Town Square

Post a New Topic

No "clear mandate" for closing healthcare district

Original post made on Nov 7, 2012

Jack Hickey didn't get his "clear mandate for dissolution" of the Sequoia Healthcare District, coming in third behind two fellow incumbents for two open seats on the board of directors.

This story contains 240 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (10)

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Nov 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm

This shows that there are 33,459 voters in the Sequoia District area that do not support the Grand Jury recommendation of 2000-01. There were 5 board members who didn't either and that is the only reason the Sequoia Healthcare District is here today .


Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Nov 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.

We deserve the government we elect. Congratulations, San Mateo County.


2 people like this
Posted by sigh
a resident of Atherton: other
on Nov 8, 2012 at 10:18 am

Losers always work the numbers.

How much was spent on this forced election?

'Mr. Hickey said he forced an election '


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

This is what I sent to Sandy:

Sandy, when I saw the results, of course I was disappointed. I had
anticipated at worst, a repeat of the 2008 results,
Member; Sequoia Healthcare District (2 Elected)

Kathleen M. "Katie" Kane .......... 34,766 votes 28.0%
Kim Griffin .......... 30,922 votes 24.9%
John J. "Jack" Hickey .......... 30,378 votes 24.4%
Malcolm "Nappy" MacNaughton .......... 28,188 votes 22.7%

What I overlooked, was the dillution of the incumbents vote with three
"pro district" candidates running for two seats. Kim and Katie's totals would had have averaged 46,938 if Nappy's totals were included. That's more than 50% higher than my tally. That was a serious mistake which led to overconfidence.

Clearly, the union support of Katie and Kim played a major role in the
vote then and now.

And, the impact of the ~$100,000/year PR effort promoting the District and majority directors, culminating in the pre-election mailing of an 11" x 17" 4 page, full color campaign flyer claiming to be a Report to the Community, was a factor. A similar mailing in 2008 also impacted that election.

I am pursuing PRA requests to determine the facts behind these mailings, which, in my opinion, were clearly intended to influence the outcome of the election.

With the current vote count, my tally has improved from 1.54/1 in 2008, to 1.32/1 today. I expect that to improve when all the votes are counted. I am grateful to those who supported my dissolution effort, and invite them to join me in pursuing that goal.

Information obtained from my PRA requests will be considered in
determining the future direction of my efforts.


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 8, 2012 at 4:45 pm

I'll let you all know how much the District spent on its 4 page, full color 11" x 17" glossy mailer when I get their response to my Public Records Act request.


2 people like this
Posted by caregiver
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Nov 9, 2012 at 7:59 pm

User "sigh" above - the 2012 election wasted $160,000 of our tax dollars, taken out of district funds. Jack commented "This will be $160,000 of taxes well spent"
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Mar 14, 2013 at 1:07 pm

The numbers are in: From the Daily Journal Reporters’ notebook March 08, 2013, 05:00 AM:
"The general election in November for two open seats on the Sequoia Healthcare District cost taxpayers about $198,000, according to an invoice sent to the district by the San Mateo County Election Division. The election was forced by current board member Jack Hickey, who wants to dissolve the district. His counterparts on the board chastised Hickey for taking money out of health care programs the district supports. Katie Kane and Kim Griffin were running unopposed for their seats until Hickey jumped into the race while already serving on the board."

And, I received a refund of $159.74 for my candidate statement overpayment. My total cost was $1511.04. The refund will be used to further my efforts to dissolve the Sequoia Healthcare District.

IMHO, money well spent.

Overcoming the constituency "bought" with Grants of property tax dollars and $100,000/year in PR is a daunting task.
The sheer number of beneficiaries involved establishes a formidable support group which perpetuates the Districts. Recently, 43 out of 62 Sequoia Healthcare District Grant applicants survived review. The Sequoia Healthcare District is a dues-paying member of the Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD) which promotes Grassroot organizational activities for political purposes.




Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Aug 5, 2016 at 2:31 pm

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

The following analysis shows that the dissolution vote beat the incumbents by more than 2,000 votes.

Assuming that those who voted for District candidates, voted for 2, we have:

In 2008, there were 142,042 Registered Voters, 115,782 Ballots cast in the District(81.5%) and 124,324/2=62,162 ballots cast for District candidates.
Of those casting ballots, only 53.7% voted in the SHD election.

In 2012, there were 128,659 Registered Voters, 106,348 Ballots cast in the District(82.7%)and 118,768/2=59,384 ballots cast for District candidates.
Of those casting ballots, only 55.8% vote in the SHD election.

My objective in forcing this 3 candidate race was to effect a poll of voters supporting dissolution of the district by voting only for Jack Hickey as the dissolution candidate. Had they done so, the total votes cast would have been reduced by my vote count of 32,627. It also would have reduced the average vote count of the incumbents to 26,757. The dissolution vote would have won by almost 6,000 votes!

Did the voters, en masse, follow my request that they vote only for Jack Hickey? NO! Had they done so, the percent of those casting ballots who actually voted for SHD candidates would have been reduced by 25%.

Comparing the 2008 and 2012 elections, we find that 2012 shows an increase in the percent of those casting ballots who actually voted for SHD candidates. In 2008, it was 53.7%, while 2012 showed 55.8%. External factors likely caused this minor aberration.

Even if only 30% of those voting for Jack Hickey voted for him alone, dissolution is the clear winner.





2 people like this
Posted by Are you serious!?!?!?
a resident of Woodside: Family Farm/Hidden Valley
on Aug 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

Using a set of numbers and an explanation so convoluted that he needed half a page to pretend, then yes, "dissolution is the clear winner"

Clear? It took you three plus YEARS to figure a spin.

See also: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 8, 2016 at 7:40 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

are you serious:

please provide an explanation as to why we should continue to pay taxes to a hospital district that no longer has a hospital. And, no longer supports a hospital. That is the situation we have now. You want to keep pissing your property taxes away on special interests and the "connected" be my guest. I don't want to. Take a little time to look in depth into what is going on and you will realize that this district is nothing more than a slush fund for "those who matter."

Welcome to San Mateo County.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Dropping naps
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 11,405 views

Taboo Topics
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,063 views

Death by Diet
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 520 views

I am Voting Yes on Measure B the Sales Tax for Transaportation
By Steve Levy | 2 comments | 440 views