City Council - Government Operations Committee Hearing on Docket #1541

Thank you.

Thank you.

and many more.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

and many more.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

and many more.

Thanks for watching!

O'Neill

Good morning, everybody. Happy to be here for the record. My name is Gabriella Coletta Zapata, District 1 City Councilor and I'm a chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Government Operations. Today's September 17th, 2026. The exact time is 1018 AM. This hearing is being recorded. It is also being live streamed at boston.gov forward slash city dash council dash tv and broadcast on Xfinity channel 8, RCN channel 82, and Fios channel 964. Written comments may be sent to the committee email at ccc.go at boston.gov and will be made a part of the record and available to all counselors. Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing. Individuals will be called on in order, in the order in which they signed up and we'll 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 at MEAGAN.CORUGEDOMAR.COM TIN at boston.gov for the link and your name will be added to the list today's hearing is on docket 1541 an ordinance establishing minimum training requirements for unarmed security guards This matter was sponsored by Councilors Henry Santana and Ruzzi Louijeune, and was referred to the committee on August 5th, 2026. Today I am joined by my colleagues in order of arrival I think it was Councilor Ed Flynn, because he's the first one every single time. So, Councillor Ed Flynn thank you so much for being here and the lead sponsor, Councilor Santana. And I know that we'll be joined by Council Louisa shortly but for now I will go to opening remarks lead with the original co-sponsor, Councillor Santana and then Councillor Flynn. Councillor Santina you have the floor.

Awesome good morning thank you Chair Coletta Zapata um and thank you everyone for being here this morning Unarmed security guards serve a vital role in Boston's public safety infrastructure. Every day, they protect people and property in our health care facilities, residential buildings, colleges, and public spaces. They are often the first to respond when someone is experiencing a medical emergency, a mental health crisis and other urgent situations. They also regularly work with individuals battling homelessness and substance use disorders. I was a security guard myself and the only kind of training I received was on my first day when I was chaperoned by someone. After that, I was left on my own to handle any type of situation that might come up. Despite all the important responsibilities There are currently no training requirements for unarmed security guards in Boston at the state or local level.

These professionals are expected to make quick decisions, deescalate conflicts and respond to emergencies yet many have not received any training to prepare them for the situations and might have only been in the job for a few weeks. Establishing these training standards is about investing in both worker safety and public safety. I appreciate the concerns I have heard from many stakeholders as well as from business owners regarding the current language of this ordinance. This hearing provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to share their feedback. We want to ensure that everyone is included in these conversations and that we are aligned as we move forward. Our goal is to pass legislation that is appropriate for this moment and reflects the needs and concerns of our community. I understand and appreciate the objections that I have heard about the timeline and roadmap towards implementation along with what some of you shared on how you can conduct your training for your own security personnel.

I am looking forward to the discussion today and seeing a path forward. By investing in the people who are often on the first to respond, we are investing in safer workspaces and a safer Boston for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you to the panel for being here, for the public testimony that we're going to hear from as well. Before I begin and I'll just have very brief comments, This meeting in a few minutes, but hopefully I'm back by 1130. I do have an appointment that I do What I wanted to highlight in my opening statement is the important role unarmed security guards play in our city. Yes, we need Training, we need to support them. But we also need to a lot of small businesses, security and many more. My challenge or goal is to

that supports a compromise and ensures that we provide the necessary training on our security guards, but also to support companies that play a critical role in our city especially The importance of companies owned by people of color, they have to be respected as well. Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Thank you. We've been joined by Councilor Murphy. Would you like any remarks?

Yeah, just happy to be here part of the conversation. Like Council Flynn was just saying it's a balance we want to make sure anyone who is in these Roles, important roles have the training they need but at the same time we have to make sure that we're listening to those who employ them and train them the way. So just it's a balance and I'm here to listen and get all the information I can. Thank you.

We also have a letter of absence from Councilor Culpepper that I will read in part. It says, Dear Chair Coletta Zapata and members of the Committee on Government Operations, I regret to inform you I am unable to attend this morning's hearing. I would like to thank folks for holding this hearing and panelists and members of the public for their participation. While I support ensuring that unarmed security officers in Boston receive appropriate training, I have serious concerns about this ordinance I remain opposed to it in its current form. My office has received numerous letters and communication, and has met directly with businesses, institutions, who have raised concerns about the ordinance's training requirements, restrictions on employer-provided training, permitting structure penalties and implementation timeline. I'm concerned about the potential burden on small minority owned security businesses and employers that already provide substantial training tailored to their workplaces. Having heard from those who would be directly impacted, I cannot support this document in its current form. Sincerely, Councilor Culpepper, Representative of District 7.

I also just want to acknowledge that while we don't have an administration, a mayoral administration specific panel. We are joined by two here in the audience Mimi Churkinets, I'm so sorry I may have said your name wrong. But always a friend to Labor and Deputy Director of Labor Policy from the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections in the Worker Empowerment Cabinet. And we also have Monique Mitchell, senior program manager overseeing living wage and wage theft within the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections. Before we go to our business panel, I do just want to give a brief overview for those listening. The background of this ordinance is that it establishes the city permitting and training framework for unarmed security guards working in Boston It requires 40 hours of initial training within 90 days for new guards, 180 days for existing guards and eight hours annually thereafter.

Training must be through a city certified program and employers must pay training costs and compensate guards for training time. The curriculum includes CPR slash AED and overdose response, de-escalation mental and behavioral health emergency response Building Operations, Incident Reporting and Workplace Rights. There was a hearing while I was away on maternity leave. I want to thank Vice-Chair Council Louijeune for holding that and all those who participated. It seems as though there was a broad agreement on the goal however there was significant disagreement over the structure Workers and guards testified to receiving little to no training despite confronting medical emergencies, behavioral health crises, and public safety situations. There were some concerns from the council over the hour requirement, part-time worker certification, provider availability, small business impacts. And the administration testimony acknowledged more conversations and due diligence were needed. We also heard from industry and business folks

Their concerns centered around employers generally supporting baseline training, but argued the ordinance is too prescriptive and costly and could be difficult to implement. So with that context I'm pleased to now pass this over to our panel in whatever order you so choose, but I will go ahead and introduce you now. We have Cameron Kilburg who is virtual, who's the Vice President of Government Relations of Allied Universal. Thank you Cameron for being here. We've Herbie Duvernay who is the principal and CEO of Wind Walker Solutions. He's also the board of the chair of the Black Economic Council Massachusetts, and we have David Console who is a CEO and co-founder of Redcon Security, also a member of the Back Economic Council of Massachusetts, who's the Executive Director of the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals. Thank you so much for being here and please feel free to, or do you have a preferred person to go first? Good morning. Tish McMullen, Executive Director of the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals

Our organization works to support 12 member teaching hospitals across Greater Boston and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this docket. As you may know, Our teaching hospitals rely on a wide range of personnel, including unarmed security officers to ensure the safety of our patients and their families, our employees, and our neighbors. Training of our security officers is a paramount importance to our organizations and we very much appreciate your attention to this important issue. Given the importance of the training within our hospitals, we believe a one-size fits all approach is not appropriate to this critical training.

Rather, we feel that there is ample opportunity for the city to recognize our dynamic and robust training programs while still pursuing your goal of broader access to training for individuals serving in these important positions. Hospitals and large academic medical centers, are extraordinarily unique environments that operate under considerable state and federal regulatory requirements that are related to patient and employee security and training. Hospitals have to meet these standards in order to maintain our licenses from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, our participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and our accreditation from the Joint Commission.

It is critical to us that any legal and regulatory requirements are harmonious with current state and federal law, The complexity of our institutions. We respectfully ask that the council move carefully and deliberately in considering this ordinance, and convene the various stakeholders as you have today that have expressed operational concerns with the ordinance as drafted before moving it forward. As you do move it forward, however, we stand ready to work with you to craft an ordinance that recognizes the unique training support needed for hospital security officers to be successful in these roles. In addition, two specific recommendations

As part of written testimony, we would also urge that you consider two alternative approaches. allow hospitals and other employers with robust training programs for security professionals to attest that their training meets or exceeds the minimum standards established by the city. We believe employers should be permitted to do their own training and should be permitted to attest that their training meets these standards established by the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections. This attestation should exempt employers and employees from the external training requirements in the ordinance. Second, create a program that sets minimum standards for unarmed security officers working for the City of Boston.

At the previous hearing on this ordinance and the compelling testimony provided by the security officers, We recognized a clear opportunity for the City to pursue training of its employees. We believe that Council should pursue an effort to enact minimum training requirements for security professionals working for the city prior to pursuing any broader efforts. In addition to directly addressing an identified gap in training, Such an effort would allow the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections to develop its programs and systems for a smaller number of employers, trainers, and security officers and to troubleshoot any issues or barriers to creating a functioning program. Thank you for your consideration of our comments, as I said we stand ready to work with you

to ensure that unarmed security officers in Boston have adequate training while taking into consideration the comprehensive and dynamic work being done at our institutions Our professional employees. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if there is any additional information we could provide. Thank you.

Thank you, Patricia. We'll go to Herbie.

First of all, congratulations on your new baby, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Chair Coletta Zapata, Councilor Santana and members of the committee. My name is Herbie Duvernay. I'm the founder and CEO of WindWalker Group, a Boston-based security training and professional services company. We employ approximately 200 full-time and part-time employees. About 68% of our workforce are people of color, and more than 58% are Boston residents. I also serve as Board Chair of the Black Economy Council of Massachusetts. I want to make something very clear I believe in training. Training and workforce development are actually part of my business. My concern is that the ordinance could unintentionally create barriers for two groups I care deeply about.

Small and disadvantaged businesses trying to compete, and people trying to enter the workforce or earn additional income. For me, this is personal. I came to this country from Haiti when I was 20 years old. I didn't speak English. I cleaned bathrooms. I work in a grocery store. I did whatever job I could find while trying to build a life here. 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 Faber. I received orientation and basic training, but what really developed me wasn't a card or checklist. It was people. Supervisors coached me, mentors corrected me. They taught me how to communicate white reports

handle difficult situation and become a professional. That opportunity changed my life, I discovered that security could become my profession, so I studied criminal justice, earned both my bachelor's and master's degree from Northeastern, moved into management and executive leadership, and eventually founded my own security company. The opportunity came first. Today, I hire people who need that same opportunity We hire immigrants, students, working parents, people who already have another job and need another 10 or 20 hours a week. And people looking for their first opportunity Think about what 40 hours of mandatory training mean to them. Yes, they are paid during training but paying someone minimum wage doesn't magically create 40 additional hours in their life

A student has classes, a parent has childcare. Someone with another job may have to give up higher paying hours just to qualify for a part-time opportunity. For someone trying to make ends meet, 40 hours is a real barrier. It also affects disadvantaged businesses like mine We compete against some of the largest security companies in the world. They can spread management, recruiting, training, insurance technology and compliance costs across tens of thousands of employees I have approximately 200 people. and one criticism we already hear when competing for contracts is one worker is too expensive. Sometime, we are not because we are making excessive profits but because we don't have the scale of the largest company

and add 40 hours of pay, pre-service training, outside training costs and additional compliance cost. Eventually those costs will go into our rates. Our rate increase, we become less competitive. We win fewer contracts and ultimately we create fewer jobs. A regulation can be equal on paper and still have very unequal economic impact. And again, I'm not against training. I am in the training business. In 2017, I acquired and established a training company that had been operating for approximately 25 years. Today we provide training and workforce development, including for federal government clients. I know what develops good security professional.

It's appropriate training combined with strong supervision, coaching, site-specific knowledge, accountability and culture. We demonstrate that during our FIFA-related operation here outside the building, we recruited and developed a diverse workforce for demanding international event. We trained them, we supervised them, coached them and corrected them. And they performed. Our clients also hold us accountable. If my officers don't perform, clients can remove them. If we don't fix the problem, they can fire my company. Insurance liability and our reputation provide additional accountability. If my people consistently fail, my company eventually fails. Beg my Willardra specific recommendation for improving this ordinance.

My request today is simpler, think about the immigrant, the student, The walking parent, the person who need a second job. and the disadvantaged business trying to compete against company many times its size. Security opened a door for me, for 20 years old immigrant from Haiti who didn't speak English Someone give me an opportunity. Today I have the privilege of giving that opportunity to someone else. Don't make the credential more important than the person. Let's raise the standard without raising the barrier. Thank you.

Thank you, Herbie. I will just say I didn't realize the extent of your ascension and your story is really inspirational. And I know that you are working really hard to provide opportunities I do have so many questions for you, but I will wait. Obviously we have Corey and then we have our lead sponsor. Oh, and Cameron as well. I apologize but I do just want to recognize that we've been joined by Councillor Brayden. Sorry. I just called you Cory, I apologize. Your name is David Consol.

It's fine.

Would you mind just repeating your title where you work and then also any affiliations? And you can go ahead with your remarks.

Sounds good. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is David Consell. I am the CEO and co-founder of Rikon Security and a member of the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts. I co-founded this company at 27 years old. I'm 34 now. When I left Morgan Stanley to do this full time, people thought I was crazy. I know I could make a bigger impact on my community this way. We're over 50 employees today that's full time and the number climbs part-time. And we provide unarmed security to commercial, residential and event venues across Boston. And I believe I'm the youngest owner operator at this scale in the city. We are the future, and we represent what's supposed to be possible here. And this ordinance would undo a lot of the work this city has done to support small businesses like mine. In seven years, this company has kept food on the table for staff who had nowhere else to turn.

I've had guards work their way through college into careers as lawyers and Boston police officers. I've hired people rebuilding their lives after a divorce, and immigrants for whom this was their first job in this country. Their first chance to learn English and who worked with us long enough to get their first apartment. And I'm not one of the big guys for sure. Something like this makes the American dream harder to reach than it already is. We bootstrapped this company from the ground up No investors, no outside capital. Some months just making payroll every two weeks is the win and between payroll rising insurance and every other fee that comes with running a business here there's already barely any room for error To start with the 40 hours, every new hire gets 40 hours of training within 90 days. And section 17 to 22.7 says I pay for all of it. Tuition, fees and wages

and I can't require a candidate to already hold the certificate before, before I hire them. In a high turnover industry with turnover reported at 200% or more that's not a cost I pay once per position I'm paying it multiple times a year for the same post, before a dollar of tuition or fees which have no established rate yet since no certified program exists under this ordinance. Then there's the scheduling When a guard comes off post for 40 hours, my client still needs coverage. So I'm paying that guard to train and paying someone else to cover the shift on a 180-day clock that starts just 30 days after this passes. I don't know how I keep every site covered. The ordinance as written only recognizes one kind of training provider, and nonprofit in person only with five years in the business.

That shuts out tools already doing this job, like the platform we use called Aptiva which tracks guards training and gives us a way to flag continuing education It's good business and it works. I'd ask the council to leave room for technology like that instead of routing everyone through a single designated vendor. The reputation and integrity of our business matter too much at this stage for us to not properly train our staff and deliver quality service to our clients. That's why we train guards fully on what it means to be a security guard with site-specific, on the job training, continuing education and through quarterly staff meetings. What worries me most isn't training standards It's the getting the paperwork wrong on an annual renewal can be grounds to deny, suspend or revoke my permit. And the moment I'm operating without one It's $300 a day per guard and a three-year ban from city contracts.

That's the sequence, it starts with a filing error and a clerical mistake shouldn't end what I've spent seven years building because I am the compliance department.

Thank you very much, David. And now we'll go to Cameron who's online. Cameron if you wouldn't mind just repeating your title and your affiliation please before your remarks?

I'm Cameron Kilburn, the Vice President of Government Relations with Allied Universal Security. Again, thank you really quickly for allowing me to be here virtually. Though we are a large company I'm a one woman team and I had to be in Atlanta this morning for meetings. But again, thank you for having me here today. And I'm here to respectfully oppose Docket 1541. Allied Universal is one of the largest security service companies in the United States employing over 300,000 security professionals nationwide including approximately 2,000 in Boston. Allied Universal services a variety of clients including hospitals, universities, affordable housing providers, non-profits, government buildings, major public events, office building and retail locations that service Boston citizens across the city and commonwealth. To be clear, Ally does not oppose training standards for security professionals. We invest substantially in the training and development of our workforce and share the committee's interest in a well-prepared professional security force.

however we must raise our serious concerns about docket 5041 as filed you all do have my written testimony from the august hearing in spirit of time i'll focus on some of our largest concerns First, employers are unable to conduct their own training. Ally provides every new guard with a comprehensive onboarding program including the company's 20 lesson core curriculum covering topics such as emergency management, de-escalation, crime deterrence Legal aspects of private security, professional safety, use-of-force and tactical safety. Additional training is provided on site specific and account specific basis This training is delivered through Allied's own industry-leading systems and it's updated regularly to reflect changing client needs and industry standards. That can be customized also per contract requirements. The ordinance does not acknowledge this existing investment. Instead, it prohibits employers from being a certified trainer and instead limits eligible training providers to entities that are exempt from federal income taxation. It expressly prohibits programs that are, quote, owned controlled and dominated by a security employer.

This approach undermines rather than builds upon an infrastructure that responsible employers have already established. and this has two significant consequences. First, it excludes any security employers regardless of the quality depth or accreditation their training programs solely on the basis of how they are organized and employer operating an appropriate training academy cannot use that program to satisfy this ordinance. It's tax status, not training quality is the determining criterion. Second, the five-year demonstrated experience requirement applies to the training program itself not merely to its instructors. It's unclear whether any currently existing eligible entity in Boston satisfies all this criteria. Provider availability cannot be assumed and the City's ability to enforce the ordinance depends entirely on whether qualified providers emerge and are certified. Second, the ordinance increased costs and reduced security coverage. The cost-consequence of this ordinance are substantial and will flow directly to the Boston institutions and citizens that depend on security services.

The ordinance's number of hours, requirements to do all the training in person, use of a third-party operator and do all of the training prior to starting the job not only go against the average requirements nationwide but will add significant costs and act as a great deterrent for future employees. The costs do not remain with the security company. They are reflected in contract pricing paid by Boston's hospitals, universities, nonprofits, housing providers and other institutions. For many of these clients particularly non-profits and affordable housing providers who operate on fixed budgets The result will not be a higher compliance spending. It's going to be a decision to reduce security coverage or even eliminate it. Furthermore, the ordinance contains no grandfather provision Every existing unarmed guard, regardless of years of experience, prior employer training, military background or law enforcement credentials must complete the full 40-hour program from scratch within 180 days of the effective date.

Allied Universal's core training, even where it covers the same subject matter as the ordinance requires cannot satisfy this requirement unless re-delivered by that city certified asset provider. This will require all currently staffed guards to be pulled off their posts in a haphazard manner when a classroom spot opens up, without the ability to backfill positions with qualified guards potentially leaving numerous clients without any security. Should also be noted that if there's not a qualifying provider to do the training, we still have to have our guards trained for 180 days which means everyone will be pulled off within an 180-day market and it'll be no one able to provide services. Third, the ordinance cannot be implemented in its proposed timeline. The ordinance takes effect 30 days after passage within that window. This city would be required to one design and publish a permit application process 2. Develop eligibility criteria and application process for training programs 3. Evaluate provider applications including review of ownership, director qualifications instructor credentials curricula insurance in a five-year experience requirements

serve by at least one qualified provider, promulgate implementing regulations and stand up a complaint intake investigation enforcement structure. This process is also going to cost the city to set up and maintain on a regular basis. The ordinance also assigns all this work to the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protection, provides no deadline for completing it. No additional staffing and no appropriations to that office. This is not a theoretical concern. Philadelphia proposed a nearly identical ordinance and passed a parsed down version late last year. By March 1 of this year, the effective date, the City of Philadelphia has not certified a single qualifying training provider and that remains the case today. The Philadelphia Department of Labor publicly announced Lamentation was postponed with no enforcement date set. The law has been unenforceable, and Boston's proposed timeline is even more condensed. Fourth and finally, this bill lacks appropriate due process. Again with time centering time here I'll just note that there are numerous administrative issues and inappropriate penalties

But in conclusion, Allied respectfully urges the Committee to reject Docket 54-1 as filed. Allied is more than willing to continue to work with the committee and council on appropriate training regulations. However, we question legitimacy of any urgency to rush through the ordinance. And we urge the city to slow down, engage the security in business communities, consider a budget for this process and consider if the city should be footing this bill at all, and instead take the initial step of engaging a state where almost universally security guard licenses are overseen nationwide. So thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much to our first panel. I will just ask if you haven't already submitted your testimony, if you could submit it to the committee? I did try to take as many notes as I can and I do have more questions just to clarify some points but if you can submit that to both myself Breadon, we are going to move straight into questions if that's okay just to keep it going because you have a panel after this. but I'll now pass it over to Councilor Santana for his questions of this panel. Go ahead.

Awesome, thank you Madam Chair and thank you all our panelists here. I think I forgot to mention that I did meet with From between last hearing and this hearing, I did meet with many of you and heard your concerns. And also just appreciate all of you being here, being present in this conversation. I have a few more general questions, and I think I have two specific questions. How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

Eight minutes.

Okay. I just want to be respectful of my colleagues here. So really appreciate you getting your testimony here. Are you confident, and this is for anyone, are you confident that all officers at all companies across the city are receiving adequate training right now?

If I can answer, I mean I think it's a broad question to ask. It's hard for me to say whether or not all security companies are providing adequate training. All I know is what we provided in terms of training that we provide. Many of the big companies that, you know, securitas, allies. I worked for some of those companies before and I know they have tremendous amount of training when I came on board for them so again Whether or not there might be one here, one there that doesn't have the training but it's hard for me to say that. But I will think that If you are in this business of doing security for companies, I don't believe companies will allow you not to train people appropriately because you want I don't have that contract for long. Those contracts will go. That's just the way the business works. As a small business,

You know, to sort of pitch to my prospective client, you know, how could I do a better job? But my guess is if those companies know that they work very hard not to lose their contract. If they're in business to win.

I appreciate that. You know, I think over the past two hearings we've heard from multiple workers. From some of the largest security companies in the Boston market and they have testified that they received very little training. I also shared about my experience being a security officer You know, working overnights while I was campaigning for this role and received very little training myself. Right? I could only speak for myself. That's why I asked you the previous question. So and then the people who have testified in the last hearing, they talked about the need for more. We just love to understand How do you respond to that? Or what are your response to security officers who are currently right now Working and saying, I need more training. And I didn't receive adequate training.

I'm always in support of anybody who worked for me that said they needed more training just to sort of put that into perspective You know, my firm, our secret sauce is the way that we train our people at a low cost. I mean, again, we're a training company as well. So we're able to train our People at a very low cost and the way we do I'm a strong believer, and that's what I say in my testimony. I'ma strong believer training cannot be something that happened once it has to continuously happening as the employees is an employee at your workspace so in our firm Not only we trained them, you know, we did that orientation, the one day orientation and training CPR. But what we really do is continuously time after time supporting them Coaching them, make sure they're doing the great job that you need to do. Just for some perspective we were able to hire about over 190 people to do the FIFA Fan Fest and we trained

But what really set us apart is the way that we're able to coach them, supervise them and bring great manager to make sure that we are managing people the right way. I think it would be a wrong path of just thinking that the training will solve problems. If there are companies out there that's not doing right, I'm sure they will find another way to do it right.

And this is Cameron Kilburg online. Just to follow up with Herbie, I think noting that we do listen to those providers. We say we are constantly updating for industry standards and we hear back from those who are working for us, they need certain types of training. We can adjust it and we do adjust our training to focus on those issues. There's always a changing environment And so I'm sure Herbie does the same thing. As he noted, it's also ongoing training just because you were trained once. You are consistently trained throughout the year. and get that next level of training. And there's also contract specific training, remember that you know there are different types of positions and we will train for that role and often our contracts require us to train for the role too.

Absolutely thank you. Thank you both for answering that. I do have a specific question for David, if I may. Can you just share more about how you as a small business owner track training and continue education How do you conduct your training? I know you spoke just a little bit about that, so we'd just like to have a little more insight on some of that data collecting.

Like I said, we invested in a tool called Activa. We are a small business. We have a massive department. So for example, one of our larger clients there is we have an account manager, site supervisors. So within that Aptiva it uses AI to build out site-specific things and what it means to be a security guard. Once they go through that, it's specific on the job training in addition Learning the SOPs, learning the post orders. And it doesn't just stop at that because like you said some people may need more training and within that first 90 days, it's our account manager and our supervisor job to continuously oversee them making sure that their reports are written well. Incident reports were written well if they need any support and after that 90 days We have a 90-day review just to see where they're at, if they need any more training.

And then once that 90 day hits we always have a quarterly staff meeting at every single one of our sites

Okay, well thank you. I appreciate that clarity there. Cameron if I may ask you a question? Yes. In previous written testimony you have shared details about your training curriculum I'd like to know some more, just a little bit more details of this. Is this training required for each new employee? And if so how long after hire does an employee have to complete your Cori Training Program?

So yes, this is every employee. So the core program is for every employee there might be extra training on top of what we call that core program depending on the contract they're on so they might have a little more let's say if you're at a hospital or homeless shelter for example So everyone does take it. Those core courses they take right before they start the job. We do ongoing training throughout the year, so every year we add on a few extra hours of training like I said there's some Reiterating of some of these core courses, new topics but again it can also be specific to that job. So it is ongoing but every person no matter what takes those core pieces if that answers your question.

Yep, and just kind of a follow up on that. How do you internally monitor which employees have completed your curriculum? And are there any penalties that I receive for not doing so?

So we, obviously a very large company. We have an extremely robust backend system and HR systems so it's completely monitored for a huge back end technology system. People have to log in. We can monitor when they log in, we can monitor where they finish the courses They can't start certain roles without finishing these courses, so it's part of the onboarding process. So a penalty in that sense from the starting you don't start your position For ongoing training, they have to do it every year. So they could be removed if they haven't completed that training by the end date from that position that they're in. But because we require that training to continue your position, but it is very much monitored because we do have a really robust back end system. Every guard has an app that helps them get through all these What's the name of that?

Oh, it's just our own allied system. So our core training is what we call the courses but we have a whole back end HR system and there's a couple of different products that have different names, but something we've built out internally. We don't work with independent products. We've had the whole technology team and HR team that's built out that system.

Okay great thank you. That's my time, Madam Chair. I'll wait for a second round.

Thank you. Just one quick follow up on that just because I'm really interested to understand how folks track this best practices all of that. Just to confirm it's a proprietary Murphy. We're just taking care of some tech issues on our end.

I think, I think I'm good now. Okay so thank you for all you've shared already a few specific questions um and something I think about anyway, but when this was filed also there's a fine line. Last year we had a hearing about hotel workers The role they play and how they're put in certain situations. I often feel like it's that fine line between the job description, right? And the security guards are obviously put in positions and exposed to things but at what point That's a rhetorical question, kind of. But at what point then are we calling the police? All of the things that they're exposed to shouldn't only be on them. You're always then calling the Police when needed, right?

When and if individual security workers that you hire have concerns, if you could just kind of talk through. And when I think about the different places You know, if it's a hospital. If it's hotel. If its outside at fanfare. If It's at a concert. What is the protocol? And each company might be a little bit different but when say an individual came to you and said I don't know if I have enough training, or these are the things that I see happening that I feel like we need more support. If you could just kind of talk through maybe sometimes when you hear that or see that and what are the protocols? And if the answer is Well, that's not something we would ever want or expect you to do. What training do they have to know that you need to call an ambulance? Or you need the police at that point. It's not what we want you to

Yeah, you know I'll try to think through that questions and stuff. One of the primary goal of our security guard at most of our site is to observe and report. That's one of the basic part of that. and based on that, based on the clients and what their clients require there's more of that can be done. The client can say while observing report but also I want you to engage right so based on The skill set that person need to have to do that. Part of our basic training, I brought a copy of me here, You know, one of that is how to deal with difficult people. De-escalation because a lot of time it's about conversational people make sure they understand what are you asking them to do and then

What we also train our people is to know that when they sense that there's a problem, and that's part of our training, they sense the person getting agitated. They're swearing at you for doing that That's when we want them to call the police and call law enforcement. We've done this thing, as you probably observed in front of the building at FIFA with 190 people with a major event for the World Cup where we train people to do that. We tell them what to do and we give them the parameters of how they got to react. The best way to do for our firm is through training And within that training, we also do a lot of world-based conversation as well. So we will talk about it. We'll give an example. We will tell them what you think? How are you going to react? We want to see that. That's just a small piece of the training The rest of it is what we want the supervisor and manager to do, to observe, to make sure that the person is doing what they're supposed to be doing.

And this is Cameron of Unline again, I apologize. I just want to reiterate security guards are never intended to be police or take over that role and there's a role for the police to be called and Allied does specific training and reminders throughout The time, you know, Guard is on duty of what they can and can't do. And in many situations we don't want them engaging touching Tackling anything you would do as a police officer detaining folks. And exactly like what Herbie was saying, there's training to say okay how do we de-escalate and then when is the time you need to call the police? And in some situations, it's also the law. If you're at a retail location and can you detain or not someone stealing stuff? And I apologize that don't remember Massachusetts' or Boston's laws but like in Delaware for example, you may not detain unless you're in a medical setting. So they can't even detain that individual. They need to call the police when they observe that theft. So it is very clear.

And something, if it ever happens and we do have situations where someone has laid a hand on someone, they go back to that training. What may or may not can you do in that situation? So it's something. We don't want them to be police. There is a role for the police here and there's a role

There's been times, or do you feel like this ordinance is written in any way? Is there any wording in this ordinance that alarms you that they're wanting to have training for things you don't want them to be doing anyway, that the training would be giving them the ability or the skills but it doesn't match your job description.

I think, Councilor, that's a really good point. There is section within that ordinance that sort of like... I mean not just the ordinance even I was there at the last hearing some of the presentation I've been doing security for many, many years. So I think there's a misconception about what the security officer job is versus what law enforcement job is and we gotta be very careful on that. And we talk about this with our clients, you know sometimes we push back on our client if our client expect us to do something which we think is a police force to do that, we'll tell them that But you're absolutely right. And there are things about dealing with people that we would rather have that being done, Law Enforcement Agency that's qualified to do that, as opposed to our main primary job which is very important for many of our clients. Which is you observe You stay guard at the post that you are or you make sure that if there's something wrong and you report that.

That's a very key thing is that in the city of Boston, the police not gonna check all your buildings to know if there is something wrong so we need the guard to do that But when something bad happened, we need the police to respond to get that done. To fix that.

And just a little on like a hospital setting. I would assume... Tensions are high. It's like a different emotional feeling, right? When you have people rushing in and maybe being stopped because they can't go into an emergency room, you know, they're trying to get to a loved one, obviously sometimes they're stopped or you have then Partying, a concert or an outside. So there's different settings and if you could just explain that type of different training and assuming that obviously how are you going to guard a concert is very different Different training may be needed, and is that provided to your workers in that understanding that obviously people coming into a hospital have very different Thank you.

There should be sort of threshold minimum standards of some kind, but they need to be dynamic and flexible. And it's one of those things you don't want an ordinance change every time your updating minimum standards, it's more appropriate that the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections sort of look at that set of minimum standards whatever it might be Year over year, and as I suggested earlier we would not have any objection to attesting or providing We would be kind of very opposed to having to go to a third party for

In some cases, hundreds of hours of training and as you said it's ongoing. It's constant depending on what the new and emerging threat might be Depending on regulatory changes, the environment. It is not static. Our training is constant. There are certain policies and procedures every hospital has a very comprehensive set of those that guide our employees in certain situations on their first and next steps. Those are constantly being updated and developed based on changing environment. And I think you need a similar dynamic opportunity in setting any minimum standards. Awesome, thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank You Councillor Murphy just want to recognize we've been joined by councillor and co-sponsor councillors Louijeune I failed to mention we have an absence letter from Sharon Durkan who says that she's unable to attend, but she plans to closely review the proceedings and hope that you will take these concerns into consideration that she lists. She's generally concerned about the ordinance and hopes to be involved in the next iteration of whatever is produced this committee. We'll go to Councillor Flynn for his questions and then Councillor Louijeune. Councillor Flynn, you're on the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair. And my question may have been answered already and I do apologize but I'll ask it again If you answered it already and want to skip it, I understand. I can look at the video But my question is, is there something specific or what is the main point in the ordinance that you might disagree with? Or is it just the ordinance as a whole that you disagree with Is there certain areas that you do agree with? Just want to kind of get a little bit of understanding on, I always like to see I don't think that's a bad word in government, but do you have any Anything you want to add about what you like or what you don't like specifically?

This is Cameron online. Oh, I'm sorry, Herbie, you can go ahead.

No, no, I was going to say what I like about the audience is the fact that We are talking about security guard, which this is part of my profession. So I think we call ourselves one of our values Understand that our people, that's what makes the difference to our clients. So the fact that there is a focus on security and the work they do every day I think is a very important piece. It's the first time that I'm testifying in front of the council on security matter and other issues. But security matter, I think that was great, the fact that we elevate that field because I think it is a very important field. So that part, I really like the fact What I don't like is the fact that thinking about the way that the ordinance is thinking about security as a checklist and get it done, and that's it.

which I think is a misconception about the way training should be done, but more importantly why each of these companies have very unique ways of training their people so they can do the job they need to do and empower our people to get the job done. So that's sort of the piece that I think missing in that, you know having one size fit all always an issue when you have all the different clients Different fields, different sectors and everything else. So that's a part that I think is misguided a little bit.

Thank you for your answer.

And if I might just add in, sorry Councilman. Just Cameron Kilburg from Allied Universal. I agree with Herbie but I also think generally and I hate to be blunt, I think the bill should be scrapped and started over. I think what we are open to 100%, as we've all said on the panels is training and discussing what training should look like, and having some kind of flexible dynamic training basis for everyone. But who does the training? The penalties that are in here? The cost to the city? The costs to the businesses? The number of hours? are, you know, not on average. I think we're out of whack. No grandfathering. All these items we've said just don't make a lot of sense for the industry and damage and so on. So I think it's about

Starting over and having a real conversation of what training looks like, and something I reiterated in my testimony is also why is the city doing this? And then why aren't we engaging the state first because what I hate seeing is these pockets of different rules and regulations. So Cambridge could come behind you guys and do something totally different, and we're talking two block differences between Boston and them. It should be a state-level basis, and that's what we see mostly nationwide. Thank you.

I do want to add, I agree, I think it's wonderful that we're talking about training. I thought the testimony of the frontline workforce was very compelling. It made clear there's opportunity to work together What we, you know, what we cannot support is training that's been given to a third party. We're good at our training as I mentioned it's It's comprehensive, it's evolving, its dynamic. And I do think we have an opportunity here to reach a goal of training without Thank you very much.

Employers who do very comprehensive training. I think the good news is we're all committed to it and finding a path to achieving Thank you. At the last hearing on this subject I did stress the importance of listening to

Beckmer in understanding their concerns as well. And I know Beckmer reached out to a lot of city councils, including myself and had a good conversation, a positive conversation So I appreciate that feedback and I do appreciate that Beckmer is part of the conversation. My question is, For security guards themselves, let me ask a two-part question. But for security guards, is there a lot of men and women of color that are security guards? and are there a lot of security companies in Boston or greater Boston that are owned by people of color?

I would say yes security like majority of security guys you will see are people of color there aren't that many security owner operators that own security companies especially at this scale uh like Herbie said normally security is A lot of people it's their first job when they got out of college or to work through college and even like immigrants as well. Like I'm an immigrant, Herbie is an immigrant and that's going to be majority of security workforce. I don't know if that answers your question?

No, it does. It's a very good answer but We all support small businesses. We also especially support small business owned by women and people of color. Would this negatively impact Small business owners of color or woman-owned companies. And what impact would it have, or could it have on the workers but also the company itself? Is it just something that they're just going to have to be in compliance with or is it a significant impact?

It would be a significant impact. I said in my opening remarks, just making payroll and insurance costs is there's barely any room for error So you add on another fee, another compliance thing that we have to abide by just make things tougher. And then now we're at the same level field as the big guys So now when we're going to our prospective clients, what makes you different? Nothing because we're training all the same way. So now we're at a huge disadvantage and we've become more expensive like Herbie said and Our clients are just going to go in-house, either go in house or go to the larger guys and it just cuts us out.

Madam Chair I know my time is up do i have time for one final question? Sure. Thank you madam chair um so you mentioned And I was listening closely to you. You mentioned a fee that might be added. Can you explain that to me? That's okay. You mentioned a fee that might be added or could be added Can you just explain what you meant?

For example, if the annual renewal If you make a mistake on that, it's like $300 per day per guard. I said earlier as well the bigger guys have a huge compliance team to make sure That everything is dotted and crossed perfectly. I've seen those mistakes happen where just one thing was missed in a paperwork, and something's canceled. And then that can be very detrimental to

Thank you for your answer. Madam Chair, thank you for giving me an extra minute. Thank you.

Okay we'll go to Councilor Louijeune. We have eight minutes.

Thank you so much Madam Chair and apologies for the delay. I had a meeting in community, want to thank everyone for being here. Want to say welcome back because I know many of you were present for the last hearing that we had. And I'm grateful that we can hear from the perspective of our businesses, especially our small business owners and want to thank you for the time Today, I also just want to state that I appreciate the commentary that this is going to disproportionately Thank you. Thank you so much for being here today, and thank I also appreciate that the reason why you stated that it's not the same as all of the other businesses is because you won't internalize the costs at the same rate that bigger businesses will internalize the cost. And I think that is worthy of noting and for us to reflect on and consider.

But I do wanted to ask, there are very credible and fact-based reasons why standardization is something folks are seeking when we talk about the potential threats or the loss of life, when it came to the security guard in New York. what it looks like to have standardized training. So I'd love to hear from the panel, and I apologize if I did miss this or someone else's question about what does good security guard training look to you And we've heard broad agreement that training matters, even from people who are concerned about this ordinance. So wondering what are the baseline minimums that you believe security guards working in Boston are expected to be known? to know and to be trained on.

I think, um...I will say that it may not be within the city ordinance that there is a standard. I believe there's standards already Within each of these companies, the way they do training. I mean as I was listening to Ally Earlier, almost everything they talk about is things that almost every security company that I know trend people on. I mean, I have my list here of companies You know, your responsibility, protection and services, post orders, use of force, ethic and integrity confidentiality. Progressive Discipline, Characteristic, Politeness, Effectiveness, Customer Service, Cultural Awareness Campus Overlay, Situational Awareness, Radio Discipline, Reporting.

I mean this is part of our security company's manual that I'm reading all those lines so these standards You know, every security company that I know and the one that I work with they already have that basic because that's what the field is. I mean there's a field people get degree from that field So I don't believe that these companies are just like creating a security company on paper without knowing that they have to abide by the standard. On top of it, the client expects that. The client expects This is need to be done. So, may not be somewhere within city hall or paper somewhere where there's that ordinance saying there's a standard but there is a standard within the industry I mean, this is a very long-time industry that's been around for hundreds of years. So I don't believe that—I think the notion saying there's no standard, I will disagree with that.

Yeah, I mean Herbie please don't take from me that I stated there was no standard. I was just saying standardization so that there is sort of a guaranteed baseline across industry regarding what is expected of security. I mean, I understand your point.

I just want to make sure that we're sort of saying You know, there is a standard out there. They have national security organization actually international Security Organization that's talking about those standards every day. Many of the security executive or people you know, ways to direct. They go to those conferences they have certification we have people within our firm who have a CPP which is one of the highest level that you can have within the security business. They have standards out there, so this is not... People are doing what they're supposed to be doing to get the job done. I don't think we need another entity to make that happen. The industry's already doing that because they have to

Okay, there are states and municipalities that do provide and that do require baseline training. So why are we the outlier in Boston without providing such of a baseline, like regulatory requirements.

I love when Boston don't just follow everybody else because sometimes we're unique. Because I think that, you know, We have a great state here. So we don't want to do something just because someone else is doing it, we have a wonderful city so my thing is because they're doing it I don't think that we should be doing it. We should do it and because we think it's the right things Not because some cities or town is doing that, because I can tell you this is just a wrong ordinance. And in the other city that's doing it, good luck for them. As a matter of fact, thank you they are doing it that we're not doing it here in Boston because we don't want to just follow them just because they're doing something for us to do it. I think that's the wrong way to do

Thank you, Herbie. I'm sorry to say Cameron Kilburg from Allied since we are a global company and we're pretty much all 50 states. Yes? Many states, majority of states have licensing requirements and they differ. Sometimes it's the guard has to get a license, sometimes is the company, sometimes it's both and you know they all differ a little bit. This amount of hours and everything is definitely not on average there's usually less But what you see generally, again is that it's the state. Very few locations do regional and for example Missouri does that right now but they are in the process of working with NASCO who submitted testimony whose our and, you know, Security Association in the US to make it statewide. It is doing its city by city jurisdiction by jurisdiction doesn't make a lot of sense. And it kind of goes back to Philadelphia. Pennsylvania is much like Massachusetts. They do not have a statewide regulation But Philly's taken it upon themselves to set this up, and it's not going very well. And partially because there's not a budget for it.

I'm not blaming the staffers by any means. They were handed something they haven't been given budget to do. They don't have the staff to do this. They're not making the timelines. It's going to be delayed. These things should really be at the state level if you're going to do it and make it universal throughout the state and streamlined. Because again, just the cost of cities can be extremely high. But that also guarantees everyone in the state is doing the same thing versus Cambridge does something different, Boston does something difference, Springfield does something But yes, it is average to have some kind of licensing structure but it's at the state level.

In New York, is it at the State or City level?

It is at the state for training. The state controls the training, even in New York City which is kind of an odd duck obviously because New York city has a lot of homeroom powers. The issue and that the bill they passed recently did not address training and his final completion, it is completely wage-based. So the training's still from the state?

I think part of the issue as well, and we've heard... We have small businesses here. Thank you. We have some of our security workers here, 32BJ who is here. We're trying to also see we're listening to the security guards and what they're telling us in terms of what they are lacking on the job and our job as policy makers is to intervene when we believe that there are gaps. And when we're talking about our business owners who, again, I have a lot of sympathy, especially for our small businesses, especially those owned by people of color. We realize the racial wealth gap in this city is very real. The overwhelming majority of whom are black and brown here in the city who want a more professionalized, be part of a more-professionalized industry that isn't just seen as transitional. That does have these minimum standards and I know Part of the issue is one company isn't the same as the other.

How you treat workers, how you pay workers is very different but that is what we've been hearing from our security guards and we are, as policy makers when it's needed to intervene, to provide regulations, to professionalize their work, to make them feel safer at their jobs so that not only do they feel safe but the public can feel safe because they feel like they understand what they're doing. So that is in part in response to that. has a response or commentary on that, but this isn't just coming from like we believe that we know what's best. You are hiring employees who are also coming to us and saying this is what we need in order for us to be successful at our job and something that can not just be a job it could potentially be a career.

I guess I would say we're 100% in support of training and, in fact, proud of the training that we do across our institutions. I think, you know, I don't think you were here but our suggestion was that we would be number one, that we don't the one size fits all approach in the bill. is the right approach, that it would not be an employer who would be allowed to do his or her own training. That's a non-starter for us. We do really comprehensive and ongoing training, and we want to continue to do it. But we also recognize hearing the testimony that there are gaps including at the city of Boston

So what we would be happy to do is work with the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections to attest to minimum training and document. to some extent what we do and kind of have an ongoing conversation with them about training. It's not that we We certainly don't oppose. All three of us are 100% in support of training, just not the way it's proposed in the ordinance. And then the other opportunity is to start with the city. Start with city employees and setting minimum standards for training for city employers

and utilize that as an opportunity to learn from it before rolling it out more broadly.

Well, thank you. You stated something I think we all agree on in that there are gaps and all of us are trying to address those gaps. So thank you Madam Chair. That's my time.

Thank you, Councilor Louijeune. We'll now go back to our lead sponsor for the second round. He said he has a couple more questions. I have a few more.

I don't want to keep you all here.

Four minutes? Five minutes? We'll do five minutes.

And they're kind of a quick yes or no. Herbie, I know you listed a few of the trainings that your company provides. Do you all provide active shooting training?

We don't do, at many of our sites we don't direct active shooter training at the orientation side. But many of our clients require active shooter training and also not even so much training. We talk about Ron High, part of the section on that training But a deep part of the active shooter training is when we did some tabletop exercise with our client that required and enhanced that. So I will say yes, we do some but it's not like a deep active training that you can think of.

OK. David?

Yes, the same. Clients request it a lot. We have it in our continuing education when we're doing our quarterly staff meetings. That's something we bring up as well just because some of our sites are high visibility sites so that is included. Justice Irby, very high level as well.

I will have to check with the hospitals but I believe all employees have threshold active shooter training

I don't know if we called, and I apologize, active shooter training. But there's training for when someone comes in or attacks. Say really quickly as an example, though this was a federal contract up in New York City when that gentleman attacked that federal building because DHS was in there. The gentleman who did end up tackling a guy outside. There's a guard inside to protect everyone before the FPS together was an allied guard. So there is some kind of training for those incidences, right? But I don't know how in-depth it is Thank you.

And it's all very quickly, yes or no to all of you. I think I know the answers to this but I just wanted to be on the record. Do you all compensate your employees for all the required trainings that you require them to do? Yes. Yes. I don't think I need all of y'all to answer, but maybe one or two of you How do you train your officers on how to interact with law enforcement?

From an ally's perspective, I can speak. Again, I don't know exact language of the training but the idea is they're not to be police officers so they are to contact the police as Herbie had said previously

How do you train them to interact with law enforcement themselves?

You mean like from a personality perspective or when they contact them?

When they contact

So we have a standard. And it depends, again, on the contract because if you are at Walgreens and someone stole something but you can't detain them depending on state or local law There's a set standard. They look at it like, when do you escalate to that police in that situation? And it can be contract-to-contract. I defer the hospital associations but our hospitals have very specific requirements and we work with them How things escalate, but they are given that training of this is when you go to the police. This is when the police is contacted based on what you're doing at that job site because it's a little different if your retail or hospital etc

Yeah, no, understood. All right, thank you. I think those are my questions. I really do want to thank you all for again being here answering our questions I do want to reiterate something that, you know, Councilor Louijeune comes out as that. You know this was crafted as a like we're here directly from security guards right and they're telling us our stories Second panel today where we're going to hear from some more testimony. And that's our job, I'm glad that we were able to bring You all to the table, which we failed to do at our first hearing and I recognize that. and I think we'll talk at the end of the hearing in terms of following steps and all that, but I really do appreciate you all being here answering our questions and sharing your personal stories especially, you know, you Herbie and David As small business owners. So thank you and thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Santana. Councillor Flynn or Murphy, do you have a second round of questions that you'd like to? Okay, Councillor Flynn, we're doing five minutes this round.

And for the panel, can you give me an idea of the wages of a security guard that you employ? Is it an hourly wage and if so what is the range or is it more of a salary?

For us, it's an hourly wage. It's not a salary for our guard. Our wages internally right now vary from our client anywhere between $19 and $27 an hour. Do many of them work part-time? In my case, it's about 40% of our team is part time. There's 60% are full-time employees and part time because that's what they want by the way.

Are many of the workers kind of in transition looking for other employment opportunities, or is this more of a steady job for them?

I will say, you know, I'll let the other people answer that. What we've seen in the industry, the 40% of the well-qualified people, many of them are qualified people and even You know, even working in other sectors actually. And we trend them, you know, they see that as a way, especially the parkrunners, as a to make extra money, as away to do something different. We have a particular person who work for me You know, he works in computer engineering but he loves to do security at different locations that we have security work for him. He's a per diem employee that sort of fills in different positions Because he wants to do that. So we have that mix of people that want to do it and also I think some people, especially how life is, some people want to get the extra money so they can pay the bill.

Workers work, they certainly work in the city of Boston but do they also work at other locations in greater Boston? I do.

I have people throughout Boston including all over Wood Island.

Okay. So if this was implemented here in Boston and then they take a shift, I think someone mentioned earlier. But if they take the shift in another city, Quincy or Cambridge that wouldn't The new changes wouldn't impact them. Or can you explain how, explain the challenges if you're working in Boston and then the next night you're work in Cambridge? What impact does that have on them?

I mean, I think that's a challenge. Earlier they were mentioning that when you have those regulations on the local level, that can become a big problem because you have people, I got people who work in Cambridge. I've got people working Worcester. I get people in Fall Rivers and stuff so again, you have all the different contract sites, all different places and different standards for them so in Boston There's a standard that have to be met, but if they're going to work for Fall River it does not. I think that create a big problem for us councilor just the fact that is so many you know it's not again this is another thing we have to keep track in and the cost and everything else How many workers do you employ? We have about 200 employees.

And most of them are per diem or... No, no, no. Very small percentage of the per diems. Okay.

this is Cameron Kilburger with Allied. And I do want to apologize to folks, I'm going to hop off 1145 and have to catch a flight so I do apologize but I think something to help answer your question Good example of what you were saying when you have to go into different jurisdictions. We might have someone who works mostly in Cambridge, but we need a backfill position and so You might call upon that person and put out for a shift in Boston and say, hey, is anyone going to cover the shift? Because we have someone who's called out sick or whatever the incident may be. That person who's been in Cambridge isn't going to have this training, and we're not going to backfill those positions. We'll only be able to back fill them if the people have that specific license because they won't have had it. So it will limit that ability to back-fill roles when you're short staffed.

Okay. I'm just looking at a demographic breakdown of the 200 Employees that you hire. Give me an estimate, people of color.

Out of the 200 people that we have, about 68% of them are people of colour.

Okay.

What is the percentage of women? Our position of women is about 41%. Okay.

That's a high number of women, isn't it? In security? It's a higher number of woman in security and we're proud of it. Right, right. What opportunities do you provide your workers that are rank and file security guards? Maybe they want to stay with your company. Is there opportunities for them to grow? Oh, absolutely.

You know not only you know again our firm we do work here we also work in DC as well but you know you know we have You know, the security officer. We have lead at the site lead. We are supervisors, we have account manager, we had portfolio managers and we have people that are doing recruiting themselves. So there's a lot of opportunity, and also we have someone who is doing, couple people doing compliance as well. So these opportunities that we move people with just you know We just promoted at one of our sites someone who was a guard to a supervisor. So we love to do that because they already have our culture and understand the kind of company that we are.

Thank you for taking my questions.

I do not have any more questions for this panel. Thank you, though. And I'll continue to stay in touch as we move forward. Appreciate you being here. Thank You.

Yes.

Okay, all right. I will direct one question to you that I believe you may have already said, but I just want to clarify. So just thinking about industry standards, you have a good national perspective on this. Are there any... State standards or is there a federal standard that we should be referencing when we're looking towards setting minimum requirements?

There is not a federal standard. We do a lot of federal contracts, which come with their own specific requirements because we're at your... worked with the State Department, work for the Federal Police Services. So those come with very specific requirements at the state level and I would also recommend engaging with NASCO on this because Steve Ametay who has submitted testimony here also works throughout the states have been doing Probably about 20 years longer than I have. But the average is not 40 hours, I can tell you that. It is much less but in topics differ. When you're looking at topics, remember what people have said here is about being able to be flexible and usually why it's mostly at the state because then they can go through rulemaking and adjust the topics as needed for the industry and not just be so locked in on something.

But I can definitely work with NASCO and help identify maybe an ideal or better state that everyone says has one of the best programs, but there is not a federal standard right now.

Okay, thank you very much and thank you for your participation in this hearing. I'm sorry, I'll give myself five minutes at this point. Apologies. A lot of my questions were asked. I think there's some there here. I'm definitely hearing you and Patricia, the word that you used earlier was move deliberately which is something that I certainly try to do as chair The establishing minimum requirements for businesses that you can attest to is compelling, I think, for me. Potentially talking about a tiered structure based on number of employees, like these are things I'm putting out there as potential topics obviously in partnership with our labor partners, but I do appreciate everyone's recommendations and the fact that you came with recommendations.

I do think that the city of Boston should be moving forward for their own employees, and I want to shout out our wonderful municipal officers that work really hard every day to keep us safe I think we went through what training you would, what folks believe should be included so we have that. Herbie, you had talked about additional costs or associated costs that would go along with the training What are those associated costs? Can you just walk through that? Is it beyond just the curriculum materials? It's time, food. Like what does that actually look like? And then I have sorry and then I No, absolutely Madam Chair.

I think it's all of them. What makes us unique as a company is the training that we do for our people So additional training is not going to stop what we're already doing. So again, whatever else that we require to do will be in addition to what we are already doing so I just want to sort of make that because that's really unique about us as a company We want to have our own secret sauce really so we can be able to do the job. So, the additional cost is a cost of the employee, The company, the organization that we have to pay to provide that training as the audience pointed out. And then there's also other costs in terms of when you have... Who knows how long the line is going to be? Because all these companies try to be trained at the same time. And then that's going to delay for us to start the contract because the longer we take to set the contract, we're not making money. We're losing money and everything else.

and that cost, as I was saying, we have to factor that into our rate when we're trying to go after the business. That's what I was sayin', like spreading that amount of dollar over 200 people is very different than spreading that Over forty one hundred thousand almost close to a million people employees. That's what that additional cost will be A big burden for us as a small business Okay, thank you and I think there can be something to be said about bulk buying

training and marrying all of the organizations together. I don't know, again just putting ideas out there but thank you for that. And then David, you had talked about utilizing AI to build that specific site. Training. Can you just walk through that again for me? Just give an instance of a vendor or contract that you currently have where you used AI because it could potentially solve some of the cost issues that we're hearing from.

Yeah, so for example one of our sites In addition to providing security, we work with maintenance a lot just because if a pipe burst or where the eyes and ears when they're not there. So for example, a lot of people are visual learners or they can't just read a PDF file, or read the SOPs and it sticks. So providing additional videos and curriculums if you're doing your tour and see a pipe burst to How to handle that, creating scenarios with videos with AI. to be able to provide even more resources to help them. It's an easier, more cost efficiently effective way of helping our staff which we've already been implementing.

Okay, do you use it for training? I'm sorry. Do you use if a training but to use it like baseline training requirements that aren't just site specific?

Yeah we use it baseline training and both site-specific stuff we do in person. We walk around I think there's something there for that.

I only have 26 seconds, so... I guess my last question would be what implementation—oh, I won't even get into implementation. What number of required training hours would you consider reasonable and which topics should be mandatory?

For us, You know, we think we're already doing the number of training that we need to do. So again for me I don't see what this additional training will do on top of what we've already been doing For our employees, I don't see that.

So what's the number that you currently do then?

Right now we're doing a one full day of training that includes CPR and de-escalation customer service and a number of different In addition to that, we do an on-the-job training that's continuous. Not only do we want to make sure the person understands the site, what to do with the site. We view the SOP of the site and then we asked our supervisor and manager on a continuous basis to give us feedback in how we can better support our employees so they can continue performing.

Thank you, and for others what's the, what's your reasonable number of training hours to you and definite subject matter that needs to be included.

I think every individual is different. But if for case of this ordinance, I do think 40 hours is unreasonable just because I said earlier If you have somebody away for 40 hours and you still have a site that needs to be staffed, you're paying 40 hours twice. So something along the lines of... 12 hours, and then just like I said being able to add different resources to be able to combat with that.

I agree that it's sort of Institution specific at our teaching hospitals, as I already said. Very complex institutions and the training is far beyond 40 hours. It's not all at once, but it exceeds that.

Thank you very much. Just looking for any other questions, folks. Councilor Louijeune, I did not go to you for a second round. I apologize. But do you have any other

I don't really have a, thank you Madam Chair. I don'y really have additional questions but I just do want to thank this panel and for the feedback that we've received both via email and in meetings regarding thoughts on the ordinance, some drawbacks, some work that we can do to improve. So I want to thank you for the engagement Apologies for the lack of initial engagement, although we did have conversations with some of you and we look forward to this dynamic process. We're doing what's best for our city, best for workers not too much of a burden on any of our companies so thank you.

Thank you so much I appreciate uh industry experts providing your testimony um you are Now we will go to our second panel of our union folks. Thank you again and thank you for everything you do for the city. Next, we'll have Carmen Fonseca. Rob Cook, Roberto Brown McCormack, Ockel St. Louis, David Williams please join us Oh, and Trevana as well.

Okay, we can go to folks in their preferred order. I will just reiterate who's here. Carmen Fonseca, 32BJ SEIU Security Division Field Representative Supervisor. Rob Cook was a policy fellow with 32B JSEIU Roberto Brown-McCormack, Director, 32BJ SEIU Security Division, Ockel St. Louis, security guard and 32BJA member, David Williams, security Guard and 32 BJ member. And I apologize if you wouldn't mind just repeating

Your name and title.

My name is Trevena Guerrell, and I'm a training instructor with the 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training Fund. Trevena, Guerrero.

Thank you very much. Please feel free to start in your preferred order. Let's start with Carmen.

Hi, my name is Carmen Fonseca. I'm a security division coordinator with SEI 32VJ here in New England District. We represent about 1,800 security officers that work here in Boston and securing keeping all of us safe every day Doesn't matter if it is in a college, doesn't matter from the hospital on the streets. So the hard work is there. Like many of you guys in this room, this is personal to me. I was a security officer while back, while going through college And like we heard before last month, I did not receive a real training. Literally it was an eight hour shift, someone sitting next to me saying check this and check that, and if something bad happens Call the supervisor, call the manager then call the police. Note that at both sides that I worked there were no upper management present at that location so that is an issue

Being here last month, hearing from security officers the same story. If something bad called police This is 2019 to be accurate, 19 years ago because this was how I was going through college. Nineteen years later we're here and I'm hearing the same story Something bad called the supervisor, called the police. And most of the sites there is no upper management present at that site The same day they were here last month, we're hearing those testimonies. This is our officer on the front line saying this is dangerous, this is hard, I need help, I needs training to provide safety to others and to myself. Right after they finished testifying, the industry companies basically also testified and said no you don't need additional training. That's a problem.

Technology has changed. The world is becoming more unpredictable and dangerous, we know. We see the news but we are not adjusting. Many states I want to hear have adapted, provide and make sure that a minimum required training is present but not Boston. It was also shocking the lack of care because The company is saying, okay we're taking all these courses. We go in a conference but then the front line officer is saying I don't have it so let's make sure we have CPR, we have escalation training You can still go to conference, that's fine. But let's make sure we provide that service on the bottom line Also the Boston Chamber of Commerce spoke against it. The rationale was, it's too broad. It applies to too many employers or the training needs to be provided by non-profit organization.

Yes, that's the reason why that'll make this law a stronger law. Because we want to make sure everybody is covered. We don't want to be handpicked by some clients It shouldn't be up to the client who gets the training. It should be upto the employer, who should be more responsible. We should take charge and say everyone on here, everyone that took time out of their personal time coming from a third shift not sleeping being here. We should pay attention to dopes that are saying I need help And yes, it should be provided by a nonprofit organization. Why? Because we don't want no one to be motivated by cutting corners. This is already happening. By having one employee saying, yes I do, the other one say I'm not. So there are cutting corners so let's make sure it doesn't happen.

We are already in a society that we get to handpick which neighborhood gets the service, which group gives us support. Let's not do this to our security guards. The Chamber of Commerce also said that this law is a solution searching for the problem. No, the problem has been there. It was there 20 years ago. It's still here. So we should pay attention. The concern of being liable if something happens or not providing that service as of right now. It translates to what? Cutting corners, more profit, more money. So... What we would ask is, let's not be the city that waits for the problem to become a tragedy. For us to be in the headlines like one of our security officers in New York wait for all that to happen then to make a decision or take action.

Let's not be that city, let's be the city that listen to the officers that came here Last month, those officers that are here today. The office that wanted to be here but could not afford to be because they have to work. The officer that wanted and gave testimony but the employer denied the time off to be there. and especially you guys that also work overnight, they haven't slept there are here. Let's be the city that is at least making sure the basic training is available to everybody not few or not up to third parties Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Zapata and Vice-Chair Louijeune and members of the committee. My name is Rob Cook, and I am the policy fellow at SEIU 32BJ. And I'm here to explain why Boston needs to set a minimum training standard for unarmed security guards So the ordinance today has a simple goal. It is to provide basic training, as we've heard, the frontline workers that serve this city and empower them to better protect the city. And it's not a radical idea, 29 states and multiple localities including almost all of Massachusetts neighbors New York, Delaware and New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine require training for unarmed guards. And there's a reason they do so nationally Security guards face higher rates of fatal injuries than many other job categories.

There are five times as likely as workers in other occupations to need to take time off work due to violence-related injuries, and so this training is really necessary to keep security officers and the public safe. And for Boston in particular, We really need a well-trained security workforce here. It's a global hub for higher education, life sciences and health care home to top ranked universities in a large financial services sector But it's become increasingly reliant on the private security industry to protect the people and the industries in Boston. And some Boston neighborhoods do have relatively high rates of crime and the types of crime that security officers are hired to deter. And in December of 2025, there was a break-in at City Hall where personal belongings were stolen from employees. In the same month, at the Boston Medical Center

A security guard was left in critical condition after being stabbed by a hospital visitor during an altercation. And the fact is that when emergencies do occur, trained security officers can prevent disasters. There's many stories illustrating this For example, there was a tragic shooting at a San Diego mosque in May. The FBI specifically credited the mosque's security officer training. And the officer was, he lost his life in a shooting but That training saved lives and was thought to have greatly reduced the casualties that occurred. And then there's sort of simpler examples like

There's a school in Manchester, Connecticut, Bennett Academy where a school security officer who had basic first aid training saved three children from choking during an 18-month period. So there's lots of examples of this sort of standardized training really showing good results. And we think officers in Boston should have access to the training opportunities that their counterparts in other states have. And the testimony we'll hear today and that we heard at the last hearing really proves that there is a gap between the situations that officers face on a daily basis and the training they've received. The industry representatives have said today their own internal materials have identified a lack of trained personnel as a challenge facing the industry.

World Security Report notes that lack of trained personnel is one of the significant challenges in the industry. For all these reasons, we really think that having universal uniform standards across employers is the best policy. Some employers may train better than others but all frontline guards are facing They all need to be prepared. And establishing these standards would also be consistent with the city's racial justice goals. The industry is primarily made up of people of color, as we've discussed today, and introducing a standard that would help protect workers of color who face these dangerous conditions. And also improve job quality and career pathways in the industry.

These things are really important And for all these reasons, we strongly urge the passage of this bill. I think the only other two points that have been brought up today that I wanted to address I don't think that this will have a disproportionate impact on small businesses. In fact, it should level the playing field because both big and small players in will have to sort of factor these training costs into what they're charging the clients. So if anything, it takes away the larger company's ability to use scale to their advantage. And I think the other important thing to correct is that only the notice provisions of this law would take effect 30 days after its passage. The rest, it would be the July after passage so that is substantially longer Thank you very much for your time.

Well taken. Thank you. Hello?

All right, good. Good afternoon chair and members of the council. My name is Roberto Brown McCormick. I have worked in the security industry for nine years I currently work for USI, but previously I used to work for Northview Security on a college campus. Now I work a commercial building on Dry Dock Avenue in the Seaport. My job is to secure the premises and ensure that only authorized people enter the building and keep people safe. I like my job, but it's unpredictable. I've had to deal with people experiencing acute mental health crises and drug addiction Unfortunately, none of the training I have received in my career remotely prepared me and my coworkers for this. Instead, I rely on my own personal experience. In my nine years on the job, I've seen and learned a lot. But we don't all have that.

When an individual ran into my building screaming that someone was trying to kill them, my co-worker said they had no idea what to do. The training we get is extremely basic. We never do in-person training, it's all online and they show us some videos which are clearly made by AI The AI videos don't represent the realities of the job. It's usually just about customer service. Plus, because it's AI they sometimes don't totally make sense. It couldn't be less helpful to prepare us for the real challenges that we face. As a security guard, we know that we are putting ourselves at risk every day. We see the headlines about security guards who get hurt in the line of duty. The world is changing and becoming more unpredictable

All that we are asking for is to get basic training so that if, God forbid, we find ourselves in a bad situation, we can do our best to protect ourselves and others. Right now, for me, active shooter training is just a section in our handbook. CPR training is done online. Watching a video or reading a paragraph is never going to be enough. We need this bill to pass. Until it is law, there's nothing holding employers like mine accountable or consistent. They don't want this bill passed because they don't wanna pay for the training. It doesn't surprise me because they dont' want to pay us a decent wage either. But when they're thinking about their bottom line, we are thinking about our families at home and wanting to come home to them safely. I thank you for your time in allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Good afternoon chair and members of the council. My name is David Williams I have worked as a security guard at Prudential Center for going on eight years now, and I've been employed by Northeast Security In my eight years at Prudential, I've done different jobs. But right now, I operate the freight elevator. I count myself lucky in terms of the training I've gotten From CPR training to active shooting training and anti-terrorist training, we get a refresher training every two years. This is a lot more than most people get. To me this is extremely concerning. I can't imagine going to work everyday without having even the basic training that I've gotten. In the time we live in, so much of security work is interacting with people who are experiencing mental health crisis, addiction or homelessness. Our employees rely on us to be a barrier but these are complex issues that require training to deal with It feels like the training we get now is meant to cover the backs of our employers rather than keep us safe. This law will change that, it will also help establish clear expectations about what we should do in those difficult situations

Right now, officers can be disciplined for how they handle a situation despite not having any guidance. For example, I heard about a time when a co-worker was sent to investigate suspicious activity at one of the venue's blind spots He ended up in danger. Someone lunged at him with a syringe. He was disciplined for the way he reacted, basically just self-defense. We are told keep your distance and wait for police to show but that's not always realistic We deal with unpredictable individuals and real threats to our safety. We don't have the right tools to respond, and our employees can fire us to keep their hands clean. It seems like what's most important to our employers is staying out of legal trouble It seems like what's most important, getting told to stay out of the bad situation doesn't always help de-escalate it. I want to stay in this industry long term so I can provide for my family but its tough The security industry is not well regulated. It is full of nepotism and unfair practices, speaking up on issues like this gets you in trouble.

My union has my back but not Everyone can say that. It's time we raise standards across the industry to keep people safe and make this a job people can see as a career. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Trevena Guerrell. I'm an adjunct professor of criminal and social justice at Monroe University, and a training instructor at the 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training Center. Previously, I taught criminal justice courses at St. John's University and John Jay College of Criminal Justice. I have been providing instruction for 32BJ on and off since 2003. Initially, I taught counterterrorism training for 32 BJ members in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. In 2023, I received New York State certification to teach security courses. Prior to teaching, I served over two decades with the New York City Police Department retiring as a sergeant supervisor detective squad.

Through my years supervising law enforcement officers and my years providing security training, I've learned that the way you practice is the way that you will perform when it really matters. This is why training security officers is extremely important for any city. Many security officers enter the profession fresh out of high school. Some haven't developed the communication skills For example, difficult or angry customers Conducted by experienced trainers provides communication and de-escalation techniques that can keep situations from becoming dangerous. Security officers are hired to protect people

Employees want them to detect, deter and report unlawful activity. But all of these skills are learned. They require training. Reputable training courses help officers develop these skills. In the trainings I provide, we discuss how an officer's mere presence can deter criminal activity and how to communicate with law enforcement When an incident requires police to respond. For instance, what does a 911 operator need when you're providing a description of an offender? What actually is it that you're giving to that 911 operator We teach them how to handle emergency situations with the idea of preserving human life including their own. Many are in charge of x-rays and scanners

and have never been given the proper training to know what exactly to look for, and what's a flag when people are going through their access control checkpoints. Similarly we provide training on how officers should conduct themselves during the crucial minutes between the reporting of an incident and the arrival of the police. Boston, much like New York City has experienced multiple mass shootings and terrorist attacks. Emergency training is even more important here than in most other cities. We also train our offices on how to write up the reports that security companies require for risk analysis and liability protection In addition, we instruct trainees on professional ethics in the security field. These and other subject matters are covered during our 40-hour training and reemphasized on a yearly basis

during the eight-hour annual recertification course that New York requires security officers to attend. Taking the time to properly train your security personnel is a win-win for everyone, Not only for the companies that hire them, the customers and clients that they encounter on a daily basis but also for the officers themselves. They leave with a sense of pride knowing that they have gained and have been empowered by the training received. I cannot count the number of times that I've had officers approach me during, and or at the conclusion of the course who thanked me immensely for the training that I have provided them. It is my hope that the City Council will strongly consider this bill, which will provide the citizens of Boston with the educated and properly trained security force they so rightfully deserve. and if I may, I'd like to quote Henry Ford.

I'd love to say that this is a Trevena-ism but it's not. It's Henry Ford, the only thing worse than training your employees and having them leave is not training them and having then stay. Thank you.

Thank you and welcome to New York. It's interesting hearing a New York accent in this chamber. Brooklyn to be specific. Okay, we got Brooklyn leading the house. All right, we'll go to our lead sponsor, Council Santana for questions and we'll do eight minutes as well this round

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank this panel for being here. I also want to recognize all the other officers who are here. Thank you for being present at this hearing I really appreciated the testimony, particularly Carmen. I think it resonated so much to what you were saying and just brought me back to when I was a security officer just a few years ago, so appreciate that. And then Roberto Brown and David, thank you so much for being here. You know, I think I said this in the last hearing as well It takes a lot of courage to be able to come here and testify in front of us knowing that you all have jobs that you have to go back to as well, so I do appreciate you being here and the transparency. I do want to get back into just, you know obviously we've had the first panel. We heard some concerns from there right?

And we have heard significant pushback on allowing I'm curious to hear Your thoughts, especially from Tribune I guess. What are your thoughts on some of the comments that were made from the previous panel on that?

From my experience, again, the way you train is the way perform. And I heard them saying something about they do their specific training which I'm sure is needed site by site But just like many of us who have college degrees, we have to take core courses right before we get into that major. Before we get in to that specific. I think this is what this 40 hour training offers a guideline The core courses. And I think there's room for both to do those core courses and once you get to the specific field, whether it's the hospitals or wherever it is, you get additional training But knowing again that this field has such a high turnover as we've heard them say, we see in New York where offices again leave with pride.

see that their employers have invested in them and we don't have the high turnover rate that I've heard discussed here today. I also listened to the allied representative, and I found a lot of her comments quite interesting because I've trained many allies. Um, security officers during these 40 hour trainings and certainly during the eight hour recertifications. So I guess all in all, I'm just saying this These are the core courses. I've only mentioned a few, but we have about 14 or 15 individual subjects and each of them Sub-subjects, if you will.

I can't come up with a term right now but I definitely hear these officers and what I found interesting also is that a lot of the employers said that they provide their own training Yet you have officers coming and saying, including yourself, Councilman, that you didn't get it. So... Yeah.

Well, that's the... I hope that answers your question. It does, thank you. And just to Roberto Brown and to David and thank you for being here Can you just share, I guess, an example? And I know you did that in your testimony of a situation where maybe David, I think you said that you did receive an emblem of training. Am I correct by saying that right? So I'm glad to hear that. But has there been any situations during your job where or you weren't prepared for, or you were trained for that situation. And yeah.

So being a freight elevator operator comes with A lot of trial and tribulation. It has its ups and downs, no pun intended but there is times where there is frequent malfunctions when it comes to Operating the freight where it would just break or stop abruptly. Within that split second, you can't determine what's happening. Once you hear a boom and that 8x7 freight is rattling and the lights are flickering... All you could do is just grab onto the chair that you're sitting on and just hope like, all right. It don't fall like you're going to think it is. You look at the floor indicator and see you dropped only four floors but it felt like maybe 15. And having other people as far as janitronics or tenants even deliver personnel on that freight at the same time, it's kind of hard to put on a mask and act like you're not affected by what's going on in real-time because you're trying to be strong for the other occupants in that freight as well.

July 22nd of 2025, around 12 p.m., there was a big breakdown on freight 27. There's two, 27 and 28 at the tower dock in Prudential Center. And that one went down, and it was down for months to the point where sometimes they'll try to throw me in it at times and I will vocalize, I don't feel safe doing that because I don t have any proper trainings to even handle myself mentally when it comes to dealing with that because it's random. and there's been a series after the fact or even before that date of it just malfunctioning periodically but July 22nd was a day that it was big. and it was out for months on end, and sometimes they'll purposely try to use that freight to cover details. So sometimes I'll try to throw other employees that are preferably floats because they're not really at the job full time to know What is the scoop of what's going on with specific posts?

So I would have to update them to let them know, hey, I don't think you should do that detail because this elevator it's It's a ticking time bomb, not to say it like that. But it has moments where you is unpredictable and you can't determine whether how far are you going to drop or when you're gonna drop? and notifying those specific floats, being the voice for them to have them understand like hey I think you should kind of not do that. And then going to management to vocalize You was gonna put me in there, or I wasn't notified that this elevator has a history of malfunctions. So things like that, I tried my best to reach out after vocalizing and I felt like When my life was at risk at that time, I don't feel comfortable doing it. If there's any additional training that I can get going forward that I could be confident and comfortable to do that job or post let me know but From that point, they just had it off and I was just doing other doc-related responsibilities, I guess, just to keep myself busy and not just in limbo.

Yeah, well, I appreciate you trying to know whether you have any...

Over the course of the many years that I've been doing security, A majority of it being on a college campus. I can't count how many times where something would happen and then I would have to either ask the supervisor who would ask the account manager, who would Relay the information to me and then the answer would be different the next day. Half the time I'm asking questions, the other time I am just winging it and hoping for the best, and just relying on personal experience to see myself through these situations. Especially with the story that I was talking about, about the woman who ran into the office when I had just signed in. and they were like, oh... They were screaming that somebody was coming for them. And you can't just be like You can't panic and you can't make them feel like they're crazy.

You have to talk to them, and there's not really a lot in the training that I got that tells me how to talk somebody who is having a mental crisis like that. It's just I have to hope that I have the right answer at the time.

Yeah, well, I appreciate that and again, I'm pretty sure you're both sharing your stories. I'm out of time so again thank you to this panel for being here Again, thank you for the courage to testify in front of City Council. Madam Chair, thank You.

Councillor Flynn?

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the panel Being here for your testimony, I listen closely. So for the security officers, the training depends and if there is training but it depends on where You are employed where you're stationed, what company it might be employed with and that there's no standard throughout Boston. Is that accurate to say? When you start at a new company or you're employed at a company in Boston as a security officer, there is no training or is there some on-the-job training?

When it comes to a transfer of companies, it depends on if you are a new officer or if you have already been there before. In my case I used to work for Northeast Security at two dry dock and then it transferred over to USI. So most of the training is just their online course thing that they have you take But most of the information that I have is already from when I was working before, and I was lucky enough to have an account manager on site that could teach me the stuff that I needed to know. because if I had either left or I didn't know any of that information, nobody would know how to work the computer properly or anything like that.

Anyone else have any thoughts about them?

I mean, like with me when I started back in October of 2018 we were Allied Universal and then come January 2023 we changed to Northeast. They basically told us if we want to Stay with Ally, reach a recruiter, move to a different site. Or if you want to just stay at the site that you've been in with, you just enroll in the Northeast. I mean, when we're allied the first three days of training will be orientation. The last day you'll do CPR, watch a couple hours worth of videos, practice on test dummy and then the last three days within that work week You'll just be on post shadowing somebody that's just basically breaking down everything that you've crammed in your head from all those videos that you seen about just the job and what that entails, which is basically just Customer Service Work, but being labeled as a security officer.

Sometimes it does give people not the wrong impression, but to us we may have people that own the security companies respectively. But we technically are the body. We run this security company. Some people will try to understand, like am I a retail worker or I'm an actual security guard? Can I be hands-on or can I not be hands on? So it's kind of not really great, but it's just a little confusing to the newcomers as well that come in. And now they're doing three-day shadowing and then the last three days are doing orientation so they kind of flipped it compared to what it used to be practices before. is still the same results at the end of the day.

Okay, that's a good answer. Is de-escalation a critical part of what you do in your job and is that part of the training?

De-escalation is a part of the training. because they want everybody to kind of be sound on how to deescalate. But we feel as though de-escalation is something that pertains more to the patrol division, because we're separated by office division and patrol. Office division, they're more sheltered because they are confined in their lobbies So they're not really dealing with quality of life personnel or anything like that. but they do still try to go across the board and just tell us to keep our distance or push comes to shove, maybe use equal or like force that's applicable upon you. But again, they always try their best to have us just keep our distances and wait for law enforcement to arrive on scene.

Is it frequent that security officers are assaulted by the public for whatever reason, whether you're in a hospital, whether outside of a hospital doing your job in a building? But is violence or assaults something that security officers are subjected to?

Oh yes, of course. As of lately we've been having the luxury of having walkies on our person and periodically we always get calls from the dispatch saying that there's a QL over in this arcade or because Prudential is, Prudental is Prudencial but what a lot of people especially tourists don't understand is that the quality-of-life people like that is their stomping ground. Like that is like their hub. And they know the ins and outs, They know the blind spots, they know nooks and crannies on how long they can stay in specific areas until somebody from patrol comes around and tells them hey you have to go but in the meantime or between time They're doing what they're doing and by the time a patrol shows up, they already irate. They are already like okay this again? This rodeo again? And it can go either way from that point.

I'm listening to both of you. You work in the Prudential Building, which is just outside of my district. I'm in District 2 but it's on Boylston Street, just down the road so I am in that area frequently and I was at the Copley Library recently and Sir, you work within the Flynn Marine Park in South Boston. And that's also in the heart of my district as well. So want to thank you for providing critical support to residents and into businesses as well. Is retail theft or is

Is retail theft an issue as it relates to something that you see frequently from the public working as a security officer, stealing whatever? Is that is that a major concern?

Yes, that's still an ongoing thing because sometimes they even have people as far as patrol or dispatch send people from patrol over to even Star Market which is across the street from our site as well. So they have to deal with Star Market They have to deal with all these other stores that's inside Prudential. But a security guard is not able to detain anyone. No, I believe they would have to go through their SPO and also call law enforcement as well and wait for them to arrive on scene to handle the situation. And the SPO is a supervisor? They're basically the supervisors of patrol that actually have handcuffs and is able to detain that person. Oh, OK.

Oh, someone from your team is able to detain someone?

From the patrol division. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. What are the qualifications for someone that's able to is part of that security guard chain of command.

Well, from my understanding I believe it's probably just their expertise and if they actually are qualified to know how to read a room, deescalate properly and professionally and just know how Get to that person and also have law enforcement there to assist them as well. But they primarily is just one person, from my understanding at least, that has that role as far as patrol.

Okay. And then for anyone on the panel Is there anything that you heard from the first panel that you are able to consider including as part of your Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Go on, go ahead.

Obviously when we started this, we were trying to set something up. And they're going to respond and we would probably have to meet somewhere in the middle just to get it through anyway. But getting the ball rolling is important, and if... As long as we're making sure that people are properly trained in general situations, As long as both parties can agree on that, there's probably somewhere where we can meet. But it has to be talked about in a way that isn't just This training is unnecessary or it'll be too expensive or any other reason like that. Yes ma'am

If I may, something that I found quite troubling from the first panel was that some of the training or a lot of the trading is done online. Officer with a computer. As an adjunct professor In an asynchronous course, I can tell you that there is a lot lost on the student. On the member in this case on the officer. The training that we're proposing is in person You're not just reading things or looking at videos or looking AI models. You are hearing from the instructor, you're hearing from your fellow officers We're learning together, we're doing role plays. We're doing kind of hands-on activities. We have the equipment that these officers have to use on site. We are training them how to properly do it

I just don't know how that's accomplished sitting before a computer screen. I think you lose something, and security officers or the security business is a customer service We talked about de-escalation. Spend a lot of time talking about de-escalation because quite frankly, a lot these officers come in only knowing how to manage conflict based on their own experiences. So we spend time talking Okay, how would you handle this? Consider this better practice. We talk about communication which is a huge part of this job and a huge de-escalating potentially dangerous situations Well, how do you communicate? What is your body language giving off to that person? What are your nonverbal cues emphasizing?

So we talk about a lot of Different things. We talked about active shooters. We don't do active shooters on a computer, especially in light of what took place at 345 Park Avenue in New York City last year. We spend a lot of time emphasizing The role that these security offices play in that particular aspect. And so, I think we shouldn't lose the human interaction. That is extremely important for these members, because they're not dealing with AI models. They're dealing with human beings and the training that we provide I think properly prepares them for how to deal with human being.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know I'm over but would it be possible to ask one more question?

Go ahead, thank you.

Thank you. Professor, I just wanted to ask 1 brief question if this was implemented and security officers went through a training program. Would they receive a certification that, that they're able to go take this document that says the certified in security training, but would they be eligible to use that certification to go and serve in any company in Boston? Is that fair to say?

Absolutely.

Okay.

And that was what I was trying to emphasize, you know making the analogy of when you go to college you take core courses So the training that we provide is core. You can take it from hospitals to the Prudential Center, to wherever. You don't have to start over from the basics. Now will you have to get specialized? or based on the role that you're going to play at a particular company, sure. But that certification is transferrable and which helps us to retain the security force that we have represented by 32BJ. They can go from company to company because they have the training and the skills that we've provided them with

Professor, thank you very much to the Piano members and to 32BJ. Thank you for being here, for your important leadership. Madam Chair, thank You.

testimony and for being here, and for the work you're doing at many of our hospitals and buildings around the city. A few just questions if you could Talk me through, if an incident is happening and you need to deescalate but at the same time it's an incident that will also need either backup For the Boston Police or someone else to come in and support, are you always alone? Like how can you be doing both? And if you could just speak through that. What that would look like.

My current post is a solitary one. I do not have anybody that is near me, so In a situation where I have to deescalate, I have make the choice of do I quickly make a call? Is this something that I should make a for. Or should I try to talk the person down first and then report it afterward? Usually, as long as they're not like a Very obviously dangerous to the point where you can't talk to them. I'll try to talk to first and then report afterward.

Because I think you mentioned like walkie-talkies, is that something everyone has access to?

Not at my site, no. There's nobody in close distance to my site aside from maybe another site owned by the same company.

And when it comes to scenarios of de-escalation and training. If you could kind of talk through the range, you mentioned like mass shootings we don't have many fortunately here in Massachusetts obviously anything can happen but If you could talk through the range, you personally like on the job. Like what situations either you've already been in where you felt like you needed more training or you can just imagine could happen? That may happen other places that you think, wait if this happened here I may not have the proper training or support in place.

So most of the time when you're dealing with either an upset or combative individual, it's usually because they're suffering some sort Thank you. Thank you very much. My goal and my priority is usually to be someone to them that isn't like somebody they should be afraid of or combative of. If you can listen to them while they're talking, even if they're taking things that make no sense to you. That's them talking instead of them doing something that could be more dangerous. But that's not something that

They're immediately teaching me in any of the de-escalation courses, it's usually like two or three slides of, hey, don't touch anybody. Or, hey don't yell at anybody. Don't immediately tell them no for no reason. That's not really enough to encapsulate what you could be dealing with on the field.

And the first panel was highlighting how there's different laws too, right? And we know in Boston oftentimes when You hear of retail theft on Newbury Street. Is it true that you're told to kind of step back and not engage? And are you taught those different And are they laws or are they just in your best interest? Are you told the difference there?

Not specifically. Most of the time, whenever we're dealing with something that could We are told to keep our distance and report instead. We are not to chase anyone, we are not engage with anyone. Even in the active shooter pamphlet that they give you at the end of your manual It's mostly do everything you can to avoid that situation and avoid at any cost trying to get physically involved with someone like that.

Are you allowed to call 911 yourself or do you have to call a supervisor who then decides they can call 911?

I don't have the specifics on that because it's different from site to site. For the college that I was on, you call campus police first because they'll know where to go. This new site, I call... If I have to call the 911, I'll call them and then I'll my account manager.

And let them know?

Yeah.

But you are allowed? Yeah Okay now that's good to know because I know in schools and stuff they want They don't want teachers calling 911. They'd rather you call the principal, let them make the call or let the nurse know first so it's good to know that you are allowed to call for backup. like tools and I know the training we talked about but you mentioned walkie-talkies are there times and i know through like police reform and others there's like just changes with our mounted police and our security here at City Hall, just law changes that happen. But are there any tools that you feel if you had at your disposal that would make you feel safer and be able to do your job better?

I definitely believe that having a more direct access to any of my superiors or the chain of command, The next person that I should be talking to would be a lot easier. Instead of me having to call, we don't have a walkie talkie on my site. And even on the college campus, we either had a walky talkie or we didn't. It's so much easier to be able to let your direct superior know, hey this thing is happening. I'm gonna go deal with it and that way they can make that call while I'm trying to deescalate And they can step in and help if needed

Did you want to add anything at your site or people have been like in a hospital setting or other settings that we know security are at?

I do feel like Sometimes I feel like some form of sensitivity training needs to be had because mental health is a serious thing. I know sometimes people think of security and they automatically think hands-on, but sometimes we need to get through the minds of the individual before we feel like we have to physically maybe detain someone if that is the case and stuff like that. I just think they, I feel as though they need to probably double down a little bit more when it comes to training and not be real copy-and-paste. I know everybody at my site kind of probably does feel that way and a lot of people do feel like they could do their job comfortably and confident enough if they have actual quality type training that digs deeper than just observant report, you know.

If we have the proper, like not proper but even more structural training then I feel like everybody will be more prideful to do their job and not feel like they're kinda on pins and needles and just not really knowing in case any worst-case scenario happens and stuff like that.

No, thank you. Your jobs are dangerous and for coming and speaking up I know you've said a few times Not just yourself, but you know your co-workers feel the same way so I just want to thank you for speaking for them too. I appreciate that. And did you want, yeah?

Sure. Just to shed some light, we already spoke about it but not having a clear uniform standard basic training as Trevino was saying which will be a game changer is facing what is happening every single day Even with the current position that I have, I have knowledge of officers that couldn't be here that also facing discipline for not being clear how to handle issue. We had an office from one employer basically on post When an intoxicated individual comes in, he basically is not trying to engage and just stayed behind desk. He was fortunate enough, the intoxicated individual ended up leaving the site which is great but that was disciplined because he allowed the individual to leave. I'm like okay do I keep them here or not? We at this moment, we also have a security officer who has been out of work pending investigation. Why? Because while he's at work, which is down the street on Federal Street,

Someone with some kind of issue walked in and said, I'm going to kill you. Based on his experience, his reaction was went around the desk, kind of tackled him and hold him until help came. Now he's suspended because he hold him And the employer told him he should have run. You don't know if he has a gun. Can you run a bullet? But having the standard basic training that Trevino was talking, this bill would assure at least everybody knows what to do in each situation and not let too What the client wants, what the supervisor sees it or believes that you should have done because now we have two individuals. Someone didn't do anything is out of work and we have to go through the grievance process. Other did something and is facing discipline as well So this is the basic to keep it and adding to it. We're not saying don't add, to the contrary, keep adding, keep putting your secret sauce on top of it but we need the bottom.

I think also to add to that last bit Had that individual done a different thing, had they run, they probably would have been disciplined for abandoning their post. So there was no right answer in that situation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Murphy. I don't have any questions only because we do have another hearing that's supposed to take place at 2 p.m., and I want to make sure that our lovely central staff get a chance I will just end with gratitude for all of you and say thank you for everything

Roberto, you talked about... I think Councilor Murphy asked you about making calls to 911 and then are you required to do these calls to 9-1-1 or Supervisor out of your personal cell phone or do they provide? Those telephones to you.

To both of you in this situation. My site has a site phone that the active officer at any given shift will have on them at all times, so we do have a phone.

And as for me, as of recently they actually gave us walkies that we can be able to like just have an ear out for any type of form of dispatch calls but they primarily tell us that's just for if we get any EMTs that we need to go down to base to meet them at and then just be on standby until they board. and tell us where to go. Prior to that? We could use our personal phone if that is the case. We will primarily have to reach out to base first before anything and then they will reach out whoever most likely BPD, and then just update everybody through the walkies because patrol. Thank you.

Okay, I apologize. No, just thank you to all of you for being here, for your testimony. You keep us safe without any protection or tools and so I understand that you are literally the front line sometimes you're expected to respond first but then you're also the first to shoulder blame when something goes wrong and responsibility and liability so I want to do everything that i can as chair please know that to give you the resources and training and support that you need. There's obviously some things that we've got to work through, but I intend to do that in good faith and earnest with all of you and partnership with all With that, we're going to go to public testimony. We do have a couple folks that are signed up so I want to be sure to Go to them because they've been so patient but you all are relieved again for lack of a better term and thank you again for your Oh, please go ahead

Am I on? All right. I know everybody here. I'm speaking on behalf of everybody for security and as well as my site, I know everyone here. It could be more than just a job is my livelihood especially to those that are at a specific age compared to the newcomers coming in that's under like 25 or so But again, we appreciate you guys for even having us to even give you guys our testimonies. At the end of the day, we just want quality training so we can feel comfortable and confident to do our jobs as best as we can and most importantly, we need to be alive to do these jobs. So that's all, thank you.

Well said, well said. Thank you very much. Shadow 32BJ, we appreciate you always. Okay, we'll go and we usually do two minutes for public testimony. We're going to speed it up a little bit. A minute for everybody. We'll start with Rob Giordano, Robert Stedman, Roberto Jimenez who is virtual. And then I think it's Corianna Fuller. I apologize if I got your name wrong. But we'll start with Robert in person.

Okay, okay, okay. Okay.

Thank you. All right, we'll do Robert Steadman and then we'll go to Roberto virtually. Yes. And you have a minute? I'll be brief. Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Council. My name is Robert Steadman, I've worked in this security industry for nearly 20 years starting as a Security Officer and today I oversee training and development for the Northeast Region of Securitas Security Services USA I respect what this bill is trying to accomplish. We all want well-prepared officers, but as a training professional I have concerns about whether 40 hours of additional mandated training each year will actually produce better prepared officers. Effective training begins by identifying the competencies an individual needs to perform their role successfully, not by establishing an arbitrary number of instructional hours. When we determine the duration of training before determining the competencies it is intended to develop, we have reversed that process. And that is precisely what this bill does. In Boston, for example, we do not front load an officer's training into a single broad program.

We provide initial training and then carefully develop site-specific curricula based on the requirements of the same assignment post duties and the needs of the client. An officer in a hospital does not require the same training as an officer in residential building or data center, and we've found site-specific curriculum much more effective in providing our officers with skills and the knowledge needed to effectively perform their services. Effective training recognizes the differences in security services needed for different locations, It is targeted, relevant, reinforced and connected to the work an officer is actually expected to perform. Broad blanket training delivered in large blocks is less effective at producing lasting retention, focused relevant training that is reinforced over time. More training is not necessarily better training. There's a fundamental contradiction in this bill.

It demands 40 hours of additional training while preventing qualified employers, the very organizations that know the officers, understand their assignments, evaluate their performance and are accountable for their work from providing it. As a training professional I struggle to understand the logic of that approach I'm also concerned with the mandated training and how it begins to blur the role of a security officer. Security officers are not police officers, they're not clinicians, social workers, emergency medical personnel or building engineers Officers should be trained to recognize concerning situations, de-escalate when appropriate and call upon the right resources. Officers should be trained to recognize these situations. Training should make someone better at becoming a security officer, it should not redefine the role.

We should not blur the lines between officers' legal authority, professional expertise and responsibilities that properly belong to other trained professionals. 40 hours measures exposure. Competency measures learning. This bill risks creating compliance without creating competency. I respectfully ask that the council reconsider a 40-hour mandate Not because training is unimportant, but precisely because it is. Thank you.

Thank You. In fairness, there'll be two minutes for folks after that. Okay, Roberto? Good to see you. Hi, thanks for being here.

Yeah, thank you for having me. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great. I'll try to be quick. Good afternoon, Councilors. I'm Roberto Jimenez, Political Coordinator with the Committee of Entrants and Residents, SEIU, also known as CIR. I am going to be reading testimony from Dr. Justin Halloran, one of our regional vice presidents. So I will start now. Hello, Councilors. I am Dr. Justin Halloran, Regional Vice President for CIR. We represent 4,700 doctors across MGB, BMC, Cambridge Hospital and Beth Israel including over 2,000 doctors who reside in Boston. I'm speaking in support of this ordinance to ensure all security guards, including the ones that work alongside members and hospitals across the area receive the training necessary to support them in their work protecting Bostonians and those who work in our city. As doctors, we understand the urgency of responding quickly to a medical emergency in order to save lives. Knowing how to perform CPR, use Narcan or perform the Heimlich maneuver can literally save lives when done before other first responders arrive.

and beyond that, knowing how to apply pressure to stop bleeding and other first aid measures can also reduce the seriousness of injuries helping people recover faster later on. All of these factors also make the situation easier to manage for every healthcare professional downstream. The paramedic, the emergency room doctors and nurses, and even the patient's PCP when they're helping them recover days or weeks later. CIR is also committed to a harm reduction approach to public safety, so we believe in the importance of educating all public safety agents on de-escalation techniques. We have seen how quickly small altercations can sometimes escalate when public safety officials don't follow proper de- escalation techniques It is also often the case that violent individuals have underlying mental health conditions and the appropriate intervention should be de-escalation followed by connecting them to a healthcare professional rather than the criminal legal system. And lastly, as fellow Union siblings, CIR doctors know the importance of workers understanding their rights under the law and under their contract.

So we support our SEIU32BJ union brothers and sisters in advocating for their members and holding employers accountable who ensure that all of their employees can adequately perform their job and keep themselves and the people around them safe. Thank you for your time.

Thank You, perfect. We have Lassian Fuller from the NAACP and there's one more on Zoom, okay. Thank you so much. If you can state your name.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Kokina Fuller. I am from the NAACP Boston chapter. I'm the labor and industry chair. Thank you this afternoon. Thank 32BJ and the officers for having us here. The NAACP Boston stands behind our security officers. The majority of the security guard members are black and brown workers. They're essential to the safety and daily operations of Boston, yet they often face inequitable Working conditions and limited access to professional training. Non-armed security guards are frequently the first people responding to conflict emergencies, medical situations and other challenging circumstances. They should receive meaningful preparation for these responsibilities

The purpose of this ordinance would establish a city standard requiring non-armed security guards to complete 40 hours of independent training and obtain certification. A clear training and certification standard not only improves public safety, gives workers the skills and confidence needed to perform their jobs. create a greater consistency across security employers, recognize security guards as the profession and professionals help address disparities in job inequities facing workers The proposal is not only about training, it's about the respect, fairness and accountability for workers who protect buildings, communities and the public every day.

Improving training standards is an important step towards building a safer workplace, stronger communities and greater equity for Boston workforce. The NAACP Boston Branch urges the City Council to support the ordinance and establish a strong training Certification and Standards for Non-Armed Security Guards. These workers deserve preparation, protection, and respect. And we want to emphasize on the respect for their work as they are essential to the roles that require to keep us safe. That's it from NAACP Boston, thank you.

Thank you Coquina. Winston Vaughn from Amalgamated Bank and then we'll go to Zeina from Northeastern, and then Tatiana from Mass.

Hi, everybody. Thank you, Councillors. My name is Winston Vaughn. I'm a commercial banker at Amalgamated Bank. We're a bank that serves the nonprofit labor and change-making mission oriented business community here in Boston Our office is right around the corner here. And we are a commercial bank, so it's not like we have a vault of cash lying around but it does say bank on our doors. and all of our desks have panic buttons underneath them, and we count on the security guards in our building and in our neighborhood to keep all of us safe and secure when we go to work every single day. I know I oftentimes think about My daughter, when I feel that little button brush against my leg. So I'm very grateful for the folks here who keep all of our communities safe and I just wanted to say thank you. It is... Our bank has branches all across the country. Our branches are in Washington, D.C., they're in New York, and they're

An uncomfortable feeling to know that when I go to work in my branch, security guards don't have to meet the same standards in my state and my city as they do in all of the other cities where we have branches. Our security guards deserve to have full training, to be able to handle very complex and dangerous situations well. Folks who are working in our downtowns deserve to security guards who are well trained. I just want to say that I as a Thank you very much.

We'll go to Zayna and then Tatiana. Who's online?

Good afternoon Councilmembers, my name is Zana DeLauer. I am a second year student at Northeastern University and I'm here today to support this ordinance to require training for our private security officers here in Boston. On our campus, we have access to the NUPD who is our police force on our campus as well as our campus security officers. Wu exists in larger numbers. While I understand that our security officers are not here to act as the police or put themselves in the way of harm, In cases of emergency, scared students still turn to them as they are the closest authorized personnel. And it also astounds me that our security officers are offered less in-person training for CPR than our students are as freshmen.

And no world would I want a freshman in the case of scenario of an emergency to feel like they have to take it into their own hands to be responsible because our security personnel do not feel supported in offering adequate help. Being from Texas, where I'm from, I don't really feel safe walking around alone, especially not at nighttime. So when it comes to Northeastern and people ask me my favorite part, I am very quick to mention is just the ability to walk around and that comes for quick snack runs or late nights at the library. And this sense of safety, I feel being able to walk late night to my dorm is something that I give thanks for to all of our security personnel and it pains me to know that them, the people who support our campus and protect us are not being given their due respect. Lastly, I think between the lacking training wages and healthcare, the turnover rates are insanely high in this profession.

And there is very little room then for developing proper seniority and careers in this field. In all, I just want to say that I'm here in support for the safety of not only our security officers but also for me and all of my peers which is why i'm here today supporting this bill. Thank you for your time.

Tatiana, and then we have Steve on Zoom. We'll wrap. Yeah, please welcome. Tatiana from Mascosh.

Is it French last name? And I'm originally from Brazil, so it doesn't make any sense. I get it. Okay, so Madame Chair and Councilmember I appreciate it. It is my pleasure to be here. My name is Tatiana Begalt. I'm the Executive Director of MASCOSH. It's a 50 years non-profit organization that prides themselves onto the health and safety of our community and workers across the Commonwealth. So one of the things that I want to make sure is that we are clear, that we stand in a strong support for the docket 1541. and in solidarity with our brothers and sisters from 32BJ. These workers protect their buildings, welcome visitors, assist residents and are often the first people to be expected to respond in violence, medical emergencies, mental health crisis, substance

Use incidents and fires, as well as dangerous situations yet too many are sent into those circumstances without adequate preparation meaningful safeguards which is the lack of professional competency. And I want to make sure that we understand something All of my prior colleagues and business owners, they have mentioned many, many times that they provide 40 hours training even though they do not necessarily specify Who is paying for it? How are they paying? And they're confusing our mislabeling onboarding process with training. And that is what I would like you really guys to specify and to shed light. And also misclassification, if you have somebody that is 40 hours a week, that's a full-time employee to me. But then again, what am I to know if I only have 50 years of experience in individuals that safeguard? And for the record, I am a mental health professional. So yes, the escalation is needed and it's necessary. I have worked with juvenile offenders What is the cost of a negative interaction with a police officer?

And as a foreigner myself and as an immigrant woman, I also would like to point out that under the policies and the federal oppressions we have currently, the last thing that we want is to engage with a police officer. Just for the record. Then MASCOSH is not only in support and in demand of those 40 hours, but we want to also make sure that you guys understand that the Labor Department has also enforced 40-hour training when we do provide OSHA 30. So in addition for that, tabletop exercises is something we know and understand and provide. We participate And what we certify ourselves with, health tech professionals because they are also not training how to handle bodily fluids or hazmat issues is some of the lenses that we provide and were able to support to our fellow brothers and sisters from 32BJ. I can go along and actually tell you everything that I have.

But not only that, Mental Health First Aid and others are just the tip of the iceberg. And then if we are complaining about the processes that we standardize, HR wouldn't exist. Thank you.

Last but certainly not least, we have Steve Amity on Zoom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Steve Ametay and I'm the Executive Director of the National Association of Security Companies whose member companies employ thousands of trained security officers across Boston. I testified at the first hearing and as my written testimony for this hearing shows, there's a number of statements in inference made at that hearing. And I think also at this hearing that are inaccurate. But given the time constraints, I'm just going to concentrate on two things. The ordinance prohibition on employers training their own officers and implementation issues. The first hearing, the SIU said community colleges and Astana-Shortman Training Fund can deliver the required training. Yet there are no community colleges in Boston offering security guard training And as to that Shortman Fund 40-hour training that was also discussed today, I could find no information on that training course. But I would ask though if it does exist is that course currently offered in Boston and how many officers per year can train here today?

And I would also ask, has the council done any research on how it will be possible to train every officer in Boston through perhaps just one or a limited number of non-employer nonprofit training programs to satisfy their requirement? The reality is that excluding employer training is a restriction no state in the country imposes. It's a flawed concept that Philadelphia dropped in its recently enacted training law, and it even contradicts the CBA that the SEIU itself agreed to, which reserves two employers the right to train. In addition 32BJ claimed at the last hearing that this ordinance is modeled on New York and New Jersey laws That is wrong. Those are state-run programs that require a few hours, permit officer employer delivered training and allow online instruction. This ordinance represents the most restrictive and onerous training regime I've ever seen, and it is a near verbatim copy of the SIU-initiated Philadelphia bill which was scaled down to a 12 hour training requirement and allowed for employers

I will note that Philly is still years away from issuing implementing regulations for that scaled down law. and as my testimony shows, without substantial infusion of staff budget subject matter expertise there's no way the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections can implement what the law is required at any scale for training and also to implement the employer permitting. NASCA, we don't oppose training standards and we would like to work with the committee to come up with something reasonable. And just as one of the officers said, we need to meet in the middle. Thank you very much.

Thank You Steven. Just remind me who you're representing?

The National Association of Security Companies.

Okay NASCAR thank you All right, I appreciate everyone's time and perspective here. This was a great conversation. There is work that we need to do but again, I anticipate that we'll have working sessions and my intention is to work in earnest with all of you Make sure that your lived experience is at the center of what we ultimately push forward. There's going to be multiple iterations, I'm sure. I will get with the lead co-sponsors and figure out what this looks like moving forward in terms of timeline in addition I just want to thank you all again and end with the fact that this docket 1541 will remain in committee. Thank you so much, everybody.