The proposal submitted to the Doctors of BC began as follows:
Whereas the BCMA Board consists currently of 5 Officer, 5 CMA / Society positions, and 29 District Delegate positions for a total of 40 including Chair … be it resolved that the existing 16 Districts and their 29 Delegate positions be modified as follows …
and set out how the 29 Delegate positions would be reduced to 15 while leaving intact the other 11 positions, including that of board Chair, which the Doctors of BC insists not to count.
I would encourage everyone to look over:
- The proposers’ rationale for why it’s time to reduce the size of the Board, and
- The proposers’ map which shows, at top, the current state and which clearly shows, at bottom, that the proposed province-wide reduction plays no urban-rural favorites.
Notice among the comments below how the President’s Letter’s has managed to sow, among rural colleagues, misplaced fears. I have corresponded with these and other rural colleagues and shall be happy to continue to do so.
If you have any other questions, ask. If you have concerns, share them. Thank you.
Once you’re ready to vote, hopefully in support of the proposal, here’s how.
Jim Busser, MD.
7 replies on “BCMA Board downsizing”
Downsizing seems reasonable.
Although I agree with your concept of down sizing in general, I disagree with downsizing in the vast geographic area of The east and wet Kootenays.
I am here in the East Kooteneys and we face unique challenges in BC being so far from Vancouver 10 hours if the roads are good and only 3 hours from Calgary for tertiary care. and 5 hours from Kelowna for secondary care.
So unfortunately I cannot support your motion which does not better take into account geographic size and is based more on population size.
Hi Stephen,
You are succumbing perfectly to the misplaced fear on which some Board opponents are counting.
Doctors of BC President Bill Cavers, in his October 16th Letter to the membership, worried several Districts when he tilted that a reducton in delegates – in partcular rural delegates – will make it “virtually impossible for these delegates to engage with and represent the issues of their members”.
Perhaps it is no surprise that a rural member immediately sent me this: – “My reply is simple: Rural Medicine is already being cut of at the knees and now it appears you want my testcles as well by removing any representaton we have and centralizing it in the lower mainland even further!”
The independent thinkers among you have likely already figured out that:
1. The proposed reductons are entrely populaton and geography “neutral”. The 16 lower mainland positons are poised to be cut to 8, and the 13 outlying positons to 6.5 (rounded up to 7) – as shown on the map that I had earlier supplied to the Doctors of BC,
2. What we should want among our directors is to ensure that each and every one of them is privy to the nature – the breadth and depth – of members’ concerns, and what members hold important. No mater whether we would be talking 40 or 26 directors, or whether we would be talking 3 (vs 8) in Vancouver, or 2 (vs 3) in the North, and that
3. The wisdom that’s needed among our directors cannot depend on their having to travel ofen, or far. Rather, it ought to come from the Associaton’s having provided our entre membership, individually and in groups, adequate voice. Such as many of our 38+ Sectons who lack seats on the Board have been trying to achieve.
The answer is not a board of representatves but, rather, representatve inputs to the Board. Which, even with the current large Board, we lack today.
A smaller Board should be welcomed, not resisted. Hopefully, those who get their votes in by Dec 11th will agree.
Thank you for your data, maps and explanation of the rationale for downsizing. I have submitted my vote in favor of downsizing. I find that that lack of access to the referendum through the central access site of doctors of bc is extremely disappointing. With the number of emails coming into my junk inbox, it is amazing that I saw it at all. This needs to be fixed.
Downsizing seems reasonable as long as it continues to be representative of the members at large. Bodies that are too big such as the UN become paralyzed and ineffective.
I voted to decrease the size because I agree with your points.
A smaller Board is a better operational vehicle. An engaged membership should have opportunities at a representative forum(s) for discussing issues. A large Board is inefficient and doesn’t even serve the representativeness issue well.