What did we agree?

Why?

All terms of office should be the same length.

ie the same building block for:

Elected Council Members (including Residents),

and

Trustees (Lay and ex officio, ie President, VP, Chairs and ECM Trustees)

(we noted that for the Residents, it would be sensible if the two successful candidates became Co-Chairs of the IiT Sub-Com for three years each rather than Deputy Chair and Chair. Tacqua supports this. Separately, as part of transition, we could stagger these terms so that they don't both arrive and leave at once)

We discussed having different lengths for Trustees and Council, and for different roles, and even different lengths for first and second terms on Council - and decided it was just too complicated.

A Member of Council will be elected for a term.

They can then stand for one more term.

After that, a year must elapse before they can come back to Council - unless an extension is given to enable them to carry out a full term in a Trustee role.

1. Two terms (having to stand again after the first term, not just a rubber stamp) is the most common model in UK charities.
2. Requiring a year's break prevents an incumbent serially standing again and blocking fresh talent.
3. And this would be balanced by the flexibility to ensure that a full Trustee term can be completed, if someone successully stands for a Trustee role. This will help to ensure a stable Board with high-performing Trustees.

A term of office should be three years.

1. The main choice is between three and four, with five as a very unusual option.
2. The disadvantage of four years is that doing two terms (which will be the case for many people) means eight years on Council - and if a term is extended to allow a Trustee term to be fully served, even longer. By contrast, two terms of three years is only six years on Council.
3. The reason often set out for four years or longer is the time needed to settle in - but settling in should be much easier with proper induction to Council (which has been a gap so far), and Council's functions being more clearly defined.
4. Three years is the most popular model in UK charities.

If a Resident Doctor Elected Council Member becomes a Consultant during their term, they can continue to serve for the remainder of that year of their term, but no longer.

If a Consultant serving as a representative of a devolved nation gets a new job no longer in that devolved nation (or retires) they can continue to serve for the remainder of that year of their term, but no longer.

1. This is the normal thing to do!
2. The individual in question will still have good knowledge of the issues of the cohort they are representing - it is reasonable that they could finish the year, to enable the electoral cycle to continue smoothly.

If someone successfully stands for:

ECM Trustee, Chair, VP or President from Elected Council Member

or

Chair from ECM Trustee

or

VP or President from Chair or ECM Trustee

or

President from VP

....their current Council term (it doesn't matter which one) will be extended

to allow them to do that three-year Trustee term.

BUT!!!

This isn't indefinite - there is a maximum time you can serve before you have to take a year's break.

This will allow people to gain experience and knowledge as they take on roles with more responsibility, which will benefit the College.

These are the only routes to an extension (unless the Trustees agree an extra year to complete a project or because no-one wants to stand for the role) - so you can't go Chair to ECM Trustee, or VP to Chair and so on.

This maximum time should be 9 or 12 years.

I have set out some examples on the right - I'm inclined to recommend 12, as otherwise it's hard for someone to progress if nothing comes up in their first term on Council.

But it's really up to all of you.

If it helps, I don't think these situations will come up very often - and if (as we will propose) Trustee roles are the result of elections, Council will be able to say "yes, you're great but this is too long" or "yes, you're great and so we can tolerate you being on Council for longer than normal". There won't be some secret inner circle letting Special Chosen Ones stay on for ever.

Examples - 12 year maximum

it would enable the following: ECM (3), ECM (3), Chair (3), President (3)

In the third and last year of Dr Annabel Allende's second term on Council, her longed-for role as Chair of TAQ comes up. She gets it, and so she is given another three years on Council to enable her to do a full three years as TAQ Chair. In the third year of her term as Chair of TAQ, the role of President comes up and is able to stand for it. She is successful, so her Council term is extended again. But at the end of her time as President, she has to go, as this has been 12 years.

and it would prevent this situation: ECM (3), ECM (1), ECM Trustee (3), Chair (3) VP (3)

Dr Beatrice Barabino serves her first term on Council. In the first year of her second term, an ECM Trustee role comes up. She successfully stands for this role. She has a passion for PAS, and in the last year of her three year-term as an ECM Trustee, the PAS Chair comes up. She successfully stands for this, and gets another three years on Council. By chance, just as she is about to finish her three-year term as Chair of PAS, the VP place becomes free.

But she can't go for it, as that would take her to 13 years. She's done ten and that's her lot!

Examples - 9 year maximum

it would enable the following: ECM (3), Chair (2), VP (3)

In the last year of Dr Charlotte Cornell's first term on Council, Chair of Education comes up. It was Charlotte's childhood dream to be Chair of the CICM Education Committee, and she goes for it. She wins, and so her Council term is extended for three years. The VP unexpectedly resigns in the second year of Charlotte's term as Chair of Education, and success here would be the pinnacle of Charlotte's lifetime ambitions. This would only take her to eight years, and so she can go for it. But then, that's her lot.

it would prevent the following: ECM (3), ECM (1), ECM Trustee (3), President

Dr Deirdre Downing is in her first year of her second Council term. An ECM Trustee role comes free, and Deirdre loves nothing more than VAT and regulation. She goes for the role and gets it. The third and final year of her ECM Trustee term is also the third and final year of the President's term. Deirdre would love to stand for President but can't, because this would take her to ten years and the maximum is nine.

The TFG has already strongly recommended that the Chairs of the Committees which will be the drivers of the charitable purposes (the main policy Committees) should be elected by Council, not appointed.

Why?

1. Democracy: the TFG recommends building in democratic methods for a range of posts as an element of the unusual opportunity FICM has to design governance from scratch
2. And in particular, as there is at least provisional agreement that these Chairs will have ex officio Trustee roles, they should be there with the support of Council

Why not just have a Nomination/Selection Committee choose?

1. This is a perfectly reasonable option - many charities do this.
2. It does come with its own risks, though - mainly:
1. in selecting the members of this Committee, there is a possibility (only a possibility) that "old boys' club" attitudes are entrenched, and that a small group of people inadvertently chooses people in its own image
2. the possibility of creating a perception of a small, powerful group which controls access to the Board of Trustees

How could this work?

1. Define requirements for the Chair roles
2. Request a statement from candidates setting out how they meet the requirements
3. There could be a role for a CICM Nomination or Selection Committee, to assess eligibility and work with candidates on any unclear parts of their statements. However (of course) this would require identifying people to be on this Committee and how it would operate.
4. Circulate statements to Council
5. Online vote - if there are more than two candidates, this could use Single Transferable Vote methodology. Note: this should not be a real-time vote in a meeting. This could feel very daunting for candidates.
6. There should also be support for unsuccessful candidates, eg thanking them for putting themselves forward, a conversation with the P or VP to suggest other ways in which the individual can continue to feel fulfilled and to consider other roles that might come up soon.

Context that would support elections to Chair roles

1. A culture in which all elected Council Members have an annual conversation with the P or VP about their role, and how they would like to develop as Council Members. This could be a good responsibility for the VP, linking to other thoughts about making the VP role fulfilling in its own right.
2. A Council which meets more often and where the emphasis is on discussion rather than receiving information. This will help elected Council Members to get to know each other better, to enable informed voting.

What are the risks?

We appreciate that no appointment or election system is without risk - there are no guarantees that the "right person" will be the chosen one. Risks include, in particular:

1. the possibility of a quiet person being overlooked in favour of someone more showy
2. the possibility of someone feeling upset and disempowered if rejected by their peers rather than just a Selection Committee

On 1 - we think that the mitigation is a combination of two factors: candidates having to write a statement, and Council meeting more often and having more active discussions.

On 2 - we think that the mitigation is the support for unsuccessful candidates mentioned above. We also think that rejection is always a risk when you put yourself forward for something, even if it is "only" from a Nomination/Selection Committee.

Why is this not a "popularity contest"?

First of all, we need a better definition - the risk raised is not just about who is friends with whom (we're not at school!), it's about who comes across well in meetings, who has made the most contacts. We understand that the concerns raised by some Board members is that this sort of person might be succesful in an election at the expense of a shyer person.

We think that the mitigations against this are:

1. Technical - we have already discussed with Mishcon de Reya that we can place a duty on Council to vote in best interests of the charity
2. Pragmatic - candidates' statements should set out relevant experience and skills, and these will be available to Council. Also, as noted earlier, a more active and engaged Council will be able to assess each others' skills better than the current situation.
3. Culture: Council Members need to trust each other to think about voting, and put the best interests of the specialty first.

Further context - it's really the Membership elections (which put people on Council in the first place) which are about who is well known. These internal Council elections are a chance for Council members to choose who should run the engines of the charitable purposes, and be on the Board of Trustees.

Finally - it is already a well-established part of FICM that Council votes for the President and Vice-President. If Council can be trusted to choose people for these roles, there is no reason why it cannot also trust itself to choose people for Chair roles.

What did we agree?

Why?

Membership elections - who can vote for whom?

1. Elections for Resident Doctors: Resident Doctors can vote
2. Elections for Consultants who are not standing to represent a devolved nation: All consultants can vote
3. Elections for Consultant devolved nation representatives: Consultants with a Scottish/N Irish/Welsh home postcode can vote

1. Residents should be allowed their own electorate
2. ....so the same should apply to Consultants
   
   
3. The CRM system doesn't hold work postcodes. However, the candidate should work in the devolved nation - but this will be easy to verify for a pool of just a few people. We just can't do it for the electorate.

Update: Please note that we need to tie this in with the Membership TFG

Board of Trustees - what grade must a person be? (is grade the right word?)

Apart from Lay Trustees and co-opted Trustees, all Trustees must be Consultants.

1. Greater knowledge of the NHS and the speciality is required for Trusteeship
2. A Trustee term is three years, and a Resident Doctor Elected Member of Council is likely to become a Consultant in that time - so it is unlikely that they would be able to serve out their Trustee role before their Council role finished.

The VP does not automatically become President

1. The College needs to make the VP role fulfilling in its own right - it isn't a President Elect role.
2. It shouldn't be seen as a disappointment to be VP but not President.

There should be just one election "season" a year for Membership elections to Council. This should line up with people being able to start their terms at the AGM.

There should also be just one "season" for Council voting people to the Board of Trustees. I need to have a think about when these terms start and finish.

1. There is just no need to have more than one election season a year - it's a waste of staff time and energy, and of money.
2. I think it would be easier to engage and enthuse the Membership if it's just once a year.

Is this OK? We didn't agree or disagree it at the meeting

In exceptional circumstances, which must be recorded at the time, the Board of Trustees may vote to extend an individual's term on the Board or on Council by a year (eg to finish an important project, or because no-one can be persuaded to stand to replace them)

This is a useful flexibility - not a requirement to extend.