City Council - Government Operations Committee Hearing on Docket #1541

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

and many more.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Ruthie Louijeune, At-Large City Councilor and I am the Vice Chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Government Operations. And I will be conducting today's hearing in the chair's absence. Today is August 11th, 2026 The exact time is 10.06 a.m. This hearing is being recorded. It's also being livestreamed at boston.gov forward slash city dash council dash TV and broadcast on Xfinity Channel 8, RCN Channel 82, Fios Channel 964. Reardon 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 Councillors. Public testimony will be taken at the end of this hearing. Individuals will be called on in the order in which they signed up and 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 Cavanaugh right here at megan.cavanaugh at boston.gov that's m-e-g-h-a-n bless you dot cavanaugh Kavanagh at boston.gov for the link and your name will be added to the list today's hearing is on docket number 1541 ordinance establishing minimum training requirements for unarmed security guards This matter was sponsored by Councilors Henry Santana and Ruti Weijian, it was referred to the committee on August 5th, 2026. Today I'm joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, Councillor Erin Murphy, Councillor Ed Flynn, Council President Liz Breadon Santana, and Councilor Durkan. We will start with opening statements. I will give the lead sponsor three minutes for opening statements and my colleagues two minutes if they'd like to offer opening statements The Chair recognizes the lead sponsor, Councilor Santana.

Good morning everyone and thank you Vice-Chair Louijeune. First I want to thank my colleagues, the administration 32BJ and most importantly the workers who are here today. We are here because this is not just a conversation about training, it's a conversation of our public safety worker protection and our responsibility as city to make sure that people we depend on are properly prepared The voices of the workers on the front lines must be at the center of this discussion, and I look forward to working together to find a meaningful path forward for Boston. Public safety begins with preparedness. Every day, unarmed security guards serve on the front lines of our communities protecting people and properties in hospitals, residential buildings, workplaces, businesses, and public spaces. They are often the first to respond to medical emergencies, mental health crisis, overdoses and conflicts.

Yet in Boston there are currently no minimum training requirements for unarmed security guards. We cannot expect people to respond De-escalate conflicts and protect others without ensuring they have the proper training and tools to do the job safely and effectively. Establishing minimum standards in areas such as CPR, first aid Overdose Response, De-escalation, Behavioral Health and Emergency Preparedness is an investment in both workers and the communities they serve. As a City Council we have a responsibility to examine whether Boston can establish a reasonable baseline of training for those who are often first on the scene. If we expect them to protect our communities, we must make sure they are prepared to do so. This is how we build safer workplaces Murphy, you have the floor in two minutes.

Everyone for being here. I'm looking forward to hearing from Jody about More about this. This was just filed last week, we're here it's quick turnaround. Just want to get on record before we learn more about this that I support always support appropriate training that protects all of our workers Especially our security guards and the public worker protection is very important. And thank you, Jodi. I know we've had many hearings over these years I've been on the council making sure we are doing everything we can on the Council in whatever powers we have to make sure that our workers are protected. I do this proposal. And when I read through it, it will impose 40 hours of initial exclusively in-person training, eight hours annually employer paid tuition and wages annual permitting and reporting in penalties of $300 per guard, per day. Those are substantial mandates.

I'm hoping after I hear all of the testimony that, you know, I am supporting those right if they make sense. So I'm happy to be here today to learn because making sure that those who will have to comply Do they have the tools necessary, right? And will this in any way negatively impact someone that we may inadvertently be not thinking about. I'm looking forward to the advocates. I do just want to ask the makers of this And the chair of the committee, I see that all of the advocates who are speaking are from 32BJ. So thank you for being here. I know many of you guard yourself so you'll bring a very personal opinion to this important conversation but is there anyone maybe small business security owners who were also invited to speak if not hope some of them are here and have signed up to at least give two minute public testimony

But if necessary, I know that this may need another hearing if we can get the other side because I think it's always important that when we're passing these important ordinances that we make sure we know exactly the impacts they're going to have. Looking forward to hearing more about how we can support our workers. Thank you.

Thank You the chair recognizes Councillor Flynn. Councillor Flynn, you have the floor.

Thank-you This is an important discussion and An opportunity for us to provide some critical training that unarmed security guards desperately need. When I was a probation officer at Suffolk Superior Court, I worked part-time at the Kearney Hospital in their security division. I understand how important unarmed security guards are for the safety of many employees and safety of the public as well. I do support this proposal, I read it, I have respect for 32BJ, there's probably no city councilor that has has a better record on labor issues than myself, including on hotel and restaurant workers. So I'm here to support this proposal because I know about this firsthand although I'm not an original sponsor

I do know every detail about this proposal. I would have been a sponsor if I was asked, but I do that it is important for us to provide critical training Support to unarmed security guards and ensuring that they're also treated with respect and dignity. And that's what this city is all about, providing not just a job for people but providing them a career. And you only can have a career when you have the necessary training and resources, and you get a good salary and good working conditions. But I do know the importance of the unarmed security guards in Boston and they make a difference whether they're at schools, there are colleges universities but especially from hospitals that's where I can speak from experience. I know the critical role unarmed security guards play at many hospitals in Boston

and want to be there for our security guards because they've always been there for the residents of Boston. Thank you.

Thank you, the chair recognizes Council President Liz Breadon. You have the floor in two minutes.

Thank you Madam Chair and good morning everyone. Good to see our friends from 32BJ Jody and Lou, thank you for being here. I am in total support of this ordinance it's very exciting to think that we're bringing this forward at this time Training, minimum training is critically important for our unarmed security guards to elevate the skills and preparedness. to equip our workers to deal with an array of different scenarios that can arise on any given day in their workplace. It enhances their safety and the safety of the public, and I really look forward to the conversation and hope that we can move this forward in a timely way. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. I might have been the only one, I represent the West End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Fenway and Mission Hill, I might be the only who heard a lot of concerns about this ordinance. So I do have a lot questions and I look forward to chatting and having potentially another hearing to go through the direct language because knowing that hospitals and academia Music Venues. I also have concerns about sort of the broadness of how this is written, would it apply to doormen outside of a bar or a restaurant? So I do I want to make sure I get my questions answered, and I'm not sure this is the appropriate format for that. So look forward to more process and more hearings regarding this because I do think there Definitely small business impacts that I would like to consider as well. Thank you.

Thank You the chair recognizes council Fitzgerald on the other floor

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the administration and 32BJ for being here. I look forward to learning more in this hearing and asking questions and figuring it out. So let's get started.

Thank you. And then I'd just like to say thank you to Councilor Santana for adding me as an original co-sponsor on this ordinance. Grew up with a lot of people, neighbors, residents who are security guards, unarmed security guards. It's often an entry level or beginning job for a lot people in our communities especially in our black and brown communities So this is really important, and I want to thank all of our unarmed security workers every day for all the incredible work that you do protecting our buildings often standing in harm's way. We've seen it here. We've seen it in New York, unfortunately, where a security guard passed away in the line of duty. So this is really important work at its core. This is about recognizing that unarmed security work has become a real part of the public safety landscape in our city. They're working in hospitals, universities, housing developments office buildings and many other places where they are asked to regularly deal with emergencies and people in crisis.

This is about making sure that when workers are already being placed in these situations They have the training, preparation and support to respond safely and appropriately. If we're going to rely on these professions as heavily as we do, we need to make sure that there's some consistency I also have heard feedback from industry. I've had feedback from small business owners, from large companies, from hospitals, A number of different entities. And I know that there is some training that already happened, but we're one of the only places that doesn't have standardized training across the board and so I'm looking forward to hearing testimony in terms Thank you for being here. I am now going to turn it over to the administration. We are joined today By the administration, we are joined by Lou Mandarini, Senior Advisor for Labor Policy and Jody Sugarman Brazen, Deputy Chief of Work Empowerment.

I will turn it over to you for any introductory remarks or any comments, or I'm not sure if you have a presentation You now have the floor, and I will not. The timer is off. OK. Lou, you had the floor.

Good morning chairs, councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today As is my practice I'll keep the opening quick and save time for the conversation and the questions but I think from the administration standpoint, there's a lot to like in this ordinance at least in concept. We also sort of only got it recently and have been preparing and much of the work is obviously going to be done when it's passed, and the agency has to set it up and implement it. You know, that's one flag we note. But there are obviously things in here I think that have a lot of merit. So the training in Narcan administration or de-escalation dealing with folks Struggling with addiction issues. I don't think anybody could be opposed to having, you know, ensuring that we have a baseline uniform standard across the city to protect our hospitals, protect our universities,

Protect our concert venues in those circumstances. And also, most importantly I think protect the workers themselves and make sure that they have the skills and the training to deal with whatever they face And then I think the other piece of it that jumps up to us is the economic mobility. So, you know, the Commonwealth in its decision-making in 1972 Embrace the principle that police officers should formally get education and be compensated for it. And I think the same principle obtains for our private unarmed security guards, education and training makes them better able to do their jobs, a uniform standard protects the city and protects the stakeholders, and protects institutions that we care about. So that is essentially what you'll hear from us today, and we look forward to answering your questions and having a conversation. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Advisor Mandarini. Deputy Chief Sugarman-Brosin?

That's all good. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. As you know, the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections is always looking for opportunities to ensure that the workers in the city of Boston not only have the protections they need, but pathways to good living wage jobs. I don't have much to add from what Lou said except We also are always very supportive of earn and learn models. They're really a critical way to allow people to enter into an occupation, without any of the barriers and to be paid from day one, and have portable credentials that they can take in order to have a good start in a living wage career. So we look forward to answering questions here today We've had a short amount of time to review, so we have a lot of work that may have to happen afterwards. But we are looking forward to answer questions and engaging with the council today.

Thank you. Thank you very much to the advisor and to the deputy director for being here at the beginning of this conversation as we introduce this ordinance and begin conversation, we appreciate your perspective I am now going to turn it over to my colleagues if they have any questions This panel, I will give my colleagues seven minutes inclusive of any questions and answers. Councilor Santana as the lead sponsor you begin and you have seven minutes.

Thank you. Thank You Madam Chair and thank you both for being here and for answering our questions. I failed to mention in my opening statement, actually while it was my first campaign for this job I was actually working overnights doing security, and it was a great job. It was very tiring job but also goes in hand with what's being proposed today. I did not have the proper training to be able to deal with all the situations that I may have encountered. And I learned that firsthand while doing the job. You know, I was supervising or securing an elderly facility Many of them were in bed by 8, 9 p.m., and I was working overnights, and all sorts of things would happen between 11 p. m. and 7 a.m. when I was there.

So again, I do want to thank the Union 32BJ for having conversations with my office and being able to bring this up to attention. So I know you've had a short time to be able to review this but I want to make sure that we are not just passing good policy on paper from the administration perspective. What are specific resources, staffing systems and processes that need to be in place for an ordinance like this one to work in practice.

That's a great question that we're still trying to figure that out. We've been in contact with some of our colleagues, counterparts in Philadelphia but it's clear that we need the capacity to be able to review proposed applications permits But I think we want to make sure that we do that work and do the due diligence of understanding that in partnership with The workers on the front lines with industry, including understanding what should be part of the training program. So we know that there is capacity needed and we're still trying to figure that out.

Yeah, and then as you're still figuring it out I'm wondering if there are any like in terms of implementation. Are there any barriers that you're able to see right now that we may be able to identify in terms of implementation.

I don't know that I would say barriers as much or not even obstacles. We need to figure out what's needed and set up systems in place to make that happen, so the first step is what is involved? What would be required of our office? What kind of capacity would be needed and then moving forward to ensure that we could meet that capacity. We're very lucky, the Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections is new. It is part of the New Worker Empowerment Cabinet, but it also is part a cabinet that includes the Office of Workforce Development which has extensive experience in supporting training programs like this so I feel we have a lot of expertise and we've got a couple of other cities that we can learn from so I think really it's a timeline and understanding that we would need some lead time to go through that process and not be able to jump into this

In 30 days, even if it's effective in 30 days we'd need more time to ensure that we're setting up the systems in place to take in the permit applications and ensure all the systems are there.

Absolutely absolutely I really appreciate that Lou, I appreciate you being here. I know you're in constant communications with a lot of our unions and workers throughout the city. What are you hearing prior to this introduction from our workers? and maybe specifically unarmed security guards. And then, you know, have you heard anything since maybe this introduction?

Well, I mean, I think this is probably a point to talk a little bit more about the economic mobility piece of this which is very attractive. So I think having a uniform standard that enables our workers to get a credential Enhances their economic mobility and that could be as simple as sort of moving to another security provider or it could be potentially getting exposed to you know something that takes them on a different but related career trajectory This is an incredibly expensive city to live in, and I think giving opportunities to people particularly at the bottom of the economic scale so that they can move around a little bit more easily. They can have good middle class wages and economic protection that comes This is a step in that direction. So, you know, that's why it's attractive to us and I think it gives a lot of opportunity to a lot people who are working very hard and they could have something that makes it a little bit easier for them. That's where we stand.

All right. Well, I really appreciate that perspective and it's something that we definitely took into consideration when creating this ordinance. Manager, I no longer have questions for this panel. The next panel, but I do want to thank the administration for being here, being present on a short timeline. And then I also think we want to be able to work with you all, work with everyone. And I know we're going to have public testimony later too I'm looking forward to that, to make sure that as we're creating this, that we're not speeding through this but they were being thoughtful and thinking about everyone and how this affects everyone. So again thank you both for being here and I'll hand back my time. Thank You Madam Chair

Thank you. The chair recognizes Councilor Murphy, you have the floor in seven minutes.

Thank you Has any of this work already been going on? Because I know this ordinance If I heard you correctly, you said it a few times that this is kind of coming on quick and you don't really have all the answers or thought through this yet. We have as an administration already kind of thinking of this work. Have any small security companies, non-union security guards or property owners, hospitals, schools you know all organizations that may be impacted, neighborhood businesses. Have we as an administration consulted any of them on this issue?

So we have had exchanges. And in preparation for this, we have some conversations with industry and are looking forward to continuing those conversations. We haven't touched the whole ecosystem yet I think you're highlighting a point that's important, which is that we need to have those conversations. You can't do something like this over the objections of the entire industry. You have to do it with them and working in partnership

Could you explain maybe for the public watching too, who do you consider the industry?

Well, certainly folks that are on the other side of the collective bargaining relationship with some of the unions. But I think it's anybody that provides this private security. And then I think the more people you talk to and at least get their input. It doesn't mean that all points are equal, and all things have to be done but I think those conversations are important so we're in the process of having them.

Okay a question. The ordinance says training may be provided only by a federally tax-exempt organization, may not be controlled by a security employer and must be conducted exclusively through in person classroom instruction. Why are qualified security companies and legitimate online or hybrid training providers categorically excluded? Have we thought that through, or do you have an understanding of why it may have had such strong wording

I think that first we know there are risks in for-profit training programs and ensuring the training programs are there to benefit workers and employers in ensuring that they're meeting the needs of the workers and the employers who hire them. I know In-person training for things like deescalation and overdose training, Other important trainings that are critical to ensuring that the public and workers are safe are best done in person. So I think that is the reasoning and thinking behind I think as we go through the process of developing the training program, as Lou said, we will engage with industry. We will engage

Workers on the Front Lines to ensure that what we are creating and certifying meets the needs of those workers on the front lines, and of course the employers that are going to be hiring them.

Thank you. The ordinance would take effect 30 days after passage, but it requires the city to create a permit system, certify training providers, establish qualifications, determine fees, issue notices, develop complaint procedures and Promlegate regulations. How can businesses legally comply when none of those systems are already in place? If you could kind of talk through what that would look like.

My understanding is that those systems must be in place for the first certification by July of the following year, July 2027. So I've not yet had an opportunity to really dig in to understand what must be in place prior versus when people would be permitted and by that July 1, 2027 would be the first set of permitted and new training programs. So I can't really answer that question because I'm not quite sure yet what the difference is.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have for now.

Thank you, the chair recognizes Councilor Flynn. You have the floor and seven minutes.

Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Jody for your important work that you're doing. Jody just wanted to follow up on a comment Councilor Murphy made or a question rather The people that would be providing the training or the groups that would provide the training, could you just restate who would be qualified under what conditions?

As it stands right now, it must be a non-profit entity that provides the training that would be permitted. In order to receive a permit to give the training, that's what must... Must be the case.

A non-profit organization? Is there any type of nonprofit organizations currently that do provide that training?

I don't know, I'm not sure.

Lou, do you know the answer?

Uh, I don't. As I sit here and talk, I do not.

Okay. Madam Chair, may I get that information please?

Yep, the question is if there are nonprofit organizations that already provide the training that's being required under this ordinance. Is that a question?

Yes. All right. If there are no nonprofits that do provide this training, for-profit organizations that do provide this training.

I think the structure at the moment is that the companies that hire Security Guards and contract them out, provide the training but it is as minimal as eight hours. And then the training is also then additionally provided by the site that they are assigned to. is varies from worker to worker, from site to site. And what this seeks to do is create a minimum standard across the board which is of significant value that ensures Folks who are put on the front lines, who are dealing with medical emergencies and other kinds of public safety situations have the training they need to engage with those.

Would former police officers that are engaged in public safety, in a for-profit space. Would they be able to provide formal training to unarmed security officers as part of this plan?

The ordinance allows a process through which the trainers can then define their instructors. So that is yet to be determined on how and where instructors are and many more. The application process as it stands in the ordinance Former police officers who have had significant training could be part of that process.

Yeah, okay. That's what I was thinking, that this potentially could go to a company where a former police chief of a city could potentially get the contract to provide this training. Is that accurate, you're saying?

The way this is written it must be a non-profit entity.

Unless it's changed after the fact when we write it up basically, is that accurate?

That is true. I think the important piece for us is that the training is no cost to the workers and that they are paid to be part of the training. Those things are really critical pieces of the ordinance.

No, thank you Jody. Lou has Beckma been invited into the conversation?

Beckman is certainly on the list of people that we will talk to, but we have not. As as we say this is moving fast and we've had the opportunity to talk to some folks and uh we will

I do hear from a lot of people that this is moving fast. Is there a reason why it is moving so fast? I'm not saying I disagree with that or agree with that, but why is there a sense of urgency on this?

Um... We're responding to a filing. I think I would leave it at that. I don't know more than that, and we're sort of doing our best to get ahead of it and testify to the extent that we can, but I don' t know the answer to your question, Councilman.

It was filed, the reason I'm asking it was filed in the city council recently a couple weeks ago and we're here having it last week. And we're having a hearing on it There's still a lot of unanswered questions. I'm just trying to get to... There's something I'm missing. There's about the timing. Who has information about the I want to make sure if we pass something, it has to be the right language. I don't want to rush something just to get something done within two weeks and then find out we made mistakes. Why are we rushing this to get it done tomorrow?

I guess if the lead sponsor would like to speak on this through the chair, you may. Through the chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to bring some clarification. I don't think they know the answers to this as well as the lead filer. As you know, Councilor or as the public knows I was away for a few weeks and this was supposed to be filed prior. And we were working with the committee to try to get things scheduled so It was just that my last week was my first meeting back, so I made all my findings that I had missed prior to this. So this is why I think some of the timing questions. I do want to make clear that I don't think anyone here wants to rush through this process. I think we wanna make sure that we're getting it right. I've already heard from multiple councilors as well of having another hearing, usually in ordinances we have working sessions to work on the language and that is also something I definitely want to do as a lead sponsor.

Thank you, Council Santana. I agree with you. I want to make sure we get this right. I was a security guard. I know this issue as well as anyone here. I have the strongest record on the City Council in support of organized labor. There's no one that has a better record on the City Council than I do. I want to get this done, but I want it done the right way. And the right is making sure we do our due diligence in ensuring all voices are heard included and respected, thank you.

Thank you the chair recognizes Council President Liz Breadon you have the floor and seven minutes.

Thank You Madam Chair Again, I think I'm familiarizing myself with this ordinance and also looking at what other standards other states have and other municipalities. It says that Massachusetts does not enforce a statewide minimum hour mandate for unarmed guard, leaving specific training standards up to individual licensed employers and municipalities. I think that leaves a lot of wiggle room and doesn't really establish a clear standard. By comparison, I think California requires 40 hours of total training, eight hours pre-assignment to on powers of arrest plus 30 hours of general and elective subjects. New York mandates 8 hours pre assignment training followed by 16 hours of on the job training and so on.

Ordinances is filling a gap and meets the need for some standardized training. I also think that the issue about economic mobility if you have A portable credential that allows you to seek employment elsewhere, a credential that's well respected and has good standing. I think that's really critically important. In terms of the terrain, why do we not have more in 2026? Why do we Training for unarmed security guards in Massachusetts. Is there any sort of history to that, or what's the background?

Madam President, I think what I would say is that those kind of uniform standards come from the state government. You know, that sort of when we want to make a uniform policy across the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. It falls to the legislature to do that You know, that hasn't happened. I don't want to make that sound like I'm blaming anybody but it hasn't happen. The simple fact is as we sit here and talk, we don't have a uniform standard for training these Critical frontline workers. And so I think from our standpoint, that's a circumstance where it falls to local government that's closest to the ground to do this work. It hasn't happened, so it falls on us to do it and that's you and me.

Yeah, that's us. We're it. In terms of the menu of training skills, I think this might be a question for you, Jodie. What do you see as being the most important Skillset that we want to ensure there's uniformity for our unarmed security guards.

I think that's a question for the frontline workers and the employers who hire them, but the list in the ordinance has some really critical pieces around de-escalation and CPR, and other health and safety training. The office that I lead, I always think it's important that workers know and understand their rights on the job, and that is part of the training. But again, the best training programs are created in consultation with the frontline workers and the people who are going to employ them. So I think that work is to be done but the list and the ordinance certainly Very good start with important skills and trainings that will ensure that unarmed guards are safe, and the people they protect also.

I think the whole issue around de-escalation and communication when there's conflict, people get very feisty at times handling difficult public interactions. That's a particular skill set that not everyone So it's not about using brute force to manage a situation, it's about de-escalating and handling situations sensitively so that people feel heard and they don't ramp up their aggression or whatever. Their displeasure. Are there any particular, like obviously I think this will be refined and we'll be going to, assuming we'll having working sessions on this and I look forward to the conversation with the next panel Do you foresee any particular challenges with standing up this standard going forward, like timelines, training requirements?

Any other particular challenges?

I think that we need a little bit more time to do our due diligence, to come up with a solid implementation plan that's realistic based on the capacity and we are already Starting to do that, talk to our counterparts in other cities and towns. But as a new department the Office of Labor Compliance has been tasked with implementation of new ordinances and we've been able to take it from Beginning to end, including the heat ordinance. And I feel confident that we would be able to with enough time to do our due diligence come up with a plan for this as well.

I think the partnership with our union colleagues is going to be really critical in putting this together and developing a workable plan, also the actual subject matter that folks are going to need to be skilled. And I feel, and this is more of a statement rather than a question, having well-trained staff who are confident in their skills is safety in itself. I think they generate or manifest confidence and it's not about... Thank you very much. Issues or concerns that you have in relation to how this might be viewed more generally in the broader environment, in terms of other businesses etc. ?

No, I think I really look forward to creating an opportunity to fill a gap that's really needed and ensuring that we are providing A workforce which is increasingly part of our public safety ecosystem, the skills they need while at the same time giving them portable credentials, earn and learn opportunities and career Advancement Opportunities and Mobility Opportunities. I think this provides an opportunity to do two things at once in that regard. Very good, thank you. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you, Council President Breadon. And thank you everyone for doing so great on time. We have also been joined by Councillors Ben Weber and and Councilor Reverend Minyard Culpepper. Next, we have Councilor Sharon Durkan. Councilor Durkan you have the floor.

Thank you.

And seven minutes.

Thank you, Councilor Louijeune. So obviously as a city councilor we're often Diving into issues that require a ton of intricacies, but often we are figuring out the intricacies and like I want to just say thanks to the sponsors for their work on this issue. It's not an issue that I know a ton about other than the calls I've received regarding just folks and industry in our district, just trying to figure out Exactly what this would do and exactly who it applies to. One issue I see with the way that this is currently drafted, is that 1722 is the Road Safety and Accountability for Third Party Delivery Drivers Ordinance.

So I think that we should create a new section in the city code if this were to go into effect. The way that I've heard from some of these security companies is they think that their training as their secret sauce, like it's the type of work that they do. And there are a lot of different settings that these security guards are in and many more. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the City of Michigan. Particularly with hospitals it might require different training than guarding a door at If there were to be a training established, how you would get at those intricacies? Yeah.

I think this ordinance sets the baseline So that there are different kinds of settings. Hospitals would be certainly different than a setting at a front desk of a major office building or things like that, But what this seeks to do is create a baseline so that all guards have, Anamguards have some basic level of training. It sets out 40 hours which on the surface seems reasonable to me, but that is I would want to have additional conversations as we move forward to understand what is the baseline versus what is that extra on top piece that might be necessary from site to site.

Regarding the 40 hours of initial training, I mean that sounds like on-the-face a reasonable amount of hours. But having talked to some of these security companies there's a lot of part time workers A lot of people who do private security are our lowest income workers. People who do it part-time, they need that revenue in their lives for their families and so I think it's really important that this ordinance and many more. I don't know if that puts the cost on You know, if you move like we were talking about from employer to employer there's not something right now having read through. In this ordinance it says if you have a training and you've been trained You know, you have this training for a year. And then it sounds like there's a little bit of ambiguity in the current text

that would essentially you'd have to be retrained when you joined a new security company. And I think that is kind of, Lacks the nuances of people living their lives. When we get ethics trained, we have that certification for a certain period of time and we do trainings throughout the city for different issues and so I think you should have a certificate, and that certificate should carry you to any employer. Not necessarily about it being in person, but I do think we absolutely need to talk you know Talk to employers and understand the nuances of these people's lives. Because I mean, in the city of Boston a lot of people work from home

And so asking people to go to a specific site, is there transportation covered? Where do they live? There's so many questions I have about. Kind of the burden on low income workers to get to trainings in person and depending on where they are located. I understand the point of this ordinance, and I understand potentially the issue that it's trying to solve. I do think that the date in effect does not give enough time for these programs to be developed. about how this may conflict with state law. And I understand the framework that we're working within because this framework was used for the third party delivery ordinance, So I understand that piece of this. I do think it's important that these are different issues, and I think it requires some nuance.

Obviously like you, I haven't had a ton of time to digest But I know that there are a lot of different types of security training that people are currently and frameworks that they're operating within their businesses. And I think that does need to be and so forth. And I think that's sort of infused here because one concern that I've gotten from institutions in my district is Based on their reading, and this could be untrue. They want to offer special training to their specific site in the specific confines of like the security of where people are protecting. And they feel like the way that this is written as a little too stringent about But I don't think that's the intent, and I do think this could be worked through.

I just think it's really important that we talk about those nuances because I wouldn't want to vote for something that I think still needed work I do think that as a city councilor that represents a lot of places that are targets, it sounds great to have baseline security and to protect against threats. But there's a lot of different stakeholders that I would want to bring into that. Security in my district is of utmost importance to me. And I just want to, first Armour who works in Mission Main right now They've brought up to me, we had a security meeting. There was a shooting on July 5th. They've

and so I don't think we're getting at all the nuances of what private security are dealing with right now within this ordinance. And understanding that, like the top issue I'm hearing from private security O'Neill. I don't know that an ordinance can fix that, but regarding private security in my district. So thank you to the chair.

Thank you, Councilor Durkan. The chair recognizes Councilor Fitzgerald. You have the floor in seven minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As always I support a worker's right to unionize and standards are always good to have to both measure and ensure accountability with that some basic questions do we know how many jobs does this training cover if implemented? Do we know

I have not done that analysis yet, but we could get the answer to that question for you.

Thank you and who pays for it? I think I know, but I just wanted to say.

For the training? The employers.

The employers of each individual guy, whoever they're with, right. Is current training by those companies, is that on a company-by-company basis or is it by site, et cetera? And what standards do they base their training off of if any at the moment?

At the moment, there are no standards. It's my understanding that each company does some level of baseline training and then depending upon the site that they are assigned to, there may or may not be additional training, is from what I've seen eight hours, but then additional training may happen on site.

But there's nothing at the local state or federal level that holds them to any sort of standard at the moment?

That is correct for unarmed.

Great, thank you. What are we worried about? The training that they would be put into if we have a standard, what is it specifically there to address? What is the problem that it's trying to solve?

I think the next panel will give a lot more detail. You want to hear from frontline workers first and foremost, but I believe that unarmed workers are increasingly part of our public safety ecosystem and are consistently put in positions where they're dealing with aggressive confrontations, medical issues that they are not necessarily receiving the proper training to keep themselves and the public safe.

So it's fair to say just all around general increase in certain behaviors that need to be trained for now rather than any specific... And playing an increasing role. Yeah, fair enough. Great, thank you. Kind of in the weeds here, but I know what the ordinance asks for if they employ more than two security guards that are within city limits. So say I'm company X and I have 20 security guards, 18 Out in Western Mass, but two are in the city. Does the training apply to all 20 or just the two within the city? Or I understand if they rotate then it makes a difference right? But is it for anyone that is in the City does it automatically touch the entire company?

The ordinance would apply to Workers in the City of Boston. So I believe it's just those two, but I do want to have a little bit more time to go through it in more detail and you have the number of workers in Boston who are?

Approximately 9000. and on security guides, thank you. Where was I in my next one? Oh so rule 400 was repealed Several years ago now. And I believe that created the unarmed security guard in a way, because they weren't allowed to have weapons. Is this in response to Rule 400 going away and the need to bring back more training for that? I know they can't still, they are not armed guards. But I know that in dealing with taking care of property with munis, etc., they could not actually put their hands on individuals to remove them from sites because of Rule 400.

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to that question is no. I think these problems have bedeviled this industry for a lot longer than the repeal of Rule 400 and I think this is a long time coming so I don't think the two are directly connected.

And is there anything in the training that we would seek for them to get does not... Put back anything that was taken away with that repeal.

Here again, here again, Councilor, the trouble is we've got a baseline here that's in the draft ordinance that's Building above the baseline and what's in it and what we do and how we do it is still to come.

Fair enough. You say you've talked with Philadelphia? They have implemented this?

We have reached out to them, and we found the correct. They are working on implementation now, and they're totally looking forward to sharing with us what they've learned and allowing us to learn from what worked well and didn't work well there.

My question was going to be, is there any foresight on what to expect? But so yet to come.

We look forward to those conversations.

and is there any unintended consequences this may have on other businesses given the terminology used in the ordinance? Is there anyone else that could be, is there a gray area of, is their strictly security guard Companies, unarmed security guard companies. And that is it? Does it bleed into anything else where as we go down the line here, someone else might raise their hand and reach out to us and say, hey John, I know you wouldn't think it but this affects me. And here's what will do to my business company neighborhood et cetera?

The definitions are pretty significant, or pretty clear as to who this covers. But I think I can only answer that we would go by this definition and I think it's

Do you have the definition? Because I'm sorry, I don't at the moment. What is the definition of an unarmed security guard?

It is, well definition of the employer. The security employer is anyone who employs two or more unarmed security guards to perform security services at one or more covered property.

And it has nothing about what in unarmed security, there's no definition for the unarmed guard and what specific?

There is. It's a larger paragraph but again we would use this It's always, I can't answer whether or not there are unintended consequences. We would look at this very closely as we move forward with our due diligence to ensure that taking into account as much as we possibly could and meet with stakeholders to try to understand that.

And we will work with you guys along the way as we do that, and that's our intent so look forward to it. Thank you Madam Chair no further questions.

Thank You the chair recognizes Councilor Weber you have the floor in seven minutes

Okay, thank you. Yeah I think Councilor Fitzgerald stole my first question which is how many security guards do we have here in Boston and if you do the research it's 9000 Where the country has like 1.3 million security guards and it's more than the and a total number of police officers across the country. Here it's same in Boston, this is like a large group of people who are often paid I know a lot of the studies highlight how many Here, just think about how it dwarfs our own police department. I'm getting up to speed there is an article I think that the UC Berkeley Labor Center put out this month or in the last month actually July 2026

called underpaid, undervalued and essential. I don't know if anyone's talked about this already. It's the security guard workforce in the United States is kind of outlines a lot of issues I think that occur you know in the workspace for Our security guards, even just finding out how many there are is sort of eye-opening. Do we already certify companies to do this work? No, we don't track them. Do you know if there, and I don't think this is part of this ordinance but has any thought been given to background checks for people who work as security guards?

I believe that is included, but I'm not 100%. Don't quote me. But I believe it's included in there.

I'll leave the filer if you want to address that later. We have background checks for people going into this kind of work. And I guess in terms of, I think we were just sort of touching on this getting to who's covered and I guess what's to stop someone from saying well that person is working at the desk is not providing Security Services. They're a concierge or something. How do we handle that? How does this ordinance deal with it?

The ordinance has a structure for enforcement where people can make complaints if they believe that they are working and a job that's security, and they don't have the proper training. So there are administrative enforcement penalties detailed in the ordinance I have not had an opportunity to go through them in detail. Again, operationalizing this is work that we have to do still.

Okay and then In terms of protective gear, are we going to mandate companies to provide non-lethal protective measures for

This focuses on training, not protective gear or requirements around protective gear. But it does focus on the necessary health and safety De-escalation, et cetera that's required.

Okay and then In terms of the shifts that people are required to work, I don't know if Philadelphia or any of these other places do they look at trying to... 12-hour shifts or overnight. Is there any benefit to requiring shorter shifts for people, or regulating that?

Go ahead.

I mean, Councilor, this is exactly the kind of work that we have to do moving forward both with the ordinance and the implementation. Appreciate these fine-grained questions, but they're not ones that we can answer as we talk today. I just want to shoot straight with you about what we are equipped to do and not do today.

Sounds good. And do you know, do we have several large employers here in the city? Usually they're concentrated. Do you know who the larger players are in Boston?

Yeah, we've had an opportunity to speak with at least one who I believe has submitted testimony here today. And we would want to be able to move forward in the work ahead involving all stakeholders including them, employers.

Okay. And in terms of administering this, I know we've talked about this in other contexts like what's does your office will You need more people in your office to do this work, or how can you handle it?

Again, we haven't had a chance to really understand what capacity is needed to operationalize this. But we are a small office and there's a lot of work to determine how we would move forward and what capacity we need

Okay, so we would need to set up like a database. Can you just walk me through what you think needs to happen if we pass this in your office?

As with the heat ordinance and other ordinance we've been tasked with, we first try to understand exactly what is required. And then Set up an implementation infrastructure in Philadelphia and other places. They've hired a consultant to set up the permitting system that may be something we need here in Boston, but I think as we've said there's still a lot of work ahead to understand exactly what is required, what capacity would be needed and what strategies we would use to meet that.

Okay. I think that's all for my questions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank You. The chair recognizes Councilor Culpepper. You have the floor in seven minutes.

Thank I want to begin by acknowledging what I think is an important common ground in this conversation. We know security officers play an important role in keeping people safe across our city Thank you very much. Training for security officers. While a law student in law school, I was the security officer untrained and they put me in a warehouse at Somerville Big, huge warehouse. And I was there all night by myself. The good news is that I had a German shepherd named Ginger that took good care of me.

I had no training whatsoever, and when I think about where we are now, and I think how long ago that was, discussed in a serious way like we are now, and now we're at the point where we have an ordinance to provide training. I think there's broad agreement that there is a big gap here Unlike most states, Massachusetts does not currently require training. And when you think about Philadelphia and we'll talk about Philadelphia in a minute. My questions today are not coming from A place of opposition to training, they're coming from a place of wanting to understand how we operationalize this proposal successfully. You've heard a lot of questions about how do we actually operationalize this, especially when you look at Philadelphia. They had to stop the program completely because

When they got it started, they hadn't planned in a way that required everything to be in place that was necessary. I look at the size of your office, and we'll talk about that in a little bit. I heard you mention that you had a small office. We'll talk a little but about that. But we've heard concerns about the 40-hour requirement, to certify training providers and administer a new permitting system, the cost to employers and institutions that contract with them, whether existing high-quality training should receive some form of credit We also heard, and we'll talk more about Philadelphia. But that experience should not necessarily tell Boston not to act, but I think it should cause us to ask what we can learn from it. And we'll talk about that a little bit, what lessons learned from Philadelphia and trying to implement a system that they weren't prepared to implement.

And my goal today is pretty simple, I want to understand what problem we are trying to solve? What infrastructure is necessary to solve it? What implementation will actually Thank you very much. I want it to be a standard that is meaningful for workers, manageable for employers and enforceable by the city and ultimately one that makes Boston safer. So let's talk a little bit about the size of your office. What is the size in your office? And what do you think you need, and I heard Councilor Webber kind of allude to that but As you look at what's required in the ordinance, what do you think you'll need in terms of additional staffing to actually

operationalize and implement this ordinance in the way that we've seen other states have implemented it.

Well, first I think we share the same goals so thank you Councillor Culpepper for laying that out. Our office is small in addition to myself we have three staff We enforce the wage theft executive order, the living wage ordinance and the heat ordinance. And we also do workers' rights training and outreach and health and safety training and We would have to do our due diligence to really understand what is involved before I could answer the question. about what capacity we need. I don't really know until I've had that opportunity, I will say we are very lucky to have the opportunity to be in community with other municipal labor departments like Philadelphia, New York and otherwise who've taken on some of these tasks. And we intend to learn from them of what has worked, what hasn't worked, the kind of capacity

And I think we've always looked at opportunities to ensure that we are creating meaningful Meaningful laws and compliance. And I turn to our living wage, wage theft executive order in the implementation of the recent ordinance around protecting workers from heat. We really looked at what we had the capacity to do and how we could utilize our resources for the maximum impact. And, we'd like to do that here as well.

What was there, did they give you any glaring problems that they said this has been a major problem for us?

I have not yet had an opportunity to have the conversation with them. I've been able to identify the key staff person implementing that and look forward to having a conversation. We are just getting started in understanding this, so we reached out to them and have set up some initial phone calls.

If I may, I think talking to labor folks in Philadelphia is going to be important too. Have you talked to them yet? We're working on that as well.

And what have they told you so far?

We were literally working on setting up the conversation

Okay, could you report back to us as you get the information? It's going to be helpful to look at that as we assess it. And let me ask your question, Lou. You said a minute ago to Councilor Weber, you said we're here to do... We are here... Giving you what we can do and not what we cant't do today. What can you tell us today about the ordinance as you assessed it in terms of implementation issues other than staffing? I think that's difficult.

And I think we've repeatedly answered that question, that going further than the text of the ordinance today without the conversations with the folks in Philly, without the conversation makes it difficult to answer those questions. So that is not anyone trying to mislead you or obfuscate, or any of that. It's literally we don't have that information. We haven't had those conversations. and in response to your question about seasonably updating you with information, we'll be glad to do that.

Madam Chair may I have one question or are we going to have a second round? I mean, if we have a second round, I'm good.

Just ask. You may have additional time, Councilor Reverend Culpepper, and you may ask your additional question.

Just one real quick question, Lou. Is there a way we could within this ordinance create and equivalency or accreditation process where the city evaluates a curriculum rather than the tax status of the organization delivering it. How do we come to use tax status as the basis for this training?

Well, Councilor I'll say this. You all are the ones that are going to pass the ordinance and we will work together to do that so Anything is possible when you're drafting an ordinance, as long as it conforms to the law and the home rule charter.

You didn't answer my question about taxes, but Madam Chair...

I answered your question in a manner of speaking.

I'll come back to it. Culpepper. If there's a second round. Thank you, Lou.

Councilor Culpeper if you have additional questions I think that now is the time to ask them for this panel. Yeah but I mean Are you going to let them go now? I mean, do any of my other colleagues have additional questions? And I have not yet asked my questions. Okay, okay. So if you have additional Timer at 7 minutes and state that I've been informed that there are some entities that do offer this training, and they are nonprofits. Some of our community colleges. And so that could be, I mean, I'll defer to the sponsor. But that could a reason why that language is in the ordinance. I believe the reason why Lou responded this way is that the ordinance does originate with us

And so as counselors, if we do want to alter the language, probably make it more expansive to include for-profit or other entities that is our ability. We have that ability to do so in a working session work on the language of the ordinance. I was just trying to be friendly and answer your question, but I do have my questions for this panel. And if there's a second round, I'll go back to you. Thank you, thank you. So I had six questions here my colleagues have asked, I believe two or three of them But Deputy Director Sugarman-Brazen, when you spoke about your office I wonder how do you see this ordinance fitting into the work that your office already does? How does it fit in to sort of like the thesis of the Office of Worker Empowerment.

I think it fits very well within the worker empowerment cabinet, first and foremost through our office of labor compliance or worker protections that gives us The opportunity and strategies to ensure workers are safe, and that they receive the training they need to be safe and to be able to do their jobs. I think that the Office of Workforce Development which is A part of the Worker Empowerment Cabinet. Its mission is to ensure that there are pathways to good quality We invest in training programs for the Office of Workforce Development all the time. We've learned quite a bit through that and through implementing the Neighborhood Jobs Trust, so I would lean heavily on the experience of Office of

Thank you, thank you. And then my colleagues kind of asked this question is what benefit do you see in sort of having a level of consistency and the type of training across across this industry. We do know that there was an unarmed security guard that was recently injured here in our city and there's an unarm security guard in New York City who was fatally who was fatally killed as well at the NFL building. And so may his memory be honored in the work that we do to try to make sure that when folks ask about the genesis and the need for these trainings, I think that's where it starts. So what benefit do you see to standardization, either Lou or Jody?

So Councilor, I think the answer to that is Essentially what we have now is a patchwork. Some of these trainings may be very good, some of them may be non-existent, and some of the maybe middling but the point is we don't have a uniform standard and that's why this is beneficial at its base that's Guarantee is a uniform standard and everybody knows what's baked into the training, and it's promulgated by the city. So I think that is the overwhelming benefit of considering doing this.

Thank you. One concern we've heard is that the ordinance could duplicate trainings. And again, I've spoken to small business owners, I spoke into some of our large institutions already about this ordinance and I've heard their concerns from especially our black-owned companies and know that there are, especially for our small business, So what could we do? Is there a way to recognize strong existing programs while still making sure every worker meets the same minimum standard?

I think it's important to talk to those people providing the training and find out what they have to say. A good idea is a good idea regardless of where it comes from. So if there's training that helps enhance what we're doing here or we learn things in the industry, that's all work we should do. So to answer your question, I think it's important to have those conversations and understand what the landscape is and see if there are things that we can replicate or take or borrow or enhance.

So that's what I would say. Thank you. What do you think, like the council especially when we talk about for our small businesses but there are a lot of large players here as well. How we do this work, and I'm sure we'll hear testimony. And we've received it as well without creating unnecessary barriers of entry or of continuation for workers and employers many of whom have already expressed that they Some level of training already.

I would say again, Councilor those folks we have to talk to. We have to talks about the burdens of this and what it engenders Ensure that those folks are heard from. That they're protected and that we're not sort of unnecessarily doing something to important neighborhood businesses or something like that.

These are just conversations we have to have. Thank you, thank you Lou. Those are my questions I think I did five minutes. I look to my colleagues for any second round of questions. I see your light, and I know Councilor Coppa may have questions. and I then do want to make sure that we can get to public testimony. I do not have a second round, the lead sponsor does not have second round. Councilor Flynn you have a secound round. You have three minutes for that second round Thank you

Lou, did you reach out to BECMA on this issue? And if so, what was their response?

Councillor, I think I'm just respectfully asking you a question. I am, and I'm pointing out it's a question I already answered. Okay so do you want to Provide any additional information on that? That I've reached out to them and that we haven't contacted yet? Yeah. No, I don't. That's all I have to say.

Okay. Lou, what's the status of the civilian flagger positions?

We are working so that there are two aspects of that. There is an RFP that we put out relative to an app That operates those that is proceeding along and we also have another procurement where That's been won by the Ed Davis Company, and we are working through the prospect of setting up that program now. It's been slow largely because of the app, but it is proceeding at pace. I can get more detailed information and update you if that's helpful. Sure.

And let me, I have another minute left. But why don't you think it wasn't important for you to reach out to BECMA? Wouldn't they play a critical role in ensuring that small businesses owned by people of color are included.

Councillor, I don't know if something's getting lost in the translation here but what I've said twice Flynn, you have asked a question. He has answered it.

If you have an additional I'm asking Lou, why don't you think it was important during this conversation to reach out to black and brown owned companies?

Councillor, I don't agree with the premise of your question. We reached out to Becma. We haven't had the opportunity to talk to them yet, but we fully intend to do so. We fully intend To talk to Bekma.

I'm being respectful to them. I'm asking in a polite manner. I am asking questions that I feel are important. I do want to ensure that black and brown small businesses are heard during this discussion I support this proposal though. I know the important role security guards do play in the city But I also want to know that black and brown businesses are going to be heard during this process. I'm being respectful to you, Lou, but I also expect, Lou that you're respectful to me as well. I am respectful to YOU. Okay, you didn't sound like- You've asked the question and I've answered it twice.

Okay thank you that is time we are... Thank you Lou for being here, thank you Jody. We're moving on to our second panel If we could please have Kevin Brown, Executive Vice President of 32BJ. If you could please Stanley Watring, Security Guard. If we can please have Tonya Brown-Powell. Oh, you had it? Okay. You had a second round of questions for this panel? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Thank and apologies but yes thank you for allowing us to move on to the second panel. Thank You when we already have a few questions that we have to submit in writing so we could just add those on and the administration can answer. If the panel can please proceed, Tanya Brown Powell, Jeff Franchetti and Sam Rodriguez. We also have virtually with us Rob Cook Who will be testifying last?

Good, what is now? Okay no we're still good morning at 1125. Okay, good morning everyone thank you for being with us. We are going to start this panel and this is a panel of advocates. We're gonna start with Kevin Kevin, you have the floor and then you can hot potato pass it to the next person.

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank You Councilman Santana for sponsoring this and Thank you, Council President Breadon. My name is Kevin Brown. I'm the director of 32 BJSCIU's New England district. We represent 22,000 service workers here in the New England area and 8500 essential workers that work here in Boston including more than 1800 officers who work within the city confines, who carry out this difficult work of keeping Bostonians safe and secure every single day. We strongly support this ordinance, which would require security companies to pay for in-person training for all unarmed security officers 40 hours for new hires and 8 hours every year thereafter. The City would certify the training programs as you've heard and ensure that they are qualified. Currently, there is no legal requirement for unarmed security officers for training here in Boston or in the Commonwealth.

In contrast, most states nationwide now mandate training for un-armed officers. This should be a concern for all of us. Boston is the global hub for higher education, life sciences and healthcare. These industries which are driving job growth in the city contract heavily from security firms and depend on over 9,000 officers as you have heard to keep these buildings and facilities safe. This is grueling work Standing up hour after hour, day after day paying attention and being eyes and ears is grueling work. We've heard about hatchet fights Machete-wielding trespassers, overdoses and of course lost children. and security officers, a workforce primarily made up of people of color with 61% identifying as black are themselves frequently in harm's way.

In December of last year, a security officer at Boston Medical Center was left in critical condition after being stabbed by a hospital visitor. These types of incidents contribute to the high rate of turnover we see in the industry. That means that emergencies must frequently be handled by newly hired officers who haven't been comprehensively trained or trained at all. despite what the contractors may tell you. The best way to combat turnover is, of course, by increasing compensation including providing quality affordable health care. And in the meantime, a robust training standard is a good starting point for professionalizing Boston's security workforce. This legislation will empower security officers to better protect themselves and the public by giving them real-world skills that they need to perform their duties, including life-saving first aid techniques and conflicts on deescalation.

It is time that Boston join the list of localities that have common sense training requirements. Thank you. I also want to speak to the question that was raised about why now? We are in collective bargaining with the security contractors of Boston at the moment. That contract actually expired July 31st, and we intend on Tuesday at our next bargaining to present to them A training program that we have at 32BJ for tens of thousands of officers in the New York and New Jersey area. which is already in place, and both New York and New Jersey have requirements for training but we don't have that here. So the cost of that is $312 a month per officer So if a company employs 100 people, that's not a lot of money. So $30,000. You can't put a price on safety and we believe it is high time and many more.

And also I want to respond to the fact that we do have the community colleges in the area which already can provide this training and also the 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training Fund can provide We'd like to make sure that our members, those 3,000 people could use the training fund and employers pay for it. Thank you. And now we want to hear from our security officers. I think we're going to begin with Stanley.

Thank you, Kevin. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice-Chair and members of the Committee of Government Operations. My name is Stanley Washington III. I am a security officer and a member of 32BJ, and I'm here today in support of this ordinance requiring training for private security officers in Boston. I want to start with a simple question How can we expect security officers to protect the public if we're not given the tools and training to protect ourselves? When I first started working at Boston Public Library, I received no training. N-O-N-E But from day one I was expected to handle difficult situations involving mental health crisis, homelessness, destructive behavior and confrontation with patrons. I was expected to respond professionally and keep everybody safe, but no one had prepared me for these moments.

I wanted to do the right thing, but I often did not know the safest or most effective way That's not fair to security officers and it is not fair for the public. Later, when I transferred to Faneuil Hall, I only received maybe a few hours of training before being put on the job. Then one day, a fight broke out between a coworker and a patron. Only after that incident Did some additional training begin? Training should not come after someone gets hurt. It should come before anyone gets hurt, so hopefully it never happens. Boston depends on thousands of security officers every single day We protect hospitals, libraries, office buildings, hotels, schools, laboratories and historical landmarks for example like Fenwell Hall. We are often the first people to respond before police, firefighters or EMS arrives. That responsibility deserves professional employer paid training.

The ordinance will establish a citywide training center that includes de-escalation, CPR and first aid, emergency response, mental health awareness, report writing in skills we need to keep ourselves and the public safe. It raises the standard not only for workers, but for every person that walks through the doors of the buildings that we protect. This isn't just about security officers. It's about public safety. It is about making sure our workers are prepared before a crisis happens, not after. So today, we're calling on the Boston City Council to stand with workers who demand and stand up for this city every single day. Let's invest in protection instead of reaction. Let's Invest in training instead of tragedy. And let's show Boston that security officers deserve the respect, professionalism and support that comes with protecting our communities Thank you for your time and I'll pass it to my fellow colleague.

Thank you, Stanley. While there is no clapping in chambers, appreciate your testimony. The chair recognizes, is it Tanya? Tanya. Tanya you have the floor.

Okay so hello everyone my name is Tanya Powell-Brown I've been working at the library for six years now and a proud member of 32BJ. I stand alongside my fellow security officers, and we're demanding I was intentionally trained online as well as at the library on some of more basic principles of security. Making rounds, being vigilant. But I'll be the first to tell you after six years it's not enough. At my job, I have dealt with overdose. Needles, unattended needles.

Incidents where there's fights. The hatchet fight. Overdose in the bathroom, overdose outside. We have to continuously call police all the time and not every time the police is there like right away. Sometimes it's the firefighters They come quicker than the police, but just like we have to explain to a lot of patrons that you know we do our best as we try to make them safe and keep ourselves safe. It's pretty hard. Standardizing the training across Boston means that the security officers are all allowed the same protocol, working more ethically with law enforcement when we need to. to keep the public safer.

And as we ask that the City of Boston stand with security officers and support the ordinance,

Thank you, thank you Tanya. You did a great job. Thank you for your testimony. Is next, is it Jeff Franchetti? You can just come up and share one of the mics. or you could just bring up your chair as well and they can just make a point. Yeah, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair, members of the Government Operations Committee and the City Council. My name is Jeffrey Franchetti, and I'm a student at Northeastern. I'm here today in support of this ordinance requiring training for private security officers in Boston. And I, as all other students of Northeastern Benefit from the workers at our school every day, whether it's our classrooms being ready to learn in every day because of our custodians or dorms and labs being safe to live and work in because of The people, however, who allow us to pursue our education day or night are our security guards. The dorms we sleep in are protected by them. The labs and classrooms we learn in are also protected as well. and the campus at night, whether it's we're studying or cramming for tests is only accessible because of them being there. That's particularly important to me. My student organization meets in a building that is open in the late hours of night only because security is always there

Many of us are living away from home for the first time, and it's reassuring to know that security guards always have our back. They are the first people we turn to if we need help. We all assume they have basic training and know what protocols to follow in different kinds of emergencies It's surprising to hear that that's not required by law, especially at institutions where there are additional security concerns like at hospitals or universities like mine. And I think this ordinance would change that and guarantee These things are considered. These workers are inseparable from me and all my fellow students being able to get our education. It's important to me that they have good jobs, a stable income, and the training to keep themselves and us safe. And that's why I'm here today in support of this bill, as well as a few other students. Thank you.

Thank You. I finally remember my security guards at college and they really did so thank you for bringing the element of being a student I think that's really really important Next, we are moving on to Sam Rodriguez. Is it Rodriguez or Rodrigues? Rodriguez. Okay, Sam Rodriguez you have the floor.

I thank you very much. Good morning, my name is Samuel Gomes Rodriguez Jr. I have worked in the security industry for six years. I've been working at Northeastern University as a Northeast Security Guard for the past four years. 45 hours a week, I patrol the premises and help visitors in response to incidents. And make sure everyone in my building is safe. Security officers are expected to handle all types of situations, but many of us receive very little training before being thrown out into the field. When I was hired, I was fortunate because I had prior experience. However majority of my fellow officers do not. Turnovers are extremely high in this industry because the wages and the benefits do not keep up with the cost of living here in the greater Boston area. I am thankful to have a job.

However, it can be better. We want affordable healthcare, livable wages and we want proper training so that we can keep ourselves and the public safe. At my work site, incidents always occur. Security officers are always there first. People look at us for help, they have faith that we know what to do but the training we have received over the past years have mostly involved those watching videos on the computer It is barely the bare minimum. A couple of years ago we completed CPR training virtually. There was no practice dummies, no real way for us to actually practice for this situation. Watching a video is not the same as knowing what to do in this critical moment. This ordinance would change that, this ordinance would changed that

It would mean in-person training on topics that actually prepare us for the reality of the work security officers are expected to perform. This would mean employers, not the workers, would pay for the training. Most of us already struggle with paying for the basic human right of healthcare. We cannot afford to pay for our own training. As someone who does this work every day, I can tell you that security officers want to be prepared. We want to do the right thing for everyone, especially in emergencies. Passing this law would help us do that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, Sam for your testimony and thank you to this panel. We will now move on to questions from my colleagues. There was an additional person that I thought was on the panel but they're gonna be actually for public testimony I'm going to start with the lead sponsor, and I will give all of my colleagues now five minutes to ask any questions of this panel. Councilor Santana you have the floor in five minutes

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to this panel for being here and being present and sharing your, particularly to our workers, sharing your experiences. I know some of you already touched it in your open remarks but You know, can you walk me through the training you received when you were first hired as a security guard? What did that training involve and how long did it last? Any of you can answer.

I'll start off. When I was at the Boston Public Library, for example, they had somebody sit with me in the tech center for like maybe a day just looking at people. Then the next day I was by myself. So that was basically the minimum of our training.

I got hired COVID, and it was G4S at the time. Didn't get trained at all. We was just sitting in the building watching the door and making sure it was closed. There was no training at all

For me specifically on my site, I remember my first day was literally they pointed at a booth, said sit in there. Well, technically they didn't allow us really to sit. They prefer us to walk outside the booth but essentially stand around the booth and that was my introduction this is your site you show up at this time you stand there Then once every while we would have, like I said, just online classes basically teaching about CPR for example. We would have regular meetings, I will say probably once every year essentially. They would mask it as training but in reality just from observation that was more of a way to Make sure that the company didn't get sued. So instead of teaching us de-escalation, they would just tell us flat out if let's say someone is being attacked you are not to touch them. The most you can do is call campus police

There was really no training, no training on how to protect ourselves properly without violating any laws. How to protect the public without violating laws. For the most part it was Here, this is where you work. Show up on time. We expect you to do your job and also don't get us sued for the most part. I appreciate that.

And I think I really resonated with your answer. You know, I mentioned earlier that I was working security a few years ago overnight, and my training encompassed just my supervisor sitting with me the first two evenings or the first nights that I worked. And whatever came up during those two evenings is what He showed me, but then I was left alone after that. And obviously different encounters happen, different days, different weeks. So no, I really appreciate that. You pointed out some of the training you received. Can you all share some of day-to-day challenges that you see? I know you mentioned needles and those type of stuff, are there any other Thank you very much.

What are you supposed to do in those situations? We are supposed to stand down, like My fellow security officer said make sure that we don't step in just call the police and most of the time like I said before, the police take their time to come. So we just have to stand by and lock down the bathroom

Anyone else want to share? I'll share. So for example, currently at Faneuil Hall there's a situation. Someone had a seizure and we thought I wasn't training CPR at that time so I didn't know what to do in this situation. So, I had a call my colleagues who some of them had minimum training maybe like an hour or two CPR and they were able to go through with that so... Well, thank you.

I know my time is about to come up but I just want The entire panel, I appreciate the student perspective of someone who's not security guard but receiving those services. And I also lived on a campus once upon a time so I did feel secure Uh-huh, not that I'm an adult. But do really appreciate the workers being here. Appreciate the work that you do to keep our city safe and this was, this ordinance was created and many more. I appreciate the courage to be here today with you all in mind making sure that you are equipped for proper training but That it takes to be here, to be public speaking in front of the City Council. Really appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Council President Liz Breadon, you have the floor in five minutes.

Thank you and thank you all for your testimony. I really appreciate what you said because it gives us some insight into the day-to-day challenges of your work and how difficult it is to feel that you haven't had adequate training to meet whatever comes. As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, you can't anticipate what you might meet and what comes at you in a day's work as an unarmed security officer so I appreciate all the great work you do and in terms of In terms of if you're in an incident and you feel that you needed more training, who do you go to? Do you go a supervisor or can you advocate for say I really need to have CPR training Can you, I need first aid training or is there a mechanism for actually requesting more training on your job?

I guess.

I'm sorry go ahead.

Yes yes specifically at my site and I can't speak for everyone else, but I know at Northeastern University for Northeast Security We're given very little information on how to go about any of this. For the most part, I see a lot of guards confused of who to speak to if there even is anyone to speak too for any of these things For the most part, a lot of guards unfortunately because of this they feel very discarded and being down so there's a sense of apathy. It comes to a certain point where most people feel as if it is what it is.

Do you have a line of command? Who's your supervisor? Do they check in with you on a regular basis on how things are going?

For the most part, the only time supervisors really show up from my experiences and experiences of my coworkers are either for shift changes or disciplinary reasons.

OK. And in terms of your work experience so far, like this for any of you. In terms of what sort of scenario is the most challenging for you? Like I think you mentioned...

For me personally, I happen to patrol outside and there are two homeless people outside putting needles in each other. It's very dangerous because there are kids going back and forth. Honestly, I've been at my site for six years. So I'm gonna be truthful. I trained the supervisor both of the supervisors and my manager so At my site, we just wing it at this point because I mean no one knows what they're doing.

So can you repeat the question one more time?

The most challenging situation you've had to deal with so far like I know you can deal with all sorts of scenarios, but what's the one that you really didn't feel, oh goodness, I'm not equipped for this?

I'll use a recent example, not just from my site. There's a couple of colleagues of mine that had to deal with the protests and it was hundreds of people at the protest and only maybe as a supervisor and two guards So that situation and they could try to call someone like an assistant account manager or account manager, and there were nowhere to be found. We're able to respond whatsoever so that was probably the most difficult I would say for me and my other colleagues.

And because you haven't had any training Contact, no skill settings to how to respond to a situation like that.

That's correct. Yes, if I may also add to oftentimes and once again I can't speak for my fellow workers here but I know on my site a lot of times they will try to lean on the campus police To be very honest, and just like Tanya said, the police often aren't the most responsive. I had a few instances of first time I began working there I had someone stuck in the elevator for about 30 minutes. I really didn't have any help out there, there was no supervisors, no fellow co-workers. Somehow I was able to get the elevator working again and got a person out It took about 30 minutes for the police to show up after I called them. It takes about 15 minutes to walk there, They use their SUVs. I've seen them on multiple occasions run through red lights, but for some reason during emergencies nowhere to be found and once they finally showed up

And I told them situation was handled. It was not a sorry for being late or is everyone OK? It was literally word-for-word, next time call us because it takes us a while to get here. That was the end of the conversation.

Thank you for your examples. I think it gives us some flavor of what So in terms of BJ, 32BJ, you have a training program. Could you tell us a little more about that? Oh sorry Madam Chair can I answer the question?

Yes, the Thomas Shortman Training Fund is a labor management training fund established between the employers and the union. Both security employers and unions sit together to establish it. It's been in existence for about 50 years and we trained thousands of officers in New York and Jersey. We're training people now in Boston, but not for security because the employers don't pay for it. All of these classes and first responder, CPR... You know, how to deal with people and overdose. All those things is what the program can do. The initial 40-hour training as well as the research every eight hours It's a huge program in New York City and thousands of officers run through it.

We have 20,000 officers in New york city who go through the program every year And get those research Thank you Madam Chair

Thank you, Council President Breadon. The chair now recognizes Councillor Fitzgerald. Councillor FitzGerald, you have the floor and five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll say again as always support a worker's right to unionize and I think standards are a good thing to measure and uphold accountability so always in favor of that thank you guys for bringing this issue to the table A question around the contract that was previously had with security guards through the union. and what it says in there about training, and how you guys feel that was upheld or what it said in there to what we wanted to say in the next contract. And more importantly to me The limits that you guys have on yourselves, right? Through the job you have about cannot touch and with the repeal of Rule 400 and things of that nature. What is it that we want added into the training that can be applicable given some of the constraints that you guys have too? Like trying to find that middle ground of like what are we really asking for in this training and I've heard you say, CPR, and overdose training.

I think it's all necessary because that's what you guys see every day. But what are the confines that might, training that you would want to have that you can't? Is there any physical limitations that you guys are expected to go through in order to be a security guard and so on. Overall, my only question is from the previous contract to the current contract what we want to see added? Maybe what lacked in the As we go forward in the current one. And then what, given the confines around the laws that you guys cannot do, do we want to see that training go up to make sure we're focused in on giving you training that's actually applicable to your job?

So to be clear, there's nothing in the contract now about training. And we are proposing it to the security contractors of Boston. To have that $312 a year training fund benefit for each member. But also, we're not trying to have a panacea that the officers are going to be able to be police That's far from the case. And then, you know, the police are going to do the police job but we are often there Most often first. And whatever can be done in the first minutes before the officer arrives, those are the things that we want to try to resolve. 40 hours training is not a panacea but it's a start.

So my only fault, I was trying to read through the previous contract to understand where we're at and where we can go. But there's supposed to be some committee that was to be formed. Maybe it just never formed, and that's what I wanted to check in on. It did not. Right. but the committee shall be formed to discuss issues regarding training, safety recruitment, retention of officers and the committee may meet by mutual consent not any less than once per year. and shall be made up of three officers from the union and up to three representatives from the employer. So that committee has never met?

No.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Councilor Culpepper. You have the floor and five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask a question about the training that you do in New York. How much of that do you do embossing or you do none here?

None.

And what kind of training is that in New York? And would it meet the requirements and the ordinance for training?

Yes, this was sort of modeled after that. The basic 40-hour initial and then eight hours recertification annually, it was modeled upon what's in New York and New Jersey.

What's in In terms of operationalizing it, you heard the discussion this morning about some of the challenges that they would have. How long do you think knowing what's in the contract would it take to actually Hire the staff, put a program in place and then implement it. How far in the future are you looking to have this program implemented?

So the requirements in Philadelphia initially were very short, 30 days. But as you heard in previous testimony, this would not go into effect, the requirement to be implemented until July 2027. Whatever, 11 months of time to prepare and to get it up and running. Our training fund is already in existence. We know how to do these classes. It's the same director and assistant director of the training fund in New York as it is here. We'd have to have some local staff and we often call upon retired officers, police officers to assist us. in the implementation. But I do want to stress, if I may also, that the question earlier was raised about why for-profit versus non-profit. Right, right.

There may be some cutting of corners in a for-profit company versus a nonprofit, whether it's the community colleges or the 32BJ Training Fund or some other nonprofit entity. Mascosh I know can do training whoever ends up doing the training we think that you know their incentive would be to provide quality training and not to make money

And so you've been doing the training in New York for how long?

I think since right after 9-1-1. It was 2005, I think, somewhere short.

Would it make sense for there to be some kind of equivalency or accreditation process where the city evaluates their curriculum rather than the tax status? I think it's both.

Yeah, non-profit and also for the city to evaluate the program and make sure it's a quality program You know, because sometimes they aren't. And the employers want to do the program, you know, do training themselves. They think they have that secret sauce but we think it really is much better done by a third party.

And do you think there should be some kind of credit given to even to 32BJ for the training experience already? because you've been doing it for a while. And the other piece of that is, do you think there should be some kind of grandfathering in for companies that are already doing the training?

The ordinance provides that every single officer currently employed would get certified within, I forget, 90 days, I believe, or 180 days. We think everyone needs this training and as you've heard People are, they may be working there a long time but they're not getting the training. And this is only one week's training initially, 40 hours and it sort of establishes a baseline which we think would be good for the safety of the officers, the safety at the residents and the citizens of the city of Boston.

So let me ask this another way so Stanley's been working for how long Stanley?

I've been with the company a year in five months.

And Tanya, you've been working for how long? Six years. And Sam, you're been working from how long.

So with the company four years and total six years for security.

And so with Tanya's six years and Stanley's four years You think they still should have to go through a 40-hour program knowing that he's been doing it for four years, probably could teach it. Tanya mentioned that she had taught some of her supervisors. You think Go through the program for certification, for the initial certification. And then each year, how many hours was it? Eight. Eight hours each year?

We do. We do. I mean, you know... Is that my time already?

You may continue.

Just as Boston police officers have continuing ed and continuing training, people need to be continually trained Things change over time, and yes we do. Okay thank you.

Did you want to provide an answer? I see your light is on did you want Culpepper. Did you have an additional question?

I mean, I think everyone agrees that there's a gap, that there is no training and that needs to be training. I just think part of the challenge is the implementation and creating an office for operationalizing this within the city and then implementation. And so the question is, when you look at operationalizing this and we look at the implementation from the city how do you see yourself working with the city to help get this in place and then implementation.

Well, our training fund would work together with the employers and the city to make sure that the instructors in the times of the classes, et cetera, and scheduling them. It's a partnership. Our training fund is a labor management employer-employee union cooperation. and we work together to implement the training. And in this case, the city would certify that that training is adequate and meets the needs.

Each employer

The company would pay $312 a year. That's what they pay now in New York, and it would be the same here. Thank you.

Thank You. Thank-you, Councilor Culpepper. I just have a few questions. Let me start my timer. So... I want to say thank you to everyone who's offered testimony. If this was your first time, I couldn't tell it that you all were great. Wanted to ask a few questions however So this was the last question that I asked to the first panel. So we received a lot of testimony from industry. I've had conversations with industry, and a lot the focus is on cost. The pushback is on costs and the possibility that employers or clients could reduce Security Coverage if they had to implement something pursuant to this ordinance. How do you respond to that concern, having to assume and internalize these costs will lead to less security coverage? And what do you think is the cost of not having a consistent training standard for workers, employers and public?

Well. We work for contractors, and the contract is dependent upon the contracting entity. And so I would assume that over time this cost would be absorbed by the contracting This would also serve to level the playing field between large and small contractors. Smaller contractors right now have a more difficult time providing this training. But once it's standardized across industry, both large and small contractors would that would be standardized. And everyone would be on a level playing field for training which we think would actually help smaller companies to grow. And we think that can be in many cases a very good thing. So what was the other question?

What is the cost of not having a consistent training standard?

Of not having it? It's like the Amex commercial. You know, what's the cost if not having training? Priceless.

OK. I have a question that's geared more towards security towards the security guards. What made you decide to get into this, into your current line of employment? What was the decision to become a security guard? I guess that's both to Titania.

So honestly, I'm going to be 100% honest. I wanted to just experience something new outside of before doing my security. I was at Boston Bold. and I was a cash register. So, I wanted to try something new to just have the ball rolling but also being a part of the public a little bit more I do spend my time upstairs with the kids at my job a lot, so I just wanted something new. Something that would be okay to secure people and just remind them that they're safe.

Thank you. Stanley? I mean, you don't have to answer the question but Stanley and Sam if either of you guys

Sure. So for me, I was out of work for a little bit prior to that, prior that I was doing government work. What made me get into the industry is fortunately just one place that would hire me after they hired me. So at the time, as time went on, I already had experience in security, but it taught me a lot about how to interact with people, talk and de-escalate situations. And hopefully turn into something different.

For me personally, I started getting into security because I already had some prior experience working at other jobs and To be very honest, I was just looking for steady work, steady income. To be honest they had benefits this specific site and a decent wage. Could be better in the greater Boston area, but for my current situation it was better than nothing to be completely honest.

Thank you and thank you for offering that and thank It's also great to know that we have the experience on the council of three former security guards who can bring their own lived experience into this. My older sister, one of her first jobs was as a security guard as well And so I know that for a lot of folks, working class folks this is an important job. And it's a job that many people end up having and it's an important one that is worthy of having the training necessary I ask that question in part because I think one of the goals here is to try to treat security work more like a profession. So I'm wondering, should the training credential belong to the worker or follow them from employer to employer? Have we thought about that and what could that look like? especially in terms of creating a career path for people.

Yeah. I mean, I'm most familiar with New Jersey which is where I worked before and you would get called your SOAR license. And so once you had that 40 hours initial, you'd have your SOA license and it had to be renewed. It didn't matter which employer you were with. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues want to have the lead sponsor? Okay, I'm done with my time.

Do you have any follow-up questions for this panel? Okay, thank you. I want to thank this panel for being here. I wanna thank you for your work and your testimony in the work that you do on behalf of the residents and here in the city of Boston. This is just the beginning and we'll continue to have ongoing conversations to have an inclusive Dialogue to make sure that we work and get the language and the meaning of this ordinance right. Kevin, you have some final remarks that you'd like to offer?

I just wanted to say thank you Madam Chair Lejeune and Councilman Santana for sponsoring this. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.

I do also want to, I mentioned several times the security guard who passed in New York City and I failed to say his name. So just wanna make sure, honor the memory of Alain Etienne in this meeting, in this hearing. We are now moving on to public testimony. Public testimony will be called in the order of arrival. Each person will have two minutes to offer public testimony. As you can see, I have not been lethal with the timer today but if we could try to keep to the two minutes that would be great. First on the list for public testimony is Herbie DuVernay. Herbie, hello? Bonjour, you have the floor in two minutes.

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Herbie Duvernay. I'm the founder and CEO of One Worker Group. We're a Boston-based security company employing approximately around 200 people I want to make something clear from the beginning. I believe in training. Training and workforce development are actually part of my business, But I'm concerned that the ordinance will unintentionally hurt two groups, small and disadvantaged businesses trying to compete and people who need flexible part-time work to get ahead. I know both group personally. I came to this country from Haiti when I was 20 years old, I didn't speak a word of English, I cleaned bathrooms, I drove a cab, I work in grocery store, I did whatever job I could find When I enrolled at Northeastern University, I didn't even know what I wanted to study.

Then somebody gave me an opportunity to work security at Dana Faber. I received an orientation and basic training, and then I learned on the job. Supervisors and mentors coached me, corrected me, and wanted me to succeed. That opportunity changed my life. I discovered that security could become my profession, I chose criminal justice, earned my bachelor's degree and master's degree from Northeastern University moved into management and executive leadership, and eventually founded my own security company. My career did not start with a card or 40-hour checklist. It started because somebody gave me an opportunity, That is the concern me about this audience today. Look at the people we hire. We hire students, we hire immigrants, we hired people working on our job

We hire people who need weekend or part-time job and we want to help people pay the bills. These are people I actually employ. Now, imagine a student who wants to work security on weekends or someone already working a full-time job who want an additional 15 hours a week Before they can access the opportunity, they now have to find 40 hours of time so they can get the training going. I do believe that this ordinance will be a disadvantage to make company like mine be competitive because it's hard to do that. Even though we did that big event that we see outside, my firm hired and trained 190 people in five weeks to do the FIFA World Cup. We train our people, we have our secret sauce.

We think that training should be something internal because that's what company is going to need so they can thrive and do better. And also for the record Myself and other minority company, we're not invited to be on a panel at all. Which I think is a disgrace because if we doing work and we want to help security company, wanna work people It's a simple thing to call the security and small business that do business in the city, and have them sit down so they can have that discussion. And as far as I know, Beckma was not informed as well. Just for the record, I want to make that clear. Thank you.

We are now moving on to Zoom testimony from someone who is on a time constraint, Steve Ametay. You have the floor and you have two minutes. Starting now. Sorry, Steve if you could start over because I believe you're muted.

Thank you. Members of the committee, my name is Steve Ametay and I'm the Executive Director of the National Association of Security Companies, NASCO. In Boston, NASGO members employ thousands of trained security officers who receive initial on-the-job Client and site-specific and recurring training that enables them to successfully perform the security tasks required of them as laid out in client contracts and specified in site post orders. NASCO believes that all persons performing security service should undergo baseline training, but for structural substantive and practical reasons docket 1541 the ordinance is not appropriate a vehicle for attaining such a goal. has currently drafted, as Herbie just said it will deter persons from entering the field. It will cause nonprofits and other clients who have set security budgets to decrease Their security services because they will not be able to absorb the additional costs that the training will require them to pay.

and perhaps most significantly, the ordinance fails to comprehend the enormity and difficulty of the task at hand. There's been some discussion but I think you've got to understand that this ordinance is assigning all authority and responsibility for a 40-hour training program to an office that has no experience in developing, certifying, implementing, administering, overseeing training programs nor is any experience related to private security. One just needs to look at Philadelphia and see that this is a problematic formula In Philadelphia in March, a law became effective that requires all new unarmed security officers to undergo a 12-hour training requirement. and assigned that task to its Office of Workers Protection like the ordinance does. But now five months later, there's not a single recognized security training program for a 12-hour program far less than a 40 hour program. And also the city has proponed Implementation indefinitely and it's estimated that implementing regulations will not be available for review until 2028.

One has to seriously question the reality and feasibility of implementing the bill in Boston. And I will note that the Philly bill started out as a bill almost identical to this bill, It was, after much consideration with industry and the players, it was reduced to a 12-hour initial requirement, an eight hour recurring requirement. with an emphasis on use of force, de-escalation, CPR, first aid, communication and other vital skills. Relatedly the ordinance does not provide additional staffing and appropriations And I would note that in Minnesota at 2025, they tried to increase training from 12 hours to 40 hours with a similar bill. And it was estimated that it will take eight full-time staff and a budget of well over $1 million to get that program rolling. Finally, the ordinance somewhat infers that security officers based on a minimum amount of required training will have a duty to engage with violent individuals People in mental health crises are people impaired by substances.

That is wrong, dangerous and not the prescribed role of a security officer. As the SIU rep said, security officers are the eyes and ears. They are not police officers, EMTs, drug counselors or mental health crisis responders who go hundreds of hours of training and encouraging officers to get involved in dangerous situations against their post orders. puts officers and bystanders at physical risk, and also exposes officers and their companies to legal and civil liability. We look forward to working with the council to come up with some common sense legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. The chair recognizes Gregory Maynard, you have the floor in two minutes.

Thank you so much. My name is Gregory Maynerd and I am the executive director of the Boston Policy Institute Why is this hearing happening now? That's an important question to ask because this hearing is unusual. It happened fast in a chamber where dockets typically don't move very quickly, especially one like this, which is not a time-sensitive mayoral appointment or a piece of city hall legislation but instead a docket offered by a City Councilor in August. How fast did this hearing happen? This docket was offered less than a week ago, on August 5th. It was scheduled for a hearing on August 6th and now the hearing is happening today, August 11th. That means this docket cut dozens of other dockets in line. That is a choice that comes with an opportunity cost, best demonstrated using examples of the Government Operations Committee and the Public Safety Committee. As of the last Council meeting on August 5th, the Government Operations Committee which is holding this hearing had 30 dockets before it without hearings scheduled.

That includes an ordinance from Councilor Pepén on the use of school bus violation detection monitoring system devices. Pepén's ordinance was first offered in 2025, but didn't get a hearing last year either. The Public Safety Committee, which is chaired by Henry Santana the lead sponsor of this docket had 25 dockets without hearings scheduled as of August 5th. That number doesn't include the public safety briefing that the council demanded in a unanimous vote, including every counselor who's asked a question at this hearing back on July 8th. Right now, Boston is facing a variety of pressing issues from the deadliest summer in several years to an emotional and policy-heavy street safety conversation. More pressing issues are coming The first day of school is less than a month away and the district has told the school committee that another round of school closures are coming. The council hasn't held hearings on any of those issues this summer. Instead, this hearing is happening. Thank you so much

Thank you. The chair recognizes David. David, you have the floor and two minutes.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is David Consell. I'm a co-founder of Redcon Security alongside with my business partner, Jesse Vera. I want to start out by saying, I believe in training. We train everyone that we employ. I work security myself as an immigrant In college, playing college football. I played D3 so I had to work. I worked overnight shifts and I'd go straight and play a full college football game. So I understand the importance of just properly preparing. I've worked all kinds of security, I've been a bouncer at clubs so I've seen Every kind of scenario when it comes to security in addition to being an employer. I started this company when I was 26, so I get in these rooms and I'm the only one At this age, I have gray hairs. That's just from coming along from owning this business. But I'm still very young and when we built the company from the ground up

We face a lot like balance and payroll, staffing, insurance and competing against the national companies. I've been able to win bigger contracts only because relationships. I played college football so I know people and that's the only reason why. I've seen other instances where A lot of people don't want to pay for security, it's just another line item. So when we pass the cost off to the client then they're like... They just go in-house so that hurts us as well.

Thanks for watching!

My partner, he came from Florida where he's seen models with the training costs are passed off to the employee. Two different economies from Boston and Florida. I don't think that's the answer. Philadelphia has its issues. I'll be candid, this process happened very quickly. I'm an employer directly affected by this ordinance and I didn't know it was being considered until recently If I didn't know, I imagine there are other employers who haven't had the opportunity to provide. So I'm asking that City Council give employees, training professionals and particularly small and minority-owned businesses more opportunities to participate in this conversation. Training is important but implementation, affordability and accessibility are just as important. Let's make sure we get it all through right before moving forward.

Thank you. I see a name here, but I feel like they've already talked. Is it? Yeah, he was on the Jeff. This is just signing in. Okay, great. Yep. Okay. Liam O'Connell. You have the floor in two minutes.

Thank you very much. I'll be brief, my name is Liam O'Connell and I'm with the law firm Nutter McLennan. I represent Securitas Security Services. We found out about this hearing yesterday so apologies for not having pre-prepared remarks I've sat here and listened to all the testimony, and really just want to echo a few points that were made. Securitas has a longstanding reputation in the security industry. It's committed to training its employees It has a positive relationship with its union brethren at 32BJ. We don't oppose training, but we do oppose this ordinance as it's presently presented. There's a legitimate question about the state or city implications of this. To my knowledge, there are 41 states in the union They require security training. Those are states, not cities. There's been much talk about Philadelphia and the experience in Philadelphia with the city ordinance and how they've had to scale back what was initially proposed in the ordinance, the 40 hours to 12.

They now are grandfathering training that was already conducted as Councilperson Culpepper was questioning about. Not all the training now is required in person, But at some core level, there is a legitimate issue here that much of the discussion here today and the proposals that are contained within the ordinance takes the private security function in a direction that becomes more like a quasi public safety role. That is not what we do, certainly not in all locations. In fact, we have some clients universities an example that have their own police force We have restrictions on what our people can do by way of security and they can't get involved and their job is to just report it to the police, either the university police for example or public authorities. And moreover there's been some discussion of this already and Mr. Amity made the point

that our officers and employers don't enjoy immunity from civil litigation for getting involved in such incidents. So we respectfully urge the council to take more time to consider the number of items that were discussed here today that remain open, including whether the infrastructure exists to do this training. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Terry Williams. You have the floor, Terry, in two minutes.

Thank you. First of all, I did just recently hear... Let me introduce myself. I'm Terry Williams. I am president and owner of One United Bank Headquarters here in Massachusetts, but we also have offices in Miami and Los Angeles. I just heard about this and so I didn't prepare remarks however, I do want to share our experience with security. We hire security for our branches. It is a huge expense. And what we try to do in each of the cities we're in, is to hire locally and to hire small firms because they tend to be cost effective In addition to that, we also have a very limited responsibility that we give to those security officers.

Very similar to what the gentleman just stated that was here previously is that we don't want them to get involved in public safety circumstances because it does put our employees at risk, are customers at risk. If anything does happen, the first charge is really to call the police. So I believe that this ordinance should not be enacted because it does take away the flexibility for employers like me to hire security firms, to do a narrow range of responsibility and to be cost effective. So I would ask that you would reconsider this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank You. I believe that's all we have for in-person testimony, unless there is anyone else who is here to offer in person testimony? Megan, do we have anyone signed up virtually? Oh yes. We have one additional person to offer testimony online via Zoom. Rob Cook, you have the floor and you have two minutes for public testimony. Starting... wait a moment, one moment.

Okay.

Okay, starting now.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, Councillor Santana and the committee. There were just a few concerns raised today that I'd like to... Oh, can you not hear me?

We can hear you. Okay, thanks.

Yeah, so there were just a few concerns raised today. I'm the policy fellow at 32BJ and a few concerned I just wanted to briefly address There were some concerns raised about whether this bill would conflict with state law, and we don't think there's a cause for concern there. While municipal law that's inconsistent with state laws can be preempted in some cases and state law here does include a registration scheme for security companies. There's no state level unarmed guard training requirements So there's no conflict between state law and this municipal proposal. I think another point to be made about part-timers and the timeline of getting the training if you're a busy part-timer. Existing employees have half a year to finish the training, and new employees have three months

We think that part-timers deserve the support and the preparation that full timers would get as well. And I guess as far as questions about the role of security officers acting as the eyes and ears, You know, they do wear uniforms and people look to them in emergencies. So they're involved in public safety Regardless. And as several of the guards who've testified have mentioned, the police don't always arrive right away and training like CPR and de-escalation can save lives. So because security officers do find themselves in harm's way, regardless of the intent of the companies in terms The limitations on when they should intervene, we do think that it's a serious risk not to provide them basic training.

And I think that's all I wanted to say, so thank you.

Thank you, thank you. And thank you to everyone who has offered public testimony. I want to thank the panel. I wanna thank the administration panel, advocate panel. Wanna thank those who testified including those from industry and I will now turn it over to my co-sponsor, to the lead sponsor, Council Santana for any closing remarks that you would like to make.

Thank you. First of all thank you Madam Chair for chairing us Today, I do want to thank the administration and our advocate panel for being willing to come and testify and answer our questions. And I do wanna think the public and people who provided public testimony who are here today. I've also had many conversations over the last several days, including with some people who are supporting and have questions or concerns or opposing this ordinance. And I want to make sure that as the lead sponsor that I'm taking those conversations seriously. So outside of today, obviously you're here in this chamber but my office and myself are willing to always meet with a meeting to make sure that we're meeting the needs and hearing again all sides here. I want to make this is, I think we've heard it from multiple counselors We want to make sure that we get this right.

And we wanna make sure the intent of this ordinance is to really protect our workers, frontline workers But we want to make sure that all parties and people who are affected by this are part of the table, and part of conversation. So I encourage those who do want to meet with me in my office to reach out I'll also be reaching out proactively. Also, if you weren't invited as a panel here, I hope that you don't take it as a sign of disrespect or any of that stuff. I wanna meet with you all I want to make sure that we get this right. I do want to thank 32BJ for your work in bringing us to this point as well, and I want particularly the workers who shared their stories. Thank you Madam Chair.

But that's, those are my remarks.

Thank you and thank you again Councilor Santana for your leadership and for offering this. Thank You to 32BJ for your work I want to just echo what you stated that I think this is the beginning of Important Legislation. It was really important for me to hear from our security guards who every day sometimes people walk by and don't really notice the labor that they're doing and the importance of making sure they have their requisite training, not just for their benefit. Making sure that they have the requisite is also for everyone else's benefit and we know that there's wild variation in the industry, in terms of what training is and isn't offered. And I think there's a lot to learn from what is actually happening in those industries. So again this is the beginning of a conversation This is an ordinance that was offered, and from ordinances we have additional hearings. We have additional working sessions, and we have addition work just to make that very clear but I really appreciate everyone for coming forward for offering testimony and for making sure that we do right by our workers and by our city.

With that, this hearing on Docket Number 1541 is adjourned.