From Our Founder September 15, 2009 By Bob Wichlinski Doctors Lawyers and Politicians Porter County’s hospital was not sold to the highest bidder.  Actually it was, but the highest bidder paid the 2nd highest bidder’s lower price.  The attorneys apparently failed to include a clause in the buy-sell agreement protecting the seller in the event the lower bidder was purchased by the higher bidder following closing on the deal; which is exactly what happened.  Those representing the seller selected the 2nd highest bidder citing the need to protect the interests of the hospital’s physicians.  Shortly after closing, the higher bidder purchased lower bidder, in effect, creating their own discount.  Nothing in the contract forced them to pay the seller the difference in price which totaled in the millions.   The Porter County Council agreed to pay an Indianapolis law firm to shepherd the deal.  Council minutes state that the firm was experienced in the sale of public assets.  Days after closing it was discovered that the county commissioners failed to comply with State law by creating specific deposit accounts for the proceeds of the sale.  How did a law firm experienced in such transactions miss this important detail?  If they did, why then didn’t the county sue the firm for malpractice or at least demand recompense?   Public hearings were promised to address the issue of how to spend the proceeds of the sale.  Those meetings were abruptly halted by the county attorney citing legal issues arising from the sale.  They were never reconvened.   The purchaser is protected from “circumstances beyond their control” with respect to timely construction of a new facility.  Do “delays associated with securing required zoning” constitute such a circumstance? Does this circumstance potentially free them of responsibility for building a new facility or invite renegotiation of the terms of the contract?  Given the climate the administration has fostered in terms of land development in Porter County should “timely zoning approval” have been specifically excluded from the definition of “circumstances beyond the purchaser’s control” especially given the nature of the location that was selected for construction of the new facility?   The purchaser is now requesting tax abatements for their new facility.  Will the state of the economy combined with failure to secure tax abatement constitute “circumstances beyond their control?”   The sale of the hospital was supposed to be about assuring quality health care in Porter County for generations to come while freeing county government from the health care business.   But what it appears to have evolved into is assuring the interests of everyone except the taxpayers.   It’s not clear precisely what taxpayers received in consideration for the sale of the hospital; it may never be.  Is it any wonder why there is no plan for the proceeds?   “Boondoggle” has become the popular word to describe projects which do not favor the present administration.   I prefer the word shenanigans to describe those which do. As always, I can be reached via e-mail at b@219.com Notice to Reader: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of editor of the article or 219.com. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats