Differing council perspectives on Valley Health bond issue vote

John Connolly, left, and Jacob Meza were not eye to eye on the advisability of approving an EDA bond issue to help fund a new community hospital without a maternity unit, among other cutbacks. Royal Examiner File Photos/Roger Bianchini

Fellow Christendom College alumni John Connolly and Jacob Meza had differing perspectives leading to opposing June 11 votes on approval of a potential $60-million bond issue to help finance construction of a new Warren Memorial Hospital.

“I will not give my endorsement to a downgrade of our hospital services,” Connolly said in prefacing his “no” vote.  His statement drew applause from “Birth Local” proponents of maintaining local maternity services.

Had Meza recused himself from voting due to his employment with Valley Health, as he had previously on rezoning votes, council would not have had the minimum four-member voting quorum forcing a delay on the vote in the absence of Councilmen Gary Gillespie and Chris Morrison.

That might have been seen as a small victory, giving the “Birth Local” contingent more time to lobby council to add teeth to past verbal support of their cause.  But as reported in Royal Examiner‘s initial coverage of the vote, Meza read a statement indicating that in the legal opinion of the town attorney, with disclosure of his Valley Health employment, due to the nature of the evening’s vote on endorsing third-party financing of the construction project, he could, in fact, vote on the bond issue endorsement.

‘You tricked us’ Melanie Salins, left, and Amber Poe Morris may have been thinking while chatting with Jacob Meza following June 11 meeting. Birth Local co-founder Salins praised Meza for his past recusals near the meeting’s outset.

So, the motion to approve made by William Sealock, seconded by Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt, passed by a 3-1 margin as Meza joined Sealock and Tewalt in giving what appears to be a final endorsement and enabling of the new hospital project.  As we have previously reported that project is envisioned as a three-story, 175,000 square-foot, 36-bed private room “general acute care hospital” on a 150-acre campus, just south of Warren County Middle School on the east side of Leach Run Parkway.

What it doesn’t envision is a maternity ward.

Town council’s June 11 approval of a resolution of support was the third and final required board vote to facilitate the bond issue; following the EDA board’s 6-0 vote (one absent) of June 1 and the county board of supervisors unanimous 5-0 vote of June 5.

And as that FINAL preliminary step in the process, citizens organized against the hospital parent company Valley Health’s decision to eliminate services, particularly a birthing OB-GYN unit, saw council approval of the bond issue as perhaps their last stand at holding up the overall approval process as leverage to force Valley Health’s hand in reaching some kind of compromise on preserving a local delivery unit.

Meza’s turnabout on casting a vote was grounded in one major premise – that his employment with Valley Health did not present him with a specific, individual conflict of interest that would prevent him from voting “fairly and objectively”.

Or as stated in bullet point six of seven in his disclosure, “I affirmatively state that, notwithstanding my personal interest, and the effect it might have on the aforementioned group (hundreds of Valley Health employees), I am able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest.”

Following the meeting Town Attorney Doug Napier verified his opinion on Meza’s ability to vote on the third-party bond issue.  Napier even went so far as to say that in his opinion Meza could have voted on the earlier rezoning, but that “since it was such a direct town governmental action (related to the construction project) that (Meza) felt it was better to recuse – that was my understanding of what he did.”

Meza concurred with the town attorney’s explanation.

“I recused on the rezoning because it was directly impacting Valley Health’s ability to build the new hospital facility there …and council moved that forward.  And now we were at the point where we were voting essentially on the legitimacy of the bond issuance … If you take Valley Health’s name out of it and put any other business there – is that a legitimate reason to issue the bond?  And the answer is yes and which we’ve voted consistently on all past bond issuances.  So it had no bearing on whether or not Valley Health was involved,” Meza explained of his decision.

As for Connolly’s decision to vote “no”, following the meeting he added some detail to his succinct pre-vote appraisal – “I will not give my endorsement to a downgrade of our hospital services.”

“And yes, it is just on the bond issue – but I’m not bound by law,” Connolly explained of his ‘no’ vote on the bond issue as opposed to his April 23 ‘yes’ vote on the rezoning.  Connolly prefaced his positive rezoning vote by quoting state code on exactly what is at legal issue in considering a rezoning; stating that he believed the hospital rezoning request met those legal standards.

As for his June 11 vote on whether the town-county EDA should help provide the financing of up to $60-million for the projected $97-million hospital project, Connolly said, “I have asked Valley Health multiple times to listen to this community; and they have demonstrated multiple times that they are not going to do so.  If they are not going to listen to this community, I will – I was elected to represent them.”

But alas, it was Connolly alone standing with those citing statistics indicating negative women’s health consequences in the wake of the loss of local birthing services in rural communities, particularly in unexpected complication and emergency situations.

Birth Local supporters rally for their cause at WMH on Feb. 28 – but about five months of negotiations and lobbying of public officials appears to have come to naught.

Valley Health has cited an annual low number of deliveries at WMH – an average of about 330 per year – and the decision of a number of county women to already go to its Winchester Medical Center or points east for their decision to not include a birthing unit in the new hospital plan.  Valley Health officials have stressed there will be room to add a birthing unit once the numbers justify it.

However, that promise may be what you call a “Catch 22” – or an unattainable bargain (from the Kurt Vonnegut novel and movie of the same name).

Because, with no maternity unit in Warren County as of May 1 when the current hospital’s was shut down; none planned for the new hospital slated to open by 2021; and Valley Health calling cooperation with a third-party maternity provider in the interim “too complicated”, it is difficult to see how “the numbers” (of county hospital births) will EVER justify the addition of a maternity unit to the new Warren Memorial Hospital. See Related Story