OMA and Elections

The Ontario Medical Association is not popular. It hasn't been for quite some time - speaking with senior physicians, I seem to find no one who has nice things to say about the OMA as an organization - but the feelings towards the OMA seem to have declined even further since the tPSA debacle. It provided such a clear example of animosity between the OMA and its members.

The OMA has gone on a massive "reconciliation" drive, soliciting opinions from members and hosting meetings across the province. While welcome, these efforts seem to only underline that the OMA has no idea what matters to physicians, residents, and students, or what the situation is like on the ground for its members. There is continued skepticism that this effort will not lead to meaningful changes in how accessible the OMA is on a regular basis, how it operates, or how it makes important decisions such as negotiating with the province over physician funding. Frankly, much of the communications coming out of the OMA since the tPSA vote have been rather underwhelming, jumping between irrelevant to my situation, or well-intentioned but pushy (a recent advocacy drive fills my mailbox more than I'd like)

That's why I was pleasantly surprised to see a recent e-mail regarding OMA elections. I've now been an OMA member for 4 years. I have no idea how the OMA's leadership is chosen. I've voted in a district election a few times, but don't understand how the candidates I picked between were chosen, or what their responsibilities are. I've tried looking once or twice and came up short. I'm sure the information is somewhere and if I put in a concerted effort, I'd find an answer and ultimately, it is on me to be informed as to how the institutions I'm a part of run, but democracy - even in the confines of a private group like the OMA - shouldn't be that hard. Physicians are busy and can't devote endless time to wade through the intricacies of a group that is supposed to be representing their interests.

This lack of accessibility and transparency was certainly part of the frustration with the OMA in recent years. The OMA hasn't seemed accountable for its actions and the only way to get a say in the process seems to require significant individual effort, usually with little effect. One of the arguments from the OMA and OMA-supportive affiliated groups was that the tPSA had validity because it had been approved by democratically elected OMA representatives. When OMA members don't feel as though they had much say in any election, or that their representatives, well, represent them, it doesn't give much credence to the OMA's argument of legitimacy.

The election changes appear to move the OMA towards transparency and simplicity. Elections seem to be easier to participate in as a candidate and to vote in, with fewer barriers to being a nominated candidate, consolidated elections, and online voting. It's a small step. Probably not a big enough one. I'm skeptical this will provide enough benefit to truly reform the OMA's ability to engage with its members. Still, after a rash of empty promises or tone-deaf announcements, I'll consider this a positive change and leave it at that.