Feedback to the proposed amendment to CDSBC Bylaws - August 2019
(This feedback form is open till Sep 16, 2019)
The major electoral reform proposed in the latest CDSBC Bylaws amendment involves board composition, representation, nomination, elections and appointments to the board, in addition to eligibility for candidacy.
The government dictated a window of only 15 days for members of the public and the profession to respond to the proposed changes - August 15 to 31, rather than the norm of 90 days.
We would like to express concerns to the amendments to the College Bylaws:
- The proposed Bylaws make no provision for geographic representation from the registrants, dental therapists, Certified Dental Assistants (CDAs) or public representatives. While dentistry strives to provide consistent care in all corners of the province, the Board, which sets policy for the regulation of the profession, must be made aware of regional, rural (remote) and urban nuances in the best level of care possible for the public.
- We support the idea of a smaller Board with up to 50% public representatives, but we feel strongly that the adjustment should be more proportionate among the 3 components, that is: 6 public reps (down from 10), 5 dentists/dental therapists (down from 10) and 1 CDA (down from 2). Understanding that CDAs have no independent practice and work under the supervision or direction of the dentist, public protection does not justify more than 1 CDA on the Board. For example, the College of Pharmacy has only 1 Pharmacy Assistant appointed to its board.
- The proposed Bylaws suggest all dentists, dental therapists and CDAs vote for all positions. By continuing to let dentists/dental therapists to vote for dentist/dental therapist Board candidates and CDAs vote for CDA Board candidates, there is no potential for any of the subgroups of registrants to mount campaigns that influence the election.
- The proposed Bylaws proposed that directors of other organized dental bodies (CDA, BCDA, CCDAA) must wait 3 years before running for the College Board. We feel that this will be of detriment to the succession structure needed to supply quality candidates to the Board. The current 2-year wait period being used by the College is sufficient.
We urge the Ministry and College officials to consider these points thoroughly and give our opportunity to give feedback its due process.