Representatives at the BMA's annual meeting have dismissed the findings of an internal review of the association's representative and decision making machinery.
Figure 1.
Representatives get to grips with the new voting technology
Credit: BRUNO VINCENT
They rejected the second consultation document from the committee that was set up to recommend changes and called for the committee to be replaced by a more representative body.
The meeting said that the review was not credible, because it lacked openness, transparency, and accountability. It also criticised the current committee for being hand picked.
A project team was set up a year ago and has consulted widely. More than 20 000 members responded to a questionnaire, and there have been regular reports to the council of the BMA and to the various craft committees.
No one doubted that there should be a review of governance, but in a heated debate speakers complained that they had been presented with a fait accompli without the opportunity to discuss the different solutions.
Despite the amount of feedback, they were concerned that this had not been translated into the latest document. They believed that too much power would be in the hands of the centre and too little with the grassroots of the association.
Dr Stephen Austin from the council and the Junior Doctors Committee said that the list of possible options took up half a page, whereas the preferred option of the committee took up 10 pages. “Where is the detailed analysis of the options?” he asked. “We deserve better than this.”
Mrs Anna Athow, from Enfield and Haringey, wanted the document to be completely rewritten. She did not like the proposals to delegate the executive function to an executive board or to substitute regions for divisions.
Defending the document, the chairman of the governance committee, Dr Russell Walshaw, maintained that the process had been more open than any previous exercise. The committee had been asked to come up with realistic and achievable solutions.