GROSSMONT HOSPITAL BOARD VOTES TO NAME CONFERENCE CENTER AFTER STIERINGER, DECLARES STIERINGER DIRECTOR EMERITUS

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this


Watchdog activist says he will file complaints with FPPC and Attorney General; 2nd watchdog group also questioned board’s actions

 

By Miriam Raftery
 

December 6, 2010 (La Mesa)—By a unanimous vote, the Grossmont Healthcare District Board voted to recognize recently resigned board member Jim Stieringer as director emeritus and to name the District conference center after him. The Board made these votes despite a letter from Citizens Oversight Projects founder Ray Lutz stating that he believes such actions violate the law.

 

Terry Francke, general counsel for CalAware, a statewide watchdog group on open government issues, also questioned legality of the emeritus title and suggested that ”an attorney general’s opinion could and should be sought before action is taken” by the Board, La Mesa Patch.com reported shortly before the vote was taken.

 

Stieringer resigned his Board seat in order to apply for a more lucrative $60,000--a-year staff position, which would have made him eligible for a higher pension. Following complaints about potential conflicts of interest and notification that such a move could violate state law, the District rejected Stieringer’s application. He then asked for his old seat back. The Board considered that request in a closed session, but later acknowledged that the closed session violated the Brown Act’s requirements for open meetings. The Board rescinded its vote and held a public meeting in which it repeated a vote not to give Stieringer his seat back.
 

To some, the timing of the honors bestowed on Stieringer smack of favoritism that ignores public sentiment, and possibly violates state law.
 

“Our general counsel, Jeff Scott, noted this morning that the emeritus title `is an honorary title, with no legal significance,'" Barry Jantz, chief executive officer of the District, told East County Magazine.

 

Outgoing Board president Gloria Chadwick indicated that the district has similarly honored five former board members with emeritus titles in the past, dating back to 1952.  "It's just a title. When we send out our directory it lists all of the past board members and under their name, it says Director Emeritus," she said, adding that such individuals are "not invited to any particular function; they don't participate in anything." (Deborah McElravy was named new president of the Board at the same meeting; Chadwick remains a Board member.)

 

Francke spoke with ECM after the vote was cast today. He indicated that some of his concerns had been addressed, notably that the Board was not singling out Stieringer, since prior retired members have also received honorary titles. Legality would hinge on whether any perks or privileges are attached, he emphasized, adding, “What if any steps are they taking to make sure that this can’t be misunderstood or abused?”

 

But Lutz told ECM he believes the title is unlawful. “You can’t just bestow these titles on people; you have to follow state law….This is essentially setting up an eternal term,” he contended.

The local watchdog suggested that the title implies official status that could potentially be misused to influence grant monies or contracts being deliberated for hospital construction.

 

“That’s why I’m going to blow the whistle and go forward with complaints,” said Lutz, who told ECM he plans to pursue complaints with both the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and California Attorney General Kamala Harris. He suggested other agencies, such as a bond oversight committee, may also be appropriate bodies to investigate.

 

Lutz, in a letter sent to the Board on December 5th, raised various legal and ethical objections to both the emeritus title and naming a building after Stieringer. “Naming buildings after persons can be an effective way to raise money by selling naming rights,” he said, arguing that public universities and the City of San Diego have sold naming rights to buildings to general revenues. “If the board decides to grant naming rights to Stieringer, they will eliminate the possibility that the building could be named to honor a full-fledged donor,” he said, adding that such an action would be “a violation of propriety by the board.”

 

He suggested that a hallway with pictures and pages on the website would be more appropriate ways to honor former board members.

 

The Board has contended that it has never sold naming rights to buildings. But in today’s cash-strapped times, Lutz argues that taxpayers would support granting naming rights to a donor who makes a substantial contribution to benefit healthcare needs in the community.

 

Jantz has estimated the cost to taxpayers for renaming the conference center at $500-$1,200 for signage materials and installation.

 

Chadwick defended the Board's action and said there is precedent in the Board previously naming a proposed health occupation center after the late Dr. John Hardebeck, MD, former Chief of Staff at Sharp Grossmont Hospital.  The subject of naming procedures came up at that time, she said, but added that when it comes to naming rights, "We don't sell anything to the public--not even for food, doughnuts, whatever.  We are a service group.  This was just to honor one of our members and Stieringer truly has been the architect of the district to mold it into the shape that it's in today."

 

She said that Stieringer has shown leadership in the District's grants program and also led efforts to build the District conference center on Wakarusa. Previously, the Board rented a medical office across the street.  The new facility is also available to the public for other functions, such as League of Women Voter candidate forums.  "That was his concept," Chadwick said of the conference center project, "and certainly the Gallery of Honor (which recognizes East County individuals)...He took great pride in that."

 

Francke said that the building naming falls within the Board’s discretion, but added that he is not aware of anything that would preclude the board—or a future one—from opting to accept money in exchange for naming rights.

 

Lutz raised objections to honoring Stieringer specifically, apart from the legalities of the issue. “Stieringer is disliked by some in the community because he was trying to get rid of the pediatric care unit at the hospital,” he said, adding that such recognitions could also boost name recognition for Stieringer as a form of free advertising for a future political campaign.

 

“I think it’s a bad policy—an `Edifice complex', where elected officials are basically getting 24/7 advertising,” he concluded.
 


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

GROSSMONT HOSPITAL BOARD VOTES TO NAME CONFERENCE CENTER AFTER

As I wrote elsewhere, this seems like a straightforward matter: Stieringer left his board position for an ostensibly better one which failed to pan out. Tough luck. Life is full of risks and gambles. Stieringer rolled the dice and lost. But while most people would simply leave it at that, here we see the quintessential political personality at work; brushing off responsibility, and working every oblique angle to gain the maximum amount of unmerited advantage.
But let me also note the irony of "honoring" Jim Stieringer with a building dedication. During the 2006 mayoral election, my campaign manager and I met with him at his request. He first expressed his interest in running, told me he thought my odds of winning were slim and, that if I'd lower my sights and run for council instead, he'd "donate" $1000.00 dollars to my campaign. I refused. He responded by saying said that he respected my decision, and promised that, as visceral opponent of Art Madrid, he would do his best to help me by staying out of the race. Within a matter of weeks, however, he broke his promise and threw his hat in the ring, virtually assuring a Madrid victory.
Kind of lends credence to the old saying, "only two things rise to the top, cream and bastards" doesn't it?