What would you have done, Brian?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim O'Bryan and Dan Alaimo,

I am requesting that this thread be "pinned" on the Observation Deck. The responses posted by Councilman Anderson to Brian Essi's posts are important and essential to the reasonable people of Lakewood that read the Deck.

Thank you in advance,
Let's stop the Madness, this is nuts.

Patrick

I am reaching out to both, and trying figure best way to present.

If we all agree, I'll try to split the discussion remove non-David/Brian messages to a second thread, maybe we can get this done today.

No promises, but I agree with you and Bill, these are conversations that should have taken place 20 months ago, if not longer.

And they deserve to happen in a tighter method.

Thank you for bringing it up.

.

[m buckley]

I see the possibility in this thread for the discussion that should have taken place.

This is the public discussion that should have taken place 5 years ago.

Instead a small group worked in secret to subvert Lakewood Hospital and convert its public assets to private use.

The $33 million in the Lakewood Hospital Foundation was a key motivating factor in the secret decision. A $33 million City asset has been converted into an arm of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation that is under the control of people who do not live in Lakewood and don't give a damn about Lakewood. The new purpose, "to serve Lakewood and surrounding communities" says it all.

Whatever other cash is left will be controlled by another arm of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and another small group with dreams of bike trails in Brunswick, new hospitals in Mentor, and cash spread all around Northeast Ohio. Lakewood will get a few crumbs here and there that will be announced with great fanfare and publicity. Over time, millions will be quietly and privately spent far, far away.

The deal agreed to by Council is just a bad real estate deal with a dash of incompetence and a whole lot of private dealing and corruption.

Vote against 64.

"This is a public discussion that should have taken place 5 years ago"

Yes!
And the MAYOR should have been leading it then.
As he should be leading it now.

"The deal agreed to by Council is just a bad real estate deal with a dash of incompetence and a whole lot of private dealing and corruption"

VOTE AGAINST 64.

[Brian Essi]

I appreciate the response, Brian. And, honestly, you and I have spoken and corresponded so many times of the last 18-months that nothing on this list is a surprise to me. Please allow me to take the following one at a time, not as an attempt to convince you but to just give you my take, then I’ll provide more as to my own process.
The points you outlined are fair and Council, as a group, considered pretty much each during our first three months of study.
1. Engage independent Lawyers.
I would have retained independent legal counsel for City Council alone.

You and I are never going to agree on this one. Despite your assertions, Thompson Hine and Huron Consulting provided unbiased and genuine advice to Council. Continued disparaging comments regarding Kevin Butler’s or Mike Summer’s commitment to Lakewood and their neighbors has become intolerable. Kevin Butler was and is Lakewood’s Law Director and counsel to Lakewood City Council.

2. Ask Madigan and Bullock to recuse themselves from the entire process—Their minds were made up and they had already voted for it—they voted on December 12, 2013and January 14, 2015 to give CCF its FHC.

I never had any doubt that Mary Louise Madigan and Tom Bullock had and continue to have the best intentions for the City of Lakewood and its future. How do you know that both were in favor of the LOI at the initiation of LHA’s study and deliberations? The fact that both were strong supporters of the LOI at its introduction did not sway me at all and, based upon Council’s first three months of deliberations on this matter, other previously uncommitted members were not swayed either. In addition, both provided insight as to LHA’s process and continuing work. Neither steered Council toward any preconceived conclusion and excluding them from deliberations and debate would have gained us nothing and cost us that insight.

3. Remove Madigan as council president—I know that this was discussed and you had the votes—I would have pressed for that harder. Her failure to lead was well documented.

Now, Mary Louise Madigan and I banged heads on a number of occasions on this matter. In my opinion, she was occasionally dismissive of my thoughts, concerns and objectives and I was at times disrespectful (but not out of line) and curt. If I thought for one minute her episodes of initial dismissiveness toward me hurt my ability to ask tough questions and push on this issue from all angles to get answers then her position as Council President would have been considered. Regardless, she would have remained as an influential member of Council.

In the end, she supported the opening of Council’s deliberations beyond the LOI, scheduled access to all LHA members and came to embrace my initial request that an industry consultant be identified to, among other things, review and report on LHA’s Subsidium work. Besides, leading Council does not fall in the hands of one member. Each member Council stepped up at times throughout the process as a Council leader.

Even if what you opine is correct about “you had the votes,” Council members were working hard independently, had access to information, Thompson Hine and Huron as well as LHA board members and Mary Louise Madigan was continuously asking me and others about topics we felt needed to be covered in the dozens of public meetings and hearings that followed. Nothing and nobody prevented me from contacting our Thompson Hine or Huron teams on my own via phone when I desired.

4. Restructure the LHA Board –

For all to consider, per the 1996 Master Agreement, the 23 member LHA Board consisted of seven “City” nominees which had to be approved by the Board’s Executive Committee and full board along with three trustees (Mayor and two members of Council). The three CCF appointees could not be refused. The immediate past president of the hospital’s medical staff was a member and the Board was in charge of another nine appointees.

Restructuring the Board of staggering terms so that a majority would change their minds regarding the support of its LOI would only be realistic if the LHA and the CCF agreed to change the related sections of the Master Agreement then ask City Council to approve those changes to the Master Agreement. My estimation is that either the LHA or the CCF would have balked at this notion. The tack you suggest would have taken the Hospital long past the forecast that the LHA would have been bankrupt before 2020 and no later than 2020.

5. Engaged an Investment Banker and other experts to value the hospital and value the damages caused by CCF and LHA to this vital city asset.
We knew about the $90 million of needed repairs and upgrades to the building and the garage. We independently and separately appraised the 850 Columbia Road complex and the Medical Office Building (affectionately referred to as “MOD”). Based on comparables, we discussed an estimated the value of the 5.7 acres of land under the hospital. The CCF paid the equivalent of about $900,000 per acre for the land under the MOD. This brings the land under the hospital at over $5M and the Hospital building had a book value of $20.0M and, again, had $90M in needs and upgrades.
The 850 Columbia Road complex was appraised at $6.8M in June of 2015 by Charles M. Ritley and Associates. The Clinic purchased this complex for $6.8M already paid and a $1.4M note due in 2018. The homes on Belle and St. Charles were also appraised and are being sold.
After costs, the net proceeds of 850 Columbia = $8,045,000 ($6.6M already received by Lakewood and $1.4M due in less than two years.
Hospital Rehab/Demo = $7,000,000 ($500,000 receivable in 2016 and $6.5M in 2018)
Sale of MOB and Parking Garage = $1,557,000
Conservative value of homes = $900,000


6. Demand that special legal counsel be appointed to review and likely join the taxpayer lawsuit.
This would have not satisfied you and others at all. Should that appointed special legal counsel opine that the taxpayer lawsuit should not be joined you and others would have immediately demanded that a new special legal counsel be appointed because the previous one was tainted, biased and not independent because it was selected by City Council. My point is illustrated by your continued portrayal of Huron and Thompson Hine as not independent (see question one). The only way you would have been satisfied on this point is if Council hired a special legal counsel that was predetermined to commit to the lawsuit.

7. In September, 2015, I would have demanded Butler’s resignation.
Despite your fixation on unfairly portraying Kevin Butler as inept and not fighting for the future of Lakewood, Council struck a fair deal. The city will receive more in lease payments than if the previous lease/Master Agreement went through to 2026. $128 million in LHA net assets have been properly allocated. The Clinic is investing another $49 million of its money. An up to $90 million liability is off taxpayer shoulders. And we will benefit from a state of the art medical facility and fully accredited ER all while retaining 5.7 acres of developable land for future sale. Another liability, the Medical Office Building, underperforming and not very competitive, was sold at fair market value based on independent appraisals and is being replaced with the new FHC and ER. The down side, of course, involves the loss of jobs but Lakewood has always had a diverse tax base and increases in other sources of revenue have already made up for that payroll tax loss. Regarding the medical services of the former hospital, two out of every three beds were empty every night for a year prior to January of 2015 and those revenue producing service lines were also already gone and were not coming back.

8. Assemble a group of experts. As I wrote to you, council and Summers on April 13, 2015, the city would have clearly ended up with more by doing nothing ...
As I’ve asked repeatedly to you and others, name one health care management entity that wanted to bid/submit an RFP but could not or did not.

Name one entity that wanted to come into this region as a new market entrant and compete with Metro, UH and the Clinic without access to doctors, referrals (patients), a network with other non Metro, UH or Clinic hospitals while doing so in a building that needs $90M to make it competitive and safe.

9. I could go at greater on later after giving this greater thought—I have written so much on this—Remember my article in the LO “Council needs to act like a landlord?" or something like that. Putting a defaulting tenant in charge of selling your property is a pretty dumb idea.
I don’t want to copy my reaction that I put under question number 7 but that sums it up.

David Anderson

Dear Mr. Anderson,

Thank you again for engaging.

I hope that we can meet face to face in short order.

In the interim, let’s be honest, this deal is terrible for Lakewood and you gave up trying to make it better sometime last year because you were surrounded by a bunch of coopted colleagues and mayor who lacked the intellect, honesty and will to fight for the people of Lakewood.

My only wish is that you would directly and fairly address all points and questions in this thread and the several threads we have going on. You continue to avoid the undeniable specific facts that are the foundation of a bad process and a bad result—secret meetings, no appraisals, no marketing of the assets and no public bidding.

Nevertheless, we can both agree that when people who hold political offices and are in crisis mode in a political season, there is a need to engage folks like Burgess and Burgess to cleverly avoid directly answering many questions that might reveal “inconvenient truths.” One tried and true tactic interwoven in these threads here on the Deck is to accuse the other side of exactly what your side is doing in an effort—to make one side appear “reasonable” and the other side “emotional” “fanatic” and “unwilling to compromise.”

The most obvious example of this tactic at play is your “moral absolutism” question coupled with your question: is the anything that I “would have been willing to compromise on?” When we look 180 degrees and ask those questions of your side, we see Mike Summers, Kevin Butler and others who steadfastly refused to compromise on anything—they were full tilt for the Clinic FHC/ER camp, hospital closes, no RFP, no appraisals, no transparency, “economic development or bust”, and privatize the public assets for the Insiders’ Club.

Classic Burgess Boys stuff here, playing out right before our eyes on the Deck.

To win a lie, you need to spend a lot of money to confuse people. And Summers, the Insiders PAC for Progress, LHA now known as the Clinic are spending tens of thousands of dollars of charitable and Insiders money to sell this lie. I am saddened that you defile your own good name by joining in this charade at the expense of trust in government and the well-being of the people of Lakewood

Your use of the word “intolerable” to describe the facts that that point to Mr. Butler’s conflict and unforgivable conduct is very telling—this betrays the hatred and contempt that is being spewed forth at City Hall for me. However, it is not me they fear and distain, but the facts and truth that I deliver that they can’t overcome—it points to their glaring mistakes and makes them angry at me when they really should be angry with themselves.

One example of what you completely failed to address was my statement "In September, 2015, I would have demanded Butler’s resignation. In over 30 years of negotiating deals, I have never seen anyone publicly announce that they have no rights or leverage against someone on the eve of announcing they will negotiate exclusively with that party they claim they have no leverage against. Unforgivable and just plain dumb." Do you really think that was a good negotiating strategy? Be honest with us.


Despite your avoidance of many of my questions, I will continue to extend you every professional courtesy in answering all yours and responding to all of your points. But I need to go out and canvass today. I’ll return to this back and forth later to be more specific as to how you avoided the specifics.

Thanks again for engaging.

[David Anderson]

Well, Brian, I had hoped that at least this thread would go deeper than the usual points we’ve been blasting about this past week. I am not sure why you took my comment and question regarding “moral absolutes” the way you did. I wasn’t a “tactic” of any type but, rather, an attempt to discuss balancing ideals, realities and vision for a city.

I guess the point we can draw is that we took different perspectives on this issue from the start. You provided a list of nine and I’ve communicated my reactions to you. My perspective was to focus on the bigger picture and find a way to continue the delivery of quality health care in Lakewood and access to a fully functioning Emergency Room. You’ve provided a number of legal theories that you believe should have been exercised. I’ve replied that we studied those legal theories to the nth degree and came to a different conclusion. This doesn’t mean we’re corrupt or “coopted.” It simply means we studied the same points with our legal team and industry consultant and came to a different result than you. I was hoping that at least this thread would be free of comments that demean others and question their integrity.

Again, I appreciate having your initial list of nine points and I responded. I do not feel my answers fit your characterization as “avoidance.” Regarding your criticism of Kevin Butler, I believe we struck a fair deal and sited specific reasons in my response as to why I believe so and do not feel that any comment that Kevin made and to which you took professional offense had any impact on merits of the negotiated deal.

I’m just looking for you or anyone else to answer these two questions:

1 - As I’ve asked repeatedly to you and others, can you name one health care management entity that wanted to bid/submit in response to the RFP to run a full service hospital in Lakewood but could not or did not?

2 - Metro pulled out and UH said it had zero interest. Can you name one entity that would come into this region as a new market entrant and compete with Metro, UH and the Clinic without access to doctors, referrals (patients), with no link/network with other non Metro, UH or Clinic hospitals (second tier pricing) while doing so in a building that needs $90M to make it competitive and safe?

Believe me, Brian, I would much rather dedicate at least this one thread to the notion of balancing ideals, realities and vision for a city. (I tried, Stan A., perhaps there’s still hope.)

David Anderson

[Bridget Conant]

Metro did not "pull out."

Metro submitted a well-thought out and serious proposal to RUN A FULL SERVICE HOSPITAL, and indeed, they would have expanded services and employment.

Lakewood ignored the offer and did not respond according to the date and terms of the offer.

Now how is that "no one was interested?"

[David Anderson]

Ms. Conant –

I appreciate your comment regarding Metro’s proposal. While never put before Council as an option, the issue involving Metro's initial interest was an issue Council discussed and studied at length with our legal team and industry consultant.

Metro has a Board of Directors. Also, as being a County hospital, it also has to have the approval of the County Executive and the County Council for any substantial expansion of its services. While a final draft proposal was never agreed to, I am not aware of any serious and deep conversation involving the entire Metro Board of Directors regarding the notion of expanding Metro into being an operating partner of a full service hospital in Lakewood under LHA. Also, I am not aware of any correspondence, meetings, etc. of any serious level on this matter in a positive way involving the County Executive or County Council.

As I have written before, like it or not, Metro pulled out. In my opinion, Dr. Boutros was way out in front of Metro's Board on this and certainly did not have the support of the County Council or Executive. I certainly do not blame Dr. Boutros for having one eye on the work on this desk and the other on the horizon looking for the next opportunity to expand Metro's vital services throughout our county. Regardless, some might have seen the PD article from a few months ago reporting that the County now admits to facing severe limitations in its bonding capacity to finance the paving of county roads. How was the county going to finance even half of the $90 million in upgrades needed at Lakewood Hospital (LHA didn’t have $90M) and an expansion of hundreds of doctors, nurses and other employees into Lakewood Hospital, described by some as "swing space," while already building bed-less centers in other parts of the county and continuing to spend resources on its W25th Street campus capital improvement plan financed by County residents?

An honest question here - Would you have rather had a Metro Family Health Center over a Clinic FHC? Reasonable minds can come to that conclusion. Personally, I would rather have an entity that could put its own $49 million in its own facility with the operating covenant regarding the ER. Regardless, a full service hospital run by Metro for the next generation in a 100 year old building that needed $90 million in repairs and upgrades was not an option before Council and was never put before Metro's Board or County Council for any formal, deep discussion.

David Anderson

[David Anderson]

Bill Call –

You wrote, “This is the public discussion that should have taken place 5 years ago.” Well, I’m confident that if Council had not authorized the contractual changes in late 2015 you likely would have been writing the day after LHA went bankrupt by 2020 or 2022 or the day after the lease expired in 2026, “Why didn’t our elected officials take action on this in 2015 and 2016 when there were still net assets on LHA’s books to help reinvest into 21st Century health care?”

I’m not intending to be sarcastic here, Bill. The contractual changes authorized by Council should be compared to what would be in place (1) the day after the LHA no longer had net assets which would have been either before 2020, as reported by Subsidium, or (2) by 2022, as determined by Huron, or (3) to the day after the lease was set to expire in 2026.


On a side note, you wrote in a recent LO article that the 850 Columbia Road complex was “appraised at nearly $15 million.” Upon reading your article, I emailed you a copy of the June 15, 2015 appraisal of this complex conducted by Charles M. Ritley Associates LLC which appraised it at $6.8 million. Do you have a copy of the appraisal you mentioned in your article?

By the way, you’re the latest to label me as corrupt.

David Anderson

[Bridget Conant]

So what you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that no one took the Metro proposal seriously and that it wasn't pursued.

I find that odd.

No one in Lakewood, including Jenn Pae, was qualified to assess the financial strength of Metro in terms of its ability to enter the Lakewood market. In fact, most of the excuses you give for ignoring Metro are pure speculation.

As for funding, Metro has embarked on building additional facilities in the county AND has taken over the HealthSpan contracts and physicians - so they obviously had the ability to expand.

The proposal deserved a serious look, but it appears no effort was made to go to the next step in the process- you admit that there were no discussions with the County Exec or anyone else. Why were there no meetings with Boutros? Surely, the mayor and LHA should have at least met with him and, if they had concerns about the viability of the project, there should have been questions asked and reassurances made, and/or further documentation and studies done.

Again, it is evidence of a lack of due diligence. The offer was summarily dismissed without as much as a phone call to meet with Boutros. Was anyone even slightly curious about the possibilities? Apparently not.

And why do you keep saying "would you rather have Metro here or a CC FHC?" I find that rather concerning as it sounds curiously like what the Mayor was alleged to have said -something about not wanting "those people here."

Frankly, I'd prefer Metro over the MOST overrated hospital in the US - but that's another thread.

[Bridget Conant]

David Anderdon wrote:

I am not aware of any serious and deep conversation involving the entire Metro Board of Directors regarding the notion of expanding Metro into being an operating partner of a full service hospital in Lakewood under LHA. Also, I am not aware of any correspondence, meetings, etc. of any serious level on this matter in a positive way involving the County Executive or County Council.

Again, Metro made a proposal and you admit it was ignored. Not one phone call or meeting to explore that option? Why? Why just summarily dismiss it?

Was that good stewardship of a city asset?

It has been alleged that the mayor did not want Metro here, that his only interest was in a partnership with Clevekand Clinic. Does this not indicate that that is precisely what happened? Why weren't other stakeholders included in THIS conversation?

[Lori Allen _]

At this point I don't believe it matters what sort of spin Mr. Anderson wants to put on the issues. I don't believe it matters how many times the Mayor's minions want to cry "Boo Hoo" to Jim because they don't like incriminating facts posted here about the hospital deal. I believe this is done to try to protect the alleged crooks that are allegedly stealing our city, one property at a time and one dollar at a time.

What people post here is freedom of speech, you know, 1st amendment rights. Are we going to continue to let Summers and Extended Company control ALL media? I believe there are other internet sites that are full of sunshine and alleged lies for those that can't handle the truth.

If you come here, prepare to put on your big boy pants. The truth can be ugly!

[mjkuhns]

While a lot can be said about MetroHealth, for me it basically comes down to this:

MetroHealth not only submitted a detailed proposal to run Lakewood Hospital, but so far as I am aware submitted the only proposal to run a hospital during the "search" conducted by Lakewood Hospital Association et al.

Yet at no point did officials declare that "we have to work with Metro." I don't recall anyone saying "well, it isn't perfect, but whatever its shortcomings MetroHealth was the only option."

One can chase down side-alleys of tortious interference and who "went away" first, but in the end nothing seems to evade this central fact. If "we were limited to the specific options readily available to us and had to make do with that" is granted as an argument, how then did that lead to the organization which did not offer a proposal for running Lakewood Hospital [i.e. Cleveland Clinic] rather than to the organization which did?

[Lori Allen _]

The hospital deal was done in an alleged illegal and immoral way. Mr. Anderson is one of the alleged thieves. Anyone that would take "his word" for truth now, better wise up. I believe that Mr. Anderson is just the Mayor's new mouth piece. We all know there were other deals out there that were ignored on purpose. I believe Summers and Extended Company put this deal trough in order to make alleged dirty money for themselves. I don't believe that the safety and well being of the citizens of Lakewood was ever a consideration.

With alleged stealing of Lakewood Hospital, alleged stealing of Lakewood resident's homes without due process, particularly minorities, alleged misuse of HUD funds, alleged misuse of Community Grant money, alleged vote rigging, where does it stop?

Mr. Anderson, if I were you, I would have gone to the Federal Bureau of Investigation immediately and told the truth. It appears that by not doing this, you are an alleged thief also. Didn't you vote to give the hospital to CCF? I believe your actions, or lack of the proper actions, would be known as aiding and abetting, an accomplice to the crime?

Keep talking. It appears that you guys aren't smart enough to realize that you are better off to stay quiet!

[Brian Essi]

Well, Brian, I had hoped that at least this thread would go deeper than the usual points we’ve been blasting about this past week. I am not sure why you took my comment and question regarding “moral absolutes” the way you did. I wasn’t a “tactic” of any type but, rather, an attempt to discuss balancing ideals, realities and vision for a city.

I guess the point we can draw is that we took different perspectives on this issue from the start. You provided a list of nine and I’ve communicated my reactions to you. My perspective was to focus on the bigger picture and find a way to continue the delivery of quality health care in Lakewood and access to a fully functioning Emergency Room. You’ve provided a number of legal theories that you believe should have been exercised. I’ve replied that we studied those legal theories to the nth degree and came to a different conclusion. This doesn’t mean we’re corrupt or “coopted.” It simply means we studied the same points with our legal team and industry consultant and came to a different result than you. I was hoping that at least this thread would be free of comments that demean others and question their integrity.

Again, I appreciate having your initial list of nine points and I responded. I do not feel my answers fit your characterization as “avoidance.” Regarding your criticism of Kevin Butler, I believe we struck a fair deal and sited specific reasons in my response as to why I believe so and do not feel that any comment that Kevin made and to which you took professional offense had any impact on merits of the negotiated deal.

I’m just looking for you or anyone else to answer these two questions:

1 - As I’ve asked repeatedly to you and others, can you name one health care management entity that wanted to bid/submit in response to the RFP to run a full service hospital in Lakewood but could not or did not?

2 - Metro pulled out and UH said it had zero interest. Can you name one entity that would come into this region as a new market entrant and compete with Metro, UH and the Clinic without access to doctors, referrals (patients), with no link/network with other non Metro, UH or Clinic hospitals (second tier pricing) while doing so in a building that needs $90M to make it competitive and safe?

Believe me, Brian, I would much rather dedicate at least this one thread to the notion of balancing ideals, realities and vision for a city. (I tried, Stan A., perhaps there’s still hope.)

David Anderson

Dear Mr. Anderson,

You write about “balancing ideals, realities, and vision for a city” and “moral absolutes”, but with all due respect, you and the other elected official have completely failed come to terms with reality. That is why there are so many lies about the bad process and bad result.

There is an undeniable reality of Council’s and Summers’ failures—it cannot be avoided in the abstracts of “ideals” and “moral absolutes” you somehow suggest I seek

Rather, it is factual and real. That is why you can’t answer questions in a straightforward manner that face facts and reality.

Here is My Straight Answer to Your Questions:

a. The reality is the “World Class” Cleveland Clinic has admitted it was legally obligated for $278 million in capital improvements and other money to operate the hospital until 2026--so there was no need for “emergency” legislation and no short term need to identify an alternative hospital operator.

b. The reality is that we had a well-funded, well positioned and profitable hospital with CCF before Mayor Summers announcing it was closing and manufactured a crisis.

c. Reacting to phony crisis, the reality is that Council never asked anyone to propose an FHC/ER and liquidation bid for Lakewood Hospital.

d. Despite Council’s failure ask anyone to bid on anything, the reality is there were two other alternatives that came forward, but Insiders rejected and rebuffed both.

e. The reality is that the $90M capital needs figure was generated from a CCF consultant, not a Lakewood consultant. The facts and legal obligations are clear, CCF and not the City was responsible for capital improvements so your question above is fully answered above or is otherwise misplaced and moot.


So you see, Mr. Anderson, the reality is that the answers to your questions were right there in front of you all the time. Your questions attempt to shift the blame to others, but the reality is you failed, not me or any citizens who failed to serve up an alternative bidder that was never needed in the first place.

Moving away from these realities, I will play along on your and the Burgess Boy’s theme of balancing “ideals, realities and vision for a city” and “moral absolutes.”

“Ask, and you will be given what you ask for. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will open.”

Taking that moral ideal, we still circle back to reality: Council never asked. Council never sought. Council never knocked.

So Council never got much. Council never found much. And Council never saw behind the doors that could be opened.


So I’ve answered your questions, but our conversation does not end there---can you extend me the courtesy of answering my questions in a straightforward way?


1. Mr. Anderson, can you admit that CCF was given one RFP by LHA for and other parties were given a separate RFP?

2. Mr. Anderson, can you admit that CCF was given an inside track in the Summers Step 2 Committee sham bidding process? Come on, the documents that prove this are on the city website.

3. Mr. Anderson, can you admit that it would be Council’s responsibility to issue an RFP, and not any citizen’s obligation to solicit bidders?


You and Council have been using the proverbial “straw man” for almost 2 years now. Summers created that “straw man” scheme on December 12, 2013 when he created the secret Step 2 Committee to conduct a sham “bid” process to “whitewash” what Summers, Bullock, Madigan and CCF Insiders had already decided on—closing the hospital for a CCF FHC in exchange for crumbs and “economic development” pipe dreams. Please explain, if you can, how it is the responsibility of citizens to solicit bidders?

4. Mr. Anderson can you balance ideals and realities and do you believe in accountability?

In our meeting of November 15, 2015, you said you wanted to hear from the Court in the taxpayer lawsuit before voting to get rid of the 1996 Agreement. CCF has now admitted in its own hand that it has a $278 million liability under that 1996 Agreement. That begs the questions:

5. Do you agree that overturning the bad deal and holding CCF accountable would be a far better way of balancing ideals, realities and vision for a city?

6. Would you rather have CCF pay us $9.6M and have an FHC or have CCF pay us $278M and a hospital?

7. Mr. Anderson, can you admit a mistake and work for the people of Lakewood by coming to terms with reality in a balanced way?

The CCF documents prove that my April 13, 2015 letter Council and my analysis was 100% correct---JOB posted it here on the Deck
http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... ssi#p94128

Here was my advice back then--this directly addresses your thread title questioned “what would I do?” in the context the reality of what I said I would do last year and not in the abstract ideal of hindsight. With Issue 64 pending, my analysis remains valid today:

“You on behalf of our City currently have at least five aces in your hands:
1. If my analysis is valid the Lease and Definitive Agreement are assets;--My analysis was and is correct—Court documents prove it.
2. CCF needs and wants to retain its share of Lakewood’s valuable market;
3. CCF desperately wants the prime real estate location owned by the City upon which the hospital rests—tearing down the hospital insures their monopoly in the Lakewood Service Area for years to come—25,000 hospital admissions;
4. The possibility of a hospital continuing at that location after 2026—keeping this option open is very important for our City and any future negotiations.
5. The ability to seek competitive bidding for well thought out options with many others besides just CCF.”

8. So Mr. Anderson, can you balance your ideal of “going along to get along” with the realities and a vision for a city that actually enforces its agreements and takes care of its people, and can you admit you were mistaken and misled, and can you now support the people of Lakewood in defeating Issue 64?


9. Mr. Anderson, can you be fair, balanced and open minded and admit the Master Agreement is a bad deal?

Sincerely,
Brian Essi
Just an ordinary Lakewood Resident

[Lori Allen _]

Mr. Anderson, You are an alleged crook. Resign! Then, take your other alleged crooked friend and turn yourselves in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I believe that is what YOU should have done from the very beginning!

[Kate McCarthy]

Ms. Conant –

I appreciate your comment regarding Metro’s proposal. While never put before Council as an option, the issue involving Metro's initial interest was an issue Council discussed and studied at length with our legal team and industry consultant.

Metro has a Board of Directors. Also, as being a County hospital, it also has to have the approval of the County Executive and the County Council for any substantial expansion of its services. While a final draft proposal was never agreed to, I am not aware of any serious and deep conversation involving the entire Metro Board of Directors regarding the notion of expanding Metro into being an operating partner of a full service hospital in Lakewood under LHA. Also, I am not aware of any correspondence, meetings, etc. of any serious level on this matter in a positive way involving the County Executive or County Council.

As I have written before, like it or not, Metro pulled out. In my opinion, Dr. Boutros was way out in front of Metro's Board on this and certainly did not have the support of the County Council or Executive. I certainly do not blame Dr. Boutros for having one eye on the work on this desk and the other on the horizon looking for the next opportunity to expand Metro's vital services throughout our county. Regardless, some might have seen the PD article from a few months ago reporting that the County now admits to facing severe limitations in its bonding capacity to finance the paving of county roads. How was the county going to finance even half of the $90 million in upgrades needed at Lakewood Hospital (LHA didn’t have $90M) and an expansion of hundreds of doctors, nurses and other employees into Lakewood Hospital, described by some as "swing space," while already building bed-less centers in other parts of the county and continuing to spend resources on its W25th Street campus capital improvement plan financed by County residents?

An honest question here - Would you have rather had a Metro Family Health Center over a Clinic FHC? Reasonable minds can come to that conclusion. Personally, I would rather have an entity that could put its own $49 million in its own facility with the operating covenant regarding the ER. Regardless, a full service hospital run by Metro for the next generation in a 100 year old building that needed $90 million in repairs and upgrades was not an option before Council and was never put before Metro's Board or County Council for any formal, deep discussion.

David Anderson

This email was attached to this thread from May.

Metro Email re-Jan 15 2015.pdf

(27.59 KiB) Downloaded 117 times

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... 81#p166481

It is quite clear that Metro was shown the door by Summer's committee; that LHA was not interested in a hospital but wanted a family health center with CCF, period. This process has been poisoned from the beginning and needs to be rewound.

Vote against Issue 64.