Jefferson Healthcare’s top executives say whistleblower commissioner Matt Ready’s allegations of the board violating open meeting laws are unfounded and they point to a series of annual audits and a memo from the county prosecuting attorney to support their counter claims.

A Jefferson Healthcare top executive said a sheriff’s investigation relied solely on evidence provided by Ready, and that evidence was reviewed by Detective Sergeant Derek Allen and submitted to Chris Ashcraft, the county’s chief criminal deputy attorney. That executive said the case, dated May 14, has been closed, and thus supports the hospitals assertions that Ready’s claims are unfounded.

Indeed, Ashcraft in his assessment, wrote, “I do not see any evidence of traditional criminal conduct because there is a lack of criminal intent to harm anyone, including the public. There may be OPMA (Open Public Meetings Act) violations that could run their ordinary course but those are issues for state regulators to investigate.”

Hospital executives added that law enforcement opinions were based entirely and exclusively on material, perspectives and recollections provided by Matt Ready.

In his report, Allen wrote that Ready’s “detailed documentation” included emails between hospital board members and executives and “suggest a review by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office — Assistant Attorney General for Open Government who oversees possible OPMA violations. An unexpected aspect is the potential involvment of legal counsel as a co-conspirator, which could raise ethical issues for the Washington State Bar Association, though criminal activity remains uncertain.” 

Emails provided by Ready show correspondence between Jefferson Healthcare Commissioner Kees Kolff, Jefferson Healthcare top executives and Jefferson Healthcare’s legal counsel, Brad Berg of Foster Garvey, discussing the plan for the alliance, and Kolff’s efforts to draft language and an organizational chart and discussions on the use of executive session.

Annual audit 

“The Washington State Auditor’s (SAO) office performs a compliance audit of all public hospitals, including Jefferson Healthcare,” wrote Pranav Sharma, the hospital’s director of strategic planning and marketing. The hospital used to undergo the audit every two years but with its growth it now happens annually.  

“Included in this audit is a thorough review of Jefferson Healthcare board meetings to determine if actions comply with the OPMA. The State Auditor’s Office just finished the 2023 audit and determined we were in full compliance with the OPMA and all other rules and regulations of being a PHD (public hospital district). We expect the 2024 audit to begin in the fall and look forward to another comprehensive review of all PHD requirements, including OPMA.”

Records show that between 2019 and 2023 state auditors found the hospital “district operations complied, in all material respects, with applicable state laws, regulations, and its own policies, and provided adequate controls over the safeguarding of public resources.”

Ready’s allegations stem in part from an executive session held in February 2025 and a March 26, 2025 commissioners’ meeting. There Ready’s accused his co-commissioners of meeting secretly with Olympic Medical Center representatives on “Project Driftwood,” a plan to create a regional health alliance with the Port Angles-based medical center. Ready further alleged that members of the Jefferson Healthcare Board had violated open meeting laws, abused the use of executive sessions, and suppressed public information. Ready provided emails between his co-commissioners and Jefferson Healthcare executives to support his allegations.

In addition to submitting his complaint to local law enforcement, Ready also sent his complaint to the state attorney general’s office. Hospital executives have said “where he decides to take this certainly doesn’t lend credibility to the case itself.” 

Ready said he is not inherently opposed to exploring regional partnerships such as Project Driftwood. “I did have specific concerns with the details of the proposal — particularly the proposed governance structure that would give Clallam County a 7-to-5 majority over Jefferson County, and the predetermined appointment of the CEO (Glenn) to lead the new entity. These elements raised serious concerns about fairness, representation, and long-term accountability.”

Ready added that he wasn’t given ”a legal opportunity to review the proposal in a setting where I could ask questions, propose modifications, or collaborate with the other commissioners.”

“There was never a public meeting or board discussion where we could formally consider improvements or even debate the merits of the plan,” Ready wrote in an email to the Leader. “This lack of process made it impossible to evaluate whether Project Driftwood could have been adapted into something more balanced and legally sound. So while I remain open to the concept of regional collaboration, I strongly object to the secretive, top-down approach that was taken in this case.”

Ready alleges that key Project Driftwood discussions happened between commissioners and hospital executives via email and in executive sessions.

“A subset of Jefferson commissioners were involved or consulted during the drafting phase,” Ready said in a previous interview. “I was not. I only became aware of the proposal during the executive session on February 5. The full board has never voted to authorize the proposal or the direction of the negotiations. Much of the process has taken place out of public view, contrary to the principles of public hospital governance.”

Executive sessions

Since January 2025, the Jefferson Healthcare board has entered into executive session four times — with six scheduled. During the month of February, the board scheduled two executive sessions, but only convened one. In March, the board scheduled two, but only convened one. The commissioners May meeting was cancelled, while another executive session is scheduled for the board’s June 18 meeting.

State laws are specific about the use of executive session. They are only allowed in certain circumstances and must be noticed according to state law, with the notice providing the public advance notification while citing the statute, the statute’s subsection and a brief description.

On Jan. 22, the Jefferson Healthcare board posted an executive session, cited statute, and stated in its meeting announcement that the “subcategory would be announced at the beginning of the meeting.”The board ultimately convened and executive session citing “evaluation of a public employee,”which is allowed by statute.

On Feb. 5, the board convened an executive session for “real estate”matters and “potential litigation.’ A Feb. 19 executive session gave no subcategory of the statute. That meeting was cancelled. 

On March 18, the board convened an executive session to “discuss with legal counsel … the legal risks of a proposed action.”

On March 26, another executive sesssion was scheduled, without a statutory subcategory. That executive session was ultimately cancelled. On April 23, an executive sesssion was scheduled without a statutory subcategory — “to be announced at the beginning of the meeting. ”The board then convened an executive session to “discuss the evaluation of a public employee.

On June 18, the board has posted a notice for executive session to discuss “real estate.”The statutory subcategory allows for the executive session, “To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price,”according to the statute.” 

For the Feb. 5 meeting, the board used the same subcategory, and “pending litigation” for its executive session then. The statute, however, does not permit a governing body to hold an executive session solely because an attorney representing the agency is present.

On March 31, the Leader asked board chair Jill Buhler Rienstra to provide a basic description of the real estate in question and to indentify the plaintiff and defendent in the litigation. Buhler was out of town at the time on family matters and did not answer the questions. The Leader submitted the same questions to Buhler Rienstra on June 16. She asked for more time to provide accurate answers.