CCMSD board at odds over questions of conduct

Questions of conduct were the subject of unusual scrutiny during last Thursday’s meeting of the Crook County Medical Services District Board of Trustees. Several topics were introduced to the agenda, including proposed changes to who should be allowed to talk to the press, accusations of threats being made against trustees and a disagreement over whether a public document should have been made available to the newspaper.

Though it was only alluded to throughout most of the discussions, all three topics appeared to center on a single issue: the rift that has arisen between board members recently, with two opposing factions differing in their thoughts on issues including the Hulett clinic.

Public Statements

During discussion of the board bylaws, Trustee Sandy Neiman stated her opinion that the district should nominate one specific person from whom the newspaper may ask for a public statement, and that that person should be the CEO.

Neiman appeared to be specifically requesting that Chairman Mark Erickson no longer speak to the newspaper when she commented, “I would like to get Mark off the hot seat there and it go to Micki.”

The current bylaws state that public comments can be made by the CEO, the chairman of the board or an authorized designee. Erickson felt that this ought to remain the case, with the board retaining its voice as well as the district itself.

He referred to the situation with Health Management Services (HMS) last year, when the board was at loggerheads with its management company. At that time, the CEO was an employee of HMS, he said, and the board needed its own spokesperson.

CEO Micki Lyons agreed. There may be times, she said, when the chairman needs to make the statements rather than the administrator.

“If there’s an issue with me and you need to make a statement to the paper, then by your bylaws, you can’t,” she concurred.

It was decided, after discussion, that no change would be made to the bylaws. District policy will continue to allow both the chairman and CEO to speak to the press, or an appropriate designee.

Board Member Conduct

The second topic was introduced by Erickson and led to a heated verbal exchange. The chairman stated that he wanted to speak to board member conduct because “there have been some disturbing things taking place.”

Erickson delivered a brief speech on the point of the district board, which is to represent residents of Crook County and do what’s best for the provision of medical services to the best of trustees’ ability. It’s a common goal for all board members, he said.

“Most of the time we do that, and we do have disagreements and disagreements are healthy,” he said.

Erickson referred to the Hulett clinic, noting that the district will be moving into the new building following a unanimous vote from the board. Disagreements were had as the board figured out how to make that happen, he said, but they ultimately led to consensus.

“The part that I have a problem with is that it seems more recently there have been instances where some board members have been making essentially threats to other board members, indirectly through members of the public,” Erickson continued.

Trustee Connie Lindmier sharply interrupted him, however, to request that he be more specific about his accusations. She said that if those accusations were towards herself, she wanted to know that.

Erickson responded that he was getting to the specifics, and that they involve the trustee who had left the meeting shortly beforehand due to a necessary personal engagement. This trustee was Neiman.

Lindmier stopped him again and said it was “not right” to accuse someone who was not in the room. After a brief heated exchange in which each party told the other not to threaten them, it was decided that the matter should be tabled for the next meeting.

Public Documents

The third and final subject of dissent during Thursday’s meeting was the rejection letter sent from the Crook County Hospital Foundation in response to the board’s proposed lease for the Hulett Clinic. A copy of this document was provided to this newspaper on request and an article was then published to outline its content as part of ongoing coverage of negotiations between the two boards.

The letter had been sent to Lindmier, she said, and was supposed to be discussed by the district board. However, before that happened, it was given to the newspaper; she expressed her displeasure over the resulting article, which she said was “slamming.”

“You had read [the foundation’s response], but we had not been able to discuss it as a board,” she said.

Erickson explained that he had been asked by the newspaper for an update on where things stood. Lindmier reiterated that she felt it should have been discussed in a meeting before the update was provided.

“The way I look at it, we did,” said Trustee Ed Ray. “We made an offer, they turned it down.”

Ray pointed out that there are no changes between what the board sent to the foundation as a proposal and what had ultimately been agreed on earlier in the meeting.

Lindmier shared her opinion that it was “backhanded” to share the letter before the board discussed it, and that bothered her. When asked if she therefore feels the newspaper does not have the right to that information, she said the newspaper, “needs to let us have a meeting” and that it was a “matter of ethics.”

Erickson disagreed. In fact, he said, it is a matter of public record.

Board Attorney Kara Ellsbury clarified from a legal perspective that, unless there is a specified exemption – of which there are very few – the district must provide public records when they are requested.

Lindmier questioned the timeline, suggesting that the newspaper would not have known to ask for the document. Erickson explained, however, that the newspaper was in attendance at the public meeting during which the offer was made and was therefore aware of it, and later performed a follow-up to ask if any new information was available.

No action was taken following the discussion.