Committee Hearing, April 28, 2010

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 9:35 a.m. - - - BILL 100214 - Amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code," by amending Subcode F, entitled "The Philadelphia Fire Code," by further delineating the Philadelphia Fire Department's mission and obligations to provide fire and other emergency services via uniformed fire personnel, including Firefighters and Fire Service Paramedics, and clarifying that all uniformed fire personnel, including Fire Service Paramedics, are authorized and required to act as fire personnel. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Donna Reed-Miller, Chair William K. Greenlee Curtis Jones, Jr. James F. Kenney Frank Rizzo - - - 2 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

Good morning, everyone. The hearing is about to start. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, and the Committee on Public Safety is now in session. We have a quorum. To my far left is Councilman Curtis Jones, next to him is Councilman Bill Greenlee, and to my right is Councilman Jim Kenney. And that does establish our quorum. Will the clerk please read the title of this bill.

Bill No. 100214, an ordinance amending Title 4 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "The Philadelphia Building Construction and Occupancy Code," by amending Subcode F, entitled "The Philadelphia Fire Code," by further delineating the Philadelphia Fire Department's mission and obligations to provide fire and other emergency services via uniformed fire personnel, including 3 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Firefighters and Fire Service Paramedics, and clarifying that all uniformed fire personnel, including Fire Service Paramedics, are authorized and required to act as fire personnel.

Okay, thank you. Will the clerk please call our first witness.

City Solicitor Shelley Smith.

Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)

Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Miller and members of the committee. My name is Shelley Smith. I'm the City Solicitor, as you all know, for the City of Philadelphia. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Thank you for the opportunity on behalf of the Nutter Administration to testify on Bill No. 100214. The Nutter Administration opposes adoption of this bill and requests that the committee table the bill, as the bill's effort to set the terms of the collective bargaining relationship for fire service paramedics is unnecessary, unwise, and unlawful. The bill is directly contrary to the factual reality of the paramedic job, contrary to a recent federal court decision regarding the nature of that job, contrary to the paramedics' own recognition of their job responsibilities, and contrary to the authority of City Council, or even the City itself, to define the State statutory rights of fire service paramedics. I thought it would be helpful to begin with some background. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 decades, Philadelphia has provided medical services to its citizens through employees of the Fire Department. In a move designed to provide more advanced levels of emergency medical services to Philadelphia in the 1970s, the Philadelphia Fire Department began a program to train its firefighters and to have the Commonwealth certify them as paramedics. By 1980, the position of fire paramedic was created as a distinct job classification from Firefighter from employees whose primary duty medical would be providing medical treatment, not fire suppression, and who had emergency medical services or paramedic certification from the Commonwealth. The fire paramedic position evolved into the fire service paramedic position that exists in the department today. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 as paramedics only those who had already received State certification as paramedics. Today, the paramedic position remains a distinct position from firefighter, with a different civil service classification number. The two positions have different salaries, different hiring processes, and different certifications. In fact, if paramedics want to become firefighters, they have to take the civil service test for firefighter and return to the Fire Academy training as a new recruit. This is true even for paramedics who were originally hired as firefighters and later became paramedics. When the fire paramedic position was created, it was simply added to the existing Local bargaining unit. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 firefighters. Other types of local-government employees have collective bargaining rights under the Pennsylvania Employee Relations Act, which is generally referred to as either PERA or Act 195. Later, when the fire service paramedic position was created, in the mid- to late 1980s, these positions were also added to the Local bargaining 12 unit, even though the paramedic's job is 13 providing medical care and not 14 firefighting. 15 The Pennsylvania Labor 16 Relations Board, or PLRB, which is the 17 State agency that has exclusive 18 jurisdiction over determining the 19 bargaining relationships between local 20 governments and their employees never 21 decided whether the fire service 22 paramedics belonged in this unit under Act 111. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Philadelphia. In that suit, they claimed that they are not firefighter for purposes of a Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) exemption that allows cities to have police officers and firefighters work more than 40 hours per week before they are entitled to overtime. The FLSA is a federal law that governs overtime pay and minimum-wage rules.

In that lawsuit, Lawrence versus the City of Philadelphia, hundreds of current and former paramedics employed by the City claimed that they should not be considered firefighters because they do not actually engage in fire suppression, they are not authorized to engage in fire suppression, and they are not trained to do fire suppression. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 in fire suppression and did not have the authority or training to do so. " The court reached its decision, in large part, based on testimony from Fire Department personnel about the duties of paramedics. The testimony made it clear that the day-to-day job of a paramedic is soley to provide medical care. Among other evidence, the court found that less than one percent of dispatches to which paramedics report are fire scenes. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 paramedic's job is to set up a first aid station in safe area of the fire scene and to be on standby to provide medical care to any victims of the fire, whether those victims are firefighters or members of the public. On long-lasting fire scenes, paramedics may also set up a rest and rehabilitation station further away from the fire scene to monitor the vital signs of and provide recovery time for firefighters on a lengthy fire response. In the Lawrence case, several paramedics testified that their job was soley to provide medical care, that they were not trained to fight fires, and that they had never done so, and would be disciplined if they ever tried to do so. In fact, several paramedics testified that paramedics have been disciplined for something as minor as helping a firefighter drag a hose while the paramedics had no victims to treat and nothing to do. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 As a result of the Third Circuit decision, the court was immediately obligated to start paying paramedics overtime at time-and-a-half whenever they worked more than 40 hours per week and to stop paying them as if they were firefighters subject to the firefighter overtime rate. To avoid this cost going forward, the City changed the work schedule for paramedics in the spring of 2009. 5 million. The decision in the Lawrence case and the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in that case led the Administration to examine whether paramedics were properly considered firefighters under Act 111. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 overtime because, according to the Third Circuit, they are not firefighters, while also reaping the benefit of Act 111, which are only available to employees who are firefighters. Based on our review of the holding and evidence in the Lawrence case, which established that paramedics are not authorized to and do not engage in fire suppression, and our review of the law, the City filed a petition for unit clarification with the PLRB in March 2009. In that petition, the City sought to have the paramedics removed from the Local bargaining unit. Act 18 111 covers only police officers and 19 firemen; it does not define the term 20 "fireman," but courts have created a 21 two-part definition: whether statutorily 22 authorized to act as fire personnel and whether the employees, in fact, act as fire personnel. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 examiner appointed by the PLRB ruled in the City's favor, finding that the paramedics are not recovered by Act 111 because they are not statutorily authorized to fight fires, and they do not perform firefighting activities. The hearing examiner found that the State licenses the paramedics to perform medical services, and that is, in fact, the service that they perform, not fighting fires. He found that there was no legal authority for paramedics to fight fires. The hearing examiner also looked at testimony from the paramedics, several of whom are plaintiffs in the Lawrence case, which establishes that they were not trained to fight fires and did not fight fires.

10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Union, including former vice president and current union official Gerry Kots, have testified for years in interest arbitration proceedings that paramedics are not qualified to perform fire suppression activities and never do so. The PLRB decision was based on prior cases that have made a distinction between employees who actually fight fires and those who work for a fire department in some other role that relates to fire supression, with only those who actually fight fires being considered fire personnel under Act 111. The PLRB found that working at a fire scene with firefighters does not make the paramedics firefighters, noting that the paramedics are at the fire or emergency scene to provide medical care, not to suppress fires. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 time responding to emergency medical calls, not putting out fires. The hearing examiner noted that firefighters are people who actually fight fires, which paramedics simply do not do. IAFF Local 22, the Union that currently represents the firefighters and paramedics, has filed exceptions to this decision, which the PLRB will decide. Once affirmed, the effect of this decision will be that, under Pennsylvania law, the paramedics cannot be in the same bargaining unit as the firefighters and will have different collective bargaining rights. Under Pennsylvania law, firefighters cannot be in the same bargaining unit with other types of employees who are not covered by Act 111. I give you this extensive background as a basis for my testimony that Council should not pass this ordinance. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 relationship between the City and a group of approximately 200 employees. Respectfully, City Council should play no 5 role in telling the City with whom to bargain or in what forum. The PLRB is the entity that decides the representation rights of public employees in Pennsylvania and the right to decide which employees will be in which bargaining unit and what those employees' bargaining rights will be rests exclusively with the PLRB. The PLRB has special expertise in deciding questions of representation, which the Pennsylvania courts recognize. City Council simply cannot take that function away from the PLRB, as this ordinance seeks to do. In light of the PLRB decision, the City cannot be forced to treat paramedics as a part of a bargaining unit in which they do not belong as a matter of State law. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 States Court of Appeals and the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board that paramedics are not firefighters and do not perform fire-suppression duties. Numerous firefighters testified that their job is to provide medical attention, not to extinguish fires. Paramedics and firefighters also have different training, different certifications, and different hiring rules that flow from these disparities. As a result of their very different jobs, paramedics are a separate job classification from firefighters and are paid 10 percent more than firefighters. Calling them "firefighters" in an ordinance cannot, and will not, change the fact that they are not firefighters, either in reality under State labor law, as they do not fight fires. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 how it bargains with its union, those are matters that, under the Home Rule Charter, are within the exclusive domain of the Fire Department and the Administration and, respectfully, not a matter for Council. This Charter problem, however, is of minor significance compared to the overall problem with the bill, which is that the City itself cannot declare that a group of City employees is subject to Act 111; that is exclusive a determination of State law exclusively for the PLRB and the State courts. For all of these reasons, I urge you to table this bill and, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. The Chair wants the recognize that Councilman Frank Rizzo, a member of this committee, is also in attendance. And with that, Councilman Jim 19 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Kenney.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your the testimony. As the author of the bill, when I listened to your testimony, it seems that you think this bill does more than it does. First of all, I think that Council has every responsibility and right to amend the Fire Code, since we were the ones who initiated and passed the Fire Code in the '50s and amended it in the '90s. And, to me, that is a legislative act that we have the right to do. We are adding language to the Fire Code; we are not taking away, or trying to take away, the authority of the PLRB or any court to determine what that language means. The language is a legislative function, and the court will determine what they determine, and the 20 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 PLRB will determine what they determine. So we are not trying to take away any responsibility or right -- I'm not, anyway, trying to take any responsibility or rights away from any court or any labor relations board. Whatever their decisions are, their decisions are. It is appropriate, I believe, for us to make clear in the Fire Code what we think is the case. We are also not in any way directing the Fire Department as to how to direct their personnel; we are simply saying that the Fire Department official in charge on the scene has the authority to direct uniformed Fire Department personnel, including, but not limited to, firefighters and fire service paramedics. That person on the scene is in charge of the fire scene. When the paramedic is on the fire scene, it should be under someone's supervision. If we don't say whose supervision they're 21 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 under, it is not clear who is to direct them. So -- and I think just intuitively, no one would argue that the folks who are dispatched to a fire scene are not a part of the Fire Department; therefore, as part of the Fire Department, they should be represented by the bargaining unit that the Fire Department is represented by, including officers, firefighters, and, up until recently, paramedics. It was, I think, a decision of the Administration to pursue the disconnect of the paramedics. And at this point, you've been successful; it doesn't mean it's going to be successful to the end. The other issue for me, frankly, is, if you are successful in removing the paramedics from Local 22, where would they go? Who would represent them? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, 22 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 that -- actually, Shannon Farmer, who's our counsel, who represented us in the PLRB matter, is here.

Great. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: And she can answer probably answer that question better than I can. (Ms. Farmer approaches witness table.)

That's fine if she'd like to come up. But the issue for me is that the direct act of trying to remove the paramedics from Act 111, I think, is a dangerous thing to do -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, I don't think --

-- because -- well, let me finish. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Sure. Sorry.

Because I don't want them to go on strike, and I don't think you do either if you're 23 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 having a heart attack. I think you want them to come to the house and be required to come and treat you rather than being on a picket line with Local 33 or with the AFSCME 33 or 47. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well --

They have to be represented by someone. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, I think those are two separate questions, but I'll let Shannon answer.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Shannon Farmer, F-A-R-M-E-R. Councilman, to answer your question, as a matter of Pennsylvania law, what would initially happen if they were removed from the unit is, they would be non-represented employees unless and until another union petitioned the appeal and was certified to represent them. And that process would exist under Pennsylvania law. 24 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

And what would happen to them if they decided that they wanted -- would they be allowed to strike or not?

Under Pennsylvania law, paramedics are allowed to strike, as they are everywhere else in Pennsylvania.

But do you believe, as a matter of policy, that that's a good policy, to have paramedics the ability to go on strike?

It is the policy decision that has been made by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for paramedics throughout the State.

No. As a person that's representing the City of Philadelphia, and I believe you are?

Yes. I'm the attorney that represents the City of Philadelphia.

Okay. Do you believe that it is a good policy to have a situation that allows paramedics 25 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 potentially to strike?

Councilman, I can't -- I'm an attorney. I can comment on what the law is; I cannot comment on what the policy is.

Do you live in Philadelphia? Do you live in the City?

I do not.

How do you represent the City? Are you in a private law firm.

Yes.

Oh, so you don't live in the City.

No. 18

Okay. You live in the City. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I do.

What do you think of it as a matter of policy? Do you think that it's a good thing for City residents to have paramedics with the capability of striking? 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, I don't -- I don't really want -- I don't think my opinion about the policy really matters.

You're a citizen of the City; you should have an opinion. I mean, everyone has an opinion about everything, from taxes to how we operate the government. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Right. But as the lawyer who represents the City of Philadelphia, I don't think it's appropriate for me to express an opinion about the appropriateness of a policy that has been decided by the Commonwealth.

Well, as a person who represents the City of Philadelphia and as a citizen of the City, I think having the ability for paramedics to strike is dangerous, and it's just a ridiculous position to be in, especially considering the fact that for 30 years -- well, at least 30 years, 27 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 they've been represented by the same union. Why would we go through this other than because six or seven of those folks decided that they want to sue the City and won, why are we going to punish the rest of them? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Okay. Well, let me speak to that. First of all, whether or not however many individuals or plaintiffs there were in the Lawrence case, it became a class action, and all of the fire service paramedics that were employed as such within a particular period of time will recover -- will benefit financially from the lawsuit that six or seven of them chose to bring. So to suggest that the rest of them are being, quote, punished by the actions of a few who chose to sue, I think, ignores the fact that the rest of them are benefiting substantially because of actions of a few who chose to sue. 28 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Secondly, I think the question of whether they are represented by Local is not necessarily dispositive 5 ultimately of the question of whether 6 they would be allowed to strike. 7 Correctional officers are not represented 8 by Local 22; they're not even covered by 9 Act 111, and they don't strike either. 10 So -- 11

What keeps 12 them from striking? 13 CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: There's 14 a separate provision of the Public 15 Employee Relations Act that governs 16 correctional officers. 17

That would 18 not govern in this situation? 19 CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: It would 20 not. 21

So they 22 could strike. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: They could under the state of the -- under the current state of the law, yes. 29 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

Okay. Well, just let me recap my position on this thing. I don't think we're legislating anything away from the PLRB or the Pennsylvania courts; we are simply amending the Fire Code, which is our right to do as a legislative body. And we are trying to create a situation where the status quo has remained for the past 30 years and there's no sense in removing it or changing it now, and I don't want my paramedics striking. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. You know, I want to ditto Councilman Kenney's comments. I still don't understand why the change now after 30 years. Can you explain that again? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes. I believe, as I explained in my testimony, the paramedics sued on the basis that 30 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 they were not firefighters. And because they were not firefighters, they were entitled to overtime. They prevailed in that lawsuit, which found that they were not firefighters. Because they are not firefighters, they cannot be a part of a bargaining unit that is for firefighters. Once that was established as a matter of law in federal court -- as a matter of fact and law in federal court, the City pursued its related rights to correct the status of the bargaining unit so that it only includes members that are appropriately a part of it; those being firefighters and not people who are not firefighters, which, under the law, Act 111 is not -- does not intend to include in a firefighter's Act 111 unit.

Point of information.

So -- okay, I'll call on you in a minute, Councilman Rizzo. 31 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

I'm sorry.

So as a result of the suit where firefighters declared -- I mean paramedics declared that they were not firefighters -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes. And the court agreed.

And they cannot be part of -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: The firefighters union.

-- the firefighters union, according to Act 111.

Though they could be if they hadn't pursued the disconnect between the two. If they had not pursued the disconnect of the paramedics from Local 22, it would have never happened. It was their affirmative action that created the situation, which was not necessarily had to be done. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: If they wanted their money, it did. I mean, remember, Councilman 32 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Kenney, that is what prompted the lawsuit, that they wanted overtime pay. So to say that it didn't have to be done -- I mean, I'm obviously never a fan of anyone suing the City, but if you look at it from the paramedics' perspective, what they wanted was monetary equity: They wanted overtime pay for time that they worked and felt they were entitled to earn because they are not firefighters under the law.

Okay. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Though what you are -- with all due respect, what this bill would accomplish is allowing the paramedics to have their cake and eat it too, which is to have rights that they are entitled to because they are not firefighters and to have rights that they would be entitled to only if they were firefighters. And the law typically doesn't allow those dichotomies to exist.

But the 33 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 law -- a court or a board will determine that. This, what we're doing here today, is amending the language of the Fire Code; I'm not making any decision based on the merits of anybody's position in front of a board or a court. We are amending the Fire Code, as is our right to amend the Fire Code. A board or court will make a decision on what that means, and we'll live with it or not.

Okay. Councilman Rizzo.

My question is just a point of information my colleague Councilman Jones is ahead of me here. I was heading down the same path as Councilman Kenney. I just can't imagine -- and I've asked a couple members of the Administration -- why we're pursuing this so vigorously. Are you telling me that you had 34 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 no option in removing the paramedics having the same benefits of Act 111 as a paramedic? You had no choice, you had to do this? Or did you pursue this, without being required to? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I'm saying that the City pursued its rights under Act 111 to have the bargaining unit correctly constituted.

But you didn't -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: And once the paramedics prevailed in federal court, the bargaining unit was then misaligned, and we took action to correct that, because the misalignment of the bargaining unit impacts the City's collective-bargaining rights, which is my obligation, as the City Solicitor, to pursue.

Until it's my turn, were you required to be this aggressive? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: From my 35 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 perspective, yes. I am required, I am obligated, as the City Solicitor, to protect the City's collective-bargaining rights. The Union protects the union's collective-bargaining rights, and I protect the City's collective-bargaining rights.

And our responsibility to protect the -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)

And it's our responsibility to protect the public safety of the City by not allowing a situation where paramedics could strike. That's our responsibility. So you're doing your job and --

And we're doing ours. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: And that's a matter of State law.

Okay. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: And determining whether paramedics have the 36 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 right to strike is a matter for State law and not for local government, with all due respect.

No, but amending the Fire Code is for local government; we can amend the Fire Code as we see fit, and a court or board can determine what that means. And that's what we're doing, or attempting to do. Sorry.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you put on a excellent argument and said at least a hundred times that they don't fight fires; I heard it loud and clear. But I feel compelled to ask, in the case of 9/11, how many EMT paramedics perished in 9/11? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I don't know, but that doesn't have anything to 37 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 do with collective-bargaining rights.

Wait a minute. But it does -- and you may be right in your legal stance. But in practicality, when they ran in those buildings, they were saving lives and fighting fires. In the case of the building that collapsed over here -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: The Meridian.

The Meridian. If those same workers from Philadelphia were asked to rush in a burning building and save a fellow firefighter, I am sure they would have done that and would have suffered the same fate as those that died. So whether or not the legal standing -- those are arguments that this body will take up, that you will have a position on, and will be taken probably to court. But do not misunderstand that 38 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 our -- part of our intentions are to recognize the fact that they put themselves in harm's way, just like firefighters. And whether the cost differential matters, the fact of loss of life in those cases are the same. And so, it is our intention to try to protect them to the degree that we can. It's amazing to me why we don't cross-train them anyway and why we would not choose to, in cases where they do go into building, they have the basic ability to protect themselves and possibly a fallen firefighter that they may be trying to rescue. It seems to me, as opposed to segregating them further away, that we need to be pushing them closer together, arming them with equipment to protect themselves, citizens, and fellow compatriots that run into buildings, run into harm's way, and don't stop to look at the contract and say, Well, you know, if go into this, I'm actually serving as 39 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 a firefighter; maybe I need to check back with the regs and the unions and the laws before I go rushing in. And I just think that we need to take that into account as we move forward. So you're not going to respond? I understand that -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I wasn't aware there was a question. I can certainly respond if you'd like.

And that is true, so I'm going to give you a question. What specifically in your testimony , paragraph 2, why the City doesn't put firefighters in according to those kinds of trainings, why don't we cross-train them? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Councilman Jones, I don't personally know why; I think that's just a decision that the Fire Department has made about how to deploy its personnel. 40 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

Okay. Are there any other municipalities that do? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: That cross-train firefighters and paramedics?

And paramedics. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: There are municipalities that cross-train firefighters and paramedics. There are also municipalities where paramedics are not part of the Fire Department at all. There are also municipalities that do not provide paramedic service at all.

So within the range of possibilities, this is something that this administration could consider. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Any one of those possibilities is an option that the Administration could consider.

So the question becomes: Why don't we? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, as I said, I mean, that's a question -- the 41 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Fire Department has made that choice to deploy its personnel without cross- training them. I don't personally know why that choice was made, but that is the decision that has been made.

Is there a specific law that we can reference that says that paramedics cannot be in the same collecting -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Act 111.

It says that -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: A firefighter bargaining unit can (indiscernible) personnel, which means people who fight fires.

Wait a minute. I'm not -- I want to know what prohibits it. You said "do not fight fires," but does that prohibit them -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes.

-- from being -- it specifically prohibits. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: It 42 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 prohibits them from being --

Your definition and interpretation of the law says that there -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Start your question from the beginning. I want to make sure I'm answering -- I thought I understood your question but maybe I didn't.

Okay, all right. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: So start again, please, if you don't mind. I apologize.

Okay. Specifically, in the law, does it prohibit them? It says they do not fight fires. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Does it prohibit them fighting fires; is that your question?

All right. Let me slow down and start a again. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Okay. 43 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

All right. You reference it by saying that what's clearly in Act 111 is that they shall not be firefighters, they are not necessarily firefighters. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Right.

Understood. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Okay.

Does it specifically prohibit them from having the same collective-bargaining unit? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes.

Where? I don't -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Because Act 111 defines the membership of a bargaining unit as those employees that are fire personnel, which is defined in the law as people who fight fires.

Hmm. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: So it defines it by exclusion. It says the bargaining unit is limited to this group of people, which is defined in this way. 44 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 And by definition, this group of people does not include paramedics.

Okay.

Madam Chair, if I may just ask and inject relative to the title of a paramedic. What is the title of a Philadelphia Fire Department paramedic? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: A fire service paramedic.

Do the operative words "fire service" mean anything? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: No. 16

Oh. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: You call it whatever you want, but they don't fight fires.

But by definition, they're a fire service paramedic, which means -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: They do not fight fires.

Which means 45 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 they're in the fire service. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: But they do not fight fires. And the definition has been explained to be limited to those who actually fight fires, who fight the fires.

So why are they called "fire service paramedics"? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I do not know.

Councilman Kenney -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: That's the name that was chosen at the time that the position was created, but I --

So we could have called them "concierges" or we could have called them whatever. But a fire service paramedic is not definitive of what -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Dispositive --

-- government -- of what? 46 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: That's correct.

It's a hard sell.

Solicitor -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well --

As a matter of fact, Madam Chair, if we could ask Mr. Gillison to come up 'cause I have some policy issues relative to the -- (Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison approaches witness table.)

Solicitor, I'd like to follow up with you. It's going to be my turn soon. I know of occasions where paramedics have been the first responder to a vehicle fire, the only personnel on the scene. Would you expect those paramedics to make an effort to save the life of children or a person in a burning vehicle? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I would 47 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 certainly expect them to attempt to provide whatever medical attention is required --

And you -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: -- but I would not expect them to fight the fire of the burning vehicle. (Laughter.)

This amazes me. What I want to know is why an employer would not want to provide the best protection for an employee that's available, why you would want to exclude them from Act 111. Forget the lawsuit. You said that you're required to do this by law. And so, we're going to fix that; we're going to amend the Fire Code for sure to protect these firefighters and give them all of the benefits that they deserve. So -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: With --

A paramedic 48 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 that's at the scene, he has to potentially extinguish a fire in some way with a fire extinguisher to do the rescue. I just can't imagine -- you probably have never been to the scene of a fire; that's your problem. Thank you. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: With all due respect, Councilman Rizzo, the City's petition to remove the paramedics from Act -- from the Act 111 bargaining unit doesn't have anything at all to do with a desire on the City's part to not provide the best possible benefits. I'm not sure how you -- I don't remember exactly the terminology that you used. It's simply a matter of properly aligning the bargaining unit, consistent with State law, because State law is what determines who bargains within what unit bargains or what unit bargains on behalf of what employees. And our petition was simply an effort, on behalf of the City's 49 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 collective-bargaining rights, which we all are obligated to protect, to correctly align the bargaining unit. Aligning the bargaining unit differently does not ultimately -- does not necessarily yield the ultimate conclusion that the paramedics will be deprived of anything. But there is a process under the law that is supposed to be followed, and that process is the process that we have followed. And there are rights under Pennsylvania law that are provided, and Pennsylvania law is the source of those rights. And we have a saying, as lawyers, that hard facts make bad law. You're right that it seems ridiculous to call a fire service paramedic a fire service paramedic, Councilman Kenney, when they don't actually provide fire service, in quotes. I don't disagree with you, but that was apparently a careless choice 50 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 made by the people who created the title in the first place.

But your premise is that we are interfering with this process. We are not; we are amending the Fire Code. The process is the process. Whatever the outcome of that process will be, we have the ability and the right elected to amend any code within the City of Philadelphia. That does not mean we are interfering with any other process you guys are pursuing. And I think that trying to lump the two of them together is inaccurate. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, I hear what you're saying, Councilman Kenney, but I think that when you say, then, that you're merely trying to amend the Fire Code, when Councilmembers then express subsequently a concern that fire paramedics be given the same rights as firefighters, those two ideas to me sort of conflict. 51 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

That's their individual positions on there. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Okay.

Also, I mean, the other issue I would raise to you is where fire service paramedics are trained.

At the Fire Academy, right? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: At the Fire Academy, but they're certified by a --

So they're not trained at Jefferson Hospital, they're not trained at the University of Pennsylvania. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: No, but they are --

They're trained at the Fire Academy, side-by-side with firefighters. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, not side-by-side. They're trained as paramedics at the Fire Academy, but they 52 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 are certified by a medical doctor.

Which is a State -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: They're not -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)

Which is a state requirement, correct? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: That's correct.

So they are certified under State law. But when they train at the Fire Academy and they're doing extractions of folks, you know, in an automobile, they are side-by-side with firefighters. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Side-by- side in the same facility, but they are certified differently, they are certified against a different standard and --

If they were so separate from the fire service, then they should be trained at a 53 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 hospital. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, they have testified themselves -- I can't speak to where they're trained or why -- I mean why they're trained where they're trained; that may simply be a matter of resources. But the fact of the matter is that the paramedics themselves have declared that they are not firefighters, that they do not provide fire service. They themselves have declared that; they've declared it in two separate tribunals on their own behalf.

And what this council may declare is that we're going to change the Fire Code. And what happens happens. Thanks. Councilman Greenlee hasn't had a chance to say anything. Do you want to ask Mr. Gillison something?

Yeah, I 54 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 wanted to kind of ask Mr. Gillison something, if that's all right with you, Madam Chair. Mr. Gillison, the City Solicitor certainly gave her legal opinion. And when Councilman Kenney asked about policy, if you will, she said she didn't think it was appropriate, as a citizen, to give her opinion. But as the Deputy Mayor speaking for the City, I think Councilman Kenney raised, and other members raised, a good questions, but the basic one is: Does it make sense for the City to be put in a position where paramedics would be able to strike? And was that considered at all in this whole process? Because the Solicitor can give her opinion, but it's still a policy decision of the Administration. So could you at least, first of all, comment on that. DEPT.

I can comment on it. To the extent that -- the 55 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 basic question you asked is, was it considered? The answer is, yes, it was considered.

Mm-hmm. DEPT.

So the policy questions here, I think they're -- we have to kind of take a step back and take a look at what and how we got here. I believe I heard -- and I'm sorry that I was late, but I believe that I heard the City Solicitor indicate that the City primarily is only responding to basically lawsuits that have been filed against the City. And then in clarifying the City's relationships, we are going forward. Did we have a operational understanding going forward? I can speak to the question that Councilman Jones has indicated.

Mm-hmm. DEPT.

Have we ever considered cross-training firefighters and paramedics? The answer 56 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 is yes. That is something that we still are considering. I, from a policy point of view, have to make the determination based on available resources. I have to make the determination based on the entirety of the public-safety needs. I have to make the determination based on how we are going to look at and review how we deliver services in this area to the City. All of those considerations are made, and it's not a be-all and end-all that we made a decision and we'll never go back and review it. I do these things on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis because it's always a choice. And I can tell you that we've had to make some tough choices over the last two years, as this Council is very well aware. And I think the only thing the City Solicitor is saying is that, given the choices that we were placed in by the 57 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 paramedics themselves, we had to actually protect the City's interest and be able to clarify who's in what particular bargaining area. That has nothing to do with how we are going to deliver the service. That does has something to do with how the City is protected, and I think it's the realm of the City Solicitor to at least inform me what my choices are as we go forward.

No, I understand about informing you, but it's still -- and, again, I don't think, with all due respect, you answered the question, except to say, yes, you considered it. I mean, when you talk about public safety -- DEPT.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

The safety of the public to have paramedics strike, as was stated that they could, 58 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 isn't that a pretty large factor? And discuss how -- why you thought that that was -- or other issues superseded that, I guess, is the best way to say. DEPT.

I don't think that we actually indicated that -- I mean, on a realm of like everything else, on a range of what is possible and on a range of what is -- what we would actually want to do, or at least put ourselves in the position to have the paramedics, quote/unquote, strike is, from my point of view, as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, it is not something that I want to happen. I don't want --

Well, nobody wants it to happen. (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.) DEPT.

Right.

But things like that can happen. DEPT.

It can happen. I think it's kind of like 59 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 everything else. There are choices that people make. I don't think that we're going to be in this position. I think that as we get to a resolution of this issue and as the State clarifies this, I think that the City will have other options open to it as well as they will. And we will end up having a negotiation to all of this.

But when you --

And --

I'm sorry.

Point of information on Councilman Greenlee. If they did strike, what would be Plan B? What would the City do? DEPT.

I can tell you that there are a number of different ways that we would address that. I mean, I really don't think this is happening in a way that I would have to deal with this tomorrow. 60 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 I think that we would end up dealing with a lot of different contingencies and I don't think it's fair for me to even speculate at this time what my response would be. I will tell you that we will have services, and these services will be provided.

Okay. I just asked that question just based on the fact that you did say that you had thought about the fact that they could strike. And that's scary. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yeah, but Councilwoman Miller, with all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate for us to talk about it. I mean if -- in what I think is the fairly unlikely event that the paramedics, in whatever window of time might exist between the time that they are not represented by Local 22 and they should become represented by some other union -- let's hypothesize -- I don't 61 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 think it would be appropriates for us to discuss what essentially would be a labor strategy in this forum about -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)

I think it's appropriate that we talk about the safety of Philadelphia residents and citizens. Whether it's appropriates -- we're not trying to discuss labor. I know that if my neighbor needs a EMS to come out, then that's what they need. We're not trying to get involved in your labor negotiations.

And can I add to that?

Yes.

You know, you talk about your responsibility. We have a responsibility.

Right.

If you're putting us in a position and the citizens of Philadelphia to have paramedics 62 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 strike, we need to know what Plan B is, because it is irresponsible to move forward in this direction without knowing. We send fire engines and all kinds of fire equipment to scenes that they can't do anything but just possibly assist in stopping the flow of blood and things like that. You need to tell us, 'cause it's irresponsible of this administration to not tell Council how you plan to deal with a strike. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, first of all, the paramedics would not be permitted to strike during the period that they're not represented, so we can end that part of the conversation now. They would not be permitted to do that under the law.

And -- and -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: And secondly, I certainly would be happy to 63 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 sit down with you offline to talk about potential labor strategies in the even that we might ultimately get to a point where we were in a negotiating position in the paramedics that led them to think a strike was necessary.

I'm not a State-elected official. You keep talking about the State fixing this. I'm concerned about Philadelphia. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: What I said was -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what Mr. Gillison said, that the problem's eventually going to be resolved at the State level. I'm not a State rep, I'm not a State senator; I'm a Philadelphia City Councilman, and the residents of this city are my responsibility. And I'm going to support 64 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Councilman Kenney, and I think this entire group is going to support changing the Fire Code. (Applause.)

It just -- on the -- I forget which one of you said it, I'm sorry, about Council getting involved in the labor issue. Didn't you guys sort of do that too? Didn't you guys do that first by precipitating this? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, it's my job protect -- to take legal action to protect the City's collective bargaining rights.

Okay. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: That's my job. As the City Solicitor, I represent the City in legal matters. One of the --

Well, you're saying it's legal but it's also labor. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: One of 65 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 the --

We're saying we're just amending the code; you're calling it "getting involved in labor." So I guess it depends on what perspective you're coming from, I guess. DEPT.

That's right.

Thank you, Mr. Gillison. We agree on something. Thank you. One more question. I'm sorry. One more question. Also as far as consideration -- considering the factors and all, I know I've heard and I think a lot of us heard from paramedics who basically say if this change happens, they're -- they may not stay employed by the City; it's their choice that they may not stay employed. Has that been considered at all? DEPT.

I'm 66 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 sorry? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: We apologize.

No, that's all right. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Could you repeat the question?

I have heard, and I think other people have heard -- because even though there was this lawsuit, it was brought by a small amount of paramedics. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: On behalf of the rest of them.

Yeah. But we have heard from a lot of paramedics -- and I think some others are testifying so maybe we should wait for tell me to testify -- that they have concerns about whether they would stay employed if this change happened, if they were taken away. Has that -- have you heard that? Have you taken that into 67 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 consideration at all? CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: I personally -- I don't know whether Mr. Gillison has heard that, but I personally have not heard that.

Mm-hmm. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: But I also don't think that there's been anything about either one of these legal proceedings that should put the paramedics in any reasonable realistic fear that their jobs are in jeopardy. And there were 350 paramedics; the lawsuit was brought on behalf of 350 paramedics.

I'm sorry. I think the discussion has been, would a number of them leave voluntarily to seek other employment. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Oh, I didn't understand that to be the question.

And the issue that we have is, we're having 68 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 trouble recruiting as it is. So we have a need for fire service paramedics to be hired. If we lose, either through leaving their employment or moving from the fire service paramedic into a firefighting position, they have the ability to move crossways, 'cause some of them originally firefighters who then became fire service paramedics, so they could move back -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Through the test, right.

Right, but the -- no, I think -- just taking a test and going back on the list? I thought they had a right -- well, the Union maybe can express their view that they could move back laterally. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: My understanding is they have to take a test. That was my testimony, that they have to take a test and go back to be trained.

Even though 69 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 they were firefighters. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Correct.

Well, that makes a lot of sense. Talk about resources and waste of resources. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, I don't -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)

We're concerned about economic resources but we're going to take a firefighter who became a fire paramedic and make him take a test, get on a list, go back to fire school and retrain them. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, first of all, they're separate job classifications. Secondly, I don't know, I mean, how long any individual firefighter -- any individual paramedic, how long it's been since they've been a firefighter. You know, also, with police officers, that if they are away from the 70 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 police service for a certain amount of time, they have to go back through a retraining process. So it's not a completely uncommon situation.

All right. Well, that's going far afield of the other question. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Yes.

But concern about the lack of paramedics and the potential loss of -- CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Right.

-- existing paramedics should be a policy concern. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Well, it certainly is. And I have not heard -- again, I haven't heard about paramedics, and Mr. Gillison indicated that he has not either -- about paramedics threatening to leave. But, certainly, it has been, and remains, a concern of the Fire Department to keep its paramedics ranks 71 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 fully staffed. You're right, it has been difficult, and they are actively working on recruiting them and bringing them in. But it is a challenge for all sorts of reasons, yes.

Okay. Thank you. There are no other questions for you, I believe. Thank you for your testimony. CITY SOLICITOR SMITH: Thank you.

Our second panel will be Bill Gault, Gerard Kots, and Richard Poulson. (Witnesses come forward.)

Hi. Good morning. Identify yourself and please proceed with your testimony. And don't forget to pull the mic up close.

Madam Chairwoman, my name is Bill Gault. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Department. I'm also proud to serve as president of the International Association of Firefighters Local 22. The Union represents 2400 active firefighters and fire service paramedics who serve the citizens of Philadelphia. I appear before Council today in support of Bill No. 100214, which provides the necessary and critically important clarification of the work performed by uniformed members of the Fire Department. The mission is to respond to emergencies in order to save lives; it is a mission that is shared by every uniformed member of the Fire Department, firefighters and fire service paramedics. In order to satisfy this mission, the Fire Department has developed a number of highly specialized units of service that are staffed by highly trained and capable uniformed personnel. Some work as firefighters and some work as fire service paramedics. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 But at the end of the day, despite these different job classifications, all uniformed Fire Department employees are called upon to do the same thing: to risk their lives in order to save the lives of others. Over the last four decades, we have seen an enhanced degree of specialization within the Philadelphia Fire Department as well as other large metropolitan fire departments. In the 1960s, Philadelphia's firemen responded to fires; they also responded explosions, building collapses, rescues, and other emergencies. They also provided medical treatment and transport, but they did so in a more rudimentary fashion -- with fewer specialized units and job classifications, and with lesser results. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 response. So while the Fire Department's mission to save lives has not changed and the general types of threats in services has not changed, the degree of specialization developed to respond to those threats and provide emergency services has evolved and improved tremendously. Perhaps the best example of the department's evolution is the dramatically increasing role in providing medical treatment and transport the citizens. Fifty years ago, the Fire Department deployed firemen to provide bare-bones treatment and pre-hospital transport to citizens. Today, however, the provision of emergency medical services is the Fire Department's single largest area of response. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 emergencies. For example, in 2008, the Fire Department responded to over 200,000 emergency medical situations as opposed to approximately 2,000 fire incidents. The Fire Department's evolution has been gradual and steady. The improvements started in the early '70s, when the Fire Department improved its emergency medical capabilities by training firefighters who volunteered to work as EMTs and assigning those firefighters to work in rescue squads. Later, all new firefighters entering into the service were required become certified as EMTs, emergency medical technician. By the 1980s, the Fire Department created the specialized classification of fire paramedic to respond to the heightened demand for emergency medical care. Fire paramedics and firefighters obtain the necessary training and certifications to work as paramedics. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 paramedics who stepped forward to help the department in the 1980s are now threatened by the City's petition to tear apart the Fire Department bargaining unit. Those senior employees now stand to lose their wages, even their retiring medical coverage, at the stroke of a pen. In 1989, in order to respond to the increasing demand for EMS services, the Fire Department created the position of fire service paramedic. These positions were not filled exclusively by firefighters, as was the case with the fire paramedics. Instead, fire service paramedic positions could be filled by outside hires who were certified as paramedics and able to provide ALS care. ALS stands for advanced life support.

Newly-hired fire service paramedics were trained at the Fire Academy in fire abatement and extinguishment because their job required them to be deployed to fire emergencies. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 trained in the use of protective equipment and were assigned the same turnout gear as firefighters to be worn at fires and other emergencies, because they would be placed in harm's way just like us. During the same period, the Fire Department also improved its emergency medical services by implementing the First Responder program, in which firefighters assigned were also deployed to emergency medical calls to provide basic life service, or BLS, care, pending the arrival of an ALS medic unit. Basically, BLS care is provided by firefighters who work on engine or ladder companies; and ALS care is provided by medic units staffed by paramedics. The Fire Department's development has not changed its overriding mission to save lives and property. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 units are directed to perform their work as part of the Fire Department's coordinated response to emergencies. There is significant integration of work and interaction among Fire Department personnel within each of the specialized units. For example, a fire emergency will result in the deployment of engine companies, ladder companies, and medic units, but it may also result in the deployment of a hazmat unit or a technical rescue or a marine unit, based on the unique circumstances of the emergency. A vehicle accident call will usually result in the deployment of a medic unit and a ladder company, but it may also include a hazmat unit based on the circumstances. A medical call may result in the deployment of both an engine ladder company and a medic unit, depending on the circumstances. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Each of the units deployed to any emergency has a role to fulfill subject to the satisfaction of the overall mission. The Fire Department assigns an incident commander to utilize the various resources in the most effective way to get their mission done. All uniformed fire personnel at emergency scenes perform different tasks as part of a unified and integrated whole; we all have the same job basically. Because the Fire Department responds to emergencies, and because emergencies cannot be predicted, the department utilizes its resources in different combinations and configurations to the extent necessary to mitigate the emergency. Firefighters are critical resources, and so are fire service paramedics and so are marine units and technical rescue personnel. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 satisfy the same mission of saving lives and property. IAFF Local supports Bill 5 100214 because it codifies what everybody 6 in the Fire Department understands is the 7 department's mission. It would make 8 clear that the Fire Department may direct 9 its workforce to perform whatever duties 10 are necessary at emergency scenes, 11 including, but not limited to, fire 12 rescue, fire abatement, and emergency 13 medical service; and to employ whatever 14 personnel are required to perform these 15 tasks, including firefighters and fire 16 service paramedics. 17 Given that the Fire Department 18 already deploys this workforce in this 19 manner, the bill does not represent a 20 departure from what occurs daily in our 21 city. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 personnel under Act 111 because they do not engage in fire suppression activities. The City's position is dead-wrong; it is not supported by what actually happens at fires, where fire service paramedics do engage in fire abatement activities and do perform any and all tasks required to achieve the mission of the department. The only reason why the City argues this bill is because some fire service paramedics filed a lawsuit against the City, arguing that they were entitled to unpaid overtime wages. The lawsuit did not involve Local 22, and it wasn't sanctioned by Local 22.

As part of that litigation, some fire service paramedics stated that they did not engage in fire suppression activities. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 arbitration along with their firefighter brethren, under Act 111. The City should be prohibited in undermining these essential employees within the Fire Department. I firmly believe that Bill 8 100214 will recognize the long-held understanding that the Fire Department performs a number of essential functions to achieve its overall goal of saving lives and property. Through passage of this bill, the Fire Department can continue its quest to create an ever-more sophisticated and specialized force capable of handling many types of emergencies. In closing, let me thank you again for your efforts on behalf of the City's firefighters and medics. We look forward to working with you on this critical initiative in order to provide the best, most efficient emergency fighting force in the nation. Thank you. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

Thank you. We'll hold off questions until all three panel members have testified. Second is Gerard Kots.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for taking the time to hear this testimony. My name is Gerard Kots. I'm currently a Philadelphia Fire Department lieutenant; I got on the Fire Department in 1974. I've served on the executive board of Local 22, first as a trustee in 1997 to 1999, then as vice president from 1999 to 2003; and now again, as trustee, from 2007 to the. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 background for such testimony. As the vice president of Local at that time, I sat on two different 5 arbitration panels. One was dealing with 6 paramedic crossover, and the other ALS 7 engine companies, which are advanced life 8 support engine companies. 9 The first issue, paramedic 10 crossover, were given the opportunity to 11 become firefighters for paramedics who so 12 wished to do so. There were a number of 13 paramedics interested in doing this, and 14 Local 22 wanted to give them the ability 15 to make this move. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Fire Department. Fire Commissioner Hairston did not allow a single medic to do this under this award, and there's never been one allowed to cross over under these circumstances. Since that time, dozens of medics took the firefighter entry exam and had to resign their positions as paramedics within the Fire Department to enter fire school and start at a Step 1 firefighter cadet pay rate. They've done this, even though it meant more than a 10 percent decrease in salary. Today, we have dozens of firefighters who are qualified paramedics within the Fire Department that are not offered a chance to practice their skills as five firefighters or fire paramedics for anything more than basic EMTs. The second panel was ALS engines. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 a fire engine. Twelve years ago, this was a very progressive move made by many large fire departments to provide ALS service to citizens on First Responder runs and to provide ALS capabilities immediately on the fire ground for firefighters injured on the fire ground. Local fought hard for this 10 ALS engine after several fatalities to 11 members on the fire ground that may have 12 been saved with immediate ALS 13 intervention. Three that come to mind 14 are three friends of mine: Lieutenant 15 Steve Murphy, Firefighter Rich Devine, 16 and Firefighter James Allen. They all 17 suffered fatal heart attacks on the fire 18 ground, where immediate ALS intervention 19 may have made a difference. 20 In order to have ALS engines 21 placed in service, paramedics needed more 22 extensive fire suppression training than the training provided them while at the Fire Academy. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 enough to become full-fledged firefighters. As of today, the Fire Department still has not entertained the idea of ALS engines, even though every engine company in the City responds to thousands of medical runs a year, often waiting over ten minutes for paramedics to arrive on scene to provide medical attention for seriously-ill patients. So the point of my testimony here today, at an interest arbitration, is that fire service paramedics could be, and should be, fully trained so they can engage in fire suppression as well as perform emergency medical services. But the City has failed to let this happen. Consequentially, we have a fire department whose mission of saving lives and property, and we expect all its personnel to engage in that mission, but we do not provide them the necessary training and organizational structure to allow that to happen. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 I find it highly ironic that the City today would testify in my interest arbitration testimony ten years ago, out of context; yet never mentioned their own testimony of why paramedics are considered firefighters, testimony they gave within the last year at the federal FLSA lawsuit. " Also, "Since I have been appointed to Fire Commissioner, to the best of my knowledge, no fire service paramedic has been disciplined for engaging in fire suppression activities.

Rather, fire service paramedics have received unit citations and merit awards for such actions. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 with the Fire Department. I've been a firefighter since October 1974. My class was the first class that was mandated to take emergency medical training. At this time, there were no paramedics, and they were called "rescue squads" manned by firefighters and EMTs. We had three basic forms of medication -- oxygen, a Band-Aid, and the gas pedal. It seemed to work pretty good back then. Many of the hospital cases handled at this time were swoop-and- scoops, where we showed up, we provided minimum first aid, we gave some oxygen, and we ran to the hospital. At that time, if police arrived on the scene first with the paddy wagons and seen they could handle it, they would take 'em and transport them. Later on, I believe, under Sylvester Johnson, police were ordered to stop taking hospital cases, which increased our workload considerably. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 In the late '70s, the City found the need for more qualified people to man the rescue squads. They offered firefighters the chance to take paramedic training and gave a percent incentive 7 to become medics. 8 Because of this 10 percent 9 increase in pay, a new classification had 10 to be made in civil service. The classification of fire paramedic was established and came under the command of the Philadelphia Fire Department and remained in Local as members of our 15 bargaining unit. These members were 16 trained firefighters first and then got 17 the certification through the City to 18 become paramedics. 19 The need for qualified medics 20 increased over the years, but the 21 Philadelphia Fire Department could not 22 get the volunteers needed to fill this vacancy. The City began to recruit medics from outside the Fire Department. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 to already have their paramedic certification and go through a Fire Department orientation at the Fire Training Academy. That included a fire suppression introduction but not an intensive firefighting course. " They were considered uniformed Fire Department personnel, and they remain part of Local 22's bargaining unit. At some point in the mid-'80s, a need was recognized for a way to properly administer the EMS function of the Philadelphia Fire Department, and a hierarchy of officers and administrators was established. This eventually turned into the EMS Division of the Philadelphia Fire Department. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 suppression in the field; yet, the EMS administration consists of a director, an operations chief, administrative chiefs, several captains, several lieutenants -- all uniformed members of the PFD and also recognized by Local and the City as 8 members of Local 22's bargaining unit. 9 Currently, Local 22, with the 10 support of our paramedics, is in a battle 11 with the City that stems from a federal 12 law case that the City lost over the 13 proper way to handle paramedic overtime 14 pay. 15 In retaliation for standing up 16 for their rights under FLSA and winning, 17 and after 30 years of Local 22 being the 18 recognized sole bargaining agent of all 19 uniformed fire personnel, the City of 20 Philadelphia is trying to remove our 21 medics from their union. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 service. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Richard Poulson.

Good morning, Chairwoman Miller. Thank you very much for providing us the opportunity to testify before this committee. Committee members, thank you very much for your attention and participation.

You're welcome.

My name is Richard Poulson. I'm an attorney and I'm a partner with the firm of Willig, Williams & Davidson, and our firm has had the honor of serving as legal counsel to IAFF Local for many years. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 fire service paramedics. In my role as legal counsel to the Union, I've represented Local in a 5 variety of forums on a number of issues, 6 including one currently before the 7 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in 8 which the City is seeking to remove fire 9 service paramedics from the uniformed 10 Fire Department bargaining unit. 11 In the event that the 12 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board agrees 13 with the City's position -- which they 14 have not yet -- over 200 fire service 15 paramedics would lose their collective 16 bargaining rights under Act 111, 17 including the right to interest 18 arbitration. 19 I'm appearing before this 20 committee today to explain the purpose of 21 and the need for Bill No. 100214. 22 By way of background, under Act 111, police officers and fire personnel have certain collective bargaining rights. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 of the work performed by those personnel, Act 111 personnel are not allowed to strike. Instead, police and fire personnel are provided the right to interest arbitration to resolve their collective-bargaining disputes. And as applied to the paramedic dispute that's currently before the Labor Board, if the City is successful in that effort, it will mean the fire service paramedics will have the right to strike, which is an incredible circumstance when one considers exactly how busy these men and women are and how overburdened the City's EMS system already is. And this isn't in my written testimony, but to answer some of the questions that were raised earlier today -- and I don't think you got a straight answer on whether or not it makes sense from a public policy perspective to give paramedics the right to strike. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 frankly, I don't think was even really considered. And I think that folks had their blinders on, and this entire effort was merely a response to losing a piece of litigation. I think that we all have a right to expect more from our leadership to not look to retaliation as the first response but maybe take a look at whether or not the actions taken by the City makes sense from a public policy perspective. And to answer another question, the City was not required to file this petition, the City was absolutely not required. This was a public policy choice made by this administration. Continuing. In order to determine whether personnel are covered under Act 111 and, therefore, will have the right to have their bargaining disputes resolved by interest arbitration as opposed to strikes, they must be considered police or fire personnel. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Now, Act 111 itself does not define or limit the meaning of police or fire personnel; it has been left to Pennsylvania courts to make those determinations, and the courts have developed the following two-pronged tests: In order to be considered police or fire personnel under Act 111, the employees must first be legislatively authorized to act as police or fire personnel; and they must, second, actually act as police or fire personnel. In considering this test with respect to Philadelphia's fire service paramedics, a hearing examiner of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board reached a preliminary conclusion that fire service paramedics are not legislatively authorized to act as fire personnel, and that they do not, in fact, act as fire personnel. This conclusion is incorrect. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 prong, acting as fire personnel, Local presented voluminous testimony and evidence during the PLRB proceedings establishing that fire service paramedics act as fire personnel. First, they perform vital duties that aid in saving lives and protecting property, which is the mission of the Fire Department.

11 Second, they engage in fire 12 suppression, as defined under nationally 13 recognized standards promulgated by 14 professional firefighters. And that's 15 not just limited to putting water on 16 fires. And, to go off script, that's not 17 what fire suppression is. 18 Fire suppression is basically 19 the work performed by uniformed Fire 20 Department members at emergency scenes, 21 including fires, but maybe other scenes. 22 The City's position is if -- unless you're putting water on a fire, you're not a firefighter, you're not fighting a fire. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 inconsistent with the reality of what happens at fire scenes. There are a number of firefighters that never put water on a fire, that are outside the structure, that engage in ventilating and any of the other number of tasks that are required to fight the fire. Fire service paramedics are there as a part of that team, to engage in rescue operations. So they do fight fires. In fact, you'll hear that sometimes they actually do put water on fires. But even if they never did, fire service paramedics fight fires 'cause they're deployed by the department at fire scenes, and they do their job there. And paramedics will also, on occasion, engage in what we call fire abatement tasks, even under the definition provided by the City. Sometimes they do move ladder, sometimes they do put water on a fire. And it gets to the team concept. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 to say no, as Councilman Jones wisely pointed out. It's a team effort. And once you're there, on the fire ground, you're going to do whatever it takes to get the job done subject to the command of that incident commander. Several witnesses of the City and the Union testified before the PLRB hearing examiner that fire service paramedics have performed a wide variety of fire abatement tasks in fire emergencies. That testimony demonstrated that fire service paramedics have moved and secured ladders, established water connections and moved hoses, and actually directed water on burning materials at fire scenes. Because of this, we believe that the PLRB hearing examiners' conclusion on the acting issue was erroneous and should be overturned on appeal, and we've argued that before the Labor Board, which is currently considering Local 22's appeal. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 The legal issue on the first prong of the test, legislative authority -- and that's why we're here -- is what Bill 100214 is intended to address. In considering whether fire service paramedics have the legal authority to act as fire personnel, the hearing examiner looked exactly where he should have: The Home Rule Charter and the City Code. The issue, the primary issue, before the PLRB, aside from the acting, the real issue is whether or not fire service paramedics have legislative authority to act as fire personnel. And that decision is made by City Council and subject to the processes for making law. This is exactly where we should be, and Council would be acting well within its authority in passing this bill. The hearing examiner, unfortunately, misread the law in issuing his proposed decision. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 appeal that the Fire Code already provides in its current state the legislative authority necessary to keep fire service paramedics within the Local bargaining unit. 7 But Bill 100214, if passed, 8 will make absolutely plain that fire 9 service paramedics are authorized to act 10 as fire personnel, and that it will 11 simply delineate the longstanding 12 practice that paramedics work under the 13 supervision of Fire Department officers 14 in order to respond to fire and other 15 emergencies. 16 The Philadelphia Home Rule 17 Charter specifically requires the City to 18 create a fire department.

Under the Home 19 Rule Charter, the Fire Department has the 20 power and the duty to extinguish fires, 21 administer and enforce legislation 22 relating to fire and explosion hazards, institute programs regarding fire prevention, and train and maintain and supervise fire personnel. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Under the Charter, the Fire Department and Civil Service Commission have created several uniform job classifications within the Fire Department, including firefighters and fire service paramedics. And to get to question that was asked earlier, I disagree with the contention that the job title "fire service paramedic" was a careless choice. It was a very deliberate and thoughtful choice that was made by the Fire Department in the 1980s. And the reason for that -- and this comes from testimony by Fire Department personnel in the FLSA lawsuit and also before the PLRB. The intention was that this was not a third service; these were Fire Department employees, we're going to send them to the Fire Academy, and we're going to provide them with fire suppression training, not as much as firefighters, but some, because they're going to be dispatched to fires. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 They wear the same gear; we need to prepare them that way. This was a very thoughtful and deliberate decision. In the 1980s, when that decision was made, Philadelphia really was at the forefront, was a very progressive department in adding and really anticipating a tremendous increase, unfortunately, in demand for emergency medical services. Unfortunately, today, twenty years later, we are lagging behind other cities who have really gone forward and continued to integrate fire and paramedic job duties and run these ALS engine programs and things like that, which seemed like a no-brainer to me. Why wouldn't -- if the fire truck gets there first, why wouldn't you have a cross- trained firefighter paramedic on it. We don't know why the City hasn't agreed to that, other than the Union requested it. Sometimes we think that that's the way they look at it. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 To get back to the testimony. Under the Home Rule Charter, we have these classifications of firefighter and fire service paramedic. The uniformed employees in these job classifications perform a variety of tasks at emergency scenes in order to satisfy the mission of the Fire Department, which is understood by its employees to save lives. The Charter made possible all of these activities; and, therefore, the City has legislatively authorized the fire service paramedics to act as fire personnel within the meaning of Act 111. The Philadelphia Fire Code today expressly gives the uniformed Fire Department officer in charge at the scene of an emergency the authority to perform all necessary duties involved in the protection of life and property and to direct all Fire Department personnel, including fire service paramedics, to perform all such required duties. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 code, and I won't bore you with reading the language in your code. But the language that's currently in the code already, we believe, authorizes the Fire Department, through its officers, to direct its employees to take any necessary actions to ensure the safety of life and property, including extinguishment and controlling of fires and performing rescue operations. Given that the Fire Code was adopted and demanded after introduction of the fire service paramedic classification, the City was well aware of the services provided by its fire department and the role played by fire service paramedics in fulfilling that goal at the time the code was amended. Therefore, we don't believe that the code today limits the broad grant of authority merely to firefighters, but that it also includes fire service paramedics.

10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 The Fire Code already provides legislative authority for all uniformed Fire Department employees, including fire service paramedics, to act as "firemen" (in quotes) as understood and practiced within the department. Nevertheless, because the hearing examiner for the PLRB found otherwise, Local and its members, 11 including its fire service paramedics, 12 are seeking to further clarify the 13 legislative grant of authority provided 14 to the Fire Department to handle 15 emergencies that threaten life and 16 property and to direct all of its 17 personnel, including fire service 18 paramedics, to perform whatever duties 19 are necessary at such emergencies. 20 Bill 100214 serves that 21 purpose. It makes very clear that the 22 purpose of the Fire Department is to handle a wide range of emergencies, including fire rescue, fire abatement, and emergency medical services. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 makes clear that the Fire Department may direct all of its workforce -- whether firefighters or fire service paramedics -- to perform whatever duties are necessary to achieve its mission. Philadelphia's firefighters and paramedics firmly believe that the bill 9 will achieve these goals. It will help to persuade to Labor Board to reach the correct decision, that the proposed decision by the hearing examiner was incorrect and should be overturned. Contrary to arguments raised by the City, passage of the bill will not deprive the PLRB of its jurisdiction to determine which employees belong in the Act 111 bargaining unit. The board will still decide that question, regardless of what Council does. The proposed bill will simply make it more likely that the board will reach the correct decision and will maintain the paramedics within the Fire Department bargaining unit. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 absolutely within your authority to act in that matter. Therefore, we urge passage of this bill. We ask Council to codify the longstanding practice within the Fire Department that the mission is to save lives and property and that the entire complement of fire personnel, including fire service paramedics, serve that purpose. So on behalf of Local 22, I again appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of passage of Bill 15 100214. We believe that this bill will not only ensure that fire service paramedics remain a vital part of the Fire Department, but that the department will also remain a sophisticated emergency-services department serving the needs of residents of and workers in and visitors to our city. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 111 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Councilman Jones has a question of.

No, just a statement, just a statement that my staff did the research on other municipalities that are cross-training. And we found that in New York City, Chicago, L.A., Houston, and other comparable large cities, they're doing the cross-training as a matter of two points: One, that it is cost-effective; and, two, that it allows them to be better-trained to save more lives. They're even deciding that mid-size cities are looking at it primarily for the cost-effectiveness and the nature of the savings. So, I mean, it's just good public policy that we kind of move that way. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Councilman Rizzo. 112 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

I have a lot of questions, but I'm not going to ask them because I just want to get on with the business in moving this bill out of committee, but I just want to make one point. Isn't it, President Gault, Fire Department policy when there's a multi- alarm fire that paramedics are automatically dispatched to the fire scene?

Even if it's a dwelling fire, if two engines and two ladders are put into service, a medic unit is automatically dispatched.

And if a firefighter went down in a dwelling fire, would the paramedics enter the property --

In a heartbeat.

-- to save the life of that firefighter?

In a heartbeat.

That's all I 113 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 needed to hear. Thank you.

Thank you. I had a question earlier about rescue, and I know that EMS workers are involved in rescuing. We talked a lot this morning about firefighting, et cetera. But fire rescue, that is a part of the EMS responsibility, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. I just wanted to --

Madam Chairwoman, it's a team game now.

Right.

It's turned into all EMS with fires. All Europe, California, Florida, you're a medic and a fireman together. We had it going in the beginning; the City stopped it. Right now, this is just -- and it's not cost-saving 'cause they're going 114 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 to have to negotiate two contracts.

Right.

And, Councilwoman, you're correct in noting the significance of rescue operations. They are really four links in the rescue chain -- locate, remove, treat, and transport. At a fire emergency, firefighters and fire service paramedics work hand-in-hand together to do that. Paramedics will at times locate. They will at times assist with removal. They're always going to treat and they're always going to transport. And firefighters are going to do the same thing. And, in fact, at a fire emergency, outside the blaze, we have firefighters who are referred to as "the rapid intervention team," and those firefighters' job is to set up directly out in front of the burning structure, sometimes inside; at a high-rise fire, 115 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 they set up inside, paramedics will set up their station inside a burning high-rise. They're with the incident commander, and their sole job there is to be there in case a firefighter goes down, to go in and to save that firefighter. You know who's standing next to them? The fire service paramedics. They're wearing the same uniform, they look the same, they've been trained almost exactly the same, and they train together on written exercises. Those medics are going in too. You really can't separate it out. Maybe a lawyer sitting in an office might look at it one way, but as a practical matter, that's not how it works on the fire ground. And I'll note that it doesn't seem that this effort coming from the Fire Department, from the professionals within the department; it seems to be coming from elsewhere. 116 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

Yeah, yeah. I was thinking that what's on practice is not what we practice many time, particularly in fires, you know.

Mm-hmm.

Any other questions? (No further questions.)

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. PANEL MEMBERS: Thank you.

Richard Bossert and Matthew Flanagan. (Witnesses come forward.)

Before you start, is there anyone else here to testify on this bill that's not on our witness list? (No response.)

Okay, great. Hi. Please identify yourself for the record, and don't forget to pull the mic up close so that we can hear you, 117 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning. My name is Matthew Flanagan. I proudly work as a fire service paramedic with the Philadelphia Fire Department and have done so for the past twelve years. I am currently stationed at Ladder 5 and Medic 35, at Broad and Fitzwater. I come here today to testify in support of Bill No. 100214. This bill 12 makes clear what all of us who work for the Fire Department already know: That the mission of the department is to save lives and property, and that fire service paramedics perform a crucial role in that mission. Fire service paramedics not only provide emergency medical services, but we also provide assistance at vehicle accidents, hazmat sites, building collapse, and, yes, fire scenes. Our work is dangerous and, at times, involves tasks normally associated with putting out fires. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 part of the emergency response team that the City of Philadelphia provides its residents, workers, and visitors. In order to provide the diverse services that we provide the Fire Department, all fire service paramedics are cross-trained in a variety of types of emergency-response techniques. While that training includes the provision of emergency medical services, it also includes fire abatement and extinguishment of fires -- ladder- climbing, ladder-raising, and hydrant operations. Like firefighters, fire service paramedics are provided protective gear to be worn at fire scenes. Throughout my career, I and other fire service paramedics have been deployed to multiple fire scenes. Paramedics are deployed to virtually every fire. We are a necessary part of the Fire Department's response to fires. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 to establish a forward first aid station, typically in front of the fire building. In high-rise fires, we are stationed inside the burning building, typically a floor or two below, with the incident commander at the fire scene. This area is a part of the fire ground. On the fire ground, we face many of the same risks as firefighters, including building collapses, explosions, and dangerous fumes. As a fire service paramedic, I myself have faced risks of fire injuries in the performance of my job. I've entered burning structures to rescue victims, I've treated victims on the front door of structures that are on fire. While our principal role at a fire scene is to provide emergency medical services, I have also performed actual fire-abatement tasks. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 on the fire, raised ladders, established hose connections, and used fire extinguishers. I also have been deployed as part of the Rapid Intervention Team, or RIT team, which is a team of firefighter personnel that exists to rescue fallen firefighters. I have received multiple citations for my performance at fire scenes. Like my brothers and sisters who are firefighters and fire service paramedics, I have been deployed to countless vehicle accidents and hazmat sites. At accidents, I have assisted in rescue operations and have extinguished fires. At hazmat sites, I have been deployed in what is known as "the warm zone," close enough to provide emergency medical assistance. In summary, my job as a fire service paramedic is wide-ranging. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 can see that it is far more than that. In order to accomplish the mission of the Fire Department, this must continue to be the case. I personally don't feel like paramedics should be treated like second-class citizens in the Fire Department. We all work together, we all face the same risks. There is no reason why paramedics should be given watered-down bargaining rights. With all due respect, I submit that we deserve much better than what the Administration is putting us through. So I encourage you to pass Bill 17 No. 100214. The bill recognizes the overall mission of the Fire Department, which is the protection of lives and property. It also recognizes the important role that fire service paramedics play in the achieving of that goal.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214

Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Good morning. My name is Richard Bossert. For over twenty years, I have served as a proud uniformed member of the Fire Department. I have served twenty years as a fire service paramedic; and for the past fifteen years, I have served as an officer, fire service paramedic lieutenant, and fire service paramedic captain, which I hold that rank currently, which has been for the past ten years. In my capability as a fire service paramedic, I supervise the duties of half of the BLS and ALS units in the City at one time. BLS units are staffed with two firefighters. ALS units are staffed with one fire service paramedic and either another fire service paramedic or a BLS-trained firefighter. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Consequently, it is not uncommon for firefighters to be under my operational command. As all fire service paramedics, I received training at the Philadelphia Fire Academy to become a member of the Fire Department. That training included instruction not only in fire suppression, but also emergency medical services. With respect to fire suppression, our instructions included discussions about hose evolutions, putting water on fire, ventilating structures, placing ladders on buildings, search and rescue, vehicle extrication, and use of fire extinguishers. Today, I provide some of all that training to both firefighters and fire service paramedics at the Fire Academy; I am an adjunct instructor. My specialty is emergency medical services and vehicle extrication. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 that we do at the Fire Academy is absolutely necessary because firefighters and fire service paramedics work in tandem to achieve the overall goal of saving lives and property for the City of Philadelphia. While the bulk of the work performed by fire service paramedics is emergency medical services, we also perform a variety of tasks outside that specific area. Fire service paramedics and firefighters work together to remove victims from automobile crashes, at times using tools to do that task. Sometimes we provide medical care in the vehicle, where the extrication is in process. Other times we assist with the extrication itself. We cannot separate one function from another. Fire service paramedics are also called upon to work side-by-side with firefighters at building collapses and hazmat incidents. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 Department responds to that does not involve paramedics and emergency medical services. We are an integral part of the Fire Department's service-delivery system. At fires, fire service paramedics perform a wide variety of tasks that are vital to the department's mission. First and foremost, paramedics provide emergency medical services at the fire scene. Fire service paramedics establish four first aid stations in close proximity to the fire, often right in front and included in high-rise fires, as previously stated by my counterpart here, inside the fire building, just a floor or two below the actual fire itself. Paramedics face the same dangers faced by firefighters on a day-to-day basis. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 been there, done that, many-a-times. We remove victims from burning structures, and don't forget that we regularly treat injured firefighters also. Fire service paramedics also perform tasks at fire scenes that are not specifically related to providing emergency medical services. We have occasionally moved the fire hoses, we have helped put ladders on buildings, we absolutely help foot ladders for firefighters that go up and down so it's a lot safer for them. Because we are performing these tasks in the fire zone, we are required to wear the same turnout gear as the firefighter does. In other words, if you were to show up at a fire scene, you could barely recognize the difference between us and them because we work so close together. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 functions for the Fire Department.

We are a virtual and necessary part of the team in its effort to protect lives and property. That is why I fully support the passage of Bill No. 100214. The bill 8 will ensure that the Fire Code clearly reflects the multi-facetted emergencies handled by the Fire Department, including fire service paramedics as well as the other different types of duties all fire personnel are expected to perform. I believe the passage of the bill will improve the change that fire service paramedics remain within the uniformed Fire Department bargaining unit along with our brother firefighters and sisters. I trial hope so, because you simply cannot have one without the other. There is no reason why paramedics should be treated like second-class citizens in the Fire Department, and this bill will help prevent that from happening. 10 - PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL 100214 I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf Bill No. 100214. I urge this passage in order that the Fire Department remains one of the best in the country, as a united team.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions or comments? (No response.)

Okay, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Again, I'll ask, are there any other witnesses who wish to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, this concludes the Committee on Public Safety. We will now go into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney for a motion on Bill No. 100214.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 129 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING I move that Bill No. 100214 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.)

Okay. It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 100214 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay. The ayes have it, and this bill has been properly moved and seconded; and furthermore, the rules have been suspected so as to permit first reading at our next session. This concludes this hearing. Thank you. (Applause.) (Proceedings end at 11:20 a.m.) 130 4.28.10 - PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE MEETING * * * 131 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Public Safety are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Wednesday, April 28, 2010, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)