Samaritan House try's again

It's all about numbers.
In it's 2014 Annual Report, which was not approved by the Board, Lee Michelson, CEO of the Sequoia Healthcare District, reported that Samaritan House Redwood City Clinic is a free volunteer-focused health center that provides medical and dental services for more than 3,000 residents a year.

In their initial request for funding at the April 1, 2015 meeting, Samaritan House stated that "Approximately 92% of our target population lives in the Sequoia Healthcare district. 58% lives in Redwood City; most others come from East Menlo Park."

Having been denied funding for lack of a quorum at the April 1 meeting, for which I am responsible, Samaritan House came back with new numbers for a special meeting on May 13 to make their case that 92% of patients served by their Redwood City Clinic are District residents.

The new numbers show only 1015 patients in calendar year 2014. Redwood City accounts for 86% of patients, while only 61(6%)come from
Menlo Park (94025). Of those 61, 25(2.5%) do not reside in the District.

They went from 3,000 patients in the SHD Annual Report to 1,015 in their current request. And, their numbers from the original request do not square with the numbers in the current request.

The District should audit Samaritan House records before granting funding. Included in that audit should be a weighting factor for number of visits per patient.

Samaritan House does great work.

A very good cause, worth supporting to make our greater community a better place to live.

I agree, "Samaritan House does great work."

Samaritan House is a charitable organization. Donations are tax deductible.
St. Anthony de Padua Dining Room's Donations page on it's website used to state:
"Each one should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver"(2 Cor.9:7)" They removed that reference after they dipped into the public trough offered to them by Sequoia Healthcare District, a government agency funded by property taxes. Taxpayers are not generally "willing givers". The "willing givers" in this case are the majority Board members who see the District as their own private philanthropy. But it is not theirs to give.

Taxpayers of the District have an expectation that their taxes will be spent for the benefit of District residents. Let's have an audit.

Mr. Hickey's challenge of our patients' residence within the Sequoia Healthcare District was taken up by our staff. Verifying addresses of the 1,015 clients in 2014 we found that the actual total was 91.3% residing within the district, almost exactly the 92% we stated in the first place.
(The 3,000 patient figure was a misreading of a previous form.)
The average visits per patient stays pretty steady at about 3.5 visits per year, a very good record given the often previously untreated and chronic conditions of these impoverished District residents.
Samaritan House opened the Redwood City Free Clinic about 15 years ago specifically at the request of the District. Since that time we have served many thousands of the very lowest income District residents, who would not have received treatment elsewhere, except at the Sequoia ER. We successfully prevent the inappropriate utilization of the Sequoia Hospital emergency room by these patients, a primary goal of the Sequoia Healthcare District to ensure that hospitalization is kept available to those who actually need the hospital the most.
Samaritan House is the "safety net under the safety net organizations".

Jack - what is your personal "cut-off" line?

92%? 50? 73.29998?

One point less and it is no longer a good cause for you?

So silly. You said it was a good cause for the community.

Bart, how did the Redwood City number go from 58% to 86%? And, you said "The 3,000 patient figure was a misreading of a previous form." That 3,000 figure was in the SHD Annual Report. Did the SHD CEO who prepares that report misread one of your forms?

"good cause", you miss the point. The Grand Jury has questioned the District on this issue. Otherwise, why would Ravenswood or Samaritan House bother with the data?

CEO, Lee Michelson, after visiting this Topic, e-mailed me the following: "I do object however your indication that I did something without Board approval when no Board approval is needed or required.. it is a typical move of yours to paint an inaccurate and dishonest picture and to attack someone." For details, see: Web Link where Michelson says: "The sending of the annual report to the Board in advance is a courtesy not for your approval. Neither the Board president or the majority of the board has asked for approval so as I understand the situation this is a staff responsibility."

Why would the board majority want to take responsibility for the content of the Annual Report, when they can have their cake and eat it too?

Why would Jack want to answer a simple question about what number merits his royal seal of approval when he can have his cake and eat it too?

Or... not take responsibility and just keep blasting others without answering aimple questions.

Nice work if you can get it.

Seems like a reasonable question: what is Mr Hickey's "over/under" for do-gooder non-profits that serve the county?

50% +1 ?

99.9% ?

It's your thread, Jack Hickey. One notes that you posted in the Apathy thread last night and again ignored the question posed by "good cause".

Apathy?

A better question: should government be collecting tax dollars from us just so they can distribute those dollars to their favorite charities?

No matter how good the cause, giving to private charities should always be a voluntary act, not forced.

"libertarian" - I do not disagree. But Mr Hickey brought up the percentages; he did not bring up your "better" question that you are using to deflect from Mr Hickey answering the question posed to him by "good cause".

I'm not defending or deflecting from Jack Hickey's point. I'm quite capable of making my own.

I have no comment on the content, but am I the only person who cringes at the title? Pretty horrific to see that an elected official is borderline illiterate.

The Grand Jury wants to know. It is the responsibility of the Board to justify their grants based upon benefit to residents of the District. Establishing benchmarks is part of the process.

My personal benchmark is quite simple: I will not contribute to charitable organizations which accept grants of taxpayer dollars.

"lessons learned", I am deeply humbled by your comment. I offer you some of my writings for your sharp red pencil. And, please, don't hold back on contextual comments. Web Link
Web Link

Jack: So you do not have a personal benchmark number for residents' served (like 90%. for example.)

So no answer to this question: what is Mr Hickey's "over/under" for do-gooder non-profits that serve the county?

Rather than move the district forward, or actually towards any of Mr Hickey's previously stated goals (as previous threads have shown - none actually achieved) Mr Hickey is doing his best to kill off a good cause in the time honored manner of "death by a thousand (paper) cuts".

Good way to keep getting re-elected, and not actually achieve any of your campaign 'goals'.

Lifetime seat?

[Part removed. Please post comments without insults.]

SHD Board meeting 13 May, 2015

After hearing an apology from Director Kane regarding her absence from the April 1 meeting which resulted in postponement of their original request, Samaritan House succeeded in obtaining approval of their grant request. In spite of my questioning of the conflicting district residency figures presented by Samaritan House at these 2 meetings, the board majority at the 13 May meeting ignored my suggestion that the figures be audited by the district, and passed the motion for funding.

Immediately following that action item, Director Shefren read a statement in support of his agenda item to: "Consider Censoring Or Similar Action Pertaining To Board Member Hickey's Conduct At April 1, 2015 Board Meeting"

That statement read: "The SHD Board advises Director Hickey that his interference with the voting process on April 1, 2015 violated the clear intent and spirit of the District's mission. His conduct was insulting to potential grantee and to all the underserved members of our community. His decision to leave the Board room to prevent a quorum after the presentation by the proposed grantee, wasted the time of the presenter, staff and members of the public.
While the Board recognizes Director Hickey's right to oppose grants, even though they are concistent with the mission of the public agency he was elected to serve, the proper course is to vote against the motions, not to leave the room in a cowardly procedural antic. His actions reflect poorly on the District, the other Board members, and staff. He is admonished not to repeat this behavior.

I informed my colleagues on the Board that their failure to support my motion to suspend a policy which allows only 2 members of our 5 member board to pass important action items, gave me no choice Denying them a quorum was the only means available for me to prevent that from happening. I advised them that should they place me in similar situations in the future, I would repeat my action. That policy is unsustainable.