Commission Meetings Notes

History (updated 3/4/2022)

logo1024

I was born September 17, 1973 in a Washington DC hospital.  I was raised in Bethesda, Maryland a suburb 20 minutes outside of DC.  My extended family during my childhood was based in Massachusetts in the Boston area.  I have an older sister, a younger brother, and many delightful aunts, uncles, and cousins.  

I moved to Port Townsend, Washington, a picturesque small town on a small peninsula on the much larger Olympic Peninsula in 1995.  So as of this moment, I’ve been on the west coast for almost 24 years- but not merely the west coast, Port Townsend- which is culturally perhaps one of the most liberal vortex of a community in Washington State, perhaps the entire west coast.

In recent years, I’ve been reflecting on how Port Townsend has changed me.  I’ve realized that I sought out a place like Port Townsend intentionally when I graduated from the University of Maryland in 1995 with a BA in Philosophy and a minor in Ideology and Utopia studies.  In fact, I believe I was searching for Utopia.

If you had known me during college, you would have found me an insufferable philosophical idealist.  I was largely dedicated to searching for the Truth and the meaning of life.  My freshman year I began as a mechanical engineering major but my first semester introduction to philosophy course with Professor Raymond Martin convinced me the study of philosophy was infinitely more meaningful to me, so I switched majors.  I’ve never looked back.

When I left college, I let go of any inclination I had to try to change the world, to try and make the world a utopia.  I was inspired by life, but I was not interested in shaping anyone’s life but my own.  I came to Port Townsend to be a philosopher artist and to work whatever jobs could provide a little money to survive.  I believed the world was an unjust maelstrom of oppression and suffering, but I felt no need to do anything beyond making my life a beautiful happy adventure.  I also believed that in making your life happy, you do impact the world around you- like ripples in a pond as has been said by others before me. 

Now, 24 years later, I consider myself an Activist.  In fact, truth be told (and why not tell the truth?), I consider myself a global revolutionary.  I still believe our first obligation as human beings is to nurture our own individual path to happiness, but my happiness is now nurtured by striving to help the world take significant steps forward to eliminating oppression, to in fact, reaching to create Utopia here on earth- today.  In fact, I find myself once again an idealistic dreamer.

My ambition to help change the world was ignited by the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement which gave me a taste of the passion many of my fellow humans have for global transformation to elimate oppression and to make this earth a place where all people can thrive.  My journey lead me to eventually run for public office- which I did in 2013 when I ran for Hospital Commissioner.  I ran on a platform that locally elected officials need to become a new type of leader and champion for large scale change, to fight for things like universal healthcare, because our state and federal political infrastructure is deeply corrupted and controlled by the influence of money.  Such a platform could only work at that time in a place like Jefferson County Washington, which it did.  I took office January 1, 2014.  

Now having served 5 years of my first term (now 7 years and into my second term!), I can honestly say, I experienced violent communication, acts of intimidation, and argumentative tactics as an elected official the likes of which I have not seen for years.  In fact, I’ve realized, the last time in my life I experienced the type of absurdly aggressive behaviors I experienced as a board member were in elementary school and within my family experience growing up.  

Port Townsend is not a violent place.  In fact, I think Port Townsend is probably a vortex of nonviolent communication, compassion, and friendliness.  Sure people argue and disagree here, but it is nothing like the East Coast.  In retrospect, my childhood years on the East Coast, outside DC and vacationing in the Boston area, was an experience that taught me how to argue and fight for what I wanted.  I was raised around people who all believed they were the beacons of truth and power and I learned how to survive amongst their never ending wars.  In retrospect, I left the East Coast to get away from such violence.

I joined the Jefferson Healthcare hospital board with a serene non-violent attitude towards pushing for change.  I joined ready to ask questions and engage in dialogue. 

2014

On January 1, 2014 I assumed my office.

I attended about 4 board meetings until I realized something needed to change to make the endeavor of serving on this board of commissioners a worthwhile use of my time.  I felt frustrated by the manner in which the meetings were run and the lack of a detailed record of the meetings discussions.  Even after only a handful of meetings I could tell that some members of the commission had a habit of misstating what was said or decided at previous board meetings.  This senseless inconsistency meant we had to waste time arguing over clear facts and agreements already settled- which I had no interest or time for.  I also noticed that although they claimed to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, they did not actually follow it correctly.  The meetings were run very whimsically and the people in the room did not know how to handle a person who wanted to discuss things they did not want to discuss- so they resorted to tactics like talking over me or trying to cut off my time.  After ruminating on this problem for a while a solution emerged in my mind:  The meetings needed to be audio recorded.

An audio recording of the meetings would allow me to maximize the use of my time in the board meetings.  With a recording I would know what I and anyone else said during the meetings would be documented accurately.  With an audio recording, I would be able to show the people who elected me what I was doing in office thanks to their votes.  If I didn’t accomplish anything while in office, at least I would have a clear record of my efforts and the things done by others in response to those efforts.

On March 19, 2014 I took my seat at in the Vic Dirksen Auditorium for my 5th Jefferson Healthcare Hospital Commission Meeting.  I then took out my audio recorder and informed all present I was audio recording the meeting today, in line with the email announcement I had sent them all before the meeting.  On Jan 15, 2021 the conflict arising from that moment was starting to approach getting ready to be almost in the process of possibly having some level of appropriate adjudication.

Update March 4, 2022

In 2016 a legal opinion was obtained by Jefferson Healthcare administration that directly addressed the major issues involved in the recording conflict discussed ad nauseum on this site.

In 2021 the legal opinion above was given to the full board of commissioners of Jefferson Healthcare for the first time.  The legal opinion had been shared with at least one commissioner before 2021, but it is unknown how many or exactly when.  The full board including Matt Ready was not informed of this legal opinion existence nor given access to it despite repeated requests between 2016 and 2021 for written legal answers to the issues related to this recording conflict.

After reviewing the 2021 legal opinion, the full board discussed the recording issue regarding what to do if a commissioner records a meeting on a personal device, crafted sensible policy based on the written expert legal opinion, and then voted to move on from the matter.

It is my personal hope that all parties responsible for withholding the 2016 legal opinion from the full board will exercise better judgement in the future.  If the 2016 legal opinion had been promptly shared with the full board of commissioner in 2016, all major issues related to this conflict would have been avoided and every one of these posts on this website (as well as an enormous amount of political philosophical art on my other social media feeds) would never have been created between 2016 and 2021 as part of Matt Ready’s public process of attempting to resolve this issue.  Looking back, i suppose this art is the only measure of positive outcomes from this multiyear conflict- besides the actual problem resolved and questions answered.

In any case, I am personally exhausted by this topic and look forward to discussing other more interesting and meaningful topics related to the health of our community and the welfare of our world in general.

Legislative Advocacy

I motioned that we add the following text to the Jefferson Healthcare Advocacy Letter:

“5.  Support the aggressive pursuit of a well designed single payer healthcare system such as Medicare For All.”

The motion failed 3-2, myself and Commissioner Kolff voted yes.

Jefferson County Public Hospital District Commission Votes Unanimously on Amendment about Recording Issue

On 1/14/2021 the Jefferson County Public Hospital District Commission voted unanimously to add language to the Board Book (the board policy book) that states if a commissioner independently records an open public meeting of the commission, the commissioner will promptly give a copy of the recording to the district for public records storage.  The commissioners present seem to all indicate this policy will prevent future public confrontations and conflicts over a commissioner recording meetings as happened in 2014 and 2016 and which led to several public confrontations in the years following where those incidents were discussed.  Many questions are still unanswered about this controversy but the commission is considering taking steps to answer at least some of those questions.

The two questions that seem to be answered and agreed to by all members of the commission:

  1. A commissioner has the right to record any open public meeting of the commission whether regular or special session, on site or offsite (as do all residents of the United States)
  2. No one can (or should try to) prohibit a recording of anyone in an open public meeting, even if they personally object to the recording.

Neither of these two points were ever in doubt for me personally, but it is good that all the commissioners have now agreed on these to facts of law (and ethics).

Everyone also agreed it was appropriate to require by policy that commissioner give a copy of any personally made recordings to the district for safe keeping, but this was never controversial and has been the defacto standard of practice by me since the very first meeting I recorded in 2014.

It is unfortunate and concerning that it has taken 7 years and enormous amounts of energy to get to this point but at least some progress is being made.

Joe Biden won the 2020 Presidential Election

Episode 5…

Latest Meeting

Jefferson Healthcare Board votes 3-1 Refusing to Promise to Not Harass a Commissioner Who Records a Meeting

At the 12/18/2019 Jefferson Healthcare Public Hospital District Commission meeting, Commissioner Ready made a motion that the commission adopt the policy that “if a commissioner decides to record a meeting on their own device, uh, it will be announced and no further discussion of it will be had since they’re exercising their basic right.”

The motion was rejected 3-1.

The hospital attorney present at the 12/18 meeting said this in regards to the motion:  “The, the threshold question is whether or not, uh, a board member can record over the objection of other board members and, uh, I don’t know the answer to that, so I would have to research that before our next meeting. Uh, I need some time to look into that.”

After the motion failed by a vote of 3-1, board chair Commissioner Reinstra said, “Chair is opposed, so it’s three, uh, motion fails. I might mention, Matt, if you want to pursue this and come up with something that would protect the district then maybe work with [the hospital attorney], that, you know, in a matter that, uh, that we know that the district would be protected and you could record it then, um, I suggest you, you do that and bring it back in January when we actually vote for the um, the, the book and at that time, we could still make that motion and, uh.”

In response, Commissioner Ready said,” I made the motion I thought protected the district the best. I don’t know. I mean I’m open to whatever suggestions, but that was intended to protect us from doing something inappropriate when someone is exercising a basic right, you wanna be careful how you handle that.”

 

2014 Email Exchange Sums up 6 year dispute in Jefferson Healthcare Recording Fiasco

March 26, 2014 Email from Matt Ready to Marie Dressler (Board Chair) and Mike Glenn (CEO)

—–Original Message—–
From: Ready, Matthew
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:21 AM
To: Glenn, Mike; Dressler, Marie
Subject: Audio Recording Public Meetings

Dear Mike,

I would like for us to work together to avoid any further public confrontations or drawn out conflicts over the issue of audio recordings of commission public meetings.

To best do my job as a hospital commissioner I require a complete record of our public meetings.  I require this complete record to be in my possession the moment our public meetings conclude so that I might immediately review any portion of the meeting events and begin considering next steps.  I also need to be able to easily share the complete records of our public meetings with any interested members of the public so that I might ascertain their opinions, ideas, feedback, suggestions, and advice on any aspects of hospital district governance that they are interested in.

I am willing to consider not recording the meetings myself, if I have an equally reliable solution that will guarantee I walk out of every public meeting of the hospital commission with a complete record of the meetings events.  I would like to work with you to find such a solution that is convenient for everyone involved.

I believe the simplest solution is that I record the meetings on my personal recording device and immediately provide a copy of the file to administration after the meeting.  I could simply walk over to the commission office, plug in my usb cable, and upload the file to a directory on the file server.  The file is already dated by the software.  The hospital Information Technology department keeps backups of all files on the file server.  If anyone ever requests one of the audio files from a meeting, then someone could simply copy the file to a thumb drive for the person.  The cost of storing hundreds of hours of audio files is negligible.  Also the labor involved with copying a file onto a thumb drive is negligible.  Such a process is not complex or costly which is probably one of the reasons why so many other public governing bodies record audio or video of their public meetings.

As you noted, any handwritten notes a hospital commissioner makes during a public meeting is subject public records standards.  Audio recordings, are simply a form of note taking.  We may need to refine it, but the policy regarding commissioner notetaking you described is already in place and as long as I make my recordings available in a timely manner, we appear to be keeping with the policy we already have.

I hope this is sufficient to resolve this matter.  I believe we would all prefer to be spending our time working to improve our efforts at addressing the healthcare needs of our community.  I need an audio recording of our public meetings to do that work.

We have another public meeting on 4/16/2014.  I would like to record this meeting.  Please let me know if my recording the meeting will result in yourself and/or the board chair delaying the meeting progress on the agenda, recessing the meeting, or adjourning the meeting as happened at the 3/19/2014 meeting.  I believe all these actions in response to me recording the meeting are unnecessary and unseemly disruptions to board business.  Yet, if I know these actions are going to be your response, I will make extra efforts to find interested members of the public who want to record the meetings and can attend the 4/16/2014 meeting.  Please understand that many of the people I would ask are working poor and unable to attend though interested – which is another reason I record these meetings.

I would like to resolve this matter and move on to our work.  Part of my ability to do this work involves making a recording of our meetings as I believe I am allowed to do now.

Can you please let me know by 3PM next Wed 4/2/2014 if we can agree to this?

Respectfully,

Matthew Ready

PS
For your records I have attached a copy of an Opinion by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office recording the recording of Open meetings of County Government

Excerpt from Attorney General’s Opinion

This document is available online here:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=9332#.UzL47q1dVK5

PUBLIC MEETINGS – OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT – COUNTIES – RECORDING OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS – Authority of county to restrict video and/or sound recording of county meetings.

  1. A county does not have authority to ban video or sound recording of a meeting required to be open to the public by the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); the county could regulate recording only to the extent necessary to preserve order at the meeting and facilitate public attendance.
  2. A county has authority to ban video or sound recording of any lawful executive session of a public meeting.
  3. If a meeting is not an “open public meeting” as defined in RCW 42.30, but is required to be an open meeting by some other statute, the extent of the county’s authority to restrict recording of such a meeting would depend on the language and the intent of the controlling statute.
  4. If a county officer conducts a “private meeting” as may be defined in law, the county has authority to restrict or prohibit the recording of such meetings.

*********************

November 30, 1998

The Honorable Randall K. Gaylord
San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney
350 Court Street
P.O. Box 760
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Cite As: AGO 1998 No. 15

Dear Mr. Gaylord:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on the following paraphrased questions:

May a county legislative body prohibit an individual from using a video or audio recording device to record a meeting or hearing conducted by county officials? If such recording cannot be prohibited, may the legislative body impose restrictions on the use of such recording devices?

BRIEF ANSWER

A county is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act which generally requires that meetings of the governing body be open to the public and that no conditions precedent to attendance by the public, except for orderly conduct, may be imposed. Therefore, a county legislative body may not ban the use of recording devices from the open portion of a meeting held pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act. The county legislative body may impose restrictions on the use of recording devices, but only to the extent necessary to preserve the orderly conduct of the meeting. Executive sessions held pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act are not open to the public, and the county legislative body may ban the use of recording devices at executive sessions. The county legislative body may ban the use of recording devices at public meetings that are not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act or to some other state statute that limits county authority. A county legislative authority may ban the use of recording devices to record conversations at private meetings not open to the public.

 

March 26, 2014 Mike Glenn Response

Thanks Matt.
I’ll defer to Marie on this.  I am leaving tomorrow for vacation and will be out of the office until April 8.
Thanks,
MG

 

March 27, 2014 Marie Dressler Email

________________________________________
From: Dressler, Marie
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:34 PM
To: Ready, Matthew; Glenn, Mike
Subject: RE: Audio Recording Public Meetings

Hello Matt,

Actually, audio recording of  Board meetings is a Board decision.

At the conclusion of our last  meeting  we, the Board, asked Mike to develop a policy, procedure and recording methodology to present to the Board for our review and consideration.  At this time, the board can then discuss and take action , if appropriate.

Mike and I participated in a teleconference with counsel and were made aware of the legal implications to the District related to recording Board meetings.  If we are going to do this, then we are going to do it correctly.  Interestingly,  according to counsel, it is not common for a Public Hospital District to record it’s board meetings.

Based on this, Matt,  it would certainly be best if you chose not to exercise any right you have, to record the 4/16 meeting and allow the Board the time and space to make a thoughtful and deliberate decision on this issue.

Marie Dressler

Board Chair

 

Matt Ready Email to Marie Dressler

________________________________________
From: Ready, Matthew
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:28 PM
To: Dressler, Marie; Glenn, Mike
Subject: RE: Audio Recording Public Meetings

Marie,

I appreciate your advice and recommendation that I not record board meetings.  I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this is the best course of action.  As I said, I do not believe I can best perform my duties as hospital commissioner without a complete record of the meetings.

The only relevant legal implications of recording meetings I am aware of is that, if my recording is considered a public record, the hospital district should store it and make it available when requested by the public.  My previous letter outlined a simple low cost process whereby this practice is easily doable.

The board is welcome to take as much time as it likes to explore and consider the questions, “Does this board want the board meetings audio recorded?” and “Shall this board require the CEO to audio record the board meetings?”  On the other hand, I believe all the commissioners are already firmly entrenched in their individual answers to these questions.  I believe dragging out time spent on these predetermined answers is a waste.  Nonetheless, if it is the opinion of the majority of the board that it does not “want” the meetings recorded, this opinion does not prohibit anyone, including myself, from recording the meetings.

As the open public meetings act declares, “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” I need to know exactly, word for word, what is said during our public meetings.  The board does not have the authority to decide what is “good for [me] to know and what is not good for [me] to know.”

In conclusion, though I hear your advice, I will respectfully decline to follow it.  I sincerely hope if you wish to spend any more time attempting to persuade me not to record the meetings, you will do so before the meetings begin, and not use up valuable public meeting time for such a discourse.  Also, if you intend to use your authority as chair to recess or adjourn the meeting in response to my recording, I hope you will discuss this action with me prior to the meeting so that we can try to avoid any unnecessary and unseemly public “showdown.”  In fact, I am happy to sit with you and the hospital district attorney while you elaborate in detail as to your reasons why you believe it is best that I not record the meetings.  Perhaps such a discussion will uncover a reasonable solution for everyone?  If you wish to have such a meeting, please let me know and I will be happy to join you.

As a final note, will you please forward me the name and contact information for the attorney you and Mike spoke to regarding this issue?  I would like to contact the attorney and ask some clarifying questions and receive my answers directly from a legal authority.

Sincerely,

Matt Ready

Marie Dressler Email to Matt Ready

Matt,

When you, as an elected member of the Hospital District board, decided that you were going to personally record Board Meetings as a member of the board, CEO Mike Glenn and I, as current  Board chair, sought advice from the District’s counsel.  This was in order to ensure that the District would not be put in legal jeopardy and that we, personally, were not uninformed of our responsibilities.  Neither Mike nor I are lawyers, and neither are you, for that matter.

Having staff research and formulate a policy and procedure and a methodology to comply with the Public Records Act was what Mike was tasked to do at the end of that meeting.

I do think that it is very presumptuous of you to assume that our colleagues are already “firmly entrenched in their individual answers to the questions” you pose in your note to me. I can only speak for myself, and I am  very interested to hear other board members’ opinions, have some respectful and lively discussion and make a decision as a Board.

Should you choose to personally contact and seek advice from the District’s counsel, I want to make it crystal clear that any such consultation(s) will be solely and totally at your own expense. Counsel’s name is [XXXXXXX BB in Seattle];  I  have no contact information for him.

You state that you appreciate my advice and recommendation that you not record board meetings;  what I am telling you is what District’s counsel advised Mike and I, NOT my personal opinion.

Marie

List of Efforts to resolve the 6 year recording public meeting dispute

  • March 2014 – Hospital Commissioner Matt Ready (me) begins recording a public meeting.  He is pressured to turn it off.  He does.
  • March 27, 2014 – email from jhc board chair Marie Dressler:  “Matt…. should you choose to personally contact and seek advice from the District’s counsel, I want to make it crystal clear that any such consultation(s) will be solely and totally at your own expense.” 
  • June 2016 – Hospital Commissioner Matt Ready (me) begins recording a public meeting.  He is ordered to turn it off.  He is told he is doing wrong by recording.  He refuses to turn off the recorder until the meeting is concluded.
  • June 2019 – Hospital Commissioner Matt Ready directs transcripts from two above incidents to consultant Karma, frequent paid contractor for the Association of Public Hospital Districts and the Washington State Hospital Association.  Karma is scheduled to facilitate a Jefferson Healthcare all day public meeting in October 2019.  Karma promises to review the transcripts to be ready to address any issues related to recording at the October 2019 meeting.
  • June 2019 – I learn several employees of the the Association of Public Hospital Districts and the Washington State Hospital Association have taken an interest in the book I published with the transcripts of the two above incidents.  They promise to read it.  I have never heard any comment on the issues back.  AWPHD and WSHA have remained totally silent.
  • October 2019 – Jefferson Healthcare board members and Karma all fail to acknowledge the right to record and the wrong doing of pressuring someone to turn off their recorder.
  • November 2019 – MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center) contacted by Matt Ready (me) but they refuse to offer an opinion on the matter beyond acknowledging the basic right to record a meeting.  MRSC is funded by the Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts.  The Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts does not allow elected hospital commissioners to serve on its board.
  • December 11, 2019 – Matt Ready (me) publishes my evaluation of the board and CEO calling out the fact that the Jefferson Healthcare board has been denied equal and adequate access to legal council for 6 years in regards to the right of a commissioner to record a public meeting without harassment.
  • December 2019 meeting – For the first time ever, a lawyer paid by Jefferson Healthcare agrees to research and give an opinion to the full Jefferson Healthcare board to answer the question:  “Can a public hospital commissioner record a meeting over the objection of the rest of the board?”.  Please note, at the 2014 meeting, it was claimed that a lawyer gave the hospital all sorts of legal advice and guidance on this matter- but NONE of that was ever written down and given to the board in a legitimate format.  It has literally taken 5 years for the board to get a lawyer to agree to give clear specific guidance on this matter.

So soon, we will all have an actual lawyer attempt to express an actual legal opinion (one they will need to be ready to stand behind under scrutiny) as to whether or not the hospital can legally force a commissioner to turn off a personal recording device.

The funny thing is, the hospital might actually have that legal power.  I don’t think it does, but you might be able to find a judge somewhere to rule that way.  Ironically, the answer is irrelevant, because even if they do have the power, the question is not “can you force someone to stop recording?”, the question is “should you stop someone from recording?”  Even if you have the power to do something as vile as forcing a person in a supposedly free and democratic country from turning off a personal recording device during an open public meeting, why would you ever think of doing something so obviously wrong?

Anyways, now that an actual lawyer is involved, we might finally have some sort of resolution to this issue in sight.  Too bad the people working at MRSC, AWPHD, WSHA, and all local news media (two newspapers and one radio station) in my area all failed to do anything to help highlight or resolve this 5 year dispute.  I don’t think it needed to take this long.  This was not that complex an issue.

Maybe next time.  I’m sure you were all doing something to earn your paychecks over the last 5 years to help support fair and free functioning of our public institutions, specifically public hospital districts.

 

MRSC To the Rescue! Not.

At the October 14 board meeting, board chair Jill Buhler made the following statement about the recording issue:

Speaker 45 (Consultant Karma, hired by CEO, frequent speaker at AWPHD conferences):         Does anybody have an issue if Matt records a meeting with his own personal device?

Speaker 48 (JBuhler Board Chair):         Yes, and the MRSC agrees with us.

Who is the MRSC?

The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. At MRSC, we believe the most effective government is a well-informed local government, and as cities, counties, and special purpose districts face rapid changes and significant challenges, we are here to help.

For more than 80 years, local governments have turned to MRSC for assistance on every topic imaginable. Our trusted staff attorneys, policy consultants, and finance experts have decades of experience and provide personalized guidance by phone and email, at conferences and training sessions, and through our extensive online resources. Every year we answer thousands of questions as we help staff and elected officials research policies, comply with state and federal laws, and improve day-to-day operations.

MRSC is also at the forefront of emerging issues that affect local government operations. We are the go-to source of information on major legislation, including the Growth Management Act, the legalization of recreational marijuana, and the ever-evolving complexities of the Public Records Act, to name a few. When the legal landscape changes, we are here to clarify the issues and help local government leaders make the right decisions for their communities.

MRSC serves all 281 cities and towns in Washington, all 39 counties, and hundreds of special purpose districts, state agencies, and other government partners. Originally established in 1934 as the University of Washington Bureau of Governmental Research, MRSC has operated as a private nonprofit since 1969.

What does the MRSC do for public hospital districts and other municipal government agencies?

  • Free One-on-One Consultation:  Have a question? Ask MRSC! Officials and employees from eligible government agencies can use our free one-on-one consultation service. With one call or click you can get a personalized answer from one of our trusted attorneys, policy consultants, or finance experts!
  • Explore topics on the MRSC website to get legal and policy guidance on hundreds of local government issues, including helpful explanations, relevant statutes and court decisions, examples of different policy approaches, and recommended resources for further information.

What is the MRSC Opinion on hospital commissioners and public hospital district employees pressuring another public hospital commissioner to turn off their personal recording device during an open public meeting?

Below is the response I received to my inquiry.  I was very curious if Commissioner Buhler was right that the MRSC would “agree” with the actions taken to attempt to pressure and intimidate me into turning off my recorder.

___________

Nov 27, 2019

Matthew:

 While I can give you some general guidance on public meetings and the OPMA, MRSC’s role is not to be the legal counsel for an agency or for an employee/official of an agency. We provide general guidance on municipal issues, but we do not provide specific legal advice. Thus, I cannot tell you whether there were any OPMA violations or crimes committed in the transcript you provided. You will need to consult with your agency’s attorney or with a private lawyer on that question.

I did spot a question in your email that I am able to answer: Can a commissioner or a private citizen record a public meeting of the hospital commission?

The answer is, yes, any person can audio record an open public meeting of the commission so long as it is not done in a disruptive manner. See AGO 1998 No. 15. However, while a recording done by a private citizen is not a public record, a personal recording done by a commissioner may be. This area is not crystal clear from a PRA perspective, but the Washington State Archives has previously indicated that, if the agency itself doesn’t record the meeting and the only recording is made by a commissioner on a personal device, that recording is subject to a 6-year retention. If the Archives considers this type of recording to be subject to retention under chapter 40.14 RCW, then it should be considered a public record under chapter 42.56.RCW. I am not aware of any case law on this issue, although there are some cases addressing records on personal devices/accounts (see our blog posts on this issue here and here). PRA/retention issues is likely one reason why an agency would want to adopt a policy outlining expectations for recording of a meeting.

######  Name Redacted (because someday people will be very embarrassed for their roles in this fiasco)

MRSC Managing Attorney


Conclusion

So I think we need to rewrite the MRSC about page:

The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic – unless that topic is recording a public meeting.  We believe you have the right to record a public meeting, but if you are harassed by people and pressured to stop recording the meeting, we are going to stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich and say “I dunno…”.   At MRSC, we believe the most effective government is a well-informed local government (except when it comes to respecting basic rights regarding access to information shared at open public meetings of public hospital districts), and as cities, counties, and special purpose districts face rapid changes and significant challenges, we are here to help as long as you don’t ask us any actual serious pressing questions covering basic rights, democracy, and moral behavior in open public meetings.

Much better.  We need to try to keep our descriptions of reality accurate.  What else do we have if not a true record of reality?

Why the recording issue will not go away.

Here’s the issue:

Imagine this scenario:  The majority of the board doesn’t want an audio recording made.  A single person on the board wants to record.  What happens?  If you answer: the single person must obey the will of the majority, then you are saying:

If the majority of the board wants to commit an illegal or immoral action, a single commissioner cannot choose to record that action in order to assist with future accountability, prosecution, reconciliation, or reparation for the wrong done.  You are basically saying, the majority of the board can do and say whatever it wants in the board room, regardless of how blatantly dishonest, because, an elected commissioner, one of the few humans on earth who actually have the job of paying attention to these meetings, cannot start recording the meetings without majority agreement.  You are preventing the minority of the people who are elected to safeguard the operations of the board from using a basic tool of safeguarding against dishonest and immoral behavior:  an accurate record.

Ironically, you are giving the majority the power over the tool of transparency which will surely keep us all safe from the gross abuses of the minority powers- which we see throughout history.

Anyone who ever attempts to hold the majority of the board accountable for arguments, statements, claims, promises, agreements, assertions, attacks, crimes, lies, or what have you from the public board meetings, will be forced to deal with the endless quagmire of confusion and mystification of human memory and the manipulations of clever orators.

On the other hand, if you recognize the right to record a public meeting as sacred for both individual commissioners as well as normal human beings, you preserve a vital safeguard against blatant and poorly justified wrong doing.  Wrong doing can still happen, but allowing such to blur away in the confusion of history is no longer a foregone conclusion.  Forever, schmucks like me will always have the power to simply publish the complete record of the shenanigans and let the chips fall where the endless analysis of history lay them forth.

You might also ask why this issue has taken 6 years to get anywhere near resolved.
logo1024

Oct 14, 2019 partial transcript

Speaker 45:         So you’re all comfortable with that? Yeah. Okay. A formal legal opinion on the recording of board meetings. Is this necessary?

Matt Ready:         Well we have, we had a couple incidents regarding a commissioner recording a meeting. And in retrospect I think, I don’t think we handled it correctly. The question should have been, is it in order out of order for a commissioner to record the meeting on some device, and that should have been just a ruling from the board chair and then the issue would be done.

Speaker 45:         But since they are recorded now is it didn’t moot point.

Speaker 46:         Unless… Next time a commissioner decides to record a meeting, just-

Speaker 43:         Well you’re talking about an individual commissioner taking out a recorder. [crosstalk 00:09:48].

Speaker 44:         Onsite or offsite?

Speaker 46:         We had-

Speaker 48:         Offsite.

Speaker 46:         There was onsite and offsite incidents. There were two, the first one that I recorded and then the one I recorded [inaudible 04:42:00].

Speaker 45:         Does anybody have an issue if Matt records a meeting with his own personal device?

Speaker 48:         Yes, and the MRSC agrees with us.

Speaker 46:         So we just need a ruling from the chair. You say we going to do Robert’s rules of order. Either it’s in order or it’s out of order.

Speaker 45:         But a legal opinion is something different than a ruling.

Speaker 46:         Well, I would suggest the chair has confidence they’re making a legally sound ruling because I think there’s legal consequences if you rule incorrectly.

Speaker 47:         We Looked at this and there’s no, you can’t stop anybody, from Matt, or a commissioner, as a member of the public can report any public meeting. But the commissioner also is a public official participating in an open public meeting and that recording is, needs to become part of the open public record.

Speaker 48:         That means it has to be archived under certain regulations and assessable.

Speaker 47:         Yeah. So mechanics of that, that council just basically says if you can avoid all of that, you should, you know, that’s why your record your own on your own equipment. But I think the question comes up, but our policy says just regular meetings, it doesn’t say special meetings. So when we’re in Shalan having a meeting when we don’t have all that apparatus there, what happens if a commissioner wants to record?

Speaker 43:         Or if we had a special meeting with a legislator.

Speaker 47:         Yeah. And so you’re saying that if Jill, if a chair says you’re out of order-

Speaker 46:         I’m saying, yeah-

Speaker 47:         [inaudible 04:43:49] would be cool with that?

Speaker 46:         No no, I’m saying the same thing. You just then you stand by. Then things would happen.

Speaker 47:         What does that mean?

Speaker 46:         I mean if, it’s just like if there was someone in the audience and like a chair said you’re out of order for recording the meeting, then, then you have to decide-

Speaker 48:         They’re not. They have a legal right to do that.

Speaker 46:         I agree. So does a commissioner.

Speaker 48:         You do have a legal right but-

Speaker 46:         So you can tell, if you have a problem with it. If any board member has a problem with something someone else is doing in the meeting, they can say, I think that’s out of order and the chair is to rule. Is it out of order or not? And then if you say it’s out of order, then the board member can either obey the order or not.

Speaker 44:         Why would you want to go through all that when you know the reason. Why would you want to have the board chair see that when you understand?

Speaker 45:         Well I would suggest that-

Speaker 46:         Because I wouldn’t turn off the recorder. The board ruled out of order.

Speaker 48:         So he just wants to get it on recording.

Speaker 46:         Because if something’s out of order and you have the right to remove the person from the room. I mean, if someone is violating the rules of a meeting in a private property, they’re out of order, you can kick them out.

Speaker 45:         So my suggestion to the board chair is don’t rule that it’s out of order. I would say don’t, don’t go there. That would, that would create a situation. And if an individual chooses to record the, the meeting then efforts should be made to turn it into a public archive. Right?

Speaker 44:         Then you would have to, would you have to then submit your recording to us?

Speaker 46:         I mean don’t have to.

Speaker 44:         So that we can archive it.

Speaker 47:         Yeah you would.

Speaker 46:         I mean, but-

Speaker 47:         You would. Because it would be or, or, or-

Speaker 44:         It’s an official-

Speaker 47:         Or put the organization in jeopardy, legal jeopardy and that, that is, that is the, the craziness of this and I, and frankly I don’t know why we need to revisit this. And at a time when we’re talking about eliminating dysfunction from, from governance. This is, yeah, you have the right you do but it, but it creates complications for the, the organization you are, you are sworn to abide and comply with. So I don’t get this Matt, but, but you’re right. No one can stop you if, if that’s, if that’s what you, and I don’t really know where you’re going with this. You want us to try to stop you?

Speaker 45:         I think he does. Is that what you’re suggesting?

Speaker 47:         For what purpose? Other than-

Speaker 46:         I’m pointing out, we handled those situations incorrectly. It should’ve been said-

Speaker 44:         How many years ago was this? [inaudible 04:46:39].

Speaker 46:         I mean one of us could want to record a meeting. I just want to avoid this an explosive conflict.

Speaker 44:         You’re bringing it up.

Speaker 47:         It is-

Speaker 44:         You started it.

Speaker 47:         It’s, it’s not, it’s not about that recording. It’s, it’s about the whole point of this. I think this, this session that is, that is, that is something that I don’t, I’ve said what I needed to say about it.

Speaker 45:         So I think if, if a member of this public body should choose to record something, you have an obligation to try to get to be part of the public record or the organization is at risk because there was a member of the organization who recorded something and is not making it available to the public. because if there was a recording made, it needs to be made available to the public. Would you agree?

Speaker 46:         Of course. I mean that’s, that’s, that’s, and that’s what was done in each of the prior recordings they were given to the hospital.

Speaker 45:         Okay, good. So we’re good.

Speaker 44:         So did you make copies of them?

Speaker 46:         Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Speaker 48:         So that would be held I think was six or seven years.

Speaker 44:         Why? Why would you make a copy of a meeting that’s being recorded?

Speaker 45:         He, no, he reported it himself.

Speaker 48:         He did.

Speaker 45:         And then he made a copy and he gave it to-

Speaker 47:         Yeah. But I think, and this is where, John would be helpful, because I think if he has a copy of this other public meeting, even though he made it available, then that still is open to public scrutiny access. And if you do it on your phone and then your phone has opened up public access and everything on your phone now becomes public-

Speaker 48:         What? Everything on his phone is open to public?

Speaker 47:         If he made the recording on his phone.

Speaker 44:         That’s true.

Speaker 43:         And there’s a public record request for his phone, his recording.

Speaker 47:         It’s just a legal can of worms that can easily be avoided. And I mean that’s, that’s Brad Burt technical version of this.

Speaker 45:         There’s already a recording being made.

Speaker 47:         Mind-boggling that you would choose not to.

Speaker 46:         I, I believe what we say in these meetings is important. The meetings that I recorded, you were, we were not recording them.

Speaker 45:         So now we are.

Speaker 46:         So it was the only way. And there were very huge conflicts during those meetings over that issue. So I just think we should clarify if that situation ever happens again. Let’s not have that happen. Let’s know what is going to happen. It’s either in order or it’s out of order.

Speaker 48:         But you also, if I may say so, Eric said earlier on, whether it was in order or out of order, you were going to ignore the order-

Speaker 46:         Right. Because it’s in order. It is in order. You cannot tell someone to turn something off.

Speaker 47:         I think you’re playing semantic games.

Speaker 43:         Could I ask a question Matt? So what, what would you recommend be written in here to clarify that going forward?

Speaker 46:         I just recommend that this board knows what it’s going to do with the situation happens again because it’s not, we made a mistake, we might’ve violated a statute [inaudible 04:50:05] by trying to tell someone to turn off the recorder that I think that might’ve been a statute violation and we shouldn’t do that. We should know. Okay. We don’t like it if someone’s recording but can’t, I shouldn’t like harass them about it or it’s just like it’s either in order out of order.

Speaker 44:         But you could’ve made a copy of the, of the recording.

Speaker 47:         So so, so here, here’s the issue is this whole thing was instigated by showing up at a meeting and turning on your recorder.

Speaker 46:         What whole thing?

Speaker 47:         Whether we record the meetings or not because we weren’t, we did audio record them before that. And so we call council and say, what do we do here? It wasn’t really the will of the interest of the board to audio tape [inaudible 00:18:50]. We, that, that was not the norm with the work that we did when we contacted all the [inaudible 04:50:59] districts. But you said, I’m going to record them anyway and so and forced our hand. So then we put a policy together that said we would record and with legal council’s advice, here’s how you do that. So you can make sure that that audio record is a can that doesn’t face the scrutiny of, of some members of our community who from time to time look at the meta question of Alyssa about the authenticity of the recordings and, and here’s the process, here’s the mechanics, here is the machinery. And we’ll do that for regular meetings knowing that when three commissioners are meeting a legislator’s office, that’s a special meeting. And, and now we just do that.

Speaker 47:         What you’re talking about is when we have special meetings and sometimes those special meetings include other representatives of boards that don’t audio record their meetings. And sometimes those special meetings are, you know, in, in places where may or may not be conducive to recording. And, and I think you’re, you’re, you’re asking us to react to that when certainly, it’s my preference that we follow the policy which records regular meetings. We don’t, we don’t, and then therefore commissioners don’t, record on their own prior special meetings and we just avoid all of this. I think the question or the, the why of the road when you do this. I think this is actually what happened, is that we just decided not to meet. That you commissioner colleagues were so uncomfortable with that and probably had less to do with the issue or to do with maybe other stuff around the issue that we won’t meet them. And that just seems silly to me.

Speaker 46:         I don’t see how do you want them… I would not take a position that wields power if there’s people who are not accountable for what they say in the room and I do not feel, you know, talk about trust. You know what increases trust is having an account, but what people said because if you can’t, we have so much trouble trusting each other on a basic level. I think we trust each other to like remember accurately a three hour conversation. It’s insane. It’s like it’s completely absurd that this board could function without an accurate record of what we say. I mean I realized that after two months on the board, all I care about is that we have efficient meetings when we talk about something and we agree to it at the next meeting we remember we agreed to it and we don’t have to revisit the issue.

Speaker 46:         I mean that’s all recording does for him. I don’t know why we don’t record offsite meetings except for the ones that other people would want to. If it prevents us from meeting with legislators, that’s totally fine. We’re not going to, and that’s why, that’s why I never insisted that we record everything because then we wouldn’t be able to serve our community, wouldn’t be able to meet with some people.

Speaker 48:         And that’s the case with the, when we were meeting with, with other organizations that don’t record theirs, are not comfortable with that. It’s the same thing.

Speaker 46:         And I never, I never insisted we record those. Some people might, but-

Speaker 45:         So I think we should move on from this issue. I don’t think, I think it’s the general opinion that there isn’t a need for a formal legal opinion. And as your governance consultant, my recommendation is don’t rule that out of order if it should come up because it would not be proper.

Speaker 45:         Should we take a 10 minute break and then come back? We do have time in the afternoon, so we’re off our agenda, but it’s okay. We’ll still get where we need to go.

Speaker 44:         Okay.

Speaker 45:         So we’ll reconvene.

Jefferson Healthcare Commissioners to consider Vote on Single Payer Bill for Washington State

singlepayer_300Exciting news. At todays Jefferson Healthcare Hospital Commissioner meeting, the entire board agreed to discuss and potentially vote on supporting or opposing the Washington Health Security Trust (formerly known as HB 1085/SB 5224), a bill for creating a single payer universal healthcare system in Washington State. This bill is currently under consideration for inclusion in the 2015 legislative session. If the Jefferson Healthcare board votes to support this bill, this action might help convince our 24th Legislative district representatives, Tharinger, Van de Wege, and Hargrove to also support the bill. Reps. Tharinger and Van de Wege sit on the House Health Care and Wellness Committee and Sen. Hargrove  sits on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, making all of them highly influential regarding a bill like this.

Stay tuned for more information. Whether our district votes to support or oppose the bill, November 19 may be historic simply for the fact we may be the first public hospital district to even consider the question of supporting Single Payer at the state level at all!  The commission meeting is Weds Nov 19 at 3:30pm in the Vic Dirksen Auditorium.

Update Nov 6, 2014:  It now appears likely the board will use Nov 19 as an information gathering session regarding the bill for single payer.  The actual vote yes or no to support the bill will most likely happen at the following regular meeting, Dec 3, 2014.  This will allow the commissioners time to research and consider information from the Nov 19 session.  This means if the public wishes to express opinions prior to the vote, the Nov 19 meeting is the place to do it.

More information about the Washington Health Security Trust can be found here: http://www.healthcareforallwa.org/ 

Update Nov 12, 2014:  Below are links to some documents that go over more detail for the Washington Health Security Trust.  Please note, the bill is being revised and will have some slight changes when it is considered for the 2015 legislative session.  A new bill description and analysis will also be drafted that matches the new and improved version of the bill.  The full bill text linked to below is again the version from 2013.  Nonetheless, these documents will provide a lot of relevant detailed information about the WHST.

Hospital Commissioner Meeting 3/19/2014 (Audio Only)

During this board meeting, I presented the following 2 proposals to the board:

Proposal 1:  Define Board Expectations for Collections Practices and Policies

This board has defined and often talked about what our expectations are for how this public hospital district conducts medical care, but we have not given similar clear guidance regarding our expectations of our financial services.

I think it will be helpful moving forward, if we add to our Ends goals a clear statement characterizing our expectations for how this hospital district financially impacts the lives of our patients and their families.  With this in mind, I propose we add to the Boards ends policy the following:

  1. The Jefferson Healthcare billing, charity care, and collections policies and practices will be fair, reasonable, and as compassionate as possible, within the limits of the law and available resources.

After we agree to this amendment, we can then begin discussing how to monitor the districts effectiveness in achieving it.  But the first step is simply stating our end goal.

Proposal 2:  Board Monitoring use of 3rd party Collections Activities

My 2nd proposal is that this hospital board immediately begin monitoring the use of 3rd party collections companies by this hospital district.

A collections monitoring report will serve to help monitor several board policy goals including those in finance, patient satisfaction, public image, community health.

I know the Jefferson Healthcare financial counselors strive to work with patients to come up with affordable solutions.  But, when this does not work out-for any reason, patients may end up sent to collections on a medical debt they cannot afford- and the consequences of this are severe.  These consequences include:

  1. The patients credit getting damaged.

  2. The patient being subjected to extraordinary collections actions – in the name of Jefferson Healthcare but without the direct oversight of Jefferson Healthcare staff.

  3. The patients learning to view Jefferson Healthcare as an adversary rather than as a partner and steward of healthcare in our community.

  4. The patient learning that seeking healthcare will have severely negative financial consequences- and so they stop seeking it promptly when needed- putting their future health at higher risk, and contributing to the likelihood of expensive yet preventable emergency care in the future.  (Note: if the patient is unable to afford the emergency care bill, the public will end up paying for it- at a much higher cost than the cost of the initial preventative care.)

I know my fellow commissioners want Jefferson Healthcare to relentlessly strive to be a partner and steward of our communities health and by monitoring our collections activities we will gain a valuable perspective into how well we are doing towards this goal.

I recognize this hospital district has a fiduciary responsibility to act to collect debts.  But I also recognize that its mission is not to maximize profits at the expense of the health of our community.  Our mission is to serve as compassionate partners in the health of our community- and this means we must be particularly mindful of any actions we take that may in fact harm community members.

So, due to the significant consequences in the realms of finance, customer satisfaction, community health, and public image- that result when sending a patient account to collections, I propose we immediately begin taking steps to monitor data related to our use of these 3rd party collection services.  

I recommend we begin by reviewing as soon as possible a detailed study of Jefferson Healthcare collections practices including the following data:

Trends and totals for:

  1. Total number of open accounts currently held by 3rd party collection agencies.

  2. Monthly # and % of patients sent to collections.

  3. Monthly total money recovered through collections agencies.

  4. Monthly total money written off despite use of collection agencies.

  5. Annual trends and totals for these same items going back 5 years.

After we review the data, I will then recommend we immediately discuss setting clear goals and guidelines related to it.

I also repeated the following proposal I made at the 3/5/2014 meeting:

Publish Board Bylaws and Policies Online

Jefferson Healthcare immediately publish the most current versions of our hospital board policies and bylaws on the hospital district website for easy review by the general public.

Below is a transcript of the verbal exchange about the board policies and bylaws proposal.  This was basically a discussion on whether or not we wanted to discuss the idea.  There was no support for a 2nd for my motion to consider this proposal, so we did not officially consider it.  (According to Roberts Rules of Order the way a board action works is 1- someone makes a motion,  2- someone seconds the motion, 3- Discussion of the motion, 4- Vote).  If you wish to listen to the dialogue it is at the 01:46:30 mark! :

C. Ready:  Last meeting I asked if there was interest in publishing our policies and bylaws online.  There was some thought that you would like to think about it.  I was wondering if there is anyone that is interested in discussing putting our board policies and bylaws online?”

C. Dressler:  I think this would come again at the April…because we don’t have anything we’re going to put up at the moment because we’re going through reviews and revisions and the decision as to what form of governance.  So that’s my personal take on it.  So I don’t know what you…

C. Deleo:  I believe I recommended at the last meeting that we wait on publishing that until we have the final out of our rewrite.  I think publishing one and then a month later publishing a second one could be confusing.

C. Dressler:  And do you have any comment Chuck.

C. Russel:  No.  I agree with Tony.

C. Ready:  Personally, I think it’s…they are our current policies and I think it is reasonable to put the current policies that we’ve been operating under up.  But I sense I am not going to get a second to that motion.”

Hospital Commissioner Meeting 3/5/2014

namestandardsmI don’t have a full record of the March 5, 2014 commissioner meeting, but I do want to share several items I brought up to the board during the board business portion of the meeting.  Please note, these are not exact quotes, but are paraphrased from my recollection and the statements I had prepared and brought with me to the board meeting.

Item 1:  Board Policies and Bylaws Transparency

The first issue I raised was regarding the publication of board policies and bylaws on the hospital district website.  I said something to this effect:

“I think it is important that this board operate in a transparent and open manner so that the public can best understand what we are doing and why we are doing it.  With this in mind, I think we should publish our board policies and bylaws online.  These documents inform virtually every action and decision this board touches upon during these commission meetings.  Moreover, I know we are considering revising these documents and as such, isn’t it appropriate for the public to understand the current policies so they can appreciate our discussions of how to change them?  I would like to know my fellow commissioners thoughts on this.”

The other commissioners made some remarks, but I do not have their exact words, so I do not want to attempt to paraphrase them in case I misunderstood.  We did not take action on this suggestion during this meeting.

Item 2:  March 21 Special Session Questions

Next, in reference to the March 21st special session I said:

“I believe the March 21st special session is largely being scheduled in response to my request for information and discussion which I stated during our board retreat and at the following board regular session.  With this in mind, I wanted to make certain everyone understood clearly what questions I am hoping for us to focus upon.  I am more than happy to meet with and work with the facilitator who is planning that special session to help make this happen.  My questions are:

  1. What is the current organizational view of community health needs- which it has been using to guide major policy and decision making including the ESS building project?
  2. What is the current organizational priorities amongst these recognized community health needs?
  3. How will the new building project impact/ benefit the community?  (This might be titled a “Community benefit Analysis” or “Community Health Needs Impact Analysis”)
    1. What will be our mechanism’s for evaluating the building project’s effectiveness regarding community benefit?
    2. What are the building projects measurable objectives re community benefit?”

The other commissioners made some remarks, but I do not have their exact words, so I do not want to attempt to paraphrase them in case I misunderstood.

Item 3:  Community Health Needs Questions

The 3rd major issue I raised were questions about the Community Health Needs Assessment which the hospital is participating in collaboration with the Health Department.  I said:

I propose we formalize in policy this organizations relationship to community health needs assessments.  I think this will help us moving forward.

Questions we will benefit from asking and answering clearly include:

  1. Why are we participating in a community health needs assessment?
  2. Who is responsible/accountable for the successful completion of a community health needs assessment?
  3. Is the community health needs assessment important for the board to effectively govern and for JHC leadership to successfully strive to fufill the hospital districts mission?
  4. How often should a community health needs assessment be done?What is to be done with the community health needs assessment upon completion?  Based on my research, there are 3 things that can happen after a community health needs assessment.  First and most common is NOTHING.  This, Dr. Locke reminded us is far too often the result.  But the two very positive constructive things that can happen are a Community Health Improvement Plan, which would be done in collaboration with other community stake holders, and a community benefits report, in which the hospital would clearly state its plans to take action to positively impact the health needs of the community.  Which of these choices will we make?
    1. Will we participate in a community health improvement plan process?   If so, how often?  Who will do it?  How will it’s effectiveness be monitored and evaluated?
    2. Will we require a community benefit plan be drafted for JHC?  If so, how often?  Who will do it?  How will it’s effectiveness be monitored and evaluated?
  5. Does the current JHC mission statement adequately affirm that our policies integrate and reflect the public interest in our meeting our responsibilities as a public hospital district?  In other words, does our mission statement clearly state our simple responsibility to “identify and meet the healthcare needs of our community?

I have found some models used in other healthcare institutions that answer the above questions which I am considering consolidating into an amendment proposal for this board to consider.

There was no discussion following the above remarks.

Item 4:  Charity Care and Collections Policies

Regarding hospital charity care and collections practices I said,

“I have some concerns that our charity care and collections policies and practices are not as fair and reasonable as they could be- and as the board might expect them to be.  I met with a private citizen this past week who had done some interesting research into our collections practices and it was very thought provoking.  I suspect we have some strong opportunities for improvement.  I also think it is appropriate for this board to set very clear expectations about our hospital district charity care and collections policies, perhaps even if it is merely to say, “The charity care and collections policies of this hospital district will be fair, reasonable”  and perhaps even “compassionate.”  With this in mind, I am considering drafting an amendment to our board Ends policies regarding our charity care and collections practices and how we might monitor such expectations.”

There was no discussion following the above remark.

Next Commission Meeting:  March 19, 2014

I will keep this blog updated as I continue to work with the commission towards action on the items above and more.

 

This website is my primary means of letting people know about my work as hospital commissioner, the issues I am working on and the specific actions I am proposing.

My goal is to make high quality healthcare affordable and accessible to every person in our community.

I love meeting with groups to discuss healthcare issues big and small. Please contact me if you would like me to join you for a talk.

Email me at mready@jgh.org

Matt Ready Links