Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEEBUDGET HEARING
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICEOFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATE CAPITOLHARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
ROOM 140, MAJORITY CAUCUS ROOM
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 201710:00 A.M.
BEFORE:HONORABLE STANLEY SAYLOR, MAJORITY CHAIRMANHONORABLE JOSEPH MARKOSEK, MINORITY CHAIRMANHONORABLE KAREN BOBACKHONORABLE JIM CHRISTIANAHONORABLE SHERYL DELOZIERHONORABLE GEORGE DUNBARHONORABLE GARTH EVERETTHONORABLE KEITH GREINERHONORABLE SETH GROVEHONORABLE MARCIA HAHNHONORABLE SUE HELMHONORABLE WARREN KAMPFHONORABLE FRED KELLERHONORABLE JERRY KNOWLESHONORABLE DUANE MILNEHONORABLE JASON ORTITAYHONORABLE MIKE PEIFERHONORABLE JEFF PYLEHONORABLE MARGUERITE QUINNHONORABLE BRAD ROAEHONORABLE JAMIE SANTORAHONORABLE CURT SONNEYHONORABLE KEVIN BOYLEHONORABLE TIM BRIGGSHONORABLE DONNA BULLOCKHONORABLE MARY JO DALEYHONORABLE MADELEINE DEANHONORABLE MARIA DONATUCCIHONORABLE MARTY FLYNN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
(CONT'D.)
HONORABLE PATTY KIMHONORABLE STEPHEN KINSEYHONORABLE LEANNE KRUEGER-BRANEKYHONORABLE MIKE O'BRIENHONORABLE MARK ROZZIHONORABLE PETER SCHWEYER
MAJORITY NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
HONORABLE RON MARSICOHONORABLE BARRY JOZWIAKHONORABLE DAVE ZIMMERMANHONORABLE TEDD NESBITHONORABLE TODD STEPHENSHONORABLE ADAM HARRISHONORABLE MATT DOWLING
MINORITY NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
HONORABLE JOE PETRARCAHONORABLE PAUL COSTAHONORABLE MORGAN CEPHASHONORABLE PERRY WARRENHONORABLE ED NEILSONHONORABLE DOM COSTA
COMMITTEE STAFF:
DAVID DONLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (R)RITCHIE LAFAVER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (R)MIRIAM FOX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (D)TARA TREES, CHIEF COUNSEL (D)
TRACY L. MARKLE,COURT REPORTER/NOTARY PUBLIC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
INDEX TO TESTIFIERS
NAME PAGE
COLONEL TYREE C. BLOCKER, COMMISSIONER 5PA STATE POLICE
LT. COLONEL STEPHEN BUCAR, 26DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAFFPA STATE POLICE
LT. COLONEL LISA CHRISTIE --DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATIONAND PROFESSIONAL LIABILITYPA STATE POLICE
MAJOR ROBERT EVANCHICK --ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF OPERATIONSPA STATE POLICE
MAJOR DIANE STACKHOUSE, 37DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF COMMUNICATIONSAND INFORMATION SERVICESPA STATE POLICE
WILLIAM BOX, DIRECTOR OF THE FISCAL DIVISION --PA STATE POLICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
---oOo---
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Good morning,
everyone. A reminder to everybody to please
have their cell phones on vibrate or turned off.
To the Commissioner and the others, if you would
speak directly into the mike, the hearing is
being transcribed remotely, so that they can
hear everything.
I wanted to announce some of the guest
members who are not members of the Appropriation
Committee that are here today. I have
Representative Cephas, Chairman Petrarca,
Chairman Paul Costa, Representative Perry
Warren, Representative Ed Neilson,
Representative Barry Jozwiak, Representative Ron
Marsico are here. Also, we have Representative
Dowling here as well.
Before we start today, I wanted to
recognize that Colonel Blocker dedicated his
written testimony today and opening remarks to
Trooper Landon Weaver, who was shot and killed
in the line of duty in December.
Our brave men and women in law
enforcement throughout our Commonwealth
regularly put their lives on the line to keep us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
safe, and therefore I'd like to begin this
hearing this morning with a moment of silence in
remembrance of Trooper Landon Weaver and all the
men and woman who serve the State Police.
(Moment of silence.)
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: All right.
Commissioner, I want to welcome you this morning
to the hearing. For those that are going to
testify, would you rise and raise your right
hand to be sworn in?
(All testifiers sworn en masse.)
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you
very much. And, Commissioner, you may start
with any opening remarks that you have.
MR. BLOCKER: Very good. Good morning,
Chairman Saylor, Chairman Markosek, and members
of the House Appropriations Committee. As the
Chairman indicated, I'm Colonel Tyree Blocker,
Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police.
With me today is Deputy Commissioner of
Staff, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Bucar; the
Deputy Commissioner of Administration and
Professional Responsibility, Lieutenant Colonel
Lisa Christie; and the acting Commissioner of
Operations, Major Robert Evanchick.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Also with me today is the Director of
the Bureau of Communication and Information
Services, Major Diane Stackhouse and Director of
our Fiscal Division, Mr. William Box.
As Chairman Saylor indicated, we
dedicated this testimony today to Trooper Landon
Weaver, who on December 30th, 2016 became the
97th member of the Pennsylvania State Police to
lay down his life in pursuit of safeguarding the
citizens and visitors to our great Commonwealth.
We are grateful to Governor Wolf and
members of the General Assembly for their
steadfast commitment to public safety and ardent
support of the Pennsylvania State Police
operations.
Furthermore, I would also like to thank
the citizens of Pennsylvania for their
unwavering support and kindness they have
demonstrated toward the State Police. Our
department is one of the most comprehensive
providers of professional police services in the
country.
We are the tenth largest police agency
in the nation and the third largest
internationally accredited law enforcement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
agency in the world. Currently, we patrol 82
percent of the land area of the Commonwealth and
60 percent of the highways, including all of our
interstates.
Last year, Troopers made over 70,000
criminal arrests and issued over 600,000 traffic
citations. Additionally, Troopers made 19,701
arrests for driving under the influence of
alcohol and drugs.
The State Police provides either
full-time or part-time police protection to
1,703 municipalities in this great Commonwealth.
In addition, we also deliver specialty services
to municipal police agencies at no cost.
Several of the many services include drug
identification, DNA analysis, and latent
fingerprint examination at our seven crime
laboratories.
The Pennsylvania State Police is
legislatively mandated to provide police
services to municipalities that do not have
their own police department, as well as those
municipalities that do have their own police
department but request our services.
The demand for State Police services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
continues to grow. For example, last year,
members of the State Police played a major role
in planning and providing security in and around
the city of Philadelphia during the National
Democratic Convention and in western
Pennsylvania during the US Open Golf Tournament.
We would like, again, to thank Governor
Wolf for his commitment to ensuring that public
safety is upheld throughout the Commonwealth, as
demonstrated in his proposal to fund three cadet
classes in 2017, which will send approximately
300 cadets through our training academy. That's
very important for the Agency going forward.
The funding of regularly occurring cadet
classes is of paramount importance to the State
Police and we would like to extend our gratitude
again to the Governor, members of this
Committee, and the General Assembly for
appreciating the critical nature of this need
and supporting our fiscal requirements in the
past.
As of February 13th, 2017, there were
497 vacant enlisted positions within the State
Police. There is also the possibility the
Department may see a significant number of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
retirements in the future, creating a condition
where the flow of recent Academy graduates does
not keep up with our attrition levels. While it
is difficult to predict the number of
retirements, it should be noted this scenario
produces a level of uncertainty over our ability
to maintain adequate staffing levels.
We are continuing our efforts to recruit
qualified individuals who are reflective of
Pennsylvania's diverse communities. The State
Police provides a range of other services in
addition to patrolling and solving crime. The
safety and efficiency of Troopers and municipal
police officers is greatly enhanced by unique
elements within the State Police.
These specialty units are staffed by
highly-trained members of the Department, many
of whom provide this service in addition to
their primary functions of patrol and criminal
investigation unit members.
Some of the most visible of these are
the Special Emergency Response Team, better
known as SERT; the Sexual Offender Registry or
Megan's Law; the state crime labs; the
Pennsylvania Access To Criminal History, better
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
known as PATCH; and the Pennsylvania Instant
Check System, better known as PICS. Our elite
cert unit is increasingly being called upon to
assist trooper operations and municipal police
departments across the entire state with an
average of 237 requests for services a year.
Many of those activations were for
highly volatile situations involving barricaded
gunmen or a high-risk warrant service. Another
highly-trained specialty unit increasingly being
called upon by local law enforcement agencies is
our Hazardous Device and Explosive Section,
commonly known as the bomb squad.
This unit responds to statewide requests
for suspicious packages, as improvised explosive
devices, and discovered military ordnance. Our
Clandestine Lab Response Team is the only one of
its kind in the Commonwealth and has the
unenviable task of collecting evidence and
conducting clean-up functions for all suspected
elicit drug labs.
Last year, our PATCH Unit received and
responded to 1,818,509 requests for criminal
history checks. Of those, 508,000 were for
volunteer criminal history checks provided at no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
cost. Despite the enormous number of PATCH
requests, our personnel assigned to the PATCH
Unit were up to the challenge and worked
diligently to ensure backlogs and turnaround
time remained reasonable.
In 2016, our PICS Unit conducted over
1.1 million firearm background checks which
resulted in 13,196 denials. Denials may occur
for a number of reasons, including convictions
of certain crimes as enumerated in Section 6105
of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, the existence
of a Protection From Abuse Order disqualifying
federal criteria, including certain indictments
and prior disqualifying mental-health
commitments.
In 2016, the Pennsylvania Instant Check
System committed 37,716 disqualifying
mental-health records for inclusion in the
National Instant Check System index. The total
number of mental-health records submitted to the
National Instant Check System now exceeds
800,000, with Pennsylvania among the highest
contributors nationwide.
Last year, PICS referred over 6400 cases
to State Police troops and municipal police
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
departments for investigation of potential
violation of the Pennsylvania Uniformed Crimes
Act that came to light during the background
check process. As of now, over 700 of those
referrals are being prosecuted.
The Commonwealth's strategic geographic
location and converging interstate highway
system provides access to major cities,
airports, and one of the largest seaports along
the eastern seaboard. Unfortunately, it also
presents a natural conduit for the illegal
trafficking of contraband and illegal drugs.
As such, the State Police recognizes the
importance of having the capability to detect
and intercept such unlawful activities. One way
in which the State Police accomplishes this is
through our Bureau of Criminal Investigations
Safe Highway Initiative through Effective Law
Enforcement and Detection Program. The acronym
for that is SHIELD.
The SHIELD Unit consists of full-time
teams operating out of six locations across the
Commonwealth. The teams conduct their
enforcement efforts on major highways throughout
Pennsylvania.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
In 2016, the SHIELD Unit interdicted
over 41 kilograms of cocaine, 24 kilograms of
heroin, 1080 pounds of processed marijuana, and
30 kilograms of synthetic marijuana, as well as
various amounts of both prescription and other
illegal drugs.
They made 135 criminal arrests, seized
over $1.1 million in cash, 10 vehicles, 34
firearms, and captured 11 fugitives from
justice.
As you know, Opioid abuse continues to
be a problem in Pennsylvania. Treatment,
education, and enforcement are necessary
elements in combatting this epidemic. The State
Police have worked diligently and in concert
with a variety of other state agencies, as well
as community groups to attack this issue.
All patrol units are outfitted with
Naloxone, a drug, as you know, used to reverse
the effects of Opioids in overdose incidents.
Since implementing our Naloxone program in April
of 2015, 70 lives have been saved through our
members' deployment of the drug.
The State Police provides drug education
to schools and community groups through a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
variety of presentations. In addition, we have
developed a three-prong strategy against the
heroin epidemic, consisting of interdiction,
investigation, and as I indicated, our Naloxone
program.
Enforcement initiatives are conducted in
order to attempt to interdict the flow of heroin
into the Commonwealth. In 2016, Troopers
confiscated 117 pounds of heroin with an
estimated street value of $21 million.
Investigations into the identification and
eventual criminal prosecution of responsible
dealers in heroin overdose death are
aggressively pursued.
Our Bureau of Criminal Investigation
operates the Commonwealth's federally designated
all-hazards fusion center, also known as the
Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center or
PaCIC.
PaCIC disseminates vital information to
keep police officers and citizens safe, as well
as aiding in protecting critical infrastructure
and key resources in the Commonwealth.
PaCIC has been nationally recognized
with awards for excellence in service provided.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
In 2016, it received nearly 1600 tips associated
with a wide variety of topics, including those
associated with suspected terrorism, drug
dealers, and the location of fugitives.
All of these tips were investigated by
either members of the State Police or allied
agencies. The Center is staffed by 44 analysts
and supervisors, along with representatives from
a host of state and federal law enforcement
agencies and all-hazard partners, including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Department of Homeland Security.
Last year, PaCIC received 37,490
requests for information from federal, state,
and local agencies. As a response to these
requests, our analysts completed over 57,000
products for these agencies, enhancing and
furthering their investigation.
PaCIC remains a national model for
information sharing by providing law enforcement
agencies consolidated archived public
information, situational awareness reports,
investigative material, and criminal
information.
One of the pillars of 21st Century
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
policing involves the use of technology. Though
the Pennsylvania State Police is frequently a
leader in the adoption of cutting-edge law
enforcement technologies, we continue to seek
ways to improve in this area in order to best
serve members of the community more effectively
and efficiently.
As an agency, we've identified a need to
update the manner in which we capture
investigative data and are continuing the
process of rolling out a state-of-the-art
records management system.
This system is able to capture and share
information from the initial request for State
Police services throughout the entire span of an
investigation. This electronic capture and
analysis of data will greatly enhance the
investigative capabilities and efficiencies of
our personnel.
Members of the Appropriations Committee,
I am certain you will remain conscious of the
demanding process on which you are about to
embark. However, I would be remiss if I failed
to note how crucial it is that the State Police
be adequately funded.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
Officer safety could be negatively
impacted by cuts in programs such as our
statewide radio system initiative. Moreover,
our budget is driven primarily by personnel
costs. And decreases to the State Police budget
would likely result in future cadet classes
being eliminated.
Should that occur, the State Police's
ability to provide the citizens of this great
Commonwealth with the quality of services they
deserve and have come to expect would be
negatively impacted.
Governor Wolf has proposed a $25 per
person fee for municipalities which currently
rely on the Pennsylvania State Police for
full-time police coverage.
Fiscal analysis of field expenditures
show cost estimates for the State Police to
provide full-time police services to over 1200
municipalities to be approximately $600 million
annually or around $234 per capita. It should,
however, be noted this amount does not include
indirect costs such as administrative overhead
or special police functions, like aviation
assets, canine, or many of the other various
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
services I've previously discussed.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I am honored to
serve as Commissioner of one of the finest law
enforcement agencies in the nation. The men and
women of the Pennsylvania State Police are
faithful servants to the citizens of this
Commonwealth and perform their duties with the
utmost integrity, professionalism, and courage.
They represent a rare breed of brave
individuals who have taken an oath and are
willing to lay down their lives rather than
swerve from the path of duty.
Thank you for allowing me to address
your Committee. My staff and I will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Markosek.
MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: Thank you,
Chairman. Just very briefly, Commissioner; we
are very honored to have you here today, you and
your colleagues, and we appreciate all the fine
work you do.
And just to echo a little bit about what
you said at the end of your remarks there, yes,
you need to be adequately funded and better
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
funded, quite frankly, in my opinion. And you
mentioned the Governor's proposal. And I guess
my comments are more for my colleagues on this
side of the table than they are for you and your
colleagues on that side of the table, is that we
need to find you additional funding.
You mentioned that you cover about
two-thirds of the land area of the state, the
municipalities. About a third of the population
of the state is covered -- don't have local
police and have State Police and have State
Police coverage. You mentioned doing some
things for municipalities at no cost. There is
a cost, and somebody has to pay that. And, you
know, it's not really fair for municipalities to
have their local police forces and, in many
cases, like mine where I live, paying, you know,
a big part of their local budget for police
coverage and then also having to subsidize
police coverage in other municipalities.
So I applaud the Governor for -- and you
mentioned, I think it was $240 a head is what
the costs come to. He's proposed $25. So I'll
call it a start. And I applaud him for at least
coming forward with that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
We need to start that conversation.
That just has to happen. As a former Chairman
of the Transportation Committee, we can just no
longer use the Motor License Fund the way we
have for a lot of these things; because that was
put there for roads and bridges. So we need to
-- our -- again, I'm speaking to my colleagues
on this side of the table. We need to really
think about that seriously and find funding for
you and perhaps make the people that are using
some of your services pay their fair share.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: We've been
joined by Chairman Harris, Representative
Zimmerman, Representative Nesbit, and
Representative Stephens.
And with that, we will move to our first
questioner, Representative Delozier.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I'm over here (indicating). You guys
are going to get tired of going back and forth,
back and forth. I have a bunch of questions,
and I appreciate you being here to answer these
questions.
Looking at the budget and you talked
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
about how you guys are stretched so thin. And
my question goes to that in the sense of an area
that might be not necessary any longer. So the
ability for Troopers to protect our casinos;
that is in the Gaming Law, obviously, and I know
that you're required to do so.
So my question is, how many Troopers are
at the casinos at this point with, I believe,
the 12 that we have open?
MR. BLOCKER: Thank you for that
question. Currently, we have 11 Troopers per
casino. That's a total of 132 that are tasked
with ensuring that there is order at those
particular locations. Their mission is designed
to enforce the gaming laws.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Correct.
Okay. And are those 132 -- are those -- is a
lot of the time, is it straight time or is there
a lot of overtime with those officers? Or
Troopers, sorry.
MR. BLOCKER: That really depends on the
particular incident that may unfold at any given
time. My sense is that the --
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: What have you
seen so far -- kind of thing?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
MR. BLOCKER: The majority of their time
is straight time.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay.
MR. BLOCKER: Just providing assistance
when and where necessary to address gaming law
violations.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay. And
what is the biggest issue that those Troopers
deal with?
MR. BLOCKER: There are a number of
Crimes Code violations that occur on the gaming
floor.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Yeah, and I
don't mean to interrupt. And I apologize,
because we only have five minutes. But the
ability for -- the largest one, what is the
biggest issue that comes up time and time and
time again? Because I know there's lots of
different things that people who have a few
extra drinks might be doing.
MR. BLOCKER: It runs the gamut. Just
to give you a ballpark figure, in 2016, State
Police investigated 3700 crimes in the casino,
from theft to disorderly conduct; it runs the
gamut.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay. Most of
them are fairly minor? I mean, we're not having
murders in our casinos or anything like that,
correct?
MR. BLOCKER: No, we are not.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay.
MR. BLOCKER: And just to be clear,
Representative, with the 132 figure we gave,
that's just Troopers. The total is 141 when you
talk about supervisors.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay. And the
ability for us -- and the reason I bring it up,
primarily, is because they do have their own
security. We have local law enforcement in most
of the situations where they are located and we
need Troopers on the street. We need Troopers
to be doing the many important things that you
had listed that they do.
And I guess would you support
changing -- and I know it's a legislative
issue -- changing that to allow for the locals
and their security to handle it and remove those
Troopers and put them back on the street?
MR. BLOCKER: Representative, we look at
this situation as working with the Legislature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
in terms of where they believe Troopers need to
play an integral part in a particular industry.
We do it. We have Liquor Control Enforcement.
We have Gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: That's my next
question.
MR. BLOCKER: My sense is, there isn't
anything that the Pennsylvania State Police
cannot do.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Absolutely.
And I --
MR. BLOCKER: It's just a matter of,
legislatively --
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: What is
necessary.
MR. BLOCKER: -- required to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay. And I
appreciate that. And, like I said, it goes back
to the fact of using you guys where most impact
can happen. And you are highly trained and you
have the capabilities of doing so much, and
gaming and protecting the casinos may not be the
best use of your Troopers' time.
And you mentioned LCE. How many
Troopers work with the LCE?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
MR. BLOCKER: I'll get that for you in a
second.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Because I know
the officers that go out are not troopers in and
of themselves.
MR. BLOCKER: Currently, there are 17
enlisted Troopers, basically, in supervisory
capacity with LCE.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay. And --
thank you for that. And one last question is,
my understanding -- you mentioned the labs that
you guys have and you run for many, many local
municipalities, as well as obviously PSP. My
understanding is those are free services that
you do not charge. But one of the line items in
the budget is called Crime Lab User Fees and
that was an increase. Can you tell me -- I just
don't understand if they're free, what that line
item is. If you could explain that.
MR. BLOCKER: Well, as I said, we do
have seven labs --
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Right.
MR. BLOCKER: -- in the Commonwealth.
We are mandated to provide laboratory services
for law enforcement. In terms of the direct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
dollar cost associated with that, I'm not sure.
We -- maybe one of the deputies can share that.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: That's fine.
And I'm not against charging the user fees. I'm
just -- since you had mentioned that there is no
-- my understanding was there was no charge, so
I'm just trying to make that jive.
MR. BUCAR: Yes, Representative, those
user fees are charged to the defendants.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Oh, okay.
MR. BUCAR: Not to the law enforcement
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE DELOZIER: Okay. And I'm
very red. Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BLOCKER: You're welcome.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE FLYNN: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for your testimony,
Commissioner Blocker. I'm over here
(indicating).
Currently, 1164 out of 4,281 enlisted
members are eligible for 20-year retirement,
while an additional 384 are eligible for a full
retirement at 25 years. That's 1548 out of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
4,281, over a third of the officers able to
retire with lifetime benefits and a hefty
percent of their salary.
Coming into a contract year and going to
arbitration without the usual 90-day letter you
guys have historically given to Troopers, which
allows Troopers 90 days past the arbitration to
retire with their current benefit, what measures
have you taken to prepare for a possible mass
retirement of a third of your force, and what
capacity does our training academy accommodate?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, I'll try to take the
last part of that question. We do have the
flexibility as an agency to recruit and to
expand our academy training, if necessary. We
always have contingency planning. There are a
number of unknown variables associated with a
member of the State Police making a conscious
effort to retire.
Obviously, you mentioned our retirement
provisions there. We look at, historically,
these kinds of things have -- we've always been
able to meet our commitment in terms of
providing the necessary human resources,
Troopers that is, in those locations around the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
state where they're necessary. This is not an
exact science. People retire when it fits their
particular needs or interests or desire.
So, you know, we're at the point where
we've been down this road before. We always
have the capacity to be flexible to move our
members around. I think it's important to note
that, if necessary, we could put more than three
cadet classes through an academy in a fiscal
year. We've done it before. We've trained
multiple Troopers in various locations around
the state to facilitate, ensuring that we have
the necessary number to be an effective and
efficient agency.
REPRESENTATIVE FLYNN: Because I think
our force is going to look at this very
critically. And if I'm a State Trooper and
there's uncertainty in the next contract and I
can retire now with everything I have or 80
percent of what I'm making, it's probably not
worth when someone goes after your lifetime
benefits, if that's the case, you know.
MR. BLOCKER: Well, Representative, the
90-day issue that you raised, that's an issue
that the Office of Administration is addressing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
and they're amenable to extending that proviso
for Troopers during this contract year.
REPRESENTATIVE FLYNN: Thank you. Thank
you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I wanted to
announce that we've been joined by
Representative Dom Costa, as well. And with
that, we will move to Representative Helm.
REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Welcome. Along the lines of new
revenues and cost efficiencies, is there the
possibility of monetizing Commonwealth assets as
proposed with the Farm Show Complex, such as the
Pennsylvania State Police radio towers? I was
just wondering, has this been discussed with
you?
MR. BLOCKER: Thank you for that
question, and I will ask Lieutenant Colonel
Bucar and Major Stackhouse to comment on that.
MR. BUCAR: Yes, Representative, it has
been discussed with us, the use of our towers.
REPRESENTATIVE HELM: Well, would
Department of General Services be the lead
agency to consider such lease proposals or would
you be more involved?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
MR. BUCAR: We've been involved in
discussions with the Office of Administration,
Department of General Services, and some of the
other partner agencies. PennDOT's involved. I
think there are other state agencies, as well,
that have assets that are targeted for this
initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE HELM: And do you know
how much money this would generate and how it
could be used?
MR. BUCAR: I'm not -- my staff is not
aware of the revenue projections. Our concerns
have been emphasizing that our towers would not
be used in a way that would jeopardize public
safety radio systems. We've been promised by
DGS that any equipment or assets that want to be
placed on our towers that interfere with our
radio communications or the safety of the
Troopers, that we have the ability to veto that.
We're going to meet with them Friday to confirm
that that aspect is included in the governance
document.
REPRESENTATIVE HELM: All right. I have
another question then regarding safety. After
experiencing a tragic assault upon Troopers at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
their barracks in 2014, another instance of
violence against law enforcement officers, is,
or can barracks security be something that can
be reviewed and addressed differently and do you
plan or have you proposed any capital budget
requests for lease improvements related to
enhance security to strengthen and improve
existing facilities?
MR. BLOCKER: I will take the first part
of that and essentially share with you that
we're always looking at security provisos for
our installations.
We've recently embarked on an initiative
to ensure that we have cameras in and around all
of our installations. That project is still
unfolding as we speak. My sense is that the
funding that's necessary for that is something
that we can handle within our current budget
constraints, but I'll -- I don't know if
Lieutenant Colonel Bucar has any additional
information on that.
MR. BUCAR: The buildings that we
currently occupy are being retrofitted with
certain security enhancements that I'd rather
not discuss publicly. But all the buildings
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
moving forward have those enhancements in the
design requirements, most of which came out of,
among other incidents, the Blooming Grove
tragedy.
REPRESENTATIVE HELM: All right. Thank
you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Kinsey.
REPRESENTATIVE KINSEY: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I want to welcome Colonel Blocker,
Deputy Commissioners, Director Box; and I also
want to recognize and welcome Colonel Brown from
Homeland Security. Welcome, gentlemen and
ladies.
I want to start with a statement. You
know, I was really moved by the dedication this
morning. And my personal feelings are, there
are no greater heroes than the brave men and
women who wear the uniform and take the oath to
protect and serve our citizens. So I just want
to thank you, Colonel Blocker, and really all
the men and women from the Pennsylvania State
Police for all that you do for the citizens of
this Commonwealth. Really, truly appreciate
that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
Colonel Blocker, I was actually happy to
hear -- in your opening statement, you shared
what the State Police are doing about heroin
epidemic. You know, you talk about treatment,
education, and enforcement.
I represent a portion of the city of
Philadelphia. Unfortunately, a good friend of
ours, Representative Cruz, represents a portion
of Philadelphia that has the highest death rates
due to overdose. It's called the Kensington
area. In fact, I know he has a hearing coming
up. They have this thing called open-air
bridges, where folks are gathering and getting
high. And I know that the Philadelphia Police
Department is working to combat that.
I guess my question is, has the
Philadelphia Police Department reached out to
the State Police in a joint effort to combat the
heroin epidemic in the city of Philadelphia?
MR. BLOCKER: Representative Kinsey,
we've -- the Pennsylvania State Police, in
partnership with the Philadelphia Police
Department and principally with the HIDTA
initiative, and HIDTA is an acronym for High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, we work very
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
closely with our HIDTA partners, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the city of
Philadelphia Police Department to address the
heroin epidemic in the city of Philadelphia.
Within the last 45 days, all of
high-level law enforcement agencies have been
down to that Kensington area, toured it, just to
get a sense of the extent or the magnitude of
the heroin problem in that area.
So as someone that's a former director
of the State Police Bureau of Drug Law
Enforcement, we have a high degree of interest
in drug trafficking in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. And through our Drug Law
Division, we work in partnerships with law
enforcement throughout the Commonwealth in an
effort to address drug use and, more
importantly, the sale of elicit drugs in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
REPRESENTATIVE KINSEY: Okay. Thank you
for that. The other thing you talked about was
education. And I know that my colleagues and I
from Philadelphia would love to have
conversations with you to have members from the
Pennsylvania State Police come down to our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
individual districts, and maybe regionally, just
to sort of piggy-back on the education part that
you're doing. So we look forward to working
with you on that.
The other thing, Colonel, is, the Liquor
Control Board, also in Philadelphia, we have
these things called stop-and-gos. And it's been
a great concern. In fact, I know that my good
friend, Representative Bullock, has legislation
that I've co-sponsored to sort of address some
of the stop-and-gos.
And I guess the question is, How does
the Pennsylvania State Police work with the
Liquor Control Board to address the
stop-and-gos? And, you know, we have many
issues where they're selling shots illegally,
dependent upon the type of license they might
have. But it's just a great concern for some of
the communities right there within the
Philadelphia district. So how is your
department working with the Liquor Control Board
to maybe address some of these concerns that
have been brought to your attention?
MR. BLOCKER: With respect to the
stop-and-gos, our Liquor Control Enforcement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
Officers are aware of this issue in the city of
Philadelphia. We work in concert with the city
PD, City Police Department, in trying to
identify those locations where individuals are
purchasing alcoholic beverages and leaving
facilities, and in many cases, creating public
safety issues outside of those agencies or
outside of those locations.
REPRESENTATIVE KINSEY: Okay. Actually,
Colonel, in respect to the Chairman, I notice
the red light went on again; so I want to give
my colleagues additional time, but I want to say
thank you for your answers. I will have some
follow-up with you. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: You're
welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE KINSEY: Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Kampf.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. A couple of funds I wanted to ask
about. These are restricted accounts. And we
got this information from the Governor's
Executive Budget Book.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
First one is the Radio Systems
Development Project. Could you just tell me
what that is?
MR. BLOCKER: Sure. I could certainly
share some peripheral information with respect
to that, but the --
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: And it's the
restricted account I'm asking about.
MR. BLOCKER: Right. The individual
that really kind of spearheads that for our
department is Major Stackhouse. She could
probably provide you with a little more
substantive information.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay, Major, I've
got 4 and a half minutes.
MS. STACKHOUSE: Okay. I'll try to
answer it quick. We have -- we utilize
restricted funds for upgrading our radio system.
Also, assisting counties where we co-locate at
radio sites. For example, we're putting in
shelters and other types of equipment, DC plants
at various locations throughout the
Commonwealth. So most of the upgrades are going
to microwave sites and our microwave system. So
everything gets put back into the STARNet or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
Statewide Radio Network.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: So that fund, we
noticed goes up from 1 million last year to 4.2
million. Where does that 3.2 million come from?
MS. STACKHOUSE: Some of the money in
our restricted funds, we get money from
marketing some of our --
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: I'm asking about
this fund, Radio Systems Development Project,
where does that 3.2 million come from?
MS. STACKHOUSE: That -- I don't have
that information right offhand, where it comes
from.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay. Is it
money from private payers or local
municipalities?
MS. STACKHOUSE: No. We do not charge
counties.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay. Could you
-- why is it going to up by 3.2 million this
year?
MS. STACKHOUSE: I'm not aware that it
-- of that particular fund; but I can say some
of our restricted funds, we do receive money as
a result of commercial carriers co-locating on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
our towers.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay. I would be
very interested with respect to that fund, what
the purpose of the -- I'm sorry, what the reason
for the increase is and where it comes from.
Tower management restricted account, that
increases from 300,000 to 1.7 million. Why is
it increasing and where does that money come
from?
MS. STACKHOUSE: That's the one I just
mentioned about commercial carriers on our
towers, and that's a monthly revenue stream and
it gets reinvested in --
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Why is it going
up, do you think? Why is that going up from
300,000 to 1.7 million for the coming year?
MS. STACKHOUSE: Because each month we
receive revenues from commercial carriers that
are on our sites, which gets reinvested into our
radio system.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: And have we added
commercial sites? Is that why the funds are
increasing so much?
MS. STACKHOUSE: We do, on occasion,
when it's approved by my bureau. Under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
stringent circumstances, we do add commercial
carriers.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay. Could you
send us an itemization of that increase, where
it comes from? And then just back to the crime
lab user fees, that one's going up from 1.1
million to 5.9 million. I think Representative
Delozier learned that that comes from
defendants. But why is it going up so much,
4.8 million?
MR. BUCAR: Representative, that -- the
fluctuation in the amount of money in that fund
is a function of collectability and collections
that occur after court dispositions.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay. But that's
a very big increase. So can you just explain to
me why it would go up so much?
MR. BUCAR: I can't address specifically
that amount, but I can tell you there are times
where it takes -- there are periods of months
before collections are realized from defendants.
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: Okay.
MR. BUCAR: And so that goes up and down
and fluctuates. But as far as that specific
increase, I can't speak to at this point.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
REPRESENTATIVE KAMPF: If you could, I
mean, I get it, right, sometimes it comes in,
sometimes it doesn't. But if you could give us
a little bit of detail on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Donatucci.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Commissioner.
Down here (indicating). And thank you for being
here today. I want to go back to the issue of
stop-and-gos. It's really an issue in
Philadelphia. You know, with the expansion of
restaurant and the E licenses, we're seeing more
and more of them.
In your testimony, you stated that you
have 17 LCE officers statewide?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes. Now, there are a
number of what we call Liquor Enforcement
Officers. They're not Pennsylvania State
Troopers. They specifically are tasked with
liquor enforcement, so there's 140 of them. The
17 that I referred to are just Troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. So do
you know where they're assigned throughout the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
community, or in the Commonwealth, I should say,
in the northeast, the southwest, the northwest;
do you know what the breakdown is?
MR. BLOCKER: There is an LCE office in
the city of Philadelphia, and there's a
contingent of LEOs and enlisted members in that
office but they're spread around the
Commonwealth.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. And do
you know how many actions were taken in
Philadelphia by the LCE in 2016?
MR. BLOCKER: I don't believe we have
that data, but it is something that we can
provide you.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. And in
the past, the Liquor Control Board was
responsible for enforcement activities. Could
net savings be realized by shifting
administrative functions of liquor enforcement
to the LCB?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, my -- I guess my
answer to that is, legislatively, that probably
is something that needs to be addressed there.
As an agency as we see it, right now that's our
responsibility to address liquor enforcement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
issues in the Commonwealth.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. Now, I
want to move over a little bit to gaming
machines. During numerous hearings, we
consistently hear that there are numerous
illegal gaming machines throughout the
Commonwealth.
Do you have any specific task force that
works with the LCB on combatting that issue?
MR. BLOCKER: In terms of illegal
devices in liquor establishments?
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Yes.
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. Our LCE officers,
when they are visiting establishments, they look
for not only violations of the liquor code, but
also other criminal activity that they may
witness and/or experience.
They will essentially coordinate that
with other departments units to address that
when and where necessary. So what we have here
is gambling in Pennsylvania is illegal unless
it's, you know, within, you know, casinos, horse
racing, bingo, lottery and small games of
chance.
But to speak directly to your question,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
if criminal activity is witnessed in a
particular location, we will take enforcement
action on that.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. Do you
confiscate the machines?
MR. BLOCKER: If they are illegal, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. Do you
know how many throughout the Commonwealth?
MR. BLOCKER: I do not have that
information readily available.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: All right.
And lastly, I'd like to address the age
compliance program where you send 18 to 20 year
olds into establishments to purchase liquor.
This program reported that 35 percent of
the establishments failed compliance and they
were selling liquor to underage buyers in 2016.
Statutory authority for this program expires at
the end of this year. How effective is this
program at reducing sales of alcohol to underage
persons and should the program be renewed,
changed, or allowed to expire?
MR. BLOCKER: One of the activities
taken on by our LCE agents is to monitor
underage sales of alcohol from establishments.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
It's something that we take very seriously as an
agency. My sense is there's a multitude of
variables there, but we do have enforcement
initiatives that we periodically engage in,
particularly in the city of Philadelphia looking
for sales to minors.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: Okay. Thank
you. So it is a success, in your opinion?
MR. BLOCKER: I believe it is, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DONATUCCI: All right.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Roae.
REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to all of
you who are members of the Pennsylvania State
Police. Thank you for your service. As you all
know, the McKinsey Report came out a few weeks
ago. And one area in the McKinsey Report
suggested that maybe it should be considered
reducing the number of buildings that you folks
have.
Right now, there's 16 troops with a
total of 81 stations and, you know, most people
when they need the State Police, most people,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
including Legislators, you know, we want
well-trained, qualified, dedicated officers to
come and assist. Most people don't give that
much thought to how many buildings you folks
operate out of. I was wondering, have you guys
had a chance to evaluate the McKinsey Report to
see what kind of impact reducing the number of
buildings would have?
MR. BLOCKER: We have met with
representatives from the McKinsey Group. We've
talked about a myriad of issues. And when I say
myriad of issues, I'm talking about from
personnel to physical locations, vehicles, kind
of run the gamut there.
We're always looking at whether we are
strategically properly located in the
Commonwealth. Right now, we believe that we
are. But as I indicated, one of the principle
tenets of 21st Century policing is technology.
And with the, you know, enhanced
technology in terms of communications, such
things as Trooper's vehicle being really his or
her office, the mobile office capability, the
mobile identification capability, that's a huge
plus for 21st Century policing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
That may, and I emphasize the word may,
cause us to look at our -- is our footprint
from installation perspective, can that be
improved on? And we're always looking for ways
to improve how the Department is positioned in
the Commonwealth.
You know, there are -- from county to
county, things change in terms of number of
installations. So my answer is, we're always
looking at our footprint when it comes to
installation. There are a lot of drivers there,
such as leases and those kinds of things.
REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Okay. And then a
follow-up question: When a Trooper is, you
know, working a shift, how much of the time are
they actually in the barracks and how much of
the time are they on patrol, usually? And when
somebody calls 911 for help, are the officers
usually responding from patrol or from the
barracks?
MR. BLOCKER: I'm glad you asked that
question, Representative. The short answer is,
the Commonwealth is broken up into patrol zones;
and Troopers are in those patrol zones on active
patrol and that's where they respond to calls
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
for service. Very rarely, very rarely are they
responding from the barracks. Again, there's
where technology will enhance the Department's
position.
REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: Excuse me for
interrupting. I'm almost out of time, so I want
to ask one last question. Just to kind of
follow up on what you said earlier, tell us a
little bit about, like, if each officer -- if
each State Trooper was assigned their own
vehicle, would it be feasible to, you know,
teleconference before the start of the shift?
They wouldn't have to drive all the way to the
barracks, then turn around and drive all the way
back to their patrol zone.
If each Trooper had their own vehicle,
you know, could that be more efficient, spending
more money to have officers and more vehicles
and less money on buildings?
MR. BLOCKER: That is an aspect of 21st
Century policing that we are looking very
seriously at. There is great utility in what we
call a trooper's mobile office, so they can
respond quickly to calls for service or various
incidents; so it is an aspect of the patrol
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
function that we are looking at very, very
closely.
REPRESENTATIVE ROAE: All right. Thank
you, sir.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Bullock.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Good morning, Colonel. To your left
(indicating). Good morning. How are you?
MR. BLOCKER: Good morning.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: Good. So like
my other Philadelphian colleagues, I'm a little
bit obsessed with the stop-and-go issue myself;
so I just want to follow up with one short
question. In regards to that southeast -- the
Philadelphia office, do you know how many
officers, LCE officers, are actually assigned to
that unit?
MR. BLOCKER: I don't have that number
right here in front of me. We can certainly
share that with you. However, in the city of
Philadelphia, I'm pretty comfortable saying that
it's well staffed. I just don't have the exact
number of LCE officers and Troopers that are
there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: The reason why
I ask is because, often when our offices call
for assistance to look at enforcement issues or
community organizations do, often the response
we get is that there's not enough staff for
enforcement or that enforcement is an issue.
So I would really appreciate looking
into that number and maybe talking to your
department about how -- or to the State Police
about how we can increase the staff in that
area, because it is a significant issue. It's a
quality of life issue.
And, perhaps -- I think every office, we
get called about enforcement issues every day;
and so I really would like to look further into
that. I appreciate that.
MR. BLOCKER: Will do.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: In regards to
staffing -- and this was another question that
was asked earlier, I believe, by my colleague
Representative Flynn, in regards to retirement
and attrition and keeping your troopers, do you
know or anticipate how many new troopers will
come on in this fiscal year?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes. We believe that we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
will have a minimum of three cadet classes for
fiscal year '17-'18, and that will be
approximately 115 new troopers per class. So
that's what we're looking at, somewhere between
300 and maybe 310.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: Okay. And so
now looking a little deeper into what our State
Troopers look like, I know you patrol the entire
Commonwealth and there's diverse communities
across the entire Commonwealth. What are our
breakdowns as far -- and I know you make a lot
of efforts in your recruitment of your cadet
classes, but what are the breakdowns as far as
women and communities of color represented in
your workforce, both as troopers and as you move
up in rank?
MR. BLOCKER: Right. That's -- I
appreciate that question and getting an
opportunity to talk about this. We have --
we've just wrapped up the most successful
recruiting campaign that we've had in years.
We actually had over 7,000 members
express interest and sign up to take the State
Police examination.
The actual individuals that took our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
examination was about 3500. So I'm encouraged
by the fact that we've put diversity under a
microscope within the Pennsylvania State Police.
Currently, minorities make up about 6
and a half percent of the Department's
complement and women make up about 6.2 percent
of our complement to date.
We have enhanced our recruiting efforts.
There is now a recruiter in each one of our 15
field troops, and their responsibility is to be
visible in every municipality, looking for
opportunities to recruit. We have such things
as Come Get to Know Us Day, to enhance our
recruiting efforts.
Probably the most important thing that
we've done in the last year is, our recruiting
efforts -- our recruiting detail have been
provided a budget to assist in our recruiting
efforts.
We just started a class about a week or
so ago, and our -- the number of women and
minorities in that class are as follows: 13
percent of that class that went in on March the
5th is 13 percent minority. And if you look at
minority and females, it's about 22 percent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: Thank you for
sharing those numbers. And just a quick note,
and if you have any statistic about this note, I
would appreciate it, as well --
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative, I've got to cut you off there.
REPRESENTATIVE BULLOCK: -- just the
growing Spanish-speaking population, I hope you
address that as well.
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, we are.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Christiana.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning;
thank you for your service. Major Stackhouse,
I have some questions that probably will be
directed towards you.
Major, I don't think it's a secret that
government contracts are frequently over budget
and late. But the poster child for this in
Pennsylvania, in my opinion, is the statewide
radio system. The outrageous reality is that
the system's implementation is now going on 15
years, 400 percent over the initial RFP amount.
And if that's not bad enough, the State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
Troopers, all the state agencies are still
shackled with an inadequate radio system. And I
know I'm telling you something that you already
know.
The terrifying reality is that
inadequate radio systems put our heros in law
enforcement at risk of not being able to secure
backup and risk of harm. But before we can just
move forward and focus on how to fix this, I do
think we need to look at the sins of the past
and the procurement process that has gotten us
to this point.
And I don't think we can just chalk up
the past mistakes to political malpractice. I
do think there needs to be some answers to how
the implementation has taken 15 years and 400
percent over budget and there's still an
inadequate system.
And let me preface my question with
this: I know that this wasn't -- the
Pennsylvania State Police that has overseen the
implementation of the statewide radio system.
In fact, this has been laid on your lap and I'm
thankful that all of you are working on finally
fixing this. But can you identify any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
investigations that you know are going on about
the current statewide radio systems
implementation and budgeting?
MS. STACKHOUSE: Well, -- oh, I'm sorry.
MR. BLOCKER: If I may? The State
Police has initiated an audit by an independent
state agency into the preventive and demand
maintenance expenditures. We believe that's a
prudent thing to do, and we're exploring every
and all civil remedies to address that.
It is -- I can't emphasize how
critically important a comprehensive 21st
Century radio system is to public safety.
Major?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Just because
my time is limited, can you let me know, was
that -- did you answer that there are civil
investigations going forward about the
procurement process over the last 15 years? Is
there an investigation into -- that you can rule
out criminal misconduct in that procurement
process, or can you give the Committee any
insight before we can move forward into the P25
system and federal systems that are on the
horizon?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
MS. STACKHOUSE: I can tell you that
I've personally held accountable the vendor that
we've dealt with over the past 15 years. As the
Colonel stated, we initiated an audit by the
Office of Budget to look into how the money was
spent, specifically, for preventive and demand
maintenance activities.
We are discussing all civil remedies
with our Office of Chief Counsel, and I
personally entered two
contract-of-responsibility programs entry
regarding grounding issues, as well as
preventive and demand maintenance activities.
When I took over in 2015, I stopped 4.7
million in cell site construction so that we
would no longer spend money into a proprietary
radio system.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Thank you
for your leadership. And I would -- I think the
taxpayers of this Commonwealth and the users of
the system deserve some answers and why 15 years
later we still have an inadequate system.
But with that being said, moving
forward, I know the Department -- or excuse me
-- the Pennsylvania State Police is overseeing a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
new system, the P25 system, that will hopefully
allow your men and women to -- and all state
agencies, like the Department of Corrections, to
transition to a better system.
Can you briefly comment on the FIRSTNet
System and the Department's interaction with
those in the federal government on the FIRSTNet
System that should be coming in the years to
come?
MR. BLOCKER: Major?
MS. STACKHOUSE: Well, I'm the single
point of contact for FIRSTNet for Pennsylvania;
and we have gone around Pennsylvania educating
counties, county task forces, about the FIRSTNet
mission and vision of providing a broadband
network.
Right now, FIRSTNet has not announced
its private partner. I expect that to occur
sometime by the end of March, beginning of
April.
And with that being said, Pennsylvania's
patiently waiting for our state plan. And then
I'd be in a better position to tell you how
we're going to receive this state plan and what
steps we're going to take to implement or opt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
out.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIANA: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you for your
service again.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I want to
just -- again, who is the independent agency
investigating this, please?
MS. STACKHOUSE: The audit is the Office
of Budget. I asked them.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Okay. And I
just want to add on as Chairman of this, I've
got to be honest, as we're going through this
appropriations situation, I've been reading a
lot in the papers about your hearing in the
Senate. I don't know how the House or the
Senate can appropriate more dollars for a system
that has been a boondoggle $800 million.
So I'm looking forward to hearing some
kind of a full investigation about this before
we appropriate $50 million more on a system
we've already spent 800 million on.
So I don't know if there's any more
comments, Commissioner, or any of you have on
that. But I've got to be honest, for me, trying
to protect taxpayers' money, if we have a system
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
that doesn't protect the lives of our State
Troopers, and there's nobody here who thinks
higher of our State Police force than I, I think
we all do, to be honest with you; but it's a
real concern to me that we're putting money into
a company who is not protecting our lives and
putting the lives of our Troopers at risk, why
give another dime until we have real answers
about when this is going to be fixed and that
our lives of our State Troopers aren't put in
any kind of jeopardy?
And I'm real concerned about that,
Commissioner --
MR. BLOCKER: Sure.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: -- that, you
know, you spend $800 million. That's a lot of
money. You're now approaching a billion dollars
spent on this. So I welcome a comment.
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. I'll just comment
and turn it over to Major Stackhouse. It's
clear to me that there was some missteps early
on, prior to my coming back into the department.
It is a critical public safety area when you
start talking about the State Police's ability
to communicate. It is a challenge. It's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
something that we are looking at very
critically.
Major?
MS. STACKHOUSE: I'm a taxpayer, too, so
I take this very seriously.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I know you
do.
MS. STACKHOUSE: But part of that 800
million, you have to take a look and ask
yourself, were there any positive investments?
And I can say that there were. For example, the
Commonwealth owns 173 high-profile steel towers.
We also have a robust microwave system that,
quite frankly, other states are very envious of.
Part of that big amount also includes 74
million in federal grant money that we use to
upgrade our microwave system and also built and
deployed a UHF and 700 megahertz overlay for the
state to augment OpenSky.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say
that OpenSky was a great investment. I don't
believe it was. But for me moving forward, you
have my full commitment to deploy a reliable
radio system; and that is the P25 system.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: And is that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
where the money that is in the budget right now
is directed, to that system that you're putting
in?
MS. STACKHOUSE: Yes, sir, as well as
understanding that with any radio system, it
doesn't matter what vendor's involved, STARNet
is something big and encompasses more than just
the land mobile radio. We're looking at just
operating costs, personnel costs, salaries,
benefits, maintenance of that system. You're
looking at utility bills.
So that encompasses that 800 million
which we need to spend anyway, every year.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Very good,
Major. Thank you.
With that, Representative Daley.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Colonel Blocker, over to your left
(indicating).
MR. BLOCKER: Oh, okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you for
being here today. You mentioned in your
testimony -- and I'm going to ask this question,
but I'm going to ask for not an answer right
now, but if you could provide the information to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
the Committee, because I have another question I
want to ask, so I don't want to take time.
But you mentioned over 600,000 traffic
citations. So what I was wondering was, if you
can provide the Committee members with a
breakdown of citations related to commercial
vehicles, like the type of citation and type of
road on which the citations occurred? Can you
do that? Not right now though. Not right now,
just if we could get that in writing after, you
know, it's sent to the Committee.
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, that will be a real
challenge for us, looking back over a year to
try to discern, you know, commercial vehicles
versus noncommercial vehicles.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: All right. So
maybe I can have a conversation with you to see
what is possible to get.
MR. BLOCKER: Very good.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thanks. Okay.
So my other question is: I just want to say
that I agree with you that it's crucial that the
Pennsylvania State Police be adequately funded.
And as a former Borough council member,
I have a strong belief that public safety is a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
core -- and as a current State Rep, public
safety is a core function of government; and I
believe that it extends to all different levels
of government.
So you may be able to guess that my
question is going to be on the municipal
coverage fee and the Motor License Fund. So I
know that there have been a number of proposals
the Governor has proposed.
There have been legislative proposals in
the past, and they vary on how quickly the fees
ramp up, how much they should be, which
municipalities they should apply to; and so
there's a variety of different issues.
But what I'm looking to you for is, do
you have recommendations about the best way to
structure the fee on municipalities, and what
would a proposal need to include to be efficient
and effective for law enforcement?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, Representative, in
partnership with the Governor, the decision was
made for it to be $25 per capita for those
communities where the Pennsylvania State Police
are full-time or provide full-time services.
My sense is that those funds, we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
believe, are important. I think it's going to
assist us with putting through our Academy --
classes in the Academy. And my sense is, is
that as a primary law enforcement agency in the
Commonwealth and the nature of our highway
traffic safety mandate, the state of our
infrastructure in terms of our roadways, there's
some challenges for the Commonwealth going
forward to improve that.
So my sense is that I know there's been
a lot made about the $25 fee. We believe it's
something that we can work with to facilitate
putting cadet classes through and also working
with our partners at the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation to attempt to improve our
highway infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: So you're on
board with the Governor's proposal for the fee
to the municipalities that don't use -- or that
don't have full-time police departments?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Okay. And so
it's a smaller amount of money coming back than
what you estimated the cost was. But I also had
a question -- so the $234 which was the per
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
capita cost, so I know that, like, you provide
services to all police departments, you know,
all municipalities and all police departments
across the state. Does that $234 include any of
what other municipalities are getting, at no
cost to them? Is that a clear question?
MR. BLOCKER: I'm not sure I understand
that. The $234 figure was, you know, derived
from population that has their own police
agencies; and it was more of, you know, just
some research by us using numbers and --
population numbers, for the most part.
My sense is, is that we were more
concerned about what would be equitable for
those municipalities where the State Police were
full-time at.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: So it's
comparison --
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative, I'm going to have to cut you off
there.
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: All right. Thank
you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Second round,
if you want.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
REPRESENTATIVE DALEY: Thank you very
much. Thank you, Colonel.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Keller.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Thank you,
Representative. And thank you, Commissioner,
and panel. And I want to say thank you to all
the professional people at the Pennsylvania
State Police. All our Troopers are the best in
the world, and I truly believe that.
So my comments are going to revolve
around the local charge, also, and where we
expend our State Police resources. Because I
know the State Police and the way you operate, I
believe is, you like to operate off of facts and
certainties. I believe that's true. And here
in the Capitol, we like to operate off of
emotion and other things.
So I want to try and understand. You
had given us some numbers about the 70,000
criminal arrests, the Special Emergency Response
Team, HDES, and CLRT. Do we have a breakdown of
where those -- and I don't need it right now,
but if we could get a breakdown of the
municipalities where those calls and arrests and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
so forth happened, it would be, I think, helpful
to us in making policy decisions on how we make
sure you have an adequate amount of funding.
I'm going more toward an effort in a
municipality versus just arbitrarily picking a
number and saying, since you don't have a local
force, you're going to pay this amount of money.
Because I don't believe that if we charge the
money -- and this would be a question, I guess,
for you. If we charge the money to the
municipalities without State Police coverage,
are they going to -- are you going to put
additional people to patrol in those areas, or
are they going to get the same level of service
they're receiving now?
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, the -- for those
municipalities we're full-time, they are
included in our patrol zone coverage. We
handle, obviously, traffic enforcement, as well
as criminal investigative related matters.
As I indicated previously, those
municipalities where we're primary, they are
part of our patrol zones; so there is a trooper
on patrol there 24/7.
Now, clearly, there are multiple
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
variables as to where a trooper might be at any
given time; but they would be assigned to a
particular zone.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Yeah. Yeah, I
understand that. But I represent a county that
has no State Police barracks in the county.
MR. BLOCKER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: The only way
they get over there is if there's a call or if
they happen to be on a patrol. So they wouldn't
be getting the level of service that you
mentioned you use to derive the $234 a person,
because you use that on a municipality that had
full-time service.
MR. BLOCKER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: So I'm looking
at -- and again, can you provide me with the
information on the breakdown of those items that
I first discussed? I mean, I don't need it now.
But can you -- do you have that information?
MR. BLOCKER: Could you just highlight
the issues again?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: It was the
70,000 criminal arrests, the special emergency
response team. There was 237 requests. You had
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
the Hazardous Device and Explosive Section, the
CLRT, SHIELD. If you could break that down into
municipalities, where those services were
actually used. I'm encouraged that we're
looking at the records management system,
because that would give us the tool to charge
where the services are actually being used.
Because to say somebody's not paying their fair
share simply because they don't have crime in
their municipality and don't require your
services there, I don't think is quite an
accurate depiction of how we do it.
Because if we're looking at making sure
you have the adequate funding, we should be
looking at where you're expending your resources
to make sure that the funding's coming out of
those areas, rather than just mining for
dollars, is what I call it, across the
Commonwealth simply because we can assume that
there's more resources spent in those areas
because they don't have a State Police -- or a
local police presence.
I would assume you also respond to calls
and drive through municipalities that have
police coverage?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
MR. BLOCKER: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Yeah. So that's
-- so, you know -- because you have troopers in
the city of Philadelphia, correct?
MR. BLOCKER: We do have a location in
the city of Philadelphia, correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Right. And they
respond to calls in Philadelphia whether they're
patrolling in and out of the city or other
areas?
MR. BLOCKER: We assist Philadelphia
Police Department when and where necessary, and
we do patrol part of the interstate highway in
the city of Philadelphia.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay. Question
I would have: Do we know a breakdown of calls
per municipality? Is there a way we could get
that from across the Commonwealth to say that
we've responded to X amount of calls, other than
traffic stuff, but just calls that have come in
for other law enforcement in the municipalities
across the Commonwealth?
Is there a way to get that, when a car's
dispatched, dispatch records or something like
that?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
MR. BLOCKER: Well, we could probably
share, you know, calls for service in particular
municipalities without any degree of
specificity.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: But you do --
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: That will be
it.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: -- respond to
calls in all of those, so thank you.
MR. BLOCKER: Exactly.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Krueger-Braneky.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Colonel. Hi,
Commissioners. Thank you so much for joining
us here today. Today is International Women's
Day, and I've got a question for you about
domestic violence.
The statistics are staggering: One in
three women will experience some form of
domestic violence by an intimate partner over
the course of their lifetime. Every 9 seconds,
a woman in the US is assaulted or beaten. The
cost of domestic violation exceeds $8.3 billion
annually. And here in Pennsylvania, in 2011,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
which was the last data that I could find, over
66 percent of our domestic violence fatalities
were tied to gun violence.
And we know that even recently we've
lost officers in the line of duty due to acts of
domestic violence. So in your testimony,
Colonel, you talked about the 1.1 million
background checks for firearms that were
conducted through the PIC System, our state
background check system, which resulted in
13,196 denials; and you also talked about the
different reasons why these could be caught in
the system. And one of those was from
Protection From Abuse Orders.
So can you talk about the data on
Protection From Abuse orders? How does that get
into our background check system, the PIC
System, and how frequently is it updated?
MR. BLOCKER: The frequency update is,
you know -- without stepping out on a limb in
saying, you know, it occurs on the fifth of
every month, it is very regular. And that
information, to the best of my knowledge, is
gleaned from the county-wide basis.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: From a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
county-wide basis. Okay. So at least my
monthly from county-wide data. And so those
Protection From Abuse orders are going into our
existing PIC System to make sure that folks with
a PFA against them are not actually able to
purchase a firearm; is that correct?
MR. BLOCKER: I was just passed a note
here. Approximately 1300 Protection From Abuse
Orders entered into CLEAN, our CLEAN System. So
it is something that we are particularly
attentive to and is part of the Pennsylvania
Instant Check System to ensure that, you know,
that information is available when potential
firearms vendors are checking our system.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: And we
sometimes hear from Legislators here in
Harrisburg that we don't actually need this
Pennsylvania Instant Check System, that there's
an existing national system that does the job.
So can you tell me, is the national
system, the NIC System, are they entering the
same county-wide data about Protection From
Abuse Orders for Pennsylvania?
MR. BLOCKER: Pennsylvania's one of 12
or 13 states that is what we call a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
point-of-contact state. This gives us greater
flexibility and greater control, if you will,
over the data that we're using with respect to
sharing with firearms dealers.
As I indicated, we conducted 1,137,000
checks and, of course, about 13,200 of them were
denied in 2016. I think the -- to answer your
specific question about PICS versus NICS, and
NICS being the National Instant Check System, we
have greater methodology, greater record-keeping
in Pennsylvania that we are responsible for as
it relates to, you know, firearms checks.
It's a little more control over that
data to ensure that we have the necessary --
bring the necessary resources to bear, so that
in Pennsylvania we are in a position to ensure
that we're stepping on all the right bases.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Thank
you, Colonel. And I also note in your testimony
that another reason for denials is prior
disqualifying mental-health commitments. And I
note that there's been some new legislation at
the national level where the President actually
signed a resolution that would nullify a piece
of the NIC System where the Social Security
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
Administration would no longer be presenting
information on certain mentally-ill persons into
the NIC System.
So does that mean that we would be
collecting data through our PIC System on folks
with mental-health issues that shouldn't be able
to purchase firearms that wouldn't be covered
under the NIC System?
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative, I'm going to cut you off there.
So if you would like a second round to finish
getting the answer to that or if we can in
writing or whatever.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Is he
not able to answer the question?
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: You didn't
get your second question out before the red
light went on.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: I would
like a second --
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I'm trying to
stick to that kind of fairness system. But if
you want a second round, I'd be glad to let him
answer that.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: I would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
appreciate that.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I'll tell you
what I'll do.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Okay.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I'll let him
answer the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that.
Colonel.
MR. BLOCKER: We have tremendous
confidence in our PIC System. We believe it is
appropriate in Pennsylvania to be a
point-of-contact state. We are in a position to
use various databases we use to ensure that the
necessary information is provided to prospective
gun vendors.
REPRESENTATIVE KRUEGER-BRANEKY: I
appreciate that. And I appreciate the latitude,
Mr. Chairman. This information is literally
about saving the lives of people in
Pennsylvania, including women who are victims of
domestic violence; so I appreciate the answer.
Thank you for all you're doing.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Knowles.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Commissioner, over here (indicating).
Let me start by saying that anything that I ask
or anything that I say, I have nothing but
respect for the Pennsylvania State Police.
I was a local back in the stone ages,
and a full-timer; but I just feel that we need
to talk about the issue that the gentleman from
Beaver County talked about. Okay. We all know
that back in 1996, and I was a county
commissioner, we were tickled pink, Act 148
authorized initial funding for a communication
infrastructure, which was much needed.
But yet we're talking about spending
$800 million, I mean, $800 million that I know
of nothing that we can show for it. I know of
absolutely nothing that we can show for it.
People ask me -- and we're sitting here
and we're talking about saving dollars, nickles,
pennies, so that we can balance a budget and
still take care of the needs of the people of
Pennsylvania.
And with all due respect, Commissioner,
I heard you talk about audits. I heard you talk
about civil reports or civil action, that kind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
of thing. And what I would ask of you, is to
give serious consideration to a criminal
investigation on this particular issue.
People are outraged by the fact that we
have spent $800 million and we still have an
inadequate communication system within the
Commonwealth for the Pennsylvania State Police.
So I won't -- I just wanted to make that point.
I do have one or two quick questions, unless
you'd like to comment, sir. I don't want to cut
you short.
MR. BLOCKER: No, I think you made your
point, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Okay. Could we
talk a little bit about polygraph tests? I was
somewhat shocked by the fact that we are
eliminating them, and I can't imagine that
polygraph tests through the process that they
had to find some improper behavior by
candidates, maybe even some criminal stuff; and
I just am trying to understand why we would stop
giving polygraph tests to candidates for the
Pennsylvania State Police.
MR. BLOCKER: Sure. Thank you for that
question, Representative. The Pennsylvania
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
State Police Institute of Polygraph for
prospective members, in and around 1998. Prior
to that, we hired tens of thousands of very fine
troopers. I'm proud to say I joined the
Department in 1975, the benefit of not having a
polygraph examination.
My consensus of thought is that we
conduct very professional in-depth background
investigations on every member of the
Pennsylvania State Police, where a trained
investigator goes out and conducts an in-depth
investigation.
My sense is, is that we needed to do a
number of things with our selection process.
And, quite frankly, our process was very
expansive. It would take somewhere between 10
to 14 months to bring someone through our
entrance requirements, and there were some
challenges there.
As we all know, polygraph operator is
not an exact science, for the most part; and I
have full faith and confidence in our background
investigators that they're going to go out,
conduct comprehensive background investigations
and any transgressions that would have come up
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
in a candidate's background, we will know that
because of the comprehensiveness of the
background investigation.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: Commissioner,
I'm about to get the hook; and I've got one more
question I want to get in, if I could.
MR. BLOCKER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: As a former
cop, I was very disturbed by the elimination of
those little stickers on the back of the license
plate. That was a very valuable tool when I was
a policeman, and I get it with all these plate
readers and all that crap. But, I mean, haven't
we taken a valuable tool away from all police
officers in the Commonwealth? For the sake of a
million dollars, we've taken away a very
valuable tool. Would you care to comment on
that?
MR. BLOCKER: Representative, that
decision, obviously, rests with the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation. From an
enforcement perspective, troopers have the
ability to run plates through the radio system
in their cars in the event that that becomes
necessary; so it just adds a little more of an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
investigative inquiry on our part with respect
to running registrations plates on motor
vehicles. We can do that from a car. It's not
absolutely essential that the sticker is there.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOWLES: So everybody
has the right to be wrong, Mr. Commissioner.
They have the right to be wrong. We're right.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: We're going
to cut you off there. Representative Dean.
REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman; and thank you, Commissioner. And to
all the law enforcement, I say a very inept
thank you for all you do for us. I, too, would
like to examine the difference between the PIC
and the NIC System. You know that session after
session we're asked to vote on whether or not to
eliminate the PIC System, the Pennsylvania
Instant Check System, in favor of the National
Instant Check System.
I know you work in tandem with the
National System. I'd like to explore the
differences, and you've identified some. Number
one, it's a robust -- PICS is robust; you're
doing more than one million background
examinations a year. With last year, I guess it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
was, 13,000 denials. I think the year before it
was 15,000 denials. Beyond that, I believe you
also are very helpful to law enforcement in
tracking down persons who have active, open
arrest warrants, fugitives from the law.
Could you tell us some of those things,
as we examine the difference between PICS and
NICS and whether or not we should just jettison
the PIC System?
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. Well, I'm a strong
advocate for our PIC System. Being one of 13
states in the country that is a point-of-contact
state, the value in ensuring that Second
Amendment rights are not infringed upon and are
-- that individuals, citizens have the right to
purchase firearms, we can facilitate that in
Pennsylvania by having a robust system that we
can channel our energies and investigative
efforts to ensure that we are stepping on all
the right bases to ensure that firearm ownership
occurs in a timely fashion in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
And I think we do that exceedingly well
for a point-of-contact state.
REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: And I would note,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
I was taking a look at the Pennsylvania State
Police 2015 Firearms Annual Report. In the
opening letter, Colonel, you ended by saying
incumbent upon our public safety mission. And I
believe our PIC System is well positioned to
preclude those prohibited by law to obtain
firearms. At the same time, PICS allows those
who are legally permitted to possess firearms to
do so as efficiently and obtrusively as
possible.
In your report, you note that many, the
vast majority of these checks are completed in
under a minute. I think one of the other
distinctions, and I want to pair with the
question that Representative Krueger-Braneky
raised. We have a shifting possible federal
policy with the resolution signed by our
President to stop the transfer and sharing of
information from Social Security to the NIC
System on mental capacity. So with that
shifting landscape, I think PICS becomes all the
more important.
And all of this has to do with public
safety. I noted in your 2015 violent crimes
regarding use of firearms, it was nearly 11,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
violent crimes using firearms and 600 homicides.
Could you talk about, for example, violent
crimes using firearms and also how the PIC
System specifically, at the point of contact
with the possible purchaser, possible
prohibitive purchaser, teams up with local law
enforcement in a way that national cannot do, to
go after those who may be prohibitive
purchasers?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, if there is a
prohibitive purchaser, we will know that
instantly. Now, obviously, there's a lot of
criminal behavior, criminal activity outside of
the PIC System. There are firearms being
transferred illegally throughout the
Commonwealth, and we are diligent in trying to
address that criminal conduct.
But in terms of the industry and working
with our firearms vendors who are legitimate
business entities that really want to do the
right thing, I think it's important with
Pennsylvania being a point-of-contact state that
we're able to facilitate that in furtherance of
ensuring Second Amendment rights.
We believe we have the infrastructure in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
place with mental-health records, with PFA
documents centralized in a location that we can
provide very good information in a timely manner
that will ensure that individuals trying to
purchase firearms in Pennsylvania are doing so
legally.
REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: And I appreciate
all that you do, and I ask that you help us
partner with you and maybe you could support
some of the sensible gun legislation that has
been introduced session after session, like
closing the background check loophole on those
private sales, lost and stolen, gun violence
restraining orders, no-fly/no-buy, and also
carrying while intoxicated.
I hope that you will partner with us so
that we can partner with you in making
Pennsylvania a safer place.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BLOCKER: We look forward to that
discussion, Representative.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Next up will
be Representative Grove.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Thank you, Vice
Chairman. Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
86
thank you so much for joining us. Quick
follow-up on firearm checks. We sometimes have
FFLs that may call in to try to verify if
someone is actual -- would be barred from
actually getting a firearm through criminal
background. They're unsure.
Is there a process in place where they
could call and try to do like some kind of
pre-verification just to make sure they don't
fill out the forms?
Once, obviously, it's filled out, it
becomes a criminal action if you lie on those
forms for background check stuff. So is there a
way they could verify before they purchase a
firearm or before they fill out the form to make
sure they're not a criminal if they accidently
fill it out wrong?
MR. BUCAR: So the PICS process is to
facilitate the transaction of a firearm to an
authorized purchaser. Outside the scope of
that, it would, essentially -- what you're
asking or what you're characterizing would
essentially be a criminal history check and
would be outside the scope of the PICS process.
It wouldn't be authorized for that purpose.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. I
appreciate that. I do have a question on the
Drivewise Program, and I just want to kind of
describe it to make sure I have a good
understanding. So if I say something inaccurate
or incorrect, please correct me.
But my understanding is, Drivewise was a
company that's been operating in conjunction
with the State Police since 2012 to allow
commercial vehicles to bypass -- well,
prequalified trucks to bypass the state
inspection sites but still verify compliance
with all requirements electronically as they
drive.
It was an optional system set up to kind
of meet the Federal Motor Carrier
Administration's weight enforcements and
technology upgrades and maintenance. Currently,
my understanding is, there was no cost to the
state commercial carriers that wanted to opt in
the system, could purchase the system.
My understanding is, that is currently
not being done in the Commonwealth. Just
curious. To me, it just sounded like a win/win
situation. It allowed State Police to increase
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
compliance without any additional costs. At the
same time, allowed commerce to flow freely at a
compliance. So what's the status of that
currently?
MR. BLOCKER: Representative, I'm
unfamiliar with that process and/or program.
We're very attentive to traffic safety,
particularly with commercial motor vehicles
moving through the Commonwealth, with the
understanding that safety is first and foremost
in mind.
Anything that precludes, you know,
timeliness with respect to safety, would be
somewhat of a concern of mine. But I'm
unfamiliar with the particular initiative that
you're referring to.
REPRESENTATIVE GROVE: Okay. So let me
read off a few questions. If you can get back
to us on that, it would be great. If there's no
cost to the Commonwealth and it saves time for
Troopers, why would we not continue this
program? My understanding, it is a discontinued
program at this point.
How many Troopers currently conduct
inspections; do you anticipate needing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
additional Troopers for inspections, if not
using this system? There is a fear of losing
federal funding, potentially $3.5 million in
federal funding related to vehicle inspections.
Can you verify to see if we are not
compliant in some kind of electronic compliance
system, if we would or would not lose federal
funding?
And is it the intention of PSP to try to
inspect every truck manually? And if so, what's
the process for doing that? So if you can kind
of get back to me on those questions, it would
be helpful moving forward. Thank you. Thank
you, Commissioner. Thank you.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Thank you.
We'll move on to Representative Boyle.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYLE: Thank you,
Commissioner Blocker. I'll try to be as concise
-- right here. Right here in the back
(indicating). I know we're getting close to
noon, so I'll try to be as concise as possible.
A comment and a question. First of all,
I want to express my whole-hearted support for
Governor Wolf's decision, his proposal to charge
municipalities who do not actually pay for their
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
own local police forces.
I come from the city of the first class.
I come from the city of Philadelphia. We spend
$650 million a year. That was actually Mayor
Kenney's proposal on the police just this past
year. And even a small borough I represent in
Montgomery County, Rockledge, they spend nearly
$200,000, a borough of just 2600 people.
So I think issues like this, I think it
really underscores why there is a discrepancy in
this state between what the southeast, the
five-county area surrounding the city of
Philadelphia, what we pay into the state and
what we get out.
We're only 30 percent of the population
of the state of Pennsylvania, but we contribute
over 35 percent of the revenue in the state. So
I'm happy Governor Wolf has moved in this
direction.
My question is related to the heroin
addiction issue and specifically law
enforcement. In my part of Philadelphia,
northeast Philadelphia, so much of the heroin
distribution is being run and being financed by
largely Russian, former Soviet, ethnic criminal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
gangs.
And I was curious to see what the State
Police is doing. I know that in your remarks
you talked about sort of, you know, cracking
down on individual dealers, individuals. I feel
as though really when it comes to preventing the
drug problem, and specifically heroin, it's
really these large drug gangs that we really
have to go after. So I'm curious to see what
the State Police are doing.
MR. BLOCKER: Well, thank you for that
question. And the first thing that I would
share with you is, we have a tremendous
partnership in drug strategies in southeastern
Pennsylvania, particularly in the city of
Philadelphia, with the Drug Enforcement
Administration, as well as the city of
Philadelphia Police Department, and
representatives from the Attorney General's
Office.
So we have a strategy that is
principally on sharing of intelligence
information, without going into any great detail
with respect to that. But we do have the
requisite resources to address drug
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
investigations from the various levels, be that
the lowest level at the street level or through
interdiction or at the dealer -- the major
dealer level.
So we take a multi-facetted approach or
strategy to drug trafficking throughout the
Commonwealth, but particularly in our major
cities.
REPRESENTATIVE BOYLE: Thank you.
(Majority Chairman Saylor returned to
the hearing.)
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Boback.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: I'm up here
(indicating). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You
alluded to some of the answers when you gave
your introduction, Commissioner. But if you
could be more specific, what is your current
enlisted complement level and what are your
vacancies?
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, we are -- our
current vacancies is about 520, approximately.
And, of course, our authorized complement is
4,719. So we're -- as I alluded to earlier,
there are a number of members of the Department
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
that are eligible to retire; but that's such a
personal decision. I can speak firsthand about
that. I made that very important personal
decision back in 2005 for myself. It differs
for everyone.
In our case, we have to factor in what
would be the worst-case scenario in our
discussions regarding that. But it's -- this
fiscal year, yes, we have 520 vacancies and we
were looking at potentially sending through
somewhere about 300 troopers through our
Academy.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Now, could you
accommodate more through the Academy if you had
to, or do you just -- is that just a stagnant
number, that every year your goal is 300
candidates?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, it's driven by a
number of variables. Right now, we believe
three Academy classes, necessary budget is there
to facilitate that. However, and we've done
this in the past, if there's revenues available,
we could look at putting additional classes
through the Academy.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: All right.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
Because 520 vacancies, I hate to see yourself
stretched like that because there are so many
demands on you.
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, we're limited at our
Academy in terms of the number of individuals
that we can accommodate --
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: You are?
MR. BLOCKER: -- there, without
extending our Academy outside of our current
Academy in Hershey. And we've done that before,
but our preference would be to train members of
the department at the State Police Academy in
Hershey.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Well, then you
could also include another class, I'm sure, if
you had to; instead of three classes, four
classes to take them through the Academy, if
need be? Yes? If there was money there and --
MR. BLOCKER: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Okay. Next, can
you explain how Trooper placement is set? And
that would include staffing levels, resources,
priorities; like how and when do you address new
enforcement needs? Like, when do you transfer?
When do you mobilize? Now, with the drug
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
crisis, is that something you look at where
there's predominance of crime? How do you do
that?
MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. We're always
looking at our complements. We believe that we
have the -- currently, we have the right
structure in terms of our geographic locations
and those areas of interest.
For example, in the area of drug law
enforcement, we're always looking at the
opportunity to partner with local, county,
federal entities. We work closely with the
Attorney General's Office, as well.
So those strategies, we always look
critically at in terms of ensuring that we have
our resources properly positioned. As I'm fond
of saying, police work is not an exact science.
We have to be flexible enough and challenge
ourselves to ensure that we are in a position
where we can move personnel to those areas that
there is a definite need to.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Well, you do a
great job. I just wish there were a million
more of you, because that's how much we value
you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
Last question with the PIC System: I'm
a rural Legislator, and the only complaints I
get probably from my gun dealers during gun
shows, is that the system is always down. I
quote, always. I know it's not always. But
what causes that? Is it something that you need
to address?
MR. BLOCKER: We constantly get
inquiries from Legislators regarding our PIC
System's down. In 2016, PICS was down about 67
hours total, 365 days. There was a partial
outage of about 9 hours in 2016.
Obviously, when we're talking about
technology, there's always challenges around
maintenance. I think, by and large, when we
look at the outages there, I think we're doing a
very good job at that. It's only 1.3 percent of
our operating time that the PIC System has been
down in 2016.
REPRESENTATIVE BOBACK: Thank you for
that, and thank you for all you do. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Kim.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Good afternoon,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
Colonel. I'm bringing up a very small part of
your overall budget, but it has a big impact on
a number of my constituents. It's the proposed
doubling of fees for criminal background checks
or PATCH requests.
By one estimate, one-third of the
state's working age adults have some type of
criminal record. The Limited Access Law was
passed and implemented last year. For many,
this was a milestone legislation to free people
of their old, non-violent convictions that have
haunted them for at least a decade, preventing
some from employment.
Now, the new law doesn't allow employers
to see their minor offenses, but law enforcement
still can. My office is helping a lot of people
expunge their records, but there is another
roadblock; it costs too much, and it prevents a
lot of them from completing the process.
With court filing fees and your costs,
that will go from $10 to $20 per background
check. The total is $288. Not a lot for some,
but a lot for someone who is trying to get a
job.
This is an unintended consequence that I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
feel I should bring up on behalf of my
constituents. It's expensive to get back on
your feet. So I see that half of the background
checks were of no cost, 500,000 of them. I hope
that we can partner somehow to make it more
affordable.
I know the Governor put this in your
budget, so I'm not going to blame you; but we
need to do something to prevent those barriers.
You have received a lot of requests, and my
office is probably partly to blame for some of
the backlog because we do have some frequent
expungement hearings.
How do you ensure the accuracy of these
background checks, and what is the transition
with the new law of limited access to some of
the people's background checks so that employers
don't see their minor offenses?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, the fees for those
background checks, I think they're in the
neighborhood of $8 currently for the PATCH
checks. I'm not privy to any discussion as to
an increase in those costs for those PATCH
checks. I think the 500,000 that were of no
charge fit in the parameters that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
Legislature felt that there should not be.
It's, you know, child services, those kinds of
--
REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Oh, right, right
right.
MR. BLOCKER: -- those kind of
occupations, if you will.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Nonprofits, the
churches, and whatnot?
MR. BLOCKER: Exactly.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Okay.
MR. BLOCKER: So it's a -- we recognize
that there's a cost associated with that, and
I'm sure the Legislature will, you know, address
that as they see appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM: I know that there
are a lot of websites that have false
backgrounds, you know, if someone doesn't go
through you, which the proposed increase would
be $22 per employee. There are a lot of bogus
websites that have false background information.
Are you guys doing anything to prevent
that? Because it really hurts people who are
trying to get a job and they have all these
types of criminal background -- all these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
records that are not true, are not updated, and
it hurts a potential employee.
Are you guys doing anything to help
prevent those bogus websites?
MR. BLOCKER: Representative, I'm
unfamiliar with the issue relative to bogus
websites for -- that would, you know, substitute
for a legitimate PATCH check, but it is
something that we can look into to see the
extent to which that is an issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM: Great. Thank you
so much, Colonel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Sonney.
REPRESENTATIVE SONNEY: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Commissioners, thank you; and thank
you for your service. I want to circle back
again to the fee and ask for additional
information, if I may. And, again, you can
provide this, if possible, to the Committee and
not have to provide that, you know, right this
minute. And, you know, couple more of the
things I'd be curious to know about is, like the
number of calls that you get to assist municipal
police forces and maybe some type of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
approximation of all of the crime lab work that
you do. How much of that crime lab work is done
for municipal police forces?
You know, believe it or not, you know,
there's representatives here that live in areas
that have municipal police forces and they tell
me they receive nothing from the State Police;
and that's just not so. You know, I think that,
you know, everyone in the Commonwealth is
receiving some type of service protection from
the State Police. And, obviously, as soon as
you leave the area that you live in, if you have
municipal police protection and you drive into a
rural area, you know, you are under the State
Police protection.
So, you know, I think just to further
the discussion, that we as the Legislature are
going to have as we work through funding of the
State Police, I think it would be important for
us to be able to quantify, you know, how much
resources of the State Police are used in
assistance of municipal police forces. And so
any information that you could provide on those
lines would be greatly appreciated.
Also, do you have any agreements now
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
with municipalities? You know, do you have
signed agreements where you charge
municipalities to do anything today?
MR. BLOCKER: No, we don't. No,
Representative, we have no agreements regarding
payment for State Police services with any
municipalities.
I want to just share with you in terms
of looking at 2015-2016 figures. For example,
the Pennsylvania State Police were requested by
local police agencies to conduct 40 homicide
investigations in municipalities that have
police departments.
Now, obviously, we have major case teams
in all of our troops. These are highly-trained
criminal investigators that have all of the
training, discipline, resources to thoroughly
investigate major cases.
There have been 24 shooting incidents
involving municipal law enforcement officers
that were engaged in shootings where the State
Police investigated those incidents. We work in
close tandem with the 67 District Attorneys in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And the District Attorney is the Chief
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
Law Enforcement Officer in that particular
county. They know they can reach out to the
State Police at any time for any investigative
assistance, be it white collar crime, be it
violent crime, be it drug-related. And we
endeavor in virtually every case to meet their
request.
REPRESENTATIVE SONNEY: Well, and again,
any way you can quantify that, you know, dollar
amount-wise for the Committee, I think would be
extremely helpful. You know, as we continue to
discuss ways to pay for the State Police, you
know, we want to make sure that it's fair and
equitable for everyone. And so I just think
that's very important information that we could
have.
I'd like to circle back again just for a
minute for the registration stickers. You know,
I know that when this was proposed to remove the
registration sticker, there were many of us that
went up behind the Capitol and were given the
demonstration of a police car that had cameras
on it that, you know, could pick up that license
plate. And I believe if it had five cameras on
the car, it would have a 360-degree view.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
You know, have the State Police
installed any of those cameras? Do you have
intentions of installing those cameras? Do you
have a plan to install those cameras?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, I think what you're
referring to is license plate readers. You
know, that's technology that we are well aware
of and are looking very seriously at utilizing.
Obviously, there's a cost associated with that.
But I get back to my original comments
in that regard. There's nothing that really
substitutes for a trooper out there actively
engaged in patrolling our highways and using our
radio systems to facilitate verifying vehicle
registration.
REPRESENTATIVE SONNEY: So, currently
today, you have none of those cameras in use?
MR. BLOCKER: No, we have -- to my
knowledge, we have no cameras in place to
facilitate that.
REPRESENTATIVE SONNEY: Okay. Thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Petrarca.
REPRESENTATIVE PETRARCA: Thank you,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
Chairman. Thank you, members of the State
Police, to be here. Certainly, as my colleagues
said, I appreciate what you do and I'm happy to
have a very good working relationship with you
and the Troopers Association.
Obviously, we heard a lot today, a lot
of questions and answers, obviously, about your
budgets and finances and where we go. But to
change gears a little bit, I have a few
questions about the so-called cheating scandal
that happened with Pennsylvania State Police and
the 144th Cadet Class last year.
We recently received a report from the
Office of Inspector General that I think you
asked for them to review what was going on at
the Academy. And they issued a report not too
long ago where they outlined a lot of practices
and procedures that were, I don't know, in my
opinion, maybe being done poorly at the Academy,
where some of the same tests were given for year
after year, as many as ten years, same
instructors, study guides were being passed down
from class to class, a lot of things that they
questioned if were being done properly.
And I certainly compliment you. I think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
that you have taken steps and will continue to
take steps to make that experience and what
happens at the Academy better. And, again, I
certainly compliment you for that.
I've spoken to a number of cadets from
that class. And, again, because I have such a
high opinion of the Pennsylvania State Police
and what you do, I'm troubled by what -- I guess
where we've been and where we've come, you know,
after the, you know, so-called cheat sheet was
found by State Police personnel, apparently you
divided that class into two platoons. And
according to some of these cadets -- or the one
platoon that was suspected of doing things
improperly or cheating, they were treated very
badly by State Police staff going forward.
A number of these cadets have claimed
that State Police personnel have said what was
going on is wrong there, that these cadets were
being possibly punished; and I guess in the end,
many were punished for things they were
encouraged to do, quite frankly.
I think there were situations where
students were, again, encouraged to look at
study guides and study guides from other classes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
and they were -- some of them were dismissed;
some of them left voluntarily; but even some of
the ones that were dismissed, did things, at
least in their opinion, no different than others
that were allowed to become Pennsylvania State
Troopers.
And, to me, it seems that the Office of
Inspector General, when they looked at this,
they were outside eyes and an independent
examination of what was going on at the Academy,
they looked at what testing procedures were
being done by the State Police, I don't think
they were looking at it from -- certainly from
the standpoint of cadets and if what happened to
them was proper under the circumstances.
And, in my opinion, I think that we need
to take another look at this. I think that the
Legislature should look at this. I think we
need an independent review of what happened. A
lot of these former cadets, you know, as I'm
sure with many of you, it was their lifelong
dream to become a Pennsylvania State Trooper and
that was taken from them and they certainly
object to the way that was done.
And I think in light -- especially in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
light of the Office of Inspector General's
report, that it makes sense that you consider --
or reconsider the fate of some of these cadets.
And, again, I look -- I would like to
talk more with you about this, as we are limited
by time here and hopefully work through some
kind of solution as we move forward.
I don't know if you have any comments on
that, but just wanted to share my thoughts.
And, again, look forward to working with you in
the future.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: With that, we
go to Representative Quinn.
REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you. Over
here, Colonel (indicating). And, team, thanks
so much. And I'll reiterate the comments of so
many of my colleagues of how important you are
to us and to thank you for your service. And
thanks also to the families of the troopers.
I've got to admit, I'm a tad
disappointed. I'm looking around the room and I
do not see Homeland Security presence here. Is
-- you're hiding back there, or else I was
hiding up here. Thanks. I'm glad that you're
here today. And if you think it's appropriate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
for you to come in and comment, if the Colonel
doesn't have answers to this, I'd appreciate
your take in the mike, too.
We've heard a lot today about how
critically important comprehensive 21st Century
radio system is. We've also heard that one of
the pillars of -- I'll use the word pride -- you
didn't -- of the State Police is that your use
of technology, is you're a leader in the
adoption -- you know, we're on the cutting edge
for technology.
So as I look through the technology
budget line items, one, it looks like a zero
increase for that which incorporates -- or that
which funds the following lines: Enterprise
network infrastructure support, mobile office
and records management supports, management
system support, criminal history record system
support, Pennsylvania compute services help desk
operations, common law enforcement agency; that
CLEAN that we've mentioned, uniform crime report
internet system, automated criminal
investigation intelligence system, Megan's Law,
Walsh Act, Pennsylvania Instant Check. And I'm
assuming somewhere on here the new prescription
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
drug monitoring program is fit in there.
So as I'm looking at that and I'm
hearing cutting edge and all of that, I'm
concerned that I'm not seeing something spelled
out for cyber security. It seems to me that all
of these line items or lines that I just
mentioned in your preparation book, would be --
have highly sensitive information in them. And
as much as we're out there trying to get bad
guys on the streets, there are bad guys and gals
who are, you know, working from clouds in
bedrooms and all over the world; and I'm not
seeing where we're beefing up law enforcement in
that direction.
Could you please speak to that, to help
me --
MR. BLOCKER: Sure. I'll share my
thoughts, and then maybe Major Evanchick would
want to comment, as well. I can assure you,
Representative, that from a technology
perspective, as it relates to cyber crimes, that
we have a state-of-the-art initiative in our
Bureau of Investigation that is constantly
looking at new and improved investigative
techniques to address cyber crime threats in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
So it's not something that we're not
looking at. When I talk about technology, you
know, being a real pillar of 21st Century
policing, it is all-encompassing. We have to
have our ear very low to the ground on
technological changes that are critical for us
to maintaining efficient and effective
enforcement efforts in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, particularly as it relates to
partnering with federal, other state, and local
law enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Colonel, is it
appropriate for me now to ask the Director of
Homeland Security this? I mean, I want to know
where things are interacting, where the rubber's
hitting the road for letting our constituents
feel safe on things that they don't even know's
coming our way.
You mentioned that we certainly have an
initiative. That word initiative seems to me to
be a beginning, and then we're constantly
looking at things. So if we're at the beginning
and we're fully looking, are we actually
implementing security for that which we don't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
even know what's coming?
MR. BLOCKER: Well, when I say looking
at them, I mean, we're looking very
comprehensively. It's not as if we're at the
ground level here. We're operating on multiple
fronts in terms of enhanced cyber security
versus some of those low level areas, as well.
We don't look at it through just a
single lens. This is a multi-facetted, very
integrated kind of initiative when we begin to
talk about technology, particularly as it
relates to criminal-related matters.
REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: I see the light.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Uh-huh.
MR. BLOCKER: You see the light.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative, there's so many things I could
say with that.
We'll go to Representative Costa.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTA: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And thank you all for being here
today. And I would like to echo what most
members have said, and I think I can speak on
behalf of everyone, that we all appreciate the
work that you do and we respect the work that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
you do; so thank you very much.
So last week, we had the LCB here; and
they said that there was a 1.9-percent increase
in the amount of money that you're asking them
for for LCE enforcement. Could you go into
details, or do you have the details, what that
increased amount is going to be used for?
MR. BLOCKER: I don't have that right at
my fingertips, Representative. We can certainly
provide you with that. My sense is, having
spoken with individuals from LCE, is that
there's a personnel driver there in terms of
looking at, you know, our ability to be
omnipresent in that whole space associated with
Liquor Control Enforcement.
It's a -- obviously, we have a great
interest in that regard. We're working very
diligently at trying to ensure that our
complement of Liquor Enforcement Officers are
where it should be.
We're not at our maximum level as of
yet. We're constantly recruiting, bringing
classes on, so that we can ensure that we have a
full complement to meet those needs.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTA: And, obviously,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
you can tell from our Philadelphia members that
that is an issue with LCE enforcement in their
area. So my staff is going to be reaching out
to you very soon. We already reached out to LCB
to get some dates where hopefully we can get the
LCE and the LCB together and not only educate us
but give us an opportunity to ask questions and
get some answers on how we can address the
Philadelphia issue.
Going back to the LCB being charged a
1.9-percent addition, they pay a bunch of
different agencies for services that are
provided. Are any other agencies paying you,
besides the Motor License Fund? Are there any
other agencies that pay you for services?
MR. BLOCKER: I don't think so.
Mr. Box, our Fiscal Division Director indicated
to me that the Turnpike Commission compensates
us, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTA: Okay. Well,
thank you very much. And, again, thank you all
for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Everett.
REPRESENTATIVE EVERETT: Thank you, Mr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
Chairman; and thank you for being here today. I
have a question about a federal law that was
passed, the NICS Improvement Act. Are you
familiar with that at all?
I understand -- my understanding of it
is, is that if states comply with the
requirements within the Act, they have access to
some federal dollars and that Pennsylvania is
not, at this point, in compliance with that Act
and that if we -- there's certain statutory
requirements that we would need to meet. And
one of those, you know, I believe that in every
state and federal, there's, you know -- that
there's about getting a gun permit, you can't do
so if you've been involuntarily committed to a
mental-health facility.
One of the things that I understand the
NICS Improvement Act would require is a way for
someone who has been involuntarily committed --
right now there's no way once you have that
prohibition, it's my understanding you can't
ever own a weapon and there's no mechanism to
ever have that erased.
So I guess the essence of my question
is, would you, the Pennsylvania State Police,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
support the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
becoming compliant with the Federal NICS
Improvement Act?
And if you're not familiar with it right
now, I was not until I was brought up to speed
on this. It's something you can maybe get back
with us on, if that's necessary.
MR. BLOCKER: Sure. We'd be more than
happy to get back to you on that,
Representative. My sense is, is that I believe
that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the
most efficient and effective protocols as it
results to gun ownership in the country, with
our PIC System.
I have an awful lot of confidence in
that we're able to uphold Second Amendment
rights, as well as to ensure that only
individuals who purchase guns that are doing it
legally.
REPRESENTATIVE EVERETT: Thank you. And
one of the -- I know you've been asked for a lot
of metrics today on the policing of
municipalities that don't have their own police
force.
If while you're gathering all that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
information together for us, if it hasn't been
asked, if you could provide us with your
estimate of the man hours, trooper hours, that
are involved in the policing of municipalities
in the Commonwealth that don't have their own
police forces.
Thank you very much.
MR. BLOCKER: Okay.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Ortitay.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And good afternoon, everyone. I'm
right up here, up front (indicating). I'm going
to talk to the Chairman about getting you guys
an extra table for next year, too. You guys
look a little crammed together.
I have a couple questions about PICS.
We were talking about some of the criminal
records and the PFAs that are put into that
system. Are those sent up to the NIC System at
the federal level, as well?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, the --
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Or -- I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
MR. BLOCKER: There is data that's sent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
from Pennsylvania up to the national system.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: So all the
criminal records that we enter into our database
end up at the federal level? I mean, I don't
know how often it's sent up there; but I just
want to make sure that all of that -- just
because I know criminals, they aren't -- they
don't always stay within state lines and just
because it's in PICS doesn't mean they might not
go to another state and be accepted there.
Would I be accurate in that?
MR. BUCAR: Representative, the records
that we can share with NICS, we share. There
are some records that they won't accept, because
we don't have enough identifiers. For instance,
if you have a name but no numeral identifiers,
the federal system will not accept it.
So we have databases that we search
using PICS that just hit off of names, because
we don't birthdays. Some PFA orders only have a
name; they don't have a date of birth. So those
can't be -- NICS will not accept them. We
search them; but NICS, since they don't accept
it because it doesn't have the identifiers, they
don't have it available within NICS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
Does that answer your question?
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Yeah. All I
want to do at the end of the day is make sure
that what our criminal records are that are
going into PICS at the state level are also
going into the federal level, as well.
Okay. And my next question,
Representative Boback kind of touched on this.
When the PIC System goes down, I get a text
message and an e-mail within like 10 seconds. I
have a lot of constituents who like to keep me
in the loop on this stuff. And I didn't pay too
much attention to it last year. But I will tell
you, to date, just to give you an idea here,
over the last two weeks, it's been down 7 times,
at least. And at least a dozen more times, it's
been slow or erratic, like, where they couldn't
submit or the system froze.
And just to give you a couple more
examples on top of that, on February 24th, it
was down from 3:00 to 7:00. And then on the
next day, the 25th, it was down at noon, back at
2:30, and then went offline again randomly the
rest of the day. I know it's technology, and I
know it can be spotty, but --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
MR. BLOCKER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: -- it seems
like it's increasing more and more. Is there
anything that you guys are noticing within the
system, or are you guys planning to do any type
of changes or updates to the system to make sure
it's more reliable and on-line?
MR. BUCAR: Representative, it's
frustrating to us. But what is not clear to the
Legislature is that PICS -- of all the time that
PICS goes down or was down during 2016, only 4
and a half hours of that total time was
attributed to the PIC System itself.
If NICS goes down, PICS is down. If the
Criminal History Record Database goes down, PICS
is down; because it relies on those databases to
do PICS checks. So the majority of those hours,
the PIC System is up and running; but because we
can't access third-party databases, we're
helpless.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Well, do you
guys have any data on how often the NIC System
goes down? Because I'd be interested to know,
as a comparison, just so we could see where the
overlap may be. I know 1.3 percent doesn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
sound like a bad benchmark; but to the people
who own these gun dealerships, they get very
upset because they have to turn people away.
And more times than not, they don't come back;
they lose a sale. And a lot of them are worried
that they are going to go out of business,
because it seems to be happening more and more
frequently.
MR. BUCAR: We can provide that to you.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Okay. Thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR:
Representative Pyle.
REPRESENTATIVE PYLE: Hi, Colonel. I
usually don't have to say I'm over here. I'm
the big tall guy. Great to see you again.
Chairman, I'd like to report that the Colonel
was kind enough to come out and visit the new
barracks opening in Kittanning, which is
performing optimally. Look forward to kenneying
you again.
I chaired the Second Amendment Caucus in
the Pennsylvania House. There's 88 members, and
a lot of the questions that concern our caucus
members are being asked, but I have a few for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
you. They deal with the CCW, concealed carry
weapons permit, which is obtainable by anybody
at the county level.
Now, when somebody applies for a CCW,
they have to go through background checks. I
assume those checks run through PSP; is that
correct?
MR. BLOCKER: Yes, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE PYLE: So a person who
has been issued a concealed carry weapons permit
has already been vetted through the State
Police, PIC and NIC System before they are
allowed and empowered to put a firearm in
concealment on them. Am I correct?
MR. BUCAR: Yes. That's correct, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE PYLE: That's awesome.
Because for all these troubles that
Representative Ortitay and a number of others
have brought up, that's kind of why I'm here.
We've got a bill right now that says if you've
been properly issued a CCW by your county and
you do happen to be in one of those stores when
the PIC System goes down, you have already
passed muster by virtue of being run through the
system to get your CCW. Something to think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
about, you're probably going to see that bill.
And I know you're not allowed to make a policy
position. That has to come from the Governor.
But to make the point, why would
somebody have to be vetted twice through the
very same system ostensibly for the same result,
if they've already passed once? That's my first
one. The second one, shifting gears, the $25
per head in municipalities without their own
municipal police coverage, under Governor
Corbett, when the Academy was hurting for money
they came to me and asked me to help them with a
bill that would say if a municipality ran 32
hours, that qualified them as a full-time police
force.
If they were a full-time police force,
any arrests committed or executed within that
municipality that resulted in an arrest and a
fine, that fine would be split between PSP and
that local municipality.
I have one municipality that was running
30-hour police forces that because it has SR 28
running through the middle, which is a big drug
highway, north Buffalo Township upped their
part-time police from 30 to 36. They now get a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
bite of that pie.
Here's my question: If we go to this
$25-per capita tax, which is pretty much what it
is, will it have an effect on the fine sharing
with municipalities that patrol jointly with
PSP?
MR. BLOCKER: Representative, the issue
with respect to fine sharing, we see as a
distinct and very separate issue. Normally, you
know, we share fines with municipalities and
it's usually about a million dollars a year for
the most part.
But that's probably something that,
quite frankly, we haven't really discussed a
whole lot. We could get back to you then.
REPRESENTATIVE PYLE: In fairness, it
doesn't apply a great deal back home; but there
are two or three townships that collect
significant revenue from drug busts out on 28,
which is normally a collaborative with PSP --
MR. BLOCKER: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE PYLE: -- and north
Buffalo, south Buffalo, east Franklin, all the
other municipalities that patrol.
That's pretty much my question. Just to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
let you know, we're going to try to move a bill
that says if you've been issued a CCW and PICS
is down, you should still be issued that
firearm.
Thank you, Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: Last
questioner today, Commissioner. Representative
Milne.
REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: And the last
shall be first. But actually I think it's
symbolically and substantively reflective of my
question that I am the final questioner.
I actually want to turn a little bit
more attention to Homeland Security issues, and
I think that's important to maybe bring that all
together as we finish up this particular
segment. Because, after all, the first and most
fundamental order of government is to ensure
there are territorial protections of the
society. Certainly the umbrella of Homeland
Security is an integral part of this. So the
context of my question is, that as a military
reservist, my unit has done DSCA missions,
ironically, in other states but never here in
Pennsylvania.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
So I'm wondering what our interaction is
with DSCA missions, whether we've thought about
pulling done some training dollars to support
our efforts here in the Commonwealth? And maybe
any context you'd like to offer about our
relationship over in the DSCA/Cheney command.
MR. BLOCKER: Let me make sure I
understand your question. In terms of PSP
dealing with or interacting with what entity?
REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Defense Support
of Civil Authorities, the DSCA missions.
MR. BLOCKER: All right. I am
unfamiliar with that particular area. We can
certainly research it and get back to you.
REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Okay. I
appreciate that. I believe the Director of
Homeland Security indicated he also, I guess,
could contact me and we'll go from there. I
guess, then bringing it then to state, local
horizontally, could you comment on the
relationship then with PSP and PEMA and where
you kind of see the strengths and opportunities
there? Again, sort of the umbrella of Homeland
Security in the emergency responses context.
MR. BLOCKER: I would be pleased to talk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
about the PSP relationship with the Pennsylvania
Emergency Management Agency. We have an
exceptional relationship with PEMA. Director
Flinn and I speak regularly about substantive
issues that potentially affect the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
As you know, PEMA's just moved into a
new facility just adjacent to the State Police
headquarters on Elmerton Avenue. So there's a
lot of interaction through conference calls.
Our staff exchange information on a regular
basis. If there's something going on in a
particular part of the state that State Police
are responsible for, we routinely reach out to
PEMA and vice-versa.
We see a real partner with PEMA in
furtherance of providing public safety and
security to Pennsylvanians.
REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: I appreciate
hearing that. And maybe then as sort of a
general characterization, where do you see some
of the opportunities we can continue and enhance
our efforts at the state level in terms of where
the Legislature can be useful in terms of our
priority of efforts to support your good work?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
MR. BLOCKER: Well, I think it's -- you
know, it's a matter of the Legislature, you
know, being available to discuss relevant
issues. I think it's always important to meet
with the various committees so that we can keep
you abreast of some of the challenges that
various public safety agencies address.
And what I'm referring to is, you know,
you look at the State Police, you look at PEMA,
you look at Homeland Security, you look at the
Department of Military and Veteran Affairs,
that's what we refer to as -- and Corrections --
as the public safety hub.
We're constantly -- the various
directors of those agencies, we're constantly
meeting, strategizing about different areas of
mutual concern where we can partner with.
So that's really happening within this
Administration. However, you know, if there is
a group of Legislators that would like to be,
you know, briefed periodically regarding public
safety issues, I won't speak for Director Flinn
or Director Brown, but my sense is that we could
facilitate that.
REPRESENTATIVE MILNE: Certainly. And
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
I'm sure many of us would take you up on that
opportunity. With that, I thank you and all
assembled on your ranks, for your great service
to the Commonwealth and the nation as a whole.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: You're
welcome. Commissioner, I want to thank all of
you for coming today and giving us your time to
talk about your budget and priorities and kind
of filling us in.
And, Commissioner, I appreciated your
opening remarks. I think it was very
educational to those who are not familiar,
particularly the TV audience. I think a lot of
times a lot of people don't really know a whole
lot. They see the troopers out there in their
cars or any number of places, but they don't
really realize the job that you guys do and the
amount of jobs you do with the force that you
have.
So as somebody who has for a long time
believed that we actually need more troopers
than we actually have, just because of 911 and
everything else.
MR. BLOCKER: Right.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: I wish you
well in the coming year, and all your troopers
be safe. And I'll ask Representative Markosek
for any closing comments.
MINORITY CHAIRMAN MARKOSEK: Thank you,
Chairman. And when we started, I directed my
comments to my own colleagues. And I'd like to
continue on that vein and just say to my
colleagues, the questions that were asked today,
I thought, were very enlightening, a lot of
stuff I hadn't thought of.
And you did an excellent job of
answering them; and I think we learned a lot
today, which is the whole purpose of this. So
as we move forward through the budget, we look
forward to working with all of you. And, you
know, please let us know if we can help you with
anything.
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SAYLOR: And with
that, the Committee is recessed until tomorrow
morning at 10 a.m., when we will hear from the
Budget Secretary.
MR. BLOCKER: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the hearing concluded.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the proceedings and
evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
taken by me on the within proceedings and that this is a
correct transcript of the same.
____________________________
Tracy L. Markle,Court Reporter/Notary
