You can run but you can't campaign: New OMA election rules not winning votes with some doctors

The elections now underway at the Ontario Medical Association stand apart from previous elections for a number of reasons. Under new rules brought in as part of sweeping governance changes last year, the entire membership is now allowed to vote for the president-elect and board members. The association had also brought in talent and leadership development firm LHH Knightsbridge to help refine the candidate recruitment and election process. What’s perhaps most noticeably different about this year’s election is the absence of campaigning from the candidates. No email outreach asking members for support and votes. No town halls–not that the last one got much traction, with only about 70 people showing up. “Members told us they were dissatisfied with traditional election campaigns, which focused on personalities rather than skills and resulted in many unwanted emails and other communications,” explained Dr. Adam Kassam, president of the Ontario Medical Association. “In response, every candidate signed an acknowledgement and agreed to the principles of no-campaigning." One of those candidates–Dr. Alykhan Abdulla–withdrew just two days after the election opened on January 10. Read: How do generations differ on what the healthcare system should most urgently improve? “I sent an email out to my network–of between 2,000 to 3,000 doctors–saying ‘I’m running, thank you for your support,’” said Dr. Abdulla, who is past chair of the OMA’s section of family and general practice. “That was considered campaigning. I got an email by the end of that day saying ‘this is what happened, this is what you wrote.’” Two days later, recalled Dr. Abdulla, he had a phone conversation with Dr. Kassam. “I told him that I accept that I made a mistake, I’m willing to resign and we made that decision,” said Dr. Abdulla, who had intended to take a run at a director's seat. “I had no hard feelings about it–it was the right thing to do.” Not everyone is happy about the new OMA’s new, no-campaigning rule. One doctor who spoke on condition of anonymity described this restriction as undemocratic because it robbed members of the chance to assess candidates beyond the curriculum vitaes on the OMA election site, posted along with summaries based on interviews conducted by LHH Knightsbridge. Without the ability to campaign, lesser known candidates have little chance of raising their profile among members, said the doctor. Another doctor complained about a part of the voting process that asks members to rank, from one to 12, their choice for directors. “This is nuts–they should just ask you to rank your Top 3 choices,” said this other doctor. “This whole mechanism, combined with the no-campaigning rule and the fact that the website isn’t that easy to navigate, inhibits voting.” But these changes–as unwieldy and unfair as they may seem to some–are necessary if the OMA is to move forward, said Dr. Abdulla. If the organization is to shed its historical baggage, it needs to bring in new leaders. To do that, it must level the playing field for candidates. “People who have a tremendous network like I do have an unfair advantage over someone who’s just starting out,” he said. “This is part of the transformation of the OMA, and I hope that more members will vote this year because to move forward we need members to engage." Read: Local council calls on Ford, OMA to increase enrollment at NOSM

You can run but you can't campaign: New OMA election rules not winning votes with some doctors

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics