Sequel to Dissolution Dialogue on Healthcare Districts
Original post made by Jack Hickey on Aug 12, 2014
Since I first posted Dissolution Dialogue on Healthcare Districts Web Link I have taken the liberty of posting the text of healthcare district candidate statements provided to me by SMC Elections.
Peninsula Healthcare District candidate statements for November election Web Linkand, Sequoia Healthcare District candidate statements for November election Web Link
**************REASONS FOR INITIATING THIS DIALOGUE*****************
Both the Sequoia Healthcare District and Peninsula Healthcare District had property taxes assessed to operate hospitals. They no longer OWN or OPERATE hospitals, yet they continue to collect the taxes originally assessed.
In the case of Sequoia, the 2001/2002 SMC Civil Grand Jury found that:
"...District taxpayers should be made aware that the 1946 measure authorizing the tax assessment was for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a hospital, but that the District no longer owns, maintains, or operates a hospital." and,
"...that since the sale of the hospital the District has assumed a role similar to that of a philanthropic foundation, using its tax revenues to make grants to other government and non-profit agencies. This is a function of the District that was never presented to the voters for their approval under 1996 Measure H." they also found
"...that the District's continued receipt of property taxes is inappropriate in light of the facts: 1) that it no longer owns a hospital or has any legal obligation to build, maintain, or operate a hospital..."
SMC Civil Grand Jury(2004/05) Recommendation
1. The Sequoia Healthcare District Board should:
1.1 immediately explore with the Peninsula Healthcare District the merging of the two agencies via a joint powers agreement or reorganization structured to serve the health care needs of the combined districts, and explore the expansion of the districts to include all San Mateo County residents.
On May 16, 2007, LAFC0 adopted the following "sphere of influence" for SHD and PHD:
"transitional sphere of influence with the potential for expansion to include excluded areas, dissolution and consolidation"
Both Districts have failed to explore the expansion of the districts to include all San Mateo County residents.
PHD responded by saying "Since Proposition 13 would prevent the creation of new tax revenues for this new agency (without other agencies giving up a portion of their revenues) the new agency would be funded solely by the residents of the existing two (merged) Districts." SHD neglected to address that recommendation.
SMC Civil Grand Jury(2012/13) report on LAFCo/Healthcare Districts
Sequoia Healthcare District(SHD) and Peninsula Healthcare District(PHD)
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LAFCo staff conducted the 2007 service review of SHD and PHD. In contrast, an outside consultant conducted the 2012 Santa Clara County LAFCo Audit and Service Review of the El Camino Hospital District (ECHD). The consultant's report was 94 pages long and was, by far, amore detailed analysis of the district's operations. The report included an Executive Summary, an Introduction, a section on ECHD and its affiliates, a section on Hospital Districts in California, an audit of ECHD, a service review of ECHD, and a section on governance and organizational alternatives. In addition, the report addressed two key questions:
1) Is ECHD providing services outside of its boundaries.
2) Should ECHD continue to exist and/or continue to receive public funds or could another entity provide ECHD's services more efficiently.
Interviewees stated that LAFCo does not have the resources to produce reports with this level of detail. In addition, given the nuances of health care districts, interviewees felt an outside consultant might provide LAFCo with additional information that would assist the Board in choosing to initiate boundary changes or take other actions to reorganize services.
Key questions raised by the Grand Jury:
1) Is ECHD providing services outside of its boundaries.
2) Should ECHD continue to exist and/or continue to receive public funds or could another entity provide ECHD's services more efficiently.
These questions need an objective, in depth answer for SHD and PHD.
In my initial dialogue with Dennis Zell of PHD, I opened with the following:
"Dennis, I have been an elected member of the Sequoia Healthcare District Board of Directors since 2002. Dissolution of the Districts has been my objective.
My current thinking is that LAFCo should pursue a ballot measure which would create a countywide successor for SHD and PHD, with funding from existing countywide taxes, i.e. no new taxes. That measure should contain a provision that should it fail to pass, SHD and PHD would be dissolved.
Enabling legislation might be required for such a measure.
Would you support such a ballot measure?
Dennis copied PHD CEO Cheryl Fama on the ensuing exchange.
I will now re-invite district directors, local city officials, SMC County Supervisors and Mssrs. Hill and Mullins to join in the discourse. And,of course, the public is invited.
Peninsula Healthcare District candidate statements for November election Web Linkand, Sequoia Healthcare District candidate statements for November election Web Link
**************REASONS FOR INITIATING THIS DIALOGUE*****************
Both the Sequoia Healthcare District and Peninsula Healthcare District had property taxes assessed to operate hospitals. They no longer OWN or OPERATE hospitals, yet they continue to collect the taxes originally assessed.
In the case of Sequoia, the 2001/2002 SMC Civil Grand Jury found that:
"...District taxpayers should be made aware that the 1946 measure authorizing the tax assessment was for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a hospital, but that the District no longer owns, maintains, or operates a hospital." and,
"...that since the sale of the hospital the District has assumed a role similar to that of a philanthropic foundation, using its tax revenues to make grants to other government and non-profit agencies. This is a function of the District that was never presented to the voters for their approval under 1996 Measure H." they also found
"...that the District's continued receipt of property taxes is inappropriate in light of the facts: 1) that it no longer owns a hospital or has any legal obligation to build, maintain, or operate a hospital..."
SMC Civil Grand Jury(2004/05) Recommendation
1. The Sequoia Healthcare District Board should:
1.1 immediately explore with the Peninsula Healthcare District the merging of the two agencies via a joint powers agreement or reorganization structured to serve the health care needs of the combined districts, and explore the expansion of the districts to include all San Mateo County residents.
On May 16, 2007, LAFC0 adopted the following "sphere of influence" for SHD and PHD:
"transitional sphere of influence with the potential for expansion to include excluded areas, dissolution and consolidation"
Both Districts have failed to explore the expansion of the districts to include all San Mateo County residents.
PHD responded by saying "Since Proposition 13 would prevent the creation of new tax revenues for this new agency (without other agencies giving up a portion of their revenues) the new agency would be funded solely by the residents of the existing two (merged) Districts." SHD neglected to address that recommendation.
SMC Civil Grand Jury(2012/13) report on LAFCo/Healthcare Districts
Sequoia Healthcare District(SHD) and Peninsula Healthcare District(PHD)
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LAFCo staff conducted the 2007 service review of SHD and PHD. In contrast, an outside consultant conducted the 2012 Santa Clara County LAFCo Audit and Service Review of the El Camino Hospital District (ECHD). The consultant's report was 94 pages long and was, by far, amore detailed analysis of the district's operations. The report included an Executive Summary, an Introduction, a section on ECHD and its affiliates, a section on Hospital Districts in California, an audit of ECHD, a service review of ECHD, and a section on governance and organizational alternatives. In addition, the report addressed two key questions:
1) Is ECHD providing services outside of its boundaries.
2) Should ECHD continue to exist and/or continue to receive public funds or could another entity provide ECHD's services more efficiently.
Interviewees stated that LAFCo does not have the resources to produce reports with this level of detail. In addition, given the nuances of health care districts, interviewees felt an outside consultant might provide LAFCo with additional information that would assist the Board in choosing to initiate boundary changes or take other actions to reorganize services.
Key questions raised by the Grand Jury:
1) Is ECHD providing services outside of its boundaries.
2) Should ECHD continue to exist and/or continue to receive public funds or could another entity provide ECHD's services more efficiently.
These questions need an objective, in depth answer for SHD and PHD.
In my initial dialogue with Dennis Zell of PHD, I opened with the following:
"Dennis, I have been an elected member of the Sequoia Healthcare District Board of Directors since 2002. Dissolution of the Districts has been my objective.
My current thinking is that LAFCo should pursue a ballot measure which would create a countywide successor for SHD and PHD, with funding from existing countywide taxes, i.e. no new taxes. That measure should contain a provision that should it fail to pass, SHD and PHD would be dissolved.
Enabling legislation might be required for such a measure.
Would you support such a ballot measure?
Dennis copied PHD CEO Cheryl Fama on the ensuing exchange.
I will now re-invite district directors, local city officials, SMC County Supervisors and Mssrs. Hill and Mullins to join in the discourse. And,of course, the public is invited.
Comments (9)
+ Like this comment
a resident of another community
on Aug 13, 2014 at 10:59 am
I support a LAFCo municipal service review of Peninsula Healthcare District to facilitate the Grand Jury's findings. If an outside consultant needs to be facilitated to perform the level of detail the Grand Jury recommends, then I support making those actions happen. Separate reviews for PHCD and SHCD should be be performed.
PHCD needs to seek more opportunities for informing the public about its existence, presenting formation that is transparent to the public, and provides full disclosure. I find the current website in need of more work to accomplish that mission.
Furthermore, the annual financial audits of the district have been oslely conducted only by Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP since 2006. I support opening a request for proposals (RFP) and conducting an audit rotation to another firm. 7 years of the same eyes on the books is enough. GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association) recommends a rotation be conducted every FIVE years.
I support Jack Hickey's pursuit of a ballot measure. Allow the voters to decide the issue and future of Healthcare Districts.
+ Like this comment
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 13, 2014 at 11:21 am
Here are the questions:
1) Is the Healthcare District providing services outside of its boundaries?
2) Should the Healthcare District continue to exist and/or continue to receive public funds or could another entity provide ECHD's services more efficiently.
The Sequoia Healthcare District has a HeartSafe program which distributes Automated Electronic Defibrillators in schools and other public places, and provides training in their use. State law mandates AED's in some public places, such as health clubs, but not in public schools. The state also mandates each county to maintain a database of publically deployed AED's. San Mateo County Emergency Medical Services is the logical agency to manage such a program.AED's. In some states in the Midwest funding for such deployment is subsidized by insurance companies.
+ Like this comment
a resident of another community
on Aug 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm
The simple answer in my opinion:
1) No.
2) No.
There has been no voter consent since the formation of the district on the activities they participate in. If the board feels they are in the right, let the people the district alleges to represent confirm that on a ballot.
+ Like this comment
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 23, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Actually, Doug, the Healthcare Districts are providing services outside of their boundaries. The 2012/2013 Grand Jury expressed concern about that.
Sequoia, in particular serves many in East Palo Alto, East Menlo and North Fair Oaks, none of which are in the district. And, fewer than half of graduate nurses from the districts 4!,000,000 Nursing Program serve residents of the District.
+ Like this comment
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 26, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Mark Hudak, counsel for the Sequoia Healthcare District, is discouraging Director participation in this forum. What say you?
I am awaiting an opinion from Terry Francke of CalAware.
From: Mark Hudak
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:18 PM
To: mailto:JackHick@comcast.net ; Jerry Shefren ; 'Kathleen Kane' ; Kim Griffin ; Art Faro
Cc: Lee Michelson
Subject: RE: Dissolution Dialogue on Healthcare Districts [IWOV-iManage.FID643164]
To all Directors: I stand by my original caution to you. It is a violation of the Brown Act for a majority of the Board to engage in a substantive discussion among themselves outside of a public meeting with a published agenda. There is no exception for debates in chat rooms or Internet forums or emails. If you are asked about participating in this Internet forum, you should say that you have been advised by legal counsel that it would be a violation of law.
From: JackHick@comcast.net [mailto:JackHick@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 10:30 PM
To: Dennis Zell; Daniel Ullyot; Jerry Shefren; Jerry Hill; 'Kathleen Kane'; Kim Griffin; Larry Cappel; Rick Navarro; Art Faro; Doug Radtke; Helen Galligan; Alicia Aguirre; Barbara Pierce; Diane Howard; Ian Bain; Jeffrey Gee; John Seybert; Rosanne Foust; bgrassilli@cityofsancarlos.org; cjohnson@cityofsancarlos.org; councilmatt@aol.com; Mark Olbert; rcollins@cityofsancarlos.org; Adrienne Tissier; Carole Groom; Dave Pine; Don Horsley; Warren Slocum
Cc: Cheryl Fama; Lee Michelson; Mark Hudak
Subject: Dissolution Dialogue on Healthcare Districts
Fellow Directors, I urge you to join in the Dissolution Dialogue on Healthcare Districts at: Web Link
Jack Hickey
Check with legal counsel. I don't believe this violates the Brown Act
I have this from Terry Francke of CalAware: "There is absolutely no authority for Mr. Hudak's position as applied to statements made in any public forum—not just public board meetings. If his position were the law then no member could make a speech to any community group."
That was in response to a Hudak admonition, which stated: I must caution all Board members about email communications that may violate the Brown Act. Please bear in mind that all communications about a substantive issue must take place in an open meeting, except that any Board member may communicate, in person or by email, with one other Board member about the issue. Email communications among all Board members is not permitted, except for minor, nonsubstantive matters such as scheduling.
+ Like this comment
a resident of another community
on Aug 28, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Violation of the Brown Act? One what planet?
The Brown Act does not prohibit individual members of a legislative body from separately providing their own comments and opinions about a matter. A commissioner may write a newspaper editorial about an item the commission approved, and a city council member may give a speech or tweet about local projects under way in the city. Nor does the Brown Act prohibit "one-way" communications where, for example, a city manager transmits a communication to the entire council by e-mail. The "passive receipt" of a document by public officials is different from a commission's or city council's collective action or discussion.
I frankly call this cowardice.
+ Like this comment
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 31, 2014 at 7:49 am
In a Daily Post story on the subject "Online forum triggers legal debate
",(August 28, 2014) Terry Francke of CalAware told the Post that it's not uncommon for attorneys to tell elected officials that they may not express their views in a public forum.
"This position, typically used to silence dissenters or at least to control
public opinion, is wrong for several reasons," he said.
Dennis Zell, lawyer and Member of the PHD Board, said: "...perhaps an argument could be made that the Brown Act (especially as-applied to what you were trying to do) violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Art. 1, sec. 2 of the California Constitution.
Zell further stated "However, I have no personal desire to be (at worst) criminally prosecuted, or (at best) fined by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for participating in a Brown Act violation. I will therefore stay clear of further substantive discussions with you."
Terry Franke responded with this:
"The Fair Political Practices Commission has no jurisdiction over Brown Act issues, and a district attorney thinking of prosecution for the misdemeanor violation would have to prove that participants in an online forum did so with the intent:
1. to achieve collective concurrence or consensus on a particular matter, and
2. to keep the public ignorant of matters that they were entitled to know."
+ Like this comment
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 31, 2014 at 8:45 am
Menlo Voter is a registered user.
Wagstaffe has NEVER even prosecuted a Brown Act violation.
+ Like this comment
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 31, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Part of this discussion relates to the Sequoia Healthcare District's claim to continued collection of property taxes originally assessed to build, operate and maintain Sequoia Hospital which it no longer owns. My research into the matter led to discovery of documents related to the issue, which contradict the Grand Jury. I have posted a topic on the subject entitled "Rationale for Sequoia Healthcare District's continuation of property tax-collection". Web Link
