• Blog
  • About
  • Contact

One For The Records

6/30/2017

16 Comments

 
Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 42 posts on the blog and each has its own set of comments. To read the comments you have to hit the word "Comments" at the beginning or end of the post. Somewhat confusing is that when you bring up the comments for a specific post it eliminates the other posts from the screen. To bring the other posts back up simply go back to the top of the page and click on Blog. Feel free to comment should you wish. No email address is required to make a comment so anonymity is strong. Due to some previous abuse of this right to anonymously comment, I have had to include an approval option, but I try to approve within 24 hours. To understand the development of the blog it is best to read it from the bottom post (Dr. Paul Kearney Case) up. One point of note here, to read the earliest posts you have to click on the word "<<Previous" at the very bottom of the posts available. Finally, for those just looking for a good summary of the Dr. Kearney case, simply scroll down four posts to the 12/10/2016 post. For social media developments on the Dr. Kearney situation I would encourage you to also visit the excellent "Save Dr. Kearney Facebook Page": 
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=save%20dr%20kearney


Comments at the end of the last post centered on the 3 finalists in the EVPHA search, and the Herald Leader article authored by John Cheves entitled: “Judge says UK violated open records law, orders documents released” (http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article158843224.html?#1). In a way, both of these are directly related to the Dr. Kearney case. Although the university administration might wish to claim otherwise, it was the Dr. Kearney case and the administrative efforts to shut him up that in part initiated these open records investigative approaches into the financial management practices of UKHC and its leaders. Furthermore, and again although the university administration may wish to claim otherwise, it was the Dr. Kearney case that in part has led to the remodeling of the upper administration in the hospital and College of Medicine.

So that being the case, I thought this Herald Leader article merited a post.
 Some of the highlights of this article include a Fayette Circuit Judge deciding:
 
1.  "The University of Kentucky violated the state’s Open Records Act by improperly withholding documents about a failed business deal between UK HealthCare and a Hazard cardiology firm from the Herald-Leader"
 
I think everyone remembers this attempted cover-up of mismanagement wherein we paid 1 million dollars to a DC lawyer to fix it, and it only cost the university another 4 million dollars to make the fix work.
 
2.  "UK also violated the Open Meetings Act with an unannounced Power Point presentation about problems with the business deal to the UK Board of Trustees during what was supposed to be an informal dinner in May 2016. UK failed to keep minutes of that meeting and refused to provide a copy of the Power Point presentation afterward once the Herald-Leader requested it."
 
We discussed this one also and I believe the brilliant university attorneys, rather than simply being transparent about this open meeting, chose to flex their endless taxpayer subsidized university resources and muscle, and sue the Herald Leader for requesting this Open Meetings information.
 
3.  “The court agrees that there appears to be some sort of intent on the part of the university to mislead the public about the nature of the May 2, 2016, ‘dinner’ meeting, implying that it was merely a social event”
 
This basically speaks for itself. Even the judge appears to be asking the question: “What are they trying to hide?” Sound familiar?
 
4.  “When a public institution like UK spends public money, it must provide to the public detailed information about its use of that money.”
 
This too sounds like many of the comments made throughout the blog. The problem with the UK administration and its lawyers is, that they often come across like they feel the laws do not apply to them.
 
The judge went on to strike down UK’s contention that during this dinner and “open meeting” the meeting went into some form of “closed session” to discuss this presentation. To quote the judge:
 
“Either the dinner was a regular called open meeting, such that the board could have no legitimate expectation of confidentiality, or it was not.”

“If it was not, then the board was required to cite the provision of (the open meetings law) that would allow it to enter into closed session and adhere to the requirements for conducting a closed session. While the university dismisses those requirements as a ‘technicality,’ technical compliance with the Open Meetings Act is exactly what the law demands.” 


Not too surprising, UK continues to try to hide behind the attorney-client privilege with UK spokesperson Jay Blanton stating:

“We are carefully reviewing — and considering appeal on — how other aspects of the court’s decision would impact the extent of protections offered by attorney-client privilege,”
 
But again, the judge shot this down with the statement:

The clinic audit, for example, is neither “communications within the meaning of attorney-client privilege” nor “confidential communications” made for the purposes of taking legal action, both of which are allowable exemptions under the open records law.”
 
Personally I think it is a big waste of university time and money to fight this battle. Transparency should be a central component of a university, especially a state university.  Transparency often keeps people honest, whether they want to be or not. Knowing that others might be able to monitor what you are doing with the finances you have access to, can often force someone down a path of legitimacy, whether they want to go or not.  I harken back to Dr. Karpfs statement at the budget meeting wherein, with hands interlaced over his head he told us that: “You have to think of these as all one big pot of money”. Of course the “these” he was referring to were UKHC revenue, research revenue, state revenue and teaching revenue. I am not sure he would have viewed it that way if he knew that the intimate details of how he was planning to spend that “pot of money” would be open to the public.
16 Comments
Joe
6/30/2017 02:52:51 pm

I think it is very clear, if they have nothing to hide, why go through all of this litigation, embarrassment and money to keep secret something that is already basically public knowledge. It makes you wonder what else might be hidden behind the closed doors of Karpf's Money Spending Facades.

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/1/2017 03:05:24 am

Thanks for the comment Joe. I agree. All of this effort to keep secret something that already appears to be public knowledge only leads to speculation. If they are the saints they project themselves as and they want to shut everyone up, all they have to do is become transparent. Furthermore, I accept the fact that humans make mistakes, so if this is simply an expensive mistake why not admit it, take your punishment and move on. It's like I mentioned above, the anvil of transparency sometimes guides us away from the temptations to make these mistakes. On the other hand, the university General Council and his large staff of lawyers might have nothing to do if there was nothing to hide, so maybe all of this is simply "job security".

Reply
Spectra
7/2/2017 02:54:44 pm

Just curious, how does this judge's decision impact Kearney's lawsuit? For that matter, is that lawsuit still going and if so, where are they at?

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/3/2017 02:47:53 am

Thanks for the comment Spectra. I am not sure how or if this judge’s decision will impact Dr. Kearney’s court case. I suspect the university will appeal the judge’s decision rather than turn over the documents requested and accede to the audit. I know some of the Dr. Kearney haters following this blog feel that, because he did not explicitly cite the Hazard mismanagement of UKHC revenue prior to the initiation of his lawsuit, these things have no relevance to the Dr. Kearney Whistleblower/retaliation lawsuit. From a direct perspective they may be right, but if I understand it correctly, Dr. Kearney’s case is not predicated upon a specific mismanagement of UKHC revenue, but rather the simple truth that when he suggested mismanagement of UKHC revenue and an audit of KMSF he was admonished by the EVPHA in a manner that several present interpreted as a threat. Furthermore, the audit was not suggested to target a specific issue of money mismanagement, but rather the potential for money mismanagement predicated upon the evidence for a KMSF-associated College of Medicine Practice Plan Committee that had never met in 4 years. Because this committee could supposedly be involved in specific UKHC revenue-based enterprises, it opened up the concern that the committee’s input was being bypassed for specific reasons that could be interpreted as revenue mismanagement. The facts that the attempts to destroy Dr. Kearney followed closely after this public admonishment by the EVPHA and that the actions taken were predicated upon a perceived behavior that the university and college administration had endorsed for 25 years, reeks of both an attempt to silence him as well as retaliation. In addition, the Hazard mismanagement, along with the university’s open records refusals and the lawsuits against those requesting them, tend to further support the perception that these things are all related to the attempts to destroy Dr. Kearney’s career. In essence, the audit refusals and retaliation strongly suggest that there are things to hide and that the university is ready to do whatever it has to in order to keep them hidden. Finally, although others blow this off as just coincidental and unrelated to the Dr. Kearney case, I can’t help but think that it is more than just coincidence that much of the administrative body involved in initiating these actions against Dr. Kearney have left or are leaving the scene of the crime.

With regards to the lawsuit and where they are at in it, as I understand it, Dr. Kearney’s lawyer is still in the process of deposing people involved in the case. I actually think they are in the middle of deposing Dr. Karpf. That should be interesting.

Reply
Rosie
7/3/2017 05:23:48 am

I really don’t see this as a Whistleblowing case, but rather a retaliation case. I’m not a big Kearney fan, but I am a faculty member in the hospital and feel that what they did to him and the methods they used to do what they did to him are dangerous for all hospital faculty. If they are successful with this zero due process and threatening approach to dealing with faculty who challenge their authority, then you might as well throw faculty rights out the window. I think the Press-Ganey survey suggests I am not alone in my sentiments.

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/3/2017 02:41:27 pm

Thanks Rosie for the comment. I agree, this is really more about abuse of authority than about Dr. Kearney. This battle Dr. Kearney is waging has implications for all College of Medicine and hospital faculty in that it challenges the strong arm and threatening treatment of faculty by those in authority. I am sure some feel that this has very little relevance to their current situation, but I reflect back on the initial "testing of the waters" by these same authorities when they attempted to drive a former Department Chair, Dr. Alan Kaplan, out of the university by arbitrarily reducing his appointment to 9-months. This backfired on them when he brought in a lawyer, but like I said, it was clearly a testing of the waters.

Unfortunately, these administrators and university lawyers have exactly zero negotiating skills. Their predominant approach to manipulating and dealing with controversial situations has been brute force and arrogant threats (e.g. "take the deal or we will ruin your career"). Although I doubt that their egos will permit it, one can hope that both the old and the new people in authority will reflect on this Dr. Kearney battle they have chosen to wage and use it as a template for how "not" to deal with and treat faculty.

Reply
Ben
7/3/2017 05:17:29 pm

I agree. Thank you Dr. Kearney for fighting this battle.

Reply
seriously
7/4/2017 11:47:02 am

Come on. Alan Kaplan was a useless chair with no funding who had run his department into the ground. On top of that, presumably from back in the day when he ran the place he had managed to wind up with an insultingly large salary. He needed to go. Basically a lot of what is wrong with the basic sciences departments at UK is down to people like Kaplan, Hersh, Landfield and Gash. How many of these are still chairs? Oh, none of them.

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/5/2017 11:52:01 am

Thanks for the comment Mole. I see once again that, for argumentative sakes, you chose to miss the point we have been trying to make. I was not commenting on Dr. Kaplan’s status at the time that he stepped down, but rather the aggressive and perhaps disrespectful approach used to step him down. This was a person who served the university for many years and whose behavior and accomplishments were completely endorsed and rewarded by the administration (sound familiar). In actuality, back then very little if any input was even requested from the faculty in the evaluation and renewal of department chair positions. An administrator with any negotiating skills at all could probably have minimally kept this out of a legal war. So from my perspective, I once again place the blame on the administrators for this. You may think this end justifies the means approach to dealing with senior faculty is laudable, but I personally believe they deserve more respect than that.

I am also bothered a bit by the fact that you choose to belittle these former department chairs and their accomplishments. I know that you have made it clear in the past that you believe that research revenue far outweighs the 25-30 million dollars brought in annually by the College of Medicine through teaching efforts, but others may disagree. Furthermore, there still is a major research component in the basic sciences department. I will grant you that there are some faculty who, for whatever the reason, have lost their funding in their waning years, but many of these over the years made significant research, teaching and service contributions (some are still contributing in these areas) throughout their tenure here, and deserve yours and my respect for these contributions. This again is where a senior administrator with any negotiating talents at all could diplomatically resolve this dilemma to the best interests of both the university and the faculty. Furthermore, although Lou Hersh and I often had our differences of opinion, I think even you have to accept the fact that he is still carrying his weight. The third 5-year renewal of the 1.25 million dollar annual NIH COBRE Grant that funds junior faculty research development and core facilities in the biochemistry department is no insignificant contribution. Finally, you can’t blame these former chairs because you view the rules that allow them to retain their large salaries are a waste of university money. Change the rules rather than cry about those playing by the rules. Besides, we all know that all of this became an issue because Dr. Karpf urgently needed 500 million to finish off his dream, thus the “all just one big pot of money”, PWC, efforts to reduce salary load and who knows what else.

Reply
Mojo
7/5/2017 03:42:38 pm

Ha, "insultingly large salary", what a joke. He was a department chair and I'd bet he made less than most of the department chairs and probably division chiefs in the hospital, especially when you factored in bonuses.

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/6/2017 08:58:54 am

Well I am sure many out there monitoring the blog are wondering what seriously/Mole’s response to my post above was? To begin with, the Mole wrote back claiming to not be “seriously”. Fortunately, I can go back to other comments made by the Mole and match their IP addresses with “seriously”, so either: a) the Mole is sharing her/his computer with someone else, b) the Mole is a liar, or c) there are multiple Moles. Granted the data show the Mole to be using multiple computers, but this should not be an obstacle for someone making $270,000/yr., therefore at the moment I am leaning towards a) and b) above. The major reason for leaning towards these two is because following this claim to not be “seriously” the Mole goes on a long diatribe basically reiterating and justifying everything said previously by “seriously”. Then the Mole begins trashing Dr. Kaplan and the former chairs (calling them “silly old men”), trashing the University of Kentucky (stating that working at UK is “depressing and uninspiring and I still feel awful about even admitting I am associated with the institution”), and even trashing COBRE grants (calling them “essentially remedial/pork barrel funding for second/third rate institutions”).

Well I think my message for the Mole is simply, “please do yourself and everyone at this second rate institution the favor of finding somewhere else to spread your many talents and joy”. This should not be a problem considering all of that grant funding you claim to have. While you are at it, please do not waste yours and my time commenting on this blog. Go out there and start your own Kearney/UK hater’s blog. Thank you.

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/6/2017 02:51:36 pm

Moving back on subject, for those interested, it looks like we are not the only ones expressing interest in this open records verdict. This recent Herald Leader editorial:

http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article159809534.html

entitled: "Public has skin in UK's closed game", discusses why they believe this judges decision is important.

Simply to quote the beginning of the article:

"Sometimes it’s hard to follow the legal wranglings over open records and open meetings.

But, in the case of University of Kentucky HealthCare and its billing arm, the Kentucky Medical Services Foundation, there are a lot of people who have good personal reasons to be interested in how it operates. They include anyone who:

Pays taxes in Kentucky;

Pays tuition at UK;

Has ever paid a medical bill at UK.

They’re the ones paying if KMSF is not spending the money it collects from the public and patients wisely."

Although we are constantly noting it on the blog, it is good to hear that others recognize that transparency is important not only to help keep people honest, but also because this is a state university and hospital built and operated through public revenue. This is simply because taxpayers in part contribute to the hospital operation, but perhaps more importantly, the revenue generated by UKHC is not some private foundation's money but rather University of Kentucky revenue and therefore public revenue.

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/7/2017 01:41:10 pm

So I hear it is official, Mark F. Newman, MD, president of the Private Diagnostic Clinic at Duke, is our new EVPHA. Prior to his appointment to the PDC position he served 13 years as Department of Anesthesiology chair. The PDC appears to be Duke's version of KMSF, so I suspect he is a big fan of these private companies managing public hospital revenue. I wonder if he has his Keeneland box seats yet?

Reply
Sly
7/7/2017 04:30:29 pm

I'm sorry Dan that is just an ignorant comment. The EVPHA needs to be a visible individual who is out in the community meeting with people. He also needs to meet with people with money who can donate to the hospital and various causes so the government doesn't have to provide that. I'm sure you aren't aware of this since you aren't a physician...

Reply
Dan Noonan
7/8/2017 03:10:36 am

Thanks for the comment Sly. I simply added the Keeneland comment as a bit of levity and not a point of contention. I have no problem with the EVPHA schmoozing with current and potential donors, but I am drawn back to Dr. Karpf’s response to me at the budget meeting when I questioned the paltry endowment record that was presented on one of his slides. His remark was, “That’s the job of the researchers”. In addition, I can’t see where schmoozing is necessarily an art form of physicians. I guess my final point is that I have no problem with UKHC/public university revenue being used to sponsor such things. What can be bothersome is the attempts to hold this sponsorship a secret from the public.

BJ
7/8/2017 01:44:24 pm

Is it a prerequisite that the EVPHA must have a mustache? Did anyone ask this guy what he thought of Christian Laettner?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    UKy College of Medicine Discussions

Proudly powered by Weebly