Attendees: Kathy Black, Louise Carpino, Judy Hoover,
Rita Urwitz, Mark Whitlock, Jerry Roseman, Barry
Scott,, Kendall Banks, Lavar Clarke, Mike Rudman,
Prudence Rembert, Scott Edwards
1. Barry Scott announced that Francine Locke had
left Risk Management to go to work for the School
District of Philadelphia and will, hopefully, be
replaced by Doua Xiong (waiting for approval). In
addition, Scott Edwards and Lavar Clarke were "introduced" and
will be working with Risk on health and safety projects
and evaluations;
2. There was a long discussion about the Heat Stress
Policy document that the union believed had already
been agreed to - instead, Barry & Kendall introduced
2 "new" & "revised" drafts;
the Policy was divided into 2 separate documents
- Thermal Comfort Policy & Heat Stress Policy
- the reason given for the substantial change was
that the document was presented, just recently, to
the Managing Director's Office and the Office of
Labor Relations where it ran into problems. According
to Barry, comments from the DofLR expressed the feeling
that perhaps this policy (the one that had been negotiated
for months and months and discussed, reviewed and
agreed to by all parties) reflected a "new" direction
entirely and one that would be very difficult to
enforce and seemed, possibly, to be at odds with
the history of past negotiation on this issue. Kathy
and others were dismayed by this point of view and
expressed the observation that throwing such a monkey
wrench into the works at this late date seemed like
bad faith negotiating and that the City's current
position was too unclear to permit a reasonable response.
There was a demand that more specificity be provided
and that details of changes be made very clear. Barry
Scott promised a response by 6/16/05;
3. Bomb Scare Policy - The most recent version
will be adopted for all city- owned and operated
buildings and will serve as a "model" for
those buildings in which the city is a tenant. Risk
Management is comfortable with the policy as
Minutes – Risk Management/AFSCME DC47 – June 9, 2005 2.
now drafted - they have reviewed the policy details
with the Managing Director and with Public Property
and Scott and Kendall met with the Police Department's
Bomb Squad and Tactical Unit in an effort to better
understand the "real-world" on-the-ground
response and approach. The general outline of the
policy follows:
a. On receiving a bomb threat the PD Bomb Squad
Unit will be contacted and an evaluation and inspection
immediately begun under the control of the PD. No
widespread notification nor evacuation will implemented
based solely on the receipt of a threat but decisions
will be made on a case-by-case basis;
b. An inspection will be undertaken utilizing designated
employees/managers in the building who might better
be able to identify items, containers, etc., that
are suspicious or out of place; and
c. The credibility of each threat, as well as the
response undertaken, will be based on the specificity
of the information provided and on specific details
provided regarding any explosive device.
This type of response, that is without giving widespread
notification to building occupants immediately following
the receiving of a bomb threat and the decision to
not immediately implement evacuation procedures,
is based on the history and current reality of bomb
threat situations in Philadelphia. Over the last
35 years there has been only 1 physical device actually
found in a building following a bomb threat despite
the fact that dozens or hundreds of bomb threats
have been received during that same time. Bomb threat
calls increase whenever there is a similar act of
violence elsewhere and are not particularly related
to actual threat. Further, it has been concluded
that City of Philadelphia facilities are not at very
high risk of attack and that in most instances where
an explosive device is actually detonated, no advance
warning is given. Therefore, it is thought that the
threat level is exceedingly low.
Some concerns raised by committee members, Mark
Whitlock particularly, included:
* Asking employees to help or be responsible for
inspecting their work areas and thereby placing them
at unnecessary additional risk;
* The inconsistency in response - sometimes one or two or more floors
will be evacuated but others will be required to remain - this breeds
an environment of fear, mistrust and anger; and
* The decision to not inform building occupants of the nature and details
of the bomb threat at a very early stage; instead they would find out
only after the police arrived and even then in a piecemeal fashion
Barry responded by stating that the policy was intended to bring together
the best available information and approaches to a difficult problem
and that there would be training and identification of floor captains
to aid in the inspection process ONLY of their own/immediate work
areas. Volunteers would be sought and no one would be required to
act as an "inspector." Barry then asked that there be union
review and specific comments and feedback about the policy.;
4. Unpaid Medical Bills - This problem is still
lingering and is now more than 2 years old. Barry
acknowledged the issue and asked Kathy to continue
to contact Prudence as specific cases arise and he
also committed to going back to the Law Department
again, to get them to be more aggressive in pursuing
the outstanding payment claims. Union members, who
have been injured or are suffering with illnesses,
are being dunned and are seeing their credit ruined
for something that is not their obligation or responsibility
and the union insisted that the city push harder
to resolve the issue and to protect their employees.
Jerry suggested that the city write letters to the
3 major credit reporting services on behalf of employees
whose credit has been or may become adversely affected,
explaining that the individuals are not at fault
and that the debts are not theirs. Barry said he
would pursue that suggestion as well;
5. Referrals for Counseling - Union stated that
there was insufficient direction being given to providers
regarding referrals for counseling services. Barry
responded, initially, by saying that no letter had
been sent because "that was not how the city
related to providers." He said that people seek
medical care in two ways - in the emergency room
or in a Provider-managed clinic. Kathy said that
the union had asked for, and she thought that Barry
had agreed to provide, a letter specifically addressing
the counseling referral issue. Barry agreed to draft
and send such a letter at the next Medical Director
meeting on 8/1/05;
6. Hahnemann Issues - Kathy stated that so far there
has been a low complaint level from those seeking
care at Hahnemann and Barry announced that a new,
and certified in occupational medicine, physician
named Francis Burke had replaced Dr. Foster;
7. Transportation Provisions - Prudence will distribute
a 1 paragraph policy (by 6/10) that will be sent
to Kathy and will be addressed to Ward directing
them about the transportation policy;
8. Secondary employment for non-IOD disabled employees
- this was discussed and Judy raised concerns about
Dennis Norwood's views and approaches to resolving
this issue. To date there has been no satisfactory
response although Barry agreed to pursue the issue
and get back to the union;
9. Green Cleaning Products - Kathy asked for an
update and Kendall said they were still working on
it - he committed to talking to Public Property about
using "greener", "safer" products.
In response to Judy's complaints re: cleanliness
at MSB, Barry explained that Lavar would work with
the EPA and others to develop a "green" approach
at MSB and at other sites
* At new facilities, Barry stated, a "Green" approach has
been implemented;
* At the YSC there is an attempt to consider environmentally friendly
design (Risk participated in meetings with YSC and offered comments
and suggestions related to more environmentally acceptable products
and approaches); and
10. Workplace Violence (Judicial District) - Louise
described the situation as worsening with harassing
phone calls and employee concerns about violence.
The union approached management but received no real
interest in working on or listening to employee concerns
and complaints about the issue. The union asked Barry
and Risk to get involved in trying to find someone
in management who would be willing to take the issue
seriously and to try to come up with some recommendations
and solutions. We discussed the First Judicial District’s
obligation to provide a Safety Program under the
Workers’ Comp Law. Risk agreed that the Courts
have the same obligation as any other Department,
and that failure to have a Safety Program threatens
the City’s self-insured status. So far, Risk
has not held a safety audit at FJD as they have in
other large departments. Louise will send Barry details
about the documented incidences, and Rita will send
information to Barry about approaches and ideas that
can be used to control workplace violence.
The next meeting date was set for Thursday, September
29, 2005 at 10 am.
