Newest Communication technique
Yesterday's blog must have really struck a nerve with the CEO. After hearing about it from the regular readers in his administration, he immediately began making phone calls to denounce the communication of the Blog.
There was nothing posted yesterday that was of a confidential nature and from my perspective, it was a very frustrating meeting with lively discussion and arguments. I share my thoughts and readers can agree or disagree. The blog is open and it serves to keep important issues on the table for accountability.
The tribune published their take on the brief meeting they were allowed to attend in the following article.
http://www.news-tribune.net/local/local_story_150104030.html
The question at the forefront is how much information the public should have related to the financial issues of a county owned hospital. If it were to fail, the county and taxpayers would certainly be affected. The comments in the Tribune about the length of the meetings are accurate and I anticipate the meetings remaining lengthy because little of the information presented to the Board is trusted at face-value. This remains a problem.
I encourage readers to talk to your Commissioners and voice your concerns. Changes still need to be made and complacency is not the answer.
posted by Anonymous at 4:50 AM
12 Comments:
So now you are encouraging your readers to: "to talk to your Commissioners and voice your concerns. Changes still need to be made and complacency is not the answer."
You seem to be suggesting that the board and its chairman are too complacent and that they will not do their jobs properly without pressure from county commissioners?
In earlier posts you praised the selection of the current chairman. Have you now turned on him too?
The openness of the blog is a welcome form of communication about issues we would otherwise not be apprised. One can only hope it stays that way. "The blog is open and it serves to keep important issues on the table for accountability." I once posted something that was immediately removed, as it did not agree with HB's point on an issue. So if it is open, it needs to be open, not open to comments favoring just one's viewpoint.
I see that old HB is at his "team playing" best again. The board isn't moving fast enough for him so the only possible answer is that the system is broken--not that there is just an honest difference of opinion about the best way to move forward.
I, too, agree. This blog is an avenue for me to keep up with what is going on at the hospital. I am a retired employee who is very much concerned with the health and welfare of the institution.
But like a previous blogger, I once had a comment removed because HB didn't agree with my remark. It was not defammatory; it just didn't agree with HB's agenda. If it is to serve to keep the public informed, then it should be allowed to include those comments that might make HB a little uncomfortable.
Regarding the CEO's concern, I don't think HB divulged anything confidential that would be of a competitive nature from Tuesday night's board meeting.
Regarding Don Gibbon's comment about the length of the meeting,I can only ask. What did he expect? He knew going into the position that the hospital had problems. Did he expect to just put in an hour meeting once a month and go home with $300? It scares me to think that a Board member is clock watching. Does this mentality represent the leadership we have on the Board? I hope not. Everything I hear about the Chairman, though, leads me to believe we are very lucky to have him "In Charge".
But I question the appropriateness of the appointment of a board member who complains about the length of a meeting when the hospital is in the throes of difficult times. And whether it is a complaint...or just a side comment...it has the same meaning.
I understand Mr. Gibbons was not that interested in the appointment. I was told that Commissioner Seabrook coeherced him into taking the position because of his long time relationship and political affiliation. Maybe something can be learned from this appointment. I ask Mr. Gibbons to do the right thing and resign if he doesn't desire to serve.
Commissioners are you listening???
A board member neighbor I know wouldn't talk about the details of the "executive session" but did express the opinion that one of the reasons the meeting took so long is that Dr. E. had to comment on practically every item that came up, even though he is not actually a voting board member. This same board member expressed frustration with Dr. E's constant efforts to paint the worst possible picture of the hospital instead of participating in a positive way.
Anonymous 9:42 ought to lay off Mr. Gibbons. Any meeting that lasted four hours had to be filled with inordinate amounts of wasted time and nonsense.
I would like HB to address the accusations of censorship by a couple of the contributors. I believe credability is at stake. His Jeffersonian quote in the heading is appropriate for all of us.
I would like HB to address why he thinks the current board and board chairman aren't doing a good job and need to be goosed by the county commissioners.
If it is true that the executive session lasted four hours, and then the public meeting was very brief, this is a direct violation of the Open Door Policy. I am surprised that the reporter from the Tribune did not comment on this. The law is very specific. There are only a couple of things that can be addressed in executive session by any public board. Those things are personnel matters and pending litigation. Contracts and vendors are not, by law, allowed to be discussed in executive session. These matters are always to be addressed in the public forum. If this did happen, it is indeed in direct violation of Open Door Policy and this is enforceable by law.
The Open Door Policy does allow anything that is deemed to be under the heading of "Competitive Nature" to be discussd in private. And that is the law. It is true the hospital has always squeaked that exception and used it for all business. But all hospitals do the same thing because it affects the hospital's livelyhood...which can be interpreted as competition.
Glad to see the pro-administration bloggers continue to find time to blog. Their priorities continue to be confused.
As far as deleted comments.
They were deleted when they were personally attacking individuals who are not considered public figures. The CEO and Board are public figures.
It has been stated that personal attacks on me are acceptable but leave names of others out of the comments unless they can be considered public figures.
The current Chairman is doing an excellent job. This job is a lot more involved than he ever realized when he was appointed. He runs a very good meeting and puts me in my place when necessary. He is diplomatic, smart, and very effective. We do not agree on every issue and he still is learning about some of the controversies.
I believe strongly that given enough truthful information, he and the majority will make the best decisions.
Thanks for the clarification on the deletions.
Now you say, "The current Chairman is doing an excellent job" and "given enough truthful information, he and the majority will make the best decisions."
So just what is it that is to be accomplished by urging your readers to contact their county commissioners? What kind of rabble-rousing, pointless, exercise is that all about?
Post a Comment
<< Home