If We Ignore One Sentence In Hospital District Law, We Can Do What We Want –

Crawford Co., Ill. (ECWd) –

According to the Hospital District Law, the district board has at least this power:

To establish and maintain a hospital and hospital facilities within or outside its corporate limits, and to construct, acquire, develop, expand, extend and improve any such hospital or hospital facility.

However, the very next sentence in the same paragraph places a qualification (or prohibition) of the preceding power:

 If a Hospital District utilizes its authority to levy a tax pursuant to Section 20 of this Act for the purpose of establishing and maintaining hospitals or hospital facilities, such District shall be prohibited from establishing and maintaining hospitals or hospital facilities located outside of its district unless so authorized by referendum.

Do Hospital Districts really need a crash-course on the definition of “prohibited?”

Does it say prohibited, but the prohibition is dependent upon what the tax levy funds are spent on? Or does it simply say prohibited? Or, does is say if they collect a tax (for any reason) that they are prohibited from operating outside their boundaries unless the taxpaying voters pass a referendum authorizing it? We think you are smart enough to read the plain language of the law.

When a statute expressly prohibits something, whether or not the local government falls under Dillon’s Rule or Home Rule, that local government cannot perform whatever function it was prohibited by statute from performing. If the local government falls under Dillon’s Rule, like Hospital Districts do, and, if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has not been conferred. Here, there is no reasonable doubt because the statute expresses the prohibition in exact words.

Our previous article on the Crawford Memorial Hospital District (HERE) explained that the district is operating outside its corporate boundaries and doing so without voter approval through a referendum. A referendum is required, and the district does not have one that has been approved by the voters.

Apparently, Doug Florkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Crawford Memorial Hospital District, thinks everyone should simply ignore the one sentence prohibiting the district from operating in Newton, Illinois (Jasper County). The single sentence he wants to ignore prohibits everything they are now doing in Newton, Illinois. This is another example of an attorney who needs fired for giving the CEO this advice.

Here is what he sent to all employees of the district:

“I know many of you have seen or heard about posts on Facebook asserting that, by opening a clinic outside of Crawford County, CMH has violated a state statute related to hospital district property taxes. I want to reassure you that we are confident in and comfortable with our decision. Of course, we were aware of this statute when we began exploring the possibility of opening a clinic in Newton. We carefully considered the legal requirements and received excellent legal advice before moving forward. It’s also important to understand that the assertions being made on social media focus on a single sentence within the statute. Laws, however, must be considered in their entirety and within the context of the entire statute. Looking at one sentence in isolation does not provide a complete picture of what the statute means or how it applies, just like a single sentence in a conversation isn’t a complete picture of what the whole conversation was about. We remain confident that our decision was made thoughtfully, responsibly, and with appropriate legal guidance. If you have any questions about our Newton Clinic, please feel free to email me or call me. I’ll be happy to talk it through with you.”

He admits the district knew about the law prior to opening the Newton location, but insists we read the law wrong, and it should be read in its entirety. How clearer does the legislature have to make the prohibition? IF they collect a tax levy, THEN they are prohibited from operating outside their corporate boundaries UNLESS the voters pass a referendum authorizing operations outside corporate boundaries. This is to protect the taxpayers who are forced to pay the levy, and there is no other part of the law authorizing what they are doing under any current circumstances.

He also claims they received “excellent legal advice” – which is laughable. The attorney who gave this advice needs fired.

The Newton Clinic should be closed down until the voters pass a referendum or the district cancels (not simply abates) its tax levy forever. There are no other options.