Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teamsters, residents press council over mass DPW drug testing and private-investigator spending; council seeks records
Summary
After union testimony alleging humiliating mass drug tests of DPW staff and use of private investigators, the Medford City Council split a broad resolution into parts and voted to request reports on the superintendent separation, bond-rating changes, investigator contracts, and drug-testing costs and policies.
Union representatives and dozens of residents told the City Council on Dec. 17 that they were alarmed by a recent operation in which 28 Department of Public Works employees were tested, a process witnesses described as mass, public and intrusive. Nancy Campbell of Teamsters Local 25 told the council the testing lacked individualized suspicion and violated policies; she said every tested employee subsequently passed.
Council action: Councilor Scarpelli introduced a multipart resolution asking for (A) a breakdown of costs tied to any superintendent contract separation and interim/search costs; (B) a report explaining a temporary bond-rating issue; (C) identification of budget lines that pay for private investigators and an accounting for all spending on such investigators; and (D) a report on the city's drug-testing policy and the cost and justification for any recent mass tests. The council severed the resolution and after debate approved requests for the bond-rating explanation, the private-investigator policy/line-item reporting (amended to request the administration's policy and budget lines) and a drug-policy-and-cost report. A motion to require the school department to provide superintendent separation costs failed 4-3.
What speakers said: Teamsters representatives called the mayor's action humiliating and unlawful and announced litigation. Councilors voiced concern about separation-of-powers limits and the risk of pre-empting active litigation; others said transparency is required after a contentious override and large legal costs paid by the city.
Next steps: The administration has said some items are confidential or part of ongoing litigation and may not be disclosable; the council's approved requests direct staff to report back where possible and consult legal counsel where confidentiality applies.
