COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, November 21, 2024 2:10 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT KENYATTA JOHNSON COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILMAN CURTIS J. JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN RUE LANDAU COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PHILLIPS COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA COUNCILMAN ISAIAH THOMAS COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. RESOLUTION: 241032 - - -
I note that the hour has come and this meeting is now called to order. Clerk, will you please call the roll and take attendance. Members that are in attendance will please indicate that you are present when your name is called.
Present. Thank you very much. A quorum of the Committee is present. We also want to acknowledge the presence of Councilmember Rue Landau. This hearing is now called to order. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Law and Government regarding Resolution No. 241032. Mr. Christmas, would you please read the title of the resolution.
A resolution 20 authorizing City Council's Committee of the Whole to hold the public hearings required pursuant to Chapter 17-2300 of The Philadelphia Code ("Public Hearing Prior to Execution of a Labor Agreement Concerning Police Employees Represented by the Fraternal Order of Police"), which Code Chapter requires that the Council hold a hearing in connection with the City's contract proposal in anticipation of collective bargaining between the City and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Before I call on the Clerk to call the first panel, I want to acknowledge the author of the bill, Majority Leader Councilmember Kathy Gilmore Richardson.
Thank you. Thank you, Council President. And thank you colleagues so much for being here today and all of you who have joined us for this important hearing. You all know that four years ago we made history in the city of Philadelphia and on November 18, 2020 in the middle of a global pandemic, for the first time ever Philadelphians had the opportunity to have their voices heard around the contract between the City of Philadelphia and our Police Union. This was only made possible following the passage of my legislation, Bill No. 200364, which calls for public hearings in advance of the City's contracting process with our Police Union. I want to pause to say thank you to our former mayor, Mayor Kenney, and also our Deputy for Labor, Richie Lazer -- our former Deputy for Labor, Richie Lazer, for his leadership and ensuring that we actually had someone from the community, someone who testified at the hearing as a part of the Arbitrators' panel, and also to our former City Solicitor Diana Cortes and her entire team, some of whom are still here today. We certainly appreciate their partnership and all of their assistance back in 2020, but we know a lot has changed since then. We now have a new Mayor, a new Police Commissioner, a new head of our Police Union in addition to several new members of Council who I am so proud to serve with each and every day. I know that we all still share a common goal and that's to ensure that there is transparency and accountability across all sectors of City government, and this is especially true as it relates to our public safety partners. So I want to take a moment to thank our Mayor, Mayor Cherelle Parker; our Police Commissioner, Commissioner Bethel; President of the FOP, Roosevelt Poplar, whom I'm very deeply appreciative of; and Renee Garcia, our City Solicitor; and our Public Safety Director and our current Department of Labor Representatives. I thank you all for your continued partnership and for your work. Today we will hear from the Parker Administration about their public safety priorities and the progress that has been made thus far. However, the overwhelming majority of today's hearing will be focused on hearing directly from Philadelphians. I want to be very, very clear. As the author of this legislation, we are here to listen. We're here to listen to what our citizens, our fellow Philadelphians want to see as a part of this process. And today we will ensure that we hear your feedback and submit that feedback to our Administration as they move forward in this process. To everyone who has joined us in person and to those of you who are tuning in from home, please know that today we are reaffirming our commitment that we made to you four years ago, to center the voices of the community as we work towards making all levels of government work even better for the residents of the greatest city in the world, and that's the city of Philadelphia. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Council President. And thank you, colleagues. (Applause.)
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Curtis Jones.
I'm sorry, Mr. President. I'd like to wait until the Administration makes their case. Thank you.
You're welcome. Any other opening comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
None, okay. Hearing none, at this particular point in time I'm going to ask for our Chief Clerk for this hearing, Mr. John Christmas, to please call the first panel to testify on Resolution No. 24 241032.
Cara Leheny, Director of Labor and Employee Relations, Department of Labor. And joining her to field questions will be Chief Public Safety Officer Adam Geer, Director of Public Safety. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon, Council President, Majority Leader Gilmore Richardson and members of City Council. Thank you very much for having us here today. My name is Cara Leheny. I am the First Deputy Director of the Department of Labor. I am also the Director of the Office of Employee and Labor Relations. Among other things, one of our functions is to be the chief negotiator for the City of Philadelphia. I am joined by the Director of the Labor Department, Perritti Divirgilio who's immediately to my right, and Adam Geer, our Public Safety Director. I have a PowerPoint to sort of walk everyone through the ACT 111 process. I'm just not sure logistically, do I just ask that the deck be advanced or should I have something in my hands to advance it myself?
We have it. Madam Leader, can you join me at up at the podium please. The team will walk you through the actual process. Thank you.
Wonderful to see you and thank you for all of your help and for your partnership through the years, over the last four years really. You've been with us since the beginning and you've been with us through litigation, so I'm deeply appreciative of all of your hard work and all of your efforts. We do have someone here to advance all of the slides. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Well, then I would ask that the slide be advanced to the first. Thank you. Let me tell you a little bit about the law that is how we bargain with our Police and our Fire personnel. That is called the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act. It was Act No. 111 of 1968, so we colloquially refer to it as Act 111. And that's how I'll do so throughout this hearing. Act 111 gives police and firefighters the right to organize and bargain over terms and conditions of employment. Those include wages, hours, working conditions, pensions, retirement and other benefits. Unions bargain with the public employer. That's the legal term, the public employer, which in this case is the City of Philadelphia. Represented employees are prohibited from striking, which is why instead of what we call bargaining at the table, we have a panel of three arbitrators who write the contract for the parties. That is called interest arbitration. I know you -- I'm sure you have also heard of grievance arbitration. Grievance arbitration occurs when there is a dispute over the terms of an existing contract and that is usually heard by one arbitrator. Would you advance the slide please? Thank you. So what's the process for interest arbitration under Act 111. Well, parties are required to exchange their proposals at least six months before the start of the fiscal year when the contract ends. So for us of course that's -- since our fiscal year ends on July 31st, we exchange proposals no later than December 31st. Parties then have a minimum of 30 days to bargain before demanding interest arbitration. Once the demand is made both parties identify issues in dispute to submit to the arbitrators. These issues set the jurisdiction of the panel. Each party selects an arbitrator to represent its interests on the panel. We call these party arbitrators. The party arbitrators jointly select a neutral arbitrator. The neutral must be a Pennsylvania resident. Evidentiary hearings are held and both sides present their issues in dispute to the panel. And ultimately, at the end of the process the panel issues a final and binding decision. May I ask that you advance the slide. So I mentioned grievance arbitration a little earlier, and I just wanted to talk a little bit about what that is. Grievance arbitration we usually describe it as two types of arbitration, discipline or contract. Discipline arbitration occurs when a grievance is filed in response to a disciplinary action by the City. The burden of proof is on the City to prove that there was just cause to impose discipline. The City must prove all seven elements of just cause. And one of those elements is whether the penalty is appropriate to the misconduct that has been proven. In contrast, contract arbitration really refers to every other type of arbitration under the contract. Maybe there's a dispute over overtime or a work schedule change or something like that. And in those situations, the Union bears the burden of proof to show that there was a violation of the contract. Would you advance the slide please? So going back to interest arbitration, how do we develop our proposals. Well, as I mentioned before, the City is the bargaining agent by law and the office, my office, the Office of Employee and Labor Relations, the Department of Labor is the chief negotiator for the City and acts on behalf of the Mayor and her Administration. The process has -- the historical process to developing proposals has been that my office of LR works with the City's legal team, gets input from the police department, meets with other key stakeholders that might be, for example, the Citizens Police Oversight Commission or CPOC. Before that, it was Police Advisory Commission. We probably will also be meeting with other departments that may have a role to play, the Office of Human Resources, the Director of Finance or the Chief Administrative Officer as examples.
Historically, there was some informal input from the public or advocacy organizations, but that typically came about because someone in the mayoral administration might meet one-on- one or in a small group with particular organizations. If you would advance the slide please. However, in 2020, on September 20, 2020, what I call the public hearing ordinance was introduced by Majority Leader Katherine Gilmore Richardson, and it became effective on September 20th. And that ordinance ensures a formal way for the City to receive public feedback in advance of the bargaining with the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, which I will call the FOP throughout. On November 18, 2020 that public hearing, that very first public hearing, was held -- it was a virtual hearing because of COVID. On December 30th, the City's proposals were sent to the FOP. We then had a series of interest arbitration hearings between June 21, 2021 and July 28, 2021. I just want to note this doesn't mean we were in interest arbitration every day of those days. The dates sometimes get spread out depending availability. Ultimately on September 14, 2021 the award was issued and it governed the period between July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. And last year the Kenney Administration entered into a one-year extension of the existing award so we are now getting ready to bargain a new contract. I should probably mention when I say we bargain a new contract, every award builds on the previous award. We don't renegotiate every single term of the contract. If the term is working for the parties, it stays in there and we just bargain about new things. So when I talk about the collective bargaining agreement, I'm really talking about a series of interest arbitration awards going back many years. Would you please advance the slide? I'd like to talk about what we got in 2021 because we got some major disciplinary reforms that was obviously of significance to the public at large. I remember attending the public hearing. I think it was about seven hours. We had, I don't remember, there were I think well over 60 members of the public who testified and they were resounding in their concerns about the discipline process. So one of the important reforms that we got was a revised disciplinary code. The key points there is that it added some new charges, it revised some charges and it enhanced penalty ranges and reckoning periods. Now, that may not be some -- those phrases may not mean a lot to people. A penalty range is connected with progressive discipline. So, for example, you're a little sloppy in your paperwork. We're not going to fire you over that. First offense might be a reprimand to 5 days. Second offense might be 5 days to 10 days. Third offense might be 10- to 15-day suspension. The reckoning period is how long those offenses stay on your record for purposes of progressive discipline. So using that example I gave, your first offense is Year you get -- you commit your first offense. And so, you get a reprimand. Year you commit your second offense. Well, that's the second offense in the reckoning period so you are now looking potentially at between and 2 days of discipline, of potential 3 suspension. But you don't commit 4 any more offenses for two more years and then you commit that offense again. You're back to the first offense under the reckoning period because the reckoning period was only five years. If you would please advance the slide. Another set of major reforms that we got concern about is the Police Board of Inquiry, which we refer to as PBI. Now, the Police Board of Inquiry essentially has two -- it's part of the police department and has two components. There is what we call the unit that issues when Internal Affairs or another or say my office, the Employee Relations Unit, substantiates misconduct. The Charging Unit will look at the allegations that have been sustained.
We'll compare them to the existing disciplinary code and we'll choose the code violations that are appropriate for purposes of the offense. That is called -- we call it the Charging Unit separately. The other part of the Police Board of Inquiry is the actual board that hears the conduct cases that the police department brings. So before any discipline is -- typically before any discipline is issued, the officer, represented by counsel, will appear before the panel. Before the 2021 contract, that panel consisted of a peer, then it consisted of a supervisor and a rank above the supervisor. Now, it was my experience that if you were a police officer and you were facing discipline, you obviously had a police officer as your peer. The supervisor would start at the lieutenant level not at the sergeant level, so there'd be a lieutenant and there'd be a captain, and obviously as you go up in rank you're going to see those positions, those ranks change a little on the panel. And I should also mention that the Charging Unit also was comprised wholly of FOP members, uniformed members of the department. So another thing that happened at the PBI before 2021 is that a department advocate, the position is called department advocate -- essentially think of it like the prosecutor for the police department at the misconduct hearing. That person was also a member of the FOP, a uniformed member, and did not necessarily require legal training. Some of them had it, some didn't. So those were some of the things that were in existence before 2021. However, in the 2021 contract one of the first things, one of the major changes is that the Charging Unit is now comprised not only of uniformed personnel in that unit but also of a CPOC representative who is also looking at the same things that the Charging Unit is and they're working together to come up with the appropriate charges. Another important reform is that the department is represented by attorneys from the Law Department at PBI hearings. We have recently staffed that up and we have some very highly-skilled former prosecutors. I think a couple of them were from the DA's Office, very highly skilled and experienced attorneys. The PBI panels now instead of having a peer representative have a representative from CPOC sitting on them. And then as I said, the two sworn members who are the supervisor and the rank above that. PBI members also receive training on department directives and expectations. During the course of the hearing -- this is a very important reform, probably doesn't happen too often but when it does, it's a really great reform to have -- during the course of the hearing if the PBI thinks that there should be different charges that wasn't correctly charged or they hear something and they're like, wait, did anyone investigate that, that feels like that should have been investigated, they can ask the department advocate to have that remanded either for new charges or for additional investigation. And another key reform is that each member of the PBI Board also provides their own independent reasonings for their findings and the recommendations they make, because the PBI Board does not have the authority to directly issue discipline. It makes recommendations to the Police Commissioner who retains the authority to accept those recommendations, modify them in some way. And prior to 2021, you might just get it -- you typically got like a little sheet and people would check off whether they thought the person was guilty or not and what penalty they thought was appropriate but you didn't necessarily know why they did that. So those are some really important reforms that we received. And if I may ask that you advance the slide. I do want to talk about what we asked for, some other things we asked for because we came -- well, my office came before this body four years ago and told you things we were going to ask for and you deserve a report card on it.
One of the things we sought back then was reimposing the city residency requirement for new hires. We did not receive that in the contract. We also sought to allow the Commissioner to transfer officers without restriction and we did not receive that. We did expand the Department's ability to use civilians, meaning non-uniformed individuals. I've talked already about how CPOC has become involved and how we now have attorneys representing the department at the PBI, but we also got very important language, language that would allow us to hold an interim interest arbitration. In other words, during the term of a contract if the City wanted to civilianize certain positions, put a non-uniformed person doing work that the FOP has historically performed, we could invoke an interest arbitration panel to resolve that instead of having to potentially wait until the next contract cycle. And, in fact, we actually did hold an interest arbitration in 2023. Also, another thing that we asked for is that we prohibit arbitrators from changing the penalty if misconduct is proven. We did not get that. But as I said, we did have significant revisions to the then existing disciplinary code. Would you advance the slide please? In terms of grievance and arbitration, we sought to expand the existing arbitrator pool. Those of you who were in Council four years ago probably remember there was a lot of interest and questions about who are our arbitrators, what's their diversity and do they repres -- you know, can we say that they represent the City of Philadelphia. Arbitrators are chosen from typically a pool that the American Arbitration Association maintains. But one of the really important reforms that we got, and this was really cutting edge, is we created a Police Termination Arbitration Board, the PTAB, for short. And we put together a panel and each party got to select an equal number of panel members. And by contract, at least 40 percent of those members must come from historically underrepresented groups, people of color, LGBTQ women. And additionally, and it isn't reflected here on this slide but this is also very important, we don't have to simply draw from the arbitrator pool of the American Arbitration Association. We put in some standards that we could use non-AAA arbitrators. They would either need to have a JD or have a certain number of years of experience doing labor relations work and they would need to do a training that the FOP and the City worked together and presented about our process, you know, a little bit of, you know, so they knew what they were walking into about the elements of just cause, that sort of thing, and they would also have to agree to abide by the code of ethics of the National Arbitrators Academy. Another concession that we sought was to restrict back-pay awards. If someone was awarded back pay, the kinds of things they could get, you know, could they get their lost overtime, different things like that, we didn't get that. And we also sought to establish evidentiary rules and a scope of the arbitrator's authority farther than what's already in the contract. We didn't get that. May I ask that you would advance the slide. Thank you. So let's talk about what some of the priorities that the Administration has identified so far. Discipline, we are continuing to seek reform in terms of discipline. One of what we're looking to do is to build on CPOC's successful integration into the police department's disciplinary processes. We're also looking to streamline the discipline process. These things are important because they increase transparency, they enhance accountability and they foster public trust. In terms of grievance and arbitration, we're going to try to again get additional terms regarding the evidentiary standards and the scope of the arbitrator's authority and also restricting the back-pay awards. Why are we trying for that again?
Because it promotes consistency in decision-making and it ensures that public funds are appropriately expended when there is a back-pay award. Would you please advance it? Thank you. Another thing we're looking to do is get some reforms around work schedules. We would like to expand the Department's ability to make temporary changes to work schedules to allow it to respond to major unforeseen events. It does have some flexibility in the contract. We're looking to expand that. And we also want to increase the Department's flexibility to properly staff national security events. We're seeking these because public safety is enhanced when the police department has the flexibility to deploy sufficient police in response to unforeseen events, and it ensures that when Philadelphia is on the national or international stage, as we soon will be again, that we can keep our citizens and our guests safe. We are also seeking some additional civilianization of posts. And again, this allows us to free up police officers to do what they do best, which is police functions. And it also frees up -- and it also puts some folks who might have special training that would be appropriate for that position into that position. So those are what we're looking for. I've come to the end of our presentation. I just want to say that in addition to those themes we are very interested in hearing what the public has to say. We want to hear from them. We'll be here throughout to listen to their feedback. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation and for all the information you shared, particularly the timeline sort of helping us understand why we are here today. I wanted to just start off with a couple very brief questions before I pass it along to my colleagues. The first is will there be any opportunity for a community member to be a part of the panel when you are in interest arbitration like we did last time?
I am sure that is something that I would think we'd be happy to explore that.
Okay. Excellent. And then you talked about the civilianization portion of the proposal and that being one of the major themes for the 2025 contract. We know that you all did undertake that activity in 2023. But if you could talk about the specific positions that you all are seeking to identify in that realm.
I may not remember all of them. I apologize. I do know that an important focus for the department is in the police dispatch, the 911 center. And we have obviously -- we have non-uniformed members who take those calls, but we do not have a promotional path for them. They are supervised by uniformed personnel. And one of the things we are looking to do is to create some civilian promotional path, not to displace -- there's a reason you have uniformed personnel in the 911 cent -- the dispatch center, but to create additional paths and give our really very hardworking dispatchers the opportunity to promote and -- my gosh, I'm so sorry, Council Majority Leader, I just cannot think of -- I know there's at least one other and I just can't think of it.
Sure. Well, we'll ask that you can just submit that information at a later time to the Chair for dissemination to members of Council. I have to pause here to put a plug-in for the young people who are Police Explorers. We've included them in our Apprenticeship Guide Book, and I know that there's sort of a low period between the time when they finish the program and before they can actually apply to be a police officer. So that may possibly be a part of what you all could look towards relative to one of the civilianization positions.
Feels like I'm still in court sometimes. And this is all part of the --
Adam Geer, Chief Public Safety Director. And this is all part of the process. As we now get into the next several weeks, we'll continue to meet with our primary stakeholders and continue to listen including the department. And I won't speak for the Police Commissioner here today, but certainly they have a mastery of their force of where we can make inroads in these requests into civilianization, so we'll get into those specifics in a very granular level I'm sure throughout the department and where we can see possible negotiation points with civilianization in the force.
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Harrity for a point.
Point of information. We actually did put the money for the Cadet program too. I don't know if they worked it out yet, but the funding is there. That's so they can go from the Explorers right into the Cadet program, because the problem was we were losing those kids in between the time that they could be in Explorers and then sign up to be a police officer. So hopefully that part of it is fixed. And the whole idea was so that we could use them to do some of the paperwork and stuff like that because they're cadets and will eventually be going into the thing. So I know they worked it out with the FOP and it is part -- they did accept it, they are happy with it, so hopefully it'll kick in soon.
Thank you, Councilmember Harrity. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Brooks.
Thank you. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for the legislation that made today's hearing possible. I remember in 2020 after the murder of Walter Wallace, Jr. in West Philadelphia and the massive uprising across the country in response to the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and many other Black people. Council passed a law requiring the public hearing before the City begins the negotiation on any new police contract, and the police contract is the City's single largest expenditure accounting about 15 percent of our budget, and that does not include the millions of dollars that the City pays out every year in settlements to victims of police misconduct. As members of Council, we have the responsibility to shed light on police operations and practices and to seek increased transparency and accountability for such a large portion of our annual spending in our city. Sometimes people assume that after the uprisings of 2020, the police became more accountable to the public. And while there have been some reforms, including the establishment of the Citizens Police Oversight Commission, the relationship between the police and communities of color has remained largely unchanged. And the fundamental lack of trust has not changed, the pervasive fear among parents of Black children has not changed and the collective trauma that we feel when another person of color is killed by police has not changed. So in 2022, a Philadelphia police officer shot and killed Eddie Irizarry and his family is still seeking answers. And just last month, an off-duty police officer shot and killed 54-year-old Robert Jones and his family is also searching for answers. These killings made the news, but there are countless issues that do not make the news. And without independent investigations, police violence, illegal searches and sexual assaults can be swept under the rug and out of public view. So, Philadelphians, we know this and we deserve a police force that is accountable to the public and subject to independent investigations. So one of my questions is over 500,000 voters in 2020 approved the ballot measure to require the Citizens Police Oversight Commission to conduct independent investigations of police misconduct, and this has not happened because of a provision in the police contract that forbids it. In the current contract negotiation, is the Administration bargaining for the CPOC's ability to conduct independent investigations?
May I? Before Public Safety Director is going to address the Administration's position, I do wish to clarify something, Councilmember, and I do appreciate what you're saying and I know the excellent work that was done by this Council and Councilmember Jones in particular in putting together the Police Oversight Commission, but Pennsylvania law says that there are certain subjects that we have to bargain. They are called mandatory subjects of bargaining. Discipline is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Discipline processes are usually a mandatory subject of bargaining. I say usually because of course, and I say this as a lawyer myself, I spent years in the Law 13 Department's Labor Employment Unit 14 before assuming my position on 15 April 1st, fortunately the law does not like -- likes ambiguity or I wouldn't have a job. So I can never say definitively this will never be something we have to bargain or this is something we always have to bargain. But generally speaking, discipline is a mandatory subject of bargaining which is why we did bargain in 2021 to get to try to put into effect what is in the CPOC ordinance. And so, the panel said -- and they didn't prohibit CPOC completely. What they said is where something is a mandatory subject of bargaining if the FOP doesn't agree, we're going to have to bargain it. And I do understand the Councilmembers frustration and I don't mean to minimize it in any way, but that's just the way things work in a bargaining context. And I will defer now to Director Geer.
Thank you. In addition to that, Councilmember, I appreciate your comments, your opening comments very much. As it relates to the position, the good news, right, is that the City of Philadelphia has this very robust piece of legislation that we see, right, and that now we must -- obviously the contracting process exists. And so, we have a roadmap with the CPOC legislation and it's our job when these negotiations come up to do what we're doing in this process, talk to our stakeholders, talk to the Administration, talk to the police department, see what's achievable, right, see what we can go into the room and work on and negotiate with the other side to get the best contract possible for the citizens of Philadelphia, understanding that that legislation exists. The good news is that we've been a part of this process now. We've been working on it for a couple of months, and I feel real good about the relationships that we've formed with the Police Oversight Commission. We've met several times with their leadership, with the police department, we've met with community stakeholders, right. So I feel very good about understanding their position and understanding their very real want. And they're going to get up here and they're going to tell you that they want that exact same thing. We have to be clear- eyed. We have to understand that there will be challenges with that position. Our overall goal is to continue to work with the Police Oversight Commission, understanding what the citizens want, what their expectation is, and align that with our priorities as an Administration and the police, and make the inroads where we can in important ways.
Okay. So just for clarity, is the ability to conduct an investigation on the table part of the negotiations?
The independent investigation is a conversation that is going to be a difficult conversation. I'm not going to sit up here and tell you otherwise. The independent investigation portion of the legislation has many complications and they are far-reaching. And just to give you an example, when there's an independent investigation there's chain of custody issues that come up in terms of evidence collection, there's duplicative statements that might be taken by two different parties that complicates potentially an eventual trial. There are many, many complications. And again, I want to be as frank as possible. It's going to be difficult to achieve. So where we're starting with I think as an Administration is taking a step back. We have experts on our panel. One of the employees in my office who's taking notes today is a former CPOC executive director, so we understand the lay of the land, so to speak. I hope I'm being clear that we will work with CPOC to make these inroads where we can in important ways. I also want to be very clear that independent investigations is a steep hill.
Thank you. I got the answer to it. So in the past two years, police misconduct lawsuits have cost the taxpayers around 60 million. That is the salary of about 1,000 teachers. How much do you anticipate police misconduct lawsuits costing the City in the next year?
I'm sorry, Councilmember. I would have to defer that question to the Law Department because we would look at probably the historical data to try to project forward. We can get back to you with that information.
So can we -- this is a request for information. Can you get it back to the Chair of this Committee for us please?
Thank you. So our schools are facing closures. SEPTA is planning fare increases and service cuts and we're in the midst of a housing crisis. Do you think that our City can afford any of these misconduct lawsuits?
I'm so sorry. I think I missed a word or two. I heard -- you were talking about the increase in cost in SEPTA, cutting services and I heard something police misconduct lawsuits. I'm so sorry. I missed I think the crucial part.
Okay. Since the information that you don't have available today is not available, but no matter what the number is do you think that our City can afford them with the crisis that we're already in?
I mean, I think clearly we are trying to limit liability. And we will be able to respond with the Law Department if there's any additional inquiries as it relates to that. But our responsibility is to make sure that we have a police department that there's no misuse or abuse of authority. And the Mayor says this every single time, right, she speaks at a police recruit graduation. We are not running away from the fact that we support our police department. They're doing an incredible job. They've changed their posture with this community policing model under the Mayor. In the same breath, we are not going to tolerate any misuse or abuse of their authority, right. If there happens to be a subsequent lawsuit, no, we never want to pay more money out. Obviously, our preference would be for that money to be going to other services for the city.
And just for clarity, I was not saying that the police department is not doing a good job. I'm talking about misconduct here, not the duty of our other public servants. I'm the only one with questions, with no time frame?
Okay. So for years we've seen alarming stories about police officers who portray the public trust who are then fired by PPD but later get their jobs back through the grievance arbitration process. So naturally -- nationally, I'm sorry, percent of police firings 13 are overturned, but in Philadelphia 14 it's at 70 percent. 15 So this is for 16 Ms. Leheny. When you worked at the 17 Law Department, you likely saw many 18 of these cases when you represented 19 the City in grievance arbitration 20 proceedings. What issue has the 21 City experienced with the grievance 22 arbitration system that may be 23 addressed through interest 24 arbitration?
Well, we are -- as I mentioned, sometimes what can be a challenge is that arbitrators may apply different burdens of proof. The standard burden of proof to be applied in arbitration is typically preponderance of the evidence, but some arbitrators will say, well, in a discharge case you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence. These are higher standards, higher burdens. And these evidentiary burdens are not uniformly applied. It's not that every discharge case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but some arbitrators may apply it. You may not always know -- if you're lucky, they tell you, and then you know as an advocate what you want to try to do to strengthen the case. So that's one of the things we're seeking here, uniformity. We're also seeking, again we would like where we have proven -- where the arbitrator agrees that we have proven the misconduct that the penalty is not changed, because that is one of the seven elements of just cause as I mentioned, that essentially the punishment fits the crime. We call it proportionality. And sometimes an arbitrator agrees we proved exactly what we said we were going to prove, but the arbitrator decides for a variety of reasons. And I'm not minimizing those reasons. An arbitrator might be looking at the full -- the police officer's full history or they may feel that the officer showed remorse in the hearing. And so, they lessen the penalty. It happens. And I think, Councilmember, but although I'm not sure because I'm not exactly sure where the 70 percent comes from, but I know when The Inquirer did a survey of over years, they 7 conflated cases where the City lost 8 outright, where we simply were 9 unable to sustain our evidentiary 10 burden and prove that there was just cause for any discipline whatsoever, but there was also over 50 percent of those cases where we got what we call split decision where the arbitrator found that we had proven just cause for most of it but maybe that the penalty was too heavy so they reduced it. I'm not minimizing the cost in terms of public trust and faith in our department when that happens. I'm not minimizing that at all, but I am just saying it's not actually 70 percent of the cases because I did my own analysis at the time because I was supervising the labor practice. Of those cases that The Inquirer analyzed, the City won approximately percent outright. 7 In other words, everything got 8 upheld. The FOP won slightly less 9 than 25 percent outright, and the 10 balance of them were what I call 11 the split decisions. 12 And again, not to say 13 that we were happy with split 14 decisions, we never are, but I do 15 want to set the record straight 16 because it's not as good a 17 headline. 18
Okay. And then after, colleagues, just because we have another committee here at 6:00, for this round -- we have two additional panels after this. We'll do five minutes for this round, if that's okay, and go from there. Okay.
Has there ever been precedence in the City for allowing some types of investigations to be done by departments and agencies other than Internal Affairs? For example, did prior executive orders regarding the CPOC's predecessor, the Police Advisory Commission, grant that agency investigatory powers?
No, be -- well, my answer is a qualified no. 20 Let me address the executive order piece first. Yes, the executive order for the Police Advisory Commission did that. But one of the mandatory subjects of bargaining is the movement of work that is exclusively performed by a bargaining unit in whole or in part. So even though the executive order said PAC should do certain investigations, Internal Affairs which is staffed by FOP members does those investigations, we would have had to bargain that. Just doing it by executive order is not -- it's insufficient under the law. But I would say that there have been a couple of times when Internal -- well, in 2020 as part of a contract extension, this is at the beginning of 2020, because originally the contract was supposed to expire on June 30, 2020 but COVID and everything so we did one-year extensions with everyone. One of the reforms we did -- a small piece of reform that we did get is that the FOP agreed that the Employee Relations Unit of my office which investigates EEO, internal EEO complaints, could instead of Internal Affairs investigate those. That was one, so that's something that's a little bit different than the normal Internal Affairs. And then every so often Internal Affairs may be conflicted out. I mean, there may be an allegation against someone and the City has done different things, maybe the Inspector General takes over. I think we have at least once sent something out through outside counsel, so it's rare but it does happen.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Brooks. And please submit any additional questions that you have for the record for dissemination to colleagues once we receive responses. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for having this hearing. What I admire about you is your attention to detail of what we committed to before to what our expectations are now. As Chair of Public Safety for City Council, one of the pieces of legislation that this body put forth and put on the ballot that I'm proud of is that we put on the ballot to challenge conventional wisdom to have a Chief Public Safety Officer and it passed. One of the other pieces of legislation that we put on the ballot and got passed and a half a million people voted for it was the Police Oversight Commission. I'm proud of that legislation. We have gone through a lot of maturation since then. We had to fight and build a standard operating procedure and fly the plane at the same time. We were able to recruit out of Dallas a director that is worthy of Philadelphia in this position. We got a staff, we got a staff that, 10 toes down, believes in what they're doing. What I'm saying to you, you are our negotiating team. I do not expect you to go into the negotiations and say, I don't know if we can get that. You're losing as soon as you walk in the room 24 when you are willing to concede a particular point before a confrontation, before a negotiation, that you cannot do. Because let me say this to you, and I'm glad my colleague went before me, because I don't know if I'm the good cop or she's the bad cop, I don't know, but in this case we agree that we will have problems, and we got lawyers too, right, if we do not fight for the investigation, one word. Now, you can define what the level of that is --
-- you can tell me that you're not allowed to go into these forensic labs, whatever it is you limit them to do, but from the start if you tell them they can't investigate, why the hell are we having a $5 million budget for them to do the best they can without teeth. I'm not having it. I think I can get nine votes to not have it. We'll figure out how to bypass whatever we got to do, but I need you to fight for it. And you need to tell them, and don't get it twisted, let me for the record say I am supportive of our men and women in blue, I love our Commissioner, I love our rank-and- file. There is not a scared straight that we don't go to, me and Member O'Neill and Driscoll went up to the police academy, got money in the budget to make sure that their berms were right, those are the backstops for their pistols. We go up there. Every time I go to an ATM, every time my wife gets a fill-up of gas, I'm glad they're there. During the pandemic when they rode up the street, I clapped. That let us know that our city was still operating, but do not get that twisted that I have to represent the people, those half million people that said we needed this. And in addition let me say this. The FOP when the new President was -- I ran, I got the first thing smoking up there. I have a fond admiration. He reminded me in our initial where he lived, where he grew up and how committed he is to the safety in that neighborhood. So for once, I don't think we are in opposition as a Council, as an Administration or as a police rank-and-file to getting things done. I'm not going to be in the grown-up room when y'all negotiate salaries, y'all worked it out, where they live y'all worked it out. And we take our lumps with the best of them, but there's some things we will die toes down for. And if we went through all of this to create a commission, investigate, one word, y'all figure out what the definition of that is, but don't come back here without that. Don't come back here without that. So I say all of that to say that I went through the last eight hours, Madam Chair, of interviewing. We had 50 applicants for the vacancies for the Commission -- I'm getting ready to end -- and we narrowed them down to 12, and some of them varying this degree of insight to what is needed, but all of them, all of them cared deeply about this process. So we're going to be ready in January to present a slate to this body of people who want to serve on that Commission. We will empower them with you or without you. I'd rather be with you. But my lawyer can't come in and say, hey, he's part guilty, we'll take the deal. All right. I've never had to be represented in court. But if a lawyer said that to you, I don't know. So thank you, Madam Chair. And I promise I will not ask another question because you said you wanted us to listen. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Was that a question?
So thank you. As always, Councilman Jones, I appreciate the support that Council has given, that your office has given, as we continue our work in public safety. You've been a true partner, as City Council, in making the tremendous inroads that we have as it relates to public safety. That is a victory that we share as a city and part of that victory is this chambers as well. You hit the nail on the head when you articulated the definition of investigation. Now, we are at the beginning of getting into the details of our plan to go into the room. So when I'm having these comments with Councilmember Brooks, and we're sort of like hinting at things, it's because we're developing a playbook. And the reality of it is we've had conversations with the new CPOC Executive Director, who is as dynamic as you described, and I'm happy that we got her here in the city of Philadelphia working for our folks. We have had conversations about what that definition of investigation is. So there is gray area there. And I don't want to dig any deeper than that, but we understand the mission and what folks are expecting of us.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Oh, just state your name for the record --
Yeah, Perritti Divirgilio, Director of Labor. Councilman, we've known each other for a long time. I mean, even longer than the 18 years I was Director of Labor of Standards. And I think anybody in this room that knows me knows there's nothing soft about me at all. So when we go into them negotiations, they're going to be very serious.
Thank you. Thank so much, Councilmember Jones. And thank you for your work on the CPOC. Thank you so much. For the record, the Chair recognizes the presence of Councilmember Cindy Bass. Next, we'll recognize Councilmember Ahmad.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for all the work you have done, Majority Leader, in getting us this far. As someone new to Council, I'm really happy to see how much effort has gone into accountability. And in that vein, one of the very fundamental questions for you is I see under Act 111 the arbitrators are selected as neutral arbitrators and the only qualification is they must be a PA resident. Outside of that, are there any issues that would disqualify them? And how do you get -- I'm sorry. What role does anybody have in actually choosing those arbitrators?
Thank you for that question, Councilmember. Under our collective bargaining agreements, we agree to arbitration under the aegis of the American Arbitration Association. The interest arbitration process itself is specified by statute. So once each party has named its party arbitrator, we are -
The City of Philadelphia is one and the FOP is the other. And once we have each chosen our party arbitrator, we receive a list of five Pennsylvania residents who are in the labor arbitration pool of the American Arbitration Association. As I said, by law they must be Pa residents. But AAA, we are being sent people who have been doing grievance arbitration before. And then what happens is we do what's called a strike. Each party strikes. The City strikes first. The Union then strikes. Then the City, then the FOP. And whoever is left is the interest arbitrator. That is, as I said, how the law sets up the selection process.
And the follow-up is you mentioned in the last contract there was alternate arbitrators. What triggered you to be able to look at alternate arbitrators?
I think -- are you referring to the Police Termination Arbitration Board?
Thank you. So one reason we're able to do what we did in the contract is because Act 111 doesn't specify how you pick a grievance arbitrator, which the kind of arbitration that the PTAB gets involved in. So again, we contractually agreed to arbitrate under the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association. That also means that we can contractually agree to modify those. And that's what we did through the Police Termination Arbitration Board.
Okay. And then the final question fundamental: How are the seven elements of just cause determined? Is it we accept this because somebody decided these were the seven elements or how do you get those seven elements of just cause that the arbitrators have to say was met in order for finding of the police officer?
I'm a little embarrassed having done this work for 15 years and I can't tell you where it started. But the seven elements of just cause have been accepted not actually only by labor arbitrators around the country, but in fact the Commonwealth Court in a decision and I'm blanking on the citation --
-- actually define just cause and track those seven elements.
The reason I ask all these questions is anecdotally from the outside I have heard this is the place where justice falls apart in terms of somebody who's brought a complaint against the police. And so, I really want to understand what process we're doing is really addressing to put that to rest, that this is a fair and just process and there are no sort of workarounds to reinstate people that the Police Commissioner has fired. Obviously, this is a process. So that's really where I'm coming from to understand how are we tightening up the accountability in this whole process, in this whole procedure?
So we do it -- and frankly, we work on it every day even outside of the bargaining process. I can speak -- now, I'm speaking really to my experience at the Law Department. I've had the pleasure of working with every police commissioner since Commissioner Ramsey. And I know that our lawyers sometimes maybe we put on a case that doesn't go the way we hoped and we see that there might be a systemic issue that can be fixed. And we have always been able to go to the police department, to the Commissioner or to the professional responsibility, Deputy Commissioner, we've been able to go to them and say, here's what we saw, here's our concern, here's where we think it could be better. Now, again some of those things depending on what that recommendation is, and obviously I can't speak to any of them because it's privileged, but maybe there needs to be some bargaining around that. That might be something that we put into the hopper, you know, for the next bargaining cycle. But sometimes it's just trying to improve our systems, trying to improve our internal systems. And because even with the best of all intentions, we are human and there are always things that can be improved. I think it unfortunately will on some level always be a work in progress, but we continue to advance. It's not necessarily visible to the public, but we continue to advance.
And my final comment is not really -- I don't know how relevant it is here, but I saw that our FOP Union President had introduced an app for mental health support for people to use without having to declare to the whole world they're using it. Do we have any mental health support in this arbitration process for those who are on the hot seat, so to speak? I think personally mental health plays a big role particularly in these contentious areas. So I just wondered if there's -- I don't know if this can be built into the arbitration process or what, but somewhere that level of support that doesn't put us in these opposing camps is really critical I think. This is just a comment. If you have something to say, please do, but this is just my reflection.
Wellness, I'm -- what I think I can speak to is and what I know is that wellness, and that includes mental health, wellness is an area of concern to the police department and to the city. And I happen to know is to the FOP as well, and they do a wonderful job in providing resources to their members. I know the City is working -- oh, we're looking to create a new position. This is not necessarily civilianization because the work hasn't been done of -- the police department is, a victim, I could have the name wrong, victim advocate, you know, someone to work with crime victims and to have support for them. So there were a lot of ways that the department and the City are addressing that in the interest or grievance process itself. And by that, I mean I'm not necessarily sure we have to bargain those things. I think it would depend maybe on if there was a specific proposal from one side or the other. It's hard for me -- I can't speak in the abstract on that.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember Ahmad. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember O'Rourke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon to all the panelists.
Got a long one today. Because I'm a little tired and not feeling the best, I'm probably going to stick really close to the language in my questions that we prepared. Even though some of it may be a bit repetitive, I do want to get these things on the record as we've prepared them. For too long key pillars of creating a safer city have not been present, and you've actually already spoken to them a bit in your presentation. One is trust and the other is transparency. Yet both Council and the Administration have moved closer in recent years to addressing these issues through initiatives like the creation of the Citizens Oversight Commission spearheaded by Councilman Curtis Jones, as he's already lifted up, and the Police Termination Arbitration Board. However, more work needs to be done to ensure that we continue to create truly safe communities across the city. And so, I want to return back to the CPOC conversation. Will the Administration be submitting -- and I know this is a uphill climb, I heard you say this -- will the Administration be submitting a proposal to the arbitration panel to enshrine CPOC's investigatory powers into the FOP CBA?
Well, again what I would say is that we are looking at. We are developing that language. I don't have a proposal language right now. And as Director Geer pointed out, sometimes there are challenges to the definition of what is an investigation when you have issues of chain of custody, of evidence or sometimes the ability to access certain databases or other resources that maybe you can only access as a law enforcement officer. There are obviously some laws around that as I'm sure you know. But I think consistent with what Director Geer has said, we are working with CPOC. We've met with them. I've met with them, with Executive Director McClary. We're looking more forward to talking with them some more and to try to realize the vision of the CPOC legislation.
My understanding is that if the Administration does not submit a proposal, then CPOC will have no 16 chance really at investigatory powers until the next bargaining cycle in three years. That's at least three more years where we prohibit CPOC from fulfilling the mandate that Council and voters have asked for independent investigations into misconduct. It seems like this is the case. But why does the Administration find it unnecessary to pursue more rigorously this vital reform with such broad-based support?
Well, I don't think any of us up here have expressed that it's unnecessary nor am I sure that we can judge the rigorousness of our proposal when we are still developing it. So I hear what you're saying, Councilmember. I have heard Councilmember Jones, I've heard Councilmember Brooks. I've heard -- I hear you. We all hear you. We don't disagree and we are going to work very closely with CPOC and we are going to work hard to try to realize the vision. But at this time, I just can't accept the characterization that we see it as unnecessary or that we're not willing to be rigorous.
All right. Philadelphia Police Officer Ryan Pownall who was fired for shooting David Jones in the back and killing him had murder charges submitted against him dismissed on a procedural technicality. In April we learned that he'll be reinstated. In making that decision, Arbitrator David Reilly disagreed with the recommendations of the Use of Force Review Board as well as the current and former Police Commissioner. Is there a standard that all arbitrators must follow in making their decisions? It sounds like there were a couple of different standards.
Well, all arbitrators are supposed to apply the elements of just cause, and they typically do. But it is -- when I say typically do, I can't think of an arbitrator who hasn't applied the elements of just cause. But what I would say is again evidentiary standards -- the evidentiary burden of proof might be different from arbitrator to arbitrator. I addressed that earlier. And I think -- and by the way, I will say this because I'm not here to knock arbitrators. Arbitrators are like judges or anyone else. There are interpretations of the law and of standards. And they might look at -- one arbitrator might look at one element of that just cause and think of it slightly differently than the next. So, yes, broadly speaking they are to apply those standards, but there is obviously human variation.
The variation, do those variations create challenges for the City -- I hear the bell. How do those variations kind of create challenges for the City? And if there are any, is the City attempting to mitigate or address these particular challenges?
If there are challenges by these variations, there's not like a unilateral standard, it's kind of interpretation, does that present challenges for the City? And if there are, are you all attempting to mitigate or address these particular challenges?
Yes. I mean, of course there are challenges and there always will be. There would be if we were defending a case in court. But as I mentioned I think in response to Councilmember Ahmad, one of the things that the Law Department has always done, and I anticipate it's going to continue to do because I know those lawyers, we look at the result, how did it work out, what didn't work, what could we be doing better. We talk with our client, whether it's the police department or if it was a different department for a different issue and we try to where we can -- sometimes it's just a peculiarity of the case. Maybe a witness doesn't show up. And if a witness doesn't show up and if they're an eyewitness and we have no other confident testimony, that case goes -- we're probably going to lose that case, right. I mean, but sometimes it might be a systemic thing that we can fix, we can do better, we can improve and hopefully avoid that challenge in the future.
Madam Chair, I do have a few questions. I know that you said we have five minutes. Is there another round or should I submit the questions?
If you'd like to ask one additional question and then submit the remainder of the questions for written response, that would be greatly appreciated, my colleague --
-- only because we have a number of witnesses who have now signed up for public comment. And I want to be sure that we hear directly from the public as that was the genesis for this legislation. I thank you.
Yes, ma'am. Let me roll this one and now I'm going get off your time. Can OELR and the Administration commit to providing Councilmembers with copies of the City's current contract proposals as well as any amendments to those proposals between now and December 31st? And additionally, can OELR and the Administration also commit to providing Councilmembers with copies of the FOP's current contract proposals as well as any amendments to those proposals between now and December 31st? And if not, why not? And then I'm done.
Mic drop. Let me say this, our proposals are a work in progress probably up until about the time that we send them over to the FOP. So I can't commit to you that we can provide them to you in the lead-up to when we send them over. We can certainly look at sending our proposals to you afterwards. I have to look a little bit -- I have to check with the lawyers. I get to say that now. I have to check with the lawyers because I'm actually not sure if we can share the FOP's proposals with you or not. Interest arbitration is not itself a public process. It's not like going into court and watching. The public can't -- that's the law. The public doesn't get to walk in so I'm not so sure about the FOP piece. And so, I would need to look into that. I need to make Law look into it is what I really mean to say.
Thank you for your time. And thank you, Madam Chair, for your liberty.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember O'Rourke. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Gauthier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for your work on this. We all know the Philadelphia Police Department has a significant staffing shortage. We obviously want to improve recruitment for sworn police officers. At the same time, we would be remiss not to explore every tool available to support the work of PPD. In July 2024 the Controller's Office reported that PPD had 1,084 vacancies. One of the proposed solutions for this staffing shortage is civilianization or hiring civilians to perform work that have been performed by police officers. The 2021 Interest Arbitration award allowed for civilianization under certain conditions and a more detailed civilianization Interest Arbitration award laid out specific roles that could be replaced with civilians, public safety enforcement officers, abandoned vehicle unit personnel, body-worn camera technician roles, mail delivery roles, graphics and audio visual roles, crime scene unit investigators, firearms examiners, document and digital evidence examiners. In 2021, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Fels Institute of Government published a civilianization report authorized by the City which recommended even more roles that could be civilianized. So with that in mind, I just wanted to ask a few questions on our progress. Regarding the civilianization Interest Arbitration award negotiated during the last contract cycle, what progress has the City made on civilianization? What obstacles has the City faced or hurdles have we faced to civilianization? And how many public safety enforcement officers are currently working and what are their duties?
I'm going to have to get back to the Council on the public safety enforcement officers. I don't know the number of officers, PSEOs we currently have. I think their duties vary. I know that they're doing work -- I'm so sorry. I'm blanking on what we call them, but basically high traffic corridors. But I know that they were also assisting with removal of abandoned cars and things like that. So I need to check with the police department and find out what the current duties are. Several of the civilianization pieces we got in 2023 were very quick. We were able to implement them almost immediately. And I know, for example, probably the biggest, I'll say biggest ticket item, was the firearms examiners. And I know that the police department, the Bureau of Forensic Science is actually in the process of getting ready I think for a new class to sort of take full duty there. I don't know the numbers and it's not just firearms examiners. There's other forensic scientists. We can get you that information, but there has definitely been -- none of that has been held up except perhaps by the challenge that so many people are having in terms of firing people.
Okay. Are we in general where we want to be as far as civilianization? And what obstacles have there been towards that goal?
That's a hard question for me to answer because it's the police department that identifies for us what positions they feel should be civilianized and what would benefit the department. And so, I don't -- I know Commissioner Bethel is looking to civilianize some additional positions, and the obstacle there is simply the bargaining of it. But as I said, I am not aware of any barriers to being able to satisfy the gains we made in the 2023 interim.
Is there someone in the Administration who oversees that work other than PPD?
So the Police Commissioner really is in the best position to understand sort of his deployment and where he might utilize civilians and where he might object himself to civilianization. So we'll continue, that is on our list of discussions that we will have with the Commissioner as we go forward towards our final detailed plan.
Okay. I really like Commissioner Bethel. I think he's wonderful. I've known him for a long time. But do you think that there's a conflict between PPD being solely responsible for figuring out what roles are civilianized? And should there be someone else in the Administration that is focused on that work at a high level?
So within their organization -- because we sit at the table with Commissioner Bethel and have those conversations and then the Mayor ultimately sees that final whatever it is we're going to do, so it really is an Administration's approach and I have extensive experience in law enforcement. As a former Assistant District Attorney, I know the department very well. But, yes, he is the Police Commissioner and we are one administration and we'll work together to identify those positions.
Okay. I mean, I expect if you all are working together that when the next time you come before Council that you have that information if it's important. And if you're a part of the process, I would expect that. But please do follow up with what was requested.
Right. And just as I stated, we are having those conversations so we are gearing up to get those details and it is not a static thing. It can be fluid as well.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Gauthier. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Harrity.
Thank you, Leader. Good afternoon, everyone. How are you doing? You guys actually answered most of the questions I had. But just while I got you here, Adam, I'm reading the testimony of Rosie Poplar, current President of the FOP Lodge 5. And he states, We must take meaningful action to make the Philadelphia Police Department a competitive and attractive place for police officers to work. That starts with ensuring that our pay and benefits match the incredible demand of this position. So my question today is do you believe the retention rates are low due to the lack of competitive salary and benefits for our police officers?
I think in this we will respectfully disagree with President Poplar. He is doing his job trying to get the best for his members and I respect him for that. What I would say it's certainly not as if the police department is the only police department in the country that is having challenges in recruitment. There has been -- it is challenging in a lot of areas in a lot of jurisdictions. And so, no, I would not say that our salary and benefits are the reason.
Okay. Have you compared our salaries here for our police with comparable police departments in different places of the country because I do believe that the compensation is definitely an issue? You know, bottom line is they're trying to snake our people from all over the country. There was a billboard not too long ago on 95 that said be a Miami police officer $75,000 to start, $20,000 signing bonus, live on the beach, you know. So we did actually do something about that when we figured it out and we put the money there for the bonuses in order for us to be competitive. It's not 20. It's about because 9 it's 20 percent of the salary. 10 And what we didn't 11 understand is that we also had to 12 put a retention bonus in there for the officers. So they worked that all out and it comes to about 12,800, whatever. But I would like to know what salaries of other police departments are, New York, for instance, California, LA, San Diego and how do we compare to those salaries?
I am not a comp -- I will fully acknowledge I'm not a compensation expert. We have those experts in the Office of Human Resources. And it is pretty standard, fair at every interest arbitration that each party will have an expert in compensation to testify about comparators. One of the important things, Councilmember, is what is our comparator, the tax base of New York City, of Miami, of San Diego is very different --
Okay. How about Delaware County then where they're paying 100-and- something thousand an officer?
Delaware County. For instance, that's close, same kind of tax bracket, you know. I get New York's cost of living, whatever. But the bottom line is our officers are paid buckets compared to other police departments. That's all I was asking. And you're saying that you disagree that the salary isn't the problem. But from my own conversations not only with officers who are working now, but also with people who are thinking about becoming officers who then turned around and instead of applying to Philly, applied to Montco and Bucks and Delco because they're literally paying 40,000 or so more than we are, so I believe that something has to give there. And I get it, you guys are in negotiations and that's cool and all, but I think you guys should do some homework. Look at what those salaries are in those other cities, all right, because I'm not going to put you on a spot and tell you how much they are because they're a lot more. But, you know, homework. This is coming up quick and I'm sure that's going to be a sticking point, salary.
And since I'm doing it and while I'm here, I might as well mention that we should also be looking at their pension plan because there's no 10 reason for an officer to stay after 25 years when all they can get to is 65 percent. There's no reason for them to stay after they get their time because at that point they're losing money for staying. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilmember Harrity. And if we can since they are not here, possibly have our Office of Human Resources provide the data that Councilmember Harrity was requesting regarding the comparison of starting salaries for members of the police department adjusted for the cost of living of course. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Young.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmembers Gauthier and Harrity pretty much asked the questions, the line of questioning I was going to go toward. But I do have one question related to I guess the discipline of officers. We all have friends and family who are police officers, right, so they tell us different things that they would come and openly say to folks. And there seems to be from what I'm gathering a difference in discipline toward Black women officers in the force than there are toward some other officers. And just want to see how we can address that in the upcoming negotiations.
I'm sorry. Just want to make sure I understood your question. You have heard complaints that there is racial disparity in how officers of color are disciplined versus non-White officers. Did I understand that correctly?
We certainly hear of those complaints, but we hear those -- but the -- one of the elements of just cause is equal treatment. You look at officers not simply -- I mean, certainly gender, race, all of those things. You also look and see what is their history, how much discipline -- what's their rank, how long have they been on the job, what's their disciplinary record and that does create differences because you are not going to treat an officer who has a clean disciplinary record of years 5 similarly to an officer who's been 6 on the job for a year and has maybe 7 already incurred some discipline 8 and it may be that those 9 individuals are also of different 10 races or genders, but that is -- 11 that is not -- that has not ever 12 been my experience as the 13 driving -- that the demographics 14 are the driving factor. 15 It is -- it is about 16 the -- it is generally about who 17 these officers are, what their 18 histories are, what the level of 19 discipline is. And I don't agree 20 that -- I don't agree that there is 21 some sort of systemic bias against 22 officers of color or female 23 officers or whatever. I don't know 24 all the, you know, all the -- all the demographics you're thinking of. I don't agree that there is a systemic bias. I will not tell you that perhaps there has never been an issue. I would never suggest that, but I do not see a systemic bias.
So I guess internally who follows up with -- and it's another question, essentially along the same lines, where there are complaints filed by those Black women officers are often not followed up on as often or severely as some other complaints, right, that are being made by other officers. And so, how does this agreement or how will the City address that in this upcoming negotiations?
So I think one of the things we did, and correct me if I'm wrong, Karen, I know you will, is that improvement we got in the last cycle where we had the person from CPOC in the PBI hearing so that process was -- we added a member of CPOC to that process. Let me take one giant step back though and say that there has been a lot of studies, right, that that might suggest and some of them come from the education world, that some of our young Black and Brown folks are disciplined harder and at higher rates than their non-colored classmates. Point is taken. Taking another giant step back, it is something that this Administration and I am personally, especially coming from my world as an Inspector General, critically attuned to. And I've heard you and this is something that I've heard in the past and there will be more than just this avenue and this negotiation to deal with those types of concerns. And I know that we have a Commissioner who's committed to the same thing.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Young. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Thomas.
Good afternoon, colleague. I'll commend you for the great work you're doing. I would commend you a little longer but I've got limited time. I do appreciate the work that you all do especially outside of this space. But I think for today's conversation and specifically listening to the responses to some of the questions that members are asking, I'm really disappointed in the responses that I'm hearing to the questions that members are asking. When you talk about some of the responses around the Oversight Board, the lack of willingness to be aggressive is extremely disappointing. Listening to the response around public safety officers not knowing those numbers, that's definitely disappointing. Your perspective on arbiters, we'll get to that a little bit later, is disappointing. But then to sit here and say that there's no systemic bias in the police department, I believe that's a little bit out of touch. That's disingenuous to sit here and say that there's no systemic bias, especially against women. I don't know many things in the world that don't have systemic bias against women and I'm not a woman. So for that to be said on the record in this hearing with a woman who actually is leading the conversation by a woman -- (Applause.)
-- that's alarming and that's disappointing. Let me move on though because that wasn't a part of my questions. So the Administration has communicated an appetite to do something around a uniformity clause to help with some of the tax issues and economic issues that we have in the city. I think that's a great idea. In that same spirit, we've seen multiple stories about police officers who've done things like say the N-word on radio calls, rob drug dealers and hang them over the side of rooftops and many other things, and those officers were able to get their job back and sometimes even able to get back pay. The only solution to that is Act 111. What is being done in this year's negotiations specifically looking at Act 111 and how it ties our hands even in times when a criminal activity is taking place where someone can get their job back and get back pay? Do we have the same appetite around Act 111 that we do around the uniformity clause to put us in a position to be able to hold specifically bad officers accountable? And I have to frame this by saying this: I walk into City Hall every single day. And when you walk into City Hall and you interact with the police officers that we do, these are some of the nicest people that you're ever going to meet in your life. I respect and appreciate the officers I deal with on a consistent basis, and I think everybody should have the same experience that City Councilmembers have as it relates to how we interact with police officers. That's not the case right now. So Act 111, can you give me about a 30-second response?
I'm not sure, Councilmember, if we cannot change Act 111 through our contract process. It's a state -- I don't know if you're asking for changes toward Act 111.
So again, I'll reframe it. So the Mayor communicated an appetite to specifically do something about the uniformity clause which is something that we can't do anything about. It's in the same category as Act 111. So what I'm asking is the same appetite that we have around the uniformity clause, which we cannot do anything about, do we have that same appetite around Act 111 because the time to do something about it is right now while you're going through contract negotiations. It's a simple yes or no. Either, yes, we have the appetite or, no, we necessarily don't?
So let me -- yes is the short answer because there's broader advocacy than this. I believe that gun preemption and the state preemption law falls into this category of advocacy work that we must continue to do and I believe that it is timely that we do that work, yes.
All right. So you plan on working in collaboration with members of City Council to work with our state partners to see what we can do to be able to address Act 111 so when some of these egregious situations take place, we can actually fire people who deserve to lose their job?
Amazing. Thank you. That's the answer we wanted to hear. Thank you. A couple years ago we seen a report from the Controller's Office that talked about issues related to Heart & Lung. We knew that more cases around Heart & Lung were here in the city of Philadelphia by multiple folds compared to other large cities. What is going to be done around Heart & Lung throughout the course of this year's contract negotiations?
We have sought reforms on Heart & Lung for a long time. We have gotten some, not as many as we like and as we want, and that is a focus that has been a focus for a very long time, Councilmember. And we work closely with the Risk Division of our Finance Department which administers the Heart & Lung and see some of the issues close up and try to target proposals that help to address, assist abuses and other problems in the process.
So have we seen reductions? Do we have numbers as it relates to where we are compared to where we were when the report told us how egregious our numbers were?
I'm sorry. I didn't -- you wanted numbers as to where we are in -- I just didn't catch -- I would need to get that from Risk. Risk manages, has that information, not my office, but we can certainly get it. I just want to make sure I know what I'm asking for.
If you could just make sure that the Chair of the Committee gets information as it relates to where the City of Philadelphia is currently with Heart & Lung cases in comparison with other major cities across the country. That'll let us know where we are as it relates to our trajectory and our economics and how we're paying out. Madam Chair, I heard the bell. I just want to close out by again saying this is not about bashing law enforcement. Every industry has folks who are good apples and are bad apples. As a former teacher, I know that some of the things I read in stories if I did that as a teacher, not only would I lose my job I would be incarcerated. So we just want to make sure that we have the same standards across the board for all professionals. And as I close out, again the comments around arbitrators, I believe you said that they interpret different ways. I don't want to paraphrase exactly what was said, but I just think that's a little offensive and disingenuous to talk about the system that we know systemically favors a certain different group of people and put it under the cloud of interpretation. Some of these incidents are murders. People lost their lives. People have been charged with crimes. These are some serious things and we do have some systemic problems. There's a lot of people listening to these hearings and listening to what we're saying. This information is on the record. years from now 6 children may read and listen to 7 what was discussed today. 8 So let's just try to be 9 as accurate as possible in the 10 midst of what we're communicating, 11 but most importantly let's be 12 respectful of the things that 13 people have went through as to why 14 they care about this issue, right. 15 When Councilmember 16 Gilmore Richardson introduced this 17 bill four years ago, people were 18 protesting for this. People were 19 crying. People were talking to us 20 about some of the things that they've experienced that changed their life. I think some of the things that we're saying right now it would be disingenuous to basically say people's lived experiences didn't happen to them and to say that -- I'm going to stop right there. Thank you, Madam Chair. (Applause.)
And if I can respond. Councilman Thomas, I know that you do a lot of work on this. I know that when I was in the Inspector General's Office I worked with your office to look at reforms we could make in the police department and I worked with your office to look at that CPOC legislation. Some of your concerns, right, we have had conversations about and share. And I won't respond to everything you said because there was a lot there. What I will respond to, I want to be clear about this, that it is tragically and it is plainly clear that there is systemic biases throughout many, many of our institutions, if not all here in the United States of America. So I just want to say that that is the statement that I'm making and it is plainly, it is plainly true. We have to do better. We will do better. We have leadership in this City that understands these issues and we will continue to work towards those issues, but we share these concerns. And it's not as if we take any other perspective other than the fact that it is a horrendous thing when there are those biases when they present themselves, especially when we have in the case that was brought up by Councilmember Young, African American women who make that decision, right, that very difficult decision to take a public role in law enforcement and then might get treated differently within as it relates to their discipline. Just show me the case and I will with the Commissioner make sure that we do everything in our power to right those wrongs.
I'm going to close out by saying this: Adam, we're going to do this dance for some time, right. Please don't make me be the angry Black man for you to have to say that, right. I think that what you just said is important, but it should be that's how you guys should lead with the conversation. When we talk about police, we all get so afraid to be critical. You know, this City Council voted to give police officers a raise three years in a row, three years in a row. It's okay. We're critical of our teachers, people are critical of us, we're critical of the Mayor. Nobody's above criticism. They can be criticized. And after we criticize each other, we can give each other a hug and say it's going to be okay. No one is above that. So please don't make me and other members be the angry members before you are able to say with all honesty this is the problem and this is what we're willing to do. Madam Chair, I do apologize. Thank you for a little bit of leniency on that.
Well, that was my first opportunity to say in a context that was relevant and I'll say that any time you want me to say that, brother. I'll say that any time you want me to say that. When you want me to lead with that, I will lead with that. And we will be doing this for a long time and I'm happy to. This is the chamber and this is how it looks when we're trying to make progress.
Thank you. I just really wanted to follow up on my colleague's statement to say that, and I appreciate his sentiment 1,000 percent. I just wanted to say that, Adam, Mr. Geer, for your response, your response is one of likely lived experience, but the original statement that there was not this systemic bias that exists didn't come from Adam. And so, I think that just sort of redirecting the conversation from the original source, Adam I'm assuming had the experience that we've all had as people of color but not that as a woman, but still as a person of color the biases that exist. And so, I think that the original conversation didn't originate there. I appreciate him sort of coming to the rescue, so to speak, and addressing the matter. But I think when you have someone who sits high and has decision- making authority, it is troubling to me as well that there would be no recognition of the biases that we face every single day or no 17 experience with it. Maybe that's what it is. But nonetheless, it's still very troubling. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Councilmember Bass. Please respond.
Thank you. I hear you and I did not speak well. I understood from -- what I heard of Councilmember Young's question and I may very well -- and I think I misinterpreted and I certainly blew my response, is that -- is the department deliberately disciplining people of color or women differently from others. I have not seen that sort of intentionality, but I would never dispute and I don't because it is -- because not only because it's proven by research, but because we see it all the time in the culture that, yes, there are different -- there are biases that are applied and which we have to fight against all the time if we are not the person -- if we are -- I'm privileged in terms of my race so I have to remind myself that a woman of color in my position or saying something that I say may be perceived differently, and I do remind myself of that, and I recognize that as a woman I am sometimes expected to behave a certain way or criticized because I don't behave and conform in a certain way, so I do recognize those are there. And I do apologize to this body and to the public. I was not intending to deny the very reality of what you were asking, and I am sorry that I misunderstood your question. And I am sorry -- and I am sorry that my response was badly, badly handled. I take accountability for that and I apologize.
Thank you. Thank you very, very much for that response. Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips for a point of information. Very quickly, colleagues, for a matter of the house, we have several additional members in the queue for Panel 1. We do have a second panel and one member in the queue for Panel 2. We have witnesses at 10 least to give public comment. We 11 have an additional Committee 12 hearing at 6:00. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Phillips.
Majority Leader is excellent, isn't she, y'all? I just want to say -- point of information which I think is really important for us to understand. Is there a standard discipline? Just point of information for the police department, like there's a standard discipline protocol if something happens, you get this type of discipline that should be happening across the board or is it arbitrary?