“The end justifies the means,” is often attributed to Machiavelli, but likely has roots reaching back another 1,500 years to the Roman poet Ovid and the Latin phrase “exitus acta probat.” That translates as the outcome justifies the deeds. Whether Roman or Machiavellian the term has been used to defend a philosophy in which consequences outweigh the conduct employed to reach them. Of course, an obvious retort follows, unethical means thus corrupt the end result. With that in mind, let’s try to unravel a present day dilemma.
Since the summer of 2020 when the Mendocino Coast Health Care District (MCHCD) affiliated with Adventist Health the MCHCD Board of Directors has been almost devoid of support staff. This has led to a near constant state of disgruntlement between various factions on the board and the perception at times that the board is nothing more than a dysfunctional mess.
At a February 23, 2023 meeting, MCHCD Board chair Lee Finney motioned the establishment of an ad hoc committee on office staffing with board members Jade Tippett and Susan Savage to comprise said ad hoc. It should be noted that Finney, Tippett, and Savage ran as a slate, encouraged by the Coast Democratic Club, in the fall 2022 election which resulted in four brand new board members.
The ad hoc committee went through fits and starts, including Tippett’s resignation from the board in July, but by then the ad hoc had honed in on creating a job description for an executive director. After re-drafting multiple times, an executive director job description was adopted by the board on August 17, 2023. According to Savage’s minutes of that meeting, “It was agreed to post the position on all appropriate platforms.”
As it turns out, Savage apparently only posted the opening for an executive director on the MCHCD website... not with any popular job search sites on the internet, in newspapers, nor did she employ links available through the California Special District Association (CSDA).
The MCHCD Board devoted much of its special meeting on September 21st to selecting someone to replace Tippett. After a painstaking process, a 2-2 tie vote was eventually broken and Paul Garza was selected.
Until that day Mr. Garza had never attended a MCHCD Board meeting, in person or via Zoom. Garza’s letter of interest for the position began, “I received notice from the Coast Democrats that you are seeking to fill an opening on the Mendocino Coast Health Care District Board.”
On September 25, Director Savage, as Secretary of the Board, received a letter of interest about the executive director position from Kathy Wylie. At Paul Garza’s first official meeting on September 28, Chair Finney removed Vice-Chair Paul Katzeff from the staffing ad hoc committee, appointing Garza to work with Savage. At the same meeting, the executive director position was amended to indicate a salary range of $90,000 - $110,000 per year.
On September 30, Savage emailed Wylie to coordinate a meeting between Garza, Wylie, and Savage in the coming week. “We’re hoping to have a proposal for the Board’s consideration at the October meeting (the last Thursday of the month) if possible.” The next day Wylie responded that she was available at almost any time.
Something dramatically shifted within a few days after Garza’s first board meeting. Rather than find an executive director it appears that he contacted Regional Government Services (RGS). Regional Government Services is an organization that provides administrative support not only to special districts but also countywide and municipal government entities. Both the City of Fort Bragg and Mendocino County have used them.
On October 2, four days into Garza joining Savage on the hiring ad hoc committee, they received an “initial informal proposal” from RGS “to provide administrative services for the district.” This is where the ends justifying the means question rears its head.
This writer posed a question recently to a longtime healthcare administrator. The question essentially asked if a government official could recruit a company rather than wait for responses to the posted job. The reply: “Yes, but only if the agency [MCHCD] has posted with a ‘reasonable’ amount of time allocated for replies in a ‘reasonable’ circulation media. Also, it must be disclosed to the Board and the new strategy approved by such Board.” I also asked an elected government official the same question. The government official’s response was remarkably similar.
Jump forward to the next MCHCD Board meeting on October 26, 2023. Paul Garza gave a brief report from the ad hoc committee. There was no mention of a change in strategy, no mention of Regional Government Services at all. The October 2 proposal from RGS was not reported to the full board or public at this meeting, even though RGS’s director of finance services had emailed Garza and Savage on October 10, 11, and 12. On the 11, Garza emailed back, “We will be talking to the candidate tomorrow morning.”
The “candidate” was Kathy Wylie. On October 14, 16, and 17, Garza and Savage received emails from Sophia Selivanoff, RGS executive director. By October 18, according to emails exchanged between Selivanoff and Garza and Savage, it was apparent that Wylie had joined the RGS team. An October 18 email from Selivanoff to Garza and Savage states,“We will work on adding her [Wylie] to our proposal…”
An October 20, 2023 proposal from RGS includes Wylie as part of “key personnel” for RGS. None of this was revealed to the full board or the public in Garza’s October 26 “report.”
On December 14 the MCHCD Board accepted RGS’s proposal to provide administrative services through June 30, 2024. The vote was 3-2, with Directors Finney, Garza, and Savage voting yes. Directors Katzeff and Sara Spring voted no, voicing adamant dissent in their remarks, largely based on the lack of information provided to them during the process.
Why Wylie went along with the change from applying for the executive director position on her own to becoming a part of RGS’s “key personnel” team remains somewhat of a mystery other than this remark by Sophia Selivanoff in an October 18 email, “She has indicated a willingness to join the team if that makes best sense for the district.”
Whether Wylie asked any further questions of Garza and Savage regarding their disclosures to the full board is left unanswered within the documents provided through a public records request. Since 2001, Kathy Wylie has been a member of the Mendocino County Grand Jury nine separate times.
Garza’s motion at the Dec. 14 meeting stated that the health care district use “one time money” to pay RGS. Neither Garza nor Savage and Finney made any attempt to state precisely where the “one time money” was coming from. Based on a monthly charge for RGS’s “Agency Administrator Services” of $13,200 and a one-time assessment fee of $10,000 as well as a one-time project services fee of $15,000 the six and a half month contract will cost MCHCD $110,800.
To refresh readers’ memories, the posted job for an executive director provided for a salary between $90,000 to $110,000 for a full year’s work.
An interesting tidbit popped up in an October 17 email from Garza to Selivanoff. Garza wrote, “I have gone through your proposal and it looks attractive. One thing needed politically is references from Mendocino County and other neighboring counties, if available. We have personalities that will need them for credibility.” Garza has yet to define “personalities” or whether they are confined to the board itself or spread into the general public.
On the day of the December 14 MCHCD Board meeting a document was added to the agenda’s supporting material. That being a brief letter of reference from Mendocino County Supervisor Ted Williams. It concluded, “Should you decide to procure services from Regional Government Services, I am confident that their work product will improve district credibility.”
Whether or not Williams was aware of the means used to procure Regional Government Services is unknown at this point. Whether or not the supervisor’s confidence in RGS is well-placed, time will tell.
I finally just put 2 and 2 together. Sometimes it takes me a while because I have so much going on. And as a resident of only about 7 years now I’m still trying to get caught up!
I don’t play politics, or at least I don’t play it very well, so usually I don’t bother to try. I, however, do try and do the right thing.
I hope to soon read your article about the “dysfunction,” as you called it of the meeting tonight which was supposed to get a new member on the board so that they could move forward. I am not asking in the interest of helping myself. If anything, by making this comment public, I’m hoping I am not hurting myself – although that would violate the Ethics Policy of the Board.
Speaking of that, after thinking about it I intend to submit public comment for additions to the Ethics Policy regarding activities that may possibly be subject to scrutiny, for lack of better words right now. For instance, anybody involved with the board who maybe running social media websites on Facebook or other platforms.
I am on both Facebook and 𝕏 and I’m willing to disclose them. My Facebook friends page is private but I do have a couple public pages that I really post to anymore and shouldn’t be an issue; nonetheless, I have no problem with disclosing all of my social media accounts for review in case anybody thinks there’s a conflict of interest.
You have been in this much longer than I have so I’m very interested to hear your new and public opinion as to why one board member would not show for such an important vote and another abstained.