The County Doesn't Run Children's Hospital

There is some confusion out there about the current situation with the Children's Hospital, UMC, and the County.

So rather than repeating myself on social media I thought I'd set the record straight for those of you that are really interested in understanding the roles each of the entities play. Although there is a group of people that are not at all interested in the process, they just want to deliberately spread misinformation, which is unfortunate because this is a serious issue and they'd rather score political points that deal with the real issue.

First thing to understand is simple. This isn't the county's fault and they had almost no role in this.

Why?

Because under the Texas Constitution counties are the weakest form of government.

And because the Commissioners Court does not appoint the board members of the Children's Hospital.

And because they only appoint members to the UMC Board and have no power to remove them or tell them what to do (which has been an issue for the county for quite some time).

The only member of commissioners court that was a) on the court at that time and b) publicly supportive of the Children's Hospital is Escobar. None of the other members of the court were there yet.

The board members at Children's Hospital are made up of their own membership. The county doesn't appoint those people.

That is probably why each member of the court was so publicly critical of what the Children's Hospital did because the CH was still allegedly negotiating a partnership with UMC and that was likely what they were hearing in their executive session briefings.

Now if you want to place "blame" on Escobar because she publicly supported the creation of the Children's Hospital, that is up to you. But then you have to blame yourself for everything someone you voted for does something you don't like too. Just because she supported the creation of the Children's Hospital doesn't mean she is responsible for what a different board does several years later when they have multiple options on the table.

That would be like blaming Hector Montes because Larry Medina pleaded guilty to public corruption charges. Hector Montes was once is campaign manager. By that logic you'd have to partially blame Montes. Does that make any sense? Of course not.

The way I look at it, the CH entered agreements with UMC. They stopped paying UMC a long time ago and began racking up a huge bill. Had you not paid your bills for that long you would've gotten kicked out, and the lights and water cut off.

If CH is disputing what they owe, why didn't they take it up with UMC a long time ago instead of just not paying them?

And by them, I mean us because UMC is a taxing entity.

Bottom line is this. The county doesn't have authority over the CH board. The county only appoints the members of the UMC board but they aren't obligated to listen to or cooperate with commissioner's court. UMC board members and CH board members are not elected and are not directly accountable to tax payers.

The CH voted in February to pursue bankruptcy and all the while was giving the indication to the court that they were negotiating with CH in good faith.

Except they really weren't.