Advocates of hospital bond should be able to explain why they support

Jim Preston, in his letter of 20 June 2013, was concerned with Section 7 of EARH No. 2 Resolution No. 13-03. Mr. Preston was concerned that the hospital board could do something, anything, or nothing with the $10 million if the bond issue be passed by the voters. The Walker’s, in what supposedly was a response to Jim Preston, ignored the issue and changed the subject. But Jim Preston is not the only EARH No. 2 voter concerned with the issue of Section 7 of the EARH No. 2 resolution.

Perhaps there is no issue to concern voters with regard to Section 7 although there are folks who claim they have asked about the matter and have been unsatisfied with the answers they have received. The matter could perhaps be easily resolved if the CEO of the hospital would respond in easily understandable English.

We are now seeing signs in Ritzville urging us to vote to allow the hospital board to collect an additional $10 million from district No. 2 property owners. Perhaps those individuals posting signs in their yards would explain why they trust the individual members of the hospital board with an additional $10 million. It is the board that allowed the present hospital building to fall into its current state of disrepair while sitting on some $8 million.

For example, a letter to the editor from a citizen displaying a pro hospital bond sign could begin, I trust hospital commissioner ____ because he/she was such an excellent steward of our current facility and hospital finances. Another hospital bond supporter might write, “I trust hospital commissioner _____ because he/she kept his/her campaign promise to preserve our current facility.

Such letters ought to be an easy write, yes? Those who post these signs supporting the bond issue should find it easy to explain why we should trust these hospital commissioners to do the right thing.

Barry Boyer, Ritzville