I said we're counting too much on a number. That doesn't mean anything. We can't project what somebody's going to do in their lifetime, ma'am. Listen, I get it. You're a numbers person and that's your job. I get that. I get that.
What would the cost be -- what would the cost be to give the firefighters the same access that the police -- the fire -- the police have, that you said, the difference? How much would that cost? Because that's where we can start.
Yes, that's it. You said that the police, they have negotiated it into their contract.
That's what bothers me. Why do we have to negotiate that into their contract? We should just have that as part of the benefit.
And that's something we can take back to Local trustee meeting and we'll discuss if that's something that they think that they want to provide to their members. Because what happens is in the budget process each union is given a pot of money. And that money, they determine how they want to spend it. Whether it's to buy additional resources for their members, if it's to have a cancer prevention program, if it's to -- they have a program where they go to the different firehouses and they check the blood pressure of each person. Whatever they determine is best for their members, that's what they put into the plan based upon the budget that they have. Now, we do have some --
We could just give it to them as a city, right? We could give them that as a city.
This is a point of information. And I think you're helping with some additional clarity, too. So is what we do as a city and what we value as a city and what we provide as a city, and then you have the contractual relationship between the union and the city; is that correct?
Okay. That that was -- now, that's new information from a clarity standpoint for me. I was just thinking, overall, we have certain values that we support as a city. And some of the policies will be reflected in how we look at health wellness just in general across the board. But if there's a collective bargaining component, is what I'm hearing now, where the union should be advocating for certain things for their members, then it seems like that's their responsibility if they want it in their contract.
Exactly. And if they want it as a part of their benefit package.
Because we give them X amount of dollars. They determine what that X amount of dollars what they want to buy.
And as a city, we -- because it's their money now. Because we've given it to them from a budgetary perspective.
And again, you educated me as well. I think I picked up one of my members just saying this as well. But wouldn't it be a baseline for certain things we just provide just --
Just as a -- just as a baseline. You don't even have to fight for this because part of our $7 billion budget, we just want to make sure that fire, EMT -- or EMTs and fires are part of each other and the police. We're just going to make sure they get a clinician, period, as a part of our overall cost. As a part of what we would assign value. I mean, help me out with that if you don't mind.
I'm glad you brought that up. There are some things that we do give across -- give across the board to all employees. You're absolutely right. So, okay. Medical prescription, dental and vision. All employees have those particular benefits. Each union determines what that looks like, what it covers, et cetera, et cetera. There are other benefits that we, the Office of Human Resources, that we provide to employees. So we provide life insurance, we provide the backup care program that you've heard a lot about through Wellthy. We've provided the concierge services, which are for family members to help support families. We provide On the Goga wellness platform for all city employees. We provide the Lunch & Learn program for all city employees. These are just some examples that -- these are programs we negotiated for all employees, that I have to -- that I present to the leadership and say, these are the things I'd like all employees to take advantage of. Because there are some affiliations that don't have certain things. So my thought process is equity for all. So backup care made sense. Why can't all employees have access to backup care? Why can't all employees have access to concierge care? So those are the things we can. Other things -- and if you think about if I did a chart and showed you the various levels of benefits that all the unions have, there's a -- there's disparity across the board, right? Everyone doesn't have all the same things. In the CAP plan, I can't even afford all the things that the unions have. So say for instance, they have Hello Heart, a heart monitoring program, they have cancer screenings. We can't afford that. They have guardian nurses who go to the bedside of members who are hospitalized who help them. They go to doctors' visits, et cetera. Those aren't things that we have. Does DC 33 have them? No. Their employees are actually exposed to the elements? No, they don't have those. Does DC 47 have them? Yes. They have guardian nurses. Does fire have guardian nurses? Yes. Does police have guardian nurses? Yes. And so there's some discrepancies. The basic health and welfare funds for each union determine what they'd like to cover, what they'd like to present to their members and what they think makes sense. And how do they determine that? Based upon the feedback they receive from their members. Members give them feedback and say, we'd like to have this program. They look at it from a budgetary perspective and determine, yes, this is feasible. We can work this into our budget or no, it's not feasible. Me on the benefits side for the city overarching, when I actually roll out benefit programs, when I'm -- like the Wellthy one, which I'm really proud of because we needed to help families in terms of backup care when there's an emergency, child care, we want people to be able to come back to work. That was really, really important. Some of the programs that we're talking about right now in terms of psychological support, we did put a psychologist in MEU. That's something that the Office of Human Resources budgeted and is paying for. And so we do see and we understand there are some things we need to do in an overarching way. And who can utilize that psychologist over at MEU? Hopefully DC 33 members are utilizing it, hopefully DC 47 members are utilizing it. I don't know if Local 22, but we know that LEHB doesn't need it because they have their own psychologists. So those are the kinds of things that we're trying to look at and understand. And the unions in their part, they look at what they have and say -- when they're negotiating their contract they're looking at, okay, so what do my members need? What are you giving me from a budgetary perspective that I need to add or what am I going to take away? Because they have to think in a holistic way in terms of the feedback they've gotten from their members. And if -- we are not in a position to tell a union you must do X, Y, Z, right?
If -- especially if they're paying for it out of their budget. CHAIR JONES: Thank you. We're going to go with -- you're asking for a point of personal information? Yes, Member Harrity.
Why can't we decide what we want to pay for? Why can't we decide that that's a service just like dental and vision that we would do. That's all I was trying to get at. Why can't we give them the mental health, to the first responders, just like dental and vision?
Well, they do have mental health -- they do have a mental health benefit.
One visit a year and then the rest are $150 a visit.
Oh, no, absolutely not. Do you know a mental health visit is $20? It depends on your plan -- the most -- remember I talked about mental health parity? You cannot charge more than the cost of a PCP visit for a mental health visit. That's illegal.
If the doctor is in network. If it's not it's 150. I went through this with my kid and not even an officer, but with a child. It cost me $150 because I couldn't find a child's psychiatrist to deal with the issue because we don't have them. That's another thing, we don't have, but I get it. CHAIR JONES: Can you provide those rates to the chair and I will disperse it to the members of this committee?
The rates from mental health co-pays? CHAIR JONES: Yes. Yeah.
Okay. Yes, I can provide mental health co-pays. CHAIR JONES: Appreciate you.
I'm good. Thank you. CHAIR JONES: All right. Member Brooks, thank you for your patience.
No 9 problem. Thank you so much. I just have a clarifying question, I think along the lines of what Council President and Councilmember Young were asking in terms of, if I heard you correctly, when the union goes for collective bargaining, cancer and mental health are selections that they could potentially get? Is that what I heard? And I'm trying to think about the parity between police and fire.
Sure. Sure. Okay. So each union health plan has a plan administrator. And the plan administrator's responsibility is to listen to the members to understand what benefits they need to provide to their members. The plan administrator will make a recommendation to the -- because they can add benefits every year, just like we do. We add new benefits every open enrollment sometimes. They do the same things. So plan administrator will come to the trustees and say, I'd like to -- we've been looking at this particular provider, we'd like to add this particular benefit for our employee population. We've gotten feedback. We think that it'll help us manage, say our cardiac issues, because we see it's going up, and we'd like to roll this particular program out. The trustees would vote on adding that particular benefit and they'll also look at if they can afford that particular benefit. And that's how that benefit becomes a part of an offering for a healthcare plan. So each healthcare plan determines what offerings they are going to make outside of the basic ones, you know, that they always offer.
And that's what I'm trying to get to. So, like, if they don't have enough, like suppose by the time they select whatever menu of recommendations they have -- and what I'm hearing is that the fire department didn't have enough to cover the mental health benefit that they need for suicide.
No. So if I -- point of information, my understanding of what I heard was that they -- each union negotiates a pool of money that they then present to their members in a cafeteria style selection. Some people have more emphasis on cancer treatment and mental health. So they make that decision, pitch it to their members and that's what they go with.
And to -- that's what I -- I hear that part. So to Council President's point, like as a city, we have the ability to offer certain things. I think like to make -- the fire department decide do they want to cover cancer or mental health because they can't afford it it's ridiculous. And their job requires them to go into situations where they can be exposed to carcinogens. And I'm like, I don't know if I'm not hearing this correctly.
They all cover mental health. Every single plan covers mental health. Every single plan. It's part of the plan design.
So the program that we talked about, this is discrepancy between the fire department and the police department. It's the fire department.
That was because they have a psychologist, and I thought that was a very good point from the councilman.
Are we asking them to choose from an in-house psychologist to be available to them or cancer treatment? Like, I just --
Because if the money is the same why can't we just blanket, if we are talking about parity, police and fire, which are emergency responders that have high risk jobs, they're going to do a certain thing. Why wouldn't that just be the same?
Because, as I explained, they all have their own individual budgets. They determine what they want to use that money for. So police saw a need so they hired their own internal psychologists. Now, one of the things that I -- and I think it's a really good point. That's something that we can take back to the Fire Department. Is that something they've been considering? I don't know the answer to that. It hasn't come up at a trustee meeting to be quite honest.
And I'm -- my concern is like, I don't want them to be in a position to choose between whether you have a in-house psychologist and you're going through PTI, and/or the cancer because of money. Is there something we can do as the city --
I don't know that it's a issue of money, to be quite honest. I don't know if it's something that they just haven't considered. I don't know if it's an issue of money. Because the other point that I need to make is, when you're -- the city would -- that when they negotiate a contract, sometimes they ask for certain things and sometimes they don't, from a budgetary perspective. They have a budget of X and they determine how they would like to use that money of X. So I don't know -- I can't say honestly, if having a psychologist on staff was a decision or a discussion with Local 22. I can't say that that was a discussion. Is that something I can take back to the trustees? Absolutely. To ask them that question, is that something they've been considering? Is that something they'd like to consider in future? And if they don't want to consider it, then I can ask them why not, because I can speak very honestly.
And then is the amount -- the pool of money that's being spent between police and Fire towards these services the same?
-- police has X number of employees and Fire has X number. So it's based upon how they've negotiated their contract in terms of how much they're going to receive from a -- how much they're going to receive and how much they're going to use for employee benefits.
And I'm hearing what you're saying, but my concern is, and even you brought up DC 33, when we think about city employees in general, and we know the risk solely associated with certain jobs, what type of investments are we making in the base package to make sure that city employees that will be affected in a certain way by whatever elements because of their job, is part of their core package. And I hear that, you know, the pools of money may differentiate between 33 or or 21 FOP, but the basic needs of jobs, 22 whether it's the psychologists for emergency responders, even if it's 911, which is a different union, or if it's carcinogen cancer treatment or whatever package, it'll be available to 33 because those are the ones that are digging in the ground and handling hazardous materials. Are we taking consideration the base issues of particular jobs within the city where we're negotiating these contracts and not making that part of the menu, but based on their job responsibilities that we are putting them at risk for in making these deals. So it's not like in a negotiated thing where we know this is something they're going to need and why we are making this an additional expense.
Okay. In negotiations, it's a shared responsibility. There's push and pull. There's a shared responsibility between the union and the city. And based upon what the needs and the wants of both groups, that's where the push and pull comes into play. I'm not a part of the negotiating committee, but I can say that if I'm asked questions about what I think we should consider or should not consider, I'll give my opinion. But at the end of the day, it's about that negotiating team that determines based upon what the union is asking for and what the city can afford. It's that push and pull that they come to a realization and to a conclusion of that contract that they've agreed to, whatever those terms and conditions are. So the union has to make a stringent voice to say, this is what we think we need for our members, and the city will listen and take that into consideration.
You're welcome. CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much Member Brooks. Do we have any other questions from this panel? Seeing none, Ms. Stack, can you -- thank you for your --
So, you know, some things we're going to agree to disagree on, right? But we do want to thank you all for work -- being here today, and your testimony. It is not personal. This is our first time meeting you all. And so I'm a Cherelle guy, gang -- the women gang. CHAIR JONES: Yeah, we know. She got a deep bench.
But we thank you-all for your time and any additional follow up information, we'll also do reach out and follow up on those ones. CHAIR JONES: Welcome to City Council.
Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Have a great day. CHAIR JONES: Ms. Stack, who is the next panel of witnesses to testify?
Emily Chow, widow of Pennsylvania State Trooper and Senator Steve Santarsiero from the Pennsylvania General Assembly. CHAIR JONES: Senator, I truly apologize for Ms. Stack treating you like a Republican, and we should have had you up here first, but welcome. Thank you for your patience. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Yeah. That's -- CHAIR JONES: Please state your name and begin your testimony. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: That's quite all right, Mr. Chairman. Actually, Mr. Chairman, if it pleases the committee, Ms. Chow would like to testify first if it would be all right. CHAIR JONES: Oh, look at you. Chivalry is not dead. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you. CHAIR JONES: He's yielding the mic. Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Hi, I am Emily Chow Gray. I'm the widow of Pennsylvania State Trooper Brian F. Gray. On January 19th, 2024, my beloved husband made the unimaginable decision to take his own life. The weight of his first responder experience left scars of trauma, PTSI, that he and so many first responders suffer from. Brian honorably served this country and the US Army, supporting the global war on terror, most notably, as a member of the Elite special forces. After his service, Brian came home and applied to serve once more with the Pennsylvania State Police. He worked for five years for the city of Philadelphia. He was assigned to Troop K. At the time of his death, he was a senior leader of his midnight squad. He received many accolades within and outside the department for his calm demeanor and unwavering professionalism on the job. Philadelphia was his region. As a state trooper, Brian often responded to devastating events on Philadelphia's highways. The most catastrophic and devastating event occurred March 2022. Brian and his partner were on patrol in the county. , the call came across, officers down. Two of his troopers, along with the pedestrian that they were trying to help, were struck and killed by DUI driver on I-95. Brian responded, not only as a grieving coworker, but he also immediately worked the case. I'll personally never forget when he walked through that door. After that call, he collapsed into my arms, and he was never the same after that day. That event, along with the culmination of a lot of other traumatic events that he experienced on this job, resulted in him suffering from PTSI symptoms. He witnessed drownings, suicides, graphic fatal accidents with body parts littering the highway, numerous other incidents involving reckless drivers almost hitting him and running him over. A state trooper car during the pandemic was lit on fire in front of our apartment. He responded to calls of his co-workers. He was, at the time, the only state trooper that was not hit by a car in his squad. And someone high on PCP attacked him, requiring hospitalization. These are only the select few of the traumatic events that happened at work. As you've all heard, mental health is currently not compulsory, which allows the stigma to exist. Brian felt that stigma and never, in his words, wanted to disgrace the badge or appear weak, especially as a senior leader of his squad. Shortly before his untimely death, he did agree to seek help. But alas, only days after celebrating his 36th birthday, I still lost him, proving that PTSI does not discriminate. I then had to live through the trauma of being informed of my husband's suicide death in the wee hours of the morning, instantly becoming a 34-year-old widow, mother of a one-and-a-half-year-old and newly pregnant. Mere hours later, I got a call from the Pennsylvania State representative who had to inform me that as of that day, I was now also without health insurance or any standard of line-of-duty death benefits because PTSI was not recognized as a line-of-duty death. And as law enforcement, obviously they were required to follow the law. So my goal now is to say that the law is incomplete and that through all of the data that you've heard, through all of the access to the information, to all of the clinical information, that it is, in fact, a work-related death. And that my husband's death and all of the other deaths that you've heard of today should also be considered line-of-duty death. Brian spent his adult life serving this country and the Commonwealth so that we could all be safe and free. But that safety and that freedom is not free. Brian ended up paying with his life. I lost my husband and my two children lost their father, one who will never know their dad or have one picture with their father. These first responders are never off duty; their hearts are always heavy with the weight of what they see and experience on the job.
But behind every single uniform is a family who shares the invisible weight of their service. So thank you for letting me speak today, and I ask for your empathy, your action, and the change. CHAIR JONES: No, we thank you. You honor this chamber by sharing your story, your sacrifice, and thank you for your husband's service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: We -- there are no words that will adequately define your sacrifice, your family's sacrifice, but I'm looking forward to the Senator's testimony, because it may well be the solution to most of what we heard today. And so please stick around. Senator, thank you for your discernment in allowing her to testify first, it set the tone. State your name for the record and begin your testimony. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Santarsiero and I'm a member of the Pennsylvania State Senate representing the 10th District, which is in Bucks County. I think you're right. I think what Emily just shared definitely underscores why we're all here today. And I think your first panel made that case as well with their personal experiences that really do explain why there needs to be a change in the law. And I will speak in a moment about what the change -- the proposed change is here in Pennsylvania, what we're proposing in the State Senate and also in the State House. But I want to step back for a moment to make a broader point, because the testimony you've heard today is testimony that most of our constituents usually don't think about. We know that first responders have a difficult job. We know that we ask them to do, very often, impossible tasks, but seldom do we really think what that means and how that impacts them. You heard the experience of Trooper Gray. Even in the town in which Emily and I live, Lower Makefield Township, just about 30 miles north of where we're sitting today, there are things that happen on a daily basis that residents have no clue about. Just a couple of years ago, local police officers had to respond to a home where they found two bodies: a father who had murdered his 9-year-old son; and then his own body after he took his own life. Now, think for a moment what impact that had on those responding officers to see that. That is what our first responders have to go through. And, you know, Council President Johnson, it's good to see you again. Earlier in the previous panel, there was discussion obviously about costs, and I know that that's a significant issue for the city as it is for the state. And I know you have to weigh those costs when you're thinking about changing policy like this. But if I may offer, we make a social contract with our first responders and their families for that matter, and that social contract asks them to undertake this work; this often dangerous work; this often traumatizing work. It's a social contract we ask their families to bear the results of. We have an obligation to fulfill our end of that bargain, which is not merely to make sure that they're paid, which is not merely to pass legislation that helps to protect them, which is not merely to make sure that they receive proper benefits while they are alive, but also to ensure that when they pass, that their families are being taken care of. That's what this is about. And the issue, and Councilman Harrity, thank you for sharing your dad's story earlier, I thought that was -- that was very powerful, I appreciate that. The issue for us is whether we are finally going to step out from beyond the stigma that so many mental health issues, to this day, have. And as has been so eloquently described in previous testimony, how that stigma impacts the culture of first responders themselves. Are we going to step back from that stigma and do the right thing to make sure that even when a death occurs in the line of duty by suicide, that benefits will be there. That's the question. And I applaud -- I applaud this committee and I applaud President Johnson for bringing this issue forward for the -- for the city to consider doing this important step here in the City of Philadelphia. We would like to make sure we do it in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as it relates to the death benefit that would otherwise be available and heretofore has been denied Emily and her children.
So that's why we have introduced Senate Bill 110. And I'm happy to say it's a bipartisan bill in the state senate. I've teamed up with Senator Camera Bartolotta from the other side of the state. She would be here today but for the fact that it's probably about a six-hour drive to get -- to get here to propose this legislation. It's a very simple bill, it's only a few pages long and it amends what we have here in Pennsylvania, which is known as Act 101, which is the Emergency and Law Enforcement Personnel Death Benefits Act. That Act allows for surviving spouses, minor children, or parents of first responders, and first responders under the Act include firefighters, ambulance or rescue squad members, law enforcement, and members of the Pennsylvania Civil Air Patrol or National Guard who die in a line of duty to receive death benefits from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But the question is: what is covered by dying in the line of duty? So very simply, Senate Bill 101, and we have a House companion bill, and that House companion bill is House Bill 237, which is being offered by Representatives Melissa Cerrato, Jen O'Mara, and Brian Munroe. It would expand dying in the line of duty to include deaths by suicide, whether because of a diagnosed condition prior to the death or in the case where diagnosis has not been made, where the death occurs 45 days from the traumatic event. They would be covered, and the death benefit would be available to the families. Again, a simple idea, but it's an issue of our values and whether we, as policy makers, whether at the city or at the state level, are going to acknowledge that social contract and our obligation under it. I'm happy to report that the bill, Senate bill 110, is currently in front of the Senate Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness Committee. I am hopeful and President Johnson knows how this works in Harrisburg, so I'm not going to jinx myself by opining when this is going to be brought up, but I'm hopeful it's going to be soon, and that we will get it out of committee and get it to the floor and then over to the other chamber. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether it's the Senate bill 6 or the House bill; they're identical. What matters is that we get it to Governor Shapiro's desk so he can sign it into law. I am, again, grateful for you to have taken up this issue to have highlighted it here in this committee hearing today. I think it's been a very good hearing and I've -- you've gotten some really great information, both with respect to the problem and also with respect to how it potentially -- a solution potentially impacts the city financially. But I will say once again, from my own standpoint, and this goes for the state too, our obligation is overarching. And while we need to be good fiscal stewards, and while we need to observe that fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer, we also need to make sure that we're providing for these heroes and their families. With that, we're happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIR JONES: So you have proved positive, both at the local level and hopefully at the federal level, that good legislation can be brought from whatever house to whatever party because it really helps people, and I am grateful. I'm going to turn the mic over to Member Gauthier.
Thank you so much both of you for being here, thank you for sharing your story, and thank you for this bill. I am hopeful that it's brought up soon, I am hopeful -I'm glad that it's a bipartisan effort and I hope that it sells through because it's very important. One thing I wanted to put on the table, and this is something that has been a part of my work for the last several years, and I will say it's really the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, which, first, kind of brought my attention to the plight of the workers in our 911 call center. But this especially hit home for me after the Kingsessing massacre which occurred in my district in which sort of the call was erroneously deployed to North 56th Street after the first victim who was shot almost two days before the next six victims. And because the call was deployed three miles away, we, I think, missed a huge opportunity to maybe save many more lives. And so that really got me looking into what happens in the 911 call center, what we can do to head off mistakes like these, which can be disastrous. But what I found was that these are very overworked employees of ours. These are mostly Black women, Brown women who don't really have -- they're not protected by the same union and offered the same benefits. They do not have the same pipeline for career success, they're stressed, they're tired, they're overworked, and they also deal with quite a lot of trauma. They are answering the phones during people's worst moments. And so I've been working in my role as a Councilmember to make sure that they are paid adequately. I found that there was a big disparity between what we were offering our 911 call center operators and what other counties offer. And then I also found that they are not considered in the state's definition, at least from my understanding, as first responders. And I believe that there is a bill that would change this at the state level. But I wanted to ask you, in this wonderful work that you're doing, can you carry that with you as well. And if there's anything that you can do to help these first, first responders, I think that they should be included in all of this for the very significant role that they play, that is often overlooked in the city and at the State level. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you, Councilwoman. I -absolutely, you make an excellent point. They do face many of the same issues based on what they have to hear on a daily basis, and so we will absolutely look into that and I'll try to find that legislation you're referencing.
Thank you so much. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you. CHAIR JONES: We can skip to President Johnson.
Well, first, welcome. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you.
That's the first part. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Yeah.
And it's always good to see you, and most of my members probably may or may not know, but I served with Steve as part of my freshman class, so we see that bond, right, and he went from state house, now he's on the senate side. So I'm always proud to see the work that you are doing. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you.
Couple things, well, I'm glad you gave us an update on where the legislation is thus far, and so you don't have to elaborate on that. And I just sent out to my colleagues also a resolution also calling on General Assembly to be supportive of your bill. Can you give any background regarding how this works on the federal level, right? Because the feds, I mean, I got a fact sheet right here, the Public Safety Officer Benefits Program, it's a done deal on the state level non-controversial, right? And obviously we want to see the same type of model on the state and the city level. So tell me, like, what is the litmus test? Because I think that's the million- dollar question, right? How do you determine that the suicide was in the line-of-duty service to qualify for the benefits? SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right. So our bill is actually modeled on the federal legislation which is -- was passed in 2022 called the Public Safety Officer Support Act. And essentially, what it boils down to is, again, in a situation where you have a diagnosed condition, that's pretty straight, right? That's pretty straightforward, in a situation where it has not previously been diagnosed, but the -- but the death occurs within 45 days of an event. That is where the determination has to be made, that event is what ultimately was the triggering factor in the -- in the suicide.
Okay. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: so -- and the bill goes into some detail in terms of the different traumas that are -- that are considered. Yeah.
And how was the totality of an individual's employment in that particular profession, right? And I think somebody talked about this earlier. Let's say there's a series of events that kind of leads up to individual who may engage in suicide, right? Who would make those decisions in terms of looking at the patterns that these are the stressors that has a significant impact on the individual? SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right. So in terms of considering a claim under the law, I'm sure that would be people with a medical background to do that. But, you know, the interesting thing is, again, it's getting back to so much of what was discussed today, which is getting the services to people sooner.
Yes, that's true. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Because, ideally, I mean, we're talking about the worst-case scenario today, right? We're talking about providing benefits after the most horrible thing imaginable could happen; that is someone taking their own lives. Hopefully by providing benefits more broadly and better benefits, we avoid that, as Councilman Harrity described in his dad's case where he got the help. But that often then could lead to a diagnosis ahead of time as well.
Okay. All right. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: So, but again --
The ultimate goal of prevention. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right. But -- and here's the other thing I will say, it's on us at the state level, we have to do a better job funding mental illness services. We absolutely have to do it. Look, I hear it from my county all the time. One of my commissioners is a social worker, and she is -- she is one of the best advocates I know when it comes to this issue. We do not do enough as a state. And that's something where your advocacy with your delegation, obviously, but I'm sure in your delegation, you're preaching to the choir, but we need all to be singing from the same music sheet on this. The state needs to do a better job providing for mental health services. No question about it.
And just wrapping up, I just want to commend Ms. Gray just for getting the courage, your testimony, continue to fight the good fight on behalf of your husband keeping his legacy alive. And I'm hopeful, right, because I do know from doing this work on the brief time I have been -- I have been doing it, like this, even having a conversation publicly about mental health, right? SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right.
And my colleagues hosting different either task forces or round tables on events just around mental health, because, you know, in every community, right, there's some level of stigma. And in the African- American household, you won't talk about what's going on in the household. We keep everything inside the house, so you don't talk about. Well, that's how it used to be, right? So even the whole concept of going to get therapy, right -- SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Right.
-- has been foreign or looked down upon, where now you have to have a conversation and it's becoming more acceptable to say -- to be in a conversation with some men and they say, oh, you know, I got a therapist and nobody think nothing of -- oh, okay, cool, and go about, you know, your day to day conversations. And so -- but this is also -- I'm glad you talked about it from a social contract standpoint, right, because there's some things that we can do from a policy standpoint, and there's some things we do because it's the morally right thing to do. And so, Ms. Gray, again, thank you for turning your pain into purpose, and State Senator, thank you for your leadership on this issue. SENATOR SANTARSIERO: Thank you, Council President. If I -- if I can just add, I -- Emily is amazing. I mean, for someone to have two young children -- those of us who are parents know what it's like when your kids are really young, and yet to be this tireless advocate for this issue, not just for herself, but for all the other families that are in this position, we should be very thankful and grateful. CHAIR JONES: Thank you for sharing. Thank you so much. Chair recognizes Member Harrity.
Oh, I'm sorry, I think Council President got it, I'll -- CHAIR JONES: Okay. All right. Got it.
-- we're in. CHAIR JONES: So if I took anything away from these things -- I got three. That we have to do more for prevention, mental health days, and those kinds of therapeutic refreshes. If Joel Embiid can experience load management playing basketball, a kids' game, then we need to have load management on first responders. The second thing I take away is removing that stigma. President Johnson is right. I've been in -- when I was coming up, if you hang out on a basketball court and you said, oh, by the way, I got to go because my therapist is waiting, we'd to look at you differently than we look at you today, and that is progress. That is progress. And then No. 3, that we are zeroing in on what is -- what can be tightened up about suicide causal relationships that allow more families to take this occupational hazard and not wind up in the poor house because they made -- their spouses made sacrifices for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So if I take away three things, those are the three things that I thank you for --
And if I may add one -- CHAIR JONES: Please do. State your name again.
Emily Chow Gray, the widow of State Trooper Brian Gray. And one thing I would say is, yes, everything that you recapped is exactly correct. I think in terms of the gap, in a way from what we're talking about stigma is -- especially in law enforcement, these men and women that put on the badge, you know, from day one in the academy, they are taught you are the calm in the chaos. They're never taught how to calm their chaos. And so -- CHAIR JONES: Wow.
-- one of the biggest things that I really think would be the difference is not only having these programs offered by the EAP and available to them, it has to be mandatory. It has to be in order, and it has to be something that every single one of them is required to do, because that is going to remove the stigma. That is the -- in my opinion, going to be the reason. Because my husband cried to me and said, I can't unsee the things that I've seen, and I called EAP and I told them in June that he was at risk to kill himself, and in January, six months later, he did. CHAIR JONES: From pain to purpose is what I heard a lot of as well. So thank you for staying steadfast in his memory to make sure it had a purpose. I know that -- I know the city and the Police Commissioner and the Mayor, because of legal matters, couldn't testify today, but I know they're listening. And one of the things that we need to add in our recruitment efforts to get new officers to say, we got you. We got you. And this is -- that we're going to make sure that when you are with us, that you know we got you. Pain into purpose.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: If -- without any other questions -- thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: Appreciate you so much for sharing. Ms. Stack, can you tell us the next group to testify? It's public comment.
Eugene Blackman, Melissa Rice and Steve Cohen. CHAIR JONES: Okay. We're good. We're good. Thank you, Vice Chair for hanging in there. And we got it. We got it the rest of the way.
Thank you. CHAIR JONES: Thank you for your patience, sir. And thank you for making sure, Eugene, you got to add the FOP's perspective. I know sometimes it's perceived that because your advocacy for your memberships that we're pulling on one arm, but you better know that the FOP is pulling at the other arm to keep their membership included. I know we've been talking about what the city's obligation to insurance and death benefits, but I also know that the FOP did not wait --
They got this. CHAIR JONES: Yeah, they passed the hat and they said, all you who wear this badge --
-- you're going to get that. CHAIR JONES: -- you're going to ante up, and we're going to take care of ourselves first. So with that, state your name for the record and please give us your comments.
Melissa, just for the record, separate from your name, could you -- could you just also state the symposium you co-founded; the work that you are doing.
Yes. So I co-founded the First Responders Suicide Prevention Symposium of Philadelphia. We had military personnel and all first responders; it was an awareness event. This is where I met President, Chairman Kenyatta Johnson and all of these amazing speakers who spoke today. It was a really powerful event and really set the stage for why this change is needed. And Steve Cohen over here was actually the main sponsor.
Sure. My name is Melissa Rice. I'm a mental health advocate. When I was first asked to speak and help run a First Responder's Mental Health Suicide Prevention Symposium, I remember thinking, how can I truly relate? I've never worn the uniform, I've never responded to calls, I have not experienced what they experienced, especially the family members. But I've lived through my own battle. At years old, I 5 experienced suicide ideation. I 6 was deeply struggling with anxiety, 7 depression since five, while also 8 carrying the stigma of being told 9 to hide it, to push through, to not 10 talk about it, to live two 11 different lives, just like first 12 responders. 13 What change my life was a 14 friend, a friend who listened, who 15 noticed, a friend who helped me when I could not help myself, who looked beyond the stigma. And I was lucky, but sadly, it's not always the outcome. Because of that moment, I'm here today. As for the past 16 years, I've been speaking publicly about mental health. I've shared my story in schools, universities, communities, because I believe that conversations save lives. I believe visibility reduces stigma. I believe honesty builds connection. So while I cannot fully understand what first responders and their families experience with a job, I deeply understand what it feels like to suffer in silence. I understand pretending you're okay, understand carrying something heavy alone, the fear of being judged for needing help. And as I listen today to the courageous stories of first responders and their family members navigating suicide loss, mental health struggles, and the pressure to appear strong at all times, I knew this fight brings us all together. Mental health does not discriminate by profession, but stigma thrives in silence. Although more resources all are available, there are more people talking about it yes, celebrities, athletes; the statistics show that suicide is actually still on the rise, people are afraid to seek help compared to college students. Fifty percent of college students are struggling; 75 percent of the 50 who are struggling do not seek help due to stigma. In terms of health insurance, it only covers certain therapists, most of the time, not experts in the type of mental health issues that are needed. And usually this is paid out of pocket, just like my family had to do. This goes back to one of the witnesses, sharing that first responders should be given a psychologist or psychiatrist who can relate and understand and not be shocked and just interested to hear the details of their story. What unites us is not identical experience; it's shared humanity. Every person on this panel has said it beautifully, their courage to speak openly is changing the culture in real time. And for that, I'm so grateful. I'm grateful to see Cohen for believing in this, to the FRSP team, to City Council, to Councilman Kenyatta Johnson for your care, support, and moving this important change forward. This how change happens when leaders listen, communities respond; and when people decide, the conversation cannot stop. We have to keep talking, we have to keep reducing stigma. We have to build systems that support people who run towards danger while the rest of us run away. It's powerful and long overdue. We are finally recognizing how important it is to protect and support those who dedicate their lives to saving ours. And the conversation cannot end today, because sometimes it takes one person, one friend, one colleague, one leader to interrupt the silence and save a life. And yes, prevention is key, and I love starting at the academy. And there are some programs happening, and having the whole Philadelphia Academy attend last year's FRSP event was huge. That work is worth continuing. So thank you for today and every day that we fight for our general public and especially our first responders in the struggle and battle with mental health, and especially supporting their families. Thank you.
CHAIR JONES: Thank you so much for being one of the motivating factors to get us here today. We appreciate, we appreciate your comments. Next speakers.
My name is Eugene Blackman, I'm from the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 13 5 and the State Lodge. I didn't have any prepared testimony because I wasn't prepared to speak, but I just wanted to speak on one thing that the City commented on. All the stuff that they're taking credit for, we had to fight them tooth and nail for decades to get that done. They're sitting back there like they -- they never heard the word wellness before we came along. So for them to take credit for that is kind of disingenuous, I guess is the word you use now. So I just wanted to say that we, at the FOP, want to partner with you on this issue. It's very important and whatever we need to do to get it done, we will get -- work with you to get it done. All I say, ask any city -- ask any police officer, any firefighter you know, ask him if he thinks the city has his back. That's all you have to do. The answer will always be the same, trust me. CHAIR JONES: Eugene, it is just good to see you. Okay, Steve. Hold up a minute. Hold up.
Not yet. CHAIR JONES: Give me a second. Let me -- let me give my guys his flowers. From my freshman year, you were sitting in that seat over there, and often, you would be taking notes and kind of asking questions about what did we mean when we said this or that. And it always went back in a way that made sense for your members. And so you have never come in this chamber and asked for much, you didn't wait for us. You guys -- I've been -- we've been to way too many police officers' funerals, way too many. But they were done with dignity, they were done with respect for the services given to our city, and we are thankful for our partnership. And sometimes, you know, City of Philadelphia takes a little credit for things that, you know, they didn't do, but we are glad you did so that we could follow suit, so thank you and welcome back, sir. Thank you and welcome back.
Thank you, sir. We want to partner with you, we want people to say that City Council is -- does have their back, and that's all we really want. CHAIR JONES: Agreed. Well, we're here to represent that. Now, Steve, go for it. State your name for the record --
My name is Steve Cohen. My many thanks to this City Council and to President Kenyatta Johnson and to you Councilman Jones for -- and your colleagues here for allowing us to speak. Several years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Darrell O'Connor, Darrell O'Connor, a Special Agent with the ATF, and actually, I met him through a very close friend of mine by the name of Hardy Williams, State Senator Pennsylvania, introduced me to my wife 69 years ago, for which I'm very grateful to him. And Hardy and I became very close friends. When he retired from the state senate, he represented our family in a matter of quite a few legal matters for which we are very grateful to him. And I met Kenyatta, with whom I'm grateful, because he's taken -- helped me take up a challenge here regarding our first responders. I'm very much involved through our foundation with helping and assisting those people in need with mental illness, mental health issues. Several years ago, when I met Darrell and I did speak to Councilman Johnson, I hope you don't mind if I call you Kenyatta, my age, Kenyatta, gives me some privileges, and I will not be intrusive on you. We spoke about our first responders, and I recognized how grateful I am to live in this beautiful country. Our country is great. We offer so much to everybody, and yet we never gave the recognition, as far as I'm concerned, to our first responders. Our first responders make this democracy work in this country, they put their neck on the line, their bodies, their minds, their life on the line all the time. And they make it possible for us to live in the democracy and the freedom that we have here, for which I am eternally grateful. And as a result of that, our family decided with Darrell O'Connor's help, Bill Fleischer, Messisa, to sponsor a symposium for mental health issues as it pertains to our first responders. That our first responders would attend this symposium to learn what it -- to speak out about the stigma, the challenges that they have every day, and to help them recognize that they must seek help to prevent them from committing suicide. And so we had our first responder -- our first responders symposium at Temple University a year ago. We were delighted that Police Commissioner Johnson and Fire Commissioner Johnson was there to help us get this message out to our community, our first responders' community. Thank you, Kenyatta, for helping us get this to our first responders' community. Temple University was grateful to have us there; we were grateful to be there. Our second symposium was held this past September at Immaculata University for which Kenyatta joined us there to give opening remarks. We had our police department, young people, come to this symposium to understand, and I mean these are the recruits that were at the police academy, to come there and understand that if they need help, please feel free to reach out and get the help. We will continue to run these symposiums. At Temple University, we had 450 people attend. I think it was a great response considering that many people who suffer our first responders from mental health issues really don't want to attend these sessions. They don't want to -- they don't want to be seen. And we had our second program at Immaculata University. We had over 400 people attend. So I'm grateful to have the opportunity to come before this council. I thank you for your service and I want you to know that our family is committed to do whatever we can as it relates to mental health issues pertaining to our first responders. And we also sponsor a program for college students because the suicide rate amongst college students has skyrocketed. And we support a program called CogWell, which I think Missy heads it up, and we have, I believe, seven or eight universities or so that are part of the program. So this is a serious epidemic that's in our country, and we must do everything we can to help our first responders seek help, prevent suicide.
And if we save one life, we've accomplished not all of what we would like, but certainly some of what we like. So, Councilman Jones, thank you so much. Thank you, President Kenyatta, and thank you for your service of your father who experienced things that I've never experienced. I'm grateful to be in this country and to have the kind of life I have. But we as society must reach out and do all we can to protect those who protect us every day and put their line -- their life on the line. So thank you all for your service. Thank you very much. CHAIR JONES: Thank you. Again, all of this is a convergence and it's making a difference. It's on the record. The only thing, before I let our President close out, is I was sitting here thinking that for those people that are being recruited to become first responders, police officers, firemen, people who deal with 911 calls, if we don't, in the recruitment part, say we got your back, and here's how that whether your body breaks on you or whether your will and mind break on you, we got you, and more, or as importantly, your family, then we are -- we are not giving them the full respect of the job that they're undertaking. Think about this: had everyone that went in 9/11 Twin Towers after the towers began to catch fire, if you'd have told them, at the end of the day, if your body or your mind break, we don't have your family's back, how many would've went in? So we've got -- they do their part, we have to do ours. With that, I recognize Councilman President Kenyatta Johnson.
I just want to thank the members for your time and your schedule and just sticking to it. And also thank Gene and thank you Steve Cohen, particularly around this particular topic, you brought to my attention at the symposium and it was a no brainer, because again, as it was talked about earlier by State Senator Steve Sentarsiero, it is a social contract with our first responders. They get up every single day and put their lives on the line for us, and it's only right that we figure out ways to be supportive of them as much as we can do possibly. And so I just want to thank all of you for your testimony and Dr. Melissa Rice as well for your leadership on this particular topic, as well, in terms of how we put the panel together as well. CHAIR JONES: Amazing job, Mr. President. Anyone else?
There's one thing -- there's one thing I wanted to add. When they were talking about, they'd only had two suicides submitted to them over the years, I had two suicides in my squad in the 16th District, 39th, Lincoln, one of the smallest districts in the city. And we had two homicides in the 90s, and both of those guys were under 40 years old. They said the average age of the suicide is 49. They didn't say the average age of police suicides is 49. So they're taking numbers and kind of moving them around conveniently. CHAIR JONES: We -- that's on the record now and we will follow up on that. Is that it for the Chair?
That's all I have, sir. CHAIR JONES: All right. That's all you have? All right. So this concludes the hearing -- a Public Safety Hearing on Resolution 4 No. 250863. Thank you all, I thank the listening audience. This concludes our business. (Committee on Public Safety hearing concluded at 2:10 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me of the above case, and this copy is a correct transcript of the same. _______________ Samanda J. Rios