Impolitic Corporate Hubris:
Pushed to Commit to Negotiate With the Community, Sutter Demurs
Community Leaders are Unimpressed
News Analysis
Executives at Sutter Health Corporation redoubled their insistence recently, that they would not partake in any Community Benefits Agreement proposed by the Emeryville community associated with their proposed $1 billion hospital campus at 53rd and Hollis streets. The surprising Sutter recalcitrance has prompted government officials, community leaders and city council candidates to publicly weigh in on the corporation's lack of faith in the same community it wants to locate within.
Sutter is aware their participation is voluntary and there is no law constraining them with regard to such a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) made with the community. They are however constrained by law with regard to negotiating and entering into an agreement with the City of Emeryville if they wish to locate their hospital campus here. Such an agreement is called a Development Agreement (DA).
 |
| Sutter's Media Relations Manger Monique Binkley Smith She took issue with the Tattler's story on Sutter's refusal to participate in a CBA. But she refuses to commit to Sutter participating in a CBA. Gaslighting? |
Sutter’s latest dustup with the community and their CBA proposal came in response to a Tattler inquiry made after our September 8th story, where we broke the news of Sutter’s intension to waive off a CBA. That story hit the streets with quite a fury causing Monique Binkley Smith, Sutter’s Media Relations Manager, to write a September 9th email to the Tattler expressing disfavor over what she saw as inaccuracies in the story. Ms Smith asserted, “Statements [in the Tattler story], including the headline that 'Sutter Hospital Says NO Community Benefits Agreement', as well as assertions that Sutter 'will not participate' in a CBA or 'will not negotiate directly with the community', do not accurately reflect what we communicated”.
The Tattler responded to Ms Smith and the management at Sutter, the email trail informs that they had in fact asserted they would not participate in a CBA for their Emeryville project but if Sutter wants to change their refusal (as hinted to by the denials in the September 9th email from Ms Smith), the Tattler would gladly commit to a story on Sutter’s new found community spirit and commitment to participating in a CBA. We said in the email response we would give them ample time to mull it over. That was September 9th. We conclude now that Sutter continues to refuse to participate in a CBA associated with their Emeryville project and their refusal to clearly say they are willing to participate is what drives our conclusion.
Simply put, Sutter can inform the community at any time they want that they are willing to participate in a CBA and the community will oblige and the Tattler will report. Gaslighting the press or the community directly will not help in Sutter’s quest to make the friends they will need in Emeryville as they attempt to move the project forward. This obstinacy will make the city council’s job more difficult when they consider whether to grant approvals for the project and it is not a stretch to imagine this kind of impolitic corporate behavior by this want-to-be corporate neighbor, will harm Sutter’s prospects.
A CBA is a legally binding agreement between the community and a developer. Municipalities are not part of a CBA. Negotiations during the CBA process brings community benefits provided by the developer and signed off promises from the community to not further block a developer's project proposal.
The Community Speaks
The whole imbroglio has brought the community into conversation:
 |
| North Oakland's Cathy Leonard She has much experience with CBAs in her community activism and she indicates it is critical Sutter act in good faith to mollify community impacts. |
United States Congresswoman Lateefah Simon said she expects “robust community engagement” with Sutter in Emeryville. She added, “Sutter needs to listen to the people in the community”, while California Assembly Member Mia Bonta told the Tattler simply, “CBAs are good things in the community”.
Emeryville City council candidates were eager to weigh in:
Brandon Soublet said, “I’m glad to see local elected and appointed officials uniting around a resident-first approach. We all agree this development has to work for Emeryville—and with a non-profit partner like Sutter, that means securing binding agreements for real community benefits. This project has to make sense for Emeryville residents, and because Sutter is a non-profit, that means legally binding agreements to bring tangible benefits to our community.”
Corry Frydlewicz told us, “I think developing a CBA can be a great idea. The ideas shared that get the community on the same page can be helpful for organizing and educating our representatives. Sutter has been asking for our feedback, so hopefully they'd welcome it too. There's really no downside for openly collaborating on a plan, even if it doesn't get accepted.”
Current City Councilman and candidate for re-election Kalimah Priforce had the shortest answer of any of them. When we told him Sutter so far is refusing to commit to a Community Benefits Agreement, the Councilman simply said, “We’ll see about that”.
David Mourra, also current Councilman and candidate for re-election was asked directly about the Sutter refusal but he also refused….to comment.
Rounding out the City Hall response, the following were contacted but refused to comment on the failure of a Sutter CBA:
-Mayor Sukhdeep Kaur
-Vice Mayor Mathew Solomon
-City Councilwoman Courtney Welch
-City Manager LaTanya Bellow
-Emery Schools Superintendent Quiauna Scott
The initial September 8th Tattler story on the Sutter CBA refusal is HERE.
 |
| Congresswoman Lateefah Simon California’s 12th Congressional District U.S. House of Representatives "Sutter needs to listen to the people in the community". "Nothing for us without us". |
Maybe the Emeryville community won't do much about this but the Oakland community sure will. Oakland's really care about this kind of abuse by developers.
ReplyDeleteThis is just my opinion, but I think you got it wrong. Sutter's development is a huge positive for our community. If it is lost because of complications created by a bunch of loud mouths with no equity whatsoever, the loss to ordinary, every day, tax paying, constituents living in Emeryville would be huge. Bring it on; I'm all for it!
ReplyDeleteInteresting you use the term ‘tax paying’. Because of a lack of taxes, the Sutter hospital proposal is NOT a ‘huge win’ for our community, it's more like a huge loss for us. Emeryville has the largest deficit in our history right now and we’re facing the largest structural debt/deficit problem we’ve ever faced. To be solvent, what we need is for our commercial zoned areas to have businesses that pay taxes to us. Sutter, being a non-profit will pay us nothing for this large piece of commercial land we could be earning revenue off of. For this problem to be ameliorated, Sutter would have to give us large amounts other stuff we want to make up for the lack of revenue. But their actions so far to do an end run around the community doesn’t bode well for them providing things we want/need. What we’re left with is Sutter problems for us, nothing we want given in trade for the Sutter problems and no Sutter money for us. Sutter needs to come to the community in good faith and be willing to negotiate with the community.
DeleteMore pressingly, we believe in democracy. We think the people of Emeryville should get the kind of town they want (within the guiding structure of the California Constitution). If Sutter is going to try to bully their way into our town, ignoring and subverting the will of the people, it sets a terrible new precedent and we will say NO. We are allowed to have our say and that’s what we’re going to do. “Loudmouths” are encouraged here. Sutter and the city council ignore the residents at their peril.
Personally, Brian, I am not persuaded. We will just continue on down the road with a great big difference of opinion. That's our democratic right.
DeleteI'm confused. The title says that they said No to community benefits. But the quote you have from them says that your reporting is "not accurate". Logically, doesn't this mean that they are open to community benefits?
ReplyDeleteIt could mean that. So that’s why we gave them more than a month to set the record straight but they demurred. The first story chronicled how they said NO to a CBA but then they complained and said they didn’t say NO. So we responded, “OK….thank you. Please set the record straight and the Tattler will help you spread the word that Sutter DOES want a CBA after all”. But they can’t or won’t say that. So we’re back to what the originally said: they don’t want a CBA, at least not so far. The minute they change their mind, we will report that.
DeleteThe Tattler is not here to help corporations with their propaganda or PR and we’re certainly not going to help them gaslight the community. We’re here so the community can be informed.
The fact you are attacking individuals makes me question your motives and your message. Whether you agree with them or not, putting an individual's name and face online to support your own agenda, especially when you know it could lead to online violence, if not physical violence, against them, is deplorable.
ReplyDeleteI'm new to your blog so maybe this is just typical behavior, but if you want your message to resonate with more than internet trolls who glom onto any issue so they can see themselves as social justice warriors, whether they've done any unbiased research at all, then I suggest you remove names of non-public figures. They are, in the end, just people like you and me trying to do what their employer tells them so they can continue providing for their family. Do you really think putting an employee on blast is going to change the company's mind about this?
And regarding the hospital, I view it as a huge positive for our community. If you hold to Democracy, then work through your voted-in constituents for change, rather than attacking non-public individuals out of hate or sensationalism.
Journalists frequently include the names and faces of corporate managers in stories about corporate malfeasance, provided they can verify the individual's connection to the events or their position of responsibility within the company.
DeleteNames and faces are Included in order to establish accountability and for public interest. If a manager is a public figure or a high-ranking executive at a major firm, their conduct is considered a matter of significant public concern.
The Right of Reply: Standard journalistic ethics require reporters to reach out to the named managers or the company’s PR team for comment before publication. If the individual denies the allegations, that denial is typically included in the story. This was done for this story and for the previous Tattler story on Sutter.
Thanks for letting us know you like the Sutter proposal as you think it is being proposed but warning: it may not be the way you think it is going to be. Sutter has only said in the most basic way what they want to put on their Emeryville site. And regarding the politicians in Emeryville (“voted in constituents”?), sometimes politicians don’t get what the public wants exactly right. Sometimes politicians are more ideological and less democratic. And that BTW, is the whole reason for CBAs.