Letters to the Editor, Aug. 7-13

Method of choosing hospital CEO flawed

I disagree with Pajaro Valley Health Care District Board Chair Tony Nuñez’s decision to select members for the ad-hoc committee to select the permanent CEO. Since he and Dr. Joe Gallagher were the ad-hoc committee members that selected the person they felt most qualified for the interim CEO position.

Having one of them on the ad-hoc committee to select a permanent CEO is what I would consider an even more important decision and in need of the prior experience of at least one of them.

Mr. Nunez’s reason for not being on the committee, because he may be elected the 4th District Supervisor, which did occur, and he felt he could not give it the attention it deserved. I say, as the supervisor he would be dealing with more than one issue at a time, why is this so different?

As far as that goes, then to select an ad hoc committee without including Dr. Gallagher, who had gone through the prior review and selection for interim CEO, seemed to be without a solid basis for that decision.  Why not include him? This, in my mind, was not the time to allow others to serve on the committee just for the experience. No disrespect to those that they named, but my personal opinion.

I understand it is hospital policy that there must be someone fulfilling the CEO position until a permanent one is selected. This is not something with which I agree, and should be changed when possible. This expense was not necessary, in my opinion. Change the policy.

Did we not have someone under Steven Gray that was already aware of the organization and the plans for WCH? Not only that, but there is a contingent of officers under the resigning CEO that was part of the overall plans.  

Fred L. Castillo
Watsonville

•••

No on Prop. 3, other new taxes

California already imposes the highest state income tax in America, with a top marginal rate of 13.3 percent that rises to an effective 14.4 percent on certain wage income. Instead of providing tax relief, Sacramento politicians want to make California’s high-tax policies permanent and impose even more taxes.

Proposition 3 would permanently extend “temporary” income tax increases that were scheduled to expire in 2031, locking in billions of dollars in higher taxes every year. Proposition 40 would create an unprecedented tax on accumulated wealth, targeting businesses, investments, intellectual property, artwork, and other assets.

California doesn’t have a revenue problem—it has a spending problem. Higher taxes will drive more families, entrepreneurs, employers, and investors out of the state, shrinking the tax base and weakening the economy.

The California Republican Party believes taxpayers deserve relief, not higher taxes. We oppose extending already excessive income tax rates, creating new wealth taxes, and every statewide ballot proposition that raises taxes or expands Sacramento’s ability to take more money from California families and businesses.

This November, vote NO on every statewide tax increase.

Mike Lelieur 
Santa Cruz County Republican Party Chairman