The RACGP's current leadership must respond to members’ concerns following the failed restructuring vote
RACGP members on all sides of the debate see lessons to be learned from the College’s ill-fated governance-restructure proposal and say the discussions should go on.
Most striking was the unusual burst of member engagement after opponents of the revamp turned to the medical media, the GPDU Facebook page and, to a lesser degree, ShareGP, to air their concerns and questions in the months before the extraordinary general meeting.
Commendably, in the wake of the defeat, Council Chair Dr Tim Koh said the unprecedented turn-out for a college vote – more than 2300 members logged in to the online meeting or registered proxies – was a “testament to the incredible passion and dedication we share for general practice and for our College”.
In the event, the key proposal to insert a smaller, corporate-style board, including non GPs, above the GP-representative Council, fell far short of the required 75% vote in favour.
GPs point out that the passion was fired, on both sides, by the power of communications – in drawing members into the debate and making it easier for them to vote – and enabling the heated protest campaign.
“There was a lot of discussion about the issues back and forth, with people seeking information and a lot of information being given. That was good,” South Australian GP Dr Oliver Frank said.
Dr Frank, a supporter of the “Yes” case for the governance proposal, said it was instructive that members had complained about being kept in the dark, although most had not engaged with the consultation process the College mounted over the past three years. “When the time drew near, people were saying, no one told us any of this, where has it been publicised, why didn’t we know,” he said.
“That’s despite the fact that the College did put out quite a lot of information and went to a lot of trouble to make it possible for members to know.
“Nevertheless, we still had quite a few saying, nobody told us.”
But the salutary lesson was one about a perception of one-sidedness.
“One of the things we might learned is that it’s important to give equal air time and support to arguing both sides of the case,” Dr Frank said. “I think there was a perception that only the ‘Yes’ case was promoted, or that it was promoted more than the ‘No’ case. Some people thought the argument was being put to them in a one-sided way.”
Former RACGP president Dr Liz Marles, a prominent “No” case campaigner, said it was crucial for the current leadership to respond to members’ concerns.
“I think strong leadership means being able to bring both sides of an argument together, to move forward. And that is unlikely to happen unless you can address the issues that people are unhappy about it. Let’s look at what the concerns were,” she said.
Dr Marles said the case for change did not identify what specific issues were going to be addressed by the proposed changes and the process of engagement “felt at times more like a marketing campaign”.
“That gives (members) a sense that there was not a lot of listening going on.”
Going forward, she wants to see the leadership address the divergence of opinion and do it quickly, then focus on pressing issues facing general practice.
“We need to be able to move on from all the internal introspection stuff to function cohesively and deal with broad general practice issues. But that won’t happen unless you can bring people together after this process by showing some genuine reflection.”
Another former president, Dr Frank Jones, said the message was to double down on efforts to educate more members about governance and improve grassroots communications.
“The way to do that is really to communicate with membership through our faculties, and not just at the faculty level but in the regions,” he said.
Dr Karen Flegg, a NSW and ACT faculty member, said she found the College leadership “high-handed” about process issues and called for Council members to be better equipped for their role.
“What I learnt from this is that there appear to be councillors who can’t cope with presenting the views of the group who nominated them and voting in the best interests of all. We all heard about the difficulty of being a ‘representative’, but what I heard was a need for more knowledge of governance,” Dr Flegg said.
She said all councillors should complete the Australian Institute of Company Directors course.
“In future, any incoming Chair or President needs to have completed the course prior to taking on the role, and other councillors should complete it within six months of their appointment – always at College expense.”
Dr Flegg said the RACGP had ignored members who suggested ways the EGM process could be made more transparent and had not responded to questions about the cost of the proposed new governance model and the cost of holding the EGM.
TMR asked the College about plans for a way forward following the vote.
“RACGP Council will discuss the outcomes of the Governance Review and the EGM at the next Council meeting in August,” Dr Koh said. “We have no further comment to add at this time.”
