Speaker 0: We're going to move on to the so-so item here, which is next on the agenda. So if I can have the clerk, please read the.
Speaker 1: Perfect Report from Human Resources.
Speaker 3: Recommendation received file of fact finding report issued by the Fact Finding.
Speaker 1: Panel and adopt a resolution authorizing the implementation of the terms of the city's last, best and final offer.
Speaker 4: Described in the October.
Speaker 1: 24th, 2018 correspondence to the IAM detailing the scope of service on the Airport Security Division and the Long Beach Police Department and integration citywide.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. We are going to be opening up the next item, which is our 29. Appreciate that. I want to also just I know we're going to go into the item there. There are two parts of this item. So I just want to make sure that we're clear and it will require two separate votes as presented by the staff. The first part of the vote is to receive and file the fact finding report, which we will hear in a minute from staff as part of the this process. The second part, obviously, is actually adopting a resolution that would actual implement the terms of the city's last, best and final offer. It's there there has been a lot of discussion on this item, a lot of interest, rightly so, on an item that is important for us as a community. And so my recommendation is going to be that we hear the report as presented by staff. Then we allow the Council to ask all of its questions, which I think are important. There are a lot of questions that we also allow the public to comment so that the public is able to give their perspective on the report and their input, and so that the public the public process is out in the open. And then we receive and file the report as presented by staff. The second part of the motion, which is actually to implement the last, best and final offer, I'm going to recommend that we postpone the second part and to to a later date in May, a set by the city manager so that there could be some additional consideration by the council and some possible discussion. And so that is what will be my recommendation. Obviously, the Council will have an opportunity to to to look at that as we move forward. But I want to begin then the first part of this, which is the receive and file of the fact finding report. And and we'll go from there. So with that, Mr. West.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members. So our goal tonight, the action before you tonight will place our well, the action before you tonight. We'll place our police department in a supervisory capacity over all of our law enforcement officers at our Long Beach Airport. Currently, our 27 airport special security officers, all who carry firearms, are supervised by the airport director who has no public safety supervisory experience, not the police department. This is simply an organizational shift. All SOS will continue to carry weapons. All Eso's will continue to be. I am members. All Eso's will continue to work their regular duties at the airport. All Eso's will continue to maintain their classifications and salaries. This organization shift simply puts our eso's at the airport under police department supervision. There is precedent for this. In 2004, we had 30 Marine patrol officers. All of those officers carried weapons. They all reported to the Marine bureau manager who had no public safety experience. In 2004, we shifted our Marine patrol officers to the police department where they are supervised now by the police department. These Marine bureau patrol folk continue to carry firearms. They continue to be. I am members. They continue to be Marine patrol officers. They're simply now supervised by the police department as opposed to the Marine bureau manager who had no public safety experience. Just recently we removed we moved our park rangers from Parks and Recreation to the police department instead of being supervised by the Parks and Recreation director, again, who has no public safety supervisory experience. These park rangers are now supervised by the police department. They continue to carry firearms. They continue to be. I am members. They continue to be park rangers. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to our H.R. director and one of our managers. So Alex Vasquez and Dana Anderson will give the report.
Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor and council members. I want to introduce Dana Anderson. She's the bureau manager for labor relations and also Elmer Rodriguez Moosa, who's our outside counsel there, was involved in our negotiations on this.
Speaker 3: Particular item that went to a fact finding. So I'm going to turn over to Dana first and then we're happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 12: So that evening, Mayor and city council over the past year, representatives from city management and to enter in the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, also known as I am, have held a number of meet and confer sessions regarding the impacts of the integration of the Airport Security Division and the airport police detail into one section which would fall under the command and control of the Long Beach Police Department. The decision to integrate is to provide efficiencies through a better coordination of effort and one structural chain of command, both resources and personnel, including supervision, training and and deployment of staff to achieve consistency of public safety and maximize airport security efforts. The airport security division has been providing security and safety services for decades, and in response to increased security concerns following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the police department assigned an airport detail to augment the airport security division. In 2002, the city noticed the item in January 2015 of its intent to integrate the airport security division special services officers, also known as SOS and the Airport Police Division into one division to align their respective responsibilities, which was scheduled to move forward on April 1st, 2015, but was delayed. The purpose here is to have police in a supervisory capacity over law enforcement officers. At the airport on January 26, 2018, the city decided to proceed with the integration and again noticed I am of its intent to integrate the airport security division personnel and the airport police detail into the newly created airport police section. The reorganization was adopted by City Council for f y 19, contingent upon the completion of the ME to confer process with applicable unions. The reorganization does not impact employee salaries and would not result in additional police officer or CSO positions, and the requested action is not expected to require additional staff hours beyond the norm. The normal budget is scope of duties. After several months of negotiations and exchanges of proposals, the city declared impasse and provided written notification to. I am on October 24th, 2018 that we included the terms of the city's last, best and final offer, detailing the scope of service and items discussed as part of the public sector. Negotiation process. Once impasse has been declared, unions have the option to request a fact finding before an agency can impose their last, best and final offer. I am requested fact finding on November 21st, 2018, and the fact finding hearing was held on February 8th, 2019. The panel's report being issued on March 5th, 2019, which is attached to the council letter. The fact finding panel's report is advisory and provided the recommendation that the city implement its last, best and final offer for reasons stated in the fact finding panel's report. The city concurred with the recommendations of the fact finding panel and requests city's authorization to implement the terms of the city's last, best and final offer. This concludes the presentation and we are open to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Great. I know we do have questions from council. I think there's been requests to do public comment and hear from the public first. So if you have public comment on this item, remember there's only one motion on the table right now which is to receive and file the report. So, please, any public comment, please come forward. The second part when we vote on the second part of the motion, which would be to to postpone the staff recommendation to implement that there would be public comment on that item as well, I believe. Right. Mr. City Attorney.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So there's no I see no public comment on the receiving file of fact finding report. So let me go ahead and begin with Councilwoman Munger.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have. Empathy for the police officers. Many of you know that I am a peace officer in the state of California, and so I empathize with the concerns of our USO's having lost some of their status. And it's my understanding that they have up to three years to join a general law enforcement agency. So one of the things that I think might be helpful is finding a way to get there. I don't think that that really happens in this process. And so with that, I'm open to hearing from my colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 3: And thank you. STAFF So I just wanted to to clarify a couple of things. You mentioned that. The officers would stay eso's.
Speaker 8: Yes. Correct.
Speaker 3: And that there would be no effect to their salaries. Correct. Is that indefinitely, or is there a time in the future that that could change?
Speaker 8: Would only change if there through a city council action there. Suppose we need them to be at the airport and we have no intention of changing their status at all.
Speaker 3: So the changes that they would be supervised by PD.
Speaker 8: It just who supervises them? Police department or the airport director.
Speaker 3: Or the airport director? Okay. Second question is and I know that there's some questions that we you know, just if you can answer this question, that'd be great. How many hours of training do officers do so officers currently have and how many would they be receiving if the supervision changed?
Speaker 8: I don't know how many they currently have. Perhaps someone else can answer that. I do know that by going to the police department with the training bureau, they'll have the opportunity. I think Post is going to offer, you know, 38 more training opportunities than they have today. So we expect the opportunity for much more training.
Speaker 3: I think we have the chief there. Chief, are you able to answer that question?
Speaker 10: Yes, ma'am. I'll do my best to try to answer that. So, Mayor. Members of the City Council. Any training moving forward would be proportional to the security officers duties. I believe under what we're proposing, the actual training would increase as we move forward as we have with. Please note that we have over 120 security officers that work for the police department now. Mr. West indicated some of the positions there and in all cases, when people were brought in under the brought to or under the umbrella of the police department, the training actually increased. That is obviously our field, whether we're talking about general law enforcement or security. And we're able to go out and look for the appropriate training classes so that all of our employees, whether sworn, civilian or otherwise, can participate in the best training to provide the best service to our community.
Speaker 3: Okay. Moving forward, I would love to to know some solid numbers moving forward, but for tonight, I'm okay. Um, I also wanted a point of clarification. I thought there was 27, as I said. Is that are airport.
Speaker 10: That's correct. There are currently 27 budgeted positions for security officers at the airport. And just to go back to your the previous question about training so we can complete that tonight, we are proposing that as we move the security officers from the airport under our family to Long Beach Police Department, that they're going to be attending a 30 hour Long Beach Police Department specific course designated to assimilate them into our organization and working environment. Beyond that, our department provides advanced officers training that we do provide to some of our security officers every year, and they would fall under that as well, which they do not currently receive in their current airport climate.
Speaker 3: Okay. And one other point of clarification. There's 27 budgeted positions. How many positions are actually filled right now?
Speaker 10: I believe it's 15.
Speaker 3: 15. I think there's 15 actually less than. Is there a reason why those positions aren't filled up to the full 27.
Speaker 10: Primarily because of a lot of what's going on here tonight. We've been going back and forth, would meet, confer and so on and so forth. And I think we in order to move forward and in order to fill those positions, we need to make sure that new employees coming in know exactly what they're going to be, what duties are going to be performing.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. I want to, you know, recognize that I asked some of these questions previously of you and of staff. And, you know, this is one of those areas that there's there's a lot of information that's available. And as a councilmember really trying to make the best decision and really trying to have all the facts in front of us so that we understand, obviously, an airport, you know, having 80% of the port in my district, safety is an utmost concern for me. And thinking about our airport the same. And so the question that I had asked before was, have there been issues, have there been situations outside of fact finding that we can do this? Have there been situations that cause concern for yourself or for our city manager on making this shift?
Speaker 10: I will do my best to answer that as well as your police chief. I have put this proposal to integrate forward as part of a team with the city manager under the direction of the city manager and in conjunction with the Human Resource Department and the City Attorney's Office. I would not be putting my name to anything that I didn't think was going to be advantageous to our entire community as far as safety goes. We're talking about the Long Beach Airport. The Long Beach Airport is ours and it is our intent to keep that safe. 24 seven. I know there's been a lot of comments made recently in the media, which I think are absolutely ridiculous that we're not going to be keeping an eye on our airport 24 seven which does cause citizens to call in and say, What the heck is going on? I'm not in the business of scaring people. I'm in the business of protecting people. And I assure our community that we are going to this plan will make our airport safer. So to continue with that, if you look at and again, the security officers that we have at the airport, great people, every single one of them. I can't wait if all of you approve to have them as part of our organizational family. But we've got to think about liability. And as we move forward in this current security and law enforcement environment, there has never been a time when law enforcement or security is being questioned more about what we do on an everyday basis . Everybody we stop. Everybody that we deal with constantly questions our policies. They question the level of accountability that we have. So when we're talking about use of force, foot pursuits, vehicle pursuits, all those things, those are things that we considered as we looked at the current policies that either exist or don't exist to make sure that we were going to, one, make this airport and community safer and allow this body to be as free of of risk or liability as we possibly could. So at the end of the day, that's why I'm recommending to you that recommending to you as a chief of police, that I'm I get held accountable, putting my name on the bottom of the paper when I am reviewing a use of force or something, God forbid, something more significant that your chief of police should be handling. And I think this community expects their chief of police to handle those type of challenges.
Speaker 8: Councilor, I'd like to point out, too, that a lot of this is coming from me as your city manager. Basically, it's just a personal promise that I have that I personally don't have law enforcement supervisor experience, so I shouldn't be supervising department that carries weapons, carries firearms, carrying lethal weapons. Additionally, our airport director, interim director Claudia Lewis, currently right now, she is the supervisor of 27 people at the airport that that carry weapons. And and clearly, Claudia doesn't have that supervisory experience either. So we just feel, as we did with the Marine bureau, as you do with the park rangers, if you're carrying lethal weapons, you should be under the police department's purview and not the not a department head.
Speaker 3: So I appreciate the response. And I think for all the reasons, Chief, that you laid out is probably why we have some community concerns coming up. And I just want to be honest, because I know that we've had lots of these conversations. And and so that's why it's taken me a step back today to be able to. Making the right decision. And if we haven't had those situations yet, that we really are thoughtful about this next step. So I want to hear from my colleagues. You know, I appreciate the 30 extra hour offer. I don't know what they currently got. And want to just clarify that there's 1527 currently there. But I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Vice Mayor Andrews.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Mayor. Before I get started here and some of my questions I will be asking can be done with the yes or no. Before I get started, I just want to state that the Long Beach, you know, has a great police department and a great airport, which has a great group of security officers who have the primary responsibility for securing the safety of the airport. I understand the efficiency that can occur by placing so under the police department control. However, I want to fully understand the potential impact to safety and security as well as working conditions of Esso. My questions are and they can be done with the yes or no with the number of positions sold at the airport be maintained.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 7: Well, the hours of deployment be maintained 24, seven and through and 65 days a year.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 7: What is the status of the so?
Speaker 8: Chief.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, Councilman. Can you please or. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, can you please repeat the question?
Speaker 7: What is the status of an as? Oh, would that be maintained or if not, well. Well, if it not maintaining with the SS. Oh. Have the equivalent of training. You are posturing. Yes.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, sir. The status will remain the same.
Speaker 7: Okay. And will it be maintained? You're saying? Yes. Or if not will to maintain be the CSO have the equivalent of the training that the others have.
Speaker 12: I'm sorry. Are you asking about that? The post training?
Speaker 7: Yes. What is the status of that for the ASOS?
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't understand you. That was my fault. On the first one regarding the post training. Post is a state organization and initially there were several officers who attained post certificates. And when Post went back to review the information, they found that they incorrectly issued those certificates. And so that is a state of California post issue that does not have anything to do with the city of Long Beach.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, uh, another question. Will this move affect any representation by the I am training status in a direction that people are under?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 7: I think because of that, I really think this is kind of confusion and I don't think we should have really ever gotten to this point. But I'm going be willing to listen to my other colleagues and I'll move on from there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So my colleagues have asked some good questions, and so I won't try to dove into the weeds here. So. Mr. City Manager so we've been in negotiation for a period of time. It's come to a point where a fact finding was requested. That fact finding report we received today, that fact finding report summed up, essentially said that that the chief has the authority to make this make this change. Correct.
Speaker 8: The city manager has the authority.
Speaker 6: Okay. And so the city manager certainly now, I guess there's a sentiment in the community that there if the council voted to if we had voted to do that, there's an unintended consequence of somehow the security circumstances that at the airport would somehow be diminished. And there's also a concern about not being federally compliant or not having a federal law enforcement official on site 24 hours. So my question is, can you, Mr. Chief, can you just speak to whether there's. I know that there's a perception, but is there anything to this? And and have you have you done any thinking about this this federal issue? Have you heard about this issue of this federal standard of a law enforcement official needing to be on site 24 hours?
Speaker 8: Councilmember Before we answer the first part, let's get to the second one. I'm going to turn it over to Gary perhaps to have that discussion. Actually, Marion, councilmembers are going to have outside counsel Irma.
Speaker 10: Rodriguez addressed the federal issue that you just raised about. Sure. The quality of it.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the council. This issue, with respect to the legality of the proposal under the homeland security regulations was first raised at the Fact-Finding Panel stage by IAM. I have carefully reviewed the cited regulations and I'm here to opine that the proposal with respect to the integration complies with those regulations. And I'll explain why the regulations generally set forth that the city or the operate in which the airport operates has a discretion to determine for itself the appropriate security program. And what it is required to do is to have an appropriate number and manner of security program that is adequate to support our security at an airport here . The city has is not changing the program. It is changing the reporting of where the ESOS currently report. There is no plan to change the number of individuals, change the number of hours and in fact has been previously testified. The program is intended to enhance security by allowing the CISOs to focus on security duties at the airport as opposed to on near the airport premises. Second, the regulations also require that those individuals who are providing these security services have to meet certain minimum qualifications and have certain training programs as to the minimum qualification they have to have the authority to arrest. Nothing in this proposal changes that authority. They will continue to meet the minimum qualification of having the authority to arrest. With respect to the training program, what the regulations provide is, again, discretion to the local agency to provide a training program that it believes satisfies its security program detail. And it says, quite frankly, that it can either be state regulations or guidelines or local agency or guidelines. The reason it is my opinion that the state regulations are satisfied is that the state agency post has determined that the CISOs do not need to be a post certified to in order to do their position. Second, our local agency, our police department, has developed a training program that they believe is best tailored to provide the training that the security officers need to provide the security services. So that is my assessment of the legal homeland security regulations.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And then the second part, someone will respond to me.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the first question? Sure.
Speaker 6: So he so much for that that explanation on. So I see some diligence have been done to that that issue. The second piece is that there's a perception that there's an unintended consequence to making this change, that somehow there is the airport is less safe. And if there is and my interest is simply if we take the bargaining process to the side, you know, and separate that because that has its own processes and it appears that's being followed, if there's an unintended consequence, consequence for safety, then I'd just like to sort of narrow the conversation and see if there's a gap. How do we just fill the gap and ensure that that the presence of safety is still there? So I guess the question is, is there a lack of service? Is there going to be a period of time where there will be no, you know, no security at the airport? Any gaps in service whatsoever?
Speaker 10: Councilman Richardson? No, the simple answer to that is no.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 10: As we move forward, the plan, the proposed integration plan that we put together utilizes the expertize of the airport security officers that we have. The airport police officers that we have, puts them under one chain of command under a police lieutenant, which was an out there before. Improves communication and coordination. Maintains regulatory compliance. And at the end of the day, when we're talking about safety, it's not only community safety but officer safety. And so we're mitigating liability. At the same time, we believe that our organizational values, our training programs, our equipment, our resources and our discipline will improve safety for everybody involved out there and make it much better than what it has been.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Love to hear from the public. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember. Councilor appears.
Speaker 3: I had first the question were at 12 or 15 oiseaux at the airport. We also have new flights coming and going. So I'm assume that we're going to have more people coming and going. And so can we get a timeline on when we expect all 27 positions to be filled regardless of this process or not?
Speaker 8: We'll be able to get you something right away, perhaps in a day or two.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then my next one is more of a comment and not a question because we're kind of dancing around it. The question of airport security for me is, one, the number of hours of training. And I appreciate the number of hours that our police chief has told us. I look forward to hearing from IAM on how many hours of training they provide. And two is just the reality that some folks, people of color, Latinos, friends just don't feel comfortable around. PD So the question for me is, are these officers going to be in security clothes? Are they going to be in PD clothes if they were to switch over?
Speaker 10: I absolutely respect the fact about the people of color, which I am one of. About the way they feel about police. That's the way I grew up in regards to uniforms. And just going back to the training. In the last several years, our police officers have received many hours in training with implicit bias, procedural justice. And I could go on and on.
Speaker 3: You know, I know you have that.
Speaker 10: We've had in regards to the uniform that the airport security officers will be wearing, the uniform itself will not change.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Look forward to public comment.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Mungo.
Speaker 4: I just want to ask another question. Is our airport safe? Currently are we meeting the standards and is our airport safe? Because I'm it's just really frustrating and irresponsible to lead the public to believe otherwise, unless it is factually.
Speaker 8: I'm going to answer that first. I'll leave it I'll leave it to the chief in a moment. And I'm looking to our interim director, Claudia Lewis. If we do not have a safe airport, we will not have an airport. Our airport would be shut down so fast if we didn't have a if we didn't have an ability to provide safety with our fire department. There are police department there working with TSA and FFA. So I just want to assure you that there is no such thing as a as an unsafe airport. If you have an unsafe airport, the airport's gone. You don't have an airport.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that. I think that it's really important to just be clear that it is still safe to travel out of Long Beach Airport. No flights have been added since 2000 and maybe 16. When we added the nine slots, we're still at 50 slots a day in and out of the airport. And so the passenger ratio and the flights and all of that has been maintained. Many of you know what the airport is in my district. Many of you also know that I am a PC a32 certified. I'm a PC eight 30.2 certified peace officer in the state of California. I'm very familiar with the training requirements. I've had extensive discussions about these changes and I had a wish we wouldn't be where we are right now. But I. I hope that in listening to the public, we can hear from them potential solutions to to make sure that we can find a way to get through this tonight.
Speaker 0: Councilman Gonzales.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you so much. And I'm of the same mindset. I think we're all here for the similar purpose, consistency and safety. First, of course. Just a couple clarifying questions, I think, to Councilman Richardson's point. You know, we did receive a letter from our Congressmember Alan Lowenthal, and I just wanted to make sure I was getting clear as to what is currently. Who currently has the authority now to arrest on in the airport. I'm just get I need to get that clear in my head as to if there's any changes once if this were to move forward what type of training. I know we've gone over it, but I need to just get that super crystal clear as to where we're at now and what this would.
Speaker 8: There would be no changes to arrests or how it operates.
Speaker 1: None whatsoever.
Speaker 8: None whatsoever. They're just BS. You would still be supervised by the police department instead of Miss Louis, so they would basically be exactly the same, except you've got someone to you differently and there will be other training opportunities.
Speaker 1: So there's no difference in authority versus PD or ESSOS right now.
Speaker 8: Well, the authority the authority would go through the police department instead of Ms.. Lewis.
Speaker 1: Right. Okay. Okay. Second question.
Speaker 0: Maybe, councilman, to stand to partly answer that question, maybe you were alluding to this. And I mean, I'm not sure if everyone is aware. So currently as it exists right now, Palm Beach PD operates out of the airport. And so currently we both have both Eso's and we have also the Long Beach Police Department. And they actually work together concurrently on airport security, along with other federal agencies, airport staff and a variety of of security measures. Of course, that's necessary with both the federal level and the local level to make security happen. And so just also want to clarify that I think there's a misconception about PD being there or not being there. And Lombard PD is on site as of course, are the the S.O. team.
Speaker 8: Aps-C trackers, 15 police officers assigned to the airport. There's 27 eso's assigned to the airport.
Speaker 12: There's.
Speaker 1: I think that's why I'm mentioning this, because I think there is a lot of confusion around that. And you're seeing we're seeing it out in the press as well. So I just want to make sure we're I know it's difficult, but, you know, just to make sure we're super clear on that, because I don't think everyone understands that necessarily. And then the second question is. Also the proposed I mean, there's a proposed schedule that would include gaps, you know, between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.. So we're saying there would not be any gaps. Again, I'm just want to make sure we're clear because it is out there. And I know, Chief, you've mentioned that that is not the case. So if you can just can continue responding to that.
Speaker 10: Councilwoman again, Councilwoman Gonzalez, thank you for that question. And it's something that keeps on coming up. Again, there were misstatements made in the press rhetoric. They're not factual. Our airport is covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And for our citizens or anyone that intends to travel through the Long Beach Airport or Long Beach Airport is absolutely safe. Are we always looking for ways to improve? Absolutely we are. But for anybody who either read or heard on the radio that we don't have any coverage between 10 p.m., 11 p.m. and 5 p.m.. If anybody out there is listening to me, watching me on television, you try to commit a crime at the Long Beach Airport. During those hours, you're going to get arrested. There's going to be consequences. That airport is safe. It's covered. It has been and it will be.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And I think, again, I'm we're going to capture that and put it somewhere, because I think everyone needs to understand that that's very important. So with that, I would just say thank you for this. I'm looking forward to hearing more as well. I needed to clarify a few things on my end because it did get a little bit hazy on on my end in understanding where we're currently at. And then what brought this forward even after, you know, we've had a lot of catastrophes in the past and now it's, you know, some time later and we want to make sure we're keeping the airport as safe as possible here in Long Beach. Those are my questions and we will move forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Austin.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'll be brief. This is a while. It seems like it's more complicated than it needs to be, in my opinion. I think I did have a couple of questions just to kind of summarize how we got here. The meeting confirmed process, whenever there is a change in policy or duties or wages and benefits, there's there's an obligation to meet and confer. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 5: Can you explain to the public and those listening what the meeting confer actually consist of?
Speaker 12: Sure. So the meeting of our process basically consist of the well, actually in this particular instance, this was a managerial decision whenever the city has the authority to make management decisions. But whenever we do so, we have to me to confer over the impacts of that actual decision. So in this particular instance that the media confer comprised of the impact of the changes as a result of PD taking oversight of the airport security officers.
Speaker 5: Okay. So during the meeting for process, obviously you met and confer with the bargaining representatives. I am.
Speaker 12: Correct. That is correct. Both I am in.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 5: How many meetings that you have in over or over what period of time?
Speaker 12: There were ten meetings, approximately eight and a half months.
Speaker 5: How long did each meeting last?
Speaker 12: Approximately about an hour and a half.
Speaker 5: Okay. And where? A proposal was exchanged.
Speaker 12: The city presented a, I believe, a total of seven. And we received one from I am.
Speaker 5: I wanted to to also discuss the existing chain of command at the airport with as a source. We've heard that they report to the airport director. But in terms of strategic security protocols and things of that nature, who do they report to now? What is the chain of command for?
Speaker 12: So currently the chain of command at the airport. The CEOs report directly to the deputy director, Mr. Juan Rios Lopez.
Speaker 5: Mr. Lopez. Well, welcome. Okay. And does he have any sort of security?
Speaker 12: No, he does not. He does not have. No, he does not have any security background or specialty or certifications.
Speaker 5: Okay. So that brings me to my next point. In terms of training existing, what type of existing training like for the skills today? What type of training do they receive to do their job and to keep our air ports safe?
Speaker 12: So currently there was a policy established in 2016 which afforded the opposed to go to post post training.
Speaker 5: Up until when it started?
Speaker 12: Well, I think they have been doing it prior to, but I believe there were varying levels between Poles wanting to. But as of 2016, they established an actual policy stating.
Speaker 5: So let me go back to the is there a supervisor, is there a a.
Speaker 10: A.
Speaker 5: Like a lieutenant? Is there a chain of command for the officials existing?
Speaker 12: Currently there's the SS. So low levels they have three and then they have for which the fourth act as supervisors. But they report directly to Mr. Lopez Rios.
Speaker 5: It's a supervisor position, not a lead position.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so the existing training you said is it was was Porte Post or is post.
Speaker 12: Correct. Currently, because we haven't we haven't moved forward in the integration. So currently it is post.
Speaker 5: And it was since 2015, there's been no training.
Speaker 12: So there haven't been any new souls to be sent to training.
Speaker 5: Okay. And if they were to go under the direction of the Long Beach PD and the chief of police, I heard the chief say that there would be more training opportunities. And that kind of concerns me a little bit because to me there it doesn't sound like there has been a whole lot of emphasis on training and perhaps the chief could answer this question should this this integration happen? What type of training would you be able to provide these employees to keep our airports safe beyond what they have already received and what they're receiving now?
Speaker 4: So one thing I'd like to clarify. So one of the things that will happen with this integration is that.
Speaker 2: Or.
Speaker 3: As we were going through the mean confer process.
Speaker 4: We also recognized that it was necessary to evaluate what type of training is appropriate for the duties that the CISOs perform. And I think that's one of the.
Speaker 3: Key things that came out.
Speaker 4: Of this process is just identifying what level of training is appropriate, and then also identifying other post certified training that could be made available to the employees. And that's what we outlined in the report. But I'll go ahead.
Speaker 2: To the chief. Sorry. You don't have to get.
Speaker 10: Councilman Austin and try and answer your questions. So in regards to the opportunities for post training, there are at least I mean, look at my notes. I don't want to get the number incorrect. There are 36 courses in the post catalog that are hopefully new employees will have an opportunity to go to in the future. And they they range from and there's a lot of really cool training. So just like our employees do, they, they, they can go into a catalog for post and look at what's proportionate to their duties and then through a supervisor approving it, we can go there. And I do want to clarify, you asked a very good question earlier and it was in regards to post training, to give you an example. A Long Beach police officer, like the ones you see sitting behind you, they get about 3000 hours of training, which is divided from a six month academy to a six month fill training officer certified program through post and then another six months of a probationary period. We do have individuals. I'd have to look at the entire background as to how it happened. I don't know how we got there, but individuals were allowed to go to post certified training. And then what ends up happening is in order to be classified by post as a peace officer, you have to enter a department that does general law enforcement to be certified with that FTO program and that probationary period. Unfortunately for our airport security officers, that's not available because they weren't part of a general law enforcement police department. So in a sense and I can fill I think I could fill with that. They're saying, man, I feel like I got cheated here. But coming if this integration gets approved, what we're going to be able to do is not only train them in perishable skills training that we afford our own employees, but we're able to identify other courses through post because they are now part of the Long Beach Police Department where their training will be enhanced.
Speaker 5: So would their in-service training be enhanced because they are part of Long Beach PD?
Speaker 10: Their training is absolutely going to improve from what they have now.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then the the other piece is the post training. Who pays for that?
Speaker 10: What we do as a police department. So that will be a I'm sorry I cut you off.
Speaker 5: That will be afforded to to these fellows as well, should they choose to, to go to various post training that may be afforded to them, that may be within the the scope of their duties.
Speaker 10: Every employee will get a piece of the pie.
Speaker 5: Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you for the clarification. And, Mr. Mayor, I'm a I'm okay with with what? Postponing the other vote. But I do think that hopefully there is some some opportunity between now and when this comes back for the I am the employee group as well as our union. I want to talk about hopefully some some amicable solutions that we can move this forward on this. This is obviously safety and airport and consistency is number one. And to the to the employees, I'll just tell you, I've taken this issue very seriously. I've talked to your leaders. Sal Vasquez is, you know, one of my favorites. I appreciate always the conversations with you. I've read your email, you section six, a memo. You is very clear. And and I do understand that that we're where the city is trying to go in terms of streamlining the operation. And so hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Ringa.
Speaker 11: Thank you. For purposes of transparency, I did have meetings with the IAM, with the city manager, with the chief of police to talk about and H.R. to talk about this very issue. And I think during all those conversations, there was no question about the integrity and the dedication that our souls have to the airport and what value they have in the security. But is it safe? But and Councilmember Austin brought up something about the meeting code, a process which also included in the remaining code for process is a change in working conditions. And I think this is what this is. Basically, it's a whole issue about working conditions, changing basically the authority or the oversight of vessels in the airport from the airport director to the chief of police. I see that as a basic premise here in terms of what the issues are. We went through fact finding because of the fact that that wasn't able to be resolved in terms of what that transition or that change would bring to the systems in the airport and the integration, if you will, of police officers into also incorporating the airport as part of their responsibilities as well. So the overall overlying issue that I see here is not so much that there's going to be a loss of pay or change of hours or a change in in in responsibilities and most importantly, a a decline or a lessening of safety for the public at our airports. I don't see that at all. This is a management problem. The management issue, it's it's one that management has a right to manage. I can understand that. I think all three of the four of the bodies that i talked to in terms of the iam and h.r. Police and city manager, we all they all understand that we all we all know that. However, it's the transition and the integration integration of PD and s so into the into one that is the issue here and that has not been resolved. So I would support going, receiving and filing this report as we have it now. As Mayor said, however, on the second motion, I think that we I also would support that as well. Give it some time. I think that the all of the by all the all the authorities concerned here need to work that out. You need to get into a point of. Yes. Where we can all get together and agree. And at one point there's going to be an agree to disagree. But I feel more comfortable knowing that you all had have have had that very focused discussion about the actual integration and what it really means in regards to the CIOs and their change in working conditions, because that's what it comes down to as far as as I see it. So just one question. What does the receiver of file motion do right now for this integration plan and follow that up with the the motion to to put it up for to sometime in May.
Speaker 8: By taking a bow tonight just to receive in follow.
Speaker 10: You're just accepting the fact that you had the final report from the venue panel and you're receiving it. You're accepting it. You're taking no further action other than that.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 10: The second vote will come later tonight. If you wish to postpone, I'm taking some formal action.
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm good.
Speaker 0: And customer super anon.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'd also like to hear public comment. But I just had one thought on when Councilman Gonzales was asking, like, can we memorialize the fact that we have security there? I just look to the year 2017 when JetBlue violated our late night noise ordinance 676 times. So that's on average, 1.85 operations per night. Guess what? Not only was there security, there we were. The airport was open by all practical purposes.
Speaker 10: So that to airport.
Speaker 6: Impacted council districts like like I represent that. That was very unnerving to hear that the airport had no security. So I'm glad to put that myth to rest. And the other question I have, and this is related to the noise ordinance.
Speaker 10: When we looked.
Speaker 6: At reworking that.
Speaker 10: We look to.
Speaker 6: Other best practices and other airports. And did the fact finding group ever do that? You know, what scenario is that Orange County or other airports? Was that part of the study?
Speaker 0: The noise.
Speaker 12: Ordinance. Can you repeat the question, please?
Speaker 6: I brought up the noise ordinance because we don't want to revisit 2017 and staff and our city attorney is looking at different systems to improve our to reduce the number of late night violations. They looked at other airports and practices at other airports regarding noise violations or rules. Did the fact finding group look at best case scenarios at other airports on the security issue and whatnot or was not not part of the study?
Speaker 12: So the fact finding panel didn't look at particularly noise ordinance, but they did look at other security initiatives.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. I guess I misspoke. Okay. I brought up the noise ordinance because it's an analogy of how.
Speaker 10: We tackle one problem.
Speaker 6: We looked at other airports, okay, now we have a security issue or a security force issue. Did we look at other airports, how they operate, what they do? Thank you.
Speaker 12: So, yes, as part of this process, we did look at other agencies as part of the fact finding process and the media confer. And there.
Speaker 4: Are.
Speaker 12: I believe there was a total of 11 other agencies that have police over security of the airport.
Speaker 6: Okay. And would you happen to know if you know what.
Speaker 10: Airports are what.
Speaker 6: Are the practices in airports similar to our size, our our community and whatnot?
Speaker 12: So the airports that we that were reviewed were Burbank, San Jose International City of L.A. International. Oakland International. John Wayne Irvine. San Diego International. So on here. I only brought five with me. Oh, I'm sorry. So Oakland, Ontario, Palm Springs International. Sacramento International, Santa Barbara and San Jose International.
Speaker 6: Okay. And the findings there are are what exactly?
Speaker 12: So the findings that all of those airports operate under the same manner in which we're proposing in which the police department have or has oversight.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you for that. I'm going to go ahead and support the motion to postpone the decision and move on to a date. Not certain, but possibly in May.
Speaker 8: Mayor, I just one clarification, please. When I said there would be one change of physical for the service, would not be allowed to make traffic stops as we go forward. They continue to be allowed to make arrests, but not traffic stops. Okay.
Speaker 0: Well, let's we have a motion in a second to receive and file the the report. So there is a motion in a second to do that. We've taken public comment on that item already, so please cast your votes.
Speaker 10: Motion carries.
Speaker 0: We have a second we have a second item here, which is to the recommended motion is that I'm making is to postpone the staff recommendation to a date in May as set by the city manager. And so there is a motion any second on that. Is there a public comment on that motion?
Speaker 10: Very good. You certainly support. Any safety measures that will ensure the safety of our airport.
Speaker 8: But I think one of the most inane.
Speaker 10: Facts. We were presented here today.
Speaker 2: Oh, it.
Speaker 10: Is. We have an.
Speaker 8: Individual whose.
Speaker 10: Will be voting on this, the security issue, who the public records indicate. Almost every week demonstrates manifest. Mental instability in addition to mental instability certified. In the Long Beach police records relative to the individual arrest and have a person like that.
Speaker 8: Weighing in.
Speaker 10: On any aspect of.
Speaker 8: Safety at an airport. Is simply.
Speaker 2: Inane.
Speaker 10: And needs to be addressed by this council. Either tonight or in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Speaker, please.
Speaker 10: Good evening, mayors, members of the council. I had some prepared remarks, but I must admit I'm somewhat confused and shocked by some of the allegations that were made here this this evening. Let's set some facts straight. The reports in the media as of late only addressed the situation if this proposal went through. If this proposal went through, the police department's proposal is to not have L-A. Excuse me. Long Beach police officers assigned to the airport between the hours, approximately, of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.. That's what was stated in the media, and that is what is stated in the proposal. It's somewhat confusing if they believe that proper security isn't available during business hours, if you will. Those would be hours between 7 a.m. and 10:59 p.m.. But after 11:00, I suppose that if somebody called 911a police unit that's traveling the the the area of the airport would respond. So that's what was stated in the media. Someone suggested that the reason that we're not up to 27 is because of this meet and confer that has been taking place for about a year. I've been here six years and we have never been north of 15 PSOs for the past six years. So it hasn't been the past few months that we have been in a meeting confer. Mr. West has an issue apparently with management not having a law enforcement background.
Speaker 0: Well, the fact is that for 35.
Speaker 10: Years there hasn't been a law enforcement overseer of the Long Beach Eso's at the airport. This has been quite well. And the reason we're here today is not because the union negotiated post training for the eso's. This was as a direct result of management. The city manager at that time, the city attorney at that time, and the person in charge of the airport over a quarter century ago coming to the union through a meet and confer process and asking us if it would be okay to send these folks to post training. Now let's talk about training. I believe that statements were made to the council that somehow training is going to be between 30 and 60 hours. This is a deficiency of the current training. The current post one training is a minimum of 660 hours. This is a training that was imposed by this city for these tests. Taking that away. Taking the authority away is an injustice. And that, we believe, will be a weakness of security. I am speaking going forward. I am not speaking currently. I also believe that the airport is safe today. I don't believe that the L4 will be safe if you reduce training from 660 hours to 30 to 60 hours. They also want to take away arrest powers, even though it was just said that they will continue arrest powers. No, they will continue arrest powers if they call 911. And if they call the police person, the red and the red lights will be transferred to amber lights. So there's a significant amount of information that's being withheld from this council, and I think it needs to be explored. I urge and recommend that an independent study of this proposal be made so that we can make an intelligent decision. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 8: And I can fe six districts stand here in support of my union brothers and sisters. I don't believe that the chain of command to be streamlined into more centralized power with the language police department. This the last time we've seen something sizable to this level was when chief of police in L.A., Mr. Bratton and then Mayor James Hahn were trying to do the same thing with the World LAX International Airport, which is not it's autonomous. It's an autonomous division. It's not under the LAPD. In regards to the current handling of our airport here. I think this issue is unfavorably speaking against the great job that the current CSO officers are doing in securing our airport , and it's undermining public morale, which is unnecessary because we have had no issues. And I'm just here to support. I, as a member of the community, am a bit suspicious of any centralization of safety in regards to our police department going under our police department. And also wary of what could be a very sizable contract in the future. You know, because I like to believe that the numbers alone we should report will be a huge one in the next 10 to 20 years. So in the short term, I think a lot of the implications of what this fact finding report is, is not speaking on is what will this look like? You know, 20 years from now, where we're talking about 12, 12 jobs. Right now, we're actually 27. We're talking about maybe, you know, in ten years, you know, Alex, they employ over 600 people. So what if one day that's going to be 600, you know, 324 officers there? What about in 20 years, 20, 30 years from now, when it's not just JetBlue who's the hub here, it's five other hubs that are here. And then we're talking about at that time, you know, obligations towards the city budget and being thrice full to accommodate police officers on the campus of the airport. So against the city, along with the police department taking over this. And I'm here in support of our current. So brothers and sisters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, these are the last two speakers. And then we're we've closed the speakers list.
Speaker 10: Hi. My name is Dan Gonzales. I'm president of Local Large 1930 representing the Special Services peace officers at the Long Beach Airport as well. My address is on file. I'm a city employee, been here almost 24 years. Currently, I'm serving as an associate with the Port of Long Beach Harbor Patrol, and my assignments are swing ship patrol as well as field training for my department. First of all, I'm going to deviate from my my thing here. I'm a little concerned about the the city manager saying that you have to be a peace officer, law enforcement, to supervise law enforcement. Isn't he the boss of the chief? But is it? It's just confusing to me. All right. Honorable Mayor Garcia and city council members. First of all, I want to express my appreciation for the complicated, complicated task you and the council have with this issue. I also want to mention my appreciation for Chief Luna and the task he has to help keep this city safe. With that said, it is my belief that the direction to lessen the training standards and duties of the so peace officers assigned to the airport is misguided. These decisions will add to city liability and require more Long Beach police officers and ultimately cost the taxpayers more. I've been part of the meet and confer process and I am deeply disturbed by what I've seen. I've seen the Long Beach PD use its influence to convince Poste to revoke certifications from our members. It wasn't an audit. They didn't just decide to audit what they were doing, and it only affected our members, not the folks that passed their FTO process and went on to other agencies. Somehow that magically didn't happen. So it has only only affected I am members. I thought that the you know, all this was done to further the political goal of the police department. I thought the police were supposed to do what's right, not what's easy. I've seen the police department use the argument that. Less training for my members will increase safety. As an instructor, I tell you. Officers do not rise to the occasion. They default to the level of their training. This is why. Your organization, Long Beach PD, has a SWAT team training weekly and not hoping that they'll just figure it out and rise to the occasion. My first eight years with the city, I proudly worked for the Long Beach Police Department as an S.O. not and I've had lots of I still have a lot of friends there. I'm really concerned about their management and the direction towards mediocrity. They're looking for the bare minimum and not not exceeding and not going higher and better. I asked the council not to approve the emotion, instead direct the management team to head in a logical, ethical and safe direction. That makes sense for everyone, including the community, we all think.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Final speaker.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is James Sweitzer. I am a third district resident and a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America Long Beach chapter. So I'm also here and proud to stand in solidarity with the hardworking city employees with I Am 1930. So I am speaking tonight in opposition to this item. And the you know, we've heard it called multiple things, you know, labor dispute, management issue. But I want to make some observations today and call it what it is, which is a takeover, and that this is an orchestrated takeover of the airport by the Long Beach Police Department . And it's no secret that this has been an effort that has been going on for years and is the you know, I can't help but also wonder that we're talking about the excesses of the airport tonight. And I'm wondering about the CISOs here at City Hall. I'm also wondering about the Eso's, just as is mentioned at the harbor department or at the Port of Long Beach as well, and wondering what comes next. But I also believe that the track records of the airport and police department should speak for themselves. And the past two years, the city of Long Beach has actually done an amazing job at touting the airport's accolades and honors. And I feel like every month I'm opening up a new article in a city newsletter or in the local media about how it's the best airport. It's the safest airport. And I think that's something to celebrate that our Long Beach airport is a community asset and it's a source of pride for the city. But meanwhile, within the first seven months of receiving the Metro policing contract, for instance, and as somebody who regularly uses the blue line to travel to L.A., the Long Beach Police Department had already killed Cesar Rodriguez within those first seven months. And by 13 months into the contract, as the Long Beach Post reported, the Long Beach Police Department was responsible for more than half of all of the arrests in the metro system, despite only policing four miles of a 98 mile system. So I want to let that sink in, because I think that speaks for itself. And knowing all of this, I can't help but wonder why we are risking the reputation of our community asset and giving more authority to the city's biggest liability. So I want to put that out there as a question, and I urge you all to I appreciate postponing this, but I ultimately want to urge you to not allow this integration to happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have a we have a motion in a second. I want to as we as we take the vote, I just want to say something which I think is important, is that I want to reiterate something I think everyone agrees agrees on, and that is that the Long Beach Airport is a wonderful, safe place that people love to travel to. And it's because of the team that is currently in place. And I personally want to thank the Palm Beach police officers that are there working every day, work really hard to keep our airport safe. And I want to thank them, Chief, the entire team, the Sasso team that is there, that work in coordination with our Long Beach Police Department and that have been doing great work. I see our CSO officers when I'm traveling in and out of the Long Beach Airport and we appreciate their work and they work alongside the TSA , the FBI that is doing work at the airport on a regular basis, and a lot of other agencies to make sure that we have a world class airport. And so to the entire team that is there. I just want to thank them for making the Long Beach Airport a really great, safe place to fly. And I will add that I appreciate whenever I go seeing our Long Beach police officers are so officers, to be very honest, always friendly, always working with folks and I think providing excellent service to the community. So thank you for the work that's been that has been happening. And and I want to thank everyone for for their interest, of course, in this issue. So please. Councilmembers Castro votes.
Speaker 2: Motion carries.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you very much. We're going to be moving on now to our next item here. On second.
Speaker 2: What's. Just. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Let me let me just real briefly, if I can have. Hearing one. I know it's very quick. We can do that really quick so we get that out of the way.
Recommendation to receive and file the Factfinding Report issued by the Factfinding Panel as part of the impasse process; and 

Adopt resolution pursuant to California Government Code Section 3505.4, authorizing the implementation of the terms of the City's Last, Best and Final Offer, described in the October 24, 2018 correspondence to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (lAM), detailing the Scope of Service on the Airport Security Division and Long Beach Police Department Integration.  (Citywide)