Why I'm voting no on Nov. 14

A Spectrum, by Al Strawn

My involvement with Valley Hospital goes back many years. I am a past member of the operating board and a current member of the ethics committee. I am voting "No" on the Triad proposal at the special meeting of the Valley Hospital Association (VHA) on Nov. 14. First, I cannot support an action that will result in VHA giving up majority ownership and control of the hospital. Second, I strongly object to the process by which our association has presented this proposal to the membership.

Under the proposal, it is anticipated that VHA will end up with a 20 percent to 25 percent ownership interest in a new hospital. In an attempt to maintain some semblance of local control, the proposal outlines a power sharing arrangement with 50 percent of the board elected by VHA and a requirement for block voting. This arrangement will work as long as there are no serious disagreements between VHA and Triad. However, we should anticipate the potential for serious disagreements between the not-for-profit association and the for-profit corporation. What will happen when there are disagreements? How will serious conflicts be resolved? With the proposed block voting, there is a huge potential for stalemate. In times of stalemate will the CEO be responsive to the VHA directors, representing 20 percent ownership, or to Triad, representing 80 percent? The golden rule in corporate America is that "Those with the gold, rule." With 75 percent to 80 percent ownership in the hospital, Triad will be calling the shots, and VHA will be little more than an advisory group.

My second area of concern is with the process by which this proposal was presented to the association members. Selling the assets of VHA and entering into a joint venture agreement with a for-profit corporation is a big decision. I would think the VHA boards would want both the advice and consent of the member-owners, not just a "rubber-stamp vote." Unfortunately, the member-owners have been subjected to a political style "campaign" to sell this decision to them. I would imagine VHA has spent tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell us how to think on this issue. I am wary of people and organizations that give me the "hard sale." It is appropriate for the VHA boards to make a recommendation. What I find inappropriate are the endorsements, the direct mail, the media campaign, the one-sided informational meetings and the vote-"Yes"-only proxies.

The vote on Nov. 14 is probably the most important vote in the history of the organization. VHA member-owners deserve an objective presentation of both the potential benefits, as well as the risks associated with entering into this agreement. Only then can the member-owners truly pass judgment on the proposal. I encourage each VHA member to get involved in this decision. Remember true local ownership and control requires at least 51 percent ownership by VHA. Ignore the hype and make an informed decision on what is best for the long-term health care of the residence of our valley. Make sure your vote counts on Nov. 14.

Al Strawn is a resident of Palmer.