Public Comment

The campaign by Children’s Hospital to access tax revenues to finance a major construction project, along with the manner in which it was run, was a disservice to the employees and physicians of the hospital, its patients, the hospital’s neighborhood, and the city of Oakland at large. While the campaign’s defeat may itself have marred the reputation of this distinguished hospital, the disservice lies in the fact the campaign was rife with prevarications and inaccuracies. 

We read various statements and comments such as: 

1. The hospital will close if this measure does not pass. 

2. The hospital does not meet the state’s seismic requirements. 

3. To retrofit the current facility at Children’s would require closing the hospital for three years. 

4. The hospital will consider the use of eminent domain to acquire neighborhood residences 

The first three statements are simply wrong: 

1. The hospital will not close, except as a result of malfeasance or neglect by senior management and the governing board. The hospital may need to reduce its reliance on consultants and lobbyists, but the commitment of the medical staff and the employees to the care of children will not allow for a cavalier decision to close the doors because of budgetary constraints. 

2. The only parts of the hospital which are not in compliance with the State’s structural standards are the old (circa 1941) A and B wings. One is completely used for offices and administrative personnel, and the other for select outpatient services. The prominent five-story inpatient tower is in structural compliance. Other areas require limited upgrades, but the hospital board’s building committee, at least until recently, has exercised exemplary due diligence to insure the adequacy of hospital facilities. 

3. To retrofit the hospital will not require closing its closure. Staging and temporary relocation of services are not unknown in hospitals. The hospital’s statement, if not intentionally false, reflects a lack of understanding of hospital construction. 

4. The use of condemnation to acquire neighborhood residences requires little discussion. Senior management will discover soon enough that a not-for-profit hospital in California will have extreme difficulty in justifying the use of eminent domain for this purpose. And the enmity this effort will generate among its neighbors and the Oakland community, as the popular commercial says so well, is priceless.  

While it is easy for Children’s senior management to suggest its mission to care for sick children supersedes its obligation to its neighbors, the fact remains that Children’s Hospital is located in an urban residential neighborhood. Its ability to grow and expand depends in part on the good will of its neighbors. 

In my 22 years as chief executive officer we endeavored continuously to maintain a cordial relationship with the neighboring community. I would not declare that effort a complete success. But we did attempt to address the concerns as they arose. For example, the helicopter landing was placed on an elevated pad behind the hospital instead of on top of the patient tower to alleviate potential noise pollution for the neighbors. Arguably, the location is not ideal for patient care, but after a series of “dry runs,” Emergency Department physicians, trauma surgeons and the FAA agreed it was an acceptable compromise. In our planning for a new hospital we worked to maintain height levels which did not exceed that of existing buildings, again in an effort to coexist as good neighbors 

Work was begun in early 2001 to develop a comprehensive plan for a new hospital. An architectural firm was retained and began innumerable meetings and discussions with physicians and managers in individual specialties and services to determine and achieve consensus on new and appropriate facilities. This process covered a period of about 24 months and cost nearly $2.5 million We were successful in retaining the entire facility on the south side of 52nd Street, where the main hospital is now. These plans included all private patient rooms and family sleeping facilities. During the period of construction, the current hospital would remain open. The hospital’s neighbors might ask management at future community meetings what became of those plans. 

Children’s campaign was not successful in accessing tax revenues, but it did succeed in alienating Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors, other local politicians--all of whom Children’s depends on for ongoing support -- and the hospital’s neighbors. Members of the community who have historically supported the hospital should now ask what became of the hospital’s endowment, which was in the past so rigorously protected for use as initial funding for a new hospital.  

We hope that the board of directors of Children’s Hospital will now return its attention to the hospital’s mission, to the hospital’s obligation to its neighbors as a member of the community, and to its primary responsibility for major fundraising. 

(I have been away from the state of California for the past seven months and unable to respond to the campaign any earlier.) 

Tony Paap is president and chief executive officer (retired) of Children’s Hospital and Research Center, Oakland.