📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 1998-1999
Mendocino Coast Health Care District
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 8 findings
F1
The strike happened because a. Board members misjudged the level of employee morale. b. Board members thought employees would not actually walk out. c. Board members were not well-advised on the employee union's probable response to a proposed health care benefit give-back.
F2
Page 50
From the employees' point of view, the strike was about respect.
F3
Page 50
Hospital administrators felt betrayed by the Board's "flip-flop" on resuming negotiations
F4
The strike had a positive, cathartic effect. a. Nearly all the administrative management left after the strike ended. b. Employee morale improved immediately. c. A new CEO started work February 1999.
F5
Page 53
The Grand Jury finds that the Board needs to take an active role in encouraging the Medical staff to support the Hospital and its mission.
F6
Page 56
The District's largest single financial drain comes from running the ambulance service. The deficit for the year ending June 30, 1996 was $217,750; for the year ending June 30, 1997 it was $304,610; and for the year ending June 30, 1998 it was $394,081.
F7
Page 56
District expenses are over $20 million per year. The District has a balance in its unrestricted fund ($11,055,241 as of June 30, 1998). This is its total reserves for building upgrades, equipment replacement, and unexpected expenses.
F8
Page 56
The Grand Jury finds that the District is not in immediate financial peril because its current reserves, investment income, and tax support are adequate in the short term.
Recommendations 8
-
R2Page 50The Board did not set clear and specific goals and objectives for the CEO.
-
R3Page 50The Board evaluation of the CEO was not conducted in a timely manner. Recommendation The Board should establish clear parameters and expectations for the Hospital CEO, and evaluate the CEO annually against these standards.
-
R4Page 50The Grand Jury heard testimony that the Board tolerated abuse of leave and training programs by Hospital administrators.
-
R5Page 50Board members described a reluctance to confront other Board members over conflict-of- interest, day-to-day meddling, or other troublesome issues. Recommendation Board members should listen aggressively and ask questions. The question and answer process is an important way of developing feedback and encourages everyone to do a better job. It also serves the public by bringing out more information. The Board should encourage a diversity of views, presented respectfully, in pursuit of the Board's common goals.
-
R6Page 50The Grand Jury finds the Board members inadequately trained in their responsibilities and obligations. Recommendation The Grand Jury endorses the following definition of a board's role and responsibility, adapted from the Community College League of California Trustee Handbook: a board as a unit, sets the policy direction, monitors institutional performance, employs a chief executive officer as institutional leader, acts as community bridge and buffer, establishes the climate in which community health goals are accomplished, assures the fiscal health and stability of the District, defines standards for good personnel relations, and serves as a positive agent for change. The Board should improve its training regarding the Board's role and make this training an annual requirement.
-
R7Page 50Public Board meetings do not convey the thought processes behind Board decisions. Votes are taken without sufficient discussion for members of the public to understand the course of action. Recommendation The Board, as individuals, should take the time to explain their reasoning before adopting resolutions. More meeting time should be devoted to discussion, deliberation, and debate rather than simply listening to reports.
-
R8Page 50Board members are active and very dedicated to the Hospital's success and survival as an independent entity.
-
R9Page 50The Board gave itself very low marks in its 1997 self-evaluation, especially in the areas of Board knowledge, Board review and evaluation of itself and the CEO, Board meeting effectiveness, and Board teamwork. No self-evaluation was conducted in 1998. Board and Administration