Muhlenberg Assets Court Argument
Uploaded by
Deborah Joyce DoweMuhlenberg Assets Court Argument
Uploaded by
Deborah Joyce DoweDeborah Joyce Dowe
The Muhlenberg Independents
Plainfield, NJ, 07062
January 15, 2015
Honorable Katherine R. Dupuis, P.J.S.C.
c/o Clerk of the Superior Court
New Annex Bldg, 1st Floor
Elizabethtown Plaza, Elizabeth, NJ, 07207
Re:
In the Matter of the Application of Muhlenberg Regional
Medical Center and the Muhlenberg Foundation
Docket No. C 1077 14
Dear Judge Dupuis,
As a listed interested party in the pending Order to Show Cause, The
Muhlenberg Independents have written multiple Attorney Generals to request
a cy pres proceeding, since 2008.
We want a full accounting of the assets impacted by the closure of
Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center (MRMC). I am objecting to the entry of
the order on this Order to Show Cause, concerning the liquidation of the
funds held by and on behalf of Muhlenberg and the Foundation at issue, and
restating our request that all steps be taken to give deceased donors and the
MRMC community the full protection of the law.
Admissions of wrongdoing in the administration of public assets, dedicated to
the use of a disenfranchised and medically underserved population, cannot
be dismissed as a clerical error by outsiders who have engineered a
healthcare desert for the Plainfield community while taking all advantages
and profitable resources for themselves.
There appear to be calculated reasons for the failure of the entity controlling
Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center Board and the Muhlenberg Foundation
Boards to perform their fiduciary responsibilities and conduct a timely cy
pres proceeding. Misinformation about a merger in 1997 and the closure in
2008 is unacceptable and should not be treated as insubstantial and not
worthy of investigation in 2015.
Under what condition was the mission statement changed? It appears that
Solaris Health Systems, the Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center and or the
Muhlenberg Foundation did not notify the New Jersey Attorney General or the
Surrogate Court of the hospitals closing and seek direction(s) as to the
disposition of its many assets.
Original New Jersey Hospital Law and Muhlenberg Hospital,
Plainfield, New Jersey1872New Jersey Legislature Session of 1872 Chapter DXI "An Act to amend the charter of the City of Plainfield" "Article 14. And be it
enacted,
That it shall be lawful for the common council of said city to pass such
ordinances or by-laws as to them shall seem meet and necessary for ...to
enact health laws, and establish a board of health; to provide for the
relief of the poor and for the establishment and maintenance of an alms
house or a workhouse, and a city hospital, ..." approved April 4, 1872.
Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center Financial Statement Issued for the Year
Ended December 31, 2010 documents the control and role of Solaris/JFK
Healthcare Systems that is hidden in this legal filing.
Issue 1
The closing of the Muhlenberg Regional Medical Centers (MRMC) acute care
hospital by Solaris Health Systems in August of 2008 violated the original
Articles of Incorporation, which clearly state that the sole purpose of the
organization was to provide a hospital for the residents of Plainfield,
New Jersey.
The MRMC Federal Tax Return 990 for the year 2010 now changes the
mission statement which reads:
Muhlenberg Regional Center is committed to excellence in
providing quality and compassionate healthcare services to diverse
communities.
Muhlenberg was started 131 years ago after a train accident, beginning a
tradition of bequests and endowments long before government was
expected to provide for charity care. Residents upheld a long tradition of
leaving bequests and endowments they expected to compensate for charity
care.
The Muhlenberg takeover exposes a fatal flaw in the protection given to
endowments after the benefactors death. For-profit tactics of mergers,
acquisitions and liquidations are being applied to public assets deserving of
stewardship and have spread and redefined the practices of a new
generation of profiteers. utilizing the barely scrutinized and rarely regulated
structures of
non-profit corporations, the plundering of old richly endowed facilities, like
Muhlenberg Hospital, is turning into a tragic loss of history and multiple
generations of philanthropy. We must honor the sacrifice of people who made
provisions to care for the poor and disenfranchised or return those assets to
the appropriate heirs.
JFK/Solaris was in existence at the time donors chose to leave their money to
a Plainfield Hospital with a stated mission and history of serving the needy.
Changing the mission statement of the hospital indicates the abandonment
of this mission, as do the actions that were taken. There are people who
would not have donated this money if they knew that it would not benefit the
African-American Community. The Lapsley Medical School Scholarships are
just one example of the significant funds donated to the hospital after the
civil unrest of 1969.
Life- threatening racial disparities in health care and the number of AfricanAmerican physicians were negatively impacted by discriminatory practices,
admitted by the AMA in 2006, Plainfields medical scholarships were given to
recipients who did not meet the residency and financial restrictions. The
needs of Plainfield and its minority population were once again sacrificed to
benefit the people in control. These are not mistakes and not just moral
failings; they are clear violations of the law.
In spite of New Jersey having the worse racial disparity statistics for Infant
mortality, JFK/Solaris declined Muhlenbergs role of delivering 900 births a
year, in support of the Neighborhood Health Center. The plan for MRMCs
pregnant women to give birth at Trinitas, the farthest point away in Union
County, is at best suspect. Is it significant that all of the other closer
hospitals were located in predominately white communities. Also rejected
were addiction services and psych beds that no other hospital was willing to
take over. A review of donor intent in all of the wills is necessary to
determine the funds that should go to Trinitas.
The tone and scope of the plaintiffs presentation does not reflect the
significance and true value of the resources impacted by this action. Closing
the hospital contributed to the loss of 1000 jobs, doctors offices,
pharmacies, labs and support services and businesses. The importance of
this institution was understood regionally. 13 Municipalities in three counties
passed resolutions urging the State of New Jersey to reconsider the decision
to close Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center. Citizens, impacted by the
closure of MRMC continue to oppose the devastating loss to our community.
The millions of dollars in donated funds to these nonprofit corporations are a
direct expression of the pride and trust placed in a hospital people expected
to exist in perpetuity. This pride and community spirit is what led to the fund
of money that this action is here seeking to liquidate. In spite of continuing
to hold fund raisers in the Muhlenberg name, the loss in annual donations is
just one part of substantial value that was not transferred, just destroyed.
Significant portions of this money were donated to assist and atone for
conditions unique to the African-American community. This community is not
represented in the membership or priorities of the entity seeking free rein
over the future use of these funds. This action seeks to neutralize any
process of holding them accountable. Some of these funds were reparations
for the large number of biracial children that were never claimed and
supported by their wealthy fathers.
Thousands of Plainfield residents and celebrities were born in Muhlenberg
Hospital. Many more owe their lives to the conveniently located treatment
they received there. The actual wills need to be examined to acknowledge
the complexity of donor intent that goes beyond vague generalizations about
health and maintaining a location.
The concept of Certificate of Need was redefined from the Need of the public
to have Access to Care and local control of philanthropic resources, to the
financial need of a deeply indebted hospital to use heavily endowed
Muhlenberg Nonprofit Corporations to finance medical services for a different
demographic in a different county.
We reject the assertion that no one else is willing or able to provide medical
services in Plainfield. Control of our assets has enabled outside entities to
establish a medical monopoly that is negatively impacting the health of a
disenfranchised minority community. Reports of failed efforts to find a buyer
were not transparent, conflicted with accounts from potential buyers, and
they hid the existence of a 152.9 million dollar debt that may have been the
actual motive for the closure.
Who is bringing this action before the court? These are the same people that
made the decision to shut down Muhlenberg. They are not from Plainfield,
they are not acting in the best interests of the community and they are
clearly not acting in accordance with the original charitable purposes of the
gifts made to support this civic institution.
Are there legally constituted boards taking votes at meetings and approving
these actions? There are serious questions about who has made these
decisions that are demonstrably not in the best interests of the community.
Negligence and questionable financial transactions have destroyed instead of
transferring Muhlenbergs value and capacity to care. Before more damage
is done to this community by outside interests, the status of the
organizations and the boards that are alleged to be making these alleged
independent decisions needs to be proven:
Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center
Muhlenberg Foundation
Anthony Yelenscis Community Hospital
Solaris/JFK Healthcare System
Neighborhood Health Center
JFK /Muhlenberg Dorothy Snyder Nursing School
he basis for the argument before the Court is the 2009 Uniform Prudent
Management of Institutional Funds Act, hereafter referred to as the Funds
Act.
On July 29, 2008, the NJ Department of Health issued a Certificate of Need
authorizing the closure of Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center as an acute
care facility with certain conditions.
On March 9, 2009 the New Jersey Legislature adopted the uniform Prudent
Management of Institutional Funds Act.
The Funds Act specifies: This act shall apply to institutional funds existing
on or established after the effective date of this act. The claims by MRMC
and the Muhlenberg Foundation in the Verified Complaint in Action of
Declaratory Judgment of Modification of Restrictions on Institutional Funds
and Modification of Trusts Maintained by the Third Party Trustees are that the
institutional funds subject to the restriction have a total value of less than
$250,000; and more than 20 years has elapsed since the funds were
established.
Questions:
1. The creation of the funds in question may be older than 20 years, but
were monies deposited in any of those funds after the cutoff date of 1994
or 1995? If so, then the fund accounts were still active within the past 20
years, and thus a ruling must be made as to whether those fund accounts
should or should not be included in this cy pres proceeding, such as the
William Augustus Muhlenberg Fund, which has been untouched since
2005. (Certification of Mark Haggerty, page 9, fund 3025.)
2. When does the clock begin or end on the fund account? At the
establishment of the fund account or at the last deposit into the fund
account? This is a question that the Court must decide in order to provide
clarity to the Public.
3. The case law cited by the Acting Attorney General and Applicants
Attorney are cases that were heard under the old Funds Act and not the
new 2009 Funds Act so are those cases cited applicable under the 2009
Funds Act?
4. Some of the funds listed in the Certification of mark Haggerty are more
than the $250,000 threshold, so why are those fund accounts included in
this cy pres proceeding?
5.
Why the time lapse for this cy pres proceeding? Why wasnt this done
at the time of the 2008 closure of MRMC?
6. How will this current cy pres proceeding impact other funds held by
MRMC, the Muhlenberg Foundation and/or Third Party Trustees that are
not currently itemized or listed?
There appear to be numerous conflicts of interest and failures to follow the
law. I would like more time to make an argument worthy of these concerns.
The level of misrepresentation may constitute fraud and warrant further
proof by the organizations seeking to liquidate the donations, scholarships
and real estate value of this civil institution.
On behalf of the public interest, I reserve the right to further address
previously and currently submitted documentation and to add and submit
any document, if any documentary evidence should become known after the
time of the submission of this response.
cc: Frank R Ciesla
Giordano, Halloran and Ciesla
Office of the Attorney General, Attention: Jay Ganzman
Vernita E. Sias-Hill, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of Plainfield
Kelli Christainsen
PNC Wealth Management
Nancy Piwowar
The Muhlenberg Research Group