Citizens for a Secular HDH

Archives

'08 Sep.

'08 Aug.

'08 June

'08 May

'08 Apr.

'08 Jan.

'07 Dec.

'07 July

August 18, 2008

Hello everyone,

Some further clarification of our position is called for. There seems to be an opinion the an elected board would not appoint the most skilled directors. This of course it a possibility. We don't always elect the cream of the crop to public office.

However, an elected board does not preclude the selection of directors with skills. A search committe would do an initial triage and present the most suitable candidates to the members of the corporation who would then appoint them. This is similar to the process used in ridings to choose a candidate. The safety mechanism of the membership being able to remove a board which acts against the best interests of the community is key to enshrining the necessary checks and balances. Without regular elections in the political sphere, we could end up with a self-perpetuating one party system.

Community advisors are not some new creation. There was provision for them under the old HDH board which was never activated. We would hope that the new board would tap this important resource.
Stay tuned.
Elizabeth

RESPONSE TO DR. KEVIN SMITH

The Midland Free Press of August 14, 2008 ran a front page article about Dr. Smith's revised recommendations for the governance of HDH. I'm attaching the response of Gordon Wilson, which echoes the reaction of the committee members I have been able to reach. Only one person favours the appointed model. This, in fact, is a stripping of the the community's right to make decisions for local hospital care. Had this model been in place when the faith-based merger was initially proposed we would have been powerless to prevent it. The only power citizens have in a democracy is the ability to choose and remove decision makers.

We must now rely on the provincial government to decide in favour of corporation membership with voting rights. Please use any influence you may have at that level.

As soon as we have any further information I will pass it on.

Elizabeth O'Connor for the organizing committee.

August 15th, 2008.

One cannot help but conclude that the “compromise proposal” offered by Dr. Smith is one that seriously underestimates the intelligence of the citizens of our community. Dr. Smith offers a model which if adopted will strip the community of their right to oversee, through their Corporate Board, the governance of their hospitals. Moreover his proposal for an Advisory Board is titular at best and manipulative at worst.

Were Dr. Smith serious in his stated objectives he would not suggest that our community accept a proposal that includes an appointed Board selected by the M.O.H. bureaucracy and Advisory members selected in the same manner. The Advisory members who Dr. Smith proposes would be the instruments of transparency, and can at the determination of the bureaucratically appointed Board be excluded from “in-camera“ deliberations. Dr. Smith suggests that in-camera designations would be restricted to matters of personnel or privacy. In practice the decision as to what constitutes a reason for “in-camera” will be made by the Board. Hardly a guarantee for maintaining transparency.

Indeed it was this process of secrecy that spawned the faith-based proposition that gave rise to the discomfort in our community and those incidents occurred when we enjoyed the right of accountability in the form of an HDH corporate membership. To prevent a re-occurrence, what is needed is a proposal to strengthen the role of community input into our hospitals, not the proposal made by Dr. Smith that will weaken community input and perpetuate an unelected Board charged with representing the interests of individuals that were deprived of the right of electing those who will speak in their behalf. Such a condition is unacceptable within a democracy. In our society we may disagree with those charged to represent us but we maintain the right to elect them. If it’s appropriate for government, it surely must be respected for matters of health.

In Dr. Smith's proposal, accountability will be limited to a Board which will be accountable to itself. Transparency will be exercised by the selected Board when they alone decide to advise the community. It is difficult to understand why Dr. Smith is so determined to set aside a democratic process in favour of an autocratic process unless he really believes that the citizens of this community are incapable of electing Board members who will act in the best interests of the Community. His proposal is elitist and condescending. The citizens of this community deserve a better response than that offered.

The citizens for HDH supported at public meetings by the community have suggested a compromise in the interest of stability which would put in place an appointed nominating committee drawn from résumés earlier called for by Dr. Smith and the selection by this committee of the first Board of Directors to be subsequently ratified by the HDH membership. Thereafter, Board vacancies would be filled by an AGM meeting of HDH.

As a citizen of this community dependant upon quality health care services delivered by HDH, I would feel much more confident in the hospital's ability to meet the needs of my family and my neighbours when this community has meaningful input into these services and the professionals called upon to deliver them. Local governance is not detrimental to the quality of life, it is an important aspect of the maintainance of that quality.

For the above stated reasons I must conclude that Dr. Smith's recommendations as reported in the Free Press are counter-productive, and much less than what is required.

Gordon Wilson, 13 James Street, Penetanguishene, Ontario.

Some thoughts about the abolition of community memberships in the hospital
corporation.

June, 2008

• We faulted the previous board for a failure to be responsive and transparent to the community and the proposed governance model could potentially bypass any guaranteed accountability of board to community.

• The previous administration sought legal advice on how to disenfranchise the rights of members and were advised that they had no legal options. This suggests that administrators might prefer a system without accountability . Why should we assume that a board appointed by the supervisor would support a different position?

• The courts have already ruled that citizens who pay for membership rights cannot be disenfranchised. They have a right to expect that their democratic rights be upheld by the courts. Dr. Smith's interpretation of the Corporations Act does not appear to reflect this.

• Since there exist in the community very strong feelings about corporate memberships a reduction of these rights might be open to a legal challenge.

• Dr. Smith's comments in the Free Press imply that citizens who use membership rights are 'high jacking' a process that is "good". Clearly our situation shows the level of responsibility of the citizens as they acted to overturn a decision that courts in other parts of Canada would not permit, namely the takeover of a public hospital by a faith-based hospital (Saskatchewan, 2007)

• We concur with Dr. Smith in the use of the recommendations of the Scott Quigly report for the selection of candidates for the board. We had already arrived at a position of successful settlement of the crisis with the deputy minister Sapsford before Dr Smith was appointed by the use of these recommendations.

• Other supervisors have returned boards with voting corporate membership as part of effective community strategies. The position promoted here reflects Dr. Smith's personal ideology rather than the wishes of the community.

• Over 2,300 citizens from all walks of life used their legal corporate rights when intransigent board members were unable or unwilling to negotiate openly with the public. Four board members had already resigned yet it was only membership use of corporate by-laws that was able to reverse this situation. Why would we accept a future that failed to guarantee these minimal checks and balances?

• In most cases where community groups have demanded action the situation had become acute because of unresponsive boards or administrators and there was a lack of transparency in procedure.

• Dr Smith would seem to have underestimated the extent of the concern in the community as well as the level of well-researched and well-informed action that had taken place prior to his arrival. This area has a very strong partnership of support with the hospitals in both fundraising and volunteer activity. Why would we accept anything less than full corporate membership?

• To suggest that members act only when they are unhappy implies something very negative about the process. Instead it is a testimony to our faith in the skills of the people who come forward to serve. Not to have a local option to address the very few situations in which the board appears to act against the best interests of the community is to lose an important safeguard. It would be irresponsible of us to settle for a model where invervention of the Minister is the only recourse in a crisis.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws