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