Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

This is volume 2 of my last week’s letter.

I have a master’s degree in social work. Between OCS and the court system, I have over 20 years experience doing child abuse/neglect and child custody investigations. In those capacities I faced exactly the same threat of liability for negligence that the WMC board does.

Every single investigation case required me to make a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation. Each time I had to weigh the evidence objectively and make a decision. I agonized over many of those decisions when the evidence was not clear-cut. But never one time did I ever remove a child from their home just to cover my backside because I was afraid of making a wrong decision and being personally financially liable.

Do you know why I didn’t do that? First, we have a thing called due process in this country. I had to find it was more likely than not that the child would face a significant risk of harm if not removed. This is called preponderance of the evidence. And second, I have a finely tuned sense of right and wrong. I knew if I had the kinds of doubts that lured me into making a decision based on anything but the direct evidence, I had NOT met the required burden of proof.

I admit that I do not have all the available evidence in this case. The court has sealed a small portion of it to protect the anonymity of minor children. There was, however, testimony in the fair review hearing that the board found the sealed evidence inconclusive and had not considered it when making their decision. In my opinion, the “evidence” that I do have access to was based on the most insufficient and incompetent investigation that I have ever seen. Allegations were made under extremely questionable circumstances with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Dr. Salard was given no opportunity to respond to the allegations. Three of the five complainants were not made available for cross-examination, and the administration admitted to withholding evidence from the board’s consideration that was favorable to Dr. Salard.

I have weighed the same evidence the board allegedly relied on to deny Dr. Salard his privileges on my scale of justice. In my world it doesn’t come close to meeting the preponderance of the evidence burden. It does not even meet the much lower standard of probable cause. The administration vehemently objects to the characterization of their dealings with Dr. Salard as being a witch hunt. With the quality of the evidence that I have detailed, what would you call it?

Judy Kay Allen

To the Editor:

The Citizens United for Quality Healthcare (CUQH) group published an ad in the Wrangell Sentinel falsely accusing the WMC board of authorizing a contract with InnoVative Capital that was illegal due to a “confidential clause” contrary to state or other law. This claim of illegality is false and misleading. State and borough laws obligate WMC and any other public body to make public contracts available to the public. The “confidential” clause in the original InnoVative Capital contract recognizes this fact and specifically provides that where the law obligates the contract to be public, the clause does not apply. All one need do is read the first four words of the clause to realize that it is not applicable. The first sentence of the “confidentiality” clause states: “Unless obligated by law, neither Wrangell nor InnoVative Capital shall disclose the contents of this Letter Agreement . . . .” Since WMC is obligated by state and borough law to allow the contract to be public, the “confidential” clause does not apply to WMC and never has. It is sad that CUQH is reduced to manufacturing a false claim stating that the WMC Board demonstrated “gross negligence” because it signed a contract that contained a clause that has no force or effect with respect to WMC.

Mark Robinson, President

WMC Board

To the Editor:

We keep hearing about trash talk, and a person’s character being attacked. No one is attacking or trash talking any ones character. What is being criticized is what the board members have done, not who they are.  It’s about our health care and what they have done and are trying to do to it. We understand that you feel you need to stand up for your family member, your friend, your neighbor or whoever they may be to you. But I’d like to ask, if this was a much bigger community and you didn’t personally know that person and they have jeopardized your health care, would you still feel the same? Just because your friends and family respect, or love that person does not mean that you have to stand behind EVERY thing that person does. Nobody ever agrees with everything you do, everyone has the right to their own opinions.

With that being said I think the most criticism has come from people who don’t like our stance to support Dr. Salard and fight for our health care. We have gotten all kinds of criticism for standing up for what we believe in. Again, everyone has a right to their own opinion. But I’d like to know, out of all those who do the most criticizing how many of you have actually checked into the facts of what’s going on rather than just back your friend, neighbor, family member etc. Again if it was any other place (and board you did not know) would you not look into the facts before you start spouting off.

The person who has been criticized the most has been Doctor Salard, and all he was doing was trying to save OUR health care. He was taking a stance so that lives would be saved and not put in jeopardy. He tried doing it through the proper channels, but it fell on deaf ears. That is why he stood up and voiced his complaints to the city council. Only to be retaliated against by having his credentials taken away. AGAIN, if this was any other place (and board you did not know) would you not be happy that a doctor was standing up to the hospital administrator and board to protect your health care? I have to believe not. I dare you to get the information and read it with an OPEN mind and forget that those people maybe your relative, your friend, your neighbor, etc. Just keep in mind that it’s your health care that we are talking about.

Tammy Spencer