Lea este artículo en español aquí.
On Aug. 23, San Benito County Superior Court Commissioner Page Galloway dismissed a challenge to the wording of San Benito Health Care District’s measure on the Nov. 5 ballot asking voters to decide on a lease-purchase agreement between Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital and the Michigan-based Insight Health Foundation.
San Benito County resident Robert Bernosky, who opposes selling the hospital to Insight , brought the lawsuit challenging the ballot language. According to court documents, Bernosky claimed the ballot question is argumentative and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.”
The health care district’s board of directors, which governs the hospital, is proposing a deal with Insight to sell more than 50% of its assets, such as medical equipment, furniture and supplies, and lease the hospital buildings. Insight, at the end of five years, would have the option to purchase the hospital.
Galloway dismissed the case because Bernosky did not include a verification form in which he declares under penalty of perjury the information provided in the petition was factual.
While Bernosky requested a 15-minute break to complete a written statement that would serve as the form, Galloway agreed with the health care district’s attorney, Margaret Prinzing, that the form is a “distinctive element” of the petition.
Galloway added that, had the petition included the form, the court would “not have viewed the petition in favor” because there was a lack of evidence that the ballot language violated the portion of the election code which requires ballot measure questions to be “true and impartial.”
Bernosky, who is also challenging the arguments in favor of the measure that will appear in the official voter guide, said he was disappointed in the ruling.
“The commissioner very nicely laid out the case of why even if we cured the defect [verification form] she would not have ruled in my favor,” he said.
His next move will be to submit a verification form for the second case, he said.
Prinzing and Health Care District counsel Heidi Quinn declined to comment.
San Benito County Counsel David Prentice was present at the hearing, representing County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters Francisco Diaz, who did not take a position.
Prentice told BenitoLink the county did not file a legal challenge, as had been approved by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, because it “legally can’t file.” When asked why, he said he could not speak to it.
Supervisors Kollin Kosmicki and Angela Curro also attended the hearing.
Bernosky claimed the ballot measure leaves voters guessing how services could continue if Insight declines to purchase the hospital’s real estate. He claimed the measure violated election laws because a price for the transaction and lease is not specified and that the ballot question implies health services will continue to be available if voters approve the deal.
The ballot question reads, “Without increasing taxes and to continue providing local access to emergency medical care, surgery, radiology, long-term care, mother/baby care, clinic and physician services at Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital, shall San Benito Health Care District’s measure be adopted, leasing (with lessee option to purchase) certain District real property assets, and selling substantially all other District assets, to nonprofit Insight Health Foundation of California, Inc. (or another qualified buyer) for fair market value, determined by independent appraisal, providing local oversight and continued hospital services in San Benito County?”
Bernosky sought to delete the following: “Without increasing taxes and to continue providing local access to emergency medical care, surgery, radiology, long-term care, mother/baby care, clinic and physician services at Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital”; “nonprofit” in reference to Insight, “(or another qualified buyer)”; “providing local oversight and continued hospital services in San Benito County?”; and including a phrase identifying the methodology of determining fair market value.
Health care district board meeting
At its Aug. 22 meeting, the board of directors approved a new contract with the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and changes to its 401(a) plan in a 3-0 vote. Directors Rick Shelton and Davon Pack were absent.
The new contract with the nurses union includes increased paid time off, retroactive pay increases and lower health insurance premiums.
The pay increases include a 3.5% increase for 2022 and 3% for 2023, 2024 and 2025. According to the agenda packet, the agreement will cost the hospital $2 million in retroactive pay.
Mark Robinson, health care district chief financial officer, said nurses will receive a separate, non-payroll check in September.
Regarding the pension plan, the health care district will contribute 4% to an employee’s plan who “defers at least 1% of their compensation into the District’s Deferred Compensation Plan.”
Among the changes adopted, employees are now eligible for the plan after 90 days of employment.
Robinson said the 401(a) pension plan had been frozen since 2004, the year the district opened a pension plan.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. It is expensive to produce local news and community support is what keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service, nonprofit news.
The post Court dismisses challenge to hospital ballot question appeared first on BenitoLink.