Hospital Machinations
Saturday morning, the Alameda Hospital Board of directors wisely voted to reopen the application process for the open seat vacated by Lena Tam after only one application for the seat was received. While the hospital adhered to the noticing requirements, it appeared that notice of the open seat had gone unnoticed by a number of interested applicants.
One would wonder why those interested in the seat were so unmotivated as to not actively inquire into the seat and whether this style of non-inquiry reflects a unquestioning and unconcerned approach to fiscal matters, such as those consistently faced by the hospital. (Personally, I’d like to know that the people looking under the hood have the initiative to think on their feet enough that when a high profile vacancy occurred, like the one made by departing member Tam who was recently elected to the council, that candidates would proactively look into how to become a part of the process, not sit back waiting for someone to call and ask).
Despite comments made from some quarters (examples can be found here and here and especially here {Don’s repetition of TJ’s name is downright creepy}), the idea that the board should limit itself to non-elected individuals from previous elections is ludicrous. In the case of one of the soon-to-be applicants who was the top-nonelected candidate, voters have rejected him twice and in November 2006 he receive less than 33% of the vote than the #3 vote getter. Less than 20% of voters cast a ballot for him.
Losing an election is about the most ridiculous qualification for immediate appointment that one can come up with. What board could honestly override the voice of the electorate by actively selecting someone who was resoundingly rejected by the voters? Twice! While it may make sense to have automatic appointments go to the highest-unelected candidate in a race where only the first (and possibly second) candidate is elected. (Meaning the second or third place finisher is appointed to a vacancy on the board). In a top-three-are-elected race, choosing candidate #4 make not sense whatsoever. As was the case in 2006, the fourth place finisher is likely to have lost by a wide margin, with not even a hint of a plurality or significant vote of confidence.
Lost in this is unfortunately the hit that Rob Bonta, sole applicant and former Campaign manager for Lena Tam, is taking in all this. Innuendo and aspersions are hinted at and cast his way because of his connection to Tam, yet even the critics appear to agree that his CV is perfect for this spot. Rob Bonta is undeserving of these sour-grapes attempts at smearing his application and the Hospital Board will need to have a very good reason for selecting another candidate. To give in to the ridiculous rumor mill that has already started (and will surely continue) will most likely mean making a decision that the voters of Alameda have already said resoundingly “No” to.
Neal J.
January 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Mr. Knox-White:
Some have questioned the integrity of the process employed to fill the recent vacancy on the hospital Board. Others, including yourself, have questioned whether reopening the process has any value as surely anyone qualified to serve should have been sufficiently aware of the opening when first posted. While I do believe that the unsuccessful candidates in the election SHOULD have been aware of the opening, I would respectfully suggest that the recent attention paid to the vacancy may prompt other qualified Alameda residents to consider applying for the vacancy.
I am one such person and spoke to the Hospital Board on Saturday. My full-time job is to manage the finances of a $150 million HMO located on Bay Farm island. I am an Alameda resident, U.C. Berkeley graduate, licensed CPA and I have an intimate knowledge of healthcare finance and operations. I did not apply sooner because I presumed, I realize now in error, that there would be a group of qualified applicants from which the Board could choose.
While I cannot say if I am the best qualified candidate, I can say that the citizens of Alameda deserve the best person selected from a pool of qualified candidates. I do not believe that either Mr. Bonta or the unsuccessful election candidates should receive any special preference. I am happy to let the Board make, and justify, their decision to the citizens of Alameda.
I am grateful to the Alameda Journal, Alameda Sun and blogs like yours for bringing this situation into open light. I also found your comments to the Hospital Board regarding the vacancy process to be well-said.
Mark
January 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Another person brought up ranked choice voting on Blogging Bayport.
It’s too late for this election, but if the rule for City Council which brought us Tony Daysog (i.e. the next highest vote getter gets the spot within six months after the election) is to be extended to other seats we would defintely do well to have RCV system in place so we don’t get a person with the small support which Tom Pavletic has.
Actually if Doug had won we would have another council person chosen with that next in line rule. It would seem that person would have had substantial support, but one never knows. Using RCV for Council as well, makes it more certain we won’t end up with a council person who got who recieved an embarrassingly low number of votes.