I can't believe we wind up on important issues 140 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 like this all the time in this situation, where we have a 3 o'clock in the afternoon hearing and 60 witnesses. I mean, considering the importance of the issue, why are we doing this in this way? I never understand it. I mean, 60 witnesses at 3 o'clock in the afternoon is going to naturally drive some people away with the inability to wait around forever and -- (Applause.)
I don't mean that as any personal criticism. I just don't understand.
I totally agree. This was listed at the time it was at the request of the sponsors, and at the time, I indicated that I also had a very important commitment at 4 o'clock and I was told that somebody would replace me, and I'm still waiting. And the witness list was 141 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 given to me this morning only because I asked for it.
This has been a long-gone 14-, 15-year frustration for me, because we always wind up with this kind of situation.
This hearing was requested at o'clock. It moved it back to o'clock to accommodate the Fairmount Park Commissioners because they had a 1 o'clock meeting.
I'm just saying for the record, we wanted to do this at 1:00. We moved it back to accommodate them, most of whom are no 22 longer here.
I understand that, but why would we schedule a meeting on the day the 142 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commission meets? I mean, don't they have an interest? I mean, isn't there other days of the week besides the day the Commission meets?
With all due respect to the Commission, and this is part of the problem, is that we've been attempting to get the Commission to meet with us on this very important matter since June, and we had one meeting with the Executive Board, and they refused to sit down and work with us to craft reasonable legislation. I don't know why we continue to accommodate them, if they can't figure out a way to sit down and help us formulate a process that makes some sense. Last night and today was the first substantive conversation that we've had with them in a meaningful way, because they've tried to figure out a process that will essentially block the legislation as opposed to sitting down and working with us to come up with 143 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 something that works for everybody. That's the problem.
If I could further reflect that we moved the meeting to accommodate the Fairmount Park Commission and allow them to be here. We could have very well left the meeting at 1 o'clock, but in an interest to be partners in this process, we ended up where we are.
I'm repeating for the record that what he stated is accurate.
It is on the record now, so I think we ought to get moving since we do have over 30 witnesses that would like to be heard. 144 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Goldsmith, thank you for your testimony. I just have a few questions. If you could refresh my memory just a little bit. Now, what years were you Interim Park Director?
I think it was -- I think I was there seven months, Councilman. I think it was July or June of '02 to January of '03 and then I became Managing Director.
July '02 to January '03. And then you were Managing Director from 1/03 to when?
That's correct. 145 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
All right. Now, just a couple questions about your testimony. First, for the many issues that you laid out -- and I certainly appreciate the time and effort that you spent working on this -- any number of issues have been raised here, so first I want to ask with regard to the depth, comprehensive nature of this testimony, have you spoken publicly about these issues and proposals, changes, criticisms and the like during your time as either Interim Park Director or as Managing Director?
Now, on 146 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 of your testimony, you say the officials who fund the system, the Mayor and City Council, who are ultimately responsible to the taxpayer, have no say as to who oversees the Park system, which encompasses ten percent of the City's land mass. This is coming on the heels of obviously a criticism with regard to the selection process of the Commissioners. That's in the paragraph above. Now, first, we know that six of the serve on the Commission by virtue 15 of their positions in City government, 16 right?
I have four. I'm not sure where you're getting six. And then it's either four or five. The Mayor has an appointment. You have the Streets Commissioner, Recreation -- or the City Engineer in the Streets Department, the Recreation Commissioner, Public Property and Water, unless I'm forgetting someone. Then the Mayor 147 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 has --
That's four. There's four ex officio from the Administration. Then the Mayor has one appointment. That's five. And then City Council. But unless things have changed since I left, I didn't consider the City Council appointment necessarily always in lux with the Administration.
Right. No. 14 I understand. And notwithstanding the, quote/unquote, private nature of the process, it's not a tremendous mystery how people get on the Fairmount Park Commission, right? I mean, many of the Commissioners were just here. Within the confines at least of this room as serious people in this process, you could probably say pretty much where every one of those individuals came from, right?
I'm not sure. 148 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 I'm not sure. I mean --
Well, they didn't appoint themselves and it is a political process and they all have various contacts and relationships, and whether it's the Mayor or any of us or other external players, I mean, people do get involved in that process. It's generally not a mystery.
I think historically my understanding of the system is that the Board of Judges are given some direction as to who to appoint.
Well, that's diplomatic. Very kind. Very kind. You've become the softer, kinder Phil Goldsmith since you left City government.
I took it after reading about you in the Philadelphia Weekly, I think, but --
Well, I'm the boring guy, so it doesn't take much. 149 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Now, in your capacity as either Park Director, Interim Park Director or as Managing Director, did you have occasion to recommend additional funding for the Park system?
Well, I would say this: As Managing Director, I helped to facilitate $300,000 from the Water Department to help the Park in its watershed management. I also, when we did make the transfers of swimming pools and so forth, made sure that people were kept harmless. And while I do not believe that Park funding is where we would all want it to be, I think during the tough times, going through the budget process in the past couple of years, the Park was hurt probably less than many of the other 150 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 departments.
Okay. But I think we can at least agree that not getting a cut is not equal to getting more money.
So, I mean, you either get more money or you get the same or you get less.
I commend you for making sure the place didn't get overrun, but the question again goes back, how much additional funding did you recommend for the Park when you were either Interim Director or Managing Director?
I don't recall. I think my perception changed when I became Managing Director, because my position changed, and I started to see -- which I thought the budget folks, I 151 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 think, took a tough line on the Parks because they thought the Parks could be doing more in terms of management improvements and so forth, and I think also -- and I think, as I said in my testimony, before you start to give people more money, you want to make sure that it's being used effectively, that there's appropriate management practices in place and so forth. I think the Park -- I think it will continue to improve, but I think it has a ways to go, as indicated by the strategic plan. I think to throw money at the problem is not the problem -- is not the answer.
Let me also say, Councilman, the real problem with funding the Park, as with many of the departments, and I think one of the larger issues we have in the City, is not its operating funds. It's its capital 152 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 budget program. And I think we all know that the City is very constrained in capital budget. The real issue with the Park is a number of buildings it has, the number of structures it has, and there's simply no money to fix those. And that's a real funding issue that's the capital dollars, not the operating dollars.
Well, I might have a slight difference of opinion with you about that, but when you look at some of the best practices issues that are raised in the report, obviously Philadelphia shakes out as one of the lower-funded systems, whether on the operating side or on the capital side, and you've pointed out a number of them in your testimony. But you also know as Managing Director, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much money any of us or if the whole body suggested increasing the Park's budget or any other department's budget, because we can't make you spend it, right? 153 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
So if we put $5 million or $10 million more in the Park's budget in the course of the budget process, what would happen?
What would have happened when you were Managing Director?
Yeah. Well, actually, the other thing is that this City Council put money -- it was in the Managing Director's budget, but for tree trimming. Now, I don't know whether those numbers are reflected in the Park Commission's numbers, but there has been increased funding to deal with the 154 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 backlogs in trees.
I think actually the tree money went in the Managing Director's office.
That's exactly right. Now, what I'm saying, you can't look at the numbers in the budget purely at Fairmount Park and try to make an accurate projection on what's happened with staffing, what's happened with funding. Granted, it hasn't kept place with inflation, but, for example, the money kept in the Managing Director's office to deal with street trees is really money that was used by Fairmount Park, but it doesn't show up in their budget.
I understand. You wanted to keep it in the Managing Director's office because apparently you didn't have confidence that the Park would do it right, correct?
I think that took place before I became Managing 155 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Director. So I don't know what the reason for that was.
All right. Well, one last question I guess on the operating side for a moment. I mean, you made a statement that you thought it wasn't so much an operating side problem as it was a capital problem. Now, in the report, you talk about the City of Seattle, which is designated by the authors under the best practices section. Per capita investment in Seattle, Washington for investment in parks is $165. I know you've read through the report, so you'd also know that for Philadelphia it's $9. Do you think that makes a difference or not?
I think it makes a difference, but that's not where I would start to solve the problem.
As I said in my testimony, I don't quarrel with the need 156 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 for funding, but I think before you invest, you want to make sure it's going to be used wisely. And as Managing Director, and you know as well as the Councilmembers, when you have funding choices, you look at things while you're down police and you're down this and you're down that and you have to make these difficult choices.
Last question. From the report again, we all know that there were three alternatives presented. You've made clear in your testimony that you believe that Alternative 1 should be done immediately. I'd just like to get your perspective on why you would propose that, given the report itself recommends on that for short term -- and I'm quoting from the report -- "begin implementing Alternative 3, which is responsibility-based alignment. This will require a concerted effort on the part of the Managing Director, Park 157 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Commission President, Fairmount Park Executive Director and Department of Recreation Commissioner to immediately establish momentum for the plan implementation and not become consumed in political debate. This alternative provides for a period to begin making changes in culture, operating standards and coordination between the two departments. In addition, this alternative provides for the institution of the Recreation Coordination Board to enhance coordination of recreation programming between the City and the School District. It creates a mechanism for opportunity to begin a longer term solution for a full merger with the Recreation Department," and the report goes on and on for a little bit. Longer term, the report suggests on , "Following a successful implementation of Alternative 3 in the near term, implementation of Alternative 1, single Parks and 158 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Recreation Department should be initiated. Because of financial constraints and ability of the two departments to achieve a successful consolidation and coordination of activities, as well as the need for state legislative action, the timing of this alternative will likely be more than five years from initiation of this strategic plan. This alternative provides the best long-term solution that is consistent with best practice organizations throughout the United States." So what I'm trying to understand from your testimony is, given the consultant's report and their recommendations, why would you suggest we start with Alternative 1, which is the long-term solution, as opposed to starting with Alternative 3 and following some of the recommendations of the report that ultimately lead to the conclusion to go to Alternative 1? Why would you start there? 159 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
I think there's two reasons, Councilman. Number one is, I think I tried to indicate in my testimony, as I said, I believe this should become effective with the next Administration. If you look at that date to when that proposal in the plan was really being talked about and so forth, we're close to five years as it is. Number two, to be quite frank with you and try to always be candid, I don't have the confidence that the Park Commission can do this. That plan has been around for about a year and a half. I saw very little action on it. Two things that the plan recommends -- and while some of it costs money, there's a lot of things in that plan that don't cost money. For example, appointing a Change Agent as Executive Director.
A Change Agent as Executive Director was one of the recommendations. And the position there 160 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 lingered for a long time.
Haven't we had two Interim Directors for the last four, five years? There was a search that was conducted. Whatever happened with the search?
Who were 161 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 they interviewed by?
They were interviewed by the Commission, I presume. They were interviewed by me, and a few were interviewed by the Mayor.
No. For a variety -- I mean, I would say in a couple cases they simply weren't qualified and they shouldn't have even been presented. I should say I used to be Chief Operating Officer of an executive search firm, so I know a little bit about the business. They should have never been presented. Another one, who was terrific, was making over $250,000 a year, which obviously we couldn't match, and then got promoted, so he withdrew his name.
How do you know you couldn't match it? 162 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Well, it didn't matter whether -- well, we couldn't match it, but that was sort of irrelevant because he got promoted and he had a very handsome position. And the other one chose not to take the position. But it was a laborious process.
Well, I mean, it wasn't a secret that Philadelphia was looking for an Executive Director of the Park system. So was there something deficient about our situation that excellent directors from all over the country wouldn't have an interest in coming to possibly run the largest urban park system in the United States of America?
Well, as I said last night, we are not the largest urban park system. As I said, we shouldn't really seek to be the largest. We should seek to be the best. There are other park systems that are significantly 163 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 larger than Fairmount Park.
But, yes, there is something deficient, and that's the governance structure and the process. I think if you were going to get someone out of another park system that, let's say, was head of Parks and Recreation in a medium-sized city, you're asking him or her to come here and take half a loaf, Fairmount Park as opposed to an entire park system. And I think the pay schedule also was a problem, but I think basically it's a half a loaf to a lot of people.
Okay. Well, I guess my last comment on that was, but you don't think that the fact that the Park system has been starved for years, apparently gets not a whole lot of attention from the City government in general, is significantly underfunded, understaffed and has gone through two 164 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Interim Directors, neither of which were given the full responsibility, you don't think that might have an impact on a serious park person as to whether or not they want to come here or not?
I think a serious park person, the type of person we want here, welcomes challenge, and this Park system has clearly shown. It's also a Park system I want to say clearly is not - it's not broken. It's not a Park system that's broken. It's a Park system that could be so much better and be a much greater asset for this City, and that's the frustrating thing with it. It's a wonderful place. It could just be so much more.
We agree. I'll relent, Madam Chair. I might want to have the pleasure of coming back, but thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. People that are sitting up on 165 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the balcony, I think we have ample seats down on the ground floor. If you come down, I'm sure we can accommodate you down here. Thank you. Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. As I sat here and listened to your testimony, it appeared to me that you were claiming in some way that City government is some model of efficiency and doesn't waste money and contracts perfectly and doesn't have any problem with its concession deals or with its no-bid contracts and all the other things that have been going on around here. I mean, it's as if you're contending that the City government doesn't waste money and does everything in an efficient, business-like manner. And all of us who are here know that's not the case. So why would they do such a much better job managing the Park system?
They manage the 166 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Park system now, Councilman.
Why would they do a better job without the Park Commission?
The Park Commission, in reality, has nothing to do with the operations of the Park. It really doesn't. I mean, it can muddle every once in a while, but it doesn't -- it has no -- it has nothing to do with the budget, it has nothing to do with any of that. It may have some policy decisions, but, I mean, one of the frustrations here is, people think that this proposal is going to make the Park part of the government. It is part of the government.
I understand, but given that government that can't get two ice rinks open this winter and have other problems with their facilities, why would I feel much more confident that it's going to be run any better by doing this governance change? 167 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
Well, I think there's two separate issues. The governance change is one issue, and then you have the operations and running a system that's not redundant. They're two separate issues, in my judgment. They may be joined in this resolution, but they're two separate issues. And I think that there's duplication that need not be duplication and there's more that can be done.
On of your testimony, you listed about five major accomplishments that you as Managing Director were able to accomplish vis-a-vis the Park system and its operation, and I don't disagree with you. I think that they were pretty substantial accomplishments, and I congratulate you on them, but we didn't need to change the Charter to accomplish those things, and I think that any Managing Director -- we have a very competent, capable Managing Director now, and you certainly did a 168 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 good job when you were there -- can accomplish a lot of what we are hearing in the testimony without a Charter change, and I don't know why we just don't keep on moving in the direction of these types of substantive operational changes and efficiencies without having to take away the Commission. And I'll make a comment why I think we need the Commission. So that really didn't hamper you in making these changes.
No. Again, they're two separate issues. The issue here is, we have two separate Park systems in this City. It's not like one just deals with natural lands and the other one just deals with active recreation. They both have baseball fields, they both have soccer fields, they both have the same thing. We're running two similar systems. One may be larger in some context over here and smaller over there. It's not like they're separated into functions. It's 169 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 two Park systems. Now --
But that flies in the face a little bit of your testimony saying that the City runs it now. On one hand you tell me the City government runs the Fairmount Park system now, but now you're telling me there's two separate systems.
It is two separate systems. They come under different departments. And you know as well as I know, is that when -- the problem here, while some things happened while Managing Director because I had an interest in it because I had been at the Park and I thought it should be done, we were also going through tough budget times. But that's not the job of the Managing Director. The Managing Director shouldn't have to babysit, frankly, and get that done. He should basically say, This is what needs to get done, and it 170 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 gets done. But when you have two sort of co-equal departments, that it's harder to get that stuff done. If you have one person overseeing the two, like virtually every other city, you make those types of changes. It's basically organizational effectiveness.
Well, I understand. I just have difficulty in having faith in the fact that the City -- and, again, as I said earlier, the employees of both the Fairmount Park Commission and the Recreation Department have tremendous missions and are very dedicated people, are both very sorely underfunded -- that I have great confidence that this governance change will somehow magically transform the operation of the Park into this efficient model, when the Recreation Department struggles on a yearly basis to do its mission. So having this additional responsibility under, I guess, the control of the Recreation Commissioner to 171 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 me doesn't necessarily indicate to me clearly that we're going to have these great efficiencies.
Councilman, as I understand this proposal and certainly what I'm recommending, it does not come under the control of the Recreation Commissioner. It comes under the control of a Parks and Recreation Director. It's a different concept.
I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure that -- it should be, but that's not a question I can answer.
Isn't that a duplication in itself, that if we have a Recreation Commissioner and then we have a Parks and Recreation Commissioner, isn't that somewhat duplicitous on its face from a title standpoint?
They're different divisions. Hopefully they'll 172 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 have different functions.
See, I think what seems to me to be the biggest change in the governance would be the elimination of the Commission. I mean, if I'm going to have a Director of Parks and Recreation and I'm going to have a Commissioner of Recreation, it seems to me to be a bit duplicated there. The only difference that I can see -- and perhaps as we continue to talk about this and gain more efficiencies and do purchasing together and all this other stuff, I agree with all that, but I don't think you need a Charter change to do that. I just think you need some direction from either the Mayor's office or whoever to get that done. What I see is, the elimination of the Commission is the real substantive change. And, frankly -- and I know you've talked about federal protection and other things that would keep the park land from being turned over to 173 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 developers, and I don't think it will be turned over to developers. I just believe that the pressure on a City government to generate revenue and have the Commission out of the way makes it easier in certain circumstances to transfer land to private hands, and that I think is, for me, the biggest concern, is that despite all the protections that you've talked about, when this land is under the total control of any Mayor through these individuals that will be working for him or her, the pressure without the Fairmount Park Commission in the middle, even though you call it muddling, sometimes the muddling may keep the park land from being turned over for other purposes, and that's my main concern. (Applause.)
Do I honestly think that some evil Mayor and some evil Recreation Commission or Director of ours is going to say, How can 174 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 we carve up this land and give it away to everybody? No. I think that when we come up against a lot of the issues -- I know Councilman O'Neill is dealing with an issue in his district relative to Pennypack Park and a very worthwhile project with Fox Chase, but I think without the Commission as an additional hurdle, I think it becomes easier to dispose of land. When you have more community interest appointed by an independent group, a Board of Judges, whoever that independent group is, you have to reach and cover more hurdles in order to get park land disposed of in private hands. And I think that's an important element that the Commission provides and I think potentially could be lost as a result of losing them.
I do agree. I think there should be some protection. Whether it's the Commission as presently exists or proposed, there should be some 175 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 protection. I have no quarrel with that. And, frankly, as I've looked at this issue about the Commission, I think that is basically its major, if not only, role.
I'm going to ask you this question relative to your experience with another hat at the School District. Obviously our schools have been improving over the last number of years. Test scores are up. We have a long way to go and we have some difficult problems, but it seems to be going in a good direction. Do you believe that the independence of the SRC in any way contributes to that change in at least attitude and perception and the fact that that group was able to get more money, which seems to be another major issue in the discussion of Recreation and Parks? Do you think it's been a positive that the SRC is an independent body, or didn't it matter either way? 176 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
I think the agreement with the Commonwealth was essential to getting more money, and part of the agreement was to provide more money, and Council put up more money and so forth. So I think -- it was an essential thing, and I think the SRC has done a good job in being able to work both sides of the aisle in Harrisburg and so forth. Whether that's independence, I don't know. Maybe it's just better politics.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Mr. Goldsmith. One issue that has been raised repeatedly that I need clarity on is the 177 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 potential inability for the Commission to do outside fundraising. You cite the Mural Arts Program as an analogy which would suggest that that would not be so. Could you clarify that at least for me? Would the Commission still have the right, the privilege, the opportunity, the ability to simply raise money on its own to meet the types of needs and services it wants to implement?
Well, my understanding and belief is that yes. People would have the ability to give if they wanted to give, and nothing --
Under a potential new configuration. That's what I'm talking about.
I don't see why not. And as I think Councilman Clarke indicated, this has no impact on the Conservancy in terms of its organization. Now, Commissioner Binswanger believes that this would impact their ability to raise funds, and he's head of the 178 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Conservancy. So he's sort of the expert in it. I have sort of a different view just from looking at other organizations that -- and I mentioned the foundation for the library's Mural Arts. They have an advisory group that have been successful. And I believe they have a vision, they have a consistency of purpose, priorities, and they've had passion behind what they're doing, and I think that's really what's important to raise funds.
Councilman Nutter addressed a number of questions around funding. Any other observations or insights you can offer around the issue of staffing, where it is currently and where it potentially could be if we considered a new organizational structure?
One of the things -- in some cases, we compare apples to oranges. So when we look at the numbers and the numbers that were 179 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 quoted -- and I forget what they were, 600 people down to 100 and whatever it is -- there's no question, no question, that the numbers have come down. They've come down in every department, but the only thing I caution for accuracy's sake in some cases, for example, turf maintenance was outsourced. They're not employees. They are contracted. So I don't know how many were there that did that job when they weren't contracted out, but there's ins and outs that constantly go on in the system. So I think for accuracy purpose, we'd have to really see how much that number has come down. But I don't want to get into an argument as to whether it's come down. Of course, it's come down. Every department, with the exception maybe of the prisons, has come down. But I think it's also just not the numbers of employees. It's the type of employees that are needed. What's 180 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 lacking, I believe, to really put us over the top, we don't have a top-notch marketing, we don't have a marketing position at the Park. This is a very difficult system to market because we have so many parks that go under different names. I mean, one of the great parks in this City is Pennypack Park. It's part of Fairmount Park, but it has a totally different name. So there's a marketing challenge here, but I think there is key fundamental positions that are lacking in the Park, and if I had my druthers, I would like to see the Fairmount Park Conservancy fund some of those positions, like the foundation for the library funds their marketing person. See, then I think you can go out and start to market the Park and it starts to get more credibility and then it plays on itself in getting more funds. So, again, I don't think you can just look at numbers in the absolute. 181 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 You have to see what are the types of positions we need to really make this a better Park system, as well as a better Recreation Department.
My final comment is, one observation I've made is that there appears to be one consensus or one thread that everyone tends to agree with, and Chairman Nix when asked the question what top three star functions does he believe the Fairmount Park, A, does well and, B, is clearly responsible for, and his was watchdog of public space. So Councilman Kenney has underscored that, and you've echoed the same, land preservation and ensuring that the disposal of land is protected. Is there any other one or two items that should stand tall and rank high with regards to the work of the Fairmount Park Commission?
Well, frankly, I think if you're going to have a Commission, we have a Commission today, 182 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 they should be driving a little bit harder bargain with the Executive Director, whether it have been me or whether it have been anyone else, what are you doing to get this plan done, what are you doing, how are we making improvements, how are you guys operating more effectively. I never use the word -- to Councilman Kenney, I don't use the word "efficiency." Efficiency and government are oxymorons, but I think you can talk about effectiveness. And if it's going to be a Commission that it's going to have oversight, they should be asking those types of tough questions. They're a Board of Directors. And you sort of have the -- what's the term in business, in Sarbanes-Oxley law or whatever? They should be making sure they're asking the right strategic questions. Why are you putting your money there as opposed to over there? What's our priorities in 183 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 doing this as opposed to that? Because you can't do everything. Frankly, you could double the budget in the Fairmount Park and you'd still have issues, 9,200 acres of land, when people come and they litter and they do this and they do that and just the normal erosion of time. It's a tremendous burden. It's a tremendous burden. So you have to start to think strategically, and a Commission, I think, should be asking those questions, not in a confrontational way, but that's providing the leadership and then the assistance to the staff. I have high regard for the staff. Probably none of them will talk to me anymore, but they work hard. I mean, I go by -- I used to have a ground keeper by the name of Terrence. Terrence worked in East Park. Every day he walked down that road and every day he picked up paper, did his job with a smile on his face, and the next day he was back there 184 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 picking up paper, because people are throwing paper. And that's the type of dedication that you have, and they do need more support. They need more support from the Commission, from taxpayers and so forth. But there's some fundamental things that have to be done. And I want to go back. This is not just simply about cost. It's also about good government and accountability in government, and it's also about whether we're going to have -- whether this City can afford one Park system or two Park systems and to have a more cohesive and strategic plan for the City. I think that's what's important here.
Well, I thank you for your testimony that is based on not just having read a report, as I did, but based on experience both as Managing Director and as the former Park Director. I thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President. 185 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. Councilman Clarke, do you have any questions or comments of Mr. Goldsmith?
Actually, Madam President, I just wanted to clarify one thing. Actually, Councilman Kenney was raising the issue with respect to the Recreation Commissioner. Essentially, the Recreation Commissioner, as we know it, will go away. There will be a totally new department formed. It will be the Department of Parks and Recreation. The new Director or Commissioner of that particular department will not be the Recreation Commissioner. I have no idea whether or not it's going to be Victor Richard. If it is, he would have to apply for the job, just like everybody else, but there's some misunderstanding 186 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 that -- and that was a part of some of the language that we're going to amend, that it appeared that we were essentially going to subordinate the existing Fairmount Park Commission to the Recreation Department. But that is not what the intent is. It will be a totally new department, and I have no idea as to who ultimately the person will be that will run that department. One of the proposals calls for possibly two, maybe three deputies within that department. There was a couple proposals that talked about having a deputy who will be responsible for the parks, the parks portion of the department, and the deputy who will be responsible for the operational side. And as the Councilman mentioned earlier, there were also some possibilities of having a deputy in charge of Forest Street. So those are the kind of things that can be worked out in the formulation 187 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 of the process, but in the formulation of this program, there will not be a Recreation Commissioner and a Commissioner of Parks and Recreation. I think Councilman is gone, but I just wanted to clarify that for him.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments of Mr. Goldsmith? (No response.)
Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Pedro Ramos, the City's Managing Director.
Mr. Ramos, you've been extremely patient, and it's my understanding that you are very late for a very important commitment that you have.
Yes. And I won't 188 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 presume to speak for any member of City Council, but I know at least one other member of City Council is probably expected to be where I'm going next in the Latino community, but if I may, with your indulgence, Madam President, read my testimony into the record. It's very brief and practical. Or submit it in writing, whichever you prefer, and be happy to come back and answer any questions or take any submissions and offer responses from our office.
Since we all have copies of your testimony and I know you're pressured for time, we would be more than happy to simply make this as a part of the record. We'll give a copy to the stenographer, and if need be, if anybody has any questions, you could certainly come back at a later date.
This is certainly an important issue, but you'll never catch me asking Council whether I can 189 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 stick around longer than Madam President suggests.
I would then request that my testimony be submitted for the record.
Thank you. And, again, thank you very much for your patience. You've been extremely patient.
I would only ask that depending upon the outcome of today's hearing, that it would be okay with inviting the Managing Director back at a later date to deal with any potential questions. I do have some regarding the second page, but I can certainly wait until then.
We would also be 190 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 happy to take any questions in the interim to respond, as we do during the budget season, in any means that you'd like.
Thank you. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: The next list is a panel of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance, Lauren Bornfriend, Graham Finney, Beth Ounsworth, Doris Gwaltney.
Good evening. Welcome. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I am Lauren Bornfriend, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Parks Alliance, and I am joined by our Board President, Beth Ounsworth, and our Public Policy Chair and Board member, Graham Finney. Doris 191 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Gwaltney, who is a Board member and also the President of Carroll Park Neighbors, had to leave. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening, and special thanks to Councilmembers Reynolds Brown and Clarke for stimulating a much-needed and frank discussion about the future of Philadelphia's extraordinary and very much undervalued Parks. The Philadelphia Parks Alliance believes that this opportunity is long overdue. As one of my Board members said the other day, the most important thing Philadelphia has to offer is that it's a great place to live. Our open spaces and green places rank among our greatest assets, and preserving and enhancing them is key to the City's future growth and prosperity. This is the lens in which we see the entire Park reform and reorganization. Parks should not be seen as a burden to be downsized. They should 192 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 be seen as an asset that, properly managed, will bring great returns to the City and its residents. But how should this be done? What do Philadelphians want and deserve from their Parks? And how do their wishes relate to the proposed legislation now being considered? I'd like to give you some background about what we've been doing to address these questions. For several months now, the Parks Alliance, in partnership with the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, has been convening a series of working groups. We've been examining key questions of leadership, land use, maintenance and fundraising. We've consulted extensively with close to 150 Philadelphians, including community and business leaders, park users, former Park officials and people who work in partnership with the Park. These working groups have considered a number of prospectives and proposals, including 193 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 those of the City's own strategic plan for Fairmount Park. Their ultimate charge is to help us understand how Philadelphia's Park system can better serve the City's residents. Our conversations are still ongoing, and our goal is to present the City with detailed recommendations based on these ongoing meetings in February 2006. But given the timing of this hearing, we have prepared an interim report. If I had to boil down our working groups' finding thus far to two points, these would be the points: While our working group members recognize the hard work of the present Commission and its small overburdened staff, the status quo for Fairmount Park and the Park system overall is unacceptable. While we recognize that Philadelphia operates under a very tight budget, any reform of the Park system must enable it to do more, not less, in the years to come. 194 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Simply downsizing the Park's administration is not an acceptable option. Given these starting points, while the Parks Alliance supports major reform of Philadelphia's Parks, we cannot give our complete support to the current legislation as now written. We have some specific recommendations for improving the proposed legislation, but before I discuss them, I'd like to share some findings from our working groups that will give you a sense of their overall concerns and ideas. While our working group members are not unanimous on any subject, we can fairly summarize their opinions to date as follows: The Fairmount Park Commission -- and by this, we mean the 16-member Board -- is seen as an institution that needs to be reformed but not abolished. As an independent body charged with protecting invaluable open spaces, it is an essential part of the 195 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Park system of checks and balances.
Without it, many fear that the Park could become a land bank that would soon be open for business. The procedure by which Fairmount Park Commissioners are appointed through the Board of Judges is seen as outdated and opaque, distancing Park leadership from the elected officials who should be held accountable for the state of the Park system. The steps already taken to better align the operations of Fairmount Park and the Department of Recreation are seen as logical, and they should continued. Interdepartmental transfer of all recreation areas to the Rec Department should be considered. A strong entrepreneurial development staff is seen as an absolute necessity if the Park system is to get the most financial support possible from federal, state, philanthropic and profit sources. 196 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 In order to create an incentive for the Park to maximize its revenue generation, it is thought that the Park system must be allowed to retain some or all of the funds it generates. Neighborhood parks and recreation areas are seen as lacking in support and attention. Given the large number of citizens they serve and the critical roles they play in community and economic development, any reform plan must ensure that they get their fair share. Despite all the discussion of reorganization and reform, our working groups noted the lack of a clear vision or defined mission for parks and open space. If major changes are to be made, they should be guided by a vision that goes beyond improving operational efficiency. No such vision now exists. If any proposed Charter change appears on the 2006 ballot, many believe the changes should be deferred until the 197 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 next City Administration takes office. Our constituents and working group members have made one thing very clear. Their frustration with the Park's status quo has left them willing to support major changes, but only if they promise significant improvements. These same constituents are understandably wary of losing the protection that the Park Commissioners have traditionally provided to our parks, watersheds and other open spaces. Most of them will not support any change that does not guarantee that the City's land and water will be protected. And, furthermore, the overwhelming belief among these constituents is that the Park's administration must do more than get more efficient in delivering current services. It must get more dynamic and creative in its management of everything from partnerships to revenue generation to fundraising and marketing. 198 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Given these starting points, the following concerns were raised in regard to the proposed legislation: It would eliminate the present Fairmount Park Commission, replacing it with a new advisory body, but the role and responsibilities of that body have not been defined, nor have the qualifications and appointment criteria for its members. Given this lack of definition, there is great concern that the new Board might well become a toothless body with no real power to protect open space, set creative Park policy and provide badly needed leadership around questions of parks and open space. The proposed legislation does not explain how a consolidated department would create a stronger, better-funded and more proactive Park administration or how the proposed new Department of Parks and Recreation would be organized to respect and balance the Recreation Department's mandate, which is to provide 199 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 programs and services with the Fairmount Park's mandate, to protect environmental and historic resources. Nor does the proposed legislation clarify how the department will allow the Park system to improve its fundraising, partnership building, collaboration with economic and neighborhood development initiatives, and overall resource development.
Despite these concerns, there is a strong feeling within our four working groups that the time is ripe for some kind of reform, especially concerning the current method of appointing Fairmount Park Commissioners. The proposed legislation proposes that a new Park Advisory Board would be appointed by the Mayor. This change would have the advantage of making it perfectly clear to Philadelphians who is responsible for the state of their Parks. What the Parks Alliance 200 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 proposes is that the existing Fairmount Park Commission structure be retained, but that its members, the Commissioners, be appointed not by the Board of Judges but by the Mayor, using specific criteria that will ensure that its members are qualified and strong park leaders who can assure the public that the Commission's long tradition of independent oversight will be sustained. To be effective, this revised Commission would require the following: Future Commissioners should be required to demonstrate concrete qualifications for their positions, and the Commission should be structured to assure adequate representation from all areas of public life, including the private sector. The revised Commission should operate with a clear approval process, a defined mission and clarified responsibilities and accountability measures. The revised Commission must 201 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 also have the staff capacity needed to handle critical questions of fundraising, resource development, marketing and outreach, partnership management and, of course, the obvious, the protection of Park land. Such a model has greatly benefited other Philadelphia institutions, notably the Free Library, and could evolve from a closer relationship with a non-profit Fairmount Park Conservancy, as recommended in the strategic plan. The revised Commission must have a defined mandate to provide oversight and policy direction to all Philadelphia Parks and Park-related lands, setting a system-wide vision. The revised Commission must be created in conjunction with the necessary state legislation. Given the dramatically different missions of the Recreation Department, which focuses on providing programs for people, and Fairmount Park, 202 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 with its mandate for environmental and historic preservation and its integral role in protecting water supply and watersheds, we believe that total departmental consolidation is neither prudent nor necessary at this stage. Instead, we propose that the City continue with the current incremental approach known as responsibility-based alignment, under which the two departments are working to eliminate redundancies and maximize their collective resources. This approach is recommended in the City's own strategic plan for Fairmount Park, and we recommend that it continue. In order to move forward responsibly, this alignment requires the following: The revised Commission should be charged with assisting in the continuing realignment of Fairmount Park and the department's day-to-day operations as described above. The City Administration should 203 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 prepare an independent analysis examining the best way to maximize interdepartmental operational efficiencies while preserving each department's ability to deliver its unique services. The Commission's Executive Director should be held responsible for protecting Park interests throughout the process of aligning operations and updating the Park's mission and capacity. And, critically, City officials and Park and Recreation leadership should collaborate to produce a strategy by which the Park system's ongoing efforts to preserve and improve open space are integrated with the City's own economic and community development efforts.
Vital questions of watershed management, riverfront development, tourism, special events and environmental and historic preservation require a collaborative approach. Finally, no formal changes in 204 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the City Charter affecting Parks should take effect until the new City Administration takes office. In closing, let me restate what is at stake here. The question facing Fairmount Park and the Department of Recreation is not simply how to manage Park land at a minimum of expense. The question is how to manage it to the maximum benefit of Philadelphia as a whole in the years ahead. Our parks and open space are assets. They attract residents and visitors, raise property values, promote fitness and anchor neighborhoods. They advertise our City as a great place to live and work. They are the backyard we play in, the front yard we show off to neighbors, and the wild woods that we escape to. We need to give them the leadership they deserve. I want to thank you once again, Councilwoman Reynolds Brown, Councilman Clarke and City Council, for stimulating this discussion. By doing so, you've 205 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 definitely raised public interest and excitement, and much can be done if we organize to do it right. As we move forward, the Philadelphia Parks Alliance pledges to do the best that we can to make sure that this opportunity is not lost. Thank you. )
Are there any other members of the panel that would like to present remarks, comments?
Very well. I do see that Councilwoman Marian Tasco has a question.
Yes. I want to ask a couple of questions of the Commission. I think there's some concern been raised about the selection process. It seemed to me back in the day when the framers of the Charter set up the Fairmount Park Commission, they did so with the appointments through the courts 206 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 to alleviate the political appointment. So if we change the appointment, you're putting it right in the bed of the politicians. Do you think it's going to be any better?
Ma'am, we think that at the core of our discussion is leadership and energy to revitalize the Park system. The present method strikes against creating that energy. These folks, all of them well meaning and well intended and many of the members of the present Commission hard-working and doing their level best, come out of a process which is invisible to the public. The Alliance has for three years tried to make it a more open process, with some results but not sufficient. We really think that to stimulate the changes that are proposed in this legislation and in our proposal, which runs somewhat counter to it, a change in that system would give the enormous number of people who are really 207 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 vitally interested in the Park system a chance to run for the Commission. They don't have that chance now. It all happens behind closed doors, and would give us a footing upon which to make the other kinds of reforms that are based in here. It's as simple as all that. The School Board was taken out of that sort of secret chamber some years ago. It's time for the Park process to have the same results.
Well, the School Board went from one secret chamber to another.
The game of politics is ever-changing. Be careful what you ask for. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 208 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 First, I would like to thank you all for participating in last night's forum in helping us get the word out to the many members across and all the Park advocates, and it was really wonderful to see the level of participation. One thing, for the record, for those of you that are still here, I just wanted to say as one of the sponsors of the bill, I just want to indicate that I will not be calling for any action on the bill today. If there are people who have other things to do, I'm going to request of the Chair that this particular hearing be recessed at the end of all of the testimony to the call of the Chair. So if there is anyone that has to go somewhere that cannot stay, because I know there's a long list of individuals that are scheduled to testify, that there will be another opportunity to testify. The primary reason for me asking for us recessing this at the end of the testimony is, based on some of the 209 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 testimony that I've heard, particularly from the Commission and the members of the advocacy group, that there appears to be a willingness to sit down and work together over the next month or so to talk about a process that we can all feel comfortable with, a process that will hopefully take us to the next level as it relates to our Park and our Rec system. So I would like to say that I've heard that testimony, speaking for myself. I think it will be appropriate, before we ask for any action, that we take an opportunity to sit down and kind of talk this through, because there appears to be a lot more things that we agree with than we disagree with. So I think because of that, we probably should sit down and have further discussion.
The only thing I would add for the record is that 210 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 from square one, we have been open and attentive to important issues raised wherein we have been enlightened, beginning with the request to move the call for the Charter change from November to May. So I will concur with the co-sponsor of this bill and indicate that we remain open and willing, but it takes two. It takes several voices at the table, not just us pulling and reaching for voices to help us walk our way and move our way through wanting to create a better Park system. So I will concur and support my co-sponsor of this bill and, at the end of today, recess. For those of you who do have other demanding things on your schedule, you're welcome to return when we readjourn to continue to hear about this bill. Anything else from the panel?
Thank you 211 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 very much. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is Zack Stalberg.
I am Zack Stalberg. I'm a life-long user of Fairmount Park. I am Co-Chair of the Task Force that was referenced earlier by President Nix and that was convened by the Fairmount Park Commission but is not a servant of the Fairmount Park Commission. I am also President and CEO of the Committee of 70. Given the hour, I'd like to try not to repeat the other testimony and just to focus on the group that I co-chair. I do want to thank you and Councilman Clarke, not just for creating a sense of urgency around the Parks but, based on the latest statements, for your willingness to really spend the time over 212 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 the next month to try to develop the best legislation possible. And also speaking on behalf of the people sitting behind the bar, I also appreciate the heads-up in terms of what was going to happen for the rest of the evening. That was great. I'm here to describe the committee I co-chair. The Task Force is also co-chaired by Bob Nix, III, President of the Fairmount Park Commission, and it was sanctioned by the Commission. Three Commission members sit on this Advisory Committee, John Binswanger, Debra Wolf Goldstein and Philip Price, Jr. That said, I hope and believe that City Council will find in the end that this Committee is not the Commission's surrogate. I know independence when I see it, and I will be frank with this Council if I feel that the full Committee was not able to produce an independent set of conclusions. 213 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 The Committee will, I hope, offer fresh insights on how to improve, manage, govern and fund Fairmount Park. Our final report will include a sharper version for the Park than the one suggested in the 2004 strategic plan. And it will, of course, address the issue of how the Park should be managed in relationship to City government, the issue addressed by the proposed legislation. I want to stress a few other points about this Task Force. Other than the four Fairmount Park Commissioners, there are a dozen other members of the Committee, including representatives of the Administration, the private sector and organizations such as the Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Development Corporation and Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Three subcommittees have gone to work on the issues of vision, governance and funding. They are chaired 214 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 by Paul Levy of the Center City District, Joan Reilly of the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society and F. John White of Public Financial Management. The Park Commissioners who serve on the Task Force are not serving on the subcommittees that will fashion the final recommendations. The Task Force is about a month away from offering its recommendations. I know the sponsors' current desire is to get a ballot question in front of the voters in May. The Task Force will do its best to finish its report in January so that it will not interfere with that timetable. I hope the sponsors will not move on this legislation until you have an opportunity to both see that report and the two or three or four other studies and reports that are underway now in an effort to help inform the current debate. And I'm delighted that there 215 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 will be a second public hearing and probably an opportunity to look at some or all of those reports that are in the works, including the final report referenced by the Parks Alliance just now. Finally, I want to emphasize that this Task Force is not in business to preserve the status quo. I have not met anyone yet, and that includes members of the Park Commission, who believe we are optimizing the Parks. And there seems to be a broad consensus that some elements of the current system often yield bad results or bad perceptions or both. And there's been several references today to the method of appointment of Park Commissioners, and perhaps that's the best example.
Speaking only for myself, because it is too early in this process to really speak for the Task Force, I just want to conclude on this note: The Park might be the single asset that makes 216 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 Philadelphia truly unique among American cities. Because of the diverse nature of the Park system, its configuration throughout the City and especially its vastness, a well-thought out, well-managed, well-funded Park has the potential to serve Philadelphians far better and to be a lure and a revenue-producing lure for suburbanites and for out-of-towners. I believe City Council has one good shot in this term to accomplish comprehensive Park reform, and I hope you will view that as your goal. Thank you very much. )
Thank you very much for your testimony. And I will say that I am encouraged to hear, and I now quote, that the Task Force is not designed to maintain the status quo. If that were the case, then we wasted $600,000 and 18 months' worth of work. So to know that we're now at least 217 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 reading from the same sheet of music and we want to move the Philadelphia Fairmount Park system and the Recreation Department forward is a good thing. So we will look forward to the content of the pending report.
And I can just give you my sense of the Commissioners that I'm dealing with on this Task Force, and I believe that their desire is not to preserve the status quo as well.
Mr. Stalberg, we thought you could leave, but you cannot. My colleague, Councilman Michael Nutter, does have questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick one. And if I missed this in the course of your testimony, I apologize, and don't go back over it. 218 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 This Task Force, I think you indicated you expect the work to be done in January?
Did you happen to mention how many people are on this Task Force?
How coincidental. And did you happen to mention who all the members are?
Unfortunately, I have only one copy of this, but if I can give this to the Clerk and if the Clerk can pass that around or duplicate it, that would be fine. It's four members of the Commission, a dozen members from various segments and all who have some 219 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 concern in the Park, some who have specific Park expertise.
And what do you then expect to have happen with the Task Force report?
What do you then expect to have happen with the Task Force's report?
It will be delivered to the Commission, which asked us to go to work in the first place, and to the public shortly after that. And I hope it will have a constructive influence on this debate. I mention, for instance, the question of vision. We are treating the strategic plan as if it's some sort of sacred document, but when I looked, for instance, at the vision for the Park, it was pretty mushy, in my view. It said that we will have a signature park, and that was it. And personally I'm not sure what that means, and it doesn't feel 220 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 enough like a vision to me. So I hope we will be able to offer -- I use that as an example. I hope we will be able to offer to the Commission and to City Council and to the public a sharper vision for consideration than that.
Last question. Is any part of the Task Force work to seek to identify not only -- and this has come out through the strategic plan, certainly best practices in a variety of cities. The plan lays out different categories of what best practices are and then different cities that have done extraordinary things. Is this Task Force taking any part of its time to think about or identify who these stars or rising stars in Park management, whether they're just Parks or who have Park and Recreation background? Who are some of the people that we should be looking at in the context of Change Agents and people with 221 12/14/05 - WHOLE - BILL 050753 - RES. 050778 vision that we might have a potential interest in in the future?
I hope we will be able to go that far. As a practical matter, the upside of the timetable, the current timetable, is that it's created a sense of urgency. The downside is that it probably limits how much work can be done on any of these issues, but my hope is that the Governance and Operations Subcommittee of the Task Force, which is chaired by Joan Reilly, will be able to get to questions like that.