Editor:
At the most recent meeting of the Humboldt General Hospital (HGH) Board of Trustees on Thursday, May 21st, questions were raised about the lack of a written contract with HGH general counsel, Mr. O.Kent Maher. In response to a Nevada Public Records Act request, the HGH Public Records custodian had previously responded that there has never been — nor is there currently — a written contract with HGH for Mr. Maher’s professional legal services. In contrast, Pershing Hospital in Lovelock and numerous other critical access hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid funding do have written contracts with attorneys for legal services. Copies of the certified mail letter from the HGH Public Records custodian documenting the lack of any HGH written contracts for Mr. Maher’s legal services had previously been provided to each HGH Board member.
In attempting to excuse the lack of a written contract for legal services, the HGH CEO, James Parrish, said that only 11 of the over 100 vendors on the April payment list have written contracts. Legal Counsel O. Kent Maher said that he knows of no laws requiring written contracts for vendors. There’s a major problem with the Parrish-Maher legal theory: state licensed professionals whose names appeared on the April payments list have a different status than vendors selling toilet paper to the hospital, which is one reason why they have written contracts. Mr. Maher is a state licensed professional subject to certain professional standards beyond those of providers of products and non-professional services that are purchased using purchase orders and invoices.
Do Mr. Parrish and Mr. Maher seriously believe that professional services provided by state licensed attorneys are equivalent to toilet paper purchases? The Canons of professional conduct for attorneys seem to take a very different perspective and hold Mr. Maher to a much higher standard of conduct than sellers of toilet paper. After all, Mr. Maher did provide a written contract for his legal services with the City of Lovelock, which one Lovelock official said has simply had its terms and conditions (other than increased rates of compensation) extended for nearly 20 years. If Mr. Parrish and Mr. Maher actually believe that Mr. Maher’s professional legal services should be treated in the same manner as purveyors of toilet paper, why did he ever even have a written contract for his legal services with the City of Lovelock?
Lewis Trout
Winnemucca
