Page 9 - 215946_WCMS2Q21_FINAL

One beneficial modification this year enables resolutions to be “extracted” for more on-line comment prior to a second vote: “Delegates will be given the opportunity to extract resolutions and then approve or disapprove the Reference Committees Report (minus the extractions). A second vote will take place from May 17 – 21, just on those resolutions that were extracted. A majority will be required to change the recommendation of the Reference Committee.”
It does not appear, however, that there were any changes in the Reference Committee reports based on the additional comments. Moreover, the second vote gave delegates only two options: to support the original Reference Committee recommendations or to table the resolution in question until 2022 when it can again be reintroduced and debated. I wonder if an attempt could not have been made to hold a second, virtual, interactive reference committee hearing and possible changes in the Reference Committee report regarding the extracted resolutions leading to a vote this year.
In preparation for casting my vote, I compared side by side the resolutions in their original form in the HOD Handbook with the corresponding reference committee reports. While I found myself in agreement with many reports, there were a number of instances in which I felt the deliberations appear to have been superficial, lacking content expertise or driven more by anecdote
than by evidence. For example, resolution 03-21 calling for elimination of a federal regulation regarding gonadal shielding, was well-conceived and supported by recommendations of several national entities with expertise in the field. The reference committee chose to water down the resolved – instead of calling for elimination of the regulation, it asks for the FDA to ‘study’ the question – in a way that renders it effectively useless. The author of the resolution, who is expert in the matter, was dismayed to say the least, feeling that the resolution had not gotten a fair hearing, and opined it would be better to vote against the amended resolution than to pass it. I voted to extract it, but I did not have the opportunity to explain why or argue for the
original resolution.
Other resolutions, based on their amended versions, appear not to have been understood. This was particularly true of resolutions 04-21 and 13-21, which were redirected into a bylaws issue in a way that avoided actually acknowledging and addressing the concerns of the component societies about access to information about their membership and how recruitment of new members is being done. The reference committee report states: “The counties are asking that MSMS share member information with all of the county medical societies, regardless of where the member belongs. For example if a member belongs to Ingham County, that member’s
MD Wealth
Helping physicians achieve financial peace of mind. Financial Planning | Investing | Fiduciary | Fee Only | CFP® Professionals
109 W Middle St, Chelsea, MI 48118 · 734.433.9600 www.mdwmllc.com · info@mdwmllc.com
Volume 73 • Number 2 Washtenaw County Medical Society BULLETIN 9