MRHC board meeting draws a crowd of criticism
What the Mineral Regional Health Center Board meeting lacked in information regarding misallocated funds from a $10.5 million federal grant it made up for in fireworks.
Tensions were high from the onset, as many of the attendees in the packed conference room at Mineral Community Hospital weighed in on recent headlines during public comment.
One of the first comments was a question directed to the MRHC board from Mineral County Commissioner Laurie Johnston regarding how board members are appointed.
“You just appointed this gentleman,” Commissioner Johnston said. “How did he know there was a position available on the board and how many positions are there? I just want to know how somebody gets on this board.”
A board member responded to Commissioner Johnston’s question by stating that the information is “in the by-laws” of the board and the board could “take this (the question) and put it on our next agenda.”
Mary Jo Berry then made a comment questioning the need for two boards, both the Mineral Community Hospital Board and the MRHC board.
“I remember the days when we had one administrator, one DON, a board of directors…there wasn’t all this negativity,” Berry said. “You hear things in the community and some of it is just gossip. But people used to come to the hospital because we had good doctors…it just bothers me that we cant come here for our treatments and have to go to Missoula. What are we doing wrong, when did we get so big and so full of ourselves that we have to have two boards with twelve on one and who knows how many on the other. We’re Superior, we’re not Missoula.”
Berry added that she understood the need for confidentiality when it came to personnel matters but if the board wanted to “get rid of the rumors” they needed to provide the community with information.
The board did not respond to Berry’s comment, however it did receive applause from members of the public in attendance.
Leona Chricton made a comment stating that she has a petition with “now 260 people” who “want their doctor back.” The petition, which Chricton would not present to the board due to her assertion that “people from the hospital and clinic” who signed it “fear for their jobs” asks for Dr. James Patterson to be reinstated at MCH.
The board replied that they could not address the petition since it was not on the agenda. Chricton responded that she requested it be placed on the agenda prior to the meeting.
“So you’re going to drag it out for another month,” Chricton asked.
“Legally they have too, they can’t address it under there agenda under open meeting law,” the lawyer for MCH and MRHC responded. “It’s law. There is no requirement to have public comment. Public comment in and of itself is not required by law.”
However according to the Montana Local Government Board Handbook created by the Montana State University Extension Office, which references the Montana Code Annotated, the guidelines for public comment state that “the board may not take action any matter discussed unless specific notice of that matter is included on an agenda and public comment has been allowed on that matter.” Responding to questions or providing information is not mentioned in the guidelines for public comment.
Denyse Traeder, who is a co-director of the $10.5 million innovations grant, debated reading a seven-page statement regarding her treatment since she documented the misallocation of funds in the grant.
After discussion it was decided that the statement would be made during an executive session after the public portion of the meeting concluded.
However Traeder’s attorney, Lance Jasper, made a comment to the board regarding the statement Traeder would make in the executive session.
“You’ve got to stop the retaliation against Denyse,” Jasper said.
Prior to Traeder’s decision to save her statement for the executive session, Jasper spoke to the board saying “it doesn’t take you guys anything to do the right thing.”