Contentious meeting ends with 3-2 vote to terminate hospital's CEO

New board members act on previous campaign statements

Three hospital district commissioners — Stacey Plummer, Jerry Snyder and Jeff Reynolds — followed through on campaign promises, and voted last Thursday to terminate the chief executive officer of East Adams Rural Hospital.

Following a long discussion that often resembled a debate involving many opposing points of view from members of the audience, the board narrowly elected to proceed with the proposed termination of Mark Barglof.

Kirk Danekas and Jerry Crossler opposed the resolution calling for Barglof’s termination.

When the measure came up under New Business, Snyder moved to approve the motion and Reynolds provided the second to the motion.

From there the commissioners and the audience engaged in an hour-long discussion.

“Can you give me any insight as to why? I mean we have been through three administrators since I’ve been here in the last four or five years,” Danekas questioned. “Can you explain the reason for this termination?”

The district’s attorney, Randy Stamper responded.

“It’s with or without cause and we won’t know whether there’s cause until I look into it,” he said.

Chief Nursing Officer Brenda Herr, an employee of the district, asked if there is cause for termination.

“I won’t know until I investigate it,” Stamper said. “The contract says that if you violated state law, if there’s basically gross negligence, that sort of thing. I mean you (Barglof) did not file last year with the Secretary of State, a number of forms the law required you to file. There are a number of issues that need to be looked into. I haven’t had a chance to look into them.”

Danekas and Herr questioned who asked for the termination resolution and whether or not board chairman (Plummer) is the only one who sought to bring the proposal to the commissioners.

Plummer said all three commissioners wanted it as an action item. She quickly stressed that the three commissioners had not met privately since taking office Jan. 1, 2012.

“We are very aware that only two can meet at one time,” Plummer said.

Washington state law prohibits a quorum of elected officials from meeting secretly or without notifying the press and the public.

Chris Cook, a member of the audience, who previously served as a hospital commissioner, defeated during her re-election effort in 2007, told the panel that the current CEO has been effective in operating the district.

“You know, just a minute. See these numbers here. The hospital hasn’t looked this good in years,” Cook said. “He’s done a good job. He got hired to take care of the hospital, which he’s doing. And you’re just in big hurry to get rid of him.

“And you know what, you’re going to keep hiring CEOs from now until eternity because they are never going to be good enough and that hurts everyone,” Cook added. “It hurts the community. It hurts the poor people that work here. You need to think about that. If you took that oath to do the right thing by the hospital, this isn’t necessary. I want you to really think about why you took the oath. To please somebody else or to make sure the hospital runs smoothly?”

Herr made the case, on behalf of the employees, in favor of keeping Barglof.

“I have never seen the previous board nor have I ever seen Mark Barglof avoid answering any questions the way that I have seen recently,” she said. “And this is concerning to the staff that has been in my office. They’re fearful. They’re anxious and they want to be heard. And they’ve come to me and they’re represented here now.

“And we put an ad in the paper. We used our own funds. We took a vote and 80 percent supported Mark,” Herr explained. “And we’re concerned as we sit here that we haven’t been heard. I heard last night that the hospital had a bad year financially. They’ve had several years. We all know that Coast to Coast (Healthcare Services) is a lot of that cost.

“Swing bed is up, ER (emergency room) was up, and intake patients. You have the numbers. We’ve had new equipment arriving. And those things came under the direction of Mark Barglof. The things that need to be addressed at this facility that haven’t been for 10 years, are being addressed. We are concerned, and we are in support of Mark and some of us feel this is a vendetta.”

Earlier in the meeting, the commissioners unanimously amended the district’s 2011 budget due to an increase in anticipated expenses.

When the 2011 budget was approved, the commissioners anticipated operating expenses to be $5,225,670. Expenses ultimately were $5,829,075, according to documents presented by the district.

The budget assumptions predicted an operating loss of $434,770. The final outcome was an operating loss of $719,055.

Had the district hit its budget mark, it would have ended the year with a positive net income of $185,929 thanks to property tax collections and non-operating income of $620,699.

Snyder said the bottom line is reason enough to make significant changes in the operation. He suggested every expense needs to be reviewed, including salary levels.

Leslie Lzicar, the human resources director for the district said employees are concerned.

“Because you’re terminating people’s contracts left and right, why wouldn’t we be scared,” she said.

Snyder responded: “All I was looking at is the bottom line. If anyone is fearful for their jobs, they should be fearful because they are not doing their job correctly. In four years we’ll be closed if we continued with Coast to Coast.”

Lzicar called that being “dramatic.”

Citizen Eric Walker reminded the more than 70 people in attendance about the will of the voters as expressed during the November general election.

“Two facts and a comment. The first is we keep hearing about representation, whose voice, whatever. The fact is the people own this district, are the citizens of this district, of whom there are 4,000 and these people just expressed their opinion in an election where in American politics 60 percent is considered a landslide and these candidates all ran openly, and clearly, and simply, on a policy of major change at the top,” Walker said. “So the people who need to be consulted, the people who are your bosses, who own this institution have said ‘we want major change at the top.’ That doesn’t make it right or wrong but it sure says the people who own this place said they wanted that.”

Walker went on to suggest the termination of the CEO is simply a business decision based on the district’s poorest financial performance in a decade.

“There is no business institution in the known universe that is going to look at those numbers and not say a major change is needed,” Walker said of the deficit. “It doesn’t mean he’s a bad man. It doesn’t mean he’s a bad manager. It just means that this wasn’t the right fit. This is not a moral pronouncement that’s being made here. This is a simple, practical business decision, and it’s supported by the majority of the community.”

After more discussion, Snyder Called for the Question. When Plummer asked for those in favor of Calling for the Question, Snyder and Reynolds agreed. Crossler and Danekas opposed the parliamentary procedure move.

Curt Greenwalt, from the audience, pointed out that a two-thirds vote was necessary to move forward.

“Previous question takes a two-thirds vote, you know that Jerry,” Greenwalt asserted. “You have a 60 percent vote, two thirds is 66 percent. Your motion is still open for debate.”

After Plummer asked for additional commentary, following a period of silence, Greenwalt chimed in.

“You’re not going to find a group of employees support a boss that much,” he said. “You might want to think about the morale in the hospital.”

Reynolds had prepared a statement regarding his reasons for voting in favor of the termination.

“The voters of the hospital district sent a clear message they wanted change by electing new board members and they wanted changes in the direction the district was heading. The district cash revenue was well over $8 million at the end of 2009. At the end of December of 2011, it had dropped to a little over $7 million, a loss of $1 million,” Reynolds said. “These losses don’t appear to come from catastrophes beyond control of administration and it’s our opinion that these losses are the results of the administration’s actions and decisions.

“It is our goal that our hospital district remain financially sound,” Reynolds continued. “If we did not have the resources we have, the hospital would have shut down already. Meaning if we didn’t have the reserves, we’d be done. My conclusion is that an immediate change in management is necessary and we should move to do what is best for the hospital district and the patients we serve. And I believe we should have district counsel look into whether the termination is for cause or without.”

Cook scolded Plummer, Reynolds and Snyder for not working with the other commissioners on their plans.

“Shouldn’t you be doing this as the five of you, not just the three of you? You were elected, but not to be the only people in town. You have got two other people that you should be conferring with,” Cook said. “Not just doing crap on your own. You are a board of five, not a board of three so you better start working together because it looks bad.”

Walker was quick to point out that a democracy functions on a majority vote, not a unanimous one.

“We don’t require unanimous votes to approve anything,” he said. “We don’t require unanimous votes to elect a president or to elect a dogcatcher or to hire or fire a superintendent. These are the elected representatives of the people of this district. They vote their consciences and if three out of the five have consciences that say this is the change that should be made, then that’s the proper and democratic point of view, especially when the people made it clear that there was an overwhelming mandate for that change.”

Kerri Barglof, the wife of the CEO, sternly accused Plummer of begging her husband to work for the district.

“I’ve got to say this. Stacey Plummer, you called my home numerous times seeking out my husband to get him to come work here,” Kerri said. “I took the phone calls. I took the messages. You sought that man out. Now you stand here saying that they were the problem when you were the one that instigated it. That needs to be known. You called him to come here and save this hospital.”

Plummer said twice that she called him at that time to ask questions.

Danekas, as chairman of the board of commissioners, encouraged the group to retain Barglof as interim CEO following the resignation of Paul Lewis in March of 2010.

Danekas and the other commissioners were opposed to spending $25,000 to $50,000 on a national search for a CEO.

Instead, they considered and ultimately hired Barglof, even after he was unanimously terminated by the Lincoln County Public Hospital District No. 1 commissioners a short time before the Ritzville job became available.

Barglof came to Ritzville as interim administrator in April of 2010. The board unanimously voted in August of that year to extend him in offer to be the permanent CEO. It took several months to negotiate the contract, which was signed in December of 2010.

Last Thursday, Danekas told the audience that the district’s issues are not caused by the administrator.

“I look at two new board members coming on that think the solution is just to get rid of Mr. Barglof. Well, trust me, these problems are a heck of a lot bigger than the CEO,” Danekas said. “And they haven’t given it a month, having been in office to even try to work with him to see where this would go. Or give us any other options other than get rid of the CEO.”

Joyce Preston, defeated in November by Reynolds, took the room to task.

“I was on this board. This is not sour grapes. Everybody’s complaining about the money we spent. Yes it’s a lot of money. But do you know what you had for a year?” she said. “You had a facility here that was open. We had two options. We could close the doors immediately without a doctor or we could go for some groups, look at them, and pick the best group that could supply you medical care until a doctor was found.

“For a year you had ER, you have had swing beds, you have had our EMTs out in the dirt and every place else bringing people in here and keeping this hospital alive and people in the beds, keeping them alive, helping this community,” she continued. “Yes it cost money. It does. I’m sorry. But you had an option to have nothing.”

Plummer, after the extended discussion, called for the vote. The final result was a 3-2 vote in favor of the resolution for termination.

It is unclear what happens next and what the timeline is. The resolution does state a search for a replacement administrator will begin immediately.

The resolution sets Barglof’s date of termination as Thursday, Feb. 23, at the next regular meeting of the commissioners.

After the meeting, The Journal invited Danekas and Crossler to explain their opposition to the termination resolution. Barglof was asked for comment.

Tuesday, Barglof declined to comment at this time, saying he was still processing what had occurred.

At press time, Danekas had not responded to a request for comment.

Crossler submitted his thoughts via email.

“I have been on the Hospital Board for over 5 1/2 years. In that time, we have had three administrators and two interim administrators (Mark being one of them). I can tell you unequivocally that the job is as tough as any in town. There are many reasons that make this job tough, but I will only go into a few,” Crossler wrote. “Until Coast to Coast became employed with the hospital, no administrator had the support of the doctors on staff. The doctors paid little attention to that position, often times insulting the position and/or the person in that position. Because of that kind of behavior, two administrators resigned.

“When we hired Mark Barglof, we found a person of quality, a person with a steely disposition, a person respected by his peers and others working in healthcare. He was a man that stood head and shoulders above other candidates. He was so good that some of our providers at the hospital tried to start a smear campaign against him. That campaign still goes on.

“Mark Barglof has followed the direction of the board of commissioners each and every time a big decision has come up. The most controversial decision he followed was to get a contract signed with the doctors that made sense,” Crossler continued. “He did his due diligence by asking other hospital districts how they employed their doctors, their salary and incentives, and working conditions. The contract that was written, and later offered, was no different than many districts had with their doctors. The doctors choose to not sign it. That was not Mark’s fault. The board unanimously supported the contract.

“The group that wants Mark to leave is being terribly disingenuous. They want the former doctors to return to the hospital, but know they will not return as long as Mark is still there. Without Mark, they know the leadership of the district will be weakened and they can get their way,” Crossler explained. “They even have the district’s attorney conducting a ‘witch hunt’ so they can get out of the clause in Mark’s contract that would pay him a year’s salary upon dismissal without cause. Dirty up a man’s reputation to save money? And all the while hiding behind an attorney’s briefcase.

“Why did I vote against the termination resolution? Because I will not vote to fire a man whose only wish was to see that the hospital district was run fairly, professionally, and provided the best healthcare possible to the people of this district. He did it with the board’s support and blessing. He did it with the support and blessing of the hospital staff. I guess my question is why would you vote to get rid of someone like that?”