Former MetroHealth CEO Akram Boutros speaks with Russ Mitchell after Ohio Auditor of State report скачать в хорошем качестве

Former MetroHealth CEO Akram Boutros speaks with Russ Mitchell after Ohio Auditor of State report

Nearly two years after Dr. Akram Boutros was terminated as MetroHealth CEO on accusations that he authorized $1.9 million in bonus payments to himself, the state auditor released its report Tuesday saying his actions were "not criminal." A section of the auditor's report -- titled "employment contract" -- expands upon this determination with the following text: Dr. Boutros advised that he interpreted his contract to entitle him to receive all benefits received by senior executives, including the SPBVC (supplemental performance based variable compensation) benefits. These were not contractual rights but were benefits which he believed he was entitled to by virtue of the contract language without specifically advising the Board. MetroHealth has acknowledged that Dr. Boutros had the authority to provide these benefits to the senior executives. MetroHealth disputes that the contract language cited by Dr. Boutros covered the SPBVC benefits. However, in that contract law provides that any ambiguities in contract language is interpreted in favor of the party which did not draft the contract, we conclude that Dr. Boutros was not unreasonable in his interpretation of the contract language. As previously noted, the purpose of the special audit was to assist the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office in determining if criminal acts had been committed related to the bonus payments. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether the Board or Boutros is correct on the interpretation of this part of the contract. Instead, we need to determine if Boutros’ interpretation was not unreasonable. If his interpretation was not unreasonable then, even if he was incorrect, the State would be unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dr. Boutros obtained these funds from MetroHealth either “without the consent of the owner” or “by deception.” This means that we do not need to reach a conclusion as to which interpretation of this clause in the contract is legally correct. The manner in which the contract was drafted creates the ambiguity which makes Boutros’ interpretation, and thus his actions, not unreasonable and, therefore, not criminal. Read: https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/loc... At 3News, we’re here to share your voice and tell your story. Share your ideas, thoughts, concerns and engage in conversations about the communities in which we all call home. Follow 3News on Social: Facebook:   / wkyc.channel3   Twitter:   / wkyc   Instagram:   / wkyc3   Visit our site: https://www.wkyc.com/ And be sure to download our app here: https://wkyc.com/app