Another one in the game

Councillor Bill Macdonald will try to perpetuate the Peter Principle once more. Announcing that he will try for his seventh term as a councillor. Enough said, but if the only reason for him running is to provide experience all we atrthe BurdReport can repeat is the HR mantra - "twenty years experience is only one year's experience repeated twenty times."
We will be watching just how up the ballot he goes, after all he has only squeaked in in every election he has run in proving to be a fourth or fifth choice every year. We can only hope that he doesn't make it again.

OK the last word

After three days of rumination, driving 3000 kms gives you plenty of time to chew the cud, here is my opinion on the hospital affair. Basically the opponents took a knife to a gunfight. Not knowing the rules, were they going to be King & Kerr (WTF were those?) or an imposed Robert's? It turned out to be neither. The membership, living in the past hadn't realised that time had passed them by and the Association had morphed into a Corporation, complete with the rules that allowed Conrad Black and other corporate tyrants to maintain power. It is obvious that this community has lost its Community hospital and now members will only have the right to vote on bylaws. The Board now will do what they want - braunnose the LHIN and hope like hell that they stay off the shitlist. Because now the LHIN controls the hospital sector by making all the Hospitals "compete" for funding. tTose not big enough, smart enough or compliant enough will lose out. In addition there is a LHIN requirement for funding that each hospital complete an "integration" process. When one looks at this an "integration activity" can be a removal of service so look for more lost services.
[Hey hasn't all this been tried in the NHS in the UK and found to be wanting? - ed]
What does this mean for the average person in the catchment area - diddlysquat as the perception that paying $10 for a membership allows participation is shot all to heck, these moves at the AGM just confirmed that, but as one emailer to me commented, "the board has been confirmed as a bunch of thugs and goons in the public eye!" the public has noticed.
It will be hard slogging to fundraise this year. But then they are only funding equipment not services so who cares if we have the best equipment but no services to use them?

My advise next year read this book after all this is the bible that did us in, but it comes with a $600 per hour pricetag.

So this is what $600 per hour can buy you

In this article, found on the Osler (the lawyers the NHH Board bought and paid for with our money which was according to John Hudson "is not much money") website: Contentious AGMs: 10 Lessons Learned | News & Resources | Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Business Law in Canada there is to be found the formula for defeating "special interests" at contentious Hospital AGM's. Why didn't anybody find this before the meeting, the gameplan is all here.

Plenty of copy to write but so little time

3.30am
Back on the road for a few more days but will be posting as time allows. There will plenty to write about especially how as decent polite and civil canadians got snookered last night at the NHH AGM. The meeting was run by a Chair that ignored rules and flouted the law citing legal precedence. At one time he said, "If you don't like this ruling go to court!" Frank Farago was especially tenaciou,s courageous and very civil in his attitude toward such rulings - thanks Frank.

Suffice to say a point was made, the community doesn't like what went on and the Province has seized our hospital and the current board members have aquiesced to that putsch. Not quite quislings but possibly Norwegian, and definitely Swedish - the Stockholm syndrome.

Tonight's the night

Often bandied about by randy young men this phrase is ominous, gleeful and full of anticipation. The Northumberland Hills Hospital will be holding its Annual Special Meeting to do a couple of things and not to what the majority? of members want, and the meeting is tonight!

At a meeting last night some members of the public, 50-60 all told, listened to members of the Citizens for Alternative Solutions as they explained procedures in conducting meetings and how to behave and handle questions at AGMs. "It's your meeting, it belongs to the members. It is not the Board's meeting, and as such you (the members) determine what goes on." You are not allowed to make business motions but you can control the way the meeting goes by moving questions of procedure." John Morand, a consultant and a lawyer versed in corporate law said.

The group also laid out their priorities, the major one being to force the Board to revise the Bylaw package being offered and to have an election that would allow members to vote for all of the candidates not just a selected slate. How these will be achieved is subject to speculation and the signs point to an interesting and levely meeting.

7pm at the Best Western, upstairs in the Ballroom.

You knew one would come along

As reported a couple of months ago the Hitler parodies were supposed to have been killed off because the owner of the clip was asserting copywrite. I guess the maker of this video didn't get the memo and now we have this video, which sums up my feelings exactly.

Kill the vuvuzela! Even Hitler agrees.

So this is the villain

Remember the "Green Gaffe" or the "Gift from Clod"? The references to the goat of the England USA football game on Sunday? The only goal against the English team was an 'own-goal' and the 'keeper has been pilloried for the mistake ever since. The Germans have entered the debate by criticising the way both the manager and English team have been playing.

The English manager Fabio Capella, an Italian, has blamed the new ball. This ball is much lighter and is erratic in wind and altitude. This opinion was supported this week by Gordon Banks the legendary 'keeper in the 1966 World Cup win.

Now in this story England refutes the German criticism and complains that the Germans have had the new ball for months.

Get on with the game, win the next one and all carping about the ball will disappear - must really be a slow news day in south Africa!

Another one for the lawyers

As the date for the AGM of the Hospital approaches all kinds of correspondence is flowing from the Hospital CEO's office. It usually denys the petitioner information that the petitioner would like to have so that an argument could be made for certain positions at the AGM.

The latest letter, sent to all of those members who petitioned for a special meeting, contains the following paragraph.

Note the words"specifically". However when checking the section 67 of the Corporations Act we see that it doesn't say that. Section 67 says that a Corporation may insert language that enables the removal of Directors. Something quite different from being specifically banned from asking for the removal of Directors.

The BurdReport only uses this as an example of the way the Hospital is playing hardball with its perceived opponents to force the use of a lawsuit knowing that they have the money ot fight one (BTW whose money is it that they using, the lawyer they use a MR Watts of Osler Hoskins costs $600 per hour!).

A massive correction and a rebuttal to anonymous email

One of the wonders, and dangers, of running an online publication like this that one runs into conflicts. The usual one for me is simple - do I publish anonymous emails, even if they are sole sourced. When they are topical or interesting I will publish as it may be in the public interest, besides 90% of them turn out to be factual. Such was the decision last week when I published an anonymous email quoting the Deputy Mayor being overheard saying topical things. I have since received a phone call from the Deputy Mayor refuting, in the strongest terms, the allegation that he was trying to support Mr MacDonald's incumbency by promising him any portfolio he wanted if he was elected. This is untrue as Mr Brocanier has told me it is. So we at the BurdReport don't apologise for the printing but do regret the consequences that may have caused to a few.

Just to sum up

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