1. Yes, it's a whole new look! Have questions or need help? Please post your question in the New Forum Questions thread Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Seeing tons of unread posts after the upgrade? See this thread for help. Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice

BRMC Update & Press Release

Discussion in 'Broadlands Community Issues' started by GCyr, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. vacliff

    vacliff "You shouldn't say that."

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    344
    Barbara-
    Something from the "Turnabout is fair play" file...
    A while back I posted the fact that the publisher of the Loudoun Easterner was on Loudoun Hospitals Board.
    You scolded me by posting " The woman is dead, so why not let it alone."
    My response to your making an insinuation (and something that is definitely NOT a fact) about Jay Shropshire is to say
    THE MAN IS DEAD, SO WHY NOT LET IT ALONE!
     
  2. vweisenburg

    vweisenburg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbara,

    The language that the planning commission approved does not "designate areas targeted for facilities" as you say, but "encourage(s) the location of a variety of health care facilities in those areas where needs have been identified that may be underserved" and "shall take into consideration State regulations concerning the location of health care facilities". I see nothing in the policy that prevents HCA from building BRMC. While the BOS may try and "encourage" (force) or "incent" (bribe) the relocation of facilities to the south and west, there is no specific requirements in the CPAM to do so.

    Why does it matter what the letter says? According to Judge Markow the failure to disclose the letter was a violation of process but did not change the fact that he also found "that the public record shows justification for the construction of the Broadlands Regional Medical Center within the context of the State Medical Facilities Plan and dismisses allegations brought by Loudoun Healthcare Inc. (LHI) that the decision by state Health Commissioner Robert Stroube was arbitrary and capricious." So in a nutshell, the failure to disclose the email does not materially change the basis on which the COPN was approved.

    Additionally, neither LHI nor HCA had knowledge of the email correspondence. So the contents are immaterial to the discussion. BTW I love this quote from Tony Raker from LHI "Commissioner Stroube’s complete reversal of himself from his strongly worded denial of BRMC’s first COPN application to approval on the second COPN application was always a mystery to Loudoun Hospital supporters." Seems like there are a lot of things that seem to be a mystery to LHC supporters.
     
  3. Brooks5

    Brooks5 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it matters what the email said. That's why the court referred to the "taint" on Commissioner Stroube. Whether or not the court believed there was public need for a second hospital is not relevant. It was Stroube's decision to determine that. He first decided there was no such need. Then he apparently received an email from the Dept. of Mental Health suggesting that the guy who gave him his job (the governor) was for the hospital and he suddenly reversed his previous decision without much explanation. Then he stonewalled on releasing the email (an apparent violation of statute), obviously concerned that it would reveal the taint on his decision. The point is there is no way to know what Stroube's true belief on the issue of need is, because he has no credibility, as he is apparently willing to take whatever position keeps his job safest.
     
  4. vweisenburg

    vweisenburg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    So even though it was determined that the court found his decision was valid (that the need existed), because he reversed himself (and according to the courts analysis his original decision was incorrect) and made the correct decision, the only thing that matters is that someone may have applied political pressure to a political appointee? How do we know that there wasn't back-room political pressure to reject the orginal COPN the first time?

    So let's assume that Dr. Stoube has no credibility. If we take him completely out of the process then we still have the fact that the court found HCA's approval to meet all of the statutory requirements and was vaild on it's own merit. In effect Dr. Stoube's credibility or perceived lack thereof changes nothing, since if removed from the process the correct outcome would not have changed.

    Considering the political pressure (much of which is not diclosed to the public) LHI has applied to the BoS and Planning Comission, using your standards they too also have no credibility. Plus, HCA was not aware of the communication. Yet no one seems to think it is improper and unethical for LHI to develop and submit an amendment to the CPAM that is designed to maintain their monopoly.
     
  5. afgm

    afgm Ashburn Farm Resident

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    5
    Kool-aid drinker! Take a look at the data with an open mind, and don't regurgitate LHI/INOVA/RAKER rhetoric.

    The word "taint" has been exploited by the media and INOVA. That word appeared in the news media and was directly referenced in INOVA communications. It has since become a popular way to describe the event.

    If you had read the actual letter you would have read the word "taint" within context, and you would of read the final sentence, "While the court finds this was error, the court holds that the Commissioner's failure to provide Loudoun Hospital Center with the correspondence was harmless error." If the entire letter is read, context is provided and the headliner would not be this small matter, it would of been that the ruling was upheld.

    Your historical reference to the "reversal" is also directly related to INOVA's creative version of the incident, and does not completely reflect the facts.

    "An apparent violation of statute", that's new. Can you specifically respond with what was violated? What is the Commissioner being charged with? The Judge's letter said nothing of this, and again reflects potential INOVA spin.

    Oh and now it's the Democratic Governor that is mucking things up. Again, something created out of the illusions of INOVA. It amazes me, no one is chasing down these claims. Until someone does INOVA will continue to get away with anything they feel like. Maybe it is true, maybe it isn't but I certainly will not take INOVA's created version of the story, without first thinking or researching it for myself.

    It might help if the actual letter was read rather than reading news paper articles that only published one side of the story.


     
  6. Brooks5

    Brooks5 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your issue is with the media, not with me. The article I posted from Leesburg Today quotes the court's use of the word "taint" as well as the references to a violation of statutory authority and reversible error. I haven't seen the court's opinion yet, so maybe the paper misquoted.
     
  7. afgm

    afgm Ashburn Farm Resident

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    5
    I agree with you, the issue is with the media. It is also with those who blindly follow their interpretations.

     
  8. Brooks5

    Brooks5 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dude, maybe you're the one who should go easy on the Kool-Aid.

    And you've just made history, being the first person in 40 years to accuse me of blindly following media interpretations.
     
  9. afgm

    afgm Ashburn Farm Resident

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    5
    You might be right[8D] Actual didn't mean to point it directly at you, and I can see how you might have taken it that way. Glad you had the opportunity to clarify:)

    It doesn't change my view that only one side of this story is being told. It is not just the print media, WAGE Radio is also a parrot of INOVA. You'd think they'd call the other side for perspective, other than on-air readings of press releases from INOVA.

     
  10. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll try to respond in order to what's here since last I stopped in--

    Cliff, I see your point about leaving the dead out of it, but must point out that Beth Miller was incorrectly identified here as the editor of the Easterner as opposed to the owner/publisher. This led to statements that she was responsible for composition of editorial content--for liability and billing purposes, yes. Linguistically, no. Also, the difference between editorial comment and news is supposed to be the difference between opinion and fact--editorial opinion should be based on fact (as is sometimes NOT the case with the Post and LTM).

    It is a fact that Mr. Shropshire had a long and distinguished political career in the state of VA. That makes him a public figure, living or dead. Ms. Miller was a public figure too, but to my knowledge did not have the state political credentials and influence apparently earned by Mr. Shropshire. It is also a fact that his obituary (a news item) in LTM print edition contained approx 30% content consisting of an interview with BRMC employees (also with political history) declaring that he had been tapped because of his political influence to lead BRMC through the state process, and regretting his loss in that venue to their project. Pretty amazing content for an obituary regarding someone of his accomplishments.

    VWeisenburg--the language is equivalent to an overlay district. As such, it does designate areas suitable. It certainly does not prevent HCA from building in Loudoun. It may not list HCA's chosen target on the Greenway as one of the best places to build. Neither does that address their remarkable bundle of applications for which approval is necessary to create a unified parcel that is appropriately zoned for what they want to build on the land they have assembled. Said land has certainly appreciated quite a bit since they bought it, too.

    I'm not even going into the rest of the convolutions on the article and the letter, other than to say I agree that the failure to disclose to ANYONE does taint both Mr. Stroube and the process in this case. I would very much like to read it, and would love to know the political interconnections, especially since this same commissioner weighed in on the issue of mental health beds and moving the Arl/Alex beds, and the fact that service is already inadequate to demand in the inner communities, according to the Arl NAMI newsletters of 03 and 04. It appears the guy (or his dept) are now on record supporting both no move and a move.

    AFGM, have you read the letter? I am unclear from your comments whether you have or not, and if you have can you post it? Thanks.

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  11. vweisenburg

    vweisenburg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2002
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbara,

    I have to give you credit. You are the master at reading what is not there. First, I never said that I AGREED that the ruling tainted either Dr. Stroube or the process. In fact what I was stating was that the ruling itself found that the end result of the process was correct and that the existence of the email has no direct bearing on the validity of the BRMC COPN.

    Second, you say "the language is equivalent to an overlay district. As such, it does designate areas suitable." Unless my understanding of zoning law is incorrect, overlay districts are comprised of enforceable zoning ordinances. The Comprehensive Plan is a guidline for development decisions and any amendments to it are not enforceable (unless they are followed by representative changes in zoning). You also say "It may not list HCA's chosen target on the Greenway as one of the best places to build." So? There is nothing in the PC policy that says that geographic location will be the sole determining factor. If the BoS sees to interpret it that way and rejects the HCA app, then that is on their heads.
     
  12. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    VW: Sorry, where did I say that I agreed with you personally that the ruling of tainted is accurate? I didn't say you said that as a precursor to my agreement with the judge's comment, and I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks that way. As to overlays, that's a fine hairsplit you seem to be raising--I imagine if the Comp Plan is amended to include such an overlay, they'll also make the nec adjustments to allow compliance in all enabling docs. This still doesn't address the variety of things HCA needs to accomplish to have a parcel with adequate zoning--separate argument from the passage of the healthcare CPAM. Both separate from the judge's ruling--interesting that it required a court order (according to some coverage) to obtain the letter. AFGM, have you read it/can you post it?

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  13. vacliff

    vacliff "You shouldn't say that."

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    344
    Wow, Barbara was your reponse supposed to mask your hypocrisy here?
    You chastised me for commenting about a dead person, so I'm doing the same to you.
    You are also WRONG about my comment. Go back and check. On 11/23 I posted "Interesting to note that the publisher of Loudoun Easterner was on LHC's Board." I did NOT state she was the editor.

    Have you seen the author of the mysterious email? Maybe before you make insinuations/accusations about a person that are not true, you should check the facts first.
     
  14. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cliff: please check your post on page one of this topic, dated 11/23/04, 13:48:41, in which you wrote "I have also found it interesting that editorials in this paper that were pro LHC/anti-BRMC did not point out that the editor was on LHC's Board." (Which specific editorials, by the way?) I had not realized it was you who said it until I looked back to make sure that I was not remembering wrong that someone had. I was going to point out (as I did to VW--cool down, guys) that I hadn't accused you of saying it. But you did.

    As to the author of the "mysterious" e-mail? Yesterday's Post gave his name as well as his title and I looked him up, where I found posted the Arlington NAMI newsletters. I think the e-mail is only mysterious in that it hasn't been printed anywhere that I know of yet. I would very much like to read something that led a judge to say "tainted" about an ongoing subject that I'm interested in.

    Before we go further into defense/reaction mode, please enlighten me: WHAT insinuations/accusations? About whom? James Reinhard, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, referenced as the author of the e-mail to Dr. Stroube? Or someone else? What facts should I check in relation to what?

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  15. vacliff

    vacliff "You shouldn't say that."

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    344
    Barbara-
    My last post on this and I'll let it alone. You continue to try and defend yourself rather with more inaccurate babble rather than admit your hypocrisy or admit your mistake, so let's look at things in the order they were posted:

    I commented about the PUBLISHER of Loudoun Easterner. (11/23 8:02:38)
    You commented she was dead and to leave it alone. (11/23 8:18:53)
    You then comment I should not make insinuations about someone who is dead and not around to defend themselves. (11/23 12:42:53)
    THEN I posted (I agree that it was a typo) a comment about her being the editor instead of publisher. (11/23 13:48:41).

    I eagerly await how you will now twist these facts.
     
  16. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cliff--thank you for admitting you did in fact confuse the editor with the publisher, and it certainly may have been a typo. You did go on to talk about content of published (opinion) material, which kind of cements your admitted inadvertant confusion of the function of the two positions.

    Yes I did say to leave her alone--because she had nothing to do with the content of the opinion pieces to which you objected, a connection you made yourself. She was a personal friend, and my defense of her was probably a bit of a flinch reaction to what certainly looked like an attack on her. Do you in some way feel that my enjoinder to leave her alone was binding, and therefore I cannot discuss the other gentleman? If that is the case, feel free to speculate, blow off steam or whatever you wish about her, and do be prepared for me to rise to my friend's posthumous defense.

    My repeated quotes about the gentleman that you'd prefer I do not reference were spurred by material in a news piece. I raised his name again because what little content has been available so far on the ruling seems (for me) to raise again the issue of insider influence, which was the news that caught my eye about him in the first place.

    I am willing to let it go. Please point out my mistake that you'd like acknowldeged--I will not concede hypocrisy, because Ms. Miller was in fact the object of speculation and confusion. Mr. Shropshire appeared in a news item through quotes of record by BRMC employees. Also, if you read back, I have not cast aspersions on the man himself--only on the motives of those who sought to activate his influence. Have we become focused on the idea of counting dead public figures off limits, and not the actual facts of the continuing conflict? In any case, thank you for admitting that someone did in fact confuse the publisher with the editor, and go on to refernce editorials as proof of a conflict of interest in covering the news. I'm glad I wasn't remembering something that never happened.

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  17. GCyr

    GCyr New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly how are you letting this go if you keep on going...[?]

    Don't answer this or you're not letting it go (again).

     
  18. afgm

    afgm Ashburn Farm Resident

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    5
    Barbara, I see you're going against your "post" about not waving a sign against the hospital. :)I guess the new year changed your mind. I now see you are becoming more public with it. I noticed your commentary on Leesburg2day about this issue. I guess that's moving away from this forum, out into the public, and it won't be long until your lobbying the BOS.

    Would it not make more sense for efforts to be spent encouraging INOVA to put plans on the table for a hospital in the South Riding area. Getting a hospital into South Riding is the only viable motive I can think of why you are still against BRMC.

    At least I could follow the expired argument that HCA's financial size could threaten a small local hospital. Now that threat is erased. I am not sure where you're coming from other than from the OIMBY (only in my backyard) motive. I really thought the INOVA aquisition would of erased the issues of BRMC threatening Loudoun's little hospital system.

    It's still about the benefits of competition. Do you think Blockbuster would of been innovative in offering "no late fees" if they didn't have competition from Video Warehouse, etc. Do you think Wegman's would be making the splash they are without presenting a choice to consumers over what Giant, Safeway, and others offer. Do you think Costco would have the gas lines they do if they didn't provide a consumers a cost savings on fuel?

    Healthcare options are no different.

    I've said it before, competition breeds innovation, better service, consumer alternatives, and lower prices. I really don't care who leads the way on these advances. In one instance it may be INOVA in another it may be BRMC. But I can assure you, it takes two to create competition. Right now we face a huge monopoly potentially controlling everything we get in healthcare. If this County allows that to happen, we will have absolutely no VOTE (consumer choice) in what INOVA does to prices and services.


    Barbara quote Posted - 12/01/2004 : 19:58:34

    ...I also will not be up at the BoS waving a sign against "(BRMC)" it.

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
    [/quote]
     
  19. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a dilemma! If I answer AFGM, I'm disobeying GCyr!

    AFGM, did you READ the post on L2day? It is one sentence long, and refers to the fact that the legal wrangle to get the withheld e-mails were countered by a claim that the e-mails were "working documents".

    Have you ever FOIAed something? Have you ever had a FOIA refused? When a FOIA request is made, often if the document is something the recipient of the request would rather not release, they will counter that it is a "working document", and as such is exempt from FOIA. This can make sense, for the same reason that certain discussions are subject to closed session. However, many of the items claimed as exempt under "working" paper or doc are often fully available, if a decision has been rendered in the process under which the sought-after document was a step-in-process--i.e., once the process is complete (an official decision released or acted upon), any piece leading to that process is now available. It is a PIO/lawyer dance move and little else: "I'd like that doc under Freedom of Info", "Sorry, it's a working doc". And that is exactly all I said: "that is a standard dodge whenever anyone doesn't want to cough up a document". A decision had been rendered by Dr. Stroube, so it is doubtful that any docs leading up to it are privileged info any more. The "work" is done.

    Tell me, how does a comment on FOIA run wild all the way to me lobbying the BoS against BRMC?

    Sorry for answering AFGM, GCyr. Happy New Year! ;>

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  20. afgm

    afgm Ashburn Farm Resident

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    5
    If INOVA was so impressed with the support received in these documents then why don't they release them. Or I guess they would rather publize their version of the story, as reflected in the Leesburg Today article.

    "Running all the way to BOT" is based on your continued passion on this subject. To include your motive, as hypothesized in my previous post, which you conveniently did not address. But frankly, that is an irrelevant rant.

    Let's, be relevant,let's talk about the value of COMPETITION. Let's talk about the tax revenues to be received from BRMC. Let's talk about the road improvements. That's relevant.

    It's a bore to talk about conspiracy theories, dead people, or FOIA maneuverings. Let's try and talk about relevant matters. Things apparently you're not comfortable addressing.

     

Share This Page