MSSC Employees Get a Vote - Conflict of Interest?

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

MSSC Employees Get a Vote - Conflict of Interest?

Postby Chrystal » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:09 pm

Personally, I was not aware that MSSC staff have a vote until the recent AGM & Board Elections.

JL, a member of the Blocked Veins MS Research Group introduced a number of great resolutions there, including this one - that the MSSC employees should not be eligible to be voting members.

The Chair said this would have to be referred to the Governance Committee.

JL said he wanted bylaws prepared to have this in effect.

Legal Rep said notes of Bylaw Changes cannot be accepted as a motion. The motion is out of order.

JL said he wants ammendments to be prepared in a way that can be voted on. He wants a commitment on this.

Chair said cannot commit.

JL said he wants amendment to be brought forward to propose this change.

Chair said the Governance Committee will look at that and respond.

NOW, just how many MSSC employees do we think received and responded (most at the National Office, perhaps???) to the e-mail from a Board Member appealing for their votes to re-elect the current Board and block out the "CCSVI supporters" by giving their proxy votes to ensure this???

Way to maintain status quo, MSSC, give your own staff voting power to select the Board of your choice and outvote any members with views/opinions not aligned with yours.

The MSSC represents no one but themselves and their comrades. They do not care about any of us MS patients.
User avatar
Chrystal
Family Elder
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby mangio » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:24 pm

I just had a very enlightening conversation about all you have written.
This is an organization that needs a hugh challenge. That is exactly what
is in play. The house will indeed be divided Yves. Your words were most
foreboding. Stay tuned announcement forthcoming.
User avatar
mangio
Family Elder
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby Chrystal » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:32 pm

Mangio, thank you for your message.

I just posted the question below to the Administrator of the MSSC Facebook site. I think we deserve answers from these people who are essentially have been holding our health hostage ever since CCSVI news was brought to light by CTV's W5.

I just want to have my own health care choices (concerning CCSVI) back in my own hands, and not in the hands of those with recommendations and advice that are based on self-imposed ignorance, incomplete and inaccurate information. We are deteriorating every day and the ones who are supposed to care, actually care the least.

Take care and keep well.
Chrystal


Rob,

Personally, I was not aware that MSSC staff have a vote until the recent AGM & Board Elections, when a member of the Blocked Veins MS Research Group wanted a resolution tabled and motion passed so that the MSSC employees should not be eligible to be voting members.

Given the Montreal Gazette article mentioning an e-...mail sent out from a Board Member appealing for votes to re-elect the current Board and block out the "CCSVI supporters", I'm wondering how many of the MSSC Staff at the National Office received this e-mail and exercised their vote accordingly? Did you, Rob? Please answer. I think we have every right to know these answers.
User avatar
Chrystal
Family Elder
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby ThisIsMA » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:10 pm

Did they disclose what the actual vote was? (How many in favor of, versus how many opposed to the election of the CCSVI advocates to the board)? I am curious if the vote was close or if it was very lopsided.

Also, how often do these votes occur? Annually? If so its not to soon to start planning for next year's elections. I'm very impressed by the two people with MS who ran for the slots, that takes guts! I live in the USA so I can't participate (though I did try to sign up to vote and found that apparently you have to live in Canada to be eligible to join).

I agree it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest to give voting rights to employees, since employees could feel pressure to vote as directed to do so by their supervisor. Also since employees could feel pressure to vote in the best interrests of their continued employment rather than the best interests of people with MS (in cases where those two priorities conflict).
DX 6-09 RRMS
User avatar
ThisIsMA
Family Elder
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: USA

Postby Chrystal » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:15 pm

Hello ThisisMA,

I'm still looking for my note where I'd written the vote results. A fellow MSer e-mailed the following and his numbers look right, from what I recall...

"They managed to beat our candidates with around 350 votes to 190 and this was after disqualifying 150 or so of our proxies."

The MSSC also happened to hold a "CCSVI Information" event in Hamiliton on the same day as the AGM, which had about 600 registrants.

I believe the votes are held annually at the AGM.

Only 2 pro-CCSVI supporters were seeking seats on the Board. This would have not even balanced out the board. The idea that an e-mail would be sent out soliciting votes to block these 2 candidates for their "pro-CCSVI" views - which actually reflect the views of so many of us MSers, is outrageous.
User avatar
Chrystal
Family Elder
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Chrystal » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:21 pm

ThisIsMa,

Sorry, hit 'submit' before I was done. I totally agree with your thoughts regarding conflict of interest. Couldn't believe it when I heard this at the AGM. I wonder if it's the same in the US.

Take care and keep well.
User avatar
Chrystal
Family Elder
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby ThisIsMA » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:37 pm

Hi Chrystal,

Thanks for looking for those numbers!

"around 150" disqulified proxies +190 acccepted votes =340 votes for the pro CCSVI candidates. That's very close to the "350 or so" votes the Canadian MS Society endorsed candidates received.

Does anyone know what grounds the Canadian MS Society used to disqualify the "150 or so" pro CCSVI proxies? I'm wondering if this could be challenged, whether they were following the terms of their bylaws in rejecting the proxies.

It would be really interesting to see if the exact numbers were added up, whether the pro-CCSVI candidates would have won if the 150+/- proxies had not been disqualified.

It would also be very interesting to get copies of the board's meeting minutes to see what kinds of discussions they may have been having about CCSVI in past months.

Mary Ann
DX 6-09 RRMS
User avatar
ThisIsMA
Family Elder
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: USA


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users