Anyone who has ever video taped an event knows that important things happen off screen. The camera lies.
Historians write history long after collecting all the details and stringing them together. They interpret events and find meaning. They might even use video clips.
General Meeting of the Membership
Eight hundred doctors attended the General Meeting of the Membership, on Sunday, August 14, the second one since 1880.
The first one took place at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, in 1991 over a rotten contract. That time, around 1500 doctors sat in hockey bleachers and left disappointed; the OMA President had collected thousands of proxy votes and crushed the uprising easily.
The contract was ratified. Doctors endured almost 10 years of ’Social Contract’ abuse that ended with 2 million Ontarians without a family doctor.
Almost Perfect
This meeting was different. The OMA pulled together one of its best-organized meetings, in less than 6 weeks.
No expense was spared.
Attendees stretched out in a room prepared to seat 4000, plus overflow. Everyone else watched it live online, from the middle of their summer vacations.
Hartley R. Nathan policed the meeting. He wrote Nathan’s Company Meetings Including Rules of Order and is the expert on parliamentary process in Canada.
Mr. Nathan whispered to the Chair all afternoon, until the Chair closed the meeting with: “This meeting is now terminated.“
Doctors loved the opening speeches, an ersatz debate almost. They cheered as the underdogs approached the stage, brave upstarts challenging the establishment.
A reverent hush filled the room, while the next speakers assembled. No one dared whisper or fidget as the Co-Chair of Negotiations adjusted the mike.
The army of security guards had an easy day. Fearing the worst, organizers thought of everything. They made speakers line up at separate microphones, labelled ‘For’ and ‘Against’. It helped the Chair alternate sides and prevented shoving in the lineups.
Squabbles
Only once, a group of medical students and trainees swarmed the microphones.
One doctor had questioned whether trainees knew much about running a medical business in their ‘naiveté’: Did their opinion really matter?
With good reason, students responded. A few went too far. One said most working doctors could never get into a modern medical school.
The issue was not settled. Students do not get to vote on residents’ contracts.
Thankfully, the fracas ended quickly.
Many doctors said they wished that biannual Council meetings could be as fair and open. They loved debate that ran as long as necessary and only ended after speakers ran out of words.
The crowd discussed 3 motions over 5 hours. At that rate, Council might complete business in 7 days, instead of the usual Saturday – Sunday meetings.
Existential Impact
Now we wait to hear from the official counters-of-the-vote. As memories fade and blend with official records, we will decide what this General Meeting means, if anything at all.
Will it prove that activism can never change a nationalized industry?
Will it show that doctors cannot change their own organization from the outside?
Or will it mark a watershed in medical politics, the point when the populace rose up and said, “Enough!”
In the tangled meaning that emerges, one thing is certain: healthcare in Ontario is in trouble, and this marks the start of change.
Thank you as always Shawn! I believe this will go down as a watershed moment in our careers, and for those just starting out, they will recall this, for better or worse, in years to come when they are seasoned professionals. What I appreciated, irrespective of the final vote, was how engaged many members of the profession became. Certainly for me personally, I met some incredible colleagues. For that I am grateful. This process and agreement however has created some deep divisions within and between sections. We will now have to roll up our sleeves and repair the damage.
Well said, Elizabeth!
I don’t think we realise how deep those scar go. It might take years to rebuild. But renovation is usually a good thing.
I agree – a great meeting.
Warm regards
Shawn
I also thought it was a good meeting but not one that changed many minds though. I think few people were really there to make up their minds. They were there to give support to their side. I didn’t rise to speak at this meeting as I thought my perspective was well enunciated by other speakers but I did have a thought towards the end when some were complaining about “divisiveness”. Divisiveness really relates to dissension from the common goal or what is perceived to be ‘right’. What I saw was less division and more of the formation of a new consensus. Being new it is by definition different from the status quo which makes many of us uncomfortable, but it doesn’t mean the dissolution of what we have. Its a course correction, not the scuppering of the ship, merely new hands on the tiller and a new map to chart our course.
Sorry if that is too nautical.
Brilliant comment, Ernest. I’m so glad you raised the chant about divisiveness.
I did not see people offer opinions just to foment division. They spoke in opposition to ideas, not in opposition to unity.
Great point well stated!
Cheers
Medical students do not get to vote on resident contracts and medical STUDENTS should not get to vote on DOCTORS contracts. This is a fundamental problem that I do not believe would survive a court challenge.
Great point, Keith!
Council supported students voting on the non-binding referendum. As you know, the referendum only advises council. Council members always got a detailed breakdown of the vote before ratifying a deal. If a vote was close, council delegates could see whether students, retired and out of province members swayed the vote somehow.
But deciding the PSA through the General Members’ Meeting creates a whole different scenario. If there is any chance of this happening again, we need council to review that bylaw and decide whether that’s what members want.
Thanks for sharing this!
Shawn
I didn’t appreciate having to proxy vote before the meeting without the benefit of hearing both sides.
It flies in the face of fairness that I couldn’t hear both sides of the issue and the debates that followed before voting just because I didn’t have time to go to the meeting! I’d love to know how many people attended the meeting that lived north of Barrie?
The OMA should never have let that happen.
You speak for the masses, Yves!
I agree with you. I just hope we learn everything we can from this. Members’ needs and concerns must be our first, second and third most important priority. Unfortunately, collaboration with government, achieving stability and all sorts of other urgent needs push issues like you raised completely off our radar. Perhaps if members had a portion of their dues, say 50%, as discretionary, it would force us to remain more vigilant to members? Just trying to be a little disruptive…
Great to hear from you!
Talk soon,
Shawn