Link to Anderson Valley Advertiser:  www.theava.com

Here's your headline: With a lone exception, the Mendocino Coast District Hospital Board of Directors has decided to ignore a growing list of seemingly valid complaints from a number of hospital staff members because they (the board members) are afraid of the potential upheaval, economic and otherwise, that might occur as a result of removing the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, who are the subjects of the complaints. This will be repeated for you later, so readers can grasp the context of events as they have played out this year.
Here's what the general public has seen: Early in July a standing room only crowd filled Fort Bragg's Town Hall to speak out against a possible closure of the obstetrics (OB) department at Mendocino Coast District Hospital (MCDH). At the end of July approximately thirty-five coastal folk showed up at a MCDH Board of Directors meeting when a parcel tax measure for this November's ballot was rushed onto the agenda by board member, Dr. Kevin Miller. These two issues, though valid long term concerns, have effectively served as smoke screens disguising deeper problems within MCDH's administration and its board of directors.
The late July MCDH Board meeting was instructive on another point besides OB or parcel taxes, that being the exodus of citizenry from the meeting after the board voted to hold off on a parcel tax measure until next year. The vast majority of Mendocino Coast Healthcare District voters and taxpayers are generally too busy to attend two hour board meetings. As a result that board and the hospital's chief administators have pretty much taken for granted that they can do whatever they want without question from the public.
So readers, here's your chance to ask some serious questions of the powers that be at the coast hospital without getting out of your chair. This article will provide you with a synopsis of background information for each question and the emails of the appropriate figures to send your questions to. It is one thing for the AVA to print these, and related, questions over and over. Elected officials, committee members and administators often don't take note until they read something directly from members of the voting public.
First: On March 16th of this year, the MCDH Board finished up a closed session regarding the job performance review of Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Wade Sturgeon with a promise to conduct more interviews with hospital staff. These interviews never took place. Readers should ask each member of the board (President Steve Lund, Kitty Bruning, Dr. Peter Glusker, Dr. Lucas Campos, and Dr. Kevin Miller) why they did not keep their promise to the public and the hospital staff to hold further interviews concerning the CFO's job performance. Email Steve Lund at: slund@mcdh.net; Kitty Bruning: kbruning@mcdh.net; Dr. Glusker: pglusker@mcdh.net; Dr. Campos: lcampos@mcdh.net; and Dr. Miller: kmiller@mcdh.net.
Some of the negative aspects of CFO Sturgeon's job performance were related to a harassment complaint made against him by the Chief Human Resoucres (HR) officer at the hospital. At the time of the March 16th closed session the HR chief was on administrative leave, as a result of the harassment complaint against CFO Sturgeon. Creditable reports indicate that on or about March 18th, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Bob Edwards mailed a termination letter to the HR Chief. If the performance review of Sturgeon was still on hold as of March 16th, largely predicated on the complaint against him by the chief HR officer, why did the CEO attempt to fire that HR Chief on March 18th? CEO Edwards can be reached via email at: bedwards@mcdh.net. A follow-up question to each board member would be something along these lines: Why did you allow the CEO to undercut the board's decision to conduct further interviews with hospital staff regarding the HR chief's harassment complaint and how it related to CFO Sturgeon's job performance review?
Ask Board President Lund (slund@mcdh.net) why he confronted an MCDH employee in her office one day after the March 16th closed session? Ask him if he thinks this is an acceptable way to conduct staff interviews. Background: This was another employee who had filed a harassment complaint against CFO Sturgeon. Ask the other MCDH Board members if they think it is appropriate for individual board members to confront hospital staff in the workplace while job performance reviews or harassment complaints are ongoing?
Ask board member Miller why he questioned an employee, more than once, on hospital grounds during the days leading up to the March 16th closed session regarding CFO Sturgeon's job performance. Perhaps more importantly, ask Dr. Miller why he told the employee that MCDH could not survive an administrative turnover. Meaning the dismissal of Edwards and Sturgeon.
The implication here is that Miller, and apparently the rest of the board (with the exception of Dr. Glusker) have decided to ignore a growing list of seemingly valid complaints from a number of hospital staff members because they (the board members) are afraid of the potential upheaval, economic and otherwise, that might occur as a result of removing the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, who are the subjects of the complaints. In street parlance, these board members have allowed Edwards to throw several hospital staffers, from the manager level on down, under the bus to protect Edwards and Sturgeon.
In the fall of 2016 CFO Sturgeon downplayed the seriousness of billing and coding errors made by the newly contracted Emergency Room provider, EmCare, in official monthly report after report to the hospital's Board of Directors and its Finance Committee. In addition, both the CFO and the CEO ignored internal warnings to add employees to sort out the billing and coding mess. The question to ask CFO Sturgeon (wsturgeon@mcdh.net): Why did you conceal the seriousness of EmCare's coding and billing mistakes for so many months? Ask CEO Edwards (bedwards@mcdh.net): Why did you abet Sturgeon in this coverup and why didn't you act in a more timely fashion to fix the problem?
Readers may want to ask MCDH Board members and its Finance Committee members (John Allison: jrallison27@gmail.com; Kirk O'Day: kirko@mcn.org; and Dr. Campos) why they haven't offered up any significant questions concerning this problem? Finance Committee members should be asked why they didn't do more investigating of this matter and/or why they didn't report this problem to MCDH's Board.
If you want an issue that involves OB, ask CEO Edwards or CFO Sturgeon why they have frequently quoted a million dollar annual loss to the hospital due to OB services, but both flatly refuse to give any comparative profit or loss numbers for the new ER service from EmCare, the new orthopedic surgeon, or the pain management program that came on line last year. Ask them to give you specific positive or negative dollar amounts for each of those services.
Ask the MCDH Board members and the CEO to explain this to you: When the CFO was accused of workplace harassment, why was the victim of the harassment placed on administrative leave instead of the accused CFO?
Also ask board members: Does MCDH have a clear written policy regarding whether the accuser or accused in harassment cases is placed on leave?
In May the CEO placed the Chief of Patient Care Services on leave, pending an investigation. Ask Mr. Edwards (bedwards@mcdh.net): What specifically was he investigating? He subsequently fired her, apparently because she was a friend of the Human Resources Chief.
Ask the four members of the board (Lund: slund@mcdh.net; Bruning: kbruning@mcdh.net; Miller: kmiller@mcdh.net; and Campos: lcampos@mcdh.net) who were present at an April 1, 2017 Board of Directors meeting, which was not properly noticed to the public, why they went forward with that meeting after they were told that doing so would violate the Brown Act (CA Government Code 54956).
There are many other questions that can be posed to the MCDH Board and its administrators beyond just these, but we can save those for later, if necessary.

                                                                                Link to Anderson Valley Advertiser:  www.theava.com

The history of Mendocino is dotted here and there with mortal crimes. In the broadest sense, the early years following the California Gold Rush filled the calendar with mass murder of the indigenous population. After the native folk of this county were laid low things settled down, literally and figuratively, for some time. However, the years 1879 and 1880 saw an uptick of heinous activity, particularly on the Mendocino Coast.
The first great entrepeneur of the coast was Alexander Wentworth Macpherson, who operated lumber mills in Albion and on the flats near the mouth of the Noyo River. Macpherson was a 49er, having arrived in San Francisco from China, where he had been in the employ of Jardine, Matheson & Co. This enterprise, owned and run by Highland Scots, controlled a triangle trade between India, China, and England whose principle products were opium (from India) and tea (from China). Alexander Macpherson continued to trade in opium after he was established in Albion and Noyo, where he built a fine house overlooking the mouth of the river (essentially where the Lodge at Noyo River sits today, just northeast of the Highway 1 bridge).
Alexander's brother Cameron Macpherson (they were both born and raised in the area around Inverness, Scotland), arrived in California in 1851. On the Mendocino Coast Cameron worked for his brother, principally at Noyo. By 1880, Cameron's son, Richard Macpherson, was a grown man of his own, about twenty-one years of age. Richard was known as a quiet yet industriousness young man, seemingly well-liked by all. Like as not one could often find him pitching in to help a friend or neighbor, which was the case on Thursday, March 18, 1880, when young Richard Macpherson helped Niela Offer clear small trees and brush from the Offer homestead about two and a half miles south of the Noyo. By the afternoon a considerable amount of land had been cleared.
What happened next is best seen from the testimony of Niela Offer, as evidence given before Justice August Heeser, brother of the founder and editor of The Mendocino Beacon, in which Harvey Mortier, described in that paper and others as a teenaged “half breed” approached Richard Macpherson and Mr. Offer. The testimony of Mr. Offer commenced with, “Harvey Mortier was speakng angry to Richard Macpherson about a wedge ax that Harvey Mortier accused him with stealing, accused him for taking a wedge ax, and Richard Macpherson says to him, he didn’t do it. He says he would go to Hi[ram] Stalder and find out who took the ax. The ax belonged to a man named Hi Stalder.
“Well! says Harvey Mortier to him, why don’t you come down now and find out who took the ax? Now, says Richard Macpherson, I won’t go till this evening. He [Harvey Mortier] says, you had better come now. He [Macpherson] says no, he won’t.
“I will find somebody down in the woods that will put a good head on you; give you a good licking. This last was said by Mortier to Macpherson. Macpherson didn’t go down to Hi Stalder’s to find out who took the ax. He remained with me chopping, and I was chopping at the time and Richard Macpherson was working with me.
“He started to work and Harvey Mortier went away, passing where we were. He went on a little, small trail. Before he left he asked me if I see any deers? I said, yes sir. I says, I seen some deers over there in that direction; so he passes along that little trail going that way, towards that way, and I was chopping wood. Didn’t pay no attention to it.
“In a few minutes the gun was fired and I looked and seen Macpherson and Mortier. I saw Harvey Mortier shooting. I seen the smoke and the gun in front of him, and he taking the gun down from him. He was standing in bushes that were chopped down, about two feet high.
“I saw the smoke in front of his face, and he was trying to hide himself. Mortier was thirty-four yards from Macpherson at the time the shot was fired. I measured it the next day with a six-foot pole.
“The smoke was right at the end of the gun. I saw Mortier’s face distinctly and recognized him. I had known him five or six years.
“After the shot, Macpherson and I ran away. He ran two hundred and thirty-five steps after he was shot. We ran as soon as the shot was fired. The last I saw of him he was leaning against a fence. He fell down. I then went after help to bring him home. At the time the shot was fired Macpherson was standing in front of Mortier and I was standing on one side. Macpherson was chopping a tree about six inches through. Macpherson lived about half an hour after the shot was fired.”
Harvey Mortier retreated to the Hare Creek Hotel, owned by his father, Frank Mortier, known to some on the coast as “Belgian Frank.” Nicknames were a common practice here at that time. My grandfather, John Macdonald, was one of a handful of John Macdonalds, John McDonalds, and John MacDonalds, so many knew him as “Three River John,” since he'd been born in a part of Nova Scotia near the confluence of a trio of waterways.
A year prior to the Richard Macpherson killing, Frank Mortier had placed the following notice in the Beacon, “ ATTENTION – My wife, having left my bed and board, without just cause or provocation, all persons are hereby cautioned not to trust her on account as I shall pay no debts of her contracting after this date.”
A generation earlier, in 1857, Frank Mortier, had been caught red-handed stealing clothing on Washington Street in San Francisco. He spent a short time in jail for the petty larceny. On the evening of March 18, 1880, Frank and his son Harvey readied themselves to depart for Westport, but got no farther than the Noyo River where Civil War veteran John Byrnes detained them. Byrnes's son Ralph would go on to become a longtime sheriff of the county, and something of a legend in his own right.
At some point soon thereafter Constable Alf Nelson of Mendocino (a brother-in-law of Beacon editor William Heeser) formally arrested and handcuffed Harvey Mortier outside the Byrnes establishment. Nelson marched Harvey inside where the young man displayed his bound hands to his father, Frank, saying, “Do you see these irons? Didn't I tell you so!”
Apparently due to the beloved nature of the deceased there was much talk of lynching both Mortiers, but as William Heeser put it in his newspaper, “The common sense of the people restrained them from violating the law.” The editor's brother, Judge Heeser, was able to bind the Mortiers over to the county jail in Ukiah. Frank was eventually freed, though many on the coast believed that he had sent his son off to kill Richard Macpherson because the elder Mortier suspected Macpherson of informing on him regarding a series of recent petty thefts.
Contemporaneously, at least four murder trials, including a wife and paramour killing as well as the ambush murder of deputized posse members, were ongoing in the county seat, but young Harvey Mortier scarcely raised a hand to have his day in court delayed. He was convicted and sentenced to be hanged in mid-July. His able attorney, C.C. Hamilton got the August 20th hanging date postponed. He even traveled to Sacramento in October, 1880, to plead before the governor for a commutation of sentence.
The Sacramento Daily Union published one of the most detailed accounts of an execution day in Ukiah within its edition of October 15, 1880: “The condemned man made astatement of the facts... He confessed the justice of his sentence, and deplored the evil associations that brought him to the gallows. No signs of fear have been apparent throughout the ordeal. He has slept well and had a good appetite. Rev. Father Sheridan attended to his spiritual needs. Sheriff Donohue stood guard over the prisoner Thursday night, and reports that Mortier slept from 11 to 5 this morning and scarcely stirred. He awoke in a cheerful frame of mind. Father Sheridan administered the rites of the Catholic Church to Mortier, who was in a hopeful mental state. He was reconciled to his fate as the penalty for his grave offense. About 9 o'clock he ate a hearty breakfast, consisting of a steak and onions, five hard-boiled eggs, boiled potatoes, bread, and coffee. He then lit a cigar, and his spiritual adviser returned and remained with him... At 12:50 Sheriff Donohue, accompanied by Sheriff Burnett of Lake county, Sheriff Dinwiddie, of Sonoma county, and Sheriff Mason, of Marin county, went to Mortier's cell and read the death warrant. This proceeding occupied five minutes, and the prisoner endured the ordeal without tremor. He was then left with the priest. At 1:05 the Sheriff summoned Mortier to the gallows. The prisoner walked calmly by the side of Father Sheridan, who continued with him, directing his thoughts to the future. As he passed the Sheriff's office he addressed Under Sheriff Sewell, “A thousand thanks for kindness,” and walked on. He mounted the steps to the scaffold and took his place on the drop with a steady step and unbleached face. After a short prayer, the Sheriff asked if he had anything to say. Mortier said no, and the straps were adjusted, the cap fixed, the rope placed, and at two minutes past 1 the drop fell. The body remained suspended twenty-three minutes, when it was taken down. Drs. Rozier and Robinson examined the body and found that the neck was dislocated. The pulse ceased in three minutes. The prisoner's bearing was manful throughout, and he carried out his promise to the Sheriff that he should not hang a coward.”

                                                                                 Link to Anderson Valley Advertiser:  www.theava.com

According to a long time employee of Mendocino Coast District Hospital (MCDH), the President of that institution's Board of Directors, Steve Lund, attempted to harass and intimidate the employee during a March 17th encounter in the employee's office. Nearly two months earlier, this employee, a Patient Accounting Manager, had filed a complaint against Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Wade Sturgeon, alleging that Sturgeon had harassed and threatened the worker.
In the fall of 2016, the Patient Accounting Manager had noted major problems in the coding and billing done by the hospital's new emergency room provider, EmCare. These billing errors could have resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in MediCare PIP (Periodic Interim Payments) for the hospital, all of which was detailed to Sturgeon in a November email authored by the Patient Accounting Manager.
In December, 2016, the employee noted the problem with EmCare's billing to CFO Sturgeon in person, with a comment along the lines that if Medicare found out MCDH's administration had been sitting on potential billing fraud for months, they (Medicare) would come in and take over the hospital's administration. Apparently Sturgeon did not take kindly to such a remark. According to the Patient Accounting Manager the CFO said that if anything like that happened the employee and all her co-workers in the department would lose their jobs. According to the employee, comments, in a similar vein, continued into the new year.The employee took this as even more of a threat after the January 4, 2017, Finance Committee meeting, at which the Patient Accounting Manager was “extremely surprised to hear [Sturgeon] report all the issues with the implementation of EmCare had been resolved at the end of November. In fact, as of January 4, 2017, when he was reporting, NONE of the issues brought forth by the previous and current Medical Records Manager and myself had been resolved.”
The Patient Accounting Manager also pointed out discrepancies in Sturgeon's January 4th statements to the Finance Committee concerning a backlog of Medicare claims for the hospital's clinic, North Coast Family Health Center (NCFHC). Even after the Patient Accounting Manager filed her harassment claim against Sturgeon in the last week of January, 2017, payments to doctors affiliated with NCFHC dwindled to near zero by March.
One of those NCFHC doctors was opthamologist Kevin Miller, a member of the MCDH Board of Directors. The Patient Accounting Manager shared many of her concerns about Sturgeon's financial methods with Dr. Miller in a three page letter dated March 13th or 14th. With a job performance review of Sturgeon scheduled before the board on March 16th, Dr. Miller approached the Patient Accounting Manager at the hospital. She remembers that Miller asked her if she “was able to continue working with Wade Sturgeon at Mendocino Coast District Hospital. I hesitated in responding and he [Miller] stated he was aware of my complaints to Human Resources... As I continued to hesitate, he said to consider the harassment and threats only in my answer and not the reports of 'misinformation.' I finally responded and said no, I couldn't [work with Sturgeon]. I added that I had to consider everything, and my answer would be no.”
The next day, March 15, 2017, Miller again asked the employee questions regarding the letter she'd written to him. She responded by pointing out that Sturgeon's 'misinformation' was “actually dishonesty and lacking in integrity.”
Miller pressed on. According to the Patient Accounting Manager, “He said he didn't believe our hospital could survive another Administrative turnover. He asked again if I could get past or set aside the harassing behavior of Wade and continue to work with Wade at the hospital...
“My answer was again no, but to even have the question posed, I felt great uncertainty in my future employment.”
On March 16, 2017, the Board held a closed session performance review of CFO Sturgeon. The performance review focused on an earlier harassment complaint filed by the Chief Human Resources officer against Sturgeon. By this date, not only had the Human Resources Chief been placed on leave for an extended period, CEO Edwards had fired the HR Chief's main assistant, seemingly suspecting that person had been leaking information about the HR Chief's case (an unfounded suspicion as far as all evidence indicates), and the longtime Risk Manager had left the hospital for another job, apparently after expressing to the board her support for the HR Chief and ethical questions regarding Sturgeon and Edwards that prevented the Risk Manager from continuing to work alongside the pair.
At the conclusion of the Thursday, March 16th closed session, Board President Lund announced that no decision had been made concerning Sturgeon's performance review. Lund also said that the board would be conducting further interviews with staff members regarding the matter.
The next day, according to the Patient Accounting Manager, “Board President Steve Lund came to my office to talk to me. He began by telling me he had a copy of my letter [to Dr. Miller, which, the employee told this writer, Lund waved in the her face]... I clarified with him that I was not asking questions in my letter, I was pointing out discrepancies in the financial information pertaining to Patient Accounting that were given to the Finance Committee and Board of Directors by Wade Sturgeon, CFO, from the actual data in Patient Accounting.
“I also pointed out to Steve that I knew he was very much aware of my formal complaints of workplace harassment and threats I received from Wade Sturgeon... Due to those circumstances I was fearful for my job and was not comfortable discussing conflicting information that [Sturgeon] reported on.”
The Patient Accounting Manager went on to tell Lund about a March 6th managers meeting at which CEO Edwards repeated the phrase “sloppy billing practices.” She told Lund that Edwards “had repeated that phrase about six times throughout the meeting yet never clarified that 90% of the findings in the report he was labeling 'sloppy billing' actually pertained to issues beginning with the clinical departments.”
Three days later, at a March 20th managers meeting, as recalled by the Patient Accounting Manager, Edwards “continued to state there were 'sloppy billing practices' that needed attention. At one point he asked everyone if they noticed he'd said that phrase five times. I found this to be pointed directly at me following my meeting with Steve the preceding Friday and his subsequent meeting with Bob. This was intentionally asked and set the tone going forward for a hostile work environment.”
At some point in the March 20th meeting the Patient Accounting Manager raised her hand to say that she, “found the phrase 'sloppy billing practices' very offensive. Bob interrupted me saying he hoped I found it repulsive. I went on to explain that 99% of the population interprets billing practices as Billing Office functions... I further explained because the community interprets billing practices as Billing Office, my staff and I are approached inside and outside of work by co-workers and community members questioning our competence.”
Documents made available to the AVA show that on March 21, 2017, the Patient Accounting Manager lodged formal complaints against the hospital's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Bob Edwards, “for harassment, ridicule, and false allegations;” MCDH Board President Steve Lund “for harassment and intimidation;” and MCDH Board member, Dr. Kevin Miller, “for harassment and coercion.”
Remember Steve Lund's March 16th promise that the MCDH Board would conduct further interviews with staff before rendering a decision on CFO Sturgeon's job performance? It never happened, unless you want to count as an interview Lund entering an employee's office and waving a letter in the worker's face. What should be obvious to all readers: Lund committed inappropriate workplace interference. At the very least, his words and actions smack of intimidation. As does Dr. Miller's multiple visits to the workplace to question the Patient
Accounting Manager. Appropriate interviews of staff members would take place in a board closed session with the hospital's legal counsel present.
By his comments to the employee, Dr. Miller seems to think that it is alright to ignore not only workplace harassment but, also, misleading financial reports by the CFO, in order to protect the adsministrative status quo. This appears to be a view shared by Lund and fellow MCDH Board members Lucas Campos and Kitty Bruning, as evidenced by their votes to retain Wade Sturgeon as CFO and their blind eyes in regard to the behavior of Edwards.
Here's another tidbit that came to light regarding that March 16th closed session. Much of Sturgeon's performance review was predicated on the investigation into harassment charges made against the CFO by the HR Chief. According to reliable sourcing a letter was sent to this Chief of Human Resources just two days after the March 16th closed session. The letter essentially asked the HR Chief to sign off on an employment termination.
What anyone from the public would have to wonder is if such a letter was sent to the HR Chief within a couple of days of the same board promising to conduct further interviews regarding her allegations, what sort of trust should the public place in said board if they tell the public one thing then follow up with a completely contradictory action of terminating the HR Chief, and the inaction of not conducting the promised interviews.
This summer the Patient Accounting Manager received a letter from MCDH stating, “An outside employment attorney was hired to conduct an independent investigation into the allegations [against Wade Sturgeon].”
The Patient Accounting Manager contends this “independent investigation” had very little, if anything, to do with her complaint against Sturgeon. The AVA asked an individual close to the situation at the time for verification. That individual stated that the “independent investigation” (paid for by MCDH) only examined the HR Chief's complaint against Sturgeon. That source went on, emphatically, “There was NO formal investigation outside MCDH on [the Patient Accounting Manager]'s complaints EVER!!!”
The pretext of investigation was perhaps exemplified by what happened at a June 13th special meeting of the MCDH Board. President Lund reported out of a forty minute closed session, “After careful deliberation of this matter, including a thorough, confidential investigation conducted by an outside, independent law firm, the Board of Directors has determined, by a four to one vote, of the members present, per its investigation of this matter, to retain the CFO in his present position in accordance with his current contract.”
Lund's statement appeared to be read from a typed sheet of paper. There were no computers or printers present in the Redwood Room of MCDH where the meeting was held, so this observer had to wonder how Lund knew what to type on the paper before the meeting began. Unless there was an alternative page that replaced “to retain” with “not to retain,” this procedure indicates that the closed session itself was something of a farce, that a majority of the MCDH Board had decided outside of the closed session setting to retain Sturgeon. Such an action, of course, would be a grievous violation of the Brown Act.
Violating the Brown Act is nothing new for the majority of this particular MCDH Board of Directors. They held another special board meeting at 8 a.m. April 1st (no joke) without fulfilling the legal requirement of twenty-four hours notice to the public and press. That meeting went forward with four Board members present even though the MCDH Board was apprised of the potential violation at the outset of the meeting.
The MCDH Board member absent from that April 1st get together, Dr. Peter Glusker, is also the only one who has consistently seen the light of reality in this ongoing charade of unethical behaviors. If the rest of the board: Lund, Miller, Dr. Lucas Campos, and Kitty Bruning cannot put the truth above another administrative turnover, they should do themselves and the tax paying public a favor and resign, posthaste.
The AVA offered a draft of this article to all five MCDH Board members as well as CEO Edwards and CFO Sturgeon on July 23rd. As of July 26th only Dr. Glusker responded with some proofreading/editing comments. Dr. Campos and I enjoyed a good talk about several hospital issues after the Planning Committee meeting of July 25th. Perhaps there is hope for him. We'll see. Lund, Miller, Bruning, Edwards, and Sturgeon did not respond.

                                                                                 Link to Anderson Valley Advertiser:  www.theava.com

The electronic medical records of Mendocino Coast District Hospital (MCDH) were the subject of a computer cyber attack in June. Apparently the hospital's administrative leadership has made little or no effort to inform the public about this problem.
MCDH's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Bob Edwards, should have known about the cyber attack no later than June 29th, given that the American Hospital Association (AHA) circulated the following bulletin on June 28th: “An evolving cyberattack using a variant of Ransomware has hit businesses worldwide, with particular impacts in transportation and health care. According to press reports, Nuance Communications, a provider of voice and language solutions including transcription services, is among those impacted in the health care sector. Nuance has taken measures to contain the incident, including temporarily taking certain customer-facing solutions offline.”
As of late June, Nuance Communications was the provider of transcription services for MCDH. The AHA bulletin goes on, “The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is advising vigilance and following general cyber hygiene practices, such as ensuring that all your systems patches and anti-virus definitions are up to date and educating users on common Phishing tactics...”
While this hospital observer was aware of the problem, it appeared that most Mendocino Coast Hospital District residents had no knowledge, even those who may have suffered through delays in obtaining medical records. I went to the MCDH Planning Committee meeting on Tuesday afternoon, July 18th, fully expecting CEO Edwards to make some sort of announcement about the cyber attack at or near the beginning of the meeting chaired by Dr. Kevin Miller.
On the ther hand Edwards has hardly been a leader imbued of true public transparency, so I also came prepared with several questions to ask on the subject of the cyber attack. One would think that the CEO of a publicly owned hospital district would want that public to know about something as potentially serious as a cyber attack on the hospital's medical records. Edwards gave no opening statement and the meeting went blithely on its way through the agenda, which included a final item entitled, “Request Parcel Tax for November 2017 Election.”
Keep in mind that CEO Edwards and the committee chair create the meeting agenda. Either Edwards or Dr. Miller believed that a parcel tax could be placed on the November ballot, an election one hundred ten days away. Ballot measures must be approved by the County eighty-eight days ahead of any election. With that math in mind, the parcel tax item would have to be ramrodded through a MCDH Board meeting on July 27th. Another footnote to the law, such a ballot measure would require a public hearing, presumably the same July 28th MCDH Board of Directors meeting. Consider how little notice that would have actually given the public.
By the time Michael Reimenschneider, of Eastshore Consulting, went through a powerpoint overview on potential parcel tax or bond measures, Edwards realized that a November, 2017, parcel tax vote was an impossibility. One wonders why he didn't do the basic math before authoring the preposterous agenda item. You can pretty much bet the farm the parcel tax item was an Edwards creation rather than a notion of committee chair Miller, though second thought says, not so fast with your farm wager. After all, it was Dr. Miller who demanded an up or down vote on the future of the Obstetrics (OB) Department be placed on the MCDH Board agenda a month ago.
Onward to some of the questions I put to Edwards near the end of the July 18th Planning Committee meeting. How much medical record dictation was lost? Edwards did not answer.
How many internal [MCDH] medical records were delayed by this cyber attack? Edwards did not give a response.
Did MCDH have a backup plan in place to deal with potential computer hacks/cyber attacks? If not, what plans are being made to rectify the situation? Edwards had nothing to say about this.
When did MCDH inform other hospitals or clinics about the medical record problem? Edwards gave no date.
When did MCDH begin informing patients about the extent of the medical record problem? Edwards did not respond.
Did MCDH put out any kind of public statement acknowledging the problem with its medical record system? If so, where and when? Edwards made no response to this inquiry.
How many MCDH medical records are still affected by this problem? No answer from Edwards.
Is MCDH still contracting with Nuance? If not, what new provider has taken the place of Nuance? No response from Edwards.
In a somewhat related manner, how does the CEO expect MCDH to function properly, let alone in a crisis such as a cyber attack, with so many interim managers? Edwards failed to respond.
Can the CEO explain to this committee and the public the reasons why so many managers have departed MCDH since he took over the Chief Executive Officer position [in April, 2015]? Apparently not, because Edwards did not respond.
In relation to strategic planning, one of this CEO's key points in his own strategic plan for the hospital was producing quarterly “Quality Reports.” There have been no such Quality Reports in the 2017 calendar year. Can the CEO explain this significant hole in his own concept of strategic planning for MCDH? Like all the other questions, Edwards chose not to respond to this.
Bob Edwards, MCDH's CEO had a printed copy of these questions in front of him, yet he chose to sit silent and continue to keep the public in the dark about basic information concerning whether or not the problem was still ongoing, whether or not the hospital has had or is planning for future contingency plans regarding cyber attacks, or simply giving a basic statement about when the problem first came to the hospital's attention and what types of record keeping it impacted.
The last three questions, regarding the departures of so many management level employees from MCDH in the last year or two and Edwards's inability to follow through on his own strategic plans, demonstrate his overall inability to successfully manage the hospital staff and meet even his own expectations.