Group Number 4
Moderators: Jean di Sabatino and Fatima Hafiz
Total points: 71

Group Description:
Our group was composed of 20 adults, three African American, one Hispanic, and 16 Caucasians. Six were males and two males (a reporter for The Nation and a City Year fellow) were nonvoting participants. There was a cross section of ages represented, the oldest we two women in their 80s and the youngest were in their 20s. However, the majority of participants were younger than 40. Two city staff members (woman from finance and one from health) and Ori Monson, PICA (Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority), stayed for the entire session. There were three others that stayed for a large portion of the session. After the first hour, there was attrition among participants, and we ended the session with 14 voting participants.

The tone of the evening was respectful and made light with laughter. The group was self-motivated to remain on task, and there were several occasions when participants checked each other to stay true to the norms and process. Participants had a highly evolved understanding of the issues and were secure in asking for clarification from other participants and the facilitators, and they made a few requests to ask the city observers. Discussion was energetic, complex and yielded considerable points. By the end of the evening, and with coaching for the most timid, all participants had the opportunity to express their opinions and to offer items for three of the four buckets. Actions were placed in the “No Way, No How” category only toward the end of the session. No items were added to the “Gut Wrenching” bucket.

Low-Hanging Fruit
Total points: 14 points
• #3 DROP Program = 4 points, with 17 out of 18 votes
o Participants asked for clarification of this action. The PICA representative provided details. The program was designed as a short-term remedy for reducing the large number of senior managers.
o One participant was not clear of the trade-offs: Would the city lose qualified workers? She was willing to proceed with the vote without this question answered.
o The discussion was peppered with muted outrage that this program was enacted as a two-year temporary remedy (as per PICA) yet extended.
• #16 Vehicle Fleet = 6 points, with 13 out of 18 votes
o The moderator explained that police, fire and sanitation vehicles were exempt.
o The finance office official texted for clarification and stated that POLICE CRUISERS ARE INCLUDED in the 800-vehicle reduction.
o There was no other discussion.
• #20 Eagles = 4 points, with 18 out of 18 votes
o Quick vote, no discussion.

No Ways, No Hows
Total points taken off the table: 23 points

These items were brought up by the group within the last 15 minutes of the session. There was little discussion.
• #4 Fairmount Park = 1 point, with 11 out of 15 votes
• #6 Free Library = 1 point, with 7 out of 15 votes
o One participant suggested that school libraries should be opened to the public.
o The City Year fellow (who had remained silent throughout the session) responded from experience that many of the school libraries are “books on a cart.”
o This prompted the participants to ask for a quick vote to exclude the libraries from cuts.
• #7 Housing = 7 points, with 9 out of 15 votes
o Minimum discussion.
o Affects the most vulnerable.
• #8 Human Resources = 9 points, with 9 out of 15 votes
• #13 Public Health = 5 points, with 13 out of 15 votes
o Questions were raised, with all the outstanding hospital and ancillary medical facilities, does the city need to run a nursing home?
o There was no energy to pursue this question.
o Participants agreed that the city needed to protect the most vulnerable citizens.

Shared Pain
Total points: 57 points
• #1a & #1b Administrative = 6 points, with 11 out of 18 votes
o Discussion regarding the quality of services. Suggestion to increase customer-service standards and make Deed Office more efficient.
• #11 Police 5% reduction = 13 points, with 9 out of 18 votes
o Took vote on 10% reduction, but this did not pass.
o 5% reduction was suggested by a participant.
o Elderly participants made strongest case for police protection.
o One participant questioned if it is possible to concentrate on prevention through better education and human services. This discussion eventually contributed to listing Human Services as a “No Way, No How.”
o Mistrust regarding city’s ability to provide preventative services.
o Brief discussion regarding the highly specialized nature of the force. Not much interest around this.
o Trade-off suggested by the elderly: Would a decrease in force result in increased insurance rates?
o Participants agreed to consider this option if city would agree to not fill vacancies in lieu of layoffs.
• #12a Prisons 10% reduction = 10 points, with 12 out of 18 votes
o Moderator explained that the 300 prisoners to be released in the 10% reduction option were nonviolent, accused or awaiting trial. City observers confirmed.
o City also confirmed that there were five prisons within the city.
o Suggestion that some support programs currently offered within the prison system were offered in other departments. Several supported the idea to identify the range of services provided outside the prison system.
o Participants agreed to this option only if adequate reentry and job-training services were provided.
• #15c Streets (revenue option #2) = 13 points, with 9 out of 18 votes
o The option was clarified by a moderator: sanitation fee as opposed to “pay as you throw.”
o Discussion of this option highlighted the age differences within the group.
The eldest participants were clearly opposed to this measure. They questioned whether the younger participants (one of which proposed that the measure be included) lived in houses or apartments.
o An older participant did suggest that collection sites could be consolidated (only on cross streets for example).
o There was a suggestion to lessen the cost burden for those of lesser means.
o Increased “short dumping” was stated as a trade-off.
o The reduction part of this option was not suggested.
• #17 Amusement = 2 points, with 9 out of 16 votes
o One younger participant suggested tacking a 10% tax on amusement. There was some agreement but not enough for a favorable vote.
o See quote section below.
• #25 Wage Tax/Resident = 12 points, with 11 out of 15 votes
o Younger participants were almost unanimously in favor of this.
o One participant suggested that the state consider a progressive tax structure.
o This option and the commuter option were offered during the last few minutes of the session.
• #26 Wage Tax/Commuter = 1 point, with 15 out of 15 votes

Item discussed as a “Shared Pain” but not passed:
• Recreation Centers were brought up for a vote, but received only 6 out of 18. The item did not pass and was not brought up for a second vote.
o One participant suggested privatizing the services provided in the centers. The centers could still remain open.
o Another participant, supported by several, stated that recreation activities are provided by other departments such as Human Services. There was considerable agreement that the recreation centers did not provide a high-quality service and that programs sponsored by Human Services and other departments met a higher standard.
o There was agreement that well-organized recreation activities are preventative and ultimately save money. These are the best way to keep children off the streets. This value swayed the vote.
Gut Wrenchers
• No items were brought to this category although the category was listed.

Big, Hairy, Ambitious Goals
• None suggested.

Memorable Quotes
• There were two notable quotes, both produced considerable laughter
o One came as the group successfully voted for a revenue option attached to the Streets option. “REVENUES MAKE ME SMILE.” was quoted several times during the evening.
o As we brought the Amusement revenue to a vote, there was a suggestion to increase the tax on tickets to 10%, thereby adding 4 points to the category. One participant suggested that “The funnier the movie, the higher the tax percentage.”

Last-Minute Suggestions
• Fire
o As folks were beginning to pack up, one participant suggested that the city consider supplementing (via attrition) the force with volunteers that would be highly trained and led by seasoned Fire Department veterans.
o Also mentioned was the importance of maintaining the EMTs and the Fire Houses.