He would love to live in a community that cared enough about its aging populace to sacrifice shiny, silly baubles (an "urgent care facility" open three days a week, as one example) for a seemingly essential human right - preserving the dignity of life as it nears conclusion, the weight removed from caregivers who risk sacrificing their own well-being by the constant demands placed upon them, the bolstering and buoying up of visits from neighbors and friends, as occurs in skilled nursing facilities located somewhere closer than one hour distant. How a society treats its elders mirrors the cumulative values and worth of that society. We don't abandon voiceless minorities who can't lobby effectively for themselves. We don't draw up a heartless checklist of reasons "justifying" why we must sentence the innocent and the weak to premature death for transient economic balm. Estes Park is not poor, and EPH has been losing money hand over fist since it opened in 1975. The current directors don't get to implement experiments in social Darwinism by proxy just because they can. What insolence. What utter contempt for those footing their bills. At least they should have had the guts to campaign on these issues prior to getting elected.
Although John is once again the only candidate this election cycle with an actual medical degree, he understands being able to correctly pronounce "pneumothorax" is viewed as a handicap by those voters with a business background, and apologizes for not spending more time pursuing proficiency in a completely unrelated field like metallurgy. Why should those who have seen people at their worst, made decisions or performed actions literally separating life from death, been granted the privilege of holding someone's hand as they breathed their last, why should they deserve equal consideration for hospital board service any more than a scratch golfer or successful gift shop owner?
In a community where the average age of an appointed or elected white male board member, district or town, is over 65, John recognizes his best years remain ahead of him, and he has little chance of serving his community until 2035, or unless and until he begins to cultivate genuine conflicts of interest. Yet, for some reason, the crazy bastard continues to run, sets his boat yet again against the inexorable current of nepotism and misplaced entitlement. So what can the hospital board do this time to eff with him, show him yet again who is perpetually, eternally in control?
"Let's see, we've tried attempts at candidate suppression by threatening his family, we've messed with delivery of mail-in ballots to depress turnout, why don't we try this on for size: Let's delay telling the community there is an actual election with actual candidates despite our CEO's attempts to inform them we're good already until John corners us and reminds us it is far past time to announce the slate of candidates. Then, let's tell him to write a biography, then tell him after he has submitted same that we have decided to change the format of the biographies and he should resubmit something different, then modify his submitted reformatted biography with additional made-up information he never included on either submitted biography, then run this adulterated biography right next to an incumbent's biography which adheres to none of these "required" formatting or length requirements, then sit back and idly pretend this is all free and fair, instead of a sick, pathetic definition of level playing field."
Right, I understand. I'm running for hospital board and the Trail-Gazette is colluding with the EPH board of directors (one of whom sits on the Trail-Gazette editorial board) to get their "most favored" candidates (least likely to rock the boat, never ever likely to question the majority board decisions) re-elected. Naturally, they will deny all and patronizingly claim I'm over-reacting, but similar actions (an independent election official would never be allowed to f*** with someone's submitted resume/bio, and you absolutely don't call family members of a candidate asking them to pressure that candidate to reconsider and withdraw) directed towards the incumbents would result in a lawsuit. It's just they know I am on the outside looking in, and can dick with me all they want, and paint me as the over-reacting nutter.
You don't have to do anything, just check out
epgarbage.blogspot.com as I update the other side of the coin. I've given up on Prairie Mountain Media ever stepping in or pretending to take the middle road, they are all in so deep with board president David Batey they might as well share broken Mizpah necklaces. Our hospital is doing what the hospital always does, barely staying afloat and wondering how to cut costs or make more money with some fancy new service or department, while the majority of folks go elsewhere for their healthcare needs. I'm not claiming saviorhood or promising I could do any better (I definitely can't do anything with the team currently in place, nor could any outsider - they are all friends, escape to executive session with everything they don't want to talk about in public (meaning essentially everything), and then emerge from their Nazi lobotomy acting in lockstep), but it is another case where the community feels more comfortable with a friendly, "go along to get along" board than with a competent board.
On the EPH.org website, I don't care a whit about the length of the bios. That is not my issue. It was that I submitted a bio immediately up being requested to submit a bio, then the following day was told they had decided to switch formats for bios and follow the town board format, so I submitted in this format and they changed my answers, Initially (I haven't checked back and won't check back, as they have violated my trust), EPH ran the lone incumbent's bio in a format that didn't come anywhere close to following the town board bio format. So for two reasons (reason #1 - modifying my answers, meaning inserting portions of answers with information I didn't submit initially or upon being asked to resubmit in a different format and reason #2 - not everyone being required to follow the same format), I don't consider that, and my lawyer doesn't consider that, a level playing field.
I may need to ask you this question on the phone, because I am apparently not making myself clear. XXX sent me five questions. XXX through XXX
.org sent me five questions. Do I have to answer them the same way, even if they are the same questions? More importantly, do other candidates have to answer them the same way? 750 characters, as you saw with my original answers compared to the XXX
.org answers, leads to a lot of abbreviating in my case, and issuing of blanket statements, some mildly or moderately inflammatory (depending on which side you are on), without any supporting expository sentences to back them up.
If I could expand on my answers using 750 different characters for the XXX questions (not the XXX
.org format, where the answers are now essentially "locked in" and must not be more than 750 characters in length), I certainly would. Again, I would imagine other candidates would as well, if this were an option, or if no one was kicking out answers because they weren't 100% identical.
I can't change my XXX,
org answers (well, I probably could but don't intend to prior to deadline), but I have yet to submit my "final" XXX answers. Do my answers necessarily have to be identical, even if the questions are identical? For example, if I sent you an answer to question #1 which started out "See my response on XXX
.org. In addition, I believe long-term viability may require partnering with a larger outside health care entity like UC-Health in the following areas..."
Is that okay? Will it be okay for other candidates?
John Meissner, M.D., likes kittens and walks on the beach.
As anything further Dr. Meissner included in his bio would likely be modified (not shortened, not edited/corrected for typos or syntax errors, but actually modified, meaning words added which were never part of the original submission, as if the individual modifying it without permission somehow actually knew more about Dr. Meissner's background than Dr. Meissner himself), either by the folks at Estes Park Health who claim (with actual evidence sadly lacking) to be competent enough to run a free and fair election without outside assistance, or by or with the tacit approval of our local newspaper of record, who the Park Hospital District leads around by the nose like their dog-a** b****, a newspaper that makes no apologies for not recusing from the discussion and indeed enthusiastically includes in the process of endorsing candidates who sit on their editorial board in the most blatant and obvious and pathetic conflict of interest (until next month, when they will manage to top themselves with something even more egregious and redolent of wet garbage), the remainder of John's actual unexpurgated, unmodified biography is posted at
www.xxx.com
////////////////
So Mike, here's the deal: You can't say I didn't submit a biography to your little paper. You can ignore it, you don't have to publish it, but if you say I didn't submit one, you will be caught once again in a bald-faced lie. Not that you care, but I will then blanket the internet with my further opinions of your behavior.
Cheers.
Comments
Post a Comment