May 26, 2017 at 4:41 p.m.
Zoning committee faces more questions about Howard Young involvement in Marshfield Clinic CUP
Zoning committee faces more questions about Howard Young involvement in Marshfield Clinic CUP
By Nick Sabato-nsabato@rivernewsonline.com
Last week, the committee picked two tentative dates for deliberation, May 31 and June 8, but it is still unclear on which date a vote will take place. When the panel met Wednesday, members once again began discussing when they will be ready to make a decision on the CUP.
Supervisor Billy Fried has been pushing for a vote and continued his efforts Wednesday.
After chairman Scott Holewinski said he would like to wait until the May 31 meeting to see if the committee was prepared to move forward, Fried pushed the issue.
"I'm going to get some more information that I don't have in my hand right now?" Fried asked.
Holewinski has been adamant during the last two meetings that he needs more time to go through the responses sent by Marshfield Clinic, along with emails from constituents that were finally put together on Wednesday.
"I don't want to go into deliberation until everybody's ready," Holewinski said. "I haven't had a chance to go through everything, so if I'm going to be the only one that's not ready, then I'm not ready to deliberate on it."
Fried backed off the matter after Holewinski explained himself. Other supervisors also stated they weren't going to be ready to vote by May 31.
Technically, the committee has 90 days from May 5 to make a determination on the CUP.
Considering Howard Young
Fried's next question involved the role Ascension/Howard Young Medical Center has played in the CUP process.
The committee submitted questions to Howard Young representatives at the same time it did Marshfield Clinic officials - and Howard Young received significant attention at the public hearing last month.
"Hypothetically, is there any action this committee can take to ask - almost like we ask someone to go into arbitration - where we ask the entities involve to get together and you have until August-something to come to an agreement, otherwise we are acting on this?" he asked.
The only problem is the only two entities involved in the CUP process are Marshfield Clinic and Oneida County.
In response to Fried, assistant corporation counsel Michael Fugle reiterated that point.
"The question is whether or not you're going to approve the conditional use permit," Fugle said. "I don't know that there's any agreement or lack of agreement that - I mean ultimately, if you grant the conditional use permit then Marshfield can proceed in one way. If you deny the conditional use permit then obviously there's something else you have to do, but there's not a negotiation."
The idea that two sides exist in this process persisted, however, as multiple supervisors referred to there being two sides or two entities.
This prompted a question from The Lakeland Times as to why Howard Young was so involved in a CUP for Marshfield Clinic.
"Let's just say it was for a gas station, we could ask a question after public comment was over to anybody that was in the room at that point," Holewinski responded. "It's not that we're targeting Howard Young, but if we have questions we can ask anybody questions to add. We just don't specifically have to ask the applicant."
The question lingered, however, as it's clear that Howard Young would face direct competition from Marshfield Clinic if the CUP is approved, and that fact was a significant narrative during the public hearing.
So, the question was proposed again. Why is a would-be competing business being polled and included in the information-gathering process?
"I think ultimately that's something I've told the committee, not to consider competition as one of the factors," Fugle said.
Fugle then advised Holewinski to move on from the subject rather than debate it.
Beyond the scope
Marshfield Clinic assistant general counsel Dan Kirschnik has been adamant that any questions or discussion on how a new hospital might affect Howard Young are beyond the scope of the committee's consideration.
"Relative to the questions that we did respond to, a number of those questions, we thought, go beyond the scope of what should be considered as part of the CUP application," Kirschnik said. "When I hear other committee members asking if the other side could respond to those, I have some concerns about, if they're not relevant, why should there be a response to it?"
Fugle responded by telling Kirschnik it was up to the committee to decide what is relevant.
"The committee needs to determine what information they want and give it the weight they think is appropriate to reach a reason decision," Fugle said.
Drawing back on Fugle's earlier comments about competition not being a factor, Kirschnik asked him to confirm that it was beyond the scope of the committee.
On two occasions Fugle opted to decline to comment on the question, even when Kirschnik asked if he wanted to clarify it for the record.
"I advise the committee," Fugle told him.
Kirschnik then wrapped up by restating Marshfield Clinic's objection to Howard Young being asked any questions during the deliberation process.
"If you're going to be presenting questions to Howard Young, we object to that based on the fact that the public record has been closed," Kirschnik said. "We're the applicant, they had their opportunity to speak at the public hearing and, quite frankly, I think it just goes beyond what should be considered by the committee."
Fugle advised Holewinski not to respond.
Nick Sabato may be reached at nsabato@rivernewsonline.com or via Twitter @SabatoNick.
Comments:
You must login to comment.