More than 50 people, including registered nurses and doctors employed by Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital, filled the room during a contentious July 27 meeting of the San Benito Health Care District Board of Directors.
Residents and hospital workers let the district board know their dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of transparency regarding the ongoing bankruptcy litigation the Hollister hospital is embroiled in. The community voiced their frustration over the course of the first district board meeting since an informational town hall regarding the future of Hazel Hawkins was held on July 6.
At that July 6 town hall, nurses working at HHMH informed the public that the hospital’s ICU had been closed for a month due to staffing issues. Since then, the ICU is up and running again, but the underlying problems brought about by the hospital’s fiscal emergency remain.
Cars honked their horns in support of about a dozen HHMH nurses protesting in front of the hospital before the meeting as they stood on the sidewalk of Sunset Drive. They are represented by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU) and were there to keep tabs on the district board, according to a representative.
“We’re here because we want to kind of keep an eye on the board and what they do because they tended [to] kind of sneak things in when we’re not present,” said Sonia Duran, a registered nurse at HHMH. “They’ve done a lot of unilateral changes to our contracts because of the bankruptcy that they filed and we want to try and push back on that.”
CNA/NNU has repeatedly stated that it believes the ongoing contract dispute between the union and HHMH is a major reason for the hospital filing for bankruptcy, a decision the union fears will let the hospital renege on its labor agreements with hospital workers.Â
War of Words
The regularly scheduled district board meeting was anything but business as usual, with the board members and HHMH CEO Mary Casillas being lambasted by some attendees for lacking transparency in their operations.
“This is the issue that the community has: it’s that you lack transparency. And when you go out there and speak on behalf of this board, you don’t speak with the facts, you don’t even research your own information,” said resident Elia Salinas, addressing board president Jeri Hernandez.
Salinas claimed that the selection of Casillas as interim CEO for HHMH was done without public knowledge or input.
Ron Bernosky addressed Casillas directly in his comments, accusing her of refusing to meet with a group of concerned residents.
“Stop the animosity. Mary, come meet with the group, you seem like a nice person,” Bernosky said. “It suggests that you’re hiding something and we don’t want you hiding.We want to be part of the solution,” he added.
Ray Kusumoto, a local physician and CEO of Primary Care Associates, spoke about the apprehension in the community about the potential closure of HHMH.
“I get people are mad, I get people are confused and I get people want answers,” he said.
Primary Care Associates’ contract with HHMH was terminated in the wake of the bankruptcy declaration. According to Kusumoto, some in the community have urged him to stop doing business with HHMH altogether.
“We’re not scorching the earth, we’re in this community,” Kusumoto said. ”We’ve worked in this hospital, we’ve worked in this community taking care of these patients for 26 years.”
As the session rolled on, HHMH’s bankruptcy advisor Michael A. Sweet, of Fox Rothschild LLP, gave an update via Zoom on the state of the process as part of the meeting agenda. Sweet reported that an evidentiary hearing is scheduled for December, when a judge will determine whether the hospital was legally eligible for a bankruptcy filing when it did so in May 2023. An evidentiary hearing, or trial, is a standard part of bankruptcy proceedings.
When an attendee asked Sweet during public comment if this evidentiary hearing would add to the “overall cost of the bankruptcy,” Sweet declined to answer her.
“I don’t believe it’s proper for me to answer questions from public commenters, but I would be happy to answer questions from members of the board,” Sweet said.
Sweet’s response was met with audible groans from the audience, many shaking their heads disapprovingly.
Transparency Allegations
The Free Lance reached out to HHMH for a response to some of the comments made during the district meeting about their alleged lack of transparency.
“The San Benito Health Care District and HHMH operate in accordance with California laws governing operations both as a healthcare organization and a healthcare district with a publicly elected Board of Directors,” said Marcus Young, a spokesperson for HHMH, via email. “The District is governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act, and as such, its meetings are noticed and are open to the public. District Agenda packets and minutes, as well as financial statements and other important information, are posted on the website.”
Regarding the allegation that Casillas’ hiring was not transparent, Young stated that “the approval of the contract for Mary Casillas as interim CEO occurred at open and public meetings of the Finance Committee and the Board of Directors.”
Toward the end of the meeting, the board convened in private for a closed session, a standard practice to discuss confidential matters. On this date, the bankruptcy litigation was set to be discussed in closed session.
Bernosky again grilled the board and accused them of sketchy behavior.
“It’s very bizarre how the business of this hospital is conducted. You’re not Apple or Microsoft,” he said, alluding to the tech giants’ infamous secrecy.
Young again refuted the allegations.
“The Ralph M. Brown Act authorizes a legislative body to meet in closed session on certain items including litigation, personnel, labor negotiations,” Young said. “This is to avoid revealing confidential information, prejudicing the legislative body’s position in litigation or negotiations, or compromising the privacy interests of employees.
“An agenda item may appear on both closed and open session agendas. For example, a general litigation update could be provided in open session for the benefit of the public, but a Board may need to meet in closed session to discuss further legal strategy that would be prejudiced by public disclosure.”
