Town Square

Post a New Topic

Hospital donations jeopardized by CEO's ouster

Original post made on Mar 17, 2011

A month after El Camino Hospital abruptly announced that it would terminate CEO Ken Graham's contract at the end of the fiscal year, June 31, many at the hospital remain perplexed, and even vexed by the news.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, March 17, 2011, 1:08 PM

Comments (8)

Like this comment
Posted by HoleInTheHead
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 17, 2011 at 7:20 pm

"Krikorian, a retired child psychologist living in Los Altos..."
Any relation to the 93-year-old billionaire investor, Kirk Kirkorian?

Like this comment
Posted by Joanne
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm

It is not appropriate for a foundation board member to assume that an elected board group that manages teh finances, contracts etc for hopsital operations. In actuality, the foundation and hospital are separate entities and the Vice President of the ECH Foundation Board is an employee of El Camino Hospital. This is not the first time thet the hospital foundation board has treaded the politics of hopsital operations and it is not appropriate. Perhaps it may have been politically sensitive for the foundation board to not know about Mr Graham's contract termination but as a hopsitl employee, Mr Grahams emplyee status is an HR issue and not a pmatter of public fodder. Mr Roelandts should stick to foundation fundraising and steer clear of hospital operations, rumors and board decisions. It is not his to criticize, it is the voters who will epect a more open board and perhaps with a new CEO, we will get what we ask for in having public access. It is possible that the closed sessions were a decision promoted by Mr Graham.

For now, The foundation board whould let sleeping dogs lie and move on from fragmenting comments. Employees of the hospital must abide by decisions mace by the board. Perhaps there are other leaders needing to be removed from their jobs as Mr Grahams has been cut off. That is the job of the board! Certainly, the only credible person making comments is the union president who knows that the board approved many take-aways in the current RN contract. The contract is now being re-negotiatied and with Mr Graham being a lame duck, let's hope the board will value and reward all employees, union or otherwise.

Like this comment
Posted by KD
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 18, 2011 at 8:41 am

30 days hath September, April, .............. and November,

Like this comment
Posted by natirex
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 18, 2011 at 3:24 pm

Maybe there should be a Board recall.

Like this comment
Posted by Confused
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm

"I'm not sure I understand why we did what we did," Reeder said. "Most of us will probably never know why that decision was made." This is the explanation from the board? So you fire a highly respected CEO and are going to have to buy him out to the tune of $1M and this is what you come up with to explain it? The chairmain should step down or be fully investigated . This just stinks of corruption. Who wants to bet the next CEO is a chrony of one of these 3 board members?

Like this comment
Posted by PH
a resident of another community
on Mar 20, 2011 at 6:59 am

This whole mess leaves you wondering what the truth really is. The whole affair should be open to the public as this is not the way to get our support. The board should explain their actions to us and if Ken Graham objects he should be allowed to respond. We might not like it, but at least we would know what is happening and why the board has made its decision.

Like this comment
Posted by Buy Out Get Out
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 23, 2011 at 6:40 am

The reasons why will never be known because of the legalise of the contract. There is a separation clause purposely inserted many employees ago which says that neither party can badmouth the other. This way, if one party is unhappy with the performance of the other, they can pay the party to leave and not jeopardize their ability to find work elsewhere. If one party is unhappy working at an establishment, they can be bought out to leave, not say anything negative about the place to impede the hiring of future talent, take money and leave.

When it is a mutual parting - each party gets what they want. When it is a one-sided parting where the employee is asked to leave or the employee with a lot of responsibility wants to leave, then it turns into a financial blackmail.

If the company reneges and badmouths the terminated employee, the employee can sue for more money plus damages of reputation. If the employee reneges and badmouths the organization, the company can sue to get the severence back plus sue for damages of reputation.

PR and HR keeps all employees quiet who know the real story by threatening termination for anyone speaking out who is not authorized to do so. Those on the inside know the story, but they can't say anything. Lower level employees rarely get anything except fired.

Like this comment
Posted by Hindsight is 20/20
a resident of Stierlin Estates
on Mar 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm

If the contributors only knew all of the talent and good people Mr. Graham drove away during his tenure, they would have stopped giving a long time ago.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,114 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 943 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 349 views