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 (7)

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.

Like this comment
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.

Like this comment
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.

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


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

Opening alert: iTalico in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 2 comments | 3,004 views

Work: What Happens when your Relationship is in Trouble?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 615 views