Response to Kern Valley Sun "question and answer" KVHD forum

Explanation of letters to the editor of the Kern Valley Sun

http://kernvalleysun.com/articles/2010/10/02/opinion/letters/doc4c868dd4829da174192300.txt

As I've said, I will follow up on the articles in the Kern Valley Sun, both the the KVHD "question and dancer" intermittent spot and the letters to the editor.

In the letter above, Kern Valley Healthcare District candidate, John Blythe, wrote that he thought the deflection of the question from former CEO and board member, Robert Knight, by current CEO, Tim McGlew, was intentional to make Knight look bad.

Blythe wrote:

"I was irritated at the last Kern Valley Healthcare District Board meeting during a discussion over the proposed General Obligation Bond. Bob Knight, a former KVHD CEO/board member asked of the current CEO Tim McGlew if the hospital had a second plan if the GOB failed in the upcoming election. Mr. Knight said to Mr. McGlew, “We still owe Cal-Mortgage millions of dollars.” Mr. McGlew sat there clueless as if he did not even know what Mr. Knight was talking about. Again, Mr. Knight stressed the debt and Mr. McGlew finally stated, “We do not owe Cal-Mortgage millions of dollars.” So I chose to intervene and said, “Mr. McGlew, I think what Mr. Knight is saying is that we owe money to the bondholders for the revenue bonds (used for the construction of the Hospital’s Skilled Nursing Facility in 1990) which are insured by Cal-Mortgage.” Mr. McGlew then smiled and acted as though he now knew what Mr. Knight was talking about."


Let me explain.

Mr. Robert Knight, who will be doing an interview with me this week, asked Mr. McGlew about the debt from 1986, but Knight phrased it in a way that sounded like he was asking if we were paying the debt to Cal Mtg. who actually insures the debt.

McGlew gave the answer, that "no, we are not paying Cal Mtg."

That was absolutely true, we are not paying Cal Mtg. we are paying the unfortunate people who added KVHD government "tax free" bonds to their financial portfolio.

However, McGlew did know what Mr. Knight had meant by his question, and yes, he could have clarified and answered it, but he chose not to.

Mr. Blythe, as the audience sat in silence, responded to McGlew and restated the question which McGlew indeed answered when it was "phrased and accurate."

This is how you answer questions in court under oath

There is nothing "illegal" about answering the actual question the person asked, in fact, that is exactly how any veteran of the court room would have answered on the stand or in deposition.

Since Mr. McGlew recently answered questions this summer in a "review" (his words) of the Kern Valley District, I'm assuming under oath, that he used the very same technique.

McGlew, according to an email between CFO, Chet Beedle and Mable Chan of the office of Cal Mtg., McGlew had recently been deposed in a court case involving his former employer in Los Angeles.

When someone is involved in a court case, criminal or civil, they are coached by their attorneys to only answer the question that is asked. Adding extra information can lead the opposing attorney (or even an inquisitive and tenacious reporter) from learning more than they knew which could lead to follow up questions.

That is what Mr. McGlew did at the September KVHD board meeting, was to simply answer as if he was on the stand.

How do I know this?

I've been deposed, questioned by several attorneys under oath, five times, three on video, and I have logged over 12 hours on the stand. I learned how to answer only the question. And I learned when to add information, break down a compound question, and ask for a clearer question.

Probably not knowing that McGlew had been in court several times this year, Blythe assumed it was some sort of game. Blythe politely addressed McGlew who finally answered the question when it was put in the form that could not be deflected.

But the board meeting isn't a court room, and answers to questions are vital to bring about trust and coherent information. That is McGlew's job as well as the rest of the administration and board members.

There should be no fear on the part of KVHD to answer questions directly, without hesitation, and they should not be afraid to include the public. That is their job. And I will continue to repeat if you have nothing to hide why are you deflecting?

However, I think there needed to be clarification as to why Mr. McGlew answered in the fashion he did that night. It's simply how one answers in court, but not really appropriate for a high paid administrator of a hospital addressing community questions and concerns.

Marge Swendleson, sent a letter to the KV Sun regarding Blythe's letter on the same day they were both printed. I can only reason that Mrs. Swendleson had to had seen the letter from Blythe as you can see in the links, they were printed on the same day. ???

(correction: I checked the actual "paper" copies of the KV Sun and the letters were indeed a week apart.)

Swendleson has been around a long time, and I believe she has the hospital's best interest at heart, but I'm sure she, just by observing and speaking with her for the past four years, didn't realize that by being allowed to read and respond to Mr. Blythe's letter before it was printed, was not the fair thing to do.

I don't think she would have done that on her own, asked for that anyway. But you will have to ask the KV Sun editor, Cathy Perfect, about it.

Two months before this meeting Swendleson had told the KVHD board and administrators that she had received three phone calls from the "phone survey" which the hospital used as the "indicator" as to whether to put a bond on the ballot.

Her statement showed the lack of validity of the survey itself, but the matter was not brought up in the KV Sun, or any other venue, and the hospital administrators shrugged it off.

Always repeat your questions and always follow up when speaking to the hospital administration.

I hope this takes clears this up for all of you as there are plenty of other issues to address.

http://kernvalleysun.com/articles/2010/10/02/opinion/letters/doc4c8fc921d46f3156949223.txt

One more clarification: in a comment under one of the many posts on the KV website, a person had said that the reason Tim McGlew is being paid the "big salary" is because he is charge of both the nursing center and the hospital. So was Robert Knight, Dave Green, Pam Ott, Robert Duncan, and Rick Carter: none of them recieved a comparable salary.

(we are still experiencing some technical problems, and I apologize to those who sent along comments and emails, but we should be back on track this week...thanks for your feedback.)