Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2010-2011 • Agency Response
Response to: 11-09C - Oak Valley Hospital District

a District Board member had disclosed to a non board member physician, confidential information discussed during a*

Published: June 27, 2011 5 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F2 Page 2
relates to the bid process for a remodeling project. The finding is correct. We did not realize when we awarded the bid that it required approval by OSHPD. Once we were advised of that fact, the bid qualifications changed and we re- issued the bid accordingly. Although we underestimated the scope of the project, there was no intent to bypass our own policies and process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 4
recommends that OVHD consistently adhere to its own established bid proposal guidelines so as to prevent the public perception of favoritism and/or conflicts of interest. As explained in the findings, on a single occasion we underestimated the scope of a remodeling project and prematurely issued a bid. Once we were aware of our error, we immediately corrected the situation. We make every effort to adhere to our well established policies for bids and to correct our actions in case of an error. We will certainly raise our awareness and be mindful of the need to avoid any perception of favoritism or conflict of interest.
F3 Page 2
states that legal counsel does not routinely attend Board meetings and that may have led to the Brown Act omissions referenced in the report. It is correct that legal counsel only personally attends meetings in which major legal issues are discussed, although legal counsel often does participate via phone conferences, as necessary. I think whether regular participation by counsel at every meeting would have precluded other findings is speculative.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 4
recommends that we improve our dissemination of public information, stating that we mailed out 8000 letters to the community regarding the "revised" hospital construction plan and that the Grand Jury does not believe that amount of information to be adequate for a service area of 75,000 residents. The mailing referenced is only one of many information channels used to communicate our messages. However, it should be noted that the mailing went to 7500 "households", not individuals. Households often include two or more adults as well as several children so the reach is far beyond 7500 residents. With regard to the "revised" hospital plan, as stated in the findings section, both the Modesto Bee and the Oakdale Leader covered this story extensively. We included the information on our website and via other committees and organizations. We routinely communicate hospital related information to our communities with regular features, columns and stories in the Oakdale Leader. We routinely submit information to the Modesto Bee seeking coverage. We regularly update our website with information including a chronological history of the project, the final report of the Citizens' Oversight Committee and monthly updates. We direct Board/grandjury/2011/finalfrielgrandjuryresonse. 4 people to our website at every opportunity. We conduct frequent tours of the new hospital and use the local media to encourage District residents to join the tours. We strongly encourage residents to attend open meetings to learn more. Dates of those meetings and minutes of previous meetings are on our website. As with most companies and public agencies, the hospital has faced difficult financial challenges during this recession. Like others, we have been forced to trim our budgets. We have reduced the workforce and salaries. We have made significant budget reductions throughout the organization. Certainly our marketing, advertising and public information budgets have been impacted in the past two years. We simply do not have the financial resources to conduct extensive media or public information campaigns. I appreciate and respect the Grand Jury's desire that we should do more. I would like very much to do more, but candidly, it is just not financially feasible at this time. I believe we do a reasonable job with the limited resources available. Should Your Honor desire or require additional information, we will be happy to respond. S∕incer¢ ∮ohn Friel, CEO Oak Valley Hospital District Board/grandjury/2011/finalfrielgrandjuryresonse. 5
F4 Page 2
finds that January 2011 agendas were in compliance with the Brown Act and I concur.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 2
finds that there was inadequate notice made to the public concerning the change from the original replacement hospital construction project to the revised project as a result of defeated bond issues O and Q. I cannot agree with the finding. We publicly announced that we would address options for moving forward with the project at a public board meeting. At that meeting, architects, engineers and other experts presented a detailed power point presentation explaining the change. Handouts were provided to a large audience. Board members reported on their discussions with officials in Sacramento to obtain approval of the change. Reporters from the Modesto Bee and the Oakdale Leader attended the meeting and wrote extensive stories about the change. The Building Committee and the Citizens Volunteer Oversight Committee were provided full details of the changes. We sent a letter to 7500 households in our District explaining the change. We posted a chronology of events, including the change, on our website. We dedicated an entire webpage to construction details and monthly updates beginning in September 2009. I honestly thought that we had utilized every public information channel available to us.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 2
found no evidence to support the allegation of financial misappropriation on misconduct. I agree. Board/grandjury/2011/finalfrielgrandjuryresonse. 2
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 3
found no evidence to support the allegation of conflict of interest issues. Since I am unaware of what specific conflict of interest allegations were made, I cannot knowledgably respond. In a small community, there are frequent questions and concerns about potential conflict of interest and I always investigate and address each one individually.
No recommendations for this finding
F8 Page 3
found no evidence to support the allegation of contract bid manipulation concerning the replacement hospital construction project. I agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F9 Page 3
found no discrepancies in the hospital's financial reports. I agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F10 Page 3
found that the CEO's expenditures on the hospital credit card were in compliance with the Employee Travel Business Entertainment Expense Reimbursement Policy. I agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F11 Page 3
found no evidence of arbitrary or unauthorized wage or bonus distribution on the part of the CEO. I agree. Response to Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.