The Observation Deck

The following is from:

http://www.onelakewood.com/wellness-fou ... ask-force/

My comments are in RED


What is the source of the funds for the new foundation?



1. Who is funding the foundation?

Per the Master Agreement’s Section 6.1, Cleveland Clinic is making the contributions over eight years, totaling $24.4 million. This is in exchange for the right to receive the assets of Lakewood Hospital Association (LHA) upon its dissolution (per Section 3.3). Cleveland Clinic will also make additional contributions, which will be held in a segregated account, of $500,000 per year for 16 years, totaling $8 million The total funding, from this private entity, will be $32.4 million. Here is the full funding schedule.

Their own document listing the money contributed shows that only $8 million is being "donated" by the Clinic. The balance is being "donated" by the Lakewood Hospital Association. I put donated in quotes because the fact of the matter is that:

ALL OF THE ASSETS OF THE HOSPITAL WERE CITY ASSETS.

The cash being donated to the Wellness Foundation is City Cash. It is not LHA cash and it is not Cleveland Clinic cash.

2. Why is the foundation being formed? Can’t the City of Lakewood just take the money?

Per the Master Agreement in Section 4.1, the foundation must be created and funded for the purpose of community health and wellness in the city. LHA’s assets weren’t the city’s assets.

Here they just come out and lie about the original agreement. Rather than agree to this convoluted giveaway of City assets the City could have simply taken possession of its assets and cashed in. They continue to lie about the original agreement and continue to lie about the ownership of the assets. What does that tell you?

Can we believe anything they say?

Note that we are being told that the Foundation is receiving this money from the Clinic in exchange for the right of the Clinic to receive the assets of the LHA (City of Lakewood) assets.

Those assets included nearly $60 million in cash and investments. Those assets also included $33 million or more in the Lakewood Hospital Foundation.

The article states the Clinic is "donating" this money for the right to receive City assets. Those assets the Clinic received included nearly $60 million in cash and investments. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

Why hasn't the City ever reported a detailed listing of the Hospitals assets and their disposition. It's not that hard. The City had a detailed listing of the photos and wall plaques that were not part of the deal. Why not a detailed listing of what was included in the deal?

Bill Call: "What exactly is the Foundation Planning Task Force doing?"

Answer: Nothing that really matters to the average citizen of Lakewood. And certainly nothing that matters to the average member of Lakewood's underserved community.

Mr. Call, all of the real answers are set forth by Mayor Summers and his ghostwriter at page 2 in "Destination Lakewood 2018".

Surely, you must have studied your copy by now.

Quoth:

"Welcome to Lakewood, where we are focused on being the healthiest community in the country."

(We wouldn't ever want a hospital to get in the way of that now, would we?)

(How much more of this public-relations crap do we have to have dumped on us?)

Bill Call wrote:…a detailed listing of the Hospitals assets and their disposition. It's not that hard. The City had a detailed listing of the photos and wall plaques that were not part of the deal. Why not a detailed listing of what was included in the deal?

Agree. Particularly in light of the inaccuracies that Mr. Kindt has documented, in such official accounts as have been prepared, I think Lakewood needs to have a complete, detailed and objective disclosure of all once-public assets associated with Lakewood Hospital and where they went.

Perhaps this won't be possible for another 18 months. Perhaps, lamentably, another 18 months' delay would even be positive for the purposes of a trustworthy accounting.

But such an accounting must be performed. I am reminded of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which in broad outline asserts that "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind" requires that dramatic transformations of a familiar order be accompanied by sincere, forthright explanation, written down for the record.

Mark Kindt wrote: Quoth:

"Welcome to Lakewood, where we are focused on being the healthiest community in the country."

Here are the results:

https://wallethub.com/edu/healthiest-ci ... ethodology

Answer: Summers & O'Leary are complete failures---Lakewood did not make the list--it didn't even qualify to be the worst on the list.

A close examination of the methodology used by the researchers in the study would show that Summers & O'Leary made sure Lakewood will stay at the bottom of the barrel:

Key Criteria:
Family Doctors per Capita
Hospital Beds per Capita
Mental-Health Counselors per Capita
Dentists per Capita


Summers & O'Leary fought to drive out doctors and hospital beds---all of these categories declined as a result of their proactive efforts to destroy the health of Lakewood residents.

If "healthcare was changing" and hospital beds and doctors are not needed any longer, why would the nationally respected research group include such factors in their study.

O'Leary's campaign jingle " Making Lakewood Unhealthy Again (& Forever)"

So, again, to answer the question: "what is the task force doing?"

Nothing that matters: Summers & O'Leary tied their hands with a crappy fake foundation thingy.

mjkuhns wrote: Perhaps this won't be possible for another 18 months. Perhaps, lamentably, another 18 months' delay would even be positive for the purposes of a trustworthy accounting.

But such an accounting must be performed. I am reminded of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which in broad outline asserts that "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind" requires that dramatic transformations of a familiar order be accompanied by sincere, forthright explanation, written down for the record.

We are not going to get trustworthy accounting. I had hopes that Councilwoman George and Councilman Rader would demand such an accounting but I guess we are not going to get it. If the City has nothing to hide then why are they hiding?

At the very least I would like to know why the City agreed to a 100% increase in administrative fees charged to Lakewood Hospital by the Clinic. I won't do the math again but near the end Lakewood Hospital was paying about 15% of the Cleveland Clinic's administrative fees. As I recall the Clinics administrative fees were about $156 million. The City of Lakewood had to pay about $24 million of those fees. I still remember one LHA board member his face red with anger, waving his finger and stating, "Those fees are none of our business". Really?

Under the Section, "What is the source of the funds for the new foundation" you will find this:

"2. Why is the foundation being formed? Can't the City of Lakewood just take the money?

Per the Master Agreement in Section 4.1 the foundation must be created and funded for the purpose of community health and wellness in the city. LHA's assets weren't the city's assets."

A nice piece of circular logic. The City creates the Master agreement that requires the City to surrender City assets to a private foundation. When questioned about the transfer of those assets the City responds by saying that the Master agreement requires the City to surrender those assets. The fact of the matter is that the City could have cashed in the assets. There was no need to create a private foundation.

Note the very bold lie at the end "LHS's ASSETS WERE NOT CITY ASSETS". In a way I admire the Mayors gall. He lies boldly, loudly, repeatedly and unapologetically. I did expect more from the people on the task force. Of course, I also expected more from George and Rader. I guess I should lower my expectations.

Bill Call wrote:We are not going to get trustworthy accounting. I had hopes that Councilwoman George and Councilman Rader would demand such an accounting but I guess we are not going to get it.

The power of two council members, on a seven-member council, in a city with strong-mayor government, seems to be much less than many citizens feel that it should be. Those feelings seem very reasonable.

It's my understanding that our current charter implies a limited right of council members to obtain answers from city employees. But significantly, it does not guarantee that those answers are honest. Over the years I have spent on this forum, I have perceived that other participants have serious doubt that every employee at Lakewood city hall is always honest. This factor alone suggests to me that no practical benefit would result from two part-time council members, neither of whom is a financial expert, trying to piece together trustworthy accounting of a massive and complicated web of transactions by means of personal questioning of city employees.*

Which does not, to my mind, mean that a better accounting than that is forever out of reach. I continue to believe, simultaneously, that 1) elections have consequences and 2) not every potential consequence can be accomplished in a single election cycle. I am very sorry that people are frustrated at the failure of lopsided votes for change to translate directly into all of the change which they want to see. I understand the frustration and relate to it more, I am sure, than I will ever convince anyone else. But I don't find any actual contradiction between my belief that electorally led change is possible and under way, and my belief that there are severe limits on how much it can achieve during a single election cycle in which only 3/7 of one branch of government is even up for election.

Bill Call wrote:If the City has nothing to hide then why are they hiding?

An important question for Lakewood's custodian of records, for the sole city official with oversight of him, and probably for every candidate who files to succeed that sole individual.

* If I recall correctly, Mr. Call has more than once offered himself for office in Lakewood. It now seems obvious that career expertise like his might have benefited the community in any number of ways, in the years which followed his offers of service. It seems as good a time as any to record thanks for those offers, and propose that all of us at least consider that possible value in future, as we evaluate who and what we would like to see represented in Lakewood's elected government.

mjkuhns wrote: * If I recall correctly, Mr. Call has more than once offered himself for office in Lakewood. It now seems obvious that career expertise like his might have benefited the community in any number of ways, in the years which followed his offers of service. It seems as good a time as any to record thanks for those offers, and propose that all of us at least consider that possible value in future, as we evaluate who and what we would like to see represented in Lakewood's elected government.

The voters weren't buying what I was selling.

If I were a member of Council five years ago I would have told the voters about the Mayors plan to dismantle the Hospital. If I were a member of Council 2 years ago I would have demanded that the Attorney general investigate this very dirty Hospital deal. I also would have backed a lawsuit against the LHA. If I were a member of the LHA I would have disclosed the secret plans to close the Hospital and distribute the assets to the Mayors Pals.

The title of this post is a direct quote from the City Web site. The answers provided by the City are incorrect and evasive.

Just wondering.... do the members of foundation know that plans are already in the works to merge Healthy Lakewood with Three Arches? Have they always known? Do they care?

I have to say that I am disappointed in Councilman Rader. He has an opportunity to demand accountability and transparency and ask the Attorney General to investigate the Hospital deal. So far he has chosen not to. Won't anyone stand up to this cabal that runs the City?

I'm with you Bill. I've thought for a long time that Council needs a couple of Republicans with integrity to keep the majority Democrats honest.

As a constituent in fairly regular contact, I can only tell you that Councilperson Rader is very concerned with these issues. In detail, I'm not sure what I can add beyond what I have already written in recent weeks.

For all those in search of standing up to the status quo:

I would say that formally voting "no," to major pieces of a program that has been years in the making, is much more of a stand than council members have been taking previously. In a way it's very good that people are already used to this locally novel activity, and determined to seek more. It absolutely should be considered part of council members' basic duty to stand up against huge giveaways—not something special. Right now, though, when only 2 people take such a stand, they are simply overruled by 5 who don't. Getting beyond taking a stand is going to take more time.

Today and every other day, I invite any and everyone who has concerns to discuss them with the councilperson.

Folks, I'm really with Mr. Kuhns on this one!

Citizen criticism needs to be vocally directed at the current city administration and the five council members that support it -- Anderson, Bullock, Litten, O'Leary, O'Malley.

Council-members Rader and George are the breath of fresh thinking that we really need now. Let us encourage their independence, not chastise it.

Hopefully, fresh thinkers will run for office in 2019.

mjkuhns wrote:Today and every other day, I invite any and everyone who has concerns to discuss them with the councilperson.

I only see one councilperson willing to take action. I only see one person that is consistently fighting for sunshine.

She has had very little support from others, especially others that claim to fight for accountability.

Rest is smoke and mirrors, and a bunch of political hubbub and false promises.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:Today and every other day, I invite any and everyone who has concerns to discuss them with the councilperson.

I only see one councilperson willing to take action. I only see one person that is consistently fighting for sunshine.

She has had very little support from others, especially others that claim to fight for accountability.

Rest is smoke and mirrors, and a bunch of political hubbub and false promises.


.

This demonstrates precisely the kind of bad-faith non-dialogue that is such a great shame.

That isn't a response to the quoted statement.

It is a non sequitur attempt to smear and divide, which includes neither names nor any specific claim that can be verified.

There is, perhaps, at least unintended value in demonstrating this contrast: Dialogue is offered, and met with a stream of insinuation loaded with button-pushing words and phrases, but without even one statement that can be directly tested against facts.

What a waste.

mjkuhns wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

mjkuhns wrote:Today and every other day, I invite any and everyone who has concerns to discuss them with the councilperson.

I only see one councilperson willing to take action. I only see one person that is consistently fighting for sunshine.

She has had very little support from others, especially others that claim to fight for accountability.

Rest is smoke and mirrors, and a bunch of political hubbub and false promises.


.

This demonstrates precisely the kind of bad-faith non-dialogue that is such a great shame.

That isn't a response to the quoted statement.

It is a non sequitur attempt to smear and divide, which includes neither names nor any specific claim that can be verified.

There is, perhaps, at least unintended value in demonstrating this contrast: Dialogue is offered, and met with a stream of insinuation loaded with button-pushing words and phrases, but without even one statement that can be directly tested against facts.

What a waste.

Matt it was pointed out to me yesterday, that a couple of my posts while on the road using my phone ended up in the wrong threads. This post which I stand by shouldn't have been in this thread. The same with the AG post as it had nothing to do with reaching out to the AG's office.

I will move them later to a new thread that is more appropriate, and speaks of the actions and inaction of council, which seems to frustrate more than a few in this community.

I will let you know where it ends up. Should I move your answer with it?

Jim

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Matt it was pointed out to me yesterday, that a couple of my posts while on the road using my phone ended up in the wrong threads. This post which I stand by shouldn't have been in this thread. The same with the AG post as it had nothing to do with reaching out to the AG's office.

I will move them later to a new thread that is more appropriate, and speaks of the actions and inaction of council, which seems to frustrate more than a few in this community.

I will let you know where it ends up. Should I move your answer with it?

Jim

I recall a time when participants in this forum complained about how Facebook enables very similar practices, and how that compares unfavorably with the Observation Deck.

Please leave whole the thread upon which I commented. That's my preference.

If you are unwilling to do so, please delete my comments rather than marooning them in any context which varies from that for which they were intended.