The council chamber was packed Monday night as those in attendance anxiously awaited the results of a much-talked about motion of non-confidence in the hospital board and CAO, calling for the dismissal of both.
Had the motion been passed, it would have effectively asked the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to disband the hospital board, and allow both the Huntsville and Bracebridge hospitals to revert back to being two separate entities with their own board and administration.
“I fully understand a municipal council wanting to protect an institution of importance, but the manner in which you are trying to make your case is disappointing,” said Evelyn Brown, chair of the board of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC), which oversees both the Huntsville and Bracebridge hospitals. “You have unfairly criticized hard working and dedicated people using misinformation and defamatory comments. The motion asks for MAHC to be dissolved, should this motion convince the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to step in, the Ministry will appoint a supervisor, taking all the decision-making power out of the community’s hands,” warned Brown of the motion before council.
Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison
The threat of having to contend with a Ministry-appointed supervisor was not the only one made that evening. Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison briefly shared with those present that he had received a letter just minutes before the start of council, threatening him and the Town of Huntsville with legal action for comments made in his submission to Doppler. News of the legal letter resulted in jeers from many of those present, but the mayor said he was not “terribly concerned.”
Cameron Renwick, hospital board member and chair of the Capital Plan Development Task Force, appointed by the hospital board to make a recommendation on a preferred future hospital model, reiterated throughout his presentation to council that the task force has not made a decision.
The task force is made up of 25 people from MAHC’s catchment area, including five from the hospital’s senior administration and two from the hospital’s board. Renwick spoke to council about the task force’s work to date and its work ahead as it prepares to recommend one of three hospital models to the hospital board.
Throughout his presentation, he also assured those present that the task force is listening to the community. He said just because the single hospital model is an option, and the task force has been told not to remove it from the table, “does not automatically mean that it will be selected.” He said the task force has spent most of its time focused on the two, two-site hospital models and has put the one-site model on the back burner.
Renwick said as a result of community input, the two-site models have been modified to include 24/7 emergency departments at both sites. “When feedback called for acute-care services at both sites, the two acute-care site model again was modified to include emergency, obstetrics and critical care and surgery at both sites—again I say to you that our task force was listening. The task force has only just reached consensus on the programs and services in each of the two-site models and has not been afforded the full opportunity to share it with our broader community.”
Renwick said the task force is very close to completing its work, “and I’m going to ask you please to allow me as chair and allow our task force to complete this most important work.”
Brown added that she believes people across the region want two acute-care sites but said she does not believe that the majority of the community has lost confidence in the leadership of MAHC.
Hospital Board member and Chair of the Capital Plan Development Task Force Cameron Renwick (left) and Evelyn Brown, Chair of the hospital board, speak to Huntsville council on March 26, 2018.
“If championing the two-site model for the future is at the heart of your motion, then I implore council to defer the resolution and allow the task force to complete its work,” said Brown. “We acknowledge that this is an extremely incredible and complex task and we will work together to answer any and all questions that you may have and we would welcome an opportunity to meet with you face-to-face for further dialogue,” she added.
Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano asked whether the board still has a one-site model on the books, since it announced that it favoured one hospital in 2015.
“Yes it is if you say ‘on the books,’” responded Brown. “It was in the pre-capital submission that we made. There was a two-year gap before we heard from the Ministry, they had lots of questions, and then what we got back from the Ministry was to review/refresh the three options… So, although you may feel that it has some influence it doesn’t because once we signed that new contract, we were into a whole new agreement with the Ministry.”
If councillors were hoping to get Brown to say that the hospital board would join in lobbying the Province to comply with what the majority of the community wants, she didn’t bite.
Councillor Jason FitzGerald, referring to comments about the Ministry and the LHIN (Local Health Integration Network) being asked whether to take the single hospital model off the table, asked when asking would turn into telling the Ministry what the community’s wishes are. “When do we tell them what we want, rather than ask them,” he questioned to applause from many of those present.
“As a board, under the health act, we can’t ask, we have to follow, just as I’m sure you do in many of your municipal dealings with ministries—you follow their plan,” responded Brown, adding that both the mayors of Huntsville and Bracebridge “have lobbied at the political level to do that very thing.” In short, she said “the telling of government is at the political level and so we are doing the best with what we’ve been given. They’re [Province] very, very aware of what the community has spoken about and what is acceptable… but your question is answered at the political level,” she told FitzGerald.
Aitchison thanked members of the board for attending the council meeting. “If in fact the board is prepared to work with us closer and meet with us to discuss some of these things, like the issue of the 2015 recommendation, and possibly working closer together to lobby the Province together, I would be prepared to ask council to table this motion.”
Aitchison said tabling the motion meant that it would simply be put on hold to see if council is able to first reach an understanding with the board.
Brown welcomed that suggestion. “There’s nothing hidden here, we are following what we are instructed to do with the best tools that we have at hand. So, I thank you for that Mayor Aitchison and we’ll await to hear from you.”
Council then turned its attention to the motion. Councillor Bob Stone said he had reservations about it. “I have no tangible evidence that the CEO or the board have a clandestine agenda but the poor communication and closed door discussion have left everyone worried, including thousands of people on social media,” he said, adding that by presenting the motion a message has been sent loud and clear “that the people and this council are prepared to do anything it takes to keep two acute-care facilities. I am not convinced that the CEO and the board have manipulated the process,” said Stone who voted in favour of tabling the motion.
Councillor Dan Armour urged for better communication. He said it seems not much has changed since the board of MAHC passed a resolution in favour of a single site in 2015. “For the last three years it’s like they’ve been treading water and not going anywhere… we need more communication from them and people need to know in which direction they’re heading,” he said. “I think the secretiveness is what’s causing the uproar, more than anything else.”
In the end, a majority of council agreed to put the motion on pause, at least until its council meeting in April. Among those present at the meeting were municipal representatives north of Huntsville as well as former Huntsville mayors, with reserved seating for each one.
From left, former Huntsville Mayors Hugh Mackenzie, Claude Doughty, Ron House, Terry Clarke and Bob Addison as well as northern municipal representatives Mayor Lyle Hall, Councillor Les Rowley, Reeve Cathy Still, Mayor Norm Hofstetter and Reeve Bob MacPhail had reserved seating waiting for them at Huntsville’s March 26 council meeting.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Give me a break..
This is why we have “defamation” laws in this county. There is a difference between an “opinion” and a “false statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation.” That is what Scott has done, in public and in print. Now you have done it too. And this blog has published it. Lawyers may be watching.
I would like to thank the Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare Board members for their hard work on behalf of my community. As a mainly volunteer organization I appreciate the time and effort put in. Yes I want two separate hospitals with all the “fixings”. I would be surprised to hear that any Muskoka resident would prefer to have a reduction in health care services. I also wanted the Burks Falls Hospital to remain open and that did not happen. I would ask Mayor Aitchison if our town council would meet the complete wish list of his constituents, of course there are budgetary restraints on that as there is with our health care. The deadline to apply to be a MAHC board member passed on March 9th of this year. I trust all the people who know they could do a better job have handed in their credentials. There are priorities and if health care is one of yours then act with effort , your voice and your vote!
Hey .. How about the ‘slap in the face’ … FOR THE MAHC BOARD MEMBERS! They do not deserve this kind of treatment and all the other things being said about them .. in public! Remember .. who makes the FINAL decision and controls the money($$) for whatever the FINAL decision is! And don’t forget .. the others in government who the MAHC knows and can influences decisions! Wait and see!
Yes, Robin, the threat of a lawsuit in the face of deserved criticism is just another measure of arrogance on the part of the local “powers that be”.
The ultimate source of the problem is likely politics. We have a Liberal Provincial government. Almost all Liberals, especially the younger ones, are guided by a neo-liberal ideology that simply does not promote or care about the interests of their small city or rural constituents. This is nothing new–it is why the rural areas and many small cities are nearly all Tory-blue and the large cities tend to go Liberal-red, as the bigger cities are the usual recipients of whatever government largesse is forthcoming. The problem is compounded by the fact that Liberals are also committed to high taxes and high spending. Just paying the interest on the debt that they chalk up, leaves a smaller and smaller tax-dollar pie with which to pay for needed upkeep and repairs to infrastructure through the of the bureaucratic systems (full of very highly paid bureaucrats, by the way) that they run. The Province’s net debt has at least tripled since the Provincial Liberals came to power. And that debt must be serviced with a larger and larger “mortgage” leaving less and less for “fixing up the house”.
If you want to see where Ontario is headed under the Liberals, you can look to the U.S. state of California which has had nothing but liberal governments for a long time. Over 400,000 people have followed small businesses (or moved their own businesses) out of the state of California for other states which have more fiscal restraint and respect for individual rights.
This lawsuit is a the slap in the face… An audible gasp within the crowd was quite evident when Mayor Aitchison announced it before business at hand was started. Three years we have been waiting for something better than this…This is Dirty politics on the Board’s shoulders….plain and simple. I feel like WE have also been attacked for raising questions about the hospital’s future. Why should we feel sorry for them if the frustration has finally been raised to a pinnacle and they can’t handle the questioning nor the criticism?
I agree with you Celia, that this Board needs to be replaced by elected hospital trustees. The municipal election in the fall would be a perfect time. It is clear that the present, apparently self-selected Board has mismanaged their relationship with the people. Why was there ANY need for closed meetings in what should be an open and transparent process? It’s not like the national security was at risk from giving defense secrets away. The Board SHOULD have consulted constantly with the people through their ELECTED representatives in the respective towns.
On top of that–I am wondering if any of the doctors and nurses, who actually do the work, have been consulted as to implementing a program which will appeal to all stakeholders in the system? Just as in every business, there are three stakeholders here–the owners of the enterprise, the workers and the consumers of the product. What is in dispute is who actually owns the enterprise. The people of the towns insist through their elected representatives that THEY are the owners and the Board seems to believe that the Provincial Ministry of Health and Long Term Care are the owners and that their job, as the Board, is to be yet another layer of bureaucracy between the Ministry of Health bureaucrats and the people who live and work in the community. Since money represents power, the Board has sided with the decision-makers (who they perceive as the “owners” ) in the health bureaucracy.
This wrong-headedness has led them to very poorly representing the wishes of the people who are the REAL owners and their elected representatives. Has the Board listened to front line staff speak about anything related to their work and how the Board could serve them in facilitating their work? Does anyone on the Board even understand how difficult it is to be a nurse in the present, frequently short-staffed system? Do they have any caring for a nurse who leaves at the end of an exhausting twelve-hour shift, feeling depressed because (s)he knows that there were patient needs (like baths) that become “nice-to-haves” in an extremely busy, stress-filled day? And finally, the Board has very poorly represented the needs of patients to have near access to adequate care–especially emergency care, as that could well be a matter of life and death, when emergency care is delayed by travel issues. The Board needs to “shape up” or be “shipped out”.
The very fact that MAHC sent a cease and desist letter to Scott is a perfect example of how this board has dealt with the people they are supposed to serve – arrogance, contempt and idle meaningless warnings are their stock in trade. Their self righteousness is their death warrant. The entire board hasn’t got a clue how to behave . They apparently do not understand the concept of service above self. They had better learn humility and transparency or they are toast. I personally believe they have turned MAHC into their own private fiefdom and their sense of entitlement must be ground into dust. Get rid of them and start anew with ELECTED reps.
Still do not trust the Board…pass the non-confidence motion ASAP and you MAY see some real action.