Tri-City Healthcare loses appeal, wastes taxpayer money, in attempt to justify hostility to Kathleen Sterling

Kathleen Sterling wins; CEO Larry Anderson loses

By putting CEO Larry Anderson on administrative leave earlier this month, Tri-City Healthcare gives the appearance of an institution that might be trying to mend its ways.

Tri-City Healthcare got very personal in its efforts to destroy Kathleen Sterling, a board member who asked too many questions. When Judge Richard Mills wasn't impressed by the testimony of witnesses who were trying to help Tri-City get a restraining order against Ms. Sterling, board RoseMarie Reno suggested that the judge might have taken a bribe.

Perhaps Ms. Reno lives in such a small world that she thinks Tri-City's vendetta is the first that Judge Mills ever came across. She assumed that Judge Mills would be deeply impressed by the fact that a public entity claimed to have discovered a threat in its midst. She may have believed that the judge had never before seen public employees pressured to present overwrought accounts of non-events in an effort to get rid of someone. She must have forgotten that one of her witnesses said he did NOT feel threatened by Ms. Sterling.

These are the winning law firms:

The McMillan Law Firm, Scott A. McMillan and Evan Kalooky for Defendant and Appellant Kathleen Sterling; Spiegel Liao & Kagay and Charles M. Kagay

These are the losing law firms:

Daley & Heft, Mitchell D. Dean, Scott Noya and Lee H. Roistacher;
Horvitz & Levy, David S. Ettinger, Mitchell C. Tilner and Jeremy B. Rosen;
Procopio, Cory Hargreaves & Savitch, Evelyn F. Heidelberg and Gregory V. Moser [an erstwhile school attorney], for Plaintiff and Appellant Tri-City Healthcare District.

The decision states:

"Tri-City Healthcare District (Tri-City) petitioned for protective orders against Kathleen Sterling, an elected Tri -City board member, alleging the protective orders were necessary to prevent Sterling from committing workplace violence against specified individuals. (Code Civ. Proc., 1§527.8.) After a four-day evidentiary hearing, the court denied the petitions, finding Tri-City did not meet its burden to satisfy the required statutory elements for the protective orders..."

Workplace violence? Are they kidding?

The decision continues:

"We summarize the relevant events based on the evidence found reliable by the court. The February 24 Board meeting was scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. At about 3:25 p.m., Sterling attempted to enter the Board meeting room, believing the existing sanctions orders applied only during the meetings and not before the meetings. Security officer Crooks, how ever, believed the censure order barred Sterling from entering the room before and during the Board meetings... "

Paralegal says Tri-City report is wrong
She balks at hospital's version of events involving board member Kathleen Sterling
Aaron Burgin SDUT Nov. 11, 2011

This is from the opinion: "Although we agree that prejudicial error analysis requires a review of the entire record, we find Tri-City's approach of highlighting only its own evidence to be unhelpful and arguably misleading.""

Board of Directors

The Tri-City Healthcare District is governed by publicly elected Board of Directors, who represent the residents of Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista. Click on highlighted names to contact by email.

Larry W. Schallock Chairperson
Cyril F. Kellett, MD Vice Chairperson
Julie Nygaard Secretary
RoseMarie V. Reno Treasurer
Ramona Finnila Assistant Secretary
James Dagostino, DPT, PT Assistant Treasurer
Paul V. L. Campo Member, Board of Directors

Tri-City Hospital and Bonnie Dumanis fail in felony attempt against Kathleen Sterling

This case is interesting because it involves several of the same lawyers and law firms that misuse the courts for political or financial gain in San Diego County schools. Greg Moser is one such attorney.

See all posts on Tri-City Healthcare.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
VISTA: Judge dismisses felony charge against Tri-City director Sterling
By PAUL SISSON
North County Times--Californian
June 1, 2011

After a two-day preliminary hearing, a Vista Superior Court judge on dismissed a felony vote-trading charge against Tri-City Healthcare District Director Kathleen Sterling.

The ruling by Judge K. Michael Kirkman frees Sterling from the most serious charge she faced ---- a felony count of bribe solicitation.

However, Kirkman let stand a misdemeanor count of wrongful influence against Sterling that is now set to move forward. If Sterling is convicted on that charge, she would be bounced from Tri-City's board under state elections law.

Standing in the hallway after the felony charge was dismissed, Sterling read from a prepared statement. "I will continue to perform my duties in a quality manner," she said, listing those duties as oversight of hospital management, ensuring fiscal solvency and assuring "optimum quality care for all of the residents of Tri-City."

Assistant District Attorney Leon Schorr said outside the courtroom that he wasn't disappointed in Kirkman's ruling.

"We respect his decision," Schorr said. "We had to put on the witnesses, have them testify, and let a judge decide. That's part of the process."

The felony charge stemmed from a May 26, 2010, dinner meeting at a Carlsbad steakhouse attended by hospital Directors Sterling, George Coulter, and RoseMarie Reno, as well as Tri-City Chief Operating Officer Casey Fatch.

The meeting, which participants testified was an attempt to "mend fences and build bridges" among board members who had not been getting along, resulted in Coulter and Reno accusing Sterling of offering a bribe.

The two testified that, during the meeting, Sterling offered future votes on unspecified board business if her fellow board members would make her vice chair of the hospital board, make her chair of a hospital subcommittee and rescind two censures against her passed in 2000 and 2001.

Though she did not testify on her own behalf at the hearing, Sterling said during a previous hospital board meeting that all of the accusations were fabricated.

During the hearing, Sterling's attorney, public defender Sherry Stone, successfully argued that nothing of value ever changed hands. She noted that no additional money or benefits were attached to leadership positions on the hospital board and also that no deal ever went beyond a few heated words at a restaurant.

Schorr tried to convince the judge that a felony solicitation charge was warranted because the law does not require that a bribe be consummated, or that it have a monetary value, in order for it to be illegal. He said it was solicitation of a bribe "as long as she (Sterling) finds that there is value in the things that she is asking for and as long as she has a belief that it has some value to her."

But Kirkman said that the value question was not his central concern. The judge noted that it was not Sterling who set up the dinner meeting and said that he did not believe she offered the exchange with any "corrupt intent" to exchange her votes for specific concessions.

"These were emotional comments made off the cuff in response to what was being said by others," Kirkman said.

He likened the dinner meeting comment to an exchange between Sterling and Reno at a April 28, 2010, hospital board meeting. At that meeting, Reno told Sterling: "It's unfortunate that you may have paid Judge Mills off beforehand."

The comment referred to Judge Richard E. Mills' decision to deny six restraining orders that hospital board members and Tri-City employees requested against Sterling.

"I don't believe that she (Sterling) had that intent (to trade votes) any more than I believe that Mrs. Reno truly meant what she said about Judge Mills," Kirkman said...



Legal tab against Tri-City trustee tops $100,000
District’s effort against board member is many-pronged
By Aaron Burgin
June 3, 2011

Oceanside — The Tri-City Healthcare District since March has spent more than $105,000 and employed nearly a dozen attorneys from three law firms in legal actions against one of its elected board members.

A judge in April denied the district’s request for a restraining order against the board member, Kathleen Sterling, who they say assaulted several hospital security guards at a Feb. 24 board meeting. The district is appealing.

Officials are suing Sterling for $100,000, alleging that her disruptive behavior has damaged the district’s reputation and embarrassed employees.

Sterling has filed counter actions, including a claim that the district is suing to silence her, and a suit to recoup her legal fees.

Legal and political experts said that while numbers are not out of the ordinary for the number and complexity of the litigation, the fact that a public district has taken these measures against an elected board member is extremely rare.

“In my 40 years in observing government, I haven’t seen anything like this,” said Bob Stern, the president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies and a longtime political observer. “Then again, the behavior that is alleged is unprecedented for an elected official.”

Sterling, a three-term board member who was re-elected in 2008, has frequently clashed with fellow board members, hospital administrators and staff. The district has censured her eight times for what officials call a pattern of disruptive behavior, including calling fellow board members “Nazis” and attempting to tape record closed-session meetings.

As part of her censures, Sterling has forfeited her $100 meeting stipend and must attend board meetings from a separate conference room via teleconference.

By seeking a restraining order, the hospital hopes to make Sterling stay at least 100 yards away from her colleagues and be banned from hospital property except in a medical emergency. She would have to attend meetings from another building, not just another room.

District officials said they have had to hire outside legal firms because of the number of issues they face with Sterling. They said they expect the tab to rise, but said it’s worth it to restore order to the board and keep the public safe.

“You can’t put a price on the public’s safety,” said board member Charlene Anderson, who compared Sterling to Jared Loughner, who seriously injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a Jan. 8 mass shooting in Arizona. “Those people (in Arizona) would’ve gladly given $70,000 to stop him. I am that afraid something like that could come up with Sterling.”

Sterling said such allegations are ridiculous, part of ongoing district efforts to ostracize her for not being a rubber-stamp vote for CEO Larry Anderson.

“I feel I’ve been targeted because I ask questions and request supporting documents before I make an informed voting decision,” Sterling said. “But they are taking the district’s limited resources and shifting it into the lawyers to use the legal system as a bully pulpit and doing it taxpayers expense.”

Sterling’s attorney, Scott McMillan, called the district’s spending on the actions frivolous.

“What an abysmal use of taxpayer money,” McMillan said. “And for what? How much money are they going to spend before someone says enough is enough?”

McMillan said the spending is questionable because district voters have a mechanism to oust Sterling — a recall election — which no one has attempted. A recall election would cost the district $270,000 for a mail-in ballot or $860,000 for a precinct election. The district could not sponsor such an election, but district voters could.

“If they have a problem with Kathleen Sterling, they need to bring it to voters, not bring it to a judge,” McMillan said.

According to invoices provided from Procopio, the district’s contract legal firm, the firm billed the district $68,445 between March 1 and April 30, including more than $54,000 in attorneys fees for 166 hours of work and $14,000 in legal-related expenses. This does not include costs incurred during May, when the district filed its appeal. Five attorneys, who bill at $335 an hour, a clerk and a paralegal have worked on the restraining order for the firm.

The district hired Michael Curran of Encinitas-based Curran & Curran for the lawsuit. Curran billed the district $3,060 for work from Feb. 28 to March 3, but the district is expecting another bill in coming days. Curran bills at $360 an hour.

Sterling has filed a countermotion against the district that claims that the district legal actions are a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

Tri-City on April 21 hired a third firm to assist Curran on Sterling’s claim and other aspects of the dispute. Encino-based Horvitz and Levy has billed the district $33,559 for work performed from April 21 to May 30, Tri-City legal counsel Allison Borkheim said. Four attorneys have worked on the Sterling case, who bill the district from $290 to $460 an hour...

Tri-City Hospital board chief says judge may have been bribed

Many of the lawyers involved in the Tri-City Healthcare brouhaha are also involved in local schools. One of them, Greg Moser, seems to be saying in the story below that the law allows elected officials to make false statements about a judge having been bribed. No, Greg, there is a line, and this statement crosses it. You really should know that.

Ironically, in addition to trying to get a restraining order against board member Kathleen Sterling, the Tri-City board recently developed a policy calling for members of the public to be arrested if they speak out too vociferously at board meetings. Apparently, the board majority thinks no one can sound off except them.

Also ironic is the fact that Kathleen Sterling has struggled to pay an attorney; how could she bribe a judge? It seems that RoseMarie Reno may have let her power go to her head--and she might not be getting the best advice. Who's been encouraging her to hound Kathleen Sterling?

See all posts re Tri-City Healthcare.

OCEANSIDE: Hospital board chief says judge may have been bribed
North County Times - The Californian
April 29, 2011

In a public meeting Thursday night, the board president of the Tri-City Healthcare District said fellow board member Kathleen Sterling may have "paid ... off" a Superior Court judge who recently refused the district's request for multiple restraining orders against her.

During board comments at the meeting, Sterling read lengthy excerpts from an April 4 ruling by Judge Richard E. Mills that found Sterling posed no threat to board members or employees at the Oceanside-based hospital, contrary to the health care district's claims.

Board President RoseMarie Reno cut Sterling off after a three-minute limit for board-member comments, then said about the ruling "It's unfortunate that you may have paid Judge Mills off beforehand."

Several people in the crowd gasped at the remark.

"I'm sorry," Reno said hastily, adding that she felt the outcome of the case should have been different. On Friday, she declined to elaborate on her statement.

Sterling referred any questions to her attorney, Kerry Eskenas, who denied that her client had any kind of inappropriate exchange with Mills. Eskenas said she thought the outlandish remark was also directed at Sterling's attorneys.

"Such an outrageous false accusation will have legal consequences," Eskenas said.

Reno's statement could have legal implications.

On one hand, bribing a judge is a felony in California. On the other hand, knowingly making an untrue and damaging statement against another person could be defamation.

Mills, through his law clerk, said that he could not respond to Reno's statement. The clerk said Mills asked her to release the following statement:

"The case is not over. Motions for attorney's fees and other matters will be heard in the future. The code of judicial ethics prohibits a judge from commenting on any matter relating to an open case."

Though Reno's remark raised eyebrows, Tri-City board attorney Greg Moser said the law grants elected officials considerable latitude in their discussions at public meetings.

"There is generally pretty broad immunity for comments made by board members at board meetings," Moser said.

Thursday's exchange is the latest in a public battle between Sterling and other board members ---- Reno, in particular. Sterling has been censured by the board seven times during the last year amid allegations that she intimidated hospital employees and offered to trade her vote, among other things.

Sterling still faces a felony charge of vote trading and a $100,000 civil lawsuit brought by the hospital and one security guard regarding events that occurred during a Feb. 24 hospital board meeting.

The requests for restraining orders ---- made by three Tri-City directors and three employees ---- centered on two allegations of violence that some witnesses said took place before and after that meeting.