Boston City Council Committee on Government Operations Hearing: Ordinance Establishing Minimum Training Requirements for Unarmed Security Guards (Docket #1541) – August 11, 2026

The Boston City Council Committee on Government Operations, chaired by Vice Chair Ruti Louis Gen (At-Large), held a hearing on August 11, 2026, at 10:06 AM to discuss Docket #1541, an ordinance establishing minimum training requirements for unarmed security guards. The meeting included opening statements from councilors, testimony from the administration (Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections), an advocate panel led by 32BJ SEIU, and public testimony from industry representatives, security officers, small business owners, and community members. No votes were taken; the hearing was the first step in a process expected to include future working sessions.

Opening Statements

• Councillor Henry Santana (Lead Sponsor): Emphasized that public safety begins with preparedness. Noted that unarmed security guards serve on front lines in hospitals, residential buildings, businesses, and public spaces, yet Boston currently has no minimum training requirements. Stated the ordinance is about public safety, worker protection, and ensuring workers are properly prepared.
• Councillor Aaron Murphy: Expressed general support for worker training but raised concerns about the 40-hour initial in-person training requirement, 8-hour annual training, employer-paid tuition and wages, annual permitting, and penalties of $300 per guard per day. Asked whether small business security owners had been invited to speak and suggested another hearing may be needed if the other side is not heard.
• Councillor Ed Flynn: Expressed strong support based on his experience as a probation officer and part-time security worker at a hospital. Stressed the need for critical training and respect for unarmed security guards.
• Council President Liz Braden: Voiced total support for the ordinance, stating minimum training elevates skills and preparedness, enhances safety for workers and the public, and hopes the council moves forward in a timely way.
• Councillor Sharon Durkin: Noted she hears concerns about the ordinance from her district (West End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Fenway, Mission Hill). Questioned the broadness of the language, potential small business impacts, and the need for more process and hearings.
• Councillor Fitzgerald: Supported workers’ right to unionize and standards, looked forward to learning more and asking questions.
• Councillor Ben Weber: Emphasized that unarmed security work is part of the public safety landscape, appreciated feedback from industry, and wanted to work in partnership to make the ordinance better.
• Councillor Reverend Minute Culpepper: Stated there is broad agreement on the gap but wanted to understand operationalization, implementation, and lessons from Philadelphia.

Administration Testimony

• Lou Mendarini (Senior Advisor for Labor Policy): Noted the administration had only received the ordinance recently and had not fully analyzed it. Expressed support in concept for training on Narcan administration, de-escalation, and dealing with addiction issues. Highlighted economic mobility benefits of a uniform training standard. Stated the administration needs to engage with industry and other cities (e.g., Philadelphia) to understand implementation requirements.
• Jody Sugarman Brazen (Deputy Chief of Worker Empowerment): Supported earn-and-learn models and portable credentials. Admitted the office is small (3 staff plus herself) and would need to assess capacity and timeline for implementation. Stressed the importance of consulting workers, employers, and other stakeholders.

Advocate Panel Testimony

• Kevin Brown (Executive Vice President, 32BJ SEIU New England): Representing 22,000 service workers in New England, including 1,800 unarmed security officers in Boston. Strongly supported the ordinance. Noted that 61% of security officers identify as Black. Described incidents of violence (e.g., stabbing at Boston Medical Center) and high turnover. Argued that 40-hour initial and 8-hour annual training is a starting point to professionalize the workforce. Noted that the 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training Fund already provides such training in New York and New Jersey and could do so in Boston if employers paid $312 per year per worker.
• Stanley Watching III (Security Officer, 32BJ Member): Testified that he received no training when starting at Boston Public Library, then only a few hours before transfer to Faneuil Hall. Described responding to fights, mental health crises, and other emergencies without preparation. Urged training before crises happen.
• Tanya Powell Brown (Security Officer, 32BJ Member, Boston Public Library): Stated she received online and basic training but that it was insufficient. Recounted dealing with overdose needles, fights, hatchet attacks, and other incidents where police response is delayed. Supported standardized training.
• Jeff Franchetti (Student, Northeastern University): Spoke as a beneficiary of security guards on campus. Argued that guards are essential for student safety and should have proper training.
• Sam Rodriguez (Security Officer, Northeastern University, 32BJ Member): Described receiving mostly online video training with no hands-on practice (e.g., CPR without dummies). Stated officers are often first responders and need in-person training.
• Rob Cook (Policy Fellow, 32BJ, virtual testimony): Addressed concerns about state preemption (not an issue since state has no unarmed guard training requirements), part-timers (existing employees have 6 months, new employees 3 months to complete training), and the role of officers as eyes and ears – noted they wear uniforms and people look to them in emergencies, so training like CPR and de-escalation saves lives.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Erby Duvernay (CEO, One Worker Group, security company employing ~200): Opposed the ordinance as drafted. Argued it would hurt small and disadvantaged businesses and part-time workers (students, immigrants, those seeking extra income). Stated his career started without a checklist – he received orientation and on-the-job training. Criticized that minority-owned companies were not invited to the panel. Urged the council to hear from all sides.
• Steve Amate (Executive Director, National Association of Security Companies, NASCO): Opposed the ordinance. Noted NASCO members already provide on-the-job and site-specific training. Argued the 40-hour requirement is too high and would deter entry into the field. Pointed to Philadelphia’s similar law which initially required 12 hours but is still not implemented after 5 months. Estimated Minnesota would need 8 full-time staff and over $1 million to implement 40-hour training. Warned that requiring training to intervene in violent situations could expose officers and companies to liability.
• Gregory Maynard (Executive Director, Boston Policy Institute): Questioned why the hearing was held so quickly (docket filed August 5, hearing August 11). Pointed out that 30 other dockets in Government Operations Committee and 25 in Public Safety Committee (chaired by the lead sponsor) had not been scheduled, including a public safety briefing demanded unanimously on July 8. Argued the council should prioritize other pressing issues.
• David (Owner of a security company, grew from ground up): Opposed the ordinance’s current form. Said added costs would be passed to clients, potentially causing them to go in-house, hurting small companies. Noted he learned about the hearing late and asked for more time for employer input.
• Liam O’Connell (Attorney, representing Securitas Security Services): Opposed the ordinance as presented. Noted 41 states require training at the state level, not city. Cited Philadelphia scaling back from 40 to 12 hours and grandfathering existing training. Argued the ordinance pushes private security toward a quasi-public safety role, exposing officers to liability without immunity.
• Terry Williams (President/CEO, One United Bank): Opposed the ordinance. Hires small local security firms for branches with limited responsibility. Stated he wants guards to call police, not intervene, to avoid risk to employees and customers. Argued the ordinance would reduce flexibility and increase costs.

Discussion Items

• Implementation and Capacity: Multiple councilors questioned whether the city has the infrastructure to certify training providers, issue permits, and enforce penalties. Administration acknowledged they need more time to assess capacity, consult with Philadelphia and other cities, and conduct stakeholder outreach. The Office of Worker Empowerment has only 4 staff members.
• Training Provider Requirements: The ordinance requires training to be provided only by a federally tax-exempt organization, not controlled by a security employer, and exclusively in-person. Councilors questioned why for-profit or hybrid training is excluded. Administration noted the requirement may be adjusted in working sessions.
• Definition and Scope: Councilors asked whether the ordinance covers all security guards (definition of “security employer” includes those employing 2+ guards at a covered property) and whether it applies to part-time workers, student workers, and concierge roles. Administration clarified it applies to workers in Boston, estimated at about 9,000 unarmed security guards.
• Cost and Economic Impact: Concerns raised about burden on small businesses, pass-through costs to clients, and potential reduction in security coverage. Advocates argued that standardizing training levels the playing field and costs (employers pay $312 per worker per year in New York) become part of the contract. The cost of not training was described as “priceless.”
• Role of Security Officers: Some industry representatives worried that training might encourage guards to intervene in dangerous situations, exposing them to liability. Advocates countered that guards already find themselves in harm’s way and need basic skills like CPR and de-escalation.
• Timeline and Urgency: Several councilors noted that the hearing was scheduled quickly after filing. Councillor Flynn asked why the urgency. Councillor Santana explained he had been away and the filing was scheduled after his return. He confirmed he does not want to rush and expects working sessions.
• Stakeholder Outreach: Multiple councilors emphasized the need to hear from small and minority-owned security businesses, non-union workers, hospitals, schools, and other institutions. Administration stated they have begun conversations but have not yet contacted all relevant groups (e.g., Beckma, minority business associations). Advocates argued the ordinance was created in consultation with workers and the union, but small business owners felt excluded.

Key Outcomes

• No votes taken. The hearing was informational and exploratory.
• Commitment to further working sessions. Vice Chair Louis Gen and lead sponsor Santana indicated the ordinance will undergo additional working sessions to refine language and address concerns raised.
• Administration will conduct due diligence: The Office of Labor Compliance and Worker Protections will consult with Philadelphia, New York, and other cities, and engage with industry stakeholders, workers, and employers to develop a realistic implementation plan.
• Written comments will be accepted: The committee will receive written testimony via email (ccc.go@boston.gov) to be made part of the record.
• Next steps: A second hearing or working session is expected. No deadline for passage was set.

Notable Statistics and Facts Mentioned

• Approximately 9,000 unarmed security guards work in Boston.
• 61% of security officers in Boston identify as Black (per 32BJ).
• The ordinance proposes 40 hours of initial in-person training and 8 hours of annual training, employer-paid.
• Penalties of $300 per guard per day for noncompliance.
• The 32BJ Thomas Shortman Training Fund in New York costs $312 per worker per year (employer-paid) and trains 20,000 officers annually.
• Philadelphia’s similar law reduced from 40 to 12 hours; implementation is still pending after 5 months.
• Massachusetts does not require any training for unarmed security guards, unlike most states.