Search Results for: furey

The Daily Breeze has recently come under fire from City officials in Carson and Lomita. Lomita City administration has apparently issued a “blackout” of the paper while Carson considered a resolution in favor of a city-wide boycott. Recent revelations indicate that Torrance Mayor Furey has also been boycotting the Breeze even though, as far as I’m aware, he has not made public his specific grievances with the local paper.

With regard to some of those complaints, I was just yesterday provided a copy of a letter from the Lomita City Manager to an editor at the Daily Breeze.  I was told the letter revealed “gross negligence” on the part of reporter Nick Green and the DB. That letter, if taken at face-value, does raise significant concerns as it offers seven specific complaints pertaining to the reporting of Nick Green.  A deeper look at the allegations, however, reveals they have very little merit.

1^st Complaint: Daily Breeze “keeps reporting that our bond rating was reduced”

Nick stated in the article in question that, “Since then the city has attempted to blend well water with imported water to improve its quality, its bond rating has taken a hit and residents have received hefty water rate increases to cover the bills.”

According to multiple sources, including this one, that can be easily obtained through a google search Nick’s statement is factually true as Lomita’s bond rating was indeed downgraded.

2^nd Complaint: Nick “keeps using the word bleach in his articles despite many attempts to educate him on the fact that we do not use bleach

Nick did use the word bleach in the article, but it was always in the context of a quote someone had provided to him.  For example, he quoted a resident who complained the water smelled like bleach. He also quoted the Lomita Assistant City Manager Sugano who said, “the issue should subside soon because workers had reverted back to their former method of adding bleach to the treatment plant.”

Whether Nick misquoted the Assistant City Manager is hard to say with absolute certainty, but it’s worth noting that the distinction between bleach and chlorine (which the City does use to treat its water) is a subtle one.  For more information,  I suggest this article.

3^rd Complaint: Nick claims that “residents have received hefty water rate increases to cover the bills”

The letter from the City Manager states, “despite Nick’s assertion that residential water rates have increased dramatically the fact is the blended water has saved the rate payers from steeper rate increases.”

So in essence, the City Manager is not disputing that the water rates have increased dramatically, his complaint is really that Nick isn’t giving the City enough credit for supposedly saving the residents from even steeper increases. So again, Nick’s statement was factually correct.

It should also be noted that according to this article Lomita recently proposed yet another rate increase that would cause water rates to increase 60% over the next several years.  This is on top of the 40% increase they have already had over the past few years.

4^th Complaint: City did not stop flushing the hydrant by Phil Bucy’s house because the Daily Breeze sent the City a YouTube video of Mr. Bucy filming the flushing of a hydrant.

The City Manager here is a referring to an article in which Mr. Bucy claimed that a hydrant was flushing out water into the drainage system daily for 15 minutes at a time. Mr. Bucy thought this was an incredible waste of water given that we are in a drought.

In the article, Nick writes that “City workers removed the device shortly after the Daily Breeze emailed them a copy of the YouTube video Bucy had made showing the gurgling water emanating from the device at the end of the main”.

Nick’s statement does not say the City stopped the flushing because of the YouTube video. He only relates the factual statement that the device causing the flushing was removed after the YouTube video was sent. Again, the City Manager does not dispute the veracity of the actual statement.

5^th Complaint: “Nick also told me that he took information from a Facebook chat room to write this article”

The relevant portion of Nick’s article stated, “Resident Cheryl Slayden Martin, wrote Tuesday on a Facebook page devoted to Lomita that the main areas affected appear to be north of Pacific Coast Highway and south of Sepulveda Boulevard between Western Avenue and Cypress Street.”

Nick clearly identified that the Facebook group was the source of the information so I don’t know how you can fault him for that.

6^th Complaint: Nick wrote that the City began operating the treatment plant four years ago. That is not accurate. He knows full well that the well and treatment system was on-line for only two months in late 2010

Nick’s article stated that, “Operation of the multimillion dollar well and water treatment plant has caused the city repeated water quality and fiscal problems since it began operating in 2010. The city was forced to shut down the plant days after it began operating because of water quality complaints.”

Again, Nick’s statement is accurate. The plant did begin operating in 2010 and Nick even acknowledged that the plant was shut down shortly after it began operating.

7^th Complaint: Nick fails to present both sides

I just don’t see how this is a valid statement given that Nick provided several quotes from the Lomita Assistant City Manager in the article.

The City Manager concludes his letter by stating, “Shame on the Daily Breeze for letting down the community of Lomita and the entire South Bay and for not taking seriously the tremendous responsibility you have to your readers to present information in an unbiased and responsible way so that the community can make informed decisions based on facts and information instead of fear.”

To that I would say, shame on you Lomita City Manager for attacking the Daily Breeze with unsubstantiated claims instead of addressing the underlying facts detailed in the reporting that present very real concerns and challenges that residents in your City are facing.

To all those that would continue to bash the Daily Breeze based on the unproven concerns of local City officials, I would ask that you place yourselves in the shoes of those citizens of Lomita. What if you faced a water bill that was doubling and yet still had discolored water coming through your pipes that smelled and caused your skin to burn while in the shower? What if you went to the local press and they told you, I’m sorry we can’t report on that because we are afraid it might upset the Mayor or the City Manager and we only report on stories that would portray the City governing officials in a positive light? Is that the type of press we want in the South Bay – one that cowers and caters to the powers that be?

Let’s not rush to crucify the local press just because our local leaders tell us to do so.  Are the Daily Breeze and Nick Green perfect?  No. Are they 100% accurate and unbiased? Of course not. But if the Daily Breeze refuses to report on important stories like the water issues in Lomita because they are worried about the backlash from public officials, then who will report on the issues and how would we hear about them?  With no press to hold our government accountable, it will be the public that suffers.

When my youngest daughter was 7 months old she started choking.  My wife, who is a trained medical professional as a registered nurse, could not help her dislodge the obstruction and called 911.  I am deeply grateful for the first responders from Torrance Fire Department (TFD) and Gerber ambulance that arrived that day to help my family.  All of our first responders do deserve a lot of credit and gratitude for how they serve our community each and every day.  That said, it was a terrifying experience for our family, and in those situations you realize just how much every second counts.

I had always assumed, as I would imagine so do most of the residents of Torrance, that when you call 911 because your baby girl is choking that the ambulance is coming lights blazing to render aid.  That’s why I was absolutely shocked to recently discover that is not necessarily the case in Torrance.

The patient record for my daughter reveals that Gerber ambulance had a box on the form indicating whether they had to stage at the incident. Staging is when Gerber would park a block or two away from the scene awaiting for the TFD to arrive. The form also indicates whether Gerber was called to the scene “Code 2” (no lights or sirens – obeying all traffic laws) or “Code 3” (lights and sirens). Typically, Code 2 is designated for non-life threatening events while Code 3 is for life threatening situations.  In Torrance, however, it’s standard for the transport provider to be called Code 2 irrespective of the life threatening nature of the call.

In my daughter’s case the ambulance did not stage as they arrived after TFD, but as is the norm they were called Code 2 to the scene.  Thank God my daughter is fine and all turned out okay for us, but I am troubled to think that in the panic of that situation that an ambulance could have been sitting around the corner waiting for TFD to arrive, or that life saving treatment could have arrived sooner had the ambulance been called Code 3 instead of Code 2.

I raised some of these issues that I believe delay patient emergency care at the Council meeting last week and I was very pleased to receive a direct response from the City Clerk’s office this morning. I commend City Council and staff for providing a timely and transparent response to my inquiry. The City response found here stated that the staging practice was discontinued several years ago in an effort to “improve our overall service to the community.” I am left wondering why this seemingly misguided policy was ever standard practice, but I am pleased to hear it is no longer in effect. In the same response, however, the City did confirm that the practice of calling the transport ambulance Code 2 remains in place.

I believe this presents a significant public safety concern. Yes, the TFD responds Code 3 to all emergencies, but depending on the location of the emergency it’s still possible that the ambulance transport provider could get to the scene more quickly due to their initial proximity to the incident.  In fact, it was not uncommon for the Gerber ambulances to arrive first on scene even though they responded Code 2.  In those situations, a Code 2 response by the transport provider inhibits the patient from being reached by trained first responders as quickly as they otherwise could be if the ambulance were to be called Code 3.

In conversations with Gerber personnel, some have revealed that the TFD was sometimes slow to call them thereby delaying their response to the scene.  If this were true, this practice could also delay patient care.

I can’t speak for all other residents of Torrance, but I know that if the same incident happened again with my daughter, or any other life threatening incident occurred with someone I care about, that I would want the nearest trained first responders coming as quickly as they could, whether they were TFD personnel or a private transport company such as Gerber or McCormick.

In raising this issue with the Council, I remember that many of them promised to make public safety their top priority during the recent election. As evidence of that I recall receiving a mailer from one of the Public Safety Departments advocating on behalf of their endorsed candidates. That mailer, which I kept, included the following statements:

“Pat Furey knows that public safety is of the utmost importance”

“Heidi Ashcraft is dedicated to ensure the safety and security of our residents”

“Keeping the citizens of Torrance safe is Geoff’s first priority”

“A vote for Tim is a vote for public safety”

“Mike will keep public safety his top priority and give first responders the tools needed to keep Torrance safe”

Based on these statements, I am hopeful that the current Council will be mindful of their commitment to public safety they made during the past election and do what they can to correct what appears to be a wrongheaded policy that is not in the best interests of the public.  In an emergency every second counts, and if there is anything we can do to get aid to those in need more quickly, then we should do it.  After all, for someone it could literally mean the difference between life and death.

In approving the recent emergency services award to McCormick ambulance Mayor Furey and several others on the Council based their decision on the need to rely on City Staff as they are the subject matter experts.  Mayor Furey even admitted that he could try and read a proposal but would have “no idea of the content.”  In contrast, Councilmember Ashcraft – who opposed the award to McCormick – noted that the “buck stops here” and questioned why the City would even need a Council if all they did was rely on staff recommendation.  Ashcraft is right of course and nothing makes that more apparent than a close examination of the complaints filed by Torrance Fire Department (TFD) against Gerber ambulance.

I took Mayor Furey up on his invitation made at the last Council meeting for the public to stop by the City Clerk’s office and examine the complaints TFD made against Gerber.  These complaints are relevant as several members of the Council have repeatedly blasted Gerber and used their supposed poor performance as justification for their decision to award the contract to McCormick.  Councilmember Rizzo even went so far as to say that Gerber’s continued operations would have exposed the City to lawsuits.  He was quoted as saying, “Gerber had issues, was deficient in its contract. To have Gerber continue to provide [services] would have opened us to huge liability”.

It is true that TFD submitted two notices of default against Gerber.  The first was on June 17, 2013 and the second was submitted February 4, 2014.  It should be noted here, however, that the contract included a Termination of Agreement Clause that allowed the City to terminate the contract for no reason as long as they gave 30 days notice.  The same Clause also allowed the City to terminate the contract immediately upon default or breach by the contractor.  Thus, if the City was concerned about liability as stated by Rizzo, then how come the City did not exercise its right under this Clause and continued to allow Gerber to operate for nearly 19 months after the original notice of default?  Given this context, Rizzo’s statements about liability concerns make very little sense.

So what did TFD actually allege in the notices of default.  According to TFD, Gerber’s primary sins were 1) inability to meet the required response time of 8 minutes (92%) of the time, 2) failure of their communication system to integrate with the City’s Computer-Aided Dispatch System (CAD), and 3) failure to dedicate a minimum of 16 ambulances maintained in good condition to answer TFD calls during the day and 8 ambulances at night.

Was Gerber actually in default to some of these requirements?  The answer is yes.  Gerber won’t deny it.  In fact, Gerber will admit to being in default ever since they signed the initial contract roughly 20 years ago.  Gerber’s continuous failure to meet the requirements of the contract does beg the question, if the City let Gerber off the hook for so long why did their non-compliance suddenly become such an issue in June of 2013 just about the same time now Mayor Furey was kicking off his mayoral campaign?  For insight, let’s examine the claims further.

Allegation One – Response Times

Two of the three evaluated bidders admitted they could not meet this requirement.  One of those bidders even mentioned in their proposal that “the standard response time approved by LA County EMS was 8 minutes and 59 seconds for a code 3 (lights and sirens) response (90%) of the time.”

Gerber is almost exclusively called Code 2 (no lights and sirens obeying all traffic laws).  They also claim that they often have to wait on the dispatch line as precious seconds tick away after an emergency call has come in waiting for TFD to give them the approval to move out.  Due to this, meeting the 8 minute response is a challenge.  Nevertheless, Gerber did have high numbers.  The scores reported by TFD said they responded within the 8 minutes in the high 80’s to low 90’s percent – very close to the (92%) requirement.

McCormick differentiated itself by promising they could meet the response time requirement.  They provided no evidence, however, that they have actually ever met the requirement at a Code 2 response in any of their other contracts.  Their proposal also stated that the majority of the ambulances they would dedicate to TFD would be stationed at locations outside the City of Torrance in places like Redondo Beach, Gardena, Hawthorne, Lomita, and Palos Verdes.  Obviously, I am no expert, but if McCormick plans to bring ambulances from outside the City, I have serious doubts they can meet the 8 minute requirement at a Code 2 response.  That’s definitely something to look for going forward.

Allegation Two – Systems Integration       

In reference to this allegation, Councilman Weidemen was quoted as saying, “If the customer says ‘You have to integrate with our systems as part of the contract,’ you have to do it”.  So why didn’t Gerber?

Again, the TFD didn’t submit a default notice on this requirement until June 2013.  As mandated by TFD, Gerber operates their system using Zoll software.  TFD operates their system with Spillman software.  Gerber, TFD, and the software companies engaged in lengthy negotiations with the result being that Spillman agreed to allow the requested interface as long as Gerber purchased a $30,000 modification to their software agreement.

Spillman submitted that purchase order to Gerber in early 2014.  Knowing that the contract was going to be re-bid, Gerber decided to wait for the outcome of the new contract before deciding whether to purchase the software modification.  Gerber’s position on this sounds reasonable and given the above you have to wonder why Weidemen appeared so hard-nosed about this requirement.

McCormick also uses Zoll.  As part of their proposal, they promised that the required interface would be implemented between McCormick’s Zoll software and the City’s Spillman upon award of the contract.  Whether McCormick has completed this interface as promised is another thing to look for.

Allegation Three – Number of Dedicated Rigs

This requirement is where I think the difference between government and private industry creates natural tension.  TFD sees this as a black and white requirement, for private industry it is more an art than a science.  Gerber has to remain profitable, TFD doesn’t.  To a certain extent, Gerber has to try and match their number of crews to the amount of calls they get.  Gerber simply can’t survive if it has crews and ambulances sitting throughout Torrance not being utilized.  TFD just wants them to meet a number of dedicated rigs whether they are used or not.  Gerber tries to meet the number, but it appears they play it pretty close to the line.

What should really matter here are response times and Gerber has proven to do a pretty good job of that.  One reason for this is because Gerber maintains a competitive advantage as they also have several units operating throughout the City conducting what they call Inter-Facility Transfers (ITF’s) from local hospitals.  Thus, if all rigs dedicated to TFD are in use, they can pull from other units assigned to ITF’s to help.

A concern about McCormick is that they don’t have the pool of available back-up ambulances that Gerber has operating within the City.  If McCormick needs rigs beyond the 5 they will have dedicated to TFD, they will likely have to come from outlying cities at a very significant increase in response times.  That’s something else to watch.

Formal Complaints-Specific Instances Worthy of Note

The City provided documentation about several minor complaints with regard to the maintenance of Gerber ambulances such as faulty lighting, air conditioning, reclining seats, tire tread ware, etc.  All of these seemed to be quickly taken care of by Gerber.  Three of the specific complaints, however, do seem worthy of a more detailed discussion.

May 2013 Incident

In a 36 minute period, there were 4 emergency responses requiring 7 Gerber ambulances.  Gerber only had 6 immediately available versus the 8 supposed to be dedicated per the contract and had to place a call to their back-up provider for what they claim was the first time in their 20 year history under the contract.  Knowing it would take awhile for the back-up provider to respond, and not having ever used the provider before, a Gerber supervisor working at dispatch decided to take an ambulance to the scene so TFD could use the equipment in the rig if necessary and to ensure the back-up provider arrived.

When the supervisor arrived on scene, they called the back-up service who gave them an ETA of 20 minutes.  The supervisor couldn’t transport the patient in the rig, because there was no attendant to care for the patient while the supervisor drove.  Not wanting to delay patient transport, TFD decided to accompany the Gerber supervisor to Little Company of Mary and not wait for the back-up service.

Afterward, TFD filed a formal complaint with the LA County Department of Health against Gerber for transporting a patient with only a driver and not an attendant as is required per regulations.  TFD also cited this instance to Gerber as failure to meet the required number of rigs dedicated to TFD and response times.  The complaint about the number of rigs and response times appears valid, but filing a formal complaint with LA County Health for transporting without an attendant seemed like overkill.  After all, the Gerber employee could have just insisted they wait for the back-up provider.

Other complaints were far less substantial.

September 25, 2013 Incident

I found this incident in particular very revealing as to TFD’s attitude toward Gerber employees.  The subject of the complaint was Gerber Operating Outside Job Description. In that incident, the Fire Captain complained that when they arrived on scene that the “Gerber attendant was literally racing into the structure.” Upon entering the room and seeing that the Gerber employee was assessing the patient, the Captain “informed him [the Gerber employee] that his role is not to race in and start an assessment before [TFD] arrived and that his job description is transportation of the patient.”

The Captain then went on to say that “these actions seem to be happening with increasing frequency,” and that “for some reason they [Gerber employees] seem to think [that] without TFD on scene permission, that they can start an assessment [on the patient].  So essentially, the Fire Captain filed a formal complaint against Gerber because one of their trained EMT’s arrived on scene before TFD and ran to assess the patient.  Are trained Gerber EMT’s not to assess patients without TFD supervision?  I don’t get this one at all.

December 23, 2013 Incident

In this complaint TFD responded to a report of a possible psych patient.  Upon arriving on scene they found the patient very upset and trying to leave a rehabilitation center where she had been staying while recovering from a knee fracture.  Upon calming her down, they learned that she wanted to leave the rehabilitation center and return home.  TFD instructed Gerber to take her home.  According to TFD, Gerber changed their mind in transit and determined they should take the patient to Little Company of Mary ER instead of to her home. TFD filed a complaint against Gerber claiming that transporting the patient to the hospital versus her home amounted to kidnapping.  Kidnapping, really?

The primary interface between Gerber and the TFD and the person that brought forward all the complaints against Gerber is TFD employee Captain Hudson.  Captain Hudson also served as one of the 4 City employees on the evaluation committee for the proposals.  Given that Captain Hudson had such close interactions with Gerber and considering the questionable nature of some of these complaints, it does raise questions as to whether Captain Hudson provided an unbiased voice and whether the Council should have trusted as much as they did in the so-called experts.   Interestingly, rumors are circulating within the community that Captain Hudson was put on suspension with pay about two weeks ago for an undisclosed disciplinary action.