Monday, January 22, 2018

SCPR SERIES: (VOL 1) HOW ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY BEING TOLD IN THE IMPENDING AFFINITY MEDICAL CENTER SHUTDOWN?

UPDATED:  09:00 PM
ALSO

HOW IS JUDGE HARTNETT DOING WITH THE PROCEDURES OF THE CASE?


Understandably, it appears that the only side of the City of Massillon/Affinity Medical Center "legal" standoff that getting much media attention these days is the Massillon side.

But in pursuit of "the truth of the matter," there is always another side to consider, no?

And the focus of this blog is to begin an examination of the underlying factors which might provide a justification for Affinity corporate parent closing Massillon sited Affinity Medical Center.

However, there are factors that indicate that Massillon government has no viable alternative but to fight the closing.

But, first, one obvious factor that all ought to agree on, even Affinity/Quorum officialdom:  it was an outrage for the closing to be announced (in early January) with an closing date of February 4, 2018.

Beyond the obvious, it seems to The Stark County Political Report (SCPR) that there "may" be more to support the closing (on a longer timeline) than to keep it open.

And that story needs to be told.

Another factor that the SCPR will be dealing with in this series in whether of not Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge is procedurally "properly" (in accordance with the "rule of law") handing the matter.

Of particular concern along these lines was that factor that Judge Hartnett excluded the media from discussion with primary parties (on both sides of the matter).

At first glance, it seems to the SCPR that she may have been in violation of Ohio's "Open Courts" rule as articulated in the Ohio Constitution Section 1, Article 16 and the First Amendment of the United States of America Constitution.

Accordingly, a part of this series will be to take a detailed look of her handling of the matter in the light of Ohio case law pertaining to Ohio/U.S. constitutional provisions on "open courts" so that the general public may see and hear justice in action.

For those readers who are up to it, here is a copy of the entire complaint (38 pages "core" complaint material, 223 of other material)  filed by Massillon city officials and others against Affinity (Quorum).



TODAY:  THE CITY OF MASSILLON REVENUE FACTOR

For the SCPR, a primary factor to consider is:  How much will the closing affect the Massillon city coffers?

Unconfirmed by highly reliable sources estimate about $600,000 per annum in income tax and property tax revenues.

While certainly a blow to Massillon government financial viability, The Report is told that Massillon as a couple of million dollars in carryover funds with which to weather the storm should the Affinity shutdown come to pass.

The key here is whether or not Massillon has the financial/economic dexterity to recover the loss of the revenue a shut down would cause in the immediate context?

Because, long term, the loss of $600,000 in revenues (more or less) is NOT sustainable.

The projected loss is NOT sustainable in that—if nothing changes in the financial picture—within five (5) years Massillon could be back into a fiscal crisis much like that it emerged not all that long ago.

Going further down the track, an extended question is whether or not Massillon government has the talent in place to find ways and means to offset an AMC loss?

A source who understands the the nuts and bolts of Massillon government leads the SCPR to think not.

If such is truly the case, then it makes sense for Massillon official to fight to the nth degree to keep what the city already has in place.

The NEXT SCPR blog backs up a bit to the very first days following the filing of the above-complaint for a deeper look at how Judge Hartnett is handing the matter against a "rule of law" standard.

Subsequent blogs will return to a discussion of the practical realities of  "a continuing to exist" Affinity Medical Center in a context of the center's continued viability on the basis of a SCPR analysis of the substantive arguments both in legal pleadings and otherwise from various perspectives.

Today's blog (focusing on Massillon government's financial interest) is the framework within which The Report expect to proceed.

No comments: