Residents concerned about Butler Memorial Hospital’s future are underfunded and look for ways to communicate with the community. By comparison, the hospital conducts an expensive campaign of full-page newspaper ads, cable TV ads, radio spots, mailers, telephone surveys, retaining a Pittsburgh public relations consultant, etc.

I feel like a little mouse nipping at the toe of a very large elephant.

Hospital trustees reject the idea of a two-way conversation with residents who are concerned about the hospital’s future. This was illustrated again when they refused James Eckstein’s offer to participate in the May 11 public forum.

William Bessor, hospital board of trustees chairman, and John Righetti, BMH director of communications, met with Mr. Eckstein and Jack Beiler of Penn Township on April 29 to discuss the forum. I’ve been told Mr. Bessor used language at this meeting that I can’t print here. The forum was in the planning stages, but this was the only meeting.

In a May 10 e-mail to hospital employees, Mr. Bessor said there was an “inherent bias” in the name of Mr. Eckstein’s campaign, “Save Our Hospital.” Mr. Bessor also told employees, “There was clearly no guarantee that neutrality would be assured.”

If Mr. Bessor had agreed to additional meetings, he would have learned that Linda Harvey, a communications instructor at Slippery Rock University, would be the moderator. I don’t believe Ms. Harvey would sacrifice her professional integrity by favoring the community panel over the BMH trustee panel.

Instead, the trustees sent attorney Tom King to “observe.” Was this an intimidation tactic?

This is not the first time trustees have refused a two-way conversation. I have a personal experience to share. It occurred after the hospital’s annual meeting on Dec. 4, 2003.

I made a statement during the public-comment portion of the meeting. After the meeting, I was speaking with another person when Donald Shamey, chairman of the hospital board’s finance committee and chief executive officer of Citizens National Bank, approached me.

Mr. Shamey noted that our hospital trustee service overlapped in the late 1980s. He said he respected my views during our service together and asked if I would meet with him to discuss the hospital’s plans. I said yes and gave him my phone number, e-mail address and travel schedule.

I followed our conversation with a Dec. 8 letter that expanded on my public remarks. I closed the letter by saying, “I’ll be glad to discuss this subject with you at your convenience.”

Mr. Shamey seemed willing to discuss the hospital’s plans, but the phone call or e-mail never came.

Some comments about the former hospital association:

If the trustees had not terminated the association, we could force a public discussion of the issues because of the oversight authority of the association. Since there is no longer an association, all public discussions remain one-way.

Mr. Righetti, in a May 15 guest column on this page, answered questions posed in an editorial, including the “board’s opinion regarding reinstatement of the hospital association, in order to establish some level of accountability to the public and to increase transparency of board operations.”

Mr. Righetti said, “This question is based on the false (and somewhat insulting) premise that there currently is no accountability to the public or transparency in board operations.” Really?

Will the trustees, in the spirit of transparency, provide the community with an itemized list of the public relations campaign expenses listed above plus all consultant fees spent since 1999 to investigate the need for a new hospital?

Mr. Righetti insults the public’s intelligence by thinking we can’t see how the trustees are resisting the community in their unwillingness to publicly discuss their plans. Another insult of the public was when Mr. Righetti said, “Bringing back the association would result in less accountability rather than more.” Really?

Mr. Righetti says the return of the hospital association invites “any group looking to push its own agenda to try to get enough members signed up to take over the association and then oust the board.”

He further says, “A competing health system from outside the community could even take over the hospital by buying enough association memberships and installing its own directors.”

Mr. Righetti doesn’t want us to remember what the hospital bylaws said about association membership.

A properly functioning association would demand responsible governance by the trustees, which would include the CEO managing the hospital in a manner consistent with responsible trustee policies. This environment would encourage an agreeable relationship between trustees and the association.

Any “group looking to push its own agenda” would never gain traction. The bylaws stipulated that each association member could approve only one individual for association membership each year. Why would any association member want to approve a “troublemaker” if he/she was satisfied with trustee performance?

What about Mr. Righetti’s concern about a “competing health system from outside the community” gaining control of the association and the board? This would be very difficult under the bylaws I was acquainted with. In addition to the above restriction, association members had to be Butler County residents.

And besides, why would association members approve people interested in taking over the hospital for another health system? Residents questioning trustee due diligence have the same concern: Our community hospital could lose its independence.

Mr. Righetti’s arguments don’t hold up. He should stop insulting the community’s intelligence. The real concern of trustees and top administrators is that reinstatement of the hospital association would result in a repeat of what happened in 1976, when the late Frank Rath Sr. led a successful effort to oust unresponsive BMH trustees.

My next column will discuss the hospital’s phone survey, personal attacks of trustees and value investing.