Has the BC Medical Association been stolen from the members?

Public

a) sounds like the BCMA is the Noah's Ark of the liberal Government before the flood (come on in, free cruise for Lawyers and administrators)

b) an infiltration of the BCMA by Government to control health care cost at the source (may be not a bad idea to experiment on)

c) the BCMA board is a launching platform for high paying jobs in the Government

d) a long term arrangement between big people, none of your business, go back to your patients

e) It's all just coincidence, don't worry - be happy. The BCMA Board has already demonstrated the utmost integrity and transparence to its members

Can't wait to pay my 2013 dues.

By the way why (who?) did we decide to renegotiate the second half of our 4 year agreement, shouldn't we call this a 2 year agreement then.  

Who benefits from this.

Does it cost us ($) anything to split a 4 year contract ? You know, administrative, legal and other fees.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Hear_speak_see_no_evi...

At risk of digression from the main topic....

If the office of President is important, and – particularly in an environment where it can take time to implement any changes – it may be better to have a term of two years, rather than just a single year.

Presently, the terms of delegates are two years, and the term of the chair of the Board (subject to annual renewal) is three years.

It is true that a two-year term would, in the case of weaker Presidents, have the capacity to delay their replacement by someone more capable. On the other hand, nothing currently prevents a succession of weak leaders.

By contrast, every time we would have an effective leader, a second year could greatly assist their efforts.

Would others reading this thread be open to a two-year term for President-Elect and President?

Getting back to Dr Essak's posting, I cannot construe the arrival of new staff, or events since, as any kind of "theft". The CEO was hired by the Board, with others hired since. Fundamentally, the question is whether the current Board, as trustee of the Association, is adequately dutiful with respect to care, loyalty and obedience. This is something that members need to decide.

If the members are not satisfied with the Board, nothing precludes their turning over a majority of directors between May and June.

Jim Busser, MD FRCPC MHSc

A colleague asked me about my use of the phrase.

My use of the phrase "a creature of government" is borrowed from Dr. Norman Rigby, retired GP and former BCMA CEO, who spoke at a forum in 2006 and can be heard on a YouTube video available on DocLounge. The phrase is a simple figure of speech. In itself the phrase is quite neutral, no different than when we refer to ourselves as "creatures of comfort" or "all creatures great and small". In the six years that the video has been available through DocLounge I have not heard any concerns about the phrase and would be surprised if my use of the phrase were to be taken any differently.

Elections are meaningless without transparency whatever level the election is on whether it be the election of officers and directors to the Board or positions on the Executive and committees.

How can members decide and elect a Board that can do the job when there is no transparency as to how individual directors stand on issues?

What are members to do - read between the lines?

Reports that are sent to members are not even authored by those that they purport to be reports from. The Chair report is not authored by the Chair. The President's Letter is not authored by the President. In recent years the documents are authored by the Director of Communications and since the position was newly filled the report from the chair does not even include a date of the publication for readers to see.

More importantly, the position of the Chair of the Board has been filled, first on a temporary basis and now on a two year term basis, by an individual who is themselves a defendant in the important lawsuit that has been extremely costly and lengthy with judgment pending. This position not only allows the individual to determine the flow of Board meetings but also have a seat at the Executive Committee. The potential conflict of interest and impropriety is of significant concern to many members of the Association yet it persists.

Another seat at the Executive is occupied by a Board member who is the brother to another of the individual defendants in the lawsuit with judgment pending.

Mr Allan Seckel when asked at the 2012 AGM what he might do if he were concerned about actions of the Board answered that since he is employed by the Board he would tell the Board his concerns and beyond that he would not be able to tell the members but would have to consider resigning if his concerns were not heeded by the Board. I wonder, what views has the CEO shared in regard to the choices for these positions?

It would be hard to concede there were no other suitable candidates to choose from. The membership had no say in these positions, these were decisions the Board made.

And it goes on.

The Board is now contemplating limiting the communications that can be sent out by candidates during elections. Is the use of public and other communications by candidates no longer to be allowed while the BCMA can use communications with access to all members despite the irregularities we have seen in recent years? Is freedom of speech up for grabs?

Then there's the item of whether or not to continue using "Roberts Rules". One can only imagine what the Board's purpose could be or the recommendation that may be brought forward with a legal opinion of a particular position. One thing is for sure, it will bore members to death. And if the members are turned off things will go on as before.

Let us not forget as mentioned in the original post, rescinding policies that have been contravened as if they never existed.

Openness and transparency are paramount and long overdue. The members must know what is going on at the Board. Otherwise elections are meaningless and extending the length of terms hazardous without merit. The rights of members may be lost completely.

It does not matter how it (" creature of government" ) is interpreted, it is what it is.  We have creatures of the Government at crucial positions in the BCMA.  If you don't like the word creature you may use people, type, official, employees but this is simply semantics.  Maybe that person who challenged your choice of word feels threatened by new ideas.

The idea is simple, they might not be the right people to help lead our association, or if so, someone ought to communicate to the membership, why they might be.  Note that I do not have a problem with the CEO as a person or his qualification or ethics but the strategic choice made by the Board.

When one spends many years in an organization, he/she start thinking like it, make other "friends" like them etc... The fact of the matter is that Government work requires different thinking framework and personnas than private organization.  Also when one has spent so many years in the Government, it is hard (and takes time) to shed some of the connections (people and ideas) that could negatively influence one's new job (like the realtor that wants to believe he/she can represent the vendor and the buyer at the same time).  That is why, high stakes organization (Defence Ministry etc) have mechanisms in place to prevent this "blurring of past and present agendas" (in Western Nations at least), because you cannot always leave it up to the individual to do so.  

People with respectful disagreement should not feel that they are silenced and should not be afraid to speak up. 

An outsider would also ask why Doclounge has to exist outside of the BCMA rather than inside.

What threatens the autonomy and integrity of our association is an unaccountable leadership and rules and bylaws that go against the running of a true democratic association.  That (may) not apply to the whole leadership structure, or all that was done but, then, the rest of that leadership should wake up, and with as little as an ounce of courage, stand up and confront those who remain unabashed.

The choice of a creature of government as CEO is merely a symptom of the disease.

The focus ought to be reforming the BCMA governance and move it to a modern association that:

1) really listens and consults its member, not the half baked democratic process that even a toddler would notice

2) acts first and foremost in the best interest of the profession, reducing internal inequities for instance

3) is efficient and does not sinks under a dis-array of a myriad of committees and 38 members that can't see the big picture (I can't resist: too busy shooting alligators, to drain the swamp)

4) acts independently of the Government with which it negotiates.

Our Physicians organizations should lead by example.  

Membership apathy, not only is partly the cause of this (lack of choice of some adequate leaders), but also the consequence (what's the point for the tail to participate if the head is not listening).  

I just want to share this email I received and my response:

Do you guys have any idea how many of us out here in doctor-land have no idea who these people are

Yes, I can imagine it may be a large number, maybe even a very large number out of 11,000 doctors in BC.

and do not care??

Not sure about that, once you have even a few minutes to consider will you care?