saw are committed, capable people whom I respect and who all of the exempt staff respect. And I meant what say I said -- I will see this through to a conclusion. We need to negotiate, but I understand the need to conclude this.
I also think, Mr. Kromer, that you're going to have to get personally involved in this. I think that's a must, and it's something that you should do.
And, Madame 242 COMM. ON FINANCE - BILL NO. 980228 Chairwoman, I agree with all that was said. Certainly, I talked to the some of my CDCs last evening, and they said they had been in communication with Mr. Kromer and they had worked out various issue. So I too am supportive of your statements and thank everyone from the department who works with us to try to get housing done. Thank you.
Thank you. (Adjourned at 2:25 p.m.) - - - 243 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, May 6, 1998. Were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BILL NO. 980228 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR