I didn't really think I needed a mic. But firefighters need to --
I'm sorry. You need to reidentify yourself for the stenographer. 84 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575
The bunker gear issue, we get detailed from one station to another, and that's a common occurrence of the Fire Department. It's not a -- it's so common that as an officer, you keep a list of all the stations that your members are detailed to so that everybody gets detailed the same amount of times over the course of a year. Every time you get detailed, you take your bunker gear with you. Now, if you're using a family car, your bunker gear goes into the family car.
Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up. If you guys -- if you may put together for us in terms of -- because we're talking about equipment, what is needed, what is presently there, what shape it's in, is it state-of-the-art, and does it need to be replaced. I would like, as comparison to have for the committee, a whole listing of equipment of all of the things that we've mentioned so far and your perception of the state of that system, the state of 85 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 that machine, the state of the truck, whatever it is that we have, and whether in your opinion and expert consideration, it should be replaced and why it should be replaced. And if you could do that in writing for us, I would really appreciate to have that so that we can compare the state of our equipment in the present situation. Can you do that?
Councilmember Reynolds Brown, then Councilmember Rizzo.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Recognizing that nothing is a hundred percent, I'm of the view that progress is always incremental, if you had to look a year ago or two years ago or maybe at the last time of your contract, there were two or three top priorities. What has been the outcome of those two or three top priorities? Addressed, not addressed, improvement, no improvement? So that we have a balanced picture of what was and where we want to go for the future.
Well, in the last arbitration, we addressed the fact that the stations 86 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 didn't have diesel emission equipment.
It's like mechanics that work in garages, they have equipment that will suck out the exhaust and put it to the outside. We never had this in firehouses. We presented a package from the arbitrator, and he ruled in our favor. And currently, from what I understand from the Commissioner, that that is being addressed. You know, it's going to be a costly item, but they're headed in the right direction, which I think is good. We have problems with wellness and fitness
With wellness/fitness. The arbitrator ruled in our favor on that particular issue. And what that addresses is the condition of the firefighters that are out there doing the work.
And, you know, right now, we're hiring guys that are 59 years old. You know, this is a young man's job, and you shouldn't be hiring firefighters that are that old. And we've 87 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 been talking about that, and there's probably help that you guys could give us in that respect. As far as -- Congress, a few years ago, agreed with the International Association of Firefighters that there should be a hiring exemption for firefighters. In other words, they have anti-discrimination where you can hire people that are too old. They gave the fire departments and police departments exemptions, and the City of Philadelphia never enforced that. Years ago, the hiring limit was 32 years old.
And now we're hiring -- you know, a guy at 59 years old shouldn't be becoming a firefighter.
Help me understand why that's the case. And please forgive my ignorance. It's the lack of what?
Well, the City was afraid to address the issue because they're afraid they'll get sued.
Well, it's also a lack of integrity that people who are moving from one City department to another in order to take 88 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 advantage of a more lucrative pension system that they didn't earn. What happens is, you have people who work in various departments in the City that are non-public safety related and spend 20, years in 6 that department or 23 years and decide they want to 7 become a police officer or a firefighter for a year 8 or two, or even worse, two months out of the 9 Academy, then retire with a firefighter or a police 10 officer's pension, which they did not earn, because 11 the benefits, even though they're not sufficient 12 enough, are higher than the normal non-public 13 service employee because they don't face the same 14 rigors and dangers as public safety employees. 15 So we have basically a scam that was going 16 on, with people jumping from -- just for sake of 17 example, the Water Department or from the Library 18 system to the Police or Fire Department, in an 19 effort to take advantage of a lucrative -- we 20 believe, I believe, closed that hole. 21
For the pension part, but 22 somebody could still take the test and pass the test 23 and become a firefighter at 59 years old, which 24 we've had. 25
But if they were 89 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 current City employees, they'd have to maintain, I thin, five years prior to being able to collect the police officer or firefighter's pension.
I've been a firefighter for 28 years, and when I came on the Fire Department in 1974, you weren't allowed to be over the age of 31, you couldn't have reached your 31st birthday, okay? Now, I also taught at the Fire Academy a couple of times, and I was teaching people that were older than I am. And I know that physically, my body right now is not the same shape I was in 28 years ago; I cannot do the same thing as a firefighter now that I did then, but I have 28 years of experience under my belt, I have a lot more sense about what's going on inside of a burning building than I did when I was a rookie. When I was a rookie, I just trusted luck and had the senior guys. Well, now I'm a senior guy and I don't run in as quickly as I did before, and I pay a lot more 90 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 attention to the younger guys that are on the Fire Department. But you got a fellow that's -- if we hire somebody that's already older than I am -- I'm 50, and we're hiring people that are 56, 57, 58, 59, and they're rookies. There's no time to teach them how to become a professional firefighter before it's time for them to retire. It just doesn't make any sense
Then I'm compelled to answer the question, on the front end of that, does Local have any programs in place 14 designed to intentionally deliberately recruit and 15 track and train young men and women out of high 16 school and just straight through -- 17
Well, not out of high school 18 because we're not -- what we have -- we have a 19 meeting with the City, I believe, on Friday to deal 20 with a wellness/fitness program, which Local 22 and 21 the IFF internationally is in favor of, about how 22 to -- when we hire people for the Fire Department, we want them to be in physical shape and we want them to stay in that kind of shape for their entire career. 91 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575
The minimum age that we would like to see is no older than 35 years.
The bottom end is -- no, 9 19, I believe, I'm sorry. It's always been 19. It 10 was 19 to 30, and you couldn't have reached your 11 31st birthday. Now, we don't mind going to 35, but 12 you can't go to 45 and 50. I mean, our retirement 13 age, minimum retirement age, is 45. We're hiring 14 people that are above our minimum retirement age. 15
I see. Very 16 helpful. 17 Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. 18
To finish answering your other question, what we also have headed in the right direction is the Infectious Disease Control Program. Prior to the last arbitration award, we had very week guidelines on how that should be addressed. Ever since the hepatitis C issue broke, it became a number-one priority with us, and the Department is starting to address that issue. 92 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575
So would it be fair to say, then, that if there were five issues or six issues brought to the table, 50 percent of them were addressed, would that be fair to say?
Okay, all right then. And next year, hopefully, there will be another set of issues that you'll look for the City to address. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, given the limited budget constraints and the decisions that the leadership of all the City departments have to make, nothing is 100 percent. So given that reality, you've presented four in this list here, and the hope is that a year from now, two of the four or three of the four -- or, ideally, four of the four -- will be addressed, correct?
But the only difference, frankly, is that this issue of Act 111 93 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 arbitration was something that was, and has been, binding up until this year. In past contracts -- I guess two or three?
In the past two or three, because of the fiscal situation of the City and because of the influence of the PICA Act 9 binding arbitration was not, I guess, in the opinion 10 of the labor force fair to them, but they didn't 11 sue, they didn't go to court, and they didn't drag their feet. They sucked it up and ate what was given to them and continued on. This year -- or last year, I guess it was, for whatever reason, we decided to go around the binding arbitration process and sue in court to not uphold, or to dismiss a number of issues that the arbitrator awarded. That really cuts at the essence of binding arbitration. Uniformed employees, public safety employees are not permitted to strike, and that's a good thing -- for us as citizens. And I don't think they would anyway because they're too dedicated to what they do. But to have the City approach this Act 111 as if the binding arbitration is 94 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 meaningless, I think, is part of what a lot of the problem with all of our discussions is that it's being conducted with little or no good faith.
Okay. The two chairs of this committee would request that given sufficient time, that you give us some recommendations specifically on equipment -- both engine company, ladder company -- I'm sorry, engine, truck, ladder apparatus and personal safety gear, and give us some recommendations on what you believe we need to make your people safe, 'cause you're the guys that are entering the dwellings and entering the commercial establishments on fire. We'd appreciate hearing from you in a more complete way.
Could I add something to that? Also, in terms of the bacteriological and chemical warfare and equipment that you have to fight those menaces and whether they're available to 95 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 you and whether they're at the standard that we should be at this point in time, given the current real situation that the nation is facing.
And the only amendment I would offer, with the chairs' consent, is to list those items in priority order, 'cause that would be very helpful to us on this end. Thank you very much.
Is there a situation in the Fire Department -- we talked about the high-tech, the thermal imaging things that would be nice, expensive, and very helpful. Are there times when firefighters respond to the scene of a fire and they don't have some of the basic equipment -- face shield, safety goggles, gloves, things that -- is there ever a storeroom problem where the standard-issue stuff isn't readily available, like half-mile ray lights that work properly? Is the Fire Department in pretty good shape when it comes to the nuts and bolts and the equipment that they need to first protect themselves and the public?
Today, I believe we get that 96 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 equipment, it's readily available to us. Years ago, we did have problems. But today, the equipment is much easier to get.
Well, that's good to hear because if you're having a problem with the basics, that would be very, very troubling. It's good to hear that the system is working well.
It seems that we have a lot more problems toward the end of the fiscal year than we do towards the beginning of it, if you know what I mean. When the City starts to run out of money, sometimes we don't have parts or we don't have this or that, but normally, we're in pretty good shape.
Because they can't order it because they don't have the money until the next fiscal year, that sort of thing. But other than that...
Thank you very much. We'd just like to ask the Commissioner to come back one more time. We just have one specific issue we'd like to discuss, and then we can adjourn this hearing for another day. 97 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 (Commissioner Hairston returns to witness table.)
Commissioner, we're most appreciative if you could give us a run-down of the incident in Manayunk Main Street relative to the carbon monoxide exposure, the four firefighters there, the temporary hospitalization, what the situation is. We read in the paper how we think it happened. Perhaps you can confirm that or dispel that relative to roof repairs that were done and a blocked chimney that created the situation, but what could we learn about what we need to do in our firehouses relative to detection? And perhaps even, I understand, there's a technology available that would shut the heating system down in the event that the carbon monoxide level got to a too high a level. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: It was work that was being done on the chimney, as I understand it. And there were large chunks from that that ended up getting dropped down into the chimney, which blocked it off, which caused the carbon monoxide level to become very high. The flue pipe had extended further than what would normally be expected into the chimney. So when these large chunks come down 98 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 into the base of the chimney, it crushed the flue pipe, causing that go action to happen. We were not informed of that. I believe that to be absolutely irresponsible on the part of the contractor allowing that to happen.
Who is that; was it a City project or -- COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: I don't know who the contractor is. Chuck may know. I have a person here who is intimately familiar with that and I'll ask Chuck to come up. When Chuck comes up, he can tell you.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: But basically what happened with that -- and we sort of know the story, they were taken to the hospital, one of which was particularly high in terms of its concentration. And so, obviously, that was changed and put back, and we cleaned out the cleanouts put, and then we put out a staff note to make sure that the captains know how to do the cleanouts. I told Chuck to have all of his people go around and check every chimney that we have to make sure that they're all cleaned out. 99 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 In a conversation with the union, they made me aware of a piece of equipment that could be installed on the flue pipe. When that happened, I told Chuck about that, and Chuck did some research, and he had some come in today and show him how that system works. The contractor, in my opinion, was just absolutely wrong here and should have told somebody that if you drop large chunks down in a chimney like that. So that's another situation, and I think we ought to take some action based on that. But it caused us to look at all of our heaters because that can be a very dangerous situation. Now, 75 percent of our heaters are what we call the "forced blue flame," and we have an outside contractor who's supposed to check them twice a year, the entire system, to make sure that nothing like that could happen and we couldn't have that backed up. There's another set of them that don't have the forced blue flame, and Public Property, as I understand it, is going to be inspecting all of those, and they want to do the work on those. The State is supposed to do a boiler 100 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 inspection on every boiler -- it used to be every year, and the ones that we've been getting back lately have indicated how long a period of time between the times that they were done. But we believe that we ought to inspect every one of them. We believe that we ought to put a device on there that would automatically shut it down. I don't personally care whether it alarms or doesn't alarm. What I want it to do is be tamper-proof so that nobody can do that and start it back up, unless it's a professional who is educated in that area. Now, for a specifics about that particular incident, since Chuck was out there and has been there several times. His name is Chuck LeGradi, and he handles our facilities maintenance for the Fire Department, and he has a crew that works directly for the Fire Department. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, sir. Could you please give us your knowledge as to the incident that happened and what the current conditions are.
Yes. The contractor was working on the chimney. We have a renovation 101 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 project going on at Engine -- roof, masonry repairs, and chimney repairs. He was supposed to install a new chimney liner and masonry on the brick chimney. He didn't do that and left the original (indiscernible) stone there we told him that had to be removed wanted done and we wanted done what we, you know, specified. He did do that, but he knocked half of it down the chimney and didn't tell anyone. When we went there, the flue pipe was collapsed, the cleanout was collapsed. Risk Management was on site, our haz. mat. people were there. ACC Construction is the general contractor. American Restoration is the subcontractor that did the masonry work.
And what it is the status of the effort to -- or your opinion of the demonstration you received, I guess, today on this technology that allows the shutoff of the system when the amount of carbon monoxide reaches a certain level?
It was very impressive. The gentleman brought in a small mockup, although he used nail polish remover, he had it set up for nail 102 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 polish remover. He just moved the jar past, and it immediately shut off, immediately.
It's tamper-proof, it has an O2 sensor -- not an O2, but a carbon monoxide sensor. It also has an alarm that can be run to a remote location such as our watch desk. Very little maintenance. The sensor would have to be replaced every two years at a cost of $75, which is minimal.
The initial cost is $1,000 for the unit, and for installation, another $1,000. So it would be 2,000 plus or minus maybe $200, depending on what site we do, from the watch desk or right from the boiler room.
And do we think at this point that we're going to move forward to acquire the devices? COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: We're going to do everything we can to try to get them. 103 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575
Okay. In the meantime, are we looking at any other type of detection that would be helpful in alerting people in the house that there's a problem until we -- COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: We haven't found anything that's really specifically designed to do that that we can expect to be reliable based on the way firehouses are laid out and so forth. We believe that due diligence in this area in terms of making sure that the chimneys are cleaned, making sure that they are fired properly, making sure people are aware, making sure Chuck's people go and ensure that the chimneys are cleaned out, making sure that the contractor does what he's supposed to do, making sure that the people that work for Public Property do what they're supposed to do should be sufficient until such time as we can get that added on. This is a very serious thing for us.
I'd like to follow up on the accusation that the contractor was absolutely responsible for this debris going down the chimney. Who conducted that investigation and how can you be 104 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 confident that the chimney -- that, in fact, it was obviously in some need of repair, hadn't collapsed into that flue pipe prior to the -- and with this warm weather that we've been having, I doubt the mechanical systems have been in operation a lot, but it seems like it's -- I'd like to know the source. And I'm not questioning your professional account of it, but I think before we make an accusation that a contractor was responsible for this, I'd like to hear the proof.
Well, the boiler was inspected on 9/26 and a combustion check taken, and the boiler was working fine then. The day after Thanksgiving, which was a Friday, we were all there and the pieces were pulled out from the chimney, and it was quite evident that it was chipped away from the top, it just doesn't fall apart, and that was the coping stone we asked him to remove. So in my mind, there was no doubt in my mind that he knocked that stone down that chimney.
Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. We anticipate looking at 105 12/4/01 PUB. SAFETY/LEG. OVERSIGHT - RES. 010575 the information obtained in this hearing today and trying to make some recommendations for our budget process. We may have an additional hearing; we'll certainly give you sufficient advanced notice, and we appreciate your patience, your cooperation. And all the information you're provided to us today. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: Okay.
This committee stands recessed until the call of the Chair. - - - (Proceedings end at 4 p.m.) 106 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's joint meeting of the Council Committees on Public Safety and Legislative Oversight of Tuesday, December 4, 2001, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. RE: Resolution No.010575 _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)