Here's the bond in a "nutshell":
Will voting for the hospital bond keep the hospital from closing, assuming that it is that dire that it would have to close? NO
The hospitals problems are beyond the help of a bond at this point. Lawsuits and criminal escapades, heavy debt burden, no credit, have driven away most of the aid other hospitals in this situation could expect.
Will voting against the hospital bond cause the hospital to close? NO
The hospital will have to change management and the new administration would have to take over and try and salvage the situation.
Will voting for the hospital bond keep the hospital open in the future? NO
There are no guarantees that the hospital will stay open as they will eventually need to replace the whole building as well as ride out the storm of uncertainty with government, elder abuse, lawsuits, and can only get so much money from the community every time they don't produce what they promise.
That is why we are here, because of an uncannily similar situation we had back in 1985, when Goldman Sachs, "supposedly" suggested that we go ahead and sell "tax free" government bonds to expand a slumping hospital.
First 13 million and then default, project stopped, and another 9 million for construction, premiums and the reserve account.
The hospital already put up your property taxes in case of emergency...like now.
So, even in 1986 when they began their construction fiesta, there were no guarantees, can't even find out what happened with the completion bond money or anything else. It's part of the huge lump under the carpet.
Brad Armstrong sat on the board back then when they made these decisions which continue to haunt us. And as I have said, when it came time to make this new decision on the bond, his seat remained vacant, he didn't come to make this most important vote.
Chet Beedle and Kathryn Knight have gaps in attendance on the part of the hospital staff at the "big bond theory" meeting on August 4. Beedle came in to KVHD through a management company when the hospital thought it might have to close in 2000. That same method will be "employed" if there is no community response to the bond.
The community needs to do nothing at this point, really there is nothing to do. We are continuing to pay these people to manage the hospital, it's as simple as that.
The question is: If you want to change management for whatever reasons, you don't trust them, you feel they aren't coming clean, they have a vested interest in keeping their maximum level salaries, then you vote NO against the bond.
If you think this management is doing a fine job, then you might want to encumber the whole valley with a yes vote.
It's your vote. There is really not a lot to decide, it's not complicated, it's simple.
The risky part would be voting yes to this as the monies could be absorbed by lawyers and lawsuits, the debt would still not be paid completely, and the whole valley would see an increase, in taxes and prices. It could be catastrophic on the community and like the water increases, we could see some serious changes, consequences.
We have ranchers here with acres of land, which would be taxed. How would they react to paying their share? Would they leave and find another place?
A NO vote is to say that you think the management should be changed before we decide to light up 22 million in dollar bills...that's it.
