If you have a comment, input it at bottom.
Email us at info@bcddf.ca
or text or phone Jim at 604 417-2635.
Why should we support the proposal of two people we don’t know, over the objections of the BCMA Board and both Societies? Have you any qualifications?
This is a good question. Directors commonly lack knowledge of their bylaws. Competency in governance is an even higher hurdle. Just because opinions “against” something outnumber the opinions ”for” among the pooled Boards of the BCMA and Societies is no basis for a sound decision. Your decision should build on the merits.
One of us, Jim, has an advanced degree. I was a first director of the University Clinical Faculty Association and inherited challenges with the Vancouver Medical Association’s bylaws in accepting its presidency. I have attended multiple workshops on the BC Society Act, and evaluated and discussed the upcoming Society Act change proposals with one of its architects. I attended workshops on board function and chairing beyond those put on internally by the BCMA. I identified problems with bylaws breaches in a non-profit associated with the BCMA, and participated in their resolution. I have discussed board problems with a parliamentarian who has on numerous occasions advised the BCMA. In 2008, I contributed a considered critique of the BCMA vs Slater-Chartrand proposals that has not been examined. I have kept in mind the dysfunctions of the BCMA as I worked through all the books listed on this site since I first joined the Board in 2008 (see Resources menu).
The other of us, Charles, was a first director of the Vancouver Division of Family Practice while completing the GPSC Leadership and Management Development Program through Simon Fraser. He has attended some of the aforementioned workshops with me. I await his offer of how much more he may like shared.
Both of us have by the way read, and together confidentially deliberated, all rulings and judgments of which we are aware in relation to litigation affecting the BCMA.
Last but not least, look at what was already in 2005-2007 identified as core problems of the Board in work of the Ad Hoc committee, chaired by BCMA Past President Arun Garg. On that same committee served BCMA Past President Ian Courtice – he comments below. They devoted three years to this stuff. What’s the Board done since 2008? It’s why we suggest the existing Board, like its predecessors, remains at high risk of endless procrastination.
On what basis do the BCMA Board and Societies oppose these amendments?
Caveat: we are neither authorized, nor do we claim, to speak for the Board or Societies.
That said, we think their concerns are reactionary and entirely manageable through even-handed policies and practices.
Setting aside that the near-minority Society of General Practice, and minority Society of Specialist Physicians and Surgeons, are doubtless reluctant to lose the statutory rights and controls presently accorded to them…
For one thing, all three parties feel extremely unprepared to shoulder the consequences of the changes, if approved.
What they appear to wholly miss is that the directors would have *no* new work, save that 5 districts would each have to convene a single District meeting per year. If each is as poorly attended (in proportion) as our Annual General Meetings, we will be talking 10 to 20 members each. If more than these can be achieved, we ought to celebrate.
The only other definite change would be that the Board’s *voting* directors would shrink in two stages, from the current 37 down to 30 (in 2013-2014), and from 30 to 10 (in 2014-2015).
Absolutely nothing would prevent the Board to invite as many members as it likes to fill some of the 20 vacated seats, around the oversized oak table, with several members there in a truly representative role. Ironically, this is exactly what the Societies insist they have been wanting, at the same time as they urge defeat of these proposals. We cannot help but point out how the two Societies themselves struggle for membership, and to fill their positions. Their frustration at feeling insufficiently listened to by the BCMA’s directors has led the Societies to merely agree that what exists is unsatisfactory. Neither has demonstrated vision, nor leadership, in substantial reform yet both are happy to pronounce our proposals as well-intended but “inadequate”.
Let’s focus on getting more Specialists and GPs into an effective, rather than an ineffective, pool of BCMA Delegate and Vice Delegate positions.
Let us *then* fix representation, which is among the Societies’ chief concerns. We agree it needs to be fixed. The mistake, in an organization as complex as the BCMA, is to continue to try to achieve this through the persons of the directors. What we need is a separate vehicle, one that can be built over the ensuing 12-18 months, that will better and more effectively inform, and even educate, the Board.
Let the Societies step back, and support these reforms. We are all cut from the same cloth. It’s time to invest in each other: one Board, one membership, one BCMA. These referendum proposals will work, provided you will support them and their further evolution.
We are hopeful that the remaining answers show this.
Ten directors sounds like not enough. Are we really going to permit as few as 4 among a quorum of 6 to carry a vote?
Ten is at the top end of high-performing board sizes, and at least 5 more colleagues will be in attendance, non-voting. For a fuller discussion of why 10 borders on too many, see here. Remember, too, that each Delegate will have 4 Vice Delegates to fill absences, and to hold the others present to account. Meetings will almost invariably be attended by between 8 and 10 in a director capacity.
Does anyone truly believe that decisions made by these people, informed by the heavy lifting of committees and by senior staff, subject to the input and scrutiny of another 4 combined Society Presidents and CMA Delegates, and answerable to 20 Vice-Delegates with whom to caucus and have to justify decisions between meetings, let alone the membership, will be of lower rigour than decisions of the past few years?
I still worry you’ll be giving a small number of people too much power. I don’t like oligarchies! What’s your answer?
Please see our reply to the forum comment below, “Cheques and balances against an oligarchy”, from a senior colleague who asked not to be identified.
Why should we ‘rob’ (deprive) Society Presidents and CMA Delegates of a vote?
1. BCMA members have no direct control (no direct vote) over these positions. The CMA Delegates are appointed by the BCMA Board, and the Society Presidents are appointed by the members of their Societies, who are themselves a minority in the BCMA. BCMA district members can remove their district delegate, and the BCMA membership overall can remove their Officers.It is not enough to say “every Specialist should be a member of the SSPS and every non-Specialist a member of the SGP” because there have been times when some members were eligible for neither, not to mention that some Specialist Sections are not part of the SSPS. Even then, it would give them voting access to one Society President, but not the other. Removal of the votes would limit this accountability gap.While there have been some very good Presidents of both SSPS and SGP, that their positions get filled by acclamation shows it is hard to get quality people to see those Presidencies as worth competing for in any election.2. Sections have asked “why does the Section of General Practice get direct representation on the BCMA Board, while the Specialty Sections each enjoy only indirect representation?”. Removal of the vote would help to reduce this perceived imbalance.3. Being a director obligates you to act in the best interests of that organization. Being a director on two organizations, some of whose interests are competing, gives rise to – and have in fact caused such directors to be caught in – conflicts that would be lessened by removal of the vote.4. The need for (and value of) the SSPS and SGP was to try to ensure that their respective members’ needs were being adequately advocated for. Since their combined aspiration is to represent all members of the BCMA, they remain important for as long as the BCMA Board may otherwise under-appreciate members’ concerns. To fill this role, the Societies do not need a vote. They just need to be there.
Why should Specialists support this, when you have not guaranteed equal numbers of GPs and Specialists on the Board?
This would again mix governance with representation.
Any time positions risk to get filled by anyone with minimum qualifications, such as by acclamation, it is a concern.
It is already possible, but we hope unlikely, that only two Specialists will stand for the proposed minimum two Specialist positions per district. This would fill vice delegate positions by acclamation. We think that at the level of delegates and directors, this scenario should be avoided.
How much money will this ‘downsizing’ save the members?
Downsizing the Board will make it more effective. We estimate potential savings of at least $300,000 translatable into either dues reduction, or better value for what is spent.
Wasn’t the “deal” from 2008 that, in return for a smaller Board, members would get a Representative Assembly (RA)? How can you possibly expect us to support this, if you do not include an RA as part and parcel of the bylaws amendment?
We agree that the thing that people call representation is not being effectively achieved. The District Delegates, who are meant to be the communication intermediaries, communicate mainly unidirectionally and, in some cases, not at all. No uniformly meaningful exploration of issues with local constituents is achieved either prior to, or after, Board meetings. This kind of exploration is not even reliably achieved among delegates within a district.
We do not provide for an RA in new *bylaws* for reasons similar to avoiding to specify the amount of our dues in our bylaws. Why would we want, in our bylaws, a requirement to have something with 86 people on it?
We put it to you that the reason we lack effective representation is because your current directors either do not understand or do not accept its importance. When the SSPS President last proposed that the BCMA board accept, at each meeting, to receive and consider the problems of one or two Sections, the board voted it down.
A board of this nature must be fixed before any kind of RA will work. Yes, we need better representation. That can come immediately after we have fixed, but not until we have fixed, the Board.
The unfortunate part is that it in protesting the lack of representation in the proposals, Societal opposition serves to delay better representation.
Can the Board adjust to so sudden a drop as from 37 to 10 voting directors?
If the bylaws amendments pass, and provided the following have not resigned their rescinded District seats in order to compete in the election weeks away, 18 sitting directors of the BCMA shall all have a year left in their two year terms, redefined as ex officio District Delegate, and providing continuity through June of 2014, across any change of government:
Charl Badenhorst, Eric Cadesky, William Cavers, Luay Dindo, Jean “Jannie” du Plessis, Mark Godley, David Harris, Bruce Horne, Ralph Jones, Trina Larsen Soles, Gordon Mackie, Mike Morris, Lloyd Oppel, Alan Ruddiman, Kimberley Shaw, Shirley Sze, Nigel Walton, David Wilton
as will the 5 who count the Chair of the Board, our current President Elect and President, and our CMA Delegates:
Carole Williams, William Cunningham, Shelley Ross,
Brian Brodie, Brad Fritz
as might up to 7 of the following 11, depending if they would stand again for election and be successful in one of the new District positions or one of the available Offices:
Jim Busser, Peter Barnsdale, Dan Horvat,
Sanjay Khandelwal, Mike Putland, Robin Routledge,
WJ “Bill’ Mackie, Kevin McLeod, Charles Webb,
Phil White, Joanne Young
plus the SGP and SSPS Presidents.
Plainly, the Board of 2013 – 2014 will, pass or fail, carry at least 30 among the current 37 directors for another year.
This will provide the space of a full year in which to undertake whatever functional adjustments may be required or desirable.
One question about which I’m unclear: do the Vice-Delegates remain ‘non-voting’ when the actual delegate is absent from a meeting? For example, if I am a Vice-Delegate and I attend a Board meeting in lieu of the actual delegate, do I get to use his/her vote? It seems ambiguous as written.
We tried to avoid having to amend more of the Bylaws than is necessary. By custom, Vice-Delegates have been accorded a vote even when only briefly deputized for a single day. Directorship proper, on the other hand, does involve responsibilities outside of and between meetings so there is room for this to be deliberated down the road.
What if the NDP prevails, and remaps or erases Health Authorities?
We invite you to adopt the mindset that all problems are solvable. For those who need help to get past this particular bogeyman, we can either amend the bylaws to reflect HA mappings as they were, or come up with anything that better suits our purposes. It is not as though each of our 16 districts is coupled to health system decision-making now.
It is not as if our hospitals will be relocated, or our clinical relationships hugely altered. That’s what’s important.
How can the BCMA possibly hope to function with just two committees, Nominating and Audit?
This is an excellent example of people’s misunderstanding of both the existing bylaws, let alone the amendments. We are not limiting the BCMA to have two committees. We are only saying that the Board will be able to adjust the terms of reference and membership of five hitherto Statutory committees, in addition to the roughly seventy that will remain Standing.
Will the ‘old school’ types on the BCMA Board be supporting the bylaws change proposals?
Let us set aside that BCMA directorship is not, strictly, a volunteer position. It is true that $1100 per Board day plus expenses does not in all cases replace their lost income. Others recognize the amount to be more than some full-time colleagues clear in a day’s work.
Let us set aside any question of motivation. Sacrifices are, indeed, made to serve on the board although it can be the additional committee work that some directors accept – and for which some even campaign – that clouds part of the issue.
The biggest challenge in acceptance of the proposed changes, in our view, is maybe not a surprise.
The longer and/or more intensely that incumbents have immersed themselves in the work of the board and committees the appointments to which the board controls, the more likely is this work to have supplied them with another meaning and purpose within their professional lives. Colleagues should very much be thanked, and acknowledged, for much that they’ve contributed.
Now consider to ask these same directors to endorse limiting their opportunities to serve *in this role*, from 37 positions down to 10, in a membership of 10,000.
Suffice it to say that the Board’s Resolutions Committee, two days before the Board’s meeting April 6th, directed the removal from its agenda a motion calling for the approval and encouragement of delegates to communicate their individual views to the membership.
What about losing rural representation? What about PHSA?
The answer to the first is found in the need for all kinds of better representation input “to” the board, not “as” the board. This is more thoroughly covered in the Forum comments, below.
The answer to the PHSA question is to understand that the primary reason for the re-mapping under geographic health authorities is to enable a degree of geo-proximity among our working relationships. Nothing requires a Delegate or Vice Delegate to have HA privileges, and nothing precludes every one of the five {Delegate, Vice Delegate} located in a particular geographic HA to have their primary relationship with PHSA. The construct is one of location that dually lends itself, by design, to assist coherence within a geographic HA. PHSA coherence might be nicely facilitated across the pool of 5 District Delegates and 20 Vice Delegates.
Isn’t this too big a change, too fast? Isn’t it a risky time? Maybe this needs careful study?
Fundamental reform is overdue, with the tinkering of recent years a combination of major indecision and protection of some groups and individuals’ interests over others. *Now* is the least “bad” time. Some of the directors bent on opposing this referendum do so well-aware that, across more than a decade, several Special Committees have come and gone. The most ambitious of these, after three years’ deliberation, put forward the referendum of 2008. “Nearly” passing got us nowhere. We can spend even more members’ dues, or reform now. It’s that simple.
How to vote? See this page.
10 replies on “Board size FAQ and Forum”
Some of these arguments sound specious, over-hyped, and contradictory. Big savings with fewer delegates, but actually lots of vice delegates, so the actual reduction is not so much. The list of board inefficencies really does not seem addressed by these amendments. Nothing seems to actually impact or bear relevance to the listed inefficiencies. How many GP s are there compared to specialists in BC – is it a surprise we have more GPs on the Board? I know now I can go to my district delegate and get someone who knows my area rather than to a HA delegate who most likely is off in an urban centre. Contentious elections with non-voting representatives do not make for a comfortable working outcome when one feels disenfranchised in the final board. I really wish I could see better how your proposal solves its concerns and how it can help my representation as a rural remote APP physician.
Presently the Vice Delegate positions add no cost to the Association. Their only role is to attend Board meetings in lieu of a Delegate who cannot, and there receive the honorarium that would otherwise have gone to the Delegate. Under our proposal, there will be fewer Vice Delegate positions (20, not 29) and they will, by necessity, have to include a better mix of GPs and Specialists. This will allow repurposing all or part of the $300,00 or so in question. We can reduce costs or use our dues to better value. We accept we cannot fully do both.
In Northern Health, I understand your existing Delegate to reside in Prince George which is the most populous city in your District 11. The proposals would not ‘saddle’ you with anyone more urban than that. Certain improvements will not happen directly, but indirectly, as a consequence of a design that we are confident will improve competencies, focus, interpersonal dynamics and accountabilities.
Some improvements will require a change in whom the membership elects, or permits, to be on the Board.
Thanks Jim. (by the way, I am “district 9”, like the excellent movie, and do not like the idea of my rural voice lost to that of the “big city” of PG). I am still working thru this board bylaw thing and want to give you a fair shake. What I find I do not have the time for is to sort thru the confusing we said/they said fairness arguments going back and forth in the broadcast emails. All I really want to know, as a BCMA-board naive person, are the pertinent facts for the argument that change is needed: what precisiely is the evidence that the bylaws/board is malfunctioning, and how bad is it (I need more than what is offered in “why changes”? (is it the Dr Caroline Wang events? Is there some other evidence about its inefficency or failure to represent fairly?) Then I want to know exactly how the smaller board actually is supposed to impact those concerns – how would it have been different in the situations cited as evidence of its failure? It has to make sense to me, and not be some vague ideas like “10 is more efficient/cheaper/has more proporotional specialists/better conforms to current boundaries”, fine maybe it is, but maybe not, but are these evidence of one not working well, the other working better? And how are we to trust the phrase their concerns are…”entirely manageable through even-handed policies and practices,” maybe individual personalities become more of an issue in a smaller board? How are we any more protected if those policies & practices of the smaller board are not even-handed? I have no doubt about your commitment, knowledge, and expertise in the matter, but I need to have it explained in very layman terms without any spin, threats of ‘change now or else suffer another decade’, or sense of raised hackles if I have a hope of making a decison for change.
Very few directors, let alone regular members, are qualified to cut through the fog that’s been manufactured. Barriers include “unawares” lack of expertise (Dunning–Kruger effect), limited information and perspectives (blind men and the elephant), lack of objectivity (competing interests, incumbency, and loss aversion), and other thinking errors.
Fundamentally, it is about how to achieve a group whose members are
(1) feeling ownership of, and therefore accountability for, their decisions
(2) capably developed at the individual level
(3) adequately on-boarded
(4) able to achieve adequate focus, and deep deliberation
(5) able to achieve trust, and create and resolve constructive tension
(6) adequately overlapped, and turned over
(7) adequately diverse
(8) adequately knowledgeable about their universe
Factors 1-5 favor smaller numbers, and 7-8 favour larger numbers, provided (8) is shared knowledge
The list above is from no book, it is my own synthesis. However see here. If we want to take advantage of the benefits of deliberative group decision making, we should have a minimum of 5 to 7 board members. You will note that the model proposes 10 voting directors, with a quorum of 6. Even for a complex non-profit, the practical maximum is 15 and that is only justifiable where there are few staff. The proposed model includes 15, of whom only 10 are voting.
Personally, how we get the 10 voting directors is less important than that we have only 10. A random sample of 10 of the existing directors would be better than what we have. Better yet would be to draw purely from among those currently serving no more than their 5th year on the board.
Thanks again. I see it as a problem of governance vs representatiion. I find very helpful your link to the Dorger consulting site. It points out that the non-profit organizations carry significant complexities that a single profit single bottom-line organization does not, and that these multiple bottom-lines may require larger boards. I think this is critical for our case. It also notes that boards that wish to enhance stakeholder groups in the deliberative process would need larger numbers, but it notes, as you do, that the larger numbers impair the deliberative process which is most efficient at the numbers of about 7 give or take a few. It also identifies that some further factors to consider in deciding board size including the need to meet diversity and representational targets. It might sound nice to say we are all one thing physicians, but in reality the different modes/regions/types of practice we engage in and our multiple different bottom-lines of our vocation do have a need for representation at some level. The Dorger site goes on to suggest that a board finding itself too large for effective deliberative functions should consider separating its governing functions from those representative & relationship functions. I note that Alberta Medical Assoc’n board is 10 with a twice yearly Representative Forum of a large number of delegates; Ontario’s OMA has a board of 22 from what I can tell, and a Twice yearly Council of 290 potential delegates. These are representative numbers equivalent to our national parliament! I agree with you and personally find such large numbers & limited meetings of the representative forums somewhat inneffective at their intended function, as the voices get diluted and heard rarely. On the other hand I am reluctant to forge ahead with a smaller board in our complex world without a clearly defined representative solution that makes sense. Is there a solution that could involve two parallel boards – one governing, of say 10 – and one, more argumentative and ‘dysfunctional’ shall we say, that meets maybe only half or a third as often but still pretty often, and that this representative board of say 30ish (not 86, and definitely not 290) be tasked with the function – that of allowing vocalization of the stakeholder’s concerns, with a view to “informing” the governing board of the climate of the membership? Maybe, beyond just “informing”, it could even have some limited control over the governing board’s decisions or members if it strongly identifies a governance seriously out of touch. Perhaps one member of this representative board can be periodically chosen by the Rep. board to participate and vote as a member on the governing board. I think that other ways of getting representative board members to engage their constituencies might be considered too but such solutions might face an uphill battle given that the constituencies apathy might be a reflection of the fact that we are spending lots of time working at our vocation and do not have the time to sort through such concerns as governance or ensuring our stakeholder issues are voiced.
The shortest version possible:
1. Governance and representation are both needed
2. The reluctance to proceed without ‘defined representation in place’ is predicated on worrying about losing representation that you assume exists on the current board. In reality, very little does.
3. If our current Board were less dysfunctional, it could devise an effective representational structure outside (alongside) the Bylaws.
4. This Board, so far, lacks the knowledge, insight, and will (the capacity) to fix itself. We are saying fix it (!!), by means of the proposed construct.
5. Once the Board is fixed, then let it — aided by member input — fix the representation
The challenge to representation is to figure out how to do it. We are told that the Representative Assemblies (RAs) of other provinces have not worked that well and so we should definitely avoid putting in Bylaws things we do not even know that we want.
All that we should require in bylaws is satisfaction as to checks and balances. We surely don’t want a disconnect between members too busy to identify that its board has gone off into left field, and a board that does not even realize it has ventured there. This is the reason why we proposed 4 Vice Delegates who, together with their Delegate, need to number at least 2 GPs and 2 Specialists.
That way, the Vice Delegates will always include at least 2 of the “opposite” (or complementary) kind of doctor as the Delegate. Moreover, with 5 per District you have the capacity of quality deliberation inside each District among a mix of GPs and Specialists. This may provide us a better opportunity for solutions in shared care than what happens inside the SSPS and inside the SGP but not across and between the two of them. This is a key check and balance that is missing. Currently, most every vice delegate is a GP and there is no ‘connect’ between the too-many Delegates and the too-many Vice Delegates.
Finally, to recognize that the Vice Delegates, 20 in all who will include at least 5 and up to 10 specialists, will have the means to keep in the loop of what is going on in the Board, and to identify things that are failing to be achieved on the Board. They could be the nucleus of an RA, and the Vice Delegates could challenge for the seat of their Delegate the next time around if the Delegate, in the view of the Vice Delegates, warranted to be replaced.
I support making the BCMA Board smaller and more nimble and most importantly more accountable for governance decisions that [have often been] made by the BCMA Executive. In many ways, the shrinking of the Board can be thought of as expanding the Executive and making the Exec/Board more clearly accountable for governance decisions. The missing piece is the means of making representation more relevant. The current General Assessmbly at the poorly attended AGM is an ineffective means of providing representation to the complex and diverse medical profession of the 21st centurty. Succession planning and regular turnover and renewal of BCMA Board positions with individuals demonstrating an aptitute for leadership is entirely lacking and a representative body that creates an environment for “breeding” leaders is sorely needed. Neither of the Societies have enough paid members to constitute a truly represenatative body for GPs or specialists. Supporting this amendment is the first step in creating a Board that is nimble and well-connected with a Represenatative body that must be able to nurture relationships with existing physician leaders in the Health Authorities and GP divisions etc. Subsequent to the downsizing of the Board I would support further ammendments to the constitution that would make the General Assembly a twice-yearly occasion with specific membership that connects it to the new Board. Secondly I would support expanding the Board somewhat by making a GP and Specialist position in each HA region and shrink the Executive positions somehat as a Chair of Board and Chair of General Assembly (GA) are not needed as two separate positions.The Alberta model of having a Chair of RA (represenatative assembly) sit on the Board as a non-voting “eyes and ears” of the representative body. With two members from each HA there would be an opportunity to ensure that rural representation is addressed.
Therefore I believe that after many years of convening committeees to look at changing the governance/representative model for the BCMA it is time to take some action and make governance more nimble and accountable while making representation meaningful (require BCMA members to pay dues to their representative groups and take part in representative functions for their sections).
After more than 30 years as a BCMA member I can state with confidence that the BCMA has lost its way as an organization intended to represent the interests of its members. The unraveling began towards the end of the 1980s, but came to a head in the early part of this millenium. The reasons for this are complex and numerous, and would take some time to describe and discuss. There are unresolved ‘issues’ that continue to fester and that, sooner or later, will have to be brought back for a series of principled discussions leading to resolution.
Meanwhile, the structure of the Board has evolved as it has in part as a response to these unresolved issues, and partly as a result of the arrogance of power. In spite of this evolution individuals and groups remain profoundly unhappy on the one hand; and profoundly cynical on the other. Such cynicism is only reinforced when an elected Board, in a magnificent display of arrogance, sets aside and ignores a set of resolutions regularly moved and voted upon at an AGM to bring about transparency in the workings of the BCMA. Further reinforcement arises when one or more BCMA Board members declares publicly that their role is not to represent members but to govern them! Such arrogance is breath-taking – and it happens.
As a long time member of the BCMA there is no doubt at all in my mind that the present arrangement is not working to the best advantage of the members. I understand the concerns of those who feel unsettled by the proposed constitutional changes, but would urge them not to be swayed by Board members who are providing them with a very partial perspective. I repeat – the present system has not been working well. There have been 3 law-suits by members disgruntled with the Board. This is unheard of in the history of the BCMA. Why has it been happening?
The very fact that the Association has refused to publish a complete account of the arguments on both sides of this debate strikes me as highly troubling.
It is time for change at the BCMA. Whether or not these constitutional changes will achieve all that is needed remains to be seen. But they are a start. I urge readers to consider not just the immediate facts pertaining to the referendum; but why we find ourselves at this juncture. Look at the history leading up to this.
Chris Sedergreen
Your proposal will streamline the whole Board executive and decision making process to an oligodemocracy. With a small BCMA executive as proposed, we are at the mercy of that small group for significant decision making. Unless I am missing something?
Setting aside that nothing stops a majority in a large group to lose perspective, and drift into misuse of power and authority, we have put in far better provisions for Officer, Delegate and vice delegate accountability than what currently exists.
In the event that the new configuration spawns one or multiple people who need reigning in, the design expressly provides both contraception (level 1), and remediation (level 2).
In our view, if you will give a new design a chance, shrinking the board in the span of 14 months from 37 paid directors to
10 + Chair + 4 non-voting + staff
will see the evolution of a higher-performing board.
Suppose any individual, among the proposed new district Delegates, gave you grounds for concern. Our design offers two levels of accountability.
The first protection will fall among each group of 4 collectively-accountable regional vice delegates. These are colleagues who will have been prepared to serve, but who did not gain, the Delegate position. These 4, a mix of GPs and Specialists, can be expected to have regular access to their Delegate. Together they are sure to have expectations for the board.
If just one vice delegate becomes sufficiently perturbed, the second level of accountability lies with the district membership. Districts that receive unsatisfactory answers from their Delegate and vice delegates will have two options for their replacement. First, through the process of annual elections. Provided members vote-in the new bylaws, each of the 5 Delegates across BC will have to convene an annual meeting of their district after the election nominations have closed (late March), and before election voting opens (late April). The terms further provide for at least 14 days’ notice, on a date and at a time and place designated by the Delegate in consultation with vice delegates, supported by aural connectivity if requested by those responding to the call for meeting. These provisions will afford members access to any potentially-important discussion. Even from a distance.
Second, in the event that a Delegate or vice delegates need to be removed during their terms, any ten percent of the district can call for a special meeting to consider the removal of any number of the 5. This translates into 50-300 signatures. At such a meeting of just 50 or more people, a simple majority among those in attendance can initiate a full district referendum. The district can in this way remove the Delegate plus any vice delegates should they so resolve. The district will then backfill one to five freshly emptied positions, from among their pool of hundreds to thousands of district members.
Similarly, if a single Delegate, especially supported by their vice delegates, persuaded their district that the removal of one or more Officers is warranted, the new design makes it easier to collect signatures from 10% of the overall membership.