you know.
Good morning everyone.
My name is rudy louijeune,
at-large city councilor and I
am the vice chair of the boston
city council committee on
government operations.
And I will be conducting
today's hearing in the chair's
absence.
Today is AUGUST 11th, 2026.
The exact time is 10:06 A.M..
This hearing is being recorded
.
It is also being live
streamed@boston.Gov for the
city council dash tv and
broadcast on channel eight rcn
channel 82 fios channel 964.
Written comments MAY be sent to
the committee email at kcc
doggo@boston.Gov and will be
made a part of the record and
available to all councilors.
Public testimony will be taken
at the end of this hearing.
Individuals will be called on
in the order in which they
signed up and will have two
minutes to testify.
If you are interested in
testifying in person, please
add your name to the sign up
sheet near the entrance of the
chamber.
If you are looking to testify
virtually, please email our
central staff liaison megan
cavanaugh right here.
Um at megan dawn
cavanaugh@boston.Gov.
That's nega and bless you.
Cavanaugh cavanagh.
H I boston.Gov for the link and
your name will be added to the
list.
Today's hearing is on docket
number 1541.
Ordinance establishing minimum
training requirements for
unarmed security guards.
This matter is sponsored by
councilors henry santana and
richard louijeune.
It was referred to the
committee on AUGUST 5th, 2026.
Today I'm joined by my
colleagues and or whatever
rival councilor aaron murphy,
councilor ed flynn,
council PRESIDENT Liz creighton
,councilor santana and
councilor durkan, um and
councilor fitzgerald.
Uh we will start with opening
statements.
I will give the lead sponsor
three minutes for opening
statements and my colleagues
two minutes if they'd like to
offer opening statements.
The chair recognizes, uh, the
lead sponsor, councilor santana
.
Good morning everyone and thank
you, vice chair louijeune.
First I want to thank my
colleagues, um, the
administration 32 bjj um and
most importantly the workers
who are here today.
We are here because this is not
just a conversation about
training.
It is a conversation about
public safety, worker
protection and our
responsibility as a city to
make sure the people we depend
on are properly prepared and
protected.
The voices of the workers on
the front lines must be at the
center of this discussion.
I look forward to working
together to find meaningful
path forward for boston.
Public safety begins with
preparedness every day unarmed
security guards serve on the
front lines of our communities
protecting people and um,
protecting people and
properties in hospitals,
residential buildings,
workplaces, businesses and
public spaces.
They are often the first to
respond to medical emergencies
,mental health crises,
overdoses and conflicts.
Yet in boston there are
currently no minimum training
requirements for unarmed
security guards.
We cannot expect people to
respond to emergencies,
de-escalate conflicts and
protect others without ensuring
they have the proper training
and tools to do the job safely
and effectively.
Establishing minimum standards
in areas such as cpr first aid
overdose, overdose response,
de-escalation, behavioral
health and emergency
preparedness is an investment
in both workers and the
communities they serve as a
city council.
We have a responsibility to
examine whether boston can
establish a reasonable baseline
of training for those who are
often first on the scene.
If we expect them to protect
our communities, we must make
sure they are prepared to do
so.
This is how we build safer
workplaces, protect our workers
and create safer boston for
everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you, councilor santana.
The chair recognizes
councilor murphy.
You have the floor and two
minutes.
Morning.
>> um, thank you everyone for
being here.
I'm looking forward to hearing
from jody about more about
this.
This was just filed last week.
We're here.
It's quick turnaround.
I just want to get on record
before we learn more about this
that I support.
Always support appropriate
training that protects all
of our workers.
So she has security guards in
the public worker protection is
very important and thank you
jody I know we've had many
hearings over these years.
I've been on the council making
sure we are doing everything we
can on the council and whatever
powers we have to make sure
that our workers are protected.
Um I do um you know this
proposal and when I read
through it it will impose 40
hours of initial exclusively
in-person training eight hours
annually employer paid tuition
and wages, annual permitting
and reporting and penalties
of $300 per guard per day.
Those are substantial mandates.
Um, I'm hoping after I hear all
of the testimony that you know
I am supporting those, right?
If they make sense.
Um, so I'm happy to be here
today to learn because making
sure that those who will have
to comply do they have the
tools necessary right.
And will this in any way
negatively impact someone that
we MAY inadvertently be not
thinking about?
I'm looking forward to the
advocates.
I do just want to ask um, the
makers of this and the chair
of the committee I see that all
of the advocates who were
speaking are from 32 bj so
thank you for being here.
I know many of you guard
yourselves so you'll bring a
very personal opinion to this
important conversation.
But is there anyone maybe small
business security owners who
were also invited to speak?
If not hope some of them are
here and have signed up to at
least give two minute public
testimony but if necessary I
know that this MAY need another
hearing if we can get the other
side because I think it's
always important that when
we're passing these important
ordinances that we make sure we
know exactly the impacts
they're going to have.
So looking forward to hearing
more about how we can support
our workers.
Thank you.
>> the chair recognizes
councilor flynn.
Councilor flynn, you have the
floor.
Thank you.
This is an important discussion
and an opportunity for us to
provide some critical training
that unarmed security guards
desperately need.
When I was a probation officer
at suffolk superior court, I
worked part time at the carney
hospital in their security
division.
I understand how important
unarmed security guards are.
For the safety of many
employees and safety of the
public as well.
Um, I do support this proposal.
I read it.
I have respect for 32 objects
probably now no city
council that is has a better
record on labor issues than
myself.
Uh, calling on hotel and
restaurant workers.
Um, so I'm here to support this
proposal because I could
because I know about this
firsthand.
Although I'm not a an original
sponsor.
I do know every detail about
this proposal.
Um, I would have I would have
been a sponsor if I was asked.
Um, but I do know that it is
important for us to provide
critical training support to
unarmed security guards and
ensuring that they're also
treated with respect and
dignity.
And that's what this city is
all about providing not just a
job for people but providing
them a career.
And you all can have a career
when you have the necessary
training and resources and you
get a good salary and good
working conditions.
But I do know the importance
of the unarmed security guards
in boston and they make a
difference whether they're at
schools, colleges, universities
but especially from hospitals.
That's where I can speak from
experience.
I know the critical role
unarmed security guards play at
many hospitals in boston and
um, I want to be there for our
security guards because they've
always been there for the
residents of boston.
Thank you.
The chair recognizes
council PRESIDENT Liz breeden.
You have the floor and two
minutes.
Thank you.
MADAM Chair and good.
Morning everyone.
>> good to see our friends from
32 pj and jody and uh, lou,
thank you for being here.
Um, I am in total support
of this ordinance.
Uh, it's very exciting to think
that we're bringing this
forward at this time.
Um, it's the training minimum
training is critically
important for our unarmed
security, uh, guards to elevate
the skills and preparedness to
equip our workers to deal with
an array of different scenarios
that can arise on any given day
in their workplace.
Uh, it enhances their safety
and the safety of the public.
And I really look forward to
the conversation and, uh, hope
that we can move this forward
in a timely way.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Thank you.
>> the chair recognizes
councilor sharon durkan.
Thank you so much.
Um, I might have been the only
one I represent the last one
being held back by fenway and
mission hall.
I might.
>> be the only one who heard a
lot of concerns about this
ordinance.
Um, so I do have a lot
of questions.
Um, and I look forward to, um,
chatting um, and having
potentially another hearing to
go through, uh.
>> the.
Director's language because um
,knowing that uh, hospitals
and academia music venues I
also have concerns about sort
of the broadness of how this is
written, what it applied to
doormen outside of a bar or a
restaurant.
Um, so I do want to make sure I
get my questions answered and
I'm not sure this is the
appropriate format for that.
So um so I look forward to more
process and more hearings
regarding this because I do
think there are definitely
small business impacts that I
would like to consider as well.
Thank you.
>> the chair recognizes
councilor fitzgerald.
You have the floor.
Thank you, MADAM Chair and
thank you to the administration
in 32 bj for being here.
Uh, I look forward to learning
more in this hearing and asking
questions and figuring out.
So let's get started.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Um and then I'd just like to
say thank you to
councilor santana for adding
me as an original co-sponsor on
this.
Um, on this ordinance I grew up
with a lot of people neighbors,
residents, uh, who are security
guards, unarmed security
guards.
It's often um, uh an entry
level uh or beginning job for a
lot of people in our
communities, especially in our
black and brown communities.
so I uh this is really
important and I want to thank
all of our unarmed security
workers every day for all
of the incredible work that you
do.
Protecting our buildings often
at, um, uh, standing in harm's
way.
We've seen it here.
We've seen it in new york
unfortunately where uh and uh,
security guard passed away, um
,in the line of duty.
So this is really important
work.
Um, at its core this is about
recognizing that unarmed
security work has become a real
part of the public safety
landscape in our city.
Uh, they're working in
hospitals, universities, uh,
housing developments, office
buildings and many of the
places where they are asked to
regularly deal with emergencies
and people in crisis.
This is about making sure that
when workers are already being
placed in these situations they
have the training, preparation
and support to respond safely
and appropriately.
If we're going to rely on these
professions as heavily as we
do.
We need to make sure that
there's some consistency.
I also have heard feedback from
industry.
I've heard feedback uh from uh
small business owners from
large companies uh from india,
from hospitals from uh a number
of different entities.
And I know that there are some
training that already happened,
but we're one of the only
places that don't that doesn't
have standardized training
across the board.
And so I'm looking forward to
hearing testimony.
Uh, in terms of uh, this
ordinance how we make it better
,how we work in partnership,
uh, to make sure that we are
doing the best for our city,
that best for all of our
industry and the best for our
workers.
So thank you for everyone for
being here.
I am now going to turn it over
to the administration.
We are joined today uh by the
administration.
We are joined by lumen dorine,
senior advisor for labor policy
and uh jody sugarman bra bra
and deputy chief of work
empowerment.
I will turn it over to you for
any introductory remarks or any
comments or I'm not sure if you
have a presentation but you now
have the floor and I will not
the timer is off.
Okay.
Uh, louie the floor.
Uh good.
Morning chairs.
Councilors.
Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
Um, as is my practice.
I'll keep the opening quick and
save time for the conversation
and the questions, but, uh, I
think from the, uh,
administration standpoint, uh,
there's a lot to like in, uh,
this ordinance at least in
concept.
Uh, we also, uh, sort of only
got it recently and have been
preparing and you know, much
of the work uh, is obviously
going to be done when uh, it's
passed and the agency has to
set it up and implement it so,
you know, that's one uh, flag
we know but uh, you know, there
are obviously things in here I
think that, um, have a lot
of merit.
So you know, the training in
narcan administration or
de-escalation, uh, dealing with
folks, uh, struggling with
addiction issues.
I don't think anybody could be
opposed to having, uh, you
know, ensuring that we have a
baseline uniform standard
across the city to protect our
hospitals, protect our
universities, protect our banks
,uh, protect our concert
venues.
Um, in those circumstances and
also most importantly, I think
protect the workers themselves
and make sure that they have
the skills and the training to
deal with whatever they face.
And then I think the other
piece of it uh, that um, you
know, jumps up to us is the
economic mobility.
So uh, you know, the
commonwealth in its in in in
its decision making in 1972 uh
embraced the principle that
police officers should formally
be uh formally get education
and be compensated for it.
And I think the same principle
obtains for our private unarmed
security guards education and
training makes them better able
to do their jobs.
A uniform standard protects the
city and protects the
stakeholders and protects the
institutions that we care
about.
So uh that is essentially what
you'll hear from us today and
we look forward to answering
your questions and having a
conversation.
Thanks so much.
Thank you.
Advisor amanda rini.
Uh, deputy chief sugarman
bronson rosen.
Sorry if I'm frozen.
A second.
Okay.
That's all good.
Um.
Thank you so much for the
opportunity to be here today.
Um, as you know, the office
of labor compliance and worker
protections is always looking
for opportunities to ensure
that the workers in the city
of boston not only have the
protections that they need but
pathways to good living wage
jobs.
I don't have much to add, um,
from what lou said except that
um we also are always very
supportive of earn and learn
models.
They're really a critical way
to allow people to enter into
an occupation, uh, without any
of the barriers and to be paid
from day one and have portable
credentials that they can take
in order to have a good start
in a living wage career.
So we look forward to answering
questions here today.
Um, we are you know, we've had
a short amount of time to
review so we have a lot of work
that MAY have to happen um
afterwards but we are looking
forward to answer questions and
engaging with the
council today.
Thank you.
Thank you very much to um the
advisor and to the deputy
director for being here at the
beginning of this conversation
as we introduce this ordinance
and uh, begin the conversation.
We appreciate your perspective.
I am now going to turn it over
to my colleagues.
If they have any questions for
this panel, I will give my
colleague.
Seven minutes inclusive of any
questions and answers.
Uh, councilor santana as the
lead sponsor you begin and you
have seven minutes.
Thank you.
Um thank you, MADAM Chair.
Um, and thank you, um, both for
being here and for answering
our questions.
Um, you know, I failed to
mention in my opening statement
um, you know, I actually was um
,my first campaign, um, for
this job.
Um, I was actually working
overnights doing security, um,
and um, you know, it was it was
a great job and I was very
tiring job.
Um, but I also um it goes in
hand with what's being proposed
today.
I did not have the proper
training to be able to deal
with all the situations that
MAY dad, I MAY have encountered
.
Um, and I learned that
firsthand while doing the job.
Um, you know, I was supervising
or securing a, um, an elderly
facility.
Um, you know, many of them were
um and that by, you know, 8:09
P.M. Um, and I was working
overnight and um, all sorts
of things will happen um,
between 11 P.M. And 7 A.M. When
I was um when I was there.
um um so I got to do want to
thank the um, um, the union 32
bj um for having conversations
with my office um, and being
able to bring this, um, up to
the attention.
So, um, I know you've had, um,
short on time to be able to
review this, but, um, you know,
I want to make sure that we are
not just passing good policy on
paper.
Um, from the administration
perspective, um, what are
specific resources staffing, um
systems and processes that need
to be in place for an ordinance
like this one to work in
practice?
That's a great question that
we're we're still trying to
figure that out.
Um, we've been in contact with
some of our colleagues
counterparts in philadelphia.
Um, but it's clear that we need
the capacity to be able to
review um, proposed
applications permits.
Uh, but I think we want to make
sure that we do that work and
do the due diligence
of understanding that in
partnership with the workers on
the front lines with industry
including understanding what
should be part of the training
program?
Um, so we we know that there is
capacity needed and we're still
trying to figure that out.
Yeah.
>> and then as we still figure
that out I'm wondering if there
are any um.
Uh like in terms
of implementation, are there
any barriers that you're able
to see right now that um, that
we MAY be able to identify um
in terms of implementation?
I don't know that I would say
barriers as much as um ups or
not even obstacles.
We need to figure out what's
needed and set up systems in
place to make that happen.
So the first step is what is
involved what would be required
of our office, what kind
of capacity would be needed and
then moving forward to ensure
that we could meet that
capacity.
We're very lucky.
The office of labor compliance
and worker protections is new.
It is part of the new worker
empowerment cabinet, but it
also is part of a cabinet that
includes the office
of workforce development, which
has extensive experience in.
Supporting training programs
like this.
So I feel like we have a lot
of um, expertise and we've got
a couple of other cities that
we can learn from.
Uh, so I think really it's a
timeline and understanding that
we we would need some lead time
to go through that process and
not be able to jump into this
um, in 30 days even if it's
effective in 30 days we'd need
more time to ensure that we're
setting up the systems in place
to take in the permit
applications and ensure all the
systems are there.
Absolutely, absolutely.
>> I really appreciate that.
Um, lou, I know you're in um I
appreciate you being here.
I know you're in constant
communications with a lot
of our unions, a lot of our
worker, uh, workers throughout
the city wondering um, you
know, what are you hearing?
Um, maybe prior to even this
introduction from our workers,
um, and maybe specifically our
unarmed security guards.
Um, and then, you know, have
you heard anything since maybe
this introduction?
Well, I mean, I think, um, this
is probably a point to talk a
little bit more about the
economic mobility, uh, piece
of this which is very
attractive.
So I think having a uniform
standard um, that enables our
workers uh, to get a credential
enhances their economic
mobility and that could be as
simple as sort of moving to
another security provider or it
could be potentially getting
exposed to, you know, something
that takes them on a different
but related career trajectory.
This is an incredibly expensive
city to live in and I think
giving.
Opportunities to people
particularly at the bottom
of the economic scale so that
they can move around a little
bit more easily, they can have
good, you know, middle class
wages and economic protection
that comes.
This is a step in that
direction.
So you know that's why it's
attractive to us and I think it
gives a lot of opportunity to a
lot of people that are working
very hard and they could uh
they could have something that
makes it a little bit easier
for them.
So that's a I think what we
stand.
All right.
No I really appreciate that
perspective.
It it's something that we
definitely took under
consideration when um um when
creating this ordinance um I, I
don't I don't want to have
questions um for for this panel
um I have a few for the the
next panel but I do want to um
thank the administration for
being here being present um, on
a short timeline and then I
also um you know, I think
there's, uh we want to be able
to work with you all, um, work
with everyone.
Um, and you know, I know we're
going to have public testimony
later too.
Um, looking forward to that.
Um, to make sure that, um, as
we're creating this that we're
not speeding through this um,
but that we're being
thoughtful, um, and thinking
about everyone and how this
affects everyone.
So um and again, thank you both
for being here.
Um, and I'll hand back my time.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Thank you.
Uh, the.
Chair recognizes
councilor murphy.
You have the floor in seven
minutes.
Thank you.
>> um.
Thank you.
Um, has.
Any of this work already been
going on?
Because I know this ordinance
and I if I heard you correctly
,you said it a few times that
this is kind of coming.
>> on quick.
And you.
>> don't.
really have you know, the all
the answers or thought through
this yet.
So if.
We have as an administration
already kind of thinking
of this work have any small
security companies nonunion
security guards or property
owners, hospitals, schools, you
know, all of the organizations
that MAY be impacted
neighborhood businesses have we
as an administration consulted
any of.
Them on this issue?
So we are uh we have had
exchanges and in preparation
for this we have had uh some
conversations with industry and
uh are looking forward to
continuing those conversations
.
We haven't touched the whole
ecosystem yet as we said
because this moved on fast.
But councilor, I think you're
highlighting a point that's
important, which is that we
need to have those cameras so
you can't do something like
this over the objections of the
entire industry.
You have to do it with them and
working in partnership with
them.
And I think that could.
>> you explain um, maybe for
the public watching to who do
you consider the industry?
Well uh, certainly folks that
are on the other side of the
collective bargaining
relationship with some of the
unions but I think it's anybody
that provides this private
security.
I mean, I think the more people
you talk to and at least get
their input it doesn't, you
know, mean that all points are
equal and all things have to be
done.
But I think those conversations
are important so we're in the
process of having them.
Okay a question um.
The ordinance says training.
MAY be.
>> provided only by a federally
tax exempt organization, MAY.
>> not be controlled.
By a.
>> security employer.
And must be conducted
exclusively through in-person
classroom instruction.
Um why are qualified security
companies and legitimate online
or hybrid.
Training providers
categorically excluded?
Like have we thought that
through or do you have an
understanding of.
Why it MAY have.
>> had such strong wording
of just in person tax exempt?
I think that first we know that
there are risks in for profit
training programs and I think
that the ensuring that the
training programs are there to
benefit workers and employers
and ensuring that they're
meeting the needs of the
workers and the employers who
hire them.
Um, I know that um, in-person
training for things like
de-escalation.
And um overdose training and um
other important trainings that
are critical to ensuring that
the public and workers are safe
are best done in person.
Um, so I think that is the
reasoning and thinking behind
that.
Um.
>> I think as we go through the
process of developing the
training program, we as we said
we will engage with the
industry.
We will engage with workers on
the front lines to ensure that
what we are creating and
certifying meets the needs
of those workers on the front
lines and of course the
employers that are going to be
hiring them.
Thank you.
The ordinance would take effect
30 days after passage, but it
requires the city to create a
permit system, certify.
Training providers.
Establish qualifications,
determine fees, issue notices,
develop complaint.
Procedures and promulgate
regulations.
How can businesses legally.
Comply when none of those
systems are already in place?
If you could kind of talk
through what that would look
like.
,uh, I my understanding is
that those systems must be in
place for the first
certification by JULY of the
following year, JULY 2027.
So I have not yet had an
opportunity to really dig in to
understand what must be in
place prior versus when people
would be permitted and by that
JULY 1st.
2027 would.
Be the.
>> first set of permitted and
um new training programs.
So I can't really answer that
question because I'm not quite
sure yet what the differences.
Okay.
>> thank you.
that's all I have for.
Thank you.
>> the chair recognizes
councilor flynn.
You have the floor and seven
minutes.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Thank you, jody for your
important work.
That you're doing.
Um, jody, just wanted to follow
up on a comment
councilor murphy.
Made or a.
Question rather.
The people.
That would.
>> be providing the training or
the groups that would be.
Providing the training.
Could you just.
Restate that who.
Would be qualified under under
what conditions.
The the the as it stands right
now it must be a nonprofit.
Entity that provides the
training that would be
permitted in order to receive a
permit.
To give the training.
That's what must.
It must.
>> be the case a nonprofit
organization.
Is there any.
>> type of nonprofit
organizations currently that do
provide that training?
I don't know I'm not sure I.
Lo do you know the answer?
Uh I don't as I sit here and
talk I don't.
Okay MADAM Chair, MAY I get
that information?
Um please.
Yet the question is if there
are nonprofit organizations
that already provide the
training that's being required
under this ordinance.
It's the.
Question I guess, um.
If there are no.
Nonprofits that do provide.
This training, is there any.
For profit organization
organizations that do provide
this training?
I think the structure at the
moment is that the companies
that hire security guards and.
Contract them out.
Provide the training, but it is
as minimal as eight hours and
then the training is also then
additionally provided by the
site that they are.
Assigned to.
That structure is varies from
worker to worker from site.
To site.
And what this seeks to do is
create a minimum standard
across the board which is
of significant value that
ensures that all folks who are
put on this on the front lines
who are dealing with medical
emergencies and other kinds
of um public safety situations
have the training they need to
engage.
>> with those.
Would would form of police
officers.
That are engaged.
>> in public.
Safety in a for.
Profit space.
Would they be able to provide.
Formal training to unarmed
security officers as part
of this uh, plan?
The ordinance allows a process
through.
Which the trainers can then
define their instructors so
that is yet to be determined on
how and where instructors are
certified, if at all.
But in order to receive a
permit to provide the training
that's required, the
application process as it
stands in the ordinance
requires that they name their
um their training trainers and
one would assume that former
police officers who have had
significant training.
>> could.
Be part of that process.
Yeah okay.
>> that's what I was.
Thinking that this.
Potentially could go to a.
Company where a former police
chief.
Of a.
>> city could potentially get
the contract to provide this
training.
Is that is that accurate?
You're saying.
>> it the way this is written
it must be a nonprofit entity.
Unless it's changed.
Yeah, after the fact.
When we write it.
>> up basically.
>> is that accurate?
That is true.
Okay.
I think the important piece for
us, um, is that the training.
Is no cost to the workers and
that they are paid to be part
of the training.
Those things are really
critical pieces.
>> of the ordinance.
>> no thank you jody.
Um lou has been.
Um, invited.
Into the conversation.
Uh, but we're certainly on the
list of people that we will
talk to but we have not uh, as
as we say this is moving fast
and we've had the opportunity
to talk to some folks and, uh,
we will talk to others, but
that was certainly on the list
of people we need to consult.
I do hear from a lot of people
that this is moving fast.
Is there a reason why.
It is moving fast?
I'm not saying.
>> I disagree with that or
agree with that but what.
Why is there a sense of urgency
on this?
Um.
>> we're responding to well,
we're responding to a filing I
think I would leave it at that.
I don't know more than that.
Uh, and we're sort of doing our
best to get ahead of it and
testify to the to the extent
that we can but I I don't know
the answer to your question,
COUNCILMAN.
Well.
>> it was filed the reason.
>> I'm.
Asking was.
>> filed in the.
City council recently a couple
of weeks ago.
And we're here having a.
Last week and we're having a
hearing on it and and and.
There's still a lot of.
Unanswered questions I'm just
trying to get to.
I there's something I'm missing
.
There's something I'm missing
here about the timing.
Who has information about the
timing.
I want to.
>> know why.
I want to make sure if we pass
something it has to be the
right language.
I don't want to.
rush something just to get
something done within two.
Weeks and then find out we made
mistakes.
Why are we rushing this.
To get it done tomorrow?
No, I.
>> guess the lead sponsor would
like to speak on this through
the chair.
You MAY through the chair.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
I just want to bring some
clarification.
I don't want to I definitely do
I don't think they know the
answer to that as well as the
lead filer.
Um uh, as you know,
councilor uh, I as a public
knows I was away um, for a few
weeks.
Um, and this was supposed to be
filed um prior um and we were
working with um, the committee
to try to get things scheduled.
So, um, it was just that I, uh
my last week was my first
meeting back.
Um, so I've made all my filings
that I had missed, um, prior to
this.
So this is why I think some
of the timing, um, questions
but I think, um, I do want to
make clear that, um, I don't
think anyone here wants to rush
through this process.
I think we want to make sure
that we're getting it right.
Um, I think, um I already heard
from multiple councilors as
well, of of having another
hearing usually an ordinance as
we have working sessions to
work on um, the language um and
that that is all something that
you know, I definitely want to
do as the lead sponsor.
Yeah.
>> thank you.
Thank you, councilor santana.
I agree.
With you.
>> I want to make sure I get
this.
We get this right.
I was a security guard.
I know this.
Issue as well as anyone here.
I have the strongest record on
the city council in support
of organized labor.
Then there's no one that has a
better record on the city
council than I do.
I want to get this done.
Uh, but I want to get it done
the right way.
And the right way is making
sure we.
Uh, do our due diligence.
In ensuring all voices are.
Heard included.
>> and respected.
Um.
>> thank you.
Thank you.
>> the chair recognizes, uh,
council PRESIDENT.
Liz breadon.
You have the floor and seven
minutes.
Thank you.
>> um, MADAM Chair, um, I'm
just, uh, again, I think I'm
familiarizing myself with this
this, uh this ordinance and
also looking at what other
standards other states have and
other other municipalities.
Uh, it says that, you know,
massachusetts does not enforce
a statewide minimum or mandate
for an armed guard leaving
specific training standards up
to individual licensed uh
employers and municipalities.
Um, I think that leaves a lot
of wiggle room and doesn't
really establish a clear
standard.
Uh, by comparison I think uh,
carol, uh, california requires
40 hours of total training,
eight hours pre assignment to
on partial arrest plus eight 30
hours of general and elective
subjects.
New york mandated mandates
eight hours pre assignment
training followed by 16 hours
of on the job training uh
of course within the first 90
days north carolina requires a
minimum of 16 hours basic
classroom covering legal
issues, communications and
emergency response.
It seems like this uh ordinance
is is filling a gap and meets
the need for some standardized
training.
Uh, I also think that the issue
about economic mobility if you
have a uh a portable credential
that allows you to seek
employment elsewhere um, and
that's that is good a
credential that's well
respected and has good
standing.
I think that's um that's really
critically important in terms
of um in terms of the terrain.
Just how do you why do we why
do we not have more in 2026?
Why do we not have a more
standard training for um,
unarmed security guards in
massachusetts?
Is there any sort of history to
that or is it what's the
background?
Uh, MADAM PRESIDENT, I think I
mean what I would say is that,
uh, those kind of uniform
standards come from the state
government.
Uh, you know that sort of when
we want to make a uniform
policy across the 351 cities
and towns in the commonwealth,
it falls to the legislature to
do that.
You know, that hasn't happened
.
Um, I don't want to make that
sound like I'm blaming anybody,
but it hasn't happened.
Uh, the simple fact is as we
sit here and talk, we don't
have a uniform standard for
training these critical
frontline workers.
And so I think from our
standpoint that's the
circumstance where it falls to
local government that's closest
to the ground to do this work.
It hasn't happened.
So it falls to us to do it and
that's you and me.
Yeah that's us.
We're we're it.
Um.
>> in terms of the menu
of training skills I think this
might be a question for you.
What do you think has been the
most important skill set that
we want to ensure that there's
uniformity for all armed
security guards?
I think that's a question for
the frontline workers and the
employers who hire them.
But the list and the ordinance
has some really critical pieces
around de-escalation, um, and
uh, cpr and other health and
safety training.
Um, you know, the office that I
lead, I always think it's
important that workers know and
understand their rights on the
job and that is part of the
training.
Uh, but again, the best
training programs are
created in consultation with
the frontline workers and the
people who are going to employ
them.
So I think that work is to be
done.
But the list and the ordinance
certainly is a very good start
with important, important
skills and trainings that will
ensure that, um, unarmed guards
are safe and the people that
they protect also.
Um I think.
You know the whole issue on
de-escalation and communication
when there's conflict people
get very feisty at times um,
handling difficult public
interactions.
That's a particular skill set
that not everyone has.
So it's not about using brute
force to manage a situation.
It's about de-escalating and
and uh handling situations
sensitively so that people feel
heard and that the that they
don't ramp up their aggression
or whatever their displeasure.
Um uh under any particular and
like obviously I think this
will be refined and will be
going to I am assuming will be
having working sessions on this
and and I look forward to the
conversation with the next
panel.
Um, do you foresee any
particular challenges with um
uh standing up this this this
standard going forward like
timelines, training
requirements, um, um any any
other particular challenges?
I think that we need a little
bit more time to do our due
diligence to come up with a
solid implementation plan
that's realistic based on the
capacity and we are already
starting to do that.
Talk to our counterparts in
other cities and towns.
Um, but as a new department,
the office of labor compliance
has been tasked with
implementation of new
ordinances and um, we've been
able to take it from beginning
to end, including the heat
ordinance.
And I feel confident that, um,
we would be able.
To with enough time to do our
due diligence, come up with a
plan for.
This as well.
Yeah.
And I think the partnership
with our union colleagues are
going to be really critical in
managing the putting this
together and developing a
workable plan and also the the
actual subject matter that
folks are going to need to be
skilled.
Um and I feel and it's more
of a statement rather than a
question.
Um having well-trained staff
who are confident in their
skills uh, is safety in itself
like I think they they generate
are they manifest like
confidence and um they're
nobody it's it's not about.
Brute force.
It's about being able to manage
situations complex situations
that can change very quickly.
Um are there any other issues
or concerns that you have in
relation to how this might.
Be viewed.
More generally in the broader
um environment in terms
of other businesses etc.?
No, I think I, I really look
forward to creating um an
opportunity to fill a gap
that's really needed and to
ensuring that we are providing
um, a workforce which is
increasingly part of our public
safety.
Ecosystem the skills they need
while at the same time um
giving them portable
credentials earned and learning
opportunities and career
advancement opportunities and
mobility opportunities.
I think this this provides an
opportunity to do two of the
two things at once with that.
But in that.
Regard very good.
Thank you.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Thank you.
Uh, council PRESIDENT Breeden
um.
And thank you everyone for
doing so great on time.
Um.
We have also been joined by
councilors ben weber and
councilor and councilor.
Reverend maynard culpeper.
Uh, next.
We have.
Councilor sharon durkan.
Councilor durkan.
>> you have.
>> the floor.
Thank you.
>> and seven minutes.
Thank you, councilor louijeune.
Um, so, uh, obviously as a city
councilor we're often, you
know, diving into issues that
require a ton of intricacies
and you know, but often.
We are we are figuring out the
intricacies and like the uh,
confines of an issue as we're
debating it.
So, um so I want to just say
thanks to the sponsors for
their work, uh, on this issue.
It's not an issue that I know a
ton about other than the calls
I've received.
Uh, regarding um, you know,
just folks and industry in our
district just trying to figure
out exactly what this would do
and exactly who it.
Applies to.
Um, one issue I see with the
way that this is currently
drafted is that 1722 is the
road safety and accountability
for third party delivery
drivers ordinance.
So I think that we should
create a new section in the
city code.
Uh.
>> if this were to go into
effect, um I do think that the
way that I've heard from some
of these security companies is
they think that their training
is their secret sauce like it's
the type of work that they do
and there are a lot
of different settings that um
that the security guards are
are in um particularly with
hospitals it might require a
different training than
guarding a door at a concert.
Um, so can you speak to that
from the city's perspective
of the different settings that
private security officers might
be in and if there were to be a
training establish how you
would get at those intricacies
?
Yeah.
>> I think this ordinance sets
us sets a baseline so that
there are different kinds
of settings.
Hospitals would be certainly
different than um, a setting
out a front desk of a major
office building or things like
that.
Um, but what this seeks to do
is create a baseline so that
all guards have um guards have
some basic level of training.
It's set out 40 hours um which
um on the surface seems
reasonable to me but that is um
I would want to have additional
conversations as we move
forward.
Um, to understand what is the
baseline versus what is that
extra on top piece that might
be necessary from side to side
?
>> and regarding the 40 hours
of initial training I, I mean
that sounds like on the face
like a reasonable amount
of hours but um, having talked
to some of these security
companies there's a lot of part
time workers.
Um, a lot of people who do
private security are our lowest
income workers, people who do
it part time.
They need that revenue in their
lives for their families.
Um, and so I think it's really
important that this ordinance,
um, puts the uh cost on the
employer.
But one concern I have is that,
uh, you know, if you if you
move like we were talking about
from employer to employer, um,
there's not something right now
having read through um, in this
ordinance it says if you have a
training and you've been
trained, you know, you have
this training for a year and
then it sounds like you're it
sounds like there's a little
bit of ambiguity in the current
text.
uh, that would essentially
you'd have to be retrained when
you joined a new.
Uh.
>> security company.
Uh, and I think that there's
kind of lacks the nuances of,
you know, people living their
lives.
You know, when we get ethics
trained, you know, we have that
certification for a certain
period of time and um, and you
know, we do trainings
throughout the city for
different issues, you know, um,
and so I think you should have
a certificate and a certificate
should, you know, carry you to
any employer.
Um I also have concerns um, I
not necessarily about it being
in person but I do think we
absolutely need to talk you
know, talk to employers and
understand the nuances of these
people's lives because uh, I
mean, in the city of boston a
lot of people work from home.
Um, you know, and so asking
people to go to a specific
site, um, you know, where is
their transportation covered?
Where do they live?
There's there's so many
questions I have about kind
of the burden on low income
workers to get to trainings in
person and um, depending on
where they are located.
Um, I understand the point
of this ordinance and I
understand potentially the
issue that it's trying to solve
.
But um, I do think that the
data in effect does not give
enough time for these programs
to be developed.
I'm definitely concerned, um,
about how this MAY conflict
with state law.
Um, and I understand um, the
framework that we're working
with in because this framework
was used for the third party
delivery ordinance.
Um, so I understand that piece
of this I do think it's
important that these are
different issues and um and I
think it requires some nuance.
Um, obviously like you, I
haven't had a ton of time to
digest.
Uh, but I know that there are a
lot of different types of, uh,
security training that people
are currently and frameworks
that they're operating within
within their businesses.
And I think that does need to
be sort of infused here.
Um, because one concern that
I've gotten from institutions
in my district is that there is
this um, idea that based based
on their reading and this could
be untrue.
They want to offer like, uh,
special training to their
specific site, um, and and the
specific confines of like the
security of of where people are
protecting and they feel like
the way that this is written is
a little too stringent about
but I don't think that's the
intent and I do think this
could be worked through.
Um, I just think it's really
important that we talk about
those nuances because I
wouldn't want to vote for
something that I think still
needed work.
And I do think that as a um,
city councilor that represents
a lot of places that are
targets um having based it
sounds great to have like
baseline security and to
protect against threats.
Um but I you know, there's a
lot of different stakeholders
that I would want to bring into
that and I think that uh,
security in my district is like
of utmost importance to me.
Um, and I just want to um first
armor who works in mission main
right now.
Um, they've they've brought up
to me we had a security
meeting.
There was a shooting on JULY
5th.
Um, they've brought up to me a
lot of disrespect that they've
received recently from
residents and from folks that
work within um, and so I.
Don't think we're getting at
all the nuances of what private
security are dealing with right
now within this ordinance.
Um, and understanding that like
the top issue I'm hearing from
private security is the
disrespect that they're facing
when they are unarmed.
And so I don't know that an
ordinance can fix that, but
that that's the top security
issue I'm hearing about
regarding private security, um
,in my district.
So thank you to the chair.
Thank you councilor derek in
the chair and this council for
cheryl to have the floor and
seven minutes.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Um, as always, I support a
worker's right to unionize.
Uh, and standards are always
good to have to both, uh,
measure and ensure
accountability.
Uh, with.
>> that some basic questions.
Do we know how many jobs does
this training cover if
implemented?
Do we know how many actual
security guards are out there
that this would, uh, impact?
I have not done that analysis
yet but we could get that the
answer to that question for
you.
Thank you.
Um, and who pays for it?
I think I know, but I just want
to say for.
>> the training.
The employers.
The employers of each
individual got whoever they're
with.
Right.
Um, is current training.
Uh.
>> by those companies that own
a company by company basis or
is it by sight etc..
Uh and what.
Standards do they base their
training off of if any at the
moment?
At the moment there are no
standards.
It's my understanding that
they're each company does some
level of baseline training and
then depending upon the site
that they are assigned to there
MAY or MAY not be additional
training and it can be as
little as from what I've seen
eight hours.
Um but then additional training
MAY happen on site.
But there's nothing that the
local, state or federal level
that holds them to any sort
of standard.
>> at the moment.
That is correct for.
Unarmed yards.
great.
>> thank you.
Um.
>> what are we worried about?
What is this.
That the training that they
would be put into if we have a
standard what is it
specifically there to address?
What is the problem that it's
trying to solve?
I think the next panel will
give a lot more detail if you
want to hear from frontline
workers first and foremost, but
I believe that unarmed workers
are increasingly part of our
public safety ecosystem and are
consistently put in positions
of um where they're dealing
with aggressive confrontations,
medical issues that they are
not necessarily receiving the
proper training to keep
themselves in the public sector
.
So it's fair to say just all
around general increase in
certain behaviors that need to
be trained for now rather than
any specific.
And playing an increasing role
.
>> yeah.
Fair enough.
Great.
Thank you.
Um kind of in the weeds here
but I know what the ordinance
asks for if they employ more
than two security guards that
are within city limits.
So say I'm company x and I have
20 security guards, 18 are out
in western mass but two are in
the city.
Does the training.
Apply to all 20.
>> or just the two within the
city or I understand if they
rotate and it makes it
different right.
But is it for anyone that is in
the city?
Does it uh automatically touch
the entire company?
The ordinance would apply to
workers in the city of boston.
Um, so I believe it's just
those two.
But I do want to have a little
bit more time to go through in
more detail.
And you have the number of uh,
workers in boston who are.
9000.
>> 9000 and I'm security
guards.
Thank you.
Um.
Who was I?
My next one.
Um.
>> oh, so.
Rule 400.
>> was repealed several years
ago now, uh, and I believe that
created the unarmed security
guard in a way because they
weren't allowed to have
weapons.
Is this end result is this in
response to rule 400 going away
and the need to bring back more
training for that?
I know they can't still they
are not armed guards.
Um but I know that in dealing
with taking care of property
with munis etc..
Uh they didn't have that they
could not actually put their
hands on individuals to remove
them from science because
of rule 400.
.
>> to the best of my knowledge
the answer to that question is
no.
I think these problems have uh,
bedeviled this industry for a
lot longer than the repeal
of rule 400 and I think this is
a long time coming.
So I don't think the two are,
uh, directly connected.
Okay.
>> and is there anything in the
training that we would seek for
them to get does not um, put
back anything that was taken
away with that.
Repeal here again here again
council the trouble is we've
got a baseline here that's in
the draft ordinance that's in
front of us and we're talking.
>> to you about.
Building above the baseline and
what's in it and what we do and
how we do it is still to come.
Fair enough.
Um, you say you've talked with
uh, philadelphia they have
implemented this.
We have reached out to them and
we found the correct they are
working on implementation now
and they're totally looking
forward to sharing with us what
they've learned and um,
allowing us to learn from from
what worked well didn't work
well there.
But yeah, my question is
question is going to be is
there any foresight on what to
expect but so yet to come.
We look forward to those
conversations.
Um and is there any.
Unintended consequences this
MAY have on other businesses?
Uh.
Given the terminology used in
the ordinance um, is there
anyone else that could be is
there a gray area of is there
strictly security guard uh,
companies and I'm security.
guard companies and that is it
or does it does it bleed into
anything elsewhere?
Someone out there you know, as
we go down the line here,
someone else might raise their
hand and reach out to us and
say hey john, you know I know
you wouldn't think it but this
affects me and here's what it
will do to my business,
company, neighborhood etc..
And the definitions are pretty
significant that are pretty
clear as to who this covers.
Um but I think I can only
answer that we would go by this
definition and I think it's um.
Do you have the definition
because I'm sorry I don't but
and what what is the definition
of an unarmed security guard?
It is um well definition of of
the employer.
The security employer is anyone
who employers employees two or
more unarmed security guards to
perform security services
services at one or more
covered property.
Okay.
>> and has nothing about what
an and I'm sure there's no
definition for the unarmed
security guard and what.
There is it's a larger
paragraph.
Um but again we would we would
use this and um but it's always
I can't answer whether or not
they're unintended consequences
.
We would we would look at this
very closely as we move forward
with our due diligence to
ensure that we are taking into
account as much as we possibly
could and meet with
stakeholders to try to
understand that.
and we will work with you guys
along the way.
As we do that.
That's our intent so.
>> look forward to it.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
No further questions.
Thank you.
>> the chair recognizes
councilor weber.
You have the floor and seven
minutes.
Okay.
>> thank you.
Uh.
>> yeah.
>> I think, um.
Councilor fitzgerald.
Stole my first question, which
is, you know how many security
guards uh, do we have here in
boston?
And if you do the the research,
it's 9000.
Uh, um, where do you do over
the the country has like 1.3
million security guards and
it's more uh, than the, you
know, total number of police
officers across the country
here.
It's the same in boston.
This is like a large group
of people, um, who are often,
you know, paid among the lowest
wages and asked to put
themselves in harm's way often
and work tedious shifts and
hours.
And so I.
I.
,uh I know a lot of the
studies highlight how many
of these workers there are and
obviously there's a lot here.
Just think about how it dwarfs
our own police department.
Um I'm getting up to speed
there there is an article I
think that the uc berkeley
labor center put out this month
or in the last month.
Actually JULY.
>> 2026.
Called underpaid, undervalued
and essential.
I don't know if anyone talked
about this already.
Uh it's the security guard
workforce in the united states
is kind of outlines a lot
of issues I think that occur
you know, uh, in the in the
work space for our security
guards um, even just finding
out how many there are this
sort of eye opening um, to do
you.
Uh, I.
>> guess so do we already
certify companies to do to do
this work?
Uh, no we don't, you know,
track them.
Um uh, do you know if they're
and I don't think this is part
of this ordinance but is any
thought been given to
background checks for people
who work as security guards?
I believe that is included.
But I'm not 100% don't quote
me but okay, but I believe
that's included in.
>> the I'll leave the file here
too so if you want to address
that later uh, we we have
background checks for people
going into this kind of work.
Um, and I guess in terms of I
think we are just sort
of touching on this uh, getting
to who's covered and um.
I guess what's to.
Stop uh, someone from saying
well, that that person who's
working at the desk is not
providing security services
under he they're just.
They're a concierge or
something.
How to how do we how do we
handle that?
How does this ordinance deal
with.
The ordinance has a structure
for enforcement where people
can make complaints if they
believe that they are um,
working and uh, job that
security and they don't have
the proper training.
Um, so there are administrative
enforcement and penalties
detailed in the ordinance.
Um, I have not had an
opportunity to go through the
in detail to again
operationalizing this is um
work that is yet to be that we
have to do still okay.
And then in terms of protective
gear you know like is are we
going to like um sort
of mandate companies to provide
like sort of non-lethal
protective measures for people
or what what is the thinking on
that?
This focuses on training not
protective gear or requirements
around protective gear, but it
does focus on the necessary
health and safety training,
de-escalation etc. That's
required.
Um okay.
And then in terms of the I mean
the the shifts uh that people
are required to work I mean is
there I don't know philadelphia
or any of these other places
too.
They look at trying to I think
it's often I don't know how you
know, 12 hour shifts or
overnight.
Is there any benefit to
requiring shorter shifts for
people or regulating them?
go ahead.
>> yeah.
>> uh I mean, councilor, this
is exactly the kind of work
that we have to do.
Moving forward both with the
ordinance and the
implementation.
I appreciate.
These fine grained questions,
but they're not ones that we
can answer as we talked today.
Okay.
I you know, just want to shoot
straight with you about what we
are equipped to do and not do
today.
Um, so.
So sounds good.
Uh, and did you.
Know I.
Do we.
>> have several large employers
uh, here in the city.
Usually they're concentrated.
You know who who the large
employers are in boston.
Yeah.
>> we've had an opportunity to
speak with at least one who I
believe has submitted testimony
here today and, um, we would
want to be able to move forward
in the work ahead that
involving all stakeholders
including.
>> them employers.
Okay.
>> um.
,and.
In terms of administering this
uh, you know, we've talked
about this in other contexts
like.
What does your office will that
you need more people in your
office to do this work or how
how can you handle it?
Um, again, we haven't had a
chance to really understand
what capacity is needed to
operationalize this.
Um, but we are a small office
and there's a lot of work to
determine how we would move
forward and what capacity we
need.
Okay.
>> so we would need to set up a
a database.
Can you just walk me.
Through what you what you think
needs to happen?
Uh, you know, if we pass this
in your office.
Um, as with the heat ordinance
and other ordinance we've been
tasked with, we first try to
understand exactly what is
required and then set up an
implementation infrastructure
and, um, philadelphia and other
places they've hired a, um,
consultant to set up the
permitting system.
That MAY be something we need
here in boston, but I think as
we've said, there's there's
still a lot of work ahead to
understand exactly what is
required, what capacity would
be needed and what strategies
we would use to to meet that.
Um, okay.
Uh I think that's.
All for my questions.
Thank thank you chair.
Thank you.
Um, the chair recognizes
councilor culpeper.
You have the floor.
In seven minutes.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
I want to begin by
acknowledging what I think is
an important common ground in
this conversation.
We know security officers play
an important role in keeping
people safe across our city,
often an incredibly difficult
and unpredictable
circumstances.
They deserve to have training
and preparation and support
necessary to do their job
safely and effectively.
Here's what's interesting as we
discuss training for security
officers um while in law
student and law school uh, I
was a security officer uh,
untrained uh, and they put
me in a warehouse and some
of you.
Big huge.
Warehouse and I was there all
night by myself.
The good news is that I had a
german shepherd named ginger
that took good care of me.
I had no training whatsoever.
And when I think about where we
are now, I think about how long
ago that was and no training
has been, uh, discussed in a
serious way like we are now and
now we're at the point where we
have an ordinance of by
training.
I think there's broad agreement
that there's a big gap here.
Unlike most states,
massachusetts does not
currently require training.
And when you think about
philadelphia and we'll talk
about philadelphia in a minute
,um, my question is that
they're not coming from a place
of opposition to training.
They're coming from a place
of wanting to understand how we
operationalize this proposal
successfully.
You've heard a lot of questions
about how do we actually
operationalize this, especially
when you look at philadelphia,
they had to stop the program
completely because when they
got it started they hadn't
planned in a way that required
everything to be in place that
was necessary.
I look at the size of your
office and we'll talk about
that a little bit.
I heard you mention that you
had a small office.
We'll talk a little bit about
that.
Uh, but we've heard concerns
about the 40 hour requirement,
the capacity of city to certify
training providers and
administer a new permitting
system, the cost to employers
and institutions that contract
with them, whether existing
high quality training should
receive some form of credit.
We also heard and I talked and
we'll talk more about
philadelphia, but that
experience should not
necessarily tell boston not to
add but I think it should cause
us to ask what we can learn
from it and we'll talk about
that a little bit.
What lessons learned from
philadelphia in trying to
implement a system that they
weren't prepared to implement.
And my goal today is pretty
simple I want to understand
what problem we are trying to
solve, what infrastructure is
necessary to solve it, what
implement implementation will
actually require the city and
employers and whether there are
adjustments we can make that
preserved the intent of this
ordinance while making sure it
works in practice if we're
going to establish a new
system, a new standard, I want
it to be a standard that is
meaningful for workers,
manageable for employers,
enforceable by the city and
ultimately one that makes boces
safer.
So let's talk a little bit
about the size of your office.
What is the size of your office
and what do you think you need?
And I heard council weber kind
of allude to that.
But as you look at what's
required in ordinance, what do
you think you need in terms
of additional staffing to
actually uh, operationalize and
implement this ordinance in the
way that we've seen other
states have implemented?
Well, first I think we share
the same goals.
So thank you, um,
councilor culpeper for laying
that out.
Our office is small in addition
to myself we have three staff.
We enforce the wage theft
executive order, the living
wage ordinance and the heat
ordinance and we also do
workers rights training and
outreach and health and safety
training and outreach.
So um we have to we would have
to do uh our due diligence to
really understand what is
involved.
Before I could answer the
question about what capacity we
need, I don't really know until
I've had that opportunity.
I will say we are very lucky to
,um, have the opportunity to
be in community with other
municipal labor departments
like philadelphia, new york and
otherwise who've taken on some
of these tasks and we intend to
learn from them of what has
worked, what hasn't worked, the
kind of capacity um and I think
we've always looked at
opportunities to ensure that we
are creating meaningful, um,
meaningful laws in compliance
and I turn to our living wage
wage theft executive order in
the implementation of the
recent ordinance around um
protecting workers from heat,
we really looked at what we had
the capacity to do and how we
could utilize our resources for
the maximum impact and we'd
like to do that here as well.
>> in terms of philadelphia,
what was there did that give
you any glaring problems that
they said this has been a major
problem for us.
I have not yet had an
opportunity to have the
conversation with them.
I have been able to identify
the key staff person
implementing that and look
forward to having the
conversation.
Um, you know for we are just
getting started and
understanding this.
So um we reached out to them
and just have set up some
initial.
>> phone calls.
Counselor, if I MAY.
I think talking.
About talking to labor folks in
philadelphia is going to be
important too.
>> that's another have you
talked to them yet?
We're working on that as well.
And what have they told you so
far?
Uh, we we're literally working
on setting up the conversation.
Okay.
>> could you report back to us
as you get the information?
it's going to be helpful to
look at that as we assess it.
And let me ask you a question,
lou.
You said a minute ago to
council whether you say we're
here to do we are here giving
you what we can do or not what
we can't do today.
Yeah.
What can you tell us today
about the ordinance as you
assessed it in terms
of implementation issues other
than staffing?
I think that's difficult and I
think that that we've
repeatedly answered that
question that going further
than the text of the ordinance
today without the conversations
with the folks in philly,
without the conversations with
other municipalities makes it
difficult to answer those
questions.
So that is not you know, anyone
trying to mislead you or
obfuscate or any.
>> of that.
>> it's literally we don't have
that information.
We haven't had those
conversations we want to.
And in response to your
question about seasonally
updating you with information
will be glad to do that.
MADAM Chair, MAY I have one
question or are we going to
have a second round?
I mean if we have a second
round I'm good.
Just ask you you MAY ask you
you MAY have additional time
counselor reverend culpeper you
MAY ask for additional
questions.
From real quick question is
there a way we could and within
this ordinance create an
equivalency or accreditation
process with a city of value
evaluator curriculum rather
than the tax status of the
organized organization
delivering it?
How do we come to use tax
status as the basis for.
This training?
Uh, well counselor, I'll say
this I you all are the ones
that are going to pass the
ordinance and we'll all work
together to do that.
So I think, uh, anything is
possible when you're drafting
an ordinance as long as it
conforms to the law and the
home rule charter.
.
>> you mute write about texas.
But MADAM Chair.
>> I only answer like I
answered your question.
>> in a manner of speaking.
>> back to it.
Uh, if there's a second round.
Thank you.
>> council culpeper.
If you have additional
questions I think that now is
the time to ask them.
I've got for this for this
panel.
Yeah but I mean are you are you
going to let them go.
Now I, I mean.
>> do any of my.
>> other colleagues have
additional questions and I have
not yet asked my questions so
uh if you have additional
questions okay okay.
Thank you.
Thank you and I will I will
start the timer at seven
minutes.
Um, and state that I've been
informed that there are some
entities that do offer this
training and they are a
nonprofit some of our our
community colleges and so that
could be I mean I'll defer to
the sponsor but that could be a
reason why that that language
is in the ordinance.
I believe the reason why you
respond to this way is that the
ordinance does originate with
us.
And so as counselors, if we do
want to alter the language,
probably make it more expansive
to include for profit or other
entities that is our ability we
have that ability to do so in a
working session as we work on
the language of the ordinance.
I'm I'm I was just trying to
friendly like be friendly and
answer your question but I do
have my questions for this
panel and if there's a second
round I'll go back to you.
Thank you.
So um I had six questions here.
My colleagues have asked I
believe 2 or 3 of them, but,
um, deputy director sugarman
broaden what you said when you
spoke about the your office.
I wonder how do you see this
ordinance fitting into the work
that your office already does?
How does it fit into sort
of like the thesis of the
office of, uh, worker
empowerment?
I think it fits with the very
well within the worker
empowerment cabinet first and
foremost through our office
of labor compliance and worker
protections.
It gives us the opportunity and
strategies to ensure workers
are safe and that they receive
the training they need to be
safe and to be able to do their
jobs.
I think that the office
of workforce development, which
is a part of the worker
empowerment cabinet, its
mission is to ensure that there
are pathways to good quality um
careers.
We invest in training programs
to the office of workforce
development all the time.
We've learned quite a bit
through that and through
implementing the neighborhood
jobs trust.
So I would lean heavily on the
experience of office
of workforce development as we
move forward with understanding
how to operationalize this.
Thank you.
>> thank you.
And then um, my colleagues kind
of asked this question, um, is
what benefit do you see in sort
of uh having a level
of consistency in the type
of training across um across
this industry?
Um, we do know that there was
an unarmed security guard that
was recently injured here in
our city.
Um, and there's an unarmed
security guard in new york city
who was fatally who was fatally
killed as well, um, at the nfl
building.
And so MAY his memory be
honored in the work that we do
to try to make sure that, you
know, when you talk when folks
ask about the genesis and the
need for these trainings, I
think that's where it starts.
Okay.
What benefit do you see to any
sort of standardization either
lou or jody?
Uh, so counselor, I think the
answer to that is um,
essentially what we have now is
a patchwork.
Uh, some of these trainings MAY
be very good.
Some of them MAY be
non-existent, some of them MAY
be middling.
But the point is we don't have
a uniform standard and that's
why this is beneficial at its
base.
That's why this is beneficial
guarantees a uniform standard
and everybody knows you know
what's baked into the training
and it's promulgated by the
city.
Uh so I think that that is the
overwhelming benefit
of considering doing this.
Thank you.
>> one concern we've heard is
that the ordinance could
duplicate trainings and again
I've spoken to small business
owners.
I've spoken to um, some of uh
our large institutions already
about this ordinance and I've
heard their concerns from um
especially our um, black owned
uh, companies and know that
there are especially for our
small business that there are
concerns.
So what could we do?
Um, is there a way to recognize
strong existing programs while
still making sure every worker
meets the same minimum standard
?
I think it's important to talk
to those people providing the
training and find out what they
have to say and look, uh, a
good idea is a good idea
regardless of where it comes
from.
So if there's training that
helps enhance what we're doing
here or we learn things in the
industry, that's all work we
should do.
Uh, so but to answer your
question, I think it's
important to have those
conversations and understand
what the landscape is and see
if there are things that we can
replicate or take or borrow or
enhance.
Um, so that's what I would say.
Thank you.
And then what do you think like
the council especially when we
talk about um you know for our
small businesses but and we
know there are a lot of large
players here as well um, how do
we do this work?
And I'm sure we'll hear
testimony and we've received it
as well without creating
unnecessary barriers of entry
or of continuation for workers
and employers, many of whom
have already expressed that
they do some some level
of training already.
Uh, I would say again
council those folks we have to
talk to we have to talk to
folks about the burdens of this
and what it in genders and
ensure that, you know, those
folks are heard from and that
they're protected and that
we're not sort of unnecessarily
doing something to important
neighborhood businesses or
something like that.
These are just conversations we
have to have.
Thank you.
>> thank you.
Those are.
>> my questions.
i think I did five minutes um
going to um look to my
colleagues for any second round
of questions.
I see your light and I know
council coburn MAY have
questions.
I was very generous on the
front end with seven minutes.
I also do want to make sure
that we can get to our work uh
to our to our next panel and I
then do want to make sure that
we can get to public testimony.
I do not have a second round.
The lead sponsor does not have
a second round counter flynn,
you have a second round.
You have three minutes for that
second round.
Thank you.
>> lou did you reach out to
beckman on this issue and if so
what was their response?
Uh counselor, I think I
answered that in the first
instance and said that beckman
is a group that we need to talk
to, but we have not yet.
Okay.
>> a little I'm just asking you
a question.
I'm just respectfully asking a
question him.
And I'm pointing out it's a
question.
>> I already answered.
Okay.
>> so do you want to provide
any additional information on
that.
>> that I've reached out to
them and that we have in
contact again?
Yeah no.
>> I don't that's all I have to
say okay.
Lou what's the status of the uh
civilian flag positions?
Uh, we are working so that uh
there are two aspects of that.
Uh, there is an rfp that we put
out uh, relative to an app that
operates uh, those that uh is
proceeding along and we are
also have another uh
procurement where we have um
it's been won by the ed davis
company and we are working
through uh, the process
of prospect of setting up uh,
that program now um, we've had
um.
Uh it's been slow largely
because of the app but um it is
proceeding apace.
I can get, uh, more detailed
information and update you if
that's helpful.
Sure.
>> and let me I have another
minute left.
But why don't you think it
wasn't important for you to
reach out to beckman?
Wouldn't they play a critical
role in ensuring that small
businesses owned by people
of color are included?
Council I I don't know if
something's getting lost in the
translation here, but what I've
said twice is that we've
reached out to beckman.
>> I haven't talked to them.
I'm asking no no no no.
No no no.
>> no no no I'm.
Okay I am now I am I am now
interjecting councilor flynn
you have asked a question he
has answered it.
If you have an additional
question.
Yes I'm asking so why don't you
think it was important during
this conversation to reach out
to black and brown?
Counselor.
>> I don't agree with the
premise of your question.
We reached out to beckman.
We haven't had the opportunity
to talk to them yet, but we
fully.
Intend to do so.
Well I'm asked we.
Fully intend to talk to beckman
low.
I'm asking.
He has.
>> asked and.
>> answered your.
Question, MADAM Chair.
I'm being respectful to them.
I'm asking in a polite manner.
I'm asking.
Questions that I feel.
Are important.
I do want to ensure that black
and brown small businesses are
heard during this discussion.
I support this proposal well I
want I know the important role
security guards do play in the
city, but I also want to know
that black and brown.
Businesses are going to be
heard during this process.
I'm being respectful to you but
I also.
Expect that you are respectful
to me as well.
I am respectful to you.
Okay you.
>> sound like the answer is
yes.
Okay thank you.
>> that is time we are thank
you for being here.
Thank you jody we are moving on
to our second panel.
If you could please have uh,
kevin brown executive vice
PRESIDENT Of 32.
Pj, if you could please have
stanley watching.
Uh, security guard if you could
please have tonya brown powell.
Oh.
>> you had okay you had a
second round of questions for
the for this panel.
Well okay.
Them in writing.
Thank you thank you
council thank you and apologies
but yes thank you for allowing
us to move on to the second
thank you when we already have
a few questions that we have to
submit in writing.
So we could just add those on
and the administration can
answer thank you.
If uh the panel can please
proceed.
Tanya brown powell, jeff
franchetti and kim rodriguez.
We also have virtually with us
rob cook who will be testifying
last.
Good.
What is now okay.
No we're still good morning at
1125 okay good morning
everyone.
Thank you for.
>> being.
With us.
Uh we are going to start this
panel.
Um and this is a panel
of advocates uh we are going to
start with kevin.
Kevin, you have the floor and
then you can hot potato pass it
to the next person.
Uh.
,thank you, MADAM Chair.
Uh, thank you,
COUNCILMAN Santana for
sponsoring this.
And, uh, thank you,
council PRESIDENT Breadon.
My name is kevin brown.
I'm the.
Director of 32 bjc.
I use new england district and
we represent.
22,000 service workers here in
the new england area and 8500
essential workers that work
here in the city of boston,
including more than 1800
officers who work within the
city.
Confines who carry out this
difficult work of keeping
bostonians safe and secure
every single day.
We strongly support this
ordinance, which would require
security companies to pay for
in-person training for all
unarmed security officers, 40
hours for new hires and eight
hours every year thereafter.
The city would certify the
training programs as you've
heard and ensure that they are
qualified.
Currently there is no legal
requirement for unarmed
security officers for training
here in boston or in the
commonwealth.
In contrast, most states
nationwide now mandate training
for unarmed officers.
This should be a concern for
all of us.
Boston is a global hub for
higher education, life sciences
and health care.
These industries, which are
driving job growth in the city,
contract heavily from security
firms and depend on over 9000
officers as you have heard to
keep these buildings and
facilities safe.
This is grueling work standing
up hour after hour, day after
day, paying attention and being
eyes and ears is grueling work.
We've heard about hatchet
fights, machete wielding
trespassers, overdoses and
of course lost children and
security officers a workforce
primarily made up of people
of color with 61% identifying
as black are themselves
frequently in harm's way.
In DECEMBER of last year, a
security officer at boston
medical center was left in
critical condition after being
stabbed by a hospital visitor.
These types of incidents
contribute to the high rate
of turnover we see in the
industry.
That means that emergencies
must frequently be handled by
newly hired officers who
haven't been comprehensively
trained or trained at all,
despite what the.
Contractors MAY tell you.
The best way to combat turnover
is of course by increasing
compensation including
providing quality affordable
health care and in the meantime
a robust training standard is a
good starting point for
professionalizing boston's
security workforce.
This legislation will empower
security officers to.
Better protect themselves and
the public by giving them real
world skills that they need
perform their duties including
life saving first aid
techniques and conflicts on
de-escalation.
It is time that boston joined
the list of localities that
have common sense training
requirements.
Thank you.
>> I also want to speak to the
question that was raised about
why now?
Um we intend we are in
collective bargaining, uh, with
the security contractors
of boston at the moment.
Uh, that contract actually
expired uh, JULY 31st and we
intend on tuesday at our next
bargaining to present to them a
training program that we have.
At 32.
Bjj for tens of thousands
of officers in the new york and
new jersey area, uh, which is
already in place in both new
york and new jersey have
requirements for training but
we don't have that here.
So the cost of that is $312 a
month per officer.
So if a company.
You know employs 100 people
that's you know not a lot
of money so $30,000.
So uh we think that that's you
know there's no.
You can't put a price on safety
.
Um and we believe that it's
high time.
That we take care.
Of this and fix this, um, in
the future.
And I also want to respond to
the.
>> fact.
That, um, you know, we do have
too many colleges in the area
which already have can provide
this training and also the 32
B.J. Uh, thomas sherman
training fund can provide this
training as well.
And we'd like to.
>> make.
Sure that our members um, those
3000 people.
Um.
>> could use the training fund,
uh, and then employers pay for
it.
Thank you.
And now we want to hear from,
um, our security officers.
i think we're going to.
Begin with stanley king.
Kevin.
>> um.
>> thank you.
Um.
Good afternoon.
Um.
Chair, vice chair.
And members of the committee
of government operations.
My name is stanley watching.
Third.
>> I am a security.
Officer and a member.
>> of 32 pg.
And I'm here today in support.
>> of this ordinance.
Requiring training.
For private security officers
in boston.
I want to start with a simple.
Question how can we.
Expect security officers to.
Protect the.
>> public if we're not.
Given the tools.
And training.
>> to protect ourselves?
When I first started working at
boston public library I
received no training and oh and
it but from day one.
I was expected to handle
difficult situations involving
mental health crisis,
homelessness, disruptive
behavior and confrontation with
patrons.
I was expected to respond
professionally and keep
everybody safe, but no one had
prepared me for these moments.
I wanted to do the right thing
but I often do not know the
safest or most effective way to
respond.
That's not fair to security
officers and it's not fair to
the public.
later when I transfer to
faneuil hall I only received
maybe a few hours of training
before being put on the job.
Then one day a fight broke out
between a coworker and a
patron.
Only after that incident did
some additional training begin
.
Training should not come after
someone gets hurt.
It should come before anyone
gets hurt so hopefully it never
happens.
Boston depends on thousands
of security officers every
single day.
We protect hospitals, libraries
,office buildings, hotels,
schools, laboratories and
historical landmarks for
example like friend or hall we
are often the first people to
respond before police,
firefighters or ems arrives
that responsibility and
deserves professional employer
pay training.
The ordinance will establish a
citywide training center that
includes de-escalation, cpr and
first aid, emergency response,
mental health awareness report
writing and skills we need to
keep ourselves in the public
safe.
It raises a standard not only
for workers but for every
person that walks through the
doors of the buildings that we
protect.
This isn't just about security
officers it's about public
safety.
It's about making sure workers
are prepared before a crisis
happens, not after.
So today we're calling on the
boston city council to stand
with workers who demand and
stand up for the city every
single day.
Let's invest in protection
instead of reaction less,
invest in training instead
of tragedy.
And let's show boston that
security officers deserve their
respect, professionalism and
support that comes with
protecting our communities.
Thank you for your time and
I'll pass it to my fellow
colleague.
Thank you.
Thank you thank you stanley.
Um, while there is no clapping
in chambers I appreciate your
share your testimony the chair
recognizes.
Is it tanya?
Are you tanya?
Tanya, you have the floor.
Okay.
>> so hello everyone.
My name is tanya paul brown.
Um, I've been working at the
library, uh, for six years now.
Um, and a proud member of 32 pj
.
Uh, I stand along my co um my
I'm sorry guys, I stand on the
side my, uh, fellow security
officers and we're demanding
better in constant training to
do our jobs.
I was intentionally trained on
line as well as at the library
on some of more basic
principles of security making
rounds, being vigilant.
But I'll be the first to tell
you after six years is not
enough.
Uh, at my job I have dealt with
overdose.
Um, needles.
Unattended needles.
Uh.
>> incidents where there's
fight.
Uh, the hatchet fight.
Um, overdose in bathroom
overdose outside.
We have to continuously to call
the police all the time and not
every time the police is there
like right away.
Um, sometimes it's the
firefighters and they come
quicker than the police.
But, um, just like we have to
explain to a lot of patrons
that, um, you know, we do our
best as we try to make them
safe and keep ourselves safe.
Um, it's pretty hard.
Uh.
>> uh.
>> the analyzing the training
across boston means that the
security officers are all
allowed the same protocol
working more ethically with law
enforcement when we need to
when to keep the public safer.
And as we as we expect the city
of boston stand with security
officers and support the
ordinance.
Thank you, thank you, thank you
.
Tanya, you did a.
>> you did a great job.
Thank thank you.
>> for your testimony.
Um is next is it jeff.
Franchetti and.
You can.
>> just come up and share one
of the mics if.
>> you'd like I can with you
or.
>> you can just bring up your
chair as well and they.
>> could just make for the.
>> little people to.
Steer you.
>> yeah.
go ahead.
Um.
>> good afternoon.
Vice chair members of the
government operations.
Committee and the city council.
My name is jeffrey franchetti
and I'm a student at
northeastern.
I'm here today in support
of this ordinance requiring
training for private security
officers in boston.
And I is all other students
of northeastern benefit from
the workers at our school every
day, whether it's our
classrooms being ready to learn
in every day because of our
custodians or dorms and labs
being safe to live and work in
because of our facilities
workers the people however, who
allow us to pursue our
education day or night are our
security guards.
The dorms we sleep in are
protected by them.
The labs and classrooms we
learn in are protected by them
as well.
And the campus at night whether
it's we're studying or cramming
for tests is only accessible
because of them being there.
That's particularly important
to me.
My student organization meets
in a building that is open in
the late hours a night only
because security is always up
there.
Many of us are living away from
home for the first time, and
it's reassuring to know that
security guards always have our
back.
They are the first people we
turn to if we need help.
We all assume they have basic
training and know what
protocols to follow in
different kinds of emergencies.
It's surprising to hear that
that's.
>> not required by.
Law, especially at institutions
where there are additional
security concerns like at
hospitals or universities like
mine.
And I think this ordinance
would change that and guarantee
that these things are
considered these workers are
inseparable from me and all
of my fellow students being
able to get our education.
It's important to me that they
have good jobs, stable income
and the training to keep
themselves and us safe and
that's why I'm here today in
support of this bill as well as
a few other students.
Thank you.
>> um.
.
I.
Finally remember my security
guards at college and they
really did.
So thank you for bringing that
element of being a student.
I think.
>> that's.
Really, really important.
Um, next we're moving on to sam
rodriguez.
Is it rodriguez or rodriguez?
Rodriguez.
>> rodriguez okay.
>> sam rodriguez, you have the
floor.
I thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is.
Samuel gomez.
Rodriguez junior.
i've worked in the security.
Industry for six years.
I have been.
Working at northeastern.
University as a northeast
security guard for the past
four years.
45 hours a week I patrol the
premises.
And help.
Visitors and respond to.
Incidents and make sure
everyone in my building is safe
.
Security officers are expected
to handle all types of.
Situations.
>> but many of us receive very
little training before being
thrown out into the field.
When I was hired I was
fortunate because I had prior
experience.
However, a majority of my
fellow officers do not.
Turnovers are extremely high in
this industry because of the
wages and the benefits to not
keep up with the cost of living
here in the greater boston
area.
I am thankful to have a job.
However it can be better.
We want affordable healthcare,
livable wages and we want
proper training so we can keep
ourselves and the public safe.
At my work site.
Incidents always occur.
Security officers always their
first people look at us for
hope.
They have faith that we know
what to do.
But the training we have
received over the past years
have mostly involved those
watching videos on the computer
.
It is barely the bare minimum.
a couple of years ago we
completed cpr training
virtually.
There was no practice dummies
no real way for us to actually
practice for this situation.
Watching a video is not the
same as knowing what to do in
this critical moment.
This ordinance will change that
.
This ordinance would change
that.
It would mean in-person
training on topics that
actually prepare us for the
reality of the work.
Security officers are expected
to perform.
This would mean employers not
the workers would pay for the
training.
Most of us already struggle
with paying for the basic human
right of healthcare.
We cannot afford to pay for our
own training as someone who
does this work every day.
I can tell you that security
officers want to be prepared.
We want to do the right thing
for everyone especially in
emergencies.
Passing this law would help us
do that.
Thank you for your time.
And thank you so much sam for
your testimony and thank you to
this panel.
We will now move on to
questions from my colleagues.
Um, there was an additional
person that I thought was on
the panel, but they're going to
be actually for public
testimony.
Um, I'm going to start with uh,
the lead sponsor and I will
give all of my colleagues now
five minutes to ask any
questions of this panel.
Uh, councilor santana, you have
the floor and five minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
And thank you, um.
>> to this, uh, panel for being
here and being present and
sharing your, um, uh,
particularly to to our workers
.
Sharing your experiences.
I know some of you already
touched it in your opening
remarks, but, um, you know, can
you walk me through the
training.
>> you received.
>> when you first hired as a
security guard?
What did that training involve
and how long did it last?
Any of you can answer.
I'll start off, um, when I was
at the boston public library
for.
Example.
>> uh, they had somebody sit
with me in the tech.
Center for.
>> like maybe.
The day.
>> just looking at people.
Then the next day I was by
myself.
So that was.
>> based on a minimum of a
training.
I got hired, um, I got hired,
uh, covid, um, and it was g g
for us at the time.
So we didn't get trained at
all.
It was just sitting in a
building watching the door and
making sure it was closed.
There was no training at all.
For me specifically.
>> on my site.
I remember my first day it was
literally.
>> that point out of the boot.
So sit in there.
Uh well technically they didn't
allow.
Us really to sit and prefer us
to walk outside of boot but uh,
essentially stand around the.
Boot and that was my
introduction.
This is your site you show.
Up at this time.
You stand there.
Then once every while we would
have like.
>> I said, uh, just.
Online classes basically
teaching.
Bout of.
Cpr for example.
Uh we would have regular
meetings I would say probably
once every year essentially uh
they would mask it as training
but in reality just from
observation it was more of a
way to make sure that the
company didn't get sued.
So instead of teaching us
de-escalation they would just
tells flat out oh if let's say
someone's being attacked you
are not to touch them.
The most you can do is call uh
campus police.
There was really no training no
.
Training on how to protect
ourselves properly without
violating any laws, how.
>> to protect.
The public without violating
any laws.
For the most part it was here
this we workshop on time.
We expect you to do your.
Job and also.
Don't get.
>> us sued.
For the most part.
no, I appreciate that.
Um and I think I.
>> really resonated with with
your answer.
Uh, you know, I mentioned
earlier that, um, I was working
security a few years ago, um,
overnight and my training
encompassed just my supervisor,
uh, sitting with me the first
two evenings or the first two
nights that I worked.
Um, and you know, whatever came
up during that those two
evenings is what he showed me.
Um, but then I was left alone
after that.
Um, and obviously different
encounters happened.
Um, different days, different
weeks.
Um, so, uh no, I really
appreciate that.
And then in terms of you know,
so that you talked.
To you pointed out some of the
um, training you received can
you all share some of the
challenges day to day
challenges that you see?
Um, I know you mentioned um you
know, you know, needles and um
and those type of stuff.
Are there any other challenges
that you see that you were
maybe not prepared for.
Peop people being um, passed
out in the bathroom sometimes
locking themselves in the
bathroom sometimes um being
completely nude in the bathroom
.
Um or they're fighting in the
bathroom.
And what are you supposed to do
in those situations?
Uh, we are supposed to stand
down by, um, my fellow security
officer said, um, make sure
that we don't step in and just
call the police.
And most of the time, like I
said before, the police take
their time to come and so we
just have to stand by and lock
down the bathroom.
All right.
>> anyone else want to check?
Oh, sure.
>> so, um, for example.
>> I.
Know apparently at the funeral
hall there's a situation where
I had a seizure and we I wasn't
trained cpr at that.
Time so I didn't know what to
do.
>> in this situation.
So I had to call my colleagues
who.
Some of them had minimum
training maybe.
Like maybe an hour or two
of cpr and they were able to.
Go through.
>> with.
That so well um no thank you.
I know my time is about to come
up but I do want to thank um
the whole the entire panel that
I've met.
I appreciate the student
perspective of someone who's
not security guard above the
civil services.
Um, and I also lived on a
campus, um, once upon a time,
so I did feel secure.
Um, I don't know a lot.
Um, but I do I really
appreciate the workers being
here and appreciate the work
that you do.
Um, to keep our city, um, safe
.
Um, and this was.
Uh this ordinance was, uh,
created, um, with you all in
mind.
Uh, making sure that you are
equipped with the proper
training.
Um, whether you are first and
foremost safe.
Um, but then also the public
that you're serving are also
safe.
So I really appreciate the
courage, um, that it takes, um,
to be here to be public
speaking, um, in front of the
city council.
Um, really appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> um, the chair recognizes.
Councilor murphy.
Councilor flynn.
Um.
>> council PRESIDENT Lose
breadon.
You have the floor and five
minutes.
Thank you.
And thank you all for your
testimony.
I really appreciate, um, what
you said because it gives us
some insight.
Into the day to day challenges
of your.
Work and how.
Difficult it is to feel that
you're, um, haven't had
adequate training to meet
whatever comes as I mentioned
in my remarks earlier, I think
you know, you can't anticipate
what you might meet and what
comes at you in a day's work.
Um, as an unarmed security
officer.
So, uh, I appreciate all the
great work you do and um.
Um.
>> in terms of in terms of uh
if you're in an incident and
and you feel that.
You.
>> uh, needed more training.
Who do you go to?
Do you go to a supervisor or do
you can you advocate for say
you know, I really need to have
a cpr training or I need to do
for.
Can you I need first aid
training or is it a mechanism.
For actually requesting more
training on your job?
So I guess.
I'm sorry.
>> go ahead.
Yes, yes.
Uh.
Specifically on my site.
And I can't speak for everyone
.
>> else but I know, uh.
Northeastern university for
northeast security we're given
very little information on how
to go.
>> about any of this.
>> for the most part I see a
lot of guards confused of who
to speak to if there even is
anyone to speak to for any
of these things.
For the most part a lot
of guards unfortunately because
of this they feel very
discarded and being down.
So there's.
>> a sense of apathy.
It's come to a certain point
where most people feel as if it
is what it is to be very
honest.
Do you have a do you have a
line of command like who's your
supervisor?
Do you and check in?
Do they check in with you on a
regular basis on how things are
going?
For the most part all the time
supervisors really show up for
my experiences and experiences.
my coworkers are either for uh
shift changes or disciplinary
reasons.
Okay.
>> and in terms of um, your
work experience so far like
this for any of you um, in
terms of what sort of scenario
is the most challenging for
you?
Like I think you mentioned.
Uh, front for me personally,
um, having to patrol outside
and there are two um homeless
people outside putting needles
in each.
Other um, very dangerous
because they are kept going
back and forth.
Um, honestly, I've been at my
side for six years so I'm going
to be truthful.
Um, I trained the supervisor at
both of the supervisors and my
manager so at my say we just
wing it at this point because I
mean no one knows what they're
doing.
Um oh turkeys, repeat the
question one more time.
And the.
>> most.
Challenging situation you've
had to deal with so far like I
know you can deal with all
sorts of scenarios but what
what's the one that you feel
you really didn't feel?
Oh goodness, I'm not equipped
for this.
I'll use a recent example not
not just from my from my site.
There's a couple colleagues
of mine that had to deal with
uh, protests.
And it was.
Hundreds of people at the
protest and maybe as a
supervisor and two guards.
So that situation and they
could try to call someone
of like a certain account
manager or account manager and
they were nowhere to be found
or able to respond whatsoever.
So that was probably the most
difficult I would say for
me and my other colleagues.
And because you haven't had any
training have no contact, no no
no skill set as to how to
respond to a situation like
that.
That's correct.
Yes.
>> if I MAY also I too often
times and once again I can't
speak for my fellow workers
here but I know on my site a
lot of times they will try.
>> to lean on uh.
The campus police but to be
very honest and just like you
said, the police often aren't
the most responsive.
I've had.
Few instances.
Uh, first time I began working
there I had someone stuck in
the elevator for about 30
minutes.
I really didn't have any help
out there.
There was no supervisors.
No coworkers.
Somehow I was able to get the.
Elevator working.
Again.
>> got the person out.
It took about 30 minutes for
the police to show up after I
called them.
It takes about 15 minutes to
walk there.
They use their suvs.
I've seen them on multiple
occasions run through red
lights but for some reason
during emergencies nowhere to
be found and once they finally
showed up and I told them the
situation was handled it was
not uh sorry for being late or
is everyone okay?
It was literally word for word.
Uh, next time call us because
it takes us a while to get here
and that was the end of the
conversation.
Okay.
>> um thank you for your
examples.
I think it gives us some flavor
of what so in terms of uh, B.J.
Um 32 bj you you have a
training program.
Could you tell us a little more
about that?
Oh, sorry, MADAM Chair, can.
>> you.
Answer.
The question?
Yes.
>> um, yes.
The time servant training fund
,uh, is a labor management
training fund, uh, established
between the employers and the
union.
Um, both the security employers
and, uh, the unions sit
together to establish it and
it's been in existence for.
Um about 50 years.
Uh, and we train thousands
of officers in new york and uh,
jersey.
Um, and we have you know, we
training people now in boston
but not for security because
the employers don't pay for it
.
Um, so uh, you know, all those
all of these classes and first
responder cpr um uh um, you
know how to deal with people
and overdose all of those
things is what the the, uh.
But the program can do the
initial 40 hour training as
well as the research every
eight hours and it's a huge
program in new york city and
thousands of officers run.
>> through it.
>> we have uh, 20,000 officers
in new york city who go through
the program every year, uh, and
get those those research.
Thank you.
>> thank you, MADAM Chair.
Thank you.
Uh, council PRESIDENT Bratton,
uh, the chair now recognizes
councilor for gerald
COUNCILMAN Gerald, you have the
floor and five minutes.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Um, uh, I'll say again as
always, uh, support uh, workers
right to unionize and I think
standards are a good thing to
measure and uphold
accountability.
So always in favor of that.
And thank you guys for bringing
this issue to the table.
Um.
>> a question around the uh,
you know, the contract that was
previously had with security
guards through the union um,
and what it says in there about
training and how you guys feel
that was upheld, what it says
in there to what we wanted to
say in the next contract and
more importantly to me.
,the.
>> limits that you guys have on
yourselves right to the job you
have about cannot touch.
And with the repeal of rule 400
and things of that nature, what
is it that we want added into
the training that can be
applicable given some of the
constraints that you guys have
to like trying to find that
middle ground of like what are
we really asking for in this
training?
Uh and I've heard you say I
mean there's cpr and you know
and uh and uh overdose training
and things of that nature I
think it's all necessary
because what you guys see every
day um.
But what are the.
Confines that might, uh, the
training that you would want to
have that you can't is there
any, uh, physical limitations
that you guys are expected to.
>> go.
Through to be in order to be a
security guard?
Um, things of that nature.
So just I guess in overall my
only question is from the
previous contract to the
current contract what we want
to see added uh, maybe what
lacked in the previous one is
as we go forward in the current
one and then what given the
confines around the laws that
you guys cannot do, do we want
to see that training go up to
to make sure we're focused in
on giving you training that's
actually applicable to your
job?
So to be clear there's nothing
in the contract now about
training.
Um and we are proposing it to
the security contractors
of boston um.
To to.
You know, to have that $312 a
year training fund benefit for
each uh member.
Uh, but also we're not trying
to have a panacea, um, that the
officers are going to, you
know, be able to be police.
That's far from the case.
Uh, and then, you know, the
police are going to do the
police job.
Um, but we are often there most
often first and whatever can be
done in the first minutes
before the officer arrives.
Um, you know, those are the
things that we want to.
>> try to resolve.
Um, 40 hours training is not a
panacea but it's a start.
So my only thought I was just I
was trying to read through the
previous contract, understand
where we're at and where we can
go.
Um.
>> but there's supposed to be
some committee that was to be
formed.
Maybe it's just never formed
and that's what I want to be.
That's what I.
Wanted it said not it.
Right.
But the committee shall be
formed to discuss issues
regarding training, safety,
recruitment, retention
of officers.
Uh and the committee MAY meet
by mutual consent not any less
than once per year and shall be
made up of three officers from
the union and up to three
representatives from the
employer.
So that committee has never met
.
No.
>> thank you very much.
Thank you the.
Thank you the chair and I
recognizes councilor culpeper.
You have the floor and five
minutes.
Thank you, MADAM Chair.
Um.
>> I wanted to ask the question
about the training that you do
in new york.
How much of that do you do in
boston or you do none here?
None.
>> and what kind of training is
that in new york and would it
meet the requirements in the
ordinance for training?
Yes it was this was you know,
sort of modeled after that the
basic 40 hour initial and then
eight hours um, recertification
and really it was modeled.
Upon what's in new york in new
jersey.
What's in new york now?
Um, and.
In terms of operationalizing
it, you heard the discussion
uh, this morning about some
of the challenges that they
would have.
How long do you think knowing
what's in the contract would it
take to actually hire the staff
,uh, put a program in place
and then implement it?
How far in the future are you
looking to have this program
implemented.
So that the requirements in
philadelphia initially were a
very short 30 days but as you
heard um, in previous testimony
this would not go into effect
the requirement to be
implemented until JULY 2027.
So it would give, you know,
whatever 11 months uh, of time
to.
Prepare and to get it up and
running.
Um, you know, our training
funds are already in existence.
We know how to do these
classes.
It's the same director and
assistant director of the
training fund in new york as it
is here.
um, we'd have to have some
local staff and we often call
upon, um, retired uh, officers
,uh, police officers to assist
us, um, in the implementation.
Um, but I do want to stress if
it's if I MAY also that the
question earlier was raised
about why for profit versus non
profit right right yeah um and
we you know we.
There MAY be some cutting
of corners in a for profit uh
company versus a nonprofit um
and whether it's the community
colleges or the 32 bridge
training fund or some other
nonprofit entity max cash I
know can do training.
Um, whoever ends up doing the
training, we think that, you
know, their incentive would be
to provide quality training and
not to make money.
And so you've been doing the
training in new york for how
long?
Uh, I think since right after
911 it was uh 2005 I think.
Somewhere short.
>> and do you think that would
it makes sense for.
Um.
>> there to be some kind
of equivalency or accreditation
process where the city
evaluates a curriculum rather
than the tax status or are you
stuck on the tax?
>> I think it's.
Both I think.
>> it's both yeah.
Nonprofit and also for the city
to evaluate the program and
make sure it's a quality
program and.
You know, because sometimes
they're they aren't and you
know, the employers want to do
the program the you know, do
training themselves they think
they have that secret sauce.
But um, we think that it you
know, really is much better
done by in third party.
And do you think there should
be some kind of uh credit given
to if even to uh 30 to B.J. For
the training and experience
already because you've been
doing it for a while and the
other piece of that is do you
think there should be some kind
of grandfathering in for
companies that are already
doing the training?
Um, the ordinance provides that
every single officer currently
employed would get certified
within I forget 90 days I
believe or 100 and 880 days.
Um we think everyone needs this
training and as you've heard
people are they they MAY be
working there a long time but
they're not getting the
training and this is only one
week's training initially 40
hours and it sort
of establishes a baseline which
we think would be good for the
safety of the officers, the
safety of the residents and the
citizens of the city of boston.
So let me ask this another way.
So stanley's been working for
how long stanley have been with
the company a year and five
months.
Uh, and tell him that you've
been working for how long?
Six years.
And sam, you've been working
for how long?
So with the company.
Four years and total six years
for security.
And so tanya's six years and
stanley's four years.
You think they still should
have to go through a 40 hour
program knowing that he's been
doing it for four years?
Probably could teach it.
Tanya, uh, mentioned that she
had taught some of her
supervisors.
You think they should still
have to go through the program
for certification for the
initial certification and then
each year how many hours was
it?
Was it it's eight hours each
year.
We do okay.
We do I mean I know.
That my time already.
Uh but you MAY.
You MAY continue uh.
>> just just as uh, boston you
know, uh, police officers have
continuing ed I'm continuing
training.
The people need to be
continually trained.
Things change over time and yes
,we do.
Okay.
>> thank you.
Um, did you want to provide an
answer?
I see your light is on.
Did you want to provide an
answer?
No.
Okay, okay.
And counselor.
,um.
>> culpeper, did you have a did
you have an additional
question?
Yeah.
>> I mean I think everyone
agrees that there's a gap that
there is no training and that
there, uh, needs to be
training.
I just think part of the
challenge is the implementation
and the creating of an office
for, um, operationalizing this
uh, within the city and then
implementation.
And so the question is when you
look at operationalizing this
and you look at the
implementation from the city,
how do you see yourself working
with the city to help get this,
uh, in place and then
implementation?
Um.
Well, uh, we would you know,
our training fund would work
together with the employers and
the city to make sure that the
instructors and the times
of the classes etc. And
scheduling them and make you
know, it's a it's a
partnership.
You know, the our training fund
is a labor management, uh, you
know, employer employee union
cooperation and we work
together to implement the
training and and in this case
the city would certify that
that training is um adequate
and uh, meets the needs.
And you would charge the for
the $12.
Each employer.
They come for you to pay for
the.
Company would.
>> play okay.
$312 a year.
That's what they pay now in new
york and it would be the same
here.
Thank you.
>> thank you thank you that's
good bye bye.
I just have a few questions
going to start my timer.
Um, so I want to say thank you
to everyone who's offered
testimony.
um, you all if this was your
first time, I couldn't tell it
.
Uh, you guys, you all were
great.
Um, wanted to ask a few
questions, however, um, so you
know, this was the last
question that I asked to the
first panel.
So, you know, we received a lot
of testimony from industry.
I've had conversations with
industry and a lot of the focus
is on cost.
Um, the push back is on cost
and the possibility that
employers your clients could
reduce security coverage if
they were if they had to
implement something um,
pursuant to this ordinance, how
do you respond to that concern
that, you know, having to
assume and internalize this
costs will lead to less
security coverage and what do
you think is the cost of not
having a consistent training
standard for workers, employers
and the public?
Well, uh, we work for
contractors and contractors.
Um, contract is dependent upon
the contracting entity and so,
uh, I would assume that in
time, uh, that this cost would
be absorbed by the contracting
entity, um, as is appropriate.
Um, this would also serve to
level the playing field between
large and small contractors.
Smaller contractors right now
have a more difficult time
providing this training, but
once it's standardized across
industry both large and small
contractors would that would be
standardized and everyone would
be on a level playing field for
training, which we thinks would
actually help smaller companies
to grow.
Um, and uh we think that's a
you know, can be in many cases
a very good thing.
So um, what was the other
question?
Um, what it what what is the
cost of not having consistent
training.
Standards not having it and
it's like the amex commercial,
you know what's the cost of not
having training prices?
Um, okay.
Uh, I have a question uh,
that's geared more towards uh,
security to or towards the
security guards.
Um, what made you decide to get
into this into your current
line of employment?
What was the decision to become
a security guard?
I guess that's both to, uh to
tania.
Yeah.
Uh, so honestly.
Um, be 100%.
Honest.
>> I wanted.
To just, you know, experience
something new.
Um, outside of before doing my
security, I was at boston ball
and I was the cash register, so
I wanted to try something new.
To just.
You know, have the ball rolling
but also, um, being a part
of the public a little bit
more.
I do spend my time upstairs
with the kids at my job a lot
so I just wanted something new,
something that would be okay to
secure people and just remind
them that they're safe.
Thank you stanley or I mean you
don't have to answer the
question, but it's stanley sam,
if either of you guys I'm sure.
So for me, uh, I was out
of work for a little bit prior
to that.
Prior that I was doing, uh,
government work.
Um, for green maybe getting
into the industry is, uh it's.
Fortunately just don't want
hire me after.
Oh hire me.
So at the time, uh, as time
went on I've like I already had
experience in security but it
does help me.
Uh, they taught me a lot.
>> about how to.
Interact with people, talk and
de-escalate.
Situations and hopefully turn
into something different.
>> so I think.
Uh, for me personally I started
going into security because I
already had some prior
experience working for other
jobs and to be very honest I
was just looking for steady
work, steady income uh, to be
honest they had benefits the
specific site.
And a decent wage um could be
better in the greater boston
area but for my current
situation it was better than
nothing to be completely
honest.
Thank you and thank you for
offering that and thank you for
keeping the people and
buildings that you work at safe
.
It's also great to know that we
have the experience on the
council of three former
security guards who can bring
their own lived experience into
this my my older sister one
of her first jobs was as a
security guard as well.
And so I know that for a lot
of folks working class folks
this is an important job.
Um and it's a job that many
people, you know, end up having
and it's an important one that
is worthy of having, uh, the
training necessary.
Um, I asked that question in
part because I think one of the
goals here is to try to treat
security work more like a
profession.
And so I'm wondering should the
training credential belong to
the worker or follow them from
employer to employer?
Have you have we thought about
that and what could that look
like to and especially in terms
of creating a career path for
people?
Yeah yeah I mean I'm most
familiar with new jersey which
is where I work before and you
would get the called your saw a
license and so once you had
that 40 hours initial you'd
have you saw a license and it
had to be renewed and it didn't
matter which employer you were
with it went from person to
person.
So I assume that that this
that's what this training would
be.
Thank you.
Um, do any of my colleagues
when I, uh the lead sponsor do
you have any okay, I'm done
with my time.
Do you have any follow up
questions for this panel?
Okay.
Thank you.
I want to thank this panel for
being here.
I want to thank you for your
work and your testimony and the
work that you do on behalf
of the residents and out here
in the city of boston.
This is just the beginning and
we'll continue to have ongoing
conversations to have an
inclusive dialog to make sure
that we work and get the
language and the meaning
of this um, ordinance right.
Uh, kevin, you have some final
remarks that you'd like to
offer.
I just wanted to say thank you,
MADAM Chair louijeune and
COUNCILMAN Santana for
sponsoring this.
Thank you.
>> thank you, thank you.
Thanks everyone.
Thank you.
>> my I do also want to I
mentioned several times the
security guard who passed in uh
new york city and I failed to
say his name so I just want to
make sure I just honor the
memory of I wanted to end in
this meeting in this in this
hearing we are now moving on to
public testimony.
Um, tribal testimony will be
called in the order of arrival.
Um, each person will have two
minutes to offer public
testimony.
As you can see I have not been
lethal with the timer today but
if we could try to keep to the
two minutes that would be
great.
Um, first on the list for
public testimony is um irby
duran.
Uh, irby.
Hello, I want you you have the
floor in two minutes.
Um.
>> good morning.
good morning, MADAM Chair.
Um, my name is herbert
duvernay.
I'm the founder of and ceo
of one worker group.
Well, boston based security
company employing approximately
one 200 people.
I want to make something clear
from the beginning I believe in
training and training and
workforce development.
Uh, actually part of my
business.
But I'm concerned that the
ordinance will unintentionally
hurt two groups small and
disadvantaged businesses trying
to compete and people who need
flexible part time work to get
ahead.
I know both up.
Personally I came to this
country from haiti when I was
20 years old.
I didn't speak a word
of english, I cleaned bathrooms
,I drove a cab, I work in
grocery store.
I did whatever job I could find
when I enrolled at northeastern
university I didn't even know
what I wanted to study.
Then somebody gave me an
opportunity to work security at
dana-farber I receive an
orientation and basic training
and then I learn on the job.
Supervisors and mentors coached
me, corrected me and wanted
me to succeed.
That opportunity changed my
life.
I discovered that security
could become my profession.
I chose criminal justice,
earned my bachelor's degree and
master's degree from
northeastern university, move
into management and executive
leadership and eventually
founded my own security
company.
My career did not start.
With a card.
>> of 40 hours checklist.
It started because somebody
give me an opportunity that is
the concern me about this
ordinance today look at the
people we hire.
We hire students, we hire
immigrants, we hire people
working on a job we hire people
would need a weekend or a part
time job and we want people we
want to help people to pay
their bills.
These are people are actually
employees.
Now imagine a student who wants
to work.
Security on weekends or someone
already working a full time job
who want an additional 15 hours
a week with before they can
access the opportunity they now
have to five 40 hours of time
so they can they can get the
training going.
I do believe that this
ordinance will be a
disadvantage to make companies
like my be competitive because
it's hard to do that even
though we did that big event
that we see outside my firm
hire and train 100 and I 190
people and five weeks due to
the fifa world cup.
We train our people, we have
our secret sauce.
We think that training should
be something internal because
that's what companies are going
to need so they can thrive and
do better.
And also for the record myself
and other minority company
we're not invited to be on a
panel at all which I think is a
disgrace because if we're doing
this work and we want to help
security company I wonder what
people it's a simple thing to
call the security and small
business that do business in
the city and have them sit down
so they can have that
discussion and as far as I know
back my was not informed as
well.
Just for the record I want to
make that clear.
Thank you.
Um we are now moving on to uh,
zoom testimony someone who was
on a time constraint that steve
amity you have the floor and
you have two minutes.
Um.
Starting now.
Uh, you're sorry steve, if you
could start over because I
believe you're muted.
Thank you.
>> members of the committee.
My name is steve amata and I'm
the executive director of the
national association
of security companies nasco in
boston.
Nasco members employ thousands
of trained security officers,
receive initial on the job
client and site specific and
recurrent training that enables
them to successfully perform
the security tasks required
of them as laid out in client
contracts as specified in site
post orders.
Nasco believes that all persons
performing security service
should undergo baseline
training but for structural,
substantive and practical
reasons stock at 1541 the
ordinance is not appropriate.
a vehicle for attaining such.
>> a goal.
Has currently drafted as herbie
just said it will deter persons
from entering the field.
Uh it will uh it will cause
nonprofits and other clients
who have set security budgets
to decrease their uh, security
services because they will not
be able to absorb the
additional costs that the
training will require them to
pay.
And perhaps most significantly,
the ordinance fails to
comprehend the enormity and
difficulty of the task.
At hand.
There's been some discussion,
but I think you've got to
understand that this ordinance
is assigning all authority and
responsibility for a 40 hour
training program to an office
that has no experience in
developing, certify and
implementing administering
overseeing training programs
nor is any experience related
to private security.
One just needs to look at
philadelphia to see that this
is a problematic formula.
In philadelphia in MARCH a law
became effective that requires
all new unarmed security
officers to undergo a 12 hour
training requirement and assign
that task to its office
of workers protection like the
ordinance does.
But now, five months later,
there's not a single recognized
security training program for a
12 hour program far less than a
40 hour program.
And also the city has proposed
it implementation indefinitely
and it's estimated that
implement implementing
regulations will not be
available for review until
2028.
Uh one has to seriously
question the reality and
feasibility of implementing the
bill, you know, in boston.
And I'll note that the philly
bill started out as a bill
almost identical to this bill
and in the end it was after
much consideration with.
Industry and the players errors
reduced to a 12 hour initial
requirement an eight hour
recurring requirement with an
emphasis on use of force
de-escalation uh cpr, first aid
communication and other vital
skills.
Relatedly, the ordinance does
not provide additional staffing
and appropriations and I would
note that in minnesota at 2025
they tried to increase training
from 12 hours to 40 hours with
a similar bill and it was
estimated that it would take
eight full time staff and a
budget of well over $1 million
to get that program rolling.
Finally, the ordinance somewhat
infers that security officers
based on a minimum amount
of required training will have
a duty to engage with violent
individuals people in mental
health crises or people
impaired by substance that is
wrong, dangerous and not.
It's for growing role
of security officer.
As the rep said security
officers are the eyes and ears.
They are not police officers,
emts, drug counselors or mental
health crisis responders who go
hundreds of hours of training
and encouraging officers to get
involved in dangerous
situations.
Cancer post orders puts
officers and bystanders at
physical risk and also exposes
officers and their companies to
legal and civil liability.
We look forward to working with
the council to come up with
some common sense legislation.
Thank you, thank you.
The chair recognizes gregory
maynard.
Uh, you have the floor in two
minutes.
Thank you so much.
Uh, my name is gregory maynard
and I am the executive director
of the boston policy institute
.
Why is this hearing happening
now that's an important
question to ask because this
hearing is unusual.
It happened fast in a chamber
where dockets typically don't
move very quickly especially
one like this which is not a
time sensitive mayoral
appointment or a piece of city
hall legislation but instead a
docket offered by a city
councilor in AUGUST.
How fast did this hearing
happen?
This docket was offered less
than a week ago on AUGUST 5th.
It was scheduled for a hearing
on AUGUST 6th and now the
hearing is happening today,
AUGUST 11th.
That means this docket cut
dozens of other dockets in
line.
That is a choice that comes
with an opportunity cost best
demonstrated using examples
of the government operations
committee and the public safety
committee.
as of the last council meeting
on AUGUST 5th, the government
operations committee which is
holding this hearing had 30
dockets before it without
hearing scheduled.
That includes an ordinance from
councilor pepen on the use
of school bus violation
detector um detection
monitoring system devices
weapons ordinance was first
offered in 2025 but didn't get
a hearing last year either.
The public safety committee,
which is chaired by henry
santana, the lead sponsor
of this docket, had 25 dockets
without hearing scheduled as
of AUGUST 5th.
That number doesn't include the
public safety briefing that the
council demanded in a unanimous
vote, including every
councilor who's asked a
question at this hearing back
on JULY 8th.
Right now, boston is facing a
variety of pressing issues from
the deadliest summer in several
years to an emotional and
policy heavy street safety
conversation.
More pressing issues are coming
the first day of school is less
than a month away, and the
district has told the school
committee that another round
of school closures are coming.
The council hasn't held
hearings on any of those issues
this summer.
Instead this hearing is
happening.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Uh, the chair recognizes david.
David, you have the floor and
two minutes.
Uh good afternoon everyone.
my name is david console.
I'm a co-founder of recon
security along with alongside
with my business partner, uh,
jesse rivera.
Uh, I want to start out by
saying I believe in training.
We train everyone that we
employ.
I work security myself.
Uh, as an immigrant in college
playing college football, I
played d3 so I had to work.
I worked overnight shifts and I
go straight and play a full
college football game.
Um, so I understand the
importance of just properly
preparing.
I worked all kinds of security
.
I've been a bouncer at clubs so
I've seen every kind
of scenario when it comes to
security in addition to being
an employer.
Uh, I started this company when
I was 26.
So I get in these rooms and I'm
the only one at this age.
I have gray hair.
That's just why I'm coming
along from here on in this
business.
But I'm still very young and um
,when we built the company
from the ground up we face a
lot of like balancing payroll,
staffing, insurance and
competing against national
companies.
I've been able to win bigger
contracts only because
relationships I played college
football so I know people and
that's the only reason why, um
,when it comes to bidding out
we're getting priced out so you
add certain things like this if
it's not implemented the right
way, uh, it begins to hurt us.
Um, I've seen other instances
where a lot of people don't
want to pay for security just
another line item.
So when we passed the cost
passed the cost off to the
client then they're like they
they just go in-house.
So that hurts us as well.
Um.
My partner he came from
florida, uh, where he seen
models where the training costs
are passed off to the employee
to different economies from
boston and uh, florida.
I don't think that's the
answer.
Philadelphia has its issues.
Um, I'll be candid.
This process happened very
quickly.
I'm an employer directly
affected by this ordinance and
I didn't know it was being
considered until recently.
If I didn't know, I imagine
there are other employers who
haven't had the opportunity to
provide.
So I'm asking the city
council to give employers
employees training
professionals and particularly
small and minority owned
businesses more opportunity to
participate in this
conversation.
Training is important but
implementation, affordability
and accessibility are just as
important.
Let's make sure we get all
through right before moving
forward.
Thank you.
Um I see a name here but I feel
like they've already talked.
Is it?
yeah, he was on the jeff what?
Uh, you this is just signing
in.
Okay, great.
Yep.
Okay.
Um.
Liam o'connell.
You have the floor in two
minutes.
Thank you.
>> very much.
Uh.
Be brief.
My name is liam o'connell.
>> of the law firm.
>> mclennan.
>> I represent, uh, securitas.
Security services.
Uh, we.
>> found out.
>> about this.
Uh, hearing yesterday, so
apologies for not having, uh,
pre-prepared remarks.
I've sat here and listened to
all the testimony and really
just want to echo a few points.
That were made.
Securitas has.
>> a long standing.
Reputation in the security
industry.
It's committed to training its
employees.
It has a.
Positive relationship with its
union brethren at 32 bjj we
don't oppose training but we do
oppose this.
Ordinance as it presently.
Uh presented.
Um there's.
>> a legitimate.
Question about.
>> the state and federal and.
State or uh city implications
of this.
>> uh, to my knowledge.
>> there are 41 states in the
union.
They require security training.
Those are states, not cities.
Uh, there's been much talk
about philadelphia and the
experience in philadelphia with
the city ordinance and how
they've had to scale back what
was initially proposed in the
ordinance the 40 hours to 12
they now are grandfathering
exit training that was already
uh conducted as uh council uh
person uh cole pepper was
questioning about not.
>> all.
The training now is required in
person but at at some core
level there is a legitimate
issue here that much of the
discussion here today and the
proposals that are contained
within the ordinance takes the
private security function in a
direction that becomes more
like a quasi public safety
role.
That is not what we do,
certainly not in all locations.
In fact we have some clients
universities in example that
have their own police force.
Uh, we have restrictions on
what our people can do by way
of security and they can't get
involved in certain uh,
incidents and their job is to
just reported to the police
either uh, the university
police, for example, or public
authorities.
Uh, and moreover there's been
some discussion of this already
a mr amini made the the uh the
point that our officers and our
employers don't enjoy uh,
immunity from um, civil
litigation, uh, for getting
involved in such incidents.
So we respectfully urge the
council to take more time to
consider the number of items
that were discussed here today
that remain open, including
whether the infrastructure
exists to do this training.
Thank you.
Next up we have terry williams
.
You have the floor terry and
two minutes.
Hi.
>> thank you.
Um first of all I did just
reset my hair.
Uh, let.
>> me.
Introduce myself.
I'm terry williams.
I'm PRESIDENT.
And owner of one united bank.
Um.
>> headquartered here in
massachusetts.
But we also have offices.
In miami and in los angeles.
Uh, I.
Just heard about this, uh,
hearing and so I didn't prepare
remarks.
However, I do want to share our
experience with security.
Um, we hire security for our
branches.
Um, it is a huge expense and
what we try to do in each
of the cities we're in is to
hire locally and to hire small
firms, um, because they tend to
be cost effective.
In addition to that, we also
have a very limited, uh,
responsibility that we give to
those security officers.
Um, very similar to what uh the
gentleman just uh, stated that
was here previously is that we
don't want them to get involved
in public safety, um,
circumstances because it does
put our employees at risk, our
customers at risk if anything
does happen, the first charge
is really to call the police.
Um, so I believe that this
ordinance should not be enacted
,um, because it does take away
the flexibility.
For employers like me, uh, to
hire security firms to do a
narrow range of responsibility
and to be cost effective.
So I would ask that you would
reconsider this ordinance.
Thank you.
>> um, I believe that's all we
have for in-person testimony.
Unless there's anyone else who
is here to offer in-person
testimony.
Megan, do we have.
Anyone signed up virtually.
>> we have oh, yes.
We have one additional person
to, uh, offer testimony online
via zoom.
Um, rob cook uh, you have the
floor and you have two minutes
for public testimony starting.
With moment by moment.
Uh.
Okay.
>> okay.
Starting now.
Thank you, MADAM Vice chair.
Uh, counselor santana and, uh,
the committee um, there were
just a few concerns, uh, raised
today that I'd like to.
Oh, can you not hear me?
We can hear you.
We can you okay.
Yeah, we can hear you.
Um, yeah.
So there were just a few
concerns, uh, raised today.
I'm, uh I'm the, uh, policy
fellow at 32 pj uh, and a few
concerns I just wanted to
briefly address um, there there
were some concerns raised about
whether this bill would
conflict with state law.
Um, and, uh, we don't think
there's a cause for concern
there.
Um, well, uh, municipal law
that's inconsistent with state
law can be preempted in some
cases.
Um and state law here does
include a registration scheme
for security companies.
Um, there's no state level
unarmed guard training
requirements.
Uh, so there's no conflict
between state law and uh, this
municipal proposal.
Um, I think another point to be
made about part timers, uh and
the uh timeline of getting the
training if you're a busy part
timer, uh, existing employees
have uh, half a year to finish
the training.
Uh, and new employees have to
have three months and, uh, we
think that part timers, uh,
deserve uh, you know, the the
support and the preparation
that full timers would get as
well.
Um, and and I guess as far as
uh, questions about the role
of officers officer security
officers acting as the eyes and
ears.
Um, you know, they do wear
uniforms and people look to
them in emergencies so they're
involved in public safety.
Uh uh, regardless, um.
And uh several uh of the guards
who testified have mentioned uh
the police don't always arrive
right away.
Um, and and training like cpr
and de-escalation can can save
lives.
Uh, so because security
officers do find themselves in
harm's way regardless of the
intent of the companies in
terms of their uh, the
limitations on when they should
intervene, uh, we do think
that, uh, it's it's a serious
risk not to provide them basic
training.
Um, and uh.
>> I.
Think that's.
>> all uh, all I wanted to say.
So thank.
>> you, thank you, thank you
and thank you to everyone who
is offered public testimony.
Um, I want to thank the panel
and I want to thank the
administration panel advocate
panel I want to thank those who
testified, including those from
industry.
And I will now turn it over to
my uh, co-sponsor to the lead
sponsor council, santana, for
any closing remarks that you
would like to make.
Right.
>> thank you because I want to
thank you, MADAM Chair, for for
chairing us um, today I do want
to thank the administration and
our advocate panel, um, for
being, um, willing to come and
testify and answer our
questions.
Um, and I do want to uh I do
want to thank the public and
people who provided public
testimony, um, who are here
today.
I've also had many
conversations over the last
several days including with
some um, you know, I think
people who are supporting and
have questions or.
Concerns or opposing um, this
ordinance and I want to make
sure that um, as the lead
sponsor that I'm taking those
um, conversations um,
seriously.
So I'll tell you today
obviously you're here in this
chamber.
Uh, but my office and myself
are wanting to always meet, um
,um, with a meeting, um, to
make sure that, um, we're
meeting the needs um and
hearing um, again, uh, all
sides here, uh, I want to make
sure that this, um, is you
know, I think we've heard from
multiple councilors.
Um, we want to make sure that
we get this right and we want
to make sure that, um, even,
um, uh, we want to make sure
that we get this right.
We want to make sure that, um,
the intent of this one entity
again is to, um, really protect
our workers, um, frontline
workers.
Um, but we want to make sure
that all parties and people who
are affected by this, um, uh,
are a part of the table and
part of the conversation.
So um, I encourage um, those
who do want to meet with me in
my office um, to reach out.
Um, I will also be reaching out
proactively also if you
weren't, um, invited as a panel
here, I hope that you don't
take it as a as uh um sign
of disrespect or any of that
stuff.
Um, I want to meet with you.
Um, um, we want to make sure
that we get this right.
I do want thank um, 32 bj for
your work.
um, and in bringing this to
this point as well and and I
want to thank particularly the
the workers who shared their
stories um I you know, I
acknowledge that it takes a lot
of courage to be able to come
and share your experience um,
and not always positive
experiences.
Especially when your your you
have an employer as well right?
So I do want to thank them for
their um for their testimony.
Um thank you MADAM Chair.
Um that's.
A member of my.
Thank you.
And thank you again, counselor
santana for your leadership and
for offering this thank you to
the for, uh, your work.
I want to just echo what you
stated that I think this is the
beginning of important
legislation.
Um, it was really important for
me to hear from our security
guards who every day sometimes
people walk by and not really
notice the labor that they're
doing and the importance
of making sure that they have
the requisite training right,
not just for their benefit.
Right.
Making sure that they have the
requisite training is also for
everyone else's benefit.
Um, and we know that there's
there's wild variation in the
industry in terms of what
training is and isn't offered
and I think there's a lot to
learn uh, from what is actually
happening in those in the
industry.
So again this is the beginning
of a conversation.
This is an ordinance that was
offered um, and from ordinances
we have additional hearings, we
have additional working
sessions and we have additional
work uh, just to make that very
clear but I really, um, uh,
appreciate everyone for coming
forward for offering testimony
and for making sure that we do
work, uh, that we do right by
our workers and by our city.
Um, with that this hearing on
docket number one of 541 is
adjourned.