Showdown at the CFPC: Competing visions for the future of family medicine

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) will present a mix of member-suggested and its own bylaw amendments—which it says are similar but more compliant with related regulations—for its upcoming annual meeting.A vote at the October 28 annual members meeting will gauge what the more than 45,000 members of the national organization—or at least the ones who vote at the virtual meeting or by proxy—think.“Bylaws are not the most exciting things for family doctors. That’s not why they got into family medicine. But it’s important for our professional home to have good governance and to be member responsive and accountable,” said Dr. Sarah Cook, president of the board of directors of the CFPC.A trio of FPs frustrated with the college’s track record over the last few years put together six bylaw changes. As well, five were drafted by the CFPC as alternative options. (There are not six college-suggested ones because it recommends voting against one of the amendments entirely with no alternative).Meanwhile the CFPC is presenting another set of bylaw changes—so-called corrective amendments to ensure its bylaws sync up with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA). “With any organization, there can be piecemeal changes over time and until you do a fulsome review you may not realize all the small things that are no longer in compliance with laws that have changed,” said Dr. Cook.These adjustments, which are to be voted on as a package, impact 17 different sections of the bylaws. “Many of these changes are actually in benefit of members in terms of transparency and accountability,” said Dr. Cook.It’s likely that only some members will be deeply curious about this part of the meeting. They’ll be much more interested in the 11 amendments, which could meaningfully change how members engage with the CFPC.Related content: Pushing for more accountability: Trio of doctors propose governance shake-up at the CFPCThe CFPC says it put together five alternative proposals because many of the member-suggested amendments are not in compliance with the CNCA and the college’s articles of incorporation—and therefore invalid or unenforceable, plus necessitating legal advice—while some may be too logistically challenging. “The board has reviewed the proposals and agrees with many of their underlying objectives. Its concern, however, is that as drafted the member proposed provisions may not be capable of achieving those objectives or being lawfully and effectively implemented,” the information circular noted. The college offered to collaborate on the initial proposals, but the three members stated they planned to keep their wording the same and asked for further clarification. There was a back-and-forth conversation about the amendments but no collaboration or agreed-upon revisions happened.“We appreciate that the three members have submitted these six proposals because I think that our objectives align,” said Dr. Cook. “These proposals have really contributed to the board’s conversations about the future of the CFPC’s governance, which is great.”For a detailed description of all the bylaw amendments on the floor at the upcoming meeting, see the college’s meeting materials. Below is a summary of the member motions from the trio concerned about accountability and a summary of the CFPC alternative. The summaries were compiled by the Medical Post but the CFPC noted it would not sign off on the Medical Post summaries suggesting that members instead look at the full wording in the meeting materials. MEMBER AMENDMENTCFPC ALTERNATIVEVoting: Discontinue board nomination committee with candidates self-nominating; members vote for president; use of third-party election administratorMaintain nomination committee plus allow members to self-nominate; board continues to select president; use of third-party election administratorMinutes: Publication of board and committee minutes to member portal within 30 daysPublish summaries in a timely manner of board decisions; prioritize confidentiality; respond to reasonable member requests for informationElectronic voting: Advanced voting for member proposals starting 14 days before a member meetingReplacing the existing proxy system with an advanced electronic voting system that works for all member votingMember proposal timing: Member proposals accepted year-round; college to respond in 10 daysNo alternative suggested as accepting year-round proposals goes against the CNCAPassed proposals: Response in 90 days to passed member proposals with implementation plan or reasons for declining to implement; implementation updates every 90 days; members can vote to accept or reject board’s decline of proposalsResponse in 90 days to passed member proposals with implementation plan or statement regarding decline to implement; implementation updates every 90 days; board can modify a proposal so it can legally implement; non-binding advisory vote for declined proposalsFinancials: Publication of annual financials for travel and hospitality; sponsorship revenue (IDing donors and amounts for those giving over $10,000), marketing of CPD products; fees paid to external consultants; lawyer feesPublication of these expenses without any identifying information regarding employees, directors, officers or donorsMembers can vote at the meeting or by proxy. Dr. Greg Dubord, who is one of the CFPC members who proposed the six amendments, notes that the board is the default proxy holder if a member fails to fully clarify a holder.As well, he says that if both an amendment and its corresponding alternative pass, the board will automatically follow the alternative.Overall, Dr. Dubord, feels the college’s alternatives don’t quite hit the mark. “Our six motions aim to earn back members’ confidence by making it more transparent, accountable and democratic,” he said. “Unexpectedly, the CFPC felt compelled to draft up five alternatives that look so similar to our own that voters could be forgiven for confusing them. Intended or not, their copycat versions work as decoys that protect their powers.”The CFPC hopes that its approach offers a viable compromise. “I think the amended changes that we’ve created in response to the six member proposals are putting us on the right path to have really excellent governance and member responsiveness,” said Dr. Cook.

Showdown at the CFPC: Competing visions for the future of family medicine

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics