Claims of malfaeasance continue to plague attorney general's office.
By Staff Writer
Feb 9, 2005, 17:00
Note: This article was written based on evidence that has been presented to the attorney general’s offi ce. Witnesses asked to remain confidential.
Despite claims by former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore’s offi ce that there was no impropriety in the transfer of Southside Regional Medical Center from public to a for for profi t facility, some Petersburg citizens say the transaction remains mired in various instances of malfeasance.
One of the witnesses said this past weekend in a telephone interview, that prior to the hospital sale two years ago, several members of the community met on at least two occasions with representatives from Kilgore’s office.
She said that both times " once in February 2003, and again in June of that year " those offi cials, which consisted of a committee of three -- were given documents and other evidence which supported citizens’ belief that the sale should not proceed. "We met with the committee twice as a group," the woman recalled. "Each time we hand-delivered more evidence and documents to the attorney general’s offi ce surrounding the sale," she said.
According to the woman, one of the persons who sat on the committee was Dave Ervin, who at the time, was a senior assistant to Kilgore. During phone conversation around the same time, other witnesses said Ervin told the citizens group his offi ce was investigating, but would still approve the sale.
The aforementioned witness said her understanding was that Ervin was also in charge of consumer litigation. She said a woman on the committee was in charge of medicaid fraud. Referring to the other member, the witness said she could not recall his name.
According to the witness, Kilgore neither met with her group, nor did he ever sit in on any of the committee discussions. However, the attorney general, she said, was in receipt of the citizens’ letters and volumes of evidence.
She said Kilgore’s offi ce was given evidence of malfeasance in the form of several documents, which included check registers and audio and video tapes. Other evidence centered on incidences at the hospital of sexual harassment, denial of care to indigent patients, wasting of government funds and doctors performing unnecessary procedures.
Also, improprieties involving land deals, kick backs to physicians, cover up of allegations and peer review fraud.
"We expressed our concerns to them," she said. "Members presented specifi c informaton about certain allegations. After we presented them with our concerns, they (the three-person committee) assured us they would look at the information and begin an investigation," the woman said.
"They said they would take into consideration anything we said as to whether to approve or not approve the sale."
However, the woman said her group found out during a court session that the sale had been approved without its members’ knowledge.
"We went to court June 24, 2003," she said. "That was the date we were supposed to hear about the dissolution through a letter from Attorney General Kilgore that he had given the OK for the hospital authority to dissolve. The attorney general had already issued an action letter," she said. "At that point, we had become very concerned because we had not previously heard anything from Mr. Kilgore – or from the committee stating that they had looked at our evidence," the woman said.
She further explained that in a letter dated four days before the June 24 court hearing, it was stated that the attorney general’s offi ce, as of the date of the letter, had not made a fi nal determination on the citizens’ evidence.
"But when we get to court, we hear that a decision has been made. The attorney for the hospital presents a letter to the judge that the hospital authority could dissolve and the sale could go forth. All this was recorded in the court’s transcription for June 24, 2003," the woman said.
The woman said that after that court session, the citizens’ group sent other letters to Kilgore’s offi ce asking for an explanation. She said they received no response.
She reiterated: "The last written response we received from Mr. Kilgore’s offi ce was four days before the court hearing. It was dated June 20, 2003, and it said the attorney general’s offi ce had not issued any action letter or fi nal review. It said there had been no determination to approve or not approve the sale."
Prior to Kilgore leaving offi ce, reporters for the Virginia Times faxed requests to his offi ce asking about the citizens group’s claims of wrongdoing concerning the sale. Kilgore did not respond.
However, Tim Murtaugh, Kilgore’s communications director, told the Virginia Times early last week that this offi ce wasn’t able to fi nd anything wrong with the sale. "We sorely reject all the allegations," Murtaugh said.
"Typically, on a transfer like the hospital sale, where there’s a transfer from a nonprofi t to forprofi t, it takes about 60 days. "In this case, because of the citizen’s concerns, we took a longer look at it than we generally do. We reviewed it for four months," he said.
Murtaugh continued: "We weren’t able to fi nd any credible evidence there was something wrong with the transfer." "I think what’s important for people to realize is that more than $90 million from the sale goes to the Cameron Foundation to help different groups in the Petersburg community," said Murtaugh.
Upon hearing Murtaugh’s comments, the citizens group asked how he could state they had no credible evidence when no attempt was made to interrogate anyone from the group.
The group said they restated their demand for a federal investigation. "What shocked me the most, is that given the amount of information we’d given the attorney general’s offi ce – there were CD roms showing years of check registers. These are the kinds of documents that, without someone going over them, step by step, it would be impossible to evaluate in so short a time," said a male witness.
"Yet, they gave their approval before the court to sell the hospital to Community Health Systems Inc. without even meeting with us."
"Given what they did, it was impossible that they did what is required by law. If the attorney general was there to safeguard the public interest, he didn’t even have an interest that the public was safeguarded," the man said. "He didn’t even bother to look at the evidence."
"Furthermore, look at the fact that all the judges from Petersburg recused themselves because of confl ict of interest. Even Judge D’Alton, who recused himself, but requested a replacement by name. You don’t go writing a letter asking for a replacement by name," he said.
Nontheless, a second female witness contends the group was disappointed then, and remains disappointed. "We were disappointed, but not surprised based on our experiences with the whole matter," she said. "We would have been surprised if they had done what they were supposed to have done, and that was not to have approved the sale."
The second female witness also backed up the fi rst witness’ claim that the citizens group continued to make contact with the attorney general’s offi ce. "But by then, they decided they would only talk to one or two of us at a time," the second female witness said.
"We look at a time when the general constituency will realize they have the ability to hold those accountable for the decisions they make, or have not made, to protect the people’s rights, " she sighed. |