200 people came together last night
Last night about 200 people gathered to hear what local people had on their minds as the Northumberland Hills Hospital AGM looms ahead.
The folks in the pics were the people who had something to say. Bill Patchett was the most stirring exhorting the crowd to keep faith in the Hospital. "It's your hospital, the government didn't give it to you they used your money to build it!" He did explain that of all the hospital fundraising campaign in North America Cobourg and District was the highest percapita contributor in measured campaigns. $450 dollars per person compared to the average $250.Frank Farago used his time to explain the management mistakes observed in watching the CAO, Robert Biron. "Recent cuts do not include management even though the hospital will need less peolpe who are being manged, service cuts were made in the absence of alternate services and finishing with the quote, "hospitals serve patients not provide jobs.""
Deb O'Connor pointed out that low-income people, of all demographics are often unhealthier than the general population and cutting services will affect them the most as care now becomes more inaccessible than before. She suggested a few changes that could be made based on keeping community services local. But as with others she advocated the abolishment of the LHINs.
Peggy Smith described the emotional problem of trying to keep a level head on the very day that she, and all the others on her ward, were told that would be out of a job in September. She also mentioned the problems of trying to access distant clinics.
Rudy Roeleveld, a management consultant, explained, with the aid of PowerPoint his theories of the situation.
And, Tony Farren explained the upcoming AGM and the need for the members to elect him and two others to the Board for "transparency reasons". He explained the problems that his group has had in trying to influence the CAO, working on the onside, they have failed and "the public process of the hospital is one of not listening."
Others, not on the panel, also spoke. Michael Mackenzie, a supporter of the Board spoke with great courage as he publically supported the Board and criticised the "Citizens for Alternative Solutions" as being disruptive.
Others, Lloyd Williams, Bruce Steele, Jerry Ender, Stu Henry and Nancy Blakely all offered their opinions.
So how did it end up? Most people thought it was worthwhile and productive, we now know that are 375 paid-up members of the Association entitled to vote at the AGM for three new members chasing five vacancies. And the meeting was chaired very ably by Bridget Campion.
16 comments:
Are the new directors chosen at the beginning or the end of the AGM? Will the board discussions include the outgoing or incoming directors? Seems that's crucial to this debate.
While I don't relate well to Bill's 'walk over 'em' style, it disturbs me much more when it's the strategy of choice of the hospital CEO, Mr. Biron. It goes a long, long way to alienating the people who have 'built' this hospital with their equity and wherewithall and for the CEO to hide behind process, rules and privacy mumbo-jumbo is inexcusable.
While Michael Mackenzie's comments have a great deal of truth to them, and there must be some serious factors at work that keep the board from engaging in an open discussion, this is NOT a private hospital operating for the benefit of only investors seeking a financial return. It is funded entirely by those who depend on it for their health care now and in the years to come.
Hatchet-men like this CEO are a breed unto themselves, and unfortunately they rarely fail at achieving their purpose.
The soft underbelly on this is probably the provincial government and our local chickenpoop guy. After all, when this is history, the only ones still standing will be the provincials, and the CEO will be long gone and doing his thing to someone else. Maximizing the risk of their, and our local guy's survival as our government, in the event they jeopardize our hospital's future, may be the only card in our deck worth playing. That means the local libs have some serious soul searching to do about their priorities in this crisis.
Isn't it odd that our liberal leaning mayor is completely mum on this - does that hint at his future aspirations and explains his retirement from local council?
"liberal leaning mayor"
That's putting it rather lightly. I'd capitalize the L and remove the word leaning...not that there is anything wrong with that.
Is there, or should there be, room for an unbiased opinion in an issue as difficult as this? Would either side even bother to attempt to understand such a viewpoint? It seems that the significant(most vocal) participants in this war are entrenched exclusively in their own positions, to the exclusion of all else. Under the present circumstances, there is no possibility of reconciliation BEFORE the conclusion of the matter. Sure, some will want to 'kiss and make up' afterward, but they continue to keep their eyes on the opponent's jugular in an attempt to prevail.
CEO's are hired for their ability to succeed at their mission. OUR board chose this CEO and in theory defined his role and objective. OUR board gets its marching orders from the LIHN who gets theirs from the government. Maybe all the various efforts being expended in this war should be amassed and redirected at the ultimate decision maker. Maybe the CEO, with the support of the board, the membership, the citizens' groups and the public, if directed to do so, would have more success at achieving a compromise beneficial to all the stakeholders in such a scenario. Just imagine the strength that could be amassed by coming together rather than fighting each other. ONE VOICE rather than a dozen cheers or jeers all fighting for an ear here or there. We're basically just fighting amongst ourselves.
If all the activities under way at this point are in support of legitimate concerns, why would their supporters not seek to unite forces rather than go it alone? A well organized "petition" (not the signature kind but a presentation kind) directed at the decision maker by a completely integrated force of ALL the stakeholders has a far better chance of achieving something beneficial than what's being thrown together at the moment by a fractured opposition.
Claiming to possess an "unbiased opinion" our Anonymous has missed the mark. Again.
This poster is rather ignorant of human nature if they think any one of us is unbiased. Certainly in this post Anon. reveals their own bias against anyone who challenges the status quo.
What nerve, to sit in the shadows of anonymity and take shots at those who have the courage to stand up in public and defend their positions.
It's called integrity and accountability. Anonymous, you should get some.
While an opinion is by its very nature biased towards its premise, it can be unbiased towards an issue. If an opinion addresses the method rather than the thesis, it can be unbiased toward the thesis itself.
In this health care issue, an opinion can express concerns with methods being employed while not expressing an opinion for or against their merit or objectives. Opinions do not necessarily have to "take sides" in an issue to have relevance.
As far as your repeated references to courage, etc, etc., how does a name or identity proffer any more relevance upon an opinion than the absence of such? It just smacks of notice, fame, notoriety and just plain me, me, me, see me hear me i'm important. That's not courage, that's egotism. In my opinion, egotism can easily diminish the value of a viewpoint when that's the motivation for the opinion in the first place.
Deb - I am honestly curious as to what's with the attacks on Anonymous posters lately? Normally I agree with your take on things and find your views insightful, but honestly I am a bit lost on the attitude you have towards these folks.
Not everyone has the freedom for such postings under their own name all the time, often due to work position etc. I didn't realize that it was a requirement to identify yourself to the Burd Report.
What is the problem with folks being able to simply share their opinion - why do you need to know who each person on here is?
If I may, I'd like to add to "Armchair QB"'s comment. Straight forward opinions should be welcomed under any id, but those name-calling, personal attack posters should only permitted if they legitimately own up to their remarks. That's maybe difficult to administer and some would charge "censoring" but the end product (blog) would likely be much more worthwhile for many followers.
Armchair QB, you have pushed me to examine my hostility towards anonymous posters, for which I am grateful.
After some thought I realized it's not anonymous posters in general I object to, it's the ones who go on personal attacks that I don't like. I've had more than my fair share of those and it makes me uneasy. Something about the right to know your accuser I guess.
But besides personal pique at such rudeness, a big part of my unhappiness is because these snipers derail the topic the rest of us are trying to discuss.
That really drives me crazy; like you I want to know what others think of issues, and have the opportunity to have a discussion.
I do understand people sometimes have to slide under the radar, and posters like yourself, Armchair QB are perfectly welcome as far as I'm concerned. I am sorry if I have given a wrong impression.
But to anonymous posters who insult, dismiss, mis-characterize and belittle me with no basis whatsoever, I will give as I get.
Thanks Deb, I really appreciate your comment, and I am glad that you took mine in the honest fashion it was offered.
I agree with your sentiment that if you are on here to simply attack others, get a life. There are some good topics to cover and some dynamic opinions offered. I find from time to time that some folks tend to take it a bit too personal in their vitriol towards other posters. Disappointing but an unfortunate element of human nature isn't it.
Again, thanks for clarifying, and to those who choose to attack for the sake of attacking, I guess forewarned is forearmed, Anonymous or not!
In response to a post by Anonymous which asked "Is there, or should there be, room for an unbiased opinion in an issue as difficult as this?" Deb O wrote, in part "This poster is rather ignorant of human nature if they think any one of us is unbiased. Certainly in this post Anon. reveals their own bias against anyone who challenges the status quo.
What nerve, to sit in the shadows of anonymity and take shots at those who have the courage to stand up in public and defend their positions.
It's called integrity and accountability. Anonymous, you should get some."
This can be easily characterized as 'off topic' since it doesn't address the question and 'quite aggressive and accusatory' towards the end of her comment. That makes her later comment "That really drives me crazy; like you I want to know what others think of issues, and have the opportunity to have a discussion." rather hard to believe.
Despite Armchair's rather mushy hug for Deb O, it's difficult to respect someone's opinions when they demonstrate such inconsistencies repeatedly and then compound it with a lack of awareness of it. It is high time for Deb O to actually practice what she purports to preach.
Her apparent habit of labeling every opinion contrary to hers as a 'personal attack' is ludicrous and wearing rather thin. It also appears that sometimes a careful rereading of a post would help her to keep from jumping to erroneous conclusions, something that also seems to be repeating more frequently. May I suggest the three C's - care, calm and consider as a good place to start.
Now, if I know Deb O, she'll take this as another 'personal attack' and respond with something along the lines of her "I will give as I get." If so, this too was a wasted effort.
Is there an answer out there to the question posed in the first comment in this post?
se the agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Introduction of Guests
3. Minutes of 2009 Annual General Meeting
4. Financial Report including the Report of the Auditor
5. Appointment of the Auditor for 2010/2011
6. Report of the Chair of the Board
7. Report from the President and CEO: Presentation of 2010-2014 Strategic Plan
8. Report of the Chief of Staff
9. Report of Nominating Committee and the slate of Directors
10. Ratification of By-Law Amendments, including presentation by Michael Watts, Partner of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, LLP
11. Question Period
12. Adjournment
The term "slate of officers is ominous and I will be checking to see if the number of moninated Directors is equal to the number of vacancies, if it is there will be no "free elections"
Excuse me for being basically polite on here Anon in my comments to Deb O. Simply trying to make a point without inflaming a situation, something which I see is lost on you, based on your style of writing.
But, in the spirit of equality - here's a BIG MUSHY HUG for you too.
Thank you for the info
No. 10 on the agenda is most interesting...get a good attorney I have said it before.
Biron and CO. certainly did.
Post a Comment