CMA - 3 - 2021 AGM

Public

As the CMA AGM for 2022 is upcoming shortly, .....

I have been trying to recall the events of the AGM from last year. (I have to record this for myself, otherwise I can't remember - everything seems to take 10 minutes to come out of long-term storage these days.) Here it is - a long wade if you are interested.  I may have remembered incorrectly or inadvertently made errors - corrections and comments are welcome.

The 2021 CMA AGM was a Zoom meeting held on August 22nd. I recently asked (at the info session) as to the whereabouts of the minutes of that meeting as I was unable to find them on the CMA website, and the process for approving the minutes at a subsequent AGM as is common at most meetings I attend. Of course, there was no immediate response to those questions (I did comment previously as to the apparent lack of preparation/knowledge of some of the speakers).

I had a response Sunday from some anonymous sender ("AGMRegistration@cma.ca") to the effect that those minutes were available online: (https://www.cma.ca/minutes-cma-annual-general-meeting-2021). (They are dated only June 2022. Why so long to get out?)

Interesting to note a couple of things. The minutes record only what the CMA people said: the board chair, CMA president, Francophone spokesperson, Chair of the Governance Committee. There is absolutely no record of the extended discussion that took place prior to the vote which eventually rejected the proposed Bylaw amendments - this would be helpful to help members understand why the changes proposed by the CMA Board were rejected by the CMA members.

I consider this unfortunate. I know I differ from some, who like minutes to be brief, optimally fit on one page, and record only decisions. Others, like the parliaments in many jurisdictions, record all contributions and publish them publicly in instruments such as Hansard. I favour the latter, and I don't really understand why our organization might not choose to utilize some version of this international standard.

Well, I do know why, actually. The CMA Board does not want to be embarrassed by the publication of such criticism of their actions, as constructive as it was.

The minutes do not record anywhere the actual bylaw amendments but rather only the vote. These were:

The bylaw amendments related to the national presidential election included in Appendix B of the Canadian Medical Association 2021 Report to Members are hereby adopted as the bylaws of the Association. Defeated

The bylaw amendments related to the leadership diversity model included in Appendix B of the Canadian Medical Association 2021 Report to Members are hereby adopted as the Bylaws of the Association. Defeated.

The proposed changes (sourced online) were labelled "Promoting Equity and Diversity". The thrust of the bylaw changes were, firstly, to change the system for voting for the CMA President-Elect from one where the CMA members from the province hosting the rotating presidency to a 'full membership' vote. It is a CMA tradition to rotate the CMA presidency among the provinces - I'm not sure whether this is a tradition or a bylaw (on quick scan I don't see it in the Bylaws, or Operating Procedures document, but I didn't search too hard).

The second change was to change the nominations process from a local/provincial process to one where the CMA Nominations Committee (or a similar new committee would control the nominations process, described this way:

Introduction of an evolving set of skills and diversity attributes, along with target ranges, for board and committee members; Creation of a Leadership and Diversity Search Committee tasked with recommending candidates for board and committee appointments who meet the requirements for these skills and diversity attributes.

I think the general feeling was that this was an attempt to bring under central, CMA admin control, the access to CMA physician leadership positions.

The members - those few - at the CMA Zoom - rather soundly defeated these propositions. It was expressed by members that, while EDI (equity, diversity, inclusivity) goals were laudatory, there was no obvious lack of this in the CMA leadership, and the proposed changes were merely window dressing to other, understated, regulatory changes. These discussions were not, as I noted, recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

There appears to be no official, or public response to these events. I've done my own duty and scanned the minutes of the CMA Board (it didn't take long - these hew to the "one page" philosophy of minute reporting) and there is no record of discussions.

The CMA Board Chair published this response https://www.cma.ca/news-releases-and-statements/cma-board-chair-we-remain-unbowed which says it all - and perhaps it is the official position as it is stated to come from the CMA Board Chair. Sad story.

That was 2021

Just by the by, I did inquire why the Minutes of a previous meeting are not presented and voted for 'approval' at a subsequent meeting. This is a pretty common practice, and is indeed mentioned (albeit not mandated) in Robert's Rules. The CMA response (note above) included the comments:

"The CMA By-Laws do not require that the minutes of the AGM be approved by the members at the next AGM. There is no legal requirement to pass a motion approving the AGM minutes by the members. The by-laws do not require that the AGM minutes be approved by the members at the next AGM. A formal motion is not required to approve minutes (RRO, para 41:10). The minutes from the AGM were reviewed from 2016 - 2021 and there are no motions approving previous years minutes. "

So, basically, we don't do it because we don't do it.

If they were presented to this upcoming AGM for approval, I would vote against approving them because they are incomplete. Perhaps a motion (would need to be presented 6 months or so in advance) for the next AGM could be to require the CMA to present and vote on the minutes of the previous AGM. This would provide an incentive to be accurate and complete.

Richard