Mark Clairmont | MuskokaTODAY.com

“…  I’m just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.”

The Animals, 1964

HUNTSVILLE — MAHC amended a motion tonight it claims was misunderstood by the public, doctors and MPP Graydon Smith as green-lighting its hospitals proposal to the province.

Board chair Dave Uffelmann said that after more than an hour of meeting and massaging the Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare is still “not” ready to submit its final recommendation to the Ministry of Health for new hospitals in south Muskoka and Huntsville.

But he says the model is “very close.”

He said later on the subject of equal hospitals:  “… in terms of being equal, that’s not where the world is any more.”

The alarming original motion was a clarion call for opponents to act.

And they did flat out, including 50 south Muskoka doctors and the member of Provincial Parliament who issued damning letters of non-support.

Critics will call it a reprieve.

Will it satisfy Smith — who said today he would “not support” the motion and called for it be withdrawn?

“You better ask him,” replied Uffelmann.

Smith’s letter and his phone call to the chair and board Tuesday was the subject of conversation in the meeting, Uffelmann admitted.

The original 2.1 motion Uffelmann wrote and submitted last week as then chair of the redevelopment committee — a day before he became board chair as part of succession planning — was misread and misconstrued by everyone he claims.

He told MuskokaTODAY.com that there were two parts to it, which first gave direction to consultants to continue with their work after he said “few knew) their work had been temporarily put on hold pending further board direction.

When challenged at to why he went with the alarming wording, the new two-year chair — following MAHC’s AGM last week — said “we need to get the consultants moving. The consultants have a three to four months process to start working up the detail. And the details is going to drive more decision making” that will trigger new questions and answers and determine the final outcome and be the basis of MAHC’s submission.

“We just have the broad sketches of the functional program. We need to get in to the detail. And it’s gonna say bring up questions and issues that have to be addressed. So there’s a huge amount of work. So we’re eager to get that work going.”

“Concerns we’re hearing”

“Most of the discussion was how we take in to account the concerns we’re hearing. So we’re talking about going forward.

Uffelmann cited transportation, number of beds and more community engagement as the three key legs of the redevelopment stool yet to be resolved before reconciling with doctors and so enraged south Muskoka residents.

“We need to focus on three particular areas. We need to get the groups working together, including the physicians, but including others. And drill down on those. So bed numbers is a big deal. Transportation and working with our communities and integrating the care within the communities. We need groups to work in further detail.”

But hasn’t that been done to death since December?

And begs the question of the initial motion and why its timing and wording going in to tonight’s meeting?

“The original motion,” continued Uffelmann, “that has seemed to have offended many people — the first part of the motion is to get the consultants going. The second part, before adding this third element (amendment) was to say we need to continue with engagement. We know there are people who are unhappy. We need to listen to them. And there has to be enough flexibility to still modify.

“If we determine as we go through the summer that no, we to look at an aspect of beds or the way the intensive care bed are distributed that there’s still room to accept that.

“We still need to keep the planning going. Or we’re going to be in to next year. … And that’s going to be going on forever.”

So he seemed to say a lot of balls remain up in the air.

Freedom of the press

Tonight’s meeting, which began just after the planned 5:30 p.m. start due to a failed media challenge by MuskokaTODAY.com after we were excluded from sitting for not registering on time. Our brief appeal was denied when Uffelmann asked for a vote by board members who supported its policy not to allow unregistered members of the public or even the media who represent the public interests.

Only three outside board members were in attendance: Save South Muskoka Hospital chair Bruce Kruger, radio reporter Mathew Reisler and Katie Peleikis, a former paramedic dispatcher who did stand up and tell the board they’ve lost all confidence in south Muskoka they are making matters worse not just in south Muskoka.

Kruger was a little less polite in his impression and assessment of the meeting.

He said “I think Graydon’s letter went a long way.”

Finally inside afterwards, Uffelmann stood his ground on not allowing MuskokaTODAY.com in and had no comment when we told him that move showed a lack “leadership.”

Back on the motion and why so many people had a negative impression of it the past 24 hours, the chair moved to the steering committee of which he said “there was great discussion on we have to keep the flexibility so that we can continue talking to people and revise. That was the key discussion at our steering committee and then here we went even further. And added this third element.

“So a strong effort to recognize we need take in to account the flexibility.”

He said “the plan is submit to the province in November.”

Which Kruger said indicates a continual movement of the goal posts.

“So what we need is for our consultants to work at this and come back to us in October for a final approval and submit in November.”

Uffelmann added: “Now, based on all that we’ve gone through since January, we’ve had all kinds of input and we actually do believe the model is fairly close. But there are still debates on do you need more beds here, do you need fewer here?

“We need to be able to continue that discussion and move it forward. But there are two aspects. One is that side of the model. The other is what about ALC? And what about transportation? Transportation, really, it’s not the model driving that. It’s the work we have to do in the community on transportation. And that’s not just us. That’s us. It’s the district. It could be voluntary organizations. There are many who are working on that and moving it forward.”

Beds still biggest concern

Uffelmann admitted again when questioned that beds are “the biggest” concern for most people.

But, he said, “It’s interesting that when we did those engagements several weeks ago that when you get in to smaller groups and you can explain it, not everyone says they are totally convinced. But they moved. ‘OK, I understand.’”

He said the “fundamental issue on beds that most people opposed have missed is “re-activation.

“After three days in hospital you start going down hill. And if we just do it like we’ve always done it, you start going down hill and you’re in for 20 days and maybe you don’t even got to go home. And you’re in to long-term care. Reactivation is a specialized service and it tries to keep people active so can try to get back home. So it’s way better patient care. But you have to centralize that.”

Uffelmann said Dr. Joe Gleeson did read a third letter of opposition by 50 south Muskoka doctors this week.

The chair said “this one is a little bit different. It’s transportation, it’s about beds and the hospital closing.”

When finally asked about his message today to the public and whether MAHC is going with ahead with its current model, Uffelmann said “We’re not going today and we’re open to input. So all along we need to look at data. We need to look at the facts.

“So it’s not really helpful if somebody says ‘we need to have 60 beds. What we need is 36 beds is the wrong number. Here’s why. Here’s what it should be. Here’s how those beds will be used. And it’s got to mesh with the data. It’s scientific data. It’s not numbers out of the air.”

Uffelmann wouldn’t say if he regrets wording the original motion the way he did. He said “we did revise it tonight.”

He added “I have to say I was a little shocked at the backlash. If we had kept the consultants going all along no one would have even known. That’s why we made it a special meeting, an open meeting so that the media could hear our deliberations. But that was the purpose. We said let’s be transparent. Did you know that we had the consultants on hold in terms of functional planning. I don’t think anybody knew.”

Later outside CEO Cheryl Harrison said MAHC has “listened to everybody’s perspective, which we’ve been doing all along. We ended up crafting a good motion forward.

“You had mentioned, couldn’t we have done that before the meeting? I don’t think — we listen to people’s perspective. But Dave led the conversation and everybody around the board table and everybody spoke. And as a result we ended up with a motion that we wanted to move forward with” and that the board is more comfortable with, she said.

Harrison said “I think things like this evolve. It evolves through good leadership and listening to people and be will to make changes when we need to. That’s what was demonstrated tonight.”

On the topic public perception south of Huntsville that the board isn’t listening to opponents, Uffelmann asked: “What is their position?”

A perception of an unequal balance north and south, he was told.

“The reason I asked that,” he said, “is because there are all kinds of reasons for concerns. Different people have different concerns. And they’re not all the same. And in terms of being equal, that’s not where the world is any more.”

So what did Uffelmann and Harrison think of Smith’s letter today? You discussed it in there? Does he not understand where you’re coming from?

Uffelmann paused before replying: “We reacted to it and modified the motion.”

Smith said today he wouldn’t support the original motion and wanted it withdrawn, which didn’t happen.

So do you think he will support the amended motion?

“You better ask him,” said MAHC board chair Uffelmann.

EMAIL: [email protected]

30 years of TRUSTED ‘Local Online Journalism’

SINCE MAY 20, 1994

Twitter: @muskokatoday, Facebook: mclairmont1

SUBSCRIBE for $30 by e-transferring to [email protected]

Mail cheque to MuskokaTODAY.com Box 34 Gravenhurst, Ont. P1P 1T5

And include your email address to get stories sent to your inbox