Council to honor FOIA regulations, Aug. 18 closed session violated meeting rules

Council to honor FOIA regulations
Aug. 18 closed session violated meeting rules


By Cynthia Cather Burton
The Winchester Star

WINCHESTER — A City Council panel has committed a procedural violation of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, according to Maria J.K. Everett, executive director of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council.

The council’s Finance and Administration Committee held a closed-session meeting Aug. 18 to discuss a memorandum of understanding drafted by Shenandoah University.

When it began the closed session, the committee cited the portion of the Freedom of Information Act that allows closed meetings to confer with legal counsel about a real estate matter.

Everett said the committee correctly cited the code section and the purpose for the closed session, but it failed to identify the subject of the special meeting.

During closed sessions, the public and news media are not allowed to be present.

If people are being “kicked out,” they have a right to know “some idea of the subject,” Everett said Thursday from her Richmond office. “It doesn’t have to be gruelingly specific ... but just a reference to real estate or legal advice is insufficient and a procedural violation of the law.”

The committee’s motion to move into a closed session should have included a subject, such as the joint venture with the university on projects, she offered as an example. “The subject is required.”

Without it, the public has no idea about the nature of the discussions that public officials have behind closed doors, Everett said.

The minutes from the Aug. 18 meeting, for instance, contain no references to the memorandum of understanding, making it difficult for the public to know when the topic was discussed by officials in closed session.

“They did violate the rights granted to the public and press under FOIA,” Everett said. “They are obligated to do it correctly, and they did not. They can be sued on that basis.”

City Council President Jeff Buettner, who attended the Aug. 18 meeting, said the council typically cites only the code section and purpose before going into a closed session, but does not state a subject.

“I think it’s fair to state that we probably haven’t been as specific as we should,” he said. “But it’s not because we’re trying to hide anything.”

Everett called the practice “an ignorance issue, more than anything.”

Buettner said the council acts on advice from its attorney. From now on, as much information as possible will be included in motions for closed sessions, he said, as long as it does not jeopardize the city government’s position on “any specific issues.”

City Attorney Anthony “Tony” Williams declined to comment, citing attorney-client privilege.

For the remaining story in The Winchester Star, following this link :
Council to honor FOIA regulations, Aug. 18 closed session violated meeting rules



Buettner explains decision to hike city attorney's salary nearly $20k

A special session of the Winchester Common Council was held on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 in the Council Chambers, Rouss City Hall. President Jeffrey Buettner called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m.

PRESENT: President Jeff Buettner; Vice-Mayor Michael Butler; Councilors Evan Clark, John Hill, Milt McInturff, Les Veach and John Willingham; Vice-President Art Major; Mayor Elizabeth Minor (9)

The perception was that the local media was not present or could not stick around after this executive session on Tuesday, October 6, 2009  due to their respective deadlines.

• Motion to convene in Executive Session pursuant to §2.2-3711(A)(1) of the Code of Virginia to discuss a personnel matter regarding assignment, appointment, performance, and salaries of specific public appointees.

Councilor Willingham moved to convene in executive session. The motion was seconded then
unanimously approved by voice-vote.

At 7:01 p.m. President Buettner stated that executive session would begin after a five minute recess.

Upon returning at 7:44 p.m., council members approved a motion to return to open meeting and each member certified that only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were discussed during the closed meeting, and that only those public business matters identified in the motion which convened the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered during the closed meeting.

A roll call vote was taken, the ayes and nays being recorded as shown below:

MEMBER VOTE

Councilor Buettner Aye
Councilor Butler Aye
Councilor Clark Aye
Councilor Hill Aye
Councilor Major Aye
Councilor McInturff Aye
Mayor Minor Aye
Councilor Veach Aye
Councilor Willingham Aye

Page 2 October 6, 2009

• President Buettner presented a motion to increase the City Attorney’s annual salary to $124,000.  The motion was seconded by Councilor Willingham and then unanimously approved by voice-vote.  President Buettner stated that Council would ask the City Manager to look at employee salaries throughout the City and would need to pay them competitively. During the next budget cycle, the other employees would be compensated.

A quote from a local reporter in response to this increase which the local media was not aware until someone from downtown notified The Pub on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 in return was shared with the local media outlets which produced a front page story in the NVD on Thursday, October 22nd.  The Winchester Star ran a story on page B5 of the local section the same day.

The night I DIDN'T stick around after the "executive session" ... actually I think no one from the media stuck around. Keep in mind, this is NOT an election year for council.

All media reps who attended the Oct. 6 meeting left when council convened in closed session and no one returned.

The length of closed sessions are never known beforehand so media reps who face deadline issues often have to return to their offices in enough time to file stories. I can't say whether council realized everyone had left and THEN decided to act or if they would not have taken action were any of us still at the meeting.

Valley Health may feel squeeze (The Winchester Star)

Valley Health may feel squeeze

By Rebecca Layne
The Winchester Star
November 11, 2009

Winchester — Health-care reform was the major topic among many discussed by Valley Health officials during their semi-annual meeting Tuesday.

Company Chairman Dixon Whitworth told the crowded room that a change is needed to sustain the viability of the nation’s health care.

He also spoke of the effect on Valley Health of possible cuts of $11 million to $12 million in Medicare reimbursements.

“The magnitude of such costs will have significant impact on our jobs and health-care services,” said Whitworth.

http://winchesterstar.com/pages/view/squeeze.html

Folks, the Pub has shared a different side of Valley Health System that displays a much healthier financial position than the masses of the regional community is informed about.

Please keep in mind, from years 2001 through 2005, the Winchester Medical Center profits made epic leaps and bounds with an jaw dropping 383%.

Wonder if Mr. Whitworth is trying to say that Valley Health will have to raise the "charges" on their services to overcome this revenue shortfall?

Valley Health has made epic strides in Excess of Revenue (Profits) since 2001

A new direction? Winchester flunks Engineering 101 (TheWinchesterStar)

A new direction?
Winchester flunks Engineering 101

By Michael Shea

While I suspect that additional traffic in Winchester was in part due to the glorious last gasp of summer, the condition demonstrated that government — at every level — is subject to the law of unintended consequences. Namely, by making Braddock and Cameron two-way, what was once a one-minute trip from Piccadilly to Handley Boulevard, now takes no less than six minutes.

The timing of the lights is set to ensure each is red upon arrival. The lines of cars at each light were no less than 10 deep, and just turning off Braddock at Handley took two full cycles of the light at a minimum. None of this was because of any “confusion.” By cramming the same amount of cars from two lanes down to one, we get what any first-grader could have deduced: traffic jams.

Thanks, City Council — you’ve now guaranteed I will never go down to the historic district again. I gather I won’t be alone. More businesses will close, and the number of shuttered buildings will continue to increase.

Whatever you paid the traffic engineer to calculate that this madness would make traffic flow more freely, it was too much. Same number of cars plus fewer lanes never equal flowing traffic. Engineering 101. Time for a refund.

Instead, I suspect those council members voting for this will defend their decision, asking that we “give it time” to work, and that we, the driving public, who, while perfectly capable of navigating two-way streets in every other part of the city and county, must be seizing up with confusion the minute we turn onto Braddock. It’s the typical “we know best and you the public don’t” excuse we’re all getting tired of lately. Sorry, no sale.

Do everyone a favor — admit you goofed, pull up the striping, and restore the old signage. A costly lesson, but not nearly so costly as revenues lost to business transactions that will never take place because no one wants to fight the traffic downtown.

Remember the adage: “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.” Braddock wasn’t “broke,” but it sure is now!

Michael Shea is a resident of Stephenson.
Open Forum, Winchester Star, November 10, 2009

2007 Winchester Medical Center / Lewis-Gale Medical Center side-by-side comparison

To give the citizenry a better understanding of the differences between a "not-for-profit" and "for-profit" hospital, THE PIBBSTER's PUB wants to share with all a side-by-side comparison between Winchester Medical Center and Lewis-Gale Medical Center.

	Winchester	Lewis-Gale
	Medical Center	Medical Center
	Winchester, VA	Salem, VA
Licensed Beds:	411	521
Staffed Beds:	411	216
Licensed NISCU bassinets:	24	0
Staffed NISCU bassinets:	24	0
Staffed normal newborn bassinets:	12	5
Patient days:	110,155	69,613
Admissions:	25,318	13,405
FT equivalents - Payroll:	2,297	1,138
FT equivalents - Contract:	140	58
Gross Inpatient Revenue:	409,766,805	347,615,243
Gross Outpatient Revenue:	263,761,298	252,975,201
Gross Patient Revenue:	673,528,103	600,590,201
Contractual Allowance:	234,014,441	385,083,587
Charity Care:	25,752,576	7,961,893
Indigent Care Trust:	0	6,040
Net Patient Revenue:	413,761,086	207,544,964
Other Operating Revenue:	13,788,825	2,539,328
Current Assets:	207,181,874	36,828,681
Net Fixed Assets:	276,623,250	112,204,986
Other Assets:	220,606,786	93,385,839
Total Assets:	704,411,910	242,419,506
Current Liabilities:	43,025,848	25,498,841
Long Term Liabilities:	207,765,314	41,232,819
Total Liabilities:	250,792,162	66,731,660
Fund Balance:	453,619,748	175,687,846
Labor Expense:	180,988,686	76,762,259
Non-Labor Expense:	145,327,697	78,477,511
Capital Expense:	37,317,267	21,729,361
Taxes:	$162,362	$12,170,282
Bad-Debt Expense:	23,331,159	9,076,278
Total Operating Expense:	387,127,171	198,245,691
Operating Income:	40,422,740	11,838,601
Net Non-Operating gains:	26,195,223	157,705
Revenue & Gains
in excess of expenses (profits):	$66,617,963	$11,996,306
Tax Status:	Not-For-Profit	Proprietary

In addition to other services offered, these facilities reported the following services available during fiscal year their Utilization Spread Sheets

	Winchester	Lewis-Gale
	Medical Center	Medical Center
	Winchester, VA	Salem, VA
Cardiac Catheterization:	X	X
Chemotheraphy:	X	X
Chronis Renal Dialsis:	X	X
Cobalt & Linear Accelerator Radiology:	X	X
Hyperbaric Therapy:		X
Lithotripshy:	X	X
Neonatal Intensive Care:	X	X
Organized Hospice Program:		X
Pain Management Program:	X	X
Wound Clinic:	X	X

[Source: Virginia Health Information, From Numbers to Knowledge]



Pricing Transparency:

Lewis-Gale Medical Center's Commitment to Pricing Transparency
We know that especially today, when so many people are uninsured or underinsured, it is important for individuals to have healthcare pricing information. We are committed to making this information available to consumers so they can better anticipate and understand their financial responsibilities and make informed healthcare decisions.

Because we know that healthcare is complex and that a general listing of prices for our common procedures will not meet everyone’s needs, we have developed a toll free number where consumers can contact us directly for a prospective service quote. Our goal in making this information easy to access is to remain a leader in key healthcare initiatives aimed at better patient care.

Click here for ... Lewis-Gale Medical Center Pricing Estimates

Please note when Valley Health's website was searched for "pricing estimates", there was nothing to be found.

Charity Care / Community Benefit:

Uninsured & Low-Income Patients - Charity Care by Lewis-Gale Medical Center (for-profit)
Americans who do not have health insurance constitute a sizable and growing problem for our society - a problem that touches not just patients, hospitals and physicians, but also employers and the government. In 2007, HCA Virginia provided $242 million in free charitable care to low-income, uninsured patients who needed care but could not afford to pay for it. While this effort is not a solution to the larger issue of the uninsured, it provides a meaningful benefit to thousands of Virginians annually.

Download our charity care and financial discount policy.

If you have further questions about charity care after reviewing our policy, you may call us at 800-799-6478.

Examples of donations HCA Virginia made in the past three years of what they gave away:

•     $1.8 million to Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine
•     $1 million to Virginia Western Community College Nursing and Radiology/Technology Program
•     $1 million to John Tyler Community College Nursing School
•     $1 million to J. Sargeant Reynolds Nursing School
•     $500,000 to the VCU School of Nursing
•     $300,000 to the Alleghany Highland YMCA
•     $160,000 to the Science Museum of Virginia
•     $140,000 to Virginia Tech
•     $100,000 to the New River Community College RN Program
•     $100,000 to the Friends of Loudoun County Mental Health
•     $100,000 to Loudoun County Youth, Inc.
•     $70,000 to the Radford University Family Health Clinic
•     $63,000 to North Virginia Community College's NOVA HealthForce Coalition
•     $50,000 to The Capitol Square Civil Rights Memorial Foundation

Ballpark naming rights sold to Lewis-Gale Medical Center, Avalanche Ballpark re-named Lewis-Gale Medical Center Field @ Salem Baseball Stadium on April 5, 2006

Click here for "About Lewis-Gale Medical Center Videos"



To review the entire Valley Health System's benefit to the regional area, click here: "Valley Health System's Community Benefit"

Click here for "Featured Videos by Valley Health"



Population Comparisons:

25,449 - City of Salem
25,878 - City of Winchester


92,967 - City of Roanoke
73,898 - Frederick County


Other areas population figures:

295,700 - Roanoke Metro Area

102,044 - Berkeley County, WV
36,663 - Warren County
40,777 - Shenandoah County
24,164 - Page County ... new hospital planned for future???
16,325 - Morgan County, WV
17,020 - City of Martinsburg, WV
22,574 - Hampshire County, WV
Hampshire Memorial Breaks Ground on $35 million on a New Hospital



Please keep in mind that Valley Health is purchasing the majority of the Regional hospitals and the perception is that the standard protocol is a brand new facility of $30 million.



On the web:
HCA Virginia Health System: http://www.hcavirginia.com/  
Valley Health System: http://www.valleyhealthlink.com/


Winchester Medical Center: http://www.valleyhealthlink.com/WMC 
Lewis-Gale Medical Center: http://www.lewis-gale.com/

Bridgeforth infield : A-Turf or a regrade/sodded infield?

This pic below is what about $350-$400k (just an educated guess) will get you if an A-Turf infield is selected for Bridgeforth’s infield over the “regrade/new sod” which the perception for the cost for a renovated natural grass infield is less than $25k.

The answer to that question is as follows:

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael White [mailto:mwhite@ci.winchester.va.us]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:30 AM
To: 'JEFF MILBURN'
Subject: RE: Cost estimates for A-Turf infield @ Bridgeforth

Jeff,

To answer your questions…artificial turf vs. natural has been the discussion over the last couple of months when it comes to the infield at Bridgeforth.  We’ve seen prices range anywhere from $9 - $14 per square foot install costs for the turf.  That range includes all of your sub-construction, curb, drainage, infill, and turf.  The life span of that surface is roughly 10 years.  At the 10 year mark, you’re looking at 50 – 60% of that initial cost to pay for replacement infill and turf as all of your drainage and curbing remains intact.  The area we’ve been discussing converting to artificial turf is roughly 21,000 – 24,000 square feet or pretty close to your 150 x 150 estimate.  So, you’re basically looking at roughly $200,000 - $225,000 for construction and $100,000 - $120,000 after 10 years to replace it.  To install turf on an area that big would take anywhere between 3 – 5 weeks.  At the 10 year point or time of replacement, as it stands in 2009, almost 100% of that turf and infill would go to a landfill.  However, they’re working on having a viable recycling option.  Who knows what technology will be like in 10 years?  I would bet they have something figured out by then.

What is being discussed is laying a large square area of artificial turf that would go from the backstop and extend down each foul line 15 feet past where the infield skin stops.  You’re correct, the only dirt on the infield would be the mound and everything else would be covered with turf.  They use different color turf around the bases to give the appearance of cutouts.  The other option is covering the entire field with artificial turf.  That has it’s advantages too when you consider multi-use.  We could potentially play soccer, lacrosse, football, etc. in the outfield on artificial turf.  The infield only option is common at many colleges, high schools, parks, etc. mainly because of the cost.  To do the entire field would probably triple that figure easily.

As far as advantages go, you’re pretty much right on with what you listed.  But, it’s not realistic to expect to pay for the turf solely on your maintenance savings.  Some turf companies pitch that but I don’t think it’s 100% accurate.  We will no doubt see a reduction in our costs at Bridgeforth.  But, you still have to have someone groom the field and we’ll still have guys mowing the outfield area (if it stays natural grass).  But, the time savings in man hours for the players and coaches of our user groups would be significant allowing for more baseball play and less maintenance time.  It would also save our maintenance staff man hours at the field which can be dedicated elsewhere throughout the 255 acre park system.  The biggest benefit to having artificial turf is over the 10 year life cycle of the turf, you can play twice the amount of baseball than you can in the same 10 year period on a natural infield surface when you factor in maintenance hours saved and wet weather being a non-factor.  The Bridgeforth renovation committee is serious about pursuing artificial turf at the field and the only way we’re going to be able to realize it is to have the committee and the user groups fundraise the money to pay for it.  That’s the next step the committee will be taking and we’ll be discussing our plan of action very soon.  It’s not realistic to expect the committee to raise the funds and jump through all of the necessary procurement hoops and contracts to get the turf in place before the 2010 season.  That’s why we’re moving forward with the re-grade of the infield.  That buys the committee the necessary time to go out and fundraise to convert it to artificial turf.  At Bridgeforth Field, artificial turf is probably our best long term solution.

Hope this answers your questions.

Mike