Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1999 Jul 3;319(7201):59. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7201.59a

Annual general meeting of the BMA

BMA or UKMA?

David Gullick 1
PMCID: PMC1116166  PMID: 10390483

Editor—Unless second thoughts prevail the BMA’s annual general meeting on 7 July will be asked to make a grievous and unjust error. It will be proposed that our 4000-odd overseas members (some of those in the armed forces) be disenfranchised and deprived of their entitlement to membership benefits. Why and how did this come about?

Apart from four overseas branches our members are scattered worldwide, from China to Peru. Some of them have sought help from BMA House on “terms of service” and the like. While this is run of the mill stuff for our staff when sent in by members from the United Kingdom they have neither the expertise, nor time, to cope with queries from Argentina or Zimbabwe. What could be done? Someone last summer thought up the special resolution as an answer: reduce them all to second class citizens without a vote, and then they can importune in vain.

Having decided this, our council did not notify or consult the overseas branches. It also failed to instruct our lawyers to look for the knock on effects of the changes on other articles and byelaws. As a result, if the resolution is passed, for 12 months at least anomalies and doubts will give BMA House more trouble than the original problem. Just two examples will do: no overseas member will be obliged to pay a subscription, and none who is now a fellow may remain so.

The council did not think the proposal merited a mention in its annual report, so it remained a secret until the AGM notice in the BMJ of 5 June—four weeks before the decision was to be taken.1 What a way to treat the membership: a total denial of natural justice—think of the reaction in our Hong Kong branch, already under pressure to disband.

If the resolution is put and passed, then surely our overseas membership will wither away. Why remain as a second class member when one can subscribe to the BMJ at a lower rate as a non-member?

The resolution is neither urgent nor necessary. There are alternative ways of amending the articles to cope with the problem; a nut requires no sledgehammer. I have suggested such alternatives to BMA House but so far have had no reply. So, unless there is a change of heart by then, I urge all present at the AGM to refer the resolution back to the council for reconsideration.

References

  • 1.BMA’s annual general meeting. BMJ (clinical research) 1999;318:1523. [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 1999 Jul 3;319(7201):59.

Reply from the BMA

E M Armstrong 1

Editor—I welcome the opportunity to reply to Gullick’s letter. I have believed for a long time that overseas members of the BMA were an undervalued resource for the association. We need to find out from them what range of services is appropriate and hope that this will lead to a substantial increase in their numbers. The council is proposing to the annual general meeting to put in place the foundation on which a new relationship between the BMA and its overseas members may be built. The BMA is not in a position to provide trade union services for its overseas members—at most it can point them in the direction of organisations which may be able to assist them. In that respect Gullick is in error in suggesting that the amendments to the articles will create a hiatus.

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES