Group Moderators: Jean DiSabatino, Onaje Muid and Kayte Connelly

Group Overview:
This group was composed of 18 citizens and a variety of seemingly citified workers/onlookers filing in and out. One city rep was present for the duration. There was a broad spectrum of ages, maybe early 20s to 91; two-thirds females, mostly Caucasian with one African American. Of the six men in the group, two of them were in their 20s. One woman wore a piece of corrugated cardboard on a string around her neck with a sign about the homeless. We had one daughter who brought her 91-year-old mother because of a concern that they would close down her health center.

When I thanked them for coming at the end, the “mom” said that she wasn’t political and had never done anything like this before in her life. But she felt this time “it was important to come and listen and learn. I am very pleased that I came and learned a lot.” She had done both the video and the Wailing Wall.

The mood was disruptive; they didn’t like the process. “It’s a farce.” There were speeches they wanted to give, options that weren’t included. We wrote down their alternate ideas in the beginning, (paying attention to their tension), stated the other options, and encouraged them to do the video and the Wailing Wall, and then, to participate in the process. We stressed that their comments would be recorded and would, in fact, be taken into consideration. Many of those in the room had already completed both of the other options.

Because we did that piece first, it seemed, they felt that they were heard and everyone stayed for the rest of the session. As the conversations continued during the evening because they could see that their comments were being noted and that votes were taken based on those notes, there was some sense of trust that was developed within the group and the moderators. They referred frequently to the notes taken and added them as conditions for their votes.

We had no “Gut Wrenchers.” While we encouraged folks to do the buckets in order, it did not occur. There were a few folks who were very passionate about certain issues, and some startling pieces of information were shared with the group as noted.

There is a discrepancy for the points awarded. While all of these options were selected, in reviewing the actual awarding of points in the Round 4 Final sheet, in fact, some of the points were transposed. The points in Column A were as we recorded them. The actual points as presented on the Round 4 Final sheet in Column B. At the conclusion of the session, we thought we had achieved a total of 60 points. But the tally sheet did not reflect that. For that reason, we went back through the notes and awarded the points as they had been called out and recorded. It seems now, that we may have actually gotten to 74 points after comparing the point schedule.

Low Hanging Fruit:
Column A Column B
No. 20 Eagles 2 2
No. 15B Pay-as-you-go Trash 2 13
No. 3 DROP 4 4

TOTAL Points for Low Hanging Fruit: 19

• No. 20 Eagles
o Just shy of unanimous. Folks were surprised to know this fact. Strong comments for “the Eagles should pay up and pay up now.”

• No. 15B Trash
o Concerns about trouble with the collection and dumping in the neighborhoods. Pay-as-you-throw was considered. This was originally tabled, but we came back to it later in the discussion and voted it through.

• No. 3 DROP program
o As it stands now, according to those in attendance, this is offered to all positions. Retirement is diverted and lumped. It was meant to get the higher-ups to retire, but it was changed during Street administration and is now being abused. People can retire, go out and come back into work, while collecting their pension. This passed with the stated intention by the group that only the mayoral appointments and City Council must be affected and affected immediately. The first line of the totem pole, in particular, should not be permitted to abuse the system, nor should any others.

Shared Pain:

No. 16B Vehicles 6
No. 15A Streets 5
No. 11a Police 26
No. 22a Real estate 5
No. 12a Prisons 10
No. 14a Recreation 2
No. 13c Public Health 1

TOTAL points for “Shared Pain”: 55 GRAND TOTAL 74

• No. 16B Vehicle Fleet
o No Council people should have vehicles. (Believed to be 20 members.) Do NOT take away any DHS vehicles.

• No. 15A Streets
o Cut budget by 10 percent. Flashing lights are better respected than regular street lights. Cut the street crews as needed. The vote included the contingency that street crews be cut by 10 percent. Recycling just started, and there was already a significant increase in usage through the single stream, with a decrease in trash. Recycling is working. Don’t touch the recycling.

• No. 11A Safety Issues
o The police are too specialized. The officer on the street is stripped of all ability to perform their jobs as patrolman, e.g. marking the places of the bullets takes a “specialty unit.” There are more specialized units than there are officers. The city is top heavy with specialties, and there are strictly not enough men on the street. The civil affairs and accountability units were the specific ones identified as having too many employees; although there were notably others.
o Hands OFF the street patrol.
o There were lists of those who should be included: There were retiring policemen, those involved in DROP, and those to be re-deployed. LEAVE THOSE POSITIONS UNFILLED.
o Cut the Specialty Units. They are redundant and unnecessary. Cut the 73 MANAGERS, not the chemists, the “civilians,” the 911 operators or the IT staff. This statement passed it through.

• No. 22A Raise the real estate taxes
o These are unfairly assessed and should be redistributed. One woman spoke about paying less than $800; another about paying more than $1,500. There was an understanding that if you wanted good schools, you needed more money. This money is not targeted anywhere in the documents. Keep a larger proportion of it for schools. It is less than $10/month. Doubling it to $20 a month was considered, but it would be too hard on too many people.

• No. 12A Prisons
o Thirty percent of the offenders are in because of the system or they don’t have bail. Let out only those nonviolent criminals. This group was very specific about no job training cuts or re-entry programs. A question as to where these people are going to go led into a statement about a low recidivism rate. Crime tends to go up if you close a prison. Strong “regular” contributors dominated this conversation despite valiant efforts to include more people and some quiet folks finding their voices and expressing themselves.

• No. 14A Recreation by 30 percent
o No; but cut it by 10 percent. If there is no staff on the playgrounds, the children cannot use the equipment safely. (Pools, for example - you need attendants). These centers keep kids off the streets and out of trouble. Although recreation might appear less important than the police, don’t close any centers. Have them be managed more efficiently and open when people are using them. The same for the senior centers and other programs covered under recreation. Get rid of redundant staff.

• No. 13C Public Health - Revenue side
o They spoke about charging the uninsured a co-pay. There were several voices about making sure that the insured were being charged a co-pay.

No Way, No How:
• No. 7 Homeless
o Too many on the street.

• No. 8 DHS closing
o If DHS closes, the city loses money because of contracts. (Concern about a $1/8 match from the state and federal government.) The prevention dollars are helping children and families.

• No. 13a Public Health
o A sidenote about SEPTA employees obtaining prescriptions with their current insurance system, and then selling them on the street was made (with several other city suits in the room at the time.) We got the conversation back on the issue of closing Health Centers. This is when Arlene spoke up for her mother. No closings.

• No. 6 Libraries
o The library system is presently looking for private funds to keep sites open. It has acquired up to 60 percent of its funding, privately. The libraries are integral to our education system and keep children safe and off the streets.

Other Considerations included:
• Sales Taxes - This would be better than cutting the police and libraries. But it is hard to project the intended benefits based on the economy. There were many questions about the accuracy of the numbers. Tabled for lack of trust in the figures.
• WAGE Taxes - These would affect too many people negatively. Tabled.
• Increase Record Fees - No first round. Tabled.
• Trash - Commercial businesses were described as having more than 5 units or a small business. They were taxed pretty heavily, and we would lose them.

The original order of the conversation was this:

First: The IDEA’S from the audience (listed below).

Then: The items were discussed in this order. Eagles, Trash, Vehicles, Streets, Homeless, DHS, Safety/Police, DROP, Public Health, Taxes (real estate, sales then wage), prisons, recreation, libraries.

Not sure if Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals, but the comments from the very beginning, which when voiced, relieved people’s anxiety about “not being heard” and permitted the work to begin.

Because of the time constraint, and the specific flow of conversation, we were not able to thoroughly flush these out. However, it is critical to note, again, that upon doing this, we were able to get to the business at hand. People weren’t necessarily happy about the fact that they weren’t included in this evening’s process, but we assured them that their comments would be read and taken into consideration. No definitive action was promised.
• Enact a PILOT program. This would bring $38 million and would affect 40 percent of city properties. Make all organizations responsible for services. Assign these points for the next go-round.
• Courts - too many of them. There are 52 in the Philadelphia Judicial System. Cut them and assign them points for the next go-round.
• Tax abatements - unfair. Put some of them back on the role of paying taxes. Assign this recommendation points for the next go-round.

Several times during the evening, comments were made about the fact that these were Not Fair Choices on revenues, and if we were giving taxpayers voices, then the administration should put it all on the table.