A lot of time and effort has been put into a proposed ballot measure City Council will consider next week, which would spin off Memorial Health System as an independent nonprofit. But it’s not been enough time or effort to allay my doubts about what’s being proposed, which is why I’ll be voting “no.”

I appreciate the study this issue received from the Citizens’ Commission, from my colleagues, from that portion of the public that tuned-in early enough to have formed a firm opinion on the issue. But my initial skepticism has only deepened as I’ve watched the rush to the ballot box unfold. I object not just to a flawed process, but to the flawed proposal that emerged from it.

The Citizens’ Commission, though diligent in its work, didn’t give serious enough consideration to the wide range of options available to the city regarding Memorial. The possibility of selling the system to a for-profit, or a nonprofit, was given only token consideration. Keeping the status quo also got short shrift. The presentations that were made leaned strongly toward just one scenario — spinning-off the enterprise as a stand-alone nonprofit. This just also happened to be the option preferred by top Memorial leaders and the Memorial board. 

The process really began to fall apart, however, after the commission made its recommendation. Translating a general recommendation into a detailed action plan and a coherent ballot measure is a complex undertaking even if you take the time to do it right. Slamming something on the ballot in only weeks, while a host of tricky and critically important details remain unresolved, is reckless and irresponsible, in my opinion, given the potential costs and consequences of mistakes being made.

The process was flawed, in my opinion, so it’s only natural that I would also see major problems with the proposal that emerged. Let’s go over them. 

The most obvious problem is the laughably low sum taxpayers are being offered for an asset worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even after one subtracts debt, pension obligations  and other liabilities. A $5 million front-end payment (which will go to an as-yet unnamed foundation, for still-vague purposes), with annual payments of between $500,000 and (possibly) a few million dollars (depending on an as-yet undefined performance metric) still makes this a “giveaway” in my opinion. And that’s a non-started for me.

Arguments over what the city invested in the enterprise over the years, and how that translates into today’s dollars, are immaterial. The fact is that Memorial accrued its present value under city ownership.  Even if we haven’t poured general fund money into it over the years, it grew and prospered as a city enterprise. It has a market value that we would be fools to walk away from, given the many good things those resources could do for this city if wisely husbanded. It strikes me as crazy. 

Before you begin “fixing” something you should be sure it’s broken. And advocates for a “new Memorial” haven’t made a convincing case that the “old Memorial” is broken — or that its alleged problems can’t be addressed with actions less momentous than ownership change. Senior Memorial staff and some on its board seem annoyed by the alleged hassles that come with city ownership. But when asked to explain exactly how those hassles hold the hospital back — or how a hospital bearing such burdens has carved-out such a large share of the market — the explanations fall short of convincing. The case for change rests on exaggerating the “problems” associated with city ownership while down playing the benefits. Backers of the ballot measure are trying to “fix” what isn’t broken.

But enough about other options and questionable assumptions. The decision before us this week is whether this particular proposal — this still vaguely understood and half-baked proposal — belongs on the ballot. I don’t think it does. I might still be a skeptic if it comes before voters in November, given the reservations outlined in this piece, but the only chance backers have of getting public approval, in my view, is to slow down, take more care in working through critically important details, and bring a better proposal back for consideration in the fall. Rushing ahead now will spell disaster at the ballot box.

Sean Paige serves on the Colorado Springs City Council.

Photo by