Board Drops Approval of Hospital Plan

Charging they were unfairly pressured by a rival hospital to change their plans, Ventura County supervisors took the unusual and reluctant step Friday of rescinding their approval of a $28.7-million county hospital improvement project.

The supervisors said the decision will probably result in the loss of as much as $17 million in state construction grants earmarked for the Ventura County Medical Center project, which included replacement of the hospital’s kitchen and medical laboratory.

Officials blamed their action on Community Memorial Hospital, which they said was conducting a misleading campaign to get voters to oppose the project. Community Memorial contends the project is financially risky and part of a larger county hospital expansion plan to compete for private, paying patients.

Despite their decision, supervisors said they are determined to come up with alternative building plans that would allow the public hospital to keep its license, which could be revoked within 18 months if improvements are not made. They asked staff members to come back in December with alternatives, which could include using county money for the project.

“We are [mandated] by the state to maintain this hospital and to provide a health safety net for this county,” board Chairman Frank Schillo said. “Rescinding this action does not mean we are any less committed to doing that.”

Community Memorial representatives, however, said the board reversed its earlier decision because it knows voters would not support the county project. They pointed out that they had already collected half of the 24,000 signatures needed to qualify a referendum for the June 1998 ballot.

If all the required signatures had been gathered and verified within the next two weeks, the county hospital project--and possibly any other renovation plans--would have been halted until the referendum vote.

“What you watched today was the Board of Supervisors hearing the voice of the people,” said Community Memorial spokesman Doug Dowie of the public relations firm of Fleishman Hillard. “They can say what they want about the voters being confused, but the [voters] clearly made themselves heard in a very short time.”

The supervisors countered that the nonprofit hospital, which spent $1.6 million to defeat plans for a new county outpatient center last spring, was conducting a misleading campaign to sign up voters with its new petition drive.

*

Officials said they had no choice but to rescind their earlier decision because they have little time to come up with an alternative improvement plan for the county hospital. The hospital’s accreditation is up for renewal in March 1998, they said, and would probably be revoked before voters cast their ballots on the referendum three months later.

“I can’t believe that we should sit on our hands and do nothing while the kitchen and lab fall apart,” Supervisor Maggie Kildee said. “I can’t believe that makes sense. We have to find another route to go.”

The board directed its staff members to come up with other building plans--which could also include financing options--and report back in December.

Under the original plan, the board approved the sale of $28.7 million in bond-like certificates to finance the county hospital project. The certificates would have then been repaid with $17 million in state grants, as well as money from county hospital revenues and county general fund money.

But the supervisors said they may have to forfeit the grant money and possibly finance all or a portion of the county hospital improvement project.

“We will probably lose the $17 million our citizens have already paid,” Schillo said. “It will probably go somewhere else.”

By agreeing to study other building options, Community Memorial attorney Jim Gross told the board Friday it appeared the county may still be looking for ways to “bypass the voters’ will.”

Gross told the board that the county should join with his client in financing an independent study of the region’s health-care needs before moving ahead with any county hospital project.

But when Schillo interrupted Gross to ask whether Community Memorial would be willing to abide by the findings of an independent consultant, Gross failed to give a direct answer.

“I certainly think we’re much more likely to follow the recommendation of an independent party than the unsubstantiated direction of the county,” Gross said.

*

“That’s a maybe, is that correct?” Schillo asked.

“That’s a maybe,” Gross replied.

Schillo later said he would oppose financing an independent study because it was apparent that unless Community Memorial benefited from the findings it would not accept the results.

“It would be another waste of taxpayer money,” Schillo said. “An independent study is supposed to be one that comes up with the facts, and if they don’t want to face the facts then shame on them.”

The supervisors said they are convinced that Community Memorial Hospital’s ultimate goal is to shut down the county hospital. The hospitals are situated two blocks apart in Ventura.

Although Community Memorial officials have said this is not their intent, they have proposed that the county hospital be converted to an outpatient center and contract with Community Memorial for inpatient services.