"the Grand Jury's concern that the Ravenswood facility, located in East Palo Alto, is not in the District." is contained in it's 2012/13 report:
"SEQUOIA HEALTHCARE DISTRICT - HOW ARE YOUR PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS SPENT?
"Web Link
"The Grand Jury recommends that LAFCo contract with a consultant knowledgeable about health care districts to help conduct the next SHD service review... Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends that SHD develop a mechanism for tracking how many of its residents the Ravenswood Clinic serves."

FINDING #5
F5. SHD funds the Ravenswood Clinic, citing that its residents benefit from it, even though the clinic is not located within its boundaries.

District Response: The District agrees with the statement that District residents benefit by Ravenswood Clinic services, and further observes that the statement “the clinic is not located within its boundaries” is correct
but irrelevant to the finding. Sequoia Healthcare District residents avail themselves of Ravenswood Clinic, just as District residents avail themselves of the San Mateo County Medical Center and other facilities that
lie outside its boundaries. Sequoia Healthcare District does not fund the Ravenswood Clinic in its entirety, only that portion of the clinic that serves clients who are District residents. Ravenswood administration
informs Sequoia Healthcare District that 15 percent of Ravenswood clients — more than 700 individuals — are District residents. It is this population of Ravenswood Clinic users that Sequoia Healthcare District supports with grant funding. The District website will be updated with this information.

I voted AGAINST the SHD Board's response to the Grand Jury, and offered a motion to amend that response.

Excerpt of meeting at which Board approved response:

5. b. Draft Reply to Grand Jury Report
Director Hickey stated the District should take a proactive roll with LAFCo to encourage a service review of the District to determine who is benefitting from tax dollars spent.
Motion: To amend the District's response to encourage a service review by LAFCo.
By: Director Hickey
Seconded by: None
Motion Dies for Lack of a Second
Directors discussed responses to F.6 (nursing program) and F.B (outreach efforts) but determined changes were not necessary.
Motion: To approve response to the Grand Jury as presented.
By: Director Faro
Seconded by: Director Griffin
Vote: 4-1 with Director Hickey opposed_
Motion Passed

Faro's statement in his response: "Sequoia Healthcare District residents avail themselves of Ravenswood Clinic, just as District residents avail themselves of the San Mateo County Medical Center and other facilities that lie outside its boundaries." makes no sense. Apparently, he is suggesting that District residents should not use the San Mateo County Medical Center. Nonsense! District residents pay taxes in support of the San Mateo County Medical Center, and are thereby entitled to use those facilities. When non-residents of the Sequoia Healthcare District use Ravenswood's facility, the Grand Jury wants to know about it.

Sequoia Healthcare District CEO Lee Michelson responded to this question with this indefensible comment:

"We fund a great number of programs that serve both residents and non –residents. Since our funding is geographically restrictive other funding that does not place the same limitations can then be used to provide services to non –residents. We have never had a problem with that and in fact always encourage them to raise other money to cover the non- District residents. We review spending to make sure that our funds do not exceed the amount that the organization spends on District residents. In the case of Ravenswood, they spend significantly more than $700,000 a year on District residents so we are comfortable that the money that they give them is used for our residents. To indicate that Ravenswood would be serving some of our residents anyway without our funding is a non –issue. Ravenswood like all other organizations have to piece together income from a great number of resources. Some are restricted like ours and others are non –restricted that can be used at will. Our funding allows Ravenswood to serve many more people than they would be able to serve without our help including many more of our residents. Why after all these years that Mr. Hickey does not understand our basic funding principles is beyond me and certainly inconsistent with the thinking of all of the other Board members, our staff and our legal representative.

SHD grants are nothing more than a reimbursement for services already being provided by Ravenswood. Fungibility is the operative word for the transaction.

Jack Hickey has run for numerous political offices, from Governor, Senator, Congress, etc.. always claiming to be in favor of term limits. Ever run for president, Mr. Hickey?

With The Peter Principle effect in place, Mr. Hickey finally found a position he could win. Now he is no longer in favor of term limits; say, Jack - how long have you been on this board? A decade? More?

Can you enlighten us as to why you no longer favor term limits?

Suggestion: do not use the word "indefensible: in your posts...

Hickey *claims* that he will not run for re-election in 2018.

Note: he *claims* that.

Of course, everyone in San Mateo County would have been better off, had he not run for political office *at all*...