College of Veterinarians of Ontario - College of Veterinarians of Ontario

Share

< back to Consultations

Share

By-Laws Amendments: Appointment of Non-Council Committee Members, Sunsetting Governance, Audit, and Risk Committee

Status: Open
Feedback Deadline: November 29, 2024

Appointment of Non-Council Committee Members

What is proposed?

The Legacy Council is proposing to increase the maximum term for non-Council Committee members from six to nine consecutive full-year terms.

Why is this amendment proposed?

The Legacy Council is committed to maintaining stability in its decision-making processes as we transition to the College of Veterinary Professionals of Ontario. A recent By-Law change extended the terms of the current Legacy Council members until the Veterinary Professionals Act receives final proclamation.

Following discussion with Committee Chairs, and staff, a number of non-Council Committee members were recommended for continuation. Of those, 25 members indicated they would be willing and available to continue to serve on a committee. A minor change to the By-Laws is necessary to extend the maximum term for non-Council Committee members to ensure that member matters can continue to be addressed in a timely manner throughout the transition period.

Sunsetting Governance, Audit and Risk Committee

What is proposed?

The Governance, Audit and Risk Committee is a non-statutory committee focused on ensuring good governance for Council. The proposed change to the By-Laws would discontinue the Governance, Audit and Risk (GAR) Committee after December 2024.

Why is this amendment proposed?

During the time of transition, the Legacy Council will not be implementing new policies or investing considerable resources in education sessions. The GAR and Executive Committees discussed GAR's work with the financial audit and risk monitoring and felt the Executive Committee could take on these governance areas. It was agreed that GAR resources (Committee member time, financial resources, staff time) could be better allocated elsewhere to support the transition.

Share your input

Thank you for participating in the consultation. Your feedback assists Council in making informed decisions when reviewing policy documents.

Take a survey Leave a comment

Your comment has been submitted

Thank you for participating in the consultation. Your comment has been received and will be posted, following review.

Comments

person

Chris Buschbeck SAYS November 05, 2024 | 01:40 p.m.

I would oppose both of these amendments. Committees will get stale without turnover and 6 years is already a long time. Staggering the entry and exit of members to always have some veterans of the committee ensures continuity and stability while allowing fresh view points and opinions. The oversight of the GAR seems more and not less important in times of great change especially when the executive committee is already taking on more work than usual.

person

Anonymous SAYS October 08, 2024 | 01:13 p.m.

I am seriously concerned about both proposals. Having shorter electoral terms is an important balance to ensure that personal biases are kept in check. 6 years is already a very long term and increasing the length further would be detrimental to the democratic electoral process. Suspending the GAR committee is alarming particularly at this important time in our college's history. We are in a transition period where more than ever the executive committee needs to be monitored, held accountable, and closely observed to ensure that all procedures and transitions being made are in accordance with the college's mandates. Suspending the GAR committee is a serious red flag. What is the council proposing to do that would warrant the suspension of the auditing committee?

person

Wolfgang Zenker SAYS October 07, 2024 | 10:35 a.m.

I strongly object to both of these amendments. Just because someone is willing to serve longer does not mean it necessarily is a good idea. People have individual biases. By rotating positions these differences are more readily reflected in actions and legislation that are the views of the majority. Banishing a committee in favor of Executive branch oversight is not good governance. It may be the preferred method of governing for individuals such as Mr. Trump, but they are not in the long term best interest of any organization.

person

Nick Whelan SAYS October 07, 2024 | 09:37 a.m.

I have previous experience with implementing new legislation and regulations (Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act) back in New Zealand when I worked for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and was the Registrar of the Animal Remedies Board. We also had a transitional Board. I am against extending the term. It should not take 9 years to implement/transition new legislation, 6 years is more than adequate for non Council Committee members. There will be no lack of stability in decision making. This will actually help encourage more timely decisions. There should be staggered appointments to ensure transfer of knowledge. There is truth in the saying that work expands to fill the time allotted.

person

Anonymous SAYS October 03, 2024 | 11:30 a.m.

I am seriously concerned about both proposals. Increasing the maximum term for non-Council Committee members from six to nine consecutive full-year terms is not forward thinking. Having shorter electoral terms is an important balance to ensure that personal opinions are kept in check and ensures that people with varying degrees of expertise are circulated through the committee. 6 years is already a very long term and increasing the length further would be detrimental to the democratic electoral process and be stagnating to growth within the college. Regarding the proposal to discontinue the Governance, Audit and Risk (GAR) Committee, this seriously concerns me. I am perplexed and alarmed that this is being proposed particularly at this important time in our college's history. We are in a transition period where more than ever the executive committee needs to be monitored, held accountable, and closely observed to ensure that all procedures and transitions being made are in accordance with the college's

person

Anonymous SAYS October 02, 2024 | 09:03 a.m.

These proposed amendments to the By-Laws are being justified as measures in support of the transition to the College of Veterinary Professionals of Ontario (CVPO). After the transition is complete, I recommend that there be formal consideration made to evaluate whether these amendments, if they are indeed implemented, continue to remain in effect or return to their pre-amendment condition. The transition is temporary and there may be value in considering whether these measures will be in service of the long-term interests of the CVPO.

person

Mark Bolton SAYS October 01, 2024 | 07:36 p.m.

Do not increase the length of their terms

person

Steven Jacobs SAYS October 01, 2024 | 05:18 p.m.

The proposed bylaw as circulated makes perfect sense and I support it.

person

Anonymous SAYS October 01, 2024 | 05:00 p.m.

I am not in favour of extending the non-veterinary counsel member appte to 9 years from 6 years. Staggering the appointments for stability is a better direction than keeping people on for that long a term. You need a fresh set of eyes to stay forward thinking and 6 years is plenty of time for members to make their mark. A nine year term seems daunting to me. I dont see how anyone could feel energized in a role for 9 years.

person

Dr. Christopher O'Toole SAYS October 01, 2024 | 01:08 p.m.

I am vehemently opposed to both proposed amendments. Short terms are essential in preventing the establishment of personal fiefdoms and undue influence. In my opinion 6 years is already too long. For the second proposed amendment. The hypocrisy of a body that is only in existence to provide oversight, to then decide to do away with their own oversight is stunning. There must be checks and balances. The executive committee needs oversight.