I would argue the contrary: that the more exposure our candidates get and the more viewpoints they address and the more questions they answer, the better off the College is. We are not afraid of a robust debate—it strengthens us and better informs the Council electorate.
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 33 – No 08 – August 2014The perception created by this policy, however, is that the College is afraid of partaking in debate in a venue it does not control, that its candidates are unprepared to answer questions relating to College policy, and that disagreement about policy is best handled by stifling rather than engaging dissent. While nothing could be further from the truth, ACEP is ill served by promulgating a rule that fosters this impression.
To the degree that there exists valid disagreement and criticisms of the manner in which ACEP is governed and in its policy decisions, the College is best served when it meets these directly and defends its positions in open debate.
Additionally, ACEP’s core mission is to further the interests of all emergency care providers and our patients. Not all emergency physicians are ACEP members, and not all of them read ACEP Now. Restricting the ability of our future leaders to speak to independent publications reduces their ability to reach these audiences. The broader the campaigns can be, the more inclusive of all emergency physicians they are, and the more the College can further its mission and reach potential new members.
The College, in its defense of this policy, intimated that independent publications might be biased in their coverage. I have seen no evidence of this actually being the case, and none is offered by the College. If it were so, however, it is selling Councillors short by implying that they are unable to discern bias when it exists and unable to weigh and evaluate the information as presented. To the contrary, the Council may be better served by its candidates speaking to publications that have an independent editorial voice and a willingness to ask direct questions. For that matter, direct access to candidates likely will reduce any potential for bias in allowing the candidates to speak for themselves rather than requiring outside news organizations to infer candidates’ positions and qualifications. The leaders of ACEP will need to take on members of Congress, FOX News, and MSNBC after they have been elected; surely as candidates they can be trusted to handle the far-friendlier confines of industry journals and newspapers.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page
3 Responses to “Concerns, Clarifications on Interview Policies for ACEP Officer Candidates”
August 17, 2014
lbandrewHistorically, most of our election campaign rules have been rooted in fairness and objectivity, and have included such things as precluding buttons, prizes, lavish receptions, and other tactics allowed in other medical associations on which we were modeled.
There has been a sea change in our policies, through a hard fought Council Directive, that Council now elects the President-Elect of the College (something that previously happened at the Board level, with all campaigning for this important office happening in secrecy, a practice that seriously divided the College).
Those 367 leaders who represent the 33,000 members of the College now assess and elect the P-E. They are provided with campaign statements, answers to pre-set questions and a very brief Q/A session at Council in order to come to the decision for whom to vote. There is really no time to go back to constituents between these campaign events and the elections that take place at the end of Council.
At the same time, discussions regarding candidates in ACEP sponsored forums such as the Council list serve and Section list serves has been limited if not censored, while discussions regarding candidates were unfettered in list serves and other venues operated by chapters. This deprives candidates and members of needed opportunities to explore and share topical expertise and goals with important segments of our membership. Further, under current policies those members (the vast majority) that do not participate in Council or chapter discussions have essentially NO knowledge about the candidates who will be elected to represent them for several years at Board as well as officer level.
I believe fairness would be preserved and transparency improved in the elections process if several other avenues of communication were opened to candidates, at least those for the highest elected office in the College. So I would welcome comprehensive campaign reform in this regard.
Of course, guidelines will need to be established so that candidates themselves are aware of the entirety and breadth of the process (2 of the candidates this year apparently had concerns about external communications and had no notice of the possibility), and that publications and other communications vehicles such as list serves are allowed equal opportunity to participate under the guidelines.
I would hope that the Task Force will continue beyond this year’s Council to incorporate needed changes into the system to keep the elections process fair, transparent, and effective in educating members about those to whom the future of ACEP is entrusted.
Louise B. Andrew MD JD
Past Council Speaker
October 22, 2014
lbandrewThanks for this explanation and for launching the task force. I assume its work is not fully complete, but do hope that you will post the report to Council for the benefit of all the members who will not receive it as part of the Council packet this year.
I was interested to note the endorsement policy.
“official endorsements is limited to one endorsement from a component body (chapter, section, or other voting Council entity) or a single joint endorsement from two component bodies.”
It is difficult to know how a candidate can achieve endorsement by a component body unless the body has the opportunity to discuss the candidate in some forum. I suppose chapters might be able to discuss a candidate during local meetings, but sections can only discuss a candidate face to face at the annual meeting, well before candidacy is declared for the following year.
Yet at least one candidate seemingly has received an official joint endorsement by a chapter and section this year (there could be others who did not publicize this fact).
Although I suppose consensus might be or have been in this instance obtained by some method other than via the listserve, and component bodies might devise their own methods for achieving consensus, it still does not foster fairness that chapters have their own listserves that are uncensored, yet sections do not. I hope the task force addresses or has addressed this inequality.
October 22, 2014
lbandrewCorrection: Upon closer inspection, it appears that two P-E candidates report receiving endorsement of their candidacy by a section as well as a chapter.
However, the candidate campaign rules (under 12, campaign limitations) state f. Section and committee e-lists must not be used for any campaign messages.
As a member of both the involved sections, I was never contacted about endorsement or given any information about candidates that might be relevant to the decision of whether to endorse. Last year, several members of at least one section list serve were admonished for the very mention of candidates’ names, so I seriously doubt anyone even attempted to bring it up this year.
That makes it difficult to know how a candidate could be endorsed by a section when the section did not have the opportunity to discuss or come to consensus on whether to endorse the candidate.
Personally, I favor wide dissemination of information about all candidates to reach as many members as possible. But most certainly to those members (section members) whose representative (Councillor) is empowered to vote on their behalf.
I believe that other media should also be able to interview candidates, and even endorse them if they so choose. That after all is the way democracy works.
But I do respect the right and responsibility of the Steering Committee to formally consider the issue and come to a reasoned decision about what will and will not be allowed in future elections. Let’s hope that they decide to be as inclusive as possible so that members have the broadest possible understanding of the candidates’ positions, as well as the process itself.