All,

I’m aware that it’s been some time since we worked on the issue of the VIHA Board’s public accountability and all of us are likely pressured elsewhere on several fronts.

It seems to me that our task is to make known to citizens the risk to them of the Board members thinking that they need do nothing more than what they are already doing, and need pay no attention to what we have been pointing out to Board members as the public explanations that citizens are entitled to have from them. The explanations include what the Board sees/defines as its public explanation obligation and what it sees as the key VIHA performance standards that citizens are entitled to see met.

In the interest of producing something for a meeting agenda on next steps for us, I have noted some points below about the Board’s 20 October response.

If CAG members agree, we can set out, through whatever public means we think best, (1) a summary and implications of the Board’s 20 Oct response, (2) key performance standards that citizens are entitled to see VIHA met, and (3) standards that citizens are entitled to see met in the Board’s public explanations of whether and how it is discharging its major responsibilities.

It could be a Colonist op-ed (if Dave Obee is receptive), articles in Tyee, Monday and other media, an interview with Vaughn Palmer, a public forum (or Van Isle forums) like the one earlier, and widest circulation of a piece for the newsletters of all health-concerned groups in BC.

In its 20 October letter he Board said that it takes its public accountability seriously and has processes to help the Board meet its accountability obligation. (but doesn’t say what it sees as its public accounting obligation)

The Board has given examples of its claimed attention to accountability (but doesn’t say whether that attention is what citizens have the right to see as its attention in what it calls its accounting)

The Board sees its five-year and three-year plans as required by the Ministry as adequate before-the-fact public reporting of its intentions and reasons for VIHA actions and performance that affect citizens in important ways (eg closures)

The Board says that it gets and seeks “feedback” (but doesn’t say what those processes are – eg unsolicited comment) and the extent to which it uses and acts on what people tell VIHA management and VB Board)

Board committees “look at” specific issues and recommend things to the Board. (When I was editor in chief of the federal Auditor General’s reports to Parliament, one of my frustrations was audit teams saying they “looked at” without saying what they actually did as examination of management performance against performance criteria),

The Board believes that it fulfills its obligation toward accountability and that it has addressed our questions through public meeting Q&As and in response to our letter of 16 September. (but it doesn’t say what it thinks is its obligation)

The Board says it is accountable to the Minister, period. (but this hides under the Minister’s skirts on how it is to account, and the Board refuses to say that it is accountable to the citizens of Van Isle, under the policy direction of the Minister, and what that accounting obligation is. For example, the Board should tell the public what stands in the way of it doing a better job when that is the case, and how it copes with genuine external barriers reasonably seen as beyond its control, such as a ministerial directive.)

No member of the Board could honestly say that they responded to our letter fairly, unless they were not competent as Board members.

Henry McCandless