Opposition MP Louise Jackson is quite correct when she says that the resignation of King Edward VII Memorial Hospital chief of staff Dr Donald Thomas raises more questions than answers.Indeed, the litany of questions she asked, and the Bermuda Hospitals Board’s inadequate responses, show that there are some severe problems with the management of the hospital.Worse, the tendency of the BHB to treat its affairs as if they are secret and as if the Board need not be transparent is disturbing, as is the fact that Health Minister Zane DeSilva supports its stance.The BHB is not a private business. It is a quango, owned by the Government on behalf of the people of Bermuda and administered by a board appointed by the Government on behalf of the people of Bermuda. It is funded entirely by the people of Bermuda by way of direct payments, insurance, donations and Government subsidies. Its employees are paid by the people of Bermuda. Therefore, there is no earthly reason why the salaries of senior managers of the hospital should be kept secret. The people who pay the salaries have the right to know how much they are paying, what bonuses are being handed out and what those bonuses are for.Similarly, the public has the right to know whether senior managers of the hospital are performing their duties satisfactorily. This is especially so when the persons concerned are directly responsible for the well-being of patients at KEMH, and when their professional abilities, or lack thereof, can result in permanent injuries or death. And it is even more important in a community that only has one hospital. Patients cannot choose to go to a nearby competitor when they are dissatisfied, even if many do choose to go overseas, often at great expense, because they have lost confidence in King Edward.It may be that Dr Thomas was placed on administrative leave and has since resigned for reasons that had nothing to do with patient care. But if that’s the case, the public has the right to know that and why he resigned.What is certain is that the BHB is having great difficulty explaining some of the recent actions taken at the hospital.It cannot properly explain why HPL lost $740,000, except to say its concierge service for overseas cancer patients cost more than it took in while it also made an investment in Ultimate Imaging, a joint venture in Hamilton set up to compete with other imaging providers. As has been reported, a requirement forcing obstetricians to refer patients to hospital diagnostic services “is now being reviewed”.The BHB also conceded that it is reviewing fees paid to specialist physicians hired by the hospital under Dr Thomas’ tenure, although it denied that hikes in these fees were the reason expenses to patients from hospital fees have soared in recent years, which in turn have driven up insurance premiums to levels where many people and businesses can no longer afford them.It is good news that the Ombudsman Arlene Brock has agreed to have a watching brief governance review which is now getting underway. This review will be undertaken by an outside body, and Ms Brock’s job is to ensure that since the BHB is commissioning and paying for the report, that it will in fact be credible.Given the BHB’s recent management history, including its response to Dr Thomas’ resignation, that may not be enough. It would be better for such a review to be carried out by the Auditor General, who is already vetting HPL’s books, Ms Brock and a panel of respected international medical administrators appointed by them. The problem now for the BHB is that the current review, even if it is vetted by Ms Brock, may not be believed or trusted.