Deep divisions stall hospital board as disputes over authority and transparency continue.
A series of sharp disagreements among members of the Perry County Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees has left the five-member board deeply divided and struggling to function, according to meeting records, interviews, and public statements reviewed by the Republic- Monitor.
The disputes center on governance, transparency, legal authority, and the board's role following the hospital's lease to Mercy, which assumed day-to-day hospital operations in October 2023. While hospital services continue uninterrupted under Mercy's management, the elected board that retains ownership of hospital property and capital assets has become increasingly fractured, with voting patterns revealing persistent divisions.
BACKGROUND: THE MERCY LEASE
Perry County Memorial Hospital is owned by the county and overseen by an elected board of trustees. In March 2023, the board voted to approve an eight-year lease allowing Mercy to operate and manage the hospital, with renewal options that could extend the agreement up to 20 years. The Perry County Commission later unanimously approved the lease.
At the time, hospital leaders and board members described the agreement as a strategy to ensure long-term sustainability for a rural hospital facing rising costs, staffing challenges, and new technology requirements. Mercy invested millions of dollars in electronic medical records and other infrastructure and retained hospital employees as Mercy co-workers.
Although the lease transferred operations to Mercy, the Board of Trustees retained responsibility for hospital- owned real estate, capital funds, bylaws, and oversight of lease provisions.
A DIVIDED BOARD EMERGES
The current board consists of Chairman Bill Bohnert, Vice Chairman/Secretary Gwen Schweiss, Treasurer Joe Hutchison, and members Patrick Naeger and Art Pistorio.
Board minutes and recordings from multiple meetings show a widening divide, particularly between Naeger and Pistorio on one side and the remaining three trustees on the other. The disagreements have played out publicly during board meetings, public comment periods, and recorded votes.
Among the recurring points of contention are: • The board's access to financial information related to the former Perry County Health System • The definition and enforcement of conflicts of interest • Whether legal discussions held in closed session should be made public • The scope of the board's authority following the Mercy lease.
BYLAWS CHANGES, REVERSAL
Disputes over governance intensified in late 2025, with a series of votes related to board bylaws.
The board voted 4-1 to adopt a new set of bylaws drafted by the board's attorney, a process that incurred several thousand dollars in legal costs. Treasurer Joe Hutchison cast the sole dissenting vote and had also been the only trustee to oppose engaging legal counsel to draft new bylaws.
At the following month's meeting, trustees voted — this time on a 3-2 split — to abandon the newly adopted bylaws and revert to the board's original governing document, reflecting the shifting alliances and ongoing disagreement over governance issues.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST AMENDMENT
Around the same period of time, the board considered an amendment to its conflict-of-interest policy.
During debate, Hutchison questioned whether the amendment was aimed at a specific board member. Pistorio raised concerns about potential financial interests tied to pending legal matters. The amendment ultimately passed on a 3-2 vote, with Hutchison, Bohnert, and Schweiss voting against it and Naeger and Pistorio voting in favor.
CLOSED SESSIONS, TRANSPARENCY DISPUTES
Disagreements over transparency continued following closed-session legal discussions.
At an October meeting, Naeger formally requested that certain legal discussions held in closed session be acknowledged in open session and made part of the public record. The motion failed on a 3-2 vote, with Bohnert, Schweiss, and Hutchison voting against it.
Public comment periods during the meeting reflected rising frustration, with residents questioning whether trustees were receiving complete information and whether legal expenses were justified. Board members disputed characterizations of the legal matters and urged caution in discussing them publicly.
LEGAL COSTS AND OVERSIGHT
Meeting records show the board approved payments for legal services related to disputes involving the former Perry County Health System and the review of bylaws and conflict-of-interest policies. Invoices detail work related to cost reports, pharmacy closure issues, patient records storage, and bylaw revisions.
Some trustees have argued that legal review is necessary to protect the board's authority and ensure compliance with state law. Others have expressed concern about the expense and whether legal action advances the board's core mission.
HOSPITAL OPERATIONS CONTINUE
Despite governance disputes, Mercy Hospital Perry continues routine operations. Mercy officials have reported physician recruitment, community outreach, and capital investments. Equipment purchases approved through the lease's capital-fund provisions have continued, often with unanimous board support.
Hospital administrators have emphasized that patient care has not been disrupted by the board’s internal disagreements.
PUBLIC CONCERN AND UNCERTAINTY
Public comment periods have increasingly become forums for frustration, with residents urging trustees to work collaboratively and questioning whether the board's structure remains effective under current conditions.
AN UNRESOLVED PATH FORWARD
The board continues to meet, but voting records show recurring deadlock on governance-related matters. What remains unresolved is whether trustees can restore internal trust and public confidence — or whether continued division will further limit the board's ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities.
While the hospital itself remains open and operating under Mercy's management, the board of trustees charged with safeguarding its assets remains sharply divided.
