The law of unintended consequences

Newton's third law of motion states that for every action there is a reaction, so it is in the latest analysis of the fight to get the membership list from Mr Biron, the secretary of the NHH. In an exchange of emails with me he concludes that whilst the Hospital is governed by laws of privacy he was motivated to call on the Privacy Commissioner for a ruling; can he release a membership list to the public? by the plea from some members that they didn't want their personal information released.

So as one anonymous commentator has pointed out in the last thread, we are now in the situation of having shareholders rights trumped by privacy laws. This situation if allowed to develop is very dodgy. I would say to those members who don't want the contact information released - "If you want to stay private get the heck out of the Association". I would also say publically, to all who will listen and there are few of those around, "Please may I have the membership list without the contact information - just the names please?".

Because as it stands now the Board of the Hospital Association is acting just like a Klu-Klux Klan coven because of its insistence that the membership list remain secret. Public is public - give us the names.

This piece of local satire sums it up:

Imagine a day not too far in the future.  We are in a comfortable middle-class dining room--after dinner.  The talk, however, has been quite anxious.

A Father and son are talking.  They talk about the future.  The father is retired and although he has made many sound and wise investments--they are not doing so well.  He has no control over them. And although he and is fellow investors believe a small change in management in some of the companies they have invested in would change the value of their investments--they are powerless to act.

They can't act because the very management they wish to address are the only people who can speak to all the investors.  They as owners can not speak to their fellow owners--because they can not know them.  Only the proprietors of information may know them.  That being the government and, of course, the management of the companies.

This is because the "privacy" of the owners trumps their ability to communicate to each other.  Even if that ability to communicate with each other would enable them, as owners, to redirect the companies they own to a greater and more prosperous future.

The son asks: "Father, why is it you can not know or communicate with the fellow owners of your company?" "Because," says the Father (with a heavy sigh), "it was decided one day at a hospital, in Cobourg of all places, that this was not permissable."

"But," ask the son, "Is not a hospital a non-profit organization?"  "Well, yes," says the Father, "but at the time it was still technically a corporation and instead of owners it had members."

"And..." asks the son.

"Well, it was decided that to protect the identity of the members--they could not be allowed to communicate with each other.  Especially around the management of the organization"

"Why," asks the son.

"Well, its complicated" says the Father, "But nevertheless it set a precedent that the privacy of the members was more important than the ability of those members to call into account the management and governance of that organization"

"And," says the son.

"Well, since then, because of that precedent no owner or shareholder, and no member, can know who are the fellow members or fellow owners of an organization or corporation--only management can."

"Oh, I see." says the son.

But he doesn't.  Because he has never known any different.

Interesting