#3 October 31 Secrecy triumphs at Provincial Council

Last Wednesday (October 31) I attended the AMAPCEO Provincial Council meeting.  Provincial Council  is composed of 23 Chapter Chairs and the nine member Board of Directors of AMAPCEO, 32 in all.

Provincial Council meets a minimum of six times a year and in theory at least is supposed to be the highest governing body of AMAPCEO in between the once a year meetings of the Annual Delegates Conference (ADC).

Last week, I was a woman on a mission. 

The mission?  To ensure that Provincial Council voted in a recorded vote whether to overturn the Board's denial of four requests, from AMAPCEO members,  for access to the survey results that purportedly "informed" the bargaining priorities pursued by AMAPCEO in negotiating the recent Collective Agreement. 

Why a recorded vote?  Without recorded votes (and published minutes of Provincial Council) ordinary members have no idea of how their "elected" representatives vote.  I wanted a written record of which members of Provincial Council favoured openness and transparency with respect to the survey results (and which did not).

And now the prologue

As many of you know, the fact that AMAPCEO placed job evaluation as its top priority during negotiations did not make sense to many (any?) AMAPCEO members.  In addition to the folly of making any type of demand in the current economic climate, members I spoke to indicated they valued their COC days more than JE.  Members asked why their stated priorities, as indicated in various surveys filled out over the past year,  were not reflected in the deal that was made.  They began to demand the survey results.  Time and again, AMAPCEO said no, you can't see them.

Theresa Anderson-Butcher submitted a formal access request first, just before the ratification vote which was held October 16 and 17.  Next, a respected member of the records management/ FIPPA community submitted the same request. This prompted me as MAH Chapter Chair to also submit a request, using information from a survey of all MAH members at 777 Bay Street in Toronto.  A fourth member also submitted a request.

Here is the wording of the request, which was forwarded to Barbara Gough in her capacity as AMAPCEO Secretary:

Pursuant Articles 8(b), 8(c) and 10.2 of the AMAPCEO constitution, I am requesting right of access to the survey results, analysis and records of any communication and direction given the bargaining team, AMAPCEO staff and Provincial Council for all surveys conducted in association with the bargaining activities relevant to the negotation of the tentative agreement proposed for April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2014.  For clarity, right of access means receiving copies of all records, both paper and electronic formats as they were originally communicated or received.

In my request dated  Friday October 19 I noted that a single question survey had been conducted among all MAH AMAPCEO members at 777 Bay Street.  The question to  MAH members was "DO YOU BELIEVE THAT AMAPCEO SHOULD PROVIDE ITS MEMBERS WITH THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEYS TAKEN DURING THE PAST YEAR AND USED TO DETERMINE MEMBERS' PRIORITIES IN THE CURRENT ROUND OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING?"

Our response rate was about 30 percent of the members to whom the survey was sent.  Of the 48 who responded 45 or 93.8% voted yes, i.e. agreed with the question that, yes, they did want to see the survey results.  I copied all members of Provincial Council on my request. A number of chapter chairs indicated their support for these requests.  In addition, a number of ordinary members wrote in to add their support.

Imagine my surprise when all four requests were denied! I understand each requestor received the same denial on the evening of  Tuesday, October 23 stating that "the Board of Directors is unable to comply with your request". 

On  Wednesday October 24  I responded to Barbara  that I would appeal this decision to Provincial Council and I asked her to place it on the agenda for the next Provincial Council meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 31.

The Agenda

When I received the Provincial Council agenda a few days before the meeting, I saw that the appeal had been placed dead last, just before adournment.  Hmmmmm...?  That can't be right, I thought. After all, this is a contentious issue of great interest to members.

A quick google search of Robert's Rules of Order turned up the following wisdom from "Survival Tips on Robert's Rules of Order":

"The more serious an issue is, the more reason to insist that the issue be included on the agenda, and that the agenda includes explicit starting time for each major section.  If the agenda specifies times for the major sections, you can always assure that your issue will be addressed before the meeting is adjourned".

Since I doubted that I could persuade Council to provide starting times for each issue on the agenda, I opted instead to amend the agenda.  This required me to be ready as soon as the chair called for approval of the agenda!

On October 31st I was at the meeting room early.  As soon as the Chairman called for "approval of the agenda" I requested a reordering of the agenda to place the items requiring action to be considered prior to the non-action items.  After a lot of clarification and discussion this reordering of the agenda was approved.

The Deal

While we were sorting out the agenda, the President indicated that staff had brought copies of the survey material to hand out to all presen,  making it unnecessary to consider my appeal (or words to that effect).   However, since the President had not placed his "disclosure" on the agenda, we continued on, expecting to see the promised material later in the day.

During lunch the President indicated to me that he would disclose the requested material "in camera" to Provincial Council, provided my motion did not go ahead. "In camera" means that the meeting is restricted to members of Provincial Council. This effectively meant that Provincial Council members would see the material but our members and the three requestors would still not see the material.

I politely declined, wondering why this material had not been shared with Provincial Council at the decision making stage in the the process.

My motion

I moved that Provincial Council direct AMAPCEO to release the information that I and other members requested access to, noting my request was dated October 19, 2012.  I also moved that we take a recorded vote. 

I also stated that I was appealing the decision dated October 23 provided to my by Barbara Gough.  I pointed out that the issue under discussion was my appeal of this denial; that chapter chairs should be aware that four separate request for access to survey results were forwarded to the Secretary of AMAPCEO; that my access request referenced the request made by an AMAPCEO member at MAH; and that MAH members have indicated support for this access request. 

I noted that all four requests for access were denied and that at least one other member had disputed the denial. 

I finished by saying I had met all requirements and that I expected Provincial Council to made a decision on my request.

At the end of the day, the motion for a recorded vote failed, as did the motion to release the survey results. 

#2 Ratification results released by AMAPCEO- a small victory!

In the two intervening weeks since writing my first blog under the "TAKE BACK AMAPCEO" heading, I have become aware that many members who voted yes are also angry and disenchanted with the current leadership.

While some criticize this as "negativity", I see two positive trends emerging from the recent tumult.  First: members who were previously disengaged are now realizing the danger of not paying attention.  They are demanding information. Second:  more chapter leaders are now stepping up and providing leadership at the local level. They are demanding accountability from the centre. 

Spurred on by recent member concern about the doings of their bargaining unit, it appears that chapter chairs are moving to reclaim their rightful place in the governance of AMAPCEO.  In contrast to past ratification votes,  this year numerical results were provided to the members.

AMAPCEO's Provincial Council is composed of 23 Ministry and regional chapter chairs, and the nine member Board of Directors ( president, vice-president, treasurer, secretary and five directors). Twenty years ago, Provincial Council was a key component of the decision making structure in AMAPCEO.  Council meetings were often contentious, sometimes raucus, affairs as members argued their side of the issue at hand. Democracy reigned.

Sadly, over AMAPCEO's twenty year history,  Provincial Council has faded into obscurity as fewer and fewer questions are brought to it for decision.  Instead, ready-made, pre-packaged policies, pre-approved by the board of directors, are brought to Provincial Council for rubber stamping. Information about alternative options is rarely provided.

The nine person Board usually votes as a block at Provincial Council. Any Board member who disagrees with the Board proposal must give prior notice that they plan to speak against the Board proposal at Provincial Council.  This "practice" is referred to as "board solidarity". Failure to vote with the flock tends to invite the wrath of the gods on the contrary Board member.  As a member of the Board for almost ten years, I know.

Recently though, a  significant "rebellion"  took place prior to the ratification vote. As the hotly contested ratification vote dates (October 16, 17) approached, AMAPCEO members including members of Provincial Council  were surprised to find that they might never be told the exact results of the ratification, other than to find out whether the question "won" or "lost".  No turnout figures!   No percentage voting for.  No percentage voting against!

A week before the ratification vote, twelve chapter chairs invoked Article 30.3 of the AMAPCEO Constitution and demanded two special meetings of Provincial Council. This in itself was startling, as it seems that this authority under the constitution had never been used before. The Secretary of the Association was obviously confused and wanted to know if sending the results by email would be preferable to a meeting!

The purpose of the first meeting,  which took place at 11 pm on Wednesday October 17, was to provide  Provincial Council with the results of the ratification vote and allow for preliminary discussion.  In my view, Provincial Council should have some input into messaging to its members.  At that meeting,  I asked specifically about the draft messaging and was told it was not ready.

The second meeting, scheduled for the next day, was for the purpose of discussing the ratification vote and next steps.  However,  AMAPCEO did not wait for this discussion and issued its messaging bright and early the next morning with apparently little consultation with any governing body.

They just don't get it, do they?