because he would be too busy fighting some of the other board members? From an open records request I did of GRMC through Sharla Collins, email dated 11/6/2014, as part of this letter expressing STRONG concerns about Ray Reynolds, who is the current administrator of Glen Rose Medical Center
So, this doctor went to some board members because he was SO concerned with patient safety. . Did he originally go to ALL? Nope. He did NOT go to the *four* board members that some were lying about in the community. The Four, I think, were Chip Harrison, Eugene Brode, John Parker and Paul Harper.
Who did he approach? The 3 others. ONE of them, though, said that "Ray was a friend of his and that he would be too busy fighting against the "four* other board members to be able to help." Let me put a fine point on this. Whoever that board member is that is a buddy to Ray Reynolds put a priority of fighting other board members OVER patient care and safety.
So the doctor decided to actually approach one of the board members that were of the *4* and apparently found him NOT to be as described. I believe that was Chip Harrison that he approached.
Back to my other question. I'd like to know who the person on the board was that basically blew off the doctor in favor of his friendship with Ray Reynolds and because he intended to, not work together, but fight other board members. Why? So I can make sure to not only never vote for him myself in an upcoming election but work to see that no one else does either. I want people on the board who give a hoot, and this one apparently DOES NOT.
P.S. My husband, who was elected to the hospital board. told me some time back that there was an orientation meeting in which someone came and described what a *good board" is versus a "bad board". I went up and looked on Youtube a bit ago to find that video, as it was recorded, Here's that video, go to about 2 minutes 48 seconds in.
Whoever this gentleman is, don't know, (update 1/4/2015-saw a photo of Kevin Reed on the internet, is apparently he) but he definitely is impressing on the crowd that he considers himself an expert. "Watch what works and what doesn't work.... I found myself going to hospital board meetings and I got to see some really incredible board do what they do...and I... watched some really terrible dysfunctional boards.... I don't think being a good board just happens by accident.. I think it's the kind of thing you have to work at... I want to encourage you to work at that .. to make that part of what you do. "
Wonder what he would think of that board member who apparently does NOT want to work at being part of a *good board", doesn't apparently care to help doctors with patient safety because he's too busy trying to fight some others??
P.P.S. Also from an open records request that I got from Sharla Collins which included emails between the doctor and board member Brett Nabors. Note that Brett Nabors, according to his email, had talked privately, outside of any board meeting, with Ron Hankins about this, and also planned to talk with Dr Karen Burroughs. "I will get back with you soon, after I speak more with the others". That is the "3", so the pugilistic board member must be one of these.
(fROM THE DOCTOR) Hey Brett. This is ***********. Sorry to bother you. I made a few changes to my letter. Dr. ************ added a small statement. And he signed it as well. I am ready to give it to ray unless you think it would harm the hospital or that ray would retaliate further against ***************.
(FROM BRETT) I have talked with Ron and still need to catch up with Dr. Burroughs. I do believe it could add fuel to a fire giving the current circumstances. I would give it a week or two before doing that... I will get back with you soon, after I speak more with the others.
P.P.P.S. Incidentally, Ron Hankins wrote an affidavit based on no evidence but what he thought might happen in the future attempting to get my hub Paul Harper from even attending the board meeting coming up next week. The judge denied it. Here's what's interesting about that affidavit to me.
"The testimony given by Mr Reynolds did not shed the best light on Mr Harper's actions while a member of the board".
I was at that hearing. Ron Hankins was not, at least not that I saw in a hearing sparsely attended. There was NO official transcript made nor audio (at least not available for a reasonable price), so anything Ron Hankins would have heard, presumably as a CITIZEN, YES? would be second-hand. The Glen Rose Reporter, with editor Brent Addleman attending, said NOTHING in the newspaper about the fact that both Ray Reynolds and Darrell Best testified. Not even a sentence. (I asked Addleman at the last Somervell County Commissioners meeting if he planned to put in the fact, even a sentence, that I had testifed for over an hour about the post falsely attributed to my husband, and he only said he would take it under advisement. My personal feeling is that a paper of record should at least include basic facts, even if short, to include a list of poeple who actually testified.). In fact, in my opinion as a member of the audience, some of the things that Ray Reynolds said didn't shed the best light on HIMSELF, including the fact that he said, under oath, he couldn't work with the majority of the board, didn't give the board members salary information upon request (the judge was a little taken aback by that, in my view, as he expressed surprise that Ray didn't tell the board what his own salary was), didn't keep ANY minutes that were required for the 501a, among other things. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear, did it really fall? And in the same way, if there is NO written and available record of Ray Reynolds testifying other than by the people WHO ATTENDED, then how the heck does Ron Hankins KNOW what was said, firsthand, instead of hearsay? Heck, it's been over 2 months and I can't even remember verbatim what was said, except to recall that Darrell Best said that he had had personal interactions with me in the past regarding this website, as I already knew and can prove. And I was THERE in the audience as a spectator, along with about 15 people, at that first hearing. Seems like Ron Hankins has a personal vendetta. Even I'm wrong and he was there, sure is one -sided. I don't understand, frankly, why he is going to so much effort AGAINST an elected person .
Hankins also says
"it is my belief (and I so allege)... the agenda has no basis in fact"
Wow. How dumb. The agenda, for anyone that can READ (GO READ IT) , and I certainly can, calls to consider the
administrative/chief executive officer's employment, evaluation, reassignment..... complaints or charges
Uh. What the fool! I have been to LOTS of local government board meetings where they have said they were going to consider much the same items, what in the world is Hankins alleging is not a *fact*? Hankins confusing an agenda item where it's said something is to be considered, with a FACT. Well, the FACT is that the meeting is going to be held on Jan 22 2015 at the Citizens Center.
So it is Ron Hankin's *belief*. What does he have on the basis of facts? Nothing. Just things he *believes*. Well, heck, I might believe that in 3 days the moon, made of green cheese is going to have a spaceship poke it in the eye, but are those FACTS? Nope. His favorite movie must be "Minority Report". More on Ron Hankins.
Incidentally, I remind again that Darrell Best accidentally sent an email to a *Ron* asking if John Parker was lying.
P.P.P.P.S. Incidentally, I've only fully realized over the last few months that there are certain men, maybe women, too, that believe that my husband tells me what to do, in the vein of some mythical *submissive wife* and that he somehow controls everything I do or write, that, in other words, I can't and don't have my OWN OPINIONS ON MY OWN BLOG. NOPE. I GET TO BE A FULL UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the same way, for example, that Ron Hankin's wife gets to blast whatever the fool she wants to on her Facebook page. Neither one of us is elected, although I don't personally think that should have anything to do with freedom of speech for an elected official. Neither she nor I signed some kind of form entitled "Shut up You, You're not longer a citizen with free speech rights because your spouse is elected". I guess by the standard some men are setting, she must be a puppet who only does exactly what her husband does and only says what he allows her to, because Hankins is some kind of Svengali that controls ALL. I doubt that, but even if it's true that she, a wife who posts with her OWN screen name and photo is REALLY Ron Hankins or that she's writing on behalf of Ron Hankins because she's a marionette, it SURE AIN'T TRUE FOR ME AND MY HUB. And it's frankly, insulting and ridiculous for anyone to say differently.