Category: Candidate Conflict of Interest

Conflict of Interest? It’s up to you and I to decide.

Given the ethical guidelines enumerated in the Code of Ethics (especially section V) and the Commissioner Guide, and given the topics that have been most controversial in this election, please consider there is a candidate who:

  • Founded www.catholicwatch.org, which is not acknowledged in any candidate materials and shows no indication of being recused.
  • Is a Board Member for Center for Reproductive Rights. This is not mentioned in the voters pamphlet or at monicaharrington.com. Not only is this an unadvertised association, there is no indication she is recused at this time. ( http://www.reproductiverights.org/about-us/leadership-and-staff)
  • Former Co-Chair of Washington Women for Choice, also not listed in candidate materials. When her name appears as a signatory on legal inquiry-type documents, it is most often through this organization. See more about this in the Legal Maneuvering category.

“It makes perfect sense that the ACLU would file a lawsuit in Skagit first.  I believe the issues decided in that case will apply to several hospital districts around the state and will make litigation against the SJCPHD even easier. The ACLU has already made clear that this lawsuit is part of a broader initiative to bring ALL PHDs into compliance with State law.”  Monica Harrington

There is evidence under the Legal Maneuvering tab that Ms. Harrington has been party to at least one of the various methods employed to go after Skagit County. On a surface level, her name appears only on the documents challenging the certificate of need process. But all of these litigious political groups are working (and signing) together to apply pressure and challenge the hospitals.  If she knows the current ACLU suit will make it easier to litigate against us, what might that suggest about her intentions here in SJC and her motives in this race?

The above associations and the following quote are put forth to readers only because SJPHD is, by choice, in a contractual agreement with Peace Health, a Catholic Healthcare Ministry. Up until now, this has been an amicable, working relationship.

What would be the effect of having an individual with strong anti-catholic sentiments on the Hospital District Board?

http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/series/moral-politics/episode/catholic-healthcare-your-only-choice

Through the course of this video, many of Ms. Harrington’s derogatory attitudes toward the Catholic Church are revealed.

As an example, regarding Directive 58 from the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives (Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009), or what she has dubbed a Terry Schaivo situation, Ms. Harrington does not agree with the prescribed treatment plan. But, the disturbing part is her presumption as to the reason for the Directive. “Part of it”, she contends, “a lot of people don’t understand the reasons behind all of this. There is a concept in Catholic Theology about suffering, where suffering is seen as a good thing because suffering brings you closer to God.” (This is approx 24:47 into the video).

Is she actually implying that the hospital would purposefully allow a patient to suffer to facilitate him or her drawing closer to God? This does not match up with what the ERDs say about comfort and palliative care.

With an obvious bias,what assurances can we have that Ms. Harrington is capable of being fair & objective in dealings with Peace Health?

Which hat would she be wearing, which organization would she be representing, if she sat on the Public Hospital District Board?

Do any of her behaviors or involvements demonstrate good faith toward Peace Health?

Should questions like this even surround the right candidate for a PHD Commissioner position?

Do the other candidates who have chosen to associate with her share her prejudices?