Tuesday, 6/24/97 Regents address concerns over medical center
POLICY: Prompted by public comment, UC Board considers resolution
to privatize UCI’s institution
By Mason Stockstill Daily Bruin Contributor At the latest
meeting of the UC Board of Regents, concerns over privatizing
public medical institutions overshadowed the other items on the
board’s agenda. With the fervor surrounding the University of
California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Stanford merger subsiding, the
regents turned their attention to a similar issue – the proposed
merger of the University of California, Irvine (UCI) Medical Center
with the private health care firms Columbia and Tenet. Public
comment played a key role in the deliberation process at the
meeting, prompting regents to consider a resolution to change the
rules of allowing the public to comment on items on the regents’
agenda. Speakers on both sides of the issue dominated the public
comment period, with community members opposed to the proposal
standing against the statements of doctors and administrators who
sided with Columbia and Tenet. "I’m opposed to the university
turning over the control of the medical center to a corporation
whose only concern is the bottom line," said Mary Higgins, a
clerical worker at the UCI Medical Center. A concern expressed by
several regents at the meeting was that UCI’s medical center is in
dire need of adjustment of some sort, as it has been steadily
losing money for a number of years. "We must do something about the
UCI hospital," said Regent Frank Clark, whose comment on this
matter went unchallenged. Clark mentioned that in an earlier
meeting with him, UC President Richard Atkinson had revealed that
he had felt ‘reservations’ about the proposal to link UCI’s Medical
Center with the private firms, but Atkinson was reluctant to share
his feelings on the issue at the regents meeting. "Of course I have
reservations about this; I always have reservations about something
of this magnitude," Atkinson said, "which is why it should be
looked into in greater detail." No resolutions were passed on the
matter of a possible UCI merger; the session was merely the first,
informational presentation to the board. Meanwhile, debate still
continued over the merger of UCSF and Stanford clinical services.
"Everyone knows I am against this," Clark said. Debate ranged from
whether or not the hospital would be governed by a publicly-run
board to whether the proposed acronym ‘USHC’ was appropriate.
‘USHC’ stands for UCSF Stanford Health Center, but Regent Meredith
Khachigian wondered why it couldn’t be ‘UCSHC.’ "What happened to
the ‘C’?" Khachigian said. With public involvement reaching such
high levels at this and other regents meetings, Regent Ward
Connerly called for a resolution to look into the policies on
public comment used by other similar governing bodies, so as to
give the maximum possible time to the public during the comment
periods, which currently are limited to three minutes per speaker.
"We need to allow the public to be as actively involved as
possible," Connerly said, "without disrupting the procedures."
Regent William Bagley assented, but noted that the regents’ meeting
"is not a town hall meeting," and should be treated as such.
Regent-designate Judith Levin agreed, saying that "the public needs
to remember that we need to get our business done, and that’s what
we’re here for." Student regent Jess Bravin supported the move,
saying that having meetings slightly disrupted by the occasional
public speakers is "the price of democracy." "I think it’s
important that we reform the way in which public comment is
handled," Bravin said. Regents believed that remarks made by the
public lose some of their efficacy when the public comment comes so
early in the day, before the issue is actually discussed by the
regents. "Right now the comment period is too short, and it takes
place too early in the session for it to have any impact when the
issue actually gets discussed," Bravin continued. "I can’t remember
what happened 30 minutes ago in this meeting, much less the
comments that were made this morning," Bravin continued. "If the
public is to have any impact whatsoever, some changes must be
made." Previous Daily Bruin Story Regents debate importance of
student voice, February 13, 1996 Previous Daily Bruin Stories:
Regents debate importance of student voice