LJWorld.com

Open government almost always increases public trust.

With that in mind, the Kansas University Hospital Authority board should strive to keep its operations as transparent as possible.

The 1993 legislation that created the board was designed to ease restrictions on the state-owned hospital so it could operate more effectively in the competitive health care market. To that end, state legislators gave the Hospital Authority board rather broad discretion to bypass the state's Open Meetings Law and Open Records Law. Within certain parameters, the board is not subject to those laws "when in the opinion of the board" the disclosure of records or discussion of agenda items "would be harmful to the competitive position of the authority."

The board's authority to keep much of the hospital's business private is broad, but not absolute, and board members should be aware that greater secrecy will only tend to feed suspicions about the hospital's operation.

The latest board meeting of the Hospital Authority board is a good example.

After opening remarks by the board's chairman and a review of the minutes and an "annual plan/policy review," the board went into executive session for the rest of the meeting. According to the agenda, the items discussed in the executive session included reports from the CEO, the executive committee, the finance and investment committee and the quality committee. Also in executive session, the board spoke with an attorney about an attorney general's opinion and heard reports on "environment of care" and competency and staffing effectiveness.

The board then came out of executive session, voted to accept or approve a number of reports, along with the Fiscal Year 2008 operating budget for the hospital. However, they refused to release any of the items they approved - even the budget - to a reporter or the public. It would, a representative said, be "harmful to the competitive position of the authority."

In defense of this action, Dennis McCullough, director of public and government relations for the hospital, said the hospital is more than open with its "retrospective" budget results, just not with its "prospective spending plans." Last year's financials, he explained, are available, but to publish the coming year's budget would put the hospital at a great disadvantage.

"Retrospective" oversight, obviously, isn't always the most effective. It sort of follows the philosophy that it's better to ask forgiveness than seek permission.

McCullough further explained that although the entire content of reports presented during executive session might not be "proprietary," sensitive information was so "woven" into the reports that it would be impossible to separate it and discuss even part of the reports in a public meeting.

This is where - justified or not - suspicions could get raised. It's understandable that a portion, perhaps a large portion, of what the board discussed in closed session was justified, but it's difficult to believe that out of all those reports and all of that budget information that there was nothing that could be released to the public.

Given the secrecy under which those favoring the weakening and giveaway of KU Hospital to St. Luke's Hospital have operated for the past year, it is understandable that KU Hospital board members are extremely sensitive about disclosing the hospital's fiscal plans, business strategy, and how it intends to deal with the governor's desire to pack the board with appointees who will follow her command.

Allowing the hospital the additional leeway it needs to operate in a competitive business also has been a winning strategy that has resulted in a better hospital, higher profits and stronger programs. But the KU Hospital Authority still is a state entity overseen by a state-appointed board. As such, it has a responsibility to Kansans to be as open as it can about its finances and policies.