RSS FeedCIBOLA COUNTY - During a special meeting last week the Cibola County Commissioners approved $1.4 million in additional funding for Cibola General Hospital as the Sole Community Provider, a $250 stipend to all county hourly employees and the preliminary contract between the county and the Communication Workers Association.
|
|
The release also notes the $1.2 million that the county received for the hospital of Supplemental Funding and the $300,000 contribution for the new mammogram machine earlier this year, displaying support for hospital operations. “We are giving money, not taking money,” County Chairman Eddie Michael said. According to the press release, Michael said that was because of unfound rumors regarding the county taking hospital funds.
“The ball is in their court now,” said Michael, referring to the hospital board and administration. “All they have to do is follow the law which is little to ask for a $6.5 million tax subsidy.”
The Sole Community Provider resolution passed unanimously, however, with stipulations. The resolution clearly states that the hospital must comply with the New Mexico Open Meetings Act, New Mexico Public Records Act, New Mexico Procurement Code and the Hospital Funding Act, in order to receive the funds.
“All we demand and will have is accountability, openness and transparency for any tax dollars used by the hospital,” Michael stated.
Commissioner Lloyd Felipe echoed Michael saying, “We stand behind the hospital and will continue to provide all the resources we can. But, with over $8.5 million in public funds directly going to the hospital we must have accountability and openness.”
Commissioner Patrick Simpson said, “We have an obligation to the tax payer first and foremost to provide full disclosure of the use of any tax dollars going to the hospital.” Before this agenda action item, the commission voted four to one to terminate its current contract with the current board to manage the hospital. For the full story on this item, see the Friday, Jan. 1, 2010, Beacon.
$250 stipend
At the special meeting, the county also approved a $250 stipend to all county hourly employees who have worked without a lost time accident during the past year. County representation said the stipend was made possible by a $52,000 rebate from the New Mexico Association of Counties Multi-Line Insurance Pool. County Manager Scott Vinson recommended the stipend for non-management employees saying, “Their efforts to work safely and help the county reduce the cost of needless litigation and workforce accidents. The stipend will cost the county approximately $26,000, or half of the rebate.
CWA contract
Last on the agenda and also approved was the preliminary contract between the county and the Communication Workers Association that represents the Detention Center and dispatch employees, according to a press release. The commission approved two articles that recognize CWA as the exclusive bargaining agent for the center and dispatch employees and authorizes payroll deductions of union dues immediately. A 'fair share' clause the union requested that requires non-union but represented employees to pay 75 percent of union dues by payroll deduction was also approved. The total union contract is scheduled to be approved at the regular county commission meeting on Jan. 13 at the Cibola County Complex. The meeting will start at 5:30 p.m.
Comments
anonymous Jan04 wrote on Jan 12, 2010 5:59 PM:
More Concerned wrote on Jan 9, 2010 1:56 PM:
I would like to see a real discussion take place. It seems the Commission has many facts wrong. They claim the hospital is keeping secrets...based on what? Rumors? Rumors from disgruntled physicians?
Get your facts straight. Base your actions on facts..not rumors, nor personal grudges against board members. "
Concerned Citizen wrote on Jan 8, 2010 7:29 PM:
unbelievable wrote on Jan 7, 2010 6:49 PM:
Laura Malj wrote on Jan 7, 2010 11:38 AM:
Angry Citizen wrote on Jan 6, 2010 8:02 AM:
Anonymous wrote on Jan 5, 2010 5:38 PM:
I think that Eddie Michael just wants to see his name in the paper so he keeps saying things without the knowledge to back it up. How much are you hiding from the public Eddie??
Enough is enough. All you are doing commissioners is harming the healthcare of our county. Go back to what you are elected to do RUN THE COUNTY, not the Hospital (you have a board for that). Bring in industry, create jobs, get people off welfare!!!!And take care of the roads, they are getting horrible.
If you want the county to grow then good healthcare & a excellent hospital are a MUST! We do have a EXCELLENT hospital at this time thanks to our current Board!! Leave them intact & let them do the job they were entrusted to do. "
Concerned Citizen wrote on Jan 5, 2010 4:07 PM:
Sarah Welsh wrote on Jan 5, 2010 11:47 AM:
The line between public and private entities is not as clear as one might think, and members of the public do indeed have a right to 'go through a private business's books' if the business is holding documents that were created or maintained on behalf of a public body and relate to public business. (Therefore, a mechanic holding the invoice for a county vehicle's oil change would have to provide a copy of that invoice to the county if someone wanted to see it. That doesn't mean that ALL of the mechanic's documents are open to the public -- only those that relate to the public's business. Keep in mind that the mechanic is not leasing a public facility in order to provide a public service using public money.) Therefore, a private company operating a public utility under contract should expect that transactions related to that contract will be subject to public scrutiny. The same goes for a private company operating a county jail under contract.
The Attorney General's public-records compliance guide even uses the example of a private nonprofit corporation which leases a public hospital. (see page 29.) If the hypothetical county exercises substantial control over the non-profit's management, then the non-profit is subject to the Inspection of Public Records Act, the AG concludes.
The important question is whether tax dollars are being used. The public has a fundamental right to check up on how its tax money is being spent. That idea lies at the very heart of democratic government. I think some of the political scandals of 2009 show how important it is to exercise that right, lest our public "servants" get too creative with our money.
So yes, many people believe that transparency should extend to private entities which take public money and use it to perform vital public services. Count me as one.
Sarah Welsh
New Mexico Foundation for Open Government "
Concerned wrote on Jan 5, 2010 8:41 AM:
Sandy Martin wrote on Jan 4, 2010 8:18 PM:
So far i have not been able to find out where the funds for the mamogram michine come from, but if the the truth was to put out by the county, and news paper, the funding for the mamogram machine probaly come from the 911 funds that the county recieved from federal government that required them to use for hospital equipment.
the county talks transprancy and honesty, lets see it from them.
Lets see it in the news reporting also. "
anonymous wrote on Jan 4, 2010 7:54 PM:
Just because the City of Grants gives public $ to CH2MHILL/OMI to operate the water system, does anyone really believe the City of Grants has any right to appoint Directors to CH2MHILL's board? Just because the County gives public $ to CGHA to operate the hospital, does anyone really believe the County has any right to appoint Directors to CGHA's board?
CH2MHILL does not follow open-meeting rules for good reason -- it's a *private* company and is exempt from that rule. Same thing for the *private* service station owner if he should land a contract with the County to change oil on County vehicles -- the County has no right to open every business decision you make to public scrutiny just because it has a public-$ contract with you. And the same thing applies to CGHA -- a *private* company -- in regard to the hospital as well.
The County is inventing nonsensical reasons to terminate the operating contract with CGHA. The County has no right to go through CGHA's books, no right to impose open-meeting rules on a private company, no right to representation on or the right to appoint Directors to CGHA's board. "
Concerned Citizen wrote on Jan 4, 2010 7:39 PM: