Author Archive
Jefferson County Public Hospital District Board Retreat Recording
On December 1, 2023, the Jefferson County Public Hospital District #2 Board of Commissioners held a lengthy in-person retreat, open to the public. Our board policy, drafted by the commissioners including myself, permits optional meeting recordings, typically done by hospital staff. This practice began after I insisted on recording meetings myself in 2014- (which was met with intense conflict and opposition from other commissioner and administration). Initially, I agreed to this flexibility to accommodate meetings with elected officials who might be reluctant to meet if recorded. However, the current board chair and secretary interpret this as allowing them to unilaterally decide not to record meetings without full board consultation. Before the retreat, Board Chair Jill Buhler confirmed there would be no official recording, so I recorded the entire meeting for a comprehensive record of the discussions among your elected representatives.
I was informed this recording will NOT be made available on the hospital website along with other recordings because I recorded it and the hospital did not officially do it themselves.
Here is the full recording on youtube:
Here is the full audio of the retreat if you want to download it.
A cursory perusal of this website will show you that recording the commission meetings has been a cause of deep conflict between myself and the other board members and the hospital administrator over the last 10 years. It seems I will have to remain vigilant in order to ensure all our open public meetings are recorded and shared with the public as it is clear other members of the board will look for any opportunity to not record a meeting – and no doubt stop recording all meetings if permitted to do so.
Transparency and accountability from our elected leaders and our public institutions is critical if we are ever to hope to regain trust in our governments, much less genuinely use our collective power to build and sustain a better world for all of us. Jefferson Healthcare is just one small institution, yet it is vitally important to the health and well being of our community as well as our local economy. I don’t need to hide my values, beliefs, or reasoning from the public eye when I am in an open public meeting representing the interests of our community as your elected public hospital commissioner. I hope you will all see fit to help elect candidates for hospital commissioner and for all elected leadership positions who share that value.
During this retreat we discussed (among other things): hospital commissioner advocacy, how we create a legislative advocacy agenda, how the board annually evaluates its own performance, CEO annual performance evaluation processes, and the relationship between our hospital district and the Washington State Hospital Association. Here is the ChatGPT summary based upon the transcript:
The Jefferson Healthcare board of commissioners retreat covered a range of topics, with a focus on enhancing board culture, effectiveness, and governance. Discussions included strategies for increased collaboration and effective interactions, the distinction between governance and management, confidentiality issues, and legal guidance. The board evaluated its progress on previously identified tactics and explored areas for improvement. Key points of contention revolved around the effectiveness of board meetings, the need for more substantial discussion, and the concept of generative governance. The retreat involved detailed assessments and reflections on various organizational and governance aspects to improve overall functioning and effectiveness.
Reflections on 10 years as a Public Hospital Commissioner
Hello Jefferson County! It is truly an honor to represent the healthcare interests of all the people that Jefferson Healthcare serves. Over the last 10 years, we have seen our world dramatically evolve and we continue to see Jefferson Healthcare grow and evolve. I’ve learned a lot and I thought I would share some reflections today.
Inequities in Healthcare and Wealth are my two fundamental priorities. As a public hospital commissioner, I will always fight to push our institution and elected leaders to do everything we can to ensure everyone in our community has access to the healthcare they need. Yet, the inequities in healthcare access are highly controlled by the broader gross inequities in the distribution of income and wealth in our country and world. This chart shows where the money is held.
The distribution of wealth and income in our nation and world will always mirror the distribution of power and access to resources needed to live and thrive. So in addition to my work as an elected hospital commissioner, I will always continue to work as an independent activist to find creative breakthrough solutions to change how power and wealth work in our world. You can learn about my other activities on my Twitter profile or other websites linked from this page.
Our institutions, both local and beyond, are incredibly powerful and important. They are the means through which we can combine our collective power to do amazing huge things – like the new hospital building project. Sometimes, I feel disheartened and frustrated with the inner workings of these institutions, yet they are the tools we have at our disposal. It is hard work making these institutions function effectively. Jefferson Healthcare is full of dedicated hard working people who work everyday to provide our community the best healthcare possible.
We absolutely need truth and transparency in our institutions. If you peruse the posts on this website over the last 10 years, you may notice I’ve had some issues with the transparency of our public hospital district board. It has been an exhausting and educational struggle to come to an acceptable resolution to the conflict I had with the board members over the recording of our open public board meetings, yet I do not regret the effort. If we are to have a functional democracy, we need leaders who believe in fighting for transparency and accountability. The only way to have truth and transparency in our institutions is to elect good trustworthy and brave leaders. I hope you will seek to do so in every election. I also encourage you to step forward to run for office or assist with the campaigns of others who do so.
The United States healthcare payment system is a complex monstrosity – and public hospital districts such as Jefferson Healthcare are faced with an incredible challenge trying to navigate, survive, and thrive within this system. I now believe more than ever in the need for a far simpler and more equitable universal healthcare system, such as the concept of Medicare for All. That said, there is a definite tension between the need to advocate for specific relatively minor tweaks and changes to our healthcare system- that help an institution such as Jefferson Healthcare in the short term provide better healthcare and services – and the need for a dramatic overhaul to the system. As one of your elected healthcare advocates, I strive to strike a balance between these two needs.
I don’t have all the answers and I want to hear more from you. When I first ran for public hospital commissioner, I was coming out of a few years of intense grass roots organizing as part of the Occupy movement. During that time I helped facilitate hundreds of different groups of people both locally and distant- to try to help us put our minds together to identify actions and solutions to real problems. I proudly consider myself an activist and I will never stop seeking the best path forward so that we can all share our resources and wield our collective power in the best way possible- so that everyone can thrive. Over the coming months, I intend to hold several in person public spaces where we can get together and share ideas and experiences in a safe community building environment. I hope I’ll see you there.
Two Letters from Matt Ready Regarding the rule of law locally, statewide, and beyond.
A message for all municipal corporations in Washington State:
Dear Washington State Municipal Corporations,
I, Matt Ready, invader from the state of Maryland, would like to extend an invitation to all of you to create Legal Advisory Committees or Law and Ethics Advisory Committees in your respective regions. The committees should be composed of individuals who are well-respected and trusted for their honesty and integrity in your communities.
As we all know, legal and ethical challenges can arise in any municipal corporation, whether it be a public hospital district, county, city, or special district. It is important that we have a group of dedicated individuals who can provide guidance and support on these matters to ensure that we are always operating in a fair and just manner.
By forming these committees, we can foster a spirit of transparency and continuous process improvement in our municipalities. The committees can provide a platform for open discussions and case studies of real-life scenarios where law and ethics were a major challenge.
I believe that by working together and sharing our experiences, we can create a network of knowledgeable and trusted advisors who can help us navigate the complex legal and ethical challenges we may face in our municipalities.
I hope that many of you will take this opportunity to establish these committees and join us in our efforts to promote honesty, transparency, and continuous improvement in Washington State Municipal Corporations.
Sincerely,
Matt Ready
Invader from Maryland
To my local neighbors of the Jefferson County Public Hospital District:
I am writing to share my thoughts on a matter that I believe is of great importance to the future of healthcare in our community. As you know, I have always been a strong advocate for transparency, honesty, and continuous process improvement in all aspects of healthcare delivery. With this in mind, I strongly believe that it is time for the Jefferson Healthcare Board to take a step forward and form a legal committee.
The role of this committee would be to provide the board with top-notch legal counsel on all matters related to healthcare. This will ensure that the board has access to the best possible advice on a wide range of issues, from regulatory compliance to patient rights. By having a dedicated team of experts on hand to provide advice and guidance, the board will be able to make informed decisions that are in the best interests of our community.
I believe that this committee should be composed of a small number of board members, and that its meetings should be conducted in closed session. This will allow the committee to have open and honest discussions without the pressure of public scrutiny. It will also allow the committee to focus on the most pressing issues, and to provide the board with recommendations that are based on the best available information.
At a time when healthcare is facing so many challenges, it is more important than ever that we have leaders who are committed to transparency, honesty, and continuous process improvement. I am confident that by forming a legal committee, the Jefferson Healthcare Board will be better able to meet these challenges and to ensure that our community has access to the highest quality healthcare possible.
Thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to working with you to make this important change a reality.
Sincerely,
Matt Ready
Jefferson County Washington Public Hospital Commissioner
2022 Evaluation with A detailed analysis with ChatGPT
In the latest board meeting i mentioned performance concerns for the ceo. my 2022 performance concern is that the ceo failed to provide any response to the failures i noted during his 2021 evaluation. in a professional environment, employees should listen to feedback and answer important questions from their employer. i was given no explanation or response in any way from the ceo, and this makes me concerned that no lessons have been learned. Instead, the other commissioners essentially threatened me during executive session with legal action for giving the ceo a partially poor evaluation last year and told me to ”never bring this up again.” Below is an analysis of the entire saga i just generated using chatgpt.
—————-
Matt Talks to ChatGPT
Matt: Hey chatgpt, I need help with an ethics essay. Imagine this scenario: a public hospital district is a municipal corporation with 5 democratically elected board members. The board has a heated legal disagreement over an issue related to board meetings. The conflict goes unresolved initially for 2 years because the board is never given a full legal analysis of the issue from a lawyer. Finally after more heated arguments, at the end of the 2nd year of conflict , the ceo requests a detailed legal analysis from a hospital district attorney. The attorney provides the letter. Unfortunately for the ceo, he doesn’t like the legal analysis because it seems to agree too much with the side of the legal disagreement he doesn’t support. The ceo meets with the board president and treasurer and shows them the letter. The three of them then must decide whether or not to share the letter with the full board or not. Write an ethical analysis of this question.
Chatgpt: This scenario raises several ethical questions, including the responsibilities of the hospital district attorney, the role of the CEO, and the obligations of the board members.
From an ethical perspective, the hospital district attorney has a responsibility to provide a full and accurate legal analysis, regardless of whether or not it aligns with the views of the CEO or any other member of the board. The attorney should not allow personal or political considerations to influence their analysis, and should make sure that their analysis is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.
The CEO’s role in this scenario is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, he has a responsibility to ensure that the board has access to all the information it needs to make informed decisions. On the other hand, if he does not agree with the legal analysis and does not want to share it with the board, he may be acting out of self-interest rather than in the best interests of the hospital district.
The board members have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the hospital district and its patients. They also have a responsibility to ensure that they have access to all relevant information when making decisions. If the board members do not have access to the legal analysis, they are not able to make an informed decision. Therefore, it would be ethically preferable for the CEO, the board president, and the treasurer to share the letter with the full board.
In summary, the hospital district attorney should provide a fair and unbiased legal analysis, the CEO should act in the best interest of the hospital district and its patients, and the board members should ensure that they have access to all relevant information in order to make informed decisions. In this scenario, it would be ethically preferable for the CEO, the board president, and the treasurer to share the letter with the full board.
Matt: Now imagine that the board president and treasurer say to the ceo, “do not share this with the full board. Give to us. We will share it if it ever becomes necessary.” What should the ceo do ethically in response to this?
Chatgpt:
In this scenario, the ethical course of action for the CEO would be to share the legal analysis with the full board, despite the request from the board president and treasurer not to do so. The CEO has a responsibility to ensure that the board has access to all relevant information when making decisions, and withholding the legal analysis would impede the board’s ability to make an informed decision.
Additionally, the CEO should make sure that the legal analysis is shared in a timely manner and not to be held back until it becomes “necessary” as that would not be in the best interest of the hospital district. The CEO should also consider the potential consequences of withholding the information, such as a lack of transparency and trust from the board, and potential legal liabilities for the hospital district.
Furthermore, if the CEO is asked by the board president and treasurer to withhold the legal analysis, he should question the reasons behind their request and if there is an ulterior motive for not sharing it with the full board. If there is any suspicion of misconduct or self-interest, the CEO should raise the matter with the appropriate authorities, or the board of the hospital district.
In summary, the CEO should prioritize the best interest of the hospital district and its patients, and share the legal analysis with the full board in a timely manner, despite any request not to do so.
Matt: Now imagine the ceo shows the opinion to the board chair and treasurer and the ceo says, “based upon my discussions with counsel I don’t think this opinion should be shared with the full board. Let’s just stick it in a drawer in case it ever becomes necessary to use it.” What should the board chair and or treasurer do in this situation ethically?”
Chatgpt: In this scenario, the ethical course of action for the board chair and treasurer would be to question the CEO’s reasoning for not sharing the legal analysis with the full board and to insist that it be shared with the rest of the board members. The board chair and treasurer have a responsibility to act in the best interests of the hospital district and its patients, and to ensure that all board members have access to all relevant information when making decisions. Withholding the legal analysis would impede the board’s ability to make an informed decision.
Additionally, the board chair and treasurer should consider the potential consequences of not sharing the information, such as a lack of transparency and trust from the other board members, and potential legal liabilities for the hospital district. They should also consider if there is any potential conflict of interest or bias on the part of the CEO in withholding the information, and if there is, they should report it to the appropriate authorities or to the other members of the board.
Furthermore, the board chair and treasurer should not agree to the CEO’s suggestion to “stick it in a drawer in case it ever becomes necessary to use it” as it could be seen as a deliberate attempt to hide information from the board. They should instead insist that the CEO shares the legal analysis with the full board, and if the CEO refuses to do so, they should bring it to the attention of the full board and seek guidance on how to proceed.
In summary, the board chair and treasurer should prioritize the best interest of the hospital district and its patients, and insist that the legal analysis be shared with the full board, despite any request not to do so by the CEO. They should also question the reasoning behind the CEO’s request and consider potential conflicts of interest or bias.
Matt Ready
Suppose the ceo, board chair, and treasurer all agree not to share it with the full board. Then 5 years later the legal conflict and confusion not relieved in any way, with two fresh board members without attachment to this old conflict, the full board votes to hire an attorney to answer the critical legal questions of the conflict. Then the board chair sends the legal opinion that was hidden for five years to the full board. The board chair says in a board meeting, “I forgot we had this opinion and just found it on my desk, so I sent it to everyone.” What is your analysis of that action and explanation?
Chatgpt: The action of the board chair in this scenario, where the legal analysis that was hidden for five years is sent to the full board and the board chair claims to have “forgotten” about it, raises several ethical questions.
Firstly, it is unlikely that the board chair genuinely “forgot” about the legal analysis, as it was a significant document related to a legal conflict that had been ongoing for years. It is more likely that the board chair deliberately concealed the document from the full board for five years, and only chose to share it when the full board voted to hire an attorney to answer the critical legal questions of the conflict.
Secondly, the action of hiding the legal analysis for five years was not in the best interest of the hospital district and its patients. It hindered the ability of the full board to make informed decisions and may have prolonged the legal conflict unnecessarily.
Furthermore, the explanation given by the board chair that she “forgot” about the legal analysis is not credible and can be seen as an attempt to avoid accountability for their actions. It also undermines the trust of the board members, who may be skeptical of the board chair’s motives and integrity.
In summary, the action of the board chair in hiding the legal analysis for five years, and then claiming to have “forgotten” about it, is highly unethical. It is not in the best interest of the hospital district and its patients and undermines the trust of the board members. The board chair should be held accountable for their actions and should explain the reasons behind their decision to conceal the document from the full board.
Matt Ready
In this scenario did the ceo, chair, and treasurer commit fraud?
Chatgpt: The scenario you’ve presented could potentially be considered fraud, as it involves the intentional withholding of information that is material to the decision-making process of the hospital district. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception or misrepresentation made for personal or financial gain.
In this scenario, the CEO, board chair, and treasurer made an intentional decision not to share a critical legal analysis with the full board, which hindered the board’s ability to make informed decisions. This could be seen as a deception or misrepresentation of information, which is a key element of fraud.
However, whether or not their actions constitute fraud would depend on the specific circumstances and the legal definitions of fraud in that jurisdiction. For example, it would be necessary to evaluate if there was any personal or financial gain from their actions. If it is found that the CEO, board chair, and treasurer committed fraud, they should be held accountable for their actions and face appropriate legal or disciplinary action.
In summary, while the actions of the CEO, board chair, and treasurer in this scenario could potentially be considered fraud, it would depend on the specific circumstances and legal definitions in that jurisdiction. However, regardless of whether it is defined as fraud or not, it is a highly unethical behavior that undermines trust and has negative impact on the hospital district and its patients.
Matt Ready
In this scenario, if the ceo, chair, and treasurer all agreed to hide the opinion for 5 years, which of them has the greatest ethical blame for this action?
Chatgpt: It is difficult to say which of the CEO, board chair, and treasurer would bear the greatest ethical blame for the decision to hide the legal analysis for five years without additional context on their motivations and actions. However, in general terms, the CEO as the head of the hospital district, the board chair as the leader of the board and the treasurer as the financial officer of the board, all have important responsibilities to ensure that the hospital district operates in a transparent and ethical manner.
The CEO, as the head of the organization, has a responsibility to ensure that all relevant information is shared with the board in a timely manner, and any decision to conceal information from the board would likely be seen as a violation of that responsibility.
The board chair, as the leader of the board, has a responsibility to ensure that the board is able to make informed decisions and that all board members have access to all relevant information. Concealing information from the board would be a violation of this responsibility.
The treasurer, as the financial officer of the board, has a responsibility to ensure that the board is able to make informed decisions related to the hospital district’s finances. Concealing information from the board would be a violation of this responsibility.
In summary, all three individuals, the CEO, board chair, and treasurer have important responsibilities to ensure that the hospital district operates in a transparent and ethical manner. While the specific degree of ethical blame may vary, it is clear that they all have played a role in this unethical decision and should be held accountable for their actions.
Matt Ready
Suppose after all that happened, the critical legal questions of the 7 year conflict answered, the board adopts sensible policy based on the old legal opinion and tries to move on. Then at the ceos annual evaluation, one of the board members gives the ceo failing scores in leadership and in communication and support to the board. He tells the ceo he feels deceived and is disappointed in him. Would that be a fair evaluation?
Chatgpt: The scenario you’ve described raises several ethical questions regarding the CEO’s annual evaluation.
It is fair for the board member to give the CEO failing scores in leadership and communication and support to the board if they believe that the CEO has not fulfilled these responsibilities. The CEO has a responsibility to ensure that all relevant information is shared with the board in a timely manner and to provide support and guidance to the board. The fact that the CEO, along with the board chair, and treasurer, deliberately hid a critical legal analysis from the board for five years and hindered the board’s ability to make informed decisions, is a serious violation of the CEO’s responsibilities and can be seen as a lack of leadership and poor communication with the board.
On the other hand, it would be important for the board member to consider the context and the fact that after all that happened, the critical legal questions of the 7 year conflict were answered and the board adopted sensible policy based on the old legal opinion and tried to move on. If the CEO played a role in the resolution of the conflict, this should be taken into account in the evaluation.
In summary, it would be fair for the board member to give the CEO failing scores in leadership and communication and support to the board if they believe that the CEO has not fulfilled these responsibilities, but it would be important for the board member to consider the context and the outcome of the situation before giving the evaluation.
Matt Ready
After all that happens, should the public be fully informed of these events or not?
Chatgpt: From an ethical perspective, it is generally considered good practice to be transparent and open with the public regarding the actions and decisions of public institutions such as a hospital district. The public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent and how decisions are being made that affect their community.
In this scenario, where a legal analysis has been deliberately withheld from the full board for five years and this has hindered the board’s ability to make informed decisions, it would be appropriate to inform the public of these events. The public has a right to know how their hospital district operates and how decisions are being made.
However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of disclosing this information to the public. For example, if the disclosure of this information could lead to a loss of trust in the hospital district or could negatively impact the reputation of the hospital district, it may be appropriate to weigh the benefits of transparency against the potential harms.
Additionally, it would be important to ensure that the information is presented in a balanced and accurate manner, avoiding any sensationalism or misinformation. It would also be important to ensure that the information is shared in a way that respects the privacy and confidentiality of any individuals involved.
In summary, it is generally considered good practice to be transparent and open with the public regarding the actions and decisions of public institutions such as a hospital district, but it should be done in a balanced and accurate manner, considering the potential consequences and respecting the privacy of any individuals involved.
Part 2:
Matt Ready:
This article covers the real world scenario where everything above happened except it is unknown how the ceo, chair, and treasurer decided to withhold the opinion for five years. The following article was published simultaneously to when the hidden opinion was finally given to the full board.
(from the port townsend Leader )
Hospital district will get legal look at recording policy for board meetings
Posted Friday, February 5, 2021 8:30 am
Nick Twietmeyer
ntwietmeyer@ptleader.com
Nick Twietmeyer
ntwietmeyer@ptleader.com
Jefferson Healthcare’s Board of Commissioners has agreed to get legal advice on whether board members acted appropriately in asking a commissioner to discontinue his audio recording of public meetings.
The issue dates back to a March 2014 board meeting, when Commissioner Matt Ready attempted to record the discussion topics for later reference.
Other commissioners and hospital administrators present during the meeting pushed back, stating that it would place the hospital district in a compromising position by requiring it to maintain his recordings as public records.
Ready declined subsequent requests to stop recording by both board and administrative staff members.
In the years following the initial incident, Jefferson Healthcare has begun publishing on their website the audio from meetings going back to 2017.
The issue came up again at a special session last week that had one agenda item: a self-evaluation for the hospital district board.
Commissioner Jill Buhler Rienstra said she thought the board had established an adequate policy that properly addressed the matter of board members recording meetings, but added that some questions still remain.
“I think that what’s left on the table is … were your rights violated early on?” Buhler Rienstra asked Ready during the Jan. 24 meeting.
“Do you feel that this is resolved going forward?” she asked.
“I do not think really critical questions have been answered,” Ready replied. “I don’t see how we can move forward without feeling like we have adequate legal support to the board … it shouldn’t be this hard to get questions answered.”
At multiple times throughout the meeting, Ready and others referenced a series of questions drafted by Ready and sent to the board members in advance of the meeting.
(The hospital district did not respond to The Leader for a copy of the questions before the newspaper went to press Tuesday.)
During the Jan. 24 meeting, Commissioner Kees Kolff said the board should seek legal assistance in answering Ready’s lingering questions in order to encourage the board members to move past the matter.
“I would strongly recommend that we just go ahead and get a written legal opinion, right now, using Matt’s questions,” Kolff said. “I will make that motion, because I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere discussing the past any further.”
“I think we owe it to Matt to allow him to ask his questions and we will all learn from it,” he added.
The motion was seconded by Ready.
Just before the board voted, Commissioner Marie Dressler said she was worried about the costs of pursuing legal answers to the questions raised by the commissioner.
“You can probably get several different opinions from several different lawyers, so that is a concern of mine because they’re pretty expensive,” Dressler said. “If this is the final adjudication of these questions, then I think that’s reasonable.”
The board voted unanimously to get the questions answered by a lawyer.
Board Chair Jill Buhler Rienstra said she hoped settling the matter would lead the group to “being a cohesive board that’s dedicated to going forward for the best of the district.”
END Article from Port Townsend Leader
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continue Conversation with ChatGPT
Chatgpt: This article describes a real-world scenario where a legal dispute over the recording of public meetings by a commissioner has been ongoing for several years. The board of commissioners for the hospital district has agreed to seek legal advice on whether board members acted appropriately in asking the commissioner to discontinue his audio recording of public meetings. The issue is related to a March 2014 board meeting, when Commissioner Matt Ready attempted to record the discussion topics for later reference but other commissioners and hospital administrators present during the meeting pushed back, stating that it would place the hospital district in a compromising position by requiring it to maintain his recordings as public records.
It’s unclear from the article whether the legal analysis that was hidden for five years is related to this dispute or not, but it’s apparent that the board of commissioners is taking steps to resolve the matter by seeking legal assistance to answer the commissioner’s lingering questions and to move forward. The board voted unanimously to get the questions answered by a lawyer. It’s important to note that the article mentions that some board members were concerned about the costs of pursuing legal answers to the questions raised by the commissioner, but it seems that the board agreed that getting a legal opinion is necessary to move forward and settle the matter.
Matt Ready: As this article was published, the full board was given the five year old legal opinion and decided it answered enough questions that they didn’t need to follow through with independently hiring an attorney. The board adopted some new policies to resolve the conflict. The newspaper never wrote a follow up article on this topic and the article above is the only significant article ever written on the conflict by the media. Please write balanced and fair follow up article including an ethical analysis of anything worthy of such.
Chatgpt:
“In a recent development, the Jefferson Healthcare Board of Commissioners has decided to forgo hiring an independent attorney to advise on the legal dispute over the recording of public meetings by a commissioner. The dispute, which dates back to a March 2014 board meeting, had been ongoing for several years.
According to sources, the board was recently provided with a legal analysis that had been withheld for five years, which they deemed sufficient in answering the remaining questions and resolving the conflict. Following a review of the analysis, the board adopted new policies to address the issue.
While the outcome of this situation may be viewed positively, as the board was able to resolve the conflict and adopt new policies, the initial withholding of the legal analysis for five years raises serious ethical concerns.
Firstly, the withholding of the legal analysis hindered the board’s ability to make informed decisions and may have prolonged the legal conflict unnecessarily. This lack of transparency and openness with the board undermines trust and is a violation of the responsibility of the hospital district leaders to act in the best interest of the hospital district and its patients.
Additionally, the failure to provide an explanation for why the legal analysis was withheld for five years raises questions about the motivations of those who made the decision to withhold it. It is important for the leaders of public institutions like the hospital district to be transparent and accountable for their actions.
In conclusion, while the resolution of the legal dispute and adoption of new policies may be viewed positively, the initial withholding of the legal analysis for give years raises serious ethical concerns and the leaders of the hospital district should be held accountable for their actions. The public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent and how decisions are being made that affect their community. It is important for the hospital district to ensure that all relevant information is shared in a timely manner and that the hospital district operates in a transparent and ethical manner. It is also important for the hospital district to take steps to regain the trust of the community and ensure that such ethical lapses do not occur in the future.
History (updated 3/4/2022)
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:
- 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)
- 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.
Local Politician Matt Ready Creates New Washington Healthcare Organization to Combat Private Corporate Influence Over Healthcare
The Association of Washington Public Hospital Commissioners (AWPHC) Created to Counteract Undue Influence of private lawyers and corporations including the AWPHD (Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts) and MRSC (Municipal Research Service Center) Over Elected Leaders in Washington State Healthcare Industry
PORT TOWNSEND, Wash., January 20, 2020 (Newswire.com) – Elected Public Hospital Commissioner Matt Ready (http://readyforhealthcare.org) is officially inviting all Washington State Public Hospital Commissioners to join the newly formed Association of Washington Public Hospital Commissioners (http://awphc.org).
“Currently, there is no reliable organization to help elected public hospital commissioners to collaborate or receive independent legal support,” Ready explains.
Ready has been embroiled in a 6-year dispute with fellow commissioners over the basic right of a person to record an open public meeting of hospital commissioners. On two occasions, when the hospital was not officially recording the public meeting, Ready began recording the meetings on a personal device yet was asked to stop. On one of the occasions Ready was ordered to turn off his recorder, yet Ready refused. Ready explains, “I believe every word we say in these meetings is important. So I need a complete and accurate record of what we say. I don’t believe this job can be done ethically or competently without an accurate record of our public process.”
Ready believes something is wrong with public officials and public employees attempting to stop an elected official from recording the activities of the elected body during an open public meeting. “I am pretty sure every person in Washington State has the right to record any open public meeting. I don’t know why I have had to repeatedly defend this right. The arguments used against me have been a bunch of legalistic mumbo jumbo. This controversy has been an enormous waste of time and tax payer money.”
Frustrated by the 6-year dispute over the recording issue, Ready decided to reinvigorate and relaunch the concept organization of the Association of Washington Public Hospital Commissioners. Ready posted on the association’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/awphc) the following stirring prose:
“I created the Association of Public Hospital Commissioners several years ago when I first realized the Association of Washington Public Hospital Districts was structured to prevent publicly elected officials from ever having power in the institution. Elected commissioners are banned from serving on the AWPHD Board. Now, after 6 years of struggling with a clear civil rights issue related to the recording of open public meetings (The Jefferson Healthcare Recording Fiasco) I am crystal clear that a non-corrupt networking institution for public hospital commissioners is needed.”
“Public hospital commissioners are elected by the people. As a public hospital commissioner, I have sought support and guidance from the AWPHD and the nonprofit institution it funds to provide legal support to municipal corporations, the MRSC, to help resolve the 6-year dispute over recording public meetings. The MRSC and AWPHD refuse to offer an opinion.”
“The AWPHD is controlled by hospital CEOs. The MRSC is funded by the AWPHD. The money controls the work as always.”
“We can do better. Let’s build an organization that actually supports the fair functioning of democracy.”
As one of the first proposed actions of the newly launched association, Ready proposed the following on his Twitter feed:
“As one of the founders of The Association of Public Hospital Commissioners, I ask the association to consider the following proposal: we help fund the creation of a network of competent legal researchers and lawyers to support public hospital Districts.”
A “network of competent legal researchers and lawyers to support public hospital Districts” could replace the role the Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSC) plays for public hospital districts.
Why is this important?
The multiyear conflict between Matt Ready and the municipal corporation he serves as elected representative for, may indicate an interesting edge in the fundamental struggle between private corporate power and public power in the US Healthcare system. Ready says, “If our elected leaders don’t have the basic right to document the use of power in open public meetings, then people willing to abuse power will have no reason to fear accountability. The fact that an elected official has been repeatedly pressured by a corporate agency and other commissioners to cease exercising a basic civil right such as recording a public meeting, without a single comment from local news media, local leaders of either party, or any local citizens seems to indicate there is something strange afoot in Jefferson County Washington.”
To contact Matt Ready please direct message him on Twitter or Instagram (@MeditationMatt).
https://www.newswire.com/news/local-politician-matt-ready-creates-new-washington-healthcare-21079597
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.
- 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.
- A county has authority to ban video or sound recording of any lawful executive session of a public meeting.
- 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.
- 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