Deep concerns about hospital leadership
Dear Editor:
Thank you for the opportunity to express our continued frustration with the lack of action and transparency from Pioneers Medical Center CEO Liz Sellers, PMC board president Mark Schryver and the attorneys from Bechtel & Santo.
More than four years ago (according to PMC minutes from May of 2021), after two board members resigned, Schryver made a motion for the remaining five members to illegally change the will of eastern Rio Blanco County voters by voting by themselves to move from a seven-person board to a five-person board. There is no legal Colorado statute allowing this to happen but this fact did not stop PMC from operating as a five-person board, even though the honorable Ninth District Court Judge Anne Kirkpatrick Norrdin denied their motion to do so (April 19, 2022). They continue, to this day, to operate illegally, as a five-person board. Why is this?
After the most recent special district election in May, where two new members (Sherri Halandras and Jean Gianinetti) and one incumbent (Wade Bradfield) were duly elected by the voters of eastern Rio Blanco County, a motion was made, seconded and approved to move back to a seven-person board. Now, more than five months later, PMC continues to operate as a five-person board and attorney Michael Santo does not allow the board to discuss this issue in public during their monthly public meetings, but only in executive session. Why is this? Why does PMC legal counsel not allow board members to discuss this issue(s) in public? The lack of transparency is frustrating and unacceptable.
Adding to the frustration is the fact PMC does not post their meeting agendas or minutes of their meetings to their website (www.pioneershospital.org) in a timely manner. This lack of transparency has been questioned several times during public comment and is yet to be corrected. When board member Bradfield asked who’s responsible for posting on the website, the answer was Rachel Gates, who lives and works remotely from Alabama. As of this writing, July is the most recent agenda published on the PMC website and the June minutes are the most recent to be posted — they just held their October meeting last week, with no agenda available for the public!
We (the public) started asking questions last February and still have not received answers for most of them. We held an election in May, then motions were made and approved by the new board to move back to a seven-person board, yet Sellers, Schryver and legal counsel, continue to ignore the direction of the board, while continuing to illegally operate as a five-person board!
We love our community hospital, its providers and staff, our issues are with Sellers’ management style, as well as the bullying style of Schryver, who has never been on a PMC ballot to be duly elected by the public, yet is serving his second term, as well as the attorneys from Bechtel & Santo.
Again, we love our community hospital but we are concerned when they operate like a private corporation and not like the special taxing district they are, accountable to the taxpayers of eastern Rio Blanco County.
We are concerned and will continue to publicly draw attention to the fact PMC has projected to generate more than $100,000,000 in revenue in 2025, yet according to their “Financial Narrative Summary” for August 2025; “Pioneers Medical Center recorded a negative $1.086 million net income (in August) — Year-to-date is a negative net income of $3.239 million. How long is this sustainable?
Again, thank you for the opportunity to express our continued frustrations with the lack of action and transparency from PMC, its CEO, board president and legal counsel. We will endeavor to persevere for the sake of our community hospital.
Sincerely,
Bobby and Wendy Gutierrez
Meeker
Library board needs balance
Dear Editor:
This letter is in response to John Moffitt’s Letter to the Editor published on Oct. 23, 2025. In that letter, Mr. Moffitt appears intent on portraying himself as the sole voice of responsibility, while casting doubt on the integrity of other library board members—particularly regarding stewardship of library reserves. He also includes a political reference that seems entirely out of place.
Having attended and observed most board meetings this year, I’ve witnessed firsthand how challenging Mr. Moffitt can be for the women on the board to collaborate with. These women demonstrate deep commitment to our community and a strong sense of fiduciary duty. It’s disheartening to see a fellow board member publicly imply otherwise.
Mr. Moffitt praises the work of the newly retained law and accounting firms. While their contributions are appreciated, it’s worth noting that they are professionals hired to perform those exact services.
Ironically, Mr. Moffitt expresses willingness to have his views vetted by legal counsel. Yet, it was Board Secretary/Treasurer Toby Leavitt who engaged the law firm—after concerns arose that Mr. Moffitt’s actions were steering the board into legally questionable territory. For example, during the September 23 Library Workshop, the attorney cautioned board members about potential First Amendment violations, referencing ongoing litigation in the Elizabeth School District.
Similarly, the new CPA firm was brought on by Ms. Leavitt after she identified serious deficiencies in the library’s accounting practices. Her tireless efforts to ensure the library is served by qualified professionals and that administrative responsibilities are properly managed deserve recognition—yet Mr. Moffitt offers none.
Overall, Mr. Moffitt’s letter reflects a troubling lack of respect for the women on the board and a disregard for the spirit of cooperation and compromise that effective governance requires.
With the Board of County Commissioners preparing to appoint a new member to replace Michael Cobb, I sincerely hope they choose someone who is independent of the Moffitt alliance and committed to representing the entire community, which would bring balance to this board.
Jeni Morlan
Meeker