BCMA Transparency Hits The Wall

Public

As the hot summer weather gives way to cooler fall temperatures reflections on the events of summer are common.

BCMA transparency was again prominent at the Wall Centre at this year's AGM on June 13, 2009.  The accuracy of the Minutes of the 2008 AGM held in Prince George was the subject that consumed much of the debate.  This may only be known to the 170 members who attended out of the BCMA membership of more than 11,000 who rely on information provided in the BCMA annual report and the BCMJ reports of the AGM.

BCMA members may recall how the 2007 AGM in Vancouver came to an abrupt end after an esteemed colleague rose to present a motion "that the General Assembly deplores board policies that would suppress, restrict or undermine open communications between directors and members" and before discussion on the motion could begin a mass exodus of the Board directors served to squash the quorum and end further debate.

BCMA members will also recall how immediately following the 2007 AGM arrangements were changed to relocate the 2008 AGM to Prince George.  But what really happened in Prince George?

This year as the agenda proceeded to adoption of the minutes of the 2008 AGM as published in the annual report circulated to all members, a member rose to the microphone and asked if the proceedings of the AGM were recorded as before.  The Chair asked the CEO to address the question and the assembly were advised that the proceedings of the 2008 AGM were indeed recorded as were previous AGM’s and that the proceedings of this AGM were also being recorded.

The member then advised the assembly that the minutes of the 2008 AGM were not accurate in that the sequence of events that occurred were not as presented in the minutes leaving it unclear to members how the rules adopted at the start of the meeting impeded questions from the members until the matter was raised following the report of the chair of the Board and that when questions to the President were allowed the responses were not as recorded in the minutes.  The member stated that in their opinion it would be immoral for the current assembly to adopt the minutes and gave notice of a motion to strike a committee to review the records and circulate amended minutes.

That a committee of the general membership at this Annual General Meeting be struck to review all records of the 2008 Annual General Meeting and be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the preparation and circulation of amended minutes of the 2008 Annual General Meeting to the entire membership within 90 days.

During debate another member, other than the mover and seconder, rose to the microphone and spoke in favour of the motion.  She stated she was a physician from Prince George and thought that in the interests of transparency the motion should be passed.

The motion was put to a vote and while many in attendance abstained and of those who voted more than a third voted for the motion but it was defeated.  Further efforts to introduce specific corrections to the minutes met a similar response, a large number abstained, more than one third of those voting voted in favour of the changes while the rest voted to defeat the motions.

Is this not strikingly uncharacteristic for physicians?  Does one not expect that physicians would choose to review existing records to confirm the accuracy of reports when advised of potential inaccuracies?  How can members depend on the information provided to them by their association having witnessed such events?

No doubt members of the BCMA and others will be watching with interest this week as the BCMA appeal of the Wang v. BCMA Judgment is heard in the BC Court of Appeal on October 1^st and 2^nd.