After hearing from constituents over the weekend about the proposed 3/4-cent tax to support physical upgrades at Southwest Arkansas Regional Medical Center, Hempstead County Justice of the Peace and Quorum Court member Jay Lathrop of Bingen embarked on what he called a “fact-finding mission” Monday and reported during a visit to SWARK.Today’s offices late this morning that he has changed his mind and intends to vote FOR the 3/4-cent sales tax.

Lathrop had released a statement last week declaring opposition to the tax because of unanswered questions by the campaign, but Lathrop stressed that his concerns have never centered on whether Hempstead County needs a hospital. “I am in support of having a hospital,” he said, explaining that his questions were about accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

During Monday’s visit, he emphasized that after speaking with citizens in the northern part of the county, he felt obligated to seek answers. “The reason that I wrote the original statement is because there were some unanswered questions that I had, and citizens in the north end of the county also had concerns,” Lathrop said.

Addressing his first concern regarding the use of money already invested by the county and city, Lathrop said he received the information he had been seeking during a conversation with Anna Powell, Hempstead County Economic Development Corporation president, and Shelby Brown, director of Southwest Arkansas Regional Medical Center. He reported that “the money that has already been given towards the hospital was used to maintain the hospital until possible grants could be achieved, and to keep the doors open.”

Lathrop said he also learned more about the governance structure overseeing those expenditures. “One of the questions that I had is, is there a board of directors of the hospital? And there is,” he said. This morning he learned indeed there is a board and added during his conversation with SWARK.Today that documentation supporting the expenditures approved by the board is being assembled and forwarded to him. “Shelby's going to send me some proof on that,” he said.

Lathrop said his second concern involved exactly how tax revenues would be used if voters approve the measure and whether taxpayers would continue to benefit from assets purchased with those funds. He pointed specifically to expensive medical equipment as an example. In his original public post, he had asked, “If the tax pays for a CT scan machine, will Pafford also lease the machine from the county?”

During Monday's discussion he said he had received an answer. “I found out that if the county does buy that machine and the hospital uses it, when they collect money, that money is reinvested back into the hospital,” Lathrop said.

He said he also learned more about the lease arrangement under which the hospital currently operates. “What is the lease on the building? One dollar for five years,” he said. Lathrop noted that the county is intentionally foregoing substantial lease payments in order to strengthen the hospital's finances. “The county is not charging a substantial lease on the building to provide for the equipment or the rent,” he said. “So that whatever the hospital brings in can be reinvested instead of coming back to the tax fund.”

That information, he said, helped answer concerns that taxpayer-funded assets might benefit a private operator without producing a return for the community. Instead, he concluded that revenues generated through county-owned equipment and facilities are structured to flow back into hospital operations and improvements.

The third issue Lathrop sought to understand was the timing of the election. In his original statement he questioned why voters were being asked to decide the matter in June rather than waiting until the November general election. Following Monday's meetings, he said he now understands why local officials felt the matter could not wait.

“Well, I found out the reason it was rushed is because they had applied for grants, and they didn't get the word until the last minute that those [applications] didn't work,” he said. “So it's not something that we can put on the back burner till November. It became an emergency. That's why we couldn't put this off.”

Looking back at the language of his Friday press release, he acknowledged that he had originally written that the election “was rushed because of the need for the support,” but that he had wanted a clearer explanation before supporting it. After hearing directly from those involved, he said he now believes the compressed timetable was driven by necessity.

Lathrop said the experience reinforced the value of direct communication between elected officials and the people they represent. “If you have questions about issues, go to your local representatives,” he said. “Sit down and ask them.”

After spending Monday gathering information and receiving answers to each of the concerns outlined in his Friday statement, Lathrop said his position has altered. “After getting more information directly from the source, then I had a better understanding,” he said. “I change my statement.” (With Lathrop's permission, SWARK.Today has withdrawn his first statement from the site.)

Lathrop's conclusion was straightforward. “My vote's gonna be yes.” he said.

Writing contributions to this piece were made by April Lovette and Bren Yocom.