the incredible waste of human capital and the waste of human beings, lives and time. in the face of these realities, we need to take a comprehensive approach. elected officials and stake holders at the local, state and federal level must work together to address the unique needs of persons with mental health conditions in the justice system. >> i will remind people in line you can provide comments through e-mail, facebook and twitter and will have a public comments portion at the end of the day. with that i'll turn it to our co-chairs to lead us through the rest of the session. >> thank you sir. and welcome back, everyone. panel three will focus on voices from the field. we're going to begin with another distinguished panel.

we have one on skype. we'll start with chief zachery, the public safety director woodway, texas, and immediate past president of the international association of chiefs of police. yost, good to have you. >> thank you, sir. >> thanks for inviting me to testify today. my name is yost zachery, immediate past president of the -- i'm sorry i wasn't able to join you in person today. i intended to but my flights were canceled. i began law enforcement dispatcher woodway in 1979 and i'm still there today and currently serve as a chief and a director of the public safety department. one of my main duties as a chief is to ensure safety and well-being of my officers is there. this means making sure they have the proper training and equipment they need to do their

job safely so they can return home each and every day to their loved one. during my time as president iecp, officer safety and wellness was one of my top priorities. it's always been a top priority of iecp. it is the position of that organization that no injury or death to a law enforcement professional is acceptable. being a law enforcement officer has always been a stressful and dangerous job. currently the law enforcement community is up against even greater pressures challenges and violence. police officers face profound danger on a daily basis. each year there are more than 50,000 assaults on law enforcement officers which result in more than 14,000 officers being injured this past year. this past year, 126 were also killed in the line of duty. ambush attacks on law enforcement officers also increased in 2014. fifteen officers nationwide were killed in ambush assaults matching 2012 the highest total

since 1995. it's imperative we provide training and equipment to officers to prevent fatalities and injuries from firearms. officer safety is an all hands on task. such program bbp, critical resources to enable state and local law enforcement jurisdiction to purchase their lifesaving vests. it is imperative the program be funded and reauthorized with adequate funding. physical wellness is a huge part of an officer's safety. a fit officer will be able to serve his or her community better as well as provide better sport to his or her fellow officers. it is imperative she promotes wellness in the departments and encourage officers with regular physical checkups. iecp for officer safety and wellness can be a resource for law enforcement in this area. the center promotes health and wellness as part of reducing officer initiative. iecp released impact of fitness

and weight on injuries fact sheet, highlighting importance of physical wellness. recently released two resource examining the importance of officer nutrition. patrol officers providing healthy on the go meal options and a fact sheet written for law enforcement leaders to encourage nutritional guidance and education as part of formal and informal training. we do know things such as bmi do matter on police officers. officers must be able to run, defend and shoot. and a physically fit officer can do that much better. in a profession where strength bravery and resilience are revered, mental health issues and threats of officer suicide are often topics few are willing to address or acknowledge openly and candidly. that is why eicp in conjunction with the cop's office held national symposium on law enforcement officer suicide and mental health. the result of the symposium was

a report breaking silence on law enforcement suicides. this is intended to create a culture of change that normalizes mental health issues for law enforcement officers seeking mental evaluation is as common and routine as that of a physical ailment. lastly important all departments provide guidance to officers, especially new recruits coming in. not only do they need to provide them with proper equipment and training but they also need to give them guidance in the areas of both physical and mental health. in addition each department should be sure to clearly demonstrate rules and procedures in place and in no way does that mean a department will defend misconduct. all officers should be held accountable for their actions. every department must establish internal affairs policies to deal with potential misconduct. if misconduct occurs, agencies should be in place to address behavior.

agencies taking complaints must be feel comfortable and kept abreast of the happenings. this will send a strong ethical and professional message to all the staff both sworn and civilian. the recent report on iecp building with citizens internal affairs promising guide which was if you saided by the cop's office stresses such that and help build relationships within the community. again, i want to thank you for convening this very important listening session and for the opportunity to express my views on officer safety and wellness. it is imperative that we provide the proper support for law enforcement officers. they put their lives on the line each and every day to protect our communities. ensuring we have proper equipment, training and support that we can both have and give them mentally and physically and keep them fit will make us better at our jobs. i welcome any questions and, again, i thank you for this opportunity. i apologize i was not able to make it there in person. >> thank you for your testimony, chief. next we'll hear from diane

bernhardt, executive director concerns of police survivors. [ inaudible ] >> hold on a second. i don't think your mike is working here. we need to get her mike up. okay. >> on behalf of concerns of police survivors known as cops i was asked to speak on a topic important to our organization. 30-year-old organization with the mission of rebuilding shattered lives of family member sur virus and co-workers affected by active duty deaths. cops represents family members and affected co-workers. we assist with peer support assistance of that gagt the various benefits that may be available to them. we provide long-term services to these families and officers for as long as they need them. cops also provides training to law enforcement through our signature traumas and law

enforcement training where we train officers on the handling of line of duty death but also spend a great deal of time training officers on strategies to proactively maintain mental health and wellness throughout their career and provide strategies to avoid what we say way too off, which is an officer taking their own life. the voices we hear from the field of law enforcement survivors constantly repeat the same thing that the effects of each officer lost are felt forever. last year we saw a rise in the number of officers killed by gunfire. even one officer lost in the line of duty results in a rippling effect of grief through a family agency and a community. on behalf of law enforcement survivors we have four recommendations for this task force. first we recommend a nationwide effort to focus on the mental health needs of current law enforcement officers. we ask our officers to witness and intervene in the most unspeakable acts of violence and dysfunction in our society, the cumulative stress associated with this can be devastating to those officers. through trains such as cops

traumas and law enforcement trains, peer support programs employee programs officers can get the help they need. s.e.c., we recommend strong policies in police agencies a bullet resistant vest should be provided to every law enforcement officer and there should be strong language and policies require the vest be worn. during my experience as a police officer, my co-worker was shot in the chest from point-blank range with a shotgun and the vest saved her life. i'm glad my agency can afford body armor that is not the case with every agency. lack of funds should not be a reason an officer doesn't have protection. driver and driver training we lose too many officers behind the wheel of patrol cars. we recognize officers have to respond quickly to emergencies and that accidents are sometimes unavoidable. these officers should also be making decisions through an educated personal lens with their own safety a factor to

also be considered. third, we recommend stiff penalties for those who assault or kill law enforcement officers. in a time when there is much tank to be gained by those who commit crimes shocking the conscious, there is an almost perfect environment for a cop killer to use the media to gain attention. to combat this, a consideration of parole when an officer is killed and heightened penalties for assaults on police. while many in the society see being assaulted as a part of the law enforcement job as a country we shouldn't stand for this. we have to combat this belief bully sending a strong message to those who make this choice. fourth, we recommend a nationwide effort to reestablish law enforcement as the noble profession that we all know that it is. over the past six months, our members have watched as law enforcement officers have been stereo typed in the media and many of our communities. police memorials have been vandalized even as recent as this past week in colorado. all of law enforcement even our nation's best and bravest officers have been called brutal

and unprofessional while the vast majority of our nation's officers would never consider being anything but professional. officers have been second guessed and scrutinized by those who have months to consider all the possible actions an officer could have taken while the officer only had seconds to consider his actions. the consequences of constant negative attention are far reaching. besides demoralizing effects it may have on current officers, our nation's future police officers are watching. during a time when the recruitment of quality officers is already an increasing challenge, we can expect even more challenges. we should see communities focused -- we could see communities forced to hire those looking for a job rather than those seeking a professional law enforcement career and the results of that as you can imagine, could just be devastating. law enforcement is indeed, a noble profession and there is honor in the fact these families loved ones have died in protection of us all. when the law enforcement profession is consistently given a position of honor and integrity to our society there

would be less harm to our officers. thank you for asking for my input. in closing we would like all to remember that each officer we talk about during this very important work that you're doing is much more than a statistic but is part of a family, an agency, and a community, and each life is important to us all. thank you. >> and thank you for your testimony. next we will hear from robert bryant chief penobscot nation. >> grachb. again my name is robert bryant, chief and chairman of southeastern tribes law enforcement committee. i have lived my entire career as a law enforcement officer on tribal lands, which provided me with a strong understanding of uniqueness and challenges of an officer in indian country. men and women serving as police officers across indian country are asked to perform duties and responsibilities outside the the norm of the profession due to

inadequate resources. as police officers we perform these additional duties with limited training, resources, or compensation. this often comes at the expense of overall wellness safety and family needs of the officer. when looking at tribal law enforcement agencies across the nation, it is typical to have only one officer per ship with a ratio of not more than two officers per 1,000 residents. with violent crime across indian country double and sometimes triple the national average tribal officer safety is concern due to low staffing issues. to address issues of low stafrg and inadequate resources we continue to work to establish mutual compacts with local county and state agencies to assist our officers. however, these efforts obvious fall short. this was never more apparent than during the incident in january 2013 in which a tribal officer was shot and killed by a

suspect after nontribal officers who initially responded as back-up left the scene leaving the tribal officer to defend himself. officers are expected to be the ones who respond to traumatic scenes of death and tragedies. however, due to low staffing we're asked to return to patrol without adequate personal support to work through the trauma. tribal officers often suffer from undiagnosed posttraumatic stress alcohol abuse failing physical and mental health. i as a young patrol officer experienced this personally when responding to two suicides of hangings of people that i knew in my community. i never received any type of debriefing or counseling. this is not because of the lack of willingness or desire by the tribe to offer such support but due to inadequate funding and resources. officer training remains insufficient throughout indian country. we are unable to send officers to off site because of lack of replacement coverage for shifts. we are unable to afford the high

cost of bringing the training to the reservations. this inadequate training greatly impacts our quality of work and creates dissatisfaction and mistrust on the people we serve. in addition, the problems of inadequate funding and low staffing ratios, the bureau of indian affairs is also stretched too thin with a limited number of drug agents. the current state of drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking throughout tribal communities, this is troubling. southeast region of bi drug environment has seven drug agents that cover an area from maine to florida over to new mexico. this has created a safe haven of sorts for drug dealers leaving officers frustrated and being blamed by tibl members for become ineffective combating drug epidemics that prevail in our communities. another issue is high officer turnover. nowhere is the turnover higher than in tribal law enforcement. this turnover is the direct result of the many issues i've

outlined in this testimony. i offer the following recommendations to the task force. one, tribal law enforcement officers salaries must be competitive with neighboring municipal county and state agencies. two, authority in tribal community knowledge of tribal law enforcement officers must be respected by officers from local, county and state agencies. there are many instances in which tribal officers are accused of impersonating officers when they are off the reservation. three, resources must be dedicated to tribal law enforcement programs to adequately staff and resource strong tribal law enforcement departments. four, a training program must be designed for the unique circumstances and realities of being a tribal police officer in indian country. five, police acadamies across the country need to incorporate a mandatory tribal cultural sensitivity training component for all cadets. six, law enforcement executives must receive training on the

importance of mutual lyly compacts additional dollars who do partner with tribal law enforcement. tribal law enforcement agents must have financial resources to provide counseling and debriefing to officers who respond to sirs traumatic incidents. finally, the bureau of indian affairs needs additional appropriations to fill it's fiduciary trust obligations by ensuring adequate funding of tribal law enforcement programs and hire enough drug agents to truly address drug environment needs in indian country. on behalf of the penobscot indian nation and united south and eastern tribes, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts, views, and recommendations with you. >> thank you very much for your testimony. next we'll hear from chuck canterbury the national president of the fraternal order of police. >> good afternoon commission, miss robinson, distinguished members on the task force of 20th century policing. thank you for allowing me to

come back a second time to testify before this committee. soup the members of the task force will begin to write the final report and we expect it will contain recommendations for improving policing at all levels of government. i want to take this opportunity to offer some safety priorities of fop that we would love to ask that this task for take into consideration in their report. first, i spoke about the need for federal hate crime legislation to include for law enforcement officers at the inaugural session of this committee, so i'm not going to go into details. but of the 47 firearm deaths in 2014, 19% were officers killed by ambush by an individual or pair of individuals that were looking to kill a law enforcement officer. i have a brief description of the attacks in my written testimony. if their objective had been to kill a muslim, black man transgender woman they could be charged under hate crime

legislation. we don't see any reason they should not be held accountable when they target a police officer. i hope the task force will recommend bulletproof partnership program be reauthorized by congress. this program has one simple goal. it proposes to increase the number of officers wearing soft body armor by providing matching federal funds to purchase body armor. the one issue with body armor is it does not live forever and must be renewed every five years. there's no legislation, no government program no grant that can erase the sad fact law enforcement officers will die in the line of duty. now more than ever we see our officers in the crosshairs of these criminals. this program can document 3100 officers whose lives were saved because they were wearing soft body armor. how many other government programs could document success. the house twice passed the legislation by a nearly unanimous margin and we hope

this committee will recommend the passage in this congress. we also hope that the national blue alert bill, a system for local, regional and national time sensitive information to help identify a suspect in the event a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty will pass in this congress as well. both times this bill has been blocked by a single senator, whose recent retirement i welcomed. legislation would lemplg current amber alert system by using existing infrastructure to disseminate immediate sensitive information to enlist the public's help in identifying the whereabouts of dangerous suspects. while more than 20 states have adopted some form of blue alert there are large gaps in the system and a national program is vital to fill those gaps. had the assassin who executed officers ramos and lui in new york not taken his own life and took flight, a blue alert could have been issued to put the

public on notice and enlist their help tracking down the killer. fob worked closely with congress to change the bill onso a blue alert could be issued in the event of a clear and eminent threat to law enforcement officers. i expect this law enforcement named in honor of ramos and lui to be introduced in congress this week. i hope this task force will recommend the passage of this bill. for the last 20 years, community oriented policing has been at the very core of policing and crime fighting strategy. when crime rates are down and budgets shrink there are less officers on the street. those on control are answering the call for service and unable to engage in proactive community oriented policing. community oriented policing is a labor intensive undertaking and cannot be done effectively with the reduced number of officers that are on the street. since 2009 federal state, and

local law enforcement assisted programs funded by cops and other administration by bja, have been drastically reduced. this administration in the law enforcement community has a lot of faith in the cops office and it's mission. we know community policing works. i urge the task force to reaffirm a national commitment to community policing strategy and we call for the full funding of the cop's office. in 1988 the brutal murder of edward burn in new york was like too many of the attacks that we are seeing now, the ambushes of police officers. but that killing commissioned by an incarcerated drug dealer, who wanted to enhance his own reputation by killing a cop, led to the realization that our local and state officers, and their agendas needed more resources. with that the edward burn memorial justice grant program was established and quickly became a cornerstone federal crime prevention and crime

fighting programs enabling communities to target resources to their most pressing local needs. the inherent flexibility of the program allows state and local communities to address the needs and fill the gaps created in the criminal justice system. but since fiscal year '10, the burn jack program has been reduced by over one-third causing a serious constriction in the reach of the burn jack funded programs across the states and territories. if additional reductions are made successful programs will be pulled from the field and partnership with the federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement will be further weakened. hundreds of communities will lose a range of critical grant funding and public safety will be compromised. i hope the task force will endorse this program and keep the funding at a fully funded level. finally i'd like to endorse the testimony that will be given later today by chuck wexler with respect to the importance of open communication and mutual respect between labor and

management. ongoing dialogue with the shared public safety goal is a must. even in the absence of collective bargaining that said dialogue between rank and file should compliment not supplant the collective bargaining process. in closing, i would like to thank you for allowing us to be here today. we're very encouraged about the response this committee has received from the law enforcement community and we look forward to working with this group to enhance public safety and public service in the law enforcement community. thank you a lot. >> and thank you very much for your testimony. next we'll hear from william johnson, executive director national association of police organizations. >> thank you, commissioner ramsey, and members of the task force. i appreciate the opportunity to provide information on the topic of officer safetyy, wellness. due process labor relations, safety equipment and officer

stress. napo continues to fight for bill of rights for procedural due process for our law enforcement officers. due to the enormous responsibilities that exercise, sworn law enforcement officers are held to an extremely high standard of personal and professional conduct. however, many officers are denied the same basic due process rights that other citizens enjoy. many states lack coherent guidance and procedures for departments to follow to protect law enforcement officers rights when they are under investigation. in fact, in only about half the the states do officers enjoy legal protections for false accusations and conduct. this leaves thousands with limited or no due process rights in the workplace. officers like any other persons can be expected to treat others the way they are treated themselves. if officers are consistently exposed to corrosive climate of suspicion, heavy-handed or arbitrary discipline cannot feign surprise.

on the other hand mp benefits with fairness, mutual respect and benefit of the doubt is recognized as not just being expected from officers but being owed to them as well. law enforcement bill of rights require department to establish effective procedures for receipt, review and investigation of complaints against officers. if disciplinary action is foreseeable, officers would be notified of the investigation, the nature of the complaint and recommendations of the investigators. officers would be gaerned the right to reasonable limits on time duration and location of interrogations. the imposition of discipline would be reviewable by a neutral third party and the officer would enjoy the same right to counsel other citizens in our nation expect and enjoy. in addition implementing law enforcement bill of rights with intendant processes for receiving and handling of complaint would assure individuals that management takes community concerns seriously and conducts fair inquiries. this would bring transparency process system development of trust between police officers their employment agencies and

the communities they serve. recommendation establish a national law enforcement officer bill of rights to ensure due process. additionally it is critical for management to effectively communicate goals and initiatives as well as understand rank and file perspective. the mutual communication of these goals and perspective can be most effectively and efficiently achieved through the medium of recognizing means and associations. it is difficult to build trust when unions and associations demonized and belittled. if the union leadership were not accurately conveying views of officers on the street they would be swiftly ousted by their own membership. it is therefore both wise and practical for agency management to recognize and work with representatives of the rank and file officers actually carrying out the policies of the agency. recommendation, encourage agency leaders in the public to recognize and take advantage of the police unions and associations. as our officers work to build relationships with their communities, they must be provided every protection necessary to ensure their

safety. napeo worked tirelessly to authorize and fund bullet vest partnership grant program. as members of this panel are aware of the program helps state and local agencies to purchase body armor for officers working in the field. while many officers protected by body armor, an alarming number of officers, many across the united states, are not afforded the same due to budget restraints. this must be authorized and fully funded to make sure officers are where individuals are increasingly willing to attack officers. recommendation ensure every officer equipped and fitted with body armor. recognizing the department of justice body armor requires agencies to have in the book mandatory wear policy. similarly, most, if not all, have policies requiring use of seat belts while requiring vehicles. napo supports greater use of body armor and seat belts.

however important to note that even a mandatory policy does not and should not be equated with zero tolerance enforcing that policy. no one of us smart enough to conceive of every possible circumstance an officer will fund herself. there's some circumstance where it's reasonable for on duty officer to receive her seat belt or body armor. cases we've seen in our office and quickly come to mind a situation where a wounded officer cannot survive the wait for ambulance and other officers put them in the car and drive them to the gunshot wound providing direct pressure to the gunshot wounds the whole way. the officer provided first aid could not physically do so if they were confined by wearing seat belts. the policy is technically violated but would clearly not be enforced. similarly removes body armor and dives into a harbor to save a woman. keeping his vest on would impair his ability to swim. technically violated but a

higher goal is served there by. finally, failing to wear bullet resistant vest or seat belt should not impact family members ability to receive public safety officers benefits act or psob death benefits. the purpose is to provide sustenance for surviving family members when an officer killed in the line of duty not to discipline an already deceased over or attempt to deter by fear. the better approach would be to amend the policy to provide when an officer loses his or her life and was in compliance with seat belt policies the death benefit would be enhanced by survivors. this would achieve goal of utilization of safety equipment while at the same time not penalizing. recommendation, officers should not be penalized by inappropriate application of mandatory wear policies. also working to expand psob program to include coverage of officers's death from

posttraumatic stress disorder or ptsd. officers are forced to deal with a career's worth of human misery, weakness and sorrow. the abused child adolescent rape victim, mother killed by drunk driver the baby hit by stray bullets grandmother beaten half to death for a few dollars. these are stories in the news for officers involved. they do not have the luxury of turning away. they have to respond to the situation and take responsibility for it. this is what passes for normal in their work world. the work that officers do each day in environment which they are placed take a huge toll on mind, body and soul. many officers suffer from ptsd. while we continue to work diligently officers receive help treatment they deserve, if an officer's death is a result of ptsd, that officer should receive posb benefits. recommendation, an officer's family should receive benefits in the officer's death was a result of ptsd. i appreciate the opportunity to

share insights with you and urge you to consider them moving forward. thank you very much. >> than thank you for your testimony. next we'll hear from jonathan thompson, executive director national sheriff's association. >> good afternoon members of the task force. thank you for inviting me to testify here today. my name is jonathan thompson, and i'm currently serving as executive director of the national sheriffs association. national sheriffs association represents the three 3,080 sheriffs in the united states, nearly all of whom are elected democratically by the people. each one serves as the chief law enforcement officer for his or her county or parish. sheriffs are the only law enforcement officers in the nation providing the full line of services, including jail operations and courtroom security. the office of sheriff is the law enforcement agency most directly accountable to the people they serve. i offer my testimony here today on behalf of our nation's sheriffs on the topic of voices from the field. my written testimony was

submitted to the task force and offers in-depth discussion on a range of issues. however, in light of the weekend's attacks on minneapolis police officer jordan davis and last night's ambush of georgia sheriff and his deputy, i'd like to focus today on the role of law enforcement in larger criminal justice system. this task force has been convened to look specifically at law enforcement in the 21st century. but law enforcement does not operate in a vacuum nor slight be examined in one. to fully understand law enforcement in the 21st century, we believe it's imperative to look at all facets of the criminal justice system and the ways in which they interact. equally important is to examine the tools, both physical and technological used by law enforcement to uphold the law as well as those used by individuals seeking to break the

law. social media tools and applications are having a dramatic impact upon the safety of our police personnel and the communities they protect. for example, one application simply and easily allows anyone with a smartphone to potentially track and stalk the location and behavior of law enforcement personnel. while on the surface that may sound reasonable we have heard from countless nsa members and their deputies who are lrmd by dangers posed by this kind of tracking, we applaud the creativity of companies and individuals of this country for it is they with jobs and growing capabilities. however, we are deeply concerned that we are on a slippery slope to undermining our abilities to prevent crimes. as you've heard from 2013 through 2014 123 law enforcement persons were killed in the line of duty.

of those it's statistically shown that 28 are ambushed ambushed by their killers. the recent deaths of officer ramos and officer lui and new york city broke our nation's heart. two men who swore to uphold the law were without provocation or justification, they were murdered or assassinated. the possibility of this type of application played a role in these murders is fright think to men and women in uniform. our leaders would not permit a known adversary to have and use similar applications to track and potentially harm our forces. neither should our elected leaders and most importantly the corporations that built our nation. should they be able to look at these applications. we urge you. they are doing so to undermine

our society. those who break the law must remain our primary source of policing in the 21st century. for 228 years our society steadfastly upheld the principle we are a nation of laws and the rule of law determines how society succeeds. that philosophy is what our members, their deputies their staffs and their communities are committed to doing. it's too easy to focus blame on shot comings of law enforcement. our deputies, sheriffs, officers stand as the face of the criminal justice system every time they put on that uniform. but we have seen in recent tragedies how focusing the blame solely on law enforcement can have deadly deadly consequences. we cannot continue to allow errant media reporting and those with little or no direct law enforcement experience to blame law enforcement for the shortcomings of an spire society. we believe those who really want

to help solve korm indicated human behavioral problems need to come out of their offices and classrooms and stop using inflammatory rhetoric simply to get their names in the media. in survey after survey the public overwhelmingly supports law enforcement. to them we say thank you. yet every day our sheriffs, their deputies and the law enforcement officers represented from folks at this table today endeavor to excel at their jobs and avoid avoid those painful or even deadly mistakes. our law enforcement professionals deserve better. they deserve a federal government that listens and supports their efforts to protect our communities. they deserve the commitment and training that will help keep them safe. we cannot continue to ask our deputies and our officers to do more with less. doing so places their lives in danger and threatens the safety of our communities. our communities deserve better, too. through elections sheriffs are directly accountable to their

communities. sheriffs understand how important it is to ensure good community relations and know that we must always work to continue building those relationships. sheriffs know that our communities expect the highest level of professionalism from our deputies and we strive every day to provide that. the 3,080 sheriffs in the united states are invested in the counties and parishes they protect. national sheriffs association appreciates the opportunity to provide input to this honorable task force. i urge you, the members of this task force to remember law enforcement does not exist in a vacuum and that we must look at the entire system the entire criminal justice system if we are to fully address the problems that exist in the 21st century. on a closing note, i want to thank all of you for the time you've put into this difficult task. we appreciate it very much. >> thank you sir. thank all of you for your testimony. now we're going to turn to task force members for questions, and

i'll call upon them in the order in which they have indicated to me they have a question. i'd also for your panelists if the question is not directed to you but you want to add something, feel free to do so. chief zachery i can see you very clearly. all you have to do is give a little indication and you can jump in there, okay? >> thank you sir. i will. >> we'll again with tracy followed by sedrick alexander. >> thank you for your testimony. i have one specific question for chief bryant and then the other questions -- another question for, i guess the panel. so i'll j the question of chief brian because they are not related and if you can come back. i was very struck by your testimony and i was trying to understand the resource constraint issue. if you could just help me to understand what entity funds tribal police? do the tribes themselves fund

the police or is this a federal tribal partnership? i just didn't quite understand the lack of resources issue there. >> well, the tibs are fundribes are funded both through bureau of indian affairs and federal government themselves. they have obligation to fund tribal programs. >> so if there aren't enough resources, the resources are supposed to come from where? it's probably a stupid question on my part but just so i can understand. >> funding comes from bureau of indian affairs which is a federal agency. >> okay. thank you. the second question i have is for everyone but probably mostly mr. canterbury and mr. nelson. i don't know if you here for the first two panel. we heard a lot about the different kinds of police injury. a major source appears to be

vehicular crashes. mr. dotson you mentioned wearing a seat belt a bit. mr. canterbury, you did not. in the first couple of panels, we actually asked the question of what the source of resistance was to wearing seat belts. i guess the question i have for you in particular but anybody can chime in there can you tell me what the union organizations are doing in particular to help support officers wearing seat belts. it seems to me that along with encouraging officers to simply drive slower and do a few things could actually not only address a good percentage of fatalities but could also avert injuries. >> well, there's several reasons our officers don't wear or don't like to wear their seat belts. one is with the 35 pounds of equipment that they are wearing when they are trying to exit

their vehicle very quickly on a scenario, their seat belts catches. i've seen a lot of badges ripped off uniforms. we do support the use of seat belts. we support the mandatory policy of seat belts. but like napeo, we're concerned that if an officer has to -- i know just from personal experience in a high-speed pursuit, when that chase is nearing the end it was very common for me to loosen my seat belt so that i could exit my vehicle very quickly. so punitive situations like that are detrimental to officers wearing them. if they are going to get penalized, they will just not wear them. they don't worry about their own personal safety because they want to get out of the car quickly to handle the scenario. but we did participate in a forum earlier this year where we did enter a joint agreement as

an organization that we support the use of seat belts and any other safety equipment. >> i think from our end as well, i knorr we were happy to participate in the same forum hosted in philadelphia. i know several participants president's task force in the audience as well support the goal of increased usage. in terms of achieving that goal one of the things to support, i would call incentiveization of the benefit. instead officers being afraid if they are not wearing a seat belt, if they are killed in the line of duty, that their survivors maybe deprived of that benefit, administrators in the program may look as that as indicia of the officer -- providing benefits. if the officer was wearing his or her seat belt or his or her body armor and unfortunately the

officer did lose their life in the line of duty the benefit to survivors would be enhanced. from our point of view i don't think that trying to penalize an officer who is now deceased for not wearing his seat belt by taking away this benefit from his surviving family members is going to achieve the goal of increased usage. >> thank you very much. sedrick alexander. >> the first question for mr. brian. you had alluded -- you dnd allude, you pretty much stated that some of your tribal officers who patrol tribal territories, you had mentioned sometimes they are mistaken as police officers or accused of impersonating police officers, if you will. could you speak more to that as to what you mean very specifically, and also what recommendations do you offer for that? secondly, my next question is

for mr. canterbury. you made mention to the fact and i think the last time you was with us you made mention to the fact as well, too that community policing is very important, which i'm quite sure you agree with. but high call volumes and lessened police officers being hired, are you suggesting or recommending there need to be more funding to hire officers across the country. if you would start mr. brian, i would appreciate it. >> thank you. what i'm referring to in many instances across the country, tribal law enforcement receives their training through the indian police academy. that is not recognized in some of the states through the state certifications. when tribal officers come off the reservation in uniform, if they are not state certified in that particular state, then they are sometimes threatened with

arrest impersonating law enforcement officers because they are not state certified. they are certified through the indian police academy which is through the federal government. so that's -- in some instances that has occurred and is still occurring today, because of the strain between the political issues between the state and the tribes. sometimes the state and the federal government. >> would you make the office a recommendation of maybe something that could change that? >> they have tried to address it where they have tried to have a lot of the tribal agencies you see special law enforcement commissions. what that does is certify them as a federal officer. but to me it gets back to the states recognizing tribal law enforcement, which it's been an issue and still is an issue. again it gets back to the same as us trying to establish mutual

aid so that officers are covering and helping other others, whether tribal, county state or local. it's a work in progress and a lot of it is politics. it's about -- at the end of the day it's police officers should be recognized as police officers. >> thank you, sir. >> we have that same issue with federal officers in some states not being recognized as peace officers. that, as you know there are 50 standards in the country for what is a police officer and what is not. on the issue the fop since 1994 omnibus crime bill have been huge supporters of the cops program and hiring of 100,000 additional police officers. we all know that at the height we were closing in on a million police officers on the street in this country. at last best guess estimate somewhere between 760,000 and

800,000. with the call volume we have now police officers even in jurisdictions that support the concept of community oriented policing or problem oriented policing, when your call volume is that high, you're just totally reactive. we believe that's a problem. it's also a safety issue. it's one of the things that cause our officers to get in their cars and go faster than they would normally go. when you're going from call to call to call and then have to break for emergency calls, it puts a lot of pressure on police officers. answering their calls is the most important aspect of their job as you know. >> your recommendation for that? >> fully funding the cops program to the '94 levels so we have state and local cooperation. i love our brothers in the federal law enforcement sector, but without 900,000 plus state and local officers they could

not do their jobs. 97% of law enforcement is done by state and locals. >> thank you very much. >> shawn -- >> mr. chairman. >> a perspective from the sheriffs. >> i'm sorry. >> we echo many of my colleagues comments. the one cautionary point i would make is that -- i agree the full funding for cops. we also agree it's a program and office and operation that needs to have a better profile. we do just put a cautionary note out there that as we drive for a higher goal of officers and deputies on the force and in the field, there's a lagging cost to that. we all have to be very sensitive to that at the end of the day. what is that cost? who has to pay it? obviously from the sheriff's perspectives as they are locally elected, those costs obvious come down to the county. we put a cautionary tale up

there. while we support it we recognize there is that trailing cost factor. >> thank you all very much. shawn smoot. >> i'd like to first of shawn smoot? >> thank you to the panel for the testimony this afternoon. and thank you all who were able to travel to be with us. and chief, thank you for making the effort to skype in with us online. you know, it seems to me sitting here and listening to the testimony of the last several days we've heard, but especially this morning you know, in the united states, unions have been at the forefront of creating safe workplaces developing safety initiatives, implementing wellness plans for their members and specifically in policing unions have played a huge role in engaging the community in terms of p.a.l.s and other outreach programs that are supported by police associations and unions.

so i wonder, and this question is for the panel. but it seems obvious to me in states that don't have collective bargaining for police officers, that might be something that we would recommend. and so i'm curious to know if you think that would be a good idea, or not. >> speaking on behalf of the order of police as you well know officers that work in nonunion states make 30% less in salary and benefits than those that work in the states that are unionized. the other problem is that the assault rates and killed in the line of duty are higher in states that don't have collective bargaining. and specifically because of what you talked about. every major improvement to safety and law enforcement since 1915 has been made by the police officers, deputies, corrections officers forcing management to

include programs like the bullet proof vest initiative. workers' compensation, safety laws, like our brothers and firefighters have had since their inclusion in osha in 1958. police officers are still not covered under osha regulations in the u.s. and so i think it's vital that collective bargaining or whatever term you want to use the interaction with the police association of the union is vital for officer safety. >> i agree, obviously. i mean our group is made up of associations from around the country. but i think it's important for perhaps states or local jurisdictions that would be resistant that if a state enacts a collective bargaining law, all it does is provide the option for workers to represented by union if they choose to. no state legislature can compel anybody to join a union or to force a sheriff to recognize a union if the workers don't want

one. the other thing i think that's important to emphasize, because it gets -- ties into this same i think, level of resistance sometimes that the related issue of a national law enforcement bill of rights. one of the frequent criticisms is, well if we have that in place, the union in place, i can't get rid of a bad cop, a dirty cop, the brutal cop. and that's just not true. i think speaking from my own experience, but from cases where i've worked with police officers who did the right thing and were wrongly accused and police officers who did the wrong thing and were properly accused. when you have the framework that's in place it actually provides in practical terms procedural checklist for the department. and it's very difficult for an attorney representing the union or representing the officer who has been fired to try to get that officer's job back if the chief or the sheriff can go to the arbitrator, the judge whoever it is and say look, here's what the law provides. here's a checklist of eight

rights the officer has. i did every one of them. i told him what he was accused of. let him know what the witnesses were, the range of discipline. let him call witness record it, access to counsel. what more did you want us to do? it's very difficult at that point to criticize or say that you can't get rid of someone who shouldn't be a police officer. and i think one final observation, i think most of the jurisdictions, including sheriff's departments and agencies that have gone from not having a union representing their workers to ones that have after initial period of distrust or fear i think by and large they find it's easier to manage the workplace if you have a good relationship in place. workers feel like they have a voice in what's going on. >> may i add one comment quickly? i think as you look at

recommendations writ large. mandates coming from washington. we are very cautious about that. each elected sheriff has an obligation uphold to their electorate. many of the counties are represented, many are not. the point being they're all different. one size will not fit all. and thank you tracy mayers. >> this was a question that occurred to me looking at the interaction between seddrick alexander and the panel about the cops office funding. i wonder if any of you would be willing to speak to the relevance of the size of the agency to producing greater

officer safety and wellness. a lot of the issues have to do with capacity for training, for organization, you know, a lot of -- the ability to mandate or have access to mental health counseling and the like. and some of our written testimony, there's been a suggestion there should be a minimum size of agency in order to help facilitate you know, provision of the services that would not only be good for the officers but probably, i think probably obviously good for deployment of services to the community. and i wonder if you would be willing to any one of you, all of you speak to that. and especially with you chief bryan, i don't know how the minimum size of agency would work in indian country as related to you know, state and -- i just -- i'm already

having a hard enough time trying to understand you know the logistical and governmental issues of provision of services. but, anyway, i think you get the question. >> and under the cops office, the tribes have their own set aside grant process. and it is broken down by size of agency. and i agree. i think when you have the size of an agency, especially most of the agencies across country very small agencies with very large land bases they have to patrol. but given that, it is important that we do not have to get into a, sort of a system where we have to compete against larger agencies that we have to have this system that does break it down so smaller agencies are working through the grant process with smaller agencies and vice versa with the larger ones. but, again, we have the tribal

grant process is separate from on that end through the cops office which we are grateful for. >> anyone else let's say a minimum size of 80 to 100 in an agency. and if it's not that large, maybe there should be consolidation. >> i would i would point out. i guess, two maybe competing interests involved in this suggestion. one is that economies of scale certainly, i think, would help the provision of rarely used resources such as counseling after an officer's been involved in a shooting. and you'd want to have those resources available for the officers who are so involved. and it may be very difficult for smaller departments to have that readily available. at the same time, however, though, i think that by increasing the size of an agency and by consolidation, i think the risk is that we may lose the

sense of community involvement, both from the community and from the police department itself. when the agency gets larger i think it loses some of the ability to pursue some of the goals that make the community oriented model successful. larger, consolidated agency. risks the involvement with the community. >> we would agree with that. and i would adjust a couple of points that, no one size fits all. has different requirements and in some cases, sheriffs have primary.

responsibility. in most cases that do, if you look at community policing, that's what sheriffs have traditionally done. it is being solved at the issue. and that's where we agree vocally with my colleague. we just would be very concerned if you, if there was a sudden line in the sand that said there should be at least 25 officers for every 500 people that somehow that would seem random, somehow unavoidably hard to mandate and to ensure that you get uniformity across the system you're trying to achieve. >> i think government's first responsibility is to protect the people of the community period. the first and most sacred responsibility of any government

besides, notwithstanding their size. but minimum staffing levels are something that need to be looked at very harshly looked at. most have 2.4 to 2.8 police officers per 1,000. my jurisdiction which is a very urban jurisdiction has less than .5 law enforcement officers per thousand in the county jurisdiction. and it does cause problems. it reduces the amount of contact with the community. puts the officers in much more of a dangerous situation. and also uniformity in the ptsd response in the country. south carolina's a state where like colorado where ptsd is not recognized as a workman's comp injury. they're not designed to deal with ptsd uniformity in those areas would be a wonderful

recommendation from this task force. >> and i would just like to comment based on one of my recommendations every law enforcement officer be equipped with a vest. and in some of those very small apartments you were talking about there, rather than maybe considering consolidating and making regional departments, maybe look at a different level of support for those smaller departments that aren't able to come up with the matching funds for the vests or don't have the capacity or the folks that can apply for the grants to get those vests. having that support at a higher level for those smaller departments would be very helpful. >> do any of our task force members have additional questions. if not, then thank all of you for your testimony. and, please, join me in thanking them. [ applause ]

we're going to take a break until 2:15. thank you.

now, we've been bringing you live coverage from this day long forum. the president's task force on policing. and the labor management relations. they're due back in about ten minutes. we'll bring you back here live. going to take a look at the annual white house economic report. >> with mark zandy of moody's analytics about lots of money issues out there. mr. zandy. first question, how is the u.s. economy doing heading soon into the spring of 2015? >> much better. you can see that best in the job

market, over the past year, the economy's created over 3 million jobs. that's about as good a year as we've had since the height of the technology boon back in the late 1990s. in fact, in the last three months, the economy's created over 1 million jobs and the job creation is increasingly broad based. if you go back early in the recovery, was mostly low-paying jobs, retail and the hospitality industry. still some low paying, a lot of low paying and high paying, middle paying jobs, as well. we're moving in the right direction. >> this is the quick look here at the economic report at the president. we have it here on the set. he highlighted 2014 the president did as the fastest job growth since the 1990s.

>> i think all the trend lines look really good. some of the best indicators in the labor market is the number of opening positions. the number of job openings is now over 5 million. that's as high as it's been since the bureau of labor statistics, the keeper of the data have been keeping the data back in the early 2000s. and so if you have a lot of job openings that suggest that businesses are out looking for workers and that means they'll continue to hire and i think job growth should remain strong. of course, risks. lots of things could go wrong. but you know, the risks feel a lot less risky than they have in a long time. i think the economy is on the right track and 2015-16 should be good years. >> we're talking economy and money matters.

are there parts of the country doing particularly well right now? who is left behind? >> well, one of the hallmarks of the current recovery, it is across the country. so we're seeing good solid growth from the east coast, to the west coast and everything in between. there are pockets of weakness. so the industrial midwest. so ohio, western pennsylvania, michigan, indiana, that area is still a bit soft. and, of course, given the collapse in oil prices that we've seen since this time last year that's going to put some pressure on some of the energy producing parts of the country that up until this point have been doing fabulously well. that will change, and you can feel that in places like north

dakota, south, into parts of texas. we will see weakness there because of that. but broadly speaking across the country, the job picture looks about as goods as it has in almost ten years. so pretty goods. >> at the democratic winter meeting, the president said the success of the economy may not be an accident. want to take a look, mr. zandy at what the president had to say about the the economy and get your reaction. >> but the facts are before us. the economy kept growing. stock market has more than doubled, restoring the 401(k)s of millions of people. our deficits are down by 2/3. i always find it curious when a democrat's president, deficits

go down, republican's president then deficits are going up. and yet, they try to take on the mantle of fiscal probity. are auto industries firing on all cylinders? none of this is an accident. it's not an accident that america's creating jobs faster than any time since the last time a democrat was president. it's not an accident that our manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the last time a democrat was president. it's not an accident that health care inflation's running at the lowest rate in almost 50 years. >> mark zandy, the president taking credit on behalf of the party there. but in reality, when there is job growth, who or what is responsible mostly? >> well, you know, i think there's lots of reasons for a strong economy. you know, obviously it goes to

the dynamism of american businesses. american businesses have done a marvelous job of reducing their cost structures and becoming very competitive globally. and if they survive the great recession, they must be doing something very, very well and benefitting from that right now. and it goes to the underlying strength of our economy when you know, we make mistakes and we have problems and we have recessions. but our economy adjusts very, very rapidly. and we're off and running again pretty quickly after that. so i think most fundamentally it's the strength of our economic system. it is a very dynamic strong system. now having said that, i do think policy, both monetary policy what the federal reserve board does and fiscal policy, what the administration and congress have done. i've also contributed. i think the very what you could call muscular response to the recession, the great recession in terms of lowering interest rates, providing liquidity to financial system through fiscal stimulus, through efforts to support the auto market and the

housing market. you know there was good and bad in all of that. but in general, it was quite good. and distinguishes our economy and our response to the recession from other parts of the world, like europe or japan, for example. and so policy also, i think, has played a role. most fundamentally it's american businesses and companies that are competitive, strong, and you can see it in their hiring and their investment. >> first call from mark zandy chief economist at moody's. jim is a democrat. good morning. >> yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. >> sure. >> i would like to ask when the sequester kicked in and the federal reserve brought the interest rates almost down to zero for lending out money to all the banks would it have also been a good idea to suspend

the interest rate on the national debt at the same time and had that run alongside with the sequester? wouldn't that have even put us in better shape than we're in right now with the debt? and on top of that, could this have been an executive order that could have been done? thank you. >> thanks jim. >> mr. zandy in new york. >> no, i don't think that would have been good policy. there's a lot of investors global, investors that have bought our treasury bonds. and it's as well most, many of us own treasury bonds through -- in some form or another in our mutual funds, insurance companies that invest on our behalf. and, of course, we have a lot of global investors that have purchased our bonds. if we suspend the interest payments on the bonds we're going to be hurting those investors and hurting ourselves.

they're not going to stand still. we're going to say look, you're going to have to pay me a higher interest rate in the future. there's a risk that at some point, you may do this again and i might not get my interest payment. at the end of the day, it would cost us a lot of money. and, in fact that's effectively a default on the national debt. we don't want to do that. that's a -- not a good idea. we want to convince and assure everyone that if we have a debt, we are going to pay it and we're going to pay it on time. and because of that, we paid the lowest interest rates in the world, and that is to our enormous benefit long run. so no i don't think that would have been good policy. >> let's touch a little bit more on wages, mr. zandy. everybody picked up and noticed headlines like this recently. walmart lifting pay as market gets tighter. this is the "wall street journal" version. at least $10 an hour by next year. why would walmart do this?

are other similar companies doing this? and what does it all mean? >> well, i think it's a good sign. you know, i think the catalyst for walmart's decision. and, of course, i don't know this for sure. this is my speculation is that we saw minimum wage laws rise in many states and localities at the start of the year. walmart wanted to make sure that the salary -- >> first witness is dr. chuck wexler. the police executive research forum. welcome, dr. wexler. >> thank you ms. robinson, and mr. ramsey and the panel. it's good to be here, again. and i also want to thank my fellow panel members for participating. thank you for the opportunity to offer my perspectives on the important issues of labor management issues. i am the executive director of the police executive research

forum. i have held that position for over 20 years. you've asked me to focus my testimony today on building trust and collaboration between police executives labor leaders and elected officials. when we talk about improving policing, the relationship between labor and management is an area that has been neglected for too long. historically labor and management have often viewed each other with suspicion. it often has seemed that they see each other as warring factions and treat each other as the enemy. and as recent events have shown us, everyone loses when labor and management fail to work together. especially people in the community and the officers on the street. fortunately, this way of thinking is beginning to change. the new model for labor management relations puts an emphasis on finding common ground so that we can work

together to achieve goals we share, protecting and serving the community more effectively promoting officer safety and wellness and building better police departments. with the support of the cops office, held a series of productive round table discussions over the past several years to explore better relationships between labor and management. the most recent round table was convened earlier this month in washington. as an example of what can be accomplished when labor and management work together. at a round table discussion last november in philadelphia, police and labor leaders reached a ground breaking agreement that calls upon all law enforcement agencies to adopt mandatory policies requiring officers to wear body armor and seat belts. this agreement addresses the concerns of both labor and management and represents an important step in protecting officer safety.

because of this unprecedented agreement, lives will be saved. we especially recognize the fraternal order of police and the national association of police organizations whose leadership on this issue was critical to reaching this important agreement. at the round table a few weeks ago, we were able to reach an agreement on the key principles that are critical of improving trust among police, labor and elected officials. today, i would like to discuss five principles and share a few success stories where labor leaders have worked together to find common ground. as these stories show when leaders worked together, it can lead to real progress safer communities, police departments that are operating more effectively, officers who are professional, diverse and satisfied in their jobs. and ultimately, stronger relationships between labor and management and police and their communities.

the first principle is one key to building trust and collaboration is for leaders to focus on common ground on the goals and priorities they have in common. and this is an approach taken by labor and management in prince george's county. and you'll hear from the chief later on talk about that. in prince george's county, the police chief and the union president view officer safety and wellness as a joint effort between labor and management. after a car accident claimed the life of a prince george's county officer, the police chief and the union president joined together to enact mandatory seat belt policies and implement arrive alive. a campaign to improve seat belt compliance. sitting side by side, the police chief and the union president filmed the video, emphasizing seat belt safety. principle two, a key to building good relationships is open communications, meeting frequently, seeking each other's

input, being transparent seeking to build personal connections with one another. for example, in places like philadelphia, sacramento and prince georges county, management and labor leaders make it a practice to not enact any policies or make public statements without first receiving input from each other. communications strategies should be a part of standard practice. we also recommend creating joint training opportunities for elected officials and police executives. principle number three building trust is to treat each other with respect and professionalism, even when there are disagreements. this means not taking differences personally refraining from spreading rumors and dissolving disagreements. words matter, especially when they're spoken to the news media media. this approach was taken by mayor

karen freeman wilson in gary indiana, which is a model for how to publicly address issues in a way that demonstrates trust and respect. when she speaks publicly about the community's concerns regarding police she tries to present a balanced approach. principle four, among those same lines, leadership strive to understand and respect each other's roles and responsibilities. through the police, labor and elected leaders share many common goals. they have distinct responsibilities, answer to different constituencies and have unique experiences and backgrounds. rather than viewing these differences as obstacles, leaders should strive to learn from one another and understand each other's perspectives. a recent example was in sacramento. where leaders had to overcome differences to forge stronger relationships. the mayor and police union president met privately to discuss comments each had made to the media following the grand jury decision in ferguson,

missouri. although the two leaders had a good working relationship, their comments reflected different reactions. each, however, rather than letting the differences damage the relationship, they work with each other in what the police chief -- an opportunity to discuss reviews and learn from one another. and finally, the fifth principle is important for leaders to strive to treat officers to the way they want officers to treat people in the community. promoting officer safety wellness and job satisfaction is a perfect opportunity for collaboration between labor and management. for example, in places like houston and ft. worth, police chiefs work closely with their unions to gain support for mandatory body armor policy, a critical aspect. and in places like philadelphia, labor and management have come together to improve the department's response to significant toll that stress dangerous working conditions and traumatic incidents can take place. leaders can also improve officer job satisfaction by working

together to negotiate contracts fairly honestly, and from a win-win perspective. for example, in camden, new jersey, a police chief and union president recently worked together to successfully negotiate the first contract under the re-organized police department. the key lesson that we have learned throughout our work is that we are all better off when labor, management and local officials work together. we hope that leaders across the country will commit to these five principles. finding common ground, engaging in open communication, treating each other with respect, seeking to understand each other's roles and responsibilities, and working together to promote officer safety and wellness. by committing to these principles we can overcome the negativity of the past and move forward together towards building communities and police departments. thank you. >> thank you, dr. wexler. we'll now hear from karen freeman wilson who is the mayor of gary, indiana.

>> thank you, cochair professor robinson and co-chair ramdy and to the entire esteemed task force. first and foremost i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to join this group of knowledgeable panelists and to testify before you today. you are charged with developing recommendations that will be critical to the future of our cities and of our nation. and it is certainly my honor to add our thoughts on behalf of u.s. conference of mayors to those recommendations that you will make. i am also humble to serve as chairperson of the conference's working group of mayors and police chiefs. which developed a set of recommendations for improving police community relations that

we presented to all of the mayors and to your co-chairs. as well as your executive director ron davis. one month ago during the mayor's conference here in washington, d.c. i would also note that commissioner ramsey did double duty as he was a member of that group. i believe that all of you have seen our report. and our recommendations are grouped into six areas. building, police community trust, improving police department practices, ensuring timely and accurate communications conducting independent investigations, addressing racial and economic disparities, and providing national leadership. i would officially submit a copy of this report for the record of

this listening session. in some instances our recommendations go beyond the purview of mayors and police chiefs and call for actions by the broader community in cities and in the nation as a whole. and by the federal government. this reflects our belief that improving police community relations is not solely a law enforcement responsibility. the entire community including business, the not for profit sector, civic and social organizations the faith community, police and government at all levels must be involved to assure not just public safety but justice and equally important, a sense of justice in the community. the topic for this panel, labor

management relations addresses a critical component of what we must do to build trust between the police and the communities they serve. while the leadership and direction must come from the mayor and police chief it is primarily the actions of police officers on the streets interacting with community residents on a daily basis and responding when an incident occurs, which will determine how successful we are in maintaining that trust. first of all let me register our agreement with the important principles that dr. wexler has articulated. focusing on finding common ground engaging in open communication and seeking input

from one another, handling disagreements with respect and professionalism, understanding and respecting one another's roles and responsibilities and recognizing the strong link between promoting officer safety and wellness and building strong police community relationships. i also have to add that last july our concerns about officer safety were underscored in gary when officer jeff westerfield was gunned down in his police car while investigating an active call. this and today's testimony throughout the day underscores the delicate balance of addressing all aspects of this issue that have been raised and heard by this task force. i believe our roles as mayors is

to provide our police departments with the resources they need to get the job done. those resources can be money or equipment or something less tangible, such as creating an atmosphere that makes it easier for our officers to get the job done. we need to look at policing from various perspectives. as we work to create a climate that allows the police to do their jobs. this includes the perspectives of the officers and their unions, the police departments as a whole. the city government and the justice system as a whole, as well. in gary i use my convening power as mayor to involve the entire community. i address the big picture and work with our chief to relate it to law enforcement. i work closely with the chief and his command staff to improve

police practices that may be of concern. we try to provide a consistent message, which is that the overwhelming majority of police officers are doing a great job. we make it clear that we support our officers in what they do so long as they follow established protocols. but we also make it clear that when something appears to have been done wrong we will investigate it and act on the findings of that investigation. with every tragedy comes an opportunity. and what has happened in ferguson and staten island and cleveland and brooklyn has been -- has to be seen as an opportunity for us all. and especially for america's mayors. we believe mayors are uniquely

equipped to lead community conversations about the relationship between the police and the community. and we believe these conversations have to involve the community as a whole. as mayors, we have to embrace this opportunity to create a dialogue that will serve our cities for generations to come. a dialogue about race relations and poverty and about how we in government will engage the community every day of the year, including those days when those will be involved. i will say that leadership on this conversation is not for the faint of heart. we hope you will find these thoughts and our recommendations helpful as you draft your report to the president and the nation. the conference of mayors stands

ready to contribute to an important task in any way we can. and i stand ready today to answer any questions you might have. thank you very much. >> thank you, mayor. our next witness is mark mcgaw chief of prince georges county, maryland, police department. welcome. >> thank you and thank you for the opportunity to be here. just to share a few thoughts. very quickly sits just east of here across the river, about 500 square miles, 1 million-- 350 civilians. it's a lot of ground to cover. we have 17 miles of border with washington, d.c., all of southeast and northeast d.c. so we're interconnected communities. we've had the opportunity over the last several months to work with dr. wexler and the cops' office around this issue. and let me start by saying community policing is the foundation of everything we do in prince georges county.

because of community policing in the last four years, we've been able to reduce homicides by 40% in four years. from my perspective, community policing is about relationships trust and equity. not only externally within the community we serve, but also internally with our officers. the simple but key concept here is how officers are treated internally directly affects how they treat our community. if there's not trust within our agency how do we build trust in the community? we must treat our officers the way that we want them to treat our community. community policing begins internally. and that's why the relationship between management and labor is critical in my opinion. in prince georges county, there was a time, not too long ago that the police chief and the fop president would never have spoken, let alone be in the same room together.

i'm fortunate the last two i've grown up there on the department, so there's been a relationship to begin with. but the initial conversation i've had with both of these gentlemen is that our jobs are different, but very much the same. our job is to take care of the men and women who take care of our community. together, there's nothing that we can't achieve together. key elements in building any relationship or respect and open lines of communication. and when i talk about open lines of communication, i'm talking about inclusion. there's a difference. we discuss all concerns. he knows i value his opinion i need his thoughts to help me run the department. it's about showing respect enough to listen, even if we disagree. the fop is included in

everything. i openly seek the fop's opinion before making any decision in such matters as policy, training equipment, we have a body camera committee right now. the fop has a prominent position on that. the fop is always make it a point to speak to the fop president before there's any kind of suspensions, before that hits the rank and file. so he understands the background of these issues. we have a review committee, made up of fop members and the command staff to make sure there's equity and discipline matters. such things as uniforms car selection, the fop has a tremendous role in those decisions. and we've also worked very hard around ptsd and alcohol-related concerns. it's okay if we disagree. it's about finding middle ground. without finding in the press or openly in the community, which would only erode the trust of

the community. and hurts everyone. one time only one time over personnel matter in four years have we not been able to agree on an outcome. we did agree at the very end it would go to arbitration. and we would allow together allow the arbitrator to make the final decision. we find 95% of the time 99% of the time we're on the same page. probably the best example of our partnership centers around what dr. wexler was talking about vehicle operations. in august of 2012 adrian moore, 23-year-old officer involved in a fast chase. he was chasing a robbery suspect suspect lost control and he was killed in that accident. three months later in october, kevin valden was killed killed in a car accident. the fop president and i both stood in the trauma room of both of these officers with their families.

and we made a decision together right then that we needed to change the culture of how we operated our vehicles. and we had to do it together. and that's where the arrive alive campaign came from. there's three simple pieces to it. buckle your seat belt, slow down, don't be distracted. there's many different pieces we've put in place in training. but one of the most significant ones was the video that we did with family members of lost officers. that have been killed in the line of duty through traffic accidents. the fop president and i stood together in a room much like this and made a plea to the rank and file about operating vehicles. and i think it sent a tremendous message to the rank and file. key components in policing the community. they are critical in maintaining

and creating a healthy resilient and professional department. when i talk about collaboration, i mean every level of the agency relationships not just with myself and fop president, but with command staff, fop staff. working, working out issues at their level. many issues never even making my desk because they work out those issues. just like community policing has got to be more than a philosophy, a catch phrase. it has to be the core of what we do, how we do business every day. and conclusion, as respect, trust and collaboration becomes a foundational structure within a police organization between labor and management, these values reflected out into our community that we serve. thank you. >> thank you, chief. we'll next hear from jim pasco the long time executive director of fop, the fraternal order of police.

>> thank you ms. robinson and commissioner ramsey. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i thank the rest of the panel. this is a point at which having heard from three distinguished management representatives at various levels, the union guy comes in and tries to eviscerate every assertion just heard. and unfortunately for me because it doesn't leave me with much to say, i didn't have much to do to disagree with, with any of the assertions i just heard. the bigger problem, and we have participated in all of these round table discussions hosted by the cops office and perf, and we feel we have learned from them and hopefully management gained insight from them, as well. the bigger problem as i see it is not going to be how the participants in those round

table discussions go forward but how we make other chiefs and other local union presidents see that there's a better way of getting things done than is currently being done. and unfortunately, a large number of cities around the country. this is particularly true in those 20 odd states where there is no collective bargaining. so there's no required communication and coordination between police management and police labor. and in those places, all the power lies with the chief or in many cases, in those jurisdictions the sheriffs to decide whether or not he or she wants to interact with labor representatives or labor at large. and unfortunately, many of those cases, they do not. if you look around the country and this is a -- i don't mean to

generalize, but if you look around the country, you'll see that some of the greatest dynamic tension between the community and the police is in places where there are poor relations between police, management and labor. and without naming any cities some of them may well be fop cities. i doubt it but they may well be fop cities. we have to take what we all agree is a good idea and find a way to sell it. and i'm not here with the answer to that. i'm just saying that our work doesn't end here with that profound recommendation. our work will end when we've come up with a plan and found a way to make other people think it's a good idea, as well. when we've done that, and there's a trickle down. when the cop feels good about his job and the way he's treated

and the way he's equipped and well trained he gets out there. that's going to be reflected in his interaction with the community. and the community's going to like it and they're going to support it. and the resources that are necessary to maintain that level of positive policing will be easier to get and so on and so on. so my point is that this is not the end of the line here with us sitting here and congratulating one another. and while we get along, happy as i am because i only have so many fights left in me. and hopefully wexler does, too. we need -- we need to move forward, positively. we need to keep this going, we need to make it spread make people understand that you know make our members understand that you know, police chiefs are cops, too. and make the chiefs understand that just because these guys don't have scrambled eggs yet,

doesn't mean their brains are scrambled. so with that, again, i'm very happy to participate in this task force and very happy to participate in the series of round tables. again hosted by cops and perf, and i hope they don't end with a report. i hope it's a spring board to action. thank you. >> well thank you, mr. pasco. very, very interesting. our last speaker on this panel is dustin smith. he's president of the sacramento police officer's association, welcome. >> good afternoon. and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. what i'd like to first comment on is the fact that we create a large part of the public's perception of their local law enforcement. no manner of outreach can overcome what we create. please let me define we. by we i mean the police unions, police departments and the governments. we need to take care of our own house through our relationships. my first example would be we need to discontinue the practice

of tearing down each other publicly. -- with my chief, and my local government. and the real public relations portion of that the real connection to the community we're looking for is if i spend all day tearing down my chief and talking about why his decision is improper or unjust or even immoral and i do the same thing to my local government. and then i turn to my public and say, now, please, trust us. i say to you good luck with that. i would first start with my first recommendation would be to quit tearing each other down publicly so we can build a real trust with the community by showing solidarity with each other. we've taken on a new strategy we've only recently put into place. and our long-term strategies with each other.

so for example, in the city of sacramento mayor johnson and chief somers will actually share their media responses with the police union, and i do the same with them. even though i have to come out a little more negatively than normal, i will share that with them and their staff ahead of time so they have an opportunity to see where i'm going and why. and then also have an opportunity to potentially educate me to where i may be off in my statements and why i'm not fully understanding or maybe vice versa why they're not fully understanding the other viewpoint. it's given us a real opportunity to have a pretty solid public message come out. one of the other things we tried real hard to do is to not indict or generalize. and i know that typically that's the police union saying that the government and the administration needs to quit indicting all the police officers and all these other things. and i do agree with that standpoint. but at the same time i can't indict my entire counsel if only

one or two of them come out with a different opinion. i can't say the council has. i need to be specific about who i'm dealing with and what i'm talking about and how we hope to fix that course of action. and the same thing would go with the police department. if a decision was made within the police department, i can't tear down the entire administration and my comments to my membership, otherwise i start to unwind the fabric of trust we tried to create. so another point i'd like to make is that we try very hard to fight behind closed doors. i mean, i can't sit here and pretend to say we get along at all times and it's the perfect relationship. but what we do try to do is take advantage of the fact we can have our own private moments. and i don't have to use the media, but use my personal messaging systems with my membership and the other things i can do to tear down the trust or to unwind part of our relationship we worked so hard to build. so for us, i have the ability to

meet with my chief very frequently. we meet twice a month usually at least once over a meal. gives us an opportunity to be a little more personal sit down and have some real conversation. and then also, i bring my executive board together with my command staff, my chief and deputy chiefs every month, and sometimes some captains will join, as well, so we have more of a joint feeling a message of where we're going forward. and i have that same opportunity with the mayor and my entire counsel meet with them. one-on-one, face to face, which gives me the same opportunity to then understand and share the same drive they do. we all have the same general goal. as a safe and flourishing community. so for us we are fortunate we have binding arbitration for disciplinary manners. so what we've adopted is the idea of the policy and the practice of that policy will allow us to basically let it

rule. instead of it becoming personal and us having to attack each other in the process if it's a discipline case or if we're in disagreement without the contracts being in enforced we let the neutral third-party arbitrator be the one to make those decisions. i don't go after the chief and the city government and things in the media, i allow the process to run its course and ultimately let that third-party arbitrator and the facts make the decisions. that's really helped us from basically turning our membership on those other entities. sharing policy briefly, i can touch on that. we share every policy that goes into place in the sacramento police department comes through my office first. that has created a great amount of trust with the officers because they know they're now vested through their association in that same policy.

our officer-involved shooting policy is actually contractual. there's a very specific way that's laid out. who's going to be present at that part and it's available for public viewing. so, it has allowed for a pretty high level of trust between the department, our government and the union and then touching that to the community trust by them being able to see our transparent policy. one last thing that's really helped with our department is that they've trained a number of our officers to actually be what we call peer support. they're internal counselors. most are people who have lived through pretty traumatic incidents in the police department themselves. when you show up and come to talk to me about my traumatic incident, we can relate. we know the process how you helped recover from that. and that program obviously is attached to our employee assistance program and other things with professional counselors. but on scene and all the way through your incident you'll have that support in place.

and then the last thing i would say, i was approached by a major city union leader who said you know, some of the things you sound good and i wish we had some of those relationships in our city, but how do i get there, because we've been so bad so long? and really the honest answer that i gave them was, somebody has to take a leap of faith, why not you? and until somebody burns you, there's no real reason to no longer trust them. and there's opportunities with turnover in government, new chiefs, there can be timing to it, but there has to be a leap of faith on somebody's part that we're going to get together and clab instead of fight. so, my primary recommendation is to support what you've heard from dr. chuck wexler today and i thank you for your time. >> thank you so much, mr. smith. and we're now going to turn to questions from the panel. we're going to started out with sue rohr followed by tracy mears. >> thank you. sacramento sounds lucky. good cooperation. actually, my question is for

chief mcguy. i have two questions. one, could you tell us a little more about the disciplinary review committee and how that works? that sounds pretty interesting. >> the committee meets quarterlily and reviews -- we have lbobr bill of rights in the state of maryland. there's a set process for discipline action. but lesser offenses and oon things that go to disciplinary board, making sure that -- so they look at what's happened over the last three months. making sure that there's equity between what you got for discipline for an action and i did the same thing and i was -- i got less than you did. it's about keeping -- it's equal across the board for everyone. it's made up of fop members from

their staff and command staff from the police department. . and that group will rule if it's equitable or not. >> if it's not equitable, what happens? >> well, it would stand. if you were involved in a departmental accident and you got a written reprimand and i got a $200 fine what's the difference? they look through the specifics of the case. i was somewhat reckless in my handing of an automobile, that type of thing, and they may deem that, you know it would stand. if they say, hey, this is not equitable, then it would come to me. >> and you would have the opportunity to -- >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. totally separate question. your arrive alive initiative sounds wonderful. i'm curious, we talked about mandatory seat belt wearing, and i know from my own experience in law enforcement and there's always pushback the seat belt gets hung up on all the gear. how did you overcome -- resist that amount of resistance? what was a couple of key things?

>> like i said, and i mentioned a little earlier in my testimony, the real push came after kevin bowden the second time within three months i'm standing in a trauma room with a family along with the fop president, and us coming together and understanding, it's state law anyway and we've got to come together and not necessarily in a discipline way but in a peer pressure way. this is what we do. somehow, like i said, the first officer, adrienne was 23, the second officer kevin, was 27. they grew up with seat belts. i didn't. we went back and forth across. they grew up with seat belts. adrian had 18 months on the police department. somehow in 18 months he decided he can't wear a seat belt. we sat down and, you know, one of the things was we made a video with all the loved ones from officers who have been killed, you know, in the line of

duty in car accidents. this is not about you. the seat belt's not about you. it's about your family. so we took a real strong peer pressure point because if we're all in the squad you know, you know who wears a seat belt and who doesn't. >> absolutely. >> you know. and it's -- it's been tremendously effective. last year we reduced preventable accidents by 20%. but it's a whole series of things that we put in place. we went to u.p.s. to see what they did about driving safety. and we have a message that comes out three times a day from the dispatcher, and it changes every day as far as seat belts about speed, about being distracted. there's a whole host of things. but the interesting thing and i'll be quiet here but one of the things we made a simple sticker. every cruiser marked, unmarked, has it at the same place in the car. and it basically says arrive

alive. and it mentions the three things. but it has a picture of our memorial, police memorial, so it's personal to us. but i had an agency after one of the roundtables who's close to us in the area who said, there's no way that i could put -- have a sticker put in a cruiser without the fop saying okay. basically the fop would never do that. they would never allow me to do that. i'm like, it's about coming together. it's about partnership. and sometimes it takes a tragedy like the mayor was saying there's an opportunity in every -- in every tragedy and for us it hit us within three months back in 2012 and we seized it. >> so the key piece is peer pressure. >> yes. and that's really -- that's been the key, is putting it out there

and allowing the rank and file to hold each other accountable. and they have. second, kevin, wasn't working at the time. but he was in a cruiser. and those types of things ripple through the entire department, through the entire community. and when you have a crisis like, that you have to seize the moment. >> i think sheriff gillespie did that in las vegas. >> absolutely. >> officer smith, do you have any thoughts on this from the officer perspective, things that would overcome the arguments against ranks wearing seat belts that would have credibility with your troops? >> you know, we've had a mandatory policy for quite some time now. and i think over time the training officers involved come from a different generation with a different message.

sometimes i believe that will help. i know that i trained a number of our folks that have come out of the academy. and i personally preach the use of a seat belt as best i could. and if more of the training officers as you're coming out. academy -- in the academy, if you don't have it on you'll probably fail the scenario you're in. when you get to the training you fail if you don't wear it. if it starts at that level of culture with the more senior officers training i think it can help carry on through the entire department. but i -- the equipment and you know, one half of one second thaw lose getting out of the car is all a weak argument, to get honest with you. weak at best. you just wear it so you can survive. >> thank you. tracy mears followed by roberto. >> thank you. i have a question first and the comment is for you, mayor freeman-wilson. hi a chance to read through this testimony while you were testifying.

and i really appreciated many of the recommendations. it's reflective of some of the things we were talking about. listening to you and having a chance to listen to mayor rawlings blake and mayor nutter, so i wanted to say thank you. >> thank you so much. >> so my question for you, are you officer smith -- >> yes. >> i remember when you came here with mayor johnson, but you didn't have a chance to speak. and you actually touched on my question which you know, you spoke at end. it has to begin somewhere. why not let it begin with you or let it begin with me. i was hoping you would say a few more words about that. you know we gave you limited time to speak. and i imagined in some sense it's easy to say well, it should just start with you as union representative. i'm sure it's a little more complicated than that. and i think this is really important. so, if you could say a little more about your strategy,