I commend Dr. Aaron Heide for fulfilling his fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers of Public Hospital District No.1 in questioning the propriety of, and the board’s impartiality, in approving what I consider an unsupportable bonus package, Resolution 929, for Valley Medical Center executive staff, paid for from public tax dollars. As a tax payer in Public Hospital District No.1, I likewise have questions.
In my opinion, bonus package Resolution 929, was nothing but a financially aggrandizing remuneration package favoring hospital management to the detriment of tax payers. The alluded to paltry rational for setting up this bonus payment program was, as a highly paid consultant to the executive staff stated, “incredibly common and very, very uncommon not to have an incentive program.”
Are these salary revelations on the order of those in Bell, Calif?
The Board of Commissioners of Public Hospital District No.1, in my opinion, should consult with their personal legal counsel as they appear to have little if no understanding of the lawful ramification of their fiduciary responsibilities required by their specific elected board positions.
These fiduciary responsibilities are to their constituents, the public tax payers of the district, rather than to the executive staff of this hospital, who in contrast are adequately represented by their executive staff attorney.
And, in my opinion, the state’s attorney general should weigh the facts in deciding whether to convene a grand jury to ascertain if each and every commissioner on the Board of Public Hospital District No. 1 individually fulfilled their lawful fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers of District No. 1 when voting to approve Resolution 929.
In my opinion commissioners, in support of casting their vote for approval of Resolution 929, the executive bonus compensation package, should be prepared to present the actual board minutes requesting a market analysis, analysis of comparable public institutions that have approved remuneration bonus payments to the level of 32 percent for their respective managements, requested by the board prior to December 2009, that formed the basis for casting their respective votes for this resolution. Otherwise, the board’s vote, in my opinion, is nothing but favoritism to the executive staff funded by the taxing district.
Such documentation assembled back in December 2009 would assist in presenting one’s defense in the advent the state’s attorney general subpoenas such records. And, such documentation would help prevent the voiding of their personal liability insurance policy, which they surely carry, for potential charges of wrong doing while holding board membership.
I would add that “true professionals” in a public supported institution hold open public meetings and encourage vigorous debate over topics presented for discussion, for all parties represented at the table, management and the tax payers.
Dr. Heide properly “held the public’s ground” in countering the board’s and management’s intimidation and attempt to discredit him as being disruptive.
The commissioner position held on the board of Valley Medical Center by Dr. Aaron Heide is a lawful elected public position and as such must be lawfully admitted to all board of director’s meetings of this public hospital.
Robert’s Rules of Order do not supersede a commissioner’s fiduciary responsibility to question, for the protection of tax payers, whether the hospital’s management is exercising due diligence and prudent stewardship of the public’s money. Nor, do the Robert’s Rules of Order supersede any open public meeting act. Further, what are the performance expectations for Mr. Roodman and his staff to continue to qualify and be entitled to their “base salary”?
Additionally, why is a 32 percent bonus program required to “get the hospital’s work done? ” If these bonus performance criteria are so critical to getting the work done, why aren’t these same performance needs part of the underlying criteria for being hired for these management positions in the first place, and deemed the base salary remuneration?
As remuneration policy is now, it appears that the tax payers are paying these folks just to sit at a desk and then pay them double when they get around to doing the hospital’s actual work.
And, when is Resolution 929 going to be published for public scrutiny, along with the aggregate dollar about paid out in bonuses, and to whom, so one can ascertain, for example, if Mr. Roodman and his staff properly met their performance criteria to just maintain their present position, their present base salary.
Perhaps the non-performance noted in 2008 should have resulted in a reduction of their base 2008 salary instead of the “straw” hypothetical argument they suffered a true financial salary loss in 2008 because bonuses were not granted in 2008 on top of payment of their full base salaries.
My contention is they did not earn their base salary in 2008 and should have had to take a reduction in base pay for that year and/or actually had their employment with the hospital terminated. The argument that since all of the 60 management staff have signed contracts, that the only option for non payment of bonuses is to re-negotiate each and every contract, is just bogus. Resolution 929’s bonus structure surely does not grant mandatory bonus payments but reserves this option to the board. If they are mandatory payments, then the board must explain why they legally bound the tax payer to such a financial commitment.
And, further, performance between one manager and another is just a matter of degree. With the employment situation as dire as it is, there are plenty of qualified candidates in the employment line very willing to work for each position’s base salary, including Mr. Roodman’s position. And, generally speaking, bonuses are not warranted for salaried personnel. But, optional incentive salary reviews in the range of zero to 10 percent are more common in approving incremental annual base salary increases.
And, to Mr. Roodman’s chagrin, in my opinion, his executive staff and the board members that voted for this bonus program granting upwards to 32 percent over and above one’s base salary, “has been corrupted by compensation”. If Mr. Roodman had been in private business and generated private capital/business profits to fund the hospital’s operation and expansion strictly from the private sector, instead of just lobbying politicians to tap the public’s treasury, then a bonus structure is arguably justified. I urge commissioners Heide and Hemstad to request the state’s attorney generaal’s office to review the legality of these bonus payments since a public taxing district is involved.
I agree with Dr. Heide’s request that these bonus payments be returned to the coffers of Public Hospital District No.1, to the taxpayers.
In my opinion, Mr. Roodman and his staff can live off their base salaries, otherwise find another job.
Larry Richards
Maple Valley
