A crowd of close to 50 demonstrators marched across the street from City Hall on Central Avenue into the July 8 City Council meeting to protest the potential loss of eight emergency medical technician (EMT) positions. Filing past a larger than usual police presence of five officers, the protestors came to speak out at the last council meeting scheduled before the targeted Aug. 1 transfer of daytime emergency medical services from the City of Hackensack to a privatized service hired by Hackensack University Medical Center (HUMC).

Fighting since February

The debate over the fate of the eight EMTs began in late February with the announcement that HUMC would make a one-time, $1 million payment to the City of Hackensack in exchange for the approval of the hospital’s plans to build a new cancer center. The center will be built adjacent to the hospital.

However, part of the agreement stipulated that the city will transfer its daytime emergency medical services to HUMC, with the hospital to hire the workers scheduled to replace the eight EMTs under Hackensack Fire Department (HFD) command by Aug. 1. The hospital will reportedly hire Vanguard Ambulance Service of Rutherford to supply the replacement workers.

The crux of the EMT debate has centered on the city’s claims that the move will save Hackensack $600,000 a year, while the EMTs’ supporters point to their experience, believing that safety concerns should override budget considerations.

Supporters of the EMTs have expressed concerns in recent weeks that the decision to replace the eight emergency personnel was not based on a condition presented by the hospital as part of the cancer center agreement. They have pointed to an internal statement issued by HUMC officials to employees obtained by union officials stating that it was the City of Hackensack that approached the hospital to provide ambulance services as a condition of the agreement, not the other way around.

"To reiterate, HUMC did not seek this responsibility, but accepted it as a condition of the Developer’s Agreement of February 26, 2008," the document states.

City officials have disagreed with the hospital’s assessment of the conditions of the agreement, stating in previously published reports that the accord should not be affected regardless.

Citizens ask council to seek alternatives

In the public comment segment of the meeting, several citizens spoke in opposition to the transfer of emergency services, regardless of whether it was the city or the hospital that initially suggested it.

"I am absolutely opposed to bringing in a private EMS service," said Frances Treanor, a 25-year resident of Hackensack. Treanor also noted that she believes that the current EMTs have solid experience in dealing with populations in the type of high-rise building in which she lives, while many private companies do not.

"We have all wondered … why this cannot be put to a referendum," Treanor added. "I understand all the decisions that you make cannot be put to a referendum. But this has all of the characteristics and earmarks of something that could be decided by the people and taxpayers of this city. Don’t do this. It is a bad decision and it is breeding resentment, not only against the city, but against the hospital."

Marlene Graffin, a 38-year resident of Hackensack, noted that citizens like herself would be willing to ante up to avoid gambling on any potential decline in service coming from a transfer in emergency services.

"I’ve paid taxes my whole time here, and I have no problem with paying taxes for the wonderful EMTs that we have now," she said. "I do have a problem now that I’m getting older with having private, inexperienced EMTs who may not be familiar with the circumstances of high-rise living taking care of us … the $600,000 in savings could erode into nothing if there are lawsuits filed against the city for the improper care that we could get from some company like Vanguard."

"You owe it to the taxpayers and the residents of Hackensack to put this to a referendum," Graffin continued. "Please, for the peace of mind of the residents of Hackensack, do not fire these EMTs."

Cap considered by Melfi, then Corzine

The city government has repeatedly defended its decision to replace the eight EMTs due to the serious budgetary constraints placed on all 566 New Jersey municipalities in the face of the approximately $32 billion in state debt. Added to this pressure is the state’s mandated 4 percent budget cap on municipal education spending, a measure that affects how other municipal funds are allocated.

Newly sworn-in Hackensack Mayor Michael Melfi tried to address citizens’ concerns about the EMTs by addressing the spending cap issue.

"It’s a financial situation that has to do with the budget cap," he said. "When I sat on the other side of this room and I didn’t understand how the budget worked, it was frustrating to me, too. The challenge here is the state-mandated budget cap that we have on spending. Then the state decided that they would like to implement a cap also on revenue increases. So, the state is squeezing us on both sides."

"The challenge is so tough to be able to get within the cap that I don’t know if we can afford to do it," Melfi added.

The next day, the man behind the 4 percent property tax levy cap spoke to Hackensack Chronicle about the relative ability of New Jersey’s municipalities to keep bigger-ticket items, such as public safety initiatives, within the limits of the cap.

"Public safety is actually one of the other areas that we are increasing slightly at the margin," said Gov. Jon Corzine after a signing a bill in Newark that will provide $3.9 billion in state financing for school construction. "It’s not something that we are backing away from."

"I think that we are holding our own on homeland security and all of the other issues," Corzine replied when specifically asked about municipal funding for EMS services. "We try to make sure that they are working in a cooperative fashion … but I think it’s important that we look at this on a more comprehensive basis than just the state."

A call to Mayor Melfi seeking comment about Gov. Corzine’s statement was not returned by press time.

Union leaders weigh options

While both state and local leaders try to balance fiscal constraints with constituents’ needs, the union leadership that is backing up the eight EMTs in their fight to keep their jobs is considering its next move. Union representatives of International Association of Firefighters (I.A.F.F.) Local 2081, which represents the EMTs, filed an unfair practice charge with the state Public Employment Relations Commission on June 8 in an attempt to force city officials to begin negotiations that could lead to a bargain.

Charles Grieco, a deputy fire chief and president of I.A.F.F. Local 3172 – Hackensack Uniformed Fire Officers Association, indicated that additional demonstrations and other types of legal action may be forthcoming, notwithstanding the Aug. 1 deadline.

"Our goal is to continue to educate the public," he said. "We’ve been all over now, explaining about what’s going on, and it’s finally becoming a buzz around town. People are realizing how their EMS is being sold out."