And even more startling: They believe that the serious deficiency in the proceedings may have affected the plot choice.
– The information positively exists, indicating our view serious failures in the proceedings and that this has had importance for the result. That case, in addition raises questions that almost requires detailed investigation, is only suited to support such konklusjon.Det writes Schødt in its report. The law firm engaged by Ordfører- and Councilman Senate for Nordmøre (Orchid) to make a legal assessment of the process that resulted in the decision that the new hospital would be built on Hjelset.
Too little time
During the three days was held a board meeting in Health Møre og Romsdal, board meeting in Central Norway and enterprises meet with the Ministry. Schjødt believes that the time allotted was too limited and that it involved a great risk that the significant judgments and shades from the control treatment was ignored.
At the meeting of Health Møre og Romsdal, it emerged serious allegations of unlawful conduct. Scjødt believes that the meeting should have been stopped there and then. As is known received the proposal for postponement only three of nine votes.
Because of the limited time mean Schjødt also that local views have not been sufficiently heard by the ministry, although local ownership was the basis for the process.
Pressed against Eidsvik
Schjødt also reviewed available emails in connection with Eidsvik departure. While the law firm Health Møre og Romsdal used concluded that the episode after a meeting at Gardermoen in late November can understood as control signals from the means of (Central Norway) and if so is a violation of health law section 16, has Schjødt concluded that there can not be much doubt about the conclusion.
– We point out that there was a persistent pressure that took place over several meetings and that according to the note as Thommesen citing ” was little room for further discussion. ” We also find it natural to see this in the context of Director Eidsvik departing immediately afterwards, writes Schjødt.
They believe this violation of health law has an absolutely clear connection with the decision on localization.
– About the description is correct, it concerns a direct pressure to achieve a particular outcome in localization question, write Schjødt.
Høie incompetent
Schjødt also considered central actors impartiality. They believe both chairman Ola Strand in Central Norway, Man. Dir. Daniel Haga in Central Norway Regional Health and director Liv Stette everyone was disqualified. Beach and Haga due pressed against Eidsvik and because they have taken stances at very early stage. – Moreover, it must be assumed that the standpoints have become as a result of partiality that is not justified, writes Schjødt.
Life Stette has contributed to a statement under the auspices of Ålesund municipality who supported Hjelset. Wherefore Schjødt she is incompetent. Board of Health Central Norway came to the opposite conclusion when they treated her impartiality.
– Finally, there is reason to assume that the minister Høie is incompetent. He is in the public believed to have decided on a location to Opdøl at Molde at an early stage, and there is some evidence that he has exercised governance outside the normal channels. One does not necessarily incompetent of this, and it is obviously not wrong to have political opinions. For Høie however, it is so that he have not wanted to comment on this with such a degree of detail that it testable, but you’ve got the impression that it was about a decision on the general meeting. It is released some information gradually and later today he has confirmed, for the first time, that he “poured to” localize on Opdøl at Molde, and expressed this in August 2014. It appears for example in VG networks. This in itself can so the matter stands now, claimed to be such a peculiar circumstance that weakens confidence in his impartiality, writes Schjødt.
Not acceptable
In his summary writing Schjødt following
– We have taken a general principle that decisions must be subject to proper treatment.
In our view, it was not prudent to push end of the proceedings through three administrative levels in three days. There was no consideration that indicated such a hurry, and the short time has managed meant that opinions become less rigorous than desired. This front ring of the case in the final phase, also resulted not uncovered other errors as it was warned in advance. It is shortly afterwards revealed that there actually was a breach of health law, that director Eidsvik seems to have been subjected to pressure, and that there at least exists opportunities for disqualification.
Here you can read the note from the Law Firm Schjødt by lawyer Vidar Streaming:
DECISION ON LOCATION OF HOSPITALS in Møre og Romsdal, PROCEEDINGS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT SEVERABILITY
1. INTRODUCTION AND THEMES
Ordfører- and Councilman Senate Nordmøre (Orchid) has asked us to make a legal assessment of the process that resulted in the decision of the general meeting in Central Norway Regional Health Authority on 19 December 2014. The General Meeting met when decisions in accordance with what the board of the regional health authority had decided the day before, namely locating the hospital to Opdøl at Molde.
The final phase of the proceedings consisted of the two health trusts boards and then the general meeting adopted their decisions in During three days, the 17th, 18th and 19th December 2014.
There have been complaints against such rapid processing in the final phase. In addition to timeliness has brought criticism against the events of phase just prior to the decision, particularly from October 2014. This applies particularly corporate outside corporate meetings (which is not permitted under health law), that it should be exercised pressure against directors and members of controls, that people are replaced, and that it shall be disqualified.
It has not been possible to implement some really investigation in the case, since we do not have access to all documents that could have significance, such as emails sent between players or documents from meetings that the two health authorities should have held on 12, 27 and 28 November. We have also assumed that the members of the health trusts’ boards and management, or the minister, did not want to have such conversations with us that it could have shed more light on the matter. The Minister has also informed the press that he does not want to give any detailed comments before he answers questions from the Inspection and konstitusjonskomiéen.
We have therefore based the review on publicly available documentation, including the report that the law firm Thommesen prepared to Health Møre og Romsdal on December 20, 2014.
We have also assumed information that is obtained through the press in such a way that the source and statements emerging as undeniable, such as direct reproductions of press conferences and press releases or transfers from open meetings.
The case is of such a nature that it is hardly possible to have a complete overview of all the facts without full access to all documents and emails, and access to the oral questions to those involved. We nevertheless believe that the present data is sufficient that we can shape conclusions. One reason is that a proper consideration just should not leave such uncertainty. Both the principles of proper procedure, the rules regarding disqualification, and health law governance is founded on that one should be able to trust the decision making process.
The information positively exists, indicating our view serious failures in the proceedings and that this has had an impact on the result. That case, in addition raises questions that almost requires detailed investigation, is only suited to support such a conclusion.
2. MORE ON LEGAL OUTPUT POINTS
As mentioned above, it is claimed that the decision suffers from many forms of faults. This means that a legal review could be organized in several ways. Is the case adequately lit by the Public Administration Act § 17? Violation of health law prohibiting corporate direct nullity action, or have such offenses still no effect because the person who control occurs opposite in principle are free anyway?
The law firm Thommessen discusses some of these approaches in its memorandum of 20. December 2014. We believe that there are several objections to the law firm’s discussion of such questions and we get into any of this below.
We believe that it is appropriate to take another point one law firm Thommesen. The reality of the matter is best illustrated if one is based on the very general principle that decisions should be given a proper treatment. This is undoubtedly a legal principle that applies regardless of whether the decision can be classified as an individual or otherwise. The underlying purpose rules should protect – confidence proceedings – also has a connection with the general debate that the decision has triggered.
The principle contains requirements for proportionality; the more important issue, the more reassuring proceedings must be. The principle is not limited to the treatment of the fact included in reviews, but also to the assessments. There is no doubt that an administrative agency must allocate itself sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the opinions to a subordinate body if it subordinates body shall be emphasized.
We are therefore based on such a general evaluation the very fast proceedings. The questions about the other procedural errors (illegal corporate, disqualification, etc.), we consider that factors in addition; should the allegations of illegal corporate etc. imply an even more thorough treatment?
These other factors also have a bearing on whether errors have been significant for the outcome of the case. In our opinion, there is reason to believe that the results may be affected by the unfortunate proceedings has happened.
3. IT WAS PROPERLY admissibility, BOTH health authorities and In ENTITIES MEETING DURING THE THREE DAYS?
3.1 Proceedings
The final decision was made by the Minister as corporate meeting on 19 December 2014. In proposal to the Board in Central Norway of 18 December, page 4 bottom, stated that the Board may decide yourself, and just report it to the general meeting. This can not be right, and we have also understood the minister’s statements that he has made his own decision.
Positioning of the hospital has been studied for several years, and there is a large amount of fact. If something of this fact is erroneous, we do not aim to elucidate in this note. Arguments about emergency preparedness considerations for offshore industry is mishandled, etc., we let therefore lie.
The key must on the contrary be that with such a large fact shortage, it is more important that processes and takes into account assessments emerges in an underlying body.
In Health Møre og Romsdal, there were (for reasons which we shall return) no recommendation to the board. Board therefore had at its meeting on 17 December debating issues without setting and, moreover, come to a decision.
In the board meeting in Health Møre og Romsdal gave several of the board members expressed that the matter was difficult and questionable, one numerous themes were debated, and it was resolved to suspend Opdøl at Molde with one vote. One of the directors (Bjørdal) gave openly expressed that he had changed his mind when he voted for the majority. The board meeting was open and was broadcast.
The board meeting in Central Norway Regional Health found that mentioned place the day after, on December 18. The setting, called the preliminary setting, was for what we understand written before the subordinate body had meeting. It was intent on locating the Opdøl at Molde. Board of Health Central Norway made a decision in accordance with the setting, with eight votes against two. Also in this board, there were many who expressed that the decision was difficult and not obvious. Also this meeting was broadcast.
The General Meeting then hit his decision the following day. A six pages long minutes of this meeting are signed at 0915 on 19 December. In undertaking the meeting “assessment” is shown to Health Central Norway “process and decisions” and corporate meeting to elaborate what is stated in Health Central Norway setting. Health Møre og Romsdal is not mentioned in the enterprise congress assessment.
Under the section on “Treatment boards for Health Møre og Romsdal HF and Health Central Norway Regional” it in a sentence mentioned that Health Møre og Romsdal HF resolved to locate the hospital to Opdøl at Molde. It does not appear from the minutes general meeting that the decision of Health Møre og Romsdal HF was passed with dissent or that it was demanded in the minutes that suggested that it could be committed illegalities. Nor is it mentioned that there was a protocol supply that “the reprehensible conditions set in the meeting must obtain judicial review quickly after meeting”. Nor is there anything about what was discussed at the meeting of professional issues, the case was filed exposed during the meeting, or what kind of “unacceptable circumstances” that had to be made. The only thing that is reproduced from the meeting in Møre og Romsdal, is one sentence that is mentioned above.
At a press conference (broadcast) immediately after the general meeting stated Minister Høie on the other hand that the general meeting had emphasized what boards of both companies had considered, and that the case was “discussed wide” boards.
3.2 Background for treatment in three steps
The decision is referred struck by Health Central Norway Regional and the entity’s corporate meeting (owner) due to the case of importance.
A common reason to make preparation in several stages, is of course to prepare the ground in the best possible way before the final decision is taken. In addition to the administration in the two health authorities, the case was treated by the boards. A recognized advantage of a collective body as a rule, is that you get debate and the exchange that helps to mature and develop a basis for decisions.
The two firms levels have slightly different function, which can be seen by the provision in § 2a about regional bodies. It is often said that the regional entity to “ensure” measures, while the local should perform. In addition to a difference in function, can difference in geographical coverage also involve different views as it is important that the decision maker has managed separately. It is not only “fact” that are of importance when deciding.
In addition to the generally follow the law system, we perceive the case history so that it was particularly important that this matter should have local roots . The foregoing decisions in case complex to be understood, which is natural given the desire that the final choice would also be accepted in the region. In general meeting on 30 June 2011 it was decided that
“proprietorships meeting gives Health Møre og Romsdal HF mission of preparing an overall plan for the development of the hospitals in the new health trust.”
basis of this decision was the 13th December 2011 prepared a project commissioned to implement the work.
The same underlying da Central Norway on 12 December 2012 decided a common acute hospital for North Møre og Romsdal. It was still the local health authority that should have handled “idea phase”, according to the decision in Case 92/12. This is also followed up by the local entity. It was set in this case that would be presented at the meeting on 17 December 2014, but was thwarted by the director Astrid Eidsvik not found to continue in his position.
3.3 – the forced treatment through three levels of government .
Administration or other relevant laws have provisions relating to “minimum time” for administrative case handling. Most of the case law is all about that management is taking too long, not too short.
The decisive question is therefore whether the treatment has been appropriate – here especially if it has been thorough enough, given the importance and merits the signals which existed about possible offenses etc. This general and unwritten principle formulated so in Eckhoff / Smiths “Administrative”, 9 ed. page 210:
“When to decide what rules should apply whether administration proceedings, must various considerations weighed against each other. Although procedural requirements are just collateral core, there must also be other requirements. For First, the need for thoroughness weighed against quickness and simplicity. ” (Uth in the book)
In the assessment, it is also important to note that administrative law is steeped in consideration of legitimacy or trust decisions. In the same book states on page 223 relating to impartiality:
“Secondly, it is not only important that officials act impartially, but also that people have confidence that they are doing it.” (Uth in the book)
This is a variant of the thesis which was developed by US Supreme Court in the 1920s, but who constantly quoted: “Not only must Justice be done, it must also be seen to be done “.
We the steaks that assessment here may not apply the time that was formerly used to prepare plans, etc., only the three days we had set aside to digest the underlying organs reviews of this.
Our view is that the time allotted was all Button, and involved a great risk that the significant judgments and nuances of control treatments were overlooked. As stated in later sections it has actually proven that they have overlooked that there was a breach of health law, and it has subsequently emerged new information about the background of director Eidsvik departure. This concludes already Advokatfirma Thommessen’s report. This is obtained after a few days of further investigations, and conditions are in our view far more serious than what mentioned report finds.
At the meeting of Health Møre og Romsdal it emerged suspicions illegalities. Much indicates that the meeting should have been canceled then, but you took a chance on that suspicions were wrong and delayed not. Afterwards it has been proven that there was a breach of health law, though it now seems to be agreement.
Protocol of general meeting on 19 December 2014 do not show that we have emphasized something that emerged in the discussion at the board meeting in the local health authority. Nor is unnatural, since it is difficult to put into complicated discussions without time to disposal. The protocol essentially contains reproductions of earlier documents from the regional health authority. It is therefore quite likely that the local views have not been sufficiently heard, although initially the process was a local “ownership”.
It is of course possible that corporate meeting / Ministry had already decided. If so, and if one expressed such a reality, it would not necessarily be invalidity. In this case, however, stated that the final decision is also based on a thorough evaluation of what boards have meant – something difficult can be.
We are not familiar with any other example of management practices that a decision is processed through three levels with such speed. This applies regardless of the administration, and whatever simplicity.
If it is very important to get settled matters quickly, can obviously a trade imply that anything less thoroughness is acceptable. As mentioned in the quoted Eckhoff / Smith can thoroughness might depart if opposing considerations indicated rapid treatment. However, we can not see that there are some reasons to consider the matter during the three days, as opposed to, for example, two weeks. We have not seen that an attempt has been no such reason out that this was something one had decided previously. Prior to the decision was advocated for a longer områingstid in the press, which was rejected. Corporate meeting was contrary first scheduled for 6th January 2015, but was then postponed to December 19th.
We have repeatedly mentioned administrative court’s emphasis on public confidence. A very unusual procedure, which are not justified in any understandable way, is clearly not suited to corroborate some confidence to the decision.
Our view is that this form of treatment was clearly unfit to bring out all the nuances in assessments, and the existence of a procedural error. This is our conclusion already before considering all the other mistakes that could unfold in the shelter of the very fast processing.
Violation of health law and inappropriate pressure on the people involved, as well as at least possible disqualification treated section below. In the section after that, we summarize the probable effects mistakes had, before we conclude finally in a final paragraph.
4. OTHER PROCEEDINGS ERROR
The facts are reviewed essentially in chronological order, but with some remarks about possible disqualification eventually. We assume that the reader has the report from the law firm Thommessen available, so we do not necessarily citing emails rows appearing there in its entirety. The aforementioned report also accounts for law history, etc. that we not enter.
4.1 in October 2014, Director and Chairman’s resignation from Central Norway Regional Health
Trond Michael Andresen was director Central Norway Regional Health until he resigned on October 13, 2014.
The chair in Central Norway, Marthe Styve Holte went off on the same occasion.
Marthe Styve Holte first entered a general disagreement due to his retirement. After a few days she stated to the press that she wanted to give more detailed information since she felt that the Ministry prepared a false version of the facts. In interviews enlightened she that Minister Bent Høie had contacted her directly that she would dismiss the Director, Trond Michael Andersen, within a week.
This she refused, and because of this attempt override she found to have retire.
The day after this took director, Andersen, he also had to retire.
Minister Høie enlightened on government Web sites that they had received reports of concern and notification related to the Director’s exercise of his work .
About events is as Styve Holte provide, are undoubtedly a violation of health law § 16 which states that it is not permitted to undertake corporate outside corporate meeting. Hiring and dismissal of the Director is also a task for the board, as in other companies. In health law states of § 36.
Whether these incidents are connected with that decision, we know however nothing specific about.
We note, however, that in public is perceived as that there may be such a context, so this should be investigated further. We will not now speculate which interests may have made a complaint of the president, and why the minister even possibly took such contact, and at this time. After that we understand entered Andersen resignation agreement containing a confidentiality.
4.2 November 2014, meetings between the health institutions; Central Norway Regional Health advises which decisions are acceptable
In November 2014 were held at least three meetings as it supposedly should not exist protocol or abstracts from.
The 12. November met representatives of both health authorities at Gardermoen, both directors and directors. The local health authority undertook presentations. At this meeting shall in particular chairman of Central Norway Regional Health have stressed that the directors of the two companies had to come to agreement on how the hospital should be located.
The directors, Daniel Haga from Central Norway and Astrid Eidsvik from Health Møre og Romsdal met therefore in Ålesund on 27 November. Managers were not agreed, Haga wanted to localize the hospital Opdøl at Molde, Eidsvik on Storbakken near Kristiansund.
Haga should then have stated that the only acceptable place was Opdøl and also called his chairman to confirm this.
After that met the directors with their chairmen at Gardermoen next day, Nov. 28 2014. Eidsvik shall also here have refused to bow to the desire consensus, and there is an obvious connection with her resignation less than a week afterwards.
The law firm Thommessen has treated these episodes in his report and there seems to be consensus on the main features of fact, but possibly a disagreement about how such episodes is to understand.
The law firm Thommessen find that episode “reasonably” can be understood as control signals from the body over, and if so is a violation of health law § 16.
We agree that there is such an infringement with the only difference that there can be little doubt about the conclusion. We point out that was persistent pressure that took place over several meetings, and that according to note that law firm cites “was little room for further discussion.” We also find it natural to see this in the context of Director Eidsvik departing immediately afterwards.
Her written information about his possible resignation, and informed that she perceived rumblings from its Chairman and CEO of Health Central Norway as “threats” seem not met with any regret or indication that she genuinely stood free to believe what she thought was professionally sound.
This violation of health law has an absolutely clear connection with the decision that is the case theme . About the description is correct concerns a direct pressure to achieve a particular outcome in localization question.
The law firm Thommessen highlights that control signals are not legally binding, and that at the meeting on November 28 will have been informed that she could promote the setting she wanted while the day before may have been told otherwise. Although we do not have firsthand knowledge of these meetings, we need out of an overall assessment assume that it has been clear for Eidsvik that there was no real alternative to propose anything other than Opdøl at Molde. It was this she took the consequence of the retire and not set at all.
The law firm Thommessen also shows that one in private group relationship can experience the general manager of a parent company orients subsidiary of what is the parent company vision. However, this may not have any transfer value. In health Act § 16 has introduced a rule that will help to draw a boundary between the State’s different roles, which one does not have similar needs in the private sector. The purpose of the pressure, to give an artificial impression of consensus between the two companies are also in violation of the Act. The point of admissibility, several agencies are to disclose disagreement, not hide it.
4.3 The increased pressure on director Eidsvik and illegal corporate again
The law firm Thommessen report of 20. December 2014 contains from page 10 a series of emails describing how Astrid Eidsvik resignation happened. The correspondence shows that she immediately after the meetings described above found it difficult to continue, and took up how a shutdown were to happen.
The e-mails were not known in public before this and did not come forward at some of meetings of health authorities. While law firm Thommessen believes that only is “legitimate concerns” behind what is stated to Eidsvik, we find correspondence both sensational and reprehensible. Epos Tene has many aspects. Partly indicates emails a further case of corporate contrary to law. And partly it shows pressed against Eidsvik, and negotiations for a severance payment. In this section processed first minister Høies signals.
As part of the discussion between the chairman Kinserdal and Eidsvik, as elaborated in the section below, sent Kinserdal the 4th December 2014 email to Eidsvik. This is quoted and processed from page 5 in the law firm Thommessen report.
The email describes how it should have been contact between Høie and Kinserdal in connection with a meeting the same day. Høie should have asked how “innspurtsuka” was and Kinserdal should have said that it was difficult especially for Health and Møre og Romsdal Eidsvik.
According to the e-mail should Høie have stated that “we know “. It appears therefore from the text that Høie was aware of the situation obtaining with disagreement between the two firms. It is enhanced by the next sentence in the email that describes that Høie stated that:
“… it is important that the settings for resolution in HMR and HMN pointing at the same location.”
Already this communication of it had to be understood, must be assumed to be a control in violation of the prohibition against corporate outside corporate meeting. The contents of the controller is also reprehensible; law does not require of forced consensus. Health trusts law is founded on democratic processes means that disagreement should appear.
In addition to this it emerges of the email that was also given signals which option it should be understood, namely Opdøl at Molde
“He did it then shine through, but without saying it explicitly, that he believes that Hjelset is the obvious choice. He was drawn further into the room before I got asked if he would have corporate meeting on the matter. I am aware that the above does not necessarily contribute to your clarification rounds. “
About epics Tens description is correct, there is a way of exercising power in secret law specifically intended to prevent.
We note that both Høie and Kinserdal subsequently indicated that e-mail is not correct. Whether it is correct or not, we can not know. We points out that the email was written down immediately afterwards, while information about misunderstandings first come now.
