<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: St. Rose Hospital expansion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/2011/02/10/st-rose-hospital-expansion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/2011/02/10/st-rose-hospital-expansion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:52:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: qodrn</title>
		<link>http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/2011/02/10/st-rose-hospital-expansion/comment-page-1/#comment-7696</link>
		<dc:creator>qodrn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/?p=2636#comment-7696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wish to point out that St. Rose is no longer a Catholic hospital.  This is kind of assumed by the name but their ethical decisions no longer support church doctrine.  Keeping the name was not exactly ethical in my opinion.  They are a good hospital, but do less service now for the uninsured.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish to point out that St. Rose is no longer a Catholic hospital.  This is kind of assumed by the name but their ethical decisions no longer support church doctrine.  Keeping the name was not exactly ethical in my opinion.  They are a good hospital, but do less service now for the uninsured.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John W. Kyle</title>
		<link>http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/2011/02/10/st-rose-hospital-expansion/comment-page-1/#comment-7507</link>
		<dc:creator>John W. Kyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/?p=2636#comment-7507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Booth

Not an expert ? Finally, an admission of fact!

You do seem to &#039;zero&#039; in on Mr. Armas. Why is that?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Booth</p>
<p>Not an expert ? Finally, an admission of fact!</p>
<p>You do seem to &#8216;zero&#8217; in on Mr. Armas. Why is that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathi Booth</title>
		<link>http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/2011/02/10/st-rose-hospital-expansion/comment-page-1/#comment-7502</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathi Booth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ibabuzz.com/hayword/?p=2636#comment-7502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am using this space to post an observation of last night&#039;s board meeting.  

During the agenda item regarding furlough days for top administrators and school site administrators, I believe that Mr. Armas violated the Ralph M. Brown Act: Open Meeting Law.
According to the Brown Act, if a board member&#039;s spouse is in a position that may be affected by board action, that board member must recuse themself and step down from the dias.  They may not participate in discussion, deliberation or voting.

In the case of Mr. Armas, I believe that his spouse currently holds a position that was included in the furlough item.  I do not question his motives, however I do question his knowledge of the Brown Act and the fact that he did not step off the dias.  In the spirit of transparancy and good governance it was the lawful thing to do.

If anyone out there can offer proof that I am mistaken I encourage them to let me know.  I do not profess to be the &quot;expert&quot; however I believe that I do have a very clear understanding of the Brown Act.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am using this space to post an observation of last night&#8217;s board meeting.  </p>
<p>During the agenda item regarding furlough days for top administrators and school site administrators, I believe that Mr. Armas violated the Ralph M. Brown Act: Open Meeting Law.<br />
According to the Brown Act, if a board member&#8217;s spouse is in a position that may be affected by board action, that board member must recuse themself and step down from the dias.  They may not participate in discussion, deliberation or voting.</p>
<p>In the case of Mr. Armas, I believe that his spouse currently holds a position that was included in the furlough item.  I do not question his motives, however I do question his knowledge of the Brown Act and the fact that he did not step off the dias.  In the spirit of transparancy and good governance it was the lawful thing to do.</p>
<p>If anyone out there can offer proof that I am mistaken I encourage them to let me know.  I do not profess to be the &#8220;expert&#8221; however I believe that I do have a very clear understanding of the Brown Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 5/12 queries in 0.003 seconds using apc
Object Caching 179/183 objects using apc

Served from: www.ibabuzz.com @ 2013-06-17 22:39:16 -->