obviously, napo supports seat belts. however, even a mandatory policy does not and should not be equated with a zero tolerance enforcement method of enforcement policy, smart enough to conceive of every possible circumstance in which an officer will find herself. some circumstances, cases that we have seen in our office and which quickly come to mind include the situation where a wounded officer cannot survive the wait for an ambulance and other officers plus their wounded comrade in a police car and quickly drive him to the nearest emergency room, providing direct pressure on the gunshot wounds the with whole way. the policy's technically violetted, but it would -- violated but it would clearly be unjust to enforce it in such circumstances. similarly, keeping a vest on would impair ability to swim. again, technically the policy is violated but justice would require recognition that a hire goal is served then. finally, it should not impact a surviving family member's ability to receive psob death benefits. the purpose of

napo as worked tirely to reauthorize and fully fund the bulletproof vest partnership grandprogram.as members of the panel are aware the program helps state and local agencies purchase bullet resistant body armor for officers. while many officers are protected by body arm 'er an alarming number of officers, many in small departments, are not a forded the same protection due to local budget constraints. this program must be fully fund understand ordinary to ensure officers are equipped and protects as they perform duties in very dangerous environments where individuals are increasingly willing to attack officers. recommendation ensure every officer is equipment with a properly fitted and current body armor. na poe recognizes the department of justice in funding the purchase of body armor requires receiving agencies to have a hand tear wear policy. similarly most if not all agencies have in effect requirement to use seatbelts. viewsly we support the greaterroroo of body armar and seat belt e belts but a mandatory policy does not and should not be equated with a zero tolerance enformen

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 res

when the fop and napo agree to the mandatory wearing of seat belts, lives will be saved because people will be required to wear it who normally think it's uncomfortable and their life will be saved because of that. leadership is on both sides, in labor and management. in boston, where i'm from we used to say management gets the kind of union they deserve. management gets the kind of union they deserve. so if you treat people badly, your union gets more militant. and i think the best example here, sitting right at the table is in ffl. what's happened with the philadelphia union. very militant union in philadelphia. not to say it's not a strong union but now there's communication. i think a lot of this is leadership but it's a little idiosyncratic. you need the right personalities. i have seen over and over again whether it's labor management, someone will say and jim pasco can correct me if i'm wrong here is we have a new union president spoth now things are bad. or we have a new chief who doesn't think their role is to talk to the union. so when you have either a new union leader or a