A bitter dispute is unfolding south of Austin between the union at a private EMS nonprofit company that provides emergency medical care for much of Hays County and two of the governmental entities they contract with. The dispute could pose a threat to the future of that company, San Marcos Hays County EMS.

Most of the cities and towns in Hays County don’t operate their own EMS service. Instead, they pay San Marcos Hays County EMS, which has been in operation since 1983, to do it. Over the past four decades, SMHCEMS has expanded to provide service to the cities of San Marcos and Kyle as well as much of the unincorporated parts of Hays County (the two cities account for just under half of the county’s total population).

Already, one of SMHCEMS’ government clients (Emergency Services District 1) has cancelled their contract with the nonprofit and is preparing to provide EMS service directly to ESD 1 residents. A second (ESD 9) appears to be inching along a similar path. Hays County EMS Association President Zack Phillips says it’s the union’s position that the leaders at the two ESDs are retaliating against employees at SMHCEMS for unionizing in 2023, though ESD leaders deny this charge.

Much of the field staff and fleet owned by SMHCEMS is deployed to the two districts and Phillips fears that the loss of the two clients could cause a domino effect resulting in the dissolution of SMHCEMS entirely. If that were to happen, Phillips told the Chronicle, the quality of emergency medical care in Hays County could be in jeopardy.

“Our company has been providing EMS services in Hays County for four decades,” Phillips said. “We have a lot of trust and experience in the community. Losing that could harm the quality of care for Hays County residents.”

But leaders at ESD 1 and 9 dispute this claim. ESD 1 Chief Bob Luddy said that the district’s board voted to cancel their contract with SMHCEMS because they think the ESD itself can provide better EMS service. Luddy also denied that the decision had anything to do with SMHCEMS employees unionizing. David Smith, who was chief of SMHCEMS during the union campaign but is now poised to be appointed chief of ESD 9, told us something similar. “As we move forward in establishing EMS under ESD 9,” Smith wrote in an email, “our goal is to remain flexible and responsive to the unique challenges of our rapidly growing district.”

The dispute has produced charges of corruption from the union against ESD 1 and 9 leadership. Primarily, the union takes issue with the ESD 9 board president, Diane Hervol, recently being appointed as SMHCEMS board president. Philips acknowledges that Hervol’s dual appointment does not violate ESD or SMHCEMS rules, so long as she recuses from business that could represent a conflict of interest. It is unclear if Hervol has done that (she did not respond to our questions).

The union is also concerned by the leadership appointments of Luddy and Smith at ESD 1 and 9, both of whom were on the side of management during the union campaign (Phillips says Luddy participated in bargaining sessions as a representative of ESD 1, where, at the time, he was serving on the board of directors; Smith was the SMHCEMS chief).

Breaking Down the Breakdown

In late 2022, as medics across the industry were experiencing burnout due to low pay and working through a pandemic, the frontline employees at SMHCEMS began a campaign to unionize. But, the road to SMHCEMS’s eventual unionization was bumpy, as we previously reported. The situation did not improve post-unionization – Phillips says in the months after employees won their union election, the ESD 1 board of directors began discussing a “back-up plan” if SMHCEMS could not provide a sufficient level of service.

Still, union leaders and the SMHCEMS board of directors agreed to terms of the first-ever collective bargaining agreement in the organization’s history in October, which included guaranteed raises, new stipends, and better employee representation in company decision making.

A few months later, at their Nov. 19 meeting, the ESD 1 board voted unanimously to cancel the district’s contract with SMHCEMS. In a Feb. 24 interview, Luddy told the Chronicle that the decision by the ESD 1 board had nothing to do with employees at SMHCEMS unionizing.

Rather, the board just felt that as the district grows, they would be able to better utilize tax dollars to provide EMS service. Luddy notes that in the last fiscal year, SMHCEMS failed to provide the level of service required in their contract; Phillips counters that this level of service has remained constant for years and that the contract needs to be updated. That’s a position that Phillips says some ESD 1 directors share.

Now, it appears ESD 9’s board is pursuing the same path taken by ESD 1. In November, Smith resigned his position as SMHCEMS chief (two months prior, some employees at the agency submitted to the board a “vote of no confidence” in Smith). In December, ESD 9 hired Smith as district administrator (prior to Luddy becoming ESD 1 chief, he was also hired as district administrator). At a special-called meeting, Feb. 25, the board was posted to discuss an “EMS start up plan” and joining the Texas EMS Alliance (a lobbying group that represents EMS agencies throughout the state). The board did not vote on either item, but Phillips fears that ESD 1 could soon terminate their contract with SMHCEMS.

What all of this means for SMHCEMS, or EMS service in Hays County remains unclear. But, it appears other stakeholders are beginning to take note (the San Marcos City Council discussed the issue in executive session at their Feb. 18 meeting and Phillips says union leaders have been invited to brief Hays County commissioners at their March 4 meeting).

As for current operations at SMHCEMS, agency Chief Jill Rosales tells us they are proceeding as if they will continue to operate well into the future (though, Rosales, told us via email that SMHCEMS has hired a consultant to evaluate the agency’s “processes, budget, and forward progress). “My team is operating as though this department will be around for another 40 years,” Rosales said. “I have been with this organization for over 16 years, and I will continue to put the livelihood of my staff first.”