Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (3) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. 0 Vote up Vote down Doctor · 272 weeks ago Resolution No. 4080 allows any member of the Health Care Authority Board to be removed by the city manager, at his discretion, for nonfeasance. The legal definition of nonfeasance is the failure to act when action is required. This could be something as simply voting against a motion at a Health Care Authority Board meeting. What is the credibility of the Health care authority board as long as any member can face removal by the city manager thru this nonfeasance clause? Report Reply 0 replies · active 272 weeks ago -1 Vote up Vote down Wes Smith · 272 weeks ago As well this statement concerns me ” This could be something as simply voting against a motion at a Health Care Authority Board meeting”. If the person votes against or for an item that is not agreeable to the City Manager they can be removed? Granted this would be an extreme circumstance, why have a board then? Report Reply 0 replies · active 272 weeks ago +3 Vote up Vote down SuCo Pride · 272 weeks ago My guess would be that this resolution was put in place as a safe guard against rogue members of the HCA, and manipulation by the board. Because it is an appointed position, the board does not have any personal accountability to the voters, and generally works with little oversight from the general public. That is not the case with the City Manager. He works at the direction of the City Council, and can be help more accountable when necessary. If the Council fails to act, then they can be held accountable by the voters of Wellington. If this policy were to be abused by the City Manager, it would become very public, very quickly. Whether it was the correct action or not, the recent removal of a board member made the news very quickly. The Council might want to revisit this ordinance, and strengthen the policy as it is written. Perhaps they should consider that a member of the board can be removed by the City Manager, WITH the approval of the Governing Body. Then again, that could make it a more political issue, which can muddy the waters pretty quickly. Report Reply 0 replies · active 272 weeks ago Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow â€” An interesting discussion popped up at the May 19 Wellington City Council meeting that begged to ask the philosophical question, â€œhow much could it cost you to serve?â€The council unanimously approved Tami Klinedinst to fill the vacancy left open by the resignation of Kelli McComb on the Sumner Regional Medical Center Health Care Authority board. Klinedinst joins Dr. Faustino Naldoza as new board members. Her term will expire in April 20, 2017.But before the appointment was approved, council member Vince Wetta asked Klinedinst if she knew what she was getting into.The question was not as much a backhanded swipe at SRMC or the board, as it was his concern that board members could be held personally liable for unpaid bills incurred especially with the Internal Revenue Service.SRMC CEO Leonard Hernandez confirmed the hospital still owes a monthâ€™s worth of federal withholding taxes from the payroll in 2014.â€œWhen we were struggling with all the billing and collection issues that were created in our workings with â€˜The Outsource Group,’ we fell behind,â€ Hernandez said Friday in an e-mail to Sumner Newscow. â€œIt is our goal to have those paid in its entirety over the next 30 days as we continue to work more efficiently and productively with our new billing partner Cerner. All 2015 taxes are current.â€At last weekâ€™s meeting, Wetta was concerned that the hospital was behind with the IRS as many as five months. He also said that according to a city ordinance written June 14, 1994 if withholding taxes are not paid and this bill comes up, a person serving on the SRMC board would be personally liable.In an editorial to Sumner Newscow, Wellington citizen made J.P. Buellesfeld reaffirmed this concern:In the case of Verret v.Â United States, a Texas federalÂ district court upheldÂ anÂ Internal Revenue ServiceÂ determination that theÂ chairmanÂ ofÂ aÂ non-profitÂ hospitalâ€™s board of trusteesÂ wasÂ personallyÂ liable forÂ theÂ hospitalâ€™s non-payment of federalÂ withholdingÂ taxes, StephenÂ Verret hadÂ beenÂ chairman of the board of Doctors Hospital inÂ Groves, Texas. On appeal, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courtâ€™s decision.The IRS has repeatedly demonstrated thatÂ it willÂ beÂ extremely aggressive in classifying board members, asÂ â€œresponsibleÂ persons,â€ andÂ holdingÂ them personally liable for unpaid federalÂ withholdingÂ taxes.Â The IRS has also repeatedly demonstrated thatÂ it willÂ treat non-profits no differently thanÂ theirÂ for-profit counterparts.Â The IRSÂ generallyÂ considers board membersÂ as responsibleÂ persons,Â and the federalÂ courtsÂ usually agree absentÂ strong evidence to the contrary.Resolution No. 4080 allows any member of the Health Care Authority Board to be removed by the city manager, at his discretion, for nonfeasance.Â The legal definition of nonfeasance is the failure to act when action is required.Â This could be something as simply voting against a motion at a Health Care Authority Board meetingâ€œI donâ€™t want you getting on the board, then the IRS knocking on your door,â€ Wetta said to Klinedinst who was in attendance at the meeting.Klinedinst, who recently ran for Wellington mayor, responded that she was worried about the situation and would like some clarification. Klinedinst was the only applicant for the position.â€œI donâ€™t have many personal assets for the IRS to have,â€ Klinedinst said. â€œBut, still, I would like a safety net.â€Hernandez said as far as board members being held personally liable for those taxes, he personally has not found any statute that either specifically supports or eliminates that concern.â€œComments being made about that are being based on a local interpretation and an Internet article,â€ Hernandez said. â€œHowever, the board is certainly aware of the importance and severity of the issue.â€Hernandez said the HCA has in place for years, a specific directors and officers liability policy.Follow us on Twitter.