Category: Ontario Medical Association

Survey on Delayed OHIP Payments

NB: The following is a guest blog, written by the (anonymous) author of the survey I referenced in, “Will the OMA Learn Lessons from OHIPs Latest Attack on Doctors?“. While it’s true these surveys tend to attract negative responses by their nature, the rather large number of respondents (especially compared to some of the OMAs own Thought Lounge surveys), suggests the OMA really needs to pay attention to the extreme dissatisfaction this issue has caused. My thoughts follow at the end.

The purpose of this survey was to highlight to the OMA the need to take this issue more seriously and to outline the impact the delayed payments had on members. The OMA’s response to this has been tepid. At the time the survey responses were collected, the payment timeline for November and December, 2024 retroactive pay was set as November, 2025. This was changed to August, but this does not alter the fact that the MOH has repeatedly delayed payments for physicians over the years.

Even with a signed, public agreement, the MOH has not managed to uphold its obligations, yet the OMA seems resigned, on behalf of its members, to accept whatever delays happen, based on whatever excuse the MOH provides. The members are not the cause of the MOH’s problems, yet they pay, over and over, for these deficiencies.

The survey results are summarized below. As a practicing physician, my time is at a premium, so I utilized AI to summarize the main findings of the survey.

Technology willing, the full survey results are here. Survey Monkey dashboard is here.

AI-Generated Summary of the Full Survey Document:

The survey responses reveal widespread dissatisfaction among Ontario physicians regarding delayed payments, systemic issues in healthcare administration, and inadequate advocacy by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). Key themes include the impact of late payments, financial hardship and impact to personal finances.

Many respondents reported being unable to meet financial obligations, pay taxes, or fund discretionary purchases due to delayed payments. Some had to take on debt or cancel planned expenses like maternity leave benefits, vacations, or home down payments.

Clinic Operations:

Clinic owners faced cash flow disruptions, inability to pay staff, and delayed renovations. Others mentioned the administrative burden of tracking payments and rejected claims.

Mental and Emotional Toll:

Physicians expressed feelings of moral injury, frustration, and discouragement, with some considering early retirement or leaving the province entirely. The delay has eroded trust in the Ministry of Health and the OMA.

Lack of Accountability:

Respondents described the Ministry as untrustworthy, disrespectful, and adversarial, with unilateral decisions that breach agreements. Many called for interest payments on delayed funds and legal action to hold the Ministry accountable.

Systemic Issues:

Complaints included outdated payment systems, rejected claims, and lack of transparency in billing processes.

Weak Advocacy:

Many respondents felt the OMA failed to advocate strongly for physicians, with delayed and insufficient responses to the payment issue. Some called for legal action, media campaigns, and stronger negotiation tactics.

Loss of Trust:

Physicians expressed frustration with the OMA’s perceived lack of power and transparency, with some questioning the value of membership dues.

Declining Appeal to Practicing in Ontario:

Many respondents are considering leaving Ontario or medicine altogether due to poor compensation, lack of respect, and systemic challenges. Some noted that other provinces offer better pay structures and support.

Family Medicine Crisis:

Respondents highlighted the lack of investment in family medicine and primary care, with concerns about burnout, scope creep, and inadequate funding.

Rejected Claims:

Physicians reported valid claims being rejected by OHIP , causing financial losses and administrative burdens.

Delayed Payments:

Delays in flow-through funding, parental leave benefits, and relativity-based fee adjustments were frequently mentioned.

Outside Use Penalties:

Respondents criticized penalties for outside use, especially when patients sought care elsewhere due to hospitalizations or urgent needs.

Recommendations for Advocacy:

Demand Accountability:

Push the Ministry to honour agreements, pay interest on delayed funds, and improve payment systems.

Increase Transparency:

Advocate for clearer communication about payment timelines, rejected claims, and billing processes.

Strengthen Negotiation:

Take a more aggressive stance in negotiations, including legal action and public campaigns to highlight the Ministry’s failures.

Support Physicians:

Address broader issues like rejected claims, outside use penalties, and inadequate funding for family medicine and specialists.

Conclusion:

There have been severe financial, emotional, and operational impacts of the delayed OHIP payment. There is an urgent need for the OMA to advocate more forcefully with the Ministry of Health to address late payments and systemic issues affecting Ontario physicians. Physicians are calling for immediate action, including interest payments, stronger advocacy, and accountability from the Ministry of Health and the OMA. The dissatisfaction expressed by respondents highlights the risk of losing physicians to other provinces or professions if these issues are not resolved.

An Old Country Doctors Thoughts:

While the above was written by my colleague, my personal thoughts on the survey is that I’m not really surprised by the results. I try to “keep my ear to the ground” so to speak, and there is a broad level of dissatisfaction with how the MOH repeatedly gets away with violating its own signed contracts, and the frankly abject level of incompetence at the MOH. The incompetence is unfortunately, not limited to just their payment systems/processes, but also how they run health care in general.

I’m also not surprised by the negative comments towards the OMA. Admittedly (as mentioned before) these surveys tend to cater to negative responses. However, there is a real sense of defeat on the ground about how physicians are being treated by the current government (protracted arbitration, stupid statements about the family physician shortage, and more). My sense is most physicians are resigned to defeat and are disengaging from health care – which is bad for the whole health system.

It does not help frankly, that a few short days after being told physicians would not get paid on time, OMA CEO Kim Moran was quoted in an Ontario Government News release on Primary Care saying:

“Ontario’s doctors are encouraged by this announcement and look forward to working with government to ensure that every Ontarian has access to a family doctor. We will do everything we can to accelerate this goal by collaborating with Deputy Premier and Minister of Health Sylvia Jones, and the lead of the Primary Care Action Team, Dr. Jane Philpott. It’s a long road ahead but this is a positive step forward to protecting Ontario’s valued health care system.”
Kimberly Moran
CEO, Ontario Medical Association (OMA)”

A very well respected physician from another province told me after seeing this: “It’s a bit pathetic. Screw us over and we’ll still be nice to you”. Personally I think Ms. Moran should look up “Stockholm Syndrome“.

I’ve repeatedly said you cannot have a high functioning health care system without happy, healthy and engaged physicians. These survey results suggest that that isn’t the case in Ontario.

Will the OMA Learn Lessons from OHIP’s Latest Attack on Doctors?

Last Friday (May 2), in what was a classic Friday afternoon bureaucratic dump, the OHIP bureaucrats at the Ministry of Health announced that they wouldn’t be paying the full amount of back pay owed Ontario’s doctors, as per the arbitration award. This was a unilateral decision on their part. It was contrary to what was in a signed agreement, and the OMA Board was notified at the last minute. (OMA CEO Kim Moran’s email is attached to the bottom of this blog). The bureaucrats promptly ran away an hid for the weekend hoping this issue would go away (kind of like how Sam Bennett cowardly hid from the press after putting an elbow to Leafs goalie Anthony Stolarz head).

This is, in my opinion, the latest attack on physicians as a whole from Ministry of Health (MOH) bureaucrats, who clearly are more interested in trench warfare than working co-operatively with Ontario’s doctors to improve health care for the citizens of Ontario. Don’t believe me? Consider the following:

The bureaucrats had the option of realizing that provinces like Manitoba/BC/Saskatchewan and even Alberta(!) recognized the need to work with their doctors and come up with a funding formula for them. Instead they chose to drag Ontario’s physicians through a protracted (going on three years now) and highly antagonistic arbitration/negotiations process.

Not only that, in response to now multiple stories of people lining up to find a family doctor in the press, their response was that there was “no concern” about the shortage of comprehensive family care physicians. (Seriously, how out of touch must they be to think that that type of Orwellian double speak is going to work in Canada).

People lined up hoping to get a family doctor in Walkerton. Photo originally posted in the farmers forum.

Frankly, this inept, combative and dismissive treatment of physicians is just par for the course for this bunch of bureaucrats. It saddens me, but it doesn’t surprise me.

No blame for this decision should fall to the OMA. They did negotiate a signed agreement (as per Ms. Moran’s email) and they clearly were not notified about the unilateral change until far too late. So the unilateral action is not their fault.

But….

What the OMA can, and should be held accountable for is how they proceed from here.

I don’t want to seem overly difficult here. If I truly was an obstinate person, I’d try to get a job at the Ministry of Health – perhaps on their Negotiations Team. The reality is that I actually have a long history of working co-operatively with government to improve health care in my neck of the woods.

I’m serious. In 2001 I helped bring in the first stage of Primary Care Reform called the Family Health Group. In 2004 I was one of the lead physicians who brought in a capitation model of payment for family physicians (it was initially a Family Health Network and it eventually evolved into a Family Health Organization). From 2007 -2013 I was the founding Chair of the Georgian Bay Family Health Team and From 2013-2015 I was the Health Links lead physician in my area.

And in each of these roles I worked closely and co-operatively with government to try to improve the health care needs of the patients in my area.

But – in those days, the bureaucrats wanted to work with doctors. They wanted to co-operate to improve health care and they were genuinely concerned about the lack of family physicians providing comprehensive care. They didn’t want to play power games with physicians or harass them or do dumb things like the current crop just did.

It’s important for the OMA to (finally) realize that there really is no hope that they can work with the current lot. They’ve already dragged us through three miserable years of negotiation/arbitration and fought us (thankfully often times stupidly – as even the Arbitrator pointed out) – for the sake of…….. I don’t know why really. Maybe it’s a power play? Maybe there are just bullies?

Recognizing the obstinance of the MOH bureaucrats is why I was proud (and still am) to have my name on an Op-Ed in the Toronto Star last year advising Family Medicine Residents to NOT start a practice in Ontario at this time. But I have to tell you the blowback from the OMA was saddening to me. I will not mention names – but one senior exec told me that the OMA was working well with the Government. Worse, one senior physician leader texted me the following:

Text from a very senior physician leader at the OMA

Remember – at the time this text was sent to me – we had already been locking horns at the negotiations table for two years and the government had done absolutely nothing to solve the family medicine crisis. Perhaps the physician leader felt the relationship was “best ever” because at least they weren’t sabotaging doctors left right and centre like the abhorrent Eric Hoskins did.

Despite all of that, there was some movement forward with arbitration. While no where near what other provinces got, it at least recognized the need to fund health care better, and provided hope for funding for offices, clinics, and frankly other badly needed resources.

Now the MOH has decided unilaterally to not pay, or pay whenever they feel like it, so we are back to – do NOT start to work in Ontario.

At any rate – as mentioned, while the OMA cannot be judged on decisions by the Ministry, what the organization does next will be telling. Will they finally recognize that the current lot of bureaucrats simply cannot be dealt with by reason? Will they recognize that physicians are essentially being bullied by these ruffians and the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them? Will they take legal action (according to Ms. Moran’s email – there was a signed agreement which the MoH is now in violation of)?

I don’t know the answer to any of the above. But I can only hope that the current Board recognizes that there is no hope of working in good faith with this lot of bureaucrats and that strong, frankly militant actions, are needed to support the members.

Addendum: After I published my original blog, an anonymous colleague asked that I publish a link to a survey about this issue. I’ve therefore appended my blog and ask all Ontario physicians to click on the link below and honestly reply to the questions:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/W2ZPMCC

Email sent by OMA CEO Kim Moran

Re-Post: Hoskins Won’t Survive The Mess He’s Made Of Ontario Health Care

NB. The following is a re-print of a blog I wrote for the Huffington Post, published originally on July 10, 2017. It’s being republished here mostly for my own record keeping.

Recently, one of my medical school classmates (now a cardiologist) was awarded the Society of Thoracic Surgeons top rating for patient care outcomes. A great honour for her, and well deserved. Unfortunately for the rest of us, she practices in South Dakota, one of the many physicians who left Ontario during the protracted battles with Ontario Governments in the 1990s.

Back then, as I mentioned in my first blog, many health ministers continued to insist that physicians in Ontario were the highest paid in all of North America. Yet we lost physicians in droves. The reality is that while physicians wanted to be paid a fair wage (who doesn’t?), what they really wanted was to have a say in how health care was delivered and be able to advocate for their patients.

So when the then Ontario government of Bob “Super Elite” Rae made unilateral decisions about health care, physicians left for jurisdictions where they were paid less (according to then Health Ministers Frances Lankin and Ruth Grier). But at least they had a say in how health care was delivered.

I mention this because it appears that current Ontario Health Minister “Unilateral Eric”Hoskins and his Deputy Health Minister Bob Bell have been unable to grasp this fundamental concept. Hoskins (and, to a lesser extent, Bell) have based their whole political strategy on portraying the dispute in the media as one of doctors wanting endless sums of money. If only the doctors would take less, the health-care system would improve. They appear unable to grasp the fact that doctors VALUE the ability to advocate for their patients and contribute to health care decision making.

From a purely political point of view, the strategy had some benefits for Hoskins and Bell. They were able to pass both the Patients First Act and the Protecting Patients Act. There was muted public response because they were able to portray physician opposition to these Acts as physicians protecting their incomes. The fact that the Patients First Act does nothing but increase bureaucracy and that the Protecting Patients Act actually violates Charter Rights of all health-care workers, and will likely be the focus of a Charter challenge, meant nothing to Hoskins and Bell. Good PR in the face of mounting, repeated, ongoing evidence of the collapsing health-care system was all they wanted.

Surely the Hoskins/Bell duo thought their troubles were behind them when the OMA ratified the BA framework. Not so.

It must therefore have come as a shock to Hoskins and Bell when, after giving Physicians Binding Arbitration (BA), physicians actually increased their attacks on the Liberal Government mismanagement of the health-care system. Now to be clear, giving BA is not the same as awarding a contract. The Ontario Medical Association still has to negotiate a contract for physicians.

But central to Hoskins and Bell’s way of thinking was that all physicians cared about is money. And the spectre of BA does force both parties to negotiate fairly.

Also in fairness, it’s pretty evident that Hoskins himself didn’t want to give physicians BA. Not only did he deride physicians for asking for it and fight it in cabinet, but when the Ontario government sent a press release indicating they want to return to negotiations with the OMA with the first order of business being to develop a BA framework, it came from the premier’s office, not Hoskins’ office.

Regardless, surely the Hoskins/Bell duo thought their troubles were behind them when the OMA ratified the BA framework. Not so.

Wait Time Series: Cataract surgery patients are finding themselves on longer #waitlists as funding fails to meet demand in Ontario. #ONpolipic.twitter.com/Nh466RND1k

— Ont. Medical Assoc. (@OntariosDoctors) July 5, 2017

Since then, the OMA has become even more aggressive in its attacks on the Liberals. Have a look at their Twitter feed where they attack wait times for cataract surgery and joint replacement surgery.

Also, a grassroots group of doctors have now begun tweeting multiple barbs at the Liberals. Saying that doctors are required to put the pieces of health care together, they’ve used inventive and creative images to drive home the point that the Liberals don’t know what they are doing in health care.

Finally, OMA President Dr. Shawn Whatley openly wrote in his blog that physicians need to be champions, not doormats, and fight for health care for their patients. Surely poor Hoskins and Bell never expected this when they actually gave the OMA a path to a fair contract via BA. Goes to show you just how much they misjudged physicians’ desire to advocate for their patients and for a fair health-care system for all of us.

Hoskins and Bell are now, as the old joke goes, officially “post turtles.” This joke compares a (usually inept) politician to a turtle balancing on a fence post. You know he didn’t get there by himself, he doesn’t belong there, he doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there, and you just want to help the poor thing get off the post.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne basically has little choice now. Hoskins and Bell are just too easy targets for the mess that they’ve made of health care and the way they’ve badly misread physicians passion for protecting their patients. The differences are irreconcilable.

Hoskins is the easier of the two to deal with. Wynne needs to shuffle her cabinet and move Hoskins on to minister of sanitation or something.

Bell, being an employee, has certain rights and can’t just be fired. However, the anonymous surveys done by Quantum Transformation Technologies indicating how unhappy his own bureaucrats are should be enough evidence for Wynne to order a formal administrative review of the senior management team at the ministry of health. Maybe they can be salvaged with administrative coaching.

But what’s clear is that as the health system fails, Wynne needs front line physicians to help put its pieces back together. Wynne needs to regain their trust. The way to do that is to bring tangible change to the leadership of the ministry of health.

OMA Board Betrays Members By Latest Action and This Changes My Vote

OMA Elections period has opened. A chance for members to have a say in how the organization is run and what strategic direction it should take .

After my last couple of missives on OMA Elections, I was going to leave this alone and see what transpired. However, when I went to vote, I noticed a curious thing. None of the non-physician Board candidates were up for re-election. This sent up a red flag. There are three non-physician Board Directors – and every year, as members we have to vote for either one or two of them (the terms are staggered).

If one looks at the OMA website, this little nugget is hidden away in the depths of the Elections FAQ page, a page that I suspect extremely few members would access, much less be aware of:

“…In the case where the director holds a non-physician position and is interested in serving an additional term, the director would be presented to the membership as a re-appointed director…”

There are some conditions the sitting non-Physician Board Directors have to meet, but the blunt reality is that the OMA has taken away the right and ability of Members to vote for these 3 positions if those Directors want another term. This represents 27% of the Board (11 positions total) – which is frankly a large block of votes and can sway a close vote at the Board.

Worse is the vagueness of what is written for IF there was a vacancy. There are a number of requirements for running for the Board for these candidates – all of which are appropriate – however the very last sentence simply states:

“Shortlisted candidates will go through detailed vetting by Promeus Inc., including reference checks, police record checks and social media checks.”

Nowhere does it clearly state that in the event of a vacancy – there would be an election for the non-physician Board Directors. Perhaps this is still the case – however not mentioning it definitively in writing suggests the possibility that this may change.

I was on the OMA board when the governance changes took effect. I supported the overall thrust of them (still do). One of the issues when discussing non-Physician Board Directors was a concern expressed that the type of candidates that might help the OMA out would not want to run in an election. Apparently, these candidates would be “used” to being recruited and simply expected to be given a job.


I personally thought that was silly. If you’re a strong person, have a sense of self-worth, and are confident in yourself, you should be willing to run in an election. You might lose but that’s life (I’ve lost elections). But the personal integrity to run is essential. If the OMA is to represent members, then the members must have the right to vote for all Board Directors. Up until now, that’s what was happening.

Perhaps some non-Physician Directors are thinking “if I was on another board, they’d simply appoint me, and I wouldn’t have to take a chance on losing and ruining my precious resume.” But those are NOT Boards of representative organizations like the OMA

As far as I’m concerned, worrying about offending the egos of some candidates is not enough reason to take away the rights of members to choose ALL of their Board Directors. How much longer will it be before these 3 non-Physician Board candidates will simply be chosen by a process set up by the OMA without any input from the part of members? In case you think it unlikely, that is actually what was initially proposed by the governance consultants in 2019, until we shot it down.

Worse this change was made without an open discussion with the membership. The OMA should have presented arguments for this change to the members in an open, transparent manner. By hiding it in a FAQ without informing members is a betrayal of the principles of giving members power over the OMA. That was the main thrust of the governance changes in the first place.

What can members do? I mentioned in my previous blog that I personally won’t vote for incumbents. It seems that there’s only one incumbent up for re-election, current Board Chair Dr. Cathy Faulds. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Faulds (really). She’s accomplished much in her career (her resume is incredible) with work in health systems transformation/patient care advocacy and bilateral work with governments.

I was considering voting for her based on the fact that a good Board does need to hear all view points (even those that differ from mine) but I so fundamentally disagree with this move, and the current culture the Board has overseen that I personally can’t vote for her now. Whether other members see it that way is up to them.

A glance at the other candidates for Board show that there are 11 candidates who couldn’t be bothered to do a video statement to advertise themselves. Sorry – but as much as I disagree with the current elections process – if you are going to run for the top position at the OMA, and you can’t even find the time to put a video together to advertise yourself – well that is concerning.

My few loyal readers will know that I strongly supported Dr. Ramsey Hijazi last year – and continue to do so this year. He has consistently stood up for members – most recently by setting up a petition demanding that the government stop tormenting Dr. Elaine Ma for running a Covid Vaccination clinic. He’s also been strong in the press. He will get my first vote (which in the weird way the OMA weighs votes is the most important).

After that, there are a number of candidates that caught my eye – in alphabetical order – Dr. Khaled Azzam, Dr. Douglas Belton, Dr. Joy Hately, Dr. Pamela Liao, Dr. Afsheen Mazhar, Dr. Shawn Mondoux, Dr. Sameena Uddin, Dr. Darija Vusovejic. To be clear, members should review all the candidates themselves and vote, but I am going to vote for them after Dr. Hijazi.

As a family doctor, I also have a vote for my SGFP representative. Lots of great candidates running there. It will again, not surprise any of my followers that I will strongly endorse Dr. Nadia Alam for SGFP Vice-Chair. She’s an excellent leader and a dear friend. She took a well deserved break from medical politics for a bit. But it’s good to see her getting involved again and our profession will better for it. I leave the rest of the voting to your good judgement.

Dr. Nadia Alam, Candidate For SGFP Vice-Chair
Dr. Ramsey Hijazi, my first choice for OMA Board Director

Disclaimer: NONE of the candidates listed asked me to endorse them.

OMA Does a Disservice to Members with Veiled Threats to Board Candidates

OMA Elections will soon be upon us. This year the possibility of significant change to the organization exists as half of all physician Board Director positions are up for grabs. A review of the OMAs election page shows that there are 58 (!) candidates running for 4 Board positions.

My three loyal readers know that I have long felt that the first and foremost responsibility of the OMA is member advocacy. Many have heard me say time and time again that you cannot have a high functioning health care system without happy, healthy and engaged physicians. The OMA needs to consistently and effectively promote physicians.

Unfortunately the government of the day continues to disrespect physicians by forcing us into a never ending arbitration process. It also, despite the correct warnings of the OMA, continues to expand the scope of practice of non-physicians. I therefore wanted to see which of the Board candidates would be willing to take a more aggressive approach to this issue. So on a bunch of Social Media forums, I posted a request for all Board Candidates to sign a pledge if elected.

What exactly was this “pledge”? Was it a demand to remove the compulsory dues that all physicians have to pay to the OMA? Was it to split the OMA into two organizations- one for specialists and one for family doctors like they have in Quebec? A demand to fire certain staff?

Nope. It was a pledge to get data on how much allied health care providers (in this case NPs) cost the health care system when they try to do the work of family physicians. See below:

Now, did I think the culture of the OMA, that has been put in place by and is overseen by the current Board, would be happy with this? Of course not. Despite what my kids tell me, I’m not that out of touch. I expected some sort of push back suggesting this was (in their view) inappropriate.

But I confess I was taken aback by not only the factual errors in their response, but what quite frankly can only reasonably be perceived to be a veiled threat to myself and Board candidates. Here’s a copy of what I got:

The first factual error is to conflate the governance transformation (which I supported, and still do) with the elections process. The governance transformation was about reducing the size of the Board, and making it electable by and therefore responsible to the membership as a whole. This is opposed to the mishmash of ways people got on the Board before. It was also about sunsetting OMA Council (which had long served it’s purpose) and putting in a better, more co-operative General Assembly system, along with a Priorities and Leadership group to advance the needs of the members.

I did, and continue to support all of that (trust me, the old system was much worse). BUT – that is completely separate from the elections process itself. The intense over regulation of what candidates can and cannot say or how they can act during elections is NOT governance transformation, it’s micromanagement.

The second error is to suggest that it is because of my previous role at the OMA that I am “viewed as a leader”. Apart from the obvious fact that I have a bunch of detractors, the blunt reality is that there are a whole lot of ex-OMA Presidents out there who would not have influence because of the title itself. They have influence because of who they are/what they advocate for/actions they take outside of any past title.

The email to OMA Board Director candidates was almost as bad:

The underlying message is quite clear. Sure you can run for Board Director. BUT, if in OUR opinion, you “campaign”, or take a position WE don’t like, or speak out of turn – WE disqualify you. Intentionally or not, it creates the impression that the organization only wants a certain kind of Board Director. Not a strong independent type who can think on their own, and, dare I say it, take a bold stance that perhaps requires come chutzpah (like signing the pledge would!) But rather a benign, meek, Board Director – who will simply rubber stamp what’s been presented to them.

Unacceptably, in my view, is the more subtle threat of damaging our careers. The comment that this is”not in keeping with OMA’s code of conduct and civility”can really only be viewed as a veiled threat. Charging someone under a code of conduct violation has the potential to be extremely damaging. Many physicians, when they apply for new positions have to answer questions like “are they now under investigation” for such and such, even if there has not been a ruling yet. Being charged with this would force them to answer yes and potentially damage career options.

To be clear, I actually support the code of conduct and civility. I saw in the aftermath of the miserable 2017 tPSA debacle some incredibly unprofessional comments made towards the OMA staff (and others). I also am aware of many instances since where staff have been verbally abused by members and that is completely unacceptable. The staff are a very hard working bunch – who follow the direction and the culture the Board puts in place. It’s the Board that should be – respectfully – held into account.

But to tell a potential Board Director candidate (and me) that stating an opinion that might be viewed as controversial and advocating for that as part of an election process might see them charged?? Especially when there was absolutely no foul/derogatory/demeaning language used in the posts? Sorry but that simply comes across as attempting to censor a view point that you don’t happen to like. And that’s just wrong. Worse, it gives credence to the many critics of the policy who feared it would be used to suppress discussion.

Members deserve a strong, independent thinking and bold OMA Board. An elections process that goes to these extremes to prevent candidates from taking a stand on issues, advertising to members their skills (or lack thereof!) and their philosophy does not serve the membership at all. It will only disenfranchise them and lead to more voter apathy. About the only thing members can do at this point is NOT vote for any incumbents for Board Director and hope that will trigger some changes to this process.

As for me, I will try to get through the elections material – and pick candidates who I think will work to change the organization for the better. I will let you know my thoughts in a later blog.