File Number: 111607
|Clerk's Official Copy|
|File Number: 111607||File Type: Resolution||Status: Adopted|
|Version: 0||Reference: R-392-11||Control: Board of County Commissioners|
|Requester: NONE||Cost:||Final Action: 5/3/2011|
|Sunset Provision: No||Effective Date:||Expiration Date:|
|Registered Lobbyist:||None Listed|
|Acting Body||Date||Agenda Item||Action||Sent To||Due Date||Returned||Pass/Fail|
|County Attorney||8/4/2011||Assigned||Valda Clark Christian|
|Board of County Commissioners||5/3/2011||11A42 AMENDED||Adopted as amended||P|
|REPORT:||Chairman Martinez explained that the County Commission amended Section 25A of the Miami-Dade County Code approximately one year ago, and pursuant to those amendments the County Commission could form a temporary financial recovery board (FRB) with seven members to resolve the financial sustainability conditions threatening the Public Health Trust (PHT). He pointed out that Commissioner Sosa had established a hospital governance task force that would submit recommendations to the County Commission. Chairman Martinez requested Commissioner Diaz, Chairman of the Public Safety & Healthcare Administration Committee, hold public hearings in different locations across the county to learn what the community wanted from Jackson Memorial Hospital. He suggested the Commission members nominate individuals to the financial recovery board who had qualifications other than being civic leaders. Regarding the composition of the seven member financial recovery board, Chairman Martinez noted that the Chair of the Miami-Dade Delegation would make one appointment, that the AFL-CIO President would make one appointment, that the County Mayor would make one appointment, and that the County Commission would make four appointments. He nominated Mr. Marcus Lapciuc and Mr. Daryl Sharpton and he presented each nominee’s qualifications. Chairman Martinez suggested the Commission allow both the Univeristy of Miami (UM) and Florida International University (FIU) to nominate one person to fill the two remaining Commission appointments. He noted that the Chairman of the UM Board of Trustees had nominated Mr. Jose Arriola, and that the Chairman of the FIU Board of Trustees had nominated Mr. Jorge Arrizurieta. Commissioner Sosa nominated Mr. Stephan Nuell, and she presented his qualifications. Commissioners Edmonson and Diaz noted they supported Commissioner Sosa’s nomination. Commissioner Sosa noted she supported the financial recovery board having only seven members. Chairman Martinez noted commissioners could propose alternative methods regarding how to fill the four County Commission appointments on the FRB. He clarified that UM and FIU would need to appoint members of the FRB for those two entities to be represented on the FRB. Commissioner Sosa noted FIU was already represented since it had contractual agreements with JMH. She explained that PHT members on the Financial Recovery Board should be completely disconnected from day-to-day operations at JMH and the PHT while serving on the FRB to allow them to make the right decisions. Commissioner Sosa suggested that Agenda Item 11A42 be amended to incorporate the Hospital Governance Task Force (HGTF) letter to Chairman Martinez and members of the County Commission dated May 2, 2011. Commissioner Jordan expressed concern regarding the method being used to nominate FRB members. She clarified that the Chairman had provided the commissioners a summary on the people he was nominating, however, the commissioners did not have summaries for the people they would nominate. She expressed concern that the Commission was rushing to identify four people, and that a unilateral decision had been made to shift two Commission appointments to UM and FIU. Commissioner Jordan noted that entities with a contractual agreement, like UM and FIU, with JMH and the PHT should not be included on the Financial Recovery Board. She suggested that the Commission follow a process that allowed all commissioners to submit names and resumes of nominees for the FRB, that the County Commission vote on all nominees, and that all commissioners be provided the same information at the same time for FRB nominees. Commissioner Jordan noted this meeting was the first opportunity the County Commission could discuss the selection of the new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at JMH. She suggested that the County Commission allow the new JMH CEO time to get the job done before forming the FRB. Commissioner Jordan explained that her daughter was in critical condition in 2009, and that she was able to call the JMH CEO at that time, who had a medical background. She noted that the JMH CEO asked some pointed questions that enabled her daughter to get the proper treatment to survive. Commissioner Jordan clarified that whoever was the CEO at JMH should have similar medical knowledge and expertise. She noted she was disappointed with the PHT for allowing politics to interfere with the selection of the new CEO. Chairman Martinez pointed out that he sent a memorandum on April 15, 2011, that detailed what he intended to propose at this meeting. He noted that his proposal needed a majority from the commission to be adopted. He clarified that each Commissioner had the opportunity to nominate appointees. Chairman Martinez noted the new JMH CEO supported the County Commission creating the smaller FRB. Commissioner Moss noted he was not prepared to vote regarding the creation of the FRB. He explained that he needed a better understanding on why the PHT was dysfunctional, and why the PHT could not continue. He suggested that the Commission meet on another date to consider who to nominate to the FRB, if Agenda Item 11A42 was adopted. Commissioner Monestime noted he supported the creation of the FRB. He explained that the problems at JMH were primarily management and secondary governance. He questioned whether the County had exhausted all other options for assisted measures in Chapter 25A of the Code of Miami-Dade County. He questioned how the PHT could cooperate with the FRB if the PHT was dissolved with the creation of the FRB. Commissioner Monestime pointed out that the County Commission should allow the new JMH CEO time to get the job done before forming the FRB. He noted the Commission should not rush into creating the FRB. He explained that the County Commission should not allow UM and FIU to appoint members to the Financial Recovery Board on the grounds that UM and FIU would have a conflict of interest. Commissioner Monestime clarified that UM and FIU representatives serving on the PHT was different than UM and FIU representatives serving on the FRB; and that two votes could impact the outcome of a vote much easier on the seven member FRB than they could the 17 member PHT. He expressed concern regarding the requirement for a 2/3 majority of the County Commission to override any action by the FRB, and regarding the ability of the FRB to aquire, sell, convey, mortgage, encumber title, destroy, replace, and abandon real estate. Chairman Martinez noted the County Commission was not allowing the PHT or the FRB to do their jobs unless a 2/3 majority of the Commission was required to override decisions made by those bodies. Commissioner Monestime noted the public should be uncomfortable if the County Commission, as an elected body, gave additional power to the FRB, as an appointed body. He explained that the County Commission needed to give the new JMH CEO the opportunity to demonstrate why the PHT appointed him. Commissioner Heyman noted she supported creating the FRB. She pointed out that she sat on the PHT and that the financial struggles at JMH was a consistent issue in every committee meeting and decision. She explained that she would also support requiring a 2/3 majority vote by the County Commission to override FRB decisions. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern that this proposed resolution would eliminate the PHT and replace it with the FRB. She explained that the letter from the HGTF made her want to wait to appoint members to the FRB. Chairman Martinez noted the Commission would not nominate and appoint members to the FRB at today’s (5/3) meeting. Commissioner Heyman noted that no one appointed to the FRB should be a stakeholder at JMH, which included FIU. She pointed out that the FRB should be comprised of appointees that represented the diversity of the community. She suggested that Agenda Item 11A42 be amended to allow for the PHT to continue existing as an advisement body for the FRB. Commissioner Diaz noted the County Commission could not afford to delay implementing this assistive measure at JMH. Pursuant to Commissioner Diaz’s request for an overview of Section 25A-9 of the Miami-Dade County Code, Assistant County Attorney Valda Clark Christian advised that the intent of Section 25A-9 was to promote the financial sustainability of the PHT. She explained that certain conditions would trigger the County Commission to take advantage of the designated assistive measures. She pointed out that the only assistive measure that the County Commission had not implemented was the formation of a FRB. Assistant County Attorney Christian advised that during the time period that the FRB was in place it would be the governing body of the PHT. She clarified that the current PHT Board of Trustees would be dissolved, however, the PHT would still exist. Following Commissioner Diaz’s comments stressing the importance of the County Commission immediately acting on the JMH financial crisis, Commissioner Edmonson noted UM and FIU should not appoint members of the FRB as it was a conflict of interest. She noted she would support the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote by the County Commission to override FRB decisions. She explained that she wanted politics removed from the decision making at JMH, and that the FRB should be comprised of experts. Commissioner Barreiro noted the County Commission should not create the FRB at this time. He explained that the new CEO should be given four to six months to fix the issues at JMH. Chairman Martinez explained that the intent of Agenda Item 11A42 was to create a smaller, nimbler governing body at JMH that could turn the financial situation around. Commissioner Bell noted that the Commission needed to approve Agenda Item 11A42 to bring a change to JMH, and that only a change would bring different results at JMH. She explained that she would support the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote by the County Commission to override FRB decisions. Responding to Commissioner Monestime’s inquiry regarding the FRB’s ability to dissolve the PHT, Assistant County Attorney Christian advised that the FRB would have the powers and authority laid out in Section 25A-9, which were the same powers and authority held by the current PHT Board of Trustees. She advised that the decision to dissolve the PHT would come before the County Commission, and that the FRB could not dissolve the PHT on its own. Commissioner Monestime questioned whether the County Commission would need a 2/3 majority vote to override a decision by the FRB to sell or dissolve JMH. Assistant County Attorney Christian advised that the FRB could not sell real estate without prior approval by the County Commission, and that the County Commission would also have veto authority over the actual action to sell JMH. She clarified that the 2/3 majority requirement for the County Commission to override a FRB decision had not yet been approved by the County Commission. Commissioner Souto noted the County Commission operated JMH, and the PHT was accountable to them, and that the Commission needed to stay in control of JMH. He stressed the County Commission needed to be careful regarding how the FRB was established. Assistant County Attorney Christian advised the FRB would step in and assume the role of the PHT, and as such, the FRB would hold all the powers and duties customarily held or designated to the PHT. She advised that the authority of the FRB was limited similar to the authority of the PHT. She clarified that the County Commission would set the health care policy. Commissioner Souto stressed that the public needed to clearly understand that the County Commission was the highest authority at JMH. Assistant County Attorney Christian clarified that the motion on the floor was to adopt this proposed resolution as amended to incorporate the Healthcare Governance Task Force recommendations. She advised that sections 2 and 4 of this proposed resolution spoke to the nominations for the FRB, and she questioned whether Chairman Martinez wanted to amend that language. Chairman Martinez amended Agenda Item 11A42 to withdraw sections 2 and 4. Following discussion among the Commission regarding the date to nominate and appoint members to the FRB, Chairman Martinez suggested the County Commission reconvene on May 10, 2011, to nominate and appoint members to the FRB. Commissioner Moss questioned whether the amendment to this proposed resolution would apply to every member of the FRB. Assistant County Attorney Christian advised that the proposed amendment to incorporate the HGTF recommendations would apply to every member of this FRB, regardless of the entity that appointed them. Commissioner Heyman pointed out that Section 3 of this proposed resolution required the Mayor, Chair of the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation, and President of the South Florida AFL/CIO to provide their designations for Recovery Board membership (“Designees”) to the Clerk of the Board within two (2) days following the effective date of this Resolution. She explained that the Commission could improve diversity on the FRB if the Commission knew who these entities had appointed. Commissioner Jordan recommended that, in the absence of the County Mayor, the nominee receiving the fifth highest total votes fill the FRB position that would have been appointed by the Mayor. Hearing no other questions or comments, the Commission voted on this proposed resolution as amended to incorporate the Healthcare Governance Task Force recommendations, and to delete sections 2 and 4. Chairman Martinez noted the Commission would meet on May 10, 2011, at 11:00 AM to vote on FRB nominees. He urged the Commission to vote for FRB members based on qualifications. He noted commissioners should submit FRB nominees to the Clerk of the Board. Commissioner Moss questioned whether the Commission would not accept FRB members to be connected with JMH or the PHT. He pointed out that the Commission voted to amend Agenda Item 11A42 to incorporate the HGTF recommendations, which included excluding people with any conflict from FRB membership. Chairman Martinez conducted a straw vote to know if it was the will of the Commission to preclude FRB members from being connected with JMH, UM, FIU, and the PHT, and upon being put to a vote, a majority of commissioners present voted in favor of precluding FRB members from being connected with JMH, UM, FIU, and the PHT. Chairman Martinez clarified that conflict of interest was defined as personal gain. Mr. Kennedy Rosario, Investigator, Commission on Ethics and Public Trust (COE), noted the COE general counsel opined that the FRB was an ad hoc board and the County’s Code of Ethics Ordinance would not apply to FRB members. He explained that an assistant county attorney advised him that the County Commission could amend Agenda Item 11A42 to include specific language applying the Code of Ethics Ordinance to the FRB. Chairman Martinez questioned how the FRB would be considered an ad hoc board; it would be the governing board for JMH. It was moved by Commissioner Sosa that Agenda Item 11A42 be reconsidered. This motion was seconded by Chairman Martinez, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 10-0 (Commissioner Diaz was absent; Commission Districts 7 and 13 were vacant). It was moved by Commissioner Sosa that Agenda Item 11A42 be amended to incorporate the County Code of Ethics Ordinance in its entirety. This motion was seconded by Chairman Martinez. County Attorney Cuevas expressed concern that the County had one ordinance that provided for creating the FRB and Chapter 25A in the Code of Miami-Dade County. He advised that nothing in the ordinance that allowed the assistive measure to create the FRB spoke to conflict of interest. He advised that the motion on the floor would be a statement of policy that the nominees for the FRB would not have a conflict of interest. County Attorney Cuevas advised that the Commission could not made the FRB members subject to the Code of Ethics without amending the ordinance that provided for creating the FRB. Commissioner Moss questioned how the statement of policy that the nominees for the FRB could not have a conflict of interest would impact JMH, FIU and UM employees, as well as former members of the PHT. County Attorney Cuevas advised that this policy could preclude those persons from voting on certain items that could directly affect them. Commissioner Moss suggested that nearly every decision would impact JMH, FIU, UM, and the PHT. He requested clarification regarding who could be appointed. Following discussion between Chairman Martinez and Commissioner Moss regarding conflicts of interest for FRB members, Commissioner Jordan expressed concern that the Commission would nominate people to the FRB that would make that board a smaller board of what already existed, and that the FRB would lose focus of its intent and give the same results as the PHT. Commissioner Sosa withdrew her motion to amend Agenda Item 11A42 The Commission proceeded to vote on Agenda Item 11A42 as amended to incorporate the Healthcare Governance Task Force recommendations, and to delete sections 2 and 4. Chairman Martinez clarified that the Commission did not want FRB members to be connected with UM and FIU. He pointed out that the Mayor, Chair of the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation, and President of the South Florida AFL/CIO would each appoint one person to the FRB; and that the County Commission did not have authority to reject those appointees. County Attorney Cuevas advised the County Commission could decline to ratify the appointments made by the Mayor, Chair of the Miami-Dade legislative Delegation, and the President of the South Florida ALF/CIO. He clarified that if the County Commission declined to ratify their appointments, then they would make another appointment. Chairman Martinez pointed out that the Clerk of the Board would notify the Chair of the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation, and President of the South Florida AFL/CIO that their appointees to the FRB should be people who have no contractual obligations or conflicts of interest with the PHT and JMH. He clarified that Union members and employees would not be eligible to serve on the FRB. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern regarding the suggestion that two of the four seats the County Commission could appoint would be allocated to UM and FIU. She noted that UM and FIU representatives should be ex-officio members of the FRB. Commissioner Heyman explained that the FRB should be a concise, task oriented, financial decision making body, which was different from the PHT. She clarified that the FRB responsibilities were significantly more than the PHT. Chairman Martinez pointed out that the PHT had its own code of conflict and code of ethics. County Attorney Cuevas clarified that he understood the intent of the language from the HGTF letter that was amended into this proposal was the FRB members would be subject to the conflict of interest code as it applied to voting, not board membership. Chairman Martinez clarified that the issue regarding conflict of interest as it applied to board membership was a policy decision brought up by several commissioners during discussion today (5/3/11). He explained that the County Commission needed to know who could be recommended for FRB membership. Commissioner Sosa clarified that she didn’t want UM or FIU employees sitting on the FRB, however, she could support an FRB member appointed to represent each university. Commissioner Monestime noted the FRB needed to be held to a higher standard, specifically to not have members with conflicting interests. He pointed out that board members appointed by an entity that does business with the PHT would represent the interests of the appointing entity. He expressed concern that such board members would still face a conflict of interest. Comissioner Jordan concurred with Commissioner Monestime regarding holding the FRB to a higher standard, and regarding board members appointed by UM and FIU having a conflict of interest. Chairman Martinez noted, as a Commissioner, he negotiated on behalf of the citizens, and he had to set aside all personal preferences. He questioned whether the concerns regarding conflict of interest could be resolved if the County Commission was required to approve the AOA and the basic affiliation agreement. He clarified that these two agreements were the ones that negotiated payments between UM, FIU, and JMH. Assistant County Attorney Valda Clark Christian advised that the medical staff bylaws was another issue that the Commission may want to consider for direct approval by the County Commission. She pointed out that current language in Chapter 25A-9 of the Code pertaining to the UM angle of the operating agreement that changed how the currently sitting board of trustees had a committee that covers negotiations. She explained that this language narrowed the size of the committee that would negotiate, however, that negotiating committee would present the results of its negotiations to the FRB. Assistant County Attorney Christian advised that the language incorporated through the earlier amendment was broad; it spoke to the perception of a conflict of interest, as opposed to a natural conflict. She pointed out that the earlier amendment also spoke to personal interests, as opposed to stakeholder interests. Chairman Martinez conducted a straw vote regarding the will of the Board to exclude UM and FIU employees and board of trustees members from serving on the FRB. A majority of Commission members present voted to exclude UM and FIU employees and board of trustees members from serving on the FRB. In response to Chairman Martinez’s request for a definition of a stakeholder, County Attorney Cuevas advised that a stakeholder was a person who did business with that entity, and that persons sitting on the board of trustees were stakeholders. Chairman Martinez questioned whether AFL-CIO union members or persons who represented ALF-CIO would be considered stakeholders. County Attorney Cuevas advised that a stakeholder was an entity or a person who had some interest in the business of the FRB. Chairman Martinez clarified that the definition of a stakeholder and the issue of conflict of interest needed to be resolved for the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners to notify the other entities that would appoint FRB members who the Commission would ratify. County Attorney Cuevas advised that any union members with a collective bargaining agreement with the PHT would have a conflict of interest as a member of the FRB. Chairman Martinez noted, for the record, that as a matter of policy the Commission would not ratify any appointment to the FRB that appointed a union member from one of the unions that had a collective bargaining agreement with the PHT. Commissioner Monestime questioned whether any person appointed to the FRB by UM, FIU, and AFL-CIO would have an inherent conflict of interest by virtue of being appointed by an entity that did business with the PHT and JMH. He pointed out that the sole purpose of the FRB should be the future of JMH. County Attorney Cuevas advised the language “absence of perceptions of conflicts” made it broader than stakeholders. Commissioner Monestime noted the County Commission should be concerned with appointing people who would represent the interests of the community. He expressed concern that people appointed by a specific entity would represent the interests of that entity. Chairman Martinez noted the Commission would reconvene this meeting on May 10, 2011, at 11:00 A.M. to nominate and vote on FRB members. Chairman Martinez asked the County Attorney to send a memorandum to each Commissioner of his opinion on who could and could not be appointed to serve on the Jackson Memorial Hospital Financial Recovery Board. MAY 10, 2011 County Attorney Robert Cuevas advised that this meeting was the reconvening of the May 3, 2011, County Commission meeting. He advised that the Commission was reconvening on the issue of Agenda Item 6B2. Pursuant to Commissioner Jordan’s request, County Attorney Cuevas advised that Mr. Jose Arriola had resigned as a member of the University of Miami Board of Trustees. Chairman Martinez noted the South Florida AFL-CIO had appointed Joaquin Delcueto. Commissioner Diaz questioned whether the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust and the Inspector General would be allowed to investigate the FRB. County Attorney Cuevas advised the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust and the Inspector General could investigate the FRB. Commissioner Heyman questioned whether the County Commission would make five appointments, and that one would be an interim FRB member for the County Mayor. Chairman Martinez clarified the Commission would make only four appointments. By ballot vote, the Commission appointed the following individuals to the Financial Recovery Board: 1. Mr. Jose Arriola; 2. Mr. Marc Lapciuc; 3. Mr. Stephen Nuell; and 4. Mr. Daryl Sharpton.|
RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING AN ASSISTIVE MEASURE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 25A-9(C)(5) OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE, IN THE FORM OF ESTABLISHING A FINANCIAL RECOVERY BOARD TO HELP RESOLVE THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY CONDITIONS THREATENING THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, SETTING TERM OF THE RECOVERY BOARD, AND DEFINING THOSE RECOVERY BOARD ACTIONS SUBJECT TO COMMISSION VETO AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 25A of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“Chapter 25A”), the Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County (the “PHT”) was created as an agency and instrumentality of Miami-Dade County responsible for the governance, operation and maintenance of Jackson Memorial Hospital and other Designated Facilities (as such term is defined in Chapter 25A); and
WHEREAS, the PHT provides health care services to all segments of the Miami-Dade County community; and
WHEREAS, the PHT is currently facing one of the most serious financial crises in its history and has projected a deficit of approximately $90 million this fiscal year, following a deficit exceeding $200 million in the immediate prior fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the PHT has advised the County of an immediate cash flow shortfall which could drastically impede the delivery of health care services and likely precipitate a reduction in health care service lines and severe cuts in health care personnel; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2011, in the form of a memorandum from Dr. Eneida O. Roldan, President and CEO of the PHT, to Mr. George Burgess, Miami-Dade County Manager, with copy to the Commission, the PHT formally requested an advance of County sales tax funds in order to meet payroll and Intergovernmental transfer obligations under the Low Income Pool program; and
WHEREAS, the PHT has communicated that it lacks Trust funds to meet the afore-stated obligations and that the advance of County funds is necessary to address such operational needs and expenses and to support its vital mission of servicing the medical needs of the residents of Miami-Dade County, including the indigent and uninsured; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2011, the PHT Board of Trustees adopted Resolution Number PHT 03/11-049 directing the PHT administration to prepare and submit to the County Manager a formal request for an advance of County sales tax funds in the form of the earlier issued March 15th memorandum; and
WHEREAS, the Trust’s request for advanced County funds was placed on the Commission’s agenda for discussion on April 4, 2011, but the Commission then voted to defer the item to May 3, 2011, to allow sufficient discussion time; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, Dr. Roldan and Marcos Lapciuc, Esq., Chairman Elect of the PHT, also advised the Commission’s Public Safety and Healthcare Administration Committee, that the PHT needs the requested advanced County funds, anticipates receipt of said funds in advance, and presumes receipt of said advanced funds in the current PHT financial estimates for fiscal year 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that an advance of County funds to the PHT as requested is likely to occur within one hundred twenty (120) days of the PHT’s request for said funds; and
WHEREAS, the current financial condition of the PHT evidences a high risk of public management failure and the need for intervention to ensure that the PHT meets the County’s health care delivery goals and requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that the PHT needs assistance to resolve the financial challenges facing it and threatening its current operations; and
WHEREAS, Section 25A-9 of the Miami-Dade County Code (“County Code”) allows the Commission to implement assistive measures to preserve a fully functioning and sustainable PHT; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has already provided the PHT with technical assistance and has already placed the PHT on management watch, which has not been terminated; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25A-4(j) of the Miami-Dade County Code, the PHT shall comply with directives of the Commission as set forth in resolutions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission now finds that the establishment of a Financial Recovery Board will provide needed assistance to the PHT in order to resolve the PHT’s continuing financial challenges and thereby promoting, protecting, maintaining and improving the health and safety of all Miami-Dade County residents and visitors served by the PHT,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board:
Section 1. Implements an assistive measure to address the Public Health Trust’s financial sustainability concerns, specifically by establishing a Financial Recovery Board (“Recovery Board”) in accordance with Section 25A-9 of the County Code, effective immediately upon appointment of four (4) members to the Recovery Board by the Commission.
Section 2. Establishes that in selecting the membership of the Recovery Board emphasis should be on ethics and the absence of perceived conflicts. Members of the Recovery Board shall have no conflicts of interest, personally or as stakeholders, in the outcome of the Recovery Board’s decisions and that the Recovery Board as a governing body shall have the future of Jackson Health System as their sole interest.
Section 3. Establishes that members of the Recovery Board shall represent the diversity of Miami-Dade County.
Section 4. Directs the Clerk of the Commission to receive nominations for Recovery Board membership from all Commissioners immediately upon adoption and passage of this Resolution.
Section 5. Directs the Clerk of the Commission to notify, no later than the date this Resolution becomes effective, the Mayor, Chair of the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation, and President of the South Florida AFL/CIO of (i) the formation of the Recovery Board and (ii) that the Clerk’s Office requests their designations for Recovery Board membership (“Designees”) within two (2) days following the effective date of this Resolution.
Section 6. Directs the Clerk of the Commission to distribute a complete list of nominees for Recovery Board membership (“Nominee List”) to all Commissioners upon adoption and passage of this Resolution. Immediately upon receipt of the Nominee List, or at such other time as designated by the Commission, the Commission shall vote on Recovery Board appointments in accordance with Section 25A-9(c)(5) of the County Code.
Section 7. Directs the Clerk of the Commission to distribute a complete list of Designees for Recovery Board membership to all Commissioners so that they may ratify Recovery Board designations in accordance with Section 25A-9(c)(5) of the County Code.
Section 8. Establishes that the Recovery Board shall remain in effect for twenty-four (24) consecutive months from date of establishment, unless earlier dismantled by subsequent Commission resolution, and to assume and exercise governing body authority for the Public Health Trust in accordance with Section 25A-9(c)(5).
Section 9. Directs the PHT to cooperate and comply with the Recovery Board in accordance with Section 25A-9(c)(5).
Section 10. The following powers and duties exercised by the Recovery Board as enumerated herein and as provided for in Section 25A-9(c)(5) of the County Code shall be subject to veto by the Commission: (i) acquiring, selling, conveying, mortgaging, encumbering title to, destroying, replacing or abandoning real estate; (ii) any action contrary to County Ordinance; and (iii) naming County buildings.
Section 11. Requires the Mayor or Mayor’s designee to continue to report periodically to the Commission on the PHT’s progress resolving the current financial crisis.
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to