I hate clichés, but sometimes the silence really is deafening.
I worked at a small daily newspaper in Ohio right after I got out of college. While I was there, the umbrella company that owned three hospitals in the county realized that they had more hospitals than were really needed in this relatively rural county.
The trouble, of course, was deciding which one to close. One was in the county seat. One was in the second largest town in the county. And yes, in keeping with bad clichés, these two towns were the Hatfields and the McCoys—bitter rivals on every level, from attracting new employers, to the high school football teams
The third hospital was in an unincorporated strip between these two towns. This might have been the natural choice, but this was also where the corporate offices were and, it had long been converted from a traditional hospital to a mental health complex—the only facility of its kind in the region.
So, it came down to the two rival hospitals in two rival towns—and a board that was made up of an equal number of representatives from these two rivals. They held focus groups. They held town hall meetings. The decisive board meeting wasn't open to the press, but I imagine it wasn't pretty.
But even less pretty was what happened when the decision was announced. People were angry. They demanded answers. As the reporter who had attended every town hall meeting and focus group, I called every single member of that board to ask for comment. Most simply refused to take my calls. A few at least had the decency to talk to me, but only to say, "no comment."
I tried to tell them that when people see "no comment," in the newspaper, what they read is "I'm guilty" to no avail.
Over the last couple of weeks, as CUNA has largely refused to offer substantive comment on its rejection of its own task force's recommendations and the Michigan CU League's decision to flout that decision by allowing CUs to choose to belong only to the state league, I've been flashing back on the great hospital debate.
Because the other problem with "no comment" is that it doesn't give people a chance to make an informed decision about whether they agree with what's been done or not.
Yes, sometimes the silence is deafening.
Editor in Chief Lisa Freeman can be reached at
