Committee Hearing, September 30, 2004

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING JOINT COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC SAFETY and TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:10 p.m. - - - - RESOLUTION 040655 - authorizing a joint hearing for both City Council's Committee on Public Safety and City Council's Committee on Technology and Information Systems to hold public hearings to investigate the malfunction of the City of Philadelphia's digital radio system... PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER, Chair COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL, Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X RESOLUTION 040655 SYLVESTER JOHNSON, Police Commissioner CHARLES BRENNAN, Police Dept.......... LLOYD AYERS, Fire Commissioner........ 31 MICHAEL MOORE, Fire Dept.............. 37 DAVID KEARNEY, Phila. Firefighter's Union, Local 22................... 45 TOM O'DRAIN, Local 22................. 52 ROBERT EDDIS, FOP..................... 60 JIM WHEELER, FOP...................... 69 JOAN SCHLOTTERBECK, Public Property Commissioner...................... 74 JOSEPH JAMES, Public Property......... 75 JOHN MCFADDEN, Motorola............... 98 DONALD MARINO, Law Dept............... 130 3 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Good afternoon. I'm Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, Chair of the Public Safety Committee Today we are reconvening the recessed meeting of the Public Safety and Technology and Information Services Committee. We will restate the number of the resolution 9 and also restate the goals of the resolutions by our Clerk.

Resolution 040655, authorizing a joint hearing for both City Council's Committee on Public Safety and City Council's Committee on Technology and Information Systems to hold public hearings to investigate the malfunction of the City of Philadelphia's digital radio system, which occurred twice; once on March 25, 2004, at 8:59 p.m., and then on May 18, 2004, at 9:04 p.m.; and, in furtherance of such investigation, authorizing the issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents to the full extent authorized under Section 2-401 of the Home Rule Charter. 4 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Thank you. In attendance for this meeting is Councilman Mariano to my left; Councilman Rizzo, sponsor of the resolution; and, myself, Councilwoman Miller. We're just going to go on and proceed with the first panel of witnesses.

I'd just like to make sure when the Clerk read the resolution 11 -- that was the original resolution. And since the resolution, there's been another incident, August 18th, 2004, at approximately 7:26 p.m., so we're adding that to the resolution.

Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. Will the Clerk please call up the first panel of witnesses?

Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson; First Deputy Police Commissioner of Operations, Patricia Giorgio Fox; Deputy Police Commissioner of Science and Technology, Charles Brennan; Sergeant in Police Radio, Greg Masi. 5 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Thank you. I know many of you have been here in the past. We just want to remind you to identify yourself for the record, speak into the mike, and proceed with your testimony. Also in attendance is Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I'm Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, Police Commissioner of Philadelphia. We welcome these hearings again. We're well aware of the problem, and have been aware of the problem and have been working with the FOP to solve these problems. I'm very confident that everything that can be done is being done by Deputy Commissioner Brennan and his staff. We will stay in communication and have stayed in communication with the FOP about this problem. Until this problem is solved, we will continue to work along with it. That's basically my testimony, that I'm aware of the problem. We're working with the problem. We're working on the problem and 6 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 we'll continue to do that.

Commissioner, we appreciate you being here. I know that you've been dealing with this problem, and I know you have a similar concern that I do because this could affect the safety of your officers. We hope that this is resolved as promptly as possible. Commissioner, at this point we appreciate your coming. That, to me, says a lot in your busy day to be here. And I know that Commissioner Brennan will be able to deal with the issues that we have today. I appreciate you coming to at least start this hearing today. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I thank you very much.

Also in attendance is the Chair of the Information and Technology Committee, Councilman Brian O'Neill.

Commissioner Brennan, you heard the resolution. We've added the 28th of August to the list of 7 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 incidents that occurred with the malfunctions. I know that a lot has gone on to work on the various issues. For the record, I would like you to, from the last hearing date forward, talk a little bit about what you've been experiencing and what's been occurring to try to get this problem resolved.

My name is Charles Brennan. I'm a Deputy Police Commissioner. Since the last hearing, which I believe was July 14th, we've had two major incidents and a number of tests that have provided fixes to some of the problems that we have. On July 20th we got a loss of communications at one of our consoles, and we traced that actually not to Motorola, but to a Verizon problem. Verizon was testing one of our communications lines, left it in a test mode, and that caused a problem with one of the consoles. That was fixed by Verizon virtually the same day. The big problem we had was August 28th. We had an assist officer in East 8 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Division. We had a running gun battle going on on the 200 block of Orleans Street. Much of the same problem that happened in August has happened back in March. A piece of communications equipment was overloaded and switched to a back-up, causing a temporary loss of communications for the officers in the street. It was a controller switched from one to the other. Motorola looked at that and they determined what the cause was. They determined the cause to be what they call affiliation. For some reason -- and Motorola still doesn't know the reason -- a lot of our radios would leave our system. They would just leave and try to go to the other system, and then they would all pop back at once. That would cause an overload to one of the controllers and it caused the other controller to pop. So Motorola knew what caused it, although they're not sure why this is happening. Since we were last here, we've addressed a number of issues that were brought 9 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 up to the Committee when we first met back in July. On July 20th, we had a test of what we called an announcement group function. I know, Councilman, you were here and Councilman O'Neill was here. For the benefit of the other Councilmembers, police radio uses a function called announcement group, and it is a way that one dispatcher can talk to all the cops on the street at the same time. Really, that's the only way they can do that. We use it for a very big incident. We may use it just to inform them of something. But if you want to talk to everybody at once, it's the only way to do it. Otherwise, you really have to break it up into two distinct transmissions The announcement group function, we had stopped using it because we had problems with it. So Motorola believed they had a fix for it. They put it in and we tested it on July 20th. The announcement group seemed to work okay, but something else occurred. The controller again switched. So we decided not 10 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 to use the announcement group until we could do some further looking at what had happened. Although we tested July 20th, we didn't do anything at that point in time. We went to Motorola to get some data. On September 13th, Motorola believed that they had come up with a fix for this affiliation issue, the fact that all the radios seemed to leave suddenly and then they come back. Motorola brought in some of the their engineers from Shamburg, Illinois and we discussed the problem. Motorola had been working on it for quite a while without any luck. " It required them to go out and reprogram all 3,400 radios in the Police Department. We looked at their fix and it seemed to make sense, so in fact we did that. Motorola went out. Over a period of about a week or so, we went and we had to touch all 3,400 radios and reprogram them to 11 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 fix this issue of why the radios leave our system and why they come back. Programmatically, there's a timer in the radio. The longer the police officer would talk, the more likely the radio would leave and try to go somewhere else. So what they did is they essentially took the timer out. We tested this fix that Motorola had put in. It seems to have worked.

And I want to qualify with "seems to have worked," because this affiliation issue comes up rarely, but when it comes up, it hurts us. Last time it happened, we actually thought it was fixed way back months ago and we didn't see anything. Months went by. Motorola even thought it was fixed. And it pops back up again. So we've tried to replicate this. After Motorola put the fix in, it seems that this is working now. It seems that they, hopefully, have solved this problem. But we are going to look at this with Motorola long-term before we agree that this is fixed. Since September 13th, we have not had another affiliation issue in the 12 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 police radio system. The second test we did was on September 22nd. We wanted to test that announcement group function again; again, the way that we can talk to all the police on the street at the same time. We tested it on September 22nd. Again, in order to fix that, we had to go around and touch all the radios, and we did. We did a programming change. That seems to work fine now. The police are, in fact, using the announcement group, and we have not had a problem since we've been using it again. The last test we did was on September 23rd. And we did, actually, a couple of tests that day. There was one rather serious problem with using a digital radio system that, again, had befuddled Motorola. They couldn't figure out how to solve it. But it was a tremendous operational issue for us. We called it tailgating. I don't think Motorola calls it that. It sounds like a Philly term. I think we probably invented it. But what it does is, when we 13 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 bring a lot of police together, talking on one incident -- for example, we might have a double or triple assist where we're bringing officers in from Center City, from South Philly, from North Philly. When an officer is in trouble, we bring a lot of officers in. We have a lot of radios and talking at one time. The radios actually could all lock together when we don't want them to. You might have an officer in South Philly who still hears the officer in North Philadelphia. He's not supposed to. And that could go on and tie us up for minutes at a time. Actually, we've had that happen. Again, Motorola put a fix in. We tested that on September 23rd. And, again, we're very optimistic that it seems to have worked and mitigated the tailgating. The tailgating is not solved, but it only lasts a second or two now. Before, it could last as many as minutes. We believe that that, in fact, looks real good. So over the last couple months we think we've made a lot of progress addressing 14 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 a lot of serious issues that we had. I would tell you that we think we have a long way to go. There are many other things that we're concerned about. But from the Police Department's point of view, we've turned a corner. We're not far away from the corner, but we think we turned one.

Commissioner, for the record, could you comment, since you're talking about tailgating, what occurred on the 28th of this month?

On September 28th? On September 28th, radio put in a trouble ticket for a tailgating incident, which you will notice happened, of course, after I told you that the fix was in. If you remember what I said, Councilman, Motorola never said tailgating was going to go away. They said it was severely limited. It was mitigated. And that trouble ticket was put in -- actually, it was a confusion on the part of the people in Radio. Radio was told -- and we've told them should the radio system even burp, you're going to 15 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 call Motorola. We want a trouble ticket put in. So what happened is they got a couple seconds of tailgating, really just a couple seconds in South. That is normal now. Those couple seconds in the past would have been a long tailgating incident and would have tied us up for a long time. We believe that in the worst case scenario -- and it would be unlikely to happen -- we would have this tailgating go on no more than seconds. So 13 when radio saw this couple seconds happen in 14 South Philly, they assumed that tailgating 15 would never happen again. And, in fact, that 16 is now a normal occurrence. Tailgating does 17 happen, although I will tell you that this fix 18 that we put in and tested on September 23rd, 19 it seems to be lessened a whole lot. And 20 operationally it does not affect us very much anymore at all.

For the record, here is the copy, or at least a report that I received. "At approximately 6:30 p.m., a person at Motorola was notified about a 16 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 tailgating incident at 6:30 p.m. "J Band (ph), using PPD all to broadcast City-wide received tailgating from South console Reported. Given severity three." That is the incident that you are referring to?

That's the incident Of course, I knew about that right away. The radio notifies us about that right away. Motorola sees these too and so does the City. The City and manager are e-mailed these right away. So, believe me, we know of these incidents right away. As soon as I was beeped, I called Radio. Our concern is that it doesn't operationally impact anything. When I got the captain of Radio on, he told me right away. He said, "Look, it was only a couple seconds long." And we explained to them now that that is going to happen. But it really only lasts a couple seconds and goes away. Radio just didn't understand that they shouldn't call for that anymore. That's not a big deal.

My colleagues 17 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 have questions. But, again, I think, for the record, you need to take 30 seconds to explain why this tailgating is occurring, why it doesn't occur in other Motorola 800 megahertz systems because of operational issues.

I'm not sure it doesn't occur in other Motorola systems. Motorola could probably address that.

Well, you told me that they told you that it doesn't occur in other places because we operate our system a bit differently than other systems are operated. If we sent our police to another city, maybe they could create a tailgating situation. But you've got an operational issue that you need to deal with; am I right?

Right.

Excuse me. Commissioner, can you explain what tailgating is again for those of us that don't have a clue?

We are divided up, Councilwoman, pretty much geographically, as you know. We're divided up into divisions 18 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 which actually mirror what we call talk groups in radio. In other words, there's a dispatcher that would talk to the officers in a certain section of South Philadelphia. There's another dispatcher who talks to officers in Center City. Another dispatcher talks to officers in Northeast Philly. Another dispatcher talks to officers in the Northwestern part of the City. We're broken up geographically by districts, and districts form divisions, and we talk to officers that way. Well, if we have an emergency situation, we may have to talk to a lot of officers at one time. So we may talk to officers in Center City, in South Philly, in North Philly. We may have to all talk to them at the same time. And we have one dispatcher that can do that. We have some dispatchers that can talk to the whole City at the same time if they have to do that. So if we had an emergency situation, a dispatcher would key in the officers from South Philly, Center City and North Philly all at same time. 19 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Essentially you're bringing all those radios together like this. Well, when the dispatcher is done talking, basically you want all of those radios to go back where they belong. So the radios in South Philly go back there; the radios in North Philly go back there. What happens in tailgating is essentially those radios lock together, so that instead of going back where they belong, when the officer in South Philly talks, the officer in North Philly can hear him, as well as the officer in Center City can hear him. When the officer in North Philly talks, the officers in Center City and South Philly can still hear him. We don't want him to hear them anymore. They're supposed to go back. What this is caused by is the officers are keying -- as long they keep keying their radios, pushing that little button on the side, as long as they keep doing that, they keep this phenomenon called tailgating locked together. Our longest instance of that is about four minutes, which 20 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 means that they really can't use their radio system for four minutes. It wasn't uncommon to have this go on for 30, 40, 50 seconds at the time. If you think about it, the reason we bring all these officers together to talk to them, we have a problem. We usually have a bad problem. We presented this to Motorola. Basically what happens now is we can bring all the officers together and we can talk to them. When we let them go, the most that they tend to hang on to one another is a couple seconds and then they break away and go back to where they go. So we've been monitoring this since we put it in and we're very optimistic that this seems to be working okay. What Councilman Rizzo is talking about is we had one of those instances the other day. We brought a bunch of officers together and they locked together for a couple seconds and then they broke away and went back to where they're supposed to go. So operationally we feel that our situation now is a whole lot better. 21 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Okay. Thank you.

Plus you answered my question. Thanks. I'd like you to explain a particular trouble ticket to me. It may be difficult for you, but I'll try to make this work. There was an incident on 8/18, trouble ticket 10435574. I appreciate, Commissioner Brennan, your cooperation with providing me, this Committee, the trouble tickets that are available. For the record, I want the record to reflect that I've asked for some other information, some memos, some e-mails between you and others involving this issue, and there is a reluctance to provide that information. Eventually we're going to need that information. I know that you've been told not to give me that information, or this Committee that information. I have, in fact, subpoenaed that information. So I'm hoping that it doesn't lead to that. I hope that you see the 22 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 light eventually -- or the powers that be -- and cooperate and give us the information that we need. I can't imagine that there would be any reason not to provide that information, but we have subpoenaed it. And in the event it doesn't come voluntarily, we're going to ask for that subpoena to be honored. So I just wanted that to be on the record. I also would like to state for the record that I got a call from the City Controller today, and the City Controller is about to initiate an audit of this entire circumstance. So if the information doesn't come voluntarily, we're going to get it in other ways if we need it. I wanted you to be aware of that. Try to explain to me the cause of this particular trouble ticket. "We are having simultaneous problems with system A and system B." I've been led to believe that when you were having problems, system B was not -- or vice versa -- was not affected. So here's what it says. Maybe it's just that I don't 23 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 know how to read this. "We are having simultaneous problems with system A and B, such as hear when the channels of both systems were red." What does that mean? Are you telling me that you had problems with both fire and police.

This is the August 18th incident?

Yes.

No. Here is what happened on August 18th, Councilman. On August 18th, we had an assist officer in East Division. An assist officer generates an awful lot of radio traffic in a very short amount of time. What was unusual about the August 18th incident that had not happened before, it only involved a City-wide band, an east band and the 25th District and probably two other City-wide bands. We didn't bring together an inordinate amount of police, a whole lot, right away. What happened is the controller flipped. What happens when the controller flips is that the officers can talk 24 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 to one another, but they lose contact with the dispatcher for a number of seconds, about 4 to 12 seconds. Of course, this is a big deal 5 for us. This was a very serious issue for 6 this. Motorola looked at it right away. 7 One good side to the whole thing is, 8 thank God, nobody was hurt by this. The 9 second good thing about it, if you can say, is 10 the backup system worked fine. So the thing flipped over and worked fine. The third good thing to come out of it is that when Motorola looked at it, they determined it to be this affiliation issue. For some reason, a lot of radios on system B -- the Police Department is on system B. Everybody else in the City is on system A. A lot of radios in system B, they just tried to leave. So they went away. And then what happens is they all come back at once, and this puts a load on the controller that is greater than the controller can take. So it just essentially says, "I quit. I'm going over to the backup." That issue that happened on August 25 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 18th, that is part of the fix that we tested on September 13th, and we have not seen one since September 13th. But you're correct, Councilman. That was a bad issue on August 18th. We understood it right away. We had Motorola on it right away. They got back to us and told us what the problem was and they developed a fix which we put in and we're watching.

I'm going to turn it over to any of my colleagues that would like to speak. It's beyond belief that we could have a system that has been installed in so many places, not just in the United States -- I assume outside of the United States -- that we are developing fixes for things that should have been occurring in other places. Commissioner Brennan, why are we here experiencing all of these problems when there are systems in other places, again, that apparently are either tolerating what we are trying to fix or don't have those conditions? And now, who knows how much money we've spent 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 jointly trying to correct this problem. Why are we having these problems?

You've asked the same question that we've asked actually more than once. I'm going to give you my opinion. There may be people behind me that have other opinions. Motorola will tell you that the system they put in here, they put in many other places. I think the way that we put it in here is rather unique. For example, if you go down to Baltimore, Baltimore bought a very similar Motorola system to ours. They bought one system. Everybody uses one system. Police, fire, municipal departments all use the same system. Looking back, I guess what the City's intent was to build a system that was absolutely redundant, absolutely foolproof and would be the safest system that they could buy This is what I think the City's intent was. What they did is they essentially bought two systems that sit over top of one 27 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 another, system A and system B. Now, Motorola has told us that there are other cities that have bought that configuration with one minor difference. Cities that bought that configuration, they don't care where the radio goes, to system A or system B; you could go to either place. What was done here, apparently, is the way that the radios are, we care where you go. Even today, one of the problems that we have yet to solve is a problem that we call roaming. It affects the Fire Department. It affects us. We roam. We go over to the fire side, the A side. Fire comes over to our side, the B side. Well, they don't want us over there and we don't want them over on our system. Now, in certain instances, you would want that. For example, the fire backup system, if their whole system goes, they would come over to us. That's why it's there. But when it starts to happen too much, that's when we have a problem. It is my opinion that is the one 28 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 difference, is that we don't want the radios to go to other than the system that they're supposed to be on. That seems to be as best -- at least as best that I can understand Motorola, is that seems to be the one unique difference that has been done here in the City. I think although it doesn't work as well as it's supposed to, I think the intent of how it was supposed to work was certainly good. If you could just let me finish, Councilman. A lot of things have come out of this. Our old system, there really was no 15 backup. There was no backup. If we lost that system, there was nowhere to go. I think the City was being very afraid about not having a place for their public safety people to go in case of a backup. Now we've got three or four levels of backup, including two separate systems that the police and fire can go to in an emergency. I think that the City's desire to build the safest system that it could is probably really what's sort of biting them now. 29 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Commissioner, obviously there were consultants. There were people from our communications operation. I agree the intent is terrific. To have backup is absolutely the best way to go. I don't know whether I should ask you this question, but you're the boss of the communications operation. Was there any reluctance on Motorola's part to sell us a system that was like this?

I came here after that, so I don't know what happened in the contracts.

I'll save that for Public Property --

I would save it for them.

-- to see whether or not we were building something so unusual that there was any hesitancy on the vendor's part to provide this system. Obviously not, because they sold it to us and installed it, so... Well, Commissioner, I appreciate 30 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 you. I know you'll want to hear the rest of the panels. I'll ask you to stay in the room 4 if you could, or at least close by. We're going to move to our next panel, which is the Fire Department. Commissioner Ayers and Michael Moore, Chief Dispatcher. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Commissioner, the last time you were here, my recollection is that you were not having as many problems with the new system as the Police Department. It's understandable that you operate a bit differently than the Police Department and sometimes, the way the Police Department Commissioner just described, that is part of some of the problems that they're experiencing. You don't, again, operate in a similar way. I think the last time since you've been here at our last hearing that there has been some concerns in the Fire Department that the system may not be operating. Commissioner, were you not aware of the problems the last time you were here? Or 31 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 have they developed and you learned of these problems that have been reported in the media and that representatives of the union have talked about? Could you elaborate, please, on exactly why all this new information apparently wasn't available during our last hearing? COMMISSIONER AYERS: That is correct on not knowing about some of the issues. The Philadelphia Fire Department was first notified by the Public Property of coverage issues back on August 22nd of 2003, RCC, their initial interference report was delivered to us and released in February 2004. The Philadelphia Fire Department, we went operational with the 800 megahertz system, as you know, back in October 2002. To this date, the Fire Survey Unit has received 50 of the memos that we set up as a feedback system regarding coverage issues. It was 54 locations. A breakdown of those locations was 10 unfounded upon investigation, where we would go out, investigate, duplicate the 32 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 situation and not be able to find the problem. There were locations of issues that were 4 issues that were below grade or in an elevator 5 or within a structure where the radios 6 couldn't communicate properly. Twelve were 7 referred to Public Property and RCC because we 8 could not find out what the problem or issue 9 was. Twelve were under investigation or 10 currently under investigation by Fire Survey. 11 Twenty or forty percent of those memos have 12 been received since July of this year. 13 On August 30th, 2004, the 14 Philadelphia Fire Department, in conducting an 15 investigation of the Belgrade Street fire, 16 questions were sent to Motorola and Public Property of the two issues that we had, two issues that we had encountered. They involved the excessive bonking on the fire ground and no evidence of audio from a hot mike situation. Those were the two situations that we found after that while we were investigating. On September 1st, 2004, Motorola informed the Philadelphia Fire Department of a 33 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 characteristic of encryption technology, whereby opposite encrypted mode radios, which is secure or clear, which were the two encryption modes available on our radio systems, can in certain situations be rejected or bonked. It's called an encryption bonk. The uniformed forces were notified immediately. I ensured that they were all notified. It was put into the log and it was to be passed on at the shift change. We followed-up with written notification through chief staff notes on September 10th. The thing that we told them is that we had an issue.

We weren't sure about the hot mikes in the case, that the emergency button had to be pushed and that they would have to physically key the mike to transfer any information after an emergency had occurred. The Philadelphia Fire Department, we believe that that effect can be sharply reduced by reprogramming the radios. We're looking for a reprogramming of the radios. They'll be reprogrammed to the strapped position, secure. So strapped secure means 34 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 that they will all be in a secure mode. We won't be able to go to a clear mode where we could experience that encryption bonking. On September 3rd, 2004, Motorola verbally notified the Philadelphia Fire Department of a software programming defect concerning the hot mike, whereas the microphone will not become hot under certain conditions. Uniformed forces were again immediately notified verbally and followed-up written in the same chief staff note. Motorola has indicated that this defect can be corrected with a software revision. The expected the reprogramming start date was the week of October 4th or the 11th, where all radios will be touched and that software enhancement will happen. On September 28th, 2004, the Philadelphia Fire Department received from RCC Cellular Carrier an interference report, which we have subsequently sent out to all of our units. They would actually know what the interference possibilities were in certain areas so that they could be aware to monitor 35 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the radio and ensure that they're getting out and ensure that they're receiving communications. The issue with the portable radio, the liquid crystal display, we have a small issue with that. Twenty of the radios were having some problems with seeing their display. That's currently under investigation and the Motorola team is working with that, as well as Chief Dispatcher Moore. That affects radios at this point. 13 The main open issues that the 14 Philadelphia Fire Department has currently is 15 the coverage and the interference issue and 16 the hot mike corrective action issue, one of 17 which is the coverage issue, as you know, is a 18 national issue that affects Philadelphia as 19 well. We have the consensus plan with FCC, 20 Federal Communications, that we are looking for Nextel to cooperate with FCC and the International Association of Police Chiefs, International Association of Fire Chiefs, and, hopefully, we'll have a fix long-term. But currently our concern is the coverage and the 36 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 hot mike corrective actions.

Commissioner, thank you for that. Are you aware of this information? I'm going to read it into the record. It's a communication from the Police Department. I'll read it. "As a result of an inquiry from the Philadelphia Police Department regarding the effect of cell phone interference on our radio system, Motorola has informed the City that in certain situations the signals from a cell phone might interfere with our radio transmissions. The most likely chance of interference would occur in areas of the City where radio signal coverage is marginal and the cell coverage is particularly strong. Both the Police and Fire Departments are experiencing coverage problems, which have cropped up since the installation of the radio system, i.e., they weren't there when the system was originally installed. Although there may be other reasons for our radio interference problem, our suspect source is 37 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 cell phone providers with frequencies that are close to ours." COMMISSIONER AYERS: I'm aware of the communication. Chief Dispatcher Moore made me aware of it.

Deputy Commissioner Brennan shared that with us.

I'll read on. "Point two. Motorola indicates that interference is most likely when the transmitting handset's antenna is placed right next to the sensitive receiver's antenna, thereby making a signal power millions of times stronger than the distance signal. This could result, according to Motorola, in a momentary distortion of received audio or a mis-transmission or series of transmissions. "Point three. In order to avoid any communication difficulties with our police radio, any cell phone should be kept as far away from our police radios as practicable. In no case should the radio and cell phone touch one another, especially the antenna." You're all aware of this 38 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 information? COMMISSIONER AYERS: That's correct. Yes.

We were made aware of the Motorola correspondence by Deputy Commissioner Brennan last week. But as to his memorandum, which contains that information, no, I hadn't seen it. But the information contained therein, we're aware of.

The interference problem, I've had more complaints about interference on the Fire side than I have on the Police side. Is that accurate, that you're also dealing with significant interference issues in the Fire Department?

Yes, we do. We deal with the interference issues.

I think I need someone to explain, is this just something that is not a complaint in the Police Department? Is it exclusive to the Fire Department? Can you answer that?

If I can just interrupt for a minute. I understand our 39 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 stenographer needs the witnesses to introduce themselves formally for the record. COMMISSIONER AYERS: Acting Fire Commissioner, Lloyd Ayers.

Michael Moore, Chief Dispatcher, Fire Communications. I was going to say, Councilman, that I believe it might have to do with the nature of our operations. Police officers are on the move a lot, so if they're experiencing cellular interference and they're constantly moving, the possibility of experiencing it might be intermittent. They might have it there at one location, but they're at another intersection the next. A fire operation, you have our uniformed forces stationary on a fire ground. So if, in fact, that location is experiencing cellular interference, then it will be more pronounced, the effect would be more pronounced because we are in a stationary position.

I've noticed the proliferation of these cell sites throughout 40 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the City. Everything that's not moving has an antenna on it lately. There's water towers, buildings. Do you believe that some of these installations since the system has come on-line is contributing to this problem? Do we know why it's just starting to become a problem and it wasn't originally? I saw a rusted, old beat-up water tower the other day that looked like it was going to fall down that had more antennas and cell enhancers, I think they refer to them, than you could imagine. That may be part of the problem?

We believe so. And the City had their consultant, RCC Consultants, go out, and they've been gathering information. I'll let Property speak to that, But I think your assumptions are correct.

I had a conversation with the Managing Director just this week. It seems as though there's very little regulation or knowledge of where these are and how they're being installed. I don't think L&I or the Planning Commission or any 41 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 government agency locally has a good feel for what exactly is going on, because they are everywhere. I'm concerned about the way they are installed, the way they look, and more important, if they are now creating an interference problem with our emergency services. That is really the icing on the cake.

I think you're right on.

Commissioner, have there been any significant operational issues? Have you had a situation where you've been at a fire scene -- you're right, Police are more mobile. You get to a location at a certain intersection and there's an interference problem, you can't do like the police do, put the car in drive and move 50 feet and clear up the interference issue. Have you had any situations develop when you talk about coverage? I've heard about penetration where some of your firefighters have actually lost communication going into a building, in an area where we believe should have first-class 42 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 quality communications. Tell me about some operational experiences that have occurred as a result of the new radio system. COMMISSIONER AYERS: We have had several operations where the incident commander came on the scene and went into a communication mode on one of the tact channels, and after having discovered companies going up levels and operating in other areas of the building, third floor on the south side, communications became a problem. One of the things that the incident commanders have been told -- and we've talked about doing the implementation of the system -- was that they had the opportunity to switch to the analog channel, and that that is what they would have to do to clear up communications and maintain communications in that local situation.

But in an analog mode, we're not talking back to the dispatcher, we're just talking to the fire ground, right? 43 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 COMMISSIONER AYERS: That's correct.

I've got a question for you. You've been a fire deputy in charge of operations. Did you experience those kinds of problems with the old system? COMMISSIONER AYERS: Not as much. We had a type where we could talk over one another. The other piece is that when you were talking into the radio, you didn't know if the other person heard you unless they talked back. So sometimes we still would have to send the message several times before we got a response. This system allows us a little more intelligence. In other words, we know that we're not talking to a person if we get bonked back. So there's positives with the system and there's some negatives with the system that we're trying to iron out. What we want to do now is make sure that we have our hot mike situation cleared up We want to make sure that over the long run, that the City of Philadelphia is in line with the consensus plan and that we do everything 44 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 that we can to ensure that our first responders have clear areas of communications in that band. That's a long-term issue, I understand. In the short term, I want to ensure that all of my members, all of my firefighters, paramedics, when they go on a fire ground or a medical scene or in some terroristic incident, that we don't have to worry about interference from all of the carriers. That is my main concern.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Do you have anything you want to add to the record?

No. 18 COMMISSIONER AYERS: Thank you very much, Councilman.

Thank you. The next panel. Robert Eddis, President of the Fraternal Order of Police; Dave Kearney, Local 22 Firefighters Union, the recording secretary. I'd also like to welcome the President of Local 22, Tom O'Drain. 45 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

My name is David Kearney. I'm the recording secretary of the Philadelphia Firefighters Union. I'd like to thank you Councilmembers for inviting me here this morning to give testimony on behalf of the members of Local 22, the frontline firefighters and paramedics of the Philadelphia Fire Department. At the last meeting of this joint Committee, there were many topics covered regarding this radio system. Since that last hearing and a subsequent Inquirer article, I've been inundated with reports from our members about this radio system. The list of problems include transmissions not going through because of the nature of the digital radio system, meaning the signal not getting to the tower because it's too weak or blocked in a high-rise building or in basements; the nature of a trunked radio system; being overridden by a lower priority transmission, high volume of radio traffic being further complicated by the delay at the beginning of each transmission 46 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 because of that trunked system; delays in transmissions because of being bonked for whatever reason; poor ergonomic and physical design of the handheld radio itself makes it difficult in some situations to physically operate; the location of the emergency button; the emergency button not working; remote microphones not working because of moisture or water in the connections; cellular interference and the tailgating effect. These problems have been around since the installation of this radio system. Due to a culture of apathy generated by former Commissioner Harold Hairston, it went largely unreported. Today these problems continue to plague our members, placing them at risk of injury or even death. Local has made the investigation 20 and resolution of the radio system problems a 21 top priority. We, along with the 22 International Association of Firefighters, are conducting our own investigation into the flaws of this radio system and the possibility that it may have had harmful effects on our 47 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 members. One thing that came out in the last hearing was that, quote/unquote, nobody has been injured. As you may have read in this morning's Inquirer, we now have a member that contends he was injured because no one could hear him calling for help on his radio. Incidentally, this fire fighter was never questioned by the Fire Department. We are now also burdened with the question, did the radio problems contribute to the deaths of Firefighter Ray Rubio and Captain John Taylor of Engine 28 on August 20th? Local will be 15 calling on NIOSH to investigate the radio 16 problem as well. 17 Mr. John McFadden of Motorola has 18 reported that he is unaware of any complaints 19 about the radios from firefighters. I find 20 this hard to believe. Today, I supplied you 21 with over 130 pages of news articles from 22 across the country about the very same problems we have here in Philadelphia. There's even been a book published about the problems incurred with this radio system in 48 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the New York City Fire Department. I did a Google search on the words "Motorola radio failure" this morning. It came back with 45,900 hits. If Motorola is unaware of any other problems, they must be living on Pluto. For over $50 million, the firefighters, paramedics, police officers and the citizens of the City of Philadelphia should have gotten a radio system that works far better than the one it replaced. It should work in high-rise buildings and basements. That there is no radio that can do this is false. Here is a quote from the book that I just mentioned. '" A point well taken and one you think a company like Motorola, who makes hundreds of 49 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 millions of dollars selling radios to the fire departments which must operate in such buildings, would have addressed long ago.

In 2002, out of desperation, New York Fire Department Captain Mike Stein felt the low cost radio in his home had actually worked in high-rise buildings. Using a battery from a Wave Runner watercraft and some parts that cost less than $1,000 from Radio Shack, he built such a radio. It's known as the Post radio. It was tested on the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building, from where it performed effectively. Efforts were then made to obtain mass-produced radios of a similar design. Kenwood Communications Corporation donated 15 radios to assist in the building of the first 15 Post radios for the project. Later, open bids for the Post radio were sought. At first, according to our sources, Motorola was not interested in the radio. The fire captain who built it took it to another manufacturer where it showed great promise. The Post radio worked well in its 50 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 tests conducted in other high-rise buildings, as well as in tests in Yankee Stadium during the baseball playoffs. Why does Motorola now tell us that no radio can perform in a high-rise effectively? This radio is now in use today by the New York Fire Department. One of the biggest sales pitches for this system was the inter-operability and expanded utility. Last week while I was assigned to a medic unit escorting Senator John Kerry, along with the Police Department and Secret Service, I was unable to directly communicate with either of those agencies. Was inter-operability worth it? I don't think so. What has happened here is that the firefighters have been given a space shuttle when all we really need is a pick-up truck. When you over-complicate a simple device, you're bound to have problems. Why was this allowed to happen? We don't blame the Philadelphia Fire Department for these problems. We believe that the City of Philadelphia has had the wool 51 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 pulled over its eyes by a mega company looking only at the bottom line, profit. I thank you for doing this investigation and holding these hearings into this radio system. Our members' lives and the lives of the citizens of Philadelphia depend on it.

Mr. Kearney, thank you. I always wondered why when we had the 400 megahertz system, we had a radio that was big and clunky and it was -- I always said, well, it came from the '60s. And then when we got this handset, I said, it appears to be heavier, bigger and not as forgiving as the radio that we once had. I wondered myself why we couldn't develop a radio that was light and small. That radio is heavier than the Glock that the officer carries. I would hope that as time goes on, that we will be able to, because of these hearings, develop a radio that if you bump it, you don't change channels accidentally; that it can be locked into an operation mode that can be changed if an emergency requires it. 52 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 You know, cell phones are this big now (indicating). We have to have a radio that looks like a brick. So obviously there's a reason for its size because of battery capacity, but I think what I'm hearing is that we need it to really work and work well and try to make it a radio that serves our needs.

One of the questions that we have as a union is, was this system designed for firefighting? I don't believe it was. I don't believe that frontline firefighters were brought in and asked what they needed. I think when you engineer something in the fashion that they did, you end up with something that doesn't work that well. If you ask a guy that knows how to build some type of pump or something and put him together with an auto mechanic and tell them to build a fire truck, you'll end up with something that rolls and pumps water. But will it work for us? I don't think so, because they never asked us what we need. I think this is a perfect example of that kind 53 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 of process.

Mr. O'Drain.

I have to admit that prior to Dave recently bringing this to my attention, I didn't hear any complaints from the members about the radios. But since we put it out and we were asking for complaints to let us know what's going out there in the field, we've been inundated with complaints from the members about how these radios work. We've since talked to our international union, and we're finding out that we're not the only City in the United States that's having these problems. We have Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C.

Are they similar systems?

All have the same Motorola system. Some of the questions that I have are, why did we need to have an encrypted radio system for the Fire Department anyway? I can understand why the police have it, 54 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 because you don't want criminals hearing their radio transmissions. You know, we don't have secret fires. There's no reason to keep a fire a secret. Our old analog radio system, we never had these problems. From what I'm hearing now, we have chief officers out in the field who are talking to firefighters in basements and the firefighters are not receiving the radio transmissions from the chief, so now the chief is leaning down and yelling orders in the window, asking them, "What's going on down there? Do you have the fire out?" So if we have that lack of communication, you know, people are going to get hurt. The hot mike issue is a big concern of mine, because we were told that once they hit that Mayday button, they have an open mike and you would hear anything that a firefighter in distress would be trying to say or call for help. From what I'm understanding, that's not working properly either. We don't know, but NIOSH will be coming in here to do an 55 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 investigation into the death of Captain Taylor and Firefighter Ray Rubio. I'm going to ask them to really check into that. We want to get ahold of the FCC tapes and any radio transmissions that were made that night.

Well, you can bet that when we were asked to help to fund this very state-of-the-art system, that one of the selling points is that the old system had dead spots that we couldn't transmit or receive. It's distressing to me to know that we have a system that I was told there wouldn't be a place in Philadelphia, in a basement or, you know, within reason -- I do understand the technology. In a residential basement these radios should work. The people at the scene shouldn't have to go back to an old system, analog, to talk radio to radio to be able to communicate. I think that those areas where you have identified, it's a whole different issue. Interference is one issue and coverage is another. If you're not able to talk from fire headquarters to the basement of a home in West 56 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Philadelphia, that's a very bad situation.

No. I'm talking about a chief officer standing out in front of a house at a house fire trying to communicate with firefighters in the basement. We're upstairs in the bedroom. And the chief would be asking questions like, "Do you have the fire knocked down yet? Are you making any progress?"

When we have Public Property here, we're going to have to ask that question.

With the old system, we did have dead spots. But they're not as severe as what we're talking about here and the things that I'm hearing.

Thank you.

Has there been a prior hearing on this subject earlier today, testimony as to how the contracts were let, who let them and what the terms were and who is involved?

We have all the documents in front of us. This has been going 57 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 on since 1995.

What has been going on?

The engineering, the funding, the Council hearings. So we're almost years into this program. 8

And these 9 problems are just as of now? 10 What I've been missing at the hearing has been any evidence of anybody having responsibility on behalf of the City to go over the plans and to have trial runs and what did the City know about other cities' problems and so forth.

When the Department of Public Property panel comes forward -- I don't want to answer for them. But, yes, What you described did occur. We'll hear more from them and they can certainly answer that.

Councilman, I would just like to say one thing. The new Fire Commissioner, him and I had a conversation about this yesterday. We're going to 58 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 cooperate together to try to find out what the problems are and get them solved. So we're working together on this issue.

That's a good strategy.

One question we have is, was this the only system available? Was there a system that may have been made available that provided better coverage, that would have provided us coverage in subways and high-rises for a similar price? We're unable to find that out.

Yes. There was a competitor. But this system, it's not about whether it's a good system or if there was a better one. It's all about the engineering of where they put the receivers, where they put the transmitters. If you're going to align a system, everything has to be placed in the right location or it's not going to work properly. Just to keep it simple, it's like a cell phone, a dropped call or you have a coverage issue. It's because there's not 59 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 enough facility to support the need. There's obviously going to need to be some work on making sure that if we have to add receivers, transmitters or whatever to make the system work better to deal with the issues that you described today, Public Property and Motorola are going to have to get together and deal with those coverage issues. I was very critical about this system when it was first brought to Council and had a lot of questions to ask. We were assured that there would be, I believe, 10 locations in the City where we had transmitters. That almost doubled what we had with the old system. There should never be a place where we presently operate, other than the subway, where we would have difficulty communicating. I was told that more than once, if not 20 times.

Councilman, were you told how the City was going to guarantee that?

Commissioner James from Public Property is here, and I'm 60 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 sure he'll be able to discuss the warranty of this system. That's an issue that I'm sure the City Controller has announced, that there's going to be an investigation led by his office to talk about warranties and any claims that there may be. The next person that I would like to introduce is Robert Eddis and his colleague, Vice President Jimmy Whalen.

Good afternoon, everyone. Once again, we really want to thank you for your concern in regard to the issue. A lot has happened since the last time we came here and testified in City Council. The problems still exist. We're out there in the districts every single week, and our greatest fear is with winter coming upon us, how the system is going to work then. You pointed out something that we really experience, and that is when our officers are out in the high-rises and they're out in the subway system, the communications basically don't work as well as what we thought the previous system did. 61 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 As Tom O'Drain stated with his approach, the thing that we've been very fortunate about is we're on the same page. Whether we get called from Deputy Commissioner Brennan, Commissioner Nestell, Inspector Lippi, Chief Inspector Feeney, Sergeant Masi, we're trying to come together to solve the problem now. I think that is a great step that's really taking place. Because the reality is, that's all the minor part. The major part is our officers and our firefighters that are there. This is their lifeline. As we said last time, what are they supposed to do if these options don't work? I was out in the 18th District yesterday at 55th and Pine, and one of the officers asked me, what's the concern with the Department in regards to these radios? I said, what a pleasure it is to stand there and say that the Department shares the same concerns as us. I think they're fully aware of the problems. We're aware of the problems. I think now it's just a matter of how we get 62 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 these problems resolved, how do we go forward before somebody does possibly get killed. Because by riding out there in the cars, you can see that there's a problem. You can legitimately say there's a hard time having communications if you go in certain areas, and that's really the fear level. The last time we came here, I think you understood our frustration in regards to what we felt at that time was lack of communication internally ourselves. It couldn't be better. And I want to point that out before we go any further. Everybody says, we don't want to see anybody get hurt. We believe it's a concern of the City not for anybody to get hurt either, but we do have to look and say, continue with these hearings. See if we can identify the problem. We've talked to people around the country, too, who shared with us similar stories. We embrace technology. We embrace change. But more importantly, we embrace life and that of our members. That's our accomplishments that we're trying to get 63 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 through your Committee. As I said, we do thank you, but the problem still does exist out there, that it's not been totally resolved.

Thank you. We appreciate your time. Councilman Mariano has a question for President Eddis.

Bob, let me ask you, because you just touched something there and it sparked a thought in my mind. You said you go around the country and talk to different people. From my understanding of the system, other people are using this system in other comparable metropolitan areas. L.A. possibly was mentioned and Chicago. It might be to both of you, so, Tom, if you want to jump in, that's fine. Do you feel it's a function of the actual people, the firefighters and the actual policemen in the City because we were used to using that old system? Is that maybe a part of it? I do remember that there was a lot of jumping on other people when big things 64 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 happened, when there was a call for an assist when guys were stepping on each other. When I was listening a lot, you could hear the dispatcher saying, "Okay, we got that." And then somebody would step in and say, "2410, are you there?" And he couldn't get in because everybody else was talking. Then 2410 would come in and there was a moment there where you would think, wow, is 2410 okay? Not being in that capacity and being an amateur and just listening, I used to get worried. I remember asking one of the old-timers. He said, "Rick, it's because guys are on it. And then everybody is in a rush and they hit that button and they're talking." This was supposed to be alleviated with this system, right? So my real question is, is it something that we're just used to doing? Is it a Philadelphia thing that we're doing, our policemen and our firefighters that may have been trained the way the old-timers do it?

It was kind of funny last time when we talked about this because 65 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 when we said we had the FOP embrace technology, sometimes our members on the street don't. We went to the national convention a year and a half ago and we questioned one of our members who is out of Atlanta. They said to us unequivocally, you are going to be so glad when you work out all the problems because we really like this system. And I think Commissioner Brennan made a very valid point today, and I think that point was in regards to how the system itself applies. We have two systems here. When I've talked to some people around the country, they seem to be working off the same system. Like I said from the beginning, in our Department we've been addressing and been talking to our members about this who have been bringing it to us from the very beginning, from the day the problems began. And it was very frustrating to us because you just want to resolve the problem. And trying to have the officers trained in certain areas 66 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 has resolved, such as the old term, assist button. By nature, a police officer isn't comfortable pushing an assist button because the thing is that they need an assist. I think our training bureau through our command staff has resolved a lot of those problems themselves. I think the internal problems that may exist -- for giving you a long answer to a short question, I apologize -- is that how the system is applied here may have a great effect. As I said, this gentleman talked to us, and we talked to people from 30 major cities and they said certain areas they have are based on topography. If there was a mountainous region, some areas didn't get through. And we told them our problems where if our officers went into a high-rise, they weren't having communications. As you know, in most cases these are the places you need it the most. Because it is when you're really at the whim of having that radio at your side. So do I think some of it is cultural? I do believe some of it is 67 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 cultural. But I think there is still a problem because I don't think the system would be shutting down the way it was. I don't think that has anything to do with the cultural aspect. I think people becoming familiar with the system, I think, is going to be helpful. Like I said, our fear is going into the winter. I mean, the batteries. Where are we going to go if the battery situation develops again? We have to tell you, the Department could not be more responsive to us. We're included in every single phase of any testing that's taking place. But the problem itself is still there. The problem itself is still there.

I believe that our people wanted to embrace the new technology as well. The old system, when we had a lot of radio traffic, there was always a level of frustration, people trying to get through to the Fire Communication Center, but they could still hear us talking over each other.

You could hear 68 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the chief outside that basement and he could hear you in the basement?

If we were stepping on each other, they could still hear us, all of us talking. That would come across on tapes. Everything that we say on the radio is taped. So I don't believe it's cultural in the Fire Department. I believe that there are problems with the software. And if there are fixes for them, the sooner they fix it, the better.

I know it was disturbing to me to read that in the paper about that firefighter in the basement -- and all my colleagues share the same feeling. To know nobody was hearing him when he was running out of air, I never want to be there and never would be. You guys are giants in our world to do that. But if we can help you in any way with technology or cultural changes -- I don't believe it is cultural. I just thought it might be a combination of that. It has to go back to technology somewhere.

I believe that part of 69 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 it is that inherent in this trunked digital technology are delays that are unacceptable in emergency service. When you call for help, you need to call for help now, not in two seconds, not in two minutes. You need to key that radio up and ask for help now and not a fall-back that if I key the radio up, then I know I push a button. Back in the old system, if you keyed the radio up and screamed help, everybody stopped talking. Now you get bonked.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but it is cultural to a certain extent. I'd love to be able to place a percent to that comment, though. I don't think it would rise above percent. I think 20 75 percent of the issue that we're talking 21 about here today and before are the system 22 itself. 23 As I said the last time, and I'll 24 say it again this time, the confidence level 25 in our radio with the members of the 70 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Philadelphia Police Department is really low. And when you have that happen, it just builds and builds and builds to a case now where everybody has cell phones in the cars. They talk to each other. They tell each other who has a car stop because nobody can get through. "Hey, Joe, I'm over here at 5th and Indiana and I've got a car stop." He's on his way over there before the guy with the car stop can get over the air. Things like that just doesn't help the acceptance and the embracing of this system by the officers on the street. Commissioner Brennan allowed the officers to have a session with Motorola and the PAB a couple weeks ago, and it was nice of the Commissioner to invite me to attend. It was just about 30, 40 officers who were invited down to just talk amongst themselves to let the provider hear what they felt and how they felt. There was a whole lot of passion in that room about the system and the fact that somebody is going to get really, really hurt. Up to now, we're lucky. We have one female officer that was hurt based on an 71 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 assist that she could not get through, and had four guys chasing her around the car. She was beat up pretty good. How that could have been prevented with the old system, it may not have been. Now, with the feelings that everybody has, it's because of this system that that happened. Of course, then the urban legend begins, that we'll never be able to get this thing to work with our current people on the street. People my age, of course, always want to have that radio in the car. But I understand that we're moving forward. We just want to move it forward so it works.

I thank you. Our next panel?

The stenographer needs you on the record.

Vice President Jim Wheeler, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 5.

Thank you. I'm going to have to leave the Chamber now. I'm not sure if I'll be back, but our Vice Chair Councilwoman Blondell 72 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Reynolds Brown will be here and she'll be calling up the next panel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next panel is as follows: Commissioner of Public Property, Joan Schlotterbeck, please come forward; Deputy Commissioner of Public Property, Joseph James; Communications Superintendent for Public Property, Frank Punzo; 800 MHz System Manager for Public Property, George Westermann; Regional Vice President of sales for Motorola, John McFadden. Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to ask you to aid our professional who is keeping a record of all of this. State your full name for the record and your position with the City and then please proceed with your testimony following the lead of my colleague, Councilman Frank Rizzo.

Joan Schlotterbeck, Public Property Commissioner.

Good afternoon. Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Department of 73 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Public Property.

Good afternoon. Frank Punzo, Communications Superintendent, Public Property.

Good afternoon. George Westermann, 800 MHz System Manager for the City of Philadelphia.

Good afternoon. John McFadden, sales vice president for Motorola.

Thank you. I think you probably all have planned on how you're going to present to the Committee where we are from where we were. Commissioner James, I assume you and Mr. Punzo would be the people to lead that conversation?

That would be correct, Councilman.

Would you proceed please, and give your name again for the stenographer. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Councilman, can I beg your indulgence for a moment, please? 74 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Councilman, I would just like to say for the record that I appreciate your having the hearings and inviting us here today to set the record straight. I actually frankly would need to turn my testimony and any questions and answers over to technical people. That would be Joe, Frank and George here. They're better than the best. So I would just like to say thank you again and I would like to turn it over to Joe.

Commissioner, if you'd like to stay, you certainly can. But knowing the competency of your staff, you can do other things if you'd like, or you can stay. It's up to you. COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTERBECK: Thank you very much. Actually, I would like if I could turn it over to these gentlemen and get going.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Is there anybody on the staff who knows anything about the original letting of the contracts? 75 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

I'm the guy who can speak to that, Councilman. Again, my name is Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Public Property. On behalf of the Department, once again we thank you for having these hearings and the opportunity to present some of the facts around the history of the system and also bring you up to date on some of the progress that has been made from the last hearing during the summer. Specifically to try to talk to Councilman Cohen's questions, the history of the 800 megahertz system kind of dates back to 1992. 1992 was the beginning stages that the Administration back then during the Rendell Administration was looking at replacing the existing radio system for the City. From 1992 until about 1995, the Department of Public Property, along with a team of folks, put together a Request for Proposal for a replacement system that would replace the radio communication system for public safety agencies as well as other 76 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 departments throughout the City. A Request For Proposal went out. We had two bidders who submitted proposals. Motorola was one of them. Erickson was the other one. We had an evaluation phase that was chaired through the Procurement Department. It went through the normal review process. There were presentations made both to Members of City Council and to the Mayor's Office, and the selection was finally decided on Motorola. Back in May, I believe, 1999 we appeared before City Council to bring forth the actual contract and the award and made a presentation to Members of Council through the hearings -- I believe through the Public Property Committee -- where we presented all the facts around the award. We presented a scope of what the work was going to entail. We laid out a plan of where the 800 megahertz towers were going to be located throughout the City. We had a hearing and received the approval of City Council to move forward. One of the reasons the time frame took a period of time from '92 to '95 was the 77 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 City's ability to put together enough funds to fund the actual procurement, as well as there were some changes in the 911 Act to allow us to use the 911 dollars for the purposes of buying the radio equipment that we needed to deploy it throughout the City. We also had hearings with the Department of Aviation and the airports on including them in the process, to make an award with the airport being part of that procurement as well as the Water Department as a funder. In 1999, again, we were able to get the approvals we needed to proceed. The process involved a phase approach starting with the construction of the A side of the system and bringing up the municipal departments and the Fire Department, and then a phasing in after the Municipal Departments and the Fire Department were up and operational of bringing on the Police Department and putting together the B system. Both systems were built at the same time. The procurement included a data solution using 800 megahertz frequencies as 78 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 well as an underground solution of building an underground system. Because we just did not have the financial resources at the time, the decision was made and the approvals were given that we would not be moving forward with the construction of an underground system and we would not be moving forward with the construction of a data system. But we did include as part of building the system that we are currently using a commitment of 95 percent coverage of in-building coverage, radio in-building coverage, for this radio system, which at the time we did not have that with the older system. There was a lot of talk about the older radio system before 800 megahertz and a sense of a lot of folks of how well that operated as compared to what is happening today with the current system. There is a big distinction.

The older system just did not have the intelligence in it to tell you what was going on. This system does. The bonks that many people refer to of when they're out of coverage is there purposely to let you know 79 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 you're out of coverage. It's telling you, you can't communicate. It's telling you, you have to wait to get approval to speak so that you don't talk over another person who may also be talking at the time. That intelligence didn't happen in the older system. So the other system, you were out of coverage, you may have been out of range; you just didn't know it. You could push the button. You could talk. You may have been heard, you may not have been heard, but you had no intelligence to let you know that. It was only through repetitive conversations with the dispatchers, "I didn't hear you. " Or if someone would finally pick up the fact that that radio has been out of coverage for a while and I'll call them because I haven't heard from them. This system is built with a great deal of intelligence to it. Is it perfect? We've already experienced that it's not. And we are very serious about working through the issues to resolve the problems. I think what we have, we have a very 80 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 good system and we have experienced over this past summer in particular a number of problems that if you were building out a very comprehensive technology solution, you would like to see those problems happen back '99 or 2000. Unfortunately, they're appearing on the end of the project as opposed to the beginning. It would have been perfect if these things had cropped up a lot earlier. It would have been also to our advantage if we had known a lot more from the users in the field that they were experiencing, either through the Fire Department or the Police Department, coverage problems or problems that they were having with the use of the radios. But it seems that we're getting to that point now. It's good whether we get to the point then or now, but we're getting to the point where we can identify whether it's an ergonomic issue, whether it's manufacturing issues, whether it's environmental issues. Certainly, the landscape has changed on the interference issue from 1999 to now. 81 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 We've built into the project a certain amount of due diligence. In 1999, we expected there was a proliferation of cellular carriers in the market, so we did a baseline interference study to say, let's take a read now to kind of figure out what's in the market now because by the time we bring up these other departments, that may change. Our speculation was correct. Our assumptions are correct. So we had a measuring stick to say this is where it was in 1999. Now we compare it five years later. You can see the difference, and we can now focus on the differences. A lot of those differences are both driven by market forces, more carriers are in the market. Cell phones are proliferating. As the prices go down, more users use more cell phones. As more users use more cell phones, the carriers have to build more facilities. They also have to turn up more power so they can have more coverage. That's not something that we control. We also know that over time, that we were experiencing a national issue where we 82 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 have specific interference from licensing that occurred at the FCC level that put people on the same radio bands as public safety. The City did not sit back during that process. We were before the FCC. We were before legislators at the state level and the federal level about this, the national problem. We filed comments and petitions at the FCC about this, and we were involved in the consensus plan that the Fire Department mentioned, and we're going to be actively involved in the deployment of that plan.

We should also understand that since the FCC made its ruling that would allow us to move and reband the frequencies and move the carriers out that there's going to be a bit of a waiting period that's not necessarily under our control. The FCC is waiting for a report from the GAO to do their own independent investigation about the consensus plan and is waiting to put out a document. The FCC is waiting to review that document before they can move forward with their formal consensus plan going forward. It's also the speculation 83 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 that some of the carriers may file petitions or maybe even litigation against the plan because of the award that we gave Nextel some additional frequencies that they didn't win through the normal auction process. But assuming that those things are resolved to our advantage, the City of Philadelphia Department of Public Property is going to make the effort to make sure we're at the forefront of moving us into the proper spectrum and moving Nextel and the other carriers out of the spectrum so that the interference issue would go away. It is, as Commissioner Ayers said, a long-term process. We're at the forefront. We have been there and we will continue to be there. I'd like to also speak to the issue of the underground. There's been a lot of comments about the lack of coverage in the underground. As I mentioned earlier in my comments, the original proposal we had to build out the underground was just not within the range that we had funding in place at the time. But we have been and continue to be 84 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 working with SEPTA to see if there's a way that we can leverage our collective resources and find a solution that maybe we can put together a plan before the Administration and before City Council that will involve a construction of portions of the radio system in the underground to resolve that problem. We have not fully developed our plans, but we are actively in those discussions and we're trying yo work together with SEPTA.

Commissioner, I have to comment on that. Are you telling me that when we had the old system we had an underground antenna?

No. We never had underground coverage.

So how do our people in the Transit Unit, how do our police officers who are assigned to the Transit Unit, if there's an emergency underground, deal with it?

I believe the current process -- and the Police Department can confirm -- is that they carry two radios. 85 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 They carry a SEPTA radio and they carry a City radio. So when they're underground, they use a SEPTA radio; when they're above ground, they use a regular City radio.

They carry two radios?

They carry two radios.

I have a comment. Let me first thank you, Mr. James, for what I believe to a be a comprehensive explanation, particularly citing the external factors that have impacted the performance of this system. Now, you mentioned that there's a long-term plan here. Are there benchmarks that you are attaching to the plan so that you can do checks along the way, given the external factors that you just shared with us?

I believe there is. Again, we've already identified the frequency ranges that have to be affected. We have identified those frequencies that are critical for us to move that allow us to no longer be 86 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 in interference with the carriers. So our first phase is to identify that and build a model and say, these are the frequencies that need to be moved. Secondly, we have to identify who is in the marketplace and who are the carriers that need to move out. We've already identified those. We had some initial discussions with both of the carriers that fall within that range. I think our next benchmark is really to get that final FCC order. We really need that final FCC order because until we see that final order, we don't know to which degree the funding will be in place as part of that order that's funded by Nextel. We want to make sure there's sufficient dollars in there that will cover our expenses, and that's what the original consensus plan identified so that the City would not be on the hook for paying for this.

So you can't speculate because the date on when that might happen is in the lap of the FCC? 87 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

That is correct.

Clarity question. How old is this current system? You mentioned 1999.

This 800 megahertz system started its construction around 1999.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner, let's make sure for the record we're real clear here Coverage issues and interference are two different issues here. I understand that interference can cause a missed word or a problem with the completion of the transmission intelligently. But when we're talking about no coverage, we're talking about a firefighter in a basement where he has to holler in the cellar window to find out what's going on in there. That's not about interference.

As I described earlier, it's to notify the radio users that they're out of coverage. You can be out of coverage standing outside that window. That out of coverage condition could be caused by 88 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 interference or it could be caused by the fact that there's no coverage in that area.

Commissioner, I've talked to firefighters that told me when they've gone in the basement, there's something on the radio that says, "Out of range."

That's correct.

Why do they experience out of range while they're in the City of Philadelphia?

Well, as I tried to say earlier, the coverage that we provided under the system is a 10-fold greater than what the old system is, but it is not 100 percent. It is not perfect. There was a significant amount of coverage studies done before this system even went into place where members of the team went all throughout the City to test for coverage to identify dead spots, to identify areas where we went out and we pushed the radio to see if we could talk.

Like the "can you 89 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 hear me now" guy?

"Can you hear me now," that's what we did, "Can you hear me now?" And that kind of study extended all throughout the City in a lot of different areas. They checked for high-rises. They checked for the underground. They checked for areas where we thought coverage would be marginal. We checked as many areas that we could cover, including going outside of the City for coverage. Just in case an officer would find himself outside the City, we wanted to see how much coverage actually penetrated outside. There was a significant amount of effort done to identify areas where there could be marginal or no coverage. The interference issue causes you the same condition, as if you were out of coverage. It causes that radio not to be able to see the signal from the control sending it messages. You could be in the basement and you could be out of coverage. You could be standing in the yard and be out of coverage.

Have you now, 90 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 with the input from the firefighters, the input from the police, have you identified areas of the City that are, in fact, having coverage issues? And what is your plan? You have transmitters throughout the City. Are 7 you planning an 11th, a 12th, a 13th, a 14th 8 to fix? 9 I remember the old system where we 10 had transmitters and receivers. Do we still have receivers? How many receivers do we have?

We used to have repeaters spread throughout the system to continue to repeat the signal out to give you better coverage. The new system, the 800 megahertz system, we have 10 towers. The question of whether we need 11, 12, 13 or 14, I don't know if we've reached that conclusion yet. We are looking at -- and as Commissioner Ayers mentioned earlier, we have a study we just got back from RCC on the interference, so we can identify pockets of interference. 91 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 We also have information we received from the Fire Department and we received from the Police Department where they say, "I was at this address and I got bonked." And they've gone through their triage and they want us to check it out. We send a team out to check it out and we try to identify whether or not we find the same sort of interference or lack of coverage in those locations and we try to find out what is the source causing that lack of signal or interference.

Are you prepared to tell us -- do you know today of areas of our City that are definitely problematic that we should communicate to the Fire Department so they're aware? From what I understand, there could be maybe a short-term solution of a portable device that can be taken by a battalion chief to the scene of a fire to enhance the communication signal where they may be having difficulty.

We've identified through the study, which Commissioner Ayers sent out 92 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 to all members of his staff, over 40 locations where RCC has identified interference problems. So the Fire Department has that information. The Police Department has that information. From what I understand from the Fire Commissioner's earlier testimony, they've shared that information with the field so that they know that if they go to this location, they're going to run into a spot that has either marginal or a high level of interference and they may experience a problem.

When was the last time you talked to the Fire Commissioner about these problems or the representatives that were on the panel before you? Have you ever sat down and made yourself available and let them know you were ready to hear their problems, or do you just deal with certain people in the Fire Department?

If I understand your question, Councilman Cohen, have I sat down and met with members of the firefighters --

Or the officers 93 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 that were testifying before. They're very much a part of the process.

We are part of an overall team, a project team, which is made up of representatives that you saw here; Deputy Commissioner Brennan from the Police Department, Sergeant Greg Masi from the Police Department, and Mike Moore from the Fire Department. We meet quite regularly to talk about the issues that we're talking about today and to talk about problems. We're in constant communication. If we're not talking weekly or talking several times during the --

Well, I gather. But I don't recognize a single name as being a member of the firefighters' union. Was I wrong? Who did you mention that is an officer of the firefighters' union? They have a real concern. They're representing their membership.

To answer your question, I have not personally sat down with any representatives from the firefighters' union to talk about their specific concerns. 94 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 I have not sat down with members of the Police Department's union to talk about their specific concerns. My understanding is that they were being addressed through their specific departments and their issues are being passed on to us for us to investigate.

It seems to me the Public Property Department ought to be open to everybody to give explanations, including the unions, not just to the department heads. I don't know whether they know that. I don't know whether the answer you gave apparently in response to my question makes any sense. I'd like to know what the reaction of the people in the Fire Department's union, how they react to your answer. Does that answer their question or doesn't it? They probably won't have an answer until they can meet with you and question you.

Well, why don't I give this answer. At the end of this hearing, the firefighters' union president or the members of the firefighters' union that are here, if 95 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 they would like to set a date where we can sit down and talk about their specific concerns, I will make myself available and my team available to sit down with them at an as-soon-as-possible date as we can to talk specifically about their concerns that they brought up today before you.

I certainly think it would be a good idea to make that offer.

I am making that offer now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. Commissioner, go back to what we can do to deal with areas that you now have identified. I'm still convinced that interference is different than coverage, even though interference could lead to a coverage issue, But I'm talking about areas where you know that we have poor coverage. Again, the analogy. You have a cell phone. You know where you can make a call, you know where you 96 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 can't. You wait until you get to an area before you start your cell phone call. Same concept. If you've got a map -- but don't use blue and red -- where there are issues, let's say, down in the forbidden drive in Fairmount Park or down in Manayunk or some of the areas that we've always had problems. What can you do? What can Motorola do -- and I'll ask Motorola. What can we do to fix those areas temporarily until you make the decision whether you have to relocate one of the 10 sites, add a site, take one away, whatever? I'm not talking about interference. I'm talking about areas where you know that we have issues with coverage.

I think if we have specific areas where we know there's no 20 coverage or marginal coverage, I don't think we've run across that yet. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. But the possibilities of resolving those can be done probably from a number of different technical issues without having to build a tower. My best answer to 97 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 give you at this point in time is that we'd have to sit down with Motorola. We'd have to sit down and kind of figure out what's the best solution for that particular area.

Let's say that we had a major incident. I haven't heard anything about the airport, whether they're happy as can be, that everything works well there. I don't know about that. But let's say we had a major incident at the airport and there was a coverage issue. Is there a device that can be brought to the airport to make it better, if it were not as desirable as it should be?

I believe there is. I don't think we have anything in our inventory right now. But I believe there are some portable repeaters that you can --

Mr. McFadden, can you address this issue?

There is such a thing as a portable repeater. It's been in the industry probably for 30 years. So there are such things that you can bring to a site, but 98 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 you have to bring it to the site. If there's a major incident going on, you want the coverage first. Because if you have to depend on bringing something, it's not usually the way you want to do it. But there are devices that you can bring to a scene.

What I'm getting at is, if we know there are areas of the City, I believe that either the Police Department or the Fire Department should have a portable -- what is it again?

Portable repeater.

A portable repeater that would be available until we resolve this. Is this a big deal? Is this a big expense? Is this something that you could help us with to assure that if we had a major incident and we know that we have an area that has potential coverage problems that could be available? Would it work? Would it make it better? That's my question.

It's what I would call a patch. It's not that reliable, quite frankly. If it's in a suitcase and I put it 99 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 on the floor, it's got an antenna that's only this high. It's not something you really want to rely on, bringing some portable repeater to the location. It's something, but it's simply a Band-Aid.

It sounds like right now we need a couple Band-Aids here and there and eventually it will heal and we can get rid of the Band-Aids.

Well, I think one of the issues -- and I've got a lot of questions that you asked last time that I want to respond to. But I will answer your question. What we're discussing here is coverage. There's no such thing as 100 percent coverage. That's everywhere we run into this. The expectation is 100 percent coverage. Technically, it's not possible As I think you know, if you start adding sites, you can start increasing the coverage, but at a certain point it actually plays against you. The sites actually start interfering with each other, kind of what you're experiencing with the cellular networks 100 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 now. So there is no such thing as 100 percent coverage. So if the expectation is 100 percent coverage, that's not -- and it has to do with the laws of physics; it has nothing to do with the equipment manufactured or the design. It's just that with two-way radio you cannot have 100 percent coverage. You cannot always talk into basements. In fact, the coverage you have is typical public safety coverage, which is 95 percent portable coverage in buildings, with the exclusion of it doesn't talk in basements. It may not talk in certain elevator shafts. It may not talk in hospital emergency rooms. 95 percent coverage is 95. It's not 100. I think what we're trying to do is, we're trying to work with this last half a percent of coverage or a percent and we're trying to identify places where it is. That's a good thing to do, but you don't know where those places are. You've tested the system. 95 percent of the time when you hit that transmit button, you will talk. It's not 100 101 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 percent of the time; it's 95. And that's a national standard.

Do you agree with 95?

I do agree with that. Again, the other part of what makes this system a lot better than the other system is there are a lot more tools and there's a lot more information available for us. So when an issue of either poor coverage, bad coverage or my radio didn't work or my button didn't work, we have the ability now to go back and pull that information and put that together and be able to emphatically say it either worked or it didn't work. It either sent out the right alarm or it did not send out an alarm. Those things just didn't exist in the older system.

Mr. McFadden, I think at this point we should give you an opportunity to address some of the issues that you would like to report on from our last hearing. I wanted for the record again to 102 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 report that from what I understand from Commissioner James, from Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner Ayers, that your company has responded in a way that's been much appreciated. And I know you're as concerned about the problems that we're experiencing here as much as we are because you have a corporation that, in my opinion, has a great name associated with it.

Thank you very much. We appreciate that and we will continue to work hard with the City. I did prepare this statement because you did ask us some questions. If you don't mind, I'd like to read it into the record. With me today, by the way, is the project manager for the Philadelphia system, Melissa Hanlon. She's been involved with this system. She's the one who is here seven days a week, hours a day. Mary Beth Krantz is 22 the engineering manager for the northern 23 division. If we have any technical, technical 24 questions, I'll have either Mary Beth answer them or Melissa about the system. 103 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 We're here today as a continuation of the July 14th, 2004 hearing. First of all, let me say thank you to the City of Philadelphia Council for allowing Motorola to explain what we have done since the last meeting and to address the issues raised about the radio system. We have committed to the City of Philadelphia and its radio system users. You are very important and valued customers. During the July 14th, 2004 hearing, this team responded to answers you asked regarding the March 25th and the March 18th incidents relating to the Philadelphia Police radio system. At the end of the hearing, you still had a number of specific questions regarding, Number One, the testing of and user satisfaction of the announcement group function of the police radio system; Number Two, the controller switch and channel availability on May 18th, 2004; And Number Three, your personal concern that Motorola's level of a commitment is at the level that you expect it to be in the City. 104 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 We're pleased to report today that all significant issues discussed at the last meeting have been or are being addressed Also, we can report that since our last meeting, the system has performed excessive design reliability, consistently providing the quality communications demanded by the City's first responders and the expectation of this Council. Announcement group feature. This was the first thing you had a question about. We successfully tested the announcement group feature change on July 20th and September 22th. The feature change was originally implemented in April. This test was pending at the time of the July 14th, 2004 hearing and was discussed as an action item at that time. So we're getting back to you on that one. The controller switch and channel availability status. This is the May 18th event regarding the May 18th controller switch. Motorola identified the cause of the controller switch and programmed a change into all police radios which will minimize the 105 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 unnecessary system loading. The balance of the City radios will be reprogrammed to incorporate this change in all radios. Regarding the matter of the channel availability after the May 18th controller switch, this is where the channels switched 8 over and only seven of them went over. What 9 we did is we set up a lab at our headquarters 10 in Shamburg. The results are, the Motorola 11 lab extensively tested a simulation for over 12 670 hours and initiated over four million 13 calls on the system set up in the lab. The 14 stress testing forced the controller to switch 15 21 times in the lab and we were not able to duplicate the loss of channels which occurred on May 18th. Motorola conducted similar live testings 11 times in the field on the system. The controller switched as designed and all channels have come back as available after each switch. We have concluded that this is apparently a one-time issue that is not reproducible. We could not make the system do in our lab what it did here. And it hasn't happened again. It's just not reproducible. 106 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Level of commitment. This is what I would like to tell you what we have been doing.

We have initiated a 24/7 staffing of the police dispatch center by our technicians and have been ensured that these technicians have immediate access to Motorola engineers, technicians and senior managements to resolve the issues within our company. Motorola's senior managers are briefed daily on the issues and progress we are making in Philadelphia. We continue to meet with the City's 800 megahertz project team and have conducted sessions between the Department of Public Property, Police and Fire and the Motorola senior management and local teams to get their input. We continue to work with the Philadelphia users to enhance the communications operations. Recently, at the request of the Police Department, Motorola enhanced our multi-select feature to significantly reduce tailgating, which caused calls to hang longer than the dispatchers wanted or desired. 107 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Motorola continues to provide the City statistical data on the system on a regular basis, and that's some of the data that I think you're referring to today. We utilize the Motorola case management system to track every incident that happens, every call from both the City, our own calls that service people may make, the people who monitor your system. That's what you have there. That is the system that we use to manage this system.

Mr. McFadden, can I just jump in for a second? It's interesting. I've gotten a preliminary report on the trouble tickets. There's no 17 trouble tickets for any of the days that we've had malfunctions, the dates that we're talking about when we had the interruptions of service, the various dates.

These trouble tickets are generated about four or five ways. The first way and the primary way of generating a ticket is the City notices something with the City and they contact us So 108 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 if there isn't a report of that date, then it may be that it wasn't reported to us by the City. There's another way that this report can happen.

The point that I'm making, there were specific dates when there were significant problems with the system and there's no reports.

Melissa Hanlon, project manager for Motorola. If I may, Councilman. The list that you have is sorted by site location for the system. So City Hall is a site. Police headquarters is a site within the system. I have a list here sorted by dates. And within this list, you can see and cross reference the sites and case numbers.

So the dates that are mentioned in the resolution, we will find trouble tickets for those specific dates?

Correct.

Excuse me, Mr. McFadden. 109 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

We'll give you the complete record, including the customer notes. What you have is a summary and you need the detail and we are supplying the detail. We've supplied it to Public Property.

We're talking about March 25th. We're talking about May 18th. We're talking about July 9th. We're talking about August 18th. So I was just curious why there weren't any trouble tickets for the dates that we have problems with. And Commissioner Brennan speculated that it could have been done on the phone. Now it's becoming clearer that we will see trouble tickets, and I would like to for those specific dates.

And we can sort that information, as Melissa just pointed out, by date, by location.

Excuse me for the interruption.

Basically we'd like to reaffirm our commitment to the City, that we have spent a lot of resources and will 110 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 continue to spend those resources. We are extremely concerned about the safety of the firefighters and the police officers and the people in Public Property and the City, that it is very important to us as a corporation that this customer is very happy. This is one of the largest Cities in the United States. It is critical that you're happy and satisfied with this system. This system is, we believe, one of the finest in the world. You are not the only user of this system. There are systems all over the world, including the state of Israel uses this system, with 28,000 subscribers on it. So we need to have everybody in this room 17 very comfortable with this system and confident in how it operates. That's our goal in working with the City, and we will continue to do that.

Just to comment on the commitment side. We have two police helicopters where it was reported to me that the helicopters' radios were not functioning properly. To be absolutely clear, aviation 111 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 radio is a little bit different than the communications that we deal with here because of the FAA and other certifications. There was an interface between the aviation Motorola radio and the actual control head that was made by an after market company. It was sad that we had to learn that the police officers that work in our Aviation Unit could not communicate with police radio to be able to support police on the ground. That in itself was sad. I know that you were working on it, but it really wasn't your problem. From what I understand, your company did what it took to get those radios working and now we have two police helicopters that can support our firefighters, that can talk to dispatch and give assistance to the police officers that are involved in a pursuit or whatever the situation may be. So I hope I'm appropriately complementing you, because I understand that you did resolve that issue, even though you could have backed away and said, "It's not our problem. You really need to deal with the manufacturer of the control 112 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 unit that interfaces with your radio." I believe that our Aviation Unit is very, very happy right now because their radios are working and they're able to provide the support that that Aviation Unit was designed to provide.

Thank you. I know this team has worked very hard to make sure that we've covered everything. And I'm sure the Police Department and Public Property had a lot to do with the interface also with that third party. So thank you.

Great. Thank you. Well, let me see. Councilman Nutter was here a moment ago. I think he had a question.

Thank you. Gentlemen, good afternoon. I have listened in and out to these proceedings, and I know a lot of territory has been covered most ably by the Chair and Councilman Rizzo. If my question somehow was asked earlier, just tell me that and I'll move on. 113 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 You talked about -- and I'm sorry I did not catch your name.

My name is John McFadden.

Mr. McFadden, you made reference to the ongoing commitment and support of the company in relationship to the City, more specifically to our police and firefighters and the Department of Public Property. I'd like to better understand the nature of that ongoing relationship. And so I just want to ask a question in one particular area, which has to do with how long has the service been provided so far with this system.

How long has the service been provided.

How long has the system been in operation?

It's been on the air since 2001.

Is there a warranty or a maintenance and operating agreement between Motorola and the City of Philadelphia? 114 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

There is a service contract between Motorola and the City of Philadelphia to manage and service the system. That's correct.

Does the system or the equipment itself have a particular warranty on it?

Typically, electronic equipment, two-way radio equipment, would have a one-year warranty, specifically it would be things like subscribers, the portable radios. That's typical in the industry. I'm not sure. The contract may have required a longer warranty. In this case I don't have the details.

Does anyone else have the details?

The warranty period was a year, and we've been under the maintenance contract since then. This system was signed off from a warranty standpoint and put in operation. Once a system goes into its live operation, the units are being used in the street, it's providing value, and then the 115 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 warranty starts at that point.

And now that we're technically out of the warranty period, if one of the radios or other pieces of equipment goes bad, what happens.

It's covered by the service contract. If it's a subscriber unit it's repaired. If it's reported to us by the Police Department, we repair the unit. This system is being monitored at our headquarters in Chicago. There's a control room in Chicago and they're watching various systems around the country. This system its being monitored on a screen. If something happens at any one of these 10 sites, if a receiver in one of the transmitters -- and there could be 15 or 20 transmitters at a site -- is having a problem, we would be able to see that even though no 21 one in the City notices anything is wrong with the system. We can see that at that location. We would dispatch someone to check that out So there's a lot of monitoring of this system that is done automatically. That is done 116 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 without someone actually seeing a problem. Things are noted, corrected, adjusted, and the officers in the street don't even know that happened, or the dispatch.

The service contract, is it an annual contract?

I believe it is an annual contract.

And what is the cost?

Councilman, it's about $1.1 million.

So the City pays $1.1 million a year for the service contract?

Yes.

Are there escalator clauses in the contract, or do you renegotiate every year?

I have to look at that to give you an answer, but I don't believe there is. I don't want to say for certain. I'll have to double-check.

Are there renewal clauses in the contract? 117 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Yes.

So what's the real length of the contract?

We'll have to get you that. I don't have that information in front of me. Typically contracts obviously have a beginning and ending date. There is probably a clause that renews it. But I'll get you that information. I don't have that in front of me right now. Typically in public safety there is a clause that allows the customer to renew the contract.

I think Joe might have that answer.

The service contract was negotiated with a three-year pricing, and the pricing and the contract is good for 10 years. So we have a three-year maintenance contract price, which is fixed for three years. After that, it's up for renegotiation. The system was to be guaranteed that they can support it for 10 years.

Let's go back through that. You get a three-year 118 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 contract --

Fixed price for three years.

Fixed price for three years. Tell me the 10-year part.

And the maintenance support is priced for years. We have a 9 10-year price for the maintenance support so 10 that we have a guarantee that they can support the system.

You have a guaranteed price for maintenance for 10 years?

So they can guarantee the system for 10 years, right. Then we have service, which is at a three-year price. And after three years, that's up for renegotiation.

So is the three-year contract about to expire?

We're in year two of that three-year pricing.

Now, as a part of the overall system, was the three-year contract a part of the package in the approval 119 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 process for this.

Yes. That was all negotiated up front.

I understand that. Did the contract come here?

When the contract went through, the pricing was in the contract.

And the contract came here?

I know we testified before City Council on it.

Okay. Could you forward to the Chair a copy of the 10-year guaranteed pricing schedule as well as the bill that authorized the three-year contract?

I will do that.

I would appreciate it. So you're in the second year of the three-year. Sometime next year the contract will expire?

Yes.

And at that point, what length of term of contract do you 120 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 anticipate trying to negotiate?

I don't have an answer for you. One of the issues that we have to talk about is where we are as far as this particular product that we have, what's Motorola forecasting as far as the product and service and whether or not it's something that is a biddable item or is something that we can continue under the current service contract. So I think what we have to do, to answer your question, is we have to look at, what are the services that we're procuring under that contract. Are there other means of providing those contracted services or is it something that we have to get directly from Motorola, and if so, what is the price that we are able to negotiate.

What services we talking about?

The response to technicians coming out to the site, fix and maintain the equipment, the repair on the radios, the service on the radios, that kind of fixed network equipment repair. 121 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

And you're saying that there is the possibility that someone other than Motorola would provide that service?

Well, Motorola subs the work out through a certified support company here in the local marketplace. Now, whether or not there is only one person to do that or if there's more than one person do that is something that we have to discuss. So I think that all factors into what we can negotiate and what we can try to procure going forward.

Do you know when the three-year contract exactly expires?

No, I don't.

But you'll get all of that information to the Chair?

Yes, I will.

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Could I follow-up with Commissioner James. Commissioner, we've got a 122 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 maintenance contract, and I heard something that may trouble me, but maybe I misunderstood. The issues that we're experiencing now, all the work that Motorola is doing, reprogramming, second timers, all 7 of this, did I understand that that's being 8 covered under the maintenance agreement? 9

No. 10

No. 11

Then my question. 12 Have we been billed for anything associated 13 with the operational problems that we're 14 discussing in these hearings? 15

No, we have not been 16 billed for any costs associated with 17 correcting the problems that we've been 18 discussing today and we don't expect to be 19 billed for any of the costs associated with 20 this.

We're going back to the commitment part. This is a commitment from Motorola to correct these issues without any cost incurred on the City? Because I think Motorola understands that we have spent 123 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 a lot of money supporting that commitment in Police Department's time, your time, our time. Wait until they get the bill for this.

I think you have different charges than we do. This is all being done under the commitment from Motorola to correct the problems that have been identified.

Oh, I forgot one of the higher paid employees in the government, Commissioner Brennan back there. We have to laugh a little bit here. So we don't expect to pay for any of this support. Now, what do you anticipate if in fact we need to realign or do something differently to correct the issues that we're discussing here? Do we expect to pay for those or do we expect the warranty or something associated with the original engineering to cover anything to make it right?

I don't think we've had any discussion today with Motorola along any lines of any cost of the City to fix all of 124 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the problems that we've discussed and correcting those problems. Now, the one clarifier I do want to make is, we had a previous discussion earlier about coverage and filling gaps in coverage, that is not something that I think we can contribute to a Motorola problem if in fact the City decides that we want to get portable repeaters or we want to build an additional tower to improve coverage. I don't know if that's something we can actually hold Motorola's feet to the fire and say, they're the ones responsible for that.

I don't know whether Motorola did the design or we hired another company that actually designed it and said, 10 sites, you signed off, whoever. Was Motorola in any way involved in deciding where the various components to support the system were located?

We were all involved in those discussions about location of the towers and the number of towers in conversations in coordinating the design for the system. It 125 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 was not the case where we told Motorola, go build us a system, and we sat back and just let them build it and we'll figure it out later on.

What I mean is, did we hand Motorola a plan, an engineering plan, and say, "This is where we want you to put this equipment"? Were they involved in actually the design aspects of the system?

Sure.

So they then agreed that the system they were building would give us, hopefully, 100 percent coverage? But we know that that isn't realistic. Was there an agreement of coverage in writing? Was it 95 percent?

I think you will find in the documents that we've already given you that we were proposing a system with a 95 percent in-building coverage and whoever was the recipient of the award had to meet that requirement. So they were stepping up to and agreed to through the design and also through the testing. We validated the fact that we 126 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 had the coverage that met their obligation in the bid.

And you believe that we are getting the 95 percent coverage?

I believe we are.

In-building?

I believe we are. Clearly, we spoke many times to a lot of people's expectations of what that meant. It did not mean, as Mr. McFadden said, that every basement in the City was going to work. Certainly elevators were not going to work. And a lot of the areas that people have spoke earlier about were areas where we never guaranteed they were going to work there.

Well, I can understand elevator shafts and lead-lined hallways, but I can't imagine that we aren't paying attention to the underground. To hear that we have police officers that have to carry a gun and two radios to be secure in the subways, one of the probably loneliest places that you can be if you're in trouble. Where are you with that? In other words, what kind 127 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 of money do you need to get that accomplished? Is that on the radar?

Again, I want to reiterate. When we first put together the proposal, we got a bid back from Motorola to do the underground. It was over $20 million on top of what we were building on the voice side. And there was no way in the world we had 70, $80 million to build both an above-ground and an underground system. We just did not have the money and it was not in the forecast. But it wasn't something where we closed our eyes to it. It was something that we knew we were eventually going to have to address, but we'd have to do that in a way that made sense and allowed us some time to build up maybe some cash to be able to do that. What we've been doing is working with people who are already in the underground, and that's specifically SEPTA, to say, "Well, what are you doing? What your plans are? Maybe there's a way that we can piggyback what you're doing and be able to get away 128 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 with not having to have two radios." From SEPTA's point of view, their police officers would like to be on our 800 megahertz system so that they can talk to the Philly P.D. Well, maybe there's a way we can marry our two efforts together and allow us to get the underground that we don't have and they can get the above-ground that they don't have.

That needs, in my opinion -- no disrespect, but a Philadelphia police officer that has to be dependent on an Authority's dispatch unit to, again, keep them in communication while they're under the ground, in my opinion, is not a very desirable situation. And whatever you need to do to get that ball rolling, I'd like to be part of it to get that add-on to our system. Mr. McFadden is over there smiling. He's waiting for that opportunity.

It's been an effort also on SEPTA's part to reach out to us. They have a consultant in place who's working with 129 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 us. We have a meeting tomorrow. We're working on that specific issue.

I just can't imagine the Police Department not jumping up and down making a lot of noise about having to have their officers being supported by SEPTA police radio. Certainly it's better than not having any communication, but I think that we really need to start moving forward to have our police officers in touch with their command center.

I think that's what we're trying to do.

I think that's everything. I think we're finished with this panel. I have one more person to speak with, and that's the Law Department, right, Councilwoman?

Yes. If we could please invite up Mr. Donald Marino, Chair of Litigation, City of Philadelphia Law Department, appearing on behalf of the Managing Director's Office, please. 130 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Allow me to ask a different question. Is there anyone here from the City Solicitor's Office appearing? Wonderful. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record and your position with the City.

Donald C. Marino. I'm chair of the litigation group in the City Solicitor's Office. It's nice to be here.

It's good to meet you.

It's nice to see you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marino, for being here today. The purpose for having you here is to kind of complete the record. As you know, I asked for certain documents from the Police Department, the Department of Public Property and others. And, as a matter of fact, your appearance was just approved, I believe, yesterday. So there was a lack of -- I don't like using this word, but I'm going to use it -- cooperation in providing this Committee with information that 131 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 we need. Am I correct that you were just authorized either yesterday or --

Well, we've been speaking with representatives of the Managing Director's Office and the Police Department.

When were you authorized to come to this hearing?

Well, the City Solicitor yesterday said that it was fine for me to be here and the Managing Director's Office approved that also.

How long have I been asking for your participation in this hearing?

Well, actually asking, Councilman, I think within a few days, the last week, maybe.

No. I think it's been a bit longer than that.

Actually, I've corresponded with people in your office, but I was not asked to participate personally until about a week ago. But I think that your office was under the impression that I had 132 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 reviewed documents and things of that nature, which I had not done. And when we made that plain, I think then we were all on the same wavelength.

Okay. Well, it's hard for me to believe that the City Solicitor would assign an attorney to discuss this issue here in Council or discuss the issue at all that hadn't reviewed any documents or had no 11 knowledge of the issue.

Our concern is this. As chair of the litigation group, my concern is to protect the City's interests down the line if there is any possibility of litigation. That was my concern. My concern was that there might be documents, there might be memoranda, there might be information involved which would impact in protecting the City's interest if that information were released prematurely. That was the only reason that I was involved. That really concerned me because the interests of the City should be paramount in that.

And the interest and 133 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the safety of our Philadelphia firefighters and our police officers and our municipal workers is also very important to me. And the information that I requested, the communications, the memos, I was very clear what I wanted. It just started to come in the last couple days to help support the investigation of this issue in this committee. I subpoenaed the City Solicitor, and you are today, the City Solicitor's representative. I want it to be on the record that we will be asking for certain documents that are in the subpoena if we need them. I'm not just going to ask for a lot of paper just to pile up paper. If we need them, I just want the record to reflect that we have a subpoena. We filed the subpoena, and there are certain documents that we're going to be asking for. I just cannot imagine that the Law Department would prohibit an elected official and a Committee of Council not to share in those e-mails, in those reports, the memos associated with this issue. 134 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655

Well, I think the City Solicitor does intend to formally answer your request. I assume that will be done shortly.

I just wanted the record to reflect that. Because when you hesitate to share information about some issue that is so important, it puts a red flag up. You can say it, but I don't want to particularly accept the fact that it's all about litigation.

I didn't do anything to send a red flag up. All I was asked to do is comment on the possibility of some material being privileged. Of course there is a possibility that some material would be privileged.

I can't imagine an e-mail between a police official and a Motorola company being something that could jeopardize litigation. They're out there. They're e-mails that both sides have. Again, I just want the record to reflect that we're going to push if we need the information to get it. If we have to go 135 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 to the court to get it, we're going to do whatever it takes. So I would suggest that you tell the City Solicitor to try to cooperate, and the Police Department and the Fire Department and the Department of Public Property, because this is what we want.

Councilman, I'm sure the City Solicitor will cooperate consistent with his duties under the Charter.

It hasn't been there so far, sir. I just wanted you to be aware. Thank you. I appreciate it.

On behalf of the Chairs of the joint Committees on Public Safety and Technology and Information Services, Councilperson Donna Reed Miller and Councilman O'Neill, let me say thank you to all of the witnesses for coming here this afternoon. This is my personal editorial comment, of which I am entitled to. I want to personally thank the City Department of Public Property again for your very comprehensive explanation, and to Motorola 136 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 for your responsiveness in Councilman Rizzo's concerns. As we all can see, this is on the radar screen. He is being a laser beam on this issue, so you will be invited back. This Committee meeting is recessed at the call of the Chair. Thank you very much. (Council adjourned at 4:35 p.m.) - - - - 137 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, September 30, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: JOINT COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC SAFETY and TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR