MAHC board evaluates itself

by Carlye Malchuk

Jun 13, 2007

The Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare (MAHC) board of directors has rated itself well in an evaluation report presented at last Thursday’s meeting.

Last fall, the board incorporated the evaluation process into its policy manual. Each member was given a five-part questionnaire to fill out, which included examining the board’s performance as a whole, as well as self, committee and monthly meeting evaluations.

At their meeting on Thursday, governance committee chair John Sinclair said overall, the board gave itself a 7.5 or eight out of 10.

“(The results show) the board’s working well,” Sinclair later told the Forester.
“There’s a healthy working environment, the composition of the board is good, the meetings are run well and for the most part everybody was satisfied with what they themselves have done.”

Although most feedback was positive, there were issues of concern that came out of the evaluation, including the orientation of new board members, and the amount of information given and discussion had at meetings before decisions were made.

“Poor orientation of new board members is something we should look at,” Sinclair said at the meeting. “We’re going to have a couple of new members join us soon.”

At the annual general meeting on June 18, the MAHC membership, made up of ex-board members, will vote on how to fill the seats of four members whose terms have expired this year, Sinclair told the Forester.

Two of the members are expected to be re-elected onto the board, while new members will fill the other two seats.

“One of the functions of the governance committee is to put together the slate of nominees for the vacant positions,” he said.

The committee “keeps an eye out” for attractive candidates throughout the year and solicits their interest, as well as advertising in the local media in late April/early May about vacancies and asking the public for applications, he explained. “This year we had about a dozen people that expressed interest and I guess there was a total of seven or eight who formally applied.”

When looking at applicants, the committee considers business and community service experience and where an applicant lives in the region, in order to ensure all regions served by the MAHC are represented, said Sinclair.

They also take into consideration an applicants interest in healthcare, their ability to work as a member of a large board and the male/female balance on the board.

The committee then selected two names it will present to the membership for approval at the AGM on June 18.

Another task next week will be to elect a new executive.

Sinclair explained that following the AGM, the new board will hold a quick meeting to select the new executive, including chair, vice-chair and treasurer.
Current MAHC chair Ken Black is one of the two board members who will be replaced next week.

As for how these new members will be orientated, one of the suggestions at Thursday’s meeting was for a mentor to be assigned.

Chief executive officer Barry Lockhart explained that when the MAHC was formed two years ago, the board of directors was given an extensive orientation package that has fallen by the wayside as new members have come on.

“That was an oversight on our part. As vacancies occurred, we didn’t follow up.”
He added the situation would be looked into for the new members.

But some on the board felt a package wasn’t enough.

“New board members need a go-to person assigned to them as soon as they come on,” said board member Anne Cool at the meeting. “You can give them all the paper you want; they need someone they can call.”

One concern Sinclair raised at the meeting about the board evaluation process was that four members did not complete a questionnaire.

He explained that Lockhart had not completed one because he felt it was a conflict of interest, “but that left 12 elected representatives to this board, three of whom did not take the time or the effort or show the interest in the questionnaires, so that was a disappointment,” he said at the meeting.

Sinclair declined to name the three members who did not fill out a questionnaire, saying he did not even share that information with the rest of the board.