VHA board under scrutiny for interview question

PALMER -- A controversial question brought a recent Valley Hospital Association Board meeting to a premature stop, and has raised questions about discrimination and about the board's intentions.

One current board member strayed from a standard list of questions to ask applicants, "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?" Some applicants took offense to the question, and old wounds from the hospital's past were reopened.

Board member Joe Lawton, perhaps the most vocal opponent of the questioning, said he walked out of one meeting after a board member continued to ask it of candidates, and decided not to attend a second meeting.

"This issue should not be part of our vision at all," he said.

Lawton's feelings are shared by Mary Reardon, also a board member.

"I don't think asking that question is applicable to what the board is supposed to do," she said. Reardon added that she was disappointed and saddened that the board would consider this practice.

Clyde Boyer, chair of the board, echoed these sentiments. Boyer said he was absent at the April 15 meeting, when applicants were asked the question, but that he decried the practice of ferreting out applicants' stance on the matter in an interview.

"The people on the board are there because of their abilities, not their views," he said. Boyer added that he was surprised that the question had been asked, and that he had received phone calls the morning after the meeting from some concerned board members.

Boyer went on to say that he was opposed to the board asking candidates whether they were pro-choice or pro-life, and that he believed it was a bad practice.

"This isn't an appropriate question for our board to ask in order to further its aims," he said. "It doesn't help us determine who would be a good board member."

Boyer said that the recent furor was caused by one board member, Karen Vosburgh, who asked several board candidates their stance on abortion.

"I don't want to dissuade people from applying for the board just because of one person asking an unapproved question," he said. Vosburgh said she supports the board's right to ask its applicants about their views on abortion."By asking it, we find out whether or not [board applicants] would be willing to join the fight against abortion, which is the will of the community," she said.

Vosburgh said she believes she has the support of the majority of the board.

"Our community doesn't want abortions here," she said.

Marianne Stoffel, another Board member, said she supported Vosburgh's policy of asking the question.

"I think it's an appropriate question to ask," she said. "People can choose whether to answer it or not."

However, Reardon, who was asked the question during her recent interview for re-election to the board, disagreed.

"Even the people on the nomination committee knew that was a bad practice," said Reardon.According to reports from at least one board member, the board has also been asking applicants for the Annie Demming and Vivian Shaver scholarships the same question. The criteria for these scholarships is, according to the application, "clarity of health care goals, value of those goals to the health care community, past academic performance, and intent to serve in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough."

At the last board meeting in mid-May, Reardon brought forth a motion for the board to cease asking applicants for board membership or scholarships about their views on abortion. Though the issue was delayed until the June meeting, Reardon believes the board was in support of the measure.

"There was agreement between the people there," she said. "They voiced their understanding that it was wrong."

Vosburgh was reportedly not present at the May meeting.

Lawton's term on the board is up in June, and he said that he will not be seeking re-election. He cites the single-mindedness of the board as one of his primary frustrations.

"I thought that after three years on the board, we would get beyond this single issue," Lawton said.

Reardon said she had high hopes for the potential of the board to help the community, and echoed Lawton's sentiment that its members should address more issues than just abortion.

"I think it's sad that this issue came up," she said. "I don't think that it should be the only issue we deal with."

Lawton said that, in previous years, the board had drawn its interview questions for board candidates from a list of 10 queries suggested for use by the hospital's attorneys. This list includes such questions as "please describe your vision for the future of Valley Hospital," and "describe your major strengths, as well as your major weaknesses as a potential board member."

"Are you pro-choice or pro-life?" is not among the 10 recommended questions.

"We usually just went down the list," Lawton said, adding that this was the first year he could recall that the board had asked a question that wasn't on the list.

Vosburgh is unperturbed by the prospect of asking questions not on the list.

"Those questions are just guidelines," she said.

The recent merger between Valley Hospital and Triad left roughly one-quarter of the new Mat-Valley Medical Center's assets and half of its governing power in the hands of the Association, which will be funded primarily by the profits of the new joint venture hospital in the future. However, money donated to the Association for non-profit purposes cannot be used to cover operating costs at the new hospital. Likewise, the Association board has no power over the practices employed by the Mat-Valley Medical Center.

The Valley Hospital Association Board regularly devotes funds to charitable community improvement causes such as a scholarship funds for students devoted to health-care studies in college. The board doesn't weigh in on the operating policies of the new hospital, however. Those decisions are made by the Medical Center's Joint Venture Board. Five members of the Medical Center's Joint Venture Board (50 percent of the Venture Board's membership) are selected from the ranks of Association members, and five from Triad.

Close to 10 years ago, Valley Hospital was involved in two cases against the Valley Coalition for Choice on the question of whether or not the hospital, as a quasi-public institution, could refuse to perform abortions. The hospital's attempts to refuse the procedure were thwarted by the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled that Valley Hospital received enough grant money from the state to qualify for 501(c)3 status, and therefore was required to provide the procedure. Now, said local activist Howard Bess, the hospital is under permanent injunction not to refuse abortions.

One of Valley Hospital's attorneys discussed the legal ramifications of the matter with Boyer. He said that queries about abortion at board interviews was not in and of itself a violation of discrimination laws.

Steve Williams, an Anchorage attorney who helped to represent the Valley Coalition for Choice in both of the Valley Hospital abortion cases, said he couldn't make a judgment call on whether the practice of asking potential candidates about their stance on abortion was legal or not, but that he certainly believed it was inappropriate.

"Whether they crossed a legal line is debatable, but I think whether they crossed a line of good taste is clear," he said.

Replacement decisions for the board are slated to be made in the next few weeks.

The next meeting of the full Valley Hospital Association Board is at 7 p.m. on June 21; all members of the Association are invited to attend. However, the board's membership meeting, during which the winners of the recent election are announced, is scheduled for June 14.

Contact Daniel Spoth at daniel.spoth@frontiersman.com.