A lot of effort and hot air has been expended for the public good this week. I refer to the manoevres in the Hospital debacle. A perfectly good discussion of the issue - can we change direction and have the announced departmental cuts reversed - has developed into a test of wills between the Board and its members.
We must understand that the Hospital Association is just that, a membership of people who get together once a year to give people they elect to the Board the responsibility of running the Hospital on their behalf. Once a year the membership come together to elect new members to the Board or to replace the ones they have. It is the only guaranteed act that the bylaws allow - to vote in an election.
The present Board, in an effort to keep people they consider not qualified, one of the applicants was told by a member of the nominating committee, producing a potential Human Rights complaint, "You are too ****ing old!", out of the election nominated a slate of people equal to the number of vacancies and then are now prepared to declare them elected by acclamation. This will take place without a vote by the members.
This naturally produced pushback and 10% of the members asked for a special meeting the subject being the removal of Directors. The present Directors obviously declared the 'requisition' not within the purview of the role of a member and refused to schedule a special meeting.
Let's look at this phrase 'not within the purview of the role of a member'. This was the phrase used when Ben Burd tried to place a motion into the AGM. It has not been defined or explained. Mr Hudson, the Board Chair referred Mr Burd to section 296 of the Corporations Act. and that section explains the rightds of a member to make 'requisitions'. Why the CA you ask, well it's because not only is the NHH an association it is a Corporation in Ontario. Which brings us back to the Corporations Act.
This Act defined shareholders' rights and all shareholders are entitled to two things: the right to attend an Annuual Meeting and the right to vote as such a meeting. Also business may be brought before the meeting if the person making the 'requisition' has the support of other shareholders.
Now for the important part - if shareholders have the right to vote for Directors they also have the right to Unvote them. Ever heard of shareholders' uprisings Mr Hudson, well we have one here. I guess it's time to go back to the lawyer and force the NHH Board to live by the Corporations Act.
BTW letters have been received by the people who requested membership lists that they are now available. Apparently the Privacy Commissioner told Mr Biron what some of us have been telling him - that the list is public. Anyway when Mr Morand phoned to find out how to pick it up he was told by Mr Biron that it was only available from him. When Mr Morand went to Mr Biron's office, after being told it was available Mr Biron had gone away for the weekend. A piece of class! But still the stalling effort continues in his attempt to stop the membership being informed about their affairs. With a mailing ready to go out to all the members the loss of the weekend was crucial.
i