Busser / Wakefield amendments 2015

On December 29th, Bob Wakefield and I submitted five new special resolutions to amend the bylaws. Each is followed by an explanatory note (block quote text). We welcome your comments, which you can input below.

1. Improving consistency in organizational practice

We have suggested:

THAT the rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Association may adopt.

Why? – Our bylaw 19 specifies that

 

… the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
shall govern all procedural matters at all meetings …

 

as a result of which many Board processes – ranging from how disciplinary matters are handled, to the contents of minutes of meetings – have fallen short of adopting consistent approaches that conform to any defined standard. As one example, the Board did not minute, let alone disclose to membership, that its October 2014 vote (resolving to oppose the bylaws amendment to downsize the board) was nowhere near unanimous, but was instead split around 18 against 15 .

 

Amending our bylaw in order to more fully conform to what is provided in RONR will offer the organization and our members improved consistency while retaining the capacity to suspend certain rules as circumstances dictate, as already provided within RONR.

2. Improving Board member accountability

We have suggested:

THAT any one fifth of directors present may require that a vote on any question be taken by roll call or by signed ballot with the vote of every director entered into the minutes.

Why? – Currently, every Board majority can veto to be minuted as having been the people responsible for any decision. Not that every decision warrants to be so captured. Minuting every vote on every question would be disruptive and draw down on limited staff resources.

 

That said, there will be occasions when Board majorities commit to a course of action in the face of the concerns of one or more strongly dissenting directors.

 

On such occasions, it is hard to see why the members of a Board majority who regarded themselves as having arrived at their decision on the basis of due diligence and good judgment should avoid to go “on the record”.

 

This bylaw amendment, if carried, would (1) grant significant minorities among directors the ”safe harbour” to be minuted as having opposed a decision of concern, and would (2) help to avert what might otherwise be moral quandaries for minority dissenters over whether to have to resign, while (3) putting the provision out of reach of single directors who might be at risk of overusing it.

3. Improving nominations for CMA division director positions

We have suggested:

THAT nominees for division director of the CMA submitted by the Board of the Association shall have been determined by election by voting members

Why? – Granting our membership the right to elect its nominees for BC division director of the CMA would bring these positions into alignment with membership’s current, existing right to elect:
– its directors
– its officers, and
– the BC nominee for President Elect of the CMA.

4. Limiting concurrent directorships

We have suggested:

THAT aside from the Presidents of the Society of Specialist Physicians and Surgeons (SSPS) and of the Society of General Practice (SGP), directors of the Association shall not serve concurrently as directors of either Society or of the Canadian Medical Association.

Why? – Concurrent service as a director of two or more organizations whose interests overlap raises several potential problems.

 

These go beyond actual conflict of interest (and commitment), to perceived conflict of interest (and committment), to the level of objective judgment achieved in deliberation and decision-making.

 

This bylaw amendment would preserve the directorship of the Presidents of the SSPS and SGP in light of their Societies’ current statutory standing, which is proposed to remain untouched.

 

It bears pointing out that even if the amendment were carried, it would not preclude the participation of other directors of the Society, or of directors of the CMA, in meetings of the Board … such individuals would simply be there as invitees of the Board, rather than as its directors.

5. Broadening the choices among electoral methods

We have suggested:

THAT the candidates for each office or position to be filled shall be ranked according to the number of votes received by each on acceptable ballots, beginning with the candidate who received the greatest number of votes according to the method of majority rule or, in the case of more than two candidates or more than two offices or positions to be filled, by an alternate method if designated in advance by no less than a two thirds vote of Board.

Why? – Our elections are currently decided under a “first past the post” system: single ballot, unweighted, non-preferential, non-transferable votes. Its main advantage has been its ease of administration.

 

That said, best interests may not be served when winners have been declared with as few as 28.3% of the votes, as happened with the Presidency Elect of 2010-2011. Such outcomes call into question, to take that example, whether the 71.7% who voted for others would have elected one of these others, had the lowest-placed candidates been dropped from sequential balloting (as required by the method of majority rule) or if voting members had had access to some form of preferential voting.

 

The amendment stops short of asking a referendum to resolve which, among majority rule and its many alternatives (for example, Instant runoff, Borda or Condorcet methods), may be best.

 

What it does instead is to stipulate a default – the method of majority rule – while enabling the Board to select and establish whatever alternative e.g. ranked choice or single transferable vote method it may deem advisable, and to be able to do so without having to get the bylaws changed.