00:00:00:00 – 00:00:33:03
Commissioner Buhler
Okay. In that case, we will now go into, our discussion of the Peninsula Health Alliance proposal. It’s a little background. The public has read and heard about a proposed alliance between Jefferson Health Care and Olympic Medical Center. It is true that we were considering such a proposal in the hope that we could work with our neighbors to help both of us thrive in this time of uncertain financial climate.

00:00:33:05 – 00:01:03:28
Commissioner Buhler
There were other parties who also submitted proposals. Part of the proposal process was a confidentiality agreement that is typical in these circumstances, and which we agreed to for commissioners have complied with the agreement. One did not. We have lost our opportunity to develop the proposal into an actual plan, which we would have taken to our community for discussion before any commitment to the plan was made.

00:01:04:00 – 00:01:37:03
Commissioner Buhler
That’s the way this board has always operated, as we did with the 1995. And yes, buildings and our new project due to open in August. While the long member brought allegations against the rest of the board and the CEO. We continued to honor the confidentiality agreement. However, due to the circumstances, we have been granted some relief from the agreement and can now speak openly.

00:01:37:06 – 00:02:17:21
Commissioner Buhler
This section of today’s agenda is our opportunity to do just that. To ensure fairness in the discussion, Commissioner Cobb has proposed a methodology he has used successfully in the past as chair. I am now turning the meeting over to case with the apology that the the original, the type the format for his section is that I sent out originally is, is the draft and he has sent out a new, a different one that is more detailed.

00:02:17:21 – 00:02:27:17
Commissioner Buhler
So, but it’s the same premise. So case, can you, can you please take over and.

00:02:27:19 – 00:03:01:12
Commissioner Kolff
I would be happy to. Jill. Thanks. And, as Jill mentioned, when I saw that, a discussion was on this agenda, on the agenda today, and realizing that many of us, had many thoughts and comments that we would like to make. I considered, perhaps a good format that we could use was one that we have used for many years at the Port Townsend Eco village.

00:03:01:15 – 00:03:30:12
Commissioner Kolff
This is a format that we learned when we adopted the governance style called So theocracy, and it includes the idea. So what I’d like to do now is, have somebody read the letter just to make sure. Does everybody have the copy of the draft of the open letter to the public that Jill and I, prepared?

00:03:30:15 – 00:03:32:16
Commissioner Dressler
Yes.

00:03:32:19 – 00:03:38:24
Commissioner Kolff
Does everyone have that? Okay. I think it would be worth reading it. For the for the public record. Does that seem reasonable?

00:03:38:26 – 00:03:39:20
Commissioner Dressler
Yes.

00:03:39:22 – 00:03:48:16
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Is there someone who would like to read it other than myself? So you don’t have to hear my voice? Too often during this.

00:03:48:18 – 00:03:50:24
Commissioner Dressler
I think you do a very good job reading a case.

00:03:50:26 – 00:03:52:04
Commissioner Buhler
I think so, too.

00:03:52:06 – 00:03:53:15
Commissioner Dressler
Because you’re not dating it.

00:03:53:18 – 00:04:20:16
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. You want me to read it? Good. So this is to the residents of East Jefferson County from the board of Jefferson Health Care regarding the allegations and misstatements by Commissioner Matt Read. Commissioner already has accused his four fellow commissioners at Jefferson Health Care of violating the open public Meetings Act openly with regards to its involvement in CEO Mike Glenn’s preparation and submittal of a response called the Peninsula Health Alliance proposal to Olympic Medical Center’s request for proposals.

00:04:20:19 – 00:04:46:22
Commissioner Kolff
We believed that we were in compliance with the OPM when we held one executive session in February to learn about the real estate component of the alliance proposal and the second executive session in March, to consult with our attorney, Brad Berg, regarding our decision to use an executive session. And that meeting was in March, and he believed that our decision could be justified because of Commissioner Rennie’s charges against his fellow commissioners, our CEO Mike Len and Attorney Byrd.

00:04:46:24 – 00:05:09:09
Commissioner Kolff
We are currently seeking a second opinion from another municipal attorney in a separate firm. We believe Mike Glenn acted within his authority as CEO when he submitted an alliance proposal to OMC. At no time did he see consent on either the content or request permission of the board. It’s not that’s not what it says, but to submit the proposal during the executive sessions.

00:05:09:11 – 00:05:29:20
Commissioner Kolff
It was also his right to seek private input from two individual board member board members early in the drafting process, and to invite two members to attend meetings with OMC later. In fact, OMC requested board members attend the joint meeting. These were not serial meetings because the roles of the commissioners were entirely different. At no time did he negotiate any terms with OMC.

00:05:29:22 – 00:05:50:22
Commissioner Kolff
He simply presented the Alliance proposal as required by OMC of all RFP respondents. He signed a non-disclosure agreement, but at no time did he commit to bind Jefferson Healthcare to any other agreement or share real estate. That was the initial justification. Now, excuse me, I missed one part of that. Let me continue that, commit to bind any other agreement.

00:05:50:29 – 00:06:24:03
Commissioner Kolff
The Alliance proposal clearly states that the Jefferson Healthcare Board would continue to have full control over its governance and assets. It could choose to sell, purchase or share real estate. And that was the initial justification of an executive session in February. Sharing of services with OMC and or real estate swaps and or sales could be done through an agreement executed by the separate Alliance board of 12 members, made up of both OMC and Jefferson Healthcare boards, where each entity, regardless of the different number of board members, had equal decision making power.

00:06:24:06 – 00:06:44:27
Commissioner Kolff
We were satisfied that one, the independent authority over governance and operations of each entity, would be preserved to that if we were selected as a partner. Any negotiations between OMC and Jefferson Healthcare would involve open and thorough community involvement. Three that there would be no binding agreement of any kind without full community input and a public board vote.

00:06:45:00 – 00:07:13:19
Commissioner Kolff
And for Jefferson, health care could benefit tremendously from such an alliance. In a retreat workshop of our Jefferson Health Care Board in 2024, we hired Rex Bergdorf from Juniper Advisory, the same person and company working with OMC, to give us an overview of how partnerships and alliances can be formed by public hospital districts. We knew that closer relationships with other healthcare entities would likely be necessary for financial stability in order to preserve our governance independence.

00:07:13:22 – 00:07:36:27
Commissioner Kolff
With the now obvious challenges we will face with funding cuts at both the federal and state levels. This potential alliance seemed like a benefit for both Jefferson Health Care and OMC for increasing our collective bargaining, purchasing and contracting power, not to mention sharing of services to avoid redundancy. Michigan already accused us of silencing and muting him during several meetings using Robert’s Rules of Order.

00:07:37:05 – 00:07:59:17
Commissioner Kolff
Some of us attempted to limit the time Commissioner Redi was able to speak at board meetings. We were concerned that the more he revealed publicly what the rest of us thought was appropriately still confidential information, the more it would jeopardize the acceptance of the Alliance proposal by Olympic Medical Center. Our proposal is no longer being considered, and revealing its content prematurely may have contributed to this lost opportunity.

00:07:59:20 – 00:08:17:24
Commissioner Kolff
Jefferson Health Care is a public hospital district. Residents in Jefferson County have the ultimate control over what we do when they vote for the five commissioners on the board. We have the hospital and many service clinics, and we are one of the very few healthcare entities in the state that did not lose money during the years of the Covid pandemic.

00:08:17:26 – 00:08:36:06
Commissioner Kolff
Our success is mostly due to Mike Lynn’s leadership, focused on growth and expansion of services that our community needs. All of this at virtually no cost to the public. Since annual property taxes pay for less than one day of the services we provide, we will definitely need to find more funding in the near future and explore more partnership opportunities.

00:08:36:08 – 00:08:44:10
Commissioner Kolff
We will definitely keep the public appropriately informed as best we can.

00:08:44:12 – 00:09:16:22
Commissioner Kolff
So that’s the, letter that is now open for consideration by the board. And, I said that we would go around clockwise or alphabetically and counter alphabetically. So this time we’ll root, we’ll go around counter alphabetically and, so we’ll start with, Commissioner. Ready?

00:09:16:24 – 00:09:29:25
Commissioner Kolff
Oh, excuse me. And Murray, he has one minute to, to make any comments, share thoughts or make a proposed amendment to the letter.

00:09:29:28 – 00:09:31:21
Commissioner Dressler
And you tell me when to start.

00:09:31:24 – 00:09:35:28
Commissioner Kolff
Yeah, go ahead and start, Murray. Thanks.

00:09:36:00 – 00:09:39:05
Commissioner Ready
Okay. You guys can hear me?

00:09:39:08 – 00:09:42:28
Commissioner Dressler
Yes.

00:09:43:00 – 00:10:02:04
Commissioner Ready
Well, I’m just going to focus on the letter. When the letter says we believe that we were in compliance with the optima when we held one executive session in February to learn about the real estate component of the alliance proposal. I did not when when we started talking about that proposal, I did not believe we were in compliance.

00:10:02:04 – 00:10:03:09
Commissioner Ready
And I emailed.

00:10:03:09 – 00:10:04:20
Commissioner Dressler
30s.

00:10:04:23 – 00:10:32:10
Commissioner Ready
On February 19th, detailed, details about not being, satisfied. And and also, that’s what the county the sheriff’s report said that there were OPM violations, including that executive session and that it looked like an unauthorized board action. I miss, and when and I did not believe Mike Glen had the authority to do this on its on his own.

00:10:32:12 – 00:10:36:06
Commissioner Ready
And I think the letter should say Mike Glen submitted the proposal.

00:10:36:09 – 00:11:03:14
Commissioner Kolff
And you leave. I’m afraid your time is. I’m afraid your time’s up. Matt. Thank you. Next is Bruce McComas. And. Bruce, are you ready? Okay. He’s unmuted. Are you ready? I am, I’m going to talk fast. First of all, I think that I think I think the letters. Okay, there’s some grammatical and some, punctuation things that need to be changed.

00:11:03:14 – 00:11:31:23
Commissioner Kolff
One line amendment addition I’d like to add would be, it’s after you go through the, the numbered four things, but it would be, the add in or that Mike Allen mentioned this in the public and the, public strategic planning sessions. They share what I was talking about. He knew that closer relationships with other health care entities would likely be necessary.

00:11:31:24 – 00:12:00:17
Commissioner Kolff
I mean, he talked about it not in detail, but he mentioned that we’d be looking at potential alliances or partnerships. So that is an amendment that you propose to the letter. Is that correct? That’s correct. Okay. So, could you read since that is a, a proposed amendment, would you mind reading the wording to that one more time?

00:12:00:19 – 00:12:33:21
Commissioner Kolff
Yeah. And where I would put it would be in the one where you talked about Rexburg DAV Dr. Carper says we knew that calls for, you know, at the end of that sentence before goes on with with the now obvious challenges. It would be Mike Glenn mentioned this in the public strategic planning sessions this year. So before we ever got into the other, he mentioned that we would be looking at potential, partnerships, partnerships or alliances.

00:12:33:24 – 00:13:05:01
Commissioner Kolff
Great. So let’s do a, let’s do a quick round on that. On that proposed amendment. And, why don’t we continue the round where we left off and then, and then we’ll we’ll take it from there. So, I’ll go next. We’re going, counter alphabetically. And, I support that amendment.

00:13:05:03 – 00:13:06:00
Commissioner Dressler
Is that it?

00:13:06:02 – 00:13:13:12
Commissioner Kolff
And next would be, my. And this. Yeah. We don’t have more than a minute to speak.

00:13:13:15 – 00:13:17:16
Commissioner Dressler
So I ask you. Okay, so is that is that your one minute to speak?

00:13:17:19 – 00:13:33:14
Commissioner Kolff
Yes. That’s my that’s a minute to speak on the amendment. Okay. Okay. Hang on a minute. Everybody has one minute to speak on the amendment. I made mine quickly. And, Murray, your next.

00:13:33:17 – 00:13:35:06
Commissioner Dressler
I agree.

00:13:35:08 – 00:13:44:10
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. And, next would be, Jill.

00:13:44:12 – 00:13:48:01
Commissioner Kolff
Jill. You’re muted.

00:13:48:03 – 00:13:49:14
Commissioner Buhler
I agree.

00:13:49:16 – 00:13:56:22
Commissioner Kolff
Thank you. And, then would be Matt ready.

00:13:56:24 – 00:14:24:00
Commissioner Ready
No, I don’t think that’s a good amendment. It’s not talking about this proposal. The Peninsula Health Alliance. It’s a specific proposal that was submitted and that was never told to the public legally until today. I think a better amendment would be something like that. Mike Glenn said. There’s nothing really to talk about. When I said there was a significant proposal that’s been submitted or that Marie Dressler said it’s airy fairy and of no consequence.

00:14:24:02 – 00:14:40:13
Commissioner Ready
And, Jill Buehler said there isn’t anything concrete to say. And Bruce McComb has said, we just talked about some possibilities. When the truth was a proposal was sent to OMC and accepted into their second round. That’s a better amendment.

00:14:40:15 – 00:14:57:24
Commissioner Kolff
All right. So this is the particular amendment that’s on the floor. Since we’ve all had around a chance to speak about it, let’s vote on this particular amendment. All in favor, please signify by saying I, any opposed?

00:14:57:27 – 00:14:58:28
Commissioner Ready
Opposed.

00:14:59:01 – 00:15:11:19
Commissioner Kolff
Okay, so, I should ask Shannon. Are you able to capture the wording on that and the location of that? Shannon.

00:15:11:21 – 00:15:14:15
Commissioner Buhler
I’m doing my best in the minutes. Can you? Yes.

00:15:14:18 – 00:15:40:15
Commissioner Kolff
Thank you very much. All right. Good. And, Bruce, if you could remember that as well when we get to that. Okay, so we are on a, we’re on the, the regular round, considering the letter. And Matt Ready went first. Bruce McComas went second to propose the amendment. I will pass on my turn.

00:15:40:17 – 00:15:48:26
Commissioner Kolff
And, Marie Dressler, it’s now your turn to, for a minute concerning the letter.

00:15:48:28 – 00:15:56:06
Commissioner Dressler
I think it says what it needs to say, and I think it’s accurate. And so I’m. I’m happy with how it is.

00:15:56:09 – 00:16:03:11
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. And then finally, Jill, do you have any comments or changes you would like to recommend?

00:16:03:13 – 00:16:42:29
Commissioner Buhler
Yes, I, I recommend add a fifth. Sentence under we were satisfied that on the second page, to, to highlight the importance of what this could have been. And I would say this alliance could result in two independent medical centers providing a strong, viable health care system that allowed patients on the entire North Olympic Peninsula to receive excellent primary and specialty care without leaving our area.

00:16:43:01 – 00:17:00:02
Commissioner Kolff
Okay, that’s an amendment that’s on the floor now. And so, we went counter. So let’s go according to the alphabet again. So, Marie, your next, what do you think about, Jill’s amendment?

00:17:00:04 – 00:17:02:03
Commissioner Dressler
I support Jill’s amendment.

00:17:02:05 – 00:17:26:14
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. I do as well. Bruce, how about you? I do as well. Okay. And Matt, how about you? We’re talking about the amendment now, please. And if you could stick to the question, that would be wonderful. You have another chance. You will have other chances to make amendments.

00:17:26:16 – 00:17:29:19
Commissioner Kolff
But there’s one other thing that’s on the table.

00:17:29:21 – 00:17:31:28
Commissioner Ready
Yeah. So I have a minute. Right.

00:17:32:01 – 00:17:33:00
Commissioner Kolff
That’s right.

00:17:33:03 – 00:17:35:17
Commissioner Dressler
57 seconds. Now.

00:17:35:20 – 00:18:04:20
Commissioner Ready
Yeah. So, Yeah, of course, an alliance could possibly be good if we, like, worked out the details and didn’t give them A75 majority. Which I’ll come back to later. I mean, yeah, an alliance could be a good thing. I mean, there’s no guarantee this one was because we didn’t have a a process in which we could actually refine it and work it out to make it a balanced, Healthy Alliance proposal because we didn’t never have a public discussion where we could actually ask questions and talk about it.

00:18:04:23 – 00:18:42:29
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Thank you. I think that’s everybody with regards to this particular amendment. So we’ll vote on, amending, putting number five in there as Jill has read it. All in favor say I, I, I think any opposed opposed. Okay. So I think we have now gone through the first round. So now we’ll start a second round again considering the letter.

00:18:43:01 – 00:19:12:21
Commissioner Kolff
And again, people are urged to see if they would like to either add something or subtract something or, change the grammar or punctuation for, which can always be done later. But let’s look for substantive changes. And this time we’re going to go start with you, Jill. Do you have another, amendment or thought you would like to add to this?

00:19:12:23 – 00:19:25:12
Commissioner Buhler
I have some definite thoughts, but they don’t agree with this letter. I mean, they’re not they’re not inherent in this letter. So I, at this point.

00:19:25:15 – 00:19:51:09
Commissioner Kolff
What you’re certainly welcome to make any thoughts about this proposal, you know, was so this is let me just clarify, Mary, for a second, in terms of the timekeeper, you’re allowed to make any statements that have bearing on what other people said, even though, and the rest of us could use that if we want to use it to strengthen or do something different with the letter.

00:19:51:11 – 00:19:58:16
Commissioner Kolff
So something that may or may not be in the letter, you’re certainly welcome to, to comment on.

00:19:58:18 – 00:20:02:11
Commissioner Buhler
Okay. Then I will go ahead Mary.

00:20:02:13 – 00:20:05:15
Commissioner Dressler
So so Jill is speaking currently.

00:20:05:18 – 00:20:09:08
Commissioner Kolff
Yes. And she’s got one minute starting now.

00:20:09:10 – 00:20:33:24
Commissioner Buhler
I, I refute commissioner is a suggestion that there was criminal intent in that, that the, they actually found that we had a, disobeyed, that the sheriff’s office had just found that we had disobeyed the, Open Public Meetings Act. That is just not true.

00:20:33:27 – 00:20:40:07
Commissioner Kolff
Are you. Wanting to make an amendment to add that to the letter somewhere?

00:20:40:09 – 00:20:43:28
Commissioner Buhler
Well, we we don’t address said in the letter, so.

00:20:44:01 – 00:20:50:29
Commissioner Kolff
We can we can we can we can add things to this letter if you’d like. So,

00:20:51:01 – 00:20:59:23
Commissioner Buhler
Okay, I will say I will come up. Okay. I could come up with a pair, with a sentence.

00:21:00:00 – 00:21:12:13
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. On the, on the next, on the next round. Okay. Good. So this round next goes to, Tamara.

00:21:12:16 – 00:21:40:04
Commissioner Dressler
I do have, there’s nothing in there that, I know I better start it. There’s nothing. There’s nothing in, in here regarding the effect this has had on the, procedure for OMC, and I think it’s harmed our relationship with OMC. With with that board of commissioners, maybe the residents as well as, as our CEO and their other leadership staff.

00:21:40:06 – 00:22:05:02
Commissioner Dressler
What has happened by one of our, commissioners disclosing information that was supposed to be confidential. So I don’t have any format or any dialog to give you. Right now, because especially doing this, but I, I think it would be nice to have something in there that, that it’s regrettable that, this, this, this incident has caused, a rift, if you like, because we always got on well with OMC.

00:22:05:02 – 00:22:20:10
Commissioner Dressler
They’ve helped us out with our Enfield and other things over the time when we’ve needed help. They’ve helped us and it’s ruined the I think our relationship or it’s certainly, put a great, stress on that relationship.

00:22:20:12 – 00:22:32:05
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Perhaps on the next round, you can come up with a brief sentence to that effect while you’re timekeeping. I appreciate your willingness to do that.

00:22:32:07 – 00:22:37:16
Commissioner Dressler
So I, I can’t drop my my, timer from my kitchen.

00:22:37:19 – 00:23:21:24
Commissioner Kolff
A good idea. All right. So I’ll go next. And my amendment would be along the lines of what, Murray has suggested, which is that, we regret that the, early disclosure of the content of our, alliance proposal to OMC, may have, caused significant,

00:23:21:27 – 00:23:23:27
Commissioner Dressler
Banks distress.

00:23:24:00 – 00:23:46:28
Commissioner Kolff
Distress, for amp OMC and for their, citizens, and their residents and, hope that we can mend some of that in the near future.

00:23:47:01 – 00:24:11:20
Commissioner Kolff
So, let’s do a quick round on that amendment. And if the wording isn’t quite right, when we do the round, you can, suggest a minor modification, and then we could vote on that. So for this round, let’s see we’re heading in this. So Bruce you’re the next one on this round. So this is this is an amendment.

00:24:11:20 – 00:24:38:19
Commissioner Kolff
This is a proposed amendment to the letter that we’re sending to the community. Okay. But yeah, but but what you are talking about. Right. So what I just said that we regret. So this is a letter from the board. Okay. I’ll pass. We’ll pass. Okay. Yes. Matt. Ready?

00:24:38:21 – 00:25:02:10
Commissioner Ready
I mean, I hope you guys will, like, reflect on how you could have handled this differently. So to avoid this, you’re trying to say that I somehow did something wrong. But if this had been handled correctly, then me just speaking the truth about this proposal would not have been. Shouldn’t cause any disruption to, a legal, valid process.

00:25:02:12 – 00:25:19:15
Commissioner Ready
Yeah. So I mean, this I’m sure this is bad for OMC and it’s bad. It was handled so poorly. There’s a right way to do this, and that’s you guys need to figure out what that is. And moving forward we need to do things correctly and legally. And, the sheriff’s report says it seems likely that the actions violated the Washington state OPM.

00:25:19:20 – 00:25:25:01
Commissioner Ready
The actions likely violate the OPM. That’s what the sheriff’s report said.

00:25:25:04 – 00:25:37:08
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Thank you for your comments. Jill, back to you on this latest, amendment to the, letter.

00:25:37:10 – 00:25:37:27
Commissioner Buhler
I.

00:25:38:00 – 00:25:39:03
Commissioner Kolff
Regret.

00:25:39:06 – 00:25:42:12
Commissioner Buhler
I support that, I support your amendment.

00:25:42:15 – 00:25:45:07
Commissioner Kolff
And, Murray, do you support I.

00:25:45:07 – 00:25:56:23
Commissioner Dressler
Said I support it because it’s pretty much what I said. So I think it’s great, but I’m not going to I’m not going to add any more. Dialog to that.

00:25:56:25 – 00:25:57:17
Commissioner Kolff
Say that again.

00:25:57:18 – 00:26:05:10
Commissioner Dressler
You’re I’m not going to add any more dialog to what? Or what do you said or just maybe polish a little bit, but no, that’s perfect.

00:26:05:12 – 00:26:15:24
Commissioner Kolff
All right. So let’s take a vote on this amendment. All in favor, please signify by saying I, I any opposed?

00:26:15:27 – 00:26:17:05
Commissioner Ready
Nay.

00:26:17:07 – 00:26:51:12
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. So let’s see, I’m trying to figure out where we were. Here it was Murray and then case. So, we’re finishing a round. I believe that still has Bruce. To speak on this round regarding the letter. Okay, so because, part of the claims, you know, are there unsubstantiated claims that that made that a reference to the start?

00:26:51:15 – 00:27:18:13
Commissioner Kolff
I have an addition I’d like to make to the letter. Okay. I don’t I don’t know exactly where I would go, might go after the first paragraph. I don’t know where it talks about his. And I would say any violations of the board’s code of conduct? OPM has rules regarding executive session, confidential ality, and possibly to RC W’s.

00:27:18:16 – 00:27:46:01
Commissioner Kolff
Were committed by Commissioner Reti himself. Okay. Thank you. Let’s do it. Let’s do around. Whether, we, accept that amendment or want to change it. And we’re going in order here. So, Matt, you’re the first one who gets to reply to that.

00:27:50:18 – 00:28:14:03
Commissioner Ready
Yeah. I mean, our fiduciary duty to tell the public if an illegal proposal has been submitted on behalf of Jefferson County without a legal board vote, overrides any executive session or any non-disclosure agreement any of you signed. And, I mean, a non-disclosure agreement doesn’t prevent you from telling the truth to the public and doing your fiduciary duty and telling people answer answering questions.

00:28:14:05 – 00:28:33:04
Commissioner Ready
This NDA, in the secrecy of the executive and the executive session doesn’t hold. Once you email a proposal to another, place that breaks the executive session once you’ve sent the proposal out. So it wasn’t even covered by executive session. Anyways, that’s all.

00:28:33:07 – 00:28:37:03
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Thank you. Jill.

00:28:37:06 – 00:28:40:11
Commissioner Buhler
I support that. I support Bruce’s.

00:28:40:11 – 00:28:41:20
Commissioner Kolff
Amendment.

00:28:41:22 – 00:28:44:10
Commissioner Buhler
Amendment?

00:28:44:12 – 00:28:45:29
Commissioner Kolff
Mari. You’re next.

00:28:46:01 – 00:28:49:01
Commissioner Dressler
I do support that amendment, okay?

00:28:49:04 – 00:29:21:17
Commissioner Kolff
And I do as well. So let’s have a vote on Bruce’s amendment, and we’ll figure out where it goes at a later date. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying I, I, I any opposed? Nay. Thank you. And so then I think at this point, we’re ready to do one more round, if I’m not mistaken, I’m hearing something funny.

00:29:21:21 – 00:29:45:12
Commissioner Kolff
Can you all still hear me? I was hearing an echo. All right, so I think at this point, we’re ready to do one more last round. And again, it will include some other little rounds. If there are amendments. And this time we’ll go, we’ll start with Matt ready. And we’ll go up the alphabetic order. Matt.

00:29:45:14 – 00:30:02:11
Commissioner Ready
Well, something I just wanted to clarify is I’d be willing to go under oath for anything I’ve said today or anything I’ve ever said. And I really wonder if the rest of you would do the same thing when this letter says, at no time did Mike Glenn seek consent on either the content or request permission to submit the proposal.

00:30:02:11 – 00:30:21:28
Commissioner Ready
During the executive session. That is completely untrue. I asked Mike during the executive session, are you looking for some sort of approval today? You all heard him say, yes, there was a bunch of strategic leadership there. If you guys ever had to testify under oath to this, I really wonder if you would take your oath seriously and tell the truth about what happened.

00:30:22:00 – 00:30:30:02
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Thank you. Then we go to Bruce.

00:30:30:04 – 00:31:10:10
Commissioner Kolff
All right, I don’t right? I don’t have anything else to add to the letter. Okay. Oh. I’ll pass. Okay. Thank you. Then it goes to me and, again, it’s, I’m just, thinking if there’s something that should be in the letter that basically says, that the prosecuting attorney for Jefferson County basically threw out or closed this case after the sheriff had sent his, opinion to the prosecuting attorney.

00:31:10:13 – 00:31:36:00
Commissioner Kolff
So, you know, Matt’s claim that the, that the sheriff’s office, what do they know about OPMA and public hospital districts? said that we were in violation sent that on to the prosecuting attorney who basically said, I’m not going to deal with this. This is not our bailiwick. This is not our area. And he closed the case.

00:31:36:00 – 00:31:48:28
Commissioner Kolff
So I think that sort of closes off that whole argument. But I don’t think I have anything else to add to the letter. So from there we go to Murray.

00:31:49:00 – 00:32:04:18
Commissioner Dressler
So can I ask you from that statement you just made case, is that you you want that to be you think that that is that is relevant and and should it be in the letter? I don’t just it could well be in the letter because.

00:32:04:20 – 00:32:06:06
Commissioner Kolff
It would be.

00:32:06:09 – 00:32:27:28
Commissioner Dressler
Because, Commissioner Rudy still maintains the sheriff’s office said that we possibly did, it violates the Open Public Meetings Act. And so therefore, it would be as well, if he’s still going to maintain that, to be able to refute it, because I don’t believe we did.

00:32:28:00 – 00:32:45:03
Commissioner Kolff
Right. Well, if you would like to I didn’t make that as a motion to add to the letter. But, if you would like to make that or if Jill, she’s the last person up, would like to propose that as an amendment, we could do that.

00:32:45:06 – 00:32:50:06
Commissioner Dressler
Well, I’m running out of time now, so I’ve got two seconds to go. So I’ll leave it to my colleague.

00:32:50:09 – 00:32:52:21
Commissioner Kolff
Okay.

00:32:52:24 – 00:33:07:09
Commissioner Buhler
Okay. I have two amendments. One, Commissioner Ryder’s allegation of any criminal action of this forward, the and or the hospital district is absolutely false.

00:33:07:12 – 00:33:11:12
Commissioner Kolff
Okay, that’s one amendment. And what would be your second one or.

00:33:11:14 – 00:33:48:17
Commissioner Buhler
A passing vote of the, would be, of the Alliance would be a majority vote of each board that addresses the, in in equality of the number of board members it would require. And we had already thought of that, that there is a way to do that. And I think we mentioned that in one of the meetings that it would require a major, a majority vote of each board for anything that the alliance passed.

00:33:49:18 – 00:33:57:04
Commissioner Dressler
I think the term was a super, a super supermajority. Yeah.

00:33:57:07 – 00:34:11:06
Commissioner Kolff
Well, I think that’s different. I think that’s a different. Those are two separate amendments. So technically, I think we can only take one of those. Would you prefer to do the first one?

00:34:11:08 – 00:34:12:10
Commissioner Buhler
Yes.

00:34:12:12 – 00:34:25:12
Commissioner Kolff
The second one is referred to in the letter. So, all right, so let’s go for this. So could you read the first the, amendment that you first made?

00:34:25:15 – 00:34:43:14
Commissioner Buhler
Commissioner readies allegation of any criminal action against this board, by this board or the hospital district. I completely faults.

00:34:43:16 – 00:34:45:14
Commissioner Kolff
Okay, so that’s the.

00:34:45:17 – 00:34:53:06
Commissioner Buhler
Action of any criminal action by by this board. Our hospital district is absolutely supports.

00:34:53:08 – 00:34:58:05
Commissioner Kolff
Okay, Mary, what what are your thoughts about that amendment?

00:34:58:07 – 00:35:00:03
Commissioner Dressler
I support that amendment.

00:35:00:06 – 00:35:55:12
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. I go next, and, I would like to add to that amendment that, something to the effect, and the, local prosecuting attorney, has, I’m not sure I want to say has confirmed that, Well, let’s leave that out. I think that gets to. So I will, I’ll support the amendment the way it is because I wouldn’t want to, over quote the action that the, prosecuting prosecuting attorney, made or said, when he basically closed the case or did not take it up.

00:35:55:15 – 00:36:01:24
Commissioner Kolff
So then we go to Bruce.

00:36:01:26 – 00:36:25:08
Commissioner McComas
Yeah, I mean, I, I agree with what Joe was saying. I mean, everything else is unsubstantiated. The only person who actually has come out and said that there was a violation is Matt himself, and he’s not an attorney. Okay. But you do have a another half minute. If there’s anything more you want to say.

00:36:25:10 – 00:36:37:17
Commissioner Kolff
No, I don’t I don’t want no, no, I’m good. All right. Good. And and and Matt, you’re the last one, on this particular amendment.

00:36:37:19 – 00:36:57:24
Commissioner Ready
Yeah. I mean, I did not like I sent in a criminal complaint, but that was for them to investigate whether or not there were crimes. So what they said was, it seems likely that the actions described may violate the Washington State Open Public Meeting Act with potential civil penalties. But criminal charges are less certain and would need further investigation, they said.

00:36:58:00 – 00:37:24:00
Commissioner Ready
Their research suggests possible official misconduct. A gross misdemeanor is a possibly inappropriate charge, but it would take, you’d have to prove criminal intent. I mean, so, yeah, it may not be criminal, but they recognize the wrongdoing and recognize the deception and the coordinated conspiracy to deceive. They say the evidence leads towards unauthorized board actions and suppression of transparency, raising concerns about public trust and governance.

00:37:24:00 – 00:37:29:27
Commissioner Ready
That’s what our sheriff determined after looking into all the documentation.

00:37:30:00 – 00:37:43:15
Commissioner Kolff
Okay. Thank you. So, there’s a motion on the floor. Let’s, take it to the vote. All in favor of, the motion signify by saying I.

00:37:43:18 – 00:37:44:15
Commissioner Buhler
I.

00:37:44:18 – 00:37:55:09
Commissioner Kolff
I all opposed, nay. Okay. So,

00:37:55:11 – 00:38:22:09
Commissioner Kolff
So now we should take a vote on the full letter. And, I think we’ve had enough rounds. So why don’t we just vote on the letter? All in favor of, making this the official letter to the community from, the board of Jefferson Healthcare? Please signify by saying I.

00:38:22:12 – 00:38:39:08
Commissioner Dressler
Could I ask, could I? Yes. Can I ask a question first base. So because you have to wordsmith a couple of things with the the, commission disclosure, has interrupted our relationship with OMC. Are we going to get a second look at it with any grammar and all that stuff done before?

00:38:39:08 – 00:38:49:23
Commissioner Kolff
It’s sure. Then let’s let’s vote on accepting this letter as it is, with appropriate grammatical, punctuation and other minor wording changes that.

00:38:49:25 – 00:38:51:21
Commissioner Dressler
Continue to change the.

00:38:51:25 – 00:39:10:24
Commissioner Kolff
Continue to convey the intent and the content. Thank you. Yeah, that’s my proposal for us to vote on. All in favor, say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Nay. Okay, okay. Well, Madam Chairperson, I think I have finished. I think I.

January 13th, 2025
Dear Members of Port Townsend City Council and Planning & Community Development
Department,
I write to you regarding the historical significance of the land that is currently the Port Townsend
Golf Course and Camas Prairie Park. I have closely followed the rezoning proposal and, in the
following letter, I share pertinent research related to this parcel of land. For context, I am a
professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, where I hold the position of
Audain Chair in Historical Indigenous Art. An anthropologist and archaeologist by training, I
earned my Ph.D. in Anthropology from Brown University. I possess personal and professional
ties to Port Townsend, having lived, worked, and conducted academic research here. My
dissertation examined S’Klallam history and cultural revival in Jefferson and Clallam counties,
and I have lectured and published extensively on Port Townsend’s Native past. For almost a
decade, my work has emphasized S’Klallam and Chemakum history, and I have acted as an
educational consultant for numerous local organizations, tribes, and businesses—Finnriver Farm
& Cidery, Hama Hama Oyster Company, New Old Time Chautauqua, the Chemakum Tribe, and
Quimper Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, to name a few. Furthermore, I am editor of the
journal, Archaeology in Washington, and I have compiled a database and map of nearly 400 local
sites significant to S’Klallam and Chemakum interlocutors.
Approaching the golf course from its paved entrance along Blaine Street, you are met by a large
Douglas fir tree to your immediate right, anchored by a light gray boulder. Seemingly
unremarkable, this tree possesses a troubling past and offers a stark reminder of Port Townsend’s
role in anti-Indigenous violence. It was here where a Chemakum man named Kia-a-han was
lynched by a vigilante mob in the 19th century. Hanged from the fir tree’s branches, Kia-a-han
was accused of killing a roaming steer who belonged to Percival Chamberlin, a non-Native
farmer in Chimacum. Chamberlin had previously received warnings about his wild herd who
terrorized the local community. Hoping to locate his wayward bovine and avoid further scrutiny,
he announced that “Indians” could hunt the steers, provided that they report the kill to the farmer,
who would then share the beef with the hunter. As luck would have it, Kia-a-han spotted one of
the cows grazing near Anderson Lake, and promptly fired his shot. Anticipating a share of his
prize, he contacted Chamberlin, but was inexplicably met with anger. Frightened by the
homesteader’s response, he fled to Station Prairie, where the Jefferson County airport is now
located. Chamberlin’s wife, a S’Klallam woman familiar with her husband’s temper, had secretly
recommended this hiding spot. In the meantime, Chamberlin organized a posse of Port
Townsend citizens to search for Kia-a-han and enact vigilante justice. After many futile attempts,
the group approached Kia-a-han’s wife, O’wo-o-ta, threatening to kill their entire family unless
she revealed her husband’s whereabouts. Kia-a-han and O’wo-o-ta acquiesced, the mob then
handcuffing Kia-a-han and mounting him to a horse. They rode him to Port Townsend, where he
was quickly hanged from a limb of the tree that greets you at the golf course.
Indigenous oral histories recalled the murder of Kia-a-han, lynched for merely hunting a
runaway cow. The Native man’s death was documented by Mary Ann Lambert (1879-1966) in
her 1961 publication, Dungeness Massacre & Other Regional Tales, on pages 22-24. Lambert
was a respected Jamestown S’Klallam historian of S’Klallam and Chemakum descent whose
family held ancestral ties to the Discovery Bay area, and whose published works reflected her
deep-rooted knowledge of the northeastern Olympic Peninsula. She was partially raised by the
famous Discovery Bay couple, Tammoe and James Woodman, who encouraged Lambert to
record her childhood recollections for posterity. (Tammoe was a woman of S’Klallam,
Chemakum, and Makah lineage born at Discovery Bay, whereas James was an Englishman who
kept detailed diaries and stocked the family’s enviable library.) Likely prompted by Lambert’s
monograph and the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, it was in the late 1960s-early 70s
when Dorothy Hunt (“Mrs. Gerald A. Hunt,” then the Corresponding Secretary for the Jefferson
County Historical Society) filed a nomination with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s
National Park Service to include the tree on the National Register of Historic Places. When using
my online account to access WISAARD (Washington Information System for Architectural &
Archaeological Records Data), it appears that the tree’s nomination was unsuccessful. This is
why the tree is not officially protected, as well as why the site lacks a plaque or signage
highlighting its importance. Yet, photos and maps provided by Lambert and Hunt, juxtaposed
with a 2025 photo, confirm that the tree in question is indeed the same tree that stands at the golf
course today.
The area adjacent to the 56 acre golf course possesses further Indigenous significance. For
instance, the golf course’s miniscule 1.4 acre prairie, which blooms with purple camas and
checkered fritillaria in early May, is a mere remnant of a vast prairie and marshland that once
encompassed the entirety of Sims Way to North Beach. The region’s Indigenous name (Qatáy,
anglicized as Kah Tai), loosely translated as “Portage,” hints at how this unique ecosystem was
utilized by Native individuals. One needed to portage or wade their canoe from a landing at
North Beach to Port Townsend Bay (along what is now San Juan Avenue) through a series of
prairie ponds and bogs because Point Wilson’s notorious currents capsized even the sturdiest
vessels.
Additionally, prairie grasslands were culinary and cultural mainstays for tribes such as the
S’Klallam and Chemakum, who dug starchy camas bulbs for roasting and eating, gathered
acorns from Garry oak trees (the only oak tree native to Washington), hunted deer and elk who
grazed on grasses, and used pole nets to snare waterfowl. Indigenous women inherited and
owned rights to prairie parcels which they tended by planting seeds and saplings, weeding out
unwanted plants, and propagating vegetal varieties through a combination of Indigenous
horticultural knowledge and complex trade routes that provided access to new or desirable
plants. Because prairie flora are incredibly receptive to fire, Native women expertly conducted
controlled burns on an annual basis to stimulate new growth, eliminate underbrush and vermin,
and prevent a much stronger, hotter wildfire from decimating an unmaintained prairie.
Upon settler arrival in the 1850s, the Qatáy prairie was farmed by non-Natives using irreparably
destructive methods. Viewing the prairie as an impediment to progress, settlers allowed their
cattle and pigs to graze the prairie to a naked crust, thus accomplishing their goals of clearing the
land and feeding their livestock free of charge. It is highly ironic that Kia-a-han died at the Qatáy
prairie because of a cow, the very animals later tasked with extinguishing the prairie.
Settler attitudes toward the local landscape mirrored the treatment of Native individuals in Port
Townsend, as illustrated by an 1871 city ordinance that legally banned Indigenous people from
entering city limits without a white chaperone, lest they incur a fine equivalent to $2,000 in
modern currency. It was also in 1871 when the populous village of Qatáy, located along Water
Street, was burned down by government officials in an attempt to evict S’Klallam and
Chemakum families from the city. Qatay residents were then towed in their canoes via steamship
to the Skokomish Reservation, where they were ordered to live. Shortly after, Kah Tai Lagoon
was referred to as a troublesome “swamp” in documents from the 1890s, with the waterway soon
transformed into the city’s dumping ground. By eliminating the prairie and filling its marshes
with debris, settlers blocked the portage route and thus prevented the region’s former Native
residents from accessing the area as they had done for thousands of years.
This pattern of “developing” (or, destroying) the lagoon persisted: in the 1930s-40s, infill was
added to roughly half of the lagoon to construct Sims Way, and a large remaining portion was
filled with sand in the 1960s. The lagoon that you see today is a fraction of what it once was. Just
as the protected prairie at the golf course reminds us of a previously massive swath of grassland.
Just as the inconspicuous fir tree signals a gruesome murder.
Although I have presented you with disturbing accounts of the golf course and its surrounding
landscape, even more disturbing is its potential neglect or destruction. Of the prairies that were
previously commonplace throughout Washington, only 3% remain intact today. This shockingly
low percentage is the result of real estate development, infrastructure, agriculture, and invasive
plants, all of which pose serious threats to prairie ecosystems. Yet, the golf course prairie also
represents a site of cultural trauma—a murder—that risks being buried beneath Port Townsend. I
urge us to resist the amnesiac tendencies that often quietly seep into our quaint Victorian seaport
town, and to instead acknowledge and preserve (rather than ignore or obliterate) this important
landmark. As a city whose council and residents are rightfully concerned about social justice,
diversity, and equity, it is prudent to begin our “decolonial” (to use that increasingly ubiquitous
yet oblique phrase) work at home, where history exists in our own backyard—or, on our own
golf course. Protecting the hanging tree and nearby scrap of prairie, as well as promoting public
awareness of the significance of these somber places, is one small albeit tangible step that we can
take to right historical wrongs.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these comments, and please contact me if you require
further information.
Best,
Dr. Alexandra M. Peck

Editorial:
For Hospital CEOs, Commissioners, and Legal Counsel Across Washington State

“The evidence leans toward unauthorized board actions and suppression of transparency, raising concerns about public trust and governance.”
—Jefferson County Sheriff’s Report, Case No. 2025-3822

---

Trust is not a garnish on the plate of public service. It is the meal. Without trust, every law, every vote, every dollar, and every decision is suspect. It is not policy or PowerPoint presentations that hold public institutions together—it is belief. Belief that leaders are honest. That laws are followed. That process matters.

The Peninsula Health Alliance scandal unfolding in Jefferson County is not just a legal matter. It is a profound rupture in the public trust—a collapse in governance rooted in secrecy, exclusion, and a systematic failure to honor the people’s right to know.

When Secrecy Replaces Process

The facts are no longer in dispute: A major proposal to restructure governance over two public hospital districts—Jefferson Healthcare and Olympic Medical Center—was submitted by Jefferson’s CEO, Mike Glenn, without a public vote. It was advanced under a cloud of executive session secrecy, justified by a real estate pretext that both the Jefferson County Sheriff and Prosecutor said likely violated Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act.

The board of elected commissioners—the very people tasked with protecting the public’s voice—did not publicly authorize this proposal. They were instead looped into private exchanges, one by one, eroding the legal wall between a public vote and a private endorsement. Some participated. One, Commissioner Matt Ready, objected. He was silenced. Muted. His microphone turned off.

This is not a disagreement about strategy. This is a breakdown of trust.

The First Casualty: Legitimacy

No one disputes that healthcare is complex, or that collaboration may be necessary in an era of shrinking margins and rising costs. But if you pursue those goals through concealed deals, off-the-record approvals, and legal gymnastics designed to keep the public in the dark, you don’t gain efficiency—you lose legitimacy.

And once legitimacy is lost, the public will not trust you with their money, their votes, or their hospitals. They won’t trust you with their soldiers, either, should times ever come to that. Public trust is not a perk of good behavior. It is the precondition for governance itself.

A Word to Hospital CEOs

To every CEO of a public hospital district in Washington: you are not a corporate executive. You are a steward of a public institution, funded by tax dollars, governed by law, and answerable to the people.

You are not entitled to shape policy in back rooms, to shop proposals without board approval, or to advise commissioners not to share information with the public. That isn’t strategic leadership—it’s managerial authoritarianism cloaked in bureaucratic procedure.

If you do not act in ways that nurture transparency, inclusion, and consent, you will breed mistrust. And from mistrust flows opposition, resistance, litigation, and collapse.

A Word to Commissioners

To the board members who sat silently while this unfolded: trust is your charge. Not just fiduciary duty or public relations, but trust. That means asking hard questions in public. That means refusing to “go along” with secret processes. That means voting publicly or not at all.

When you stand silently in the face of improper process, you do not protect the institution—you tarnish it. If the public does not trust your process, they will not trust your decisions. And without that trust, your authority is a house with no foundation.

A Word to Legal Counsel

And to legal advisors—especially those who advise public institutions: your client is not the CEO or the board chair. Your client is the public hospital district. You are not paid to justify secrecy, to help “find a way” around open meetings, or to retroactively sanitize what was done in shadow.

If you cannot stand as a bulwark for lawful governance, then you are not a counselor—you are an accomplice.

What Now?

Washington’s public hospital system stands at a precipice. If the Peninsula Health Alliance proposal is allowed to fade into memory without accountability, a precedent is set: that major restructuring of public institutions can be done quietly, without public consent, and justified after the fact.

But if this moment becomes a turning point—if it inspires structural reform, independent legal counsel for boards, clear boundaries for executive sessions, and a recommitment to the principles of open governance—then trust can begin to be restored.

The people do not demand perfection. But they do demand honesty. And when that is denied, no amount of legal cover or strategic jargon will protect your institution from the backlash of a community that no longer believes in the integrity of its own leaders.

Trust is not something you can rebuild in a memo. You must earn it—day after day, in public. Or you will lose it forever.

Yes. that is a threat.

---

Part 2: Yes. that is a threat

---

Trust is not something you can rebuild in a memo. You must earn it—day after day, in public. Or you will lose it forever.

Yes. That is a threat.

Not a threat of harm, but of consequence. The same kind of consequence that follows when a bridge is built on sand, or when a lie is buried under bureaucracy. Because trust is not a decoration—it’s the foundation. Without it, nothing stands. Not relationships. Not institutions. Not democracy.

Trust is like science: it must be tested. It begins with a hypothesis—“you can count on me”—and only earns the title of truth when actions repeat that promise again and again under public scrutiny. Break that cycle, and trust, like bad science, collapses under the weight of its own contradiction.

Trust is like art: it takes time, care, and courage. It can’t be manufactured by committee. It is felt, recognized, and believed because it resonates with what is real. But if it turns artificial—if it’s faked—people will feel that too. The audience always knows.

And trust is like philosophy: it is built on principles. It forces you to ask hard questions. What is right? What is fair? Who gets to decide? The answers aren’t always comfortable, but they matter. Because when you abandon the questions—or silence the ones asking—you create not order, but control.

At Jefferson Healthcare, a proposal was crafted behind closed doors that could transfer power away from elected representatives to a nonprofit board. The process was hidden. Commissioners were muted. The public was shut out. This wasn’t a one-time error—it was a violation of the principle that public institutions exist to serve people, not to avoid them.

Trust doesn’t survive darkness. It needs daylight. Like science needs evidence. Like art needs honesty. Like philosophy needs truth.

You can’t fake trust. You can’t shortcut it. You can’t write your way back into it with memos and apologies. You must live it. Own it. Defend it.

Because once it’s gone, no title, no position, no power will ever make people believe you again.

And that is the real threat.

Angela Gyurko:  Well thank you. Jill.

Commissioner Jill Buhler: You’re Welcome.

Public Commenter Angela:  Thank you. I’ve been chatting with my counterparts in Clallam about the OMC Jefferson health care discussions, and it’s interesting to hear their perspectives. Their concern centers around making sure that the fiscally unsound OMC is not bought by a Catholic hospital chain, and thus losing access to health care that is important to the community. My Clallam counterparts noted Jefferson Health Care’s good fiscal record, good relations with the community, and great reputation for patient care.

As I listen to them talk, I realized that this proposed linking might be great for Clallam. But really, from a public perspective, I’d like to know what’s in it for Jefferson. Mike Glenn has kept the hospital fiscally sound through some very difficult times. We are facing more difficult times. Coming up with his attention be divided, trying to get OMC up to speed both fiscally and with patient care.

I’ve my elderly mother in law, has been treated at OMC and it has not been up to the standard at Jefferson, and I can see it taking a lot of time and energy. Would Jefferson’s quality and finances suffer? Likewise, the proposed board would have five members from Jefferson and seven from Clallam. What would keep in the future Jefferson from being an afterthought?

I’m talking about five, ten, 15 years down the road. Given that Jefferson would be taking on the hard work of resolving omics issues, why shouldn’t Jefferson have the seven seats in Clallam have the five seats? I’m really concerned about this org chart. I know it’s probably based on community size, but in terms of who’s going to be doing the intellectual, heavy lifting and who’s going to be doing the work to get things going.

I would think a much more fair distribution, of seats would be in order before folks in this community would consider this, a reasonable option.’

Thanks.

Dear Commissioners,

I am very concerned about your deliberations regarding a potential alliance between Jefferson Healthcare and OMC.  My concerns are as follows:

1.  Everything I have heard about OMC indicates that they have been under significant financial stress for many years.  I question whether their community supports their hospital district the way our community supports Jefferson Healthcare.  I am concerned that an alliance with OMC would primarily benefit OMC and put Jefferson Healthcare at financial risk. 

2.  I can understand that the details of a negotiation of a business alliance may need to be confidential.  However as a public entity I believe the commissioners have a duty to your constituents to keep us informed of major decisions you are considering that could impact the services you deliver to us and your ability to continue delivering those services in the future.  Discussing in general about potential business alliances (without naming names) and how such a hypothetical alliance could benefit the community is needed.  You have a fiduciary duty to us, your constituents.  You work for us.  You don’t work for your CEO.  He works for you. 

3.  I am concerned that the NDA that OMC required you to sign is in conflict with your fiduciary duty to keep your constituents informed of major decisions your are considering.  If so, you should withdraw from such NDA agreement and such discussions.  Your fiduciary duty to your constituents must come first.

4.  It appears you have held executive sessions without declaring a legal basis for doing so and discussed matters not authorized in executive session during such meetings.  If true, this is a violation of our trust in you.

5.  From the newspaper articles 2 members of your board have met with members of OMC.  It is not clear if a majority of the board was kept informed of these discussions but it appears one member of the board (Matt Ready) has been excluded from at least some of these discussions and some of the information. 

6.  We elect all of you to be our representatives.  We expect you will work together with respect and a collaborative spirit.  Disagreements will occur on elected boards.  It is important to provide dissenters an ability to discuss in public their concerns (again generically if necessary, without naming names).  It appears commissioner Ready was not allowed this opportunity to express his concerns during a public meeting. The way this matter has been handled (in secret) has created a dilemma for commissioner Ready.  While difficult, I think commissioner Ready has his priorities right.  His, and your, first duty is to your constituents and to follow the law. 

7.  I see the benefits for OMC in this arrangement.  They are getting multiple suitors for a business alliance and all discussions are held in secret.  Not all of those other organizations are necessarily public entities.  But you are a public entity and you need to remember to keep your constituents informed as to major decisions you are considering that could put Jefferson Healthcare at risk.  If there is potential value of such an alliance, you should share why you are considering such an alliance, again at least in a generic way without naming names or details.

8.  I see a second motivation for this alliance.  Mike Glenn would get another promotion and a significant pay raise.  Mike is a talented CEO, but in this case I question whether he is putting his own interests and OMC’s interests ahead of the community that he serves.

Jeff Randall

Dear Jefferson Healthcare Commissioners:

Jefferson Healthcare’s future is crucial to the welfare of all residents.

If you agree with that statement, please stop discussing the possible alliance with Olympic Medical Center behind closed doors with or without an attorney.

It’s we, the “peeps” as CEO Mike Glenn called the people of Jefferson County during a recent board meeting, you need to be talking to in public meetings.

It’s not just the right thing to do; there is no legal exemption under the state Open Public Meeting Act to allow you do go into a closed-door meeting to discuss alliances or mergers or affiliations.

That’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of Allied Law Group, which represents a raft of newspapers, broadcast media, nonprofits and individuals like me who care about open government.

After the March 26 board meeting in which chair Jill Buhler-Rienstra silenced commissioner Matt Ready, scolding him as if he were a naughty child for wanting to talk about this issue, I reached out to attorney Michele Earl-Hubbard of Allied Law Group. I know her professionally, not personally. Her advice when I was working on some controversial stories years ago were invaluable.  She made me think about every word.

To be clear, I did not ask her to come to any conclusion but her own. I did pay for her opinion.

 I provided her with the board agendas, access to board minutes and Mr. Ready’s PowerPoint on the OMR request for proposals for an alliance that Ready had made public on his website.

The following is verbatim what she wrote in response to my request for her analysis:

“First, no, the agency absolutely cannot legally use the “real estate” or “potential litigation” Executive Session grounds to hold an ES to discuss creation of this new entity or merging with other entities. If they merge and get around to selling off surplus properties or buying new ones, they can have an ES for that narrow discussion, but not for what they are discussing now.  The fact someone might sue them someday to stop some action they are considering taking – liking forming this entity, etc. – is not an appropriate grounds for an ES.  They can have narrow ES’s to discuss with legal counsel and get legal advice under 42.30.110(1)(i) but only in very specific circumstances (quoted below):

(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.

This subsection (1)(i) does not permit a governing body to hold an executive session solely because an attorney representing the agency is present. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), “potential litigation” means matters protected by RPC 1.6 or RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) concerning:

(i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party;

(ii) Litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced by or against the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity; or

(iii) Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency;

The only one that might even remotely apply – down the road – would be (1)(iii) – but they have to show public discussion of the legal risks “is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency”.  There is no current litigation.  So they have to be saying they worry there could be legal risks of a proposed action – AND that there will be adverse legal or financial consequences to the agency of public discussion of the legal risks.  That is rare and very narrow.  And it cannot cover ES to discuss the idea with people other than the lawyer – and anyone from the other groups present defeats the alleged attorney client privileged nature of the ES this exemption is meant to cover.  So no they are breaking the law meeting in secret under either of those two exemptions.

They also cannot hold an ES without saying which subpart of Section 110 covers it.  The reason they have to give the reason is so they think hard whether there is an ES ground that allows it.  If they cannot even figure it out to put it on the agenda, they are showing they have not thought that through.  And there probably isn’t such a ground.

The Commissioner who leaked the materials – if he is sanctioned – can perhaps file a lawsuit appealing it.  Anyone who participated in that ES with knowledge it violated the OPMA can be sued for violating the OPMA and individually fined.  Any ethics rule that punishes someone for exposing illegal actions should be void for public policy reasons and unenforceable.

Anyone could sue this entity and all the Commissioners for that one ES OPMA violation.”

That last line is not my conclusion; it is the conclusion of an attorney who has successfully sued many public agencies over the course of many years.

I have no interest in suing Jefferson Healthcare. So please do not take this as a threat so that you can discuss it with your attorney. It’s not.

What I am asking is that is that you all think before you go into executive session.

Commissioner Ready wasn’t throwing you “under the bus” as one commissioner implied when he tried to have a conversation with you all about the alliance. He wasn’t trying to “libel and slander” you as another stated.

He was telling you the truth. And you shot him down without thinking about it.

Commissioner Kees Kolff came close to realizing the subject matter was in question for a closed session. Then he went with the majority and dismissed Mr. Ready.

This issue is huge. It has serious implications for the delivery of healthcare across the Olympic Peninsula.

And frankly, as someone who has listened to this board and values the breadth of knowledge you all have, and who also understands the magnitude of the healthcare situation today, it sounds like an alliance has potential merit. Partnerships like the one proposed could be a solution for the dire situation we face in healthcare today.

It will not be a solution if it’s done in private and without rigorous public consideration – not between high paid CEOs, not between private companies or Chicago-based specialty groups, not between “select” commissioners but with all parties involved onboard for a public discussion about the survival of our vital healthcare infrastructure.

And stop meeting in executive session on this. It’s not legal.

Thank you.

Allison Arthur

Community member and OPMA advocate

By Commissioner Matt Ready
Jefferson County Public Hospital District No. 2

If someone told you your local public hospital might be secretly planning a major change—one that could shift control to a private nonprofit group—you’d probably expect open meetings, public discussion, and transparency, right?

But that’s not what happened.

Earlier this year, the CEO of Jefferson Healthcare submitted a major proposal to merge oversight of our hospital district with Olympic Medical Center. This proposal would create a new nonprofit corporation called the Peninsula Health Alliance with authority over both hospitals.

Here’s the problem:
There was no public vote. No financial review. No open discussion.

Instead, the proposal was quietly discussed behind closed doors in an executive session—a type of meeting only legal under very limited circumstances, like for real estate deals or pending litigation. This wasn’t that.

So I informed the board that our process was violating Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), blew the whistle to the public, and I filed a criminal complaint. The Jefferson County Sheriff investigated. A detective wrote a detailed report. The Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor reviewed it. Their conclusion? OPMA violations likely occurred—even if there wasn’t enough proof to press criminal charges.

That should have been a wake-up call.

Instead, hospital leadership is doubling down on secrecy.

---

Two Tries at Illegal Serial Meetings

First, in April after I raised my concerns and submitted the complaint, CEO Mike Glenn and board chair Jill Buhler arranged for each commissioner to meet privately for 30 minutes with a consultant named Karma Bass—who reports directly to him. These were unrecorded, one-on-one phone calls. No minutes. No public notice.

This is a textbook example of a serial meeting—when public officials avoid legal public meetings by holding one-on-one discussions behind the scenes. That’s illegal under OPMA. I refused to participate.

This is the response I sent to Karma:

Subject: Response to Interview Request

Hi Karma,

Thank you for your message. I need to respectfully decline the invitation for a private phone or audio interview related to the upcoming board retreat.

I have serious concerns about the confidentiality and legal implications of such a conversation, especially given your past role facilitating the 2019 board retreat. At that retreat, the board failed to reckon with the fact that a critical 2016 legal opinion—affirming a commissioner’s right to record public meetings—had been withheld from me and the public for years. I documented this entire episode in my book, Journey Through the Boardroom, including the moment during the retreat when I stated on the record that what Mike Glenn and Brad Berg had done could be considered fraud. Instead of allowing that conversation to continue, you intervened and asked, “Are you a lawyer?”—effectively shutting down the discussion. That moment could have opened the door to transparency and healing. Instead, it served to protect those in power and bury the issue.

Had we, as a board, learned then the importance of obtaining independent legal opinions and facing governance issues head-on, we might not be in the current crisis. When I recently asked for a second legal opinion regarding the Peninsula Health Alliance proposal, that request should have been honored immediately. Instead, the same pattern repeated: a lack of legal diversity, reliance on one voice, and suppression of commissioner oversight.

Given your involvement in both events—and the role you played in shaping the retreat’s outcome—I now view you as a potential material witness, and possibly a co-conspirator, in matters I have formally reported to legal authorities. For that reason, I cannot engage in any private or unrecorded conversations with you.

I remain open to your role in publicly noticed board meetings, properly convened executive sessions, or any forum governed by transparency and public accountability laws.

Sincerely,

Matt Ready

Commissioner, Jefferson County Public Hospital District No. 2

Second, on May 23, 2025, a Jefferson Healthcare Executive Assistant—acting under the CEO’s direction—emailed the board to schedule private one-hour meetings between each commissioner and an attorney from Ogden Murphy Wallace. Again, one-on-one, off the record. Again, I refused. This is what I wrote to all the commissioners in response:

Subject: Response to Interview Request – OPMA Concerns and Legal Process Integrity

Dear XXXXXXXX (executive assistant),

Thank you for your message. I am writing to formally respond to the request for a one-hour meeting between myself and legal counsel from Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC (OMW), regarding matters tied to the Peninsula Health Alliance.

I decline to participate in such a meeting for the following reasons:

1. OPMA Compliance Concerns:
   A series of one-on-one private interviews between legal counsel and commissioners on a matter of active board deliberation creates a strong risk of violating the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). This resembles a “hub-and-spoke” serial meeting, a structure explicitly criticized by courts and the Attorney General as subverting open governance. As a public hospital district, we must not compound past OPMA concerns with further questionable practices.
2. Legal Representation Conflicts:
   OMW’s retainer appears to have been initiated by the CEO without formal vote or direction from the full Board. If legal counsel is engaged to investigate matters where the CEO is a controlling central figure, the Board must secure legal representation that reports directly and solely to the full Board. Without that independence, the integrity and credibility of the process is compromised. If the goal is to understand what occurred in prior executive sessions, then Board Secretary notes or recordings (if any) should be reviewed before repeating private conversations under legal ambiguity.
3. Transparency and Documentation:
   I am fully willing to correspond via email with legal counsel. If there are questions OMW wishes to ask me, I will respond in writing. This ensures everything is documented, accessible to all commissioners, and preserves transparency for the public and future record review. I encourage any such correspondence to be conducted openly and with full Board awareness.

If legal counsel or the Board wishes to discuss these issues with me, I respectfully request it be done either in a lawful public meeting, a properly noticed executive session with all commissioners present, or through written email communication shared with the full Board.

Sincerely,
Commissioner Matt Ready
Jefferson County Public Hospital District No. 2

It remains unknown whether the other four commissioners took those meetings. If they did, it could constitute yet another serial meeting violation.

A Non Disclosure Agreement creates a conflict of interest with fiduciary responsibilities

Meanwhile, whenever members of the public asked about the Peninsula Health Alliance, the CEO and other commissioners claimed they were bound by a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Yet this NDA was never voted on or approved by the full board—and to this day, as a sitting commissioner, I still don’t know who signed it, what it says, or even who it was signed with.

Signing an NDA in this context raises serious ethical and legal concerns. For a CEO or commissioner of a public hospital district to prioritize the secrecy of an NDA over their statutory fiduciary duty to the public may represent a profound conflict of interest. Public hospital officials are accountable first and foremost to the people—not to private consultants, corporate advisors, or secret deals. The public has a right to know what is being negotiated on their behalf. Silence protected by private agreements has no place in public governance.

---

A Pattern—and a Lawyer Reported to the Bar

These weren’t innocent mistakes. Jefferson Healthcare’s former attorney, Brad Berg, helped design and justify the strategy to keep these discussions hidden from the public using a stretched interpretation of the law.

Because of his role in advising and enabling these secret discussions, I filed a formal complaint with the Washington State Bar Association. His conduct was flagged in the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s report. Yet the Jefferson Healthcare board has made no public acknowledgment of any of this. Here is an excerpt from my Bar ethics complaint:

Mr. Berg’s legal opinion became the board majority’s shield against scrutiny, and his silence in response to formal concerns effectively blocked further inquiry. Since February 19, I have repeatedly submitted written legal concerns to the board and administration. Mr. Berg has not responded to these concerns directly, nor has he provided neutral legal analysis in any public setting.

Instead, his perceived authority has been used to discredit dissenting views and silence calls for transparency:

Commissioner Kolff: “Brad is the definitive person on this particular type of issue. He has actually written the code that we follow.”
 Commissioner Buhler: “Our legal counsel… has said that nothing we have done is illegal… He is preeminent in this discussion.”

This monopoly on legal interpretation has resulted in repeated efforts to mute me during meetings, block my motions from discussion, and falsely accuse me of slander and ethics violations when I attempted to inform the public.

---

What They’re Not Doing

They’re not addressing the sheriff’s findings.
They’re not holding public meetings to fix the damage.
They’re not apologizing to the voters.

Instead, they’re calling in lawyers and consultants—in secret—trying to isolate each elected commissioner, possibly coordinate their stories, and shape the outcome without any public accountability.

---

What Needs to Happen Now

To protect the public interest and begin restoring trust, I’m calling for:

1. A joint open public meeting

between Jefferson Healthcare and the OMC Board of Commissioners.
This is essential to stabilize, clarify, and legally define any current or future relationship between the two hospital districts.

2. A full internal investigation

by both Jefferson Healthcare and Olympic Medical Center into:

• What happened;
  
• Why it happened;
  
• How to prevent it in the future;
  
• And how to repair the damage, including a public apology for the deceptive process.
  

---

We can’t rebuild trust through silence.
We rebuild it through truth, accountability, and transparency.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Matt Ready

By James Robinson

https://www.ptleader.com/stories/sheriffs-report-supports-hospital-whistleblower,213255

Jefferson Health Care Commissioner and whistleblower Matt Ready will see his complaint move forward against the Jefferson Health Care Board, key leadership and legal counsel, according to a report from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.

“The actions likely violate OPMA (Washington State Open Public Meetings Act), with civil penalties applicable, and may constitute official misconduct if intent is proven,” wrote Detective Sergeant Derek Allen, of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. 

Jefferson County Sheriff Andy Pernsteiner assigned the complaint to Allen after Ready submitted his complaint and supporting evidence to Jefferson and Clallam County sheriff’s offices. Ready said the Clallam County Sheriff’s Office had not responded to his complaint.

“Criminal conspiracy or racketeering seems less supported, requiring much further evidence.”

Hospital officials said they were surprised with the involvement of the sheriff’s. They undergo audits annually, a process that includes compliance with open meetings laws. 

“We believe we are in full compliance with the state’s open public meeting act, said Pranav Sharma, director of strategic planning and marketing for the hospital. “The act allows for certain discussions to be held in executive session but requires all action take place in a public meeting.” Sharma added that they were working “closely with legal counsel to make certain this compliance continues.”

 “The complainant’s detailed documentation, including emails and legal opinions, suggest a review by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office — Assistant Attorney General for Open Government who oversees possible OPMA violations. An unexpected aspect is the potential involvment of legal counsel as a co-conspirator, which could raise ethical issues for the Washington State Bar Association, though criminal activity remains uncertain.” 

Ready’s complaint stems from a March 26 hospital board meeting where Ready accused his co-commissioners of meeting secretly with Olympic Medical Center representatives on “Project Driftwood,”a plan to merge the Port Angles-based medical center with Jefferson Healthcare. Ready further alleged that members of the Jefferson Healthcare Board had violated open meeting laws, abused the use of executive sessions, and suppressed public information. Ready provide emails between his co-commissioners and Jefferson Healthcare executives to support his allegations.

“This report has been sent to the full boards of both OMC and Jefferson, the Washington State Auditor’s office, and to the Washington State Attorney General’s office for further advice and guidance,”Ready said. “I have requested a full impartial investigation within Jefferson Healthcare into possible misconduct by my fellow commissioners and the CEO.

Allen’s report does not suggest evidence of criminal behavior, however the report appears to support violations of the state’s open meeting laws.

Ready leaked Project Driftwood documents after his fellow hospital board commissioners attempted to squelch his concerns at a board meeting. Those documents detail a not-for-profit alliance which would allow Jefferson Healthcare and Olympic Medical Center in Port Angeles to remain independent, while improving and expanding clinical programs, creating operating efficiencies and economies of scale and the ability to improve and expand clinical programs.

The plan calls for a 12-member “super board” — with seven board members from Olympic Medical Center and five from Jefferson Healthcare. According to the plan, all currently elected commissioners would sit on the super board and the super board would govern the regional health alliance while individual boards would remain responsible for governance of their own organizations.

The proposal calls for a three-year phased-in leadership approach, with an appointed executive director planned for the first year. Project documents propose that Jefferson Healthcare Chief Executive Officer, Mike Glenn, would serve as the alliance’s first executive director.

Emails provided by Ready show correspondence between Jefferson Healthcare Commissioner Kees Kolff, Jefferson Healthcare top executives and Jefferson Healthcare’s legal counsel, Brad Berg of Foster Garvey discussing the merger plan, and Kolff’s efforts to draft language and an organizational chart and discussions of the use of executive session.

“A subset of Jefferson commissioners were involved or consulted during the drafting phase,”Ready said in a previous interview. “I was not. I only became aware of the proposal during the executive session on February 5. The full board has never voted to authorize the proposal or the direction of the negotiations. Much of the process has taken place out of public view, contrary to the principles of public hospital governance.”

06/09/2025 PT Leader email to Matt Ready

Good Evening Matt,

I’ve reviewed the detective’s report you sent. Thank you.

I’d like to hear what you’d like to achieve with carrying this complaint forward. What’s the best possible outcome?

Will you seek relection?

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

James Robinson

6/9/2025 Matt Ready Responds to PT Leader James Robinson inquiry

Hi James,

Thanks for reviewing the detective’s report and for reaching out.

My goal is a healthy, well-governed hospital district—led with integrity, intelligence, wisdom, creativity, and compassion. When I realized that the board and CEO appeared to be coordinating a public deception around the Peninsula Health Alliance proposal, I believed it could rise to the level of fraud. When the board chair muted me repeatedly at the March 26 meeting as I attempted to speak about the proposal, it became clear that the wrongdoing had gone too far. At that point, it was both my fiduciary duty and my duty under oath of office to report the matter to the sheriff (and other authorities such as the Washington State Auditor) for review.

My first and most immediate goal was to disrupt the illegal process and prevent the proposal—crafted and advanced without public debate or board authorization—from being adopted without a valid democratic process. That said, I remain open to building alliances, as long as they are pursued with transparency and full public participation.

Detective Allen’s in-depth investigation and written report have now provided the community with a clear legal analysis showing that the February 5 executive session and the submission of the proposal violated the Open Public Meetings Act. This recognition of wrongdoing should serve as a foundation for Jefferson Healthcare to begin the internal work necessary to understand what happened, why it happened, repair any damage, ensure it never happens again, and work to restore public trust.

I’ve emailed my fellow board members and the OMC Board of Commissioners, informing them of the detective’s findings and requesting a public meeting between our two boards to reestablish legal communication and coordination. If our two districts want to transform our relationship, then let’s do it in the open, in full view of the public, as the law requires.

Yes, I am seeking re-election. Our public hospital district is one of the most positive and valuable institutions in our community, and it remains my continued honor to serve on its board of commissioners.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Kind regards,
Matt Ready
Public Hospital Commissioner, Jefferson Healthcare

During this presentation, in addition to a brief recap of my life story, I disclose to the public that I filed criminal complaints with the Jefferson and Clallam County Sheriff’s regarding misconduct and coordinated deception related to the Peninsula Health Alliance proposal process. Clallam County has never responded. Jefferson County Sheriff Andy Pernsteiner assigned the investigation to Detective Sergeant Derek Allen who then did a detailed and thorough analysis of my complaint. Detective Allen’s report was reviewed and commented on by Chief Criminal Deputy Chris Ashcraft. Here is the full report they sent to Commissioner Matt Ready. This report has been sent to the full boards of both OMC and Jefferson, the Washington State Auditor’s office, and to the Washington State Attorney General’s office for further advice and guidance. I have requested a full impartial investigation within Jefferson Healthcare into possible misconduct by my fellow commissioners and the CEO.