We extend our apologies to SRHS trustee Scott Taylor for writing that he had any knowledge of, or participation in, any actions related to MAN. He has only been on the board since February and our reporting unfairly lumped him in with the monolithic SRHS governance. By all reports Mr. Taylor has been doing great work to assist the retirees and understand the problems. SRHS Watch has a lot of respect of and confidence in Mr. Taylor.
We rely upon Mr. Taylor’s word that the board has had no participation in or knowledge of any MAN related activities during his tenure.
We correct our original reporting which suggested that the current board is participating in, or approving payments to MAN.
Mr. Taylor confirmed the majority of our original reporting:
- SRHS, led by Kevin Holland, joined an entity formed by Anderson after his departure
- Holland attended meetings of MAN, likely also attended by Anderson
- SRHS sent money to MAN. This would have required knowledge and approval from CEO, CFO, and should have been listed on the docket of claims presented to the board.
- For six months SRHS didn’t find any reason to distance itself from Anderson.
One commenter provided granular detail on these payments: $1,500 each quarter. There is some conflict between those figures provided by an insider and those reported by Mr. Taylor. We trust he will investigate and reply. Hopefully Singing River leadership will allow the release of a ledger report showing all transactions involving MAN.
Our readership should be assured that every attempt is made to verify the accuracy of posted information. “Unsubstantiated rumor” is never relied upon. We owe a large debt of gratitude to those who contribute their knowledge in support of truth and reform, especially the SRHS insiders, current and former.
SRHS Watch is about exposing issues and bringing about discussion. The day that Singing River holds open board meetings, publishes minutes without mass redaction, reforms internal governance, and cuts ties to cronies and instead installs other competent and disinterested parties is the day there will be nothing left to write about.
Scott,
Please tell us how the Workmen’s Comp. issue became a crisis? Who dropped the ball on this one? Is this now over or is there more drama lurking and yet another crisis looming?
Stakeholder
We are self insured for workmen’s comp. The WC Commission requires businesses that are self insured for comp to put money in reserve, buy a bond or get a letter of credit to cover potential WC claims. I am not sure how the amount is determined, but we have had to maintain a $500,000 line of credit for years to comply. Apparently, the Commission has been revisiting reserves. I am pretty sure it was it was not just us. Anyway, we were contacted by the Commission and advised that they were raising our reserve requirements to $2,300,000. I am not sure how much, but they gave us very little time to comply. We were able to get a letter of credit from Hancock Bank fairly quickly.
The JCBOS has to approve such transactions. We gave them very little notice, but that was not intentional or by design. We sent the request to the JCBOS for approval on Friday. They approved it on a Monday. It had to be in place the next day.
The line of credit can only be used to pay workman’s comp claims. We pay comp claims from our bank account. At least in recent history, we have never used the line of credit.
We have never missed a payment or had any problems with the Commission. Trends for comp claims have been down. We argued with them about it but lost. I honestly don’t know why they raised our reserve requirements. Could be because of our financial situation. That is a little speculation.
Thanks for the info. Watch, can you file a records request with Workman’s Comp so we can see the timeline of events and find out why they requested an increase of almost $2 million?
If it proves necessary. At this point it appears to be exactly what Mr. Taylor says, a reserve adjustment necessitated by regulators. There are enough issues with governance and transparency that we should guard against getting our dander up over every operational hiccup. SRHS is under a microscope, but they aren’t in a vacuum. Regulatory and market changes will impact them and they must react; it is necessary for survival.
What is confusing is that the terms “line of credit” and “letter of credit” are being used interchangeably, when in fact they are two very different devices. A line of credit is a revolving loan similar to a credit card. The bank says to the borrower, here’s $2.3 million, here are interest terms and fees, spend as you need it.
A letter of credit guarantees payment when certain terms and conditions are met. Hancock will guarantee that SRHS has the funds necessary to make payment, if and when needed. Even if SRHS doesn’t have the money, Hancock will be on the hook to make the payments and comply with the conditions in the letter of credit. Since SRHS has $30+ million on deposit at Hancock Bank, the bank can limit risk by putting a hold on $2.3 million of that.
That is based on statements made by Billy Guice and Mr. Taylor’s comments.
EXACTLY…THEY TELL SO MANY LIES, THAT THEY CAN’T KEEP THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT.