[Adam Hurtubise]: Test one, two.
[Zac Bears]: Council Committee of the Whole, January 13th, 2026 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan is absent. Vice President Lazzaro. Present. Councilor Leming. Present. Councilor Malauulu. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Councilor Tseng. Present. President Beebs.
[Zac Bears]: Present and I just saw Councilor Callahan enter on Zoom. Councilors Callahan and Tseng and Lazzaro are here by Zoom so they don't get us all sick. Action discussion items today, 26-011 offered by Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears's resolution to conduct comprehensive review of the ambulance EMS contract negotiation and transition. How we're going to handle this today is we're going to hear from Councilors first from the sponsor Councilor Scarpelli. If Councilors have initial statements they want to make. Then we'll hear from our city administration. We've invited all parties to be here, so we'll hear from our city administration next. I know Armstrong Ambulance is here. We'll hear from them. Then we'll go to questions from the council, and then if the administration or Armstrong at that point wants to speak again, we'll hear from them, and then we'll have a public participation after that. And that will be how it goes. Recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, President Piazza. Again, I thank everybody for being here tonight. The city administration chiefs. Representative from Armstrong Ambulance, I think that last week was a discussion to really start a dialogue to make sure that we're doing what's best for the city of Medford. And I think it's really three important factors, but the last being the most important. One, the process of negotiation. Two, the contractual understanding of how we do business here in Medford. And then three is public safety affairs. This has been a very interesting week because last week there were things that were said and then I started getting more and more phone calls, feedback from many, many leaders in this field that shared some pretty important insight. But what I wanted to do right now is just start why we're here, why I brought this forward. And if you those who were there last last week understand that this was a personal matter that I took very personal approach with because my parents were both ambulatory. My mother especially had to travel via ambulance three times a week for many years. due to a fight with kidney failure and dialysis. And I saw the efforts of one company in regards to the company that's here before us tonight, Armstrong Ambulance. And I watched the care that they gave my mother. when I did some homework beforehand and I did reach out to a lot of different communities that either share different companies or use different ambulance companies and they were very, very secure in sharing their thoughts that Armstrong is the best provider in the Commonwealth in their eyes. And so what I wanted to, As this happened, we received an email from the mayor as a city council sometime, probably like the second week of December, stating that the mayor is looking into entertaining negotiations with other providers, and that's her prerogative. By law, this is what the mayor does. She's in charge of contracts, and this falls under the mayor's direction. I applauded that, let's see what we can do. But I shared my feelings with her and she quickly guided me to our chiefs and I met with the chiefs and I appreciate the chiefs meeting with me and they were very honest and upfront from what they were saying and we heard some key points because it took some key notes and I think that this is why we go full circle. And so you understand why this is so important and why I'm questioning so much. The concerns of EMD concerns, and EMD is, I believe, emergency medical. Anyone? I've been butchering that for two weeks now. But the understanding of what that is. Now what that is, it's the process when a 911 call comes into the call center. We in Medford take that call and then if there's a life-threatening situation, it's then passed on to our ambulance provider that they get right on with the the resident to help them and with any life-saving support while the while they're on the phone to free up our 911 responder if they needed to be free to answer calls. I realized that that was a question and as I looked more into it I've talked to fellow chiefs and neighbor communities and they said George, EMD is very simple. It's a grant through 9-1-1. It's a 9-1-1 response grant that usually the police chief puts into play, and then that money that is put forth or awarded through the grant goes to the provider for providing the service. And so it was very simple. So that was one of the questions. Another one was questions about that Armstrong used to provide daily logs and they're not doing that anymore. And the mayor had to get involved to make sure this happens again, which I found alarming. Then there was an issue of a 45-minute response call of a concern or an issue and of a situation that happened sometime this past few months ago. And it was very bothersome to our chiefs. And I said, that's, you're hearing it all? And then he says, you know, You look into, you know, the offering of a behavior ambulance. The behavior ambulance is the opportunity for Medford to have a behavior ambulance that's suited with a clinician that helps with any issues dealing with mental health, I believe, or drug addiction where they can streamline the patient to get them assistance as quickly as possible because time is a factor. And I said, geez, OK, you're understanding. He said, OK, I appreciate this phone call. They talked about, we talked about different concerns with the negotiations, issues with contracts, issues that Armstrong owed the city a lot, a lot of money. And so I said, well, that's bothersome. So I did my due diligence, I reached out to the leadership team in Armstrong, and I said, can you give me an insight of what you're seeing? And without leading them any way, they answered and followed up with everything that I said, everything that the chiefs provided to me, but the opposite. And I said, what do you mean? So the behavior bust, that's a big issue, right? We see it on the news. And they're like, yeah, well, we offered this three years ago when we had our friend Penelope in our office here that they were working together with our city administration to bring that to Medford. But three years ago, that fell through the cracks. But they said, it's in this contract. We're moving forward with this in this contract. We'd like to keep it in Medford, and then it'll host for Melrose, I believe, Stoneham, Arlington, so it'll be based here in Medford. And I was like, oh, that's great news. And then we talked about this response time. I said, jeez, I'm confused why you're not providing daily documents. And Mr. Mangan reported, he says, George, I'm confused, because the question was this. When Chief Gilliberti was in place, he put a format in place where they would get the run times. At the end of the day, everything that happened in Medford, so he would look into every issue. If they found it to be a concern, he would then call Armstrong in the morning to meet right away to see if there were any concerns that they can fix. What Mr. Mangan then expressed was when Chief Freeman came in, Chief Freeman said, you know what? I don't require daily. I require monthly. And I said, OK. And I said, in this administration, his response was, I don't know. Nothing has changed. So we've just been providing monthly. So I said, OK. It was something that That was something that was very important. I said, what was bothersome that, you know, they talked about this 45 minute runtime that Mr. Mangan said, well, I'll be honest with you, George, within five minutes of us finding out, we self-reported here at Armstrong. We sent the information over to Medford and we expressed how the situation came about. We took 50% ownership and we wanted to bring it forward so we can make Medford understand someone else dropped the ball along the line. We need to correct this and move forward. And then there was a question about some documentation not lining up. So once Mr. Mangan noticed that, he then corrected it, sent it back to the administration. The administration said, thank you for your quick response. So I said, geez, this is a little confusing. I was a little taken back. They said, okay, so what, you know, but the biggest thing that they brought forward is this, what was owed to them financially? that the city was claiming that Armstrong owed the city of Medford an exaggerated amount of money, over $200,000 possibly. Maybe they can correct it, but I think it was even talking $400,000 or $500,000. And they provided me with a contract that specifically says that the administration has to request that funding every year of $75,000 as long as it lined legally, and there was documentation. They also shared how Chief Gilliberti went through the process and how he would come in with all the accounting information, everything lined up. They would go through the process because, quote unquote, as the administration from Armstrong responded saying that this is this is federal law and we don't want to We don't want to go. This could be something to put everybody in trouble. So we just want to protect Medford and want to protect Armstrong. There was another issue that was said that the concern was that Armstrong in the past would always transport Medford first responders that needed an ambulance to from from the city to to the hospital. And that's something that the chiefs shared with me that when Mr. Mangan shared, he says what we said was we weren't stopping that. We needed to put it in the contract, protect Medford and Armstrong again. And I believe another person sent me Waltham's contract that specifically reads what Armstrong was explaining to me was that they just wanted to make sure that It was for Method's first responders or employees that happened during the day or during the course of business. Not at home having the chest pain and saying, well, I'm a Method employee. I get a free ambulance ride. So I said, geez, when I heard all this, I said, this is pretty self-explanatory. This is pretty good. I said, so my last question was, who are you negotiating with? And then they were confused, as well as my chiefs were. They were a little confused. They didn't know the process and who was taking it over and whose hands it was in. I think that maybe Armstrong could shed some light later that who they met with on a more regular basis and how that process went through that, you know, a former city solicitor was part of this process. And then, you know, learning some other, I've learned so many things in the last week that the number one person in our first responder system is is Lieutenant Captain Barry Clemente that worked closely with Armstrong for many years but wasn't part of this process. So there's so many different questions with this that I felt that it needed to be public and I'll be honest with you I asked the mayor I said I said this is I expressed to have what I I asked for one more meeting. I said, it seems to be that I'm the only person talking to both parties. And there's a void, because what the chiefs told me and what Armstrong responded with, there was a huge disconnect. There were no issues. It was just a conversation. At least that's what I witnessed in these conversations. sent an email to the chiefs and the mayors and I requested please can we do this one one time what I what I'm scared of is what this process will mean moving down the road because I did do some homework in other other companies and it didn't come back favorably and it made me very nervous and the response was Well, the five of us negotiated. There was five on the negotiating team. They feel very strong. They don't agree with me. And that's fine. They don't have to. But all I asked for was for one more meeting. And what was said was that I said, well, I was honest. I said, I'm going to have to go public. I'm going to speak with my fellow Councilors. And we're going to move this forward to the public so we can talk about it. Because while this was going on, the community was informed that we're changing providers. And the big question to everybody was, why? Why? So that leads us to where we are today, because I believe the mayor explained to me that it's not good to go public. She didn't want to embarrass Armstrong. And I'll do respect to Armstrong or the city. I could care less. My job's number one priority is the safety and the well-being of our community and making sure that we're doing what we're supposed to be doing with our fiduciary responsibility as well. So for me tonight, you're going to hear three things. I'm going to ask questions about, the negotiation process. I'm going to ask the process of contract contracts and what was said. And then the last piece is going to be the public safety piece. And are we prepared? Because there are a lot of questions that are we prepared for the handoff? I believe is January 19th. Um, so that's that's why we're here. I hope I set the table so everybody understands why, why I brought this forward. Um, it's with no malice at all. I have nothing to gain. except making sure that our community is safe. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: I'd just like to reiterate my support for my colleague bringing this forward. It's a very personal issue with him. He's brought a put a lot of work into it and I appreciate the due diligence and effort that went into this process. The only thing that I would like to add is that last meeting the line of thought kept coming up that we shouldn't be doing this just because we should just be trusting in the process and not, and the idea that we should just trust folks who make these decisions and just not have a second meeting, et cetera, et cetera, that kept coming up. And that's something I strongly disagree with, because as soon as this announcement was made, we saw a lot of public outrage over it. And people didn't really know why. People didn't really know what happened behind the scenes. And that's something that folks are increasingly curious about. So I hope that when people talk tonight, when people give some insight into the behind the scenes, they don't try to push back on public accountability. Because yes, we're having a meeting. This is one of the few mechanisms by which some of these things can become public. And I'm glad that we're doing this. The aspect of this that I would personally like to be convinced of is that this switch was made with public safety in mind. This switch was made with the health and safety of the residents of Medford in mind and not because of a breakdown in negotiations, not because of an internal breakdown in communication. A lot of what I've been hearing has not really convinced me that this decision was made entirely with public safety in mind. A lot of what I'm hearing seems to indicate that this was due to internal arguments, miscommunications, and so on. invite both parties, all parties that were involved in this to give their side of the story and clearly illustrate what happened behind the scenes, which I think the union and Armstrong did pretty clearly last meeting. So thank you very much and I look forward to hearing what folks have to say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Malayne.
[Liz Mullane]: I also want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing this forward, and certainly what Councilor Leming has shared as well. I think we've heard at least, I've received a lot of feedback from the public as well over the course of the past week. Not only just about the contract itself, but just things that were said at the meeting last time, things that weren't really clarified. I think for all of us, it would just be helpful to know the contract as longstanding as it had been with Armstrong. Just what were we looking for then in this contract this next time around that was different than in previous years? What are some of those changes that we saw to make this type of a decision? And to just give us a bit more and the public a bit more clear cut answers on what those decisions were. Because I do think that is a constant theme that we keep, or I should say I keep hearing, is not getting kind of the full picture of everything that went by behind it. That the public should be able to have more of a sense of, with such a critically important service and one that my family has used several times in the past several years. I know just how important it is to make sure that we're definitely going through all of our due diligence to make sure that we have the right people in place for it. So I look forward to the conversation tonight and just getting a better sense from each of the different parties where we stand and how we can move forward from here. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I can be super brief because I I'm sure we'll get into more details after but I would like to reiterate what I think me and what the council said at last Tuesday's meeting which is that at the end of the day we just want to understand why this decision is makes us safe or safer than what we had before. And my worry is that we didn't hear a clear-cut answer to that question at last week's meeting. And hopefully tonight we can get a better picture. But that was my worry then. And I think I want to reiterate that, you know, We should be making these decisions because of real factors, because of real reasons, and cost, while important, is not something that should be balanced on the backs of the safety of our residents. So I'm curious about, you know, comparisons with response times. I'm curious about level of service, about getting into the details about the behaviour of bus and whatnot, about the process. I think Regardless of where you stand on which provider, which contract at the end of the day, there are some real rumors and rumors and accusations to dispel and quash. And as someone said at last week's meeting, Sunlight is the real disinfectant here. So I'm grateful that we are having this committee of the whole. I look forward to getting the answers. And thank you for everyone for showing up today.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I do appreciate this being brought up and I appreciate it coming for a meeting tonight where we can really get into details. My concern and my questions are that it is my understanding and I would appreciate hearing from people involved whether this is accurate that when you change an ambulance service for your city, That comes at a cost and I don't mean cost financially. I mean, that comes at a cost to the health and safety of our residents. simply making that change from an organization that has been doing ambulance service here for 20 plus years to one that has not been doing it here for the last couple of decades, that comes at a cost of safety. So I would love to have that addressed and then The other thing that I really want addressed is there were some vague talks last week about that, oh, there were things in the contract that we weren't happy with. I want to know exactly why this change was made. I want to know what it was about the contract. And I also would really appreciate I do appreciate Councilor Scarpelli giving us a little bit of understanding about how ambulance services are paid for by a city, but I want something more specific. I want that to come for the public of how ambulance services are paid and specifically what about the contract with Armstrong was no longer acceptable or had changed and was unacceptable. I just want clarity on why this change was made, because it is my understanding that when you make a change like this, it comes at a cost to our safety of our residents. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I echo a lot of what my colleagues have said. I really appreciate the transparency, our opportunity here to bring some things to light that our residents have asked about. Our role as city council is often to take questions that are raised by residents and bring the answers to the public. It's not necessarily that our public safety people or that anybody who works for the administration is not doing things in a proper way, but it's that residents have asked us questions we can't necessarily answer, but what we can do is bring those questions to the people that have the answers, bring the answers forward in a public forum, and we can get those answers to people who want to know. And I think that that is the critical opportunity that we have here. And I really appreciate Councilor Scarpelli for bringing it forward, giving us the chance to do this in committee is a great opportunity for us to air these questions publicly. That is what our job is. And it's not, nobody's on blast, nobody's in trouble. All we're doing here is making it possible for everybody to have these questions answered. Nobody has anything to hide. Nobody has done anything wrong necessarily. And if there is something that we are unsure about, now we can know. And I think that that is a wonderful opportunity for public transparency and trust, building trust between different branches of government and between the public and government that's making decisions that impact people's lives and health and wellbeing. So I appreciate the opportunity and I'm looking forward to the rest of the discussion. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Lazzaro. I think my colleagues have said pretty much everything that I would want to say. I'm really just interested in the analysis by the administration that led to this decision and understanding how it maintains or improves public safety in our city. So with that, I will turn this over to our city administration. We have the chief of staff, our police and fire chief, our dispatch head are all here. So I'm happy to hear from them.
[Nina Nazarian]: Good evening. So I want to start, thank you President Bears, thank you members of the council. Honestly, I wish we weren't here today. I think you all know that. I want to state that we frankly just didn't want this to drag on. I also want to state very clearly that we didn't want to cast shade on Armstrong Ambulance, but here we are. And we're going to take this up and we're going to have the conversation and hopefully the questions will be answered this evening. Frankly, changing companies is a reasonable thing for the city to do, whether it's in this line of service or other lines of services. It's what the city should be doing when it analyzes the services that it receives from outside vendors at all times. That's not to say that we don't value the services that were provided in the past or the employees who have provided those services under the management of any company. But based on what the city has experienced, we believe it was a reasonable and sound business decision to go a different route. And again, we'll discuss that here today. Hope that you'll give us time this week to fully explain what's going on, because last week we were told repeatedly that there wasn't enough time. That was one of the shortest meetings I've seen of the city council, but maybe the council had reasons that I'm not aware of.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to clarify that before you continue, we said that the resolution was to have a meeting dedicated to it. And I'm just going to be honest. I think to say both we shouldn't talk about it at all and we didn't have enough time to talk about it, it's a bit of a strange frame. But I'll turn the floor back over to you.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. I mean, the reality is, again, we don't want to cast shade on the company. But again, here we are, and we, we're going through it. I also want to caveat that any comments made by me, communications, a supervisor, Salvy, or our chiefs are not a negative reflection on Armstrong employees. Instead, they're a reflection on Armstrong management. We don't believe that Armstrong management is being forthcoming with employees as to what has transpired over time. So that, I'm gonna go through now a bit of a timeline and share with the council and the chiefs and our supervisor can elaborate on these topics tonight. As far as timeline is concerned, we need to go back to when our current fire chief began to raise questions on the Armstrong contract. shortly after becoming Provisional Chief. He was making requests for reports that were required by contract for the runs and response times. Armstrong sent some information over, but nothing to the degree that was required by contract. The Chief continued to ask for reports from at least July of 2024 through January of 2025. The Chief began emailing Armstrong in January of 2025 to follow up on prior requests for reports. Armstrong responded that they were changing their systems and would get information over for what they had at the time. The Chief did not get reporting at that point, and that they were not forthcoming with further information, and he had to continue to press them. In March of 2025, we were inquiring with Armstrong on payments that were not being made by Armstrong to the city. This was referenced this evening by Councilor Scarapelli with regard to reimbursements that were due under the contract to the city. After that, Armstrong went in to meet with the chief of police and effectively made statements that they were not going to make the $75,000 payments that were due per year to the city as part of the contractual agreement, and they were saying that they weren't going to They were going to change things to the city that were not previously charged before, specifically emergency medical dispatch on the order of $25,000 to $30,000, and that they were going to start charging for transporting city's first responders when they sustained injuries on the job. Based on this, Armstrong was effectively showing signs that they were going to change more and not honor the contract. That was a significant turning point for the city. It was after that that the city began planning to consider negotiating with other ambulance providers. The chief of fire followed up with them on multiple times to the point where he had to write Armstrong in April and copy the mayor to elevate the issue for the lack of responsiveness. We started getting reports in April of 2025, but the accuracy of those reports subsequently was identified as an issue and Chief Evans can describe and discuss that in further detail. When the team, the negotiating team met to discuss the ambulance contract and negotiations, other concerns were raised, and I'll go through those briefly here today. There was an exclusion of information on Armstrong's reporting, as I stated earlier. Where reporting is not accurate, the chiefs and Supervisor Salve and the mayor have an even larger loss of trust. Again, if you look at the timeline that I just identified, we have a situation where Armstrong has identified that they're not gonna honor their contract. That poses a significant milestone in the contractual agreement between the city and the party of Armstrong. Then we have a situation where we identify that reports are simply not accurate. And it brings into question the level of faith that the city can place on the information that's being provided by Armstrong. There's quotes of response time. Well, we have data that suggests that There's a number of examples where that response time doesn't seem to line up with the information we have. The time in which the call was dispatched, the time in which is written on their reports. But again, Chief Evans can elaborate on that. Then there were specific incidents in which there have been significant response times. Some of those have been brought up here tonight and last week. There was a 45-minute incident that was brought up. We can get into greater detail on that, as well as a number of other incidents that Supervisor Salvi can discuss. There seemed to be a lack of training for the ambulances that was requested. Sorry, this is tracking, not training. At some point in the process, the city began to ask for tracking information for the ambulances. So the dispatch system could, the dispatchers and the dispatch division of the city could essentially track the ambulances and provide a proper dispatch system so that, you know, they could simply state, Ambulance 2, I don't know the proper terminology, but please respond to XYZ Street because you're closest. That tracking information came late. By the time we did get the tracker, we could see that there were Medford ambulances in another community, in particular in Arlington, on a frequent basis. Again, we can go into that as well. There was a, in our opinions, there was a lack of investment in both staffing the, the ambulance provider with, with sufficient staff by way of their personnel. Lack of investment in ambulances and AEDs. They were not buying more trucks. They were not staffing up in time. They were, they appeared to be spreading thin in Arlington. We don't really have an issue. I don't think the Chiefs or anyone has an issue. Supervisor Salve has an issue with mutual aid, right? We, we understand that there is a mutual aid component, but we kept finding more and more that Armstrong was in Arlington and was, was getting to us much later than usual. Cataldo also mentioned offers that were beneficial to the city, such as EMT training at the high school, which was an appeal, just to mention that, because it's not necessarily in line with the other comments. But at one point, we asked Armstrong if they could train firefighters as EMTs, and it wasn't until Armstrong found out that Cataldo was gonna do it that they offered the same. In fact, in March of 2025, when Armstrong approached the chief and spoke with both of our chiefs, they were saying that they wouldn't do that type of thing. You know, realistically, the city could have gone with the status quo and all of this would have been much less of a headache. But the chiefs, Supervisor Salve and the mayor felt that what was in the best interest of the city was to evaluate options. And in that evaluation process, they determined that the best for the city was to go a different route. We believe that Cataldo will bring response to a better place, response times to a better place, because again we question the accuracy of the information that's presented by Armstrong on the reports that they provide. I think I'll pause there and I'll turn it to maybe Chief Evans to begin on areas that I touched on that we could elaborate in depth and then go to, actually, I think I've, Chief Buckley, I apologize, then Chief Evans, and then we'll go through the rest. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff, Chief Buckley.
[Jack Buckley]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to be here to speak. I guess it's best that I start where I left off last time. I was lucky enough to be the person where I guess we could say this all began. It was in my office where statements from Armstrong Ambulance were made directly to me about the current state of the contract that they were working under and the provisions that they wished to change. And I think it's important that we start there, because I think it's important that we understand that what actually kind of started this, what precipitated a lot of this change. So sometime at the end of March, I was asked if Armstrong could come to see me and have a meeting in my office. I naturally agreed. And it was during that meeting that Armstrong personnel stated to me that They would no longer, or they did not believe that they were required to pay the monies that were due to the city of Medford based on the current contract that they were working on. Those monies were $75,000 a year, slated for dispatch based on a reimbursement type system. and they had not been paid for four years at the time. It's also during this meeting that they stated that other changes they felt were necessary to practices, one of them being the requirement or their provision of emergency medical dispatch to the city of Medford and that they were going to start to charge us for those services. I asked at the time what those costs would be, and they gave me an estimate of about $25,000 per year. Additional statements of member aid were Things such as training of firefighters and the idea of if a municipal employee, I'll use a police officer's example, you're involved in a cruiser accident, you get transported to the hospital. We were not charged for those costs and that we, Armstrong believed at that time that they were going to have to charge us for those costs. Now, I understand the open remarks made by Councilor Scarpelli and the statements that Armstrong is making today. What I'm here to tell you is what was made, the statements that were made to me in my office. There was no caveats to those statements. There was no, well, we were going to pay you 75 but you didn't do this. This was a no, we're not doing this sort of stuff and we have to change certain practices. This is what started it all. I understand some 8, 9, 10 months, however long down the road we are that Armstrong has changed their positions on that. But that's what had happened in the beginning, and that's what started us where we get there. So I feel it's important to start there and to understand what was told to us and to be clear about it. The other aspects and the comments that I want to make, the true experts on our EMS systems are the fire chief and dispatcher Salve because he's in our dispatch center every single day. But I want to add a couple of comments. The city is safe regardless of what we do. I've been doing this for a long time. I've been chief of police. I'm in my eighth year here. The city is safe regardless of who we use for a service. In this case, it's either Armstrong or Cataldo. But by transitioning to Cataldo, or as I think Councilor Callahan asked the question, Is the simple transaction of changing EMS services a danger to the city? It is not. Cataldo is a legitimate EMS provider. They work in the city of Lynn, Revere, Everett, Chelsea, Malden, Somerville. I've spoken with those chiefs of polices. They all have, they've expressed zero problems with Cataldo and they believe that they are a legitimate responsible company. And so from that point in time, I can tell you that the city is safe and the transition, moving from one company to the other, in this case, is not going to cause a public safety problem, if I understood that question from Councilor Callahan to be that. So unless there's questions for me specifically, I'm going to turn it over to Chief Evans so he can get into more of the nitty-gritty of the EMS system and the city of Medford and the issues that we may have had with Armstrong. But I just wanted to stop by there to say where we stand and where we go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Chief, when we talked, the comment that the changeover is going to be some risk and it does, that it's going to fall back anyway if something happens on who? On the chiefs, not the ambulance or the city? We didn't, you didn't, we didn't talk and you didn't say that, George, you know, this isn't, this is something that the turnover is, is, is something we should be aware of. This isn't something that, because what you just said is totally different what we talked about on the phone. I'm a little, this is one of the reasons why I brought this forward because.
[Jack Buckley]: I'm not sure what you're asking, so that, that's. Okay, so when we spoke. Keep one mic, thanks.
[George Scarpelli]: When we spoke. talked about the transition, that whenever there's a transition, that there is a level of, you know, flux where there's going to be some sort of, you know, there might be some issues, and that it's going to fall back on the chiefs, not anyone else.
[Jack Buckley]: Sorry, I just wanted to ask him if he had the conversation to clarify that. I know we talked, I think, a couple of times that one day, and I know you talked to Chief Evans, but. Yeah, no. If you're asking or suggested to me that I told you that there would be a problem switching companies, or the simple transaction of switching companies.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, I was under the impression that. Would be problematic. In the conversation, that I was under the impression when whatever the turnaround is, whenever you change all the services, there is going to be a level of of issues that I believe I said. Not if it's said correctly. I don't, I, I believe I said I don't want my daughter to be a guinea pig in this situation. I don't, you know, that's.
[Jack Buckley]: Yeah. With apologies counsel, I don't remember it in those terms, but I will tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: If we could just let me recognize folks before we get, I don't want, I think the more that we go back and forth and cutting each other's sentences off, the more likely we're going to get mad at each other. So thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, Chief Buckley.
[Jack Buckley]: So I don't remember it in those terms, Consul, and it's not to dodge the issue. I will tell you this. If done correctly, and if we do our jobs, there should not be a problem in a transaction, in a transition. And I don't think there's any situation or reason where I would say that to you. That's why I asked the Chief if he had had the conversation with you. It might have been a misunderstanding, but no, to the extent that transition from one company that is experienced and knows what they're doing is not an issue for us. especially if the preparations which have gone into play are put in play.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. If I can, Mr. President. Yep. I know this is going to come out later, Chief, but it's a transition. Has anyone worked with the leadership team from Armstrong to work with Cataldo in the city to transfer over? Has anybody from the city worked with Cataldo? Has anybody talked to Cataldo about the transition? OK.
[Jack Buckley]: Because they're working hand in hand with all the companies on the transition. So they know more about that. They're more appropriate to answer that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'd like to let people go through their presentation as much as possible. So I'll go to Chief Evans and then Supervisor Salve. And then we'll come back for questions after that. Chief Evans.
[Todd Evans]: Just basically to speak on. Council Scarpelli mentioned that yeah, there's been communication with between Cataldo and Armstrong management about the transition date and they they agreed upon that so There will be a transition date of the the 19th Yeah, so Armstrong was involved with Cataldo and with the city yes for this transition in the 19th, yes, thank you I So as Chief Buckley mentioned there before, that meeting occurred in his office back in March. I had come over to that meeting also when Chief Buckley informed me that Armstrong had come over there to have the conversation with him about some of the things in the contract there. So I was present for that. that conversation did kind of, that surprised me. I wasn't expecting that. When Armstrong was bringing up the changes as far as the EMD thing, that's more for the dispatch, the funding for that, and also the transporting of first responders to the hospital, charges related to that, and conversation also came up about possible EMT training for other fire departments. But that conversation went as Armstrong saying that they wouldn't be able to basically train Medford firefighters to EMT. And later on after conversations between panned out later on, that turned into Armstrong telling us later after they had learned about Cataldo making an offer for that that they would be able to do EMT training for firefighters. So that would be one of the additional things in the new contract with Armstrong and Cataldo switching would be firefighters getting EMT level training. Chief of Staff mentioned the report issues that we had encountered. Going back to January, asking for daily reports, there was a transition, I guess, that Armstrong was transitioning to something with their reporting system. So they were telling me that they couldn't get me the daily reports at that time. They were telling me that they were going to be able to get me daily reports that were more accurate. They were switching over their system. Prior to that, I had probably only gotten like one. Back in June of 24, I got like a monthly report on their old system that showed me a general idea of responses overall, it wasn't like a detailed report of response times or anything like that. So it wasn't until April of 25 where I started getting detailed daily reports from Armstrong about response times. And so since then, They've been able to provide me those mostly. There have been some recent challenges with that also where that system was apparently down for close to a month maybe where I wasn't able to get daily reports also. So there have been some questions along the way of the response times from those daily reports up with our response times also from our dispatch center. And I was having one of my personnel look into some of the reporting and kind of taking some samples of the daily reports and looking through those and he was reporting back to me that he thought that there might have been some inconsistencies with the timelines when we had dispatched to the calls Armstrong has also dispatched at the same time on the radio from dispatch here and we should be responding at the same time and getting on scene fairly quickly within a close time frame together. And some of those reports were appearing to be like inconsistent with say like, Armstrong might have been reporting like transferring a truck to another truck and some of the times were kind of off. They weren't lining up. So we were looking into that. And there have been issues along the way also. I mean it's going to happen with any company that there's going to be delays sometimes when they get, they have a lot of 9-1-1 contracts. They have 9-1-1 contracts besides Medford and they end up being on mutual aid in other cities and they get tied up and Medford gets pretty busy sometimes. So there's going to be delays sometimes. So I've questioned Armstrong on those delays and some of these reports that I have where emailed them and questioned that. They've kind of just said that they were going to look into the crew and get back to me, but I haven't heard back on that stuff. So it's just kind of between the surprising meeting in March and some of these inconsistencies with the reports, it's kind of just made me question, if I'm able to trust what I'm getting as far as the reporting goes. So that, I was taken aback by that because as you've stated that Armstrong's been there a long time and we've worked with Armstrong for a long time and, you know, I just, that's all I wanted was, you know, them to be transparent with me and make sure that they would get me all the accurate numbers and response times and some You know, when some of those response times were showing 14 minutes, 15 minutes, 23 minutes, 45 minute incidents, that was concerning. So again, I've had several reports that I've gone through and kind of highlighted some of the calls and questioned them on the calls and there continues to be questions about that. And again, I've spoken with Cataldo and they've already, you know, brought up the EMT training. They've offered rehabilitation at fire scenes with extra equipment and things like that at the fire scenes. They've already offered up several great ideas new training opportunities and putting on training events. And right now, I don't see any reason to doubt that Cataldo says that they are capable of working in Medford and handling Medford, and they have contracts with Somerville and Malden and Revere, Everett, all these communities next to us, which could potentially, you know, whereas we're so close to Somerville, Somerville and Medford could play off of that, having those companies working together in both cities, just as Armstrong kind of played with Medford vehicles going to Arlington and Medford, you know, having Stoneham right there as a contract, they were kind of playing Medford off as like a hub for those other communities also. So, it can be beneficial for having the cities right next door that are, sharing the same companies.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you Chief. We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli then Councilor Malauulu and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: During the negotiations Chief at any time. where these issues brought forward the negotiating team because you weren't actually part of the negotiations. I know that you, we talked about it was a wish list and then KP Law and then a city solicitor did that. But there was no, nothing given to Armstrong because that was one of the questions I asked them. Were there questions on during negotiations? And they said no. So they're lying.
[Todd Evans]: We had the back and forth, like sometimes myself and the Chief were talking to them or something like that and discussing some of the issues that we had previously discussed in the Chief Buckley's office there with Armstrong again, but a lot of that other stuff, the financial stuff and stuff that was going on with lawyers that wasn't on.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, but wouldn't that be part of the negotiation, say, hey, listen, What we're talking about is the lack of response time. We've identified these being concerns and you haven't followed through. What would you do? Because you said when you talked to Cataldo, Cataldo reassured you that that's not going to happen. But you didn't do that there. This is what, this is why, these are the questions why I brought up what you guys said and what I talked to Armstrong and the response times. They were very forthcoming. I believe they gave me, They'll share tonight, I believe, because they shared it with me, the questions about response time, because I think that's one of the key pieces here. Are we safe? And what we're seeing, what they have on the national, what's required by the state, and the information that they gave us through the state. I'm not saying anything that you're doing illegal, but is it possible that they could fudge a number that the state sees on a runtime? Because that's what they, that's what I can, I can share with this to the council. That's what they've shared with us. So if that's different, I need to know if our, if our 911 center is saying that these numbers are off, this is alarming if this is going to the state in response times and there's, there's a misunderstanding. I think this is a bigger concerning issue. So, um, That to me is going to be, I'd like to hear what Armstrong has to say. And then the last piece, I know that the Chief of Staff explained the situation with our ambulance, specifically in Arlington. Well, that was something that was brought up with Armstrong. And I said, explain this. And they said, well, when we first started the contract, Medford was adamant to have Medford on an ambulance. But by law, mutual aid If a neighbor community needs an ambulance, Mutual Aid, the closest ambulance, has to respond to that community, correct? Sure. Sure. So if it happens to be the Medford ambulance that goes to respond to Arlington, and they're in Arlington, what I asked Armstrong, does that leave a gap here? And they said, absolutely not. We just shift our ambulance services from the neighboring communities to make sure Medford is always covered. And they also shared that that's by law, that's not, that's not something that they do out of because the nice guys by law, it doesn't matter if there's an ambulance, the closest ambulance from what I've been told in the mutual aid process that that has to go there. So that's a concern when the chief of staff says one of the concerns is we often that are responders said we often had our ambulance in Arlington It's making it sound that Medford wasn't covered at the time. Is that what we're saying?
[Todd Evans]: So, I mean, it's possible that over the years that as Armstrong picked up more and more 9-1-1 contracts, perhaps they kind of spread themselves out too thinly. I mean, maybe, yeah, I don't know if they have a contract with Arlington or not specifically, but they probably could have, if they have a contract with Arlington, probably, buy more ambulances and make more staffing available to Arlington so that Medford consistently has ambulances always dedicated in Medford.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, Mr. President. Right, and I understand that, but as it was explained to me, that if there are shifts in different communities, ambulances have to move where it's needed. It doesn't matter if it's Armstrong, if it's Brewster, if it's whoever it may be. If it's Winchester Fire, whoever's closest. Because I think it's going to be interesting when Armstrong comes up to ask them how many times we used mutual aid, they had to use mutual aid, and that method was left uncovered. That's going to be clear. That's going to be something that I hope Armstrong has to answer because that's going to be a very telling point that, because making it sound that, Our city hasn't been covered by Armstrong, but I'm just taking for what you're saying. You're saying that at times, if they're spreading it too thin, maybe they need to get more ambulances. That leaves me a little fearful that that's why I'm having this meeting. Because if that's what we're leading to, that's pretty alarming. So, and I appreciate that. So, thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Would the Chief of Staff like to, Madam Chief of Staff, and then we're going to go to the other councilors who have questions.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. I'd like to see if we could have Supervisor Salve come up and touch on some of these issues with Arlington, because I know we have specific data points. And then I also would like to ask at the right timing, President Bears, for Chief Evans to specifically identify some of the data points that he's been reviewing. There's a lot of data, and we don't have it all culled out at this point, but there was enough inconsistencies. Like I said, once trust is broken, trust is broken. So, Supervisor Salve?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, just really quickly, Supervisor, Councilor Leming, Councilor Mullane, do you have questions specifically around response times, data, coverage that you want to add before we go back? It seems like a yes from both of you, Councilor Mullane and then Councilor Leming.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for coming up and sharing some of this feedback. I just wanted to get a couple of clarifying questions. So all of this really seemed to transpire or start to break down in March of 2025. So previous to this, all the other times and conversations you've had, you felt comfortable with where the contract was, but were surprised at that March meeting of some of the changes that had occurred.
[Nina Nazarian]: I welcome, you know, the individuals who are involved in these, but my best understanding to sum it up at a high level would be the issues that were identified prior to March of 2025 were issues that were being handled internally.
[Anna Callahan]: Okay.
[Nina Nazarian]: We, we had concerns with them and we were addressing them and we were asking questions, but the March of 2025 was a bit of a breaking point for the city with regard to the types of things that Armstrong was reneging on. that changed entirely the tone of the direction, I think, that this went in. Then Armstrong was given an opportunity to have those good faith discussions and negotiate with the city and provide or address that unfortunate meeting and discussion where they attempted to not stand on the grounds of the contract, but they still didn't do those things subsequently. So there were a couple different opportunities here for Armstrong, but they failed to do so.
[Zac Bears]: And then. One second. Go ahead.
[Liz Mullane]: Oh sorry. Thank you. So it seemed like at that meeting at that point in time the main things that kind of fell to the wayside or what they pulled back on was around the reimbursements the transports for first responders and the EMT training. And then after having the conversation with them you shared that those are three things or those are the kind of the biggest issues. and Cataldo was able to do the EMT training and they came back and said, oh, we can do that piece too. Do they say anything about those other pieces that were missing from the contract previously?
[Nina Nazarian]: I don't want to answer this question fully myself because I think others are probably best to answer this, but I don't think it was that linear. There was four, if we were to quantify it, I think there were four specific things. There was the reimbursements that were due to the city. There was the... The fact that they were looking to charge the city, no charges ever existed previously. It wasn't a part of the contract. Mid-contract, they're looking to charge the city for EMD services. The fact that they're looking to change dispatch for public safety personnel who are injured in the line of duty, and also that they were not prepared to offer any training to city firefighters, which just seems like a no-brainer to support the city in a partnership to me. And I think after that, then there was a negotiation process. So yeah, I think that the part that I'm specifically stating is not linear is there's a number of different conversations occurring back and forth. And there was no void in conversations. There was communications with Armstrong on a regular basis. Anytime there was a discussion, there was a request, there was communications or requests by Armstrong to speak, they always spoke with the chiefs is my understanding. And there was an open line of communication, but the chiefs can say it or speak to it themselves.
[Liz Mullane]: After that piece of it, in March, in April, is when you started talking about the response times and following up on whether or not those were actually lining up with what you were seeing.
[Todd Evans]: Yeah, that's when we were finally getting the daily reports in April.
[Liz Mullane]: Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Councilor Leming on the coverage and the response times?
[Matt Leming]: Yeah. How, can you talk about, you said that there are discrepancies between what your team found and what was, in the reports. What was the nature of those discrepancies? Was it like the reports were saying it was five minutes, but it was actually six minutes? Or was it like the reports were saying a response time was five minutes, but you found out it was closer to 20 minutes? So just how, like, just a ballpark average of, like, what you're seeing, and how consistent was that over the reports that you're?
[Todd Evans]: It could have been, like, anywhere from a minute, a couple minutes, or a few minutes, or it wasn't, like, as high as, like, the 15 minutes, like, obvious, like, something like that all the time. It was just kind of a discrepancy between when we're dispatched and when they possibly, like, when the response time is maybe calculated, maybe when it's coming through Armstrong's EMD or something like that, maybe they're calculating that response time from that end of it instead of when they're actually dispatched at the same time as we are. So it might be a couple minutes, it might be a few minutes, but it kind of affects like the averages that are in the reports. Just to further clarify, what are the data sources that we're comparing here? So daily reports from Armstrong Ambulance, which shows response times and on scene times and transport times and things like that. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: And then compared to, where's the city side? What data were you generating on the city side? So where the dispatchers, where they have their
[Todd Evans]: computer-aided dispatch system where they have their dispatch times and response times and on-scene times on their end, so that they're exactly when they're inputting the time that they They receive the call and when they put that call out over the airwaves and communicate that call to the fire department and Armstrong.
[Zac Bears]: So it's the daily reports from Armstrong that they're generating and then the reports from the 911 dispatch system and it sounded to me like you were saying that maybe the, there was something where Armstrong's calculating that based on when their EMD dispatch gets it versus when the 911 goes out?
[Todd Evans]: Yeah, it might be something as far, as much as that. Possibly, I'm not sure if they're going by their actual, like their EMD time because they have their own dispatch center. Yeah. So when the EMD call comes to dispatch, they answer the phone and they now, connect that person to Armstrong's dispatch center.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Todd Evans]: And then that person tells Armstrong what their medical issue is and as Armstrong is speaking to that person, they might be actually talking them through like CPI or something. They're kind of figuring out what this medical issue is and they might be talking them through somebody, they might be talking to somebody on that phone like instructing them on how to perform CPR on somebody or they might be evaluating that call to see if it requires ALS versus BLS. And then they're communicating that to their employees on their Armstrong radio as our dispatchers are now coming over the air and dispatching the closest, fire truck and then they're coming over the airwaves also calling for the Armstrong Ambulance. So Armstrong Ambulance at the time is kind of hearing it on both radios. They're hearing it on Medford fire frequency and Armstrong's frequencies.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Just really quickly sorry. Just so I understand it. So someone calls number one number one dispatch picks up. They figure out what it is. They put something out over there. Then police and fire respond there and that's when the the Armstrong people here for the first time, and then our 911 dispatcher connects to the EMD, and then they start talking to whoever's made the call and also dispatching their trucks.
[Todd Evans]: Yeah, they might be like assessing it on the EMD end.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Todd Evans]: As dispatchers saying, you know, for instance, say engine one and A1. Right. Just kind of throwing that out there, engine one, A1. You're responding to the scene, and as that's happening, there's somebody on the EMD connection at Armstrong also. Got it.
[Zac Bears]: There's kind of an extra step in there where R911 sends it to them. Yeah. And just the other one thing I wanted to clarify from what you were saying, and then I do want to turn it back over to Councilor Levin because I've kind of hijacked this from him a little bit, and I apologize. 30 seconds, a minute, a minute and a half, two minute differences.
[Todd Evans]: Just from like a sampling of some of the things, he was kind of digging into it and it takes a lot of time to kind of dig into both, try to look at both things and try to sort through it all. But yeah, but some of the, like also the daily reports from Armstrong have questioned as far as, it seems like a lot of the, The patient refusal times, for some reason it looks like a lot of those appear to be that there could be 12, 13 minutes, 14 minutes response times there and then that doesn't get counted towards the actual response averages that Armstrong is reporting to us. So that doesn't report in the column of the other responses that they're using for their average to go by. So there's some calls like they might put in their transfer or they might write administrative on the report or it starts getting confusing with multiple trucks, Armstrong, different truck numbers and names that are reported line by line on the daily report where it might mention transfer this. and transfer that and then the times are kind of skewed on the reporting. So there's several instances on the daily reports where it's tough to follow along with the actual response times that they're reporting it versus what they're reporting as the average overall. So it seems like there's some data missing there.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I just had those clarifying questions. I'll turn it back over to Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: All right, so it sounds like some of the discrepancies might have been due to technical matters, the call being passed over to Armstrong after the 911 dispatchers got it. What I was wondering was how the numbers are entered. Are they entered by hand or are they caught by some, by an automatic system and then generated just purely by, with software? And from. Right. And so it sounds like from what you just said that a possible explanation for that is just that because their reports are generated with different means, that could explain the discrepancy going on there. And it's not like some deliberate attempt to fudge the numbers on their end. Yeah.
[Nina Nazarian]: May I just state something? I'm not going to be as nice as Chief Evans. I'm just going to restate something that Chief Evans has stated to me through you, President Bears, to the council. Chief Evans has followed up with Armstrong on these types of questions, and the questions have gone into a black hole. So I don't know, we don't know why there was such a reporting gap. We don't know why there was differences, but we don't get that information back from them. Chief, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli for the follow-up really quickly.
[George Scarpelli]: No, no, I'm sorry. I just, is that true? Is that true you just, you're being too nice? Because we've got to know.
[Todd Evans]: No, so I've followed up and I've asked them on certain times when I come across longer times. 8 minutes, 9 minutes, 10 minutes, 11 minutes, you know, more, anything more than that, you know, I'm asking them about that and kind of I get a response back that, oh, that's kind of weird that, you know, that was a long shoot time for that crew, we'll just talk to the crew and get back to you but I'm not hearing back on these items. So there's been several, inconsistencies with that as well, so.
[Matt Leming]: And if I may, you also mentioned that they recently switched over their software because you previously were getting reports once a month in 2024 and then it switched over to daily, which you started getting in April, correct? Yeah. So in my, in my mind it seems like a, and I, I do completely understand the point that the chief of staff is bringing, bringing up about emails going into a black hole. It happens, happens to me in my day job a lot. I fully, you know, I, I, I have sympathy with you know, folks that don't, don't respond to my, to my inquiries. But it, it does sound like, that could be a very likely explanation. It's not necessarily a malfeasance on the part of the company. But I imagine that Armstrong is going to also be talking later tonight. They could offer some more insight there. The other question that I had, which has been on my mind is, It sounded like the March meeting with Chief Buckley, between him and Armstrong, obviously didn't go well. And I have no doubt that some personnel from Armstrong said at that meeting that they wouldn't be paying back the city the $75,000 a year that they were owed over so many years. The two questions that I have related to that were, what was the ostensible reason that they owed the city that much money?
[Zac Bears]: Councilman Leming, can we come back to the payments after we talk about the coverage and the response times? All right, sure. Thanks. All right. We're talking about coverage and response times. I think we have questions from councilors on that. I think Supervisor Salve is itching to say something. So if we want to talk a little bit more, it seems like we have questions about response times. And then it's been said that there were, that trucks were in Arlington a lot, so there were coverage questions. So if you want to talk about that a little more, and then we can come back on the payments question.
[SPEAKER_22]: Okay, Mike Salvia, the Supervisor for Communications. Thank you for having me. I just wanna go back for two topics. One was the 45-minute call, and I wanna talk a little bit more about EMD. On the 45-minute call, Councilor Scapelli, you had stated that it's a 50-50 problem that Armstrong said. In that call, I was actually in the room. And at the time of the call, my fire dispatcher noticed that there was a problem with Armstrong in responding. My dispatcher called over to Armstrong and he spoke to Bobby, who was awesome by the way, she's the best. And he asked what was going on, if she needed assistance. Bobby had stated to my dispatcher that their GPS had failed. So they can no longer see any of their ambulances in the field, that their GPS is failed. So my dispatcher gave them the list of who's going where. And I think what happened in that whole scenario is when their GPS failed, they lost track of their ambulances. And in my opinion, that's what caused the 45 minute delay.
[Zac Bears]: Was there anything else on the response times, data questions or coverage?
[SPEAKER_22]: The data is very hard to understand. In 2020, when I first came into MedFed, I used to receive data with Lieutenant Rudolph, who's recently retired a few years ago, and we would get a daily tracker. So when they talk about software update or whatever, it's the same thing from 2020 to now. I don't see any changes within their tracking system. You know, they'll, if you have an ambulance that's assigned to the call, right, and then like Chief Evans has stated, you got, they may cancel the ambulance, reassign the ambulance, and then cancel the ambulance again. And there's that. there's that, within that reporting, there's no data or, you know, writing inside that to state where that ambulance went, was it reassigned or anything like that. So we have a lot of blank within their own reporting. Okay, so on the EMD aspect of it, We received a call, okay? 911 was the location emergency. They give us their address. They say it's a medical aid, 123 Main Street or whatever, okay? We get a brief nature of what's going on. And then we tell the caller, stay on the line. We're transferring the EMD. They take the call. Armstrong, it's Bedford. Caller, go ahead. That takes anywhere from 30 to 40 seconds within it. The EMD is, and then a lot of times we'll sign a monitor. Now, when we do get a call from medicals, it's not just life threatening, it's every single medical is transferred into that EMD, Armstrong EMD. And going back a little here, when the meeting was stated that Armstrong's no longer gonna be doing EMD, To me, that's a shock, because if a provider's not gonna do EMD anymore, the city of Medford, we would need three or four additional staff to support that EMD. So I don't know why that was said, or it's just, I don't, I mean, that's a shock to me, being in this field, so I just, interesting. As for Arlington, there's a lot of talk about Arlington here. I'm not sure why the problem was never fixed between Armstrong and Arlington and ourselves. We are forever, and I get the whole mutual aid thing, OEMS, they have guidelines, they have zoning, it's called zoning, and every zone has to take care of each other. I don't understand the fact that why we can go into a city 6 to 10 times per day, a town, whatever you want to call it, 6 to 10 times per day on an ALS call. Now, there's a basic life support ambulance and there's also an ALS unit, which is advanced life support. 90% of that time, we hardly ever send a BLS over to Arlington. We are always sending our advanced life support ambulance over to Arlington. Now, I believe Arlington does not have that capability. And if Armstrong has a contract with Arlington or Handshake, then why are they not adding more resources to Arlington? Instead of taking from Medford all the time, taking from Stoneham all the time, or whatever other resource they have. And they're right. I mean, ambulances go all over the Commonwealth. The ambulance companies are supporting each other. That's their job. That's what they're supposed to do. But I'll never understand why we take our resources to other cities that probably should have been fixed a long time ago. And I just don't understand if anybody has any questions for me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, and then once we've kind of gone through this coverage question, we'll come back to the payments. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. So it sounds like you're saying that because they're doing this, they're leaving the city of Medford vulnerable without required Ambulances?
[SPEAKER_22]: I didn't say, I didn't say vulnerable or what's happening is, say if we said, like I had a, we had an incident one where A1 and A2 went out of the city. Those are both our ALSs. Went out of the city to Medford. Okay. I mean outside of the city too. I believe both were Arlington. They're gonna come back in, now they have, they're supposed to have structured, okay, so say if we send two ambulances out to Arlington, okay, they are supposed to have zones where, as they're supposed to be staged. in the event that they have to come into Medford if they lose coverage and so forth. And what I think's happening is they're dispatching our Medford ambulances out of the city and then getting the resources coming back into the city. We had A1 and A2 on a boat call to leave the city and it took approximately 20 minutes for another ambulance, say Stonem, to come in to cover the city. And on this occasion here, we didn't have a medical call. However, that's still leaving the city vulnerable at that time, just in case something did happen. It's something that could have been fixed that was never fixed.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, so this is why I'm bringing this forward because my conversations with understanding advanced life support that Armstrong is adamant that we know that if there's a call and if Arlington or any mutual aid needs the advanced life support ambulance, they have to go.
[SPEAKER_22]: I'm not sure if they have to go.
[George Scarpelli]: Well, that by state, I believe that's what I was shared with, with, uh, straight rules and regulations by emergency response. Okay. I'm just letting you know. So that's what was stated to me. But I asked the question, are you saying that we're not covered for advanced life support? Because what I've been told, and this is why we're here, is that Armstrong rotates and we have our zones covered whenever our ambulances are shifted to mutual aid. There have been times. You're saying that?
[SPEAKER_22]: There have been times, yes.
[George Scarpelli]: Wow, OK.
[SPEAKER_22]: Thank you. And I think also Armstrong is a growing company.
[George Scarpelli]: That's all I'm asking. I don't want to go there with that, because I think that this is the facts. We're trying to get these out. Yep, that's right. Because if we started bringing up what we think about what the other company has and stuff like that, we're going to bog down things. Right now, it's understanding what the questions are that have left the city in question, because we haven't been transparent. Okay, so this is something when I've spoken with Armstrong, it's total opposite. They can show us. And that's something that, you know, it's the first time I heard response time from this team. It's the first time that you said that you had a professional or someone in your staff pulling up numbers and it's daunting and you used explaining samplings. This is what, why I found it curious, why I felt so strongly about this because Armstrong gave us data that goes to the state when it comes to a four minute, 30, four minute, 30 second response time. So that's where the alert came up. If we're questioning that and then you look at the trends for other companies where it doesn't even come close to that and you've now provided us with an understanding that through some sampling that Armstrong That's not true because there's shuffling and the numbers are wrong and we're off two minutes. Well this is the reason why we're here and I'm sure Armstrong is going to give us a better indication. I will share with you what they've given us, what they've given me at least. The breakdowns and how it was broken down and the data, it's not sampling. It seems pretty concrete. So I hope that Armstrong will share with all of us because this is something whether we move on, Armstrong is gone, the new provider comes in, this is alarming to me because it's going to come down to public safety. And we have to make sure that if these are the issues, is that what everybody's going on? Is everybody going on this response time when it's called and they wait two minutes? So they say that it's 4.30 but it's really 6.30. So these are the things that as an average person, very alarming. So thank you.
[SPEAKER_22]: You also asked about are we ready and are we prepared? Do you want me to answer that?
[George Scarpelli]: That's going to come because there's a lot that we have that I don't know if we are.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to stick on the, I think we might be done with the coverage and response times. If there's anything else you want to add on coverage and response times. Then we're going to go to the payments and then I think we might hear from Armstrong. But yeah, coverage and response times.
[Nina Nazarian]: Yes, thank you, President Bears. I think we have some specific examples that I think it's warranted to go through, if we could please.
[SPEAKER_22]: Chief Evans already went through most of the times and so forth, the same stuff that we have. We had a call on Harvard Street, motor vehicle crash about a month and a half ago. We dispatched everybody. Engine 5 asked for, you know, an update in the ambulance twice. We tried to get confirmation from Armstrong. They updated us with several ambulances responding. And if you see in the data, you can see that enroute, canceled, enroute. So it was about 25 minutes after the initial call where the party took themselves to the hospital. And I think that shouldn't happen. You need the resources to provide for your city but like the chief haven't said he has some of those as well.
[Todd Evans]: Sure, go ahead. So, I mean, I have several reports that there were questions on. I mean, just some of the, even some recent ones as of, you know, Friday I mentioned some of the response times that there were a couple that were like 13 minutes, 14 minutes, that again it shows a, what time they're responding and what time they're at the scene, but those calculations are not getting factored into the actual, the averages. So that was marked, there were two calls, one was 14 minutes, one was 13 minutes, and those were marked as patient refusals, so those didn't calculate into the averages. But that's come up in other reports also, where it's kind of the same situation. And I've highlighted several reports that it might not make sense to you, but the on scene times that I've marked on some of these things. And I've asked, again, I asked them about some of the response times and they mentioned like shoot time issues which, They're referring to like the, I guess getting ready and getting to the truck and getting out the door as far as a shoot time issue. But I have some instances of in October, nine minute response times. We've got September, January issues. We've got issues from earlier in October where I see 13 minute and 55 second response time. Same day, 8 minutes 37 seconds. Again, I've asked some questions and just kind of got a reply that the crew will be addressed with and we will get back to you. I didn't hear back on that. We have some other dates here. This one's in September where I see a call for 7 minutes, 47 seconds, and then another time here for 17 minutes and 21 seconds. And then again, that one's kind of showing me a truck responding, and then another truck en route, and then another truck listed as on arrival. So multiple trucks, but curious about the timing. Another call in that same, related to that same incident, there's another column that mentions 11 minutes response time. And then just further down the column on that same day, another 7 minutes, 42 second response time.
[Zac Bears]: Chief, just if I could, I mean, I think any incident of a long response time, right, a single or multiple incidents, right, we want to correct that. you know, it's still data by anecdote a little bit. And what I want to try to understand is are we seeing that a larger proportion of calls are having a response time more than 10 minutes? Are we seeing that the average response time has been going up over the last few years? Like from that data perspective, because I understand like individual calls being problematic and wanting that to be corrected, but I'm just trying to understand from your perspective or the data from the 911 side of things, like, are more calls having longer response time or is the average going up and, you know, is it relatively steady there's been calls over with more than 10 minute response time? It's 5% of the calls or, you know, because that I think gives us a better picture to understand how long longer response times in these specific scenarios might be. related, like how does that fit into a larger context?
[Todd Evans]: It just kind of calls into question some of these when I ask for explanations or they tell me that they're going to speak to a crew and then follow up with me and tell me about it. I'm not seeing that happen. So it kind of calls into question when I look at the reports, all the daily reports, if that is getting communicated to me correctly and accurately and if the situation is being dealt with.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know. Got it. Are you seeing on the reports that like the same crews are having the same issues or trucks having the same issues? I don't know who the crew might be.
[Todd Evans]: I don't know who it is because if I ask them, I just get the vague, we'll speak to them. And I don't know who it was.
[Zac Bears]: Just from a trends perspective, would you say that, you know, I guess basically back to my question, is a higher percentage of calls having response times over 10 minutes than it has in the past? I'm not sure. I'm just trying to wonder if it's getting better or worse.
[Nina Nazarian]: I think the thing that I would add is that we are seeing an alarming number, and Supervisor Salve mentioned this, we're seeing an alarming number of times where Vehicles that are labeled Medford are not in Medford. So it's evident to Medford that Armstrong has stretched themselves too thin. They haven't invested enough resources into staffing and into vehicles to provide the services that need to be provided in a timely manner. And we saw that time and time again, and Supervisor Salve can speak to that, that it just, it got, it seemed to get more and more and more frequent.
[Zac Bears]: I guess, okay, well, that's a different, you know, that last statement is different. I guess I'm just wondering what the statistical basis is for that, right? Are we seeing more calls with longer response times over time? Was it worse in 2025 than it was in 2024 and 2023? You know, are we seeing, what you just last said, and if Supervisor Saave can speak to this specific question, like, are we seeing that trucks with the name Medford on it, where there's fewer trucks in Medford over time than there have been in the past, and kind of how, because, I think we can pick out examples that are bad, and obviously we want those to be corrected, but I'm just not understanding how it fits into change over time, and I think that's important when we're talking about data. So if you have thoughts on that, Supervisor.
[SPEAKER_22]: Can you repeat that?
[Zac Bears]: Basically, are you seeing that response times have been getting longer over time, or have you been seeing that there's been a difference over time where more trucks are not in Medford and are in other communities?
[SPEAKER_22]: I will say that over the course of the last year and a half, I have seen a decrease in response times.
[Zac Bears]: It's an increase?
[SPEAKER_22]: An increase, yeah. And I've also seen an increase of responding to other communities, specifically Arlington.
[Zac Bears]: And do we have data on what that increase is or how?
[SPEAKER_22]: We don't have specific data on when they leave the city. I mean, we have tape recordings every day on how many times they leave the city. And I would average 6 to 10 times per day.
[Zac Bears]: And how does that compare to, say, like two years ago?
[SPEAKER_22]: It wasn't as it wasn't as much maybe maybe two maybe three times. It has it has gone up and significantly on them leaving the city.
[Zac Bears]: I think if there was a report on that it would be helpful to see.
[SPEAKER_22]: I don't have any data to support that. I mean, when they tell us they're leaving the city, there's no CAD entry or anything like that. They let us know that they're leaving the city, and then we know who we have in the city, who's left. Anytime somebody comes in or out of the city, Armstrong does let us know.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and what do you mean they let you know?
[SPEAKER_22]: They'll say A1's covering the city. A1's going to Armstrong or Stoneham, whatever it is, is covering Medford and so forth. All right.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to hold that one and see if they have a report on their end. Do we have any more questions on coverage and response time? I don't think I have. Honestly, I really don't think I have. But OK. Do we want to move to the questions about payments? All right. Councilor Scarpelli? All right, all right, Councilor Leming, I know you had a question about the payment, and then we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, so it sounds like some personnel from Armstrong met with Chief Buckley March 2025, and they said that they would not pay back a certain amount of money that they owed the city. The two things that are on my mind about this is how did they stick with that position over the course of a few months, and when did they flip the position? Because it sounds like when my colleague spoke with Armstrong, they said, no, we're perfectly willing to pay the money back. It'll just take a while, because it's a lot of money. But it sounds like from what the chief was saying, that they were just straight up, no, we won't do that. What I'm interested to know is, when did that position change, and did the personnel that met with the chief, were they sort of in a, did they have the authority to make that call? Did they have the authority to say, we're not gonna do that? Because, you know, obviously it sounds like the president of Armstrong said that they would be willing to, So I'm just kind of wondering the timeline of communication and when that decision was made. The other thing on my mind is, can you just explain in a little bit more detail what the nature of that argument was? Armstrong have that many back payments that they owe the city, and what were those for? I apologize if this was already explained earlier in the meeting, but I'd just like some more sort of in-depth explanation of what the issues were going on there. It was like a contractual thing, like what happened. starting from just square one.
[Nina Nazarian]: Sure. I think Chief Buckley would be best to answer some of the portions of this, but basically at some point in the process when the city started, this was the city identifying, no, these are payments that are due to the city and we were working with them to resolve that, but they were being unwilling to, but we forced their hand to make those payments, but we forced their hand. Frankly, Armstrong hasn't made one of the payments. So they had $300,000 owed to the city. They have paid $225,000. Just to follow up on that, if I may.
[Zac Bears]: So the contract says that there's $75,000. It says that the city has to provide documentation as to what the money was used for. Did the city invoice Armstrong each year over the past five years for that funds and they were not paid in the year that they were invoiced? One second, yeah, I'll turn on your microphone.
[Nina Nazarian]: I welcome Chief Buckley to speak to some of those details because I'm less familiar with him.
[Jack Buckley]: probably even further less but they were not. It wasn't till this early 2025 that we had a project going on in dispatch of communications and that we needed funded for it. And members of my staff along with Chief Evans put together some plans to redesigned some aspects of the Emergency Communication Center and the funding would have come from there and they reached out to Armstrong. I wasn't part of that initial conversation but I believe it was a result of those conversations where Armstrong came to me and asked for that meeting. And that's where they made the statement that they would not pay or they were not going to pay.
[Zac Bears]: So just so I can get that. So the city had not invoiced Armstrong for several years until March.
[Jack Buckley]: It was, just to be clear, the part of that answer is yes, and the other part is we did not invoice them much. We were asking for them to, their support in providing the payments at that time. So it was a technical invoice, but we were, members of the team talked to them about providing payments.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Let me shed a little light, just so you know where I stand. This is a process that was started back with Chief Gilberti. And it was, I believe it's $70,000 at the time that the negotiation that the chief would provide Armstrong with a request of payment showing invoices year to year. They did that. Then the question came about with Mayor Burke. This is what communication Armstrong explained it. When it came to Mayor Burke, Mayor Burke said, this looks funny. It looks like It could be construed maliciously, right? So we need to then change the verbiage. That was the question that was brought up back in the day. So it was $75,000 that would be requested by the city that would focus on, I believe, the 911 center, anything dealing with funding for the 911 center, radios, AEDs, training, whatever that may be. When this present mirror started, She went four years without requesting anything until this past year when the 911 supervisor reached out to Armstrong and said, we want $75,000 because we bought this. I believe Armstrong explained this with the attorneys during negotiations. City solicitor concurred, I believe. and KP Law that, yes, we understand that this doesn't look right. We can't just give you that money because you didn't request it. Because someone didn't read the contract, Madam Chief of Staff. Year to year, someone was to reach out and ask for these funds with written documentation stating what it's for. They're not cutting you a blank check. That's what we're told. That this year, it was presented to them for $75,000. I believe Armstrong, in good will, cut the check that I believe our leadership team was supposed to send documentations of what they were paying, which I believe Armstrong will tell us later, which I'm curious to know, that they still haven't received those documents, what they paid for this year. So I believe that was part of the negotiations that stated, well, we still want to support Medford. We still want to show him good faith. So we'll then move past in the next contract, which Armstrong shared with me, that was presented to KP Law and the former city solicitor, that it was for the next five years they would honor $35,000 to make up for this money, but they can't give this money from the past because it wasn't presented correctly and it wasn't asked for at the time. So the clock can't go back to get that money. If I'm wrong, explain that because I'm sure that from the information that Armstrong shared with me, it'll be interesting to see where we are because it's funny, this is where I'm getting hung up on. We just talked about response time. We just talked about how bothered we were. Right? Back in some time ago. But then we'd still entertain negotiations and then come to this point and then realize, holy cow, you owe us money. Pay us money now. Then the answer was, we can't pay this money because of A, B, and C. And now here we stand. Do you see where the lack of transparency comes in and why it leaves questions in the public? for where they're saying, well, this is about money or this is about, you know, questionable issues. So this is where I want to bring forth that before we continue, you know where it's coming from on this side, because as I share with my Councilors, that's what at least was shared with me, because we don't have a city solicitor. I can't reach out to him, although I tried. He's gone. We let him go. K.P. Law, we don't have anybody that we can talk to in K.P. Law. And unfortunately, our chiefs or yourself, Madam Chief of Staff, you weren't involved in that negotiation. So we can't ask those questions when it comes to the money and why and how that came about. Do you see where our confusion as the fiscal stewards of this community about our money, where we are and why we're concerned? I hope you understand that.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you. Yeah, just to, just very quickly, yeah, I think my, my questions are along the lines of what Councilor Scarpelli said, which was there an intentional decision not to invoice Armstrong for a period of time and then while working on this project to then invoice them? And then as the contract states, they're like, there needs to be documentation of why we're invoicing. It sounds like there was a related project around dispatch at this time. So just trying and then asking if that documentation was received like was documentation provided for the full four years or however many years of payments weren't invoiced at the time. I'm just trying to understand like was this, we made a choice not to do this. We knew we could do this but we made a choice not to because we didn't have valid expenses and then we came back when we had a big project and wanted to invoice and provide documentation for a larger amount of funds or was this we didn't know we could invoice and then we found the provision and then we started doing it at this time.
[Jack Buckley]: So I believe there may be some parts of both of those aspects that are true. But I think it's sort of disingenuous to say today that, well, hey, if you didn't build them in year one, we're not going to pay you. If you didn't build them in year two, we're not going to pay you. And in support of that argument, I'll say to you that Once these, it was reported to us that they were not going to make these payments. We don't directly negotiate this contract. We have advised them that they needed to speak with the mayor. Well, Armstrong themselves went over and presented. They were willing to pay the mayor right then and there a percentage of that funds without any invoice or documentation or any requirements. I mean, they suddenly changed their picture because I think they thought or they suspected that Hey, we have an upcoming contract. maybe our future is in jeopardy here, or maybe somebody might call to question another company. And then later on, another payment was made, again, I don't know the terms of the payments, without, again, asking us for invoice. So while it might be okay to say today that, well, you didn't get the money because you didn't ask them for the money on day one of 2023, you didn't invoice them, Armstrong themselves were willing to provide this money at a later date when they felt that their negotiations were in jeopardy. I mean, I think it is disingenuous to today say, hey, you didn't do what you had to do, yet later on say, well, we're willing to do this and not request any of those funds or any of those invoices or any of those policies. But as far as the project, I just want to be clear about this project. The project was a plan at the time. We didn't do any work that we could invoice as of yet. It was early stages, and it was me who suggested to those making the plans to reach out to Armstrong and have the conversations with him.
[Zac Bears]: Chief, I'm not saying either side. To the same point, I think someone could assert that if the city didn't invoice for multiple years and then invoice at the beginning of a year where a contract was up for negotiation this amount of payments and said we don't have documentation. And then the person who has the contract knew that their contract was up for negotiation, that they would feel like they had to provide the money without the documentation to move forward. So I just think like the way that you framed it could go both ways. So I think, you know, if we want to call either of those framings disingenuous, because obviously they're suppositional in either direction, but I think they could go in either direction. Like if I suddenly in the year my contract is up got told, not even an invoice, just said, we want you to pay four years of payments right now, We don't have the documentation that the contract says. I would probably feel like I really need to pay those payments because otherwise I might not get my contract renewed.
[Jack Buckley]: But I think that's the point I want to make. Like we were early in the stages. We didn't have anything to provide them yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Jack Buckley]: We were just, it was sort of like advanced, hey, we are looking to do a project here. We understand that this contract exists and funds are present in this to fund this. We want to bring you in early stages. We had not started anything to the extent that we were going to. I think maybe they got a proposal from some company, but we were not at the stage to present any bills or invoices for work done to Armstrong Ambulance at the time.
[Nina Nazarian]: It's my understanding that there was a big project in March and then there was a big project in April, and they held part of that over our, I'm sorry, in September, March and September. And they held one of those $75,000 payments over the city's head.
[Zac Bears]: How did they hold it over the head?
[Nina Nazarian]: Because they weren't prepared to, they weren't willing to pay it. We had to continue to push the issue in terms of the amount that was due.
[Zac Bears]: Does the contract say, and I don't have the language in front of me, that the... Sure, yeah.
[George Scarpelli]: This is a basic issue that we have right now, because I think the issue is, unfortunately, the software system, I think, has to blame, because in my community that I work in, when a contract is up, we're alerted right away through purchasing, and we're told, recreation, your bus contract is expiring in three months, please A, B, and C. This is what the contract says that I find a little concerning. It says, I believe it's 10.1, on the effective date of this contract, Armstrong shall provide $75,000 payment to the city and on each of the four subsequent anniversaries of the effective date of this contract. Armstrong shall provide a $75,000 payment to the City, all of which will be used solely for the operations of Method 9-1-1 Dispatch Center in return for the City taking initial 9-1-1 calls and alerting Armstrong to all medical calls requested for EMS. provide annual financial statements to Armstrong detailing the expenditures of the funds provided herein to demonstrate that the funds are used for such purposes. The parties agree that, except for the first installment of this payment, no funds should be provided to the city by the Armstrong pursuant to this section until such financial statements are provided to Armstrong for that prior year. So year one, No documentations. Year two, no documentations. Year three, no documentations. Year four, alerted, contacted, then the ball starts rolling. $75,000 for project. We'll give you the $75,000 in good faith as we move through negotiations, but we need the documentation. What was stated to me was the documentation. We were given the date that the city gave to Armstrong was December. This is clear. This is a contract. I know it's not you, but there's a problem here that someone's not reading a contract. So either communities have the city solicitor's office following contracts and deadlines, or software systems that are in place that alert each department when something comes up. We failed. We failed. So this is the basic issue and concern I have about this funding. So this is where it starts now, the realities and where we are in negotiation, why it looks a little, why there are so many questions moving forward with the changing over to a new provider after 25 some odd years of impeccable service. So these are the things, like I said, these are the things that are concerning. Because if I have it, guess what? Everybody's got it. So thank you, Mr. President. I hope that helped.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I appreciate that. So I guess that's kind of where I'm coming from on this, right? Like the payments, the contract seems to say that the payment shouldn't be made until the documentation is provided, except for year one.
[Jack Buckley]: Was the payment made?
[Zac Bears]: I don't know. Was the payment made? No. OK. Well, hold on a second. The payment wasn't made.
[Jack Buckley]: By the state of the payment, it wasn't made.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Did the city invoice for the payment?
[Jack Buckley]: I'm just going by what he read. Day one, they provide $75,000?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so it sounds like of the $375,000, however much the total amount is, it's four years or five years?
[Jack Buckley]: Well, it's four payments.
[Zac Bears]: Four payments, all right. Then the city was entitled to one of those without documentation.
[Jack Buckley]: Correct, according to what he just read, I've just gone by what he.
[Zac Bears]: Right, according to the contract language. So I guess my question there is, you know, three years, four years, in the beginning of the fourth year, your contract's up for renewal, and you're in a meeting, you get a call from the mayor, or it's set in a meeting, you know, you haven't paid up, it's time to pay up, and the contract says that the only amount that they need to pay if without documentation is that first year, right? So let's leave that out the door. 75,000 should have been paid, Citi should have invoiced it or Armstrong should have paid it, whoever, should have been done a long time ago. But everything else needs to be paid with documentation, only paid after the company receives documentation that the payments were for the services that the contract stipulates the payments need to be made for.
[Jack Buckley]: Which would have been provided.
[Zac Bears]: Which would have been provided.
[Jack Buckley]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Right. But we asked for payment before the documentation was provided and the contract says payment should be made until after the documentation is provided.
[Jack Buckley]: That's where I want to be clear. We asked that they, we asked them initially, we're planning this, we want to do this, we have a contract, the city has a contract with you, we want to use these funds, are you on board? That is what prompted them to come to me and say, we are not going to be making these payments.
[Zac Bears]: At all, ever?
[Jack Buckley]: At all, ever.
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Jack Buckley]: Back in March.
[Zac Bears]: And then?
[Jack Buckley]: But ultimately, they did make payments.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Jack Buckley]: Without invoices. And that was when they felt that they were in jeopardy.
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Jack Buckley]: So that, again, these are important details, right?
[Zac Bears]: But I guess what I'm trying to ask is, did the city ask for more than the $75,000 that it was entitled to with not providing documentation?
[Jack Buckley]: We asked if they would be party to a plan that would be more than $75,000, but we were willing to provide the documentation.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And was it we would ask you for the $75,000 now and the rest of it once we give you the documentation?
[Jack Buckley]: No. Again, this is, I'll go back to March now. Early conversations. This is what we want to do. This is what we're looking at. This is what potential costs could be. This is our available funding. Are you a partner in this? Are you on board with this?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Jack Buckley]: That was asked of them separately for me. That was the team that was putting this together. They came to me and they said we will not be making the payments.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And not we will not be making the payments until X conditions are met, just we will not be making them at all.
[Jack Buckley]: Back in March, we will not be making them at all. Subsequently, they did make some payments without invoice.
[Zac Bears]: I will ask them about that.
[Jack Buckley]: I just pointed out what happened as far as it's because the premise is that we did ask for this so we don't deserve it. It's not exactly clear.
[Zac Bears]: I think my premise is a little more complicated than that. Understood. Councilor Millane.
[Liz Mullane]: Just in terms of the payment, after you had the conversation and they came back and said they were willing to do some sort of it, you said they gave a percentage of the payment. Is that percentage meant that just that 75 or percentage of a larger amount that has been, excuse me, not paid over the course of the contract?
[Jack Buckley]: Maybe you could speak to this a little clearer because it wasn't done with us. The payments were not done with on the police side or anything.
[Nina Nazarian]: The only thing I can add at this point is yes, that's the 75, there's $75,000 that has not been paid to date despite, and I do believe we've provided financial statements, but I don't, that $75,000 has not been provided to date.
[Liz Mullane]: Even the percentage that the Chief just mentioned, the percentage of the payment was offered to be made, right? I can't speak to that one.
[Zac Bears]: Is the assertion that the contract requires $300,000 of payments, $75,000 a year for four years, and they've paid $225,000? That's correct. And are you saying that we gave them annual financial statements for the first three years?
[Nina Nazarian]: Assuming that- That's my understanding. I can go back and check some records, but yeah, so I don't know exactly which years, what, and I don't have that detail, but I do know that we provided some financial information at some point.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, just quickly, Councilor Skarp.
[George Scarpelli]: What was shared to me through Armstrong, special revenue receipts, 2020, Mayor Lungo-Koehn. $75,000, Mayor Burke requested, that was Mayor Burke, 2020, no request from the city to Armstrong. 2021, no request from the city to Armstrong. The 21st of March of 2013, there was a $25,000 grant for civic defense to reimburse Armstrong. Then there was a new contract. back in 2022 that it looks like they, we can ask Armstrong, but it says no request from city to Armstrong. 24, no request city to Armstrong. And again, 2025 at the time there was no request to the city of Armstrong. This is their financial breakdown that they shared with me. that I can forward to you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. That'd be great. Thank you. You're good, Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Right. At what point between the March meeting and the the offer and announcement that we'd be switching to Cataldo. Did Armstrong's negotiating team sort of get off the position of we're not gonna give you anything? I just wanna know what the conversations were like between time point A and time point B. Did the city just not really talk at all? Was there one meeting where they said something different? We all in the room when those conversations happen because at some point they said what they said to you, Chief Buckley. And then after all this went public, clearly Armstrong was saying we're willing to work with the city and pay back what we owe. I just want to know how that position evolved and what happened behind the scenes internally.
[Jack Buckley]: Well, so I guess that's going to be difficult because it wasn't done, again, with the police and or fire departments. At this point in time, any of the monies were dealt with. I believe Armstrong had a meeting with the mayor.
[Matt Leming]: Sure. And I can appreciate if you weren't in the room for those conversations. If you don't know the answer, that's perfectly legitimate.
[Jack Buckley]: Yeah, and I was on medical leave also for six months, so a portion of that time is just, I don't know the timeframes of a lot of the stuff that happened. But I do know, I believe part of that question is, Like, when did Armstrong start to come forward? I don't know when initially. There was multiple payments made, and I believe it was all throughout the process, but I believe it'd be my best, I don't want to give a best guess.
[Matt Leming]: I'll just leave it at that. Sure. What I'm trying to get to is, was this just one bad meeting, and then somebody might have come forward, like, in April and said, no, sorry, we're willing to work with you on this? Or was it just, or was it like they, repeatedly stated the position that we're not going to pay the city anything, and then only after the switch was made to Cataldo were they saying, oh, we're totally willing to, we were totally willing to do that. I just want to know, that's why I'm interested, because I can understand if you had one bad meeting with them, but I want to know if they repeatedly stuck to that position for a sustained period of time afterwards.
[Jack Buckley]: So the answer is there's that one meeting where they say we're not making the payments. At some future date they met with the mayor and made an offer of a payment to the mayor. Right. So I don't have that date for you when that had happened. OK. And that subsequently down the road as. we were getting closer to negotiating and ultimately another vendor was brought in, another payment was made. But the details and the dates I don't have.
[Matt Leming]: Sure. Do you know, do you know like the month approximately when they next met with the mayor and made that offer? Like when?
[Jack Buckley]: I don't know.
[Matt Leming]: Okay, yeah, you're on medical leave obviously, so.
[Nina Nazarian]: I don't have the timeline of the meetings or the dates to that effect, but I Really, frankly, I understand the questions and I, you know, the council can certainly ask any questions that it has. I think we're, I do have one check date here in my records, but I can't reconcile the records quickly enough to be able to speak to different dates and different meetings, nor do I even know if I have necessarily that level of granularity in my communications. But I think we're, I do think as an overall statement, and I almost said this sooner, I do think we're getting a little bit lost in some of the realities of what happened here. This is a much more high level issue than I think is being discussed here. We have a situation where we have a contract that is effectively broken trust with the city. Data and reporting is in question. Payments are in question. Payments are being held. And we now are going into a situation where we are going into good faith negotiations with both vendors. And then whichever vendor from there is identified as the best for the city is awarded a contract.
[Matt Leming]: Sure. The issue is that we did dive into a lot of the data issues. And I think that there were some, you know, There were some trends that we had questions about, but it sounded like the biggest issue there was just Armstrong not responding to emails when asked for explanations of these. It sounded like they switched from a previous system to a new system in April 2025 that maybe the city just needed some getting used to or maybe needed some explanation for why certain numbers were reported differently. And I don't really get the sense that that was, that that was the deal breaker in negotiations. What I'm really getting the sense of is that the deal breaker is this money that was owed to the city. And from the sounds of it, the only time that Armstrong really broke contract was that initial $75,000 payment. The other times it was on the city to invoice and we simply didn't do that. It sounds to me like there was some internal baseball and some people got. ticked off at each other behind closed doors and then it all just sort of fell apart. I'm not really getting the sense from this conversation that it was due to systemically poor performance in the field on Armstrong's part. Are there questions? Are there things that do need to be sorted out? Maybe could they have been more responsive to emails? Sure, but making the switch at the point when we did just seemed to be kind of an extreme response to a lot of that. That's just the impression that I'm getting from listening.
[Nina Nazarian]: President Bears, through you, with all due respect, I think there's just so much here in terms of some of the data that may not have been presented the way I think would tell the full story, but it's come out today. I just feel like We're losing some of the realities of what happened over time in terms of the contract and the issues that the city faced. There's significant issues with response time, accountability, and trust and reporting in all of this. To say that it's something less than that is, I think, not a decent characterization.
[Matt Leming]: I will say that I do appreciate that you are being open about these issues. I enjoyed the conversation that we've had over the past two hours a lot more than the previous meeting, because are we getting into details here? Are we ripping through contracts? Are we getting into realities, complex realities? Absolutely, but that's why everybody decided to show up here. on a Wednesday night is to sort of hash some of this out. So I will say that even if these questions and conversations are difficult, I like this conversation that we're having now a lot more than the conversation that was had at the last meeting, even though I do understand the logic behind both responses, I do feel like Folks who would watch the recording of this do get sort of a more clear idea of what happened behind closed doors that they didn't get prior to this meeting taking place. So that is just me saying that I do appreciate this conversation even if it is difficult to have. But that's, that's, that's, that's about all I have. That's about all I have there.
[Zac Bears]: If, if you want to respond and then I just have a follow-up.
[Jack Buckley]: Just briefly. I, I, I think it's the totality of all the circumstances, right? So we're working with the company. They indicate that they don't want to honor the contract. They want to change some practices. There's payments that are not made. There's performance issues. All of it suggests that reasonably responsible leaders in your community should look to other vendors to provide services where some of those issues could get rectified. I think it's, I don't want to say it's as simple as that, but it's basic as that. If we just said, okay, you don't have to pay us the money. We'll pay you additional funds. Don't worry about the contract you signed. Isn't that poor leadership? Full responsibility?
[Matt Leming]: Well, they, I mean, they, you know, messed up by not paying us the first payment, but equally we messed up by not, by not invoicing them. So I think there were, there might, a reasonable person would look at this and say that there were, there were faults on, on both sides, but.
[Jack Buckley]: Again, that's an argument for today, but at the time, back in March, that's not exactly what the story was. We are not paying you the money. We are not going to pay this money.
[Zac Bears]: That's, that's where my question comes in, if you don't mind, Councilor Leming. I've interrupted you a lot, if you want.
[Matt Leming]: It's, it's, it's, we're, we're establishing a pattern here, man. I, I gotta.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Matt Leming]: I'll keep talking. Keep going. Well, well, yeah. So, I mean, I, I, I don't, I'm not arguing against the idea that you could have one bad meeting. I have no doubts that the vibes and the tempers coming out of that meeting were, were very, were very negative. And you know, I. I'm not arguing with that, but having one bad meeting when it seems that both parties could have been reasonably at fault here doesn't seem to me like enough of a justification to blow up a 25-year relationship. There were meetings after that, which I understand you weren't privy to, and maybe you weren't maybe you weren't, so you can't speak to them, but it just, it's not, it doesn't seem to me that there was enough of a justification there to make this switch. So that's what I'm not really understanding.
[Nina Nazarian]: Well, I think we really haven't talked about what Cataldo offered, what Cataldo brought to the table. I think we didn't, we exactly did not blow up a 25-year relationship. We continued negotiations with both parties. That's exactly what we didn't do. Despite everything, we continued to negotiate with both parties and in good faith to identify what the best would be for the city of Medford. And Cataldo rose to the top.
[Matt Leming]: The switching cost thing though, so if Armstrong comes back in another three years and they offer a better deal than Cataldo, are you gonna do the switch back again? There's definitely a switching cost and something to be said with a lot of experience in the area. Some of what the EMSs were saying at the last meeting also did concern me about the fact that Cataldo I'm going to go back to the slide that I was looking at. Again, I do understand if there are benefits, there are like, you know, sort of things to make one deal better than the other, but still the switch, it does strike me that that will end up destabilizing things for a while, and I understand that we had a conversation about that earlier in the meeting. Regardless, we are getting into a back and forth here, and I want to respect everybody's time, I see that. My colleague also wants to speak and that's, that's all I have to say.
[Nina Nazarian]: Sure, and I, I certainly defer to Chief Buckley because, you know, Chief Buckley has been involved to, to a degree, was out on leave and I did find an invoice in my email to which Chief Buckley is not on. But I will say I think, I think the reality is The city needed to consider all options, considering everything that had transpired over the course of the last year plus with the contract. To say that the city should remain with a contractor that the city is not happy with, is not getting responsive information from, is not getting responses from in terms of callback time is not is, is, is having to push significantly on payments, even after documentation is provided, whether it's the financial statements or otherwise. And then coming back and looking at data that's not being provided. There's just a, there's just a history, and I, I, I honestly, I'm surprised to a degree that that the work that was done by the city is not being heard and captured here. It seems that each and every time we're describing what happened in the past, there's some speculation on what Armstrong might have done or might not have done by the council, and I'm just, I'm feeling kind of, I feel like I'm put in a position where I'm having to repeat myself kind of as a broken record, or others on the team are having to repeat themselves kind of as a broken record, and enough weight is not being given to what the city is saying in these cases.
[Zac Bears]: Chief Buckley, just a specific question. Let's just go back to that first piece of the payments. You were having the conversation, you said, Armstrong, we want these payments. And then you said that, Armstrong said, we're not going to pay at all. Was that, and you were on leave at the time, I think, right? So. When they said they weren't paying? Yes.
[Jack Buckley]: No, that was in my office.
[Zac Bears]: When was that?
[Jack Buckley]: In March, end of March.
[Zac Bears]: That was in March. So you were here for that. Yes. Okay. And that was a verbal conversation in March where they said we're not paying, period, not on any conditional element. And was that further substantiated like in writing? Was there a request made in writing and they said we're not paying? Or when a request was made in writing, was the response different?
[Jack Buckley]: Not to me, no.
[Zac Bears]: Not to you. To the mayor or the city when a further request was made?
[Jack Buckley]: may have, I believe at the time, and I just want, also it gives me an opportunity to clarify something. We keep referring to this as a bad meeting. We had no bad meeting. There was no anger or tempers in this meeting. It was just straightforward business. They knew we were going to be seeking some sort of reimbursements for funds for work in the Dispatch Center, and they said that, quite frankly, they weren't gonna make the payments. They were getting legal advice not to make the payments, and they were getting legal advice that they had to charge additional From there, they were directed back towards the mayor who negotiates that contract. I mean, I'm not saying we were like, here's what it is, but we're like, okay. Kind of took me by surprise, but.
[Zac Bears]: So after that point, the further conversations were with the mayor and the chief of staff in KP Law?
[Jack Buckley]: I'm going to assume they directly paid. I don't know, the chief of staff maybe could.
[Nina Nazarian]: I wasn't involved in, in the direct conversations. Who was? I know, I know, well, I, I don't know which each, each meeting who was involved indirectly, but I know that the negotiating team consisted of our chief when he was on, and when he wasn't on leave. Our fire chief, our supervisor of dispatch, Mike Salve, our former city solicitor, and the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm just wondering who was having the.
[Nina Nazarian]: And then AP Law to a degree was on at some point as well.
[Zac Bears]: Who was having the conversations about the payments?
[Nina Nazarian]: I believe our finance director was communicating at some point with Armstrong on the payments, yes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, just the finance director?
[Nina Nazarian]: There's communications that are in my inbox, but, you know, I wasn't leading that one, so I, but there's plenty of people on those communications, but the communications, from what I can tell, are back and forth between the finance director and Armstrong.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just trying to figure out how we got from, we won't pay a dime, with some people to we'll give you some money now with other people to we're going to give you a bunch of this money now and like who was involved in each of those conversations and if there was any sort of legal change either on the city side or on Armstrong side since it was brought up that they were getting legal advice that they shouldn't pay and then they did pay which would. I would reasonably assume means that the legal advice had changed or, so I'm just trying to wonder, lawyers seem to be involved, finance director was involved, how did we get from we're not giving you a dime to we've given you three quarters of the money? That's my overall question.
[Nina Nazarian]: My understanding is the city put it squarely in their lap that they needed to make the payments.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Nina Nazarian]: And kept doing so and kept pushing for that.
[Nina Nazarian]: It's as simple as that.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: You brought up some issues, one that we know at the end, you weren't involved, the chiefs weren't involved, Mr. Salve wasn't involved in the end of negotiations. This is why I reached out and said, please, have one more meeting face-to-face with all the parties. Because isn't that what negotiations are? I applaud the mayor to go get someone else to start it. But when I have a municipal contract and someone comes to me and says, well, this is what we want for a bus contract. lunch program contract, and I talked to a vendor. We go back and forth so we can get the best number. Isn't that negotiation? Sure. Ultimately, there wasn't an issue for 25 years when it comes to service with this company. It only comes up now because there are questions about moving from this company because of concerns. You explain that Cataldo, you don't know what they offered. Well, what was shared to the community, because no one's seen the contract, I haven't seen the contract, we have three things. The behavior ambulance, which I shared with everybody with Armstrong, shared with me, that they're willing to do that, they will do that, even if it was the 13th hour. That the coverage for ambulance service for employees, what was shared to me was just needed to be in the contract and spelt out in the contract correctly, and they would honor that. And then I believe the third piece was the, I forgot what the mass press release at the time, but there were three issues. And at the time when I read those, I said, that's exactly why we needed this conversation. And then Madam Chief of Staff, I don't know if you realize this, sometimes when you come up here, and you share how you feel, that it seems condescending. Could it be that maybe when we keep saying the same thing back to you, or the message doesn't align with you, but maybe you're not right? Maybe that we should look at the totality of what this issue is and say, well, maybe we should have handled this differently. Because what's alarming to me right now, as we're talking the contract, the people that were directly involved at the end of that contract, aren't here. We know the chiefs weren't involved. We know Mr. Salvi was involved. We know you weren't involved. And I know the mayor wasn't involved from what I was told, that it was KP Law, our chief of staff, with Armstrong's attorneys in Armstrong. That's a documentation that was shared. I can share the documentation that was shared through the city solicitor at the time that when he reviewed the breakdown of the money and how they were going to additionally legally incorporate that money that Medford still wanted and Armstrong said we will break it down this way. So we will honor that even though they didn't get the information that was required in the original contract on section 10 one. The city solicitor, as Mr. Raymond said last week, the city solicitor said, it's perfect. Everything looks great. I believe it was in June. Everything looks great. The mayor's going to give it a once over, and we'll get back to you when we can move forward. That's what was done. That's what was done. That's what we heard. This is what we see in documents and emails that has been shared to us. Like, I'm the city councilor. And I see this paperwork. So when you say, it seems like I have to say things over and over again, because you didn't see this, obviously. I did. So this is what it's concerning. When it comes down to it, we have a company for over 25 years that have had zero issues at least with each other. It's been worked out. We haven't had one serious complaint in this community. As a matter of fact, you'll hear later opposite. Because what I've gotten from phone calls and communications from multiple people in the community that what this company does that's not being shown in a contract would knock you off your chair. So maybe take a deep breath and say, you know what? Maybe that's true. Maybe we should have sat down as part of what negotiation, definition of negotiation, is bring the parties together after you get it, right? Those people that follow the Red Sox. Alex Bregman was going back and forth while Chicago Cubs gave him a better deal. Well, he's gone now. Well, at least they went to the Red Sox and said, what is it? Can you do this? And the Red Sox said, no, we're not going to give you a no trade clause. We're not going to put that in. It's no different. So for people that don't understand contracts, that's something that's been in the news lately. That's all I asked for. That's all I asked for the 13th hour. Please come. Everybody sit back at the table. We wouldn't be here right now. We'd be working on a behavior ambulance based in Medford. We'd be working on the EMT training that was explained to me by the leadership team and why this wasn't happening in Medford. We would clarify and clean up the certain issues, but instead we got information on samplings of questionable response times. where the data that came from Armstrong showed us concrete state guidelines and response times. So when you talk about response times and now we talk about contracts, it just doesn't equate. It just doesn't. So thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So I want to transition at a certain point to hearing from Armstrong. As I said, there were like five steps to this meeting. We're still in step one. So I'd like us to get out of here at a reasonable hour. Anything more that we want to hear from the administration at this point or questions from the council for the administration? Just a programming note, I know we had the standard compensation ordinance on the agenda. We're going to, we're not going to, I'm the proponent, I would request a motion to table that to a future committee of the whole meeting. Can anyone make that motion? And I know there are people from the administration here to discuss that. But I would request a motion on that item if that's possible. So moved, Mr. President. I have a motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Malauulu. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is the table 25189 to a future committee of the whole meeting. So if you're here to talk about standard compensation ordinance, we'll see you in February.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan.
[Liz Mullane]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Malay? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[George Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Pierce?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 in favor of none, the negative motion passes. Before we wrap up, I just wanted to go over just so I understand or if you want to respond, if you want to say something now about what was just said, that's fine. I just wanted to go over kind of my understanding of the analysis at this point. Your call.
[Nina Nazarian]: No, go ahead, President Bears. I really don't have any more that I can say here, because I've said everything I needed to say, and we've made it very clear what the city's perspective on this is. But I think it's just, I think the exact opposite of, I think, Councilor Scarapelli. So I think that the comments that are being presented by the professionals of the city who are here today, who looked at these contracts, are being minimized.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. Yeah, so my understanding where we're at, I picked up six general areas of kind of the, we talked about last week the analysis of how the city got to this decision. And one of them was that around the response times and that questioning the validity of Armstrong's data. That was kind of one bucket that response times were getting longer, that trucks were in Arlington a lot. felt that there were discrepancies in the data, inaccurate data, loss of trust in the data that the city was receiving from Armstrong. So that's the first bucket. The second bucket was kind of around investment, that there was a lack of investment in staff, trucks, AEDs, going back to that coverage issue that ALS was in Arlington a lot, asking why not more resources were not added. And then some questions around Armstrong, not offering things that they'd offered in the past or Cataldo offering better benefits. Armstrong wouldn't do free transport of first responders to if they were in a health area and then the Cataldo was offering EMT training at the high school, firefighter training, EMT training for firefighters, extra equipment and training for fire department or extra equipment at fire scenes and extra training operations. And then the last one was around these payments that Armstrong was refusing to pay, things that were in the contract. And I think for me, is that generally a summary of where you guys were at?
[Nina Nazarian]: I think you covered the points, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. My questions remain here, mainly around the data and the response times, like I really, would like to see reports from the city, as well as reports from Armstrong around, I think we got a lot of data by anecdote. I think we heard there were many incidents of long response times, but going back to that question that I asked, you know, how has average response time been changing over time? What proportion of responses were greater than 10 minutes? Kind of these bigger questions that would, I think, make it a lot easier for the average person to understand that response times were getting worse. Like that would be kind of more what I would want to see there. And then I have questions on the payments still, like I still don't understand how we got from we're not paying at all to we'll definitely pay. And just looking at the, what Councilor Scarpelli just passed to me, you know, it looks like in the 2012 contract and the first three years of the 2017 contract, like payments were made in a very timely way each year, each fiscal year. And then starting in 2020, no longer payments were no longer being made. Armstrong says there was no request from the city to Armstrong for these payments in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. And that's very different from the behavior prior to 2020. And to be honest, like I think just as much as we can say, it's disingenuous to say, well, we didn't invoice them so they shouldn't pay. Like if I got asked to pay back years of payments over two contracts in the beginning of the year when my contract was up, and then contract negotiations were part of that discussion, like, that's just as questionable to me as pointing in the other direction. So my questions still are, the why on the response times and the data and the why on the payments. I'm just still, I just still have questions about that. So I think they're reasonable questions. I don't think they're representing that I'm not hearing you guys. Like I'm hearing what you're saying. I just, those questions haven't been answered. So that's where I'm at on all of it. And, you know, at this point, you know, if you want to respond, and then we can move to the next phase of the.
[Nina Nazarian]: Just to say one more thing. Thank you, President Bezos. Just to say one more thing. In March of 2025, when the chief is hearing from Armstrong that they are not going to honor certain aspects of the contract, they're going to change certain terms that have either been part of the contract or pre-log standing practices. That's at a point where, of course, we've got a negotiation coming up this November. is a very difficult way to start a negotiation. So one thing that wasn't said was if this is, sitting back and looking at this from the city's perspective, if this is the tenor of the contractor in March, what should we expect in November? And really the only way to hold a contractor responsible for something like that when they're changing terms of the contract, changing past practices is to bring in other parties to negotiate with to get the best for the city. And that's what we did. So I think that was just the only thing that wasn't said. That doesn't necessarily speak to the items you're talking about, but I think that needed to be said as well.
[Zac Bears]: And I appreciate it. And just a really quick clarifying question. When you say not honor the terms of the contract, part of what you're saying is they weren't gonna make the payment. They said they weren't gonna make the payment. You're saying they said they wouldn't make the payments that were in the current contract. Was the rest of that about the current contract or the future contract?
[Nina Nazarian]: I think I'm following your question correctly.
[Zac Bears]: I guess I'm saying, like, you said they weren't going to honor the contract.
[Nina Nazarian]: Their current contract. And therefore, what would happen in future contracts?
[Zac Bears]: Right. What provisions weren't they going to honor of the current contract?
[Nina Nazarian]: The reimbursement provisions.
[Zac Bears]: That, okay.
[Nina Nazarian]: The 75K per year.
[Zac Bears]: Anything else?
[Nina Nazarian]: Well, the EMD, in March.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Nina Nazarian]: We covered this. In March of 2025, they essentially went, they said that they wouldn't cover three specific things that were either in the contract or past practices. The first was the $75,000 per year. The second was the EMD. They were going to begin charging the city for EMD.
[Zac Bears]: Right away.
[Nina Nazarian]: I don't, I can't speak to that specifically.
[Zac Bears]: I guess I'm just trying to figure out which of these was in the next contract we would like to change this or in this current contract it says this and we're not going to do this.
[Nina Nazarian]: That one I'd have to defer to others. Okay. And then that they were going to stop providing services to our first responders when they were injured in the line of duty.
[Zac Bears]: And was that right away as well or in the future contract?
[Nina Nazarian]: That I don't have the answer to.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I would love the answer to those two questions.
[Nina Nazarian]: Chief right away or in the future, do you know?
[Zac Bears]: My question was that Nina just said, the Chief of Staff just said there were three things that Armstrong said they wouldn't do anymore and it was, or provisions of the contract that as the Chief of Staff characterized that Armstrong wouldn't honor. One was the payments, the $75,000 payments, and then the other two were that they were going to start charging the city for EMD and that they were no longer going to transport first responders free of charge. were those things that were going to, those second two things, were those, we're not gonna do that from this date forward, or in the next contract we want something different?
[Jack Buckley]: It's my belief that there was, from that date forward.
[Zac Bears]: From that date forward, and did that actually happen?
[Jack Buckley]: No.
[Zac Bears]: So they didn't charge for EMD and they kept transferring?
[Jack Buckley]: I don't believe the situation came up as far as transporting an employee, so wouldn't have been able to be tested, and then you get the SO. No, I don't think so.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so they didn't charge us for EMD from that point? Correct. And it didn't come up, but did they ever communicate in writing, we will not transport a first responder, we will charge you for that from here on?
[Jack Buckley]: Did they ever follow up and put that in writing?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, did they say, from here on out, if our first responders entered, we're charging you for their transportation? No. Okay, thank you.
[Jack Buckley]: Not to me anyway, if that's the question, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: To anyone in the city? Did they?
[Jack Buckley]: I don't know if they did it to anyone else in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. All right, looks like we got two more. I'll go to Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, and we'll move to step two.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I just wanted to thank you and Chiefs Todd and Evans for speaking here tonight. I would like to reiterate once again that I appreciate this kind of a conversation, difficult as it is, far more than what we saw previously, which was, well, I just appreciate honesty and transparency about what happened behind the scenes coming from the administration. I understand it's very difficult to stand and have this back and forth for two and a half hours. I can appreciate that. I just wanted to say that, and I do, but also to say that I do agree that we should move on to hear from Armstrong as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I think, again, this is, whether we feel it or not, I think this is a very good format. I think that this is what people want to see from our government. So I will explain why this came forward. Like I said, in communications with the mayor and our chiefs, it seemed like there was a lack, there was a gap there. There was a link missing in communications. Because when it came down to the end, I know the chief went through his issues and was off for a period of time, and Chief Evans and Mr. Salve weren't purview to the final discussions and contracts. I know that what was shared with me and I hope I'm going to ask for clarification from Armstrong about understanding the EMD when it says we want Medford to pay you. EMD isn't payment out of Medford's pocket. What I was educated from, from the chief of Stoneham, was EMD is a process of a 911 grant that is written by our leadership team, whether it's chief of police or chief of fire, and those funds would continue the services of EMD and paid directly to Armstrong. So I need clarification with that. I think the other piece of that was understanding the transportation of our firefighters if they were injured. I believe an understanding at the 12th hour, 13th hour, the understanding was just the language being written in the contract to make sure that it wasn't open-ended to say, any Medford employee at any time gets an ambulance ride. That's something that was negotiated with both the KPLR, a solicitor, and Armstrong, from what I've been told. And then last was the payment of the funds and understanding the processes and why's, where's, and how's. And even at that hour, there was a solution from Armstrong that shared in the contract that was written and shared with us for 2025 that showed the reimbursement of what was asked in making sure that Medford is protected by law when you're taking money for services. And at the same time, Armstrong is protected by state law, I believe it's Medicare, Medicaid processing, making sure they have the documentation so they don't lose their licensure. So those are the questions that I hope that we'll get from Rich, but I think it's very important that those are the key issues. And Madam Chief of Staff, and I want to belittle the point, but I'm going to, If we sat everybody down, it's all a conversation. It was really part of negotiating where you get the best offer and then you go back and say, here this. This is what we have. That's what it's about. But there's a disconnect somewhere. And we need to find it because if we're seeing that here now with this contract, where else are we dropping the ball? And that's something for another date that I'll bring forward. But thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Good? Good. Okay. Let's move. Next step, we will hear from folks from Armstrong. If there are folks here to represent Armstrong or folks here representing the workers, the union at Armstrong, we'll hear from them next. We'll go through the same kind of back and forth dialogue. And then after that, we'll have a public participation. So I think it'd be great if we could hear from Just any official representatives who want to speak to kind of the main areas that have been laid out or the timeline as they see it at this point. Thanks, and just name and address for the record.
[Rich Raymond]: Rich Raymond, CEO of Armstrong Ambulance, but because of the time, for the other folks that want to speak before me, I'm happy to stay, but I feel bad for others that want to speak. Should I go now or last? I'm happy to stay.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think it would be great to kind of get the case on the table from each side, but, you know, if there's folks, you know, who are burning to speak and can't stay for a little while longer, if you want to raise your hands and,
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so I think we'll go with you, then we'll hear from everybody else, but.
[Rich Raymond]: Great. So thank, can you hear me? Yeah. So thank you very much. I have a timeline that I'll go through, but I know in the beginning tonight we heard a lot of response times of 8 minutes, 9 minutes, 10 minutes, but we didn't hear about the 2 minutes, the 3 minutes, the 4 minutes and all the great things the women and men behind us do, behind me do. So I feel that their character's being brought into this, and they are wonderful practitioners. This isn't about the staff. They respond great. The national average is nine minutes, so when we talk about six, seven, eight, 859, that's the national average. So anything above that is where we look at, but anything above that we have to bring into thought. One of the calls we're talking about was A6 or A7, which means we're contracted for three and a half trucks. The call in question of 20 or 30 minutes, whatever it was, was the sixth or seventh truck coming into the system. And by contractual language, it's eight minutes, 59, seven minutes, 59, 90% of the time. We're well below that. So we can find longer response times, no doubt. But there are points that both Chiefs talked about and Mike Salve talked about. Is it the third truck? Was it the fourth truck? And yes, we do move trucks from one truck to another, because if there's a Medford truck at a call, this is where it gets complex. And I apologize, a lot of people don't understand this. This is 35 years of knowledge. If we have a truck here, in Medford doing a call and it clears up, we will take this truck that cleared up and move it to the current call because it's closer. Our whole mission is the patient, nothing short of the patient. We are moving trucks to get the quickest response. So that's where it gets very complex and people don't understand that. But there is nobody in Armstrong. And our director of operations, Shawn Mangan, he lives in town, he grew up in town, he is Medford. He wraps Medford around his arms. There is nothing more sacred to our response than Medford when Sean is part of it, obviously. So I think that's something that got left out. Sean keeps a keen eye on all of Armstrong, but he responds to everything. There are hundreds of calls that we look at. Our ambulances are tracked by AVL, GPS. The cameras have, our cameras in the ambulance have GPS. We record the phone lines. We record the radio lines. We know what the response times are and it is well documented and I can pull up as much data as you want. I will drown you with data but it's complex. I'm happy to sit and talk with anybody. But for for tonight do you mind if I just read my timeline. Sure. OK. So, I think the chiefs were correct. This all started back in March, March 21st actually. Well, prior to March 21st, Captain Clemente called me and said, hey, we're gonna be doing a project in dispatch. Mike Salve told me that there's money that we can take from the contract. I explained to Captain Clemente it's not that easy, that there are some contractual languages that we have to talk about because we can't break the law. So with that I said can we come down and meet with you and when we got there we came and met with on March 21st we met at Chief Buckley's office with Chief Buckley, Captain Clemente, Chief Evans, Shawn Mangan and myself. And I was, never no. It was always about, can we do this legally? That's the whole, I've never said no. You ask any of the cities and towns I work with, it's never no, it's how. So we discussed the how. So when we talked about getting a $150,000 check, legally, it's the how. Because from an OIG kickback statute, we need the financials. No financials were given. There was a thought of a project. So then we have to start thinking, all right, how do we get that? So we talked about, so I kept that in the back of my mind. Then we talked about transporting, and as we were talking about the $150,000 payment, sorry, then we talked about why the concerns are of the OIG kickback. So OIG is Medicare. The kickback statute's pretty, As you can imagine, it's a legal document. It's outside of my purview, but we have a lot of attorneys to look at it, a lot of really industry experts. So we talked about not only the $150,000 or the $75,000 annual. We talked about, you know, there's some other things that we'd have to talk about is transporting It should only be police or fires at an incident. It really can't be a DPW worker who twisted his ankle in the office. There's very specific language, so it doesn't look like a kickback. Because if it's a kickback, Armstrong's in trouble as well as the city. My whole conversation from April to tonight has always been to protect the city and Armstrong, as I do with all of our contracts. So that's what we talked about. I was never a no not paying. We were never a no on transporting patients. It was always about what's compliance. So we left that meeting and 10 days later I get an email from a Bob Dickinson. That's it's an email request $450,000 payable within 10 days. So clearly we couldn't just pay that without financials or anything as related in the contractual language. That's all this came down to. So I sent an email to the mayor explaining the historical practices how we did to achieve Gilberti and how it worked pretty flawless and everything was fine. I requested a meeting with the mayor. So on April 29th I met with the mayor. And Chief Evans, again, went over it, told the mayor how we interpreted the law or the contract, told her what the process was when we discussed this, I think, Councilor Scarpelli, you mentioned Mayor Burke. And that was with the then solicitor, Mark Rumley. Mark Rumley was very good at making sure that the language had a direct nexus to Armstrong Ambulance as well as the city. And that was the EMD center. It had to be very specific from an OIG kickback statute. And Attorney Rumley wrote it really, really well for us. He also made it that if you read the contract, it says previous year, not years. And I did talk to Mark Rumley back in May and went over the language with him to ask if I was interpreting this wrong. And he said, absolutely not. We were absolutely correct in our interpretation of it. So that was when I spoke with Mark Rumley back in May. At that meeting, I left the mayor the check for $150,000 because it was March. I checked with our attorneys and we were gonna say the check was $75,000 for this year. And $75,000 for the immediate past year, provided we get the financials. Still haven't gotten the financials. We've gotten some financials to prove that they spent, I have it here, I have hundreds of emails. We have some financials that prove they spent, actually I do have it right here, that they spent. $58,000 so far. Um, so again, this is all backed up with hundreds of email with K. P. Law, Mark Reich. Um, so that meeting goes by. The mayor was not happy with the discussion when I asked her to check with Mark Romley. I could tell the tone changed a little bit. Eso from there. A couple days later, I get a phone call from a friend at ProAmbulance that says, hey, someone from City of Medford reached out, wanted to know if we bid on a contract. It was that phone call I knew we were losing this contract no matter what.
[Zac Bears]: When was that?
[Rich Raymond]: ProAmbulance got a phone call from someone in the city of Medford, left a voicemail saying, hey, this is the city of Medford. Would ProAmbulance be interested in an RFP with the city of Medford?
[Zac Bears]: This is April? May?
[Rich Raymond]: May. Yeah, first week of May. So, let's see. On May 7th, we received the email from K.P. Lahr, Special Counsel Mark Reich. implying if Armstrong did not pay the balance of monies requested, the contract could very well be terminated under 30B law, that Armstrong needs to think about that, Armstrong needs to think about that as related to the payment of $450,000. So again, I asked the mayor in that April meeting, respectfully, I know you're an attorney mayor, but I really think we need someone who understands Medicare law, so please could we have our attorneys sit with our attorneys? And if all the attorneys say, I'm sure I can write this check, no worries, no harm, no problem, we write that check. But there's always the concern. So we got the email to join a team's meeting with special counsel Mark Reich from KP Law. That was on May 7th. No, I'm sorry. May 7th was Mark sending the demand letter of make the payment or we're going to get the contract up on the 30B. So then we got a meeting on the books for May 20th. And at that meeting, it was Attorney Mark Reich, myself, one of our attorneys, Massachusetts law, David McCool. Attorney Scott Moore, who's what we would say is the Medicare compliance official attorney on the phone call, who's here tonight. If we want to ask him questions, he was kind enough to come. So the whole conversation with Mark Reich was really geared around the contractual language that's here on the 22 contract with the concerns of Medicare kickback statutes. Attorney Mark Reich, was very understanding, agreed with our interpretation. Totally, at one point he said, I'm very scared at the language of what we're reading. And he basically said under KP law, I do a lot of municipal contracts related to ambulance and I've never done one with money in the contract. So he understood our concerns. Attorney McCool at one point in the conversation asked, Attorney Reich, would you indemnify Armstrong Ambulance from any Medicare law? And he laughed and said, no, we would never. Attorney Reich mentioned he agreed with our concerns, but also mentioned my boss is demanding and I really need to work on settling the money. Let's see, now we're gonna go forward to late May. So that's where we left that conversation. And again, that was May 20th. Then there was a, funny, there was a legislative breakfast that I didn't attend on May 21st. I know the mayor went there. Dennis Cataldo was there. Got a phone call from Dennis after. Dennis said, hey, the mayor reached out. This was probably a couple days later. And Dennis was very open. I'm going to go meet with her. And again, so I really knew by calling Pro and by calling Cataldo that our Armstrong didn't have a chance any longer. But again, I am not here. I am friends with Dennis Cataldo. They're EMTs and paramedics are our brothers and sisters. This isn't about that. This is about the way the language in the contract determined our termination. So again, now we're into June. Email from KP Law thanking Armstrong for a very productive meeting. June 4th, KP Law indicated eagerness to resolve this matter before the end of the fiscal year from the mayor. From KP Law, the mayor is eager to resolve this before the end of the fiscal year. Scott Moore and Attorney Warfel submitted some new proposed language that was to protect both Armstrong and the city. So again, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth with KP Law. KP Law on August 11th, so there was a big hiatus from June to August. But we we left that hundred and fifty thousand dollar check with With the mayor so on August 11 KP law revised the city would not provide financials for the hundred and fifty thousand because we still haven't gotten any Would not provide financials until December for the hundred and fifty thousand paid thousand dollar payment made on April 21st So that's on August 11 Then there was a circulation We heard that the fire chief was shown a contract that had the wrong amount of vehicles. And that's on Attorney McCool. He was only focused on bullet 10, which is the money. How do we protect both the city and Armstrong on bullet 10? So I reached out to the chief and said, that's incorrect. That is a wrong draft. All we're working on is section 10. I actually emailed the Chief Evans on August 12th saying, you know, Chief, I'm stuck in the middle of the attorneys. I'm asking could you please help navigate this meeting to your appoint Councilor. Like try to get the people at the table. But no response in the email. October 9th, we got an issue for another $75,000 check. And again, I responded back, and it was, again, from the financial office. I responded back with, that would go out into December's payments, because it was for the end of the year contract. Which, again, we probably shouldn't have paid, cuz we paid the 150. But in good will, I'm trying to make this happen, provided we get the financials. On October 21st, we met with, this is a team's meeting, on October 21st, team's meeting with the new city solicitor, Kevin Foley, Mark Reich from KP Law, police chief, fire chief, myself, Sean Mangan, and our attorney, David McCool. We brought Kevin Foley up to speed. He was wonderful. Again, worked in different municipalities, totally agreed that the money should not be in anything of a contractual language. His mission, he said, was to get the money taken out of that contract and work with the mayor on that. We did a round robin, asked if everybody was okay with Armstrong keeping the contract. Both police and fire chief said yes. No concerns of response times or quality or anything was brought up at that meeting. Kevin Foley then said, great, I'm gonna go to the mayor and the city council because if everyone's in agreeing, I'm gonna go to the council and ask for a five year contract, not even a three year, So we can not have to do this every three years. So Sean and I left the meeting and I never felt better. I mean I've been sick since this happened in April. After that meeting with the city solicitor saying he agrees he's going to work on it. He's going to move the lane right the contract so it's good for everybody. Again I left that meeting I never felt so good. Time went on. No response. Then we heard that the city solicitor got terminated, so that left us out. Then on November 6th, KP Lahr sent us a contract. I immediately picked up the phone and I called Attorney Reich from KP Lahr. I said, I quickly read it, I agree with all the terms. There's a couple things in there we gotta put some guardrails on, but as a company, we agree with all the terms. He said, great, I'll let the mayor know, that should make her happy. Let's see, November 17th. Oh no, that was on November 17th, sorry. So on November 19th, we met with the police chief, the fire chief, Sean Mang and myself to just discuss the operational language again. Some of the items we talked about was a supervisor on the truck, or an offline supervisor, how many ALS units, how many BLS units. We talked about two, the ALS units, the BLS, keeping a BLS in the city because it's good for the BLS providers to have that hands-on skill. When we talk about behavioral health, a lot of the calls are not actually ALS level. That's what the BLS truck would work with, and again, We've been doing this for 30 years. We have all the data to prove we're going to put the best system in place. The non-transport supervisor was a point I'm As a long time ago paramedic, I can tell you I was stuck in a non-transport vehicle with an unconscious baby and we couldn't transport. I've always been against single paramedics in a fly car. It's a gut feeling, it happens once and you never want it to happen. So we were against that, but we wanted the supervisor to be on an ambulance and they agreed. No one pushed back and said, no, this is what we want. So we left that meeting again saying, okay, we're in good place, good shape. We talked about the EMT training. We don't personally do it in-house. We rather do it outside. And we talked to the chief about that. We weren't a no on that. There's just federal guidelines on how to do that. As long as the attorneys agreed, we're all in. The more EMTs on the fire trucks, the better for us. It makes everybody's job a lot easier. And it's a great partnership. So again, from a legal perspective, we were all in on that. The behavioral health unit, long story. This is a bright, shiny thing that just came up. I'm not sure, but back in 2022, 23, December, January, I was appointed to the mayor's behavioral health council. During those meetings that I attended I met with Penny and said hey we should think about this so much so that on June of that twenty twenty three year I met with Elliott Health. Gail Pory works at Elliott Health. picked their brain on how to do it, brought the information back to Penny back in 2023, June, and we never got any movement on that. So we were trying to be the first to do this, just couldn't get too much movement on it. Let's see, November, November 24th, I hand-delivered the $75,000 check to the City of Medford, City Hall. That was, payment was made. No follow-up email. No financials given. The first 150 actually got a follow up email from the mayor saying thank you very much. So this $75,000 on November 4th, we never got a follow up email that said thank you. So now we go into December. On December 11th, and the mayor specifically talks about how we had a conversation with the police chief on December 11th, that was Sean and I calling him asking, hey chief, we understand the contracts out there in the ether. Do you know where it is? What's going on with it? Can we sign it? And he said, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm very concerned that they already have a signed contract. So that was on December 11th. So on December 12th, I emailed the mayor asking, you know, where are we at with the email? On December 13th, I get the email back from the mayor with the header of attorney-client privilege. And the, you know, the mayor's responded, the city is going in a different direction and stated, with that being said, we do not want to go public on the reasoning of why we are going in another direction. We want to try and keep a good relationship with you all, as you never know what will happen in the future. It's all documented in my emails. The mayor's email on, you know, we're going in a different direction, but we are going in a different direction. With that being said, we do not want to go public on the reasoning of why we are going in another direction. We want to try to keep a good relationship with you all as you never know what will happen in the future. So on December 15th, I sent another email to the mayor, the police and the fire chief asking them to Basically, please don't do this, let me tell you why. Armstrong is just so situated around Medford, and again, this is not about any other ambulance company. We are just geographically perfectly set to be around Armstrong, so much so, when I met with the mayor about the first meeting with the mayor and I handed the $150,000 check back in, Sorry back in whatever it is March or April April the night before the day before we had 50 responses in Medford 50 responses and we handled all 50 of those with just Armstrong ambulance no mutual aid. So, and I brought that out in the meeting, said, hey mayor, I know we're gonna have a difficult discussion, but I wanna let you know, I'm trying to keep everybody happy. Just yesterday, this happened, and we handled all of these calls without mutual aid. No other provider could do that, no way. So, again, my whole thing is the patient. December 17th, I sent another email to the mayor, police chief, fire chief, oh, still no response from any of the emails. Asking them again, please, we're a better ambulance company, this is why. Please, please, please. No response. So, I have hundreds of emails, can back all of this up. I just, again, I can answer a million questions. I couldn't even write any more notes down when I heard all the questions, but a couple things that came to me. When the chief of staff mentioned Cataldo rose to the top, what was the criteria? Like, what were the criteria? How could we not rise to the top? There was no criteria for us to look at to rise to the top. You know, let's see. I'm just looking at the different... Mutual aid. That was a great one. Yes, it is a law. It's a public health law. We have to respond and take the law out of it. It's ethically the right thing to do. If there's a paramedic unit that is in Medford, but the cardiac arrest is across the line in Arlington, we're gonna send the closest paramedic unit to save a life, because it's the right thing to do by the patient. We're not gonna get caught up in that. And to somebody who was asking, when we move trucks, just like that day when I told the mayor we had 40-something responses and we covered them all, sure, a truck might be going to save a life in Arlington, but we're backing it up. We don't. Ninety nine plus percent of the calls in the city are covered by Medford flat. No doubt. Anyone who wants to debate that data please bring the data. Yes, we give mutual aid to adjoining cities and towns. We don't request it. We are in the perfect spot for Arlington, I mean, from Medford. When we look at Arlington, we have a base there that holds about 10 trucks. Woburn holds about 20 trucks. And then the other municipalities that we cover around it. So we have 60 trucks within about five miles of Medford. So when we talk about, Oh, we're giving trucks to Arlington. Well, Arlington's given us a lot of trucks in Medford to make sure that the patient has an immediate response. So I will challenge anybody's data on that. And to your point, Councilman, yes, all of our data is updated into the state matrix, Massachusetts Ambulance Trip. So every ambulance company has to put our data up. All of our response times are tracked.
[Zac Bears]: Rich, just to clarify, what you're saying is 99% of EMS in Medford is covered by Armstrong trucks, and you're not asking other companies to come into Medford to cover that.
[Rich Raymond]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: But those trucks may be coming from your Arlington hub or maybe Woburn, but mostly, you know, but you're not asking Cataldo or some of the other companies to come into Medford, and you're actually sending some of your trucks out to communities that aren't Armstrong communities to provide mutually.
[Rich Raymond]: That's correct.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Rich Raymond]: So mutual aid, I'm sorry, mutual response times. And again, yeah, all of our response times, it is scrubbed between GPS, AVL, cameras, recordings. We scrub it, scrub it, scrub it. Can some things get by us? Sure. But it's a small time. And in the contract, There's also a clause in the contract that if our response times exceed a certain number, we got to pay a penalty to the city. We never paid a penalty to the city. Our response time on average is about four and a half minutes.
[George Scarpelli]: Because I want to make sure it's clear because I think that what we heard was a dialogue of misinformation that your numbers are skewed, that the call goes to you so your clock doesn't start until two minutes after the call goes to our 911 center. That's what I'm a little confused about. Mr. Raymond. If it's not truly four and a half minutes, as our 9-1-1 supervisor states, that there's a gap time there, so it really doesn't equate, because that's what they were saying, I need to know that. That's going to stay a lot. Unfortunately, even if it's too late for you, I will tell you, I'm going to be a blood, I'm going to be a bloodhound on the next ambulance service company to make sure their response times are where we deserve here in Medford. So I want you to be aware. So please answer that question because I need to know this is a key piece of this whole process.
[Rich Raymond]: Thank you for bringing me back to EMD. So EMD, another, back in 2011, the state created, um, I'm sorry, the state mandated that call centers have to have certified personnel, and they have to have everything recorded, a big infrastructure, and the personnel to do QA. Back then, Mayor McGlynn, Chief Giliberti, Chief Sacco were like, whoa, we can't afford this, we don't wanna do this. So working with them, and back then Bill Armstrong, That was for us. We took it on ourselves. We bid the cost of that infrastructure. We purchased the radios. We put the personnel together. Medford was our first EMD center. And again, we did it for free, and we can talk about the money in a minute because that's another herring. We did it for free for years and years and years because, again, that was a responsibility that we needed EMD. The city couldn't do it. Armstrong stood up and said, we'll do it for you. And then it grew and grew and grew, and now we do like 14 communities. So it's called, we're a secondary PSAP. Medford gets the call. Medford then says, a one-call transfer, it's right on their screen. Medford Fire Alarm, I'm going to transfer you to EMD. They click it, Armstrong Ambulance, call it where you're calling from. Two people are listening to that. So the EMD person is given medical direction, the other one is our dispatcher, immediately send in an ambulance. Immediate. Immediate. No. No. So.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry.
[Rich Raymond]: Yeah. And that's you. I invite anybody wants to come to Arlington and see our dispatch center. Please come. Everything again recorded phone lines AVL GPS. Everything is respond is recorded.
[Zac Bears]: Rich and George I have a question from Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: No, this is a bit more of an open-ended one. I mean, we've talked about the technical details of response times, reporting zones quite a bit throughout this meeting, I'm sure. It's complicated, and I'd probably need to have a much longer conversation to understand all the ins and outs. But just stepping back, a bit more of an open-ended question here. From your perspective, and I'm asking more for your opinion here, at what point do you think the things went south with the city beyond the point of repair? At what point do you think the decision was made to cut ties with Armstrong? When do you think that happened, just in your, this could be speculative, I just kind of want to know what your point of view is on this. Not necessarily when you learned that the decision was made, but at what point in the process do you think, okay, things are south and I don't think this is salvageable?
[Rich Raymond]: I'm sorry, April 29th. That's the meeting I had with the mayor when I talked about past practices, contractual language, how Mark Rumley wrote it to only go one time in the rear, one year in the rears, that it has to be a direct nexus to the EMD center to protect both parties. And then when I requested attorneys to agree to that, and then, like I said, a couple days later, a phone call was made to one of our competitors, I knew it was over right there.
[Matt Leming]: Could you just indulge me and just talk a little bit more about the details of what happened at that meeting?
[Rich Raymond]: Um, so we, I, again, we talked about the, I sent her an email about the previous, um, not previous, but how the process has worked in the past. And again, when you look at the city was nice enough to send me a detailed financial report of how we've been paying through 2000, whatever, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, all the way up to 2020. And then without a problem. The financials were given, checks were cut. 2020, no one asked for anything again. So that was it. So what the change was in 2020, I don't know. Again, we would never know, because we weren't know the other 10 years. So what happened from 2020 forward? Someone didn't read the contract, someone didn't ask. I can't answer that question, but again, in the contract it also reads if we have a performance issue or anything, we also pay a penalty. Not that we've ever gone below the number, but there's penalties in there as well. But did that answer your question? I'm sorry.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
[Rich Raymond]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further questions? No. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Real quick, to bring it back a little bit, when you go through this process of the 911 and the EMD, when you get a call, everything is recorded, right? That's correct. Do you share that with the chief? If it's needed, if he's asking for like there's the daily trip reports.
[Rich Raymond]: Yep, there's daily trip reports that can be sent. But they're complex and confusing, no doubt, but it does. And again, we can sit and show and read, but it's. if a truck is pulled from one to another to another because of moving the closest unit. But ideally, the data is there, response time, on scene time, transport time.
[George Scarpelli]: Right, but if there's a concern, you don't require a FOIA from the city to ask for your recordings. No, I know.
[Rich Raymond]: No, okay. Open book, have whatever you want.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, so that brings me to the other question that was brought forward was the lack of response time. I know that we're responding. I know the chief said he had to contact the mayor, correct? And the mayor had to reach out to you because you weren't giving, I believe Sean wasn't giving them the information correctly. They weren't getting their daily logs. And I know that when I talked to the former chiefs, they explained to me what they required. I know that Chief Gillibird is a little more intense. He's married to this baby and he was very clear in how he God he told me that there was many times that it went for six minutes and he read that on Monday afternoon at six o'clock that there was a run for six minutes. He would have you in the office the next morning and say tell me why this last this and he would say they would say simple that the report would say gate down at train crossing on West Medford and then you would then proceed and give them the route that you will correct. So are we not doing that anymore? Because that's what we're hearing.
[Rich Raymond]: It doesn't seem to be that. Again, I don't want to, I would rather I mean Sean can come up and talk to that if you want. But it's never it's never no with us. We do share the data. No doubt if the request is there. But again if Chief G didn't hear from from Sean. I was in the office, right? It was always a dual fold. Or if I didn't pick up Chief, if you didn't pick up Chief G's phone call in 20 minutes, he was calling somebody else. So, yes, so if not Sean, call me. If me, call Sean. So are we still, yeah, the reports are there. What Sean, I think what we were talking about, as we were moving from just a very data driven report to a easier picture report. And that took a little bit of time. And a username and a log on for anybody to see. You can have at City Hall, I don't care. We want to get you the username that you can check in on our data at any time and know what your dashboard, what we would call as a dashboard.
[George Scarpelli]: Was that shared? No, not today.
[Rich Raymond]: But we would do that, yeah. Okay. We were willing to do that.
[Zac Bears]: So I think that's a good point.
[Liz Mullane]: I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. from that piece moving forward?
[Rich Raymond]: So, great question, thank you. So, yes, I called Mark Reich from KPLR, verbally said we agreed everything. We met with the chiefs, told them what the staffing pattern, and again, I have it here. It's an email to Mark Reich saying, hey, great meeting yesterday with the chiefs, here's everything, we agree to all, you know, every clause I said we agree to. Under the clauses that we had some differences, I said, you know, in the language, I'm happy to share it with you. let's pull out behavioral truck. Armstrong agrees to this, but we will have to work with Elliott Health Services, the police chief, to put the contract together to develop it. But we agree. When we talk about transporting municipal employees, that was a big discussion, not even a big discussion point, a big problem for us. If they are on duty, police and fire, and they get hurt on the job, we can transport them, no doubt. But the language was very open that says city employee to be transported to the hospital. We can't be taking city employees to dialysis or radiation or medical appointments. It had to be on the job. So but again the clause read that we're happy. We agree to the terms but the guide rail has to be put in when we talked about. EMT training to mock Reich. I said, we agree, but the guide rail has to be put in. It was, again, there was never a no. Every now and again, some of my emails were always ended, or sometimes ended with, the city still reserves the right to pick whatever ambulance company they want. To me, that was template, because no one was pushing back saying, no, Armstrong, we want this, we want this.
[Liz Mullane]: Okay. And so it wasn't until the December 11th, December 13th timeline that you found out that we were going in a completely different direction without any response back to where you had this. Okay.
[Rich Raymond]: Thank you. I appreciate that. I still don't have a cancellation letter.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilman Lane. We kind of interrupted you there with some questions if you want to finish out anything else you wanted to say.
[Rich Raymond]: Let's see, I heard lack of staffing, totally not true. Totally not true. We are the incredibly staffed company. Lack of ambulance, and I say that because we have the Teamsters with us. We are a unionized workforce. The Teamsters have been spectacular partners. Once they came on board, We started on projects and programs to hire, to retain. Our numbers have never been better. Our training, our paramedics and EMTs, they're not just put on trucks. If you're working in an emergency truck in Medford, you have more training than out of school EMTs. It's very structured to make sure that highly competent providers are working within the city. So when lack of staffing, that was new to me. And our workforce is wonderful. So I appreciate, again, look how many people are here with us. So that that was that was blindsiding. Again no one told us if that's a concern. We couldn't even talk about it to explain that it's not true. Lack of ambulances. And I just the night the day I met with the mayor the day before we had 40 trucks in the city. So again another Total false statement. Lack of training. Total false statement. Again our folks are highly acutely trained to work our emergency trucks. Mutual aid were spread thin for mutual aid. Totally not true. We have 40 trucks coming in the city on that particular day and I can show you clusters of data. Again, this is what we look at, clusters of data to prove how many ambulances we have here at any given hour. And within a couple hours here or there, 10, 20 trucks have to be within the city within two hours. So again, another statement of lack of our mutual aid spread too thin. Without giving mutual aid, you don't get mutual aid. It's the same, it goes back and forth. But again, from our side, We do mutual aid with our own trucks, so we know the quality of people coming in here. We know so much about it, but because of all of the data, we know where the trucks have to be and when. So what else? Sorry, I have so many emails. Oh, great. Thank you. Sorry, Councilor Scarpelli. Apologize, Councilor. This is getting late. I apologize. So AEDs, yes, thank you. That was in the new upcoming contract. So the only thing that we mentioned, we have already given the city 20 to 30 AEDs. And the ones that we gave them are the top of the line. So our back on to Mark Reich was, We already have 30 in the city that are top of the line. We'll manage them, we'll maintain them, we'll put the batteries, the pads, we'll take over all the processing, servicing of them. If you need more, just let us know, but there's already 30. There's no need to buy new ones, they're the top of the line. If someone lost one or two or whatever, if there's some missing, just let us know, we're happy to help. Okay. Any other questions?
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions from members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I know that. Does this language sound familiar? Is this responsible contractually? City employees, vendors shall transport to area hospitals without charge to the patient or the city any employee of the city that requires services within the city and in the course of employment. Is that what you were? That's what I was talking about, yeah. So that came from your contract with Waltham. So you never said no. That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm confused where this is where I wanted that meeting with everybody at the table to say is it no or is it the language. It's the language. Thank you.
[Rich Raymond]: So just sorry. And why this came about is is as you can imagine times change right. Oh I.G. Medicare kickbacks. So all of our contracts go through Scott Moore, Brian Warfel, David McCool, and when we have those discussions, it's brought to our attention, hey, you need to talk to the municipality about these clauses. We have to suggest different language to make it legal, or we have to get it kicked out. Because in your own contract, the Medford contract, we're arguing over clause number 10 about payment. Go down a couple more, clause 13, it talks about we won't, the city will not engage anything that's against the OIG anti-kickback laws. It's in your own language that says we will not engage in this.
[Marie Izzo]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I've got a few things here. So I appreciated clarifying where you were coming from on the payments. If we could go a little bit more into that. Number one, you got a letter that said pay us $450,000. Basically, you said, you never said you would never pay, right? Is that?
[Rich Raymond]: Nope.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that's your position.
[Rich Raymond]: Yeah, just wanted to get it legalized to make sure the city, because if something went wrong, and we got, OIG came in here, the federal government, and said, whoa, this is a pay to play, they call it, or a pot sweetener. If that was true, because if we give you $450,000 paid in 10 days without any financials to back it up, OIG comes in here, they take our Medicare license. Armstrong closes the door the next day. That's 75% of our business.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do you have that in writing?
[Rich Raymond]: I do. Do I? Do we have that in writing?
[Zac Bears]: The letter from the city saying pay within 10 days. Oh yeah, I got that.
[Rich Raymond]: Scott's here.
[Zac Bears]: No, yeah, just the email that came from the city that said give us $450,000 in the next 10 days.
[Rich Raymond]: I can answer questions while I look, but yeah.
[Zac Bears]: You got a lot of paperwork there. And it's all right if you want to look and give it after.
[Rich Raymond]: Yeah, I'll look while I answer some questions, but I do have it. I know that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. My second kind of set of questions around that was it sounds like one thing you were asking for was what documentation do we legally need to get the, to pay out the back pay. Is that about right? You were willing to pay the 450, but you want a documentation?
[Rich Raymond]: So there was a couple of suggestions that $450,000 to a healthcare organization is a lot of money, especially when it's Medicaid. Medicaid is most of our trips. We run on a very thin margin, and I explained that. We also write off anywhere from $500 to $1 million of billable calls in Medford so we don't bill the patient, right? So again, I explained that to the mayor. I could be billing people and taking them to court and chasing them, but No one in City Hall has ever received a call from a patient because Armstrong took them to court. We are the most humane billing company there is.
[Zac Bears]: So you just, you wouldn't have been able to pay the $450,000 in 10 days, and I guess what I'm getting at is.
[Rich Raymond]: So could we have, yeah, yeah. I mean, yeah, we're financially very stable, but it's a big ask. And then the next round, when we were talking to Attorney Reich and the solicitor about more payment, I'm like, we're doing this when the federal government shut down. We went about six weeks without getting paid for Medicare. but we still showed up every day and did our job. Like, that hurt a lot of companies with cash flow. So when we say, if I gave $450,000 out and then I didn't get paid for six weeks, that's why you got to, you know, we keep a rainy day fund for times like that. If we went, and that's where the conversation with Mark Reich went, it's like pre-COVID. We went, when COVID hit, we didn't do transports. Everybody got really well and stayed home. No one wanted to go to an emergency room. We didn't transport. But we kept up our contractual obligation of three and a half trucks. But they weren't doing anything. Ambulance companies were hemorrhaging money on payroll, closing up shop, just walking away. They couldn't handle it. Thank God we had money in the bank to survive.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I guess I'm less asking from a cash flow perspective, but more You know, it was said that you, the city asked for a payment and you said no. And I'm asking, like, would you have worked to pay the $450,000 over some sort of schedule of time if the document?
[Rich Raymond]: Oh, we suggested that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Over, if documentation was received?
[Rich Raymond]: Yeah, we suggested that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Rich Raymond]: Mike Rake suggested. Yeah, we suggested it with Mike Rake.
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Rich Raymond]: I got that one right here.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Another thing, you know, would you be able to provide the year over year response times for Medford? Is that possible?
[Rich Raymond]: Yeah, you want to go back 10 years?
[Zac Bears]: 10 years sounds great.
[Rich Raymond]: Yeah, let's go 10 years. Great.
[Zac Bears]: In terms of the other piece of this that was brought up by the administration was that Cataldo was offering things that Armstrong didn't like EMT training at the high school, firefighter EMT training. Huh?
[Rich Raymond]: I'll just stop you there. I'm sorry. I shouldn't do that, right?
[Zac Bears]: You shouldn't interrupt me. No, it's a bad call. I'll finish my question. So they listed EMT training at the high school, firefighter trainings to be EMTs, extra equipment at fire scenes, and new training opportunities. And, you know, since this was also, in addition to looking back at the contract and all the provisions that we're talking about, it's also multiple bids and companies were considered here. Is there a reason that Cataldo offered those and you didn't, or did you offer those, or what's your perspective on that as part of the negotiation?
[Rich Raymond]: Oh, God. A few years ago, this one I don't have. I probably could still research my calendar and find it. Several years ago, we met with the former principal, Heidi Reich, I believe her name was. Yep. And Jill Sawyer, I think, was her assistant principal maybe. We met with them and talked and tried to put together an EMT program for the tech side of the school, but to fold it into the curriculum, it was way too difficult. And then there was a problem with, at the time, we were ununionized labor coming in to teach the program, but we offered to do the program at the high school and there was a problem. So yes, we totally agreed to do it. Now that we're a unionized workforce, probably be a lot easier now.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On the firefighter EMT training?
[Rich Raymond]: Yep. We agreed to it. Okay. Just didn't want to do it in our building. We were going to outsource it to a company. that we do a lot of work with just so we like to outsource it just so we're clean of any of the paperwork holding or any of that. And the person who owns the company is a firefighter, a fire chief and works well with other fire departments but he's worked with us on other projects like that.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then this new training opportunities and extra equipment at fire scenes?
[Rich Raymond]: So we do that differently. There's a company called Sparks Sparks is. It is a volunteer service based in Boston, and every time we go to fires larger than, and Sean can speak to this if you wanna ask Sean, but greater than two or three alarms, we, from our dispatch general, we go immediately and start rehab. For us, rehab is medicine, it's not food and hot dogs. We look at the rehab from the medicine side. And then when we want, if it's gonna be a long sustained major catastrophe, And we have to bring in those services greater than medical for food and hydration. We work with what they call the sparks out of Boston. And I think we do that after the third alarm. But those guys are great. They come any time we call and they provide hot food cold drinks and hot chocolate in the winter. They are wonderful. Again it's not a service. We specialize in one thing taking care of sick people. That's our mission. And we work well with other groups that do their mission better than us.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Great. The last thing I wanted to ask about was there was basically three things that were mentioned that in the March 2025 meeting, it was said that, that was characterized that Armstrong wouldn't honor these provisions of the contract. It was one, the payments and reimbursements. I think we've gone over that pretty extensively. The other two were that you were gonna start charging the city for EMD. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Could you explain that a little bit?
[Rich Raymond]: Thank you. Forgot about that. EMD, we never said we were going to charge the city for EMD. What we said was, again, from a medical compliance, federal compliance of kickback, that's the whole goal. And I just, it was very, let's get the attorneys to agree how to do this correctly. And all the other cities and towns we work with, we charge them. There's a handful that we don't charge, and that's because ProAmbulance provides, it's a long story, but we get paid in lieu through ProAmbulance for providing the services on the communities that they cover with their ambulances. But any community that we serve, Saugus, Stoneham, Melrose, it's a pass through. We build Melrose. $25,000 Melrose submits that bill to state 9-1-1 state 9-1-1 pays it and then the city pays us back that money It's a pass-through. There was no ever and I think I was pretty Open that if if the pass-through didn't work in the city for whatever reason we're still not going to charge the city we haven't charged the city since we bought the equipment for the city
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Last one was the first responder change for transport. Was that something that you were going to immediately start changing just to do police and fire on scene? No. That was for the next contract?
[Rich Raymond]: Correct. We just wanted to legalize the language to make sure it was compliant.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Rich Raymond]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Great. That's all my questions.
[George Scarpelli]: Do you have any more? I just have one.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I don't want to call anybody that they weren't telling the truth, they weren't honest. All I want to say in the 12th hour, Rich, is anybody other than people on your staff, anybody in this room to answer questions, present when you unveiled the final presentation? I'm sorry? The final presentation of the contract where everything was in line and ready to go. Was the chief, chief of staff, Mr. Salve, anybody present that's in this room?
[Rich Raymond]: My last email to Mark Reich was with the proposed contractual language to us where I said, we agree to all this. Here are the four or five things that we need clarification on. And nothing after that.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And was that just with you and him?
[Rich Raymond]: Correct. Well, and our attorney, David McCool.
[George Scarpelli]: OK, thanks. So in conclusion with this whole process, the questions of response time, you have documentation. With questions of the meetings and the responses from the contractual, you share the information. Your team, when they talk about transition, because this is more important to me, Mr. President, I know that we have people that want to speak, but I think the most important piece is the next piece, and that is are we prepared for the transition? I believe Mr. Salve said that you were part of, Armstrong was part of this transition. So when I hear that all you got was an email saying that you're moving on. You haven't met with a system in place to prepare Cataldo to let them know what's going on, or have you done that on your own?
[Rich Raymond]: I have not. I know Sean's had some conversations, but my learning that it was officially and it was going to Cataldo is when Dennis Cataldo called me and said, what's going on over there, we had to sign a document that we have to contract.
[George Scarpelli]: And I appreciate that, Mr. Raymond. But Mr. President, to my colleagues, I think this is where we have to look at the fiscal responsibility of this piece, not just the money that we're losing because of this situation, but also understanding if Cataldo is providing any of those funding mechanisms. that we were getting from Armstrong. The other piece was, what did we just hear of the negotiation process? How much money did we spend to KP Law, to our city staff, and hours to negotiate contracts that seemed to have gone awry back in April? That's a lot of money. And these are the things that the transparency of this process brings forward because what we're seeing, Mr. Raymond, what we're seeing throughout the community are some serious issues that we'll have to move forward as a council and really dig deeper in making sure that we are true stewards of our fiscal responsibility. and the finances of this community, because as you're talking, I'm doing the figures and can only imagine what it costs for KP Law, what it costs for Man House, for our city solicitor, who's now gone, by the way, what it costs for our staff, our, you know, even Chief's team to put together some numbers yesterday. This is stuff to me that it's befuddling to me, because I have yet to hear the why when it comes to changing over to Cataldo. And this is the reason why I wanted that one more meeting because maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm looking at it in different glasses because I mentioned that this is personal to me because of the situation I've gone through personally. But why can't we see that this isn't a good fit to change? Why can't we take a deep breath and stop? and say that, you know what, let's sit down at the table tomorrow. Let's see if we could still move forward this process. Let's get it done so we don't interrupt and interfere. Because the next part, Mr. President, I'm hearing where we're going to be housing Cataldo. I'm hearing fire stations. I'm hearing that our water safety apparatus might be moved so they can house ambulances. I'm hearing trailers behind engines. I'm hearing trailers. Is that showing that we're ready? Do we know that we have they have enough staffing to cover the city? Do we know that? Is there a process in place? There's so many, so many issues that I think that still is so open ended that at least can we slow the process down to make sure all of these issues because there is no way that as a professional, working for municipality that I see that we can get things working in a few days, that the transition from what it was said earlier, it's gonna be seamless, gonna be seamless transition. Do our firefighters know if it is true? Do we know? Do they know that? How is the process gonna go that there's gonna be ambulances in a bay with non union companies in a union house with a trailer in the backyard that Do they have bathrooms in those trailers? Are they coming into the firehouse? These are things that have to be said so we know if we're ready. Because that alone, just that small issue is huge as we move forward. That tells me we're not ready for this move. And yeah, it's going to put people at risk. And that's not minimizing what our firefighters and police officers do because we have total trust in them. But I tell you, I've talked to many method firefighters off the record, and I tell you one constant message is when they're on a when they're on a life saving call, the relief they get when Armstrong comes through that door. That's enough for me. So I think that we should Mr. President, that this is something that I hope the mayor we could implore to the mayor that we at least slow this process down. And one thing that Armstrong has said from beginning, which they're a lot bigger than us, is they're okay. We're still gonna be here. We're not gonna turn our backs to Medford. We're still gonna be here. That enough. That says enough. So because right now I have questions about certifications. I know I brought up the other day about the PALS program and that's a certification for pediatric certifications which is probably what I hear is the high end of training. I want to know if Cataldo has that. I want to know what other training they have. I want to know who is in an ambulance. if they're, what is it, paramedics or if they're EMTs, how we're staffing that. I wanna know if they're covering zones or they're gonna be in the areas. There are so many issues now that thanks to this process, I can now go to work for any ambulance company in the country. Because I know this, once I fix the EMD thing, I haven't made a mistake since. But again, I'm gonna reiterate the fact that I trust our chiefs. I know it might not sound it to them right now. I know my chiefs are angry with me because that's been stated behind my back. I trust them immensely. But I also know working for a mayor in a municipality, it's very difficult to say no to your boss, even when it's the right thing to do. So Thank you, Mr. President. I know we have more questions, but I've talked enough. I know people might have some questions. Can I do a follow-up? Go ahead, Rich.
[Rich Raymond]: Go ahead. Thank you. One thing I wanted, like someone show me a couple screenshots of, oh, it's just another ambulance company, who cares? Armstrong is gonna go work for Cataldo. That to me is horrible to say. Our staff loves working for Armstrong. They show up every day in Medford or wherever they're working for the day, but let's talk about Medford, and they feel that they are Medford EMS. The paycheck comes from us, but they feel that they're the fabric of Medford. So when I hear, oh, they'll just go work for the other company, that's furthest from the truth. Our guys and gals, when you say that, there's other things to think about. With 10 years of tenure, five years of tenure, and all the PTO that they've accrued, the 401k that we do a high match at, the partnership with the Teamsters and the healthcare we offer, I would say we offer the best benefits around, no doubt. So to say, oh, just up and leave a company, that's awful. We don't want them to leave. They're our partners. No way, I really took offense when I saw that on the social media. So we are proud to be Medford, and we would love to stay in Medford. And this just really came down to an argument that didn't need to happen.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you, Mr. Raymond.
[Rich Raymond]: Good, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. At this point, I really appreciate folks sticking around for a while. We're happy to open the floor. Well, actually, you know, we haven't heard from, and I did say this, I see a representative from Local 25 here. If you wanted to say anything on behalf of the union and the workers, and then we'll open it up to public participation. Maybe you could just give your name and address, please.
[Nancy Campbell]: Nancy Campbell, I'm a business agent with Teamster's Local 25. Thank you. I just prepared a little bit for you. I do have some comments after what I've just witnessed the last three and a half hours. I've negotiated the Armstrong contract, represented them since February of 2023. These union members have a voice at the table. As soon as they organize themselves, we immediately worked on policies mandating additional field training hours for all new EMS providers. These policies ensure that these new providers receive extra training and assessment before working regular 911 shift. That means Armstrong doesn't hire brand new EMS providers and throws them on an ambulance. They must successfully complete all aspects of the training outlined in the policies. It was the members who pushed for that. training for the field training officers who train all these new employees. A union workforce means employees have a voice to mandate stronger policies so they are better trained to provide better life-saving care and a voice to hold Armstrong accountable for those policies. What does Cataldo policy say? I urge you to find out. And who's there making sure that they follow those policies, not their EMS workers who do not have a voice? Our members have additional driving training. In fact, we're currently working on a driving program within the Teamsters Driving School that would mirror EVOC training. It's emergency vehicle operating courses. EVOC is specialized driver training for police, fire, and EMS personnel to safely and effectively operate emergency vehicles, focusing on defensive driving, hazardous avoidance, intersection control, through classroom instruction, and hands-on practice. It's critical for preventing accidents and ensuring drivers can handle emergency situations. What specialized training does Cataldo provide? These are just a few things that Armstrong does above and beyond to make their employees, as well as all the residents here, care for in a safer manner. They take saving lives seriously, unlike the mayor apparently. I'm not surprised at the lack of transparency that she and her office has shown. She continuously bases her decisions on her own personal grudges. Her constant incompetence to make good professional decisions could now have dire consequences. This is such an important decision, and for her to do it behind closed doors raises red flags. After listening to the chief of staff and the chiefs here tonight, I'm even more worried. You guys called this meeting, you're asking these questions, and not one person from the mayor's office was sent to actually answer. Not one person that were in those negotiations on her side was here tonight. If the mayor has dismissed Armstrong because she disdained for unions, especially Local 25, Then her personal grudges could have deadly consequences for residents of Medford. She is gambling with people's lives. I urge the City Council to do your due diligence in finding out what really happened behind closed doors. Find out why Swampscott, Moblehead, Stoneham, Danvis, Newton, Waltham and Wellesley fired Cataldo. I take protecting my members very seriously, in the workplace but also in everyday life. We are family. We have hundreds of members here in Medford, and if any of them are harmed because of this decision, she won't be able to hide behind that closed door. She will be held accountable. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, go to public participation. We're going to alternate between in-person and on Zoom. If you'd like to speak in person, you can line up behind the podium. If you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand on Zoom. Folks will have three minutes to speak, and we'll start at the podium with Mr. Jones.
[Bob Jones]: Name and address for the record, please. Thanks. Bob Jones, 5 St. Mary Street, Medford, Mass., firefighter, local 1032E board. Just for the record, the union was not invited to any of these negotiations. Local 1032 was not asked for any input. We request that in the future. I believe that the people who are actually going on these calls, providing this service, should be represented at the table. which are represented in this room.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, if you could just speak to that.
[Bob Jones]: Sorry about that. Yeah, thank you. I'm going to address the rank and file and the people that actually do the work here. I know. Not a paid gun from KP Law. We just couldn't hear you. We should be the ones at the negotiating table, number one. Number two, this rollout is going to happen in less than a week. I'm hearing that we have trailers behind fire stations and ambulances in the fire stations replacing the ice and water equipment, ice and water rescue equipment that we currently have. Maybe the chief can speak to that rollout, but apparently he just left the room. Love to see how it's going to go. And that's only housing for two ambulances. We currently have three to four to five ambulances in the city at any given time. So that's just two. The other thing was it would be nice to look at the contract with Cataldo. Has anybody by a show of hands in this room seen the contract with Cataldo? Anybody? Was it provided to the city council?
[Zac Bears]: I haven't seen it. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: I requested it by email and verbally.
[George Scarpelli]: That we do see that? Sure.
[Bob Jones]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If you could continue with your comment, I don't want you to run out of your time.
[Bob Jones]: Okay, no, not a problem. I'll try to be brief. The, like I said, it would be nice to compare and contrast the new contract that they say is well better than the Armstrong contract to see if that's actually true. I'd love to see it. We've had two meetings. We have multiple hours talking about a contract that the administration has not provided to anybody. I don't know how that's transparency. I would love to see what's in it. Again, I thank you for this forum. I thank the members of Armstrong for their dedicated service throughout the years. And they didn't deserve this type of treatment and this type of basic disrespect for the company, for the employees in this process. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Former Council President Rick Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Rick Caraviello, 74 Prescott Street, Medford. Unfortunately, I've had to use Armstrong Ambulance for my cell phone. a few occasions, and between them and our fire departments, and some of them are here who've carried me out of my house. We won't mention any names. Armstrong has been there, has provided professional service along with our police and fire. But I'm not here for that, because that's their job and that's what they do. I'm here because I'm a past president of the Metro Kiwanis. And over the years, Armstrong Ambulance, through Sean Mannion, has provided probably a dozen times certification for CPR to the whole organization. They've provided first aid training to our entire organization on many occasions, along with choking techniques and how to perform the Heimlich. And part of the CPI that they did wasn't also just for adults, it was for our children also, which I thank them, Sean, for his, was he still there? I'll say, like I say, over the years, they've probably done that a dozen times. And just a little story I want to share. One of the members that were trained through our organization actually saved the life of a person on the train coming home from work one day. So you say, well, it's only one life. But one life is a life that was saved because of their work. So I'm going to be brief. But in conclusion, I hope that we're not making decisions the safety of our patients being transported by ambulance over paperwork snafus and hearsay. So I wanted to say Armstrong has provided 25 years of great service and I think they should continue. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_08]: Hi. My name is Tom Henderson. I'm the director of EMS for the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts. I'm here representing the Medford Firefighters and the Teamsters Local 25 to support them in their endeavor here tonight. Just a little bit of background. I represent the PFM, 13,000 members statewide. I also sit on some national committees. And I think when you come to this decision tonight, first of all, Armstrong, I'm not a representative of Armstrong. I didn't work for Armstrong. I don't work for the other companies. I work with all the companies statewide, and I understand their unique and their challenges and what they face in each community in Massachusetts. But this is a decision tonight that has me concerned. Coming up here tonight, I didn't know what to expect. And listening to the dialogue tonight, I have a lot of concerns. But most of all, first, we should talk about a little bit of history in the EMS. EMS has changed since COVID. We've had a lot of challenges, staffing issues. And a lot of these things are not just germane to the Armstrong industry in Medford. It's statewide. It's nationally. We've tried to help to deal with this with our education process, hiring processes. And we've done that. And we've come around from that. But we face challenges now in health care, where our ambulances are sitting at a hospital for well over an hour. It's called door times, or hold times, or wall times, to the point where in California they passed legislation to try to curb this. And we're facing that in Massachusetts. Yesterday, the ambulance company, well, the fire department I work for, We were sitting on a wall for over an hour waiting to transfer a patient. That impacted our local community for over an hour not having an ambulance. These are the changes that have happened. These are things you cannot put dollars and cents and values on. Next is, just listening to this transparent, I don't see that this was transparent at all. Changing vendors after 25 years, it's not like going from WB Mason to Staples for office supplies. This is the ambulance service for the city of Medford. I think it needs a much more deeper dive than just a couple meetings and some emails to determine one versus the other without a true RFP process. I understand it is exempt from an RFP process under Mass General Law, but I think when it comes to a service like this to the community, it needs to be well thought out and well done. And I don't think it's been well done in this process so far. The experience and knowledge of these paramedics and EMTs in this city, it comes down to very simply, they go to people's houses that they've known, they've treated for years. Again, another thing that you cannot put a value on, the administration here, they understand how the service works and how to pivot it in times of need when you have 40 and 50 calls in a city like this. This is things that you're going to have to challenge moving forward. In the end, We hope that this is not a retaliation for unionization. We obviously know that the relationship between the union firefighters and the city have not been so great over the past years. And now to see this change, and now it speaks volumes to what has happened, them unionizing, okay? This is great because Armstrong Ambulance has come in and they've accepted it. They've worked a labor management relationship. Again, it speaks volumes that they can work this out. It hasn't come to a press or an issue. They've been able to take care of the service to the city of Medford, no matter what. And they've worked well together with the teams of Local 25.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If you could wrap up. I'm just going to wrap up last thing.
[SPEAKER_08]: So I hope you could pause this transition. Council Scarpelli, I think they were waking the lion in you to, to realize that moving forward, if they can't stop this with Armstrong and it would be nice if you could keep Armstrong. Hopefully you could keep and hold the ambulance company accountable moving forward. That's most of all. And I hope the city handles all the contracts like they want to hold the high standard to that they speak about tonight. Thank you for your time and have a good night. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this matter at this time? Sure. I'm going to time you this time.
[Rich Raymond]: I know it's late. I'm really sorry. I apologize. But Tom Henderson made me think of something. Back to the contract. If you read the contract for Armstrong, it calls for one ALS, two BLS, and then a part-time truck. And 20, and this is what made me think of it when you said COVID, back in, when we signed this contract in 2022, it was also right around the time LMH was closing, just after LMH. And to Tom Henderson's point, more of the patients were now being transported to Boston. So when the vehicles will usually go into LMH and they could stay in the city and service and cover. Once they started to go to Mass General, in the wall time at Mass General, holding a, A transport for care started to turn from 15, 20 minutes to an hour to 90 minutes, dependent upon traffic to get to the Mass General, get back from the Mass General, clean the stretchers. So time went much higher, which left the city at risk of less ambulances. So, of course, we always had to keep pivoting. And we didn't actually even change the language. We went from One BLS truck, I'm sorry, yeah, one ALS truck to two BLS trucks. We just changed it for the betterment of the city to put in two ALS trucks and one BLS truck. So there was no, oh my God, we have to do this. We did great things, and again, we didn't look for a thank you. We just did it because it was the right thing to do related to the changes in the city because of the closure of the hospital. So I just thought that was important to say. So I thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, you can come to the podium. And if there's anyone on Zoom who'd like to speak, you can raise your hand on Zoom.
[SPEAKER_16]: Just if you give your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Tyler Farley, 25 Morrissey Boulevard in Boston. I lived in Medford for years. I worked on the Medford ambulance. One thing I will say that's very different than the competitor, we do not shut down trucks. Armstrong will not shut down any truck to alleviate a staffing issue. So what I mean by that is the competitor, 7 a.m. hits, your shift's over, they will leave, the truck may be shut down. That would never happen at Armstrong. And I think that's one of the reasons why we all collectively like it so much, we know that The city is protected. The biggest thing about being a unionized company is we have good benefits. We could all leave, we could go to Cataldo, but it doesn't look like that's happening, and we wouldn't because of the union. We really, yeah. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Not always easy to get up here, but we got your message. Thank you. Anyone else who wants to speak in this public comment period? Come on up. If you just give your name and address, you have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_15]: My name is Eliza Casam. I live at 8 Sorrel Place in Burlington, and I'm a paramedic with Armstrong Ambulance. I've worked here for four years. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of my colleagues for coming out tonight and the week before. I think you can have people with the same certifications, you can have the same ambulance, but what really truly makes a difference is my colleagues and the dedication that they put into this city. So not to put too fine a point on it, but I just wanted to say that it's been an honor to serve you. It's been an honor to work with all of you. And when you lose this contract, unfortunately, you are losing us. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. If there's no further public comment, I'm going to close public comment at this time. Thank you all. We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I do have one from Ron Givino. Sure. Unfortunately, he says, Councilor Scarpelli, I apologize for not being able to stay at the meeting. I would like to ask you to read this email to the record with regards to community impact made over the years by Armstrong Ambulance. My name is Ron Givino. I'm the president and co-founder of Method Invitational Tournament, Inc. We're a 501C3 based here in Medford. This year, the MIT is celebrating its 30th year of service to the Medford community. From our humble beginnings in 96, our organization has dedicated itself to playing sports and Medford, a celebration for our youth. Approximately 20 years ago, the direction of MIT turned to focusing on children in Medford with mental and physical challenges. The reason for our success, reputation in Medford, has been created through the assistance of our local and state government, the many great volunteers, amazing challenger families, and the local businesses, communities, which include organizations like the Teamsters Local 25, Avellino's Restaurant, National Grid, Medford Family Network, and so many more. I'm writing to tell you about the men and women of Armstrong Ambulance and how they became a proud partner of the MIT more than 20 years ago. I've been listening all night to the discussion. I'm compelled to mention what a fantastic neighbor Armstrong has been to our children. In 2006, when MIT first established a Challenge a Day baseball tournament, we were in need of medical coverage at the events. From my first call to Armstrong, they agreed to send the ambulance to the event. The Armstrong staff was there for emergencies and care for some overheated children. I wanted to talk tonight not about the professionalism, but the amazing spirit and energy Armstrong team brought to the event. The team opened the ambulance and showed our kids what it can do to engage the children. They stayed beyond the end of the event and helped us serve lunch and they always want to do more. They ended each event thanking us for the invitation. This great spirit continued each year in the event. Each year, whatever different personnel showed at the event, they all took pride in the event and their role helping children smile. Each employee was respectful and shared the pride they had in their job. In addition, Armstrong always supported us financially, making donations and helping us raise money at our fundraising event. With all the talk tonight about this contract, I'm one Medford resident who felt the need to rise and express my disappointment in how this seemed to be handled. I wish and thank Armstrong Ambulance for generosity and for being a great corporate partner of the Medford Invitational Tournament, Ron Giovino, President and CEO, Medford Invitational Tournament. So that was from Ron. If I can, Mr. President, something that the Armstrong people didn't say or didn't share with us, and I'd like to share the things that you don't know what Armstrong does in 2025. Armstrong on their own supported the method business trick or treat event. The Medford Overcoming Addiction Kickball Tournament, The Medford Oktoberfest, The Run for Medford 2-Day Road Race Coverage, McGlynn Middle School Medford Donation, City of Medford Kids Fishing Day, Hoops for Hope Medford, City of Medford National Night Out, Medford Junior Police Academy, Medford High School Special Olympics, Medford High School Graduation, City of Medford Flag Raising Ceremony, Medford Fair and fundraising people with disabilities, City of Medford community inclusion, Medford High School sporting events, Medford High School varsity football season for 2025, all for zero. Didn't ask for a penny. That was over $20,000 in care that nobody knows about. I just hope when you think of contracts, we look at that process. But in closing, Mr. President, if I can, I got a little emotional because the young lady that came up at the end, you remind me of the young lady that came to my mom. And one thing she loved was she would always kiss her on the forehead. That's what people don't see. So I apologize for being emotional, but for those people that know me and my family the way we had a fight for my mom, having a partner from Armstrong just for those three days, bringing her back and forth from dialysis when she was a puddle, I want to thank you. And this is why I brought this forward because There are people right now taking their mothers and fathers to dialysis, and there are people like yourselves that are making sure that they're smiling at the most miserable time of their lives. So thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, and I'm usually the only one who cries at these meetings, so thanks for taking that. Well, I'll own that one myself. I did, I think, capture a motion from Councilor Scarpelli and then some requests for information. So I'll read those back and then I can send them to the clerk and I have them in writing. That'll help. But I think I had a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to request that the mayor pause the transition of EMS services to Cataldo slated for Caldo Ambulance slated for January 19, 2026 and delay until such time that a transition plan is published and shared with residents and the administration provides the information requested by the City Council. Councilor Scarpelli? All right, great. Is there a second on that motion? seconded by Councilor Leming. And then I'll just read the other two and we can take a vote on them all at the same time. And someone can make this one. There was a motion to request the following information from the city administration. One, a copy of the new contract with Cataldo Ambulance, city data on EMS response times, going back 10 years if possible, and including the average response time and responses, you know, proportion of responses over 10 minutes, transition plan for how Medford will be covered for EMS services after January 19th, and any reports from Cataldo about their coverage plans. Year-over-year comparison of Armstrong response times and Cataldo response times over the life of the contract. Assuming it moves forward, year-over-year comparison of Armstrong requests for mutual aid and Cataldo requests for mutual aid over the life of the contract. and then information on the Armstrong payments in the 2022 contract, including written options or written opinions or advice of legal counsel regarding Armstrong contact payments when invoices were submitted by the city to Armstrong since 2020 and documentation to prove the expenses or communications to commit to produce documentation before invoicing Armstrong for payment. Is there anything else folks would like to add on that? That's for the city councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: The housing plan to see what kind of impact that's going to make, not only for our firefighters, but also our residents. I don't, I can't see having a functioning ambulance in a bay that's going to be called out at 2, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning and firefighters that just came back from a fire and making sure that they can get a healthy night's sleep if that's the case, Mr. President. So I think understanding the housing of Cataldo Ambulance is going to be very important to understand this process. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I added up the plan from the city and Cataldo for how they will house ambulances in Medford.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any other requests for information from the administration that we want to add? All right. Is there a motion to request that information on the motion of Councilor Leming seconded by seconded by Councilor Malayne. And then the last one is we did have. Armstrong Ambulance, so we can submit this to you guys directly through our clerk. But we did have a request for a few things. There was a motion to request the following information from Armstrong Ambulance. One, the email from the city to Armstrong demanding $450,000 payable within 10 days. The email from City Legal Counsel to Armstrong saying that they were concerned with the legality of the payments. The email from the mayor to Armstrong saying that the city was going in a different direction and any formal letter from the city to close out the contract with Armstrong. And then as well, I know you already said you could get it to us, but the data on your response times, going back 10 years is great. Average response time, and if possible, it'd be great to see like the proportion of responses that were over 10 minutes. I know that may be tough, but if you could, it's not tough, great. That would be great. Is there a motion for that information? Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? by Councilor Mullane. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan?
[Frances Nwajei]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. All right, we will try to get that information and we have requested that the mayor delay this transition until that information is provided and until there's been a publication of the transition plan. We got one more. 25-149 resolution to establish our recruitment and hiring process for the City Clerk. We do have an update on that. Recognize Councilor Callahan or Councilor Vice President Lazzaro, whoever would like to go. I'm seeing Vice President Lazzaro, so I'll recognize you first.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Hiring of the city clerk is the position that the city council can oversee. I'm sorry, I'm not feeling very well. And it's quite late. And so we've been trying to take this process very seriously and be very thoughtful and thorough about it. Um, we were having a difficult time reviewing all of the resumes, uh, and, and we felt it was important that we, uh, have a full, uh, the full access to every resume that was submitted. Um, and in our conversations with the human resources department, um, it, you know, over the holidays, things were delayed. So, uh, my proposal is that we, um, interview from the pool of applicants from before the holidays, um, from our smaller subset of the city council, which is me, councilor Callahan and president Bears, um, uh, that we choose from, from that pool, the standout applicants, but then that we also, um, ask the human resources department where, uh, the, the, um, posting was listed and repost the listing again, um, without a minimum requirement so that we can see, um, if we, uh, into, uh, perhaps a wider, um, uh, posting range, uh, just of locations were proposed, uh, so that we can, um, pull in fresh resumes since we had to end up waiting kind of a long time and that the, um, resumes that we have, a lot of those people may have gotten jobs by now. So that's my proposal that we request interviews from the people that look really good from the group of resumes that we have now, and that we attempt to repost in addition to a little bit of a wider pool and just to get a fresher group of resumes because it's been so long. Thank you.
[Liz Mullane]: I'll second that. I'm seconding the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Great, so we have a motion from Vice President Lazzaro to repost the city clerk job posting without the minimum requirements so that we can bring in some new resumes. And then we can schedule interviews both from that group, the resumes we've received so far, any resumes we receive with the reposting. And then we can schedule interviews from either of those groups. Councilor Lazzaro, I do have one question. Long did we want to post repost the job posting without the minimum requirements for Um, I would say.
[Emily Lazzaro]: You know, I am open to discussion on that. I'm not sure, but I don't think I would want to keep it posted for very long just because it's taken us this long to work this process so far. I would really like to get this wrapped up as soon as possible, personally. So maybe only a few weeks I would want to post it, just so we can try to accelerate the process from here.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And you also mentioned that You wanted to post it in a few more places than it was posted. Were there any specifics on that?
[Emily Lazzaro]: I would like to post I would like to make sure it's posted to MasterList. And there is another MasterList is a newsletter about politics. And there's another I cannot remember the name of the other one, but it's a similar general post. I mean, something like it's a I wanted to talk to Lisa from human resources for the city to ask where they were posted before and make sure we're covering a few other locations. I can't remember. Actually, I'm going to just look through my notes if I can just have one second. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. That's OK. Is there any discussion members of the council on the length of time that the job should be posted if we're gonna be reposting it hopefully this week? Councilor Malay and then Councilor Leming.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you to Vice President Lazzaro for bringing this up and Councilor Callahan. I would say, I don't know if going any longer than 60 days, especially since you already have had it out there for a little bit of time, I think if it's proactive, it sounds like you all have really tried to get this to a place where more people would have eyes on it and more ability to actually apply, given some of the changes, into the actual JDs. So I don't think you need to go, or I wouldn't think you need to go much more than the 60 days.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, I was definitely thinking a much shorter amount of time. I really would like us to get a new clerk, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: I propose 13 and a half days exactly.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna lose my mind. Councilors Arlen, Councilor Callahan.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I, uh, yeah, I was thinking like two to three weeks, like 20, 21 days would be like a max for me. Um, but the, the, the locations I was specifically thinking of were master list and MMA jobs board, um, as good locations to make sure that we posted that. But I think I would really like to just verify where it was posted before what common practices with the city job postings, and then to make sure that those two areas, just because I know when I'm looking for jobs that are, you know, something or people that are have similar backgrounds to somebody who we'd be looking for in the city clerk that that would be where somebody would be looking for a position like this. So, um, I think that's important to know. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Yeah, I think once we actually get it up, then we should give people three weeks. So I would think maybe the 6th of February, which is a Friday.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. That would be about two, three weeks. Is that good with everybody? Seems like generally yes. Yeah. So I have... hear a motion by Councilor Lazzaro for to repost the city clerk job posting without the minimum requirements through Friday, February 6th, 2026 to request to post the job on master list and mass municipal association job board. In addition to the standard HR department platforms. and for the special subcommittee of President Bears, Vice President Lazzaro, and Councilor Callahan to schedule interviews from both the pool of resumes already received and any resumes received during this additional posting. Does that sound about right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, that sounds great.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any further discussion by members of the council on that motion? It's seconded by Councilor Callahan. I do note we do have HR Director Crowley and we do have the Chief of Staff still here. Do you guys have any comments on this? Is this something, I mean, something we wanna do? Just any questions or any suggestions? I'm not seeing any from the Chief of Staff. If you want to raise your hand, Director Crowley. All right, not seeing any, not seeing any further discussion on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Mullain? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. That's seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. I do see Director Nwaje's hand. We did vote already, but I will recognize you for any comment.
[Frances Nwajei]: Yes, hello, good evening, everybody. And we're already two weeks into the new year, but happy 2026. I just wanted to share that I am listening and I do have to bring up the equity concerns around looking at current applicants and then looking at possible new applicants if you are removing the criteria. Because what that has done, it has eliminated over 100 plus current applicants, right? Because there would have been people who would have looked at the posting and said, oh, gee, I don't meet the minimum entrance requirements. I also want to make sure that you're aware that we don't just post in one place. We actually use a portal, and that portal posts to over 100 job boards. And we also post on the MMA. I'm not familiar with the other sites that Councilor Lazzaro had mentioned, but if somebody wants to shoot me an email so that I can look it up, that would be great. But those are my comments.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Nwaje. All right. I will forward this resolution along. That's the end of business tonight. Sure. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Nina Nazarian]: I received a message from HR Director Crowley that she's having a hard time with Zoom. Perhaps you could unmute her. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You did vote on the resolution but Director Crowley.
[Lisa Crowley]: Hi, sorry about that. Through you President Bez to the council. I just couldn't figure out how to raise my hand and my screen kept going blank. Um, I just want to confirm what Francis just said. We do post on over a hundred sites and MMA and for us to post without the mayors would be, um, against our process that we do now. Um, we're required to post the mayors plus, um, Also, the range for the position, so I'd be happy to talk to the committee that's going to be on the interview panels about that. But I just wanted to let, you know, that that's something that we wouldn't normally do because then we would have people who are unqualified. applying for positions and especially that the city clerk title is somewhat misleading sometimes. I did send the full gamut of resumes to President Bears and there was probably at least 80 names on there maybe 60 to 80 names and you'll see that a lot of them were not qualified because they did not understand what the actual position was. I think posting without the mayors may bring you more resumes for people that would not be qualified for this type of position. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You know, we're happy to, I think the three of us are happy to do the sorting through on that. We were just trying to, we think that the minimum requirements upon kind of the process that, you know, I don't think we realized that that would mean that we wouldn't receive all the resumes, you know, and that was an ongoing. I know we have received them now, but we wanted to make sure that we could consider everyone who applied. and, you know, make that determination ourselves. If there's another way for us to do that, I think, you know, we'd be open to that. But this seemed to just be the easiest way to address that issue. And I think to Director Nwaje's point, you know, we're really hoping to actually expand the pool and get more people applying, not restrict the pool. That was kind of our goal with this since we had an issue. We were people we wanted to kind of consider who because of the minimum requirements on the last posting, the HR department was reluctant to have us consider or provide the application until kind of in December. So that was just the reasoning in the back and forth that we had. Is there a different way for us to go about that, Director Crowley, or are you comfortable if we you know, the three of us just take on the fact that we may get a bunch of applications from people who really aren't qualified.
[Lisa Crowley]: I'd like to probably just digest this a little because it is late. And then maybe we can talk offline so that I can figure out what plan of action is going to work best.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. I will forward this along after the meeting and we can continue to discuss by email or set up a meeting between the four of us. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion? Thank you so much. And thanks for staying at this late hour. Any further discussion on any matters before the council or any motions by the council? We can be done now. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Lemingston, seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Marie Izzo]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes. Do I not know? Councilor Maloney. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes.
[Marie Izzo]: President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 40.83 minutes total words: 4228 |
total time: 55.95 minutes total words: 2537 |
total time: 17.51 minutes total words: 1508 |
total time: 4.15 minutes total words: 440 |
|
total time: 1.74 minutes total words: 158 |
total time: 2.18 minutes total words: 186 |
total time: 5.83 minutes total words: 488 |
total time: 2.01 minutes total words: 175 |